tomorrow on "washington journal ," u.s. defense policy in the middle east and europe. a modern healthcare reporter looks at the affordable health care law's impact on insurance coverage under age 26. of examining the cost operating u.s. military bases overseas. journal," live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> in poor health, ida mckinley also suffered from epilepsy. because of that, her husband would sit next to her at state dinners. if she had a seizure, he would shield her face from guests until the episode past. despite her health problems, she traveled as first lady, even attending the event where her

husband was assassinated. we will look at ida mckinley as we conclude our series on first ladies. in onehe famous passage of william crawford's novels, he is still 1:00 in the morning on july 3, 1863. tickets charge has not happened yet. it is all on the line. maybe this time, a victory, independence." in the minds of both northerners and southerners, northerners at the time and southerners in retrospect, this became the mythic moment of victory. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live all

day sunday, june 30 tom a on history tv on c-span3. davidtish prime minister cameron and members returned to the house of commons after a two-week recess. the prime minister answered questions on reading times in the national health service. the government's policy position on expelling convicted emcees from parliament. mp's from parliament. this is about 35 minutes. >> questions for the prime minister. >> thank you. this morning, i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my [indiscernible] speaker.you, mr.

three years ago, the prime minister promised $20 billion in 2015. will he now borrow 96 billion instead? yes or no? >> three years ago, we said we would cut the deficit and we have cut the deficit by one third. on the issue of what people said a few years ago, the very first time the leader of the opposition came, he attacked me for taking child benefits away. it is our we learn labors official policy to take child benefits away from higher earners. total and utter confusion. perhaps he can explain himself when he gets to his feet.

>> i am thrilled and delighted revised government has lands for a right of recall instead of a proposal that would mean politicians in judgment of politicians. a recall ballot, a yes or no chance for constituents to make the final decision before an mp is removed. i i know that you have -- know that my honorable friend has campaigned long and hard on these issues of democracy. i think the right approach and the one that we put forward is to say yes, of coarse there should be a constituency mechanism. the for that, there ought to be this house for wrongdoing. i think that is the right approach. i know we will not necessarily agree, but we would bring forward our proposals. on the subject of recall, i hope that my opponent would recall his attack on child benefits

when he speaks. >> mr. speaker tom a two ago during the prime minister's listening exercise during the health services. " i refused to go back to the day where people have to wait hours on end." let me be clear. we will not. what has gone wrong? >> enough about what he said two years ago. the very first time he stood there totally condemning and attacking in the strongest possible terms what now turns out to be labor policy. what complete confusion and weakness from the opposition. accidentabout emergency and i will deal with this very directly. the fact is, we are meeting our targets for accident emergency. it was a problem in the first quarter of this year.

that is why the medical director of the nhs will be holding an investigation. but over the last three years, there are now one million more people walking into our accident and emergency units every year. we must work hard to get those waiting times down and keep those waiting times down. the way we will not do it is by following labor policy and cutting the nhs. the independent king fund, a number of people waiting more than four hours higher than any time in nine years. can you explain to the country a&e waiting times fell under labor? >> we are meeting our targets on a in the -- on a&e. we are meeting our waiting times.

in wales, where labor is responsible, they are not meeting their times. in which the welsh met their times under the government? >> we may be six months away, but he no better answer to questions. i do have to say to the prime minister, he has got to do better than this on the crisis. is gridlock in the emergency department. the patients in the situation say we are reaching a crisis point." we have a prime minister who says, crisis, what crisis? the number of people held in the back of ambulances has doubled since he took office. the number of people waiting more than four hours has doubled. there are now more canceled operations than in the last

decade. does in the scale of problems show that on his watch, there is a crisis in a&e? >> when is the last time labor met their targets for accident and emergency? 2009. they have not met a target in four years under labor. we asked what is happening in our national health service. i will tell you what is happening in our national health service. inpatient waiting times lower than at the election. the rate of acquiring infections at a record low. 400,000 more operations being carried out every year. moreally, there are 5700 doctors. let me tell him what would laborsif we followed spending plan on the nhs.

new figures out today. there would be 43 thousand fewer nurses and 11,000 fewer doctors. we decided to spend more. that man said it was irresponsible. he is wrong. >> mr. speaker, there are people all around this country waiting for hours and hours and all they see is a complacent, out of touch prime minister reading a list of statistics. people want to know about the on hisin a&e happening watch. let's talk about the cause of this. in his first two years in office, more than a quarter of centers were closed. you closed nhs walking centers and put pressure on the a&e defense -- department. why is that not obvious to him?

in the first quarter of this year, there were problems. one of the problems is the contract that was signed from the last labour government. they signed a contract that let gp's get out of hours. if you want evidence, perhaps he will listen to the labor minister in the nhs at the time. fortunately, he lost his seat to a conservative. but this is what he said. gp's got the, best deal they have ever had from the 2004 contract. since then, we have been recovering." one million more people coming through our doors. an excellent performance by doctors and nurses let down by the last labor government. >> he has been talking about the decline of that contract for the last months now. what happened between 2004 and

2010? things fell drastically after the gp contract. the president of the general think itners says, "i is lazy to blame the 2004 contract. waning a contract that is nearly 10 years old ignores the problems recently." that is the problem about the contract. now let's talk about a problem even he cannot deny. the chief executive of the confederation said this -- " these pressures have been compounded by three years of structural reform." in other words, the top-down reorganization that nobody voted for. whatoes he not accept everyone in the health service knows? that top-down organization never did resources and betrayed the

nhs. diverted resources and betrayed the nhs. >> i am not quoting a line. i am pointing out the minister responsible for this, part of the problem. if people want to know went nhs under labor, they only have to look at the hospitals. if people want to know what is nhs underg with the labor now, they have to look at wales. that is the effect of labor in wales. he talks about reorganization. we have been scrapping yurok mercy and putting that that money to the front lines. at is why there are 18,000 , whatministers with jobs almost 6000 more doctors. will see a prime minister who cannot defend what is happening on his watch. at is the reality.

waiting on trolleys. operations canceled. safe in their hands. >> it is under this government that the number of doctors is up to read the numbers of operations are up. waiting times are down. isn't it interesting that in the week that was meant to be all about their economic relaunch, they cannot talk about their economic policies? now they want to scrap. they told us they wanted to keep child benefits, now they want to scrap child benefits. they told us they would be men of iron discipline, yet they said, do i think the large labor government was profligate? i do not think there is any evidence for that. on the economy, they are weak, they are divided, they are the same old labor.

