, but our bases are some of the most secure in the world. i think a spokesman for the pentagon said you cannot build an kind of new climate in terms of the funding being directed to that. i think it's more of a reconsidering protocol at this point than it is a significant ramp up in directing more funding the security of our bases. host: and a look at defenseone.com with a picture of the u.s. military intensifying the fight against ebola, we talked about it. ou can follow her on twitter mollmotoole and read more at defenseone.com.

that will do it for this morning's "washington journal." back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern. lots of politics coverage coming up today. we'll see you back tomorrow morning at 7:00. thanks. [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up in about half an hour, former agriculture dan glickman. he'll be speaking to the johns hopkins school of advanced studies and we'll bring that to you live starting at 10:350er7b. coming up live at

health policy specialists take part in the discussion about the u.s. response to ebola dough -- domestically. starting at noon eastern. and tonight our campaign 2014 coverage will continue. massachusetts governors debate gets under way at 8:00 this evening between democrat martha coakley and republican charlie baker. we invite you to participate through facebook and twitter as we watch that debate tonight. here are some of the ads massachusetts residents are seeing. >> a few years ago wall street gambled with our money and destroyed so many lives. we can never let that happen again. that's what's at stake in this election. charlie baker's offering the typical republican plan, tax cuts for corporations. not much for the rest of us. i have a different view. we need an economy where everyone gets a fair shot with early childhood education, equal pay for women, earned sick time. charlie baker, i want -- >> democrats and independents

across the state are supporting charlie baker for governor. >> i'm a life-long democrat and voting for charlie baker. >> baker. >> because he delivers. creating jobs, balancing budgets, fixing government. >> he's pro-choice. >> charlie baker got people off welfare and made massachusetts first in jobs. charlie baker will lead massachusetts in a new direction. >> charlie baker. >> i'm voting for charlie baker. >> she's been a powerful advocate for women and kids and one of the toughest opponents wall street and the big banks have ever seen. now martha coakley is running for governor with a plan to build an economy that works for everyone, a cradle to career education plan so people get the skills they need to succeed. adjustments in roads and bridges and mass transit and creating regional economies so that every area of the state can thrive. martha coakley, she's not the insiders choice.

she's ours. >> why not? >> with bill -- >> you saved her from bankruptcy. >> made america's best health care company. >> you're totally pro-choice and bipartisan. >> bipartisan is what we need on beacon hill. we can make massachusetts great and create jobs by controlling spending, lowering taxes and requiring work for welfare. >> more jobs, pretty confident, huh, dad? >> no problem. i've done it before. >> and next, a portion of this morning's "washington journal" and a discussion on elections for state-level judges. we will bring you as much as we can until the start of live coverage of former agriculture secretary dan glickman. he will be talking about food safety. that's scheduled to start at 10:30 eastern. jordan -- joined --the white house corp. correspondent of "national journal."

into the races in north carolina for the high court judges. more broadly, the issue of judges running for reelection, particularly in the high appellate level. guest: this is the next real front in american politics. we are seeing judicial races congressionalthe counterparts. money is flowing into races in places like a small county in missouri or states like north carolina. these races are increasingly partisan. money is in play. a groups are getting involved. we are seeing the same types of forces that are shaping our politics. one judge inered

north carolina. tell us her story in terms of what she is facing this year as opposed to previous years running. guest: she has been accorded couple of years. vanwas appointed by a democratic governor. she is facing a well-funded republican. the races in north carolina are nonpartisan. on the ground, nobody believes that to be the case. both the democratic slate of judicial candidates and republicans aren't endorsed by their respective parties. nobody is fooled by what's going on. these are races where voters have very little information. her name recognition is almost zero. she is underfunded. now is tonge right get out and reach as many voters as possible. she wants to avoid -- a ford adds to get on television. she is doing it on her own.

i drove her car. so is just me and her could interview her. she had no staff. put 40,000 miles on her car this summer driving to events. band trying ton hold onto a supreme court seat. how much is in her campaign bank? she was in the six figures. her opponent was much higher -- wasn't much higher. ofy are all being funded out the same pot. they are running ads together. he is a business lawyer. the nyuis is from report in terms of figures. they report that $56 million was spent in 2012.

those outside groups include the republican state leadership committee, americans for prosperity, the nra, america votes. what is happened since then in terms of these special-interest groups? aest: they try to unseat sitting judge. it almost worked. she beat back the challenge. one of the reasons that there was an ad run by this outside group called justice for all. it accused her of being soft on child molesters an. that actually backfired. it increased her name recognition. it helped her through the primary.

now she is facing a challenge in the election as well. we are seeing these groups in races across the country. $200,000 into a county race in missouri. there still time for them to do that. of electingea judges is as old as the country. what has changed? why is there so much money devoted to it? the citizens united decision which opened the door for unlimited corporate spending. this is a natural outgrowth. thing has been the slow loosening over time of standards for how judges should operate as canids. the supreme court about a decade said they have free

speech rights like any other candidate. to localizeowed certain positions. to say ifllowed they'd agree or disagree with a supreme court decision. that is another factor. ae third one i think is realization by groups that it is important to have a certain amount of influence in the judicial branch as the legislative. a judicial fairness initiative. they are trying to guarantee outcomes. they want to align conservative justices with conservative legislatures. wisconsin. in they upheld the controversy a labor reforms that the governor passed. host: we are here to talk about

the states of electing judges, especially the higher-level justices. the supreme court's in states. you can join the conversation. you can join us on twitter or facebook. in the pieceture beasley. eas of mentioned the support publicans. she is supported by democrats? guest: when she ran for the appeals court, she took advantage of a program that ofled for public financing

judicial candidates. it takes the fund-raising pressure off candidates like her. that started as a public defender. clinicalot create contacts the would give her a helpers. host: remind us when she was first elected. thet: she was elected to appeals court in 2008. she was appointed to the supreme court in 2012. comedy justices on the court in north carolina? guest: there are seven. host: we are looking at the importance of electing judges and justices.

let's go to your calls. this is lawrence in san francisco. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. say major influence and major results have occurred from judgments political or otherwise affecting the elections and the status of the economy. suit of bille simons who was a gubernatorial graydate running against davis in california. he was the governor at the time. about won a judgment of $305 million. nobody has heard of him cents. -- nobody's heard of them since then.

you don't care of him doing anything anymore. effect of that large of a judgment and then the election of arnold schwarzenegger in the state of , it was very significant. we have all of the history in the world about what can be done in every state from a standpoint the decisions of judges properly placed in properly used. we will get a reaction. guest: you're talking about the impact it a state supreme court

can have. that gets lost a little bit. emphasis on the federal system. serve asa judiciary to a check or a rubberstamp on a legislature. there is a study by the american constitution society that shows that sitting at a justices who received half their contributions from a business tended to side with those interests two thirds of the time. seeing a relationship between donations and outcomes. host: this may be the piece that you are referring to. campaign ads may influence elected judges. the two examined involving 470 2 states.

not only, you mentioned favorable rulings, unfavorable closer to election time for criminal defendants. mentioned, she had these soft on crime ads run against her. i think there is great concern showsf a judge or justice independence or goes against the grain or supports the constitutional right of a defendant, that material is going to be used against them in a campaign ad.

