we will support the sheriff. >> every sheriff and the state of colorado does this. >> i want to thank our guests. thank you. thank you. [applause] tonight a look at the situation from syria. talks samantha power about the chemical weapons in the country. followed by a you and reefing. briefing.d by a u.n. then travel warnings issued for lebanon and turkey. today we heard from samantha power who spoke in support of the u.s. military action in syria to present -- prevent assad from using chemical weapons. americanhe center for progress, this is 20 minutes.

my topic today is serious which presents one of most issuesl foreign policy we face. it lies to a heart critical to u.s. security, a friend that is -- a place that is home to friends and partners. it is important because the syrian regime possesses chemical weapons that we cannot allow to fall into terrorist hands. it is important because the regime is collaborating with lockstep with in hezbollah. syria is important because its people in seeking freedom and dignity has suffered unimaginable horrors. i also recognize how ambivalent americans are about the situation there. on the one hand, we americans

share a desire, after two wars which have taken 6700 american lives and cost over $1 trillion, to invest taxpayer dollars in american schools and infrastructure. on the other hand, americans have heard the president's commitment that this will not iraq, this will not be afghanistan any use of force will be limited and tailored narrowly to the chemical weapons threat. on the one hand, we share abhorrence of these brutal tactics by president assad. and we are worried about the violent extremists who have carried out atrocities. on the one hand, we share the deep conviction that chemical weapons are barbaric, that we should never again see children killed in their beds, lost to a world that they never had the chance to try to change. yet, on the other hand, some are wondering why, given the flagrant violation of an international norm, it is incumbent on the united states to lead since we cannot and

should not be the world's policeman. notwithstanding these complexities and the various concerns that we all share, i am here to explain why the costs of not taking targeted, limited military action are far greater than the risks of going forward in the manner president obama has outlined. every decision to use military force is an excruciatingly difficult one, especially difficult when filtered through the prism of the past decade. but let me take a minute to discuss the unique monstrous crime that has brought us to this crossroads. what comes to mind to me is one father saying goodbye to his two young daughters. his girls had not yet been shrouded. there were still dressed in the pink shorts and leggings of little girls. the father lifted their lifeless bodies, cradled them, and cried out -- wake up, what would i do without you?

how do i stand this pain? as a parent, i cannot begin to answer his questions. i cannot begin to imagine what it would be like to feel such searing agony. in arguing for a limited military action in the wake of this mass casualty chemical weapons atrocity, we are not arguing that syrian lives are worth protecting only when they are threatened with poison gas. rather, we are reaffirming what the world already made plain in laying down its collective judgment on chemical weapons. there is something different about chemical warfare that raises the stakes for the united states and raises the stakes for the world. there are many reasons the governments representing 98% of the world population, including all 15 members of the u.n. security council, agreed to ban chemical weapons. these weapons kill in the most gruesome possible way. they kill indiscriminately.

they are incapable of distinguishing between a child and a rebel. and they have the potential to kill massively. we believe that this one attack in damascus claimed more than 1400 lives, far more than even the worst attacks by conventional means in syria. we assess that although assad used more chemical weapons on august 21 than he had before, he has barely put a dent in his enormous stockpile. and the international community has clearly not yet put a dent in his willingness to use them. president obama, secretary kerry, and many members of congress have spelled out the consequences of failing to meet this threat. if there are more chemical attacks, we will see an inevitable spike in the flow of refugees on top of the already 2 million in the region, possibly pushing lebanon, jordan, turkey, or iraq past their breaking points. the fourth largest city in

jordan right now is already a refugee camp. half of syria's refugees are children, and we know what can happen to children who grow into adulthood without hope or opportunity in refugee camps. the camps become fertile recruiting grounds for violent extremists. beyond syria, if a violation of a universal agreement to ban chemical weapons is not met with the meaningful response, other regimes will seek to acquire or use them to protect or extend their power, increasing risks to american troops in the future. we cannot afford to signal to north korea and iran that the international community is unwilling to act to prevent proliferation or willing to tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction. if there are no consequences now for breaking the prohibition on chemical weapons, it will be harder to muster an international consensus to ensure that hezbollah or other terrorist groups are prevented from acquiring or using these weapons themselves.

people will draw lessons if the world proves unwilling to enforce the norms against chemical weapons use that we have worked so diligently to construct. israel's security is threatened by instability in the region, and security is enhanced for those who would do it harm. the united states stands behind its word. that is why we have seen israel supporters in the united states come out in support of the president's proposed course of action. these are just some of the risks of inaction. but many americans and some members of congress have legitimately focused as well on the risks of action. they opposed a series of important questions, and i would like to use the remainder of my remarks to address a few of them. some have asked, given our collective war weariness why we cannot use non-military tools to achieve the same end.

my answer to this question is we have exhausted the alternatives. for more than a year, we have pursued countless policy tools short of military force to try to dissuade assad from using chemical weapons. we have engaged the syrians directly, russians, and u.n., and iranians sent similar messages. but when scuds and other horrific weapons did not quell the syrian rebellion, assad began using chemical weapons as the u.s. concluded in june. faced with this growing evidence of several small-scale subsequent attacks, we redoubled our efforts. we backed the u.n. diplomatic process and tried to get parties back to the negotiating table, recognizing that a political solution is the best way to reduce all forms of threat. we provided more humanitarian assistance. on chemical weapons specifically, we assembled and went public with compelling and frightening evidence of the regime's use. we worked with the u.n. to create a group of inspectors who then worked for more than six months to get them access to the

country, on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks. or at a minimum, we thought a shared evidentiary base could convince russia or iran, itself a victim of saddam hussein's monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987, to cast loose a regime that was gassing its people. russia, often backed by china, has blocked every relevant action in the security council, even mild condemnations of the use of chemical weapons that do not ascribe blame to any particular party. in assad's cost-benefit calculus, he must have weighed this on being able to get away with it because of russia.

on august 21, he staged the largest chemical weapons attack in a quarter-century while u.n. inspectors were sitting on the other side of town. it was only after the united states pursued these nonmilitary options without achieving the desired results of deterring chemical weapons use that the president concluded that a limited military strike is the only way to prevent assad from using chemical weapons as if they are a conventional weapon of war. i'm here today because i believe and president obama believes that those of us who are arguing for the limited use of force must justify our position, accepting responsibility for the risks and potential consequences of action. when one considers pursuing nonmilitary measures, we must similarly address the risks inherent in those approaches. at this stage, the diplomatic process is stalled because one side has just been gassed on a massive scale and the other side

so far feels it has gotten away with it. what would words in the form of belated diplomatic condemnation achieve? what could the criminal court do if russia or china were to allow a referral? what a drawnout legal process affect the calculus of assad and those who ordered chemical weapons attacks? we could try again to pursue economic sanctions, but even if russia budged, would more asset freezes, travel bans, and banking restrictions convince assad not to use chemical weapons again when he has a pipeline to the resources of hezbollah and iran? will these approaches we have use for the last year suddenly be effective? this is not the only legitimate question being raised.

people are asking, shouldn't united states work through the security council on an issue so clearly implicates international peace and security? the answer is, of course, yes. if we could, we would. we would if we could, but we cannot. every day for the two and a half years of the syrian conflict we have shown how seriously we take the u.n. security council and our obligations to enforce international peace security. since 2011, russia and china have vetoed three separate security council resolutions condemning the syrian regime's violence or promoting a political solution to the conflict. this year alone, russia has blocked at least three statements expressing humanitarian concern and calling for humanitarian access to cities in syria. in the past two months, russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the generic use of chemical weapons and two press statements with concern about

their use. we believe more than 1400 people were killed in damascus on august 21. the security council could even agree to put out a press statement expressing its disapproval. the international system that was founded in 1945, a system we designed specifically to respond to the kinds of horrors we saw play out in world war ii, has not lived up to its promise or its responsibilities in the case of syria. it is naive to think that russia is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the u.n. security council to assume its rightful role as the enforcer of international peace and security. in short, the security council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the security council we have. many americans recognize that while we were right to seek to work through the security council, it is clear that syria is one of those occasions, like kosovo, when the council is so

paralyzed that countries have to act outside it if they are to prevent the flouting of international laws and norms. but these same people still reasonably ask, beyond the security council, what support does the u.s. have in holding assad accountable? while the united states possesses unique capabilities to carry out a swift, limited, and proportionate strike so as to prevent and deter future use of chemical weapons, countries around the world have joined us in supporting decisive action. the arab league has urged international action against syria in response to what they call the ugly crime of using chemical weapons. the nato secretary-general has said the syrian regime is responsible and that we "need a firm international response to avoid chemical weapons attacks in the future." the organization of islamic cooperation blamed the syrian government for the chemical

attacks and called for decisive action. and 11 countries at the g-20 summit today called for a strong international response and noted their "support for efforts undertaken by the united states and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons." as i have found over the last week at the u.n., the more that countries around the world are confronted with the hard facts of what occurred on august 21, the more they recognize that the steep price of impunity for assad could extend well beyond syria. the president's decision to seek congressional support has also given the united states time to mobilize additional international support. there is no question that authorization by our congress help strengthen our case. one of the most common concerns we have heard centers less on the how or when of intervention but on the what. some americans are asking, how can we be sure that united states will avoid a slippery slope that would lead to full-

scale war with syria? on the other hand, others are asking, if the u.s. action is limited, how will that have the desired effect on assad? these are good and important questions. the united states cannot police every crisis any more than we can shelter every refugee. the president has made it clear he is responding militarily to a mass casualty chemical weapons incident. any military action will be a meaningful, time-limited response to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again and to degrade its ability to do so. from the start of the syrian conflict, the president has consistently demonstrated that he will not put american boots on the ground to fight another war in the middle east. the draft resolution before congress makes this clear. president obama is seeking your support to employ limited military means to achieve very

specific ends, to deter others in the world who might follow suit using these weapons. the united states has the discipline as a country to maintain these limits. limited military action will not be designed to solve the entire syria problem, not even the most proponents of military intervention believe peace can be achieved through military means. but this action should have the effect of reinforcing our larger strategy for addressing the crisis in syria. by degrading assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons, we will also degrade his ability to strike at civilian populations by conventional means. in addition, this operation, combined with ongoing efforts to upgrade the military capabilities of the moderate opposition, should reduce the regime's faith that they can kill their way to victory. in this instance, the use of

limited military force can strengthen our diplomacy and energize the efforts by the u.n. and others to achieve a negotiated settlement to the underlying conflict. let me add a few thoughts and closing. i know i have not addressed every doubt that exists in this room, in this town, in this country, or in the broader international community. this is the right debate for us to have. we should be asking the hard questions and making deliberate choices before embarking upon action. there is no risk-free door number two that we can choose in this case. public skepticism of foreign intervention is an extremely healthy phenomenon in our democracy, a check against the excessive use of military power. the american people elect leaders to exercise judgment, and there have been times in our history when presidents have taken hard decisions to use force that were not initially popular because they believed our interests demanded it. from 1992 when the bosnian

genocide started until 1995 when president clinton launched the air strikes that stopped the war, public opinion consistently opposed military action there. even after we succeeded in ending the war and negotiating a peace settlement, the house of representatives, reflecting public opinion, voted against deploying american troops to a nato peacekeeping mission. there is no question that this deployment of american power saved lives and returns stability to a critical region of the world and a critical region for the united states. we all have a choice to make. whether we are republicans or democrats, whether we have supported past military interventions or opposed them, whether we have argued for such action in syria to this point, we should agree that there are lines in this world that cannot be crossed and limits on murderous behavior, especially with weapons of mass destruction that must be enforced.

if we cannot summon the courage to act when the evidence is clear and when the action being contemplated is limited, then our ability to lead in the world is compromised. the alternative is to give a green light to outrages that will threaten our security and haunt our conscience, outrages that will eventually compel us to use force anyway way down the line at far greater risks and costs to our own citizens. if the last century teaches us anything, it is this. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by >>tional captioning institute]

today harry reid set a did that -- today he reread set a debate in the senate for next week. president, i am grateful for everyone's corporation getting us to this point. a letter ofing notification be printed to the record. >> without objection, the letter will be printed. senate toened the enable the committee who approved the joint resolution which authorizes the use of military force against syria in response to the regime's use of chemical weapons. many people have been killed by this, including children.

senators have set a tremendous collaboration by the senate. i admire both of these good men for the work they have done and the leadership they have shown in allowing us to be at the point where we are now in this difficult situation. administration continues classified briefings for members of congress today. some spoke to reporters before and after. here is a look. >> so you are undecided. why are you undecided, and is it mostly because of your constituents? decision we serious have to make. i believe chemical weapons were regime.he assad i think it is something the international committee has a

responsibility to act upon. a very serious matter, so i am trying to give it very serious consideration, and part of that process is this briefing i am about to attend where we will hear from the admission restriction -- from the administration. >> what are you hearing from your constituents? >> they are mostly against a reaction against syria. it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the process by him. for many members that will be too late. we will throw our conclusions before them. unfortunately, he is not playing his role as commander in chief. a case that was compelling to your constituents, what it helped you in voting to give him the authorization? >> i will make my decision based on my best judgment on the best

interests of the united states. >> if it goes against your constituents? >> yes. i will do what i think is right, and whatever my case may be, i will explain to my constituents. i have certainly heard from them. i will hear more from them. >> thank you, sir. thank you for coming. -- i just wanted to say that i am very pleased that the president will be addressing the nation on tuesday. this is something that i had asked be done. i said it repeatedly because i think it is very important that the case for involvement in syria not only be made to the

members of congress and the senate, but it must also be made to the american people. and i think there is nobody thanr to make that case the president of the united states. and so i am looking forward to what he has to say. in talking to many of my constituents, they want to hear what he has to say. they want to know again exactly .hat has gone into his thinking and they want to know that this in on aoing to end boots on the ground operation. and so i am very pleased about that, and thank you very much. >> did the briefing help you make your decision? >> very good question. isave not -- the briefing

helpful in getting a better understanding of what has happened. in understanding of exactly what the administration is attempting to .o one of the problems is that in the briefings, we get information that we cannot share with you, nor can we share with our constituents. that i think, if there is anything i have gotten from that , that is the thing that makes it hard because when we address our constituents, they are basing it on what they are learning in the news. our decisions are based not only on what we've learned from the news, but from these briefings. the briefings have been helpful

to the degree i have learned more. i still have questions which i am not going to repeat here , i tried to ask the questions that my constituents are most concerned about. and i think the main thing that a lot of them are concerned about is that they look at what happens with regard to iraq, and that is in the dna of every cell of their brains, because it is so fresh and they know that soment into iraq on inaccurate information. that theytell you then, i think i'm a hold this president and future presidents to a higher burden of proof as to going into these kinds of situations.

and so i do think when the president addresses the nation it will be i think one of the most important speeches of his career as the president of the united states. >> do you think -- [indiscernible] do you think he should? that is a very difficult question and one that i have thought about a lot. as i listened to the senator secretary kerry, the other day, as you will recall, in the senate hearings, and maybe in the house hearings, two, but i know he did it in the senate hearings, that is a question he would not answer. you know, i think the president did the right thing by asking the congress to weigh in, and i

think when the congress -- and i think he had to anticipate that when he asked congress to weigh in, that met the public was going to weigh in. so i think when he is it his best shot, when he addresses the nation, he has made -- i compliment him and the for makingion members of the administration and the military available to us . as i said you before, this is my third briefing, so we are being informed, and when he gives it his best shot and if the congress is not convinced, and i believe he must take that into consideration. after all, he did ask for that advice. the last question. >> this is your third briefing. what is going to be the factor, after everything you have heard, that is going to do it for you,

yes or no? >> that is a good question. this isot to tell you, one of the harder decisions that i have made, have to make, in all the years i have all of the years that i have been in congress. it has been 17. it is hard because one of the things is that i don't want us to do something that -- first of all, my rule is do no harm. the problem is trying to figure out if we go in, is marred -- more harm possibly done by some type of retaliation by president assad and others? does iran do something, does russia do something? you are not sure. on the other hand, you have to balance that against -- i cannot get this picture out of my mind.

those children lying with the , dead andts apparently suffering death from some type of gas. , which one -- do you go out and try to make sure that that doesn't happen again, or do you make sure that you are not stirring up a hornet's nest by taking action? i can understand the president us inside. -- president's side. i can understand the constituent's side. they empathize but they have a lot of questions. it is hard. wanting to support the president, being a loyal obama supporter. >> i think that is a part of it,

but it is not as much a part of it as you might think. i get the impression that a lot of people are looking at this -- i think about my constituents. yesterday, i walked through the district and asked those kind of questions. district voted for the president. we are very supportive. there are people who said, i love the president, i trust the president. he is like my son. one lady said, i disagree with my husband, but i love him to life. so you have to handle disagreements. we all have to look at this not just in a vacuum of what is happening today, what is going to happen with regard to our future generations. that is how we have to look at it. to answer your question, this is very difficult.

can you in effect answer your constituents? >> of course. >> republican senator john mccain discussed u.s. military action in syria at his town hall in arizona. he tweeted after one saying, another spirited town hall on syria in tucson this afternoon. lots of participation and gray t-shirts. here is a quick look at the town hall. \ >> i have always been a loyal supporter of you. i have always been a loyal supporter. the point is, right now no one is denying there are a lot of atrocities being committed in syria whether on the rebels side or the other side as well. the point is, there is a good

option. for me, to listen to you saying there is no good option, i refuse to believe that. is tood option right now take saudi arabia and iran and --ce them to stop supporting the two sides in syria. you can do it. and negotiation, not bombs, senator mccain. shed moreafford to syrian blood. i have a cousin who is 18 years by, just killed 10 days ago the so-called rebels. they are not syrian. they are coming to syria from all over the world. we cannot afford to do that. we cannot afford to turn syria into another iran. or afghanistan.

i beg you. my family is there. the majority of the syrian people want to save their country and you need to listen to the majority of the american people who do not want you to go there. [applause] an issue that we can take so lightly, senator mccain. enough is enough. we do not want another engagement in the middle east. we don't want al qaeda to take over. not, i you like assad or am not a fan either. but at least he has a secular government over there. we are a minority over there. we are the minority christians who are unfortunately by you and so many in the senate -- collateral damage. i refuse to believe that. i can place my family's name to

the bible. we were there. leaveuse to be forced to and be considered collateral damage. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you for your passionate plea. thank you for your very compelling and emotional statement. all i can tell you is that i too have been to syria. i too know the people who are fighting. i met them, i know them. i know who they are. i know syria well enough to know that it is a moderate nation. it is not a nation that will embrace these foreign fighters. assad isat aside is -- anything but a merciless butcher, then we have a strong disagreement. [applause] with a reporter about the obama administration's

implant on syria over the next few days. >> joining us is white house deputy editor for politico, rebecca synder brand. at the president returns from the g 20 meeting, what is the white house plan over the weekend to press their case on syria? is continuingouse its strategy heading into the weekend. president biden is going to meet with republican senators tonight. administration officials are planning -- susan rice, john kerry, chuck hagel are all planning a briefing in a closed session monday night. we know that the white house chief of staff is meeting with house democrats on tuesday. presidents before the addresses the nation on tuesday night.

>> how have white house officials been reacting to the strong pushback on democratic and republican sides on the resolution on syria? >> you see this interesting message from the white house. we have had two variations. what you are hearing now, because of this overwhelming pushback from congress, is the white house getting a lot of questions -- what happens if congress votes no? a mixed message from the administration. kerry and the president say he retains the authority to take action with or without congressional authorization. hearing from the deputy national security advisor says it is not the president's desire or intention, and he does not want to take action without congressional approval. i do not want to downplay the need for congressional approval. at the moment they are asking for it. it is important from a symbolic perspective. >> you say the administration will brief the full house on syria on monday. why all house members, and who

specifically will they hear from? >> they will hear from the susan rice, the national security advisor, james clapper, director of national intelligence, john kerry, and they will hear from the chairman of the joint chiefs and chuck hagel. the senate will vote on that resolution on wednesday, and if it passes, the house is supposed to be putting this up for a vote. it looks like an extreme uphill battle. this will be the third chance -- first chance for the entire house to meet since the alleged chemical weapons attack last month. the house will be back in session, the first time they will have all the members together hearing from the administration, getting a full briefing, a classified briefing. >> the white house announces the president will speak to the nation on tuesday.

you tweeted boehner reacting to the syrian speech news -- we only hope this is not coming too late to make a difference. who is the president aiming for in the speech? who is the target? is it the nation as a whole, or a specific targeted artist of -- audience of lawmakers? >> at the moment right now, the president needs to address the nation as a whole is the message that is becoming from people who support his policy and people who criticize his policy. particularly, from boehner, someone who is favoring the policies, saying he will not work to make sure his colleagues vote, but making the case that the president has not made the case in a sustained and public way. looking at the direction of the polls, and right now over the past few months the public support for intervention has dropped and continues to drop

even following reports of this alleged chemical weapons attack. that the president has not done everything he can do, or everything he needs to do, to make this case, unless the dynamic shifts in a fundamental way, he is looking at a no vote in the house. >> what is politico's quickstep count? >> at this point it is shifting almost by the moment. the most recent estimate that our reporters have determined that we have gotten from lawmakers and aides who have been tracking this is that at the most there would be maybe one or two dozen republicans that would back the resolution at this point. they would be looking for a very strong defeat in the house, and it is on pace, at least at this point, and the senate is less certain, but it is on pace not to make that either.

the speech by the president comes at a very critical moment it comes on the eve not only of the senate vote, but also on the eve of the september 11 as well, so all the nation will be watching, so both the people who support and oppose this policy are going to be watching to see what the president has to say on tuesday night. >> rebecca sinderbrand, thanks for the update. >> thanks so much. >> both chambers of congress are scheduled to gavel in monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern and a weeklong debate is expected on whether to authorize military action against syria. also on the agenda, a number of suspensions with roll call votes after 6:30 p.m. eastern. you can watch live coverage on c-span. in the senate, a pair of judicial nominations at 5:30 p.m. live coverage on c-span2.

