>> the strident -- center for strategic and international studies discussing creating an vaccine.ne -- jhhiv live coverage of that starting at 2:00 eastern here on c-span. throughout campaign 2014 c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country increases that will determine control of the next congress. tonight watch c-span's next election coverage to see who wins and loses in which will get control of the house and senate. canada victory and concession speeches and some of the most closely watched races across the country.

we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. >> we have a facebook question today. do you vote and why or why not? joined the conversation at ok.com/cspan.org. because ines says care about my country and want to have a vote. -- want to have a voice. attorney general eric holder spoke last week at the washington ideas for him and offered his thoughts on the ferguson, missouri shooting and discussed race relations in america. this is about 20 minutes. >> mr. attorney general, i do

not think they are applauding for me. i think they are actually here to see you. i want to start by asking you something that is on msnbc and reported a deal is being worked out that would remove ferguson police chief thomas jackson and wilson, thedarren police officer who shot and killed michael brown this past office in missouri -- this past august in missouri. this is all part of a first step of the ferguson police department. could you shed more light on this story? >> i will say i think the need for wholesale change is appropriate.

>> this is another late in the investigation that has seen a tsunami of leaks since august. you expressed that one point exasperation over the leak is. you call them inappropriate and troubling. explain that. why is that? >> i think somebody has made the determination they are trying to shake public opinion that shape public opinion about the case. that is inconsistent for the way we conduct grand jury investigations which are supposed to be secret. the notion of leak in -- leaking out selective information which started with the release of the tape from the convenience store. what hasleak about happened in the car. these are all kinds of things that i think are inappropriate. i said i am exasperated, which is a nice way of saying i am

mad. >> what can you do about that? >> any recourse? , that partstigation of the investigation is being done by this date and local authorities. we have a separate and independent investigation of our own. whoever is the sources of the leaks are need to shut up. >> i will come back to a different sort of leak. it was widely reported president obama send you down to ferguson for your visit in august when actuality the impetus to go there was from you. why was it important for you to go down to ferguson at that time ? >> i thought that, and i will say i worked with the president

on trying to determine whether or not i was going to go there. the thought i had was there was a possibility that i could have a calming influence by talking to people in the community and did law enforcement. it was one of those trips we landed. this was going to be pretty eventful day. it could be extremely successful or disastrous. it turned out pretty well. a chance to talk to people. >> are we still a nation of cowards when it comes to talking about race or dealing with race? >> i think we are reluctant to talk about issues of race. we have been criticized. i never back off the use of that language. we had these episodic interest in race where we have conversations that i think are too superficial. without confronting these racial issues that continue to divide us, coming up with concrete

actions, we will continue to -- these kinds of problems. >> when it comes to race, folks view you as basically obama anger translator. is that fair? is that fair that you say things about race that the president cannot say or won't say, especially as long as he is in the oval office? without confronting these racial issues that continue to divide us, coming up with concrete actions, we will continue to -- these kinds of problems. >> when it comes to race, folks view you as basically obama anger translator. is that fair? is that fair that you say things about race that the president cannot say or won't say, especially as long as he is in the oval office? >> you have to look at the different jobs. i'm the chief law enforcement officer.

i think the president has a forward leaning and has asked himself in ways that you wouldn't necessarily expect a president to. that was something different. spoke very passionately about these issues. >> you are the first african-american attorney general after the first african-american president of the united states. how has that helped or hurt us moving away from being this nation of -- you said back in 2009? >> we have made great progress given the fact that you have the first -- [person in audience shouting inaudibly] >> attorney general, he is getting to a question i was going to ask you about. he anticipated a question i was going to ask.

[laughter] that is, what do you make of the critique of your tenure being somewhat schizophrenic? one hand you have a terrific record when it comes to civil rights. when it comes to civil liberties, your critics say you have fallen well, short, as a protester said. the justice department is going after folks who are leaking national security information, you're going after journalists who have written stories that

reveal national security information. how do explain that schizophrenic nature of your tenure? >> i do not know if i would agree. we had to look at what we have done. we repudiated some memorandum. it is counter to our values as a nation. we have tried to close guantanamo unsuccessfully. try to work with doing our national security is possibility consistent with the rule of law and again, consistent with our values. i think the torture that is to be released by the senate intelligence committee needs to be released as soon as possible. a whole variety of things. when it comes to whistleblowers, we have gone after people who have said things or reveal things contrary to the oh that

they had taken. when it comes to reporters, what i have said, we made changes in how we interact with members of the media. the on that, what i have said is a guiding force for this administration. any reporter who is doing his or her job gathering the news is not going to go to jail as a result of that kind of activity. >> i think we will take actions that are consistent with what i just said. >> such as compelling testimony? >> we'll see how it goes. we had been in touch with the lawyers. if what we have talked about

remains true, i think there will be a resolution that will be satisfactory to everyone. >> another dark spot on your tenure is wall street. >> i wouldn't agreed that what we talked by is a dark spot. [laughter] >> in terms of critiques of your tenure. jpmorgan, chase, bank of america -- no one has gone to jail. "he cared about national security and civil rights. wall street wasn't even on his radar." is that a fair assessment? why didn't you go after the big bank chiefs? >> when you look at the settlements we got from those institutions and the way we had

use that money to give real assistance to people who suffered as a result of the financial implosion home owners who lost their homes or whom we had helped, i think if one looks at the statistics, you see individuals have gone to jail. we have ongoing investigations that may perhaps produce individual prosecutions. every time we had a settlement with a bank, it is our ability to go after individuals. >> one of the things you are >> one of the things you are notice is your criminal justice reeve or. you have done things on minimum sentencing. you just announced recently the prison population has dropped. why did you pursue specifically this type of criminal justice? why was it important to you?

>> it comes from my experience being a lawyer and having a judge in washington, d.c. and looking at the statistics. one third of the budget goes to the bureau of prisons. it is a growing part of our budget. too many people go to jail for too long for no good law enforcement reason. at that it is time for us to ask some fundamental questions, specific leak on the war on drugs it who week do things more efficiently and in a fair way? you have seen -- a drop in crime, at the same time a drop in the prison population. that is the first time we had

seen that in 40 years. the policies we are putting in place are beginning to work. >> will they last after you are no longer attorney general and certainly after president obama is no longer in the oval office? >> we had to work on ways in which we can institutionalize this. i think it would -- they have interesting supporters. people from the left, the right, conservatives, republicans. i think there is a real chance to visitation was something that would make this more efficient and more fair. >> we have got less than six minutes left. i have a lot more questions to ask. a couple years ago i named you as one of the -- the supreme court decision -- why was it important for you to do that? >> if you look at the defense of marriage at and you look at the legislative history, it is consistent with a really bad part of american history.

it was an act of based on fear, stereotyping. it was on that basis that we made the determination [no audio] it was an act of based on fear, stereotyping. it was on that basis that we determination [no audio] i think it is a civil rights struggle of our time. what will we do for our lgbt brothers and sisters? marriage equality is one part of that. there are ways we could help that community be treated better

generally. >> and folks who may not like the fact that you and others, including the president, saying this is a civil rights issue of our time? >> it is. this country is always trying to become more perfect, better. the way we do that is to identify those places where we see that kind of discrimination, certainly with regards to african americans and the history of slavery. i think that dealing with these issues involving the lgbt community is simply a continuation, that process that we have been engaged in. >> i have some rapidfire questions for you since we are down to less than four minutes. the last movie you saw? [laughter]

either in the movies or on television. >> i re-watched "the godfather." >> the most played song on your ipod. >> "since i lost my baby" the temptations. >> who would you want to play you in a movie? >> denzel. [laughter] [applause] >> who would you most want to meet? who would you want most want to meet and why? >> that is interesting. i got a chance to meet -- the easy answer would have been nelson mandela. >> like i said -- >> pope francis. he would be an interesting person to sit down with an speak with. as many changes that has been

credited to him, i think there is a lot more we will see from him as a pope. >> what is your guilty pleasure? mine is watching "scandal." >> i like to binge watch not too serious television. "homeland." these are things i like to sit down and just go for hours. >> that anticipated my next question. "homeland," "scandal," "house of cards" -- which one gets washington mostly right? [laughter] >> i would say "house of cards." [laughter] >> i will leave it at that. my final question -- and it is a serious one -- what do you want to be remembered for?