>> mr. speaker, the people want a referendum on our relationship with the european union. will my right honorable friend welcome the private mandate brought forward by the honorable member? 2017.rendum by and will he and do as he asked thickly encourage all sides to vote for it when it comes forward? >> i certainly welcome the private members vote brought forward by my honorable friend. i think it is absolutely right to hold that in a referendum before the end of 2017. the interesting thing about today's newspaper is that half of the labor shadow cabinet now wants a referendum too. hands up. who wants a referendum? com eon.

do not be shy. why don't you want to let the people choose? the people's party does not trust the people. >> committing to tories spending plans, his greatest achievement -- [indiscernible] a lot betteran do than that. >> candace prime minister confirm that you will recall parliament before any action is taken to arm the syrian opposition during the recess? have never been someone who has wanted to stand against the house having a say on any of these issues. i have always been someone to make sure that parliament is recalled to discuss important

issues. let me stress that no decision has been taken to arm the rebels. i do not think this issue arises. i supported holding the vote on iraq in my premiership, when there was the issue of libya, i recalled the house and allowed the house to have a vote. if the issue does not arrive, because we have made no decision to arm the rebels. >> yet again, we have no answers from the prime minister who blames everyone but himself. .et me give him one more chance why doesn't he admit what everyone in the house knows, his free billion has diverted resources and he has betrayed his promises? >> the abolition of the bureaucracy that this government -- the pointbout

the honorable member has to take on, this government made a decision which was not to cut the nhs. we are putting 12.7 billion pounds extra into nhs. that decision was described as irresponsible. if labor was in power, they would be cutting the nhs. how do we know that? that is exactly what they are doing in wales, where they cut the nhs by 8%. you may not like it, but that is what it is. >> has the prime minister retained consistent representation of welfare reform? know that i have been the one on holiday in ibiza, but they have been the ones taking, how should i put it, policy- altering substances. first they are for child

benefits, now they are against child benefits. first they are for winter fuel allowance, now they want to abolish winter fuel allowance. only now do we find out that they not -- they might not go ahead with the policy of the scrapping child benefits. with the prime minister show us that the perspective film on onbying will include a ban people selling on downing street? >> what the bill on lobbying will do will have a register that has been promised and should be levered. it will also make sure we look at the impact of all third parties on our politics, including the state union.

>> does my right honorable friend agree that the actions of the european court of human rights, in reading our souls of terrorists, illustrates the extent to which its -- the court has betrayed its original principles. i wonder if you would update a house on what actions his government will take and the president of the court, who said that if we were to secede thomas it would put our record on human rights in doubt. it is this court that is in doubt and the way that it has treated the british people. >> i completely understand and share much of my honorable friend's frustration. we should remember that britain helped to form the court of human rights. it has played an important role in making sure europe has not suffered the abuses that we saw in the first half of the 20th century. it is absolutely clear that this court needs reform.

the former justice sector -- the former justice secretary led that reform and we have achieved some changes. we need further changes and we need this court to focus on real human rights issues and not overruling parliament. renewable energy interest, ready to invest, but they need certainty. mp's from all sides of the house voted for a/d carbonization target. decarbonization target. will you back british industry in green jobs? >> i understand completely the point that the honorable lady makes. i do agree that businesses need that. we have given them a levy control framework on over 7 billion pounds. they sign contracts and get the renewable obligations, we have given them the certainty of a green investment bank.

it does not make sense to fix the de-capitalization target before we have agreed to the budget and before we even know whether carbon capturing storageworks properly. the businesses i have talked to say that is not their priority. people convicted of offenses toinst children are opposed a prison sentence. will the prime minister fire judges who do not give them a prison sentence. is an important separation of powers. very dangerous road down which to go. we have very clear laws on how serious parliament thinks the offenses are and judges should pay heed to those laws. >> i am going to give you another chance to answer.

does he seriously land to give a parliamentary committee the right to block a public chance to vote on recalling a convicted mp? you want to have a process whereby constituents can call for the recall of the mp. because the main way we throw and he's out to parliament is through an election, there should be a cause for that recall to take place. that is why we have a standards and privileges committee and it has outside members and the committee has the power to andend mps in parliament expel them. we can debate this across the house. i think it would be right. before you trigger a recall, there should be some sort of censure by the house of commons in order to avoid attempts to get rid of those who are doing a reasonable job.

some believe government plans to replace 20,000 bridges with 30,000 reservists will prove a false economy. immobilization rates of 40%, the justice says we need 50,000. that we have raised this matter with the secretary of state, will he meet with us to discuss this and other concerns, including the wisdom of this policy in this increasingly uncertain world? >> i am always happy to meet with my honorable friend and discussed these and any other issues. the point that i would make is that, in the spending review, we produced 1.5 billion pounds to provide the list -- the uplift for the army that it requires. there is a difference between

reserves. it is essential that we get the improvement of our reserve forces. we point i would make is are going to have some of the best equipped or sis anywhere in the world. we will have new aircraft carriers for our navy, the hunter killer submarines, the joint strike fighter, the typhoon aircraft. when you talk about our friends in afghanistan, they are now better protected more than they have ever been in our history. does the prime minister pledged to lead against hunger at the u.n.? will it also extended to the eu negotiations on the future of the misdirected 10% directive on biofuels, which should be food for the poor?

does the prime minister recognized that that mandate raises food prices, compounding hunger and adding to carbon emissions? if you would like, i will bring the g-8 to northern ireland and hope that it would print -- provide a boost. i agree that we should not allow the production of biofuels to undermine food security. we want to go further than the european commission's proposal. there is considerable merit in what the honorable gentleman says. >> the weekend before last, there could have been a tragedy were it not for the brave efforts of our emergency services and the volunteer coast guard. can the prime minister join with ,e in thanking the coast guard in particular paul parker and

56 barkey for pulling out people for our country. >> they do an extraordinary job for our country. a are really one of the emergency services. i join her in paying tribute to those brave people. >> i wonder if the prime minister could assist me with a question that he has been unable to answer for the last two months. will the taxpayers money be used to guarantee the mortgages of citizens who buy property here? >> the chancellor will set out details of this. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to hear mr. davis.

i recently visited my brother defined that a television station near his bed would cost him six dollars per day. why does it cost hospital patients $42 or week to watch a television? >> as somebody who spends a lot of time in hospitals, i absolutely share his frustration. it was the last government that introduced these charges in the year 2000. many an hour i have spent battling with that very obligated telephone and credit card system that you have to try to make work. local hospitals can now make themselves. , the right prisons honorable chancellor is doing something. he is taking the unacceptable situation inherited from the

labour party and is saying, you cannot do that anymore. also, making sure the prisoners pay if they used the television. >> does this slashing of the labor league budget, is this going to lead to the rights of the privileged. is this by design? first of all, everyone in the house has to recognize that we need to grapple with the legal aid will. even the labour party said they were going to look at the cost of legal aid. head, we spendr 39 pounds per head. eight zealand, they spend pounds per head. the total cost to the taxpayer of the top three criminal cases in 2011-2012 was 21 million

pounds. at a time we have to make difficult decisions, it is absolutely right to look at legal aid. we have put out the consultation. we can consider the responses carefully. we do need to make reductions. >> a loan of 50,000 pounds from hasregional growth fund helped create 12 jobs in just six months in manufacturing startup. with the manufacturing purchasers managing index at a 14 month high, and i encourage my right honorable friend to restore the uk as a manufacturing powerhouse? >> i am grateful to my honorable friend. there has been more welcome news about the economy as it continues to heal. we saw the services figures out today, the construction figures out yesterday, the growth

figures in the economy. the are making progress. but we have to stick to the plan, stick to the difficult decisions we are making. >> before the election, the prime minister said there would be no more reorganization in the nhs. later went on to say he would not lose control of departments. why does he keep making promises that he just cannot keep? >> he promised we would not cut the nhs. he would put extra money in. we are putting in 12.7 billion extra pounds. labor's official policy is to cut the nhs. , no,said that our policy it is not, we have a new health policy. honestly, so many u-turns they should be having a grand prix.

