susan: our guest on "newsmakers" this week is utah's governor, gary herbert. the nation's governors are meeting in washington this week for their semi-annual confab and the governor is the vice-chair of the organization. this summer you will be taking over the gavel. before i introduce our two reporters, you announced to your reporters at home that your focus, when you take over the chairmanship, is going to be federalism. can you tell us what that concept means to you in 2015? gov. herbert: well, we are partners in carrying the responsibilities of government. the federal government with the states. it has always been envisioned that they were equal partners. states should not be subservient.

yet we see with this continued growth and expansion, the federal government encroaches, i believe, into the responsibilities of the states. and that is not a partisan issue, that is a --democrat, republican, independent agrees that the government is taking over too much. so let's get back to the concept of responsibility as defined in our constitution and what we've always known as called "federalism." susan: well, i am sure we will be hearing more about that practically with questions from our two guests. so, let me introduce them. reid wilson is at "the washington post." he's the govbeat reporter. he is following policy details with the states and federal government. james hohmann is at "politico," and he's a political reporter there. we're going to start with reid wilson. reid: well, governor, let's talk about federalism for a second. a huge percentage of utah and most other western states are owned by the federal government. what challenge does that pose to you trying to govern a lot of land you do not have control over? gov. herbert: well, you can appreciate how it would be if

someone was telling you how to manage your backyard, sometimes you agree and sometimes you don't. we have the bureau of land management in our state. nearly 70% of the land mass is controlled or owned by the federal government. that is a lot. you know, it is designed to be multiple-use. our farmers and ranchers have the ability to use that land access the water and so on for their agriculture. also, natural resource extraction, energy development tourism and travel -- all of those things should be working in harmony and we think sometimes it gets out of balance in the west and the concern we have because of that imbalance is a that it creates a lack of opportunity for everybody. we are trying to bring back a little balance in utah. i think that is exemplified in many of the western states today. reid: do you want to see some of that federal land returned to the states, and how would you do that? gov. herbert: you know, utah has always been a public land state and it will continue to be a public land state.

the question is, who manages the public lands? is it the federal government or the state or a combination of both? i think the answer is it should be a combination. we have been concerned about the lack of compatibility as to optimum use of some of our public lands. some lands ought to be preserved and protected and others ought to be developed. we sometimes think the east, particularly washington, d.c., is out of touch with the reality of the western lifestyle and what we're trying to do to contribute to energy development, for example. i applaud the fact we have one of our congressmen, rep. rob bishop along with congressman jason chaffetz, trying to resolve some of these conflicts that have been going on for 25 years in utah with what they call a "public lands initiative," which will resolve 18 million acres of utah to say, "this should be developed, this should be preserved and protected, this is for farming and ranching, this is for energy development."

so, i think we are on the right road to resolve it and i think it should be a shared responsibility. james: i would like to ask about medicaid. your legislature, speaking big picture and then looking at the specific situation, i have been struck by the dynamic that we have had several republican governors push for expansion of medicaid and their republican legislatures have blocked them. it happened earlier this month in tennessee with bill haslam and in wyoming with matt mead. john kasich in ohio had to go around the republican legislature. rick scott in florida wanted medicaid, it was dead on arrival. why do you think there is this disconnect between republican chief executives who want to figure out a way to expand coverage and republican state legislatures who seem diametrically opposed to it? gov. herbert: well, i cannot speak for other states. i understand the concept that the governors have to take a broader view. it may be the 30,000 foot view

that people talk about, to look at what is the best interest of all the people they represent in a state. in utah in particular, you know, the thing that is kind of peculiar is that we really do not in large support the critical care act. i led the charge in opposition. we sued. we ended up going through a process where we lost in the supreme court. where, at least on the constitutionality of the affordable care act, because the supreme court said that under the taxation clause of the constitution, it was ok to have it. but they kind of changed the dynamic and said that medicaid expansion and medicaid itself is voluntary. i understand that. but here's the problem. the taxes to pay for medicaid expansion and medicaid are mandatory. so in our state of utah, we send about $800 million a year back to washington, d.c. under the affordable care act and we get no benefit unless we find some