>> as a person who try to make the country better and use the power of office to raise issues that too often were not addressed and who ultimately moved the country in a direction that should always move, a country that i left a little more fair with a greater sense of the urgency to make sure that all people are treated equally. >> i have another last question. what is the one decision you made that you wish you could do over again? >> i think about the subpoena. i've think i could have been

more careful looking at the language that is contained in the filing we made with the court. he had to do that as a result of the statute. there are ways i think that would have been done better. that is one of the reasons why i thought the criticism received was something we had to act upon a put in place this review of our which interact with the media. >> do you think you will still be in the job six months from now? considering you said you will leave when your successor has not only been nominated, that confirmed. >> i think there will be a nomination shortly after. the senate will take up that nomination so by early february we have a new attorney general. >> attorney general eric holder, thank you.

>> thank you. [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] >> we will be at the center for strategic and international studies for a discussion on efforts to create an hiv vaccine . we will hear from representatives of two groups work and toward the cause and the head of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. this all gets underway at 2:00 eastern. it is election day. the polls opened at 7:00 here in the district. members of congress pleading out photographs of their activity today. billy long treats i voted this morning, have you? you see the picture of his i jacket.icker inside his

this morning we spoke with a reporter who gave us last-minute predictions of the outcome. >> we will talk with jessica taylor. she is the campaign editor to talk about midterm elections. that morning. us your condition of the u.s. senate after tonight and what factors into that thinking? >> i think republicans would started out with a better edge going into this. more opportunity. also, republicans have exceeded at expanding the battlegrounds to an extent. two of the closest races tonight are going to be in iowa and colorado. these are democrats they have successfully made competitive. those are early ones i am watching to see whether it is

tipped toward republican. this could tell whether it is a good night for republicans, great night or whether democrats to hold on. i'm not republican certainly favored to pick up the six seats that they need. are waiting -- voting asterisk -- so there is nothing to do but sit and wait. where do you go from there? have really good grounds they have talked about. kay hagan has been the one that has been able to hold on. she has held her own in polls and has succeeded in making this

. i think that is because she is running against thom tillis, ahead of a very unpopular state legislature. she has tied him to that and made this almost a local or state election. i think theren, is a chance for democrats to minimize losses or continue to do well across the board and could hold on. it is still very close. i think the fact that we are talking about democrats having a majority on election night, the fact that they run very hard races, people like hagan and mark pryor expected to lose. same thing with mark. he really needs a good grounding to help him. i think it hagan hauled down, it will not be a bloodbath but not out of the woods yet. >> we read earlier the president caught a radio advertisement for senator hagan.

talk about the influence not only in north carolina but the president who gets the vote or not as far as those people heading to the cold today? >> some incumbents have a delicate stamps. they need the president to help him. him is why you're seeing doing the call for hagan targeted advertisement and doing the same thing in georgia where michelle nunn is in a close race with david or do. also, republicans are eager to paint them as one in the same with president obama. telling that she released the advertisements the day before the election. questions whether she would appear along side him. cannot be seen as too close to the president.

she is criticized him when she has to. they need him where he is still popular. >> before we leave you, we have hinted at it during the course of the morning, but where does new hampshire stand and what are your thoughts? >> i think this will tell us where the polls have been accurate or not. it certainly seemed at tightening. new hampshire traditionally has gone to pretend whether there is a wave or not. scott brown from massachusetts tried to paint them as political opportunist. i am not sure that has completely worked. there will be skeptical of him. he has a shot tonight certainly.

,f he is pulling really close this is one we have to watch for a couple of hours. i think it is a good night for republicans but i think it is a good sign for democrats going forward. >> the campaign editor, many of -- one of the many we will be watching. >> a quick reminder to join us tonight on c-span for our lives campaign 2014 election coverage at 8:00 eastern. you can see who will win and lose. here are the comments we have recently received from the viewers. >> a debate i saw between bruce the and john you regarding

declaration of war and the war powers act. thee interesting to watch legal debate and demonstrated some of the ineptitude of the that in thesition beginning of any war the president is the ultimate hearsay of the country's ability to go to war. >> i would like to commend c-span2 for airing the onormation from the writers grief and the military. it was excellent information that gave interaction and dynamic and he wants this.

we have evidence that posttraumatic stress disorder if climb up and be resolved you continue to try various interventions. i think american history tv on c-span is one of the best programs. i wish we could do it more than once a week. >> continue to let us know about what you think of the programs you're watching. e-mail us the comments or send us a tweet. ,oin the c-span conversation like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. , penny pritzker talks about job creation, income disparity and the u.s. trade agenda. she took part in the washington

ideas for him and the comments are about 20 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. thank you so much for being here. president of atlantic live and i'm delighted to welcome you to the 2014 washington ideas for. it is going to be an exceptional morning. event is an exquisite reflection of the bright and bold dna of the atlantic. it was created six years ago with a simple idea that, in a where partisanship often

rule, we would bring together people to explore the most pressing issues of our time. a place ve that this is to understand our world in a more profound way. walter isaacson and her friends at the aspen institute came together, along shelby from the museum, and they began as the founding partners, read here. one was sure that an idea of the form in washington would catch fire, but it did. be a morning will captivating blend. people at the forefront for changing the world and the way we live. we have created stomachache so much more -- we have creators, cake makers, and so much more.

at the presenting level, we comcast nbc universal, hitachi and the nestlé family foundation. the national council for the behavioral health and google. contributing underwriters -- mackenzie. atlantic carlson and center at large on the masterminds. steve is your first to get this rolling. >> thank you very much, morgan. thank you everyone. let's jump right in. remember, #ideasforum. pritzker is an avid triathlete.

