p.m. eastern on c-span2. you can also follow live on c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. watch c-span this week as congress continues work to finalize the republican tax reform bill. wednesday, the house senate conference committee meets to work out policy differences between house and senate versions of the bill. live coverage wednesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. also wednesday, president trump speaks at the treasury department on tax reform. watch live coverage on the c-span networks and c-span.org. listen live with the free c-span radio app. watch c-span3 thursday at 10:30 a.m. eastern for live coverage of the fcc's vote on net neutrality. the vote is to roll back net neutrality rules passed in the obama administration and it's intended to reduce regulation of the internet, live thursday on

c-span3, c-span.org, or listen to it live with the free c-span radio app. >> the democratic national committee held its unity reform commission for its final meeting this past weekend. the 21-member commission was convened ahead of the 2016 democratic national convention to boost party unity by offering recommendations to the dnc's rules committee for changes in the way the party selects delegates and other matters. this portion starts with remarks from dnc chair tom perez. it's just over two hours. >> all right. good morning, everyone.

thank you all for being here. i am jennifer dylan, i'm joined by my great friend larry cohen, who is the vice chair of the commission, and i hereby call the final meeting of the unity reform commission to order. i would like to first ask the members and those with us to join me for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. i now ask patrice taylor to call the roll please. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. baker.

>> here. >> ms. bower. >> here. >> mr. berman. >> here. >> mr. flores. congress woman fudge. >> here. >> ms. harris. >> here. >> mr. wentz. >> here. >> ms. cleb. >> here. >> mr. cohen. >> here. >> ms. lewis. >> here. >> mr. newport. >> here. >> mr. roosevelt. >> here. >> ms. ruiz. >> here. >> ms. turner. >> here. >> mr. weaver. >> here. >> mr. webb. >> here. >> mr. zogby. >> here. >> ms. o'malley dillon. >> here. >> and mr. cohen. >> yes. >> all right. we are missing a few commission members, but we certainly have a quorum. and i would like to start today by acknowledging chairman perez,

who is here. we're very thankful for his participation. [ applause ] >> and more than that, for his leadership of the democrats and the national party. so we're really glad you could be here with us and look forward to hearing your remarks. >> great. all right. good morning. good morning, everyone. thank you. i want to start out by saying thank you for all your hard work. this was an immensely important exercise. it was labor intensive and everyone came to it with an open mind, and with remarkable set of ideas. so i want to say thank you to all of you. i want to say a particular thanks to our co-chairs. we have been meeting regularly, getting updated regularly, brainstorming regularly, and i can't say enough wonderful things about both of you. you have both entered this

enterprise with a spiritt of bold passion, a spirit of ingenuity, a spirit that understands this is the most serious stress test on our nation's democracy, perhaps in our history. and the work of this unity commission is so critically important. and so larry and jen, thank you so much for what you have been doing. it's impossible to overstate the importance of the work that you have been doing and everybody else here has been doing. this is -- i come to you both with a sense of remarkable sobriety given what's happening in washington and around the country in the era of this president. and also a sense of optimism. born out of what we have seen on the ground. i mean, you look at the chaos and carnage that we see every day from this administration, and the stakes couldn't be

higher. the tax bill that people like congresswoman fudge and others fought against is just an absolute abomination. it is a break for wealthy people, wealthy corporations, at the expense of virtually everybody else. the attack on the affordable care act, 13 million people potentially losing health care. all in service of a tax cut for large corporations and wealthy people who don't need it. they tell us that there's no money to reauthorize the state children's health insurance program, yet they want to eliminate the estate tax. which is a boon for the 1% of the 1%. and you see what's happening overseas, where we have become a laughingstock around the world. other countries have figured out how to handle this president. you shower him with -- you roll

out the red carpet. you appeal to his ego, and then you take him to the cleaners. and that's what happened in china. that's what's happened elsewhere. and yet our allies in europe and elsewhere, rather than having our back, this administration stabs them in the back. and that's why we're a much less safe country. we're a much less safe democracy. and that's why this work is so critically important moving forward. and so we all understand the seriousness of the task at hand. and yet i also come to you with a sense of optimism because we have seen in 2017 what we can do when we're united. we watched these elections the last time we won the governor's race in new jersey and in virginia in the same year was 2005. and we saw what happened in the house of representatives a year later in 2006. we saw what happened in both new jersey and virginia, but in other places. we saw what happened when we are

united. we saw what happened when we organized. we organized early, we organized everywhere. we saw what happened when we lead with our values, when we go into places like virginia and say health care is a right for all and not a privilege for a few. voters responded to that. health care was the number one issue in virginia. by far. and the democratic party led on that issue. and that is a big reason why we won. in virginia and elsewhere. and so we have a lot to look back on in 2017, and it wasn't simply new jersey and virginia. we have proven we can win elections virtually anywhere. the special elections in oklahoma that took place this past summer, three special elections in deep red trump districts. and what they all have in common is we won all three elections. elections in new hampshire, a state senate seat we hadn't gotten in a democratic side since 1984. a special election down in florida where the republican won last year by a double-digit

margin, and annette purayo won that race. we see what we do when we lead with our values. we see what we do when we organize. we see what we do when we listen. and when we make sure that we take the term off-year out of the lexicon of the democratic party. we have already gone to school on many of the lessons and mistakes of the past. and one of the lessons that we learned from the past is the mission of the democratic national committee must always be to elect democrats up and down the ticket, from the school board to the oval office, and we have done just that. and with the help of this commission, we're going to be able to do that at even better scale because the recommendations that you have put forth today are remarkably important in moving forward as we -- as we turn the corner. i believe, again, that democrats can win everywhere. in the motto of our partnership with our state parties, we call it every zip code counts, because again, we understand

that we can win everywhere, and we have demonstrated that in elections that have taken place this year. we also understand that we've got to spend money on infrastructure. we haven't spent a dime on television at the dnc. our investments have been focused on organizing and connecting with voters. through our resistance program led by deputy chair keith ellison, we noced on over a million doors to invite americans of all walks of life to join us. we made those investments in virginia, up to about $1.5 million in virginia. zero dollars went into television. everything went into organizing, went into making sure the tech tools were there to help our party, to help our friends in the progressive eco system, and the same thing in new jersey. our investments were able to help people up and down the ticket. it was an honor to campaign on behalf of delegates candidates, because as i said early on, i don't simply want you to win.

we want you to govern. and the best way to govern is to flip the house of delegates. the last time democrats won this many seats in the virginia house of delegates was the late 19th century. it wasn't a coincidence, and the 15 republicans who are about to become former members of the virginia house of delegates are all men. replaced by 11 women. remarkable. history made. including the first two latinas in the history of the virginia house of delegates. the first asian-american in the history of the virginia house of delegates, and the first openly transgender person in the history of the virginia house of delegates. we can win elections when we are organized, when we're running candidates everywhere, and when we're leading with our values. so that's what we have learned. that's the progress we have made. that's the momentum. we need to scale that. and we need to make sure we're doing that everywhere in 2018

because we can win back governorships and state legislatures. i was with a democratic attorney generals association yesterday, and i was also with the dlcc yesterday, again, reiterating the message that the new democratic party is focused up and down the ticket and looking to organize everywhere. and so i believe we can win everywhere. and i believe that we can win everywhere as long as we are continuing to organize and continuing to put in place the recommendations of this remarkable commission. and so as we shift into this next phase of the commission, i want to take just a moment to tell you some of the things that we have already put in place, because i think it's really important. and they're inspired by many conversations i have had with people in this room. because we recognize that we need to be looking toward 2017, which we have been doing, but we also need to have an eye on the future. we need to build a party that can win today and sustain those

victories tomorrow. we need to make sure that we're preparing now for the 2018 election, but we're also preparing ahead for the 2020 elections. and as we think about 2020, there are many, many things that are very important. we have spent a lot of time learning the lessons of the past. and learning from our mistakes. areas where the dnc fell short. i think it's so critically important heading into 2020 and that starts now, that the dnc does not put its thumb on the scale. either in fact or in perception. nothing the dnc or party officials do should give a primary candidate an unfair advantage. toward that end, we announced a while back that one innovation that we're going to do to make sure that we are true to that admonition is that we're going to announce our debate schedule for the democratic primaries well in advance of when we know who all the candidates are.

so that there is no perception that there's a thumb on the scale for any one candidate. i know there are other things we can do. that's why we are in this commission. and i'm committed to making sure, for instance, that all of our joint fund-raising agreements are transparent and available to all of the candidates. we need to make sure we give voters more opportunities to participate in our primaries, and you're doing just that. the recommendations here on the primaries i think are some of the most important things we can do. it makes absolutely no sense to me to have a voter registration deadline that's on one day and a deadline to change your party affiliation that's 60 or 90 or 100 days earlier. or even one day earlier for that matter. that makes no sense to me. i suspect that makes little or no sense to anyone on this commission, and that's a really important reform that i look forward not only to adopting

with this commission but then to implementing, because it's one thing to adopt. it's another thing to make sure we move forward with our recommendations. we also need to make sure that we remain vigilant in making sure we expand opportunities for eligible people to vote. not contract them. my work as a civil rights lawyer has given me a front row seat to the fact that voter suppression is a permanent part of the republican playbook. the sooner we understand that, the better we respond. they have been talking about this for decades, not just for months. and they have been implementing it through not just voter i.d. laws but through many other pernicious vehicles that are making it harder for eligible people to vote rather than easi easier. that's why we need to make sure that both voter protection and voter empowerment, defense and offense, are part of our playbook. and this -- these recommendations here of the commission, and i commend the chair and the co-chair for the

work that they have done in this area, because there are too many working people who can't vote in this. we have had a robust dialogue, and i want to thank everybody who has been working on the issue of caucuses. because obviously, we want to make sure that if you're a shift worker, you can vote in a caucus. we want to make sure if you're a member of the military, or someone else who has been left out of the process, that we can do that. that you can vote. that you can make sure that your franchise is exercised. and there's been remarkably important discussions here. i think opening up that caucus process consistent with the recommendations of this commission are going to be game changing. and i applaud all the work of the commission. and i applaud the work you have done in the area of superdelegates. as you know, in 2016, superdelegates made up almost 15% of the delegates in the commission. and at that time, when you were negotiating the unity

commission, both secretary clinton and senator sanders agreed on the mandate passed there to provide for a significant reduction in the number of unpledged delegates. and i'm excited about the fact that the recommendations here are going to reduce that by over 50%. and that is so critically important. but finally, and i shouldn't say but, i should say finally, if we want democrats to win and stay in power, we have to reform our part in ways that rebuild it from the ground up. our resistance summer effort was a down payment on that effort. the effort at grassroots organizing. we're now at rise and organize. and we're going to continue this. and again, i want to commend my friend and colleague keith ellison, who has been an indispensable part of that conversation. we have been making investments in our state parties, making investments in down ballot races. working with our colleagues in the progressive ecosystem, they