way to do that. so, we do not want to expand medicaid in utah. we have a different program called "healthy utah," where we take the money back -- it's our money -- and puts it back, into a better program than medicaid which includes different co-pays, and not as much assistance for those on the upper end, more skin in the game for the recipient, higher cost if you use the emergency room than you would have under medicaid, and a work requirement so that when you enroll as youth you get health care and automatically enrolled into a work program to help you get off of government assistance. you are there in the first place because you are not making enough money. so, if you are able-bodied and unemployed, we want to get you a job. if you are able-bodied and underemployed, we want to get you a better job. so, we think this is a better use of spending the money and i think we have a chance of kind of finding a new pathway here. >> healthy michigan, healthy

indiana, you hear a lot about that. one of the substantive concerns about medicaid expansion is that states are going to be left holding the bag. the federal government is making this promise. two, three years, 100%. and then, all of a sudden they have given coverage to all these folks, and then you are on the hook as utah to pay for it and you will have to find new ways to get the revenue to do it. do you think the government is good for the money? gov. herbert: well -- [chuckles] -- i do not like the way they manage their budget here in washington, d.c. they don't live within their means. contrary to what states typically do, certainly utah, we do not spend more than we take in. we save for a rainy day. we try to build the economy. but, the government itself, that is why we developed in utah a pilot program. if they renege on the premises if they do not complete their

part of the bargain, then this program will be modified or eliminated. when you sign up for health utah you have to acknowledge that. this is a private program that can be modified or eliminated based on what we find going forward. that is why it is a pilot program. i do not know what the future will bring us as far as the government keeping their part of the bargain, but if they don't, as has happened in many states as part of the medicaid expansion, they have said, if it doesn't happen we will get out. we've had the same provisions in our healthy utah program. we'll see what happens. i would hope they would keep their part in the bargain. medicaid in utah has been there since 1966, 1967. they have always made the payments on the 70-30 match. going forward, i expect they can. they should. there are a lot of ways to cut the fat in washington, d.c. and find more efficiency so they can pay their bills. so, it is the law of the land.

until that law has changed, we have to deal with what is the reality today. reid: let me ask you about the next challenge to the affordable care act. matthews v. burwell, the case that is before the supreme court right now. if the court rules against the affordable care act and says that healthcare.gov states aren't eligible for the subsidies, how are you going to react in utah? you have suddenly got hundreds of thousands of people who thought they were getting subsidies and now get no subsidies. >> again, that is part of the flaw in the affordable care act. it has been too partisan. it has divided the country. there is a lot to be critical about with the affordable care act. i am one of them. that being the case, i'm happy to deal with what the reality is. if the law changes because of king v. burwell, we will react and adjust to that very situation. if it tumbles down the affordable care act, i say great, we ought to go back and start over. in my case, if the act fails that means the $800 million we

were sending to washington will cease to go there. frankly, a good rule of thumb for most of us as governors is do not take the money from us in the first place. you know, you do not need to take more money to develop one-size-fits-all programs for the state. if we want to develop a program, we can do it ourselves. we are the laboratories of democracy. so, don't take it from us in the first place. if you take it, give it back. give it back as a block grant with more flexibility. we will find better, more efficient ways to take the responsibility. reid: i'm sorry, i cited the wrong case. thank you for correcting me. if the king v. burwell case goes the other way, in the more immediate sense, you will suddenly have thousands of people who do not have care and get the subsidies. is there an immediate answer you can come up with or does it have to be that sort of long-term re-think of health care reform? gov. herbert: it is always tough to give answers to hypothetical questions.

we know there's potential out there, we have certainly talked to the leadership in the house and the senate about what might happen. is the court going to give us some time? i expect that the court will make a decision by the end of the year and make a judgment. we will get together with our legislature and our medical community and the people of utah and decide how to deal with that and what is in the best interest of the taxpayer. i expect other states will do the same. hohmann: can i ask a political question? utah, always an interesting state politically. you toppled an incumbent governor as a lieutenant governor on the ticket back in the day. mike lee is going to have a convention next year. do you think he is vulnerable to a challenge? do you think he will win reelection? gov. herbert: maybe i misunderstood, you said i toppled an incumbent?