of adse do have a couple in that north carolina justice race. let's take a list. >> we want judges to protect us , alongild molesters sued law that lettuce track child robin hudson sided with the predators. she took the side of a convicted molester. robin hudson, not tough on child molesters. that is one you referring to. how did she fight back against that? she had to raise a lot of money for one thing. a lot of newspapers editorialized against the ad and thought that it was unfair. ex postes involved facto laws. applies a punishment

retroactively to a defendant who art he served their time. there was a real constitutional point at play. she felt thee, entire affair boosted her name recognition. it had the reverse result. name recognition is the name of the game and most of these races. even telling voters who you are and you are on the ballot, we see a phenomenon where people will vote at the top of the ticket and leave the spaces for judicial candidates blank because they have no idea who they are. money plays a role in influence. host: let's hear from maryland. welcome. c-span.thank you for thank you for your writing. i want us to just ask if you are familiar with justice o'connor's

position on justices running for election. i wondered if alec is involved in any of these. isst: as far as i know, alec not involved. they concern themselves basically working with state legislators in terms of developing legislation. to your question about justice o'connor, she was part of the majority in a case out of minnesota that candidates have free-speech rights. she later regretted that decision. opened door to a lot of stomping and politics she finds distasteful. as long as we have the current majority in the u.s. supreme

court, we will see a trend. quested any of the current supreme court justices ever have to run for a state election to your knowledge? >> on the top of my head, i cannot think of anyone. justice o'connor was an elected official. on the current supreme court, and don't only me to this, i think they come from federal appeals courts and things like that. >> that call was from maryland. looking at the ballot in maryland, you get a judge from the circuit court and the judicial court. among the highest courts, the appeals court, it is a little different. you vote for continuance in office. there is a judge but whether or not that justice stays on the bench. >> this is an alternative system to stray elections.

what people call retention elections. on the front end, the judicial candidate is screened by a bipartisan board in terms of qualifications. those candidates referred to the governor or the legislature. they are reported to the bench and eventually they stand for election. they take a little money out of the front of this. is pouring into that race. there is no opponent. that has not stopped her party group from running ads. north carolina, don, welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call. when you started the call come it was all about money. and who back to. as opposed to, what were some of the rulings that got people

upset. when we talk about politics, it is all about money. the majority of states voted for marriage between a man and a woman. the judicial system all of a sudden says now it is ok to have two men marry. that is not what the people wanted. you can understand why they get upset. a lot of it stems back to justice supreme court candidates. i think all three of them lost their seats. i think that was successful. but what we're getting to is the

idea, and this disturbs a lot of advocates, outcome based judging, basically that money will put a proxy on the court for a specific interest or a specific point of view and you will basically guarantee an outcome if you have the right majority on the court. against the court finding a case as it comes to it here it is a great concern to people who watch these things. one in the citizens united case said, there is no perfect system. -- what is he getting at there? the idea that courts should be accountable. as the caller noted, if voters

are upset with a certain ruin, they should have the right to see a supreme court justice. a lot of people would not necessarily disagree with that era do not think anybody is talking about taking the vote completely away from people. how much do you want it to resemble the rest? >> the supreme court justices in north carolina, they run for the seat? guest: they run for the seat. 90% run on some level. in fact,carolina, judicial candidates can openly solicit for money. that is only true in a handful of states. they're on the phone 20 times a week. it is the people who are going to before these courts that are giving donations to the candidates.

it has sessions when they are off for a long time. host: the caseload is consistently have a. guest: it is not huge but a lot of it involves turning down appeals from the lower court. they have a big impact on policies. host: we have a caller from north carolina. caller: good morning. behind these judges. most people just look at it, there is nothing there. we do not want to waste our vote. that is what i feel like i would do. i do not know about anyone else. if i do not know what the offers are. i am wondering if you have got an answer to that. the thank you very much. make a greatk you

point. the fantasy that these elections are nonpartisan, and the reality. north carolina ideally is the place they should not have agendas. they should be there to apply the laws. have a reality is, you group of candidates on one side backed by the republican party and another group backed by democrats. it may not be so bad for voters looking to find some sort of ideological identification with a candidate, to actually just go out and declare i am a republican or a democrat. there is so little information about who the candidates are and where they come from. houston, texas, robert is on the line, democrats. caller: good morning. i listened to your program and what i am concerned about is

that the whole judicial system, beginning with the supreme court, has gotten so political that there is too much influence by people on judges opinions. you are talking about justice o'connor. do not ever forget justice to allow thed state of florida to shut down the recount. she wanted to make sure there was a republican president who would nominate a republican to replace her when she retired to take care of her husband. this whole business about nonpolitical justice system is so much hot air, and i do not know what you can do about it,

but supposedly, the justice system was not supposed to be political. i do not know where you go from here. something needs to be done about it. most of the paperwork involved selecting judges. judges do you get to vote on their and your election area? filled out a paper ballot and mailed it in. involved. two pages most of the first page was judges, left and right. did you feel like you knew what you were doing? caller: no. when it comes to that kind of thing, i will vote democratic.

i will not vote republican. host: thank you for the call. his experience there. guest: i think he brings up a great point. we talk about the federal system which is all appointment based. it can be as rife with politics as anything else. when you look at the supreme yout or the federal court, can almost predict an outcome based on a panel or group on which side appointed the judge and justice. you can generally see how they're going to line up. the conservative majority, we see that in the appeals courts all the time. presidents will always say they want to keep politics out of the process, but the truth is, it is impossible. the next time we have a supreme court, we will see it all over again. this goes down to the state level.

governor has the power to door,t, that is a closed backroom process. it involves

but, yeah, the reform will have to be state by state. at some point it's going to have to be the public that gets concerned about the flow of money into these races. host: our guest is james oliphant who is the white house correspondent for "national journal." his featured piece in "flal journal," when judges go courting. supreme court candidates have had to become more like partisan politicians and you can find that at nationaljournal.com. back to calls. this is lafayette, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i want to talk about a race that we're having up here in lafayette, indiana. the gentleman's name is wanting to work two jobs for this election thing, and the -- he said he'll keep his other job.

