putting pressure on the regime to stop using heavy weapons against liberated areas come in order to do anything, this has been one of the main problems. i would mention about 10 days ago, the regime used the air force everywhere. they are still doing that. unless countries including the u.s. and even russia now, apply the kind of pressure, it will be difficult. but i think it will be an area the u.s. can take seriously to provide mass training. so far there is limited training in jordan. small numbers. this is kind of a secret operation. it should be made open and should be in fact given to the pentagon and i thing this is needed not only for the transitional period but for post assad. and i think this is one of the ways that the u.s. can be very

effective in shaping in fact the post assad order, which is we want and we need and most syrians would like the u.s. to play that role. i think the good news, though, is that there are a lot of countries willing to do more in the region. and i think if you read the report by the international crisis group that came out yesterday, it came with really some good recommendations. it did mention in detail challenges facing the coalition and we agree with many of them. but it says that our ally, the core group need to get their act together as well. they need to have better coordination. and for that to happen you need the u.s. leadership which has been lacking. i think that has been one of the weaknesses. the other side has fewer friends but those friends are much more effective and providing everything that the assad needs weapons, money,

political support. so we have all of these countries. the friends of syria that recognize the coalition is 114 countries and we had a meeting in new york inside the u.n. many giving good will, saying the right things but you need that coalition to become effective and the core group of these countries must really do more including areas like arming straining, intelligence sharing. and if the u.s. decides it's time for assad to go there are many ways to do this. and i think once that decision is made, i think this is the end of the conflict. >> i was just wondering how you would describe the popular support of the people the citizenry and brigades and bat tallions of the coalition. >> i have to warn you though that kelly knows more about the

armed groups in syria than anybody else i know having written a good paper about it. >> but she's

where people peacefully demonstrated they carried signs and coalition represent me in some areas. and but again this is like any governing poddy including in democratic countries. if you were able to provide, you will get support. if you have a failed government and you shut the government, you see the rating of congress in this country. i think so the same situation. really, the popularity of the coalition has to do with its ability to address the challenges i mentioned to provide governance, to address the humanitarian situation, to address the free southeastern army and to be able to deliver on its stated objective, which is to overthrow the regime and created that order. so i would say that would go up and down. some cases when we're able to deliver, i would say yes you

have support. sometimes when you don't people again come and say why should i support you? but so far i don't think anyone is calling for the creation of an alternative institution. i think people feel that the current structure can be reformed, improved, and made more effective efficient. and i think that's where the efforts are going. i would say again immediately if we're able to improve the question of governance in areas that should reflect positively on the coalition's popularity. >> i want to touch on something related to that you alluded to earlier. i was wondering if you could dig a little deeper into concrete measures that you might be taking. there's been a recent wave of public denunciation of the ssc rejections of it from rebel brigades including some that were previously affiliated.

i was wondering what steps have been taken to address those concerns. >> since the announcement of that communique, the leaders i think the general was visiting paris and he decided to cut this visit and go back to address that situation because 13 deprupes, i remember, three were part. and there was the problematic group which again for a while it's been acting on its own. and then there were others in between. the same for the political leadership of the coalition since that happened they went back, they've been meeting with a lot of the leaders on the ground, and there are more

serious efforts to restructure the whole effort. and maybe there are discussions now to create a kind of more professional national army, which would include a lot of these groups. so to my knowledge -- and i don't really have a lot of details here -- there are a lot of discussions under way as we speak. it will be addressed in the next meeting of the coalition. i think now set for the 31st or november 1 in instan bull. but again it's a sign that there was some disunity among these brigades, these groups. and a sense of frustration. this is the context to it. and the feeling that we need to rely more on our own resources and really again mistrust of this whole deal between the u.s. and russia and whether it's going to rehabilitate assad or not. so those are some of the background.

that's why going back to address the questions of whether the u.s. is serious about taking steps to end the killing, to move into a political solution that's really does not have a place for assad. those kind of issues i think would give more trust and credibility for a lot of these groups to be part of the mainstream free syrian army. >> my name is edward joseph from here. sir, demrate you on the hard work that you and your colleagues are doing. i would like to ask you here this morning is if you could, put yourself in the shoes of your adversaries for at least even the minority community. first, the vision that you put forward for the negotiated solution that president assad should step down and there should be this transition.