hohmann: i'm sorry, you ran for governor. gov. herbert: yes, i ran for governor. there were seven or eight of us who ran for governor. i ended up partnering with gov. jon huntsman, former ambassador of china, and he ran for president here in this last cycle as you know. he and i joined together. in utah there is a partnership. governor and lieutenant governor run as a ticket. that was a great time. a good run for us. it led me to have the opportunity to be the governor of utah and i have run and won my own term now. but you know, dynamics of politics are sometimes hard to predict. utah has always been a pretty red state. we are conservative. we have been consistently conservative over a long period of time, and i would say that is been one of the secrets to our success. the predictability. the policies. smaller government. healthy economy. more empowerment in the private sector. our unemployment rate is 3.5%. our growth gdp is twice the national average. 4.1 percent growth now in utah. our system, our policies, our

values are working very well in utah. senator lee reflects a lot of that. he is a conservative. maybe a conservative's conservative. i think he got a bad rap with the federal shutdown. got more blame than probably he deserved. his polling was in the low 40's, now it is in the low 50's, he is certainly coming back. i think hewill be hard to -- if anybody has an idea, there is a lot us rumor out there. not a lot of substance. i think he would be hard for anybody to topple if they decided to challenge him. reid: let me talk about an issue that is huge in the west that i don't think gets much coverage east of the mississippi. there are 11 states in which a bird called the sage grouse has habitat. the department of the interior is considering listing that bird as an endangered species and

that has the potential to lock up tens of millions of acres of land. talk about the challenge you face in utah and sort of how you are trying to protect the sage grouse on your own. gov. herbert: well, we have had a plan in place for some time, and we started working on that some number of years ago. we care about the sage grouse and we do not want to see it listed. i think others out there have their own agenda. they do not care about the sage grouse but they want to use it to stop energy development. coal extraction. natural gas. oil drilling. that is the political reality in the marketplace. that being said, we have developed a plan based on input from all of the stakeholders from the business community to the industry, business leaders and community leaders and the environmental community and came up with a plan that protects 94% of the sage grouse habitat in utah. the good news is for the sage grouse is it is working. we had it increase significantly

in the last couple years and in fact just this past year, we have had an increase in the sage grouse population approaching 40%. so, our plan is working. i also created an executive order that i signed here just a few weeks ago to put in place these management plans we have been working on to protect the sage grouse. so, we are a little concerned that the federal government has not embraced what we are doing as wholeheartedly as they should. they asked us to do this and now they are being standoffish as far as embracing and approving our plan. i am concerned about a species that is prolific in nine states that people are saying is somehow endangered. i mean, that seems a little bit odd. from a utah perspective, we're doing everything we can to protect the sage grouse and we see our efforts taking shape. reid: do think you are actually getting a fair shake from fish & wildlife, the department of the interior, the people who will

make this decision, or has the decision all ready been made and they are moving towards it? gov. herbert: i feel like we are coming together on this. they see we have made a good-faith effort. hard to argue against results. i think there is been a concern that the science the federal government is using is not accurate and has been suspect. again, they do not seem to be willing to go back to review the science. when they are called upon, it seems a little bit weak when you look at the science of the sage grouse. but i am very comfortable we are working together on this and we will get the right outcome. the western governance committee, which i'm the past chair of, is doing a great job at bringing this together. we're periodically meeting with the interior and fish & wildlife and i am hopeful we'll get this resolved. susan: you have nine minutes left. james: let me ask you about

immigration. what conservatives widely see as overreach by the federal government. utah is one of the states that has joined the lawsuit trying to stop president obama's executive action on immigration. this past week, a federal judge temporarily halted implementation of the executive order. where do you see this case ending up? what will be the disposition? is this something that is clearly so unconstitutional that federal courts will intervene, or do you think it will happen even if a lot of states have signed on to this suit trying to stop it? gov. herbert: well james, you make me think of the old saying by yogi berra, "i hate to make predictions, particularly about the future." who knows where it is going to end up and where it's going to be resolved. but, immigration is in emotional issue. i am sure it is not unique to utah, but we have had a lot of frustration because of the lack of action on the congress's

part. it is up to them to resolve this issue and to do something. do is the operative word. something can be defined as a little or a lot. but do something. we finally got so frustrated in utah that we decided to try to make our own policies as a state and we said we're going to enforce the laws you are not forcing. we wanted to see if we could, in fact, find a better way to solve the problem. we got challenged in court by the obama administration saying, "well, you cannot go around the congress. this is their responsibility not yours as the state of utah." they won on some points in court, we lost on the bigger points where they said this is a federal responsibility. well, guess what? we were frustrated with the congress, now we have the president frustrated with the congress and he says, i am going to go around the congress. and we said, wait a minute. [laughter] we all ready had this debate and discussion. you challenged us. not fair. what is good for the goose is