i was in the -- he works at the boys and girls club and i went in there and i was talking fought -- to the person at the desk talking about the drug war and just like the drug war is like the prohibition of alcohol. before they passed that law there were murderous alcohol gangs until they passed that law. host: is he running for a justice position in indiana? caller: it broke up all the murderous -- murderous outlaw gangs. host: all right. we're focusing on judicial races in states. to milton in philadelphia, pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: yeah. thank you for taking my call. look, i'm not so sure what we 14ud be about the judiciary because they have problems, just look at the supreme court and the way they ruled. you have election law -- where you have judges in states that

run but then they have to campaign. and so -- and so we have a traffic court job who accepted a gift and then you have our supreme court justice castillo who goes on these junkets that are paid for by people that come before them. you have supreme court justices like clarence thomas. maybe we should have public financing where judges are not allowed to accept gifts, where their campaigns are publicly funded. so that way when they get on the bench they won't be beholden to anybody and they would have to run on their record as a lawyer or whatever. that's my comment. thank you. guest: i think as we noted before, there was a public finance regime in north carolina that was repealed by the republican legislature. this also happened in wisconsin, but there are some problems with that legally because the supreme court a couple years ago looked at a public financing scheme in arizona and struck down as a

violation of equal protection saying they gave an unfair advantage to certain candidates. sore i'm not quite sure. there's probably a way to do it where it passes this constitutional muster but it's a challenge for -- republicans will tell you or conservatives will tell you -- >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm bob thompson, visiting scholar here working to develop a problem in agriculture and food security. teaching a couple courses in that area. i'm delightful in continuing our seminar in international agriculture topics that today we have former secretary of agriculture dan glickman here to talk about food security and government dysfunction can progress be made in the current environment. dan is executive director of the aspen institute congressional program, a nongovernmental, nonpartisan educational program for members of the united states congress.

he's also senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center which promotes bipartisanship in addressing the key challenges that confront the united states. b.p.c., he co-chairs the commission on political form, democracy project, nutrition and physical activity initiative and the task force on defense budget and strategy. secretary glickman was secretary of agriculture from 1995 to 2001. before that he represented kansas' fourth district in the united states house of representatives for 18 years. during that time he served on the ag committee. he was chairman of the subcommittee responsible for our farm programs for six years. he also was an active member of the house judiciary committee and served as chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence. two other interesting features of dan, he served as chairman of the motion pictures association of america from

2004 to 2010, and he also served as director of the institute of politics at harvard's kennedy school from 2000 to 2004. dan, we're delighted to have you here today and welcome to the podium. [applause] >> well, thank you, bob. and i'm most appreciative, bob thompson is my hero. if you had to ask me the smartest man in the world or the person i think is the smartest person in the world on agriculture policy,s this man who just introduced me and many are privileged to have him in your class. he's been dean of agriculture at purdue, usda when i was a congressman and he -- i think he still likes me. it was during the reagan years and i wasn't always the most friendly member of the legislative body during that time period.

any event, i'm just delighted to be here. listening to my biography, it sounds like i can't keep a job. remember the frank sinatra job, i've been a poet, a pauper, cange. i've been about 19 different things in my life, but my interest in food and farm issues and related global agriculture issue and my interest in the u.s. congress and how it operates and our government kind of ties these issues together. and so i -- but i don't think -- there's a lot of experts in food and farm policy, global agriculture policy. i want to give a slightly more political science perspective today, because we have an election coming, if you haven't noticed if you watch tv all the time and can't turn off these very enlightening and constructing advertising from these candidates running for office. i think you have to look at our political system and how it functions. i'm going to talk mostly about the u.s. political system today

even though i know there are people from overseas here, because i think it has a lot to do with what food and agriculture and farm and global policies are all about. i think -- and you got to understand the politics of this country, specifically, and also the politics of agriculture and food to get a picture about what -- what can we do, what should we do, what should be the united states be doing as we deal with food security issues and how we impact the rest of the world. i think one general theme is that production agriculture interests are very powerful here in the u.s. and in most countries. and they are disproportionately more powerful than the numbers of people who are in the field. so if you look at today in the united states, anywhere between are working for food

than working on the farm. then when you look at u.s. policy as it relates to farm programs and related issues, you really see that there is historically a much greater power in the interest of agriculture than there are in the numbers of people in this country. that's not only true in the u.s., that's true in western europe and u.s., india. i was just in the gentlelady from it's true in spades in japan where the interest of food producers is disproportionately more powerful than their numbers are and especially when you consider the numbers of folks in rural settings. now, in the u.s., this disproportionate power -- notice i'm not saying excessive power. i'm saying disproportionate power compared to population is baked into our constitution by the fact that each state has two senators. so whether it's wyoming with

700,000 people or california with over 50 million people, they're each represented by the exact same number of people in our government. the senate is the great protector of agriculture. has been since the beginning of time and still remains that way. whereas the house of representatives may have about 40 or 50 members that are predominantly food production districts. every united states senator represents at least some food production. that includes the smallest states of rhode island and delaware to, of course, the largest states. and historically those interests were dominated by people from the midwest in the heartland states, so illinois, indiana, missouri, my own state of kansas and the midwest up through the dookts and states in the house where -- dakotas and states in the house who were elected forever.

and they accumulated great amounts of power and they were able to influence the political process rather significantly so the states of mississippi, which is one state that has accumulated a large amount of power over the years, but all the southern states, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, southern crop, had very, very powerful defenders in the congress. and that's why programs like tobacco, cotton and rice, you know, were -- got special treatment. even in big states that have big urban populations, states like california or in the pacific northwest, even in the northeast where you tend to have smaller producers, those producers and those interests have very strong defenders in and among their senators. so, for example, in the state of vermont, senator patrick leahy had been chairman of the agriculture committee and nobody's more tenacious defending agriculture in

vermont which had a population of about 650,000 or 700,000 people and, of course, did a very good job protecting the dairy industry in all those years. ok, so those interests, particularly in the senate -- and we still have it. our constitution has not changed and even in the last farm bill it was the senate where the ultimate action was taken to facilitate this bill getting actually finished, those interests have a lot to do with not only u.s. farm policy but u.s. trade policy. you know, in addition to the variety of commodity programs that we have to deal with. so that's certainly a given right now. the senate is a big factor in why u.s. farm policy has remained largely unchanged since the great depression. there have been changes, of course, but the population of this country has gone from a population about 40% rural before the second world war to less than 10% rural today, and

yet the programs are still very widely supported in the congress. now, in the -- about 40 years ago, a political calculus was made in this area that this wouldn't last forever. and that a new equation was needed to add to this coalition to keep this funding arrangement. smart snoors like snoors dole and mcgovern and others decided, you know, just looking at the demographic, at some point there wouldn't wont be people working on farms. a new coalition was developed with people who needed food assistance. nd so that coalition was demonstrated by attention to snap or the old food snap program, school meals, the w.i.c. program, women, infans and children, and others and that created an alliance

between urban and rural interests that grew up largely the 1960's and 1970's and which lafted -- lasted until pretty much today. that coalition is frayed. it's no question it was frayed. it was almost blown up in the last farm bill. but the coalition between food producers and food consumers who use these federal assistance programs basically kept this farm bill politically alive for a very, very long time. as i mentioned, people like dole and mcgovern and leahy, largely in the senate, alknow there were some in the house -- although there were some in the house, largely in the nat, brought these people together -- in the senate, brought these people together to bring a coalition between the house and the senate. the irony in all of this is na rural and farm interests -- that rural and farm interests are largely more conservative politically than the country as a whole.