a&e staff shortages do not develop in just three years. will the prime minister look into why the downgrade is going ahead without the outcome of public consultation being considered in public either by the political commission group or the health and well-being group? >> any organization or reconfiguration has to meet the test that the health secretary very carefully set out. he is right to say there is no one single cause of the difficulties that we ace in a&e. one million extirpation's is a huge amount over the last three years. we have increased the funds, but there are big challenges to meet. will we need them by cutting the nhs, which was labor's policy? anothermeet them by

reorganization, which was labor's policy? no, we will not. we will manage the nhs effectively and continue to put money in. masquerading as a lobbyist and trapped as a tory mp. the prime minister has decided to launch an all-out attack -- >> he conveniently forgets to mention the labor tears -- laborteers. a problem. we do have to deal with that. all parliamentary groups, that needs to be looked at. as we promised in the coalition agreement, we will bring forward a register and we will also be bringing forward measures to make sure the units behave properly, too. >> may i commend my right honorable friend for the britishtion of the

newsgroup. now that the alternatives to try and study has concluded, there are no alternatives cheaper or more effective than trying. what are the reasons for delaying the decision so that the matter can be settled in this parliament? >> we have set out very clearly the steps that need to be taken before the decision was made. he knows i am strongly committed to the renewal on a like for like aces. that is strong for britain. in the coalition, a study has been carried out. i looked at the evidence on becoming prime minister, which is, i believe, you need that continuous posture. you need one based on cruise missiles and icbm's. i believe that is the answer and all the evidence points in the right direction. i visited them

in the langley state in my constituency and they are appreciative on everyone -- everything that has been said, particularly the state residents. there was a ceremony that was greatly attended. middleton people were able to pay their respects. will the prime minister join me in commending the people of middleton for their strong and sensitive report to the family during this very sensitive time? >> i will certainly join the honorable member in the great respect of support and solidarity that they have shown. it was an absolute tragedy, his death. there are many lessons we must learn from it. it is another moment for everyone in this house and country to reflect on the magnificent services that the men and women of our armed forces contribute to our country.

, my right and honorable friend, a world health organization metal to commend tobacco day. will he support the campaign for the passage of cigarettes? >> i missed the beginning of the question so i did not hear who got the metal. whoever it was, i would have certainly even an introduction to the queen's speech. i commend him or his metal. at the end of the policy, we know that issue. >> you have been watching prime minister's questions from the house of commons. it airs live every wednesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern when the house of country -- house of commons is in session and again sunday night on c-span. watch any time on c-span.org, where you can find past prime

minister's questions and other public affairs programs. next, a discussion on the primal -- the priorities and issues in president obama's second term as well as his legacy. after that, it is q&a with robin nagle. then, a chance to see david cameron take questions from the house of commons. auctions,incentive the voluntary auctions that are upon us now, i do think that the fcc has to steer this in a way that very small, medium-sized, and large companies are able to compete across the spectrum. and the idea that big fish swallow up little fish i do not think is healthy for our economy. they all have a business plan. obviously, they want to make money. when you look at the markets in

the country, 80% is owned in terms of the beachfront. the most valuable spectrum. spectrum is golden in our country. we have to do much more in order to pollution free it up. >> monday night on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> next, political analysts discussed the issues in president obama's second term, including immigration and the irs targeting of conservative groups. panelists include rock claim -- claine, and chris niedermayer. this is a little over one hour. >> thank you so much, i want to

thank the loyal georgetown alums for coming back, including members of our panel. i want to tell you as somebody who teaches here, the new generation of georgetown students is doing you proud. when i say i truly love georgetown, i can give you evidence for that, my wife is a georgetown grad, we got married at the chapel. we have a lot of parties in the public policy school in front of the chapel, my dean said, it must be nice to walk by where you get married. i said, it is. then i paused, and i said, and it's a good thing we're still married. i was thinking about today's panel, it's called cementing a legacy, it could be called a fool'ser rand, and it could be call that because determining a legacy at this point, an eighth into his second term, consider,

for instance, if we'd had such a discussion about ronald reagan in the midst of the iran- contrascandal, his legacy would be different. harry truman was extremely disliked when he left office and new republican -- and now republicans and democrats identify with his legacy. but in 35 seconds, to put what we might discuss, what might business legacy be, ending the great depression? the revolution in gay marriage, education reform, budget issues, notably the end of the bush tax cut for high income people and perhaps immigration, maybe even gun control.

in terms of his political legacy two victories built on high african-american turnout, gains aamong latinos, substantial margins among the young but democrats lost the house, had severe set bas in governorships in 2010 and state legislative losses gave the republicans control over redistricting which is going to strengthen them for a long time out. can obama's coalition be recreated? do demographic trends favor the democrats? where can the republicans chip away at obama's majority, choices on iraq, afghanistan, his latest speech on terrorism, drones, asia, the recent unpleasantness, i'm thinking of benghazi, iraq, and the i.r.s. and finally is there a philosophical legacy here? we have a lot to talk about even if our judgments today might not be exactly what they would be if we reconvened, and i hope we do, and i hope you all come back at the end of president obama's term. let me start with a broadly

general question, which is, and i'll start with my colleague chris, we have two chrises on the panel, i may refer to that chris as the fifth as he often referred to himself. he -- >> it's a contract. >> he refers to his son as fix jr. on his blog. so let me start with the fix and then work down the panel. which is where do you see president obama now and chris actually put a couple of issues on the table which, you know, in judging that, which include, you know, how does his style contribute to that and also how does the changing mood in washington since the days the class of 1983 was here. and ron, class of 1983, brought along his own cheering section, including his wonderful wife. >> always good to seed the audience.

where he is now is that he is the sort of best campaigner in the country by far. he's the best candidate we've seen. he is someone with real, whether you like him -- i always say this to people and almost everybody feels one way or the other, whether you like him or dislike, he was tremendous as a candidate. speaking ability is well known, unless people say what's tissue pay attention to it. but he's the first guy to raise $1 billion ever. he's someone who is very gifted at those things. i think he has struggled more and i think his aides including dan pfeiffer, who graduated my year and is now a senior advisor, would agree he has struggled more on the governance side of things. because i write a blog, i can hear people in the conference section saying he struggled because republicans have blocked him. that is in part true, though --

well, it's in large part true though i remind people then he was elected he had a democrat controlled house and senate. he could not get health care -- eventually got through but it was not how they would want it to have gone through. the stimulus went through with a few votes from republicans, one of whom wound up switching and becoming a democrat, arlen specter. the question as you go forward, barack obama if you read the span of his career and i urge you to read our colleague david maranas's book about obama and who he is, always has seen himself as someone who can bridge the ungridgeable -- unbridgeable gap. in his life in general, his life story is unbelievable, again whether you like him or dislike him, it's unbelieve thble that this kid, david went to indonesia and stood on the street barack obama lived on as a young kid and he was like, this is as far as you could

possibly be from being elected to the white house. that's a good way -- that's amazing that that person gets elected. but he's always been uniquely giffletted and feels hymn uniquely able to bridge unbridgeable divides and solve problems no one else can solve. when he ran in 2008 his premise in part was, the government is broken and i'm the one who can fix it. he has not so far done that. blame lies in a lot of places, including with republicans who found their voice in opposing him but again he made a big pledge, that he was going to change how washington worked. he has not yet done that. gun control is the latest example where, including by some of his own party he struggled. i think his legacy is up in the air as -- in materials of his governance record. his record as a candidate is hard to argue with.

