the navy, air force, army, marines than american diplomats. >> this weekend, the history of u.s. diplomatic efforts in the middle east and his call for a return to diplomacy. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. ld you define the american dream? he traces the american dream. the great depression through the 21st century. change the story when the truth is more exciting? foundings of the fathers at noon eastern. >> a round table discussion from the representative for center for american progress and cato institute on a number of issues, including immigration, efforts to repeal the nation's health care law, and gun control. from today's "washington journal." host: we are going to talk now about an interesting issue thanksgiving developing around

the country as it relates to state's sovereignty. these are the reactions by states to federal law and what the states are trying to do about it in some cases. our guests this morning at the table are ilya shapiro of the cato institute. he's a senior fellow for constitutional studies, good morning. >> good morning. >> we are also joined by ian millhiser senior constitution policy analyst, appreciate your time. let me try to set this up by reading the beginning part of a politico piece published recently. and the piece says that infuriated by what they see as the long arm of washington reaching into their business, states are increasingly telling the feds keep out. bills that would negate a variety of federal laws have popped up this year in the vast yorte of states with the amount of anti-federal legislation sharply oun the rise during the obama -- sharply on the rise

during the obama administration. mr. millhiser, get us started what kind of laws? guest: you have to go back to the early terrorist of the united states to understand what we are talking about so once upon a time we were 13 colonies and when we won the revolutionary war these were really 13 different countries. the supreme court was very aggressive about 100 years ago. there was a question of whether some things like social security would be constitutional. now you are seeing some states who are saying they want to go back on that deal when they made when they became a union. the states should be allowed to overrule federal laws they don't like. that's a serious problem. james madison at one point warned if we allow this it could bring an end to the union

because if federal law isn't supreme and the constitution says it is the supreme law of the land, we aren't a union in meaningful sense. host: what laws are we talking about? guest: across a whole host of policy areas, whether it be health care, resistance to obamacare, whether it be to immigration and not wanting to endorse federal law, being more strict or less strict. marijuana, medical marijuana, other things, different policies that states have different from the federal policy gun control. they don't want federal agents trying to enforce federal laws. we have to separate out what issues are in play here because states do not have to enforce federal law. the federal government cannot force them to do so. the supreme court has been clear on that. what states cannot do is stop federal officers from enforcing frl law. states can't pass a law that as ian said, nullifies federal law. the question is whether a given area is the proper subject of

legislation or authority by the federal or the state government. and that's when you have court battles like we saw with obamacare that just concluded last year. host: you mentioned several issues. who is putting this forth? from the left? from the right? from somewhere else? >> it tends to happen from both sides depending on who is in power in washington. now because the obama administration has been in power for five years, generally conservative republican lawmakers around the states that want to resist federal incursion on their sovereignty. we also heard news this week for example in new orleans, the authorities there, the local authorities, not state authorities, are not going to cooperate with the federal government on immigration detentions. they don't have to enforce, they do have to allow the federal government to do their job. host: ian, how does this pushback work? what is the process for nullifying federal law? guest: it's important to draw a

clear law between two concepts that ilya just raised. nullification is when a state tries to tell the federal government it's not allowed to enforce its own law. the most extreme example they'll say it's the f.b.i. tries to come in and enforce the law, the state will try to arrest the february february. what is allowed if a state says it's not going to contribute to something. a state decides that it doesn't want to help enforce federal immigration law, it doesn't want to prosecute marijuana offenders, if they want to do it, that's fine. they have to pass a state law saying that's what they want to do. if they want to nullify, i mean you have some state legislatures that are trying to pass nullification laws, but those laws are void. they are unconstitutional. they conflict with the provision of the constitution that said that federal laws was the supreme law of the land. and so in both cases it's normally done through the ordinary legislative process,

but only one of those two things that i just described is actually allowed under our constitution. host: let me put the phone numbers on the screen and read them for folks listening to their sets or by radio. here are the numbers, republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 585-3880. independents, 202-558-3882. talking about the idea here of nullification, the effort in some states to nullify federal law. the larger discussion here about state sovereignty versus federal law. our guests are ian millhiser senior constitution policy analyst for septemberer for american progress. and ilya shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the cato institute. so a broader question before we get to calls, starting with you, mr. shapiro, how big is this effort? how much bigger is it going to get? in the ell, in the last

last couple decades, this isn't a republican or democrat saying, the federal government has grown so much in so many different areas, whether you are talking about the obama or bush administration or before, that a lot of states are chafing in various ways whether it be enforcement of overfederalization of the laws, certain things should be left to state prosecutors, or with health care or immigration, it is pretty widespread. lawmakers are trying to have innovative solutions to how they can reassert state sovereignty, which was on the down swing for many years. you see compacts being proposed. state agreements with other states up to an including forcing -- there is an organizing i'm advising calling the compact for america trying to get a balanced budget amendment and get a convention call a nifty idea to control a run away convention. there are policy innovations that states are trying to put together, again, across a host

of areas left, right, which is trying to reassert the original dynamic. not nullify. states cannot say federal law is no good. just to rebalance the power in the country. host: ian, can you speak to federal effort pushing back? if that's the way right to look at this. what is or what can the federal government do once states put these efforts into place? guest: if we are talking about an actual nullification law, that's when the state tries to forbid the federal government from forcing its own law, those laws are void almost automatically. guest: john c. calhoun is probably roaming the studios right now. guest: the federal official would try to enforce the law, presumably the state would try to stop them. and then it would be very easy for the federal government to get a court order to say that the state can't do that. when you are talking about things like whether or not a state is going to participate in

forcing marijuana laws, then it's really a matter of moral situation -- suasion. i don't see we are seeing a roll back in the states on marijuana policy or other criminal justice policy because of broader philosophies how big or small our government should be. i think it's because the forces who want us to liberalize the marijuana laws are winning the debate. so some of the states are doing it first. washington, colorado. are on the vanguard. i think that's because they are the first in the line of many states and eventually the federal government will move in that direction, because that's where the american people are. i don't think it's because of any sort of broad theory about who should be in charge of what. host: we have two constitutional specialists here. before we go to calls, apply the 10th amendment to this conversation. if you can. we'll put it on the screen. it's very short. 10th amendment to the constitution. says the power not delegated by the u.s. by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states,

are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. guest: that's kind of a belt and suspenders redundancy built into the constitution. the founders were very concerned that if they would enumerate certain rights in the bill of rights, that would disparage other rights that were retained by the people, and thomas jefferson was especially saying that, well, we didn't give the federal government any powers to infringe these rights. so they put in the ninth and 10th amendment, they go together, the ninth says these rights we list, that's not the whole list. there are other things that are reserved to the people. and on the power side, conversely, what we do list, that's it. you don't get any more. so the 10th amendment is it's own free floating further restriction on the government, but underlines if you can't find that power in the text of article 1, for example, for congress, for the legislative branch, then it's not there. host: ian? guest: i think i agree with

virtually all that he said. there is a list that congress is allowed to execute in the constitution. the powers are not infinite and the 10 $amendment is reminding lawmakers if you can't find what you want to do somewhere on that list, it is a pretty expansive list, then you, federal government, cannot do it. host: first call for our guest, kathleen from fayette city, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning, my question is, do the states have a way to work together to legally stop the feds from doing something that we think is unconstitutional? and my example is, obama, he wants to bind religious orlingses, religious hospitals for treating uninsured people, but that would be against our religious views. host: why don't we begin with mr. shapiro. guest: states can get together in compacts as i said. or to -- they can get together and sue the federal government

the of them did in nfib obamacare litigation the supreme court decided last year. there are lots of ways the states can combine. they get together to manage ports all the time. and the federal government's not involved there as much. in this particular case that the caller is mentioning, there is another option in that individuals can sue the federal government or the state government for that matter. so there's different relationships between the federal and state governments and between the individual and state and federal governments. an individual or hospital in this case or group of hospitals, you have a class action for that matter, could file suit against the federal government for violating their individual constitutional rights. and the states around really party to that one way or another. guest: i agree with most of that. the lawsuit is the primary mechanism by which we ensure that the constitution is enforced. part of what that means is that for better or for worse, when

the court that is the final say over something makes its call, e are stuck with it. it's frequently about states not liking what the courts are saying trying to find another person who can have some other word on top of what the courts have said. that's ultimately very damaging to the rule of law because there needs to be someone who is the final arbiter or else we don't know what the law is and what our obligations are under it. host: worcester, massachusetts, independent caller. elaine, thank you for checking in. what would you like to say or ask? caller: ok. you two gentlemen, aren't you from the copes foundation, think tank for the right wing? host: let knee stop you there. guest: i am in a sense. they didn't fund this for a long time and there was a lawsuit that was finally settled last yearment and now we are taking cope funding again thankfully. i think they do a lot of good

work promoting premarkets and other liberty ideas, but it's not the cope foundation. we have many, many donors at cato among which david cope represents one. guest: we do not think that they do great work and do not take money from them. host: anything about the topic at hand, elaine? caller: no. i just think that this is a right wing think tank going on right here in front of us. both right wingers. guest: i would disagree with that. guest: maybe we have to do a better job explaining what we are about. host: democrat from florida. hi. caller: could you comment on the noter nullification of voter rights in north carolina, please. go guest: sure. that's not nullification per se. nullification is a state law that's passed to try to void or counteract federal law for federal law. that's not proper. that's unconstitutional. what's going on in voter i.d., there have been lawsuits filed,

that will be ultimately decided in the courts. it's not nullifying voting rights. the states have power to regulate their elections, and there are some contention that is changing the early voting laws and the voter identification requirementses, that that's a violation of the voting rights act or other things. these are claims based on individual voting rights, and they'll be resolved by the courts. this isn't something that north carolina is pushing back on federal law in any way as i see it. host: ian, here's a tweet. interpret it if you can. american hero, in order for the federal government to enforce its own laws, it must first have the constitutional authority to make such a law. what do you think he means? guest: that's true. but the question is who has the power to make that call? and we decided very early in our republic's history that it is the judiciary and ultimately the supreme court that has the final say on it. the problem with nullification

is if you give the states the last word on what is or is not unconstitutional, then any state can unilaterally declare anything unconstitutional. and we cease to be a union in meaningful sense. any law becomes optional. host: you mentioned at the beginning of the program, you took us back to the founding of the country, this conversation brings us up to present day with the north carolina question. what about the history of nullification efforts between those two periods? beginning of the country and now. what has happened if anything? guest: sure thing. it's something that people who feel they are on the losing end of the political process have brought up a few times in american history. the most famous example as mentioned was john c. calhoun, the former vice president of the united states, led an effort in south carolina to try to nullify a tariff that was viewed as good for protoindustrialists in the north and not so good for

farmers in the south. and that almost fought the civil war before south carolina eventually backed down. there was certainly nullification efforts during the civil rights era where segregationist states tried to prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights law or enforcing supreme court decisions that insisted upon equal treatment of the races. this is something that comes up every now and then. normally it is something that is led by political losers. and if you don't like it, most of the time your recourse is to try to become a political winner. there's going to be an election next year. there's going to be an election two years after that. if you don't like what the federal government is doing, your recourse is to vote for someone who will do something else. host: ilya? guest: that's in the short term. over many decades going back to the new deal the constitutional balance has gotten unbalanced. a lot of the things the federal government is doing are

unconstitutional. and that's why you see from time to time court challenges of various kinds, including in this area in the 1980's and 1990's, a couple case, the new york and prince cases for you legal junkies, that established definitively the federal government cannot force state officials to do their bidding to enforce their regulations. it's a long-term process. in the short-term, yes, you can elect people to washington or your state legislatures that are more to your liking to pursue your policies. in the long term it takes a actual rebalancing. ost: more about our guest, ilya, cato institute, educated at princeton. london school of economics and also the university of chicago law school. part of his career includes being a special assistant advisor to the multinational force on iraq on rule of law issues. guest: a lot of nullification going on there. host: ian is a senior constitutional policy analyst at th amen

progress. previously clerked for jodge eric clay of the u.s. court of appeals, sixth circuit. next call, gary, new jersey, independent. what would you like to say to our guests? caller: good morning. i would like to remind folks that according to the act of 1871 it states that congress has no jurisdiction outside of d.c. that's my statement. host: who wants to take that? guest: i'm not familiar with that act, but the constitution is pretty clear there are a number of areas that the federal government does have jurisdiction over over the entire nation. i do want to say one thing in response to what ilya just said about constitutional rebalancing. this goes to what the last 100 or so years of constitutional law is about. about 100 years ago the supreme court was very aggressive. it would strike down minimum wage laws, child labor laws. there was even a question of whether something like sths

would be constitutional -- social security would be constitutional. in the 1930's the court decided that we wanted most questions to be resolved by elected officials. and not by un-elected judges, especially in cases where the constitution is not entirely clear and reasonable people could read it different ways. i think that's the correct decision. i think that whether you are talking about judicial supremacy, where judges are coming in and raising sweeping interpretations of the law, or whether you are talking about having one parochial part of the country being able to override what's been doing by our nation's democracy, both of those are bad ideas because ultimately the way that we have a government that's most responsive to the people is we make sure our elections actually matter. so if i don't like the way my country is being run, i should be able to go to the ballot box

and that includes people who don't like what president obama is doing. guest: you disagree with me, then, about gay marriage. i think federal courts should strike down gay marriage laws that don't extend that to smex couples. guest: what i feel is that we should look to the text of the constitutional and where you have language like no person shall be denied the equal protection of the law of the law, i think it is clear that gay people are people. whether manufacturing houses commerce and whether that means we can have a child labor law, that is a question that should be left to elected officials and not to people who serve lifetime ppointments. guest: the definition of commerce is much clearer on the subject historically than other things. i am playing a little bit of devil's advocate.

ne person's deference is another person's oppression of individual rights, regardless if you are coming from the left or the right. i think judges should engage the law. what the coherence of your theory of interpretation is. host: educated at kenyon college and the law degree from duke. our next call from kansas city, issouri. caller: i know both your guests have studied the subject pretty much at depth. we are the united states of america and not the disunited states of america. one states wanted to circumvent civil rights laws, we sent in the national guard to enforce hose rights.

i think that states rights are a farce. that is the only thing where you can say that states have a leg to stand on. mostly residency is related to axation. if i don't live in missouri, i need to move here before i pay taxes. host: states rights' a are a farce. what do you think of that comment? guest: the example of troops being sent in to enforce civil rights laws. that demonstrates the danger that nullification presents. when you don't have a final arbiter, ultimately that means you have to resolve it through force. either we accept the lawful process -- the supreme court

aid our schools need to be desegregated, or you have a conflict between arkansas and the united states that have to be resolved through the united states' superior force. i think that is a bad way to run the country. i think a better way to run the country is one that he respects the rule of law and don't have to resort to the army. host: i wanted to get your reaction from a tweet from matt smith. guest: yes. host: with such arne expansion interpretation of the constitution, is there really anything the federal government can't do? guest: yes, thankfully. we are supposed to have a tri-part sovereign system. federal, state governments, and individuals. with respect to the commerce clause, just last year the supreme court said the federal government cannot force you to buy something. they can transform it into a tax.

they cannot regulate things that are purely local. example that have come up in the last couple decades are the gun free school zones act. congress legislated you cannot bring a gun to a school. that's a local matter that the interstate commerce clause does not reach. or violence against women. very bad, illegal in all 50 states. a local matter that the government should not be criminalizing. there are tests. the substantial effects test. this is what the current law is. in the aggregate of certain classes of economic activity in the aggregate affect interstate commerce nationally, they can be regulated. that is pretty expensive but there are limits. if you look at your pocket constitution, i have one in everyarticle one section eight enumerates the 17 things that suit jacket,congress can do -- coin money, raise troops, and the other

things proper to carry out those laws, but there are limits. states do have a plenary power. the federal government does not. guest: it is important to understand the development of america's economic history. when the nations was founded there was a lot of commerce that really did just go on in one state. i take my crops to the marketplace and i sell them to consumers. it all went on in my country -- my one state. there were banks that only banked with people in that state. what has changed is that now our economy is very national. most corporations are multinational, even the businesses are multistate at least.

even the businesses that aren't multistate will still compete with the businesses that are multistate. as our economy has become interconnected, the words that the constitution use is regulate commerce among the several states, has come to mean a lot more. maybe the framers did not anticipate the modern economy. we are not bound by what their perception might have been 200 years later. we are bound by the words that they wrote. the words that they wrote are very expansive in the modern world. host: here is ruby from virginia beach. caller: the gentleman with the dark hair -- you have a fairly balanced group this morning. the one from cato is more right. the other is funded by george soros. guest: i think he may have helped us out. host: both of them have dark hair.

caller: i am a 76-year-old grandmother. i have lived a long time. i started out as a democrat. i went republican. now i'm leaning i don't know. i voted in every election. during the civil rights, they read a part of the constitution. that was just for 13 states. the basis of it was unconstitutional because there was just as much stuff going on in the northern states as there were in the southern states. they say the south except you as an individual but not as a whole. the north except you as a whole but not an individual. that is pretty much true. e have elected a president who has said noticeably that our bill of rights is a document of negative rights because he does

not give enough rights to the overnment. 20-some pages, our health care law was written in 2700, and now it's taken 17,000-plus to n force it. you do not control people like that. we are supposed to be a representative republic and not a democracy. in the eighth grade i was taught that communism was the worst part of social -- was the worst part of socialism, and democracy was the worst part of a representative republic. guest: sure. i think i disagree with the caller's vision of how we resolve disputes in this country. the try marry mechanism is an election. there is a lot of people who are not fans of the affordable care act. the way we resolve that is we elected a president who campaigned on health reform. the law was passed.

he signed it into law. we then had another election where mitt romney was very aggressive in saying he would repeal the law if he got the chance. the american people had a full opportunity to choose between them. the guy who signed the affordable care act won. that strikes me as the best way to resolve these disputes. we are going to disagree on important decisions. we should resolve them by having an election. with some exceptions when there are things that conflict with the text of the constitution, we need to make sure we abide by the decision that the american people made in those elections. guest: i think democracy is the worst way of governing our resolving disputes except for all others. the affordable care act has been unpopular from its inception.