these days, though, you will find your running meetings throughout the business committee. she has confirmed with nearly 1300 business leaders. have penny sed to pritzker join us on stage to open the washington ideas form. [applause] >> thank you, mdm. secretary, for being with us. thank you for being here with us. me just start by asking you to clear something up. do corporations create jobs? >> yes. the private sector creates jobs. >> and what is the government's role? >> our job is to set the condition so that the private sector can create jobs. on things like

making sure there is good infrastructure in this country, workforce in this -- ntry, making sure that that there is a good environment for investment. >> now, is there a difference between the two parties on that score? when she made her come into the at a campaign -- rally, you had an immediate on the n from the people right saying, ha, she just the side saying what president obama said in 2012. where does that come from and what is the difference between the two parties? >> well, you know, when i was confirmed in the senate, senators on both sides of the aisle have told me, you know, is a bipartisan issue. look at it is that focus on s to really

serving america's businesses and creating conditions that they can thrive and so they can, therefore, create jobs. so from my standpoint, there is not a huge amount of difference. invest that we have to in infrastructure -- that is broadband to om roadster bridges -- >> if we have to, and there's no difference between the two parties, why haven't we? >> i don't know. when i go talk to everybody on the hill, everybody is excited on what we can do. whether i am in portland, oregon talking to a bicycle in new york or city, all of them want trade agreements. need is another thing we to focus on. these are the kind of things we have to do a government to create the conditions -- tax policies.

our corporate tax policy is not competitive globally. these are the kind of things and i hould be happening am -- i am an optimist who, hopefully once election season is behind us -- whenever that is -- then we can move forward and addresses issues. but in the meantime, let's look at what we have accomplished. happened over the -- and president obama deserves a lot of credit for the kind of momentum we are seeing in the economy. we are seeing job creation. the longest streak of job creation ever in the history of the country. more jobs created in the united in japan and europe and other countries combined -- the developed countries combined. we are manufacturing -- having -- for the first time in decades, we have manufacturing creating ly manufacturing jobs, but manufacturing output is up.

there is a lot that is going on that is really exciting. >> is that why the american is happy right now? needs to the work that be done is around what we need to do about incomes. the good news is, yesterday, consumer confidence is at a seven-year high. so i think that attitudes are have to , but we address income -- income is a real -- it problem and it is something at this point, now, where we are seeing unemployment below 6%, it is time to focus on how we address income disparity. what is interesting to me on the minimum wages -- i have -- talked to aid, i have business leaders and no one as

opposed to a federal minimum wage. privately, a number of private business leaders tell me that problems they are facing is the fact that we have different policy state-by-state. they would rather see a uniform policy. so -- >> you mentioned that businesses talk to privately. privately, businesses seem to agree with a lot of things the administration is talking about, but they do not seem to have any cloud. a well, i think it is question of clout with whom and most important thing is that you need to talk to your employees. a day and age where every person is now empowered. a phone and twitter speak ts -- in my job, i to business leaders, but also,

to our , that is customer is is the american business. what do they d on need, what are the conditions they need to grow and create jobs in america. >> you mentioned that you are an optimist. i read the polls and it appears that you may be the only optimist in the entire country. you look at ng, as what the situation is in the how people are had a g -- if you far-flung relative who is out of it in terms of contemporary us politics, and you are explaining to them why your party was about to be hammered, would you explain it? >> for me, it is hard to explain. i am in numbers person -- as i told the folks, i have done reading in this job -- but i'm a numbers person. if you look at the statistics,

our economy is doing great. as have 4.6% gdp growth -- i said, job growth at 56 consecutive months -- i think is what i challenges do on we have work to income disparity and i think people want to see not only that they have a job, they went the job confidence in you have and they want to have confidence that their incomes are growing. so that is something we need to focus. it is from hether janet or the president of the united states -- >> let me ask you about incomes panel the other day. he was saying the reason the is so unhappy is because the economic policies of both democrats and republicans have failed the country. i wonder, from your if the underlying

reason they hat the have failed is because the united states has lost the commanding position it once had in the world economy, and it has, and will be, in competition with hundreds of in asia and people elsewhere who is living standards are lower than ours. so, why should anybody believe can raise the incomes of average people? which having gone out for 30 years or so. >> so, john, i disagree with your fundamental preference. this country is in a terrific position. the number one place in the world to invest. came out and said the strongest economy in the world. throw back at me you -- how about all this you guys are at talking about -- [applause] >> have you checked our

approval ratings? [laughter] wwhen you think about the last of the obama presidency, obviously there are that you can do and that president obama can do on his own authority. do you have a plan a if we have and a plan c senate b if we have a republican senate? >> no, there is one plan. everybody knows that we have to to the eep coming back same things. we have to invest in our infrastructure, right? have to make investments there. we are figuring out how to bring more private sector money to the table, but at the same has to he public sector do its part. you can make a kind of investments that are necessary

with six months of funding, you need to acknowledge that we should be investing in our country. we need to pass, you know, trade negotiations. this is really important. trade is really important. i just got back from japan and and you realize that if can get ttp finished -- and confidence in the world in the negotiations get this done -- that is 40% of the world's gdp where you're taking away nontariff barriers. are creating a much more level playing field for our country. the united states, we are pretty much open for trade today. it is not like we have big tariffs and a lot of our sectors.

the rest of the world, there are a lot of barriers to our companies. so these are important agreements get done. trade, tax ure, reform -- we want to make -- we need to be competitive with the rest of the world. we also need to invest in innovation. >> when you say taxes for -- which everybody in both parties saying for years -- have been saying for years -- is this the point where you realize that this is a great idea but it is not going to happen? >> it takes leadership, right? the president has called for the orate tax reform over last several years, but he needs partners, right, to do that. the various eads of committees -- he needs partners i ere to get that done and think that -- i think that we have to do a good job of to the average person how that translates into a benefit and job creation here in america.

>> or explaining to the national association of manufacturers why you are going the domestic manufacturing credit in order to lower the tax rate for companies who don't have credits like that. definitely re are trade-offs and that is the kind has to be done, in it is important to do order to -- so that american businesses can be competitive globally. let's also talk about innovation and investment. called for ident has in network of manufacturing hubs around the united states. of them so e five far and there will be eight in operation by the end of next year. we need to stay competitive. so further to your question or statement about our position is important that united states stays on the cutting edge of innovation. federal government puts out

$50 million-$70 million, but in the context of what we are trying to accomplish, not huge dollars. that serves as a catalyst to universities, the private sector, the community colleges, the supply chain around innovative technologies that we should be leading the world in. composite ng, lightweight materials, intra- -- design -- internet design, photonics. these are areas we should be leading the world in and that is a huge part of our gdp growth since 2009. and our employment growth has been in these areas where we are leading the world. we have the capacity to do that, so this is another area we should be crating the opportunity. >> time is short so i am going on offense again. >> i know you're a sports guy, so i'm ready for you. conversation with

a ur friend daley and there's report that said you were doing my overall i guess question is, why should the exist ce department because you see a big push among republican to say, it is pony capitalism. >> do not the commerce department does? your patent or your mark -- we give you patent or trademark, we run the sentence, we are the national service, we manage the economy of the coastlines of the country, we are international trade administration -- so we help companies who want to sell we help ods overseas, them export, and we help companies who want to invest in the united states. and we do economic statistics --

>> so to the charge of capitalism, you say what? >> we are a service organization and these are services that businesses need. i have talked to 1300 business leaders around the country. they want our services. they need the data we put do what in order to they do, which is, ultimately, create jobs. we get question before the hook. one of the byproducts of over incomes are rising is occupy wall street -- movement of that kind -- criticism of the 1%. are a 1% -- how do you react when you hear some of the other 1% -- and some over and over -- that obama hates business, he hostile to successful people, some have even said that america is becoming like

nazi germany wwith the persecution of the top 1%. would you say this when you do that? >> first of all, all of what you said is crazy, right? [applause] this is a great country and it is still a country of opportunity. the president is a terrific president works with -- his job is to work with our constituencies. there are more business leaders the white house -- giving advice or working with people like me or throughout the administration -- than anyone ever talks about. and that is why we keep track, at the department of commerce, at the number of business -- of business leaders coming in. >> he doesn't hate people with money? , that is crazy. his job is to lead and to try find the best path forward for the country.