he beat hillary clinton in a primary and then won, you know, 332 electoral vote, his electoral record is pretty good. >> chris? >> i think i'm the only panel member who lives currently way beyond the beltway and when i was a student here i remember, and then worked on the hill, i remember people referring to washington as 67 square miles surrounded by reality. i'm back in the hinterlands. those of you who may read my blog, straight scoop politics, know while i have run for office as a democrat, i'm an independent political analyst. i see any president who builds a legacy, there's two significant elements. one is the turf they're operating in and the second their leadership skills to get the job done in that climate. i recall and some of you may have worked, one of the beauties of going to georgetown, we have opportunities to work on the hill when we're going through school, i did that as an undergraduate here and at law school, that was in the 1980's and 1990's and the environment

down here was so different. the travel budgets for members of congress were low. many members stayed in washington over weekends. that was -- these are what i want to call the elements that made life more productive and efficient in government way back when. now it still was political but these were the elements. the travel budgets. members were here. you'd go into the restaurants on the hill and in churches on sunday, you'd see members around. on friday, killing each other on the floor of the house or the senate but buy by the time they had played cards over the weekend, very often on monday, not in all cases but very often they were able to cut a deal on something. number two, we didn't have these wonderful stations like c-span and the cable networks and because of that, there wasn't a 24/7 news cycle.

people who served in the house and senate and i knew this well when i was state legislator as well, you could take a tough vote and the president would be working with people who would take tough votes and they'd have time to go home and explain it to their constituents before they were being blasted all over their tv. and the third element is the money. campaign financing has skyrocketed and so back in those days, for a four-year presidential cycle, you had at least two years to work some things out that may be controversial and in a two-year congressional cycle you had at least the first year before it got super political. now as we all know that's hard. president obama has today's climate and that's tough. barack obama is not bill clinton. barack obama if you watched him as i have and i'm sure you have the last few years, he loved being the chairman of the board he doesn't really enjoy the nitty-gritty of being the c.e.o.

and running the country. bill clinton was very detail oriented. when i was a senate chief of staff he'd be working the phones cons tavently and knew the nuances of legislation. thanks to a georgetown grad who is now the chief of staff to the president, you know, he's been starting this routine by inviting the member of the house and senate to dinner but it's a little too late. you have to have built those relationships in the first term in order to build on that. and he hasn't. can it work? it can work but it's difficult to pick up when you're starting now. plus he, i don't know if you saw "the new york times" magazine section article, it was a few years back, it was too psychological for me but it talked about his upbringing and how his relationship or not relationship with his father affected his dealings with other people and makes them reluctant to really get close and work with members of congress. i don't know whether that is true or not because i don't know him that well.

but i know the leadership art of and the campaigning. we have seen him. the more he does that, the more it antagonizes the republican side and makes it tougher for him to cut a deal. he has to balance off that part of it. i don't want to go on too long. >> i have a very different perspective than chris and christine. one of the most significant in our time. first, there is the economic turnaround. you can agree or disagree with economic policies, but the naff the math on the numbers,

national wealth housing prices, and the greatest nominal reduction of any president in history. saving the auto industry and turning around the economy, that will be his legacy. then health reform. ending the time in our country where people could lose their homes and their bank accounts because they didn't have health care coverage, that is an achievement, a historic achievement. it ends a 100-year project beginning with president wilson about building a social safety net. workman's comp, the new deal, i think our social safety as a country is complete. i think that ended with president obama. i think that is a historic landmark. he ended three wars that began on september 11. the war in iraq, the war in afghanistan, and the war against al qaeda.

i teach on campus today. for children today, this is a war they have lived with since they were nine years old. without those wars to come -- with those wars coming to an end under this president, that is tremendous. we also have our first non-white president, but will be on that, what has happened in our inclusion of gay, and lesbian americans. gays are serving openly in our military, the inclusion of his antics as a significant part -- the inclusion of hispanics as a significant part of our politics. i think that inclusiveness, that change of the dominant paradigm in our society is also a

historic landmark. the economic turnaround health care, ending the wars, and the inclusiveness of people of color, gays, hispanics, all of this changes our society. i think those are four complaint week -- those are four complete historical outcomes. >> if i ever need a lawyer, i am going to hire ron maclean. although i wouldn't be able to afford it. [laughter] let me go back to the beginning on president obama. to me, there was always a potential contradiction in his original 2008 promise, even though you don't have to see it as a contradiction. on the one hand, he ran as a president who would bring red and blue together. there's no red american there's no blue america.

there is the united states of america. -- no blue america. there is the united states of america. it was structurally impossible from the day he walked into the white house. on the other hand, he promised to be a progressive reformer who would really change the country. indeed, on your list, notably, healthcare, dodd frank, and financial reform and some of the things that actually happened -- there was that sort of reform. but he has been caught between the two and judged often on the basis of one and not the other. at times, he seems to have made people on both sides unhappy. let me start with ron on that since you made the bold defense. >> i think the record and the historical achievements speak for themselves. i think a way in which we got some of these things was very different than the way president obama thought we would get to them in 2008.

i think there are a lot of reasons to compare him to woodrow wilson as a president. largely progressive achievements, but sometimes working with people on the right and sharply criticized by people in his own party and accused of being out of touch. although editorial cartoons at the time had president wilson has a professor lecturing the congress. however he has gotten it done -- and it has been it for and ways of working, sometimes just with democrats and sometimes across the aisle sometimes by executive action, and sometimes by commander-in-chief on the war, and setting the tone on the inclusiveness, i think he has got it done. >> incidentally, for those interested, a friend and colleague at the brookings institute wrote a wonderful essay comparing woodrow wilson and barack obama in suggesting, sort of detailing much of your case on this.

>> i don't disagree on ron's points on his achievement. people criticized him for moving off the stimulus and taking on health care. but he was record doing that. i think in time, while it is controversial now and we should be grasping at now more and talking about the implementation in a more positive light than he has recently, in time, that will be a major achievement. i do think that taking us from the verge of a fiscal cliff as we were in 2009 and sipping that is true. -- and saving that is true. but the cost issues, like the grand bargain, people want him to achieve on the deficit. it probably will not be achieved in the next three and a half to four years. it is a failure that i think the public, in the long-term, will regret that he didn't achieve. i think joe biden has been an

enormous asset. let's face it. he can take credit for being chief of staff there. i met joe when i was -- i had just gotten out of -- let's see i was in school getting ready to go out. he had just earned it in the senate and i interviewed in his staff. i didn't go to work for him, but i have known him for 30 years. right after the election last november, perfect example, with the sequestration pending, he is able to cut a deal with the republicans on the hill. he has the relationships that he was able to build and he did an excellent job. and i do think him on social deficit -- as most of us did watch the state of -- his second inaugural address in january, people were surprised that the general fizzle -- the general philosophical nature of it. but i think this is truly barack obama.

you want social justice come open doors come able playing field to be part of his legacy. -- he wants social justice, open doors, level playing field to be part of his legacy. there are still elements that could have been stronger if he was able to work on the hill better. >> i think president obama would agree with this. when he was elected in 2008, the expectations were impossible for anyone to meet. certainly on the left, the cut is in the center, but definitely on the left. it would have been impossible to have met them. close gitmo on november 7 and get all of the troops out on november 8 and we would have single-payer healthcare by

november 9. in reality coming and one who has worked on hill, that is not possible. so i think he suffered from the overwhelming nature of his victory. you would rather have an overwhelming victory than not, but it still set him up in some ways to fail no matter what he did. i think this is true with most politicians, especially with barack obama. there is a battle between pragmatist and idealist. at some level, there is a mix of that in all of us. i would say politicians are human. good to remember that. they have a set of motivations, too. i actually think he genuinely believed, when he was elected, that he, as a unique historical

figure, the way he was elected, who he was, his background, that he was someone who would be able to bring people together. and i think he did attempt to do that. i look act to the whole debt ceiling debacle -- i look back to the whole debt ceiling debacle. it fell apart. i can't remember what grand bargain was. it fell apart. barack obama goes and gives a statement and john boehner is a statement. both of them are very clearly worked up. you rarely see emotions at that level politics. they are good at not making clear how angry they are. that is one of those things that they get better at. >> they are good at masking emotion. asked that especially of -- >> but especially obama. he was generally annoyed and that gives 25 -- that gives way to frustration. then he took a different and more successful electoral path, i think.