it's increasingly up popular. the latest statistics is like 33-60 or somethingthe way elections are run, mitt like that. romney was a bad candidate for so many different reasons and the people did not see fit to throw out barack obama. the incumbent typically doesn't lose unless there is something bad that happens. a national referendum on the health-care law would have lost tremendously. he as a candidate won. to tease out something that ian said, i do not think how we resolve that is primarily through elections. our perception of government and the relationship between the government and governed, we have a sea of liberty. we can do lots of things. there should be island of authority. stateresolve disputes in various ways. and federal. we have lost track of the idea

that it liberty is the norm and regulation is an imposition on that that we agreed to when we orm the united states. is not a way of the government not giving us enough of our rights. there is a constitutional imbalance in terms of federal structure, state regulation, what have you, and there should be more room for constitutional lawsuits by more individuals. guest: i want to push back against this idea of liberty. i have crohn's disease. what that means is that i cannot quit my job, because if i quit my job, i will be unable to obtain health insurance. i will be unable to afford the drugs that manage my condition. so i have less liberty. for that reason.

what obamacare does is ensures if i choose to quit my job, i'll be able to get my care despite my pre-exesting condition as will millions of other people in the same position. obamacare is a liberty-expanding bill. is giving people the ability to do things they would otherwise not be able to do. i am not going to go into the people who will live because of this law. i think that your continued,istence is a very important part of liberty as well. guest: i am not a health-care scholar. kicking loss of people off of their health care as well and raising premiums. that's not the point. we would have a competitive marketplace in an ideal system and you would be free to leave your job and do something more more productive rather than be a talking head like me. be engaged in productive parts of society. our job shouldn't exist because we should be producing and so

worth. if health care was treated like any other commodity, your health care would not be tied to your employer. that's a relic. no other country in the world does it this way, but any how, i don't think it's an argument for more government to say that we have this deformation in our health care regulatory system and therefore need to deform it further. host: let's get another call. joseph, an independent. caller: good morning. i would like your guess to comment about the constitutionality of the income tax. which was neveronly four states ratified ratified. t. there are youtube videos of harry reid and the irs director among other legislators out there staring directly into the camera and saying the income tax is a voluntary tax. you do not have to pay. why are people prosecuted if

they do not pay, if it is a voluntary tax? guest: i am not familiar with that video. if he said it, he is wrong. the 16th amendment is pretty clear that the federal government does have the power to enact an income tax. even in the absence of the 16th amendment -- the history of that amendment is very important. there was an income tax during the civil war. the supreme court upheld it. in the 1890's, the supreme court struck down an income tax. that was a verymost people thought the decision controversial decision. was wrong. the 16th amendment was ratified o fix the error. he belief was at the beginning the congress have the power to enact the income tax. guest: the 16th amendment is

right here. congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. i am against the income tax but it is part of the constitution. it was only a couple of percent n the very rich. le he the equivalent today of those making $3 million or $4 million a year. that is probably what it should be. it is part of the constitution. harry reid said a lot of crazy things over the years. if he said that, he is wrong. if you are watching, please do ay your taxes. you should not nullify the income tax. host: back to twitter. could the guess please explain the issue of standing to challenge the constitutionality of federal laws. how about taking that, mr. millhise. guest: sure. standing means you cannot challenge a law just because you

feel like you do not like the law. if i punch ilya, he can sue me. you can not because i have not done anything to you. you can't say i have this general sense i don't like people punching people. so this comes up in a federal contacts, you have to be able to say i'm going to be less wealthy than i would have been because of this law. it's going to force me take an action i otherwise wouldn't have taken. the degree of the injury does not have to be very great. it could cost you a single penny. you have to show that you have een injured by it. host: we have a broad question here on twitter. do you think the federal and state governments are adhering to the u.s. constitution? why or why not? guest: there have been whole ph.d.s written on that topic.

i think the government is exceeding its balance in lots of ways. my understanding of interstate commerce is different than ian's. a lot of the federal government's programs, a lot of the cabinet agencies for that matter i think are unconstitutional. state governments as well. they violate individual rides in various ways. let's be cloor about this -- clear about this, the original constitution was with respect to the powers of the government and the rights of the individuals against the federal government. after the civil war, people were allowed to push back on state violations of individual rights. constitutional scholars say that perfected the constitution. people can sue for violations of their new digital rights federal and state. more of that should be done.

a lot more challenges by state have happened. health care should be organized over the long term to pare back its power and restore a constitutional balance. guest: both federal and state governments comply with the constitution most of the time. there are certainly unconstitutional things that happen. there are also things going on right now that i believe are unconstitutional and that i hope someday we have the supreme court that will realize they are unconstitutional. a previous caller brought up the law in north carolina that makes it much harder to vote. there is evidence that law is targeting some voters because voters of certain races are likely to vote in certain ways and this makes it harder for them. it engages in viewpoint discrimination. it makes it harder for democrats to vote.

there are plenty of things that the court should strike down as unconstitutional. most of the time our disputes are resolved through elections. most things the government want to do will be constitutional. uest: ray from illinois. caller: i would like to comment that the government is a corporation. the central government does not act upon the individual citizens. i would like to know how certain laws affect us, like the 16th amendment does not act upon the individual but upon income. host: what do you make of that? guest: i do not know what definition of corporation the

caller is using. it is usually some kind of ntity. it is a legal structure that we have to allow people to do things collectively that they cannot individually, whether a business to make a profit. there is an incorporation of a certain way. the government is not a nexus of contracts. what lawyers call public law as opposed to private law. the government does act against us, if you want to put it that way. they legislate in certain ways to control the rules of the game ultimately under the

constitution to enhance our liberties and rightses. -- rights. i think what is in the constitution is properly the law. the debate is over what the government is doing to comport with that law. host: we moved on to larence. caller: i have a question. i am a city employee. the city of detroit is under an emergency manager. right now the emergency manager is in federal court to file a ankruptcy for detroit. what he wants to do is to stop paying into our pension ystem. our pension system is protected by the michigan onstitution. what do you see happening to our pension if the federal

bankruptcy allows them to stop paying into our pension? guest: that is a difficult legal question. there are a lot of people who have worked their entire lives believing their pension would be here for them. the issue is that federal law is supreme to state law. if federal law is properly invoked, then the michigan constitution does not have anything to say about it. it is not clear whether detroit properly file that petition. the michigan constitution says a municipality cannot do anything that would diminish the tensions of the employees. filing a bankruptcy petition can

be interpreted as something that would diminish their ensions. so the argument that's very plausible is the petition itself is no good. the federal law was never invoked. because detroit did not have the legal authority to file this bankruptcy petition. i hesitate to make a prediction as to how this is going to come down. it is a very difficult question. my heart goes out to the pensioneers. who have worked their whole life and now might have that promise taken away from them. host: we talked about things like gun control and the health-care law. has the issue of drone surveillance, but all in your reading? guest: i have heard about city councils passing resolutions saying they do not like drones and they prefer the government does not do them.

guest: kind of like saying there re nuclear-free zones. this is an issue that is increasingly talked about. stand with rand paul. i am not sure how much it's a federalist issue or notification eshoo. whether a state or swat team will deploy their drones or there'll be a star wars. i think it is more of an ndividual liberty issue. and the use of the foreign affairs power to control from the executive -- the military which is what drones essentially are in our localities. host: mark from california. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling in regards to the itizens united ruling.

i feel the game is rigged from the beginning for the rich and owerful. i do not believe corporations are people or money is peech. i think that what needs to come out of our constitution. apparently since that is the way they rule. guest: corporations are not people in the sense they are not human beings. they are legal persons when they are composed of individuals and they do not lose their rights. if people did lose their rights when they got together collectively, you could have the police storming my employer to take out lots of files or

computers because we can't invoke our fourth amendment protections. i could sitting at home, just me. or mayor bloomberg wants to relocate the mayor's office in new york to rockefeller center and he condemns rockefeller center and takes it by eminent omain. people get together and do have rights. what does that mean in the first amendment context? citizens united has gotten overblown. eople can pool their money and speak about politics, not donate to campaigns. but just speak, put up billboards, make commercials, that sort of thing. it should be less trefrl than it is because after all protecting political speech whether by individuals acting alone or together is a core of the first amendment. guest: i do nothing the problem is whether corporations are

considered people. a completely rewrites our law of orruption. what the supreme court said is that we can have campaign finance laws to prevent core option or the appearance of corruption in our elections. there was a poll where the question was do you feel corporations should be able to give unlimited sums of money and only 17% agreed that no corruption would come. there is the appearance of hereby. more people believe in u.f.o.'s an witchcraft than citizens united. there's unquestionably the appearance of corruption created by massive sums of money, whether it comes from corporate donors or individual donors. and before citizens united there

was a recognition that we needed the ability to rein in scruppings. -- corruption. after citizens united the supreme court said we don't have that power and that's frightening. is frightening. host: laura via twitter -- guest: there has to be some secret see to government. we cannot let everyone know the location of troops. that is at the far end. once you admit there can be secrets, i think the government has for many years erred in terms of overclassifying information. what kind of checks do you put n? the fisa court -- there is supposed be an independent check. it is an article two court with isa.

does not somebody on the other side saying this is not an appropriate use of your function or what have you. we are in the midst of a big discussion of how to check the national security process and privacy and things like that. i am sure we will see some kind of fisa and other reforms in this area. guest: that needs to be some kind of adversarial process. is really good. the way our privacy law has developed in this country is normally it's developed in the criminal context. what's nice about criminal cases is eventually someone is arrested, they get a lawyer, and if they think that their constitutional rights have been violated, their lawyer has the opportunity to present that argument to the judge. the judge agrees with them there could be a consequence for them. potentially their criminal

charges cabe thrown out. is rarely the case that there is an adversarial process were both sides are heard. the president talked about creating some kind of dversarial side. often there is a consequence if the court finds there has been some kind of violation. if the government goes off and gathers information and decides they want to order an air raid, goes off and bomb someone, is not like the dead person can say, judge, i want you to unkill me. so there are a lot of problems with the fisa court beyond, i think, secrecy is the least of the concerns. host: robert from missouri. aller: hi. i want to ask mr. shapiro -- if

the composition of the supreme court changes and it goes on to a liberal court and the case of citizens united comes up again, will he be agreeing with the court if they overturn that and no longer stipulated that corporations are people? would that be the law of the land or would you prefer that a change? guest: i agree with the ruling s it now stands. the oldest appointees -- if one s replaced by a democratic employee, i think that would be the wrong decision. it is not about corporations eing people. they have rights because they

are a collection of human eings. guest: i disagree with citizens united. it was a 5-4 decision. which means we are one justice away from getting rid of it. there are several other positive things that can happen if the court flips. you could see parts of gerrymanders declared unconstitutional. you could see a lot of voter suppression laws in places like north carolina declared unconstitutional. you could see the voting rights ct reinstated. a provision that prevented things like the law that was ust enacted. early voting has been disproportionally done by african-americans. section five made it illegal for north carolina to enact the law that disproportionately targeted african-americans.

there was no law that was going to affect -- if it wasn't for he 5-4 decision. guest: there is no law that it targets african-americans. guest: the voting rights act -- you do not need a smoking gun. you don't need a legislature stand up and say i'm passing this law because i don't want black people to vote. all you need is what lawyers call a disparate impact. you need to show that black voters or hispanic voters are more impacted than white triggers. host: we are out of time. we say thanks to our guests. ilya shapiro from the cato institute. and thanks to ian millhiser, an analyst at the center for american progress. we appreciate your time. >> the national security agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year

since congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008. "the washington post" made the analysis after getting documents from former n.s.a. analyst edward snoweden, now congress is getting involved. short time ago we talked with a reporter fouling this story. -- following this story. >> we are joined by jenifer martinez of the hill. why is judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy calling for another round of hearings on the n.s.a.? >> he's doing that in the wake of report that was published by "the washington post" late thursday, that n.s.a. had repeatedly broken privacy rules or overstepped its authority for years. soleil he came out today with -- so lie he came out with a statement today saying he remains concerned that congress is still not getting straightforward answers from the n.s.a., so he hopes to hold another hearing when congress returns to get these answers.

>> how bad was this report that the "washington post" published on thursday? > it's definitely pret i damning. ust adds -- it would put the administration in even worse position than it was with the surveillance program. it also calls into question the statement that the president made last week at the press conference at the white house, other statements that administration officials have made. the report shows that the n.s.a. had procured private communications thousands of times without proper authorization. although "the washington post" did an analysis and it found that most of the incidents were it involvedand that an authorized surveillance of

americans or foreign targets in the united states. >> senator leahy when congress returns in september looking at these specific allegations. where is congress on this? how far have they gotten into the issue? is there any legislative solution to the issue that's in the works? >> right. there have been a lot of hearings in the wake of these revelations over the n.s.a. surveillance program that came to light after edward snoweden -- snowden released documents to the "washington post" and garden about these programs that we have seen in the judiciary committee, including leahy's committee. house judiciary committee, and we have seen a bunch of legislation also get introduced. you have senators widen, udall, blumenthal introduce a set of three bills the week before congress broke for recess that would reform how the fisa court,

which oversees some of the n.s.a. surveillance programs, operates, and then leahy himself has also introduced a bill that would narrow the phone data collection program which operates under section 215 of the patriot act. and basically what leahy's bill would do is make sure that when the intelligence community is trying to seek phone records for an investigation that they are -- they have to prove that they are only going after a terrorist group or some sort of a foreign target. i guess the closest that we have come to seeing congress actually ote on something is the amash, in the house, had a proposal that the house voted on that would rein in the phone data collection program. it was similar to leahy's bill. it failed but it was a really close vote so it shows that congress is really concerned about the surveillance programs

and whether they are violating americans' privacy. >> jenifer martinez writes for "the hill" reporting today. you can follow her on twitter. reporting at jenmartinez, and read her reporting online at the hill". online. later today minnesota senator amy klobuchar speaks to democrats in iowa. she's a keynote speaker there. according to the des moines register she'll be the first democratic hopeful to visit iowa for a possible 2016 presidential campaign. you can listen on c-span radio or watch online at c-span.org. >> tonight on c-span's encore presentation of first ladies. >> she was very proud of her husband, no question about that.

she supported all of his decisions. once again she was a very private person. so it was fine for her husband to be in politics. it was fine for him to go to washington and be in the senate, be in congress, but she didn't want to be part of it. and yet she constantly supported she was very much as supporter during the impeachment. i know other sayings that she attributed to her that she said she wished she could be back home, but she believed her husband would be acquitted and was proud of it when he was, because she said she knew it would happen. the encore presentation continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. what is interesting about washington in this age once you have that title, even a very short title, even if you have been voted out after one term, you can stay in washington as

the former's chief of staff, the former chief of staff to congressman x or y, and that is marketable. you are in the club. at his age up archer from the days in which people would come to washington to serve, serve a little bit, and then go back to the farm, which is how the founders had intended. there is a new dynamic and they love it starts with money and money available, for people to do very well here. ofsunday night, the purpose government and politics in the media in washington. the republican national committee is meeting in boston this week to discuss the future of the party. yesterday they heard from for people who are part of the rising stars program. --ight's previous 00

priebus moderates. we have marlinda garcia who was elected to the house of representatives at age 23. she is in her fourth term, on the finance committee and as a record of leading and women's health and job growth. she is also a leader in the latino community and has been featured on fox news latino. she has received the innovative health care pioneer award and was recognized as one of the 45 most influential women under 45 by the republican security council. i want to thank her. we also saw each other as well in new york. thank you for coming. karin agness, to my right, was

the founder and president of the network of the enlightened women, the nation's premier organization for conservative university women. she is a graduate of the university of virginia for her undergrad and a law degree. not an easy law school to get into. she practices law in d.c. and is a senior fellow at the independent women's forum. she has been named as one of the maverick pc 40 under 40 and was one of the 30 under 30. thank you, karen, for being here. scott erickson, to my left, came all the way from california, where we just were a few months scott is focused on issues

of national security, including law enforcement and missile defense. he has authored several reports, including his letter since -- his lessons from benghazi. do we agree with that. , the speaker of the oklahoma state house, the first african american to hold that position. i had the privilege of meeting him in my last trip to oklahoma. he has been on the road with me, helping the rnc raise money as well. that is a big plus for t.w. he is a registered member of the

chickasaw nation. as speaker, he has been a voice for limited government, personal responsibility, has advocated saving taxpayer money, and building oklahoma's infrastructure. speaker shannon has been appointed to the gopac national advisory board. i will let him tell you the truth about himself, but i think many of you will want one after this. i will ask a few questions, but first, let's go around the room, starting to my left -- in five minutes, tell us what brought you here, why you are republican, and what you hope to accomplish now. >> thank you for having me here today. i came from a great bastion of conservatism known as san francisco. born and raised in the bay area.

grew up in a very politically- oriented household. not necessarily one that we had family members involved in politics, but we discussed the issues of the day. growing up, as much as i resisted and wanted to talk about sports, the conversation always came back to current events. that helped me, i think, grow up and be somebody who could is concerned with the nation. my father was a police officer. when i turned 18 years old, i decided that was what i wanted to do. at 21 i became a reserve officer with the city of san jose, did that for a few years, and then transitioned into a full-time job. i have been working the streets on san jose for the past 11 years. as far as activism goes, i had developed a lot of close relationship with friends of the heritage foundation. a few years ago, an opportunity came to me to discuss the issues

important to me, through the heritage foundation. over the past couple of years, i have been writing extensively for heritage, for their blog, and that opened up a lot of opportunities for me as well to write for other publications. i am a republican because the republican party exemplifies most closely the beliefs and values and principles i hold. i think we should be promoting, like each and everyone of you, i am here, because as an individual there is only so much i can do, but there is no limit what we can do. it is important to get together with like minds, and others who are not, and include them in the conversation to develop a plan

forward so that we can be successful in 2014 and beyond. >> thank you. >> thank you all for having me. it is a pleasure to be here. especially in boston. i was born in boston and my family then moved to new hampshire for greener pastures, you could say, when i was 8. then i subsequently came back here for college and higher ed, and then went back to new hampshire. similar to what scott was saying, my family was not necessarily politically active and nobody to my knowledge has been in any elected office, but i do remember on occasion i would get up there and hold signed with my mother, can best for a candidate about something that was sparked in a discussion about an issue that was pressing, or something that concerned us as a family. when i went to college, i found, of course, it is a time where everything you think you believe, you are forced to get

down to the fundamentals of what it is and why it is what it is what you believe in. i was involved with the college republicans when i decided to register to vote when i was 18. i closely identified with in terms of my vision for the country, all of the ideals of personal responsibility and individual freedom and all of that. in college, of course, i had to defend that a lot. as a young female of hispanic and italian descent, in higher ed, i often fell under the stereotype of, you are a republican? that is weird. which i think is offensive, that people would assume such a thing based on how i look. it was great because it forced me to come to terms and understand why it is i believe what i believe, and why i

identify as a republican. beyond that, when i graduated, i was 23. the midterm elections in 2006 were rolling around. honestly, i thought i would help on the campaign. i called a friend involved in politics in the state and said who could i sign up with? it was at that time, for the first time ever, someone suggested, why don't you run yourself for state representative? the thought had never crossed my mind, something that i never thought would be a possibility for me, anything i had considered. at the end of the day, i realized the rudiments of campaigning, all of that, are pretty basic. i had helped on other people's campaign, so i figured i knew what to do, so i knocked on a lot of doors, came up with my platform, and i ended up winning. fast-forward to today.