doing a he has been heckuva job in a very difficult circumstances. >> which all join me in thanking penny pritzker? [applause] >> thank you. a reminder, once again, the center for strategic and international studies will be hosting a discussion this afternoon. dr. anthony rom facci. we will have a life for you here on c-span. we are seeing more from on this of congress election day. welker swoman kristen saying about 50 people turned out at this polling place. garcia took joe

this selfie. throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress. c-span's live election coverage. our coverage begins at 8:00 pm with results and analysis. you will also see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely watched senate races across the country. throughout the night and into to hear ing, we want from you with your calls, facebook comment, and treats. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. and reposted it is the question today. the question is, do you vote? why or why not? thomas says:

this from marcia: can post your comment at facebook.com/ c-span. the washington ideas form. she also discusses lessons learned from the us response efforts to the ebola virus. her comments are about 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, thank you all very much. i was thinking about preparing the questions for you, but there's hardly anything going on in the world. you must have a lot of spare time on your hands. let me start with syria and the islamic state.

i'm going to ask you a question you may not have ever been about the subject before, wwhich is, what happens if we win? what happens if we defeat the islamic state? i ask you this because you put together a nice coalition, but the only thing they probably agree on is that the islamic ought to be defeated -- what should happen in iraq, to the kurds appen -- they do not agree on much of anything. how do you hold this coalition together? >> well, first of all, thank you for doing this and i look forward to the conversation. thank you all for being here. do and when -- because i believe we will degrade and issel with destroy our coalition -- isil with a over 60 countries -- let's think about what that

they ate looks like -- will no longer have a functional state in that region. there will no longer be at a position -- in a position to destabilize the country's. is a ng isil a safe haven critical objective because, as we have seen, the connection forms rrorism and other of violence -- that in itself is a critical objective. that, in and of itself, will not resolve the problem of syria. it will, substantially, create new thing space for the iraqi government and the to stabilize ere that country, which is facing its own challenges. so it takes a critical the table for

iraq, but it does acknowledge the challenge and syria. remember, the conflict and over three years ago when peaceful protesters challenge the assad regime. the regime responded with overwhelming violence. the political issues that remain at the heart of the syrian conflict will endure. the majority sunni population has been largely excluded from is no democratic process, you have an illegitimate and exceedingly violent leadership that has created conditions not only that have been so harmful to but it made it a very attractive magnet for terrorists. magnet, having been eliminated, we will still need to see a political solution in syria. that has been our view all along. that solution still -- does that solutions to require that president assad goes?

>> given the violence that he has perpetrated and given the that are now -- i believe, ultimately, you may have a transition period of some sort, but assad's departure will be critical for there to be lasting stability in syria. that is one of the main that we have , the moderate -- jerry, that we have supported the moderate forces in syria. >> as you know, there has been the last 48 on in hours about whether we are to ing the free syrian army fight islamic state or to fight president assad. are they doing both? >> they're having to do both. as we speak, they are fighting a multi-front conflict. which is, honestly, taking a real toll on them. so our support for the moderate

opposition is, in the first them nce, going to enable to fend off -- it was also designed and originated with to try and create conditions on the ground that are conducive to negotiations. and that means helping them in assad, as ct against well. >> syria's borders, arguably, do not really exist anymore. iraq is somewhere between one and three states. lebanon is -- could, conceivably, be threatened. what does this region look like in 10 years? think the nationstates survive. i think, again, in the context successful outcome vis-à-vis isil, the border between iraq and syria -- the one that has become more will become more established.

israel's borders will become very defended. our commitment to that is unshakable. its lebanon has long had share of internal challenges. i do not expect those will go a result of isil being defeated. but jordan is one of the been most that has challenged by the outflow, the overflow of refugees -- transforms, n ultimately, by that. >> and we have invested very heavily in supporting the jordanian government, helping it deal with the refugee outflow. and so i think jordan will be a our support and that will be critical -- in be critical for a where suffered the brunt of that. >> let me ask you about israel.

there's a piece this week saying that the state wwas in a crisis. are they? and, if they are not in crisis, either a strong enough to withstand the tough decisions ahead? >> the relationship is not in crisis. the relationship is actually fundamentally stronger. we have the greatest and strongest security cooperation united states and israel that has ever occurred. the prime minister has held that on many occasions. they have a constructive and effective relationship. they have met one another more frequently than president obama has met any other foreign leader. he was just in the oval office earlier this month for extensive consultations. israeli i am taking my

counterpart to dinner on the times a hat we do two year -- which is i will host a mile a large -- post tomorrow a large is really consulting group. they bring leaders from the defense community, their diplomatic establishments. establishment, they meet with our counterparts at very senior levels and we share information and engage strategy on a range of issues of mutual interest in the region, from iran to isil and all of the heres we are discussing today and many others. that kind of deep operation, consultation, sharing, strategizing is unprecedented and that is something that has evolved uniquely in this administration. there are issues we disagree on. the most prominent one you have seen manifest itself unfortunately in the press on

the issue of settlements, where for decades, the united states has had a different view of settlements and their legitimacy than the israeli government has. the u.s. view has been through multiple administrations that settlement activity is a stepimate and productive toward a two state solution. the israeli government has a different view. we are compelled to comment on that. that is not a reflection of the health of the larger bilateral relationship, which is quite strong. >> interestingly, there seem to be a lot more common grounds between the u.s. and iran emerging, not least of which is isil, obviously, but also we racked, some other issues -- also iraq, some other issues on the past. lead to successful conversations over the

negotiations over the nuclear program? >> [laughter] that is not a term i would -- détente, no, not at all. frankly, we still have a very difficult and fraught relationship with iran for all of the obvious reasons. they have a record of supporting terrorism, and they have a record of destabilizing neighboring states in the region and we are very concerned also about their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon. what is true is over the course of the last year, we have been able to reach and implements an interim agreement that has halted all progress in the iranian nuclear program and rolled it back in critical respects. this joint agreement has created a more stable foundation for negotiations aimed at trying to reach a more comprehensive riskment to eliminate any

that iran can develop a nuclear weapon. those negotiations, as you know, maybe others do, too, are important to a common milestone in november when by november 24, we have the negotiations expiring. no détente. there is frankly no dramatic change in the nature of the relationship. if we were to achieve an agreement on the nuclear program, that would be a very significant a compliment that would make americans and the region more secure, but it would not end our concerns about other aspects of their behavior. >> on the success of that? >> hard to judge. i would say 50% or less. thehifting to russia and ukraine. i want to touch on that and ebola before our time runs out. president putin gave a remarkable address late last week which makes for fascinating