he was no longer willing to reach out. his reelection rates are coming up and there were a lot of other factors. but he turned into a much more successful politician from that point on because i think he listened to what ron and what other folks in the administration were saying, which is that you think the republicans are waiting to find something that they want to work with you on and they are not. i know for a fact from people in he administration. i would argue he was more effective in terms of hitting what he wanted done and the message he wanted out there from august 2011 and certainly until november 2012. actually through the fiscal cliff and through the better part of this year. >> i want to ask each of you a different question.

by the way, on the fiscal cliff come i do think that the whole negotiating style became controversial. if i want to negotiate a new house or a new car for my will not ask the obama administration o help negotiate for me. >> liberals always criticize the president, saying that he negotiates with himself. he starts where he wants to end. he wants a deal. there's a very pragmatic part of them. if you as an ideologue, he wouldn't have opted out to ublic money. hey raised $750 million. he is not a pure ideologue.

he is smart politically and he makes those decisions. this is pragmatic. but he wants to find common ground. it is just a question if there is common ground to be found. >> i will open this up to you all. when i come to you, speak your question as loudly -- we do have two and a from the audience. oh. >> there are several 1998 college grads here who are the deeply informed. they are not just here because 'm here. >> forgive me for not looking at y briefing book. this is a kind of governing question. if you look at two potentially

regulated and law, the healthcare act and dodd frank, so much of the legacy is to be determined by regulation and implementation. and the healthcare law is particularly vulnerable because so much of it is through the state. the plan is hostage to a lot of forces hostile to it. we were speaking about these two hings going forward. >> obviously, there are significant legislative achievements. but the devil is in the details. there's a lot of work left to be done. that said, i do think that there is a certain inevitability to the way in which healthcare will rollout, no matter how the republicans try to resist.

medicaid got a lot of resistance from the states. by now it is such an incredibly bedrock part of our health care system that even the most conservative republican governors won't roll back the core medicaid. i think what you will see is the affordable care act get implemented in most of the states. there will be a few holdouts. they will look around them and people in other states will have healthcare coverage and it will be working and prices will go down. and people will want that. i think momentum in time will grind this out. on dodd frank, it is a very complex law. you it moved to deal with some of it will stop some parts of it, but not yet. but this is a big project for the president and his white house in this term, in the second term, taking a lot of things they got done in the first two years and bringing them to their full fruition in his final four years.

and how that comes out will color, at least in the short term, how his legacy is perceived. although i do believe come in the long run, time and history s on their side. >> you are on the hill going back to 1979. this relates to the question i want to ask. the change in the republican party and how that has had such a large effect on president obama's term. i agree with you on all the factors you cited about people not going to little league games together. i do think it is a terrible mistake for the country that people don't move here, not because i want to further jack up watching the real estate prices, but because it has created more of a break. but fundamentally, it is an ideological break, not any other kind.

talk about the change, not in light of personal relations, but a shift in ideology. as you know, from reading all of those comments underneath your -- you can talk about comments, oo, but -- a lot people come back at the media -- i am on the iberal side myself -- we pretend that there is equal, that each party is equally different from the center. and that is just not true. i want you to address that. chris can talk about the change. again, not personality and feelings, but ideology. as more people know, the republican party was a much broader tent back then. there was a precise moderate segment of the republican party, even moderate liberals. in connecticut, we have six comments men and three were republican and three were democrats and and some of the

republicans were fairly moderate and liberal. my opponent when i ran for congress was the last remaining republican in new england in the congressional legation. -- congressional delegation. bob dole has recently said that there's no room in the republican party for moderates anymore. that has affected significantly their ability to get a national coalition. last summer, it was just -- i could see partial pieces moving around in the obama campaign. they had the gay lesbian issue. they had the healthcare money for catholic and non-catholic institutions issue among going to the women's vote. they had immigration. when you have the republican party sitting there watching it all and not able to address that because had alienated women on issues, alienated hispanic on issues.

now you talk about the legacy cometh immigration passes all, many say it will basically because president obama supports it, but it's important, but once the republicans in marco rubio take the lead on it, the republicans will get some credit for it and get some credit from the hispanic sector for the next presidential election. he women's vote, to make democratic presidential candidates have gotten it the last few times repeed bli. -- repeatedly. the republicans have lost on that. they need to figure out an agenda to pick that up as well. the fact that their positions have become more right wing, the fact that they don't have that mainstream segment of the party the way they used to come i think that diminishes their ability to put together a coalition to win the national women's vote.

>> i think michele bachmann's retirement this week is a good example. her defenders -- and there are some -- doing >> how many? >> i don't think her defenders would say that this is a person who left a lasting imprint on congress. she ran very briefly for congressional leadership. it was literally a one-day campaign and she dropped out because she would get 30 votes and her opponent would get 200 votes. but i do think her model is an interesting one in which the ability of a back and member of congress -- true of a republican or democrat -- to be a national figure based on some combination of -- i think she has a certain amount of willingness to say somewhat controversial things, social media, cable -- there is a hold different avenue that exists. you can become a national figure.

in the 1980s, there is no michelle bachmann in that regard. here's no way. you can't get there where you can now. ted cruz is someone who has expressed zero interest in legislating. he says congress does too much. i think we should do less. he has become a big figure in the party by doing less. marco rubio is in the game on immigration. it goes in a way that looks bad. there is a way in which people consume politics and media has drastically changed the way you can rise and fall. >> we have empowered the audience. thank you so much. we are going to turn to you. but on the one hand, whenever people say things are way worse outcome i go back and say, well,

they did impeach bill clinton. this is hardly a friendly act. on the other hand, things are -- [laughter] n the other hand, things are quite different. even from the 1990s until now. can you talk about party and media and then we will open it p to the audience. >> when i want to persuade the students that i am very old, i tell the story. when i went to the clinton white house in 1996, the washington post was going to break a olitics changing story, that there was chinese money and our local system. it would really transform the 1996 campaign. and it did in some ways. but we did was sat in the yellow oval room of the president's residence and we waited for some person to come back from "the washington post" loading dock and bring us a bulldog edition

of "the washington post" so we could find out what was in the story. that was 1996. ot 1896, not 1986. so they really should -- so a relatively short time waiting for someone to walk a newspaper back to the white house to today where i haven't read what chris has posted in the last seven minutes puts me out of date in american politics. >> that is exactly how chris s. the pace of all of this is changed. it is also a lot more democratic. it was also true in 1996, if you wanted to know what was going on in american politics, you had to e in washington. now if you are sitting in a place in america, you have equal access to what chris writes on twitter, on facebook, on his

blog in a way that has broadened access to political access. cable, all these things. it is more of a national conversation than it was 20 years ago. back then, it was a conversation with in the beltway. i'm sure that there are negative things about that, in terms of polarization. but there are a lot of positive things come a more open system in terms terms of a national conversation than 20 years ago. >> big mainstream media companies, including "the washington post" are dealing with it. ut also in the democratization on the content, too. >> i can't tell you how old i'm feeling. rex there is a leveling. back then it was "the wall street journal," "the new york times," "ap," and now people say