why do you think he would do this? that's my first question to you. and related to that is have you heard the possibility that assad himself may organize election which is would give his regime the air of legitimacy steps? the first part. the second part is more widely, towards the alloit community. imagine this room were filled with worried members of that community and you referred in an earlier question to your website. could you make it real for this community. what is your real vision that syria after so much blood letting, this community would be safe for example, look next door at iraq which even has a constitution has a constitution that was negotiated and approved in a referendum. look at the violence that takes place there. look at the difficulties in egypt which doesn't even have sectarian divisions.

after all this blood letting how could you convince alloits to buy into your vision that they will be safe in a syria which sunnis will play such a prominent role? thank you very much. >> thank you. a very important question. well, let me address the first part, which is an easy one. talking about elections and assad supposedly his term expires next spring. to start with he is not legitimately elected. there was a fraud. and he came to power. we know how he came to power. his father was not a legitimately elected president. so there is no base for that. and the question of election as a way out is a nonstarter for most syrians. and i can assure you of that. well, you know, to request assad stepping down, sometimes

when people say why should he step down? what's the big deal? we live in a world today where if you have a responsible leader and some places you have a train accident, the government would resign. this president has caused the killing of more than 100,000, displacement of more than 8 million syrians. destruction of 35% of the infrastructure of the country. and you want him to continue? i mean, on what basis? on what logic? on what idea here? and he already served 14 years. even let's say he had enough of all of it. as i said, you know, syria was a continuation of the arab spring. and if you noticed in both tunisia, egypt libya the head of the state departed.

and early on the revolution started we were appealing to assad to leave and we were willing to foresee a role for him personally. but as more killing tock place, as more crimes were committed, he is designated as a war criminal by the u.n. we had a meeting. he said he committed crimes against humanity. this is the designation of the international human rights organization and you expect as suffered so much, people who lost their lives their family, saying he should continue because there are some people who might be concerned about their safety in the future? that's really nonacceptable. believe me this is the majority of syrians. now, i would address the other side and say he is a liability. you don't need to fight to the very last for this family, this mafia type family that's committed so many crimes, that's so corrupt, that led you to this situation. but what i would say is that. and we made a lot of appeals to

the alloit community. and we have in the coalition a presentation from the credible leaders in the community that they are not responsible for the crimes commit bid anyone. and it is not only them who committed crimes. there are sunnis, christians. and we envision a whole program of transitional justice as part of the future. so just don't take my word for it. there should be in fact measures including we're open to the idea of maybe peace keeping forces to come and be part of that transitional period, for ideas to have maybe a legion that would protect these communities. one of the reasons why we felt good about the idea of the strike against assad, we felt this could in fact encourage leaders to maybe force assad out of power and then they could be our partners to build the future of syria. no one -- and this is the good news. even though the assad committed so many senator kerry taryn --

sectarian crimes and genocide, maybe mass combers the response has not been mass response against alloits and that's good. we have only one case reported recently of in the area especially mostly the extremists, commiting crimes based on sectarian basis but the rest have not committed. and there are ways to do that. the free syrian army can bombard the whole communities. to me those are encouraging signals that we don't want to go into this direction. again, only those who committed crimes against humanity should be held accountable. from any area. we don't speak sectarian language. that's encouraging so far. there's more to be done. iie agree there is a lot of fear and concerns among the community.

the good news again there are really now questioning within the community. they suffered a lot don't forget there's a lot of commiting among the young who are forced to be part of the killing machine a part of the army. and i think a lot of them are saying we had enough. so i do see an opportunity again to say from our point of view civil wars there are no winners there are only losers and i'm concerned about the killing from the other side but the regime is not concerned about the killing from our side. that's why we reject the moral equivalent that we are similar. we are not. going back by really taking out a few individuals, let's call them the criminal maybe elite out of this equation you are able to create the kind of conditions for national reconciliation and building syria on a new basis. >> thank you. >> good morning.

can you talk more into the microphone? >> sure. assuming all goes well and geneva too takes place definitely there are those extremists who will try to sabotage every way they can every possible technique they can make to sabotage the meetings. and then the fight might be three ways. how do the coalition foresee this? how can you overcome this problem? and assad, knowing the regime's dubious way of handling the political issues, may have the news now start to surface that he is asking for two year extension, would you agree to do that and how will you apply to this kind of question?