theing, in which he said u.s. declared himself the winner of the cold war, tried to impose a universal dictatorship over the globe, has used economic propaganda and pressure, has resorted to outright blackmail of world leaders, supported a coup d'état and ukraine. how is that relationship going? [laughter] workore seriously, can you with him? >> it sounds like a classic soviet diatribe. the relationship with russia is obviously very strained by its actions to illegally annex infiltration into the rest of ukraine. the relationship is also under great strain because the united states has successfully rallied

the major economies to impose now very aiding sanctions on the that extract a very high price for their behavior. now they have withdrawn the theirit but not all, of forces from ukraine, and there is a very fragile minsk agreement and sometime cease-fire which is, thankfully, created space where the ukrainians can have a successful election for their parliament last sunday, and we hope will enable president poroshenko to have the kind of governing coalition that will enable him to enact critical reforms and move as he has chosen to toward europe. but the relationship with russia is strained. have are areas where we been able to continue working together in a constructive vein. the iran negotiations are one example of that. i could give you others, but

they are a wider range of areas where the relationship is more difficult. >> i want to ask about ebola before we run out of time. you are heading off for discussions with the president and others about that. what have you learned about the world's ability to cope with a problem like this since the outbreak of the ebola crisis, if that is not too strong a word? >> first of all, it is important to understand what we have all learned as a consequence of ebola is something that we understood quite a while ago, global health infrastructure is exceedingly fragile. we saw that following sars. we saw that with h1n1, mers, these strange virus that has evolved out of the gulf region, and recognizing that as a result , back in february of this year, president obama launched something called the global bringingcurity agenda,

40 countries together from around the world, committed to help the more fragile developing countries to build their health infrastructures. what we have learned from the ebola experience which -- frankly ebola is a far less transmissible disease than the ones i just described. it cannot be transmitted in an airborne fashion. you have to be symptomatic and exchange bodily fluids. and yet, it has caused a great deal of loss of life in west fear and effects in this country and beyond. we have a national security the capacity build of countries around the world, whether in west africa or --theast asia or parts of central asia for that matter, such that they have the health care infrastructure to detect and monitor and contain disease, because we are only as secure --

when i say we, i mean the united states, the countries of the as the weakest link in the fabric here, in the chain. this is the illustration we have seen with ebola. we are living in an interconnected global economy, global system. we have no direct flights from those three countries in west africa and the united states, and yet, we are linked up with them. some 60 to 70% of the people who traveled to the united states from those three countries are in fact american citizens or green card holders. we are linked up in a very significant way. that is true of our relationships with countries around the world. it is not unique to those three countries in west africa. given that, it is critical that over the long term we take from

this experience -- which we will manage to bring under control with the help of the rest of the international community -- the lesson that we have to build for the future. the president had that vision well in advance of the ebola crisis. he started this global health security agenda. it is gaining traction to raid we have to stay committed to this over the long term. >> is that happening? is there emerging in idea of an infrastructure? >> yes, but it is going to take time. obviously building health infrastructure is not something that happens overnight. at the end of september here in washington, we had a major gathering of the ministerial components of these countries and they committed to building this health infrastructure in developing nations. the united states is doing its share. other countries are doing their part. that will have to be an investment we sustain over time

and take seriously. isthe list of problem areas long -- i did not get through them all here. and by the way, the attorney two answer the -- has to answer the final question. who should play you in a movie? if you would like to answer that? >> halle berry. the obvious choice. someone in your position, when you go home at night, what is the thing you would like to spend time on that you can't. >> my kids. >> i'm sure that is true. what is a world problem he would like to devote your brain cells to? offthing that gives pushed the radar screen at the crisis of the moment that's the thing that gets pushed off the radar screen by the crisis of the moment. hard to imagine if

you were watching the television is being relayed every day, but the fact of the matter is, we have no choice but to be working not only on the hot issues or even the crises of the day, but the long-term aspects of our agenda and what we were just discussing -- global health security is a classic example of something that gets very little attention in the press. most people would not know about it if it were not for the ebola crisis, and even though there is in a bullet crisis, most people do not know about it. ebolan though there is an crisis, most people do not know about it. we are building an architecture, whether it is a nonproliferation agenda, nuclear security summits we have held to lock down and make much safer nuclear materials in various, disparate places around the world, whether it is our efforts to strengthen the capacity of fragile states more broadly, build open

, whereent partnerships we are trying to fight corruption and build transparency and countries around the world and may be an interesting example of why that matters -- this open government partnership has brought together 60 countries to make commitments that they will share information with their populations. where you can see where tax revenue goes and have all kinds governmentshat hold accountable. very valuable in general for democracy, for voters to be able weknow what is going on, but have one of our open government partners is actually sierra leone. because sierra leone is part of the system, they have been able to utilize and disseminate information that has been beneficial in communicating and dealing with the ebola epidemic. all of these things are

interrelated. even though they may not be front page of "the wall street journal," they have important theing contributions president is committed to locking down that will leave behind a far more secure and far more open and democratic set of partners around the world. we hope that in the midst of it all you do get more time with your kids. thank you for being here. >> thank you. [applause] up live this afternoon, we will head to the senate for strategic -- for the center for strategic and international studies. dr. anthony felt she of the national institute will be among the speakers. and we're seeing more tweets from members of congress in the media on this election day. turnout inr

kentucky. people using any private space outside the booth to register to vote. and senator elizabeth warren of messages is -- happy election day! this is what our democracy is all about. i voted this morning. did you? we will monitor what members of congress and the media are saying today. this is from this morning's "washington journal." ke tonight activities on this election day? >> well, i think the republicans are going to have a good night for a great night. we do not know whether it is good or great because there are some very close races. at the crystal ball operation the university of virginia, we go ahead and allocate all the seats. and we have the republicans likely to win 53 senate seats recounts have gone off.

and democrats holding 47, as the current line. we think republicans are going to do quite well, but there are some very close seats. whether this kansas, where i alaska -- or iowa or alaska. >> we hear a lot about paths during this process. do you see anything trending? looked ntially, we have at the polling and all the background information we can data we can ll the gather. that ve a set model presents us with the general outlines of what is likely to happen and real events. i would simply say that if

you are watching the senate you obviously t, start by looking at new hampshire and north carolina. held by tes are democratic incumbents -- and tor jeanne shaheen senator kay hagan -- they are kind of the democratic firewall. been a bit ahead -- they were once well ahead, now just a bit ahead of their republican opponents. they end up falling, then indicates that there is a more republican surge than expected. and that will mean a number of senators will grow -- even beyond the 53 we have outlined. if, however, they are able to hold down the fort and able to think election, then i you're talking about more modest totals for the republicans. if the democrats are able to mobilize the vote today to a much greater extent than

expected, i think the first it will really be in georgia, for example, where you race for senate -- the republicans a bit ahead, but the possibility of a runoff. i think it might also show up in the state of kentucky where is running for reelection. i expect them to win, but you have to look at the margins. be some are going to early signs and we will all be following them together as we move across the country. >> a lot of people are looking at alaska. why is that? >> alaska is an interesting case. one term democratic senator who won by just a few thousand votes six years ago against a crippled republican opponent. it is a republican state. it is a solid republican state. they will occasionally elect a democrat. he has run a textbook campaign with only a few errors.