it has been a great experience. i have loved being involved, working to help my state, and now helping to promote the conservative ideals on the national level. i think this is a great program because it is really important that people here from those of us that are actually connecting all the time with communities, with citizens, are out there making decisions on issues that affect people's lives. this is good. thank you for inviting me. >> thank you. t.w.? >> thank you for inviting me. i am here because i am concerned that the liberal party has been defining me as a minority, our party. quite frankly, they get the definition wrong on every front. the chairman was talking about how we would continue to make

people understand the republican party is open for everyone. we do not have to change what we believe as a party. we have an opportunity to tell our story, that we are the party of limited government, the party of personal responsibility. like i said before, i did not receive those values from the members of congress i work for, i did not get them when i went to college, i got them in a predominately african-american church in oklahoma. those are part of the values of who i am as a person. the republican party, i believe, is the last great hope, for this nation and for the world. if we fail, i am concerned about what this place would look like for my children. growing up in oklahoma, in a small town, about 100,000 people, i have got the chance to experience all types of diversity. what i figured out is most people want exactly the same thing.

they want better opportunities for their children and grandchildren. that is what this party has been about from day one. we have to go out and sell that message. as i look over the horizon, i am encouraged by the other young people that i see. the liberal media would have you believe that there is nobody that looks like the people on stage that has an r by their name. when i was presented as speaker of the house, they did not do it because of what i looked like. i promised to make them chairman of a committee as well. that was a joke. [laughter] we have an opportunity in oklahoma to be an example for the rest of the nation. there is one thing we can all agree on.

we cannot continue to wait for the federal government to lead, whether it is health care, economic development, infrastructure. the government has proven it is either incapable or unwilling to make the changes that will move the country forward. i believe movement forward will happen in the 50 capitals in state government. i am happy to lend my voice to what i think is america's last great hope. >> i will tell you something else about t.w. shannon, we spent some time on the road, obviously very articulate, but he is also pretty tough on an airplane with turbulence. i fly just about every other day, so i can take a lot, but there are some times when the plane is going crazy. he is one of these guys who is just turning the page on the newspaper when things are going nuts. all right, karen? >> a pleasure to be here. my involvement with women in politics stems from an

internship i had in washington, d.c. for one of my home state senators, senator lugar from indiana. that was my first time being around a lot of conservative women who were smart, ambitious, and wanted to have families and careers, and we were trying to figure that all out. feminist voices were not reaching a lot of them, were not reaching me as a young woman. so when i went back to the university of virginia for my third year of undergrad, i sought out an environment like i found in d.c., smart and ambitious women who wanted to talk about the issues of the day and did not want to just throw out one-liners. we were interested in how a 500- page bill would affect them and their lives. i went to some of our women's organizations at you v.a., and as you can imagine, they were not so open to conservative women. on the way home from class one day, i walk by a building called the women's center. i thought at the time, this

could be it, a great outlet to talk about these issues. i called and scheduled a meeting with a faculty member there. she was excited to have a bright-eyed student who wanted to learn more. but all the programs were really coming from a radical feminist perspective and more on the left. with this faculty member, i thought this is my shot to ask if they would be interested in working together. so i asked a university of virginia faculty member, the women's center if they would be interested in co-sponsoring an event for young women. she looked at me like i was crazy, chuckled, and said, not here. that is when i decided to start an alternative. the network of enlightened women, an organization for conservative women on college campuses. we have now spread to over 20 college campuses nationally with a big national conference each

summer in washington, d.c., and we are really growing. i think these principles can resonate with young women. i am excited to be here and to continue to work to reach young women with conservative ideas. >> thank you. t.w., can you give us an idea, example or two of the republican principles, conservative principles that you have been able to show the people of oklahoma that really do create jobs and opportunity? >> first of all, the proof is in the pudding. if you look at trends across the nation, states run by republican governors and legislatures have fared far better than those that are not. the reason it is because of the policy we implement. in oklahoma, we have to majorities in both chambers

we have a great republican governor, mary fallon, who is doing a great job leading the state. we were able to reduce taxes in this environment. many people would tell you that that could not be done, that the sky would fall. we voted to reduce taxes this year. we have another tax cut coming up, the state income tax. it is about 5.25% now. we will take it down another 0.15%. we are north of the 13th largest economy in the world in texas, so you have to remain competitive. if you want people to invest more, if you allow people to keep more of their money, we know as conservatives they will either suspended or save it and invest, which is good for the economy. we overhauled our worker compensation system. we have some of the highest rates in the nation as well as in the region. we revamped our system, moving from an antiquated system, moving to a new system that will

essentially save employers, people who create jobs, 15% to 20% on their premiums every year. people always say, stop talking about social problems. i think that is nonsense. you take every social issue known to man, whether it is high incarceration rates, drug and substance abuse issues -- i think they can all be traced to one key ingredient, and that is the breakdown of the family unit. this year in oklahoma we said we would do things to promote the family, going on a campaign to express why strong families are not just good for society, they are good for the economy, and great for the state. those are just a few examples of how we are proving conservative values are what will lead to prosperity.

as conservatives, we lend to the liberals ideas about social justice. frankly, there is only one system that has done more for man to get people out of generational poverty, and that is capitalism. we should be promoting that and telling that story more and telling it to every community. >> the democrats love this war on women theme. while mitt romney won married women -- as you know, there was a struggle with single women. at the same time you have democrats like eliot spitzer, anthony weiner, bob filner -- >> quite the group. >> what are some of the things that you think we can do better to reach young women? obviously, there are many opportunities, but what would

your advice be in getting better at that, maybe reaching more people, young women, for example, across the board? >> i was excited to see in that report, a big section on reaching women. women are not some unified voting bloc that will vote liberal every time, because it is more complicated than that. as to reaching young women, in the last election the democrats were really successful in putting out a number of images and celebrity ads to target young women. i think one of the things that we need to be doing is recognizing the difference segments of women and targeting them. i have to admit, as a young woman, i found some of the things the left was putting out as frankly insulting. remember the life of julia? the image of a woman showing her life from age 3 to 67 under

obama? it was basically every major decision, there was something she had to do with the federal government. i found that insulting. we need to put out an alternative to that and that will speak to women. the keys are targeting these different segments, recognizing it is a different bloc. and then meeting women where there are. for young women, a lot of what we're doing in news, we use the technology that college women are using, speak to them through their professors and other students, and peers, and try to meet the more they are. >> on a similar front, marilinda garcia, what do you think could be done, what would be your advice to get more young women to run for office? >> i think programs like this are important because they showcase people liked karin do wonderful work, other elected officials around the country around my age.

it seems to me -- the most important thing for me -- was that somebody actively encourages someone to take that step. there have been studies done about corporate involvement with women, all these other sectors, and what they always say is with women, despite all the things being equal -- they are qualified, intelligent, capable, accomplished just as much as their male counterparts -- we tend to question our qualifications, the timing, all of these things, and not run for that promotion, not ask for the salary raise. i think there is an intersection with politics there, in terms of putting yourself out there, trying to be a leader and all of these things. i think, with women, the issue is, of course, having examples out there.

we have some fantastic ones. we both have great female governors, all sorts of wonderful elected women. in my state alone, we have the first majority female state senate. we have two female senators on the federal level. really we need to be out there encouraging. when i speak to groups of young women, college students, high school students, whatever it may be, i always just say it is great to help, great to be involved, but seriously consider doing it yourself as well. know that you are capable, and that there is a support structure there for you. there are actually a lot of crude groups out there now that i talk to -- good groups out there now that i talk to that i did not know about when i first ran. i am glad they are there now and i am happy to help. >> scott, you have written

extensively about benghazi, snowden. what do you wish people understood about barack obama and his foreign policy record that you're concerned people do not? >> people are starting to understand this a bit more broadly, but the american people need to understand, in this administration we have seen a systematic decline in our stature and position in the world and the respect that other nations, either allies or adversaries have for us, has declined to that is the primary thing i want people to understand. the best we can ameliorate that is, of course, to elect a republican to the white house in 2016. that could have a dramatic effect.

[applause] i think that could have as a dramatic affect on our stature in the world as did the election of ronald reagan. we saw a complete flip with respect to how people view the u.s. there are repercussions to their actions. we do not have that today. the president has a penchant for dithering and provocation here that will not change over the next few years. he could do a few things with respect to this note in case. he could take the opportunity to reacquaint himself with the agreements that the bush administration had with the czech republic, poland, the place of missile defense assets in europe, something that he were rejected in his administration. those are the things that would tell the russian government, vladimir putin, that we are serious, we are not just about rhetorical posturing. we will actually take action. >> marilinda, back to you on hispanic engagement.

what advice would you have to our party to do a better job? >> i love this question because i come from new hampshire and we have about a 2% hispanic population. it's funny when i get the immigration question, i usually start by saying, well, in canada it is not really a problem -- anyway, it is a different experience than it is in texas, out west. but it is a very important issue. the problem, which feeds off of what t.w. mentioned, unfortunately, when there is a loud voice saying something sensational or offensive, that is what is plastered all over the news. that ends up being our position, which is ludicrous, of course.

we just have to accept that is the way it is going to be. so what we have to be doing -- again, this comes down to state and local officials, people in the community, neighborhood. you have to connect with people, as a person. you have to talk to them, talk to them at the grocery store. get them involved with parents' associations at school. and then guide the conversation. ask them questions, are you happy with the education system, are you happy with property taxes, are you worried about such and such? then you can tell them, well, this is what i believe, this is the way i think about this issue. these are the solutions that such and such elected official or candidate for office supports. do you agree? when it comes from a personal level, when it comes from an issue-based focus, then you can have a meaningful impact. it is a lot harder during election season when you're trying to get out there and capture a group. of course, it is important to spanish media, to use all of

these social media things, but you have to be sincere, a long term, engaged effort. i hope we are out there in those communities. >> if you are going to make the sale, you have to show up and ask for the order. it is harder before an election. >> exactly. it is interesting that republicans and democrats, immigrants, race, all of these things -- elections are cyclical. it is interesting to see how the parties involved, perceptions of who is on what side. you have to think long term. everything is not always going to be this way. the dialogue will change, the situation will change.

when someone has someone to talk to, someone out there connecting with them, that is when you can make a meaningful impact. >> t.w., i promised i would ask you about the truth, so could you tell us about it? >> there was an article, a profile on me. in my office i have this sofa that i call the true sofa. so often members will come in and tell me what they think. i meet with constituents on a regular basis. when you're in there, you get one on one, and you get the real story line is for the policy, why they do not. that is what we have to do as a party, engage people one-on-one. i think about my own district. when you talk about minority outreach, different demographic out rich, my district is 54% democrat, 34% republican, 12% independent. but about 25% of that is african-american.

i carried the african-american vote each time i ran, and i did that by going one-on-one. i am the third generation from where i'm from, so they are not voting for some unknown republican. that made a big difference. that is what we have to do as a party, make sure that we are going out and talking to people one on one, let the chairman laid out in his plan, and not showing up the day or month before an election, but having a presence in the community for the long term. this is a relationship. i will give you a great example. everyone remembers the chic-fil- a issue. if you have a facebook account, you would have thought there was nobody in support of chik-fil-a. the liberals and democrats had

done such a good job of reinforcing what they already believe about that issue. when it came time to show up to support chik-fil-a, there was a different response. that is my point here. this is a relationship business. >> thank you. karin, did you want to tackle the issue of bias at universities? what advice would you give to folks out here as to what they can do to tackle this issue at our universities and colleges across the country. >> there is someone out there in the crowd that does that, so it is great to see. tackling the universities. that is a challenge. one thing that we have to do is first to acknowledge there are problems there, and secondly, create alternative environments. one of the things that we have done is created an alternative home for conservative women. we get them educated through issues through a book club, and

then they are emboldened to speak up in their classes, get engaged. it is important to really provide and foster those alternatives. those of you who run local republican organizations and clubs, reach out to the college republicans at your universities and invite them to your meetings, get engaged with them and see what you can do on that front. that is important. then, i am happy to say, from indiana, we have our former governor mitch daniels who is now the head of purdue university. i am excited to see what he would do to see if he can turn that around into a market leader for ideas, a market leader for changing some things at universities across the country. >> speaking of indiana, is tim here? why don't you tell the group what governor pence did today. >> yesterday was my first official day as state chairman.

in my former role -- i served for the last 14 1/2 years in state elected office, first of state treasurer, and then auditor. today, governor pence named duane sawyer, an african- american town council president from indiana, as my replacement as the new state auditor. governor pence made that important announcement this morning in the state house. >> that is great. first ever? [applause] excellent. scott? then we will open up for questions and comments. you are a police officer in san jose. you know that our party wants to get involved at the community level. it is something new, as far as

doing this for 3 1/2 years straight. what advice would you give to our party about engaging in the community. obviously, you are working in a community like that every day, the most important thing you do every day. >> absolutely. the prevailing paradigm and law enforcement since the 1990's continued through today is community policing. that concept is predicated upon understanding the people that you serve. you cannot be an effective officer, cannot serve your community if you do not understand the idiosyncratic needs and fears and hopes that each individual community has. it is all very different.

it can literally differ from street to street, block to block. with respect to the political side, you have to be willing to go into the communities and engage people there. the best advice i could give it is, when you approached folks, you do not do it and tell them what they should be concerned about. you go there and you listen and find out what their concerns are first. it is only then that you open up the dialogue and you can start talking about larger issues. maybe make your points a little clearer. if you go in and simply say, we have to cut taxes for x, y, z, they may tune you out. the first thing you have to do is go in and listen. >> as a police officer, i imagine there are times when you have to find community leaders within a particular part of your community that will help you influence that community in order for you to be successful in whatever program you are trying to roll out, information you are trying to glean. >> absolutely. sometimes the most important programs, gang suppression, including former gang members, members of the community that can relate to the gang lifestyle.

even though i deal with gang members on a daily basis, drug dealers and users on a daily basis, it is still hard to put yourself in that mind set to understand their lifestyle. we all bring to every situation our own perspective, colored by our own backgrounds. i think it is very important to bring community leaders and folks who have standing in that community into the fold if you want to be successful. >> questions? ed cox has the first comment. give us some announcements. and no anthony weiner comments. >> this is about former governor eliot spitzer, a.k.a. client number 9. he decided he would run for comptroller of the city of new york. why would you want to do that? $140 billion pension funds.

think about the power that gives to corporate america for his ideology. we have a candidate in john burnett who has been out there working hard. he rose from the housing projects in new york city to be one of the leading compliance officers on wall street, working for smith barney, and then merrill lynch. john, maybe you want to say a few words? >> thank you, chairman. i am the son of a preacher, so i will try to be brief. i cannot promise you that i will not ask you for a donation at the end. i have a 23-year career on wall street as a margin analyst, then worked my way up. my parents were born in the south, under jim crow, and i was born in a household that did not tolerate excuses and complaints.

to give you an example, my father said, after i complained about something -- you know what, i grew up in a household where you did two hours of toward before sunup, they walked 5 miles to school, 5 miles back, picked cotton before dinner, and then went straight to bed. after hearing that a thousand times, you say, ok, you go out with no complaints. i think i took that into corporate america. i was able to work my way up to division manager at smith barney and director at merrill lynch before going back to school at night to attain my undergraduate and mba. this has come full circle because during the time that i was earning my undergraduate

degree, there was spitzer, and didn't let him stop me. i took that into corporate america. i was able to work my way up at smith barney and at merrill lynch before going to school at night. i did not let him stop me then, and i refuse to let him stop me now. i am looking forward to representing new yorkers, and hopefully, i can be the only adult in this race and bring some integrity. i will try to be brief, but in closing, if i could just use a saying, if we could actually instill conservative values along with the free market, that is the best path to prosperity. >> i am from virginia. my question is for scott, and i apologize if you have written this. you mentioned snowden, and in the debate in the house, a lot of republican senators were on board with the justin amash amendment. where do you see that debate in the republican party and why are the democrats not having the same debate?

>> there is a strong and prevalent chain of libertarianism through the party, and the issue of edward snowden resonates with those folks. i think the debate will center on a balance. you have to balance the civil liberties of u.s. citizens with the need to protect the country. that is something that, you know, i think you have to by and large look at the big picture and say you know, is this program keeping us safe, and is it doing so while being sufficiently unobtrusive? that is really where the debate rests. i do not know how the debate will play out. it remains to be seen. >> i have three parts.

does anybody know what sunday is, a great milestone in republican history? it is a trick question. sharon knows. that is when a republican male in tennessee cast the deciding vote to give women the right to vote. we need to embrace that, look at those points and constantly remind women, because we truly believe the more women know their history, the more women would run and run as republicans. it is important to embrace. second part, when you talk about the fed not leading, do you think you should say it is the white house and the senate not leading, in the house, they have done a lot. >> people deserve a government that works. we have to continue to lead as a party, but we have to recognize we have many differences within our own party and we have to work across the aisle, we do not have to compromise on our

principles. i stand by what i said. everyone is accountable. when things do not go well in the state of oklahoma, i do not play the blaming game. i take responsibility for it. that is what people in washington, d.c., need to do and that is what the problem is, they have not taken responsibility. >> what do you think of the reagan's 80% rule, those that agree with us 80% are not our enemies? >> i think it is consistent. comment on that? we are all in agreement. >> i would like to ask the law enforcement officer what local governments can do to support law enforcement? >> i think by and large local governments do a great job supporting governments. there is a lot going on with respect to budget issues, pension reforms and sometimes

that creates divisions between public employees who would otherwise be conservative and elected officials who might be coming down on a different side of that issue. those things notwithstanding -- i think those things will be resolved at the end of the day republicans have by and large been our supporters. there is not more you can do other than continuing to do what you are doing. >> all right. to scott, marilinda garcia, t.w. shannon, karin agness, thank you for doing this. these are your rising stars. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the republican party chairman cnn and nbc will not host any gop residential debates. we talk with a reporter about this.

no audio] we are having a technical problem. we will try to bring you that interview here in a moment.