>> the united nations briefed reporters today on providing humanitarian aid for the syrian people. amos. hear from valerie she spoke by video from lebanon. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you very much. i hope you can all hear me. i am going to make a very brief statement so that we can maximize the amount of time for discussion. i was in syria yesterday. i thought that i would use the opportunity to do the noon briefing. i have just come from damascus where i talked with members of the government about improving aid. tolso wanted to give support

staff who continue to work in very difficult circumstances. with the rest of the u.n. family, there are 4500 u.n. staff in syria working with ngos and community organizations to help the people who need it most in government and opposition controlled areas. progress inll make addressing some of the administrative challenges we have faced in getting approval for field operations, convoys and visas for humanitarian aid workers. syria and its neighboring countries are going through a humanitarian crisis on a scale we have rarely seen. a terrible impact on the people. neighborhoods have been shown indiscriminately and entire towns have been busy just. over 100,000 people have been killed. more than 4 million have been

displaced. we have reached the 2 million mark in terms of people who have fled syria and are in neighboring countries as refugees. one third of the people of syria urgently need you monetary and eight. the crisis that is affecting everyone is the depreciation of currency, destruction of infrastructure, including health facilities. , the refugeeon crisis is having a very damaging effect on the economy, on the social structure, and on host communities. in syria, protecting civilians is paramount. they rise in the level of sectarian -- sexual violence and ongoing human rights abuse is a major concern. despite the very difficult and dangerous conditions, humanitarian aid organizations are committed to continuing

their work. i was very proud of the commitment shown by the staff of the u.n., by the volunteers and the staff of our other humanitarian organizations when i had the opportunity to speak with them yesterday. i am now very happy to take your questions. thank you. >> and please, if you can use amosmicrophone so that ms. can hear you. >> good morning. pamela from cbs news. on behalf of the u.n. correspondence, thanks for the briefing. my question is, you mentioned in an interview last week that 3.3 million needed still to help the refugee work.

pledged total has been and given in that effort, and how -- have you seen a marked increase or any kind of increase in flow since the talk of a u.s. strike? >> thank you very much. it is actually billion, not million. you will recall that we had an appeal for the first month of the year for 1.5 billion. we then revised that appeal. this is for syria and for neighboring countries to a total $4.4 billion that we were looking for for the entire year. had --took away what we withe time, we were left

$3.3 billion. that has gone down a little bit. push ourntinuing to donors for additional funding. there are two things i would like to say in relation to this. -- this is the biggest appeal we have made. raisee had to significantly because the numbers have gone up. and what i would call an average year, we would generally receive about $6 billion from our donors for multilateral humanitarian assistance within our appeal. that is for countries across the world. because of the amount we are seeking to raise for syria and

neighboring countries and the average we have raised so far is about 40% of the total. we have already nearly reached that $6 billion figure, so our concern is not just about raising the money for syria, it is also about raising the money for crises, yemen, sudan, south sudan, afghanistan, and elsewhere, and that is why i and other principals have been going around and talking to our donors to try to get them to think in different ways about how to -- how we can raise this money, because the need is so urgent. >> let's try to give everyone a chance. >> thank you, ms. amos.

my question is, my name is celia [speaking in french] my question is about the flow of refugees from lebanon. this morning, the minister expressed his disappointment of refugee aid and warns of a bigger crisis. can you elaborate on that, tell us more -- hello, it is working? how much do we need to increase the financial support, the aid support -- do you hear me? can you hear me? >> yes, i am hearing you. >> how much do we need more support at the geneva conference

and another conference, because the pledges are not there? thank you. >> first of all, it is not accurate to say that the pledges did not come through from the kuwait conference. at kuwait, we had $1.5 billion that was pledged. if you remove the amount that the united arab emirates pledged, which was just over $300 million, and they said very clearly this money that they would put towards the response, but not through the multilateral, not through us as the u.n., and what they have done you may have seen it is to fund the refugee camp in jordan. if you exclude that, and also if

you exclude the $183 million that a consortia of ngo's said they would seek to raise, and they have raised about 1/3 of that money, and they're going to seek to raise the rest, the amount that is still outstanding from kuwait are extremely small. so i think it is very important to thank the donors because they have come with contributions that they promised. on lebanon, there are two elements to the appeal from lebanon. one is an appeal for funds for the government of lebanon itself is making, which we are including in our appeal document, and the other is the element which is unhcr and our

partner organizations for working with the refugee communities and the host communities in lebanon. i will ask robert watkins to say little bit more about how much money we have raised in relation to that. on the issue of the flow of refugees into lebanon, i have a meeting with prime minister today. he expressed concern that one in every five people in lebanon, 20% of the population, is now from syria, and that this was having an impact on the social services in the country, health and education. on the economy of the country, and there is an exercise which is currently being done to look

at the impact on the economy of the syria crisis here in lebanon. he also expressed concern that the number of refugees could continue to rise, and that his national support was not there. i reminded the prime minister that myself, others, heads of u.n. agencies, have been strong advocates for international support or lebanon and will continue to do so. i will ask robert watkins to talk more about these figures. >> yes, thank you. indeed, the amount of contributions we have received for the appeals for lebanon have been very generous, but unfortunately, they do not cover the total needs that we have been seeking. we received about 38% of the $1.4 billion which was requested for the entirety of this year. there still remains a quarter of this year, and we are optimistic

that we will be getting more, but the problems that we confront is that the number of refugees continues to go up. more than 725,000 right now. the numbers continue to rise. our fears of a larger wave of refugees coming from syria as a result of the threats of strikes fortunately have not so far been realized. there has not been any major increases in the refugee flows into lebanon as result of his threats so far, and we are not out of the woods yet. as was said, we have to be looking beyond not only the present refugee numbers as well as the expected inflow, and we have been projecting the amount to go up to one million by the end of the year. we have to be looking at the enormous burden that this is put on the lebanese economy, and for that reason, we are trying to diversify the kind of assistance we are bringing, not only to be

helping refugees themselves, but the larger lebanese population who have been carrying a very heavy burden for the last 2 1/2 years. that is our strategy for the coming months, and we expect within the next month we will have a new development-oriented strategy to help lebanon. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you, mr. watkins. i have a follow-up on the question regarding the situation in lebanon. would you please elaborate more about the numbers, the figures of the refugees in the country, and what is your estimate for the unregistered syrian refugees nowadays in lebanon, and what are you trying to do in order to support lebanon? would you please articulate more what is your plan for the

upcoming international conference here in new york in this regard. i also have a question regarding syria -- a person was able to visit an area. could you give us some update about the situation in that specific area that there are a lot of allegations about the use of chemical weapons in that area. were you asked to provide some medical assistance to the hospital there, what did you do in that area? thank you so much. >> on the question of -- i did not go there. with respect to the allegations

of the use of chemical weapons, these are allegations that have been part to the team, the chemical inspectors, whom physically -- we have tried on the humanitarian side to get into certain areas close to damascus over the last two months, and we have not managed to do so. i will ask mr. watkins to address your follow-up on lebanon. >> as i mentioned the actual numbers of refugees that are receiving assistance now is 726,000, which includes 104,000 of which has not been formally registered, but which have received assistance. we expect that number to go up to one million by the end of the year, if not exceeding that. as you probably know, inside lebanon there are many other

syrians in the country and have been in the country for many years and even before the crisis in syria, who had been playing a major part in the lebanese economy as migrant workers. the government estimates there is more than 1.2 million to 1.5 million syrians, including refugees, and on top of that we have more than 250,000 refugees coming in from palestine since the 1948 conflict. as you can see, the number of refugees and migrant workers from outside of lebanon is a enormous and is having a huge impact. this is why we are having this assistance package coming together, it would have assistance and health, water sanitation, and infrastructure sectors of the economy. >> thank you. if there is a military strike

in syria, how do you, what do u expect, how would that effect the humanitarian situation, the aid delivery, and what are your staff doing there to prepare for that? the continue to update contingency plan. we always have contingency plans on the basis that the numbers might go up expectedly. we, of course, have to make sure that we think about the safety and security of our own staff. we have a commitment to ntinue our humortarian operation. we have challenges in doing that in any of that because of the security situation that we

face on the ground inside of syria, but as i said in the nversation that i had with u.n. staff and the staff of the department, it's a serious ommitment to continuing with our operations. that is the commitment that we have made. please remember that a majority of our staff operating inside syria are themselves syrians, so they want to continue to work for the good of syrians and to improve the situation of syrians on the ground, but at the same time they're also mindful of the impact that any possible military action might have on themselves and their families. >> sure, thanks a lot.

thanks from doing this from over there. i wanted to ask you about the reports that the u.s. state department confirmed of threats against humanitarian groups and the threat they were told by the isis organization or whatever you choose to call them to leave or face death. i wanted to know, both on that incident which i tried -- it seems strange that the groups would speak to the state department and not them. have you heard anything in other areas that are controlled by what are called extremist groups. what is the access and what groups are there? thank you. >> we have not managed to get into that area, but yesterday when he was in damascus in my discussions with the president of the syrian arab group, i was informed that we now may be able to get into that area

which would be very good news indeed. weeks over the last few nd months faced threats to manitarian work from various forces and workers. you know volunteers have been lled and also that we have had u.n. staff killed. staff have also been kidnapped. we take all of those threats extremely seriously. this particular threat that you mentioned is not one that i have been made aware of, but we have had threats against ourselves from different groups , some of which posted on social media. >> how many u.n. staff have been killed? >> one follow-up. >> how many u.n. staff have been killed?

>> 11. >> let's everyone have a chance for a question. yes, jonathan. >> thank you for the briefing undersecretary-general. can you please explain to us the psychological impact that the alleged chemical weapons attack has had the syrian population and also on the humanitarian workers who are trying to get their work done? speak from n only what i have been told from the to.f that i have spoken people feel very uncertain in terms of the syrian people that i have spoken to, they continue to express concerns to me that the international community has abandoned them and that they action, it to see

that they would like to see the international community come together and agreeing on action which would lead to a political solution inside of syria. it's very hard for me to speak about the psychology, but i can say that people remain fearful and a lot of people are just fearful because the future emains so uncertain. >> i know that you have a number of things on your schedule. do you have time for one or two more questions? there are are still a few hands up. >> i have about two minutes. maybe if i take two questions together? together.stions regarding the is influx towards turkey. there were reports today saying

that the turkish authorities have stopped the refugees from oming to turkey, the panic regarding possible strikes on parts of syria. are you aware about that and what is the capacity of accepting more refugees in turkey, especially that this area could be a front for any possible attack? question? second when you were last year, you asked the security council making the deliver, what do you want them to do, if anything, or has the delivery of aid and your negotiations with the syria government solved that? >> very quickly on the refugee

tuation into turkey, the neighboring countries have continued with their commitment to keep it open. i have to say there are various stages in the process and the neighboring countries have said to us we cannot possibly take any more refugees and yet they have continued to do so. i think we need to be extremely mindful of the impact of having so many refugees crossing a border has on the social structure of any country. so i'm not aware of any statement by authorities saying that they will stop receiving refugees. with respect to the document i put to the security council, what i thought it was to bring

together the different things that i had asked the security council to do in a number of my briefings over the last year. i put them together in one ocument with things like the protection of civilians and support and so on to neighboring countries. there has been a continued discussion within the security council about what to do with that document and i very much hope that the security council has final discussion on these issues around chemical weapons that it will come back to this humanitarian document that i put to them because i think it's very important that we stay focused on the humanitarian impact of this crisis and that the security council will be able to agree on a set of measures that can

all agree on which would help to facilitate speedier humanitarian response inside syria and the neighboring countries. thank you very much. >> 11 of the g-20 countries including the united states released a joint statement on the situation in syria. it reads -- >> the u.n. state department ordered nonsense diplomatics and families to leave the country. here is a look at some of the briefing. it includes discussions about syria and the travel warnings issued for lebanon and turkey. >> good afternoon, everyone.

welcome back to friday briefings. i'm sorry that august is over. i don't have anything at the top today, so i'm happy to start with your questions. matt. embassy start with security personnel movements, nonevacuation evacuations. >> yes. >> are the threats that exist, that you believe to exist to our personnel in lebanon or in beirut specifically, are they related to syria or are they related to somebody else? >> these are potential threats as we said in the statement this morning. obviously the tension in the region including in syria plays a role in this. i think it would be obvious to most people and would be silly to think otherwise. clearly that plays a role there, other regional tensions as well.

we'll continuing evaluating on a post by post basis to see if we need to take any additional steps. >> are you aware of any specific, a specific syria-related threat to either of these posts? >> i am not, no, this morning we're concerned about tension in the region of potential threats. obviously we make the decision on a post by post basis with a variety of factors. i'm not aware of any specifics. again, we're evaluating information every day. we'll take appropriate steps as necessary. >> so there was a report overnight or last night that there have been a threat or intelligent intercept of a threat to the embassy in baghdad. notice that unlike beirut and or unlike lebanon and turkey, there was no new warning today, no new even intentional thing that went up on the embassy website in baghdad. i'm just wondering is that report accurate?

is there such a threat? are you concerned about it? and if you are, is anything being done to reduce it? >> well, i'm not going to comment on reports about alleged intelligent that may or may not exist. clearly we remain concerned in looking at the security throughout the region. again, you noted that we have not taken any action in terms of our posts in iraq. so i would probably leave it at that for now. again we'll keep re-evaluating, but nothing to announce for any other post at this time. >> so it would not, is it safe to infer from what you're saying that the fact that there was no, there was no change or there hasn't been any announced change to posture in iraq, that means that you don't really ascribe, if there was such a threat, you don't ascribe much credibility to it? >> i would caution you from

inferring, i guess. what i am going to say is i'm not going to comment on this alleged piece of intelligent. we will make our decisions on our post on a day-by-day basis on a variety of information. nothing to announce in terms of baghdad. >> you said nothing to announce, you say you're not going to comment on this one alleged threat. then you point to the fact that there hasn't been any change in posture. >> there hasn't. >> so if you're not -- not trying to make us -- >> i'm just stating a couple of facts. i'm just stating a couple of facts. matt, you can infer what you like from that. i'm saying there is no change in baghdad. i'm not going to comment one way or another on that report. > you mentioned in those statements on lebanon and the comment, the statement you sent out, you talked about potential threats. but actually in the statement on turkey, i'm just quoting here, you say that the consulate general has been authorized to draw down its staff and family members because of threats.

>> i have the travel warning. >> that suggests it isn't a potential threat. there have been threats against the consulate general in turkey. >> i wouldn't do much parsing. it's not an ordered personnel. nonnorthwestern personnel can make a decision whether or not they want to leave. that's a different level. the travel warning speaks for itself here. clearly we'll continuing evaluating any potential threats or threats on a daily basis. >> so there have been threats against it's consul late general? >> i'm not aware of any specific threats. >> can i just ask, are you anticipating there could be further ordered evacuations from other embassies in the region, baghdad, there is a whole range of countries where we have seen violence against u.s. missions as well? >> we will continue evaluating information as it comes in over the days and weeks ahead. if we need to take additional steps, we certainly will. our preference is always, of course, to have our folks on

the ground. i would note the services are still happened in beirut. we're drawing down some personnel. if we have additional decisions to make, we certainly will. it's an issue that everyone here is very clearly focused on as we go forward. our security of our people and our facilities in the region is of utmost concern to everyone here. >> the embassy in beirut remains open? >> yes, open for normal services. it's somewhat limited because of a smaller staff. >> how many people were involved in the ordered evacuation today? >> well, i can't give you exact numbers. for security reasons, we don't do that. it was just an authorized departure. in beirut, it was an ordered departure, i can't give you numbers. >> three dozen? >> for security reasons, we don't get into those specifics. >> i understand that the interests that remain in iraq,

they were authentic, you confirmed that they were actually -- >> i wasn't going to comment on those reports one way or the other. >> in the past few hours, has there been any movement on the political diplomatic front, have there been any contacts between the secretary of state and the russian foreign minute at this? >> yes, there has been. the secretary of state is en route. there will be a lot happening over the weekend with his meetings as well. we can stay in touch over the weekend, too. today, friday, he has spoken with the secretary-general general, the mexican foreign secretary, russian foreign minister, he also spoke with him yesterday as well. >> in tomorrow's meeting with the arab follow-up committee in paris, will they focus on syria or are they going to talk about the peace process? >> we expect they'll talk about

both issues. this is a follow-up meeting on the peace process. he is traveling with the traveling party right now and is ambassador ford. we expect both topics of concern to the arab league will be discussed. >> going back to syria. in the event that the syrians show any kind of willingness, i know i asked this question yesterday, show any willingness to forgo their chemical arsenal, is there room for some sort of diplomatic effort and standing down with the strike? >> well, i think the president made clear that he has made a decision that we, the united states, should take military action to degrade and deter the capabilities. as each knows right now. we're talking with congress about authorization to do so. it's a hypothetical. we see no indication might happen. could happen. clearly if that were to pass, we would be having a different discussion. they have escalated their use of chemical weapons. they have no intention of doing

anything to stop the brutality against their own people. that's a hypothetical that quite frankly i just don't see being plausible. >> understood. these capabilities that you talk about, are they restricted to the chemical weapons capabilities or far beyond that other things? >> we don't want to get ahead of where we are here. we haven't talked specifically what this military action would look like. the goal is to deter the ausada regime from using chemical weapons in the future and degrade their acts to do so. i'm not going into specifics about targets and get ahead of the process there. >> lastly, do you believe as a result of all of this, the administration has the efforts underway, maybe regime changing in syria? >> we have been clear that this action that the president has put on the table for congress to authorize is not aimed at regime change. we also at the same time been clear that ausada has lost all

legitimacy and must go. we have been clear that the process that that needs to happen through is a political solution through geneva process which is in the best interests of the syrian people and ultimately has the best chance for this process to succeed. >> you said that every indication is that the ausada regime has escalated their use of chemical weapons? >> absolutely. >> does that mean beyond the 21st? >> since they used them in june, i believe, this is a gross escalation, that the trend line has gone in the opposite direction. >> which makes you believe that he would use them again and even greater strength or whatever in the future if he was not deterred? >> absolutely. even from the president to secretary kerry. secretary kerry wrote in an op-ed today that if we don't act here that he will use chemical weapons again and again against his own people.

>> and potentially against other people? >> well clearly that's a concern and also a concern is chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups or other bad actors, absolutely. >> i don't understand why with the way it looks right now, i realize this is partly hypothetical in terms of the vote, but what is not hypothetical are the numbers that are out there right now. right now you don't have them. >> are you talking about the congressional vote? >> right. unless -- >> there are lots of counsel out in the public, speculation. >> does the administration win right now? put to the senate. secretary kerry has said we don't think the congress will take steps by not authorizing this to strengthen ausada, iran and others.

we believe that the trend line is positive here, we're going to keep engaging with congress. the secretary will be doing a lot of that next week as well. >> can you be more specific? >> about his engagement? >> yes. >> we have a list of hearings, i'm happy to provide that to folks. we're still nailing down specifics. >> he will be out there for no more hours on end? >> we're going to spend more hours of our life up on the hill, i think. it's something we think is very important. i was up there with him this week on the house and senate side and the discussion and debate is exactly why the president thought it was important to go to congress for the authorization. >> you have -- you are aware of counts that show the trend line is moving in a positive direction? >> we believe we're going to get where we need with this vote. we don't think that congress will allow america's credibility to be questioned here by not doing so. >> a quick follow-up. ould you comment on the deputy

, i guess, the national security visor today in terms of if they did not get the votes, he will not strike? >> what i think he said is completely in line with what the president said. there has been no change in our position. he said it was neither the president's desire or intention. he was repeating what the president said since saturday, his desire and intention is to take the issue to congress and secure congressional approval. he was not speculating on what the president might do, but our position has not changed. >> i heard him saying there would not be a strike if he does not get the votes. >> i would look at all the comments he has made. we have made clear that the president made clear that his intention was to go to congress, and we expect to get the necessary votes. there will be days ahead with intense debate and discussion, and that is what democracy is

supposed to look like. at the end of the day, we will get there. >> what the national security adviser said was the president does not need the authority of congress to act. but you did not finish his sentence when you said it is neither his desire nor intention. it does not end there. you said absent congress backing him. >> there was no change in our position. secretary kerry has been asked a lot about this and has made the same point. we do not believe that will happen. >> you believe what you are doing right now is a deterrent to assad using chemical weapons? >> what actions are you referring to -- my briefing today? >> whatever the dministration's policy is --

is what the administration doing now, in taking this to congress -- is that acting as a deterrent to prevent assad, do you think? >> the president's announcement that he intends to take military action, absolutely, is part of our efforts to deter assad. rally international support, speaking in one voice as a nation, it is all part of this. if congress does not authorize this, we will be sending these out opposite message, that he can do this with impunity again and again -- america will not stand up and stand behind its words when it says what it intends to do. >> do you believe the country through congress is speaking with one voice right now? >> that is the point of authorization. we speak most strongly on the international stage when we speak with one voice.

it will be more powerful if they say this cannot stand and this is a response. >> there is an argument that one could make that when you have such disagreement and wild disagreement -- and this is huge -- for some of the -- some of the president's strongest supporters are against this, some of the biggest hawks on the republican side are against this, and i think someone could make the argument that that kind of fractious debate actually undermines the credibility of the country, because it shows assad and the iranians and the north koreans that congress is not united and that the country is not united around this. >> even if we had not gone to congress, there would still be a lot of heated debate. that is not necessarily a product of going to congress. that exists in our political system. >> the suggestion from this

morning that that indecision would prevent the u.s. from acting, and so the that is -- >> what we are focused on in terms of assad and tehran and pyongyang is the outcome of it. after a democratic debate and discussion, we in the united states, despite our differences, can stand up to syria and say this is unacceptable, that that has a much stronger impact across the world than not going to congress. >> they spent a lot of time and effort putting together a case, administration spent time and effort putting together a case hat it believes is rock solid, 100%, and is justification for he president's decision to take military action. i think the argument could be

made that then taking it to ongress, the president not making an executive decision, which is in, you say, his authority, taking it to congress and then exposing the wild -- a huge divide over taking military action, does not enhance credibility at all. you are gambling that in the nd that you will win and the vote will be sufficient enough to show that a large majority of the american people, through their representatives, are in favor of this? is that correct? >> we believe when the congress authorizes this action, and america will speak with one voice, and let me finish, and what assad feels in terms of our response will not be a pinprick, he will know what it happens, it will be more than what some people have talked about, and that america is

speaking with one voice as we take those actions has much more credibility around the world, not just to syria, iran, but with our international partners. >> if congress votes no, america will also have spoken with one voice, correct? >> we do not believe that will be the outcome. we will work with congress to get to the right place. the president made it clear that the united states needs this and now it is up to congress to make that clear. > i understand, but if you say congressional vote to give the authorization will show that america is speaking with one voice, then surely the congress has to be true that if the congress does not authorize it, america is also speaking with one voice. >> not at all, because the president believes we should do it. what it would show to the rest of world as america is not willing to stand by what it says him and when we say we need to take action to protect international norms, that the united states congress is not willing to stand by that, that is the message it would send.