don't, some of these organizations don't have a chief technology officer, but what they have is tremendous energy. when we harness that energy and use our technology and use the tools that we have at the dnc, that's a force multiplier, because we all succeed when we all succeed. and as we saw in virginia, new jersey, and elsewhere, we are at our best when we are united, when we have our oars in the water and we're rowing in synchrony. that's what we're doing and why we're continuing to make sure that we make these investments. i'm proud of the fact that we are now providing one third more every month to state parties. and it's not a blank check. it's accompanied by accountability measures. we're working together with state parties and critical stakeholders in each state to develop that strategic plan for success that enables us to win not only this year but for many years to come. i'm proud of the technology infrastructure we're building at the dnc. the voter protection

infrastructure. all of those things that enable us to work across the aisle, across states to make sure we're empowering folks. so we need to continue to empower our diverse grassroots democrats at every level and make sure they have a seat at the leadership table. let's build on our recent small dollar fund-raising success, and let's stand by our pledge to ban corporate donations from pacs' whose goals conflict with our platform. we have come a long way, but i was born at night, not last night. we still have a long way to go. and this commission is, i think, a critical part of that process moving forward. and i am confident that senator kennedy once taught me -- taught me many things, but he said, you know, tom, we are at our best when we are united. and unity doesn't mean unanimity. we may not agree on everything, but when we recognize that what

unites us far excides what our differences are, that's when we're at our best. that's why senator kennedy had such a distinguished career of accomplishment, moving the ball down the field for working families. making sure if we protected the right to organize, making sure we protected women's rights, making sure we protected immigrants rights. when we move forward in that spirit, and i'm confident that we agree on many, many things here. and i'm equally confident that there are areas where we still may have some disagreements. but i know that what unites us far exceeds what our differences are. i know that moving forward, this report is going to make a big difference. you have my assurances that i'm going to work with all of you to make sure it doesn't gather dust, because today and the work you do today and tomorrow is the end of one chapter, but it's the beginning of an equally important chapter. the chapter of implementation. i want to make sure that when history looks back on your work, our work, that history records this as a moment in which

democrats came together around a vision of opportunity for everyone, of empowerment for grassroots communities, of construction, of a pathway, not only for victory in 2018, but for long-term sustained success. that's when we're at our best. and so i want to say thank you to all of you. and i look forward to hearing the final results. i know we have a lot of work to do today. but i have a lot of optimism moving forward because this is a great group of folks who know what our north star is. our north star is taking back america, making sure we build an america that works for everybody. everybody in every community. when we do that, we're at our best. so thank you, jen. thank you, larry. and thank you to everybody on this commission for your great work. [ applause ] >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, for being here today, and for your remarks.

as someone who has spent a good amount of time in my career at the dnc and working on the party, i just want to commend you and your team on the hard work that you have undergone and the adjustments and the new evolution of the work you're doing across the country, and i think seeing the amazing wins in virginia and the down ballot victories that we're seeing is no small part to your leadership, the leadership of your team, so thank you for that so much. all right. so we are here at the final meeting of the unity reform commission. and i want to just first start by saying thank you to the commission members. as you can imagine, this is not exactly the most sexy of jobs that all of us do, and it requires a lot of work. you know, as i was explaining the commission to other day, i said this is a worker commission. we are every single person here is putting in the time, not just in these public meetings but outside of them.

to speak with their peers here, to reach out to the grassroots, to really think about some hard sticky topics and come up with really thoughtful ideas and solutions. and i think that you will see that throughout today and tomorrow. but i just want to commend, again, the commission for their participation, their passion in what they believe in, and on behalf of the party and the work here. and i am really confident that what we're going to end up with after today and tomorrow is going to be a report that will help unify the party but will also bring major reform, greater reform than i have certainly seen in my time doing political work. in a way that is 100% on the mark with what this commission's mandate is, to be more open and inclusive, to think about grassroots participation, to make it easier to vote. so i am confidence that we're going to have a good two days. but i want to just make sure that we set the tone and that everyone that's here and everyone that's tuning in really

understands the work that is behind that and the team of commission members that have put that together. i also want to take a moment to thank everyone who has come today, and many i see who have been here for many meetings. thank you for your participation in being here, but thank you for caring about this. and you know, not just the folks that are here in person. we have received thousands of outreach from people in the party, across the party, across the country on thoughts and ideas people have, input that they have shared through the website, and we have taken all that very seriously. this is something that obviously, it's about all of us, so we really thank everyone who is here today. you know, as we have started each of these meetings, i think about what's happening in the world. to insure what we're doing here isn't a siloed effort but it's really tangible and concrete to the reality that we're facing. and unfortunately, for every single meeting, i have had too many things, as the chair had

mentioned as well, that we can point to that the trump administration and the republicans are doing that are taking away and hurting the people we care about, that we stand for, and the values that we share. so you know, as we go through this process, as we have this whole time, let us just remember, you know, as we sit here, we have gone through in just the last ten days everything from the republican tax bill to more discussion on the muslim ban, to, you know, the conceal and carry gun law, you know to what's going on with d.r.e.a.m.ers. the list goes on and on. i say that to say while we are -- we know many things we're going to agree, on many things we're not going to agree, that's okay, but let us not lose sight of what's important, what is happening out there and the responsibility we all have and the party has to build this party, to open its doors wide, to make sure people understand who this party is, who it represents and the values we share, and we go win elections.

we certainly have done a good job in doing that so far. we need to continue to do that because what is at stake is beyond what i think any one of us could really imagine we would be in this situation, so let us not lose sight of that and stay focused as we move forward for today and tomorrow. with that, i'm going to hand it over to not someone who have known very long, but someone who i feel like i know, have known my whole life, my great friend and forever friend leaving this commission, the vice chair, larry cohen. >> thanks, jen. and sandwiched here in between two chairs. i don't know what that would feel like physically -- >> a rose between two thorns. >> some version of that. i'm not going to wander there. but great to be here with everyone. and also want to echo the thanks that have been given here. and i think we need to stay rooted in that in these times.

i know everybody in the room, whether you're on this commission or not, feels deeply that we need to fight for change in this country like never before. and i know that everybody feels that this party is a major vehicle for all of us in doing that. and i think it's in that spirit that we spent the last six months as a group, a little more than that for jen and i, to try to figure out, okay, given this resolution, and we need to constantly remind ourselves, the resolution that was passed was unanimously passed, 4,500 delegates. didn't matter if you got there as a sanders delegate or as a clinton delegate. it was unanimously passed. and it does set a lot of boundaries. it also lays out these four directions that we'll be talking about today. the four things, the four buckets, as we call them, as tom called them in the opening session. but at the same time that this is really a call for all of us to engage in what i call party

building. not just here in terms of what we're going to adopt but in terms of what we each do in each of our parties, whether it's democrats abroad, whether it's in a territory, or whether it's one of the 50 states. and i would really stress that. because a lot of the things that we're going to talk about indicate what should happen. the only way we go from what should to what will is with thousands of people saying this m must happen. finally, probably no time will be spent in these two days on the introduction, but as somebody who deeply believes in this introduction, i just want to call attention to it. a couple of lines. democrats must act internally to model our commitment and belief that every vote must count. democrats cannot wait for a new supreme court or wait for a new congress. and i think this is really key, because a lot of this that we're going to talk about is about the caucus, how is it run, about the

primary, how is it run, about the state parties and how are they run. and even the so-called superdelegate decision. and it's really about are we going to go with the people, are we going to build a popular party? not one party, because as we learned from joe sandler at the first meeting, we're 57 parties. and there's an obligation to follow the path that i think together we have laid out here. in those 57 parties. and with the 447 members of the dnc. so i would say that for me, and most of this commission, we will mobilize and we will encourage all of you to mobilize. and if we do mobilize and build a more democratic, transparent, open, inclusive party, that's the way we will win elections and that's the way we will win elections in a way that matters to us. because we all believe here that it's not just the democratic party. it's the democratic party that fights for freedom. it's the democratic party that

fights for economic justice. and many of us grew up in places, in my case, philadelphia, where we didn't have that kind of democratic party when i grew up. and this means a lot to me on that personal level. that we continue that fight, and that together, we can do that. and finally, as the chairman said, we will not agree. there will be votes here, and we will not agree on everything. but you will see those of you who can bear to stay in the room long enough, that we will agree on far, far more than we disagree on. and whether you're here as a journalist or as an agitator or organizer, that is really a key lesson. and as a union president for ten years, we would dwell on this. whether it was bargaining or whether it was internal, it's very easy to look at what's not in the cup. we better look at what's in the cup first and then what's missing. so with that, i look forward to debate, discussion, adoption, and building a better party than ever. thank you. [ applause ]

>> all right. thank you so much, larry. let me spend a few minutes walking through the process and the meeting today and tomorrow and then we're going to get started. okay. that's patrice. she's in charge. >> i forgot to say one thing, if i could for one moment. there's a number of folks on the dnc staff that work really hard. they often toil in anonymity. they are working long into the night. and it's -- it includes but is not limited to patrice taylor. if i could indulge you to give it up for all these people who work so hard, folks in the back there, patrice over here. the folks who have been working, can you all stand up? we ought to say thank you. julie in the back, i see you there. the back bentures back there.

thank you so much for what you're doing. the stuff doesn't just happen out of thin air. it happens as a result of really hard work from really talented and committed people. so thank you, and thank you to -- i see dnc members and others in the audience. it's always inspiring to see the serial activists who care so much about this. and i think that is tremendous that we have so much interest out there. that is one of the many, many things that gives me great optimism moving forward, because the energy i see in the back of the room here and at this table is mirrored across america. so thank you, all of you who have chosen to come here, and thank you all who are watching via live stream or however we're doing that. and with that, i apologize that i have to go to another event, but i will be monitoring carefully. thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ]

>> okay. so yes. i was remiss not to also include my thanks to the staff, and patrice in particular, who is someone who not only helps me in a formal role get through the change commission, but now is helping all of us get through the unity reform commission. we would not be a commission without patrice and her team and everyone at the dnc that has worked to put this together. so we're going to spend the next remaining hours of today and tomorrow in our fifth meeting, going through recommendations and each section. you have heard it discussed as buckets or sections, but we have broken down our main areas of focus in this commission in four specific areas. primaries, caucuses, unpledged delegates, and party reform. so that will be the structure that we really take everything in. throughout today and tomorrow, and we have been over the series of meetings that we had over the

last year. in those meetings, many of you know, we have been going through robust discussion on each of these topics. hearing from experts, panelists from different states, getting in the weeds on what really is happening and how the commission's mandate is part of that. so what we are discussing today is a product of all of that work and discussion that we have had over the past year. and so, you know, the topics we're discussing, the elements we're discussing are focused in those areas and are also not new business we're bringing today but real ly are here today because of the extensive work the commission has done to bring it forward. we spend today going through those. we'll go as long as we can, we'll vote on everything we can vote on and have discussion that is appropriate. we will break at periods during the day, and then we'll pick up again tomorrow with whatever voting is remaining. and then we will have opportunities to hear from each of the commission members share their final thoughts for the

record about this commission, and we will also spend some time really just talking about what's next. what's the process that happens from here, how does that work in terms of the commission itself, and also the rules does that wo the commission itself and also the rules and bylaws of the dnc. so that gives you a flavor of what we're doing today and tomorrow. and we'll stay flexible throughout the day. so with that we're going to get started. and we're going to start with unpledged delegates, which are also referred to as super delegates as our first section. this is going to be the first area of discussion. i will just do, and this will sort of be the form mat we'll do today. we'll do the key top lines and then open it up to amendment and discussion from members and go through the elements here in terms of recommendations. we want to spend the majority of

today on substance and not overview. but we spend a lot of time, and obviously there's been much discussion about unpledged delegates as larry mentioned and as we've mentioned. this mandate comes from the convention voted on unanimously. as larry points out it doesn't matter where you come from, and that convention is the highest body of our party. so while we take the mandate seriously and have particular residents who we had to think through unpledged residents. we are looking at a series of them. the first that the committee conque conquers on the convention. that the commission agrees democratic members of congress, governors, distinguished party members should remain automatic unpledged delegates. that all party officials who have role in the execution or primary caucuses in their state to remain neutral.