[no audio] us from boston, a national political reporter from politico. vote tobehind the rnc's bar cnn and nbc from presidential debates? potentialto do with television shows about hillary clinton. what is going on is the republican party wants to get control of the debate process int a feel got out of hand

2012. there were 20 republican debates. the first started in may for the iowa caucuses. they did not like some of the moderators. some were from the mainstream media that republicans think had gotcha questions. they passed a resolution to prevent not only cnn and nbc from sponsoring or hosting officially sanctioned party debates, but also saying we need to go and do these other things -- fewer debates, friendly moderators, sensitive questions -- and there is widespread support for all those aims. x in your politico piece on the vote, you write this is the fallout of the 2012 thousand 12 election and a decision made back earlier this year to look at broader things in the party for the next residential election. what other issues is the party looking at as an autopsy from 2012?

>> one of the things they have been talking about in boston is getting the primary calendar under control. the domination battle went on and on after it was clear that romney was going to be the nominee. they want something more seamless to allow states to get an opportunity to get a nominee sooner. they feel widely among the members of the governing party that romney was damaged by the bates and having to move to the right to beat folks like santorum and gingrich. there are now a series of committees in place to think about what structurally they can do on the calendar side and on the debate side to help the republican nominee next time. but you and others reported yesterday of the possibility of other moderators being introduced in the next round of gop presidential debates. who are they considering? >>

they want more conservative type people. they do not want questions on things like social issues. they want questions where there is less six agreement and where the party is not that far away from the medium voter. they are talking about conservative talk radio hosts. of the ideato a lot of the famous republican luminaries, people who served in past administrations, other republican politicians, maybe the speaker of the house, or who would askypes gensler questions. >> in terms of outreach for the party, how good it is it for them to prevent the networks telemundo and cnn as handle from covering the debates -- cnn

from covering the debates? >> they say this desire to have friendlier questions is part of the republicans pulling to their french, seeking out the questions they want, not wanting problems.ged on there is no question that a lot isregular people think it actually helpful in understanding where these candidates are coming from and that it is the part of the republicans inside the party who are frustrated about how some of them played out last year. thereking ahead, you said were 20 debates in 2012. when are the first gop debate expected to begin and how many do they want to have in that cycle? >> they are hoping to cut it to

10, and they would like the first debate to be no earlier than september of 2015 as opposed to may last time. we will see how that happened. due to aore power serious role changes last year to sanctions debate, but candidates can do whatever they want. there are vulcan party cannot tell chris -- the republican party cannot tell chris christie that he cannot participate in a cnn and or nbc debate that is not sanctioned. that is why super pumped -- why some republican is in boston want to create penalties, those debates to art involved in debates with cnn or nbc lose delegates at the convention, something they could do if they voted, but some republicans think that is hard. >> you can follow this reporting on twitter and read his reporting at politico.com. thank you for joining us.

>> thank you. ioway klobuchar will be in tonight, speaking to the democrats at the 10th annual winking fundraiser. past speakers include john edwards and barack obama. the des moines register said senator clover chart is the first democratic hopeful to possible 2060or a presidential campaign. we will have live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tonight -- >> she was very proud of her husband. she supported all of his decisions. she was a very private person. towas fine for her husband be in politics, to go in washington, b in the senate, but she did not want to be part of that. she constantly supported his decision to do that. she was very much his supporter

during the impeachment. there were sayings attribute it to her that she wished she could be back home, but she honestly believe her husband would be acquitted and was proud of it when he was. she said she knew that was going to happen. the encore presentation continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. my view toright in fully fund the military since 9/11, but we deprive the state department and the u.s. agency of international development of funds, and there is as a result in an arrest gap between the size of an power of the pentagon and the size and power of this state department, and i will illustrate it with two examples from bob gates, an outstanding secretary for president bush and president obama. he gave a screeching couple years ago, and here are two nuggets. we have more military personnel

group,carrier battle then we have american that lets all over the world. here is another, if that does not convince you. we have more members of the of theorces arching band navy, army, air force, and koreans then american diplomats. >> this weekend, nicolas burns on the history of efforts in the mideast and his call for a return to diplomacy, saturday at at 10:00m. -- saturday a.m. eastern. tv, whycan history change the story when the truth is more exciting? true tales of the founding fathers, a at noon eastern. a new report points to a

number of problems with the nation plus electric grid. this morning, washington journal heard about the findings. as is about a half hour. host: we have a report on the table that begins to link climate change with problems, vulnerability. tell us more. report analyzed power outages. today is the anniversary or it has been 10 years since that huge blackout in new york city. weatheround that severe is the leading cause of power outages, breakdowns of electric grid, and that is increasing due to climate change. the reporter is -- the report is

the white house's way of saying this is a way that climate change is causing problems in the u.s. 58% ofort found that are caused by extreme weather and that power outages tossed the economy of $230 billion a year. a lot of ways it is a quantifying the cost of climate change. are the result surprising? guest: i do not think so. there's another lot of new news, but it is a slowly stacked up out of data linking climate change to quantifiable economic costs. host: you can see the numbers on the screen. dirty three billion dollars, month the3 billion a

cost of weather-related outages. 2 2012.from 2003 in 2012, the u.s. suffered $11 billion in weather disaster. we want to put our numbers up as we look at this report. we have separate lines for republicans and democrats. we look forward to your questions and comments for our guest. it's taking a step back for a moment. what exactly is the electrical grid. it is a system of wires, transmission lines and electric generating stations across the country. is pretty old. some of it as old as 100 years. most major transmission lines in the country are at least over 25 years old.

most electric generators are over 30 years old. big patchedy this together set of infrastructures that is essential for running the economy. it is how our electricity moves, how the lights are on, how people are watching tv today. picture all those wires and that transmission. that is the grid. host: what is being done to shore up the grid? guest: not a lot. there have been alarms going off about the vulnerability of the electric red for a number of -- the electric grid for a number of years. for investmentls to strengthen the grid, to put new transmission lines, what experts call hard in the grid. right now with all the measures of sequestration in congress, the federal government is not going to have more money to

spend on shortening the grid. experts say it needs an investment of about $20 billion and strengthende the grid to get it where it needs to be. right now that is not happening. host: host: first call for our guests, good morning. caller: good morning. if she is aware of fuel cell technology that is presently in front of the largest units in front of fedex, ebay, walmart that are being fueled by natural gas? guest: i didn't know they were natural fuel cells and fedex has been a leader in fuel cell technology. host: why do you bring it up? caller: i think we can eliminate

the grid and to place a $3500 or less fuel cell on a home and eliminate the grid and each person has the natural gas power in their own home. is a logical thing with the abundance of natural gas. then no one can destroy our infrastructure. guest: natural gas already provides about 40% of the nation's electricity right now by major generators. they bring the electricity to home through the grid. this is the kind of thing that would be a change in infrastructure and a major investment. there are a lot of ideas out there. where does the money come from to do it? the money is unfortunately not forthcoming.

host: what has been the most recent effort in congress to update the grid? guest: there was $4.5 billion in the 2009 stimulus grid to help implement the so-called smart grid. it adds computer technology to the grid. helps electric utilities automatically up the electricity when there is higher demand. that was in 2009. and was $4.5 billion. compare that to the need for updating the grid. the investment would be about $20 billion a year for 20 years. host: so plugging money back in. joe from west virginia, good

morning. caller: i am a retired coal miner. about 98% coal, because we are a coal state. a decision was made 12 years ago to not cut or clear the right- of-ways of the utility lines. that money was diverted into extra pay of executives. they diverted the money to a bigger dividend to their stockholders. we have suffered massive power outages because of the storms that have occurred over the last years. now they will be forced to have a maintenance plan to maintain

these right-of-ways. just good common sense and to avoid crazy businesses like this could have saved west virginia hundreds of thousands and literally millions of dollars. the rate payers have to pay for this on the increase. they received a most 45% increase in the last three years. our rates are one of the highest in the nation. now they are trying to stick us with all coal. our future looks bleak because of some of these deals. i am a retired coal miner. nonstop remover has destroyed a beautiful part of the state of

west virginia and contaminated the water. guest: it is interesting the situation the caller is describing. one problem with the grid is how it is overseen and how it is regulated. it is overseen by a real patchwork. it is kind of a patchwork over who oversees what. it has led to mismanagement. host: we have a chart here. as the colors describing. so that is another big challenge. host: these are observed outages from 1992 to 2012 over the 20 years. there are two lines here. one is red, one indicating non- weather related. then this darker line talks about whether related and you can see a significant spike in the 2007-2008 period and beyond.

guest: in the last two years, we have seen record damages, more than $10 billion in street -- and extreme weather events the white house is correlating the extreme weather, the power outages with scientific studies showing that climate change is one of the direct drivers of this extreme weather. more hurricanes, more flooding, more storms. in some cases, drought, extreme drought can be linked. host: when did this report come out? guest: this week. host: any reaction for congress? guest: congress is out.

the report doesn't call for concrete action from congress. it calls for increased spending through the grid. i know the white house knows it's not going to get that from congress. having the public linking the idea of climate change, extreme weather, and economic impact that this can sort of feel here and now. i think that was really the idea the report and they wanted to tee it up to the anniversary of the blackout. in some ways, this is taking a lot of information they already have in using it to do some pr. host: we know that some folks still debate climate change itself. but with weather-related spikes, is there any dispute over that piece of it? the weather itself has caused

these problems? guest: that part is not in dispute. research shows that extreme weather is the leading cause of power outages. i think the report said that 58% of power outages are caused by or linked to extreme weather. the increased in extreme weather and dollars are connected. caller: welcome to the c-span network. i have to reiterate what the gentleman from west virginia said. we got hit with a "extreme thunderstorm." it came down to the last tree cutting around the right of ways of the transmission lines. if we take a look at each one of the utilities out how they are deferred -- how the deferred

maintenance can be a cause of some of this. guest: i think the caller raises the point about a question about oversight, regulation and management of the grid as well. between the regulators, the electric utilities, local governments, this is an issue where there is a patchwork and in the caller pause community -- the caller's community, there is an issue over who is really managing the grid and are they doing a good job? host: and what is the relationship between the government, the states and the companies themselves? guest: it is complicated. it looks like complete spaghetti. it is different in different regions. there's one for the northeast. different states have different laws. it is really difficult to wrap your head around this. people said that this is maybe be one area where we need to see reform.

host: one viewer on twitter wants to know -- guest: the in governmental panel convened by the human has put out a series of reports as have the national academies of science, similar scientific bodies all around the world concluding that global average temperatures are increasing over time and that this is linked to carbon emissions, to burning fossil fuels, the cost of, change and increasing temperature. those are pretty clearly established. host: and here's a treat -- -- tweet. we have oakland, maryland on the line. caller: how are you doing this morning? i am old enough that i can remember back when i was in college.

we had local cooling and we had global freezing. then we have global warming. and then there was climate change. what i have seen happen in the last 30 years is just like the scientists who got a hold of their e-mails and found out that they were fudging the reports because they already knew what they wanted to find out. i'm not send that there isn't some kind of climate change, but people can't lose. if it's too hot, it's climate change. if it's too cold, it's climate change. now the stars. and the state of -- now the storms. in the state of west virginia, some of his comrades are looking at losing their jobs because a big out of the state has lost

that income due to the pa and the fact that you -- the epa and the fact that you have the governor searching for coal. it is one of the most hypocritical things i have seen. as far as i am concerned, this administration we have in washington is bound and determined to put the coal industry out of business. thank you. guest: to the caller's initial point about the science of crime and change and the terminology of climate change and global warming, i think scientists and people talk about energy and climate policy and are comfortable and are changing the two terms, climate change and global warming. there really isn't a reason to use one or the other. they basically mean the same thing. and they referred to the data

that consistently show increase global temperatures directly linked to increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere. this is what is known as the greenhouse effect. scientists have been studying it and it has been established. 97% of scientists agree with the assessment that increasing carbon pollution does increase the global temperature in the atmosphere. so the science is fairly well- established. to the caller's last point, about the coal industry, the: history -- the coal industry, which provides 40% of our electricity, it also provides most of the carbon pollution in the u.s. the caller is absolutely right that the coal industry is threatened in policies aimed at cutting carbon emissions. president obama is rolling out environmental protection agency regulations aimed at cutting down carbon emissions.

it probably will hurt the coal industry. it will change our electric mix. and coal is no small part of it. that is a real economic part of that. the colors right about that. host: this was in "the washington post" today or in the white house installing solar panels this week. guest: i believe those are the solar panels that jimmy carter originally put them up in the 70s. and then to much fanfare, ronald reagan took them down. and for a while, president obama said that he would ring them back. i would bring them back. i would imagine that solar technology has evolved so much since then that they would probably get a lot more efficiency with modern panels. but certainly the president is try to make his policy point here as well. host: this story also points out that the president has set out a goal.

they are saying that includes the army, navy and air force. caller: i just wanted to mention that they can use reservoir hydroelectric type of man-made dams to make quite a bit of free power. the city of hamburg in germany, 20% of their electricity comes from free solar panels. when i was watching reports in china, i noticed that all of their electric power poles and the light poles have solar panels atop them to create solar power. just think of the thousands of jobs that could be created by installing power plants from solar.

i noticed another report in france where they are trying to build the world's first fusion reactor which they have been tried to do since the 1950s and can't do. i wish you scientists would know that there's a free fusion reactor up in in the sky. it is called the son. and it doesn't cost anything. and it will be burning for another 90 billion years excuse me, and of the 3 billion years. the silicon is built from sand. guest: the color sounds like the resident on the campaign trail calling for more solar energy and the jobs it might create. solar, wind and other renewables only make up about 5% of the

energy mix. the president has worked very hard to grow and expand that and we may see some policies in the coming years that can push that. his epa climate regulations will probably give incentive for more wind and solar and renewable power. the problem is a bit takes a really long time to make that transition, to go from less than 5% solar electricity to a really significant share. we will probably need to see big changes in the markets and that will also require big changes in the grid as well. one of the problems with renewable energy is that it is read -- it is generated out in deserts or wind sock planes. certainly, the white house is interested in on the kind of things that the caller was talking about. will we see policies that will implement them? will we see federal spending on it? host: this is worth bringing up again -- is any of the grid publicly owned today? guest: some of it is owned by public utilities. some of it is owned by private utilities.

there are public co-ops. they are all part of the patchwork makes. host: you can read this story at nationaljournal.com. stewart and charles, illinois, independent. caller: this is as an interesting topic to i have dozens of questions. first of all, there have been no increase in the temperature of the earth over the last 10-15 years. the people that report never say that. the international models are not holding true. the international climate change committee is a political but scientific group. you should've showed a graph of 100 years showing storms, not 15 years. the current administration, i i don't even know how to [indiscernible]

they are hardly to be listened to or believed. incidentally, germany, they are paying over four times electricity than people in illinois. it is different for every state, of course, but i am talking about illinois where i live and those are some of the points in the conversation that would be much more intelligent if all of these different points were brought up. obviously, there is some change in the climate. are has always been change in the climate. i have never heard one of these reporters say to me -- in greenland, thousand years ago, the temperature was warmer than now. host: anything you want to react to the call? guest: sure. i think his words were that climate hasn't warmed significantly last 10-15 years. i think he is pointing to recent

studies that climate scientists have found that the rate of warmth in the atmosphere has slowed over the last 10-in years. when the last decade, we have seen the hottest years on record. but scientists have been stumped as to why the atmosphere temperatures haven't gone up as much as they have anticipated. however, within that same time, we have seen the hottest years on record and scientists also point out one of the real signals we see for the climate change is the rapid change in the temperature of the ocean, which is linked to the melting of the global ice caps and the rising sea levels. so the scientific evidence linking the increasing carbon

emissions to the increase in both atmospheric and ocean temperatures is strong. it's consistent. the caller talked about the intergovernmental panel on climate change. that panel is composed of scientists, about 2000 scientists from around the world. it is an independent scientific body and its findings correlate with other scientific findings as well. again, the proceedings of the national academies of science have done over 50 studies in the last decade correlating climate change. the studies on climate change, there is some sort of kick up in questions along the way, but scientists will tell you that the basic story is well- established.

host: the last caller mentioning germany remind me to ask about other countries and their electric grids. what can you tells about the way other countries do this? guest: europe struggles with some of the same issues that the united states does. across the eu, a patchwork of grids that a lot of them are older, a lot of them are managed by manage different regulatory systems. but i think this is -- i'm not sure how it's run in china. but the issue of aging vulnerable grids is something that big governments around the world will be dealing with. host: minnesota, republican. caller: good morning. i agree with the gentleman who just called in. this is all about smart meters. it is about control. it is about controlling our homes and heat. it is kind of an advertisement. there is no scientific studies that prove that the earth is warming up. we all know god is in control. guest: she talked about smart meters, an interesting point. in the political debate about climate change, one of the lines of argument has been that the science of climate change, which

is well-established, has been concocted in order to create a reason for government control. and it is certainly true that these regulations tolerably will involve more government control, more government regulation of what kind of energy is used. she talked about the smart meter. that is part of the smart grid that was funded in the stimulus, an energy-efficient mechanism that allows utilities to monitor when you are using electricity and at what time of day. there is concern that this means electric utilities can have more information about what you're doing and when when. these regulations do mean that the government will control where your energy mix comes from and probably lead to certain closures of power plants in certain industries. so this is part of the broader debate of fear or concern about control, government control,

until by corporations. but it doesn't negate the established science of increasing carbon emissions contributing to climate change. host: one last call from ron in pennsylvania, independent color. caller: i just want to know if they take the radiant heat into consideration, all the buildings, parking lots. when you look at one of these thermometers outside of banks on the street, it is always three or four or five or eight degrees higher than it would've a -- then it would be out of town. do they take that into consideration? back when i was driving trucks, they said fuel was causing pollution and ruining our engines. same thing with [indiscernible] they use gas mileage -- less gas

mileage and the ethanol in your car, if you don't use it too often, it runs the carburetor. you have to spend twice as much for gas now because you get less mileage. it ruins your car. what is going on with that? guest: so the caller brings up an interesting point about measuring temperatures in cities. there have been studies done to ensure that the extra radiant heat generated i pavement, by buildings is accounted for in these broader studies of atmospheric aperture. these studies have been going on for decades. it is not just for a few years or one decade, but for many, many years where the correlation is firmly linked.

the other point that he talked about his ethanol and sulfur regulation. this is a separate energy issue, but one we will probably see a lot of, fighting about and congress and the next year i think because there are concerns about ethanol regulation forcing too much ethanol into the gasoline blend, potentially hurting cars. there is a lot right now mandating a certain amount of ethanol in gasoline blends and i think this'll will be a bigger issue going forward. is that law may be a mistake? does any to be repealed? the color should stay tuned. host: this is the energy it correspondent for "the national journal." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> amy klobuchar is the keynote speaker at a fundraiser later today. according to "the des moines register," she is the first to visit for a possible 2016 residential campaign. here is more about that. click c-span radio will be covering the amy klobuchar is sent in des moines, iowa, called the wing ding. she is speaking but she's honoring hillary clinton. how will that work? guest: it is the gathering of some county democrats and each year they give an award to a democrat. simplybuchar is coming to help for bruce bailey, a democratic congressman their running for the senate. to somealso spoken

iowans at the national convention. it's interesting that she's coming back as she says it's mainly just to work for bruce bailey. host: does amy klobuchar have any interest? is there talk about her forming interest for running for president in 2016? guest: she brushed off questions about running for president, but we have had some activists here from mle's list and they were promoting a generic female candidate or president and amy klobuchar was one of the names that the president of mle's list named off. 's lsit. amy klobuchar is almost always on those lists. >> a reminder that you can see senator clover chart's comments tonight from iowa live at 7:00 p.m. eastern -- senator amy klobuchar's comments.

test speakers at the annual north iowa democrat wing ding forecast include john edwards in 2000and barack obama in seven. hillary clinton is being honored at this year's event that she will not be there. >> tonight on c-span's encore presentation of "first ladies." click she was very proud of her husband and she supported all of his decisions. once again, she was a very private person. it was fine for her husband to be in politics and go to washington, be in the senate and congress, but she didn't want to be a part of it. yet she constantly supported that. there were other sayings attributed to her that she had wished she could be back home and things of that nature, but she obviously believed that her husband would be acquitted and was very proud when he was.