>> to the international context of this, we have all seen in the g-20 summit in st. petersburg that there is an awful lot of skepticism from the international community about whether a military strike s justified. i wondered if the administration believes that irrespective of the congress' decision, the american legal decision, whether under international law such a strike would be justified. >> i would point to the joint statement that just got released from the g-20. from the leaders and representatives of australia, canada, france, italy, japan, republic of korea, saudi arabia, turkey, and united states, issued a statement, and it is a strong statement. i want to make a few points. today's statements echoes many of our views on the syrian crisis. it condemns the horrific chemical weapons attacks.

it supports efforts to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons but condemns all human rights violations in syria on all sides, and reaffirms our desire for a political resolution to the geneva process, building international support for a response to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons. the trend line here is positive. in the coming days you will see more of this. they are confident we are going to get to a place where we have more international support on this as well. >> i think on the statement, it was 11 out of 20 g-20 countries, a narrow majority, not an overwhelming majority. >> it was a strong statement that was not preordained, and incredibly strong statement of

about a wide range of countries share. i think coming out of a summit that has been focused on -- to have such a strong statement is a positive thing. >> my question actually was whether the united states -- ecause what we are talking about here is the contention -- one of the reasons we would launch a military strike is because the assad regime is considered to have broken international convention. my question is, is it under international law legal for america to carry out military strikes against syria? >> i will not get into a legal analysis in the days and weeks ahead as we go to the congressional process, as we decide on exact course of military action, we will have all these conversations. i will not do that kind of legal analysis. >> because ban-ki moon said that military force can only be used when the security council

approves any action. as we have given up on the security council, is it your understanding that this would fall under article 51 of the charter? >> i will not get into that when we are still working through congress and determining the exact course of military action if it is authorized. i'm not getting ahead of the ballgame here. >> the secretary's statement today says the world sets a red line. is that the same one set by the president on the 20th of august 2012, or is that a different one? >> the president said that this is not just the united states red line, this is not just the president's red line, it is the world's red line, that is why we have the chemical weapons convention and the geneva

conventions as well. >> when you're talking about the world red line -- >> the use of chemical weapons. >> a slight problem because i do not think that red line that was drawn in the chemical weapons convention talks of anything about president assad or syria or him moving the kind of weapons around or using them, for that matter. it talks only -- the red line -- the president and assad and syria, the red line for president assad and chemical weapons was set by the president. >> but the norm underpinning that -- >> i get your point. >> they are not different things. >> they are related, but the red line concerning assad, and this changes the calculus as set by the president, but not by the chemical weapons -- >> it is a red line, the same one that said this is unacceptable behavior --

>> that relate specifically to syria. >> but the notion of the use of chemical weapons is a red line in the world community. >> i take your point. can i just follow -- you are saying you are going to give us -- you will not give us your legal justification for doing this until after the fact? >> i am not saying that. right now i am not getting into any legal analysis of any eventually action. i'm just not going to. >> when will you be able to? >> we will talk about this as we get closer to the authorization of action. >> can you say such justification will be provided for the president authorizes -- because it strikes me as -- but if he is going to authorize it, you're only going to provide justification afterwards -- >> you are jumping to conclusions. >> i'm trying to get you that the legal justification will be

provided before you launch cruise missiles -- >> when we talk about what happens before legal action, i will not talk about it. >> monday? tuesday? >> what should we do now to prevent the u.s. from taking any military action? is there anything they can do at this stage? >> the president has made clear what they did on august 21 must be responded to. and the assumption is what we are operating under. i do not want to lay out hypotheticals. every step they have taken since brutally killing their own people was with actions that are just unacceptable. i am not going to lay out a hypothetical of what they can do. the bottom line remains the president has made clear the united states and our partners should hold the regime accountable.

>> there has been expressed frustration about the u.n. security council has not responded, but given your experience in the past, does the u.s. believed at this time for any reform for the voting structure in the security council so that not one single country can paralyze the u.n. security council? >> a good question, and i would know that ambassador powers is making remarks on syria today, and i encourage people to look at those remarks as well. that is something we talked about at the u.n. a lot. what we are talking about it the security council as of the state and the fact we cannot allow syria to act with impunity because one or two countries refuse to hold them accountable in the security council. that is a bigger issue that

folks are focused on, but in the real world, the security council we have today, this is the situation we face. >> are you confident that a russian veto or chinese veto you would get the votes needed on a resolution to this? >> i do not want to venture what hypothetically happens at the security council. >> you are blaming that they have veto power and they can do it -- >> and russia has vetoed it three times in the past. >> you are confident if there were no vetoes you would be able to get a resolution? >> i did not say that. we know who the problem is in the security council today. i'm not going to go there. >> on the other hand the united states has used its veto is on various occasions where they do not agree with them. surely, that was part of the international democracy checks and balances. >> we believe the u.n. and the security council are important international institutions. the u.s. supports them in a great number of ways.

kell continue to do so. in this instance, in this case, the syrian regime tossed actions were so egregious and crossed such an international norm and we have seen such intransigence by the russians, that we are where we are today, and going forward we will continue to work in the u.n. because it is an incredibly important body. syria first. >> you are mentioning the brutal regime at the same time you're talking about a strike r something to degrade and deter the chemical weapons. in this context, where is the civil war, which is going on in syria? is it going to help to put and end for the civil war, because at the end, we are talking about chemical weapons, the strike that is going to hit something and degrade -- where is the civil war?

it is not just the regime not taking care the people. there is a civil war going on. if you can explain to me -- so i can understand what is your vision of a civil war or not? >> the action we are talking about in which we went to congress to get authorization for is a response to the use of chemical weapons. to deter and degrade. e believe the only solution is political solution. but at the same time we will continue to support the opposition. we went continue to support them in a variety of ways because we believe that they do to continue to became to hold their own against the regime, that we need to get both

parties to a place where they will come to the table at geneva. we are responding to the use of chemical weapons. at the same time, you are working with the opposition and with our international partners to work for the political solution to the crisis there, absolutely. >> the other question, related somehow to the first question, is we all agree now that the assad regime broke the rules of the world and of the international norms, but if you are trying to talk about military power or a military issue, we doubt the international support and all these things, and considering that the security council is a kind of hostage of russia, for example, the expression came out yesterday, and putin is calling secretary kerry a liar. how you can talk about

political solution after all these steps and meanwhile the norms are broken, or people trying to break it, which is like to find a political solution when people start to not respect the u.n., people start to not respect each other or to the support of each other -- how you can find a political solution from this dilemma? >> first, on the relationship with russia, and the white house has talked about this, clearly there are issues where we vastly disagree with the russian government. syria has been one of them at times, although we have worked on them with geneva process. we had disagreements with them on a number of issues. we need to work with them when there are international interests, and we had been able to, whether supplying troops in afghanistan, putting sanctions

on iran over its nuclear program, and other issues as well. it is not a black-and-white relationship. it's a complicated relationship. everybody is clear about that. it doesn't mean we shouldn't work with them. it means it is sometimes challenging. in terms of the u.n., the international norms of the security council and the united nations was created to uphold are what we think needs to be upheld in syria. the fact that a member of the security council refuses to hold a regime accountable for exactly the norms the united nations was created toup hold, we can't allow the regime to go forward without a response. that is my answer, and we value the u.n.'s work. we will continue to support it as we always have. >> talking about the international lead that the u.s. is doing and some of the members of the g-20 that came with the statement, there are

some areas of the world that it seems that based on these atrocities, they're very silent. for example, latin america. i do not see there was any vote in a moment in favor of an action in syria from latin america. does the u.s. worry about this? are there going to be any moralies in latin america to support? >> clearly, what we have been doing and what we will keep doing is reaching out to our friends and partners around the world. the secretary talked with the mexican foreign secretary today. we are talking to leaders around the world. the trend line here is positive. the more the intelligence case is made known, the more support we get around the world. that process is ongoing. >> at the moment if there is today in the security council a vote, do you think the u.s. will win that vote? there are some regions of the

world that are silent with this. >> we have made clear that russia's track record on the security council is not a good one and that their intransigence is why we are not pursuing that route at the moment. i think we have been very clear about the security council and the different dynamics that play there. yes. >> on the hill that foreign countries have assured u.s. with the military strike, are they still the same? >> there have been a lot of numbers flowing out there, and there is a lot interest in it. we will refrain at most times from doing a minute-by-minute play-by-play of what this all looks like. the trend line is positive. support continues to grow. i will not get ahead of where we are in terms of potential partners that would assist in such an action, but i would point to the trend line we have seen from public statements, including the g-20 statement.

>> secretary kerry and minister lavrov? >> i don't have a readout from today's call. i know they spoke yesterday for about 40 minutes. they discussed the response to chemical weapons in syria. they also again spoke about geneva and the necessity of geneva. at the same time we disagree about chemical weapons, we continue to talk about the necessity of geneva, and before that the last time they spoke on august 27. if i can get a readout today, i will give that to you. >> the ministers are reportedly visited moscow on monday. was there discussion of that between the secretary -- > not to my knowledge. i don't know the answer to that. let me doublecheck. >> i wonder if you see it as a positive sign that there is some political talk happening because it was the russian side that was going to bring the syrian side to the table?

>> we would have to take a look at what is discussed and would not want to comment on it until after it happens. the russians play a key role in getting folks to the geneva process. we said that from the beginning. excuse me. it quite frankly depends. secretary kerry spoke with the foreign minuteder, excuse me. losing my voice. spoke with the syrian foreign minister to make clear that they needed to let in inspectors at the beginning of the process. we will see what happens and go from there. someone ask a long question. so i can take a big sip of water. matt. >> it might not be long. the trend line is positive both internationally and on the hill, that is your line? >> yes. >> but you're not willing or able to offer as any proof of the trend line being positive beyond the g-20 statement of

-- >> i think it is a very strong statement. >> it is, but i do not think it adds to the number of countries -- there are no newcomers to the condemnation of it, are you aware of? > discussions are ongoing. we see the trend line going in a positive direction. if i have specifics, i will get them to you . >> ok, but then can you not say that the -- it is hard to we see the trend line going in accept on face value you saying the trend line is positive when there is no evidence to back that up -- or that you are not willing to show. >> i think the statement from the g-20 was positive. >> but not in terms of numbers. >> it is important this large number of countries across the world -- >> i understand, but you said what is positive that these countries came together and had a strong statement. >> that is part of it. >> it is not adding another country to the list.

>> our private conversations diplomatically are ongoing and we feel the trend line is positive as we have a additional things to announce. >> how do you assess iran's role if you hit syria? >> i do not want to go down that road. we are looking at all possible reactions from the region. iran has up until does point late and incredibly negative role in syria. we are looking at all of those contingencies right now and we would encourage folks -- one of the reasons i think that we encourage in congress to vote for the authorization is because if we do not and if we do not stand up and say when we say something we mean it that leaders in places like tehran will get the wrong message

about american correct. that we do not mean what we say, and if we say do not cross a line and we do not act -- >> but you are sending mixed messages there. >> we have continued to call on iran, on hezbollah, on people that are playing bad roles in syria to cease doing that. it is not in the best interests of the syrian people. and i would certainly hope if we take any military action, other countries in the region, other bad actors will not escalate and make the situation worse because it's not in their interest to do so. syria and iran or iran? let me finish. i will come back to you. >> on the issue of credibility, it is talked about a great deal, could it be right to suggest that the u.s. credibility hinges or rests on its ability to strike syria and do military action and dominate that region?

>> that is not what we are suggesting. your words. american credibility rests on a lot of things. our economic power, influence, engagement of the world. it is our diplomatic engagement on a number of issues, including nonproliferation and others as well. it is also when america has said something, says we will do something, that we stand by that, whether it is military options or not. that we speak with one voice, that we mean what we say, and we say what we mean. that is always what america has stood for and continues to be the case going forward. economic, military, all of the above. yes, i'm going to you. >> on the makeup of the syrian opposition forces, so far there have been about a dozen reported cases of ethnic albanians being killed. the recruitment of these people in the balkans on islamic

grounds will have on the balkans, and the return of the survivors to their hometowns, the effect it will have, given that last year around easter there was a horrendous islamist attack by albanians? >> we have a continuing constructive dialogue with the number of countries around the concerns, including the balkans, but we remain concerned by any sectarian violence of any kind inside of syria, no matter where it originates, no matter where the fighters come from. we will continue to push the international community, the folks who are doing this, to stop doing it because it is not in the best interests of the syrian people. and all our conversations with moderate and political leaders, we urge the opposition to reject that kind of violent extremism and to isolate these oups, to ensure that their

ideology does not take root, to respect the rights of all syrians and make sure that ideology does not get taken back to other places as well. we has seen spillover violence in lebanon and iraq already. it is something we remain concerned about. syria, still? let's finish up syria. > on nato, i want to know -- nato is not very united at this moment, right? we are have some countries that were very active in libya. you think that may change? >> italy signed on to the statement, so i would put that out with italy. i think that is a positive trend line if we want to call it that, matt. so i think -- >> >> exactly, and those are the ren lines we can point to.

>> those are countries that have not been for this before? >> we will continue to dig up support for the exactly this. >> on the next "washington journal" we talk with robert zarate. he'll look at president obama's approach to the country's civil war. and code pink protested during hearings this week. then the g-20 in russia and the global economy with the economics reporter with the "wall street journal." "washington journal" live at :00 apple eastern on espn. democratic caucus chair representative is our guest this week on newsmakers. as congress prepares to return on monday, he'll be discussing u.s. options in syria, immigration policy, the budget, and other issues ahead.

you can watch newsmakers live sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in h.d. vice president joe biden paying tribute to outgoing homeland secretary mike napoli. other speak -- january net napolitano. . she is leaving her post to become president of the university of california

system. this is 45 minutes. >> please welcome to the stage, acting deputy secretary of homeland security, the attorney general of the united states, secretary of homeland ecretary, janet napolitano and vice president joseph r. biden. [applause] please welcome to the podium acting deputy secretary of homeland security. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to all of you as we honor the service of secretary of homeland security janet napolitano. leaves ond napolitano the department after 4 1/2 commitment aivering

to not only this department, but the larger homeland security enterprise. as someone who has had the privilege to work with her over this time, i'm proud of the many accomplishments that she has brought to us. though she will be joining the university of california and raising the threat in level of california as a refreshing driver of moving to the bay area -- [laughter] >> i believe that her impact in the department -- that's the only joke i will tell, secretary. i promise i wouldn't. i believe that her impact on and security will be lasting, significant, and live for many years to come. she has been an

extraordinary secretary. she answered the president's call to office in 2009 leaving her home state of arizona and a job that she dealer loved. she came to d.h.s. with a keen understanding of the challenges facing the department and our nation, from her years of she h service as governor, attorney general, and u.s. attorney. beginning on her first formal day on the job, january 21, 2009, she made it a priority to build and strengthen the partnerships at all levels. understanding that d.h.s. could not achieve its mission without bridges to people and communities including our many law enforcement partners. she reinforced our work to counterterrorist threats, supporting information sharing through state and lotion centers and in the private sector, getting resources out to the front lines and forging strong partnerships abroad. she created and expanded the departments, if you see something, say something campaign to enlist the public's participation in fighting terrorism and reporting suspicious activities. the secretary also understood the crucial importance of strong order security. she reached historic levels of

personnel, technology and infrastructure to the southwest border and today, illegal crossings are at a 40-year low. at the same time she reprioritized our immigration enforcement leading to the removal of a record number of serious criminals from the united states. she stepped up efforts to combat transnational criminal organizations and activity including the launching of the d.h.s. wide blue campaign to fight the scouring of human trafficking. she leversed the department's prosecutorial discretion and implemented the deferred action initiative to allow law-abiding young people brought into the united states through no fault of their own to remain without fear of removal. second napolitano strengthened dramatically the department's commitment to cyber security and the ability to protect federal networks and work with the private sector. she launched the immigrations center to provide better

awareness across the government and in the private sector. she helped fema restore itself to the rightful place as the best disaster agency in the world. she embraced the approach that we have seen in a record number of disasters including hurricane sandy last year. she pushed for enhancing aviation security home abroad by pushing for greater international cooperation and forecasting on high risk cargo and high risk people. secretary napolitano leaves the department behind, there will integrated and a much more efficient d.h.s., launching the capabilities toward a common ground of protecting our communities before events and ensuring after they happen that the nation is prepared to respond as we need to. .

officer jennifer krys and the acting chief of physical security. following the pledge remain standing for the remarks of the invocation by reverend dav davidmyers for the faith-based

neighborhoods and partnerships.

♪ o say can you see by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright starts through the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air ♪ ♪ gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪

♪ o say does that star spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o 'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪ >> i pledge allegiance. to the flag to the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice

for all. please be seated. good morning, distinguished guests, friends, and colleagues. we have gathered here this

morning to celebrate the work of and to fend out from among us a most excellent american, an extraordinary public servant, secretary janet napolitano. before we do so, it is right and it is proper to set apart even for just a brief season, a time to reflect on and be grateful for a simple and profound gift of this day each of us have seen the light of many, many days. not one of them have been the same. in the words of an old hymn made pop yue already in the 1970s, morning has broken like the first morning. black bird has spoken like the first bird. today, how will you experience the gift of today, friday,

september 6, 2013? this day has never dawned before. how can we not bow before the wonder of it. for at least one of us, today will be a valive dive ctive o'inn, an ending with morals. for others, a salutation, a beginning. some of us are really glad it's friday. while others of us will face great challenges in which we know not how to turn. whatever your story, there are shining possibilities that manifest themselves when you can find something, just something, to be grateful for and then say it out loud. there is another song written

many years ago by a country preacher. he wrote it on a stormy sunday morning near beaver valley pike in lancaster, pennsylvania. when he awoke to the howling wind, he scraped off the ice of his kitchen window and saw the snow blowing sideways. his preaching duties would have to wait for another day but even after he was prevented from doing what he loved to do, prevented him from what his duties bound him do, so moved was he by the very wonder of his breath on the frozen pain that he penned these words adapted here for today's celebration. we offer this morning a song, a song of gratitude and praise for the kindness that we've been shown in the lengthening of our

days. love -- it was love that kept us safe another night. we see another day and now a love spirit and the light illuminate our way. >> please welcome the honorable eric h. holder jr., the attorney general for the united states. >> good morning. pleasure to join so many friends, colleagues, and distinguished guests and thanking janet secretary napolitano for her contributions in the last 4 1/2 years. a pleasure to have the commitment of excellence that defined her tenure at this wonderful institution.

it's not to congratulate such an exceptional leader and a good friend. an exciting chapter in her career as she becomes it first woman ever to serve as the president of the university of california systems. i told her i have a daughter who's a rising senior in high school so -- and that's what i got from her. looks like brooke is on her own. but it really represents only the latest areas of secretary napolitano over the course of a career and eagerness to take on the challenges and a propensity to take on history as the first female attorney general in the history of the state of arizona, first female governor to win re-election in that state. the first woman to lead this critical department, and the high school graduate voted most

likely to succeed in the class of 1975 but went to college by people she knew -- still not working. from the day that president clinton served as the united states attorney to the moment she was sworn in as the secretary of homeland security, her passion for public service is evident and the dedication to the state of the american people, the security of our nation, and the yields of our justice system has been the display. for 4 1/2 years, secretary napolitano has been essential

member of the team. in many occasions we see the collaboration between the department of justice and homeland security and to strengthen america's counterterrorism structure to the centers to the frontlines. the white house situation room where the oval office where our government has responded to incidents like the boston marathon bombing. i watched the agencies in the many components provide services to the homes, businesses, and lives impacted by the tornadoes in joplin, missouri or hurricane sandy on the east coast or the deep water horizon spill in the gulf of mexico. i've been fortunate to stand with her to improve america's immigration system and ensure that the enforcement activities are consistent with who we are as a nation.

with these and other areas it's been a pleasure to encounter a colleague and as a friend. thanks to her steadfast partnership particularly in recent years, d.o.j. and d.h.f. officials have come together to fight against cybercrime, transnational organized crime, and child pornography. i'm certain that the american people who are safer and as a result of her emphasis on and her agility in the face of unpredictable threats. her commitment to innovation and her vision and position of the department of homeland security for the challenge of a new century. since it was established a decade ago as part of the largest reorganization in half a century, its diverse and growing responsibility have been defined and the future course determined by those who have led it. among the distinguished group, no one has had, i believe, a

greater impact than janet napolitano. so madam secretary, janet, i could not be more proud of what you accomplished in the last 4 1/2 years or more confident in the excellent work you do in the president of the university in the california system. your skill as a leader, your compassion for mentoring and inspiring others and your stability to build relationships and to foster engagement with those around you will serve you well as you help to train the new generation of leaders. i want to thank you once again for your service, for your hard work, and for your friendship over the many years i've known you since we started serving in the 1990s. your presence will be duly missed here in washington, d.c. and i wish you luck on your new venture.

[ applause ] now introduce you to the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [ applause ] >> thank you. the members of the cabinet are here. but i can pick out four of you out there in the entire national security team is here, the nsa is here. new york city, washington, d.c. are here. i can see among others. and former -- former heads as well as all of the -- all of the staff leadership of the department of security. and, governor, i've always called her governor because i think one of the reasons the job is done so incredibly well by janet is because she was a governor and she understands in

my view the needs and the frustrations and aspirations of local law enforcement. i served as a chairman of the commission for years and years. it was one of the good things to coordinate local agencies with her as drug enforcement and national security issues. janet, i think the fact that the chief of police and the city of washington, d.c. here and the local law enforcement officials are here. we give testimony that you've done it extremely well. you reminded this department constantly it's not just the people, it's the department. the american people have to be called in as part of providing for the national security of the united states of america. i start off with that point

because it's one of the missions. you've done an extraordinary job. this is preaching to the choir. everyone in here knows the job you've done. my frustration is sometimes i wish the nation had some insight with the job you do and with your colleagues out there. all of the hundreds of hours, because hundreds of hours in that situation and the nation could understand how incredible you are to have guided the nation for the last 48 years. whether it's combatting

terrorism or keeping the homeland safe. but you've been responsible for federal emergency responses to disasters, whether it's tornadoes in the state of oklahoma or missouri. whether or not it's been a fertilizer plant blowing up and devastating an entire town. the boston marathon incidents. hurricane city, it's upon the east coast. and that weren't enough, you took on the responsibility necessarily of the border but you came well equipped as the former governor of arizona and did everything from deploying advanced technology and personnel. working well with the relationships here. by then, every one of the national security folks would tell you, if you're trust bid

your counterpart in another country, it means a whole lot. everything goes more smoothly. and the fact that you have relationships already makes the government more of great value. your combat of international drug cartel responsible for a whole lot of things that i don't think people understand falling into the purview of this department. and you dealt with floods and hurricanes, oil spills. i remember sitting in the secretary of agriculture and you just got through bringing us all on a potential pandemic. i said, well, that's a -- that's all we need now is locusts. and the secretary said we have some coming in california. so i remember that day. you remember that day, governor, don't you. so you've dealt with terrorist attacks, home grown extremists,

etc. and the thing about you is everyone -- my dad said never let them see you sweat. never let them see you sweat, no matter how tough it is. your calmness, the way in which you move without flinching, you have a spine of steel. and it matters, it matters. it matters. because what it does is it instills confidence. it instills confidence in the people around you. and that is an incredible gift that you give to the rest of us. my guess is everyone who works for you and subscribes to the old saying, one of our own. the old saying is what i call a miracle, my boss calls a job description. anyone who worked for janet, i suspect subscribes to that

assertion. that's your job. that's your job. it's your job. simple proposition. but it's profound proposition. janet, you've elevated the status and the competency, the capacity of this department. let's be frank -- i've been here so darn long. i was here in inception like a lot of you. this was a monumental undertaking to get up and runnin running. it's the first time in our history we did not have the information status. you have one of the hardest jobs of anyone in this country. i mean that. you delivered day in and day out

with skill and grace. you made the nation safer. it's not hyperbole, the nation is safer for your service. the way you pull off your job, fwof, you made it look easy. i kind of felt badly for your successors. i feel badly for your successor. but i feel that the state of california should be incredibly grateful. they have no idea what's coming. they have no idea. and woe the man who suggests somehow there's not a single female that can't do anything any male student can do in that system. woe the man who would suggest that.

i -- i've got two grand daughters coming along. i'm kind of running out of all of my old college friends have retired. so janet, i'm glad you slipped into this slot. the truth of the matter is, there's not a lot of people we worked with that possess the range of leadership qualities and capabilities that janet possesses. and i mentioned one other thing, it was mentioned by raymond. you have incredible character, janet. that is why people trust you. you have character. you have character. it hurts for me to say it, my mom used to have a saying, she'd say, you're defined by your courage. and you're retained by your

loyalty. everybody knowles you possess both of those qualities -- courage. the courage to take a chance. the courage to risk being wrong because you're quite sure you have to do what you did in order to get it right. that's a quality that's on short supply. that's a quality that's badly needed. you really -- the other answer is you have ways to be -- you and i both remember the democratic candidate. being in the state of texas by a very tough republican opponent who became my friend and you said there are two things to know about my opponent when he wasn't expected to lose. number one, he's smarter than you. number one he's -- he's probably

smarter than you and tougher than you. he said you know that. you can take full advantage of everything that she brings to the table. you're a really, really bright lady. intellectual capacity equals anyone whom i've ever worked with. and my staff is going to say this. it's going to make news. look, i'm not changing my brain. i think janet should be in the supreme court. and that not only speaks to the other colleagues i mentioned about your character, but your intellectual capacity that your depth of knowledge has all -- all of it added to the ability

for you to do the job that you've done. so let me close by quoting one of my favorite irish poets. he said think where man's glory begins and ends, my glory if i had such friends. you're a good friend, janet. and i really, really admire the journey. thank you for helping us get through a pretty rough patch. and leave in place an outfit that's ticking like a watch and working well. we owe you. ladies and gentlemen, governor or director or president or whatever you want to call her, napolitano.