that the commission recommends the creation of three categories of automatic delegates, one which remains unpledged and two which will be bound on the first ballot for the presidential roll call. the commission has also provided three options for addressing the automatic bound delegates for the rbc to consider. those are pledged vote option, a pledged dnc member and alternate voting option and a pledged option dnc voting member option. so obviously there's a lot there and a lot to discussion. that's where we start. but we will go through -- we are not going to go through everything unless there's something that we want to amend. so with that i'm going to open up this discussion to the commission and ask commission members to begin to focus solely on unpledged delegates, and if they they want to raise

amendments or edits, they can start the process. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to move to amend. and this amendment starts on page 3. it is line 33. and to add to the end of the paragraph and decrease the influence the unpledged delegates had in influencing the outcome of the nominating process. >> yep, sorry. discussion on that. thank you, larry.

[ inaudible ]. >> and so the sentence you're proposing is fine, but it makes it a neutral statement the way

the first part of the statement is also neutral. >> i understand what you're saying, there was undo influence in 2016. and the democratic party would do well to confess that there was undo influence in 2016. and my biggest concern in adding this amendment is that this amendment shows that we recognize that there was undo influence real or perceived. i mean some of this stuff is perceived by the public, and a lot of times perception becomes reality. there is such a thing called the invisible primary. and that primary and the influence of these super

delegates serve to depress some of the voter turn out during the primary particularly in california. a state like california when i was there when that happened. so i want to keep the amendment pure the way that i introduced it. >> just procedurely i will second neny turner's amendment so that we can proceed with the discussion. it hadn't been seconded yet, so it's seconded now. >> and we need to vote, correct me if i'm wrong, helen, on maya's amendment first. okay, is there any other discussion in. >> apparently my mike weren't working before. did you guys hear my amendment? okay. >> let me add in support of nina turner's amendment, the turn

undo influence is then qualified by real or perceived. so i think that the concern is dealt with adequately by the real or perceived and i don't think is any reason to alter the amendment as it is. >> to be clear my proposed amendment still stands. >> okay, so we're going to vote on maya's amendment to strike undo. all those in favor please raise your hand. okay, so we have ten raised. and so that passes. all those not in favor -- i'm

asking, again. i'm sorry. this is my first time doing this, so -- exactly. so all those opposed to maya's amendment to strike undo please raise your hand. okay, so we have 10 for, 6 against. so maya's recommendation to amend senator turner's amendment is adopted. okay, so now we need to vote on

the amendment as adopted. all those in favor. okay, all those opposed. okay, 13 for, 0 against.

we're going to stay with unpledged delegates and move onto additional amendments. the commission numbers have jeff weaver. >> i move to adopt an amendment that i submitted to page 3, line 39, which everybody has on their packet. i'll be happy to explain it for two seconds. so people came to this commission and saw the wide range of moves on the appropriate role of unpledged delegates. we were given the highest authority from the democratic party. and this commission has worked within that framework despite the fact people came to this and

still have wide views on this. >> second jeff's amendment. >> discussion on this? and seeing no discussion we're going to put it to a vote. all those in favor? it's unanimous. so the amendment is adopted. other amendments? >> madam chair?

>> yes. >> if everybody else is going to be shy, i'll move through mine. i move to amendment number 7, page 14. this is an amendment with respect to the role of elected officials -- the unofficial role of elected officials in the primary process. there has been some discussion about what that role should be and whether folks should be encouraged to voluntarily bind themselves to the whatever electorate elected them. and we went around on this, and there was some discussion about whether that was an appropriate thing to do to get elected officials to try to bind themselves to their constituents. some felt it was appropriate, some not, and some felt it would by impractical or impossible to

enforce some kind of gag rule on elected officials. so this sort of mirrors the view of the commission on this topic. i'm happy to read the amendment or someone else can read it. i'm happy to read it. >> we don't know what you're talking about at all. >> go ahead and read it. >> the current amendment is amendment number 7, page 4, line 13. replace the last sentence with the following text. some of the commission don't believe electing our officials in participating the primary process is necessary or useful to our party while others believe mandating such a rule would be impractical or impossible to enforce. >> point of inquiry.

is there any way we can put the draft up, i mean by pursuant to dnc bylaws it should be public. i mean if the public's here and they've taken time to come and watch this, they should understand what we're debating. >> so the draft does not have to be public. so it's more a question of the format of it, and it's very messy. so i think what we'll do is make sure everyone is reading out and make clear what their specific amendment is, and that's our past practice. >> it's one thing to see the amendments, but if they don't see the initial commentary was, what's been inserted in relation to what's been written, it just seems very confusing. >> i think that's an important point. so there was a line in the report draft that said the commission does not believe that preventing our elected officials from participating in the primary process is necessary or useful to our part. that sentence states one point of view.

and what i understand jeff's amendment to be is to expand that sentence to express the diversity of views among the commission, and that there were people on the commission who have that point of view, that it's not yet necessary or useful to do that. there are people on the commission who think it is useful and is necessary to do that. and there's also this sort of third group on the commission who believes even if you thought it was useful you actually can't effectively do that. and so i think that jeff's language is intended to encompass all three views. is that accurate, jeff? >> yeah, that's accurate. and in fact there was some discussion before about making a minor tweak to this. and i would sort of ask unanimous consent to make that edit right here and read it as edited. so the replacement sentence would now read. and it becomes actually two sentences.

some on the commission do not believe electing our officials in the participating primary process is not useful to our party while others do, period. others believe mandating such a rule would be impractical or impossible to enforce. so i think we have now encompassed all three views on this. those who think it's a good idea, a bad idea, those who think it would be difficult or impossible to do. >> additional discussion? >> yes, madam chair. so i want to make three all three points are encompassed. but i also want to say that i think the people who certainly believe that there should be no super delegates whatsoever or if we have super gdelegates they should all be bound with what happens with the states. i've heard no one say that elected officials should not be allowed to participate in the process. they participate in the process one way or another.

either they participate as a super delegate or an elected. but the point is they should not have undo influence over the process, period. that was really the major point, not whether elected officials should participate or not participate because they do participate. >> madam chair. so senator turner, there was some discussion about whether we should make some attempt to -- the muzzle elect prior to the elections in the jurisdictions they represent, and i think that's the issue we're talking about here in terms of endorsements by elected and what have you. there were some people that have the view elected should with hold their public support. some had an alternate view and some said regardless of your

view -- so i think that is what's really being expressed here. >> any additional discussion? if there's no objections, i'd like to move to a vote. all those in favor of the amendment please raise your hand. unanimous. it's unanimous. so that amendment is adopted. >> yeah, hi. let me try to be helpful here. so these amendments for folks who have come to observe are not going to make total sense by a long shot. when we're done with the amendments we're going to go to the main points for adoption, and then that will make sense. but we have to with all apologi apologies focus on having a document that we can vote on versus it making sense to the audience. so our rules are that we have to

debate in public no matter what we're doing, and that's what we're doing. but it's not like this is coherent presentation if you haven't been one of us. and as vice chair i'll apologize for that. the second part of this is going to make more sense than this first part because we're going to come back and then say point by point what we're adopting. that's going to make more sense. these are changes in a draft before us. >> and i would just add to that we will be voting on any specific recommendation in each section the commission will make, and we'll read that aloud in every vote. >> just procedurally when we had a platform, we had a draft. when we had amendments to that draft, they went up on the screen so viewers could see them especially those watching. i see no reason why we can't if there's no line that documents why it cannot appear. i think it's respectful to the

audience, and it's helpful for those who are here. secondly, if we're not going to do that, then the procedure that i would suggest we adopt is to begin by saying in line 4 on page whatever, where it says and then state what it says, i want to change it to what the adoption or the amendment is. i think that to not do is to literally say come to view a process that you'll have no idea when the process is. so i think we either have to put the line edits up, or we have to make it clear what the line -- what the edits are all about before we have a vote simply so that people know what's going on. >> so that's what we're asking everyone to do when we're going through this. what we'll also do when we're voting on the final recommendations in each section we'll put them up as amended.

then everyone will be able to see that, we'll read through them and vote on them. i think that helps everyone serve to see what the final product we're voting on. but i do ask and agree with jim when they have the amendments, even if we might know, please be clear what the page number and line item number is then speak to the subject matter and adjustment and if you want to give or second or two on why that would be helpful for context. >> madam chair? >> yes. >> i want to go back to page 4, line 11. so where we replaced being

voluntarily with also. so the whole section reads the commission has discussed extensively the role of unpledged delegates outside their voting role at the dnc. some have suggested that unpledged delegates be required to with hold any endorsement until after votes in their respective states have been cast or in the case of elected officials unpledged delegates be encouraged to voluntarily bind themselves to the will of the voters they represent. so in that one, i want to replace "be encouraged to voluntarily" with "also." will also bind themselves. >> any discussion? seeing no discussion we can move to a vote.