>> the encore presentation of the original series "first ladies" continues tonight on c- span. foreign affairs minister visiting washington, d.c., and he stopped by the strategic for international studies to talk about u.s.-iraq unrest inand the egypt. he met the secretary of state, john kerry, yesterday. this is about one hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much for your great introduction. and thank you, john, also for inviting us to the csis. and with this distinguished

crowd, i know many of you in person. i worked with some of you. i'm really honored to be among you today on its friday. i am honored also, this could be the last lecture here in this building, so i have to honor the csis before he moves to its new building. this is another honorary thing. thank you. i am here to offer a view from iraq and the region. being honest and frank with you, really i will devote most of my time to the questions to q and a rather than giving you a piece of -- want to hear from you. i know many of you have many

serious questions about iraq's future and whether iraq has succeeded in the challenges or it has not. let me start -- much of what is happening today now in the middle east, and the issue in cairo, in the issue of beirut, syria, baghdad, terrorist attacks -- really they are in many ways related. the challenges and the opportunities and the tragedies have been taking place in iraq for the past decade. iraq was the third country in

our region to make the transition from dictatorship to democracy. we know that the road is long and hard and has been very arduous, torturous for us to make that transformation. but still worth taking. as the arab spring have shown, countries that are governed through transitions are at risk of foreign intervention and domestic violence. in iraq, we are confronting these challenges and more. but we are also making progress towards stabilization, stabilizing our society, growing our economy, building our democracy, and developing good relations with all of our neighbors.

10 years after the rule of saddam hussein, the better future that we seek is still a goal, not a given. but some confusions are as clear as anything can be in our region and in this time. for all the suffering we have endured, the people of iraq and our neighbors are much better off now that saddam is gone. i write these are forever grateful to the sacrifices that americans have made in time, treasure, and of in blood. iraqis of course have endured even greater losses. and as the recent attacks of terrorism have reminded us -- our ordeal is not over.

the iraqi and our government intend to redeem these losses by building a future worthy of our sacrifices. after decades of dictatorship, three disastrous wars, international isolation, economic sanctions, the displacement of more than one million iraqis, and the deaths of tens of thousands more, including the latest victims of terrorism, iraq is in blocking is embarking on building its democratic future in building bridges within our society and with our neighbors. as iraqis, as we rebuild our country, the united states will benefit by building a long-term partnership together. we can and must develop what president obama has described and i quote "as a normal relationship between sovereign nations and equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect." with our diplomatic progress,

iraq is taking its space of a partner for the united states, for our neighbors, and for the family of nations. on the political front, we are building a multiethnic, multiparty democracy with respect to the rule of law. our democratic process is moving forward at a strong and steady pace. our local elections took place in april of this year. there will be regional elections in september of this year, and our legislative and general elections will take place next spring, 2014. which will determine our national leadership, and that will be a very important thing to watch.

we have a government of national unity. now all the communities purchase of eight in the workings of the government and of the parliament. yes, we have differences of opinion, as all democracies do, but we are working together. slowly but surely, our efforts are achieving results. we are promoting human rights. there have been violations, which we had met, but there are constant efforts to improve on that and to be responsive. and also the freedom of expression and advancements of women. there have been demonstrations

incidents in iraq and many provinces, the western part of iraq, some sunni provinces for the last eight months. they have cut those, they have sit-ins, but the government has not resulted to the same methods that egyptian recently used or deployed. all the political parties have accepted election as a method of power shedding and peaceful change. iraqis want to decide their own future with voting, not violence. on the economic front, we are growing and diversifying. we have the world's fastest- growing economy, expanding by 9.6% in 2011, and 10.5% in 2012. according to bank of america merrill lynch. we will grow by 8.2% this year, beating china for the fifth straight year.

on the energy front, our oil production has increased by 50% since 2005. iraq expects to increase oil production to 4.5 million barrels by the end of 2014 and 9 million barrels a day by 2020. as the international energy agency has reported, iraq is poised to double our export of oil by the decade of 2050. we will use our strained global oil markets. in spite of this progress, we have challenges that we are working to address. 90% of our economy depends on oil. our unemployment rate is 11%, our poverty line rate is 23%. although there has been significant progress over the

last few years, and we think the development millennium goals set by the united nations. in order to diversify our economy beyond energy, iraq is investing oil revenues in education and crucial development projects, including restoration of power and rebuilding our transportation system. our economy will benefit from our progress on the germanic front as well. last month, the united nations security council removed iraq literally from chapter seven sanction regime, which impose economic and other sections on

direct after saddam hussein invaded kuwait 22 years ago this month. we are working with the international monetary fund as well as the world bank and the arab league and the oic and many other regional and international organizations as a fully responsible member again of the international community. now we are moving toward a market that is friendly toward foreign investments. americans can provide that, what our nations need through investment and trade, not charity and aid. we need the expertise on energy, technologies, engineering, design, construction, and financial services. iraq offers americans tremendous investment opportunities. for american developing and servicing schools, bridges, highways, healthcare, water treatment, telecommunications, and much more.

this is what our agreement for the strategic framework agreement covers between iraq and the united states. but make no mistake, nothing that we build together will be done in less we win our war against terrorism and the war to stabilize the country, ensure security for all the people of iraq. we see the violence in iraq and the terrible toll that it has taken daily. and we have heard about the threats that compelled your own country to close your missions, 22 missions in the middle east and north african regions. all qaeda is behind the terrorist attacks against america and iraq. at a time when the united states is seeking allies against terrorism, we want to work with you against our common in any.

we understand what is at stake. it is our fight for survival, and it is crucial for national and regional policy. regional peace and to the security of our people. we are working in close cooperation with international communities and our neighboring countries to fight all sorts and every manifestation of terrorism, whatever its sources, whatever its intention, wherever we find it. these terrorists are seeking to destabilize iraq because they see our political, economic, and diplomatic progress as a threat to the desperation on which they feed.

if americans are tempted to conclude that our concerns with terrorism is only our reputation and it is extreme, then think to yourself how would you respond if a terrorist organization were operating on your soil, its affiliates are operating on hours. together with the threat against american embassies, the violence on our soil is an example of why al qaeda is still a threat to all of us. just yesterday, they bombed five hospitals. not police stations, not government buildings -- no, five hospitals, and deliberately. we have also seen the attack on the last day of eid, which caused these lives of many people. if america takes its eyes off of the middle east, then there will be a resurgence of al qaeda or

its affiliates, and more menacing than ever we have seen. our concerns with the consequences of terrorists having next-door shaped our views about syria. for americans, syria is more than 5000 miles away. for us, syria is right on our doorstep. our border with syria is long, and therefore we are deeply concerned about the ability of terrorists to use and cross these borders. that is why we are participating in the search for political solution in syria. that will reduce the violence and diminish the role of the

extremists. it is not easy, this political solution, as we see the balance of forces moving this way. but that is one of the viable options for the people of syria. only the syrian people can decide and determine their future. iraq was at the table during geneva talks, and the final communicator was produced by the meetings, had a strong iraqi input, and even kneeling which that was adopted by all the participants. now, there are new talks about resuming geneva ii, but

according to what we have heard here in washington and new york, this will only happen maybe in october or maybe later. there are no fixed dates yet about the possibility. we in iraq do support the legitimate aspirations of the syrian people. freedom, democracy, self- determination. iraq has tried to adopt independent, neutral position. not to side with one side against the other, but to seek and to support a peaceful, democratic solution in syria. there is no somebody whatsoever with the ba'athist regime.

in fact, at one time when we called the international community to hold the syrian government responsible for terrorist acts in iraq, we were the only voice, all of our allies and friends abandon us in a call. unfortunately, there are some who have called for iraq used to volunteer on both sides in syria and have used religious justifications on the basis of sectarian confrontation. but let me be clear -- the iraqi volunteers who are fighting on either side in syria do not represent the policy of the iraqi government in any way. they are opposed to the smuggling of arms to syria. the government of iraq is committed to implement a un resolution, promoting peace in

syria. in keeping with our position against militarization of the conflict, we are doing our best to prevent shipments of arms across our borders by whoever. but we cannot do this without the capabilities and a sophisticated, integrated defense system that we lack. this is what we have been asking from our friends to help us. this is one more reason why the united states and iraq need to deepen our partnership and to combat terrorism. we need to continue to fully implement the agreement that our countries signed before the withdrawal of american forces in 2011. that means expedited delivery of promised military as well as assistance in the counterterrorism and enhancing the capacity of our security forces. short of reintroducing american troops in iraq.

nobody is calling for the redeployment of american forces, but under the strategic framework agreement, there is a great deal of room, of space for security corporations to enhance our common fight against terrorism. iraq is also in the process of purchasing $10 billion worth of military equipment from mainly the united states and other countries. we are paying for it with our own revenues, and we want to buy the hardware from the american allies. our recent purchases of 30 boeing planes testifies to our potential as a market for

american companies, american products, and american services. the view from iraq and the region also includes opportunities as well as challenges as we have outlined. over the past two years, relations between iraq and kuwait have improved in or monthly. in fact, there have been mutual visits between the two countries at the highest level. the problems are being resolved through the joint committee and the u.s. security counsel resolution number 2105 on june 27 of this year. this included iraq's compliance with our obligations toward kuwait. the only permitting issues, which is not a controversial issue because there have been

mutual agreement, and payment, competition, which iraq is doing. my country is literally, is technically out of chapter seven. now, we are focusing on the future relationship between our countries so that together we can promote peace and stability in the region. there is a new hope for our neighbors through our region. we do not object to iran having peaceful nuclear power program, but we would be one of the first countries to object to iran possessing nuclear weapons because of the past in their history. in fact, we favor the universalizations of the nuclear city and strict adherence to all of its obligations, particularly in the middle east. definitely iran aids to convince the international community that their program is only for peaceful purposes and the world

community needs to engage with iran to assess the issues that have isolated it. we are encouraged by the election in iran and the victory of president rouhani, and the selection of his new team. iraq has been trying to be useful or to be helpful in reaching an understanding on this very important issue. in order to reach diplomatic solutions to the crisis of the nuclear program, iraq has worked in cooperation with the islamic republic of iran and the european union to hold the meeting of the 5+1 group in baghdad last may. iraq will continue its efforts

in the area and cooperation with the countries. as the fifth nation in our neighborhood to abandon weapons of mass destruction, iraq recently chaired an international conference. just imagine 20 years ago where we were. we seek a middle east free of nuclear weapons. toward that goal, we support efforts to convene a u.n. conference. iraq seeks to force friendship with our neighbors and a strategic partnership with the united states. together we can build a future of peace, prosperity, and democracy worthy of the sacrifices of iraqis and americans in our time. and the hope and dreams of generations yet to come. i thank you very much.

[applause] >> mr. minister, thank you very much for that statement. i think it is a sign both of the complexity of your agenda and the skill with which you handle it. the minister has agreed to take questions, but i ask that you wait for a microphone and that you will identify your self, and that we only ask one question until everybody has had a chance so that we can work our way around this rather full room. we will start right here, if we may. >> thank you. i am a palestinian journalist in

town. your excellency, what are the safeguards that you're implementing now to ensure that iraq does not slide back to the days of 2005 and 2007, especially with emerging al qaeda? how would that figure into a new security agreement without introducing boots on the ground? thank you. >> as a practitioner of iraqi politics, i do not -- i believe iraq is not going toward sectarian war. the people have not responded, have not been influenced at all

by these deliberate attacks to ignite sectarian or civil war. and there was the last string of troops in kurdistan or the dispute in areas between the central government and the regional government, but nothing happened and the problems were resolved peacefully. you have seen many people abandon the government in iraq kurds, sunnis, and others. but then through dialogue and interaction, i think now everybody has rejoined the government to work together. secondly, we have been there before in 2005 through 2007 and

we have seen how terrible that situation was when we were counting hundreds of bodies in the streets of baghdad and so on. really, there is self-restraint by all of the communities not to be dragged again into that. although civil wars and others that does not happen by decisions, by an incident or another incident, but we all followed how the surge worked in iraq and how successfully. there is still a great deal of expertise and benefits we are drawing from these efforts. secondly, politics has taken over in iraq. most of the iraqis, even those who were opposed to the new iraq or the new regime, are embracing democracy. they are all waiting for the next election to change their future. we have seen the recent local elections, how the people have spoken -- everywhere.

they are waiting for the next elections in 2014. as i said before, really we have demonstrations and sit-ins in many parts of the country for the past eight months and the government never resulted in violence except in one or two incidents, and i cannot justify these violations whatsoever. but, generally, the government has tolerated this so far to go on without any intimidation. and the dialogue is continuing. the other element of restraint is the religious establishment. the shia religious establishment has stood strongly against any engagement and retaliations or responses. there are militias. there are forces on both sides. but, really, they have not

reached the level of seeing the country dragged into a new civil or sectarian war. so security wise it may not be stable, but it will be manageable and till the next year. now there are no plans actually to have a new sofa. we have concluded the sofa. it is done, over. we have another agreement, the strategic framework agreement, that is a long-term agreement that defines the iraq and united states' relationship for many i have joined this secretaryee with kerry yesterday.

this is an indication that this is going on. i think there is room for security cooperation between iraq and the united states. >> david mack, middle east institute. old hand at u.s.-iraqi diplomacy. i want to salute would you have done in terms of reintegrating iraq into the international community. i think future historians are going to rate you right there with the great french foreign minister in terms of what you have accomplished. but my hard question for you is, what is the outlook for improving iraq's troubled relations with two of your larger neighbors, both turkey and saudi arabia? >> thank you, david.

i appreciate it, one of the first american diplomats in my career before becoming foreign minister of iraq, to meet david mack at the state department. i remember that meeting very well in 1991, immediately after the gulf war and uprising. so it is good to see you, david. a friend and i have a great deal of respect. your question is very important. we and the iraqi government have been discussing this very closely. but let's be honest about this, there are two countries that have an influence over iraqi and sunni communities. saudi arabia and turkey, for different reasons. we have good relations with iran, jordan, egypt, with the arab countries. for your information, now in iraq we have nearly 92 or 93 diplomatic missions, including

15 arab embassies. those days of boycott of iraq, not accepting this alien body, are gone. even the saudis have diplomatic representation. there are officials for dictating on an elected iraqi government, what to do and not to do. i think they recognize that there is another way. turkey is our largest trading partner. actually now we have between $12 billion and $14 billion of trade with turkey. transit and so on, iraq is the

only viable route for them to the gcc. i am planning to meet with the turkish officials soon, maybe in ankara or geneva, for talks to improve that. with saudis, we have not broken relations. we have communications and contacts. there are a number of things we can do to improve relations or to introduce some confidence- building measures. one of them, we have a treaty to

exchange prisoners. we have iraqi prisoners in saudi arabia. the saudis have some prisoners in iraqi jails. we are almost at the final stages of concluding that. we are also considering some business relations with saudi arabia through reopening the border point between iraq and saudi arabia. david, for your information, i was in riyadh a few months ago and i discovered really that the saudi trade through jordan and kuwait is nearly $4 billion u.s. also, we need to lower the sectarian rhetoric on both sides in order to seek healthy relations. resolving problems with kuwait have helped with the saudis and other gcc members. but it is an important challenge for us to work on that very seriously. >> barbara from the atlantic council. always a pleasure to see you,

minister zebari. i wanted to get more detail on your views on the new iranian government and what iraq is prepared to do to try to facilitate the nuclear talks. were you in tehran for president rouhani? what is your sense on how the u.s. is receiving the overtures from the new iranian government? thank you. >> thank you, barbara. i believe the election of president rouhani was a statement by iran and the islamic republic of iran to the international community and the

world that it means serious business. otherwise, there are many ways his success of his election could have been scuffled from the first round, to force him into a second round. but the pressures were enormous on the establishment to go along with this outcome. also, he has drawn a great deal of support from the reformist movement. rouhani is an incredible leader who is a member of the regime. he is not weak. he has very strong relations with all the key leaders in iran. so he is a member of the

revolution. he cannot be challenged. the statement we have had calling for moderation, calling for the ending of the suffering of the iranian people by the implicit vision -- by the imposition of sanctions and political isolations, i think they were very clear and loud. i was not in iran during the inauguration but the vice president was there. the prime minister was there also. so the feedback we have had is that there would be change, but this change will not come immediately, as many people expect. the key elements everybody will be watching is the five plus one meeting in september. whether they will present any new approach, i personally doubt it, i do not think it will happen that soon, but pressures are mounting on them for a solution. my message has been really not to underestimate this change in iran, but we have to wait and see because the proof in the

pudding is in eating, as they say. >> if i could pick up on one part of that question. she also asked about whether iraq sees any role helping to facilitate some change in the world's relations with iran. is that one of your ambitions? >> a believe iraq could serve as a bridge. we have played that role in the past. as i indicated in my speech, the hosting of the nuclear talks in baghdad last year was an indication that we have an interest to help facilitate and not fall under the pressure but to communicate fairly and honestly, and we will continue to do that because we have a

vested interest there. >> all the way in the back. >> mr. minister, in the kurdish areas of syria, you have a fight between the kurds and al qaeda. the president of the krg has said he will use force to protect the kurds. what is the position of the iraqi government to an attempt by a segment of iraq sending forces across the border into syria? is that part of your policy? and what do you think should happen with the syrian kurds? thank you. >> thank you, and good to see you. this is a good question again. in fact, there has been fighting

between many of the extremist groups with the kurdish or the pyd party there which is in charge. there have been reports of the killings of hundreds of civilians. this has raised alarms in the kurdish community throughout the region, but also in the krg. to do something to defend or protect the kurds. but these decisions really need to be coordinated. we have discussed it in baghdad. the iraqi government, prime minister maliki and the government are fully aware of the tension in syria and the

danger of al qaeda and the nexis taking place across the border and in syria, and declaring the islamic state. but i believe that really he will ask the newly formed kurdish national group to investigate this before making a decision. so it is not going across the tigris to fight another war there at the borders. there have been discussions between the syrian opposition recently to resolve this conflict. but any decisions i think will

be coordinated with the government of iraq, any decisions. >> address the threat from al qaeda in iraq, i believe the numbers have gone from about five to 10 suicide bombings a month up to about 30 a month. that is a big escalation. what do you attribute to that escalation, and what is your government doing about it? >> thank you. that is why we are here basically, to seek more help and support. really, the al qaeda network and its affiliates is a real serious challenge, let's say, to the stability of iraq and of the region. also, we see this emergence between al qaeda in iraq and

nusra in syria and other affiliate groups that are flourishing in this kind of circumstance. there is experience in combating al qaeda and iraq. its technology and intelligence on al qaeda. networks and fighting them. the counterterrorism technique, we need to benefit from these expertise to forge better relations with the u.s. security forces to enhance our abilities and capabilities in terms of weapons, equipment, technologies. because it is not going to stop there, al qaeda.

we have our own failure. the iraqi government, we have admitted them. but the challenge is really beyond our capabilities. >> minister, good to see you again. mark. i want to talk about the issue of counterterrorism. you have identified it as probably the key issue inside of iraq right now. it has brought you here to washington, d.c. yet, you have preemptively taken off any option of u.s. military support, what you referred to as boots on the ground. is that an iraqi decision not to ask for american troop support to provide that expertise, or is that an american political decision placed upon you or a combination of both?