and historically lean republican. and yet were reliable voters for farm legislation which included large amounts of government payments for both farmers and nutrition programs as well as supporting international assistance and exports and anything to benefit but the farm economy. so under the theory that political theory is merely the rationalization of economic self-interest, farmers had a lot of economic self-interest that kind of belied their kind of traditional republican, less government interventionist beliefs on about everything else. so you would find farm supporters in congress supporting these programs and often not supporting other federal programs that had the overnment, you know, growing in this way. so the other point i want to make, while the president and the executive branch is certainly important in terms of

making farm policy and in policymaking generally, but in farm and agriculture programs, overall since the depression it has been congress which has led the decisions on farm and commodity programs and nutritional assistance programs. not the white house but the congress. it's one -- when i was secretary of agriculture, i was there from 1995 to 2001, and the congress passed a farm bill in 1996 called freedom to farm and i talked to president clinton about this on repeated occasions but it was clear even when i was secretary that the decisions were made in the legislative branch. we implemented them. we could modify them to some degree but probably not since the days of henry waltz has congress had been able to assert itself -- that the president has been able to assert himself dramatically in these programs and that's been

true of colin clinton, it was true -- true of clinton, it was true of bush and obama. they were not the driving force behind this farm bill. it was the congress. this is sometimes very difficult for people outside the united states to understand, because understanding our political systems, we have something called separation of powers. where we have checks and balances, where the executive branch is not the head of state . we actually don't have a head of state formally like a prime minister. when we debate farm issues and trade issues and talk about the role of the congress, it's very difficult for people outside the united states to understand that we have a system that's built on separation, not working together. our system, political system, was built on basically having one foot on the brake and one foot on the accelerator at all times. that's what the founding fathers designed and whether

they wanted it or not it was designed that way. so for anything to work in america, you have to get along. and it's not like a parliamentary system where the prime minister is the leader of his or her party and can generally decide -- can generally decide what to do. so my point in all of this is that congress is the dominant force. the senate is historically been the dominant force. the coalition between rural and urban interests has been forged over the years largely between the coalition of nutrition and more traditional farm program levels, and that has been the case until the current time. but the coalitions, especially between rural and urban and conservative and liberal are becoming more frayed in this country. the last farm bill, the coalition just about broke up and dissolved. it took over two years.

the bill was around two years late, and in large part because ideological politics dominated rather than the kind of consult tiff and cooperative politics that has been traditional in farm programs over the years. the congress did finally pass a farm bill. it took nearly three years of delay and pulling teeth by a few people, particularly in the senate and the house chairman. there were people in both houses of congress but, again, it was largely people in the congress that got this bill passed. so i mention all this because then i got -- you got to look to the context of politics generally right now and it's no secret that most people are looking at our political system, even inside our political system and seeing it just doesn't feel right. it's just not working the way it should. people do nothing but fight and kill and scream and/or engage

in kind of tribal politics where very little can get -- very little future legislation can get done. so when you look at agriculture and food security and all these enormous challenges that i'll touch in toward the end of my remarks, kind of got to look at our political system. the reason why is because america has been a driving force behind so many things to deal with the rest of the world and bringing developing world up into more modern ways of coping and dealing with food security issues and humanitarian issues. other countries are engaged too, but the united states has been such a driving force for these programs as well as for others as well that you wonder what's happening in the big picture right now, what is it that the country doesn't seem to have its act together? because if we don't have our act together, it will be very difficult for us to influence

issues like research and climate and yields and a whole source of litany of issues that impact the world at large. so i want to just talk about that for a second. in the context of these large issues affecting american politics, bipartisanship, civility and working across party lines which has been a very strong theme throughout the history of american politics, those themes are frayed right now and we've got to figure out ways to restore those in order for the united states to maintain its leadership in food, food security, agriculture and everything else that you can think of. i've been at a place called the bipartisan policy center for about 3 1/2 years now. it was started by the last four senate majority leaders, senators dole, dashle, mitchell

and baker. two republicans, two democrats. so people will come up to me and say, boy, you've been doing a hell of a job at this bipartisan policy center the last 3 1/2 years and my response is just how think how -- just think how terrible it would be, we would have a revolution by now. the point is that the kinds of themes and trust that are needed to make our country function better are so much harder to achieve. and if you look in the area of riculture and food where you consider 1.5% of the people are actually producing the food and maybe have 10% in the whole sector that it is so critically important that these bridges be built with other parts of our country and that there be some sort of glue to bring the country together in order to solve the problems. they are becoming harder and harder to solve, and as i said,

our system only works if there's trust. trust is the grease that allows people of different philosophical views to work together. and i repeat this because i think it's important. the branches of government between our -- within our constitutional system are equal. so the congress and the president and the courts are equal, and if you don't get that then you can't explain why it is that we're having so much trouble right now. because when you have people of equal authority and legitimacy working on problems, one of those people has to work to give a bit in order to get the other thing done. it reminds me of the relationship between me and my wife. i will tell you that the relationship is an equal relationship. my dad used to say he always had the last word in my family. my mother would say shut up and i'd say ok.

the truth of the matter is is that it takes two to tango and that kind of consensus building is what's important. we did not want the tyranny of too powerful executive so we agreed that this political system would exist where we would be separate and we'd have checks and balances and no one place in our government would have excessive power over another place. but it works only if if people could get along. it works only if the public demands that people get along with each other. my own belief is 80%, 85% of the american people want the system to work better. it's just the 15% or so that are the driving forces in our political system. they're the ones that are pushing politicians to the edge. and they're the ones, i think in some part responsible for the kind of ads that you see on tv. we -- our system cannot operate as a parliamentary system like the brits do or the japanese do or other places because of separation of powers.

and if we try to operate like a parliamentary system so the parties are unanimous and rigid and work together on everything, then it's surely going to break down. so we'll see what happens in these elections on tuesday. watching all the commentary speak about them, you know, i'm hopeful that a lesson from all of this is that the public will speak and message of civility and bipartisanship will be heard as a result of this election. i don't know. we have two more years of a presidency and, of course, the day after this election starts the elections of 2016. but, again, i'm hopeful that we will be able to resolve this. now, how does this all -- i talked a little bit about our political system because i spent all this time in the legislative branch of government and i think one has to understand it before you take a look at the issues of

food security and food production, food and health and everything. so i start with the basic principle in this whole area and this is the good news. the good news is that food agriculture were pretty much parochial issues and they were part of the people from those states or those parts of the country that produced the food. and now agriculture and food security issues are much higher, up on the international jeageedjeand. they are integral topics in these meetings whether the g-8 g-8 e g-20 or g-7 1/2 or and issues of the environment, of water, of population, of feeding the hungry world in a sustainable way, these are much higher worldwide priorities than they used to be. the downside for some in agriculture means that some folks are now in this game watching these issues. it used to be just let's say

the land grant schools or just the people who represent commodity grids. now you have consumers, economists, the nonagriculture sector is very interested in food security issues. politically they are bigger issues because their impact on international situations and the destabilization of countries that are -- don't have access to an adequate food supply. napoleon once said that war is too important to be left to the generals. and my theory is agriculture and food interests are too important just to be left to the people in agriculture. that sometimes is a hard fact for people who spent their lives in traditional production agriculture to accept. but the fact of the matter is that feeding a hungry world is a very high political priority and it's one that fortunately as come up significantly since

i first got into politics about 40 years ago. so that's good news. and that good news i think helps policymakers, whether they're in congress or around the world, focus on some of these important long-term issues affecting agriculture. there is now a realization, another piece of good news -- bad news. the bad news is we've been underfunding research in agriculture. the good news is there is a realization that we're underfunding research. bob and others and i tried to be involved in this have been quite involved and engaged in talking about the fact that dollars spent on agriculture and food research have been falling in real terms for the last 20 years and the challenges are getting bigger and the amount of money going into research is getting smaller. the research that's being done is not very prioritized, in my judgment. a lot of it is the research done earlier and does not necessarily meet where the gaps are in the future.