all those in favor please raise your hands. okay, unanimous support. the amendment is adopted. any other amendments for the unpledged delegates section? >> yeah, i have a series of technical amendments that are here, and i ask to offer them on block because i think they're not going oo be controversial. that's amendment 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17. 14. this is series of amendments

that seeks to clarify the section on how previously unpledged delegates will be allocated under the new formula, which binds folks to the outcome of the election. 11 and 12 sort of deal with how we put people in different categories and what the priorities are for every category. because there are some super delegates that are super delegates for whatever reason, and we're going to prioritize which category they are in. the amendment 14 merely says that we hope that had rbc does it work in a consultative way with the members of the commission. also it points out we looked at some other options with the options we suggested in terms of how we bind the del dpegates we

rejected -- so we didn't adopt those. amendment 15 make sure we use the word bound instead of pledge. calling the newly bound previously unpledged delegates pledged also is confusing, so we should use the term bound because it means something different. number 16 changes in one place with respect to the rbc, the word comment to cauloonsultatio. number 17 is purely technical to make sure folks understand the new process in way the votes are cast at the new convention. i would ask the adoption of those amendments on bloc. and happy to answer any questions. >> second the motion. >> yes, so there are some very complicated provisions in here with how this process works in

the recommendation on unpledged delegates. and i would like to ask the commission to basically allow jeff and myself and anyone else who would like to collaborate to review one more time the specific language and come pack to this commission with a -- perhaps a somewhat more concise but still very accurate discussion of how the process will work for dealing with the unpledged delegates. >> so just for clarification, that is specific to the categories, execution of the voting. so i guess number 5, a, b, and c. that's the only part of this you're asking to have a little bit more time to rework to

language of to simplify it? >> i would move to adoption of the amendment, and then i think we can make a unanimous consent after that that allows some revisions to the technical aspect of this that allows us to rerepresent to the commission tomorrow probably out of the normal order. >> seeing no discussion, all the -- >> i just want to clarify to make sure i understand. we're going to vote on your technical amendments, then you and jeff are -- and whoever else are proposing that we relook this section with your technical amendments and potentially we're going to come back with something tighter? is that what's on the table? okay. >> but we can discuss that latter part if we want to talk further, so we just want to clear the -- okay. all those in favor of the

amendment, please raise your hands. okay, unanimous support. the amendment is adopted. >> madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that following this meeting that mr. berman and myself and any other interested members meet to discuss the aspects of the implementation of the mandate to unpledged delegates to present those discussions tomorrow out of order with proceedings. >> any objections? hearing none, let's move forward. further amendments for the unpledged section? >> do you want an amendment to adopt a section as amended?

okay, all right. >> so we're going to move to go through and vote on each recommendation, and we're just going to need a minute here before we get them up on the screen. but as everyone knows, we're going to go vote by vote and then we'll go from there.

[ overlapping chatter ] >> the process is tainted. you know that. we were never told the time or the room for this meeting. you know this is tainted meeting and yet when a few people figure out how to participate by just sitting here, you want to take a sign away. i think that's a mistake. the problem with how the dnc has not learned the lessons of the past. if it's so threat took have a sign that simply asks democratic party or undemocratic party question mark this behavior of trying to kick people out and take away the signs underscores perhaps the answer to that

question -- >> i think all of the commission members deeply respect the grass roots that are here, and i think if you could take your seat and hold your sign, we are all comfortable with that. are all the commission members okay with that? okay, thank you. thank you. and we deeply respect the grass roots that are here. >> yes, please return the signs, and if you take your seats that's totally fine. thank you. >> we could give statements and suggestions as well. another one of my recommendations to get money out of politics and make that a number one priority out of the democratic party. another one of my suggestions is that we need to do everything we can to prevent dnc favoritism.

thank you. >> thank you, and we will also try to get your sign back, and we appreciate your support and your comments. and we take grass roots comments very seriously and appreciate yours.

>> can i make one comment for the record, chairwoman? >> sure. >> chairwoman, can i make one chent f comment for the record? >> yep. >> hopefully for future commissions we will have the opportunity to have the public come and testify, because it is something we've heard over and over. i know there was an open -- there was a form people could write their answers and their suggestions, which i don't believe any of us is saw the results of. so i would like to let the record reflect we never saw those, and i think in the future we should have the opportunity to listen to public's testimony because i think it's very important. >> thank you.

[ overlapping chatter ] >> okay, i'm going to ask for one more time if there are any additional amendments to the unpledged section. >> madam chair, yes. for number 9, page 4, line 32.

so it reads right now "the commission recommends the dnc work to ensure that all party officials who have a role in the execution of the actual primary caucus process in their state must be scrupulously neutral both in reality and in perception in their administration of electoral activities." and i'm moving to amend that to say "will." so instead of "work to," they will ensure. >> second the amendment. >> yeah. any discussion? seeing no discussion we'll move to a vote. all those in favor? unanimous. the amendment is adopted. >> madam chair, another amendment. page 4, line 35.

so we want to add to the end of that paragraph -- yeah, number 10, line 35, any person that adds to this could be subject to the loss of status or any other privilege they may hold at the dnc. so we're adding at the end of that entire paragraph so that everybody in the audience can -- >> second the amendment. >> seeing no discussion, we'll move to a vote. all those in favor? it's unanimous.

it's adopted. any additional amendments? great. okay, we're going to be putting up the recommendations starting on page 4.

okay, so i'm going to read this, the first one, and then we can move forward with that. so recommendation number 1 under unpledged delegates. the commission conquers with the determination of the 2016 democratic national convention that the reduction of over 400 unpledged delegate votes equaling nearly 60% of the total unpledged delegates in 2016 will strengthen the grass roots role in our presidential nominating process. it's important to the commission that the grass roots voice and nominating process be amplified. any discussion?

>> madam chair, i think it would just be helpful to clarify for people watching online and those in the audience who we are removing the super delegate status for, right? so i think for clarification purposes that essentially means all the state level dnc members. so state chairs, vice chairs, dnc committee men, dnc committee women. the remaining super delegates will be the members of congress, governors and other distinguished party leaders. so i just want to make it clear that those are going to be the remaining super delegates and then all the other state level folks who were super delegates will continue to be delegates to the convention but their vote will be tied to the primary or caucus votes.

>> i think we explicitly stated in the second, the next one we're going to adopt. >> are we prepared to vote on one? okay, all those in favor of one please raise your hands. okay, rechldatiommendation is a. okay, we are going to move to number two. in regards to current unpledged delegates the commission conquers with the 2016 national convention that democratic members of congress, governors and distinguished party leaders remain automatic delegates and unpledged on all matters before the convention and that dnc members remain automatic delegates but that their vote be pledged only with respect to the first ballot of the presidential roll call vote.

okay, ready to move to a vote? >> madam, chair, can i just unanimous consent of the word pledged in that second to last sentence and all throughout be changed in this context to bound and that it be conformed throughout the document? >> but you're not -- when we call people pledged or unpledged meaning what the old system was but meaning in terms of the casting of their -- >> well, the new previously unpledged, right if you are now becoming something else, we should call them bound as opposed to pledge because it creates confusion with those people who are elected in the primary and caucus process who in fact we call pledged delegates in the rules. if we call them bound delegates, it's something different. >> so the only question i have for you is that are there other

things they would vote on that we would suggest they're not bound? meaning we're binding them for a specific purpose, so i want to make sure that change wouldn't -- >> later as we go through these paragraphs, it's clear they're bound only with respect to the first presidential balloting and not bound with respect to any other issue. >> as long as that's the effect, yeah. >> it's just so we all understand when we talk about pledge or bound, we're talking about in fact two different groups of people. >> why can't there be zero super delegates? that would be the most democratic way to run that party. >> so thank you for your comments. this has been a long process where we've talked through this. so we're going to move seeing no discussion from the commission to a vote on number two. all those in favor?

it's unanimous. we are adopting number two. we're going to move to number three, and i'm going to read this from the screen. i have not updated my eyeglass prescription in about a year and a half so hopefully i can see this. and i'm going to work on that after this commission meeting. the commission recommends that all dnc officials will ensure those who have have role in the primary and caucus process in their state must be scrupulously neutral both in reality and their perception in their administration of electoral activities. any person who violates this important commitment to impartiality could be subject to loss of delegate status or other privilege they may hold at the dnc. any discussion? >> i'm very much in favor of

this amendment, but i want to point out that we already have in the delegates election rules in fact a stronger check on this even than this language, which is the ability of someone to challenge implementation of an accepted delegate selection plan. so that means that if a state party chairman gets their plan accepted, approved by the dnc and then violates their plan in order to try and sway the process to a candidate or another, guess what? they will have to undergo a challenge from people in that group. so while this is fine, i just want to point out to everybody that there's actually a much tougher remedy that we've always used. >> just to clarify, this is not in conflict with anything that we already have? >> no, it's not a conflict. it's just that this has been -- that's already there.

>> okay. >> any discussion? seeing no discussion, we'll move to a vote. all those in favor? okay, so unanimous? >> yes. >> okay. all right, moving onto number four. the commission recommends the creation of three categories of automatic gel dts one of which would remain unpledged and two of which would be bound on the first ballot of the presidential

roll call. for "a" category 1, democratic members of congress, governors and distinguished party leaders who remain automatic delegates and unpledged. for "b," category 2, state elected dnc members, dnc members elected as a state chair, vice chair, vice committee man or woman who are not part of category 1 would remain automatic delegates. however on the first ballot of the presidential roll call vote their votes would be proportionally allocated based on the primary and outcome of the caucus or state that elected them. this is hard. so both in "b" and "c," can we just change party to part? okay, who are not part of category 2 or 3 would remain

automatic delegates. however on the first ballot of presidential roll call vote their votes would proportionally be allocated based on the outcome of it primary and caucuses. any discussion? senator turner. >> thank you, madam chair. and just on the those points even though it significantly reduces the number of super delegates, it is still my opinion that this party needs to work to abolish a two-tier system that this sets up between the grass roots and the party faithfuls and those who have titles, fancy titles, to make those titles more important than the grass roots. so respecting those titled folks because i'm one of them, but i don't think the democratic party should be in the business of setting up a two-tier system. all of those super delegates should be treated exactly the same. it does reduce the number, but

it does create a two-tier system. and most of the grass roots are a diverse group in terms of ethnicity and gender, more diverse, the group that's bound than the group that is not bound. [ applause ] >> additional discussion? >> i just have a clarifying question. if there is a democratic member of congress, governor or distinguished party leader that is also a state chair or one of these other bound categories, what rules apply to them? >> category one. >> i know so just -- >> that was one of the amendments i offered was to clarify how this works because there are a number of people who have super delegate status by virtue of being say a member of congress and an elected dnc member. and so you sort of go through it by number.

is if you qualify under category one, even if you identify under another category you're treated as category one. >> i know. but that brings up some concerns then. because if i'm a member of congress and i'm chair of my party, i'm supposed to be neutral. but if i belong to category one i don't have to be neutral. >> well, you main unpledged. you may still have to be neutral by other rules. >> we just passed a rule on impartiality and the requirement of impartiality. >> you're only unpledged with respect to -- well, you're unpledged with respect to everything else. but those people in category one on the first ballot are unpledged with respect to the first round balloting of the presidential nomination contest. they may be bound by other rules

which require them in the operation of the state party to be neutral, right? but when they get to the convention they can vote for whomever they want on the first ballot. >> so number three would take into effect the neutrality you would have to have if you ever rule in executing. and that would be, yeah, adopted. okay, any further discussion? we are going to vote on these for "aa, 4 b and 4 c. all those in favor of 4-a, please raise your hand. >> madam chair, i am abstaining on the votes on four and five

because since this comes to the rules and bylaws committee and as five acknowledges rules and bylaws committee may come to a different conclusion which will come back to this unity reform commission, i'm going to abstain so i can conduct a full and open discussion then. i'm not expressing opposition to it. >> and this is an issue i'm going to raise later. but i have a sense that there are a number of issues here that are going to come before the rules and bylaws committee. and in the interest of fairness, my sense is that i'm not opposed to members of this body who will be on the rules and bylaws committee voting on this body, but i do think they should recuse themselves from the discussion when it occurs before the rules and bylaws committee. it's a fundamental issue of fairness, and i think the optics are also problematic when there

would be debates here and people would fall on different sides of it but then go to the rules and bylaws committee and then vote on it in the rules and bylaws committee. so i'm going oo raise it later, so i thank jim for making it. but i do think they should be able to vote now but they shouldn't be able to vote again in a later body. >> my view is sort of the mirror image of that. i want to be able to lead a full and open discussion at that point which is why i'm not voting now. >> sticking with where we are now, we're still in the middle of counting votes so -- okay, so let's make sure we have the right count. so all those in favor please raise your hand to make sure we have the right count. everyone, please can you raise your hand if you're in favor of