who is your competition? anybody who can type onto the internet, which is basically everyone at this point. that is an oversimplification, but it is in fact true. i do think that is a great for journalists. we are way more accountable than used to be. the usage of the people would say that story generated a lot of talk. there were two letters to the editor. now, you have instantaneous -- i get one thing wrong or i misspelled the name of a character in "game of thrones" n my twitter feed, i get responses immediately. most of these people live in their parents' basement. that's fine. that is a respectable right. i think it helps keep us on our toes in a positive way. there is a lot of vitriol out there that you have to put up with, but it keeps us on our

toes. that is a thing ultimately for everything that we are all after. >> it does keep us jobless on our toes. but when you're footing the public -- when you are flooding he public and for people who are raising a family trying to separate the wheat from the chaff and you have officials sitting there at getting things just on the gun vote and the nra for there is a lot of information and misinformation out there, it makes it tougher for public officials to take those votes when they are getting feedback from people who may not have the full information on issues. >> i will make one observation and then turned to the first question from the audience. i love the new technology and i ike to use it. but i think new media make

spreading truth more efficient but they also make spreading untruths more efficient. it is a really interesting problem for all kinds of media and for citizens right now. eventually, there is a collecting process. always thought, when something really bad about someone get out there and it is totally untrue, they never fully shed it. it is always in the back of people's heads, even if it is wrong. i still think that is a problem. >> can you imagine a decade ago, the president going into the briefing room with a copy of his birth certificate? it is remarkable the power. and i still get e-mails from people -- have you seen the birth certificate? i don't spend a lot of time on that topic. that the power of it is remarkable. >> you mentioned early on that we would get to things like benghazi and the irs. i wonder if we can turn to that eal quick.

i think the administration is trained to present an image that republicans are making a mountain out of a mole hill. but the simple facts are that there was a terrorist attack on sovereign u.s. soil right before the election. and there clearly was some attempt to try to divert attention from what happened for olitical purposes due to president obama, specifically secretary of state clinton leaving the homeland unprotected. that and the sea was left unprotected. i wonder how that will continue to play out. specifically, i am interested in what my friend ron queen things. and whether that will affect obama's legacy or whether it is

a speed bump and moves into history. i also have a similar question regarding the irs issue. >> we will assume the irs is part of this discussion. do you want to answer first? >> obviously, it was a horrible tragedy at benghazi. i think the the brave people who ere there try to protect the diplomats, several of them lost their lives and wouldn't say the facility was unprotected. it certainly was a predictable -- protected enough. they have conducted a full review what went on and trying to protect our emcees to keep that from happening again. there is a lot of noise among us in capitol hill. it had a lot more to do with the

republican views of hillary clinton's 2016 candidacy than issues about embassy security. but i hope we do get a better embassy security policy out of this. i hope we do more to prevent those kinds of incidents from happening in the future. >> the irs, obviously, we need to get to the bottom of that one. we need to see who gave the orders and why there appears to be an uneven this in the enforcement of these rules and regulations. i think it is too soon to say why that happened. whether there was evidence in the white house to give orders or suggestions that people do that, i don't think this is a scandal that touches in the in the white house where the president or senior officials in the administration. he is president of the united states. he is responsible for the conduct of the government and what officials are doing under his authority and the irs is part of that. and he has to clean it up and straighten it out and fix it.

i hear people talking about restoring confidence in the irs. i don't remember a time when there was a lot confidence in the irs. but every american has a right to be equally skeptical about the iris, whether you are liberal, conservative or a -- about the irs, whether you are liberal, conservative or a oderate. >> i once wrote a column on april 15 praising the men and women of the irs. probably the least popular column i have ever written in my life. who wants to take either benghazi or the holy or otherwise story of benghazi. >> i just want to say that these are important -- ron has mentioned the physics of each, but is are important events that distract the administration from focusing on what they want to focus on. there's no surprise that obama gave a each on the shifting

towards terrorism in his speech the other day. in terms of benghazi and the irs and the department of justice and ap, those are the three or four issues lately -- i agree with ron wholeheartedly. once the e-mails cannot come it was pretty clear that the administration wasn't trying to hide anything. i think this is really about 2016 and all about keeping hillary's feed to the fire and discourage her from running. in terms of the irs and the president, a major poll was taken after those three stories were in the headlines every day. president obama had a 52% approval rating. it didn't seem to affect his job approval rating. the i arrest's reputation -- the

-- i.r.s.'s reputation was still in the tank. and republicans on the hill were oing what they should do to at and republicans on the hill were doing what they should be doing. i don't think any of these groups should have tax exempt status. but that is a separate issue. in terms of the -- the irs has the ability to connect with eople. so we can relate to what goes on there. until all the facts come out, how much the white house knew, there does not seem to be any connection to -- connection between the white house and what happened at the iris. the -- at the irs.

the ap is an important issue. it is safe to say that you can find republicans now who are the -- libertarians. in terms of a subpoena, ap should have been told in advance. but i don't know the intricacies. but it is sort of an inside the beltway sort of issue than an issue that appeals broadly to the public. from a political standpoint, it is important for the white house to get beyond these things and get back to them fomenting healthcare and dealing with immigration and some of the ther issues. >> the 54 tax act and 501 c4's should be exclusive for welfare purposes. the regulation five years later interpreted that, as

interpreting your marriage vow going from exclusively to primarily. [laughter] whatever happens here, and we should find out, they messed up interpretation and an unclear regulation is at the heart of this problem. we have another gentleman or lady over here. >> gentlemen, i hope. laughi wanted to raise the issue of foreign policy in a broader sense. as a focal point, a book about form policy is really the critical of the administration. taking it to task to summarize that it has a lack of vision and

that our foreign policy, and in them or 10, is in a sense of drift. -- in an important sense, is in sense of drift. >> ronald, you should talk about it. you know more about foreign policy than i do. >> why don't you start? >> sure. because the economy -- president obama has acknowledged that when he came into office that the economy was worse than he thought. any time the economy matters emma when it matters, it is most always when it is truggling. it took so much time, that and health care, in first chairman that, in truth -- i won't say -- i don't want to say that foreign policy got left the hind, because it didn't come about i think that it didn't get attention.

they understood that is what people cared about. i gave speeches a few years ago in europe and it was really ool. the first question they always ask is what does america think of brussels? and i told them, the average american is not thinking about russels. the truth is, when the economy is in tough shape, we rarely look beyond our shores. not everybody, but the majority of people. normally, that is doubly true when the economy isn't doing well. i think the president recognized that reality will stop you're likely to see more -- that reality. you're likely to see more.

afghanistan, iraq, the capture and killing of osama bin laden, these are not broad mix and go hings. these matter in real and serious ways. do i think they focus more on domestic policy? yes. do you think americans want them to focus more on domestic policy> bsolutely. course i think the president's focus on war on terror was the form policy. f you have a child in college, every day, that child, since nine years old, americans have been in combat. we have cadets on campus. when they should appear as freshmen, they thought they were leaving here to go command troops in, it in iraq and afghanistan. next year, we will have no americans in combat. it will be home.