[ applause ] >> thank you. thank you, mr. vice president for those kind words. attorney general eric. my colleague and good friend rand, and thanks to all of you who are here today. i can see some of you. i can't see all of you. i know you're here. that really matters. and it's kind of you to come.

this is actually my last day as the secretary of homeland security. at 5:00 p.m. edt i will hand in my id card. i can't think of a better way to spend it than with colleagues and friends and partners who have made the last 4 1/2 years so memorable and special to me. so i want to thank you all -- all of the folks for dhs, president and former -- all of our federal, state, local partners. the partners with the private sector with whom we coordinate so closely. our partners with law enforcement who i firmly begin

believes at the street level. and many of the ambassadors who are here countries abroad that we have forged strong relationships recognizing that the more we can do abroad, the better off we are here at home. everyone i have mentioned has contributed to whatever success that the department has had the past 4 1/2 years. and, indeed, ten years. and i have to give credit to my two predecessors standing up in the department, particularly the large complex department with the kind of missions that we have. it's tough work. i think only the three of us who have been secretaries fully appreciate what that job entails. so thank you, secretary chernoff for being here. thank you.

oh, i think we have done a lot in the last 4 1/2 years. that is why so many here look a little tired. so last week, i gave a speech when i laid out some of the achievements we've marked. some of the achievements of which, quite frankly, i'm very proud. i think our department's coordinated response with federal, state, and local partners to the boston marathon. and the work we did before the attack to make sure the community was properly equipped and trained and exercised to handle such despicable act. we provided to state and local partners throughout the country, to build the capabilities, to protect against and recover from all kinds of threats. and as been mentioned and we

know, we live in a threat rich environment. and we have to be agile and flexible and prepared and always leaning forward and thinking about what if -- what could happen if -- and then preparing for that. i think our work to strengthen the international aviation system following the christmas day attempt in 2009 where we quickly went and around the world realizing aviation is an international network, not just a domestic network, so by october of that -- of that year, we had agreements forged with 190 countries around the world in terms of strengthening international aviation standards. the strengthening the borders, particularly the southwest border, enforcing the immigration flaws. always easy and noncontroversial

area. combatting transnational activity. comb combatting cyberthreats and cybercrime and enhancing our ability to protect cyberspace which i believe is going be one of the most active threat vendors our country faces in the future. and our ability to response when mother nature acts out. when we vp earthquakes and tornadoes and forest fires. and hurricanes like sandy. 4 1/2 year, we have managed 325 federally declared disasters. that's a lot of work. and of you are responsible for our ability do that nothing i described would be possible without the dedication of the men and women of dhs. and i think it's not about me so

much, it's about them. it's about you and it's credit that i believe is overdue. facing these kinds of challenges each and every day, working each and every day to keep the country safe. and thinking forward about challenges ahead. i mentioned cyber, evolving terrorist threats that come at us in different directions to longer term things like the effects of the change on our operations, the need to continue to invest in science and technology, research. which can enable us and empower us to do our jobs better. these things are going to require sustained attention. they're going to require they keep our focus on the safety of the american people. i leave with great confidence. i leave with great confidence

that dhs can effectively beat these challenges and we have done so and will continue to do so. so as i prepare at the department to become the president of the united states of california system, and we'll talk about admissions later i'm going to miss many, many things about being the secretary. i'm going to miss visiting communities all over the country and meeting with state and local tribal territorial leaders learning about what makes each of those states and communities unique. while it is always heart breaking to see the effect of the disaster on communities on families, i have never come away from one of these visits without remarking on the tremendous strength and resilience and generosity of the american people.

and we see it in so many ways. i'm going to miss travelling to countries all over the world and engaging my foreign counterparts in serious and very challenging issues, from how we share information to how we address complex cyberthreats. i visited 20 countries as the secretary of homeland security on six continents so i think that statistic alone illustrates how the job of homeland security secretary is very international in scope. i'm going to miss presiding over naturalization ceremonies and having the honor of being the first person to welcome the newest citizens as my fellow americans. that is such a rush. and i've been in places where we've sworn in citizens from fenway park aboard the coast

guard bark eagle and home after. national archives, all places. but the most important thing is seeing people from all over the world who want to come to the united states, raise their right hand, and take the oath of office -- take the oath of citizenship. the last 4 1/2 years, we have naturalized over 3 million new american citizens. and above all, i'm going miss the shared sense of accomplishment these activities have brought and the satisfaction of knowing that we have made the department of transportations more prepared and more resilient. there's more work to do. and the people from this room from the department who work in the department know that. we have come a far way as well. seeing the dedication of men and women who work at dhs and their

families who support them in this work, some of which is conducted in tough and dangerous situations, that's been an inspiration to me serving as the secretary. and i know after i leave, you will still be committed to our mission. that you will still perform and you will still continue to serve this country with dedication. just as you have during my time at the department. i said last week that leading dhs has been the highlight of my professional career. i wasn't kidding about that. it's been an immense honor and privilege, i want to thank you for your friendship, partnership, and your commitment. i want to thank the president for his trust and confidence and for the honor of serving in this administration with these people, my cabinet colleagues who has been such partners but friends during the past 4 1/2

years and some have been friends for much longer. i want to thank my own leadership team. and those who support my visits and travels here in washington across the united states and around the world. by the way, i want everyone to note that i have now obtained my tsa precheck and my card. so i'm ready to travel. as i prepare to go west or return west, i wish everyone the very best. thank you, again, i wish god blessings on all of you. like i said at the beginning, it -- it means a lot to me that you would come and take time out of your day to share this time.

and i have to say i haven't owned a car in 11 years. so before we leave, if somebody could give me directions on how to get out of the building, i would appreciate that. you all have been just great. i couldn't have asked for more. and i think the country has been well served. so thank you. [ applause ]

>> thank you. you, mr. vice president and mr. attorney general. this has been a wonderful ceremony. a wonderful remembrance of a wonderful time but we do have one more piece of business. please welcome the representative of the department's 240,000 employees stationed around the country and the world to make the special presentation of the secretary. these employees will present a flag -- the u.s. flag flown above the headquarters facility above the virginia complex of

the dhs flag. please welcome the soup visery officer angel peterson, united states coast guard chief petty officer sara powell, united states immigration enforcement agent, nicholas ilk. united states citizen and immigration acting associate director jennifer higgins. transportation security officer matthew yates. federal emergency agency staff dustin hendrick, and united states secret service thomas stock key. secretary?

>> the department of homeland security, i would like to thank you all for coming and thank you, secretary napolitano for a wonderful, wonderful time and service. >> on the next washington

journal, we'll discuss the situation in syria with the foreign policy initiative. look at president obama's approach to the country's civil war. and the protest of the congressional hearings on syria this week. talk about the goals with co-found ma dee yeah benjamin. and the economics reporter with "the wall street journal." washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this is about an hour.

>> a student from the school of public service and the former president of the united states, william jefferson clinton. >> good morning, everyone. welcome. we're extremely pleased to have you all with us today and we're honored to host this event at the clinton center. today president clinton will deliver remarks on the health

care policy and the affordable care act. now through his work in the clinton foundation, president clinton has been a champion for increasing access to health care and improving health systems for everyone. before we begin, i would like to acknowledge a few of our special guests in our audience this morning. first, the governor of arkansas. and all of the elected officials from around the state of arkansas who have joined us today. i would like to introduce mirada

meiko. just last week, students began the classes at the clinton school of public service, the first school in the nation to offer a public service degree and she was elected president of the student bod the i. she'll tell us about herself and why she's invested herself in such an important subject. >> good morning. there's no topic timelier than the one being discussed today and there could not be a better spokesperson leading this discussion. both president and secretary clinton have been working for decades to lay the foundation for something like the affordable care act to be possible. we've all seen the numbers. millions of americans are without health insurance. we have dire consequences on the health and well being of our

great nation. i am a student here at the university of arkansas clinton school of public service. like many of my incredible classmates here, i am still on my parents eep insurance and so grateful that the affordable care act and my parents have granted me that possibility. i will turn 26 and will need to purchase my own health insurance for the first time. for me, this is an absolute necessity because i have a pre-existing condition. i was diagnosed with type i diabetes at the age of 7 and needed insurance throughout my life to best control this condition and remain healthy. on october 1 of this year, the clinton school will host an enrollment fair to sign up people for the affordable care act. for so many people, our options were limited. now they are wide open. for millions like me, it is a dream come true. i came to learn from and

continue the work of president clinton to make arkansas, the united states, and the world a better place. from the governorship to his presidency to the wonderful work in his postpresidency with the bill, hillary and chelsea clinton foundation, president clinton has created a remarkable record. he stablized the economy and worked to address climate change with opportunities to serve the community and country through americore and continues to work for peace and prosperity around the world. i speak for myself and my classmates to say it's an honor to continue the legacy of president clinton through the first master of public service degree. having access to health insurance that's affordable and covers my pre-existing condition will help me to continue my studies and pursue a career in public service upon graduation. i sincerely appreciate the work of president obama for getting

the affordable care act accomplished and for all of the work president clinton is doing over the years to improve the health of the people of arkansas, the united states, and around the world. i want to thank mike booe booe and the members of the arkansas legislature. in a bipartisan way, they developed an innovative bipartisan model that other states should consider and possibly replicate. my great honor to introduce the 42nd president of the united states and the person for whom the program is named, president william jefferson clinton.

>> thank you, thank you very much. to all of the officials who are here and my friends of many years, first i want to thank mirra for her introduction and for sharing a little of her story. today the work my foundation does on health care and america largely concentrates on the issue of childhood obesity and the role that plays makes type ii diabetes the type you get. we can never forget there are people like mirra who are born with conditions that lead to type i diabetes and these two conditions combine account for an enormous percentage of health care spending pause of the consequences they bring to the

people to their familiar lips. and if not adequately treated, can shrink rather than increase the abilities. thank you for being here. my work today in health care is mostly as i said, trying to contain and reduce childhood obesity and improve the health care of the baby boom generation so we don't bankrupt the rest of you. but around the world, i work with people who have no money, no health systems, no nothing. all of the things that we take for granted. however all of this work began, i was attorney general worried about the quality of health care and the arkansas nursing home, or when i was governor to try to deal with the fact that there were still substantial numbers of rural communities where

people had virtually no access to health care. where it was not possible to deliver a baby safely. where the infant mortality rate was well above the national average. so i've been involve in this subject for a long time. i've been involved with those though empower people to have their life stories. and that's what this whole issue is about. i have i have agreed to give this talk today because i understand how much misunderstanding there is about the current system of health care, how it works, how it

compares to what other people and other countries pay for health care and what kind of results they get. and what changes are actually occurring now and are going to occur in the future. so i have done something unusual for me. i have built this whole week out. i'm going to try to use very few adjectives. thanks to the governor and the leaders of the house and the senate. and bipartisan coalition here. and what lies ahead. and i'm going to argue as best i can that we're all going to be a lot better off whether we supported or voted for the health care reform law whether

we like it or don't, we'd be better off about making it work to identify the problems and to fix them, instead of just keep replaying the same old battle. that is my belief. and i hope i can intersuede you that that is correct. and that we should support leaders like the governor, the leaders of the house and senate here all over america who are just trying to figure out what's best for the people and get the job done. in 2010, nearly 100 years after president theodore roosevelt first proposed, affordable health care for all americans, the congress adopted and president obama signed the affordable health care act. the bill was designed to address the two biggest problems of the american health care system, the

extraordinary costs and lack of coverage and to do so in way that improves the quality of our health care. before the bill passed, just 84% of the american people had insurance coverage and we were spending almost 18% of our gdp, 17.9% of our national income only health care. that's about $2.5 trillion. other countries at our income level cover everybody and do it for far less cost. between 9% of gdp -- that's japan, and 12% of gdp, that's the netherlands and switzerland with countries like germany and france in the middle. the difference between 17.9% and 12% is $1 trillion a year.

a tril if you go to pay raises or the hire new employees or to make investments that would make our economy grow faster. hard to provide more capital to start small businesses or expand others. hard to support diversifying and strengthening agriculture, you name it. $1 trillion is a lot of money to spot our competitors in a highly competitive local economy. it would be worth it if we got $1 trillion in better health outcome. but that's not what the research shows. it shows we rank first by a country mile in percentage of income we spent on health care, and 33rd among all nations in our health outcome.

health care costs keep economic growth down, accounted for 60% of the personal bankruptcy filings before the economic crash. every single year for a decade, they've been going up three times the amount of inflation and manifesting themselves in higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles. the costs are so high for several reasons. almost everybody pays health care providers for each procedure, medical device, or service. not for the overall quality of health care. in most states, health insurers have almost no competition. inle 0% of the states, one or two companies have 80% of the market.

therefore they're able to get from competition on prices or their ability to not cover people with pre-existing conditions tore to do so at unaffordable prices. the paperwork costs of our system -- because there are so many different people paying into it, are incredibly high. about a dime on the dollar higher than the next most expensive country in the world. that's a lot of money. and we all pay for this. we also pay more for drugs and our life style has led to a higher number of preventable problems that citizens of other countries have, especially diabetes and the problems related to it.

making health care coverage available and more affordable to all american, by approving health care delivery and paying for it based on the quantity but not the number of procedures performed and products provided and by creating more affordable options for uninsured people in small businesses. that is what arkansas governor bebe and the legislators are leading the country, i think. and bipartisan efforts do. the law isn't generating a lot of opposition, as we all know. it's been attacked from the left for not having a public option. that is for leaving the insurance companies with too large a role in health care and it's been attacked for the right for increasing the role of government in health care delivery. people who are already insured have been told they're about to lose what they have in life.

small business has been told they'll be priced into insolvency. poor people without coverage have been told they won't be able to afford it when it comes. in congress, there have been 40 votes to repeal the law, but no real alternatives presented to fix the current system. opposition has been fierce in many states which matters because they took in on a very big role in implementing this. something i like. they are eligible for substantial increase in medicaid funding to provide coverage for workers with lower incomes and to create and run health care marketplaces designed to run uninsured businesses to shop for policies that are adequate and more affordable. several states are declined to participate in either the medicaid expansion or the marketplaces or both, leaving money on the table for other studies and the health insurance

marketplace to the federal government to set up and run. we should work together to implement this law, whether or not to support the passage for several reasons. number one, its's better than the current system. that is unaffordable and downright unhealthy for america. number two, it gives states the chance to devise programs that work best for them and their populations. number three, not cooperating means the state's taxpayers will pay for this and the money will go to somebody else somewhere else. with consequences which i will outline. number four, the problems with the law, and there are some, you can't change the complex ecostructure with the health care this much without relating the problem.

we all work together to fix them. number five, this provides higher quality health care and lower the cost which we have got to do in a competitive global economy. and finally, it is the law. and i think we have to faithfully execute the law. to get a law, you have to sign an oath to do that. i'll do my best to explain in plain language how the law works, what has to be done, what has to happen now, what the up solved problems are. why we're working harder to fix the problems to continue to sign

a repeatable law or even worse, make sure the implementation is there. several provisions of the law -- several provisions of the law have taken effect. as a result, more than 3 million young adults under 26 like mara now have health coverage on their parents' plans. 6.6 million seniors pay less for prescription drugs as the law starts to close the so-called doughnut hole. 105 million americans have seen the limits, the lifetime limits on their insurance coverage abolished and preventive care is costly for them. 17 million children with pre-existing conditions. 17 million can no longer be denied coverage or charged higher rates.

almost 26 million women and almost 26 million men -- 27 million women, 26 million men, have been extended benefits with no cost sharing, including mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal screening, cholesterol and detection tests, stop smoking programs, prenatal chair and regular childhood. 12 million people have received rebates because companies must now spend 80% to 85% of your premiums depending on the size of your approval. on the health care, not keeping for profits and promotions. this is also a major factor in keeping rates lower than they would otherwise be and slowing the rate of increase. total savings of rebates and lower rates are estimated in

2012 to be $3.9 billion. what does this mean for arkansas with nearly 500,000 people are uninsured, including 25% of our working age we -- one in four. 865,000 people no longer have lifetime limits. more than 32,000 seniors have seen a reduction. 35,000 young people are now covered on their parents' plans. more than a million people are eligible for preventive services without a deductible or co-pay. and 120,000 perceived about $3.5 million on rebates on their insurance costs. now what? what's next? in january, small group markets will no longer be able to charge higher rates or deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. this affects a lot more people than you think. it's estimated that 129 million

americans under age 65, roughly one in two of us, are at risk because of pre-existing conditions. and therefore pay some higher insurance rates. but let's be realistic, the people who claim humongously higher rates or can't get coverage at all are a much smaller per spend taj. they're still a good number and i bet you everyone in this audience knows somebody with a severe pre-existing condition made them uninsureble or increased their rates. after january, these in the most severe conditions are concentrated in people age 50 to 64 -- all those irresponsible young people. it's amazing what you say when you're 67.

anyone, they're concentrated here. they can't be charged higher rates which is an opportunity and challenge. i'll talk more about that in a minute. women can no longer be charged higher rate than men which was a common practice before. and 8.7 million of them with individual coverage will have target services for the first time. no what about the uninsured. how are they going to get insurance? how will it be more affordable? how will it affect small business? currently, more than 41 million americans, mostly low and moderate income americans have no health insurance. roughly 22.5 million men and 18.5 million women. the racial background is something like this. there are 110 million latinos. nearly 7 million

african-americans. about 13 million whites. and the rest are native americans and asian pacific islanders. included here are 1.3 million american veterans not enrolled. what about men? people with incomes of up to 138% of the poverty line, that's $15,860 for individuals and $32,500 for a family of four, will receive support for their coverage through medicaid payment payments to come back to what arkansas did in the senate. people with incomes of 138% of the poverty line and 400% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for tax credit, for individual and family policies on a tax policy on a sliding scale, lower your income, the

higher the credit. the uninsured person can log on to health care.gov or a state site and shop for the most affordable and appropriate policy. the prices, which includes the discounts for the tax credit will be shot. and when a policy is ordered, the tax credit will actually be automatically sent by the government to the insurer so there's no hassle for the person buying the insurance. you just pay what the computer screen says you owe. to get this done, you do have to sign up on the state or federal website or at a designated call center between october 1 and march 31. that's what's about to happen. that's what the folks are concerned about. that's what they've been working on. the toll-free national number is

1-800-318-2586. the website is health care.gov. you don't have to do that if you live in arkansas. look how arkansas is handling it? currently there's a mass of education and outreach programs to the half a million people who don't have insurance. 250,000 are at or below 128% of the federal poverty line. they are eligible for the private option plan. this is the bipartisan initiative led by the governor, supported by the leaders of the house and senate. and other republicans to replace medicaid expansion with the plan to use the federal dollars to help eligible candidates.

they will help not only them, but it will dramatically reduce the burden of uncompensated care to health care providers. that burden was $358 million in arkansas in 2010. today that burden is shifted to people who have insurance. you pay higher insurance rates to the uncompensated care that your health care providers are giving to people they can't bear to turn away. no one wants to turn them away. but they ought to be reimbursed in a more direct and fair fashion. now whether or not you agree with the affordable care act, arkansas citizens are going to

pay for it just like citizens of every other state. whether you support the fact this this private option is set up and will later have to be funded by the legislature, i think, in february, you should consider what turning back the money means. and keep in mind, some states have done that. but as the governor said to me, this doesn't make anymore sense than turning back federal highway funds. we had 18.3 cents a gallon federal gas tax, how would you feel if you gave it back. i don't like some of the requirements that the federal highway administration puts on us, so why don't we just not take it and send our money to texas? you think if someone said that, they were three bricks shy of a full load. it doesn't make any sense for us to do it.

and it will aggravate the burden of uncompensated care. substantially. now, by 2015, small businesses with more than 50 employees will provide insurance for their employees or face paying a penalty. without this private option, a lot of our small businesses, most of them have far fewer employees. but the ones that are covered without this option, they couldn't afford to provide insurance. and there's a bunch of people with fewer than 50 employees that would like to provide insurance and without the private option, there's no way in the wide world they could do this. so so it's a real boone. but there's something else. if you have more than 50

employees. you've got to pay a penalty in 2015 if you don't provide the health care. the aggregate cost of the small business penalties is $38 million. is that right? that's what i thought. that's like a $38 million small business tax if you don't embrace the private option. to my view is that arkansas did a good thing of bipartisan thing, a practical thing, and will help a lot of people and the rest of us to get behind and save the program. now, what about people who are uninsured because their incomes are above 138% of the poverty line? well, if they're between 138% and 400%, they can go the

national website, health care.gov or the state site called rarhealthconnector.org and there's a phone number for people who don't have a view, 855-283-3483. and you just shop the best policies. the buyers are eligible for tax credits that will be put in automatically to insure, once they make a decision as i just said. to simplify the process, individual and family options are organized by categories, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. it's like the olympics. the bronze price policies have the lowest cost and the least coverage. the silver is next, then gold, platinum has the highest cost and lowest coverage. there's also for young riders

who are just over 26 a special catastrophic option. but it's not eligible for the tax credit. so those young buyers will be better off picking a bronze option, getting a tax credit. it would be cheaper than the catastrophic option. what about small businesses? businesses with 50 or more employees aren't required to cover their employees until 2015. they can do so because they'll have their own marketplace, it's called shop -- small business health insurance options. or if they offer insurance, they can just keep their present plans. there are tax credits to go up to 25% this year, 50% next year. beginning next year, it's only for those who participate in the marketplace. and that's something i think congress needs to re-evaluate as well as decide the credits. i'll tell you more about that

later. now, put all of these people in coverage, won't it drive up the cost of health care? so far, given the significant improvements that have been implemented that i mentioned earlier, the answer is no. for the last three years, the average increase in the national health care spending and the health care spending here in arkansas has hovered around 4%. that's the smallest increase in 50 years. now, some of it was due at the beginning of the period, the hangover for the financial crash in 2008. not anymore. there are other things going on. medicaid and medicare costs are going up in less than economic growth. and governor bebe told me this morning the last time that happened was in 1988.