>> let me start with the last part. no, we will not agree to the two-year extension or any of that. the purpose is transition to democracy and the creation of transitional government with full executive authorities. if that is the purpose of it, that's what we're going to do. otherwise i think we're not going to move on with this. but i agree with you that the presence of the extremist groups is going to be a challenge for both sides. and definitely for the international and regional players as well. that's why i think steps must be taken now to start to isolate these groups, to start to freeze maybe their sources of funding and to start to engage. because i think there's a difference between the groups. one is more complicated. you could still take away some of their base because many of them joined because they had money, they had ways of providing for their families.

maybe find ways to work with the neighboring countries to be more responsible and not allowing incoming fighters to the country. it's going to be a challenge not only for the coalition but for the whole region. again, this is part of the problem that faces these countries and requires comp hebsive strategies not just one thing. but from our point of view we are addressing that. we are trying to strengthen the moderates, trying to make all of the sources of funding and arming coming through that process and so ofpblet i think that's what isolates many of these groups. eventually start maybe finding incentives for some fighters to go back. but speaking of terrorist groups i should mention two other terrorist groups. hezbollah and the iranian revolutionary forces. i'm sorry we don't talk about them but they are part of the

fighting and killing and must be addressed and if iran would like to be invited they should leave. they are again foreign entities in fact much more organized larger in numbers sometimes and done more killing in syria than some of these extremist groups. so add that to the difficulties. syria is no longer a syrian issue. it's a regional and international issue. >> i focus on syria very much when i study here 13 years ago. i was very interested because assad was still in power but we knew he was on his way out and i thought there was a window of opportunity because the czar in my mind from my understanding was very open to the west.

he brought internet to syria, he had a very open mind for the country. am i wrong we had a missed opportunity that when i looked at what happened afterwards with 9/11 and syria being -- could you speak closer? >> i'm sorry. so i'm wondering did we miss an opportunity to welcome syria and with bashar as the leader who wasn't the planned leader his brother originally, but i thought that bashar was very open to the west, very open to internet many things that we're now seeing very close to. did we lose that opportunity because of 9/11 or was he already through limited because he inherited his father's power structure?

>> it really doesn't matter any more. but if i were to say just a few words. when bashar came to -- the president, many of us including myself, i remember i'm very proud of this op ed i wrote in which i said this is an ill legitimate president. he inherited the presidency against the republican principle but let's give him a chance and if you are to become a legitimate president he needs to free political prisoners, end the emergency law introduce some basic freedoms to the country and maybe lead and gain legitimacy. many gave him the opportunity. many of our activists who are part of the coalition now formed forums, were willing to really take bashar on his promises to reform the country sbrorks deuce it into the modern world. unfortunately there was a crackdown less than that, then

there was another moment after the assassination with the declaration. and early on the first four years i remember very well and i followed this. we were accepting the argument that ok they were old guards, they prevented him. but after the fifth year in power he became fully in charge. the system is highly centralized, highly personalized, and he immediately reverted to his father's way of first saying we have external challenges that take precedence over domestic and we're not going to do political reform. talked about the chinese model but nothing was meaningfully introduced to gain atlantasy by the time he came to his second term seven years after becoming president they wanted to introduce a slogan for his presidential campaign and they couldn't find anything so they came up with this word, we love

you. it became so ridiculous. so we elect you because we love you. you're a young man, you studied in the west, you like the internet. but what did he introduce? when the arab spring started many of us appealed to bashar saying before things happen in syria why don't you take the lead. i think his response was very, very frustrating and showed the mentality he had in an interview with the "wall street journal" january 31 2011, in which he said those leaders who have not already introduced reform they are in trouble. but i am different because i'm young because i'm not part of the western kind of world. i'm closer to the pulse of my people because i defend palestinian rights. but he said, i will introduce reforms. and he mentioned three areas. i will introduce new magazines i will introduce more measures for local elections nobody