the bad news a little bit is that very little attention was given to research during the debate on the farm bill. i don't think that congress even held one hearing during the farm bill on research. most of the hearings are going to be on what the -- crop insurance program will look like or the payment level to farmers will look like. it's important if you live in that part of the country. what kind of long-term research is needed to make our agriculture competitive and with respect to the debates of the future are already that critical. so where are the gaps in the future of agriculture, agriculture policy, agriculture research? i'll give you a litany of some of these gaps. the first gap, of course, is as population grows, how do we feed this large group of growing numbers of people, particularly in the developing world? now, that is a huge problem. however, i'm a little bit of a contrarian on this problem.

because i think we just accepted that the population will grow another three billion people or so. maybe. maybe we'll get a better handle in population planning. maybe we get a, you know, a better handle on the developing world internal and we just don't have to meet those functions. know that most people believe that population growth figures are a given. i am not sure. i hope that i'm wrong -- i mean, i hope i'm right about this. the second challenge is how to feed these people sustainably ripping up for us and fragile farmland. the has been a fair amount of farmland at high farm prices has been plowed under. a real serious problem with respect to our national resources.

conservation and national resources is a big thing. critically , it is important to agriculture to understand that the support of future of farm programs is on the part dependent public believing that agriculture interests are, in fact, good stewards of the public land. increasing crop yields is another issue. increase has been slowing significantly, especially with respect to the rogue crops. how do we deal with it? how do we deal with is sustainably and how to use technology in the way to increase yields? dealing with rising food prices. in the as a big factor last decade. farm prices -- in many cases have fallen rather dramatically. it is going to go back up again.

the demographics of agriculture will have that we extremely volatile food prices over the next two or three decades. global variability, warming, co2 emissions -- how that is going to affect agriculture. agriculture recognizes this problem, some in are fighting this problem that there is, in fact, global warming occurring. role in both as a cause and prevention of this issue. i spoke not long ago to a big crowd of farmers -- i won't tell you exactly which group, i was just amazed -- this was about a year and half ago. there were about 1000 farmers there and the intensity of feelings about this epa -- epa -- i american r seen an

agency so vilified as i saw the epa. never seen the suspicion, especially about climate science, so vilified. this is something that we in agriculture have to figure out. both ways have it and science. is very much ight suspicious, politically wise -- it is not the science of climate change. they embrace arge, the technology. the left is very suspicious the science of biotechnology, and embraces the science of climate change. remember senator moynihan said, " you can have your own have ons, but you cannot your own fax." what has the areas of science is people have

the faxed with -- facts with ideology. certainly, one of our challenges in the future is how on the same page when it comes to these issues of science and technology. because many of the problems going to be solved. energy -- okay, agriculture is perhaps the largest per-unit user of energy in this country. that is one place where there is a remarkably positive thing happening. this country is likely to become energy independent in the next decade. we are the largest -- or will -- producers of natural gas in the world. if you are looking at some of the positives of agriculture, the power of energy energy availability, energy pricing, to make agricultural a lot more competitive.

one final thing which i think is important to consider is the issue of the rural, urban interface. world moved of the regions, especially in china, it has significant impact on food production, water utilization, and climate. these are great challenges of the future. are our political systems able to deal with these political challenges? in , you know, i work a lot the foundation world, with corporations and ngos. they are all very important, skill ne can provide the of government -- none. a hungry nt to feed world -- nobody has been more out in the front of this than the gates foundation. even bill and melinda gates

were small in connection with the scope and size of government to deal with these massive problems. great that the s foundation world, the ngo are d, the corporate world all involved -- they are the forefront of a lot of the issues and what we need to be doing to change policy. what gauge and rockefeller and ford other foundations are doing. but we cannot forget that the amount of ve money, the capital, and the influence to help solve these problems. i will say this in a bit of a chauvinistic sense. no one has this more than the united states of america. great symbol of leadership that we have been able to be, historically, a in feeding hungry people and helping folks develop themselves. the real question for us is can we continue to do it given the

political system that we currently have. i mentioned our research establishment. some of you may know that to $250 could add million fund, called the foundation for food and agriculture research. the secretary why of agriculture decided me to cheer that fund. we are going to look at new and to provide ways agriculture research initiatives that the private sectors can't seem to -- or don't want to fund because they don't have a short-term impact on their bottom line. and in many cases, the other parts of our federal research don't want to -- or haven't taken the risks involved. some slightly more interesting and less short-term funding that is going to come out of the government, but our research establishment needs to

be given the resources by the by the private sector to continue to work on these problems. and we also need to take a look internally and prioritize the kind of research is being done. quite frankly, a lot of the research being done in -- in the public sector on basic as focused research -- in many cases, it is not very well prioritized. little editorial comment there. we need to figure out how to use new information technologies to help farmers with d the world cope pricing and weather. one of my do with erest has to whether surveys -- weather we get farmers to rainfall cess amounts, droughts, and other weather variability. what we need to be doing is the tools to s

determine what pricing there their tting for commodities and weather-related kind of thing -- in order to make them more accommodating to the future. food waste -- 30% of food is wasted. in the united states, too, believe it or not. we are an affluent country, we more than we use, and we eat more than we need. i'm speaking for myself as well as everybody else. a large part a terrible roads, bad governance, intermittent electricity. sometimes you think that if we could minimize food waste by 25% it would have a remarkable impact on our ability to view the world. soil erosion, that much less land that has to

be planted on. i'm struck with this whole ebola situation. it is to be clear that people healthier and better to survive e likely the disease. i do not think that we have focused enough on the between what you eat and how healthy you are. lady and the rst some dent have gotten slack from people, but to be believe ith you, if you the old philosophy you are what you eat, then we shouldn't be afraid -- producers of food should not be afraid to look at the relationship between diet and having good science that gives us focus on that. quick issues before i conclude. water resources, water availability. water is the lifeblood of agriculture and, you know, new technology -- we have to figure

crops tter ways to grow and raise animals utilizing less water. capacity to ave the the area of in urbanization, it is going to be a bigger and bigger challenge all the time. i mentioned roads and transportation. infrastructure is the greatest need of the developing world. it is a rope system where people can move across. the united states have a role that kind of thing. finally, governance -- oversees governance is not good. the rule of law is not well appreciated. contract compliance is an effective. build a ally hard to system of self-sufficiency that we have so what we had in our country. that i said quote before, " war is too important to be left to the generals." stake in these issues. whether you work in an automobile plant whether you

work in a farm. the issues are bigger than ag and food issues. the ability of sustainability to produce enough food. the question is do we have enough will. is our political system up to that. hopefully it is. think it will be with a lot of tugging and pushing and pressure. this the help of folks in room and others, we really have no alternative to that. bob, thank you. thank you all very much for listening to this conference. [applause] >> thank you very much, dan, for that enlightening lecture. we will take questions from the participants.