that was in the dark ages when i was governor. so i -- i think this is important to note. there is something going on here. we are learning how to lower the inflation for most of the last decade, the medical inflation rate was three times the overall rate of inflation. and that's how we got this huge gap of spending 17.9% of our income on health care. no one else would go higher than 12. so i think there's something going on here. there's something else you need to know. there is one lifetime limit which was put into this law which i like. under the new law, there is a limit on the percentage of income any person can be required to pay for insurance premiums in any given year. it goes from 9.5% for people with 300% of the poverty level,

to or 400% of the poverty level, down to 2% for those at 100%, 133%. and that's really important. nowed can this be continued? can we continue to hold these costs down? the answer to that is i think yes, but -- yes but only if we keep working together to cut unnecessary costs. a recent rand corporation study pegged unnecessary medical costs at a whopping $700 billion a year about 30% of total spending. how are we going to do this. there are impressive differences on our way. the accountable care organization which is cropping up all over the country as a

result of an attempt to come to grips with health care reform, are basically proving it is possible to lower costs and improve care by basing reimbursements on the quality of health care outcomes, not on the procedure. competitive bidding for durable bed call equipment, the reduction of medical errors that the ride in medical records has spawned. the new strategies to have in home care and community clinics, all these things are makes a difference. bloodstream infection, one of the most common medical errors are down 40% since 2008. increased sterilization requirements, which is a way of saying you have to wash your hands in more places in the hospital, are reducing infections all across america. in the past year, hospital

readmissions in medicare alone are down 70,000 people. also in the past year, finally, the national government began to publish comparative costs and outcome data. pennsylvania has been doing this for years. i read the report every year. this is what it shows in pennsylvania. there is no relationship between what something costs and the outcome you get. the biggest -- the closest correlation -- take surgical procedures. the closest correlation between good outcomes and a given procedure is not the price of it, but how many of those procedures are performed at given place every year. we now have years and years of data in pennsylvania to support this.

pennsylvania also has an interesting certified but long standing accountable care organization called the medical group with hundreds of doctors which started years ago getting all of the doctors to agree, whatever their ages to adhere to the set of best medical practices obtained in a mammoth group obtained weekly by the group for best medical practices if anywhere kind of procedure. essentially, it operates on the premise that medicine is both an art and a science. let's start with the science and then move to the art. that is you're operating on someone and with problems, you have to deal with that. but first, we like a pilot of the airplane to follow a checklist. if for any reason anybody under their care premium, co-pay, and

deductibles cannot be play. the medical errors drops to near zero and their profits increased as a result. they didn't make less money, they made more money because they had a fixed income from enrollment in the program. getting all of the payers of the health care system, employees, insurance companies, medicaid, soon the governor will work to get medicare. pay based on -- you can call it episode -- a flat rate which basically works this way -- do

away for fee per service, you award performance. good results in a hurry, going to make a lot more money. if you get bad results slowly, you'll probably lose money. but the incentives are designed to lower the costs while improving the quality. and the reason it can be done, i believe, is because this is like what you did with the public health. you got nerve the room. all the employers, all of the insurers, the medicaid, medicare folks, you have a broad spectrum, economically, socially, politically, if you can figure out how to make it work. i'm excited about this. i think the state deserves a lot of credit for doing this as well. okay, so that's where we are. so you can say to me, come on, bill, there's something wrong. anything that sounds too good to

be true is. this is pretty good. so what are the known potential problems? what could still go wrong? it hadn't yet, but it could. well, like any laws, it's this complex, there are some problems that i think will have to be addressed. first, the thing that bothers me the most which i hope was just a drafting error, workers with modest incomes like say $20,000 to $35,000 who work for a company that insures only th ththem still are required by the law to provide for their families. and if their families are uninsured, they have to pay a penalty. the problem is that under the law, because they have insurance

at work, they cannot send their families into the arkansas exchange and get the tax credit. it's obviously not fair. and it's bad policy. but it's not clear to me, based on what i determined, if anybody intended it. if this is the only unintended consequence of the law, they did a good job. it's got be fixed. it's just not fair. so i think congress should fix it. secondly, small businesses with fewer than 50 people aren't required to acquire insurance, but a lot of them would like to. however, many of them have access to the tax credit, a different one, and many don't. it may surprise you.

for example, if you have fewer than 50 employees, you can claim the tax credit for up to 25 of them. but if you have 35, you can -- you can have a tax credit for 25. if you have 43, you can claim a tax credit for 25 of them. this is obviously just a budgetary decision based on what the estimated insurance premiums will be and what the cost of the subsidies. but i believe that the current tax credit is too low. sounds good. the taxpayer, it sounds like a lot. but if you read the fine print and how it's calculated, there are relatively few companies eligible for 50% tax credit and it begins with the average weight goes up, the tax credit diminishes from 50% to something lower. and what i think is that the congress ought to do and it

ought to be possible to get bipartisan support for this, is to come in and basically make a tax credit available to more firms for more employees under the 50 employee limit and actually make it more generous to more firms so more will show up. there's way more individuals to sign up in the individual market than small businesses. sign up for the small business market. because the tax credit system just doesn't work very well for small business now and it needs to be approved. -- improved. thirdly, this is the third big problem, and it's a whopper. but this has to be fixed at the state level where it needs to be fixed. the supreme court ruling on the affordable health care act upheld the law but said the state had the right to refuse to participate in taking the medicare -- the medicaid expansion money and refused to

set up their own health exchange. the law said, which is bad thought before the supreme court reviewed it that the federal government would run an exchange if the states do that. but they never dreamed that anybody would turn down the medicaid money. so amazingly, about half of the states have, comprising more than half of the eligible people, big states, florida, florida, pennsylvania, pkks texas, michigan voted to take it. they have a republican governor and republican legislature. here's what's going to happen -- in those states, working people with incomes of between 138% and 400% will be able to buy insurance on the exchange with

subsidies. but the exchange is not for the state of the federal government. but lower income working families with incomes of 138% or less, some of the people below 100% of the poverty line are eligible for nothing. so you get the worst of all worlds where you say, i'm sorry, you're working 40 hours a week, but you're too poor to get health, not too rich, too poor. and this is a serious problem. there's going to be a big jump in uncompensated care, especially in urban medical centers like houston, miami, cleveland, and pittsburgh, amazing medical centers and they treat everybody, they do wonderful work. and they're going to get hurt.

taxpayers money they're uncompensated fares will rise. that's why several states with republican governors, and most of the republican legislatures are taking the medicaid expansion money. because of the supreme court decision, this is the problem that only states can fix. so they're going to have to think about this. we heard other things about the law. what is it going to do? a lot of folks are worried that not enough healthy young people will sign up and remain

uninsured. why does that matter? because if you let the young people with severe pre-existing conditions buy insurance at the same price as everybody else, that runs everybody's insurance up unless you have healthy young people up and buy those bronze policies, that will level out the risk for the insurance companies. so that's legitimate. even though i am, i remember what it's like to be 27 and i was convinced i would live forever and i get a hangnail much less have a serious accident. there's a lot of worry about this. the recent study finds that this may not happen. first large numbers of young people, 26 and younger, have enrolled in their parents' plan

plans. the joirt of people still on their parents' plans are young republicans. the survey did want insurance but they didn't earn enough to afford it. the tax credits will allow them to afford one of the bronze plan plans. i think if young people can afford it they should buy it and contribute to the system if for no other reason than they will not always be young -- it's both the right and smart thing do. second, a lot of people worried about a computer problem. think about it -- you have to have all of the state and federal computers up up and

running for oakland and run to end of march. i think it's remarkable he's able to get the federal systems up and running. there may be glitched but so far there's no evidence to suggest that they won't be able to be fixed quickly. i've been impressed with what i've seen what's happening, both here and around the country. third, there are people who thought that because of the small business requirement are the requirements to cover all employees who work 30 hours a week or more, that there would be a lot of shifting of employees from fulltime to part-time. to avoid the 30-hour requirement for coverage. so far it hadn't happened. since 2010, this was it, since

2010, the law passed, 90% of the employment gains in america have been in fulltime jobs. in massachusetts, where governor romney served works a lot like the affordable care act will work, there is no appreciable impact on job growth percentage of part-time workers or employer drop in coverage. so so far the direst predictions for the adverse consequences have not materialized. and i don't believe they will. now, this is doing a lot of good. it's about to make 95% of us ensured with access to affordable care. it has built-in incentives to lower costs and improve equality including lots of opportunities for states that innovate. and arkansas is exhibit a. you should all be very proud of what your representatives and

your governor have done. we got to do this because i will say again, the studies show that we are number one by a country mile in the percentage of the income that we developed the health care costs and ranked no better than 25th to 33rd in the health care outcome we get. this is the country that pioneered innovation in every other area of our national life. you cannot make me believe that we have to tolerate this from now to the end of eternity. i think we will become more competitive and healthier if we do this right. look what the rand study says about arkansas. it estimates by 2016, arkansas will have 400,000 more people with health insurance, 2300 fewer deaths a year. just in our state. a $550 million increase in gdp, spurred by a $430 billion net

increase in federal investments, leading to 6200 new jobs. for so long, so many have worked to remove barriers to quality health care, faith-based organizations, doctors groups, nurses' groups. unions and businesses working together. patient advocacy groups. they've all worked to ensure that people have good solid coverage. and all these people got a lot at stake here. they want to preserve what's best in our system as we make the changes we need to make. so here's the bottom line to me -- it seems to me that the benefits of reform can't be fully realized and the problem certainly can't be solved.

6 unless those supporters and the opponents of the original legislation work together to implement it and address the issue that arise when ever you change the system this complex. drafting errors, unanticipated issues. we have to do better at working together and learning together and we will try over and over again to repeal the law or rooting for the law to fail and refusing to fix relatively simple matters. i hope that congress will follow the lead of the cample set by many, many republicans and democrats a it the state level and try to be the best you can

to implement this -- be up front and open about the problem that develops and deal with it. we all get paid to show up for work. we need all hands on deck here. the health of our people, the security and stability of our families, and the strength of our economy are all riding on getting health care reform right and doing it well. that means we have to do it together. thank you very much. [ applause ]

>> next on c-span, a preview of season two of our series "first ladies" followed by a discussion of former first ladies, rose lind cotter and barbara bush. next the ambassador to the united nations, samantha power, and a united nations briefing to reporters on humanitarian aid. >> have to be honest. it's how you feel. i feel very strongly that it was the best thing in the world.

legalize abortion and in my words, bring it out of the back rooms and put it in the hospitals where they belong. >> somewhere out in this book might even be someone who may one day follow in my footsteps and preside at the white house as the president's spouse and i wish him well. >> three of the 21st ladies will be exploring in the second season of the feature series, first ladies, influence and image. good evening. we'll be doing a preview of season two from edith roosevelt to michelle obama and to set the stage for the interesting season, two of the academic advisors for the series, richard norton smith, and first lady historian, edie mayo.

i wanted to start with the recap of how we left things after season one. we started, of course, with the woman who set the stage for everyone, with martha washington taking us all the way through ida mckinley. over that time, how does the role of first lady change? >> we have to look at how it remains the same. and that was the woman as the hostess for her husband and for the nation. i think the role grew to encompass imagining the white house, preserving the white house, sort of crafting an image for her husband's administration, and i see a groiing recognition of the position of the united states in world affairs. so that by the time you get to harrison, you have somebody who's looking to revamp the white house in a major way to

make it a residence that is worthy of the chief executive of a major power. >> what would you ask? >> the free very distinct individuals who each followed this office was divided to find a way to shape it. but the biggest difference between the -- i would say the 19th century and the 20th century is that those opinions -- they were -- they were the stuff of compensation the next day. and that, in turn, is in some ways reflects the enormous impact. they're the biggest group, i think, the 20th century is take charge and there's a professionalism that's taken

over. in the 19th century, it was first and foremost a traditional domestic role. and remember, the handful of first ladies who have got to have a policy or a political advise visery role abigail adams tended to attract harsh public criticism. in the 21st century, the surprise would be they didn't have that. >> also working out, talking about the evolution of the american woman, and as we start the 20th century, living in the country, still can't vote. >> they can't, but they're active in political affairs in the sense they go to reform

movements that have an impact on the community, the home, the whole progressive reform movement brings women into politic politics into is very vital ways even if they can't vote. what happens is because they're brought into politics, and into reform and into how can we get this law passed or changed or modified, that in turn increases the impetus for their involvement. >> in some ways, thinking about the role of first lady, the parallel would be they haven't served as president, they can't vote in the larger society. but their ways to assert influence continues to grow. >> that remains as ever. first ladies today have an access to a wider audience than ever before.

as a role, they are popularity ratings have to be higher because they are not seen as minor in the day-to-day partisan politics. so they have become political assets in ways that -- >> powerful. >> yeah. >> they are also car are iing this -- >> a double edged sword. >> looking at video and listening to audio and we're going to start with michelle obama. we have a clip where she talks about her approaches to the role. going to watch her and then come back to talk to her. >> this is all an evolutionary process and you grow into this role and my sense is that you never get comfortable if you are always pushing for change in growth, not just in yourself, but in an issue that you care about. you're never done. so there's never a point in time where you feel like there. i am now here and i can do this

the same way all the time. it's always changing. the changes given, the state of the issue for the country. you never know what it will be from one day to the next. you have to be flexible and fluid and open to evolve. >> that was during the first administration. can i ask you, is michelle obama, she's the first african-american first lady. that's a very important point, building on that. has she approached the role. is she doing it in a way or building on the traditions of the women before her? . >> i would say in the cause she chose to champion, she has been carefully selective of issues that would benefit the american nation. she realizes she's under

tremendous scrutiny and she had to choose carefully and wisely what she wants to support. in many ways, she's building but you have to change with the world every day. so she's done some of each. >> let's face it, in 2008, they were known to see her as a controversial figure and an ideological figure. >> and maybe a little harsh still. >> yeah. >> so hillary clinton in 1992. the clinton we saw by the end of her eight years, her cause is the millennium program which is abas -- >> middle of the road -- >> yeah. i do think that's another kind

of politics that every first lady has to deal with. how it's perceived by the public and how that in turn affects their choices, their causes, their image making. because face it, that is a hard job. >> interesting when the president talks about michelle, he compares her popularity to his. how does that work with the public opinion of the president? >> i think it helps enormously. it softens whatever political image he has and i think looking like a good family man never hurt anybody. so it helps with his perception. >> where did that start? >> that's a great question.

i think we have been able to avoid a polarization that's engulfed so much of his talent and presidency. so many ways eleanor roosevelt gets the starting line in terms of both her public presence -- she was a polarizing figure in the first place. but she had an enormous followin following. she -- >> but, i mean, between 20 and 25, i would say. >> close. long after she left the white house for the rest of her life. 17 years. >> the forefront. >> the first lady of the world. >> on that note, we have to have

a clip of eleanor roosevelt. this one, in world war ii, she's soliciting public donations for the red cross. let's watch. >> if we turn away, we deny ourselves which are bringing about this suffering and remember, in this country, the gift must be made -- be the judge of what you want to do, protect people. >> her speech -- >> that's normal. that's not the history-making eleanor roosevelt. she's performing the more traditional jobs.

part of the job she dreaded. she made history and polarized the country in some ways, the process. eleanor roosevelt who wanted to see marion anderson perform at the lincoln memorial after she was denied the use of constitutional hall which we don't think is controversial today. >> but the fact is the first lady of the united states was in the middle of that very heat ed battle, that, alone, set her apart from her predecessors. and frankly set her apart from the red cross. >> roosevelt come in to the wall as an activist or did she grow into it? >> she had been an activist on the women's and on the labor unit since -- and in the

settlement house movement since she was out of high school. and so it's not correct that she only started when she got to the white house. she was very practiced in politics even before she went in to standing in for franklin in new york state when he had polio. active in the women's movement, the labor movement. she is probably one of the few first ladies who came into the white house with constituencies of her own, political constituencies of her own separate and apart from her husband. >> unique? maybe with hillary, maybe. >> on a much more modest scale.

>> yeah. maybe. >> that was the -- >> because of conflict of interest, radio broadcast among other things. she was very proud of the fact that she had regular audiences to her husband, the depth of the great depression. but she commercialized the role of first lady in a way that no one matched before. >> people would come down on her with both feet today. >> i was going to say in reference to the film clip that we saw that one of the things i thought that was interesting about her was how she had developed this command of all of the media that were existing at the time. particularly the radio. and on the night of pearl harbor, franklin is addressing the congress and eleanor is the

one on the radio addressing the american people and talking about we're going to do anything we have to do to win. we're the free and uncomparable people of the united states. and that's quite a dramatic role change, i think. and sort of illustrates her ease in -- in using the media, but also her audience that is waiting to hear what she has to say about it. >> on that note, you hear the expression, time takes demand and in this case, the president served longer than any other. but also the world war ii, the recovery. she rose to that occasion, i think. amazing ways. >> going to assess the conscious.

she had -- she was certainly to the left of fdr in her politics. >> and it made it easier for him to govern because he had to keep intact the coalition of all of the democrats or the administration would have fallen apart. so eleanor becomes the contact with the left and the liberals. and then he can tell everybody else, you know, i can't do anything with my wife. >> i think for the first lady, maybe pulling it off. in 1940, fdr wanted a new vice president, henry wallace, who was the secretary of agriculture and a dolly on the left. and he said at the convention, eleanor roosevelt. she goes to the convention. and in a few minutes, she got --

>> she got the -- >> an impromptu set of remarks, she totally recast the mood of the convention. she got over the domination to her. but it just suggests the kind of clout and stature that she had. >> and franklin seeking a third term which was unheard of at the time. he didn't want to look too self-aggrandizing and he sent eleanor to do what he's not in the position to do. she pulls it off. >> we have on the personal line. we know from so many biographies of the relationship between eleanor and franklin and how it's on a personal level. but it sounds like a political partner and intellectual partner. >> yeah, who knows? nobody ever knowles.

in a marriage -- it's the limit. >> i think that's true. she was furious when she found out that her daughter has can knived in bringing her old girlfriend steve archer to the white house when she was away. that was there. i think it's a mistake to simply say after that affair that that was essentially a political arrangement that they had. what's been happening lately, there are quite a few living former first ladies and

frequently now they get together on occasion to talk both publicly and privately about the jobs. sometimes the cameras are there. this is both barbara bush and rosalind carter talking about the role of the first lady. >> different strokes for different folks and i think people feel one way or the other. be sthe first lady is going to be criticized no matter what she does. she does too little, she does too much. i think you have to be yourself, do the best you can, and so what. >> i don't know if the public wants the first lady to make the calls. there are things that are exceptions that the first lady can do. parties, things like that. but i don't think that any of that the first lady is going to be influential over their husband.

they're close to them, live with them all the time. >> i think that's policy. >> first off, barbara bush. do what you need to do and so what.

>> the party had changed. she could not do it. >> she never dreamed she would be first lady. betty ford. there were extraordinary circumstances. she said be yourself. on the one hand, there are tensions between the east and west wing. sometimes it is overtly hostile. there was a challenge from the right with ronald reagan. the majority thought she was

stepping over the line, and they were in for a surprise. >> betty had a huge following, particularly among women and >> i am thinking about several instances of barbara bush which our personalities but to say what she got. > barbara bush really did seem to say so what. >> it works better in the white house than anywhere. there was a famous quote, i dressed fine. i just don't look so good.

people just chuckled. many feel a kinship. she was a first lady many considered stylish. they were very different women. ironically, each one worked at the time. >> barbara bush came across as the first grandmother. she helped create that image. roslyn carter, she is implying we have the best interest of our spouse. therefore, we can be interest advisor. >> she got burned like abigail adams.

>> she went as his ambassador which are not turn out to be as well received as they had hoped. >> she attended cabinet meetings. >> they had a close partnership, but there were some things she did not do again. her mental health initiatives were very controversial. >> one thing about the carter's is they were not of washington. >> 4 years later, they fell victim. americans periodically decide every four years they want someone else.

>> the steep learning curve. here we have a 21st-century example. >> roosevelt had to learn the proper procedures, all that social consumption. that is not the same as learning the legislative process specific policy issues or things we might associate with a first lady. >> at the smithsonian, they did a series on first ladies. one of the things she said was she did give policy advice.

i said, wait until the second term. she said, i'm glad he didn't always follow my advice. >> we always talked about the post-white house years and how they live their lives. how are they doing? >> i think they are doing pretty well. after you hit mid-century, very often what you see as the causes of first ladies becomes so inclined, she keeps that image for the rest of her life. we could talk about barbara bush and her commitment to literacy and foundation, but her commitment to sobriety and helping people who are addicted

i think there's a whole line of first ladies who keep that image and do things with it. >> they have a much wider range. >> one thing is by the creation of foundations. they continue to raise money. >> the libraries were originally academic institutions. beginning with jimmy carter, who reinvented the role of ex- president will stop -- ex- president. in some ways they created a platform.

former president see their years out of office as an extension of their years in office. that is totally different from the 19th century, and it spills over. >> we are going to look at another type of partnership, a first lady intensely involved in politics and advising her husband. this is an audio clip of lady bird johnson. [audio clip] >> would you like to wait quite now? >> yes. i am ready. >> you looked like a reliable guy. the close-ups are much better than the distance ones.

i will say it is better than the distance ones. during the statement, you got a little aggressive. there was a considerable pick up in drama and interest when the questioning began. your voice was noticeably better, and your facial expressions are noticeably better. i thought your answer was good. the answer on vietnam was good. i really did not like one answer, because i think i heard you say, and i believe you have actually said out loud that you do not believe that. so i do not think you can very well say that when it is convenient. >> she is a tough critic. i am glad that she is not here critiquing us. >> lbj, he was never a television president.

>> and i have heard it said from people that lady bird johnson became much more pointedly critical of his performances when she knew he had been with another woman. who knows if that is really the case, but that is interesting commentary. >> the source of that call, lbj, one of the presidents who recorded all of his phone calls. >> and we have to thank lady bird johnson for making those available. the idea was they would be sealed for 50 years after the president's death, and the director of the johnson library, who had been a presidential speechwriter and enjoyed both johnsons, he went to mrs. johnson, maybe in the 1980's or early 1990's, whenever they opened it, and they moved that up. >> so scholars could have

access. >> c-span listeners. it has altered the johnson posthumous reputation. >> we should say that all of them are on our website, and you can hear real-time presidential power. >> it is the johnson we almost never saw. lady bird johnson. yes. >> which of the other modern first ladies were that much of a political partner? that interested in the mechanics of how their partner was presenting themselves. remember from the autobiography, she was on the campaign trail fairly early on in the process. what other first ladies have that much interest in the electoral process? >> in an interview, he starts off by saying, you can ask me anything you want, and he says, all right.

you did not look very good today. and i know for a fact because of my current work that when he talked to nelson rockefeller for vice president, 1975, he said -- she said you are a damn fool for doing it. that is the betty ford candor. that is what he treasured. >> i think her input was very important in that same way, what she thought about the nixon pardon. and how she said, you know, if we do not do this, the country is going to continue. >> she had tried unsuccessfully to get a woman on the supreme court, but she did get a woman on the cabinet. we know from her own words that she was a significant lobbyist.

that is the first job of the first lady in the modern era. >> you made reference when we talked about eleanor roosevelt about her command of all of the media available at the time. the dawn of the 20th century. we will listen to hoover making radio remarks about this. what i want to do is use this as a launching pad to talk about the media and how it changed and how it changed the world. listen. [audio clip] >> i am very glad. [indiscernible]

>> this is a first, the first time america saw and heard a sitting first lady, so there we have the film, and as the century progressed, radios and television, and today the internet and then social media, how has this changed the role, and how have first ladies used the burgeoning mass media to affect their time in the white house? >> i think hoover was very aware that this was something as first lady, and she had set up in the

white house and even at the camp, the studios where she could practice talking with the american people. she was very well aware of how this will be added as a way to communicate with the american people and how important that was. she is a transitional player. >> a pretty remarkable woman. she did not do more of that. her agenda -- >> she did not do a lot of self- promotion. >> her whole agenda even more than his was redefined by the great depression. it is almost as if she took the veil. she had been such an activist, a public figure, and life in the white house was pretty dour, and she slipped into the pretty traditional role of protecting her husband.