good for the gander. so now we're suing him. saying you have overstepped your executive authority and you cannot go around congress, either. and frankly, it is not about the results he is trying to get, it is about who has the responsibility to put policy in place. well, it's the congress. we called on the congress to immediately do some immigration reforms. do something. even if it is just as minimal as securing the border. everybody agrees. do it,then. do it. james: how much blame do congressional republicans deserve for the failure to pass immigration? do both sides have mud on their hands here because it has been politicized or is it the way the obama administration approached the issue? gov. herbert: well, there has certainly been a lack of leadership. leadership will bring people together and find a compromise point. we have found it in times past and can find it now. there is probably blame to go around for everybody, but really the buck stops at the white house. you have got to bring people

together. that is part of being president. i have to do it as a legislator. for most of the legislation we have, we have 85-90% of our legislation has bipartisan support. almost passed unanimously. we bring people together. i meet with the democrats probably once a week in my state. i meet with the republicans also. we try to bring people together to get things resolved. that should be happening in this town, too. reid: let me ask about another issue that gets heated. common core. developed in part by the national governors association which you will be taking over later this year. what is it about common core that makes conservative activists so angry and do you support education standards that are higher than those that were in place before common core? gov. herbert: i think it illustrates the challenge we have in life.

lack of good communication. we do not understand each other. we talk past each other. that drives our lack of understanding. i think everybody wants to have higher standards. when we look at a country that is 25 or 26 in ranking order around the world as far as education, we have a problem. we cannot sustain growth if we do not have skilled labor and that comes with education. i think everybody wants to have higher standards. common core was designed to do that. to get everybody together on the same page is a minimum high standard. higher standard. so, if you graduate from high school in mississippi, idaho california, you have some kind of a minimum proficiency. somewhere along the way, we did not communicate well. there is concern that the

government and the department of education on the federal level took over responsibility. that they in fact say, if you do this, then we will give you money. the strings attached. and for some, that is a misunderstanding. in utah, we have gone back to say look, let's review what has taken place for our state. make sure we are getting higher standards than we had before which our education people said is true. let us make sure that utah is somehow not inadvertently or intentionally ceded authority for their education to the federal government. they found that we have not ceded that authority. the local authority to the school boards for curriculum not to be confused with the standards, but the curriculum sometimes are used interchangeably. miscommunication. every state should be doing this. make sure you have control of your own standards. higher into better standards. you are in control of your curriculum. your textbooks.

your resource materials to fit in with your values and what you think should be taught in schools. taking control of testing. making sure the tests are right and appropriate. and data collection. the concern about collecting data from the students. one concern is it might be inappropriate. and once collected, what do we do with it? do we push it out to arenas that might be inappropriate? that is what we are doing in utah and other states are trying to follow suit. susan: we have two minutes left. governor, i wanted to ask you about wildfire management. climate scientists are predicting it is going to be a tough several years ahead. for western states particularly. i am wondering about your satisfaction level with government response on wildfires and what it is doing to your own state to plan for this. >> we have not had wildfires to the extent of some of our

neighboring states like colorado. part of this management concern we have with the federal government is the lack of concern about replacing the grass, which is like a fuse. it burns rapidly. we need more fire resistant grasses for grazing for sides of hills and mountains. terrain management aspects of that, we would like to have improvement from the federal government. we have not been able to spray for the broader bark beetle, so we have had stands of trees that have died. we have a lumber industry decimated because of poor management of our forests. we are getting better with working with the federal government. certainly the drought that is taking place in the west is not helping. we are taking steps to deal with that and i anticipate will find better ways to manage so we minimize the effects of the drought with forest fire. >> we know you are meeting with the president and governors at the white house on monday. i wonder if you will tell us, to get his ear, what is the message going to be? >> to give the states

flexibility. again, they talk about it. maybe every administration talks about it. maybe some of it is reluctance to give up control. i think some of it is a lack of trust. the lack of trust in the states doing it right. i have spoken to cabinet members, saying why are you doing this to us? and they say they want to make sure we are getting it right. and i say, you don't trust the people with children who live in the state? we are the laboratory for democracy. let us learn from each other. we are a great resource for the people in washington. we come up with great programs. we find successes from successes. we can improve when we see failure. my words to the administration is trust the states. give us flexibility. let us have our sovereign opportunity to direct our own