takes seriously in syria and third illegalize nrn gos that is a vision he had. at a time they were calling for revolution calling for regime change. so it was obvious. i think he really lost it totally the moment when the people took to the street peacefully protesting to demand the release of the kids who were arrested and they opened fire at them. and i think he totally lost really the support of syrians when he gave his first speech in parliament. he did not show any remorse for the killings, everybody had high expectations and he didn't do anything. i know a lot of syrians that's the moment for them they turned against him. he lost every chance of becoming acceptable. and again with the more killings, the guy is a war criminal. the guy committed crimes against humanity. so i gave a long answer to show you that he was given every

opportunity domestically regionly, internationally but he is limited to personally by the regime by so many reasons and it's time for him to go. >> i guess i can describe myself as a professional field officer and recent graduate of george mason of conflict analysis and resolution program. i would be interested in hearing what conversations there might be what thinking there might be on the part of your group or syrians on two factors. one, bosnia is still dealing with very serious unfortunate cons

approach. you have you have you have you have and in some way keep the

lid on things so as to give more time to figure out how to proceed. >> i didn't understand the second part about the negative peace. what do you mean by that? negative peace is a frozen peace. a frozen peace where a conflict is put on hold, it is checked. the violence is put in check. diplomatic, political, structural work is being done, all that to try to put a lid on excessive expression of whatever the various groups are trying to gain. in other words, the lack of violence, trying to perceive it as functional.

that makes me think of the second factor, the factor of the other side of the positive piece, the positive peace, and that is addressing the underlying causes and conditions of the conflict whether they be long, this circle type or something more recent. and two terms, scholarly terms that addresses more work as opposed to reconstruction or structural factors such as the constitution. i am interested in how your group or the syrians or the u.s. governments, other governments, might address that come of those two factors, and to try to make the transition and beyond the day after, as you say, less troublesome. >> thank you.

well, i think on the first question, the first part of the question, i personally attended a seminar in sarajevo about the bosnian conflict and lessons for syria. and i think -- i remember you raised the point that many bosnians warned us of not going through any peace arrangements without having a vision. they said they made that mistake and it was imposed on them and there was the constitution which created a paralyzed political institution, the presidency. i think it is a well taken point, and that is why you always feel we have to think about -- and that is only the general objectives, of a democracy, but what kind of democracy, what kind of system all those details. we have given those issues a lot of thought. syria is different from bosnia

in the sense that in bosnia there were these three communities in a way, and they had to create the kind of system that may be close to what happened in iraq, in divided societies. in syria we have the question of minorities, and there is a clear sense of a majority in syria. if you take the divided syria in terms of the ethnic divide, the only question we have is arabs versus the kurds. most of them are part of the opposition, and they would find a solution within a unified syria, which is good. that is helpful. the other divide is the sectarian divide. religious and sectarian. we have 5% christians, 11% alouite.

both communities are arab, and they have more in common in terms of their cultural identity. i do not think you -- maybe solutions like federalism are viable in syria, that maybe a decentralized system would address the local concerts of these communities. what prevents syria from having a paralyzed political system is that it creates a safe based on citizenship, rule of law, you create equal opportunity. those are all missing from the authoritarian, oppressive regime of the assads. they have a clear idea everything but the assad regime, and in that sense, the composition of syria, it is easier to avoid the problems you had in bosnia. in syria, the essence of this conflict is that people rose up

demanding their basic freedom and freedom and rights. they were deprived for decades but we were talking early on there is an idea we should go back to the constitution because syria had a viable democratic experience. there was that historical memory, the idea that we can live together, and we should. and so to avoid the negative peace and addressing, moving to a more positive peace is to create the political system which is responsive, gives everyone their rights, it's everyone there since again that they have a place, a stake in it, and you avoid dealing with the symptoms of file its and trying to find solutions to the fighting. i do not know if i addressed the second one. >> the second one is the more

difficult one -- >> thank you, i would like to follow up on sasha's question. >> you wanted to ask a question? if you will go to the mike. i need you at the microphone. pass the mike. >> back here? thank you. on the two previous questions, sasha asked did we miss an opening with bashir, the one of the things that struck me, if he had wanted to, that power structure he inherited from his father had no stake in opening up, and the issue of negative peace. that power structure will remain in place, the security apparatus, even if assad -- your demand is that he has to depart.