4-a? we're redoing this because someone asked for us to redo so we can make sure we have the right count. >> raise them a little higher. i've got 13. >> okay, all those opposed? and then we have one abstain. i know you guys can do it.

distinguished party leaders include former presidents and former leaders of the party. of the national party, yes. okay, we're going to move to vote on 4-b. all those in favor please raise your hand. 4-b, all those in favor. 4-b, all those in favor. unanimous with one abstention. we're going to vote on 4-c. all those in favor please raise your hands. unanimous with one abstention. okay, next we have number five, and this is what we were asked for unanimous consent earlier that we are going to have members of this commission update the language and bring

this back later to vote on, so we are not going to vote on five. okay, so with that we have closed out the votes on the unpledged delegates section. >> okay, primaries. okay, primaries, so again in the resolution itself some boundaries were set. a lot of work has been done on this, and for folks that are here there's really two principles. you're going to hear the recommendations, but the two principles are that this party must be inclusive. at the same time it needs to do party building. so what these action items really are saying, and you heard from chairman perez, we are going to push to the limit. you'll hear this again when we get to caucus.

same day. same day registration, same day party registration. but at the same time there is party registration. so we can do party building. and with that basically what we're looking for here is there will be some expanded use of primaries you'll see. and again, some of this will make more sense when you hear about caucuses. that means primaries versus caucuses. so there'll be some expanded use of state run primaries. we will require states -- the word is require. and this will depend on what you all do in your states. to use same day or automatic voter registration. we will require states to use same day party switching -- require. we will resist attempts at voter

suppression or disenfranchisement. this means by our parties, not just the republican party that may control 26 or 30 states. we will allow voters to switch parties at least as late as the deadline for registering to vote. at least as late. we will develop a strategy to educate voters in states with confusing time lines. many states for voter registration and party affiliation. seven, dnc shall publicly report on the efforts to secure the changes in items one through six. not just adopted and it goes away. number eight, the rules and bylaws committee and the dnc itself should review the allocation of national delegates. and number nine, the rules and bylaws committee shall notify the requirements for what is

term of art in their rules. provable positive steps that include legal remedies. that means litigation. now we will discuss each recommendation which may include amendments. if amendments are offered and you just saw this in the last section, we'll vote on the amendments and then come back to the action items. so i will now open the floor for commission members for amendments. we can start with amendments to section 1. any amendments? >> vice chair, i have an amendment. >> please read your amendment. >> my amendment would create a new recommendation item. the purpose of the amendment is

to put the dnc and state parties, to require them to use everything in their power to open up democratic presidential nominating primaries to not aligned voters also known places and would impose the same penalties on those states who do not do that as would be imposed under the provision already in the document from changing parties -- having earlier parties switching deadlines. i can read the amendment in its entirety if that would be helpful to you. >> where would it be placed? >> we can add a new number or a new paragraph number. the amendment reads as follows. the dnc shall use all means including encouraging legislation, changing party rules and undertaking litigation to require that states permit independent or no party preference voters to participate

in the presidential primary. with respect to any state that does not permit them, the rules of the party shall be amended to impose an appropriate penalty or potential adjustments to state party support. state parties that are able to demonstrate that all provable positive steps including litigation as determined by the rules and bylaws committee have been undertaken but were not successful and those efforts shall not be penalized. that language tracks the language that's already in there with respect to those states whose party change deadlines and voter registration deadlines are not currently aligned. >> i'm going to go in order. that's fine. this is number five, action item number five for members of the commission. if you could just indicate -- let's consider what's here now,

five, and let's consider this 5a, because you're adding another section. it might be useful if you could describe what's different, if anything, between 5a, and 5. >> of course. let me go to that page. >> page 11, number 5. again, we will come back to this in any case. >> there's been a lot of discussion about opening up the process. chairman perez said before he left we as democrats need to expand opportunities for eligible voters to participate at every level. the document that we have, the underlying draft makes substantial positive change in terms of en franchising people who have been disenfranchised by the process before. i would point to the outrageous example of new york state which has a party switch deadline that's months ahead of what the voter registration deadline is and i think everybody on the commission found that there was really no basis for having that

disparity in deadlines. what is in 5 would require that states align their party switch deadlines and voter registration deadlines so you could switch parties at least as late as when you had to register to vote. the amendment that i'm offering would put us on record and the democratic party on record as supporti supporting the participation of what are called nonaligned voters or independent voters in democratic primaries across the country. as you know, the vast majority of states, in fact, do allow the participation of nonaligned voters. there are notable exceptions, most clustered in the northeast but not exclusively. new york, pennsylvania, delaware, maryland and then outside of that environment, florida and arizona being two other states that have closed --

i'm talking about presidential. i'm happy to speak to this amendment if someone will second it. >> i second it. >> discussion on what we'll now call 5a. 5 would remain. this would be 5a. it repeats much of the language of 5 and adds that even at the time of voting they don't need to have party identification. in other words, the language is not aligned. so they remain nonaligned through the voting process versus what you see in the other nine items. discussion? >> we ask independent voters to vote for our presidential candidate post primary and we're asking asking for their votes in the primary as well. i think that a lot of young people, especially young people of color, are choosing to identify as an independent right now because they don't have

confidence in the democratic party. i think that this is a very strong bridge that we are building to prove to those voters that we need and want them in the party. it is my hope that if they are independent now and they're engaged in the presidential primary that they then become a proud democrat, but this is one way that we can bring them into our party. >> jeff or anybody else who's willing to elaborate on how we hold these state parties accountable. for instance, in new york state, just as an example, the state party is almost completely controlled by a body that is chosen by the governor, so how would we make sure to hold a state like that accountable? >> that issue is going to come up for all nine points, so jeff can, if you would like him to, talk about it in terms of 5a but we have that issue for all nine.

>> as with the other provisions, as larry had said, we can change party rules. we can go to legislatures and we can understand litigation. as the testimony that we received from the new york state official, in new york state if the democratic party of new york said to them we want the democratic primary to include nonaligned voters they would do that automatically without any kind of legislation whatsoever in new york. if i can speak more broadly about the amendment for a second, mr. vice chair, the gallop research from 2016 shows that 42% of all voters are nonaligned. democrats are only 29% of voters. of course if you go deeper with independents, in fact many of them aligned with one party or the other, and 16% of that -- percentage points of that 42% are in fact democratically aligned voters. if you look at that total number of democrats and democratically aligned voters which comes out

to 45%, a fully one-third are democratically aligned independents. so when we close primaries we are locking out a third of the democratic base. this is particularly problematic for young people. well over 50% of young people are choosing to register as independents. pew research from 2014 shows that 54% of millennials do not identify to either democrats and republicans. it's highest among latinos. so we are locking out young people of color. when you look at independents who are democratically leaning, the demographic with the highest percentage of democratic leaning independents -- and these are the independents who participated in our process -- it's 31% of african-american and hispanic millennials in states that have closed primaries. that is a higher number than white millennials.

about 23% of white millennials because a much larger number are republican leaning. so a process which blocks out democratically leaning young people is disproportionately affecting young people of color. i would say also with respect to that we see across races we do see among older voters we see that they are much more likely to register with one of the parties, although even so, latinos 59 and older, over 20% are not aligned with any party. i think if we're going to grow this party, particularly in bringing in young people, those of us who worked in the online world know about ladders of engagement, the easiest way to get people on the ladder of engagement is to allow them to participate in our presidential election process. i think it's time to bust that rule open and bring young people

in, people of color and working people back into the democratic party. >> just a point of clarification. 5 that's already in there is recommending and encourages unaffiliated voters to vote, but says for same day registration and the only difference is they would need to register their vote as a democrat in order to participate that day. i just wanted to say for the one that's already in there, it's not precluding or disencouraging anyone to be unaffiliated and not show up but the distinction between 5 and 5a is whether or not they declare as a democrat to vote in the democratic primary. >> this is in addition, not a substitution. did you have a comment on the amendment? >> yes. just to bounce off of what mr. weaver just said, there was an nbc poll that was issued last week saying that 71% of those under the age of 36 want a third party and i think that we have a real opportunity here with this

amendment if we vote in favor of it to show that the democratic party is -- these are voters that are aligned with progressive values, that the democratic party is taking this generation very seriously and i think that this would be a very bold step moving forward to bring those people back into our party. >> i think that it's very hard to say that the reason that latinos, young latinos are not engaged with this is because of this. i think we could look at all sorts of things that the democratic party hasn't done or needs to do in order for them to get engaged, and i don't think this is it. this is a democratic party. if you want to vote in the primary, you should be a democrat. i think that ultimately that's what it is. you have the ability to be able to register that day, so if i was an independent and all of a sudden i feel moved to vote for someone that day, this amendment -- the way it states it now is i'm able to show up,

change my party affiliation to democrat, vote in it and still participate. so i'm glad that we're having a discussion about how to engage young people, especially how to engage young latinos and seeing that these numbers that you just stated are a little shocking but i think that there's other strategies that we need to be able to look at and other things that we're trying to address in order to bring these people in. >> can i just respond for one second. >> if you don't mind there's an order here. i'll put you on the list. >> number one impediment is not being able to vote. there's a lot of research -- i understand your points. i completely agree with you. we can be doing a lot to engage minorities and minority communities. coming from new york state in particular, the areas where there are more impediments to getting people to vote is where they're not trying to get people out to vote and of course the closed primaries and of course

those are communities of color. i think these two things go hand in hand but we make these comments about republicans suppressing the vote and we're doing it with our own policies so we have to keep that into consideration. there's a lot of research that proves this done by pew research and more recently circle i believe also did some work. >> i'll yield to you to respond to her. >> i think it just goes -- again, we're not blocking anyone from voting. that day we're going to have voter registrations where people can say this they change their party and they can vote that day. i don't think that that's, you know, saying, well -- i hear your point on new york. i think we all agree that that's something we're addressing and that is what this commission is doing. but we're not blocking anyone from voting. we're giving people the opportunity but we're asking them to be democrats in order to vote in the democratic primary. >> i just want to say a point of order here. we have nine items that aim at that because there's an amendment on this one.

we've sort of abstracted it. so when we get back, you'll hear that kind of comment over and over again. mr. weaver? >> i'd like to say the other issue is we have mistreatment of voters in this country from state to state. a voter in virginia who votes in the democratic primary, supports democratic candidates, gives money to the democratic party, that voter in virginia does not have a little piece of paper in their pocket. the voter in new york has to have that piece of paper in their pocket. it's republicans who try to make voters have a particular piece of paper to vote, not democrats. >> member ruiz? >> recalling the question? >> it's not debatable. we will vote on calling the question. anyone in favor of not calling the question just to explain because it hasn't been stated here can vote no on calling the question. that's different than voting on the amendment. a motion has been made to call the question. all those in favor please

indicate by raising your hand. down hands. opposed? the question is called. now we're voting on the amendment. this is what we're calling amendment 5a. member weaver has read it previously. all those in favor of adding as a separate 5a please indicate by raising your hands. okay, five. who is the sixth? okay. six. we got them all? all those opposed?