>> really we are not short of boots on the ground, we have nearly one million troops and tanks to the u.s. for helping to raise and train these. so quite a number of boots on the ground. no, this is not the request from my government or to reintroduce u.s. troops. as you know, we have security cooperation with you, within the security office in baghdad and the strategic framework agreement. there is room to support and enhance iraqi democracy and support. when we agreed on that agreement, we knew in the future we may need future assistance and help. there are many ways -- you as a

military commander know that. there are many ways the military can do to provide help, short of sending troops into iraq. it is not the request of my government, actually, and i do not think there is any appetite or willingness here also to send troops abroad or to engage into another conflict now. >> thank you. i am josh rogin with newsweek and the daily beast. as you know, increased security cooperation is one of the main requests that the iraqi government has the u.s. lawmakers in washington are worried because they believe that it iraq is still allowing iran to use iraqi airspace to promote the flow of arms to the assad regime.

there are concerns that the iraqi government may use u.s. weapons towards political ends to marginalize the opposition, as we have seen in the past. what assurances can you give us on both fronts? what steps are you taking to stop the arms flow from iran to assad, and as we approach new elections, how do we know u.s. weapons will not be used for domestic or political purposes? thank you. >> definitely, my government will abide by all the rules and regulations that you here in the united states or congress will imposed on these arms, not only to iraq. we will abide by that definitely for these weapons not to be used for domestic use or improperly. it would be used for the defense of the country.

on the overflight of iranians using iraqi airspace, let me give you that reality. sometimes we are talking geographically about the situation. for your information, iraq does not have a single fighter plane up to now. it has a couple of helicopters, some training planes, small planes, but it does not have a single aircraft to protect its airspace. iraq does not have integrated self-defense to protect its skies. we have requested it. we are waiting for the delivery.

so that is the situation when we talk about iraq's capabilities and deterrence capabilities to prevent others from using its airspace. we do not support the iranians or any others to use our airspace because it goes against our policy of taking an independent, neutral position here. not to militarize the conflict in any way. and we have done a number of inspections. these inspections could not be endorsed by some here in the united states, and we choose only those who carry, let's say, legitimate equipment or material. but we have raised the possibility here really -- i mean, we will continue to live up to our commitments here.

there are security council resolutions barring this from leaving iran. we do not have the capabilities of enforcing this. politically, we have made these demands. so who is going to reinforce that? the security council, who? we have taken note actually of the serious concerns about this flight. i can tell you now they have gone down. they may not have stopped, but believe me, we have no ways of making sure that what kind of weapons, equipment -- not only iran that is providing syria arms and ammunitions. russia and other sources.

the port on the mediterranean is seen daily by u.s. satellite and imagery, how much weapons are going into syria. so here, we do not want to view iraq as a whipping boy for failing to hold others to their commitment. but we will live up to our commitment. i think we will do more to live up to our commitment to stop, to prevent any further flights. again, there is an international agreement and arrangements the between countries. >> mr. minister, i am an

independent scholar on iraq for a long time. i would like to give you a warm welcome. i would like to get back to oil. one of the things inhibiting investment is the lack of a hydrocarbon law. how close is iraq really to achieving a hydrocarbon law? and please give us some sense of all these pipelines proposals. there is the independent one from kurdistan to turkey and the others -- what are we to make of those and how realistic are they? >> thank you. good to see you here. and same spirit. the hydrocarbon law is one of the key political challenges for

iraq or for the new iraq. on the basis of the iraqi constitution that gives all power and wealth among, let's say, among the region, among the people. only recently the iraqi parliament passed a designation to enhance the powers of governors, of the local authorities in iraq. it has been a political issue between the krg and baghdad, the hydrocarbon law. there was an agreement in 2007 that was accepted by both sides but it did not materialize. it is a key reference point. because of the deteriorations of relations between the krg and baghdad, there has been a

separation of thinking, of planning, of using the oil resources and approaches with turkey. and iran also, not just turkey. really, i am not pessimistic. i am optimistic for finding a resolution for this. it benefits the country. it benefits everybody. it enhances the iraqi oil industry. the issue of ownership, the issue of reliability. other oil investors to work in iraq is a very important subject. it is a top issue in all of the political meetings. whether it can be enacted soon, i do not want to give you any

give you any false imipression. this is part of the new iraq. it has to be resolved with partnership, with participation, with genuine resolutions of the key political issues that are hindering iraq. i personally believe there is a better atmosphere now, better communication. recently, after the exchange of visits by prime minister maliki and members to baghdad, they are working on forming serious technical commissions to look at the issues. there is also related to the hydrocarbon law, there are two issues that are doable, but it depends a great deal on the political understanding between the leaders.

yes, the krg is trying to enhance its position by opening up to turkey. turkey's relations with baghdad are not at the best stage, which is something we're trying to do, normalizing of relations between ankara and baghdad, including the krg. there are also commercial issues, to be honest with you. there are no agreement on them. we agree that very soon in baghdad there would be a meeting of this commission to address the issue. look at plans and see whether we can finalize the hydrocarbon law before the end of this year or wait until next year's elections which is most likely.

>> last question in the back. >> hello, i am a independent consultant. a lot of people here feel like there has been a lack of political reconciliation in iraq and that it has been u.s. policy to support the urbil agreement which has not been implemented in iraq. following up on another question, i would like to give you the opportunity to explain why should the united states sell arms to iraq when, in fact, many people to leave the lack of political reconciliation is contributing to some of the violence today? thanks. >> thank you. political reconciliation is the key issue for iraq, for the stability of iraq. i think all the key leaders believe that this is the way forward.

with the hydrocarbon law, with normalizing relations with saudi arabia, with turkey, and all the questions that have been pointed questions about the core issues in iraq. the political reconciliation is moving. it is not stagnant. i mean, look at the representatives of the sunni community or from parliamentary blocs. now they are represented in the parliament and in government. they may feel they are underrepresented or marginalized. we could do more about that, definitely. but really, the lessons that came out of this local election was very, very important. many people believed they could do with the majoritarian

democracy or political majority government, one sect or one group can run it by itself, but they've proved they cannot. they could win, but they cannot govern. i think everybody realized and recognized that there has to be an inclusive democracy, not a sectarian democracy, for this country to have any future. >> mr. minister, i have heard a lot of foreign ministers speak. i do not think any has a more complex agenda and i do not think anyone handles it as well as you have demonstrated today. i am also humbled by the fact i think you have more friends in washington than i do, and i live here. [laughter] thank you for honoring us today. we look forward to welcoming you in our new building. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> two senators are calling on the obama administration to suspend aid to egypt. traveled toraham egypt last week. they released a statement today that said the massacre of civilians this week in egypt has brought our long-standing relationship with that country to a fork in the road.

we talked this afternoon to a reporter following the story. host: we talked to josh rogin this morning. how much aid are we talking about? what leverage does this represent for the united states? guest: the u.s. is committed to giving egypt about $1.3 billion of military aid and about another $250 million in direct economic and other support for the civilian government. the military aid has been going on for years, a result of the peace deal that president carter struck between israel and egypt. it has become a political

football, this debate over how much should we pressure the egyptian government to abide by the respect for human rights, the rule of law, and violence against civilians, and now we see the violence of this week. there is pressure in congress on the administration to suspend the aid. a few important things to note, first, the military aid has already been given to the egyptian military largely. so there is not another decision pending for the obama administration until about april 2014. moreover, it is important to note that gulf countries have pledged over $13 billion, more than 10 times the annual u.s. aid. it is unclear that pulling the aid would have such a dramatic effect on the egyptian military.

this is a very critical time for them. third, the obama administration has been very clear that they are not interested in using aid as political leverage. this issue has come up several times since the revolution. the position really has not changed. we should not expect that they will suspend the aid anytime soon. host: describe the pressure in congress you have mentioned. how deep is it? who is the pressure coming from? guest: sure. the pressure for conditions on aid came from the morsi government when it was elected and congress passed into law several restrictions on the aid that would have required the obama administration to cut off the aid if the morsi government having done several different things in the area of political and economic liberalization.

the morsi government didn't do any of those things. the obama waived those restrictions and nullifying congressional intent and gave egypt the aid anyway. then what happened was there were several people in congress, the chairman of the state and foreign appropriations committee of the senate, patrick leahy, but also marco rubio, john mccain and others came up with ideas of increasing restrictions of the aid. so there's always a limit to what congress can force the administration to do here. they always come with waivers. and they give national security concerns. and in the end, if the administration really wants to

give the egyptian military aid, they'll find a way to do it. host: i want to read you one quote out of the "wall street journal" this morning and get you to elaborate if you can. there is a real possibility of civil war. this from one senior u.s. official briefed on the intelligence. there is a dangerous possibility that egypt goes the way of syria. your thoughts? guest: well, there are some similarities and some areas that this is not syria. there is a lot of foreign influence in egypt right now. in syria, we see divisions. on one side, you have saudi arabia on the united arab emirates, and kuwait lining up with the military and the interim government. on the other side, you have turkey lining up with the muslim brotherhood. right now i would not say it has reached the point of civil war. it is not on that scale. we have not seen the level of

atrocities in syria -- i mean, in egypt that we have seen in syria perpetrated by the government. everyone is trying to avoid getting to that stage. host: what will you be looking for in the next couple of hours or days both here and in egypt? guest: in egypt, we're looking for signs that the military is going to decide however much violence and persecution it has conducted is enough and will allow for some space. hoping both sides will move into some sort of discussion that might lead to negotiation. in the end, there's very little that washington or any other foreign country can do to force the interim government to stop it, sort of campaign of violence

against civilians. but, you know, the egyptian government at some point will decide that they've done their job that they've cleared the streets and it's time to return to relative calm and move onto the next state which is some sort of political process that may lead to some sort of reconciliation. host: josh rogin, thanks a lot for your time and your insight course.ning.guest: of amy klobuchar will be in iowa tonight. past speakers at this event were john edwards and barack obama. that the mooring register says senator clover chart is the first democratic senator to visit iowa in preparation for presidential campaign.

now another of and from iowa. list's endorses democratic women and kicked off an event to elect a woman president at a recent town hall meeting in iowa. the first woman elected u.s. senator from missouri is joined by a panel of democratic strategists. this discussion is about an hour, 20 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to iowa and the madam president iowa town hall. let me state the obvious. it is no coincidence why the hawkeye state was chosen for the first madam president tour. iowa is to successful presidential campaigns what cape

kennedy was to the first and later flights to the moon. iowa is the launchpad. [applause] now, some might say that we are awfully ambitious in our aim to elect a woman to the white house in 2016. let's be clear, this is just the beginning of our ambition. we are here to build a pipeline of women for the future. and to take their place on the presidential ticket not only in 2016, but 2020, 2024, and beyond. [applause] you and i want our daughters and granddaughters to grow up in an america where electing a woman

president is as common as a -- oring a woman governor a woman senator. we want our daughters to aspire, not to be america's first woman president, but to be the fifth or the 10th woman president. [applause] that day is going to come sooner than you think. and let the record show that the journey began here, today, in iowa. [applause] now please join me in watching a [video clip]deo.

>> the future of washington, d.c. action. >> thank you. i always dreamed of this, standing here, and it is because of you all that i can. the millions who stood up your my mom told me i could be anything i want. you know, it did not used to be like that. >> a long time ago women did not even get to vote. >> my mom told me that when she grew up, no one ever thought there would be a woman president. can you imagine? they were all boys. [laughter] >> i'm here because of the women who fought 200 years ago. >> i am here because the elected women before me. >> i am here because my friends said i could run for office. when women lead, new ideas are formed. economies thrive and communities grow stronger. that is the american way.

we do not give up. [cheers] [applause] >> please join me in welcoming a member of iowa radio who will be our moderator, o.k. henderson. >> on behalf of my colleagues, welcome to this event. let me introduce our first panelist who has managed successful campaigns for jim webb and amy klobuchar. she managed oklahoma for the 2004 presidential candidate.

she was part of a 2012 campaign in iowa. welcome jessica vanderberg. [applause] our next panelist is a former financial consultant running a household with six children these days. she won a seat in the iowa senate 2006 and served one term. she is running for the third congressional seat of iowa. lee's welcome the former senator. -- please welcome the former senator. [applause] our third panelist was director for howard dean's presidential campaign in 2004 and 2006. she managed a successful campaign out of montana. in 2008, she managed al franken's campaign and the recount. [laughter]

2010, she was named president of the group hosting this event. please welcome stephanie. [applause] our final guest is a former prosecutor and the first woman to give birth while being an active member of the missouri legislature. [laughter] in 2006 she became the first woman elected to the u.s. senate. in 2012, she won reelection in one of the most-watched races in the country. this past june, she said it is important to start early. please welcome the senior senator from the state of missouri, claire mccaskill. [applause] senator mccaskill, let's begin

with you. why is it important to start early? >> well, i think we have to realize that in a day of citizens united where there is huge money that can be written behind closed doors and flood airwaves with distorted information, the best antidote for that is a movement. all of us, if we want to confess in fact, let's raise our hand if you spend more than $20 on the internet. [laughter] ok, so you know how to do it. you click and you put in your credit card. we have to have millions of people engaged and ready for what will be a pivotal race in american history. and that is about getting

everyone excited now about what i hope will be that moment in 2017 when we all get to say "madam president" to hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> senator, if she does not run, would you? >> no. [laughter] >> why not? >> well, first -- >> [inaudible] [applause] >> thank you. for a lot of complicated reasons, some of which are personal. my daughter lily is here. stand up so they can see how proud i am of you. [applause] some of it is family. i was blessed to be very close to a presidential campaign, so i have seen it up close and ugly.

i know what it really is about and how hard it is. and i am really fortunate to be in the u.s. senate, representing the state that is not even as blue as you, and i know you all struggle in iowa with some extreme elements of the republican party having more muscle than they deserve. my state is certainly that way, so i feel a particular obligation to stay in this office and do the very best i can for all the values that we hold dear. [applause] >> stephanie, folks in the audience may have read stories about you recently. you decided not to go back to your hometown and run. why not? >> well, truthfully, there are two reasons. one is that i am not currently living in the state of montana.

it has been a while. the other reason is right here before us. on the emily's list madam president campaign, we are so close here to making history that i wanted to be part of that. and i wanted to really help build this movement that the senator was just talking about of engaging to find the right candidate, the best candidate, and we know that there are great women in the pipeline ready to be the next president, whether it is hillary clinton or amy klobuchar of minnesota, kristin gillibrand. we have to look at 2016, 2020, and 2024. >> is this hillary clinton's first campaign event? [laughter] >> is she here? that would be huge.

the honest truth here is that the madam president campaign is really to initiate a discussion about the importance of women's leadership in this country, whether it is in the white house which we would truly like to see, in the senate, or right here in iowa where i believe we are going to make history in 2014 by electing one, maybe two, women to congress for the first time. this is so critically important to what is happening every day in our families and our communities to have women's voices there. from congress to the governor's steps to the white house. we have to keep on building up momentum. >> senator, earlier this year use of family obligations would keep you from running. what changed your mind?

>> i think i recognized that we can do better than i think we are doing right now. [applause] so the people of iowa asked me to take a second look at it and my family agreed with it, so here we are. >> in 2012 one of the most well- known women of iowa failed in her bid for congress. what did you learn about that contest? >> i think it is a very iifferent race than that race. come with a wealth of experience, being a state senator that took part and led

the charge in wonderful pieces of legislation that impacted the people of iowa. ban, equalde smoking pay for equal work, things that my opponent voted against. the re-organization of state government. i think taking that experience is autting it against him huge contrast, so we can make a big difference there. thehat are the lessons of [indiscernible] i think one of the things we earned -- first of all -- >> still we do not hear you. bucks a woman can win in iowa.

there are a lot of women who have run and tried and a lot of women who are going to win next year. kristi was a great candidate. sed more money than tom harkin did. -- district was to district the district was to difficult. some -- times is stopped saying that women cannot win in iowa. there are women in that conservative different that she ran in that have a difficult time voting for women.

becky knows, she ran in tha area. but there are many more voters that make up for those people. for anyone to come in and say hillary or anyone else will have a hard time winning iowa is not true. >> i think what is really interesting in some of our polling at emily's list recently, we did polling in iowa and we wanted to debunk that. we know women can win here. they are winning in the legislature and we know that this can be and it was clear -- 96% of caucus-goers said they were ready to vote for a woman for the white house. 96%. 95% think there will be a woman in the race. 70% think a woman will be in the white house after 2016. this state is more than ready and it is more ready in that polling than some of our other battleground states around the around the country. i think because of the

christie vilsack race and the historic 2012 election were so many great women won their elections where we have an historic number of women in the senate, there is momentum building and we have to keep that going. >> stephanie earlier alluded to two women who announced their candidacy in the first congressional district, monica vernon and -- what does your day to tell you about the success i might have in that particular district? >> i think we have a great opportunity here. after 28 years of work, we have three women running in one district. that was a problem 20 years ago. that is a good thing and i expect to see more of these races in the future. we should have two women running in every race. this is a really good thing. we got a great opportunity and it is possible that we would send two women to the house of representatives. >> what do the registration numbers tell you about the potential for democrats? >> i think this is working now. you mean in stacy's district?

the first district is interesting. there is a lot of people in that district who are from the same area and how it will break down, obviously, the person who wins the primary will win the general election. if we have three strong women, it gives us a great shot to actually elect a woman there and, obviously, in stacy's district, we had a few conversations and it is a 50/50 district. there is no reason why stacy should not win and become the next congresswoman. there are so many opportunities and if anyone comes away with this today, we will elect women in iowa before the presidential race starts so nobody can come in here again and say that iowans don't like women. >> stephanie, what about the prospect that has been raised of having three women in a primary that will split the female vote?