the power structure will remain. how will you deal with that, and what needs to be done? i presume in whatever negotiation, whatever agreement you it achieved, how do you dismantle that power structure which is antithetical to democracy? >> i wanted to follow up on the idea that syria could establish rule of law, regular courts that would not be corrupt, a constitution, a democratic state, rule of law, meaning everybody abides or is sentenced. i do not see how that is possible.

i would be interested in your thoughts. for us, we had a thousand years of british history and the development of a parliament chipping away at the king's powers and balancing with the monarch. you have any thoughts on that? >> both questions are about what the realistic possibilities are. >> i also had a follow-up. it is related to baby the first all a question. most people when they think of a peace conference a think of the two sides have been fighting. assad on one side and the other side the rebels. i am asking about your concept of this geneva conference. if assad is not there, who should be on that side of the table? if assad is there, if no one from the coalition will go.

>> ok. the first question about the structure that exists today. i think, no, we believe that these institutions of repression, particularly the intelligence agencies, must be reformed drastically. this could take time. i think we had in the day after project the whole section on security reform, in which we envisioned like all normal countries having two maybe intelligence agencies instead of the 16 that exist under assad today. also re-envision the role for the police, which is very important and should be charged to carry out domestic

order. and the same -- the armed forces need to be reformed in a way that unfortunately -- over the years, and i think part of the reason why we have the situation we have today is that since this goes back to the french mandate, when this french first came to the country and created the first troops to carry out order in the country, they recruited heavily from minorities. this was a divide-and-rule policy. after independence, the country continued with that. many of the mainstream majority would avoid serving in the army, and that explained the overrepresentation of certain minorities in the army. you need to correct that. second, you need to create a

truly professional army in the sense that it protects the country, not connected to a regime or a family or a person. that is a problem in syria. if you look at the fighting force that is doing most of the fighting with assad, it comes from the elite force of that enjoys privileges that has been equipped, trained the most while the rest of the armed forces is almost dismantled. it is not functional. in order to move toward again democratic order, you have to reform the structure. for the security agencies and for the armed forces, and we looked in the experience of many countries and we have good relationships there. the second question about the question of being skeptical about syria moving for democracy. like any country, there are forces favorable and forces that are unfavorable for democracy.

in today's world, the thing we learn from each other, we are not going to go through 200 years in order to become democratic. what is happening in the world today, look at the arab countries, and i teach about the transitions in the arab countries, and you look at different models of transition. some of them have been much more successful than others, like tunisia and egypt. in tunisia they created a model that works for them and created a coalition in parliament from the three major parties that is leading tunisian forward. in egypt, the prioritization between islamic factors and others, led to a step accords. today we could learn, we do not need to go to the same time to achieve democracy. i can assure you, people who lived under authoritarian rule and suffered from that, they yearn for those basic rights and freedoms we take for

granted. once they are giving the opportunity and create the right structure -- and i believe there is an element of luck in doing this. you look at the american experience and the french experience. in this country, the second time we had it right. in france, they had it more than five times. with people now provided at high cost to achieve that democratic system, i'm optimistic about that. especially if you neutralize those external influences in the case of syria, the influence of iran, hezbollah and becomes a much more responsible country that finally decides to act responsibly, that could help as well. if syrians get to the other, they can find solutions to their problems. geneva -- geneva has built a process of mutual consent that

we could veto somebody from the other side and they could veto somebody from our side. our main criteria is people who committed crimes against humanity should not be part of that debate. we do not want a very notorious head of the air force intelligence agency to be present at the table. in regime, they linked to russia some names that would be acceptable. the point is they have to be able to go back and will be reporting to some of those guides, who have blood on their hand. there can be creative ideas to reconcile. we believe the coalition and the opposition delegation, but we are open to include others. those who are not necessarily included in the coalition, but share our goals of the revolution. >> let's take one last question.