11, okay. thank you. it's defeated. so we're back to other amendments. seeing no other amendments, we go to the action items. we start with number one. i will read them. they will be on the screen for those of you who are here. i'll read it as you put it up. the democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means. i'm going to emphasize all means, including encouraging legislation, changing party rules to expand the use of primaries. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. this is primaries -- i'm sorry,

these are state-run primaries. all those in favor, hands are up. opposed? abstain? one abstention. anyone voting no? one abstention. action two, the democratic party shall use all means including encouraging legislation, undertaking litigation to require states to use same day or automatic registration for the democratic presidential nominating process. seeing no discussion, all those in favor indicate by raising your hand.

unanimous. number three, democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means including encouraging legislation, changing party rules, undertaking litigation to require states to use same day party switching for the democratic presidential nominating process. it shall be the position of the democratic party as an example that an otherwise eligible voter should be able to participate in a democratic presidential primary if she or he presents officials at the polling location with written notice that she or he wishes to be enrolled in the democratic party. no discussion? all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. down hands. it's unanimous. number four, the democratic

national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means including encouraging and opposing legislation, changing party rules, and undertaking litigation to resist any attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement. voter suppression and disentrance chiezment includes but is not limited to laws or regulations that make it morrone -- more onerous for people to vote as well as administration actions or inactions related to issues such as a number and placement of voting locations and the adequacy and accuracy of state voting roles. in the advance of the 2020 democratic nominating process, the committee shall identify such issues on a state by state basis and seek to 'em dremedy t

prior to 2020. this includes judicial relief where appropriate. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. opposed? i'm sorry. down hands. it was unanimous. number five, democratic national committee shall use all means including encouraging legislation, changing party rules and undertaking lit gatign to require states to allow voters to switch parties. with respect to any state that has a deadline for party switching which is earlier than the deadline for voter registration, the rules shall be amended and impose a penalty to which the state would otherwise be entitled or potential adjustments to state party support. state parties that are able to demonstrate that all provable,

positive steps including litigation as determined by the rules and bylaws committee have been taken to change the party affiliation deadline but were not successful in those efforts should not be penalized. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. unanimous. number six, the party must develop a strategy to prioritize and resource education programs directly to voters in those states due to no fault of the party but continue to have confusing time lines for registration and party affiliation in order to ensure everyone understands the rules and time lines in place and impact they have on voter participation. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. unanimous. number seven, the democratic national committee shall publicly report on an annual

basis its efforts and the result to secure the change in paragraphs one to six above. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. unanimous. number eight, the rules and bylaws committee in the democratic national committee shall review the allocation of national delegates to be sure it reflects the allegations currently being used. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. unanimous. number nine, the rules and bylaws committee shall modify the requirements for provable positive steps as provided in rule 21b to include legal rem y remedies as a corrective measure to bring requirements into rules. all those in favor raise your hand. unanimous. i want to go back to the nomi's

point about how what we do to enforce this in states. did you want to say anything further? >> i know we'll be dealing with this in party reform, a lot of the efforts in the party reform category will be about how we make sure that everything we recommend and our existing rules and bylaws are held accountable but more specifically i know that jeff discussed this in the past during our conversations about how we make sure states -- that whether in arizona where you -- there's going to be some form of legal action or in states like new york where it is completely up to the state party and what's the carrot and sticks, what's the accountability. >> thank you. this will take mobilization in two parts. it's the states where you may have republican control and they're suppressing the vote. that's mass mobilization.

it's in states where the party hasn't pushed to be as inclusive as possible, that's mobilization within the 57 parties. so it's twofold. >> i'm sorry i was distracted -- i was slightly distracted and missed the opportunity in number six. we were going too quickly through the process to make what i hope would be a friendly suggestion amendment. that is where it says to ensure everyone understands the rules and timelines in place, i would like to add in addition to rules -- i'm sorry, the line above that, line 19, confusing timelines for registration and party affiliation. i'd like to add, and the process for running for delegate in order to ensure that everyone understands the process. that issue of running for

delegate is not understood in most states. i know in the same way that you have to have party affiliation by a certain deadline, in some states like illinois you have to file to run for delegate almost a year in advance of the election. you have to fill out a form to qualify for that process. it's way too confusing in some states and i would prefer if we could include that so that state parties in addition to submitting their rules, make them available in understandable form for democrats in their state so they can run for delegate if they so choose. >> i'll second that. >> in the spirit of what we're doing here, let's say that that's timely because i think we did move fast. we're on that and again i would just point out there's two places that could go here but that also could fit in party reform because we're talking

about the party's delegates. in the spirit of inclusion, let's discuss it. >> i'd like to make a point similar to the one that elaine made earlier. the current delegation plans require this now, particularly with regard to affirmative action but that's challenged as to whether there's a full implementation of the plan. i see no harm in reemphasizing it here but it is currently provided for with remedies. >> you're saying -- again, this is the long-time chair of rbc, that there's no harm in including it. >> reemphasizing our commitment to the point, yeah. call the question. >> question has been called. i would add that as emphasis. all those in favor of amending six to include, and the process for delegate selection please

indicate by raising your hand. smarter people here will get every word down. please indicate by raising your hand. down hands. opposed? abstain? we'll call it unanimous. maya -- i'm sorry, senator turner and then maya. >> i just wanted to clarify something again because we were going quickly, just on number 5. we're not asking anybody to take any steps that would be considered like in the context of litigation frivolous like you should file a lawsuit for the sake of filing it or that it's impractical that we want to bankrupt state parties that don't have the resources -- i'm just trying to clarify what we're saying, that you should use all means such as the ones that have been itemized but if for whatever reason it is

frivolous or impractical, we're not suggesting that. >> that would be correct. >> senator turner. >> thank you, mr. chair. going back to this whole section and the point that jeff was making and the chairwoman, i really think it is the height of hypocrisy for this party to want independents to vote in the general to help us beat republicans but not have that same respect for independent voters leaning democratic as jeff totally put out there, to not have them vote in the process. 310 million people or so in this country are put under two buckets and being told by the two parties who benefit from this system that they either have to be a democrat or republican or we don't want you in the primary, but oh, i love you in the general. it's wrong. jeff's amendment made a whole

lot of sense not just in terms of the numbers that he laid out for the numbers of millennials of color and the millennial generation is the largest generation and the most diverse generation and they are speaking loudly and clearly about how they feel about both parties. but the democratic party is supposed to be the party of inclusion both in terms of diversity and inclusion of thought. and for this commission not to except that amendment goes a long way to showing that we are not serious about that trying to win over independent voters and making them feel wanted and included in the primary process but we said no to that here as a commission, but then we're going to tell them how much we love them in the general because we need them to help us beat republicans. i think that is wrong. >> jane? >> i wanted to make sure that it was crystal clear on the record

that when we are talking about including independents, i wish all states had same day voter registration so those that are independent may choose to be a democrat when they go into the voting booths to vote in a primary or the general election, but that's not the case and we have a lot of republicans. jorge, i'm specifically speaking to you since you brought this up. we have a lot of republicans in states that are specifically blocking same day voter registration because they know that it increases participation especially on the democratic side. it's why some states choose to do caucuses because as a state party we can now say we welcome independents, yes, bottom a democrat the day of the caucus. so when you said earlier an independent should switch parties before they -- on the day of the primary, that's not possible. it's not possible in states like nebraska. so we have in the state of

nebraska allowed independents to vote in our presidential primary because we believe those voters are critical to the makeup of our party and in order to get our democrats over the finish line. so the reason this amendment was put forward is because we have republicans who are disenfranchising voters left and right, especially in red states. i just wanted to make sure that it was clear. i want all independents to be democrats. that's why i ran for chair of the nebraska democratic party. i believe in our party but i also think we have got to build a bridge to get those folks there. >> okay, closing comment here. we're obviously pushing this as far as possible. tomorrow you'll hear about caucuses. what you'll see here in nebraska has a caucus as close as you can get to party betweity between t.

similarly, we're trying to push this language as far as possible to say at the time you go into the voting booth, regardless of what you were before. so i think just trying to frame that up so we feel like there's a lot of accomplishment here in terms of what we're trying to do of pushing, pushing, pushing both the state party and these states that are holding back. with that, this section is concluded. turn it back to the chair. >> thank you. thank you, everyone. two points to make. one, we have found out that the hotel policy is actually not to have signs, and we were able to allow them to have signs. i bring this up just to point out that the security was doing what was asked by the hotel. i wanted to make that clear to everyone in here. the second thing is we are recessing for lunch and we will come back in a short amount of time once we have fed ourselves. thank you.

alabama voters go to the poll today in a special election to fill the u.s. senate seat vacated by attorney general jeff sessions. democrat doug jones is running against republican roy moore. we have live coverage as the results come in starting at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. you can also follow live on c-sp c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. watch c-span this week as congress continues work to finalize the republicans' tax reform bill. wednesday, the white house senate conference committee meets to work out policy differences between house and senate versions of the bill. live coverage wednesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. also wednesday president trump speaks at the treasury department on tax reform. watch live coverage on the c-span networks and c-span.org. listen live with the free c-span radio app.