>> some of us have seen this. >> we have to remember that this is progress. sometimes progress is painful. there was a time when i first started running 30 years ago, there were no role models out there. yes, there was barbara jordan, geraldine ferraro, a few, but not like today. not where when you turn on c- span, you look on the senate floor and you see flashes of color everywhere. [laughter] by the way, we have to build bigger bathrooms. we have so many women. when you have women in the pipeline, which is what this is all about -- it is not just about madam president. madame president is a metaphor for enabling young women to see that the city council race is worth it.

the school board race is worth it. the state legislative seat is worth it. that city council seat is worth it and as we populate all those places with more women, they will but heads. but we cannot get stressed about that. we have to realize that is a sign of strength and the more women we have out there running, yes, there will be a few times we will have to arm wrestle. there will be a few disagreements. at the end of the day, we will be role-modeling millions of young women that this is a career that is exciting, challenging, it is rewarding, and it's worth it. >> also, if you have multiple men in a primary, no one asks how they will split the male vote. [applause] >> exactly right. >> you just vote for the best candidate. it is about the campaign and the debate. the senator is right. the concept of one woman and she will carry the water for all women in the country -- who is that woman? i would like to meet her or the

one man who carries all the water for every man in the country. it is not helping to work. what is going to work is when we have an equal number of women and men sitting at those decision-making tables, making policies for our country moving forward and having the debates we are having. they are incredibly important. senator mccaskill is in the middle of one of these debates right now with the senate armed services committee about what to do related to what is happening with sexual assaults in the military. here is the thing about that debate -- something will get done, and 20 years ago, when there was the tailhook scandal, some of you remember, nothing happened. now we've got women, a number of now we have a number of women coming up with solutions. we're going to get to the right solution on this and something's going to happen. that's what it means to have women's voices. >> the discussion here has been about congress.

there are only 23 governors in the country who are female. >> that have been female. > that have been female. >> if there were 23 right now that would be great. >> there is no female candidate in iowa. >> anybody want to run for governor? ome see me afterwards. the truth is we keep on building the pipeline. ases i look forward, i'm sure there are folks thinking about it, but the truth is we've got great women running for congress. this is how we build the pipeline. this is the success in states around the country. but these governorships are really important and i'm glad you brought it up. right now there's only one democratic woman governor in the country. and she's in new hampshire. we've got to change that. and we're recruiting very, very hard and we're going to have a

lot of women, hopefully if all goes well, the great senator wendy davis of texas will think about running for governor of texas. cheers and applause] but if we want to see a woman in the white house, which we do, we also need to see and support women running in governorships. these are executive leader positions and in the united states, 24 states have not ever in their history elected a woman governor. they're not alone. we have to do this. and this is another piece of the puzzle. as the senator said, once you see it, you get it. it's not an issue anymore. so we've got to keep on pushing state by state and i truly believe once we break that biggest and final glass ceiling toward the white house, it's going to open up so many doors for so many women across the country, in governors races, mayors races, city council, you name it. that's why this is so

important. >> senator mccaskill, your mother was an elected official. >> right. >> is they why you ran? -- is she why you ran? >> well, i think that's a simple way of putting it. i certainly think that both my mother and father gave me permission to be bossy and . inion ated my dad reassured me that although no one wanted to date me in college it would get better. [laughter] >> i can't even believe that's true. >> it's true. i was really bossy and opinionated. and my mother was a masterful politician in every good sense of that word. and what she taught me was there was never anybody in the room that you needed to look past. and that the values that we hold dear in this room, the reason that you're here, is not because you want anything from

anybody. you just want your government to reflect your values. and that fighting for those values is an honorable thing to do. my parents didn't believe people who ran for elected office were sleazeballs. they didn't believe government was the enemy. not necessarily that government is the answer. but government's not the enemy. so i had a kind of upbringing that clearly many elected officials in this country did not have. because they have a lot of cynicism and negativity, that we've got to somehow destroy government in order to be free. that's not the kind of household i was raised in. and so my mom, now, it was terribly embarrassing for me when mother ran and i'll tell you this quick true story because i think you'll all relate to it. my mom was the first woman elected to the city council in columbia, missouri, and i was like a freshman in high school. so we got go to her swearing in like had a ery -- big smile because she's

carrying a big brown grocery sack with her up and she took the oath and then after she took the oath, she opened the brown grocery sack, being the first woman elected, and took out first a vase of flowers and set them at her desk. then she took out a picture of us and set them on her desk and then she took out an apron and tied it on. and i was like, oh, my god. i am some barsed. and so all four of us children were down like this. we don't know her. we have no idea who she is. but she was that kind of flamboyant, she grabbed life by the jug lar and shook it and i've never met a stranger and i am, no question in my mind, sitting here because of her. [applause] >> stephanie, that story speaks to the way women make decisions about running? if they don't have a role model, how difficult is it for you to convince a woman that

she should run for office? >> i don't think there's a woman in this country who doesn't have a role model now. it may not be -- they're either in their life directly or they're serving in the united states senate. i remember talking to a woman who was thinking about running for congress, this probably will sound familiar, we should ask stacy her thorough story of the signing, we were trying to recruit a woman to run for the house in wisconsin and she was so close to running. so close to running. and we were like, you can do it, you can do it, you can do it. and she called me and said, i don't know what to do with my kids. well, i didn't exactly know what to do with her kids because i haven't had the pleasure yet of having children myself. but i said, you know what, i know somebody who does. i got on the phone with debby wasserman schultz who has three, she ran with an infant, she gets it. and sure enough the two of them talked and i got a call back about 30 minutes later and our

candidate was in the race. this is the connection that we've made across the country and i'm sure you have a similar story of going through that process and the family support and the kids looking at you. you got to tell the story about ing at you.ok >> most of the folks in the room know when i ran for the iowa senate for the first time, we -- i was pregnant and so our baby was born two weeks after i was elected. and it was crazy. as everybody knows. that was our fifth child. but just being newly elected and running pregnant, it's an interesting experience. but you can do it because i am -- > exactly. >> when we decide to run for office and we have children and

we talk about showing young women that they can do it, i think it's almost as important as showing young men that we can do it, as a mom of five boys, you change the way they think. and how they perceive. that really makes a difference. >> you mentioned the polling that your group did in april here in iowa, the likely democratic caucus goers. 98% said they were ready for a woman to be president. but when asked if there's a gender difference in eadership, 78% said yes. so there's a difference there. explain that and is that a detriment or an asset for a female candidate? >> i think it's all good. you assume that women and men are the same. we all know women and men are not exactly the same. there are some differences

there. and that's why it's so important to have so many diversity of voices in all this. so in this polling which i thought was incredible, is that voters not just here in iowa but in some of the other battleground states, particularly in iowa they had a couple of other issues that were really good for women, they saw that women leaders bring the right priorities and the right judgment to the job. and that they're willing to put family and country before partisan politics and will help end partisan bickering. i don't think there's anybody in this room who isn't ready to end the partisan bickering. absolutely. [applause] and i think part of it is what we've already been seeing with the women who have come into government, whether it's the state legislature or in congress. they really do find ways to get things done. it is not always easy, i know, for anybody who's serving in these legislatures. but they do really work hard together and i think because of

those examples, you can see what a woman president would be like in trying to find solutions, to work with everybody and bring them in. i'm not saying that the men don't do that, they do. but we're -- we do it all the time because we have to do it with our families all the time. it's hard -- >> we're wired to do it. >> with all the boys at home, i don't know how she gets everything done, but she does. trust me. a day in the office of a senator or the president of the united states is probably, well, as complicated as a mother of six. there's a lot of moving pieces and that's what it's about. >> christie vilsack made the theme of her campaign that she was not a partisan fighter. was that effective? >> you know, obviously we weren't successful in electing christie vilsack but i think it was effective in a way that people realized they had a real choice in that campaign.

specifically we were running ainst somebody who was a tea partier, he's now seemingly running for president. and very extreme. and i think people were just -- what we learned when we were was we had to raise the message, people were sick of the bickering in washington. you don't get a 9%, no offense to the great senator here, you don't get a 9% approval rating when people are not sick of you and people want things to get done. and so even though it wasn't successful, it sent a message that you can run a campaign on positive issues and positive policy initiatives and talk about how you don't have to go back and forth against each other when you get to washington. you can actually build on relationships and get things done for your district. i think it's a theme that other people who are running can i'm use. because -- can use. because the people who are

drawn to her campaign were drawn to that theme. >> senator mccaskill, with all the women in the u.s. senate and this idea that women are collaborators, how's that working out? >> well, i do think that there's a choice between combat and compromise. and i think women naturally gravitate toward compromise as opposed to combat. it's a big generalization and there's always exceptions to every rule. but i watch my women colleagues, i particularly watch how we work with our republican women colleagues and when we are trying to figure out if something is doable, i go to susan collins and say, what do you think? i work with kelly ayotte. and there is this sense of -- we can talk about this and not have too much testosterone in

the conversation about who's winning and who's losing. and that's one of the things about our politics. that i think we forget. of course it's going to be very hard because we have a divided government. and our founding fathers allowed this to happen. america has a house of representatives, at least they have one mandate, and america has a much different senate that believes they have a different mandate. then you have a very polarizing president there, not his fault, not his fault, he's tried. and that is the kind of stew that does not result in everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya. so that's why women are very important in this. and when it came to the violence against women act being stuck, and we were aghast at this incredibly important legislation being kicked to the curb by the house of representatives, who did we turn to? to finally get speaker boehner to put it on the floor for a vote, even though the majority of his caucus had not embraced it?

it was the women in the house. the republican women in the house. we put pressure on them and said, hey, step up, put pressure on your leadership or do you really want to wear the mantle for the rest of your life that it was your party that stopped this life-saving legislation for millions of women all across the country? and it worked. and funding for planned parenthood. where we united across the aisle, women, that understood that you do not reduce abortions by reducing the ability to get birth crowle -- control. [applause] i'm from the midwest so i think i can say with authority in iowa and missouri we would say, that's just dumb. and the women got that. and we stood shoulder to shoulder. so i do think, even though it looks like a mess and many days

it is a mess, there are some race of hope and we have had more of our colleagues that feel marginalized by the extreme elements in their party that are willing to come forward and work with us. we saw it on immigration, we saw it on the farm bill. republicans in the senate willing to work with us. now, if it would only catch fire over in the house we would begin to make more progress. >> stephanie, in 2007 after hillary clinton said she was in it to win it, she often said she is not running because she's a woman. she's not running because she didn't feel she was qualified for the job. that seems to dampen the excitement of people going to see a candidate who may be the first female president. how do candidates negotiate that in trying to maintain the excitement about a female candidatesy while at the same time just not making it about

the fact that they're a female canned kate? >> for any -- candidate? >> for any woman candidate to be successful shts and we've proven that, is about who the best candidate is. it is actually not about gender when you go into the voting booth. it's really not. you have to make your case as a candidate. whether you're a woman or a man, whether you're a democrat or republican. you have to make that case. so she is right. we want to elect the best person to be president. there's no one in here who doesn't want to elect the best person to be president. what i want to say to everybody is, open our mind as little bit because there's a whole list of women that could be on that list and should be in that debate. that's the important -- that's a little bit of the difference of this conversation. i think that's really important . i think hillary clinton is absolutely prepared, particularly, i mean, she was then and after four years of being secretary of state, she's definitely got it now. but we also have these incredible women on the bench

who happen to be women but could really be great presidents. that's the important piece of this. and i think that as we move forward that's something we have to keep in mind here. >> another thing that she encountered in 2007 was that a lot of the obama supporters in case people didn't know, you were an obama supporter, didn't want to relitigate the clinton years. and that caused them to support barack obama instead of hillary clinton. how does she address the fact that she has a rort to defend and -- record to defend and she has to defend her husband's record as well? >> i really think that her job as secretary of state has solidified her standing as a candidate that happeneder to married to a guy who used to be president. but not that his presidency would any way define her presidency. and i think it's important to remember that we have two

candidates for president in 2008 that were amazing. historic candidates that made all of us that are democrats so proud of our party. and so proud of our country. because these two amazing candidates were running. as i said to my friends that were disappointed in me when i supported barack obama, it's ot like i'm going for a good old boy. this was an extraordinarily difficult decision. it was difficult for me. and i think in many ways it was a difficult one for our party. the good news is now we get to make history twice. we get to make history in 2008 by electing an amazing leader, president of the united states, then we get to turn around again and do it in just a few years. it is our hope anyway that she decides to run. [applause] >> and what a great party to be

part of. to have that sort of opportunity where you're so proud of the candidates who are running for the white house. i think we would be remiss to not mention the cast of the characters in the republican primary of the last go-around and the ones that were starting to see -- we're starting to see already, some of which i believe are here in i would iowa as we speak or on their way, including rick santorum, who wants to get rid of all contraception by the way, and ted cruz, who wants to shut down the government which will just destroy women and families and all americans from the very important things they need like social security and medicare. these are the cast of characters on the other side. it was mentioned the difference between women balancing compromise versus combat. i think you used the word combat. i'll tell you, as i watch the women in the senate work together across the aisle, they are arming up to face combat when they do that. these women are tough as nails

and can handle any situation put in front of them. i don't have any doubts about it. and that's why really we just got a really good bench of democrats who are ready to run for the presidency. >> i'd like to say one thing on that. a lot of people talk about 2007, 2008, being from iowa and understanding the caucuses as everybody in this room does, iowa, elections are really a snapshot in time. we can always go back to 2007 and 2008 and relitigate what happened there. but it's a new playingfield. it's a new ballgame. it's apples and oranges when you talk about 2007-2008 and you talk about what's going to happen in 2012. the iowa elect rat has even changed since then -- electorate has even changed since then, i believe, and there's an enthusiasm, otherwise this room wouldn't be standing room-only for electing a woman or there wouldn't be a camera in the back. so people are very interested in this. as well as the other women who are potentially going to run. we can talk over and over again

about what happened then. i can give you my opinion, what i saw, and how things -- there were problems and there were good things and bad things. the reality is i think people learn lessons and it's really a new day. >> you also managed a candidate whose husband had statewide success. >> right. >> in interaction, were they interested in her and him or just interested in her? >> that's a great point. because in the beginning, every news article talks about how christie vilsack was the wife of tom vilsack. and it's a great thing. tom vilsack isn't a loved person in the state of iowa. she's obviously very in love with her husband and that was something to embrace. the reality is that by the end of the campaign, she became her own candidate. and i think there's a lot of people who run for congress or run for governor or run for other offices who are somebody's something. but in reality she became her

own person and was it frustrating to her to see every article saying i'm tom vilsack's wife? maybe sometimes. i don't know if she would admit it to tom sill sack, but i feel like -- vilsack, but i feel like what she had done and accomplished, she was able to run a real campaign. run a modern campaign and take on folks and raise $3.4 million in the fourth congressional district and show some of the people that even though she didn't win, you can run a great campaign. and afterwards do really incredible things because you did that. i also want to acknowledge some of the people here who were behind the successful men. obviously lieutenant governor sali peterson is here. and ruth harkin who was an amazing experience for me to get to know her. the senator would not be where he is today, i don't think i have authority to say that if it weren't for an amazing woman who was the first woman in their family to get elected. that's also important.