who has the -- let's start in the corner. state your name, too. alum here from 74, a student again. a very important point involving an ngo in india. we cannot upscale, only governments can. is show the can do way. you seen excellent transmission from ngos showing the way and governments picking up the scale at a rapid pace? >> well, i will give you one example. ethiopia, they have -- they always had a problem pricing coffee. can never ke a coffee figure out what they were going product and how

-- part of it was a marketing problem. the efforts of usaid and others, they created a coffee exchange. now there is a mechanism where using their cell phones and their smart devices, can access more current information on coffee prices. has had a nd it remarkable effect on the income. think the administration's efforts to feed the future, and bush administration's -- orts on the pet farm which were dramatic. it is funny, a lot of people don't talk about it. in my political circles, george bush tends to get the same sort of negative views that barack obama does from the tea party.

those policies then had an impact and allow people to move up the income chain. the same way with how president with feed been doing the future have been really helpful. not only in south africa, but latin america as well. foundations and the ngos are often at the cutting edge of what needs to be done. i -- i have to tell you at the gates foundation is doing around the world in experimenting. see, they can experiment and fail. the government, if it fails, congress does not like that very well. they sometimes use the failure as an example. is so t is why it incredibly important that these foundations and related ngos inspire the government to do their work. repeat what you said, only the government can scale these projects up.

>> another question right here in the corner. >> hi, i am ben hirschman. thank you for coming to speak to us and thank you for the bipartisanship. a lot of us are appreciative of that. touched on energy security and how there is some positive aspects there. i wanted to ask if you could speak more about the security ion of food and energy security, particularly with regard to how certain crops are grown, both food and for energy. >> i think my friend bob thompson may be able to better comments than i can. i know that in africa we had to provide tive enough electricity so that farmers can be relatively independent in terms of their own living standards, as well as small production facilities. of food waste -- to

really deal with a lot of those issues, .you have to have electricity that country to the farm gate it is a struggle, but it is an area where the ability of in an ments to function uncorrupt atmosphere -- can lead to some real successes in this area. my big point overall was the that the united states, is becoming t time, energy self-sufficient. to hink that that is going change our attitude over the next decade or so, politically, of how we approach whether it is the middle east or whether it is china. we operate in a relatively in terms of our attitudes and practicality. that is going to change in the future.

the final thing as technology. my prediction is that with the rapid movement of technology, we will be able to produce devices for small-scale use them to do llow things that use far less energy relying on solar energy, i am not exactly sure just have to we that entrepreneurial spirit. >> the only thing i would add is in respect of food crops from which to -- produce biofuels. am a technology optimist i believe that if we invest can gh in productivity, we feed the future better than today without destroying the environment. we're not investing enough in research today to publish that. need to ate is that we grow production two thirds.

there is 10% less lands to grow on without cutting trees and we'll probably have to do it with less water because it is our outbidding farmers for water. so with that, as i said, i am a technology optimist. we can raise productivity fast enough to do both. at the moment we are not. so i sense there is some competition between food and fuel. >> the question here in the middle. >> thank you, mr. secretary. rob with international fertilizer development center. you really touched on surrounding issue agriculture, food security, and i look back in terms of the of crossing partisan lines and creating a -- a coalition that works across party lines.

there needs to be, usually, a that leads the way. i think the law in the 50's was that sort of leading-edge that started a working together. when i look at the eight or issues that you addressed, i do not see any of them as being the leading issue which gives the opportunity for both sides of the aisle to cross lines in this environment. give me some hope that there is one that we might focus on. >> well, i think hunger -- worldwide hunger is an issue. hunger and poverty are and emely important issues i do think there is a for rtisan support alleviating world hunger. from a humanitarian there is a , when drought or flood or tsunami, there, you clearly have

bipartisan support. to do the development type things to bring people together. i sense it is there. the religious community believes that. the corporate world is now -- business world is now very in the developing world and will become more so in the years to come. and -- you know -- it is difficult in our country with the divisions that exist on so many issues and people are coming together. the sales job has not done very well. people, okay, how much do you think we spend on foreign assistance? the average person was a 20%, 50%, 10%. it is 1% -- less than 1%. and that often includes military assistance. always been has

good at recognizing because we more than we consumed, so we were always very much involved in the sales and humanitarian side of the picture. i think that is going to continue for a long time to come. now you see when the big chasm drops in commodity prices -- i think is going to happen again -- and, quite honestly, this is theory of government -- the president of the united states is the only one who represents everybody. the president has to be a leader on this issue. i think president obama has on feed the job i think his administrator has been incredible. in the same way that president issue in the health sub-saharan africa and he was able to trump the more forces in this country by saying it is in our american interests. let's look at the evil a crisis

for one moment -- ebola issue for one moment. this is a crisis that i think we will get through. everybody kind of ignored it, it is happening somewhere else. you see what is happening to quarantine issues. we just have to continue a better job of explaining to people that america is part of these issues are critical, and what happens to food security will impact us directly. it is just a constant battle. on the aisle e there. former us trade negotiator. i worked with bob thompson on the last successful global agreement and agriculture. >> what year was that, by the way? >> in the 80's. >> okay, i didn't think he was quite settled. >> what we haven't had an

agreement since. the world in ted all h -- but agriculture around the world is posited on the opposite. that is that we have overproduction. we negotiated several commitments during the go around, but then the u.s. changed our form program where it may be difficult to abide by our commitments in the future cycle of low prices. my question is how can the states, if it were to violate its commitments as a its own domestic program, expect the rest of the abide by your commitments for food? and this is not not farm of farm,

domestic politics -- how are protect their export markets if we do not have a system which allows us to abide by our commitments? >> so it is like do as i say, not as i do, so to speak. i think it is a very important point. this last is that us into a moves direction which is less dependent on, what i call, sir plus-based agriculture programs. and it is more based on -- if get used to that come it will be helpful in making sure farmers know that trade is something that is chemical to that you have to -- what is good for the goose is good for the gander. when i was secretary, i made a let in mexican avocados into the united states. -- i have -- i the impact of d

farm politics more directly wife wakes day my up nervous and she says, did you see this. there is a picture of a mexican a californian -- avocado grower, and i'm pointing a gun at the guys had because i allowed more avocados into the country. so i began to realize that trade is an extremely ticket comes to n it agriculture -- extremely complicated issue when it comes to agriculture. i worked for presidents who really love trade. this is a high priority to him made a difference -- there are other presidents, i'm my own lking about experience -- i remember when i

was in congress, in the cabinet when nafta came up. he called me personally and said this is important to the united states of america. it is one of the most important things we have ever done. he cared about her very much, the problems e of it h trade is that if becomes too technical, if it is explained into much lawyer talk, then the commodity groups a hold of it and the public is just -- has a mixed reaction to these things, anyways. us white house and the trade representative's office has to look at these issues like they are very high priority to the united states. if they don't, it is really hard to sell. >> there is another hand back your. in the second row. now an e howard, i am independent consultant.