has organized like mad -- the outlying villages -- it is a tremendous organization. he has done everything you can do as an incumbent if he doesn't win -- it is more of a case of which direction this particular election is moving in. it is rather the general atmospherics of 2014. >> when it comes to other such as iowa -- a lot of people saying it is close -- do you see the same factors will t favor into it? >> starting out a year ago, i think that most people expected i want to stay democratic. and i what has clearly been

leaning democratic, looking at the past election returns. so bruce braley was thought to have an excellent chance to win. a number of errors on the campaign trail and i think it has cost him dearly. and the republican nominee has run a good campaign. she has projected a solid image. sides as camped on both of her self. i think she is likely to win, but it is close. the last call out of their up by polls showed her seven points. i think it is closer than that. >> and midterm level, it is rare that we have so many races that are so close? >> this is a larger than usual number of close races. i actually counts nine on the senate, 11 gubernatorial contests that are close.

it is not enormously greater, though. normally in a midterm year, you have 36 gubernatorial races and easily one third will be highly competitive. that is about what we have. senate contests -- it can be as as five and six at this stage in the campaign, but i would not call this -- i would call this more competitive than usual. you have mentioned it -- as far as gubernatorial races are concerned -- wwhat the ones to watch? other others to watch? >> i think everyone is watching florida. republican governor scott and his predecessor who became an independent, now a democrat -- that is very, very close. the latest polls given eyelash

lead to charlie crist, but it is so close that i do not think the polls can point to the winner. that one would be read at the top of my list, but even of the small states have fascinating contest. you look at maine, for instance. just like four years ago with a conservative the tea party republican -- who won four years ago aagainst two liberal opponents. well, he has to liberal opponent again. now, the structure of the race is a little bit different and to have crats seem better chances, but it is a close contest between the democrat and the incumbent. couple of other things. i know it is not a closely was hed race, but it mentioned a couple times today. they're in virginia, the senate race between mark warner and

gillespie. your thoughts on that? >> we rate every senate race all through the year. we never had that as anything other than democratic. you the margin -- maybe it is just a few points. this is a competitive year and a purple is still competitive state, but i can tell you most of the republicans at the highest level will be shocked if gillespie beats warner. i think warner will end up winning. as the crystal ball is concerned, what is your history in terms of midterm elections? >> i'm delighted to say our accuracy rate is higher than 90%. we call every race -- 98%. we call every race. we call every gubernatorial, senate, and house races. obviously, when you call all

507, you are going to be wrong sometimes. but we do it because it is fun and we think that is the fun of the process. our leadership certainly agrees with us. >> that is larry, the director for politics at the university of virginia. also mentioning the crystal ball that takes a look at things. if people want to find out information about the crystal ball, where can they go. >> and a reminder again to join us for election night 2014 coverage. you can see who wins, who loses, and which party will control congress. and engage with us about the results on the phone, twitter, or on facebook.com/cspan. david cohenretary

at the washington ideas forum. he spoke for about 20 minutes. >> how is everybody doing? inning stretch. >> david, thank you for joining us. we will get into who you are and what you do, but let's just say you do a lot of dark things. do you strive for dryness or humor in your job? is there anyway way the onion has affected your life and terrorism finance and going after terrorism around the world? have they done a profile of you? >> they have not. there was one onion story in the run-up to the 2008 election that "the onion" ran about how president i'm energized was more popular than president obama, farsi agencyian

picked up and thought was real and ran it in iran. >> well, well, well. onion" -- "the onion do for you to make your job much better? >> mostly stay away. >> they ran a wonderful profile of david in "the new york times." i'm sure some of you read this. isry morning david cohen sent into a cavelike complex and the bottom of the treasury department to pour through -- you can tell that a movie is coming. look into the finances of the islamic state, the terrorist producing 55 of billion barrels of oil every day. they call him the finance at man. with what you are doing with

isis, are there many and the state department jealous of your batcave? >> i think they have their own -- >> i going to ask john kerry tomorrow. i'm serious. when you look at the issues, one of the things you're trying to do -- isis is a phenomena and is out there. they were never our ally, but they were an unwanted collaborator trying to unseat bashar al-assad in syria. but these are really bad guys that just about everybody in the world dislikes as best as we can tell, publicly. but they get a ton of money. how do they do it question for example a were never anywhere close to being our allies. , years ago we identified of isil, alssor qaeda in iraq, as a terrorist -- the predecessor of isil, al

qaeda in iraq, as a terrorist organization and were working hard to destabilize them. they were relying to some extent with the outermost row fronts, inch was al qaeda spinoff syria. they were never close to our allies. we always supported the moderate opposition in syria, not the extremist. in terms of how they are getting their money, there are really four sources. they get some -- we estimate about a million dollars a day, although i think we have been reducing that somewhat recently from the smuggled oil sells -- step of the kurdish region in iraq. so kurds are in part buying this black-market oil at the same on andis is taking killing kurds? >> they work. essentially what isil has done is inherited long-standing smuggling groups that have been in existence for centuries where

all sorts of commodities were smuggled and traded, including oil. weree isil's emergence, or those who were smuggling oil out of syria, out of iraq, into the kurdish region in iraq, into turkey, what have you. what has happened, isil is controlling some of these wells producing oil that are feeding the smuggling groups. the difference now is in the past, the people involved in the smuggling groups could turn a blind eye to where the oil was coming from. they were just stealing from the syrian government. now if you are involved in one of the smuggling operations, you have to know the ultimate beneficiary is this terrible terrorist organization. it is no longer tenable -- into theen't gotten other funding sources, but you sound like the guys from the cia, or someone from the state department, perhaps a dod

attaché to the national security council. i think what is interesting, you have been identified as someone more lethal than a fleet of drones. at the treasury department -- tell us how treasury guys do this game? >> we got into this game fundamentally because we appliedmed the way we financial and economic pressure. the traditional model has been ,ort of broad trade embargoes the broad sort of four in the policy goals -- foreign-policy goals. big sweeping things. what we have done over the last several years is illicit conduct -- whether it is the funding of terrorist organizations where there are those involved in wmd proliferation, criminal -- iizations, focused on

am not part of the cia, but in the treasury department, we do have an intel shop in the treasury department. we are the only finance ministry in the world with an in-house intelligence analytical operation. i have people who day in, day to map the illicit networks that allow us to target our activities. for the most part, what we try stop illicit conduct. that helps us do a couple things and make what we do more effective. in part, we are able to disrupt the particular bad actors, disrupt their access to financing. they need money to operate. we can target that. it also allows us to go to others around the world and say, look, this guys involved in terrorist financing. this guy is involved in supporting iran from nuclear program. you, government, or you, bank -- >> if you see that individual in

riyadh or go hot, do you let those governments know? >> we tried to. >> do they shut them down? >> the answer is sometimes. it depends on the conduct. it depends on what we are able to share. one reasons we have been effective is we have made a lot of progress, whether it is in the gulf or elsewhere, persuading governments this is in their interest, and also persuading the private sector it is in their interest. a bank in, you know, pick your country does not want to be involved in a transaction for some terrorist financier. of that isoff essentially nil. their reputational harm or worse -- what we can do in terms of sanctions, far greater. what we have been able to do is align our interests in pursuing it listed actors with private interest in protecting their

reputation. >> one of the other things, david, and one of the reasons i was so enthusiastic about you being here today -- we have the prospect of a potential pivot on iran or a continuation of history. but what everyone in the national security business says, you've changed the game with the ron, you -- you change the game with a ron, you changed the way that government operated. it is easy to talk about broad, national sanctions. it is more complicated when you get to individuals and firms and tracking. can you give us a glimpse into how you change the game with the iranians question mark >> well, i didn't do it. this is something that has been a project that we have been engaged in at the treasury department, working very closely with others -- >> what have you done?