affairs. susan: thank you for your time. gov. herbert: thank you. governors are in washington and they do this twice a year where they talk about mutual. governor herbert's frustration with walk -- washington. would you talk about this white house and its view of several relationships philosophically and how it prepares for the administration. >> in general, democrats take a more national review of things and there is more -- less flexibility granted to the state. especially from republican

governors, as we heard from governor herbert. doing big things with the states, whether it's buying medicaid expansion or it will create the state health care changes, in a lot of cases. now, giving that the administration is expand -- interested in expanding in the state, that expansion, they are loosening up. the latest puzzles that have come out of the states, indiana as was mentioned, the proposals that are on the table look a lot different then some from more traditional methods. go ahead and do it your way. >> we covered the health care immigration, and management. did we cover most of the flashpoint of the in -- obama administration? >> you talk about federalism

but the majority of the states and admiral government. the issue is really huge, we joke about but a very important issue. it has a significant effect on a lot of the states, they are being able to drill and energy would the another 81 two add to that. they will be big issues in the upcoming presidential campaign and talked about. his explanation of that was very active, as good explanation of their rationale for anti-obama, and now the health care issue. the obamacare brand is so toxic you have seen a loosening of the

willingness of the hhs that they never would have given before. we're talking to a lot of governors, every republican has their own healthy plan, they don't want to call it medicare, they definitely don't want to call it obamacare. and they have all their different words they heard. the utah version of that here. they are trying to make it work with a really popular president a percentage for the republican presidential nominee than any other state. the affordable care act will overturn that portion of the law. not at all. the continuity plans that will give them a little bit of time

on the side. president obama and federal government got involved through the department of education, it became a toxic program in the state's especially among conservative activists. how will these governors approach having to offer new subsidies. in a way that does not smell like obama care. in a way that does not look like it came out of the white house or washington. it will be a massive challenge. in all these legislatures, there's almost no consensus within the republican party or between republicans and democrats. >> the republicans dominate dejected and management. what does the landscape look like for that? >> there are 31 governor ships which is a much higher watermark

. there are three governors races this year. applicants hold two of the three. the whole of mississippi will add upholding louisiana and then the big race is in kentucky. there is a popular governor there. democrats will coalesce behind the attorney general of their. in 2016, it is bad because they have to defend seats in illinois, pennsylvania, and new hampshire. but it is good for republicans. they lost a lot of governorships that they should have one. -- wioon. whether it is west virginia, montana, with where the democratic governors association hails from, missouri, where nixon is leading after a moderate democrat. there are a lot of races where if republicans have a good year in 2016, they got a have up to 34 governors. democrats are on defense at the

state capital level. >> is it fair to say politics because they are politicians? >> it is never far from their minds. >> thank you for being here. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> in about 30 minutes, we cover -- continue our live coverage of the national governors association winter meeting being held this weekend at washington, d.c. secretary jeh johnson talks about states in cyber security at 11:00. at 3:00, gina mccarthy will talk about federal and state collaborations on energy and water. see them both today on c-span. >> the guard towers are gone but the memories come flooding back for so many people who until today, had lost such a big part of their childhood.

for many released after the war, some buried the memories, and with it, the history of this camp. more than 60 years later. >> tonight on q&a the only family internment camp at crystal city, texas, and what she says is the real reason for this. >> the government comes to the father's and says we have a deal for you. we will reunite you with your families in the crystal city internment camp. the family internment camp. if you will agree to go voluntarily. then i discovered the real secret. they also had to agree to voluntarily repatriate to germany and japan, if the government decided they needed to be repatriated. the truth is, the crystal city camp was humanely administered by the ims.

but the special award divisions of the government -- department made a deep primary prisoner exchange program. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. on tuesday, vice president biden swore and ashton carter as a new secretary of defense. he replaces chuck hagel who announced he would leave the post late last year. the ceremony took place at the roosevelt room of the white house. it is about 20 minutes. -- >> hello, everyone. welcome to the roosevelt room.