>> thank you very much. did you speak on the difficulties of a core nation unit in providing for councils and what the isc doing to facilitate that? >> the acu and the local councils, they see they are one of the first organizations coordinated by the coalition. it has been doing he simply, a good job, but there have been some issues of coordination. at the local councils, the challenge with them, those are not councils that have been democratically selected, elected. in many cases the activists in this area who have been active were able to do it. in some cases like aleppo, they managed to have an election. they brought in people from the different neighborhoods, towns and they selected the

council. part of the work that has been done with the local councils is to train them to improve, to reach out, and, number two, to improve the quality of that outreach. the more some of them were able to do it, they became more representative. some of these local councils are challenged by other groups. in the coalition we are open to the idea of making these councils or responsive, more representative, and then it would be easier to provide through these individuals. the experience has been mixed. some areas been a better than others. we want to always -- we believe it is one of the sources of becoming more legitimate, to be able to provide and rule through these councils. >> let me conclude by noting that i studied arabic in damascus in 2008.

i have never been in a place that seemed riper for change in a democratic direction. ordinary people would tell you very bluntly that they wanted more freedom. i think it is very sad -- that they have had to go through what they have gone through. at the same time, i think the people i remember in damascus would be very proud to have you representing them here in the united states, and we are very pleased that you took the time with us to explicate the coalition. thank you very much. national cable satellite corp. 2013]

national captioning institute] >> on this weekend's "newsmakers," maryland congressman chris van hollen is our guest. the top democrat on the budget committee and one of the 29 conferees who will be meeting to reach an agreement opt federal budget the committee is scheduled to meet the week of october 28 and is supposed to report back to congress with a plan by mid december. you can watch the entire interview on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eemp on c-span.

>> yesterday president obama announced former defense department attorney jeh johnson as his nominee for homeland security secretary. if confirmed he would replace janet napolitano. from the white house rose garden this is about 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president and vice president of the united states accompanied by mr. jeh charles johnson. >> good afternoon everybody. please have a seat.

as president my most solemn responsibility is the safety and security of the american people. and we have an outstanding team of folks who work every single day to make sure that we are doing everything we can to fulfill that responsibility. that means that our entire government, our law enforcement, and homeland security professionals our troops, our diplomats, our intelligence personnel, are all working together. it means working with state and local partners to disrupt terrorist attacks, to make our borders more secure, respond to natural disasters, and make our immigration system more effective and fair. addressing any one of these challenges is a tall order. addressing all of them at once is a monumental task. but that is what the dedicated men and women of the department

of homeland security do every day and today i'm proud to announce my choice to lead them an outstanding public servant who i have known and trusted for years mr. jeh johnson. we are of course enormously grateful to secretary janet napolitano. janet couldn't be here today she has already made her move to her new position in sunny california. overseeing the higher education system in that great state. i know that she is going to do an outstanding job there with the incredible young people star in our largest state. but we all deeply appreciate the terrific job that she did over the last 4-1/2 years. i want to thank hand behrs for his service and for stepping in after janet left. thanks in no small part to janet's leadership her team, we have done more to protect our homeland against those who wish to do us harm. we have strengthened our borders, we have taken steps to

make sure immigration systems better reflects our values. we have helped thousands of americans recover from hurricanes and tornadoes floods and wildfires and we've worked to clean up a massive oil spill in the gulf as well as address a flu pandemic. in jeh johnson we have the right person to continue this important work. from the moment i took office jeh was an absolutely critical member of my national security team and demonstrated again the characters to make him a strong leader. he has a deep understanding of the threats and challenges as the pentagon's top lawyer he helped design and implement many of the policies that have kept our country safe including our success in dismantling the core of al qaeda in fata. when i directed my national security team to be more open and transparent about how our policies work and make

decisions especially when it comes to preventing attacks he was one of the leaders who spoke eloquently about how we meet today's threats in a way that are consistent with our valuings including the rule of law. he also know that is meeting these threats demand cooperation and coordination across our government. he has been there in the situation room. at the table. in moments of decision. working with leaders from a host of agencies to make sure everyone is rowing in the same direction. he is respected across our government as a tam player, somebody who knows how to get folks who don't always agree to work towards a common goal. he has experience leading large complex organizations as a member of the pentagon's senior management team first under bob gates and then under leon pan that he helped oversee the work of more than 3 million military and civilian personnel around