>> i think that she did continue her commitment, however, to advocacy for women, and she did that through the girls clubs and promoting what today we would call physical fitness, and she was very committed to those, but that did not have in that particular time period a political connotation in the way it would now. she just thought this was something that was important to do and that women, girls growing into womanhood should be prepared for the realistic world, and she talked about what is the role that young women can play for the depression, and so forth, which you saw a little bit of there. >> as we cover the arc of american history, we saw that as the media grew, they understood that the first family was of enormous interest, selling newspapers and magazines.

how did first ladies grasp the power they had to shape their image? >> bess truman, who did not have press conferences, in some ways turning the clock back, and, someone who never expected to be in the white house, she had an enormous influence with the one man that counted, and she never asserted herself. >> i have nothing to say to the public, another thing she would say. >> on the other hand, jacqueline kennedy was not a political first lady, and yet, she created an indelible impression. >> and, boy, did she know how to wield power.

>> watch the cbs at the white house, as 50 million or 60 million people did that night. it was a turning point. it was a highlight, in the successful use of the media, to fashion a non-political image, which nonetheless had political effect. >> and today, it is 24/7 social media and now unmediated access to what is happening in the white house. how has that changed the world? >> i think you have to be very careful of every word that comes out of your mouth or is typed by your fingers in some way. i think you just have to be on your toes every moment. it is more intimate. >> michelle obama goes across the river to virginia, shopping at a target store, and all of a sudden, there are photos. first ladies themselves are learning to harness this power.

>> they will have to learn how to harness it, or they will be contradicted. -- become victims. >> can you think of any examples in history who fail to harness it and then became victim? >> it is something simpler. i am not a great fan of social media and the narcissistic, but, you know what? it is interesting, because the popular culture evolves, and in the 1950's, mamie eisenhower, although seen as very much a traditional figure, she was every bit as much a fashion role model, a cultural icon as jackie kennedy was just a few short years later. >> and the next administration. everybody copied her bangs. >> television was the internet of its day.

>> she was always on the best dressed list, which looks a little strange to us now, post jacqueline, but in her day, she was thought to be one of the most best-dressed women in america, and she continued to make the best dressed lips, listing top american -- make that best-dressed lists. >> ike had real health problems. it made it easier for the first lady to drop -- to adopt the more traditional protective stance. >> mamie eisenhower perhaps lesser-known. we found in the first series, there were quite a few that we introduced people to. who are the gems? the unknown gems? >> grace coolidge.

the best first lady you know nothing about, you know? we can all agree, scratching our heads how she ever stayed married to him, a very difficult man in many ways. >> controlling. >> after his death, she bobbed her hair and went up in an airplane. but she was as warm and outgoing as he was dour and reserved. >> and her nickname was sunny, which will give you an idea of her personality. >> now, who else would be on your list? >> probably edith roosevelt. everybody knows about teddy, and everybody knows about eleanor and franklin, but i think mrs.

roosevelt, who really in many ways set off the modern first ladies role for the 20th century. people know very little about her. >> this is another category, which is first ladies who are burdened with media images that may have very little to do with who they really work. you think of pat nixon. and to some degree nancy reagan. she had a very tough time of it for the first two years she was here, and i think, frankly, with the passage of time, people realize just how great a role she played behind the scenes, with some very good advice in personnel matters and other things. >> one of the other things we will be able to do is not just being with the first ladies but also some children of the white house. we have a clip of one of the

children. this is steve ford. as family you know well, having worked on the ford library creation, and we will listen and talk about intervention. >> dad led that intervention, and, you know, my memory of that is we walked in the door that morning, all the kids, and dad surprised mom, and he took her hand and said, betty, we are here because we love you. the kids want their mother back. i want my wife back. and those interventions are tough. is tough, hard, hard work. a lot of tears. a lot of crying. more raised voices and denial, not denial, and it goes back and forth.

it is a tug of war, and dad never gave up. he said, betty, we love you. trust us. she did the work. that moment, that morning, nobody ever thought there'd be something called the betty ford center. we were strictly fighting to get our mom back. dad was fighting to get his wife back, so to see the other side of that, months, years later, for her after she had had sobriety for a while, sold comfortable enough to put her name on a treatment center and to see that treatment center today, about 90,000 people have gone through there. nonprofit. and her mission of affordable health for those who needed to transform their lives, to get healthy, to get sober, she was very proud of that. >> in a nutshell, that sums up one of the real differences between the 19th century and the 20th century. can you imagine having that

degree of intimacy, that degree of knowledge of the intimate life of a first lady of a presidential family, projecting it into millions of homes, having millions of people care? that connection that the media allows to happen, the emotional bond, adulation, and the opposite, something foreign to the 19th century. >> you also listen to that, and we are reminded that we talk about these folks who are enormous public figures, but they are human beings, living personal lives, as well. and how did that play out with some of the other women we are going to be looking at? i am thinking pat nixon. >> i have always thought of pat nixon as a tragic figure. i do not think she was ever given enough credit for what she did during the nixon

administration. she basically picked up jacqueline kennedy's restoration of the white house, and wanting to bring back original paintings and pieces of furniture, and it is pat nixon that brings back more antiques, art, and original furnishings into the white house than any other first lady, but most people know nothing about that. they think of jacqueline kennedy immediately, but they know almost nothing about the role pat nixon played, and i think that she was in her later years so overshadowed i what happened with the nixon resignation that it was very difficult for her, and i think his handlers in the white house did not have a proper appreciation of what an asset she could have been all through the nixon administration.

>> yes, we know that for a fact. the classic east wing -- west wing rivalry, probably reached a zenith or a depth during the nixon years. people, the halderman's, they were not on very good terms with mrs. nixon, and they certainly did not appreciate what she could be, the asset that she was and could have been. she is a mona lisa. >> that is very true. >> she is a very enigmatic figure. >> and you do not get much until julia's book. >> the book is wonderful. i remember asking the people close to her, the word shy was often used, and someone who knew her very well said she was not shy. she was self-effacing, and there is a difference between the two. what a self-effacing modern

first lady is often a contradiction. >> referring to the victorian painting ladies. we had a number of first ladies who struggled with life in the white house. >> struggled with life and death and loss. and politics. i do think generalizations are dangerous, but i do think in the modern era, we think of the president and first lady, that they are a political partnership. >> together. >> that was not the case at the time of franklin or james beard, in the 19th century. >> or even martha washington and george. >> yes. >> certainly, she rose to that occasion, but i do not know that

she ever thought, well, who would have thought when they got married that there would be a revolution? a change of government. >> her famous line of a prisoner saying anything else, and i am sure that every person sympathizes with that. >> so it has become a more accessible prison, if i can use that, and, perhaps, in some ways >> much more visible, invaded by the media. much more theatrical. much more scripted. and unscripted. >> at the same time. you referenced pat nixon and the contribution she made to the white house itself, and that is another role, the partnership with the white house.

>> thank you, jacqueline. >> and that is a final theme that i wanted to return to, which is the first lady or the first family are custodians of the white house. they were responsible for an enormous change greeted talk about what she did to the white house. >> it is very simple. she turned it into a home, as opposed to an office building. the white house you see today is partly jacqueline kennedy's and pat nixon's, but edith roosevelt, it was edith roosevelt, because they had lots of children, and they were all rambunctious, and -- >> and a rambunctious husband. >> exactly. she divided -- there are people before edith roosevelt. but she creates the west wing. she clearly defines the

residence from a working office area. but then the residence, she takes back -- george washington could have walked into the teddy roosevelt white house and recognized it. out went the stained-glass windows and the victorian bric- a-brac. and it became much more elegant. >> i think both she and teddy roosevelt were aware of the image, to use a very overused phrase, the imperial presidency, that the united states had, in fact, arrived on a world stage, and they needed a kind of classical setting in which to conduct politics and diplomacy, and that is how they set up the white house, as this kind of stage for him to, you know,

wield power. >> or reimagine the white house. >> $475,000, of course, in today's money. it has changed a little bit in the dollars. the other influential custodians of the white house, the trumans. they had to move out for the construction. >> and the time in the blair house. all of the entertainment was, their formal entertaining was in washington hotels, because there was no where else that they could entertain. >> you both the referenced jacqueline kennedy, and for our younger viewers, they may not know what the reference is. >> jacqueline kennedy, when she went for her tour with mainly eisenhower came away appalled. the white house looked like a third rate hotel.

and she decided out of pride -- it was patriotism. she wanted to restore the house, bring back the best of the past, and make it a showcase. >> and that was, i think, a way to exert a kind of cultural influence that was commensurate with the status of the united states in the 1960s. i mean, the economic power, the military power, and i think jacqueline saw that to go along with it was needed the cultural influence of the united states. and a stage, again, for her husband's conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> i was thinking even more than jfk, who we really think of as the first television president,

and a president whose style, with kind of an ironic twist, was absolutely perfect for tv, but she was a real tv star. >> she was the one who imaged the administration. >> one of the things we have been doing all along the way is gathering the material and putting it on our website, which is available at c- span.org/firstladies, and these programs have been highly interactive. we have a twitter feed and a facebook page. and we mix in some of those comments, as well. both of you have had major professional careers, very interactive. you are always speaking and taking questions. what are some of the most frequently asked questions about first ladies? >> i would say the question i am

asked most is who is my favorite first lady, and why? >> sometimes who is the worst first lady? and sometimes was mary lincoln really crazy? >> yes, i got that question, was she a raving, crazy lady? >> or was she really as bad and burdensome on the president as legend would have? >> our twitter feed and facebook comments were much more new -- nuanced, and we do invite those watching to be part of this process, as we are learning history together, and take part by making telephone calls, and we will have phone numbers on the screen, and you can send us a facebook comments, send us a twitter comment. so what was your answer to was mary lincoln really crazy? >> i said from her symptoms,

today's doctors would probably diagnose her as manic- depressive. they would probably put her on lithium, send her to a 12-step program, and she would fit right in with modern society. >> she could go to the betty ford center. >> how about that? and your answer to who was the worst first lady? >> we will pass over that. there are are some questions that just because they are asked do not have to be answered. >> we have one more video as we ran out of time, and this is our first first lady of the series. this is edith roosevelt post white house but still involved. let's listen. [audio clip] [no audio]

>> she is there speaking in support of herbert hoover. >> it is such an odd appearance. you do not think of her as being

politically active in the years following. it suggests that internal family dynamic. remember, the high part about the roosevelts, they did not always get along. it is remarkable that on the eve of the election that everybody realize was a loss, she would go to a republican venue to affect a breach. with the other roosevelt. >> they were a different party but is adjusted part of royalty and family. >> i do not think of edith roosevelt as a party -- a partisan figure. it is uncharacteristic. >> what i saw was a section for fdr. >> i'm losing my voice. what are you looking forward to?

>> growth in the role and influence and continuing professionalization of the office of the first lady. and much better media savvy. >> a growth if possible but the change unavoidably. as the media is clearly a dominant, increasingly dominant criteria for every first lady but in the end, the biographical, human stories. which are not limited to the 19th century or 20th century or media, but how these people endure and prevail in the very rough world of politics.

which they may or may not have aspired to be a part of. and the history that they influenced in the process. >> as nancy reagan said, it is a bully pulpit. and you will be an idiot not to >> that is something new, that is a very 20th century think. the first presidency has been a bullpens for long-term but the first lady likewise. >> our academic advisors for this really interesting series. we give credit to these two folks for encouraging us to do this. we are learning a lot along the way and we invite our viewers to take the journey as we began the first week in september after untilday and take through

a president's day 2014. a lot of learning and interesting women ahead. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> before season two of our series first ladies begins, the museum as focusing on america's first ladies. how the media has covered them and how the first ladies have tried to craft their image. analysts are kofi roberts of abc , the washington post and historian richard norton smith. join us saturday at 10:30 p.m. here on c-span.

>> trying to maintain family time and protect their privacy, edith roosevelt purchased a family retreat. >> she saw a place for rest for the president. away they were the wilderness. this was a family place. place where he had politicians and conciliation hubbub of activity. its was the one place where was private, family time and the roosevelts made it clear they do not want anybody but family here. >> meet edith roosevelt as we begin season two of our original series, first lady looking at the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady will stop monday night live at 9:00 p.m. on c-span.

>> a first lady's panel with roslyn carter, betty ford, and barbara bush. they talk about their activities after leaving the watch -- white house and reflect upon their activities and the readjustment to life. center, this is one hour, 15 minutes. >> rosalynn carter and barbara bush. of hert admired woman time during her white house service and impact long after. for leadership and courage. they are so well-known they hardly need any introductions. dated ford is the chairman of the premier treatment facility -- a betty ford is the chairman of the premier china facility for substance abuse. single-handedly refrained and refocused national attitudes toward breast cancer. forcenn carter, a driving

of mental health. she helped to bring about the mental health assistance act of 1980 and now at the carter center, her and her husband arm trying to improve the lives of people here and in the developing world. barbara bush, her success in life is the result of marrying well. but her husband said it is really he who married up. she is an advocate for the leukemia excited -- leukemia society the barbara bush foundation has given millions of dollars. mrs. bush is so successful at promoting literacy that not only is she a bets on arthur so are her dogs. me in this warm homecoming to washington for betty ford, rosalynn carter and barbara bush.

[applause] >> as you can see how month they have hardly forgot any -- as you can see, they have hardly forgot any of you. [laughter] it's a great privilege for me to be here welcoming you and having this opportunity to the conversation with all of you. as we know, i have seen a taste

of, you did extraordinary things in the white house. wondering how those white house years prepared you for your advocacy for all of the causes you not embrace. how have they helped make a possible for you to do the many things you have done? me? >> i amsking thinks -- i think so. >> it helps because we all married the leader of the free world. all of us, worked hard for causes way before we got to the white house. the white house was just an enormous push up. i think the ladies would agree that the day before you are married to the president-elect, nobody gives a darn what you

say. and the day after he is the president-elect, people think you are brilliant and your cause is brilliant. [laughter] [applause] mrs. carter? because asjust barbara said our husband were president, we had influence and what you learn when you leave the white house is you still have the resources and people will help you with anything simply because he was president and i can call people to help and they will help. with mental health and immunizations. it is kind of fun to be able to -- and have them give you advice and help you with issues. interesting.

the white house made all of it possible. >> mrs. ford? >> i think my experience in the white house led me to realize that yes, i did have a voice and a using get, i could accomplish things. having been busy raising the children, i do not think i put my mind to anything like that and when i left the white house, there where so many fine people out there who were willing to help you in your cause. at that time i was working very -- i had a big following. >> the white house was different from anything you had ever done because you were a governor's wife and you have been in public life with your husband.

vicef course, the presidency more than anything else. you have been the wife of a public leader but the white house really is a different arena for all of you. let me ask to help all of us catch up. how you have been following up on those ideas and causes? what >> ofu working on now? the majority of my time now is to alcohol and drugs. i am very acting with the betty ford center. -- active with the betty ford center. we have a program that has been very successful. we celebrated our 15th anniversary and at that time, we through33,000 people go

the betty ford center program. [applause] only 19 thousand of those were in patients. we do not have any beds. our program is extended for families, children who are ,iving in alcoholic situations and consequently that means they are there as outpatients and we have an outpatient treatment program. women, ment we treat thomas and families -- men, and families and we really feel we give them the most excellent with thisto work disease.

one of the important things for family andbuild the send them back, and a healthy condition. instead of rebuilding houses like you and jimmy are, we are building families. one of the most important programs for us right now is our children's program for the youngsters from 7-12 who are living in homes where alcohol and other drugs are abused. these children are very withdrawn and they act out. they are very unhappy. dwell on the family illness and not concentrate in school so their grades are bad. want to talk about it. they think they are the only one

who has the situation. it is very important to them to come into our program where they find out they are not to blame and it is not their fault. and mommy and daddy are drinking because they did not win the soccer game or get into the band or those sort of things. i working with other children thomas they learned they are not alone and this is a disease and they do not have to try and stop that chain so they do not have to grow up to be that way. are professional residence programs. we have a fine medical students program. broad in our scope. we have the dedication of the gerald r ford presidential museum. werearters and the bushes

there and that was last fall. our most recent addition is a grandson. after five granddaughters. [applause] carter, it you have been working in mental health and you are about to launch a whole new series of projects. been working with mental health since jimmy was governor and the early 1970's. the weight we looked at the mental illnesses and would've learned so much about the brain and the last five years. new treatments and medications. i've just written a book that will be out in may. dealing with mental illness -- [laughter]

it is like i am telling my mother what i am doing. and to try to explain brain research. [laughter] and to try to understand it first was not very easy. that is just a little part of the book. what a family can do when they can realize there is mental illness. that is something i am really interested in because we have the institute that works on caregiving. i've a lot of other things going on. i'm just really excited for the mental health program. cronkite, and talk about their depression. we made a video that we distributed. ago, we got word from blockbuster video that will put out a video in the public

service shelf in the video isres and all we have to do ship them to houston and they would distribute them. [applause] and the newest program i am really excited about is the fellowship for journalists. >> we need that. [laughter] can i sign up? >> we take applications and people have to have an issue. [laughter] but we get them $10,000 a year and they come to the center and they stay. they come throughout the year and they work on their issue. a five a year for five years. this was our first year, one of

them is an associate editor of the medical association and he did a great article about our symposium. we have an annual symposium which was on privacy and confidentiality. consumer report news on television and she is doing a two-part series on mental illness. audience mights be interest in it is a freelancer for the wall street journal and she studied for a whole year the mental health of ceos in the country. [laughter] ceos, all you as need is lawyers. [laughter] >> we are just taking applications for the new year. exciting. the visibility we give mental

health and the more we let people know that mental illness should be considered like physical in this. you should be able to get care. and it's nothing to be ashamed of. it is biological. i am excited about what is helping -- happening. after the center, we have lots of -- we just did a strategic plan. we worked on it for a couple of years. we focus on peace and help. -- health. programs in 33 african countries. and a latin american program. name i ame one involved in is the atlanta project in the inner city of

atlanta. called -- tryam to get older children immunized by age two. i have been in 48 states -- and betty or i have been in 48 states. registersto develop all over usa is babies so we can track them. quest the energy level that all of you, it is so daunting. [laughter] >> it is full-time. >> mrs. bush? >> i am just sitting at home. [laughter] quickly that is not true. >> i am still working very hard on the barbara bush foundation

and trying to make families that this up so iadded can come up here and sound busy. [laughter] 70-sent by speeches last year and everyone i mentioned literacy and many were for child -- i am a girl they cannot say no. the salvation army wants me. they get to me. hospice, these are special favors of mine. ronald mcdonald house. they are of great interest to me and even they get lectured and how important. i can live everybody could read and write we would have less crime.

[applause] i love talking about myself. boardf the mayo clinic and very proud of that association. i am the ambassador of medicaid which is one of the giving programs in the world really with no red tape. two percent of their overhead is on administrative and the rest goes around the world including the california floods and in peru and other things. george and we're having a very good time. he it's good for the golf game. it's good for the grandchildren.

it's better for the figure. we are living our lives. george is dying to bungee jump. he says i would make the rope too long. [laughter] >> looking back at the white house years, i was wondering what some of your fondest memories are of those years? yarbrough? i assume there were some fond memories. >> i one of those people who thinks you should love everything you are doing or not

do it. have to do memories with the fact that we had our children there a great deal and their children and of course the dogs. i love hearing the children laughing. i think we all agree that the white house is great, but it's nice to have a cozy family feeling about it. that is probably my fondest memories. house, i at the white think we would all agree are absolutely fantastic. having 93 people to see that you're comfortable. [laughter] were some of what your fondest memories you go >> i agree with our brother about

having the family there because it makes it a real home. otherwise it would he quite sterile and political. [laughter] many, many fond memories where we were fortunate to be there during the bicentennial. tot was such an honor welcome the heads of all the different countries who came to pay their respects at that time. big glamorousof a thing that was very much an hour life and celebrating the 200th year of the fourth of july with the great parade of ships up in new york, the liberty bell, all of these very historical things. staff andntioned the i agree that they just do spoil you rotten. it makes it hard to leave.

when you leave the white house and you have had all of these people there who have done so dear and generous of their time and nothing is ever too much of and you goor them home and you have to make it on that i mustmiss say. [laughter] susan was living with us in the white house and we had her senior prom at the white house and that was kind of a big deal for all of them. they couldn't understand why a sock hopnot have on the soft lawn and they could not understand why we would not serve here. they weren't of age.

i said, no, dear. that's not part of the deal. [laughter] lot i thinkdavid a it was a great escape hatch because you got away from washington. even though you are still looked into the world and everything, you went up there and you could and have itwoods really relaxing away from the crowd. it is possible to live in a reasonably so. >> what about you, mrs. carter? way. all feel the same when you are living with washington, there is so much particularly when you andin the white house

people are wanting to see you just because you are a member of the first family. up then they go home and be there with the normal people is so much fun. i had campaigned all over the country and i told everyone that i was going to invite them to .he white house [laughter] >> getting away from the press of can david. recall that the press corps would not the around when you were up there and in their wants where you went to

pennsylvania and you went fishing. >> we waited until they could not hear the helicopter take off and then we would fly to and stay in this house on the lake. the when we get back in helicopter and go back to camp david in time for the press to be back. >> and we think we are so smart. >> the whole issue of the transition and you had gone home holiday thanksgiving and it is basically a one road andugh town kind of deal there we were invading this town and the coast of maine.

you are so nice. the president-elect went to the hardware store and we were chasing through town in our rented cars trying to keep up so .ou finally just invited us in >> you were frozen for starters. i thought the press tried very, very hard to honor the family married a daughter off granted everyone wanted to know how. they wanted to be private in the press let them be. that's really all you can ask. now when mail he had her puppies i think you over did it. puppies.illie had her [laughter] >> it occurs to me that people

generally agree that there are certain roles observed and protect teen chelsea clinton's adolescents. a fair jobk we did or is it a bit more intrusive? >> the first day she went to school was pretty bad for her. the people in the white house press were looking and they decided that they would just leave her alone and i think they did. she had grown up in a governor's mansion from the time she was three and then came to the white

lote which is on an 18 acre with a fence around it just like the governor's mansion. i heard someone ask amy one day after he left washington what it was like to live in the white house and she said "natural." she'd never known any different. >> what are some of the biggest disappointments in those years? ford, i'm sure there was something that was just very frustrating and very difficult. losing the election. [laughter] [applause] we have become very good friends, haven't we?

president carter is having lunch with my husband at our home in rancho mirage and they're going to be doing a taping for "60 minutes" in the afternoon, so there is a great exchange so you must not think for any minute we hold any grudges. there always has to be a loser. you just never want to be the loser. me, not anynts, for about the white house as far as the white house. it was perhaps while we were in the administration and that would have been i had worked very hard trying to get passage for the equal rights amendment and it did not go through all .hat we made a lot of rye grass

as a result, i think women have found it much more individual, in the worldlace .nd in this country what i was trying to achieve at women needas to say to have the opportunity for a choice of whether they want to go on to a career or have a career in their home because the career as a homemaker is one of the finest careers a woman can have. about trying to step that they were not prepared for. i just wanted our young garters and the young people coming along to have the opportunity to get into professions and to rise in those professions -- doctors,

judges, the judicial branch, the legislative branch -- and have opportunities that were equal according to their ability. you know, i think we have achieved a lot of that through titles rather than the equal rights amendment. i cannot think of the number of the money going into sports activities in the colleges and high schools for women, which it was never there and that wonderful achievement, who would have ever dreamed we were going to have a women's ice hockey team to win the gold medal? [applause] i cannot say it's a

disappointment because we have made progress. >> what about you, mrs. carter? greatest disappointment of all the things i worked on was not getting the equal rights amendment ratified. and iad worked on that worked on trying to get it ratified in georgia when jimmy was governor. the end, there are only 11 or 12 local or state representatives who did not vote for it. there were only maybe 12 people in the whole country. jimmy called every one of them. we got the extension for the equal rights amendment passed.