>> what we have done is, we have applied in a very consistent and aggressive fashion these conduct-based sanctions. we have been designating for sanctions those supporting the's nuclear program over years. the brokers, the financial institutions, the businesses, the individuals involved in defeating the iranian nuclear program? a bank account? >> i am sure he does. we turn to somewhat broader measures. really have used to affect the economy in a ron, which is had an influence on the way that -- what we have done to really affect the economy in which is had an influence

on the way the negotiations have been going, we have been able to affect the financial system. that means banks in iran trying to transact with banks outside of iran have -- >> to a real country that really matters. >> this is a real economy, but a lot of trade. that can strain that. but most importantly, we he was the financial sanctions as a way to drive down iran's ability to sell us oil. essentially what we did was we said to countries around the world buying oil from iran, if you want to continue to buy oil from them, you have to reduce our much -- how much you were buying. sanction yourwill financial institutions involved in that transaction. that is very powerful. whatever country that is buying oil from iran, it is typically

one of their largest banks involved in the payments of revenue back. >> is that a similar framework when you began to take on vladimir putin in russia over ukraine, was a similar framework? >> we used financial sanctions, n a different way. and the russian context, in a very deliberate, powerful way we have tried to ratchet up the pressure on vladimir putin without causing massive turmoil in the international financial system, the international economy, and also to be as closely aligned with europe as possible. because the extent of russian financial economic activity in europe is far greater than in the u.s. we have devised a different way to go after the russian banks, which is to limit their ability to find capital to finance their

operations. and that has started to really squeeze those banks. there are all sorts of effects that are now rolling out and the russian economy as a result. >> what if i was an international bad guy and i was running some big crime network transnational he -- i dream about this now and then -- [laughter] >> [indiscernible] nightt is your up at issue. my up at night issue was david had. and all the tools you the coolest thing out there is bitcoin. how do you guys deal with bitcoin, or do you? and we just have a few minutes left. i am also interested -- when you look at isis, my other big question is, isis is out there not only shaking down, extorting. recently in a wonderful speech that i would recommend to people, isis in one year has ransoms.ut -- in

the other thing they have done reach is david cohen's market antiquities. this is a medieval group beheading folks and whatnot, but they somehow have the internal knowledge to know about sub these and christie's, and i -- andidies -- sotheby's christie's. take bitcoin and antiquities. >> bitcoin, on one hand we are fully supportive of the development of e-commerce and there is a lot in that that is very hopeful in economic development, both here and internationally. what our fundamental objective is is to ensure that whatever the value transfer mechanism is, whether it is through traditional banks, through, you know, money service businesses,

or through a currency -- basicency, that the elements of financial transparency of applied and the people involved know who their customers are, are able to attend by suspicious transactions, and report those transactions to the treasury department -- >> which requires compliance. >> we have regulations that affect -- >> what if i do not want to comply? his eyes as keeping the price of bitcoin i? >> no, i do not believe so. we are trying to regulate the financial sector so these tools are part of what they do and they help us make the financial system inhospitable to elicit finance, whether it is money laundering or financing. and then we work internationally through international organizations, through a task

force which is an organization that helps promote financial transparency around the world, and then with governments that they put into place similar regulatory systems so that it is more difficult for the bad guys to get access to the financial system, which sort of gives to the antiquities question. on the one hand, what we will try to do, working with those, figure out who was involved in the smuggling networks, and we work with partner countries and .artner agencies to do things but also we look at who was ever involved in that transaction -- >> these are from religious relics, old items that often if they are really big and cannot be moved, they are destroyed. they are destroying it or they are selling it, someone is buying it. someone in that transaction chain has a bank account. what we will do is try to figure out who it is, who is the focal

point of the smuggling network, and then we can, through application of our own tools and working with partners around the world, try to disrupt the ability to be able to transact. >> you had this great line in your speech the other day -- among the other funding mechanisms, isil profits from other criminal activities. they rob banks, they loot and sell antiquities, they steal livestock and crops from farmers, and they sell objected women and girls as sex slaves. that is a very powerful line. this is a nasty outfit. i imagine it would take some batman to shut them down. minute wehink, in the have left -- i am so interested. if you had more powers or more capacity than you do today to really lead this war, to bring wouldlaborative -- what

you say would be another strategic leap for your capacity to shut something like isis down? isone thing that we work on essentially to try to replicate what we do internationally. we enforce regulatory authorities, policymaking authorities in the treasury department as a way to constrain the ability of illicit actors to be able to use the financial system. to get ouroverseas partners to work with us, we are often working with governments who are in these balkanized situations in government where someone is in the finance ministry, someone is in the interior ministry to read what we have found is it is hugely effective to have all of this in one department. the finance ministry in particular, because we have particular expertise and effortsity and pursuing

to make the financial system work better. i would love to have other countries around the world have a similar operation. >> do you give lessons? do you have a school? coursedo an online question mark >> i would be delighted to. we do try to work with our partners to help them develop these tools. >> ladies and gentlemen, david c ohen. thank you for rolling through this dense conversation. thank you so much for joining us. over two hours this afternoon, we will head to the center for strategic and international studies in washington for a live discussion on the progress and the creation of an hiv vaccine. we will hear from a doctor at the institute for infectious diseases, among others. that starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> throughout campaign 2014,

c-span has brought you more than 140 candidate debates in races that will determine the control of the next congress, and tonight, watch c-span for a live election night coverage to see who wins, loses, and which party will control the house and senate. p.m.overage begins at 8:00 eastern. you will also see candidate victories and concession speeches and some of the most closely-watched races throughout the country. we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments, and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. somed we are watching tweets from members of the media on this election day. from politico in louisville, kentucky, -- marshall thomas of political also, mary landrieu

votes in new orleans. she is in a tight race for the senate there. a runoff expected. also a tweet showing the poll closing times for the nation. this is from c-span. all times are eastern. we also have a facebook page up today. join the conversation on our facebook page. do you vote? why or why not is our question today. looking at some responses. bob allen says -- i vote every election. it's an opportunity to express my dissatisfaction with representatives that serve the wealthy only. jet black says yes, but it is an exercise in futility. if voting really mattered, they would not let us do it. defense secretary chuck hagel spoke last week at the washington ideas for him -- forum to discuss security threats including china. this is about 20 minutes. >> thank you. hi.

thank you, steve. thank you, audience. thank you especially to secretary hagel for joining us. let's start with one bit of news. there is a noble order you sign today. tell us what that is. >> what i signed this morning was a memorandum to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in response to the memorandum recommendation i received from the chairman and the chiefs yesterday to go forward with a of essentially 21-day incubation for our men and women who would be returning from west africa. that policy was put in place by general williams. said in response this morning was give me within 15

days the operational specifics of how that would work, and we should reveal that -- review that policy within 45 days. the fact is being military will have more americans in liberia than any other department. that is number one. our people, our younger cohorts are different. they are not volunteers. also a policy that was discussed in great detail by the ofmunities, by the families our military men and women. and they very much wanted a safety valve on this.