the world. so it's fair to say that both former secretary gates and panetta will attest to the incredible professionalism that jeh brings to the job and the bipartisan approach that appropriately he takes when it comes to national security. he has also earned a reputation as a cool and calm leader. jeh appreciates that any organization's greatest is the people and at the pentagon he guided the report explaining why allowing our men and women in uniform to serve our country openly would not weaken the military. congress ended up using that report that jeh helped to craft to justify repealing don't ask don't tell and america and our military are stronger because we did in part because of his determined leadership. i know he will bring that same commifment to our hard working folks at d.h.s. and finally he believes in a deep and personal way that

keeping america safe requires us also upholding the values of civil liberties that make america great. jeh tells the story of his uncle who is a member of the legendary tug keege and they served with honor even when their country didn't treat them with the respect they deserved. we must adopt legal positions that comport with common sense consistent with who we are as americans. he is a pretty good lawyer so he knows what that means. he understands that this country is worth protecting not because of what we build or what we own but because of who we are. and that's what sets us apart. that's why as a nation we have to keep adapting to changing threats whether natural or man made. we have to stay ready when disaster strikes. and help americans recover in the aftermath. we have to fix our broke combngration system in a way

that strengthens our borders and modernizes legal immigration and makes sure everybody is play big the same rules and i am confident i could not make a better choice in jeh somebody i am confident who is going to be helping to move the country forward. so thank you so much for agreeing to take on this very difficult and extraordinary mission. you have a great team over at dhs and i know thear looking forward to have you over there. i urge the senate to confirm him as soon as possible. and i thank you as well as your family agreeing to serve. your wife susan and your daughter couldn't be here because they are visiting jeh jr.. i'm sorry i couldn't be there to say hi to him. but your son chose well. so ladies and gentlemen, i would like to invite jeh

johnson to say a few words hopefully our next secretary of department of homeland security. [applause] >> thank you very much mr. president. as you noted, my wife and two kids are not here because it is parents weekend at objection dental and thanks to the the cost of a -- ox dental. and thanks to the cost of nonrefundable airline tickets they could not be at two places at once. thank you for this honor and trust you have placed in me to carry out this important responsibility as secretary of homeland security. i was not looking for this opportunity. i had left government at the end of last year and was settling back into private life and private law practice. but when i received the call i

could not refuse it. i am a new yorker. and i was present in manhattan on 9/11 which happens to be my birthday. when that bright and beautiful day was a day something like this was shattered by the largest terrorist attack on our homeland in history. i wandered the streets of new york that day and wondered and c.d., what can i do? -- asked what can i do? since then i have tried to devote myself to answering that question. i love this country. i care about the safety of our people. i believe in public service. and i remain loyal to you, mr. president. if confirmed by the senate i promise all my energy focus and ability toward the task of safeguarding our nation's national and homeland security. thank you again, sir. >> thank you. [applause]

♪

>> coming up next, "washington journal." live with your phone calls and the day's latest news. then a look at editorial cartoons and their influence on politics and national conversation. >> during the depression she was thought to be out of touch with the people. but after her death, it was discovered she provided financial help to hundreds of americans in need and never cashed a check of those who paid her back. watch our program on first lady lou hoover. live monday night our series continues. >> this is eleanor roosevelt typewriters. what i have here are the origin drafts of some of the my day

columns ips to share. it sets the tone. what she is talking about here are the comings and going after the holiday season. this clipping is a my day clipping from november 6 1940 election day. she talks about how add mitt knight a larger crowd than usual came in from hide park. the president went out to greet them. this was a tradition on election night. the road velts would come to the park, gather family around and await the election results. when they were announced the president would come out and greet them. >> monday night live at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> coming up next on "washington journal," then the

40th anniversary of the opec oil embargo and what the role is in the world today. [indiscernible] host: flags flying at half staff, in memory of tom foley. also in the news today, the former republican congressman bill young passed away yesterday. he was 82. in other news, the u.s. now stands -- that rising by $300 billion this past tuesday. saudi arabia turns down an invitation to join the security council. in his weekly address