dr. carter, stephanie, william carter, where is william? hey, man. how are you? welcome. daughter ava couldn't be present today, but the deputy secretary who has been running things and been a great asset to the department. general marty dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, as well as admiral james who is the vice-chairman, and members of the carter transition team. i said as i walked in to ash, if anyone is made for this job, if there's a job description that fits the person, this is the guy that fits the job description. it's kind of fitting that we are here the roosevelt room, a lot of renaissance men, from teddy to franklin. they get sworn in in this room.

ash, you are a genuine scholar of strategic military affairs, and nuclear weapons policy. a profoundly capable manager demonstrated time and again with universal respect and affection of the people you work with. reflected in a near unanimous vote in the united states senate. we have to talk more. [laughter] i tell you what, they used to be the good old days. i'm glad you got us back in harness, got the senate back in harness. a physicist with a genuine expert on the acquisition and technical capabilities that are going to help guarantee the united states military is second to none in the world. this man has a driving intellectual force behind all that he does, and all this in administration has been doing. strengthening our nation's cyber

security, improving the way the pentagon does business, and implementing the asian pacific balance, including deepening defense cooperation with india. even when you were allegedly gone, we never let you go. i don't how many times i was on the phone with you for your advice after you had left. the president didn't like it when you weren't here, ash. it made a harder for me. i'm glad you are back. most importantly, you have been a fighter like the men and women in uniform here today. you have been a fighter for the women and men who serve in uniform. our incoming secretary of defense, like his predecessor, understands that while this country has many obligations, it only has one truly sacred obligation, many obligations but one truly sacred one. and that's to equip and protect those we sent to war, and care for the families while they are there, and them and their families when they come home.

years ago, when we learned that what improvised explosive devices were, it's hard to believe that 15 years ago, people were talking about -- we didn't know what ied's work on -- where, it wasn't part of the vocabulary. they are responsible for upwards of 60% of the death and injuries to our troops in iraq and afghanistan. and ash carter was the guy who leapt into action to honor that sacred obligation -- taking care of our troops. he was then undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology, and logistics. and then as deputy secretary, he works like the devil to get our troops mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. they have saved lives and limbs, and countless numbers for american women and men.

i can remember, ash, i read your report and then spoke at the time on the senate with the commandant of the marine corps. we had a universal opposition to spending money at the time, as you are member. -- you remember. even some division within the defense department on whether we should spend the money. that was $23 billion we were trying to get that year. to begin to build these. it's faced not only bureaucratic opposition, but there was opposition on the floor of the united states senate. i have a great privilege of leading the effort to get this money put in the budget. and remember before we went in to the debate, going around quoting you, referencing your report. and then in the middle of the debate, one i was told by democrats and republicans, leaders in the senate armed services committee, this was not a priority for the united states military, i called up then the

commandant of the marine corps. i left the floor, i suggested the absence of a quorum, left the floor, and went back into the cloak room. and he referenced your report as well, and said he believed, i'm paraphrasing, his highest moral obligation, he thought, was to get these built. and so, guess what? we did. but then the argument became a -- are we building too many? i remember sitting on the floor, it is like franklin roosevelt saying have we built too many landing craft? because we are not going to be able to use than after this, we won't need the very much. that was the argument of the time. we shouldn't build as many because we're not going to need them. we're not going to need them, why waste the money? in the end, we sent more than

24,000 to iraq and afghanistan and your work was saved thousands of lives and limbs. i remember my next trip to afghanistan, after this. to iraq, i was out in falluja and the battle had been run. there was a group they wanted to show me. it was a meeting going on. they wanted to show me one that had just been blown up. two young sergeants in an armored humvee got out of their vehicles and showed me how this one was blown up. i forget how many pounds of explosives, but it blew the entire vehicle up higher than a telephone pole, it brought down the wires. but they all survived. they had all of the soldiers there survive because the internal portion of the vehicle was preserved. if you did nothing else in your

career, that was a pretty important thing to have done. but that's just one example of the way he cares for the troops. the also led the effort to develop -- this is not a joke, or advertisement -- protective undergarments. earned him a pair of signed bulletproof underwear but enduring gratitude from those whose bodies were broken because of what he rushed into the field. ash and stephanie -- my deceased wife used to say you want a measure of a man or a woman, look at what they do if no one was looking. if no one was looking. almost every saturday, when no one was looking, ash and stephanie were out at walter reed, no cameras, no publicity no advance. they just became regulars. they got to know the families of