watch c-span 3 thursday :00 thu 10:30 a.m. eastern for live coverage of the fcc's vote on net neutrality. the vote is to roll back net neutrality rules passed during the obama administration and intended to reduce regulation of the internet. that's live thursday at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, c-span.org, or listen live with the free c-span radio app. next a look at security threats in north africa. virginia congressman jargerald connolly spoke at this event. it's 40 minutes. in the late 1980s i was a foreign policy aid to senator moynihan. i was struck by one of senator

pell's aides. as one might expect, he seemed to know vast things about how the world worked and he was a master of the legislative process. although he seemed very old, he i think was almost 40, he was always the moast fun in the roo, the joker at ironic insight. he knew that the topics were serious but he never took himself too seriously. that was jerry connolly 30 years ago. since then he served for more than a decade on the fairfax county board of supervisors with about half that time as chairman and for the last nine years as a member of congress representing virginia's 11th district. he's been a member of the house committee on government oversight and reform and a member of the house foreign affairs committee where he's a senior member of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia. he's brought to his role in congress the same qualities that so impressed me three decades ago of fierce intellect, a willingness to question received wisdom and a keen eye for how

congress can use its oversight powers and legislative powers to advance american interests. it can sometimes feel like it's hard to find heros in the 115th congress but it's my honor and pleasure to introduce you to one of mine, congressman jerry connolly. [ applause ] >> i am going to bring him everywhere with me. thank you so much for such a warm introduction. i hope your deliberations have gone well. it's a pleasure to be with you today. i'm grateful to csis for bringing us together to talk about security and counter-terrorism efforts. seems to me the issues we're looking at are how do we secure u.s. interests in the region, how do we work with our allies and partners, what does it mean for the united states to fight a war on terrorism that has no

finite enemy, no boundaries and no clear definition of success. we deal with these issues every day on the house foreign affairs committee. i'm also co-chair of the caucus on morocco dedicated to strengthening the strategic and economic ties between our two countries. let me begin by first acknowledging the elephant in the room that undermines, i think, most of if not all of our u.s. efforts to try to work with our partners to eliminate security threats in the region. that is the unique challenge of our president, president trump, whose international affairs budget, the hollowing out of the state department and anti-muslim rhetoric handicap u.s. efforts to partner with governments in the islamic area. the president's travel ban and outrageous tweets, most recently

one that has been condemned by almost everybody in the political constellation of great britain fuel the very insurgencies we're trying to suppress. in a part of the world where more than 96% of the population is muslim, his anti-muslim rhetoric and policies are counterproductive and they isolate those whose support we need most and who are all too often the majority of the victims of the very extremism we're trying to eliminate. the united states has an interest obviously in stability including promoting economic growth and supporting governments that are responsive to citizens' needs. terrorism poses a great threat to the security in north africa and presents itself in various ways. just last week we saw the horrific attack on a mosque in

egypt sinai, killed more than 350 people, the highest toll of any terrorist attack in egypt's modern history. while no group has yet claimed responsibility, evidence certainly points to an affiliate of the islamic state. in places where political security leadership is lacking such as libya, criminals of violent extremists have exploited the vacuum. organized terrorist groups are actively plotting attacks within and beyond libya's borders. notwithstanding a u.s. military supportive campaign to expel the islamic state from the coastal city of surt, the islamic state continues to operate in libya and those cells can link up with cells, and do, in neighboring countries. now that the islamic state's caliphate is contracting in iraq and syria, as many as 1,000 fighters associated with that movement have returned just to morocco and tunisia, 1,000.

six of the terrorists who carried out the august 2017 attacks in catalonia were from morocco. according to tune eeshen officials, some 3,000 militants remained active abroad. 760 killed abroad. and 800 fighters have returned to tunisia by april of this year. finally, across the globe terrorism is becoming more atomized and disbursed as that caliphate or territory starts to shrink. that's the per versety of what we're dealing with. lone wolf attackers have become radicalized online and are becoming more prevalent and that's something we must address in a more conservative fashion. so, with all that, i'd like to throw out or i hope lessons learned from our experience that i'd like to share with you. one is the challenge of u.s. military economic assistance.

we've long played a role in security in this region. morocco was the first country to recognize america's independence in 1777 and congress ratified the treaty of friendship and amity with morocco in 1787. in fact, the united states signed peace treaties in these countries all before 1800. algiers in 1795. tunis in 1797 and tripoli in 1798. the united states now has positive relations with each of those governments, something that was not always the case. government to government cooperation including military and intelligence issues is more extensive and more necessary than previously, but no thanks to the trump administration which proposed cutting bilateral u.s. military and economic assistance to the region by 50%,

including the elimination of all foreign military financing for both morocco and tunisia. now, congress is going to restore that funding, but the danger of setting those kinds of low levels, the danger of even setting that signal that we think that's okay or the president of the united states and the executive branch think that's okay is already a problem. and when you set new benchmarks in the president's budget, all too often that's what we benchmark against. so i cut your budget 100% and congress is a hero, we restore 50% of it. but at the end of the day you still have a 50% cut that you didn't ask for and we don't need. political space for opposition, second point. i think another lesson learned is the need to create political space for opposition even if the host government does not welcome

such. if we learned anything from the fall of the shah of iran, it was the folly of heeding his insistence that we had no contact with political opposition. we see similar things in egypt. so what happens? political opposition goes underground and the most extreme and organized element is that opposition because we and the government have done nothing to try to spark some pluralistic expression of political ambition and ideals. and when you have no alternative to the authoritarian government, you cannot be surprised that what emerges as the alternative and sometimes as the next government is the least desirable alternative. that is really important, it

seems to me. we've got to build democratic institutions. we've got to try to encourage pl pluristic expression within the respective countries but we cannot have hob's choice where it's this horse or this horse, no other horse. that can't be what we do. i think that's a very important lesson for u.s. foreign policy in general but particularly in this region. i also think, third lesson, libya is a key. the instability right now in libya is bleeding into neighboring countries. you cannot have a state in the region in the kind of stateless form that we have in libya. really no functioning

government. lots of militia's controlling all kinds of things including security. lots of rivalries and even violence among those militias. it's been a while now since gaddafi left the scene. the international community and the united states have a stake in trying to restore security in libya. if libya looks a lot like somalia, then we already have a problem in trying to chief our goals in the rest of the mob grab. finally, re-integration -- not finally. i have one more. re-integration, i think what we've learned from other countries that have looked at returning insurgents or revolutionaries, there has to be a process of re-integration.

shunning or discrimination or forbidding their re-entry certainly makes sense when we're talking about extreme violent elements, but there are women and children. there are people who didn't know what they were doing really. they were attracted by social media and they had no clue what it would mean to sign up for isis or other affiliates in the region. so re-integration which i think certainly is one of the lessons of algeria after its violence and insurgencies in the '90s is important and if you get it wrong, it delays the process of trying to return to stability and can even foment additional offshoots of extremism which we did see in algeria. and the importance of social media. we have got to be competitive

and better understand what in the world is the attraction for so many people, especially young people, to go on the internet and say, yeah, that's what i want to do. we need to be competing with that narrative in an effective way, supposing t exposing the f that narrative and offering an attractive alternative. i'm struck by the fact that our government does not seem to have really captured that as main goal and i think we've got to do a lot more about that if we are going to try to stop the flow of new adherence to radical movements in this region and in other parts of the world. so in a time of increased challenges to global security, i think we need all the tools in our national security toolbox. this is not the time to return

diplomatically or cut foreign or military assistance. this is not the time to retreat from engagement. quite the opposite, this is the time to reassert all of that. if we do, i believe it could be to common good and can cement relationships and stability in the mograb as partners, understanding we don't control, we don't direct, and our leverage is limited. but that doesn't preclude important catalysts and partnerships where we can make a contribution, we can partner, we can encourage and influence, and i think that's really important. it's late so jonathan and i are going to have a little conversation and then we will liberate you on this beautiful day. thank you so much for being here today. god bless you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. on this issue of working with partners, not cutting assistance to partners, one of the key

issues is conditionality with partners. we had a conversation on the panel immediately before this, there's a lot of skepticism about putting any conditionality on our aid to get our partners to not do things we think are tactically useful but strategically harm to the drivers of terror iism. one of the things congress loves to do is condition aid. how should we think about the congressional role in assistance when one of the few tools congress has is conditionality but it undermines the kind of trust that you hope to build with hopefully increasingly like minded institutions overseas to address some of these longer-term problems? >> i'd like to say congress doesn't do nuance.

i marvelled at that myself sometimes when i was in the senate. i think aren't we fellow politicians. how would we feel if someone came into our district and said i'm not going to write that check until you meet the following 20 conditions that i've set for you irrespective of how you feel. most of us would get our backs up and say you can keep your check. that's just domestic politics. somebody who represents somebody who's elected or represents a government, especially in a parliamentary setting in another country is a politician. he or she has the same kinds of dynamics and has enormous trouble accepting that kind of conditionality without looking weak and losing faith and maybe even being ousted from office with somebody who says i'm going to be tough on those americans, i'm not going to give into

those. so trying to do it -- trying to make engagement more of a iterative process where there's give and take and we're not crude about these things and we try to stay flexible and look at bottom lines about efficacy, we would be much better served. but again, congress is a political body and all too often people are willing to sacrifice all of that to make their own political point for some other reason. i'm going to make some special interest group or some group in my population happy with this stand and consequences for the recipient country be damned, it's not important. it's an inherent problem with congress not new to this congress but can we not yield to the temptation to grandstand, understanding that there's real

collateral damage back in the recipient country. >> one of the points mike made about 45 minutes ago was precisely on the point of the political imperative to grandstand on the terrorist threat tharks threat, that we get to choose what we respond to but as a country we race toward elevating the threat of terrorism to make it a central organizing principle of our foreign policy, and yet it seems that the nature of it is we can't ever completely be successful, but the political impulse is to talk about terrorism, to raise it to the highest level. how do you think about that problem and how do you think about how we should respond to that impulse? >> well, let's look at how it plays domestically. we've seen the president and we've seen others exploit

terrorist incidents for political gain. the current president does every terrorist incident that involves somebody that's not native to the country involved loves to point out, see, i told ya, you don't secure those borders, you let those refugees in and they're going to blow up your train station next. the other thing is the nature of terrorism is so random, it terrifies people. i could be next, my kid could be next. i might be at a tube in london or a shopping mall in, you know, tunisia or whatever it may be and just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and hundreds of people, you know, die including me. so the random nature of it, even though statistically what are the chances you or anyone you know will, in fact, be affected, it doesn't matter. >> given where i travel, the

odds for me are much worse. >> that's right. and of course it also gets enormous media attention. so it's always i profile. >> to be fair, the obama -- to be a little bipartisan, the obama administration had counter-terrorism very high up in the national security strategy. this doesn't start with either the bush administration or the trump administration. >> no, not at all. my point wasn't that it's high up. my point was the exploitation of it. of course the country has to be on high alert and has to make counter-terrorism one of its priorities because the duty of the president of the united states, if nothing else, is to protect the people of the united states. so the idea that we're not going to take this seriously and you're all on your own obviously would not be a viable domestic or foreign policy for any president. but the expectation of it i think elevates the issue in a way that i don't think is helpful. >> also focusing on the

congressional thing, switching gears a little bit -- >> jonathan, did anyone tell you if you grew a beard you would look a little like abraham lincoln? >> no. but i was on capitol hill people used to tell me i looked like bob morazac. >> nothing wrong with looking like abe ram lincoln. >> or bob. we have been doing our counter-terrorism fight. how much of a handicap is it that congress has not been able to organize around a different set of principles to give different authorities? does that skew us towards more military instruments in your judgment? >> well i think it depends on your point of view. if you're the executive branch, obama or trump, i think you like the way it is just fine.