that is a foreign-policy issue. -- achievement. the below attack the country on nine/11 -- on 9/11, the sound elated, he has been killed. that is a significant part of oreign-policy. i know there are folks who want to see us do more nationbuilding n afghanistan. there are folks who want to see us do more nationbuilding in iraq. but i think the president has made a priority of doing what we could do responsibly and reasonably. americans but more than a decade of their sons and daughters and tens of billions of dollars in those two countries and i think the president made a responsible choice. it is time now for the people of those two countries to take over and bring our troops and our people home. i think that is certainly a centerpiece of president obama's oreign policy. i think he is doing a lot to rebuild our relationships around

the world. there has been a lot of big form policy issues in the first four years, world economic cooperation in dealing with the economic troubles of the eurozone and working closely with leaders over there. i think there will be renewed focus in the next two years of our relationship with china and they turned to asia. it will be a very significant part of our foreign-policy in the next three years. hopefully, at the outset, we are brief and to the president's second term. three years from now, we will look back on what the president did to engage china and work with china on issues and it will be a big part of his foreign-policy legacy. >> i think your question is a good one. it is significant that the resident of the council of foreign relations, an old friend of mine, has written a book

called "foreign-policy begins at home." that is the last thing that you would expect him to write. he wrote that book because he argues and i think this is an instinctive wrong -- instinctive among them -- instinct among americans are now that we have to get things right at home and make adjustments. i think there is a war weariness in the country. you see it in the polls on syria will stop there is a lot of relief support for more intervention in syria. there's not a lot of popular support. we are in one of those times where we believe we need to strengthen ourselves in fundamental ways at home in order to preserve our power for the long run. but it is a very interesting book. one more question from the udience. where is the mic? it's right up there.

thank you. >> i would like to thank georgetown university today for putting together such a ideologically rigorous panel. we have a liberal journalist on the left, the partisan hack with ron in the know, the former democratic candidate for some office sitting to his left. and we have the centrist. i would like to thank them for putting together an ideologically rigorous panel. looking back at the way we look at presidents, we look back at bill clinton is the first black president, whether jokingly or not. we look at george w. bush is the first legacy president. there are some similarities between bush and obama that have ot been discussed day. -- today. they probably both would be where they were today without who their father was. second of all, i would also say that a lot of the issues that really affect their future, --

affect our future, the bottom line is we have probably a president who is overmatched a little bit with the size and scope of the federal government. how do we keep track of all the things that are going on? how my supposed to know what is going on in all of these offices in cincinnati and benghazi? there are all of these things oing on? i think he's right. obama will probably be remembered as someone who is a first affirmative action president, who won the resident because of the color of his skin rather than anything else. i would like to discuss that point. the question is -- do you think hat obama is the first affirmative action president? cracks before we get to that, i personally take some affect -- some offense to the question, but i appreciate it.

we did have a staunch conservative who had to cancel at the last moment. so georgetown does care about ideological diversity. cap buchanan and my course and -- i do believe in. old diversity. -- i do believe in philosophical [applause] diversity. the gentleman raises a series of questions that i think could allow us to sort of offer some closing comments on the obama legacy. let me start with chris. >> let me answer the question as asked. i think barack obama's

background, an african father, a white mother, largely raised by his grandparents in hawaii did clearly come in the same way that my background as a dad who is a teacher and a mother who is in healthcare raised in connecticut, our background mpacts who we are. do i think he was elected because he is african-american? i wouldn't agree with that. i think he was elected in large part some combination of who he was and who people believed he represented, which i think a lot of people represented the merican story. and you can debate how much it was, 50/50 or 20-80. or that his name was not george w. bush and it did not have an r fter it.

what if they nominated mitt romney? i don't think it would have made a huge difference. but it is a broad question that you raise as it relates to size of government. it is sort of the crux of the ongoing debate that we have in this country between the two parties. bill clinton very famously declared the era a government over. a democrat. i think barack obama was elected at least in part -- people love to a rack -- to iraq as a thing that brought george bush own. if you look at the numbers, they would suggest that hurricane katrina and the handling of that coupled with iraq helped ring it down. president obama was elected at least in part to bring back confidence in competency -- to bring back competency and to do things that should be doing.

people have in their minds what the government should do. should the government provide health care? we would have to raise your taxes to do that. ell -- we have a very contradictory to the two. there is a libertarian strain, particularly among younger people. they want government out of their personal lives. yet, when the moore, oklahoma happens or hurricane sandy happens come even a majority of republicans said that we should not offset the money that goes to hurricane -- excuse me turn a to really come it doesn't needs to offset it with the federal budget. so there is this constant battle. i don't envy people from barack obama on down who have to deal with this. f impart your job is to lead

and to channel the desires and wants of the populace, i don't know that this country knows what they want. you know, bob dole got a lot of attention saying that they should close the republican party for pairs. -- for repairs. he said that the american people don't really know what they want and that is kind of the problem. yes, leaders and politicians are supposed to lead. but they are also elected officials come elected by us to carry out our desires, hopes, dreams come ambitions, keep us from our fears, etc., etc. those things are often complement -- contradictory at the moment and that is why you see this massive polarization between people who think that president obama is the greatest president ever and who people think that barack obama is among the worst presidents ever. >> is has made a lot of good points that i agree with. i won't go on at length.

to get back to part of your question. you answered most of his. i still think the legacy of barack obama is tied into the economic cliff of 2009 and the ealthcare initiative and opening up opportunities in a broader sense in social justice. i think he is more than an affirmative action president stop but i remember how people said in the last election how people in the united states could elect a person of color. on the person who said he ran for something. i represented a republican district in the connecticut legislature. i had a coalition of moderates. i was one of the early members of the dlc, which is what though clinton and al gore organized, but i remember saying cash base to speak to young women all the time when i was elected at the age of try seven andes to speak

at high schools and some eighth-graders -- at age when he seven to speak to high school students and some eighth graders. we all seem to believe that a man of color would be elected to the white house before a woman would. perhaps it transforms us to the next that in thinking that we might elect a woman in this country the next time around so that people are more comfortable with that. [applause] >> is my reunion and i am in a good news, so i will try not to take offense to a statement that was offensive. if the suggestion is that somehow president obama is not up to the job because he is african-american it is particularly offensive. well, to call him an affirmative action president, i'm not sure what that means. it is suggestion is that being black is a huge advantage in american politics, then i doubt you would be the first -- he

would be the first black president. we would have so few black members of congress and few black governors. but he is a person who graduated from columbia university, not quite georgetown, but still a very good school. [laughter] he was president of the harvard law review, so not quite georgetown law school, but a very good law school. he went on to serve with distinction in the u.s. senate and as our president and i think there's no question about this man's intellect and ability and achievements. you can dispute his. -- you can dispute his policies. i know there is a passionate disagreement about the points i met and whether or not you agree with health care reform or dodd frank or the ways in which we saved the auto companies and turn the economy around, whether or not you agree with national security things. but his talent, his attitude, his skills and passion that he has brought to the job come i

think they are very hard to dispute. in terms of the more specifics, as i said, he inherited a huge deficit. there was no grand bargain, but between policies of cuts and increases in revenues, sequester, for better or worse, heading down the deficit to three percent gdp. he is getting it under control. bottom line, we see the improvement in the economy and we see the other legacy items. but do i think the obama presidency is a historic one, i do. obviously. it is historic for who he is and what he represents, the kind of change he has wrought to the country, his accomplishments. and i look forward to being back here in three years when this is all over and debating it all again. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> i just want to say three quick things in closing. my favorite response of a politician who is dealing with a

crowd that was really coming at them was barney frank in a very difficult town meeting. he finally looked up and he said, look, we politicians are no great shakes, but you voters are no day at the beach either. [laughter] i always loved that line. the second point, the passion and some of the conversation here reflects the fact that we americans are that we have two sets of ideas. one is community and solidarity and the others that about liberty and individualism. and that we are constantly looking for the right balance between those two sets of values and that we happen to be having a good titular lead sharp debate right now in the country. what in the end come i think is good for us to remember that we are best off when we find the right talents between the two rather than put one set or the other set aside. i want to thank this

distinguished panel of georgetown analysts and this distinguished georgetown audience. [applause] one of the great things about teaching here and being a student here is the extraordinary diversity of view among students and among graduates. and that view is expressed intelligently and well tutored by our jesuits and those who follow in a great tradition. thank you so much for being here. [applause] >> that was cool. national captioning institute]

>> tomorrow on "washington journal." assistant secretary of defense discusses u.s. defense policy in the middle east and europe. we look at the health care laws for adults under the age of 26. and we examine the cost of operating u.s. military bases overseas. washington journal live at 7:00 .m. eastern on c-span. >> the famous passage in one of his novels, for every southern

boy 14 years old or older, it is still 1:00 in the afternoon back in 1863. they can in their imagination say this time, maybe this time victory, independence. so in the minds of, i think both northerns and southerns this became the mythic moment of victory and defeat. >> the 150th at versery of the battle of -- anniversary of the battle of gettys burg. >> last week rent flake gave his first address on the senate floor. it's about 10 hints.