those women and men at reed, they looked after their children, they saw these warriors heal. and they formed lasting bonds with hundreds upon hundreds of these young women and men. that's what endeared me most to you, ash and stephanie. being ashton carter he didn't , just do these things, he wrote eloquently about the lessons of his experience so the next time, we could do a lot better. in other words, ash carter is a thinker and a doer. he gets things done, he's famous for holding meetings while walking briskly in the pentagon with his aides struggling to scribble in? simultaneously. i understand they are not looking forward to that again. they hope you stay in the bigger office and don't wander as much. and woe to the person who runs

into ash carter having not finish a project. my guess is there are probably staffers over there thinking of the things they told you you -- they told you they would do before you left. now you're coming back, and it is -- where is that memo, did i get it all done? many tough missions as you know as well as any of the men or women in here lie ahead, from the fight against isil, to strengthening nato, to the asia-pacific rebalance, to maintaining a technological edge, to the continuous efforts to make the most out of every dollar we invest in defense. as you know now, after your vote, not only to the president and i, and the chiefs, but the united states senate are counting on you to keep holding yourself and all in your charge to the highest possible standards required for our national security and our ideals. never stop demanding and

delivering the best for the men and women in uniform. and dr. carter, as you take the leadership of this greatest military in the history of mankind -- that is not hyperbole. that is an absolute fact. in all of human history, there has never been a military as capable as this. you do so with confidence of everyone in your building, confidence in the united states senate, the confidence of president obama and me. and so many other people who admire your work. so, god bless your mission, old buddy, and may god protect our troops. with your permission, i'm going to administer the oath, and you and i are going to have to sign a few documents here to make it official. and then i'm going to turn it over to you. you walk up here, and you put your left hand on the bible. repeat after me. i, state your name. >> i, ashton carter, do solemnly

swear, that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic that i will bear true faith to -- allegiance to the state. that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which i'm about to enter. so help me god. >> secretary, thank you. [applause] you and i have to sign this, ash. and then the podium is yours. let me make sure i sign the right place.

sign there, and i'll get out of the way. >> well, thank you as vice president. i think you know how much it means to me to have you swear me in today. i thank you. and for me, this is the highest honor, to be the 25th secretary of defense. i'm grateful to the president, and the vice president for your trust and confidence, and to the u.s. senate as well, for their trust and confidence. i've got a lot of thanks to give out here, first and foremost to my perfect wife stephanie. my wonderful son will, and my daughter ava, already mentioned. a number of folks who were part

of my transition team, and helped me get where i am without whom i would not be where i am. i won't name each and everyone of you, but i'm looking at you. and i appreciated it. it was a time when i really needed help. and i got help from you all. into the team i'm about to join, my wonderful deputy, our fantastic chairman, marty dempsey, eight sandy, i've known and worked with you before. it's wonderful to rejoin the team with you. i have some special friends here, deputy secretary of energy sherwood, i'm very grateful that you would come today and take your time to be with me. all the rest of my team to be, eric, ron, thank you all very much for being here.

i am honored to rejoin the men and women of the defense department in what is the highest calling, which is the defense of our country. starting today, i want to make three commitments to them, and to the country, and to the president, and to the vice president. and my fellow citizens. the first is to help our president make the best possible decisions about our security and the security of the world. and then, to ensure that our department executes those decisions with its long accustomed competence and effectiveness. and while we deal with the

challenges to our national security, i also want to make sure that i help our leadership grab hold of the wonderful opportunities that lie before this great country. and to make the world better place for our children, and to create a safer world. my second commitment is to the men and women of the department of defense, whom i will lead to reflect in everything i do, and to honor the commitment and dedication that brought them into service. to protect their dignity, their safety, their well-being. to make decisions about sending them into harm's way with the greatest reflection and care. and third, i have a commitment

to the future. to building a force for our future. that involves not only securing the resources we need, but making sure that we make the best use of the taxpayer's dollar. make sure that we embrace change so that years from now, and decades from now, we continue to be a place where america's finest want to serve. a place that is a reagan -- beacon to the rest of the world, a place that has the best in the way of technology, and in the way of caring for our own people, and people around the world. we are entering the fourth quarter of this president's tenure. these commitments that i am making i think will help me help

him, and help the vice president to ensure that those years are productive, and that they leave our country's future in the best possible place, in the best possible hands. so thank you, once again, for this honor and privilege, to lead and serve alongside the members of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. thank you. [applause] -- [indiscernible]