that is essentially what the directive says. >> thank you very much. auld you -- could you give us brief picture of how dangerous you think this time of history is? is it a chronic annoyance? as in actual danger? when will the united states sees some end to these wars, especially the 13-year war in iraq and afghanistan? >> jim, i think we are living through one of these historic defining times. i think we're seeing a new world , post-world war ii, post-soviet union implosion. post-soviet union implosion being built. the questions are first among the american people and our leaders, what is the role of america in this new world that is evolving? should we have a role? what is appropriate?

the inventory of issues steve mentioned coming onto these dates with you and your question gives us some snapshot into what we are all dealing with. each one of these issues, regardless of where they are affects us now and will continue .o affect this into the future i said, german dempsey said, president obama said, secretary ,erry, -- chairman dempsey said president obama said, secretary kerry, others -- what we see is going to require a steady, long-term effort. it is going to require a coalition. we have more than 60 countries to deal with this. this is an ideology. this is a dynamic that we have never quite seen. look at all of the other guy mentions. the rise of china. russia. what russia has been doing the

last six months. paying them a disease, a bowl of being an example. budget issues. beingdemic disease, ebola an example. congress can get anything done. i hope that changes after next tuesday. i don't know. we need to deal with these great issues. they have long-term consequences. global warming. every facet we see out there today is rolling back on us in some way. if we are not paying a price today, we will pay a big price tomorrow. >> the secretary made interesting speeches of the role of climate change as an issue. we will come back to that. is aole of congress, that unique phenomena. you are a former senator. of there four members foreign relations committee who not only have a great executive authority, but at a time that there seems to be less congressional involvement in the

decision-making, the publicability, and the than has historically been the case. how should we think about this? is this a problem? ell, in one way, there is not less involvement. but the way i would say it, i think there has been less partnership. partnership is critical because it is not a matter of we all have to agree. that is not the issue. we need different opinions. but we have got to have a stronger partnership, for example, with us to allow us to make the kinds of reforms internally whether it is base closings or we do not need any more of these planes are these ships, but we do need these for the future -- we have got to have a partnership strong enough someboth sides can get to conclusion and make a decision on how we go forward.

congress is critically important. it is article one of the constitution. i was a member of the congress. i was very protective of that constitutional responsibility. they control the money. they are closest to the people. so we need them. i have tried in the time i have been secretary of defense to continue to reach out to build those partnerships. we can't do this any other way. and again, i am hoping over the next couple of years, we will see a culture of self corruption -- self correction. that is probably our greatest strength, that we can self correct. >> i go back and ask again part what initial question, could easily be passed over -- it has been 13 years now we have been involved in more or less open-ended conflict in the middle east.

more than 1% of the population affected. at what point, if ever, will this administration be up to say this war is over? is-- be able to say this war over? >> i think the way we have to , tyranny,is terrorism, the challenges and threats to our country, to freedom, for certainly the short term, is going to be with us. it is a reality. now the challenges and threats to a nation and to an individual are not new in the sense that the threats are new. the history of mankind has been about that. it is always the response and have you do it? we have to be smart and get the big things right. we will not get everything right. we have got to get the big things right. what i mean by that, coalitions

of common interest to read we will not get it right with every country to read we will not agree with -- we will not get it right with every country. we will not agree with every country. , extremism, radicalism, terrorism is a threat to every state, to every society. we have got to the old those platforms. , i see thosetely things continuing to stay out there, jim. i think we are in for a longer term challenge. that is the world that we live in. we have got to be honest about that. we have got to be smart about it. in the senate, you saw the extremely polarized discussion of climate and energy.

now in the defense department, the defense department has been one of the leaders on the awareness of these issues. what is the defense department andg on climate change these issues and might that broader -- might that change the broader discussion of these issues do you think question like >> the responsibility that i have for the security of this country, climate change presents security issues for us. what do i mean by that? glaciers are melting. there may be arguments about why. let's put those arguments aside. the fact is, the glaciers are melting. you are seeing that part of the world open up. if that continues, we will see a new waterway right into the heart of the arctic. for means exploration

natural resources and oil and natural gas and minerals. that is going to attract, it already is, great powers. there is a security dynamic to that. as the oceans increase, it will affect our bases. it will affect islands. it will affect security across the world. so, just from my narrow perspective, what i have responsibility for, that is happening now. and we have to be prepared for that. leadership is to prepare the institution you serve as you leave for what is coming. a new have laid out arctic strategy. i did that first in halifax last november. i was just in south america a month ago to lay out the roadmap on how we are dealing with this. morning one ofs our deputy assistant secretaries conference thea

next two days. this is critically important that we pay attention to this. bottom line is, with all of the crises of the moment, and that is part of my job, too, to manage the immediate crisis, we cannot lose sight of the strategic, longer-term challenges that face our country either. and this is one that we have got to be smart and how we handle it. >> to you find political figures who would otherwise resist an argument about climate change respond differently when it is coming from the pentagon? >> i think there is sometimes more awareness and an edge to the issue when it comes from the pentagon, only because the maybery, the pentagon has -- at least perceived by many people, a more serious look at the world. it does not mean the state department is not serious or

anybody else, but when you talk about the military, you know -- i remember, and jim, when i was in the senate, one of the committees i served on was the senate select committee on intelligence. john warner and i introduced legislation a number of years to project and bring up in the intelligence community authorization bill a study on climate change and how it would affect our national security. this was quite a few years ago. i was not the only one thinking about it. john warner, john kerry. bipartisan, too well. there were a lot of people thinking about it. >> you were recently in china. that is a country that many people think would be the next competitor to the united states. to what respect do you fear or not fear attention to china and can you talk about your air carrier visit there? >> i have been in secretary of

defense for about two years now and i have taken six long asia-pacific trips. and one of the visits was a four-day visit in china earlier this year, and the chinese gave me a tour of the retrofitted ukrainian aircraft carrier that they bought from ukraine. that was an interesting experience. as i had an opportunity to visit other facilities, i have over the years had some relationship with china. i first went to china in 1983 as a businessman. relationship is one that i said earlier in more general terms one that we need to get right. we are not going to agree with them on everything. but we should be focused, they should be focused -- and i think we are in many ways -- on where we can cooperate. they are a great power.

they are going to continue to be a great power. we are a great power. we have made a flank on the asia-pacific rebalance. that was not about contain china or cut china sure. we do not want that to happen. we are a pacific power. we have been a pacific power. we have strong treaty obligations in that area. our economic interests are and that -- are in that area. we want to make sure our air and maritime channels are open. that is in the interest of the world, not just in the economic interest of the world. yes, we do have differences, but we have far more areas where we agree and that is where we should be focused. >> the time i was living in china, i often saw the connective tissue between the u.s. village terry with their chinese counterparts, which was an important understanding tool between the countries i thought. >> i just met with state council

yang when he was here. when i was in the senate, i got to know their ambassadors well. i have some personal relationships that have been helpful. nations always respond with their own self interest. that is predictable. that is good. but personal relationshipslubri. if we can develop a more of a personal relationship, the lubricant makes it less difficult. it does not change the policy. it makes it better. has the president noted, your , i wantlisted veteran to ask you what your personal hope is in the remaining two plus years in the job. served was which you a divisive v