thank you for all you have done over the past years and for a few the future. i have a question, and then a more serious question. the first one is on this getting beyond the ideological lines, to think we made a by, essentially, x-ing out earmarks? back into we look trading currency, it was maybe more important than we realized. >> let me answer that. yes. i think that earmarks need to you know, rent and, nobles find that a rich in the bill -- it really cost nothing, but it was a big issue.

so i think that your marks need to be transparent. i think it is almost impossible process to lative work without people feeling that they have investment in the system. when i was able to get a few things in a bill, they were usually not giant things, i voted for the bill. i supported the whole -- that -- all the way institutions work, that's the way family works. yes is my answer. >> we look forward to that recommendation and policy. my more serious question is that we have a tremendous with this research foundation. private ally struck by sector stepping up in a number particularly on sustainability issues and, sort of, moving beyond -- trying to think how this foundation might platform ore public

for, not just climate change and the source of important ogies -- as as they are -- and really talking about what are the key are facing us everyday -- the droughts in the in insects ncrease -- framing research priorities in terms of those immediate problems and our to grapple with them over the next five, 10, 20 years. i'm wondering about the priority setting process that you perceive for the foundation. >> first of all, secretary has a leadership on this and appointed this committee. we're going to meet for the first time next week. out a strategy and what our investments are going to be. at the legislative history, it is not really specific on this. is that it ing is

requires match to match. i think the implications is that we should deal with gaps we don't know hat to your am sensitive points because i have always talked about the asteroids, the things that could come and hit us and destroy us in some way. i would be prone to not wanting to do too many real long-term things. think that we can partner with the private sector, partner with the university community -- the to match it have means that we need their help as well. i expect and hope that will come. >> there was another hand over here, wasn't there? okay, over to the other side. >> student here. regards the intersection between agriculture policy and what we

can call business policy. there is a lot of criticism that the agriculture industry moving towards higher consolidation, larger squeezing of mega-agriculture programs, and the influence that they play -- not just on how food is made, but policy and, l food sort of the broader agriculture frame. what role do you see consolidation in agriculture and ucers and the checks balances government has, or in some cases, has not placed on those corporations? is a good question. first of all, we have had a trend towards consolidation generically in a most every industry in the last 50 years in this country. banking, airlines -- there are now three, basically for airlines -- so it is kind of generically to.

i guess in hindsight, our more nment could've been forceful and aggressive in looking at competition. perhaps in a more cosmic way. they have done it clinically, to be honest with you. but there are some positive trends in agriculture, too. amount of locally grown agricultural entities has grown exponentially. organic agriculture is growing fast. all the ou look in supermarkets now -- and if you look at major food companies -- developing organic product lines -- not just them, abundantly ning around the country. is sourcing locally now, although walmart is not example to best talk about because they sell

over 20% of the food in the they are ates, but sourcing locally and trying to build a local market, as well. there's a great demand for american people to know where comes from and that know, i don't think we are going to go back to mom and pop agriculture. with bal economy, marketing, transportation, processing, it takes size, in many cases, to feed people. counter argument to that is the public's demand to eat and they want to that eat and not necessarily be -- not necessarily be supplied atmosphere, but demand driven atmosphere. people are just not accepting what is being sold to them. so that, i think, will produce bit of an antidote to the concern that you raised.

notwithstanding that, i would not look to a phenomenally different structure of agriculture in the future. i do think that there is a trend on consumer demand that never existed before. remember the movie field of it, they f you build will come? i do not think anymore that if we grow it, they will buy it. that has changed. people are demanding some input in that process and that is really good. >> another question down here. enmity of denmark -- embassy of denmark. the last five or 10 years, there has been talk about a new global order. do see a new global order within agriculture? i'm china is about how buying land in africa and the

importance of food security in international relations. >> a tough question. you may want to take that for a minute. that e are a couple tends are happening here. brazil has become one of most plays in agriculture the world, in a large part because of the help that our research provided them. another reason we need to make sure ours is not secondary, but primary in the united states. the demand of china and india is dramatic. it is changing not only the course of production, but it is changing demand issues. the other changes diet. now beginning to realize that what you eat has a lot of impact on how long you will live. that is new. i don't think that in all my the house agriculture committee we ever held a meeting on the relationship between how healthy you are and what you eat. those are all kind of new trends in this process.

so i suspect the global order will change. united states will be a leading force in the no matter what happens, given our productive capability in producing food not a lot of other people have. no longer can we set the rules. rules will be set by huge buyers of food, new producers environment issues, and diet. i don't know if you have any thoughts on that. no, that is good. another question right here, chris. >> thank you very much, secretary, for a really interesting chats this morning. at the is chris australian embassy. knotty a bit of a question -- naughty question.

it seems that, certainly in agriculture, there is a schizophrenic nature the way the us looks at policy. you talked about earlier the push to buy local, yet we also have a huge push from the current administration to increase exports. and looking in that almost a -- schizophrenic often difficult, i think, for other cultures to understand the interest -- not he old, do what i say, what i do. every country wants it both ways. they want to protect their producers, produces much, sell as much, not necessarily have to buy as much unless you desperately need what you want, and open markets wherever they exist. overall, us markets have been open.

fairly open. that doesn't mean there are some restrictions in some areas, but overall, our markets have been open; although, australia, new zealand -- you have all change your farm become much more open in terms of your economies and everything else. i think the administration has been doing its best to open its exports, wisely so. i told tom that i envy him. he has presided over the largest increase in exports and history of the united states. part of that is because of pricing and the value of products. part of that is because i think you have done a good job working with the private sector. this -- these tensions are always going to exist and i think that they have to be as sensibly as possible. we have to understand that our be open, as to well, in order for us to

to break down barriers because most of them are outside the united states. our agriculture products are much greater than those tend to get in. >> another question. powers of ercise my the chair to ask one. most other high end countries, -- until the mid-1950's nothing declined more than proportionally than agriculture research within that. congress -- members of the house have two-year term, members of the senate have six-year terms. how do we get research with the fact that gestation periods for new technologies are a lot longer than two years? how to get the kind of research commitment that it will

takediffie the world's larger feed the n -- to world's larger population? >> a good question. i say we have to somehow reserve to benefit humankind. we did that in the 1950's. i think there has been a that the research agenda over the last 20 or 30 years has not been as or estoppel or as -- or as supple. they have been able to produce certain benefits to crops, but the issues -- you are ultimately going to drive people to the issues that affect their gut. some people said what is terrible to the nih -- i said, well, you have cancer or

alzheimer's, you can understand nih gets more research because it impacts people's lives so directly. i think we have to do a better in relating the benefits, both to agriculture, but also to the consuming public. is tough to do, but at least there is the growing recognition led by you and others. this trend does need to change. we'll probably never get as national y as the science foundation, but we need to be on the upside rather than the downside. the story needs to be told better than it has been told. play speare said that the is the thing, and it is true in agriculture research or anything else. is there another question? yes. middle, third row up. >> hi, i have a question about the research priorities you were mentioning.