it's kind of all encompassing, it doesn't handicap you too much, it's not too specific and it gives you all the freedom to maneuver you need or want so why mess around with that? now, there's a lot of talk including from my good friend and colleague, tim kaine and others in the senate and in the house, we need to repeal the existing aumf and craft a new one that is relevant to the challenges of today and pass it so that we're back in regular order. count me a skeptic. you're a student of congress. congress wants it both ways when it comes to war stories. it doesn't want to take responsibility. but it wants the freedom to kvetch. that's a yiddish word, kvetch.

complain and nitpick. >> good jesuit education. >> yes, yes. so even congress really actually to be truthful is quite happy with the status quo, no matter what they say. i think they're quite sincere but the majority of the members of the congress -- the minute we do that we now own the authorization. everybody remembers the gulf and nobody wants to own that kind of open-ended or open interpreted resolution and face the consequences. so the status quo is convenient frankly for advocates and critics for both the legislative and executive branch. i'm not advocating for it. i don't believe it is a proper situation at all to send men and women into fighting situations, battlefiel

battlefields, with a really outdated authorization that isn't relevant to the situations we face. i think it's a real ob broe gags of responsibility. >> one last congressional question and then we'll go to the audience. are we resourcing this the right way both in terms of the level of funding but also the categories that we fund, or do we have to rethink how we resource a so-called war on terror? >> well, i guess -- i don't know that i can give a comprehensive critique of how we're deploying resources and how we might redeploy them better. i did have a discussion that i think we really need to beef up our cyber efforts, our social media efforts in a much more

sophisticated way and much more robust in trying to reach the same audience extremist elements are successfully reaching. we got to better understand what is the attraction of that and what can we do to discredit it and find an alternative attractive narrative and i just don't think we're doing that very well in my opinion. i also mentioned are we doing enough. the other part of that is i am extremely concerned about the retrenchment that is going on right now at the state department with the trump budget proposals with respect to foreign assistance, economic assistance, military assistance across the board, and i gave some statistics just for this

one region but this is not unique to this region. that is an enormous retreat if it's ever implemented. >> john mclaughlin just said on the previous panel that ambassadors are only useful champions not only for the countries but for the concerns that they see on the ground and not having ambassadors in place in much of the world handicaps our ability to be responsible. >> i believe i'm correct that only one regional assistant secretary has been confirmed for the entire state department, one, and that's europe. that's stunning. as you say, john, lots of ambassadorial positions vacant. earlier i was in korea during one of the missile crises. we weren't even sure given north korea's attention whether we could get out of south korea. we weren't sure whether south korea -- well, whether military

conflict might break out while we were there and all hell is breaking loose. we did not have an ambassador in in the midst of a cries where you may remember that he ordered the carl vincent off the waters in south korea kept it went the other way. so there are real problems when a great power. a country putting together its first ever diplomatic course and as real consequences for our partners, allies and adversaries. we have microfoams roaming.

>> anyone with a question gets a cookie. >> did we order cookies? >> they said there were cookies. yes. you don't get three cookies. it's one cookie if that. i'm making no promises. >> and another congressional functionality is these omnibus spending packages as we lurch from government shut down and asked about this a month ago. when you're in the minority. because you're just playing defense sort of and he also said there's a little bit of room r

for -- you know as you restore that cut or try to increase the ban on libya. you have opportunities that aren't visible to us in the public where you can rejigger the priorities can you tell us how it gets made it process. >> but with less fun than you. >> i taught him everything. and by the way he loves being reminded of the fact he started working out for a republican senator. i don't know whether i agree with chris. on balance i think your -- the point of your question was correct. i think it injects uncertainty, real red sns to make long-term

commitments because who knows and it adds to an unstable environment. and again you have to look at all that in context. we're not in a stable environment and both politically and in our foreign policy. so i think we would be far better served to have long term. you have the full development and you implement it. that's how it should work and that element of predictability and instability is truly an asset. maybe it's possible if we go from pillow to post every few weeks there's another bite at the ambut it's a pretty high price to pay. i can't hear you.

and anath r question. >> how do you that ? >> is there room for creativity in that moment. you get to do things like restore the tenesian aid that gets cut. so is there room for creativity in those moments as you have those behind the scenes moments, hvac. is there room for creativity or are you just defending last year's program? >> let's take your example. first time around we restore it aid to tunisia but that's only for two weeks. >> you're worried will i be able to sustain that? in two weeks someone who likes tunisia or trump or whatever saying wait a minute this so out

of kilt er. i contend the risks of that kind of process i think far out weigh whatever benefit from time to time can be achieved. >> question right here. >> thank you. from the center for the study of islam and democracy. you spoke about the need to fight extremism and terrorism is the feed for us to push for open political space, civil society. >> that's right. >> and such. how do you deal then in terms of in the region you have some major allies or what the u.s. calls major allies who don't see that. they work in the opposite direction where they are closing political space.

they're working into designating peaceful moments to terrorist organizations. how do you deal with those in this immediate fight against terrorism? >> well, i think -- i think there are some real questions for the united states that are very difficult questions with no easy answers. so i'll give you one. egypt. the idea that there would be an elected muslim brother hoods in cairo, clearly not a thing here or in juruseroom. however, our own state department said in a formal report that moracy and the muslim brother hood were elected in a largely free and fair election. that was their conclusion.

so we a hearing at the over throw and i asked the representative of the state department. so you admit it was a free and fair election and here you are sort of supporting the fact the military over threw it because there was some disorder. i said is that new standard of the united states? i said -- i mean could we have over thrown the trump administration based on the disorder? is that your new standard, really? there's lautsz of disorder. g 22 meet in germany and for are protests. is that disorder? is that an a rationale for over throwing an elected government? because you don't like it and i'm not advocating for the muslim brother hood. but the consequences of what happened is that islamic elements look at that and say we played by the rules and we won and look at what happened. so next time we're noti going t

be fools. we're not going to play by those rules. so for short-term gain in terms of stability in the region, defined by some, we're going to pay, i think, a long-term price in terms of plirtical dynamics in egypt and this whole issue of no, no we really mean it about civic engagement and if you agree and pursue it, we can attest to that, we'll work with you, even though we don't like you. we'd prefer you not be there but we're not going to over throw you, throw you in jail, massacre a few hundred people on the streets in cairo and alexandria. that's what did happened and i think it sullies our legitimacy in the promotion of these values. so we've got to mean what we say and we've got to be consistent.

>> back corner. >> and i want to emphasize that's not saying bring back the muslim -- i'm no fan of the muslim brother hood but i'm a fan of free and fair elections and respecting results. i thought that's what democracies did. >> good afternoon. north african journal. you spoke earlier about how it situation here in the u.s. is -- is not helpful in terms of coordinating the fight against terrorism in many places around the world, including north africa. what's your assessment of the u.s. and the european whose actually have a direct stake in the region given the proximity? is it equally in pretty bad shape and therefore each country is doing whatever they're doing and there's no common vision in terms of going forward? >> remember, i was talking about

maw grip. so, i just -- 96% muslim. most of the victims of terrorism in the region are muslim. the governments are muslim. we need their cooperation. and you don't -- i don't know how you put a nice ribbon around that offer of cooperation if you're tweeting at the highest levels rogue, vile, islamaphobic, pseudo videos that demean and degrade people of faith in the islamic world. and as i said this isn't just my opinion. the prime minister of great britain condemned it. the parliament, numerous members on both labor, conservative side of the aisle condemned it in

parliament because it was sort of one of those rogue blog sites in great britain and he liked it. this is not ancient history. this happened in the last 10 days. so there are real consequences in terms of foreign policy when you do that. if i was a foreign minister i'd certainly wonder how entirely reliable the united states is if that's their real attitude. and will i be burned by that tomorrow? or next week or whatever it might be? with arespect to europe i don't think riltser the same. we're not tweeting against bavaria. and how awful they are and we shouldn't cooperate with them or something. however, as you know since this administration there was a compromise of intelligence that

infuriated the german government. we've had all kinds of problems with the british government includinging his tweets about a terrorist attack in london that infuriated the mayor of london and brought broad condemnation again on both sides of the aisle in parliament in london. and so there are issues of volatility reliability and security with intel that you give at the highest levels of our government. so i think that does impede potentially cooperation. i think below that level there's lot of working cooperation and i don't think that's threatened but i think it does have a chilling effect which might even be hard to identify, right. so it's not what i do just the

omission of what i didn't do. and who knows how you measure that. so i think there is a defineable cost in our relations with other countries including europe. but in the islamic world we've now got something very specific to worry about in a policy that is anti-islamic and that can only impede. >> the other side of that is the clarity of the trump administration's priorities. actually makes it easier for some of the governments to work with the united states. we've seen saudi arabia's government be quite unphased by what is inhad trrperated by ames as anti-muslim. they say we understand where you're coming from.

because there is so much clarity we're not talking about democ ruatization. the trump administration doesn't prioritize that the way the obama administration did thrkts bush administration did. that actually if you see the answer to the terrorism problem be prince pale government to government relations and cooperation among intelligence services and police. if you accept that's where the solution set is, the trump administration isn't seting it wide apart, it's creating a pathway to cooperate with governments in the united states. >> ultimately governments pursue their own self interests. i would certainly push saudi arabia in a special category in that regard.

because they have a broader agenda about their influences of iran in the region. and they're willing to look past a lot of sins, if you will. because they know this president is strongly antiiranian and shares their views. sdwl are other points of common ality as strategic resource supplier in the united states n vestment, relationships and so forth that are very critical to the kingdom, especially at a moment of transition. with very radical, certainly political change going on in the kingdom as we speak. so they've made a trade off. we'll see if it paid off for

them. we'll see if they end up finding they've bet on the wrong horse. countries do that all the time. but i think long term it's a tough thing, skpaelsh in countries with elected governments. saud aarabia not being one of them in the islamic world who have to try to explain to constituents that i'm in bed with this guy who has all these policies that are antithetical of our religion. i suspect there will be long-term consequences. saudi arabia -- look at the trouble he got in with that very

relationship when they canicided to boycott gunner. it created a huge issue for us. we've got military base in guiana. we don't want to be boycotting and initially he said i'm with the saudis and that to be walked back by his own administration because he seemed unaffair of how we have other assets in the region including in gutter, mr. president. i know that's political but i think it would be dishonest for someone like me with a foreign policy background. and the consequences of both rhetoric and policy and decision making and lack of personnel or personnel is to me stunning and is going to have a serious cost to the ability of the united states to project soft power

where we need to. >> before we thank carson confrael his remarks, i want to thank everybody on the middle east time who made this pop possible. emily, erick, abbey, ben, margo. the british voice of command, thank you all for your help. thank you all for coming and thank you for joining congressman -- >> thank you all. thank you so much. thank you, jonathan. >> thanks so much. >> my pleasure.

coming up tonight on c span, the fourth circuit court of appeals hears oral arguments in a case.