>> i really did not involve myself in things that were political. i involve myself in literacy on i wasivate sector and are of givingy the amount and volunteering that people did. i feel like a piper compared to these two but that's ok. >> did you ever give your husband advice on something that they did not take? [laughter] >> i did.

>> let me ask all of you. >> of course. whether he took it or not, you will never know. [laughter] have? you say that you >> yes, of course. >> anything come to mind? >> not particularly. >> i'm not going to be as discreet as these other ladies. i know they're both really active with their husbands, sounding boards, and certainly we were to and we had great political discussions and it was very healthy. the children had grown up in washington.

i was trying to make waves where women were concerned and i on the supremed court and he let me down. then i tried very hard to get him to take a woman as his vice presidential running mate and he backed out again. i'll be honest, i still hold those -- [laughter] >> did you have someone in mind? >> yes, i did. here i'm having a senior moment. [applause] >> there were a lot of women

around. >> thank you. >> one of the things that you touched on a bit was that you were a sounding board for your husband and very important allies. there was another i was just footnote in the book on the lbj days. this reflects the diary of lady bird johnson. 1964, two months in office under the most tragic circumstances possible and is accounted in the story in this says cyprus,k she unhappily along with vietnam and panama is my husband's diet and that is why i must be both strong and understanding.

roleat sort of capture the ? case, i was the commander-in-chief of our family 'sd to see that george bush life is peaceful. i did not try to make waves at home. he had experts around him who felt free to criticize out at a time and i just did not do that. we try to make life very peaceful for him and i think that's why we stay married. >> did all of you have that that you had to create balance around her husband? >> sometimes jimmy was stronger than i was. sometimes he had to reassure me , but yes i know i

did and i think we all did try to make the upstairs of the white house home. >> when you talk about your husband reassuring you, how hard is it to take criticism of your husband and also sometimes of each of you when you hear things in the press, how distressing is >> it's hard for people imagine these terrible things, often untrue. >> when jimmy was first in the state senate and that is the worst he could everybody always says bad things about you, i would get really upset and he would sit me down and said, if you don't think i'm doing the very best job i could do, then worry about it. you have to take that attitude. if you are really confident that you are doing what's best in

life, the best that you can do, then it too often i think you just love off the criticism. criticize the boys that are running for office. >> these 50-year-old children of mine -- >> they are still children. click cs. yes.> i don't care how philosophical you get about it, it's hard. .t's in the computer kids are reading history that is not true. it's just in their and it makes what history really is, what's really true about history. >> george says to me when i read

something about someone i don't like, it's the most terrible thing, did you read about this? when they write things about me that aren't true, you are up in arms. how do you know that's true? >> i know it's true. >> just remember, none of it is true. criticism? >>the it always hurts, but you really and io have tough skin admit that it does hurt. certainly, it goes with the job, criticism. if you are in politics, you know that is what you're going to run into. , isyou handle it, of course

to try to move on and get out of that situation so they do not dwell on it any longer. move along, get out, get out and go. >> how do you think politics has changed since you were all in office even in the six years since you have in there. >> i don't think its changed. .hey go in waves i remember when george ran for county chairman. that was the worst race you ever knew in your life. people slipped on the -- ugly things under the door. it was horrible. i agree with rosalynn about that. you know the people who are saying these awful things, but i don't think politics of change that much. .hey were never easy you purposely forgot some of the bad things. when you really put your mind to it, it really was not great back

.n 1968 >> what about you, mrs. carter. that hass one thing changed and i agree with barbara. unlike, stillis like it was when jimmy was there, because i thought it was pretty horrible at times. whenhing that has changed, jimmy was running against president ford, they never called each other bad rings. they said that things about what -- were doing, but >> it was not personal. >> that about how personal it's gotten today. >> ugly names don't win campaigns. i really feel that way. you win if you stay above board and used it to the facts. >> i'm not sure if i agree with that. >> i hated.

people do it is because it works. >> we came along after watergate when every reporter thought it needed to be an investigative situation. there was a gossip column in "the washington post. as soon as we left, it went away. [laughter] >> now the whole thing is a gossip column. [applause] tothat's what i was about say. it swings. it will come back.

>> you now have the internet in information move so rapidly. we have so many networks and cable channels. there was vulgarity out there now that should not be there in my opinion. .t's horrible generational but the press are reporting things they should not be reporting, in my opinion. [applause] >> given how daunting it can be, do you have advice for young families, young politicians raising families just getting into this business with

professional politics, how to handle all of the pressures? never been in politics before, there's going to be a big change in their family and in their scheduling because it's a very demanding. i think people need to think very carefully before they get because it's not a rough game, but it's a fine game, something to aspire to, but you do have to be prepared to give up a lot of your and make as much of what you can with your time as possible. i think all of the things that they see as they read and see expectes on, they can

that as they get in the politics. it.said it does not change much. i think today, there's up a lot more bitterness in politics, certainly in the legislative branch. i also think, as far as the president is concerned, they in these going headlines and big sensationalism and then without much to their stories. because thead papers used to really give us good material and i think that has deteriorated. [applause] >> having two son sue are in politics and entering with

, i think like any you have to do, really concentrate on being good parents. i see my children doing that. they go home every night from the campaign in texas. one of the parents in florida is home. i think they work very hard. it's true of a very successful businessman and it's true of a tv commentator. it's true of anybody. you have to put your children first. if you opt to have children, no matter your application, you have to take care of them. i see that with my family. it's a little different, but not that much. >> they really have gone into the family business [laughter] they were in the business

world for 24 years. >> george w just won the oregon straw poll the day before. >> didn't see it. >> just another victory for another bush. [laughter] >> what i'm trying to say is i don't think there's that much difference in the occupation. there are a lot of competitive businesses out there where people sometimes neglect their children. that's one of the things about family literacy. you've got to read to your children. you've got to love them, spend time with them, talk to them. doesn't matter what your occupation is and i see my children doing it. important part of life no matter what your occupation. i feel that's important. [applause]

>> i know we have just had some very well-known figures from congress resigning, some would say prematurely, to spend more time with their families and i'm wondering since you and mrs. bush both spent years as congressional spouses, that's a particularly hard role, i because of the unpredictability of the hours and often the commuting that goes on. congress a real pressure cooker on relationships? >> if you're married to a , there is someone in the profession like that and you're going to have unusual hours and not many people can have a nine to five job in this day and age. worked it out sometimes very well with our children.

they were youngsters when my andand was in congress saturdays he would go into the office and he would take the at thed drop them off smithsonian or take them up to his office and keep in involved in what he was doing. when they were playing little league for all, i would take them to little league and i would be there to watch the first part of the game and then i would leave, go home, start dinner and he would come along and pick them up, see the last part of the game. there are a lot of younger fathers in congress. about beingt happy

the children of the president. it kind of cramped their style. [laughter] teenagers in the white house. they could not wear blue jeans on the formal floor where the applicant have in. we were a family in the white house said it was very educational for them and later on in life, they realize that there was much that they gained. >> it's different. >> they do not have to read about their mothers in the newspaper every day. a lot of times it depends on the age of the children when the parent comes in, like amy.

she never knew many different. lot older. when amyst son was 15 was born and to be thrown into it is very different fan growing up in it. it's not easy. we have a grandson that's 21 that is thinking about running for the state legislature at some point. not going to be easy. he might not know how. [laughter] still, we need good people in politics so bad. >> i agree. >> there's a lot about the confidentiality about white house staff and the roles of the secret service. do your wall have feelings about

whether the lifetime guarantee of confidentiality -- [laughter] why am i not surprised? >> i'm absolutely convinced the secret service and the white house staff should be immune to any -- [applause] their whole credibility with the -- never once did i were, howerrible you mean you were, how rotten your children were. i only heard positive, nice things from the white house staff and the secret service. that's the way it should be. that's the nature of their job. >> never talk about a predecessor.

>> it is the trusting relationship one has to have. >> it is expected. the only possible way that the confidentiality could be otherwise would be in a federal case, is that true? >> i don't know one any count. and one final question for me before we open this up to questions from the audience here. what do you most look forward to , asall of you, each of you you leave here and as you are now venturing out? >> i'm looking forward to george retiring. >> i'm looking forward to seeing our children, being cap the, doing, caring people. so far, they have not let me

down. that is what would make me a very happy person, to see them happy. they are. to see them giving, caring, sharing. life has been very good to the bush's. [applause] >> mrs. carter. >> there are a lot of things that i'm looking forward to. i'm looking forward to all of .he activities i'm looking forward to being able to stay home. we are gone to so much and we are home so little. i'm looking forward. i don't know when the time is coming, but i look forward to when it does. of course, i think everybody wants their children to be happy and i look forward to that.

one of the exciting things, for being with and watching my grandchildren grow, it is such a joy. our oldest grandson just joined the peace corps and went to south africa. i'm really proud. [applause] >> to those of us privileged to her, having her in the peace corps was a role model for a lot of older americans at the time. >> came to enter in the year before he a senior and got so .xcited about the programs it was brought up several times in elections. he decided before he went to law school he would go into the peace corps for a few years. >> mrs. ford.

>> i believe grandchildren are hard on my list -- high on my list. as i see the granddaughters , one by one college goes.ore one i'm pretty stimulated by what they are interested in and they are going to do. i just want to be a part of seeing how they develop. and how they grow. >> let me put some questions that have been passed up from those of you in the audience. if you had to do it all over again, is there anything you would do differently as first lady? i would not have been

so outspoken and get in -- got in so much trouble. you can change that. that's kind of the person that i upfront.r frank, i think some of the things worked out for the benefit of me and for the benefit of other women. for instance, breast cancer, andh was never talked about we went ahead and brought that to the forefront. [applause] i think i would do it all the same. >> mrs. carter. >> i think i probably would. i would turn the heat up in the white house. [applause] >> you turned it down to save

energy. >> i cannot inc. of anything i would have changed. i would have loved to make more but i did theon, best i could. like a jimmy, if you do the best you can, you cannot do anymore. what was the hardest thing about making the transition to private life after spending years in the white house. >> we had gone back to houston where we were in a little rented house with a ranger, george, and myself. at the white house we would push the button and the coffee would come right in. the dogs would go right out. -- that's really not true. my cooking was and still is about the worst in america.

george is so kind about it. the first month we were back, george w came to houston to run in a marathon. he said he needed pasta for dinner so i cooked like a mad and when the dinner was on the table they all said, we like pasta raw.- our i'm not a cook. i'm an eater though. [laughter] >> i remember memory picture as youview -- many pictures of . >> i'm so tired of hearing that i was in my pajamas. i was dressed. [laughter] [applause] >> set the record straight. >> nightgown. i don't wear pajamas. i was in full close. [laughter] clothes.

>> what was the most difficult for you making the transition back to private life? home and we had not lived in a house in 10 years. it needed everything. we had boxes stacked to the ceiling. we both agreed to write books. all of a sudden we were just absolutely snowed under. without any way to get out of it. was, well, it can't do so busy that you did not have time to think about what had happened. you come home and think that you did not have any future and it was hard. it's hard. one of the nice things for me, barbara. i did not have to get up and dress every day to walk a dog. >> i still dress every morning. [laughter]

>> mrs. ford, what was difficult? was wonderful leaving the white house from the standpoint of not having a daily schedule for every to live by five minutes something happening, having to be someplace. whennd a lot of relaxation we got home. we were very busy. we built a new home out in rancho mirage so that took me 15 months to do that. a book came out. you are taken up right away into other things. i kind of thought i was going to california and retire and sit by .he pool and eat bonbons that has not happened yet so i don't think it's going to.

it did give us more time with our children, -- >> and friends. >> friends are very important. wasne of the hardest things raising the money for the presidential library. [laughter] >> like another campaign. >> for a democrat out of office not planning to run again, it was really hard. [applause] >> two related questions here. do americans expect or want the first lady to be influencing policy and you think the expectations of a first lady today are different than when you were in the white house? >> you make it sound like we were in the white house in the 1920's. >> things change so quickly.

click sure. -- >> sure. >> to take a shot at that? >> different strokes for different folks. the first lady is going to be criticized no matter what she does. if if she does too little or too much. i think you just have to be yourself, do the best you can and so what? [applause] >> when he first attended cabinet meetings at the beginning of president carter's it is nowyou think more expected that if a first lady wants to that she can have a public policy role? >> i hope so. there is so much influence in that office. it would just be a shame to waste it.

[applause] i don't know whether the public wants the first lady to make policy or not. i think there are still things that are accessible for a earth lady to do, projects and things but i don't think there is no doubt the first lady has had influence on their husbands. they're close to them, talk to them all the time, and they have the president's ear. i don't think there's any doubt, do you? sometimes that policy. [laughter] [applause] >> mrs. ford. >> i'm one that believes the first lady should do what she feels good doing and do what she's interested in doing. rule't think there's any

or regulation that says you have to do anything. tos such a great opportunity just as barbara was active with her literacy program. she made great, great strides in that barbara. mentaltainly with your health program. [laughter] >> it's not a problem. [laughter] >> and you with your chemical dependency. >> it's a great opportunity and if a woman wants to she can be a great leader and accomplish a lot. by leadership, i mean in a field that is not political but a field that is something that is good for the country and good for the soul.

>> someone in the audience asked whether or not there was a particular room or place in the white house that reminded you of home or made you feel at home, or that you loved to sit and read or think in? was there one place that was yours? >> not that was mine but i had a little office that was the beauty parlor. tiny little thing that looked and ier lafayette park loved that little room but i the westd reading in wing living room. i loved reading there. it was a bright, sunny room. i could look out and see george bush at work.

>> i think my favorite place was room.ly the truman we brought some rocking chairs from home and almost every afternoon we would go out and balcony and talk about what i had done in the day and what he had done in the day and divisions where we met at the end of the day. quite aoyed spending lot of time in the solarium with children. susan was living there and i be up thereffort to and it was fun. i entertained up there and i had guests in for lunch on the top floor and it was a very cheery room, very up. click this question came from someone in the audience, mrs.

bush, so it did not come from me. [laughter] do you think there will be another bush in the white house soon? >> one thing you learn when you get out of alex is you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. politicsou get out of you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. [applause] and i have absolutely no idea. do you think there will be another carter and the white house? >> may be. could be. >> do you think so? >> possible, possible. >> do you think the changing roles of women over the last few orades has had a positive negative effect on society in general? >> positive. very positive.

>> i think today, women and the changing roles it is changing for some but it is not totally. there are a lot of people who were still in traditional roles. they ought to ask the changing roles for men. i see in a norm is change and fathers. >> that is a better question. >> all four of my boys change fathers -- changed diapers. great as george was, i don't think he ever went to a teacher meeting. they do take in a norma's interest in their children now. that's not fair because george has the interest but he did not have the time spent with them that our boys do now. they very often babysit and catch up.

outcome of healthy women perhaps taking other responsibilities. caregiverswith because so many people have somebody that they have to care for who is mentally or physically disabled or elderly in the home. we have sessions at the toversity for caregivers come so we can help them know for help and just learn how to better take care. you would be surprised at how many men who has come. of men coming and young couples coming that have an elderly parent that they have to take care of. that has been a definite change in the institute has been going on for 10 years now. there has been a real noticeable

change in the number of men coming to those sessions, which is great. final question from the audience. what advice did you receive from another first lady? what advice would you give to the first first lady of the millennium? >> any advice from another first lady, mrs. ford? >> i don't recall a lot of advice. i was very close to cap next and when my husband was vice president and so forth, .e spent a lot of time together we did discuss the roles, the responsibilities, the positives and negatives about being first lady. came, pat was very dear and she said as we walked

the redhe air on carpet, betty, you're going to .ee a lot of these red carpets it was a very sad day, i think the saddest day and our lives but she kind of gave me the encouragement to just go for it, be your self, do it. >> any advice? >> i would give the same. go for it. do it. enjoy it. >> i got a lot of good advice about the white house, staff, projects that she had done. if i would've had to tell a new first lady coming in, i think i would say what betty said earlier, do what you want to do

because you're going to be criticized no matter what. do what you want to do, what you are comfortable with and enjoy it. i know lady bird said, enjoy it. just enjoy it. i think it's very good advice. of the firste role lady has changed is the the role of women has changed. first ladies are always active in their own way. i often am asked if i thought that and i say no. if you were paid, there are things that you have to do. the beauty of it is you can do .hat you want the things that are interesting to you, the things that you want , the issues you want to preserve. it's a wonderful opportunity. >> mrs. bush? rosalind,t know you,

but i knew lady bird, pat, betty, nancy and they'll set great examples for me i have to that lady bird, maybe because she is a fellow texan, but maybe because i think she's in a norma's lady -- enormous lady. she said the white house is a elite pulpit and you want to take advantage of it. we try to do something every day that would help somebody in some way and our country. my successor,ave you will have to ask her. [laughter] [applause] >> it occurs to me that it should have modified the question to ask what advice you might offer to the next first spouse.

[applause] >> she will have to find that i said thatelf -- wrong. he will have to find that out for himself. that's the answer. he will have to decide when he's going to do and i don't envy him. >> whatever we are going to end up calling this poor soul -- [laughter] sisterhood have the that you have in being part of this club and i have to tell you -- it hase again struck me again that you share so many of the same values.

it has been a great honor for me to share this evening with you and with a terrific audience. thank you all very much. [applause] roslyn carter, betty ford, barbara bush. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause]

the museum is focusing on america's first ladies, how the media has covered in through the years and how the first ladies have tried to craft their image in the media. panelists are cokie roberts of abc and npr. chris tong seven of the "new york post." >> trying to maintain family time and maintain privacy, mrs. roosevelt purchased a family pinet called pine not -- place>> this was a family . in that sense it was unique for the roosevelts. and press anyians

hubbub of activity. that was the one place where it was private family time and the roosevelts made it very clear that they did not want anyone but family here. first ladies, influence and image. looking at the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady. one tonight live at 8:00 eastern. also on c-span radio at c- span.org. >> today, we heard from u.s. ambassador to the u.n., samantha power. she spoke in support of u.s. military action in syria to prevent aside from using chemical weapons. this is 20 minutes. >> syria is important because it

lies at the heart of a region critical to u.s. security, a region that is home to friends and partners and one of our closest allies. it is important because a serial regime possesses stores of chemical weapons that they have recently used on a large scale and that we cannot allow to fall into terrorist hands. it is important because the syrian regime is collaborating with iran and works in lockstep with thousands of extremist fighters from hezbollah. syria is important because its people in seeking freedom and dignity have suffered unimaginable horror these last two and a half years. also recognize how ambivalent americans are about on the oneon there. hand, we americans share a desire after two wars among which have taken 6700 american trillion cost over $1 to invest taxpayer dollars in american schools and infrastructure.

americans other hand, have heard the president's commitment that this will not be iraq, this will not be afghanistan, this will not be libya. and he use of force will be limited and tailored narrowly to the chemical weapons threat. on the one hand we share and up horns for the brutal murderous tactics of assad, yet on the other hand we are worried about the violent extremists who while opposed to his side have themselves carried out atrocities. on the one hand we share the deep conviction that chemical weapons are barbaric, that we should never again see children killed in their beds, lost to a world that they never had a chance to try to change. yet on the other hand some are wondering why, given the flagrant file nation of an international norm, it is incumbent on the united states cannot andause we should not be the world's policeman. notwithstanding these complexities, notwithstanding these that we all share, i'm

here to explain why the cost of not taking limited military action are far greater than the risks of going forward in the manner that president obama has outlined. every decision to use military force is it an excruciatingly difficult one. it is its ashley difficult when one sees the syria crisis through the prism of the past decade. that may take a minute to discuss the uniquely monstrous crime that has brought us to this crossroads. what comes to mind for me is one father in all go to saying goodbye to his young daughters. his girls had not yet been shrouded. they were still dressed in the pink shorts and leggings of little girls. the father lifted their lifeless bodies, cradled them and cried out, wake up. what would i do without you? how do i stand his pain? as a parent i cannot begin to answer his questions. i cannot begin to understand -- to imagine what it would be like

to feel such searing agony. in arguing for it limited military action in the wake of this atrocity, we are not arguing that syrian lives are worth protecting only when they are threatened with poison gas. rather, we are reaffirming what the world has artie made lane in thatg down -- made plain there is something different about chemical warfare that raises the stakes for the united states and raises the stakes for the world. that are many reasons governments representing 90% of the world's population, including all 15 members of the un security council, agreed to ban sick -- agreed to ban chemical weapons. they kill people in the most gruesome way. they kill indiscriminately. they are incapable of distinguishing between a child and a rebel. and they have the potential to kill massively. we believe that this one attack

in damascus claimed more than 1400 lives, far more than even the worst attacks by conventional means in syria. and we assess that also aside used more weapons on august 21 that he had used before, he has barely put a dent in his stock pile. and the community has not yet put a dent in his willingness to use those. president obama, secretary kerry and many members of congress have spelled out the consequences of failing to meet this threat. if there are more chemical attacks, we will siena inevitable spike in the flow of refugees on top of the already 2 million in the region possibly pushing lebanon, jordan, turkey, or iraq past their breaking points. the fifth-largest city in jordan a refugee camp. half of serious refugees are children and we know what can grow too children who adulthood in refugee camps.

recruiting fertile grounds for violent extremists. beyond syria, it is the violation of a universal agreement to ban chemical weapons that is not met with a meaningful response. use them toseek to protect or extend their powers, increasing risks to american troops in the future. you cannot afford to signal to north korea and iran that the international community is unwilling to act prevent glyph ration or willing to tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction. if there are no consequences now for breaking the prohibition on chemical weapons, it will be harder to muster an international consensus to ensure that has a lot of and other terrorist groups are prevented from using these weapons themselves. people will draw lessons. if the world proves unwilling to enforcing norms against chemical weapons use that we have worked so diligently to construct. and israel's security is

threatened by insecurity in the region and their security is enhanced when those who would do them harm know that the united states stands behind its word. that is why it is so important we have seen those in united states come out in support of the president's action. these are just some of the risks of inaction. many americans and some members of congress have legitimately focused as well on the risks of action. a series ofsed important questions and i would like to use the remainder of rhyme -- remainder of my remarks to speak about some of them. given our collective war weariness, some have asked why we cannot use nonmilitary means to achieve the same and. my answer to this question is that we have exhausted the alternatives. for more than a year we have pursued can't -- we have pursued tontless methods to try persuade aside from using

chemical weapons. we have engaged the syrians others have sent them similar messages. but once it's and similar weapons did not quell the syrian rebellion, a side started using chemical weapons multiple times as the united states concluded in june. faced with is growing evidence of several small-scale subsequent attacks, we redoubled our efforts. we backed the u.n. diplomatic process and try to get the parties back to the negotiating table, recognizing that a political solution is the best way to reduce all forms of's threat. publicmbled and went with compelling and frightening evidence of the regimes use of chemical weapons. than six for more months to get inspectors access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks. or, if not, at a minimum we

thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince russia or iran, itself a victim of saddam's hussein chemical attacks in 1987 and 1988, two cast loose a regime that was casting its own people. we accelerated our assistance to the syrian opposition, we supported the you an inquiry. russia, often backed by china, has blocked every relevant action in the security council even mild condemnations of the use of chemical weapons that did not ascribe claim to any particular party. in assad's calculus, he must have weighed the military benefits of using this hideous weapon against the recognition that he could get away with it because russia would have haveus back -- would

syria's back. the president concluded that a limited military strike is the only way to prevent aside from employing chemical weapons as if they are a conventional weapon of war. i am here today because i believe, and president obama believes that those of us who are arguing for the limited use of force must justify our position, accepting responsibility for the risk and the potential consequences of action. when one considers using nonmilitary measures we must similarly address the risks inherent in those approaches. at this stage, the diplomatic row says has stalled because one side has just been gassed on a massive scale and the other side so far feels it has gotten away with it. what would words in the form of related to the medic condemnation achieve?