[inaudible] >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road. traveling to u.s. cities to learn about the history and literary life. we are partnered with time warner cable with a visit to greensboro, north carolina. most of the seats were empty when i got there except for college students.

most everybody else was like, i am not going down there, because anything might happen. there are these empty seats. it is quiet. we go and sit down. and wait. to see what is going to happen. it would just came by with a tray of knives that -- she was so nervous the knives were rattling. i was so nervous that i did not know she -- i did not know what she might be doing with those knives. i could tell that she was as scared as i was. we sat down with our books trying to study. i.r. number her saying -- i remember her saying that we do not serve you colored, we will have to ask you to leave. we had this instruction do not say anything. just keep sitting. do not say anything and keep

sitting. if they ask you what we would like or if there was a cup of coffee -- but they never asked us because they knew they would not serve us. watch all the events from greensboro on c-span. as congress comes back from its break, it is expected to look at educational issues. the senate resumes debate on homeland security spending and vote on the attorney general nomination. we get more from a capitol hill reporter. >> congress comes back from its presidents' day recess and we are joined by elise foley with the huffington post. she covers congress and politics. your article talks about the standstill on the measure -- the department of homeland security spending measure, including the federal court order this week in texas. what is the latest as the senate

comes back? >> they have been at an impasse for weeks. they are still at an impasse in congress over this dhs funding bill. basically the problem is republicans say they will not support funding the department of homeland security unless there is a component to end these executive actions taken by the president that would give work permits and the ability to stay to undocumented immigrants. republicans say they cannot support anything that does not block those. democrats say they will not support anything that does include measures to block these actions. it is a point where both sides have dug in their heels. it is tough to say how it will work. the most likely thing is that they will kick it down the road, doing another continuing resolution, and we have this fight again later. >> the federal judge in texas this week halting, at least temporarily, the implementation of some of those executive orders. the white house saying they will seek a stay of that.

the department of justice. how does the texas order complicate the debate in the senate? >> there are some potential that that could be used to break the stalemate. if republicans were to say, ok these things are not going forward anyway, maybe we can support a sort of clean dhs bill that would fund the department while these orders are not taking place -- the fact the obama administration is seeking a stay, that would allow them to continue these programs while this issue of the constitutionality gets sorted out complicates things. it would make it so that, if they succeeded, the programs would continue to go into effect, exactly what the republicans do not want. at the moment, it appears it will not necessarily help matters. this injunction will not change much about the dhs fight. >> remind us of the deadline congress faces and what is ahead on monday when the senate returns.

>> the deadline is february 27. they need to do something by then or else the dhs will face a shutdown. on monday, the senate will vote again on this bill that has already passed the house to fund dhs. it has failed multiple times before because democrats have blocked it and are expected to block it again. i do not think anything has changed on that front since they voted on it last. the idea is to continue showing the house that the senate cannot pass the house's bill, so ultimately they will have to come up with some type of plan b if they want to pass funding for dhs next week. >> let's look at another big priority for the administration. the nomination of loretta lynch to be the attorney general. she has had her hearing before the judiciary committee. we understand a vote is likely next week. how many republicans will it take to pass her and what does that look like in terms of passage in the senate?

>> there are several republicans who have indicated support for lynch. orrin hatch, jeff flake. a few others. it looks like she may get out of committee. the problem is whether republicans would try to block her on the floor. you have people like ted cruz and jeff sessions, who for the same reason we were talking about before with the issue of executive actions on immigration, are saying they will not allow the loretta lynch nomination to move forward. there is potential that if they wanted to pass her and confirm her in the full senate, they would have to do that -- mcconnell would have to do that by relying on mostly democrats rather than mostly republicans. that would be something awkward, but right now, it is looking like there are a decent number of republicans who are not willing to support her, because she supports the executive actions. >> a look at some of what is ahead from congress from elise foley who covers congress and more.

you can read more by following huffingtonpost.com and follow her on twitter, @elisefoley. thank you. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session. new congress, best axis on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and >> we are live at the national governors convention. today's event includes j johnson -- jeh johnson. johnson has had a busy morning, appearing on 5 of the 7 sunday morning talk shows. a bill to sign after fabric 27th is held up in the