>> as the new senators are to be seen and not heard until they delivery their maiden speeches on the senate floor. this mad dam president i'm doing today -- madame president i'm doing today. i may have been well advises for the first fews month months of service to avoid the thongs that con grate. politicians can only heed so much advice. for the past 12 years, it was my ivilege to serve a body that

has its own precedents. the house is governed by the majority rule. one party can have a majority of one or two and virtue of the rules still maintain control of that body. during my time in the house, i had the experience of being in the majority and in the minority, all things equal, i prefered the former. i understood the power yielded by being in the majority is fleeting. that is as it should be. the senate, on the other hand, is a body governed by consensus. the party holding the gavel is on a short leash. for even the most noncontroversial resolutions to the senate floor requires the -- of the minority party. over the past decades both peats have chafed under these arrangements. both have at times considered

changing the rules that would in some way make the senate more like the house. both parties have wisely reconsidered. the house has rules appropriate for the house. the rules of the senate, frustrating to the party that happens to yield the gavel are appropriate for the senate. i come to this point with great appreciation for the arizona senators who have proceeded me. the 48th state in the union, the arizona celebrated its centennial just last year. they had sent just 10 senators to this body. the ones that came before me left more than an impression than simply carving their names in this desk. matched is body have the longevity of karl and few have had impact of the man who

launched the conservative movement. i find it an honor to follow in the sfoot steps of john kyle who made our nation more secure. my constituents call the same telephone number i answered as an intern. i learned a great deal obama constituent service. w, i have the great honor of serving with john mccain who as a prisoner of war. he has served the country and the senate honorably . fortunately, for all of us his service to this institution continues. it is my great privilege to serve with him. our problems that we face are growing. some receive aid and comfort

rom countries with long held grieveance toward the united states. other terrorists take advantage of failed states and lawless regions to hatch their plans. it is not just individual terrorists that we have to worry a. countries unbound by the norms now threaten the peace. today our concern is primarily north korea.an and one country is one election from boiling over into regional or international instability. here at home, our situation is dire. we spend more than we take in. worse yet, we have no serious plan to remedy the problem in any structural way. we seem to endlessly lurch from crisis and back again that

erodes the confidence of markets and invite the disdain of our constituents. it is unable that with two-year election cycles the house of represents begin to focus on the next election as soon as one is finished. in the house, difficult issues are avoided or shelved into the next election. here in the senate, we have six-year terms. senators, therefore, should come with an added dose of courage to take up the thorny issues on which the other chamber takes a pass. it is our responsible to lead. if there was ever a time for this body, this chamber, the united states senate to lead this is it. i am a proud and unpoll getic conservative and republican and i hope my votes will reflect that philosophy. i'm not suggesting that we hold hands and agree on every issue

or even most issues. there are profound and meaningful differences between the parties. but i want to spend more time exercising my franchise while debating the legislation itself and less time on deciding if such legislation should be debated on the senate floor. there is a time and a place for using super majority rules to block legislation and or nominees from coming to the senate floor. there is a time and place for partisanship but not every time and not every place. this country easterns for a functioning senate. functioning or a senate. this country yearns for a senate that exercises its pregnant terrogatory tive as par it's

irst branch of government. domestically the abuses of the i.r.s. and other federal agencies stands as exhibit a for more robust and oversight. recent presidents, both republican and democratic have exercised itself foreign arena far beyond that contemplated for a commander in chief. often obligating future congresses to future commitments beyond security arraignments. a bare functioning senate would not count what is left of its authority. now is not the time for this institution to retreat into irrelevance where the sum is to sign off on to another continuing resolution to fund the government for another six

months. where prioritizing spending cuts is avoided by invoking another sequester. we've been there, done that. it's time now for the senate to lead. encouraging signs we may be moving into this direction. was r this year a budget passed by the chamber. it was not a budget that i preferred but i was given ample opportunity to debate that legislation as my republican colleagues, we came up short. at least the senate got back to regular order. immigration reform has been and will remain a complex issue with members holding strong views on many of its facet. thror row l having a vetting in the committee will have a chance to come to the

floor. his is the way it should work. to conclude, in the few days -- a few days after last november's election, the 12 newly senate freshman were invited to the national archives. we were taken to the legislative vault where we viewed the original signed copies of the first bill enacted by congress as well as other landmark pieces f legislation. legislation signed by war soldiers, documents and art facts were also on hand. for s an affirmation to me which our ship has sailed for more than 200 years. we've had many brilliant individuals at the helm and trimming the sails along the way. we've had personalities

ranginging from immediate occur to relavent. any recing of our history and prospects will note that we've survived more daunting challenges that we now face. this is a durable, resilient system of government designed to with stand the challenges. it is an honor of a lifetime to be here in this institution. more than i could ever hoped for. my modest hope going forward is that my contributions will in some small way honor the story past and help it realize its full potential as the world's most deliberative body. thank you and i yield the floor. >> the senate returns to work on monday to continue debating a comprehensive immigration measure that creates a path to

citizenship for most of the estimates 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the united states. the bill aims to crackdown on hiring of illegal workers and place caps on veeza saudi arabias for workers. the committee approved the bill last month 13-5. the senate is concourse to complete a reauthorize of farm policy. a final vote on that at 5:30 p.m. vice president bide listen reenact the ceremony in the chamber. live coverage of the senate when they return in c-span. the house is in briefly in session at 3:00 p.m. "q&a."

then prime minister david cameron takes questions from the british house of commons. then more on the civil war in syria and the future of that country. > as the auctions, voluntaryahi -- ons that areaii [unintelligible] i do think that f.c.c. has to steer this in size and large companies compete relative to spectrum. the idea that big fish swallow up little fish is not healthy rh our economy. all have a business plan, obviously, they want to make money. when you look at the markets in the country, 80% is owned in terms of the beachfront, the most valuable speck strum.

spectrum is gold until our country and we have to do much in order to loosen and free it up. >> the f.c.c. spectrum auction monday night on the communicators on c-span2 at 8:00 eastern. >> the famous passage in one of the novels he said for every southern boy 14 years old or older it's still 1:00 in the afternoon on july 3, 1863. the charge hasn't happened yet. it's all on the line and in their imagination say this time maybe this time victory, independence. so in the minds of, i think both northerns and southerns, northerns at the time but southerns more in retrospect this became the mythic moment of victory and defeat.

>> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettyberg. on american history tv on c-span3. >> this week on "q&a," author and new york university professor robin nagle. her new book entitled "picking up: on the streets with the sanitation workers of new york city." >> robin nagle, why did you want to drive a garbage truck? >> i was curious about sanitation in new york. also around the world, but i was here. after some time hanging out with sanitation workers, getting interviews, classic