what could the international criminal court really do even if russia or china were to allow a referral? would a drawnout legal ross s really affect the immediate calculus of assad and those who ordered chemical weapons attacks e we could try again to pursue economic sanctions, but even if russia budged, would more asset freezes, travel bans and banking restrictions convince assad not to use chemical weapons again when he has a pipeline to the resources of hezbollah and iran? does anybody really believe that employing the same approach as we have tried for the last year will suddenly be effective? course, this isn't the only legitimate question being raised. people are asking, shouldn't the united states worked through the security council on an issue that soap clearly implicates international peace and security? the answer is of course, yes. we could if we would. if we could, we would, if we

could, but we can't. every day for the two and one half years for of the serial conflict we have shown how seriously we take the un security council and our obligations to enforce international peace and security. since 2011, russia and china have vetoed three separate security council resolutions and deming the syrian regime's violence or promoting a political solution to the conflict. this year alone, russia has blocked at least three statements expressing humanitarian concern and calling for humanitarian access to the -- to besieged cities in syria. in the past two months russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the generic use of chemical weapons and to press statements expressing concern about the use. we believe that more than 1400 people were killed in damascus on august 21 and the security council could not even agree to put out a press statement expressing its disapproval.

the international system that was founded in 1945, a system we designed specifically to respond to the kinds of horrors we saw play out in world war ii, has not lived up to its promise or its responsibilities in the case of syria. it is naive to think that rush is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the un security council to assume its rightful role as the enforcer of international peace and security. in short, the security council the world needs to deal with this urgent cap crisis is not the security council we have. many americans recognize that while we were right to seek to work to the security council, it is clear that syria is one of those occasions like kosovo where the council is so paralyzed that countries have to act outside it if they are to prevent the flouting of international laws and norms. asksame people reasonably

beyond the security council, what support does the united states have in holding a side accountable? the united states possesses unique capabilities to carry out a swift, limited and proportionate strike so as to prevent and deter future use of chemical weapons, countries around the world have joined us in supporting decisive action. the arab league has urged international action against syria in response to what it called the ugly crime of using chemical weapons. the nato secretary-general has said that the syrian regime is asponsible and that we need firm international response to avoid a chemical weapons attack in the future. the organization of islamic cooperation blames the syrian government for the chemical attacks and calls for decisive action. 11 countries at the g 20 summit today called for a strong international response and noted supporting efforts

by the united states and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. over the lastd week at the u.n., the more that countries around the world are confronted with the hard facts of what occurred on august 21, the more they recognize that the steep price of impunity for assad could extend well beyond syria. seekresident's decision to congressional support has also given the united states time to mobilize additional international support and there's no question that authorization by our congress will help strengthen our case. one of the most common concerns that we have heard concerns less on the how and when of intervention but on the what. some americans are asking, how can we be sure that the united states will avoid a slippery slope that would lead to full- scale war with syria? on the other hand, others are action isthe u.s. limited, how will that have the desired effect on a side?

these are good and important questions. the united states cannot police every crisis anymore than we can shelter every refugee. the president has made it clear a is responding militarily to mass casualty chemical weapons incident. any military action will be a meaningful, time-limited response to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again and to degrade its ability to do so. from the start of the syrian conflict, the president has demonstrated that he will not put american boots on the ground to fight another war in the middle east. the draft resolution before congress makes this clear. is seeking your support to employ limited military means to achieve very specific ends, to degrade assad's capacity to use these weapons again and to deter others in the world who might follow suit. united states has a discipline as a country to maintain these limits.

action will not be designed to solve the entire syria problem. not even the most ardent proponents of military intervention belief that peace can be achieved through military means. but this action should have the effect of reinforcing our larger strategy for addressing the crisis in syria. assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons, we will also degrade his ability to strike at civilian populations by conventional means. in addition, this operation, combined with ongoing efforts to upgrade the military capabilities of the moderate opposition, should reduce the regimes faith that they can kill their way to victory. in this instance the use of limited military force constriction -- can strengthen our diplomacy and efforts by the to. and others tune it achieve negotiation. let me add a few thoughts and closing. i know i have not addressed

every doubt that exists in this town, in this country, or in the broader international community. this is the right debate for us to have. we should be asking the hard questions and making deliberate choices before embarking upon action. there is no risk-free door number two that we can choose in this case. foreignkepticism of intervention is an extremely healthy phenomenon in our democracy. a check against the excessive use of military power. the american people elected leaders to exercise judgment. there have been times in our history when presidents have taken heart decision to use force that were not initially popular because they believed our interests demanded it. from 1992, when the bosnian genocide started to 1990 five when president clinton launched the airstrikes that stopped a war, public opinion consistently opposed military action there.

he even after we succeeded in ending the war and negotiating a peace settlement, the house of representatives reflecting public opinion voted against applying american troops to the nato peacekeeping mission. there is no question that this deployment of american power saved lives and return stability to a critical region of the world and a critical region for the united states. we all have a choice to make. whether we are republicans or democrats, whether we have supported past minister interventions or oppose them, whether we have argued for or against such action in syria prior to this point, we should agree that there are lines in this world that cannot be crossed. on murderousits behavior, especially with weapons of mass destruction that must be enforced. if we cannot summon the courage to act when the evidence is clear and when the action being contemplated is limited, then our ability to lead in the world is compromised.

the alternative is to give a green light to outrages that will threaten our security and haunt our conscience, outrages that will eventually compel us to use force any way down the line at far greater risk and cost to our own citizens. if the last century teaches us anything, it is this. thank you so much. [applause] today's senate majority leader harry reid filed a motion to set up to date next week on taking military action in syria. here is a look. >> mr. president, i am grateful for everyone's cooperation in

getting us to this point. >> without objection, the letter will be printed. >> mr. president, we convened ae senate today to appoint joint resolution which authorizes the use of military force in limited nature against syria in response to the serious regimes use of chemical weapons. , many people have been killed with this tom including almost 500 children. the resolution is signed by committee leaders, senators menendez and corker. byy set a tremendous model their cooperation for the senate. i admire both of these good men for the work that they have done and the leadership

that they showed in allowing us to be at the point where we are now in this difficult situation. >> the obama administration continued its briefings for members of congress today. some of them spoke to reporters before and after. here is a look. so you are undecided. >> are you undecided third this is such a very serious decision we have to make. believe chemical weapons were used by the assad regime. i think that is horrific and it is something the international community has a responsibility to act upon and try to prevent from happening again. it is a very serious matter. i'm trying to give it very serious consideration. one of that process is the briefing and where we will hear

top-secret information. >> what are you hearing? like constituents are adamantly opposed to action in syria. wehink principally because have not heard from the president and he has not made the case to the american people it shows a fundamental lack of access to wait for the night before the vote. for many members is coming too late. we are going to probably draw our conclusions before that point. he is not playing his role as commander-in-chief in making his case to the people. and made ad come out case that was compelling to you, would it help you in voting to give him the authorization? >> i am going to make my decision based on my best judgment of what is in the best interest of the united states. >> even if it means going ?gainst her constituents echo

whenever i decide i will communicate that to my constituents. uack that ist wanted to say am very pleased that the president will be addressing the nation on tuesday. this is something that i had asked be done. i said it repeatedly because i think it is very important that the case for involvement in made to thely be members of congress and the senate, but it must also be made to the american people. i think there is nobody better case then the

president of the united states. so i am looking forward to what he has to say. in talking to many of my constituents, they want to hear what he has to say. they want to know again exactly what has gone into his thinking. they want to know that this is not going to end up in a boots on the ground operation. thatam very pleased about and thank you very much. >> to the briefing help you make a decision about a limited strike? >> very good question. briefing is- the helpful in getting a better understanding of what just happened. degree, and understanding

of exactly what the administration is attempting to do. that inhe problems is the briefings we are -- we get information that we can't share with you, nor can we share it with our constituents. if there is anything i've gotten from that, that is what makes it hard. because when we address our constituents they are basing it on what they learn in the news. onour decisions are based not only what we learned the news but what we learn from these briefings. the briefings have been helpful to the degree that i have learned more. i still have questions which i am not going to repeat here today. i try to ask the

questions that my constituents are most concerned about. thing that aain lot of them are concerned about is that they look at what happened with regard to iraq. that is in the dna of every cell of their brains. because it is so fresh. know that we went into iraq information.urate they then you that hold this president and future presidents to a higher burden of proof as to going into these kinds of situations. i do think that when the president addresses the nation willesday, i think it certainly be one of the most important speeches of his career do youpresident eric >>

think he will go ahead with what he plans anyway even if he does not get a yes vote? >> that is a very difficult question and one that i have thought about a lot. as i kerry,d to the senator ,ecretary kerry the other day as you well recall and the senate hearing. that is a question that he just would not answer. i think the president did the right thing by asking the congress to weigh in. congress,at when the i think he had to anticipate when he asked the congress to

weigh in, that meant that the public was going to weigh in. i think when he gives it his best shot, when he addresses the nation, he has made a complement and the administration for making members of the administration and the military available to us. this is my third briefing so we are being informed. when he gives it his best shot and if the congress is not convinced, and i certainly believe that he must take that into consideration. after all he did ask for that advice. last question. >> what is going to be the factor after everything you have heard from in there and from your constituents, that is going to seal the deal for you? yes or no? say this is one of

the harder decisions that i have made or will have to make in all the years that i have been in congress. it has been 17 years. it is hard because one of the things is that i don't want us all, something -- first of my rule is do no harm. i problem is try to figure out if we go in, is more harm possibly done by some type of retaliation by president assad or russia, does iran do something? we are not sure. on the other hand you have to balance that against -- and i cannot get this picture of my of those children lying with the white sheets, dead and apparently suffering from some type of gas.

is, which one, i mean do you go out and try to make sure that that doesn't happen again? or do you make sure that you do not set up a hornets nest by taking action? i can understand the president's and eight out of 10 of my constituents side. they have a lot of questions so it is hard. -- being aloyalist loyal supporter of obama, is that not easier? i i think we are doing --

think about my constituents. just yesterday i walked through the district and i ask those kinds of questions. of our district voted for the president, we are very supportive and there are people who said i love the president, i trust the president. i disagreey said with my husband but i love him for life. you are going to have those disagreements. so we all have to look at this not just in a vacuum of what is with whattoday, but is going to happen to future generations. i think that is how we have to look at it. to answer your question is very difficult. >> could you in fact answer your constituents? >> i have to go.

reporterke with a about the obama administration's plans on syria over the next few days before the president's address to the nation on tuesday. >> joining us is deputy white what reporter for politico is the white houses land to press the case on syria? that vice president biden is going to be meeting with republican senators tonight heard we know that administration officials are planning to speak with susan rice, john kerry. they're planning a briefing with a full house in closed session on monday night heard we know that the white house chiefs of staff will be meeting with democrats on tuesday. all of this before the president's addresses the

nation. have members been reacting to the strong pushback on the resolution? >> you have seen this interesting message from the white house. you have heard two variations on this because what you are hearing now is is overwhelming pushback from congress the white house has been getting a lot of he retains the authority to take action with or without congressional authorization hearing from the deputy national security advisor says it is not the president's desire or intention, and he does not want to take action without congressional approval. i do not want to downplay the need for congressional approval. at the moment they are asking for it. it is important from a symbolic perspective. >> you say the administration will brief the full house on

syria on monday. why all house members, and who specifically will they hear from? >> they will hear from the susan rice, the national security advisor, james clapper, director of national intelligence, john kerry, and they will hear from the chairman of the joint chiefs and chuck hagel. the senate will vote on that resolution on wednesday, and if it passes, the house is supposed to be putting this up for a vote. it looks like an extreme uphill battle. this will be the first chance for the entire house to meet since that alleged chemical weapons attack back last month. the house will be back in session, the first time they will have all the members together hearing from the

administration, getting a full briefing, a classified briefing. >> the white house announces the president will speak to the nation on tuesday. boehner reacting to the syrian speech news -- we only hope this is not coming too late to make a difference. who is the president aiming for in the speech? who is the target? is it the nation as a whole, or a specific targeted artist of lawmakers? >> at the moment right now, the president needs to address the nation as a whole is the message that is becoming from people who support his policy and people who criticize his policy. particularly, from boehner, someone who is favoring the policies, saying he will not work to make sure his colleagues vote, but making the case that the president has not made the case in a sustained and public way. looking at the direction of the polls, and right now over the

past few months the public support for intervention has dropped and continues to drop even following reports of this alleged chemical weapons attack. that the president has not done everything he can do, or everything he needs to do, to make this case, unless the dynamic shifts in a fundamental way, he is looking at a no vote in the house. >> what is politico's quickstep count? >> at this point it is shifting almost by the moment. the most recent estimate that our reporters have determined that we have gotten from lawmakers and aides who have been tracking this is that at the most there would be maybe one or two dozen republicans that would back the resolution at this point. they would be looking for a very strong defeat in the house, and is on pace, at least at this

point, and the senate is less certain, but it is on pace not to make that either. the speech by the president comes at a very critical moment moment, it comes on the eve not only of the senate vote, but also on the eve of the september 11 as well, so all the nation will be watching, so both the people who support and oppose this policy are going to be watching to see what the president has to say on tuesday night. >> rebecca sinderbrand, thanks for the update. >> bothks so much. chambers of congress are scheduled to gather on monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a weeklong debate is expected on whether to authorize military action against syria. also on the agenda in the house, a number of suspensions. you can watch live coverage on c-span. in the senate, they will take up

a pair of judicial nominations at 5:30 p.m.. live coverage on c-span two. the united nations briefed reporters today on providing humanitarian aid for the syrian people. he will hear from valerie amos under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs. she spoke by video from lebanon. this is 25 minutes >> thank you very much. i hope you can all hear me. i am going to make a very brief statement so that we can maximize the amount of time for discussion. i was in syria yesterday. i thought that i would use the opportunity to do the noon briefing. i have just come from damascus where i talked with members of the government about improving aid. i also wanted to give support to

staff who continue to work in very difficult circumstances. with the rest of the u.n. family, there are 4500 u.n. staff in syria working with ngos and community organizations to help the people who need it most in government and opposition controlled areas. i hope we will make progress in addressing some of the administrative challenges we have faced in getting approval for field operations, convoys and visas for humanitarian aid workers. syria and its neighboring countries are going through a humanitarian crisis on a scale we have rarely seen. a terrible impact on the people.

neighborhoods have been shelled indiscriminately and entire towns have been busy just. over 100,000 people have been killed. more than 4 million have been displaced. we have reached the 2 million mark in terms of people who have fled syria and are in neighboring countries as refugees. more than one third of the people of syria urgently need you monetary and eight. the crisis that is affecting everyone is the depreciation of currency, destruction of infrastructure, including health facilities. here in lebanon, the refugee crisis is having a very damaging effect on the economy, on the social structure, and on host communities. in syria, protecting civilians is paramount. the rise in the level of sexual violence and ongoing human rights abuse is a major concern.

despite the very difficult and dangerous conditions, humanitarian aid organizations are committed to continuing their work. i was very proud of the commitment shown by the staff of the u.n., by the volunteers and the staff of our other humanitarian organizations when i had the opportunity to speak with them yesterday. i am now very happy to take your questions. thank you. >> and please, if you can use your microphone so that ms. amos can hear you. >> good morning. pamela from cbs news. on behalf of the u.n. correspondence, thanks for the briefing. stay safe. my question is, you mentioned in an interview last week that there is 3.3 million needed still to help the refugee work.

how much total has been pledged and given in that effort, and have you seen a marked increase or any kind of increase in flow since the talk of a u.s. strike? >> thank you very much. it is actually billion, not million. you will recall that we had an appeal for the first month of the year for 1.5 billion. we then revised that appeal. this is for syria and for neighboring countries to a total of $4.4 billion that we were looking for for the entire year. if you took away what we had at

the time, we were left with $3.3 billion. that has gone down a little bit. we are continuing to push our donors for additional funding. there are two things i would like to say in relation to this. one is -- this is the biggest appeal we have made. we have had to raise the figures significantly because the numbers have gone up substantially. and what i would call an average year, we would generally receive about $6 billion from our donors for multilateral humanitarian assistance within our appeal. that is for countries across the world. because of the amount we are seeking to raise for syria and

neighboring countries and the average we have raised so far is about 40% of the total. we have already nearly reached that $6 billion figure, so our concern is not just about raising the money for syria, it is also about raising the money for crises, yemen, sudan, south sudan, afghanistan, and elsewhere, and that is why i and other principals have been going around and talking to our donors to try to get them to think in different ways about how we can raise this money, because the need is so urgent. >> let's try to give everyone a chance.

>> thank you, ms. amos. my question is, my name is celia [speaking in french] my question is about the flow of refugees from lebanon. this morning, the minister expressed his disappointment of refugee aid and warns of a bigger crisis. can you elaborate on that, tell us more -- hello, it is working? how much do we need to increase the financial support, the aid support -- do you hear me? can you hear me? >> yes, i am hearing you. >> how much do we need more support at the geneva conference and another conference, because

the pledges are not there? thank you. >> first of all, it is not accurate to say that the pledges did not come through from the kuwait conference. at kuwait, we had $1.5 billion that was pledged. if you remove the amount that the united arab emirates pledged, which was just over $300 million, and they said very clearly this money that they would put towards the response, but not through the multilateral, not through us as the u.n., and what they have done you may have seen it is to fund the refugee camp in jordan.

if you exclude that, and also if you exclude the $183 million that a consortia of ngo's said they would seek to raise, and they have raised about 1/3 of that money, and they're going to seek to raise the rest, the amount that is still outstanding from kuwait are extremely small. so i think it is very important to thank the donors because they have come with contributions that they promised. on lebanon, there are two elements to the appeal from lebanon. one is an appeal for funds for the government of lebanon itself is making, which we are including in our appeal

document, and the other is the element which is unhcr and our partner organizations for working with the refugee communities and the host communities in lebanon. i will ask robert watkins to say a little bit more about how much money we have raised in relation to that. on the issue of the flow of refugees into lebanon, i have a meeting with prime minister today. he expressed concern that one in every five people in lebanon, 20% of the population, is now from syria, and that this was having an impact on the social services in the country, health and education. on the economy of the country, and there is an exercise which is currently being done to look

at the impact on the economy of the syria crisis here in lebanon. he also expressed concern that the number of refugees could continue to rise, and that his national support was not there. i reminded the prime minister that myself, others, heads of u.n. agencies, have been strong advocates for international support or lebanon and will continue to do so. i will ask robert watkins to talk more about these figures. >> yes, thank you. indeed, the amount of contributions we have received for the appeals for lebanon have been very generous, but unfortunately, they do not cover the total needs that we have been seeking. we received about 38% of the $1.4 billion which was requested for the entirety of this year.

there still remains a quarter of this year, and we are optimistic that we will be getting more, but the problems that we confront is that the number of refugees continues to go up. more than 725,000 right now. the numbers continue to rise. our fears of a larger wave of refugees coming from syria as a result of the threats of strikes fortunately have not so far been realized. there has not been any major increases in the refugee flows into lebanon as result of his threats so far, and we are not out of the woods yet. as was said, we have to be looking beyond not only the present refugee numbers as well as the expected inflow, and we have been projecting the amount to go up to one million by the end of the year. we have to be looking at the enormous burden that this is put on the lebanese economy, and for

that reason, we are trying to diversify the kind of assistance we are bringing, not only to be helping refugees themselves, but the larger lebanese population who have been carrying a very heavy burden for the last 2 1/2 years. that is our strategy for the coming months, and we expect within the next month we will have a new development-oriented strategy to help lebanon. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you, mr. watkins. i have a follow-up on the question regarding the situation in lebanon. would you please elaborate more about the numbers, the figures of the refugees in the country, and what is your estimate for the unregistered syrian refugees nowadays in lebanon, and what are you trying to do in order to support lebanon?

would you please articulate more what is your plan for the upcoming international conference here in new york in this regard. i also have a question regarding syria -- a person was able to visit an area. could you give us some update about the situation in that specific area that there are a lot of allegations about the use of chemical weapons in that area. were you asked to provide some medical assistance to the hospital there, what did you do in that area? thank you so much. >> on the question of -- i did not go there.

with respect to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, these are allegations that have been part to the team, the chemical inspectors, whom physically -- we have tried on the humanitarian side to get into certain areas close to damascus over the last two months, and we have not managed to do so. i will ask mr. watkins to address your follow-up on lebanon. >> as i mentioned the actual numbers of refugees that are receiving assistance now is 726,000, which includes 104,000 of which has not been formally registered, but which have received assistance.

we expect that number to go up to one million by the end of the year, if not exceeding that. as you probably know, inside lebanon there are many other syrians in the country and have been in the country for many years and even before the crisis in syria, who had been playing a major part in the lebanese economy as migrant workers. the government estimates there is more than 1.2 million to 1.5 million syrians, including refugees, and on top of that we have more than 250,000 refugees coming in from palestine since the 1948 conflict. as you can see, the number of refugees and migrant workers from outside of lebanon is enormous and is having a huge impact. this is why we are having this assistance package coming together, it would have assistance and health, water sanitation, and infrastructure sectors of the economy.

>> thank you. if there is a military strike in syria, what do you expect how that would expect the humanitarian situation? how would it affect the humanitarian aid delivery, and what are your staff doing to prepare for that? >> we continue to update and look at our contingency planning. we always have contingency plans on the basis that the numbers might go up unexpectedly. we of course have to make sure that we think about the safety and security of our own staff. we have a commitment to continue our humanitarian operation. we have challenges in doing that

in any event because of the security situation that we face on the ground, inside of syria, but i say, and the conversations i have had with u.n. staff and with the staff of our partners, there is a serious commitment to continuing with our operations. and that is the commitment that we have made. please remember that a majority of those that operating inside syria are syrians themselves, so they want to continue to work for the good of syrians and to improve the situation of syrians on the ground. but at the same time, they are also mindful of the impact that any possible military action might have on themselves and their families.

>> sure, thanks a lot. on behalf of the u.n. free coalition for action, thanks for doing this over there. i want to ask about the reports that the u.s. state department confirmed of threats of humanitarian groups near aleppo, and threats they were told by the isis organization to leave or face death. i wanted to know on that incident, which i tried to get it would seem that it is strange to talk to the state department but in other areas that are controlled mother described by extremist groups, what is the status of humanitarian access and which groups are there? thank you. >> we have not managed to get into that town, but yesterday when i was in damascus, in my discussion, i was informed that we now may be able to get into the town, which would be very good news indeed.