quality and quantity, you want and better ch i think zation -- which important -- n is any thoughts on what this new foundations -- maybe two or three most promising areas where, if we had the money or focus, we could put more for a greater yields? >> again, somebody -- we need to analyze where the gaps are in the research. of course, i would like to do in in-depth study of the duplicative research being done by agriculture institutions in determining how much of that is necessary. that is probably why i will never be president of a but a rant college, couple things -- water related research, utilization of water,

yields -- yield increases -- to deal with that, pests and diseases, plants and animals in this changing world and the weather that we got in here. but i also think we need technological research like how devices that can get information to farmers faster. not just the agriculture wworld that is doing research, it is the world of high-tech, it is silicon valley as well. we need to think much more broadly then just looking at traditional agriculture research. the final thing as diet. if there is anything that confuses the american people is the cacophony of information about what you should eat and how it relates to your health. that area is crying out for research. many other areas -- just a few that i would mention. >> anybody? yes come over here. >> david leishman.

you could ring if maybe comment -- you talked a lot about political dysfunction. as an employee of the us government, i see a lot of bureaucratic dysfunction as well. can wondering if anything be done to make it a more between the ction political decision-making and how larger objectives, and are transmitted to bureaucracy and, sort of, encourage efficiency in bureaucracy -- must be all nuisance. very good question -- you know -- i know there's of your aquatic dysfunction and i was there as bureaucratic dysfunction when i was there as well. people do not believe that their government is doing their job competently, and functionally.

all the stuff we have seen about the obama care rollout, the va hospital thing, that the system e think doesn't work and so, why should they supported at all. i think it is a big problem. the usda, guy at matt mckenna -- came in from the private sector to help work of the problems -- i think we need more people like him that ghout a government can help -- i think it is a great tribute to the secretary that he brought to me like that in here. if your job, as an employee, is to find a way to root it out -- said than is easier done -- when i was at usda, i think it of people not. i used to -- i used to drive people nuts.

ultimately, leadership has to kind of extract with those things are happening that you could do with. i must tell you, my experience usda was pretty positive in large, the y a employees there serve the customers, the public, very well. a lot of these demands replaced by congress and force their do thing certain ways because a member of the house it in his mind, but i do not demean what you are thinking. i worry about our government being able to stand for value. if it doesn't, it really turns people off. that is bad news for "political news function". in one last question? we think the secretary, let me just announced the next two events in the series. pm across the :30

736, professor to the itus jerry nelson from university of illinois, he is to be talking about sector agriculture priorities versus sustainable environment. and on november 10. so, he last decade or has been the chief policy analyst in the office of the commissioner of agriculture. so we are looking forward to events in the series and we are already working on the schedule for the spring semester from the of february until may. thanks to all of you for coming today. and let's join me in thanking

the secretary. [applause] [indistinct chatter]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> again, a quick reminder that if you missed any of this presentation you can see it on her website, c-span.org. shortly at noon eastern, self policy specialist will take part in a discussion response to ebola. by the heritage foundation and will start in about 10 minutes. we will have live for you here on c-span. a portion now from today's "washington journal" of fact checking. we will show you as much as this is we can. editor for he politifact, which looks at issues in the campaign and judges the truthfulness -- validity or veracity, or

a pants on y are fire lie. as judged by politifact. away we are eight days from election day, if you were that ok at one big issue keeps popping up, in terms of claims made on the campaign trail, what would that be? >> we have seen a lot of diversity in these races, but had to pick one, what we have been seeing is the claims challengers can against democratic incumbents that they voted with president barack obama. they do is they make political ads that say so and so voted with president barack obama. some of these as are somewhat accurate.

in a few cases, they are not so accurate and we have given some half-truths. but that has been one of the repeated comments on the campaign trail. >> tell us about politifact. your do you ensure that research is nonpartisan? and how do you decide what to fact check? a team of journalists, started by the largest newspaper in florida. we since expanded and have the network of news organizations, like the milwaukee journal sentinel. and what journalists we do is policy fact checking. our site is on about policy fact checking. started back in 2007 acres we felt that there was not enough fact checking in political journalism. then, we have been doing just checked ot

of the reality -- it is a database so people can go on our website and look at different topics, people, different races. all of our rint sources, so every report we do, we explain our reasoning, we documents we looked at -- we link to documents the ever possible -- and at with our ve a rating truth-o-meter. when something is false and ridiculous, we rated pants on fire. did that income from? >> back in 2007, we were trying to think of how we wanted to do ratings. at the end of the day, it is a helpful reader service. they know where the reporters and editors are coming from. we wanted a funny rating and one of the reporter said, how

about pants on fire, so we went with it. >> how do you decide on a day-to-day basis what to research? >> we think about what would our readers want to read about. our main goal is to give people the information they need. so, we think about what are the important issues of the day. we try to mix in a few fun once. we don't think of ourselves too seriously. we try to make sure we're looking at all sides of the debate. >> we would like to hear your calls and comments in terms of what you are saying and what is truthful or not. (202) 585-3880 for democrats, (202) 585-3881 for republicans, and (202) 585-3882 for

independents. of the once you have done, do ever go back and say we were wrong on this? >> every now and then. say, it does happen every so often. we are human beings, but for the most part, we have a really good process. we look at everything we can research, we interview experts, we have a process for three editors read every fact check and then we have a meeting and we actually vote on the rating. florida, based in tampa, and so the most recent the most recent issues was the issue at the florida governor's debate. issue of the fan under -- under governor chris' podium. i want to take a look at that some viewers were befuddled -- even the people

let's ting the debate -- take a look and find out what you thought. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have an extremely peculiar situation right now. have governor charlie chris. [applause] scott, governor rick and the mbent governor republican candidate is also in the building. we have been told that governor will not be participating in this debate. now, let me explain what this is all about. governor chris has asked to fan, a small fan, placed underneath his podium.

i e rules of the debate that the scott campaign say that there should be no fan. is a fan there, and for that reason, ladies and told that i am being governor scott will not join us for this debate. [jeering] this is a gentlemen, debate -- rosemary goudreau, what can we say? >> well -- [cheering] >> i'm sad the people of florida are not going to -- asking you a question -- we're not asking a

question of governor chris. i'm talking to rosemary about the situation that we find ourselves in. >> governor, do the rules of the debate say that there should be no fan? that i'm aware of. of the scott es campaign that says that no electronics can be -- >> are we really going to debate about a fan? or are we going to talk about education and the environment and the future of our state? what was the ruling as far as ?aving a fan of that debate we fact checkida with the miami herald. we had never seen an opening like this so we were surprised as everybody else. we looked into the rules of the debate.

if you notice, former governor crist was pretty artful. he said not that i'm aware of. what we found is that debate organizers have put up these rules ahead of time, that the campaigns had to sign off on. one of the elements of the rules said no electronic devices including fans. amusingly, after we published the report, some readers said a fan is not an electronic device. areas with the rules said the charlie crist campaign, when they sent their rules, they made a notation, a handwritten asterisk that said as long as the temperature in the hall is addressed, including a fan of needed. for the reporters covering charlie crist, is pretty well known for bringing a fan with him everywhere he goes. apparently likes to be cool. host: it's florida. guest: it's very warm down there. upre was a fan come