[applause] >> ruth has a special place among senators and it's not unusual for us to call tom harkin ruth harkin's husband. [laughter] as you may have noticed, there's a microphone standing in the middle of the aisle, if you'd like to queue up if you have a question. i'll ask one final question of the panel, so please come forward if you have a question. will there come a day soon when either the democrats or the republicans nominate a woman as president and a woman as vice president? >> absolutely. >> yes. >> how soon? [laughter] >> i don't know. you just don't know. why wouldn't it happen? why not? we definitely have the folks to

do it. hillary clinton, elizabeth warren has a nice ring to it. i don't know if either one ants to do that. the truth is -- yes, it is going to happen. i think we have come to a place that -- i expect to see a woman on the ticket every election we're in now. i really do. i think we've come to a place where there's such a pipeline of women who are ready to go, and it's the ones i've mentioned and then there's a whole other group who are coming up. harris, attorney general of california, attorney general of pennsylvania, haven't heard of her yet. you will. particularly you in iowa will hear of these women. maybe 10 years, maybe 15, maybe 20. but there's a group that are just -- they're coming up because we've worked so hard, overly nearly 30 years. particularly with emily's list

on the democratic side to ensure that women run and have had success. that we now have a great, great pipeline. and the one thing i'll also add, for everybody who's here, we need to continue that pipeline. this isn't about one woman and one presidential race. this is about changing our society and our culture. and i think we can do it. >> i don't think anybody's queued up yet which means i get to ask more questions. come on up. let's talk about the senator to our north, the female senator, who is coming to our state soon for a political event. jessica, what can you tell us about her? >> well, clearly she's qualified to do anything she wants to do. she has a lot of benefits of being in grood proximity to our state. and i believe she can -- if she wants to run for president she would be an amazing candidate. >> what can you tell us about her race in minnesota that could be -- >> well, look, there's no doubt

about it, if you don't know, aimy is one of the most -- -- amy is one of the most -- >> she's the most popular senator in the country. >> she is. between 60% and 70% approval rating. i worked in the beginning of her race. it was tough in the beginning and she i think won by 20 points she did the same thing in the last election. she solidified her standing across the country and people eeply respect her convictions. >> good morning. i want to thank you all for coming out. i think i can speak for the entire room, we stand behind you when you say that we need more women to be leaders in our nation. in the private sector and public sector. the one question i had is, is there a game plan to bring more

women of color to the pipeline? >> absolutely. and thank you for asking that question. emily's list has been involved in electing all of the current women of color who serve in the house right now. and in the senate, those numbers aren't very good, we have to work on that. we only have 20. we need more women in the senate, period. and it is a huge priority. and when we talk about the presidential campaigns, we talk about the next generation coming up, owe harrah is a woman of color. the attorney general of nevada, who i put on that list, we have some great women who are coming up the pipeline that you're going to get to know in the years to come. so we're very, very engaged and doing a lot of training. we go in as an organization, we bring women in together. the last cycle we trained over 1,300 women around the country. a very, very diverse group of women from all different races and ages and geography to run for state and local office. and we're going to continue

doing that. we ought to keep the pipeline going. >> i was just going to say, i think one of the things that we've got to stay focused on, all of us that are in a leadership capacity, is our state legislatures. i know you can probably speak to this, there is a mission being done in our state legislatures on limiting votes -- variety of topics that [inaudible] but this extreme wing of the republican party has really taken root and done very well in state legislatures around the country. and so that is a place where we really all need to not just emily's list, but all of us need to focus on who is running for the state legislature and who is -- can we get to run for the legislature and that's where we've got to really do all hands on deck. i think there are many women of color who have great leadership capacity but have not had the mentoring or the encouragement. and that's something that we

all should take on the responsibility of doing. >> thank you. [applause] >> i helped found an organization called democratic activist women's network in iowa and that is exactly what we're doing, is recuting -- recruiting women for local office. on our board we have some women of color. and we recently had training . ssions in two cities we have a county up in dubuque. we're talking to women. and in sioux city, just as we finished, a woman announced her andidacy for the school board. [inaudible]

>> i love it, i love it. [applause] >> she brought up a really important organization, also known as dawn's list. if you shorten that all up. and emily's list is working closely in helping the organization. there's a number of states around the country who have similar organizations and we're going to be coming in to iowa to help do what we call a political opportunity training program here to bring women together. we're looking forward to doing a lot of work with you in the months and years to come. so thank you. >> i know this might be semantics, but how do we make women's issues men's issues? democratic platform issues, independent. it seems to me that we're so . cked into partisan arguments >> i wouldn't be here if it weren't for independent voters.

in missouri. it's about assert and assert and assert. there's about 30% of missouri that wouldn't vote for me no matter what and there's about 1/3 that would vote for me no matter what and so there's this middle. and most of those folks in the middle are perfectly willing to vote for a republican or a democrat. and they like compromising, they like moderation. so i do think that one of the things we need to do is make sure we're communicating always with independent voters across this country. if we always put on our hats of being a political party first, we're going to lose those independent voters. we've got a wonderful opportunity in this country right now. because the shining object in the republican party do not translate well to independent voters. they translate very well in the base of the republican party. and you all in iowa know this

very, very well. your caucuses are famous for picking the republicans that are not anywhere near the middle. [laughter] and really, that is an opportunity for us. if we continue to talk about the issues that most americans care about. which isky afford to send my kids to college? am i going to have a retirement? is there health care? is the bridge down the road safe? can i drive over it? , our dean says, macroissues he says, no macaroni and cheese issues. and these are the macaroni and cheese issues that we are focused on. as long as we keep talking about those, we're going to get more of those independent voters than steve king, ted cruz, rand paul and all the other todd akin wannabes. [applause]

> i'm with the teen leaders in beaverdale. one of the problems that i saw -- lot of women [inaudible] what can we do to nergize women so that they will not only run but they'll get out and vote in support of female candidates or whatever candidate, but so they don't shy away from their opportunity or responsibility as american citizens? >> this is an incredibly important question, rolling into the 2014 election when we don't have a presidential campaign. and we see so much drop-off,

particularly of women voters in these nonpresidential election cycles. one of the things that we've seen in our years of research and work at emily's list, and we do all the candidate work but we also do a lot of work in women voters research and getting women to vote. and persuading them. and part of the thing that we have seen is that it takes a long conversation. it's not just one click ad and you're going to get a woman engaged. it really entails a process of information. a lot of women feel like they're not getting the information they need to make a decision. now, as campaign people, oh, my gosh, there's a ga zillion pieces of mail and tv ads but the most important conversation for women are one-on-one conversations with women. and that's where this network that we're trying to build and will be building and already have almost 60,000 joined is we want to build that network out. so women talk to women about the importance of getting

engaged in politics at any level. and the most critical level is voting. we have to have women voting. and we have to have a conversation of why it's so important. the other piece of this that we've found is that we have to walk through the impact of the vote which means what is the impact of the people that you elect? and if you check out emily's-- emilyslist.org website, you'll see a study on the impact that democratic women have made over 20 years in congress. it's astounding. what they have done and what they have accomplished. and that conversation we also need to have. it's not an easy process. but here in iowa you understand, it is all about one-on-one conversations. we need to figure out how to have those conversations in states where there aren't caucus systems and where we really need to get women engaged. particularly younger women. who are just getting in.

>> no easy way to do it. conversation. >> i don't believe in happy, positive campaigns. >> don't talk to me. >> campaigns that are successful have to have opposition. probably in many cases like steve king serves -- [inaudible] and i don't think it's effective to just be positive about having things you would do in the district. nd i think that was a mistake. i believe, you know, you have to have more clarity in campaigns than i see. and my husband is a great -- [inaudible] he never gets off his stuff. i could use another word here. but the point is, you have to run on issues clearly. and there have to be few of them and you have to hammer

them over and over again. and one of them that i think, you know, obviously in iowa, but elsewhere, is social security and medicare. i'm sorry, but these are basics and this is why a lot of people, not talking about happy women in the middle class, but lot of people need this and you have -- this is obviously being threatened and it's been threatened a lot since f.d.r. but i don't see enough clarity in campaigns. i know there are social issues on women women run, which are women's bag and we've been talking about that for a long time. but i think that there's some basic issues that women need to confront. and they also need to -- i resent in a way everybody running on the middle class. we have a large population that has become poor. and these people have become poor through no fault of their own. and this happy miller middle since and ddle class

even the sense of happy successful women -- in some ways it becomes a problem. >> aren't you a ray of sunshine? [laughter] now, i get what you're saying. i completely get what you're saying. what you're saying is we have to have contrast. we can't just say, we are going to all get along and we're going -- we have to show the contrast. >> i think african-american women who are elected to congress are very tough people who in their districts have represented, you know, the basic gut-level issues and everybody understands this. i'm not sure a lot of women who run really have the basics sorted out enough to communicate it. >> i disagree. but i do think that most of the women that i serve with -- >> you certainly have the basics understood. >> yes. and i think we fight every day.

what we've done -- >> this is about the campaign itself. >> i understand. and i agree with you that there are some campaigns -- and women need to be absolutely fearless about, a, being ambitious, and, b, being strategic. this is not sitting down for tea. and crumb pets. this is a tough business. and you need to be laser-focused on a strategy that will win and drawing a contrast that will not only make you the one people want to vote for, but also make your opponent the one that nobody wants. and it is both sides of that equation that are important. all you have to do is look at my campaign in 2012 and you will see a campaign where there was a lot of strategic decisions made that were very risky, they paid off, we got the right candidate out of the primary and then he unfullered himself to the world in a way

-- unfurled himself to the world in a way that allowed us to draw a very stark contrast. if somebody would have said before that race began that i would be the number one vote-getter in missouri, i mean , a fortune could have been made betting on that proposition. because nobody thought -- everybody thought i was dead meat on a hoofpblgt i was done. we were able to turn it around because we were fearless, strategic and not afraid of taking risks and that's one of the things that i hope more women embrace. because i think it is something that too many women like you say have this idea that if i can just be positive and get my ideas out there, everything -- unicorns are going to sprout and rainbows are going to be everywhere and it's not that simple. [applause] >> let me make this clear. with emily's list, and those of you that know us, 28 years of history, 101 women to the

house, 19 women in the senate, 10 governors we don't do this because -- [inaudible] we do this because we win races and at the end of the day it is about a con this last -- contrast. and what happened in 2012 was a clear contrast where women embraced -- i mean, women, folks who were running and women voters, and men voters, there was the question earlier, the men's agenda vs. the women's agenda and those issues, they're all the same. we have a republican party right now that wants to turn the clock back on our rights and opportunities. so far back, it's preme. we're talking 1940's. they want to take us back. and we want to talk about equal pay. let's talk about minimum wage. and they want to dismantle social security and medicare. they want to figure out how to make government not work. well, i'll tell you what. if that happens, women and families will be left behind so fast it will make our heads

spin. the contrast is clear. we don't intend to just talk about it, we intend to make it happen in 2016. >> there's a woman behind you. thank you. >> hello, there. i want to thank you all for putting on this event as well. senator mccaskill, i was in my living room, cheering you on with tears in my eyes. [applause] >> i had tears in my eyes too. >> i actually have two comments and two questions to make. one leads into the other. i would like you to speak more about what emily's list is doing in terms of mentorships. i ran for the iowa house last election cycle, in 2012, and i'm sitting next to three women here in this room who are wonderful friends and mentors and guides and teachers to me and i wouldn't be where i am today without them. what are you doing in terms of hooking up women who are think being running or interested in politics with good measures? because it is so key.

how second question is, can we convince candidates like me, who experienced the devastation of a loss in an election, to run again? because it's a horrible feeling. how can we tell women, did you it once, you lost, but please do it again? >> i don't know very many women senators that haven't lost a race. in fact, i can't think of any. when i lost my race for governor in 2004, i learned so much more than i had in all of the victories i had previous to that and it made in a better, stronger, smarter candidate and i came back two years later and defeated an incumbent u.s. senator. so you can do this.

anybody who loses, you learn from it and you pick up and you try again. we would not have women in important places around this country if everyone quit after one loss. i can't think of any presidents that haven't lost races. everyone's lost races. >> we're talking about hillary right now. but sometimes you have to run twice. >> barack obama. >> yeah, in order to win. because it's hard. you have to get your name out there and information, become a respected candidate. and it's devastating and difficult, but it's not personal. if you can get back in there and remember it's not personal. go run again. people voted for you. >> yeah, that's exactly right. >> i might be the perfect example. for you. we just met a couple weeks ago at a picnic. but it was one of the biggest losses for us, when i lost my

race, a very visual race, that we never expected to lose. >> it was the most expensive race that year. >> here i am. i came back and i'm running. >> i guess your question is, though, how did that factor into your decision making? how did you put your name forward again, having lost? >> because i believe i can make a difference. i think that year was a bad year for democrats all across - yeah, yes, it was. and i think i have a lot of value still to give. people in iowa believe it and that's why i'm here and i think the people of iowa would ask to you run too. >> her other question was, are you setting up mentors? >> the mentoring, i'm watching the mentoring happen right in front of me. that is exactly what the goal of emily's list is. we don't send people in from d.c. to individually mentor. we build the sisterhood, this network of folks to turn to, to

talk about what was it like, what do i need to do differently, and to encourage each other. and i ask the men to do the same with women in your lives, encourage them to run for office. we're still very, very far away from where we want to be in the percentage of women in office. we can't do this by ourselves. we need women and men to help encourage and get women to do this. the united states, think about this, you walk away with one number today, the united states is 77th, 77th in the world in the percentage of women in elected office. 77th. that's unacceptable. that's unacceptable. so we need folks to keep on. campaigns are not easy. no one's saying campaigns are easy. but i'll tell you this, they sure are worth it. they are sure worth it. thank you for what you're doing. >> i think one of the main problems that women face while running is the criticism of their appearance. we have to make sure our hair is just right and our clothes look just so.

how can we help change that conversation? and remind men that it's about what's in here, in here, and not on the outside. >> we were just talking about that outside. >> if i could wave a magic wand, we would do it. but one of the things you have to learn to do when you run for office is be realistic. i talked about strategic. you can't be strategic if you're not realistic. so, first impressions matter. they matter in a job interview. and you have to look at a campaign as one long job interview. every day you're interviewing for a job. so every day you have to prepare as if you're interviewing for a job. now, i will confess that i was in a store spanks and a woman walked up to me and goes, are you? and i said, lord, yes, i am.

i was not prepared for my job. i looked terrible. but it's just something you have to see that way. and i wish -- we all talk about him, caroline, husbands, and it's the three h's that women candidates have to deal with. and also weight. i've had some terribly cruel things said to me about being fat. i was too fat to be this or too fat to be that. and so these are realities. and i would love for to you stand there and say, we're going to fix that, but i don't see any quick fix. instead i think you have to view it like a job interview. >> i totally agree. but i think there are small things we can do because i find myself looking at other people and saying things. and we can't do that anymore. and if other people are saying it, you have to shut it down. because people are going to say things about people's appearance and they're going to be negative. and we all find ourselves sort

of getting caught up in this. those are the small changes we can make. there are women's campaign fronts and people who call it out on a national level and realize, also just the realization that that what people are saying are wrong and then saying that is wrong. we aren't going to put up with that anymore. i don't know any other way to it other than when we start applying it to ourselves when we're doing the same thing. or we hear other people talking in that sort of language. >> i hope that the culture will shifment i still have hope. as the generation ofmy lellial comes up and everything's online and every picture you've ever taken is out there, i can't wait until those campaigns. i'm in the middle of jen-ex. i think it might help, we might be moving into a new phase on

this. the other thing i'd said, and women, boy, they get so much harder than men, and they do, and i always hope that we will just end the appearance piece. three big worked for major candidates, one i'd get emails about how bad his suits were, one i would get emails about his weight and the other i'd get emails about his hair. so i sadly believe that actually what's happening is that we're going to the lowest common denominator. we're not lifting the conversation up, we're going to bring the men down on this one. that's really unfortunate for the culture. you got to get out of the appearance piece. i don't think that's going to happen in the political world. it's got to happen out of the pop culture universe. we need your help on that. all of us are going to have to do that. >> a really good question. >> i think we have time for one more question. if anybody would like to wrap it up. >> the final question.

i know someone has one out there. >> in iowa, pro choice is under attack. not just legislatively right now. it's being done through knit-picking at telemedicine rules through the iowa board of medical examiners. planned ll only impact parenthood. i guess i'm going to ask you, how do we protect rights and how do we maintain that integrity? >> we have to win elections. we have to win elections. who the policymakers are and who is in power are making those decisions and we are living in the aftermath of the 010 elections.

and this is insidious. the tea party right wing conservative republican arm, which is sort of invading rest of the republican party, quite frankly, has decided that this is their moment and they are going to chip away at reproductive health care and women's health care in general. we're talking about planned parenthood clinics, we're talking about cancer screenings here and birth control. this is really serious family issues. these are economic issues. anybody who tells you birth control is a social issue clearly hasn't stocked birth control. economic issues here. >> or diapers. > but they will. and so we are in a very dangerous time right now. because state by state we've seen things that we've never seen before. i mean, it is really rolling things backwardses and what we just saw in texas -- it was

outrageous but already -- the state had already passed the invasive vaginal ultrasound bill. that was in law before we'd heard about it in virginia. this is a really extreme case that at the end of the day, i have to tell you, one thing we have to do is win it, elections. that's how we do it. [applause] >> i think that applause may signal the end here. i would note that they applauded your answer but not my question. >> on that note, let's applause to say -- applause the wonderful, wonderful interviewer. as the president of emily's list and the organization is

proudly running this madam president program, we want to thank you all for joining us today in the first madam president town hall. of course there's nowhere better to start than the nation's first important place when it comes to presidential campaigns, right here in iowa. so thank you for your hospitality, thank you for having us. we're going to take this to new hampshire, of course second. [laughter] and then to nevada and you're going to see a lot more. i ask you to join this movement, go to emily -- go to emilyslist.org. sign up for the madam president campaign. then get your friends to do it. then get your sisters and mothers and daughters and your husbands and sons and co-workers. we need them all. we can get this done, we can make history but we can also elect the very best person to be president of the united states. so on that, please, another round of applause for these incredible women who joined me here on the stage today. [applause] thank you. and here's to iowa electing a

woman president. thank you. thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> so nice to see you. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we're going to count on owa. we're counting on ted cruz on the republican side and hillary clinton on the democratic side >> that could very well be. > thank you. >> i'm giving a speech tonight. >> thank you for that. >> you bet. thank you. are you going to be here for lunch or no? >> no, i have to go. >> it's the 50th anniversary of the naacp tonight and i'm on my way to do that event this afternoon. i got to get back to the home front. >> yes. thanks for coming. >> thank you very much.

nice to meet you. >> todd akin, when he made that comment, i was glued to stephen colbert. >> they had a blast, didn't they? even the candidate made for colbert. >> it's embarrassing we have steve king in iowa. the one thing i really want to pay attention is mitch mcconnell. how dangerous do you think the kentucky secretary of state is for mcconnell's senate seat? >> i think she's a very strong candidate. i think she has a skill and and i think he's going to have a tea party primary which is going to mean he's going to have to pay attention to the right wing and not be able to try to dress up as a moderate during the primary and that always is tough. so right now she's neck and neck. .> yeah i really hope he gets it.

i really do. >> that would be exciting. it would be good for our country. >> nice to meet you. >> nice to meet you. hi. >> thank you for all your support for women. i certainly hope that hillary, you know, wins in this. i campaigned for her the last time, i worked so hard. i was really disappointed when she lost. it's just another chance. thank you for all your hard work. >> thank you. >> oh, wonderful. congratulations. perfect. good luck to you. >> thank you. thank you so much. >> i'm glad. hi. >> i'm running in district one as well. >> oh, good. so nice to meet you. >> i have three daughters in their 20's. >> we can relate. >> you know how things go. wonderful. i love your candor and we follow with interest of course everything that happened in your race. me being up here in iowa. everybody was cheering.

it was all good. >> absolutely. >> i have to steal you away now. >> ok, ok. >> i'm running for the first congressional district. >> wonderful, wonderful. >> i have a lot of friends from st. louis. came from bosnia. >> a huge population. the largest in the country. yeah. >> good, you know. >> absolutely. >> you have met with ila? she's our president. >> i have. they're great. we're lucky to have them in st. louis. >> they're good democrats. >> they're great democrats. they're great democrats. good luck to you. >> nice to meet you. >> ok. hang in there. hang in there. i drank a lot of wine after i lost and then i got up off the ouch and went at it. nice to see you. thank you. thank you very much. >> nice to have you here.

>> i'm going to steal you away. you're going to go right over here. >> all right. inaudible] >> in a couple minutes we're planning to go live to iowa to hear from minnesota senator

aimy klobuchar. she's speaking to iowa democrats. senator klobuchar is the first democratic hopeful to visit iowa for a possible 2016 presidential campaign. here's more about that. >> we are expecting to hear from senator amy klobuchar shortly. we will go to iowa at the annual fundraiser. they had senator ted kennedy in 2008.