do in our budget was acknowledge that our fiscal situation and our economic situation have changed in important ways. both in the near term, in terms of the rapid fiscal consolidation and deficit reduction we've seen, but also in the medium term, largely around the reduction in the rate of growth of health care costs continuing to step down, baseline estimates of deficits in the future. that's not to say that long-term fiscal challenges have been solved. but we are in a different position. unfortunately what we saw with the republican budget, what we saw was largely the same approach, prioritizing deficit reduction over shared growth starting principally with tax cuts aimed at wealthier americans and then forcing very deep cuts in order to pay for those and hit the fiscal objectives.

one of the things that's interesting in that context is this debate that's occurred around discretionary levels in particular. i think that the thing that we can do to most helpfully encourage the kind of deal that would be good for the economy and good for our national security is be very clear, both about where the president stands, and about how you could get from here to there. and so one of the reasons why, if you go back and look when the president announced his budget he was very clear when he went out and he said two things. he said, i will not accept a budget that locks in sequester going forward. and i will not accept breaking the linkage that was enshrined in the bipartisan murray-ryan agreement between our national security and our economic security. he laid that as predicate and then put forward a budget that shows very concretely both how you could raise those caps and how you could pay for them. quite explicitly.

it's all in there. we do not ascribe to the chuck grassley theory that the right way to do budgets is to have very little wording there. i think that's the thing we can do to be most constructive. as you say, the republicans have a choice. we have done this now several times. they know where this play ends. and there is bipartisan support for coming together, recognizing that we can absolutely afford to invest in our economic security, invest in our national security, pay for it over the long-term, and we would be better off both economically and politically if we could get an agreement on that sooner rather than engage in a whole bunch of brinksmanship where we know where that ends up. so i think what we can do is be clear, be specific. and have the president drawing those lines, not as a way of

fomenting partisanship but as a way of trying to clearly indicate a path that, just to be clear, there are lots of republicans who support that path, just as there are lots of democrats. jeff: let me say one word about economy. if you look back across the last year or so, where we've had strong growth, it's been helped by the absence of brinksmanship, self-inflicted wounds, fiscal drama. a in fact, if you plot consumer confidence or business confidence, the dips have generally been around things like government shutdown, so we hope, for the sake of the economy and the american businesses and american workers, that congress has learned that in lesson. and that under no situation do we head toward another self-inflicted wound on the economy. hold questioner: who do you think

are your negotiating partners and are you reaching out already to them? brian: i think that republicans introduced their budget this week. the committee process yesterday, they're going to go through next week. and we have to see how that all plays itself out. there is still an open question, as you said, this debate within the republican party about whether they are actually going to fund defense at levels that are uniform military service would be devastating to our national security priorities. and so i think we need to see how that plays out over the course of the next week. we are and have been, over the course of the last several weeks, engaged with members of congress, republicans and

democrats, largely in that context around our budget and our budget proposal. but part of that was associated with what i was talking about before, which is wanting to make sure that people fully understand the approach that we're taking, and how we think we could find areas of compromise. questioner: i have a two-part question. the s.g.r. agreement that the house leaders are about to release. is this the framework you can live with or do you have any major concerns with? second question is, i'm curious what you make of the social security aspect in the house republican budget, it prohibits the reallocation of the disability fund to the retirement fund. is that something could you support on any level? if not, how do you believe this should be fixed, when it dips into the red next year? brian: on the first, as you say, it's about to be released and we haven't seen the details. so we're -- we'll be better positioned to make an assessment once we've had a chance to do that. i think that as some of you

know, but in our budget we laid out a proposal for a permanent s.g.r. fix. and have a number of proposals in that space in our budget. that's something that the president has been supportive of for several years. including doing it in a fiscally responsible way. but with respect to the details of this particular agreement, i think we really need to see what they are before we have a better sense of where we land. your second question, social security. so, the house provision was unconstructive and at odds with how this issue has been addressed time and time again in a bipartisan manner. and we continue to believe that the right way to address this issue is consistent with what we proposed.

and that we have always said, as many of you around this table know and have been reporting on for years, we have always said that we're open to having a conversation about social security reform more broadly. we have laid out a set of principles that would be important in the context of that conversation. but it is just not tenable to walk away from what has been a very clear, bipartisan approach to addressing the issue. so in terms of answering your question concretely, that's how we think this is going to need to get done. questioner: [inaudible]

it's an internal debate among republicans. do you actually expect to play a role in the crafting of a republican budget? it seems at moment your fingerprints appear on it, it loses republican support. i'm curious whether the strategy that you're employing in this aggressive way that the president is talking about the economy and you're talking about your side of the budget, is more designed to set the predicate for vetoes that will come if and when legislation that's crafted out of the republican budget comes your way. brian: i think we're going to need to let this process play out a bit to know exactly -- it's impossible to project forward on exactly how the mechanics will go. from our perspective, our goal is absolutely to get to an agreement that reflects the

principles we've laid out. we've laid out a menu of policies that would enable you to get there. and there is bipartisan support to lift the defense caps, lift the nondefense caps and pay for it over 10 years. that's a blueprint where there's bipartisan support. so our hope, and our objective is for congress to come together around an agreement of that basic form and put it in place before we have to get into a situation where we're into brinksmanship, as jeff noted. and again, hard for me to say exactly how that process might unfold, let's get through and see where the republican budget resolutions actually land. but i think that there's -- our

posture is one of trying to encourage good faith conversations, good faith efforts to get there. and that's part of why we're trying to be clear, is to facilitate that sort of thing. the one thing that i would add is that the murray-ryan structure, this basic structure of lifting the caps on both sides, paying for it over a decade, is one that was both good economically, took off the table this constant set of brinksmanship, but was also -- worked politically. and there's a question out there that i think the republican leadership has to grapple with around do they look to find areas where there are areas of bipartisan agreement and move to those in the first instance rather than getting backed into them? and, you know, on the d.h.s. funding side, you saw the instance of them getting backed

into an outcome where sort of knew where that story was also going to end. i think there's a question in the budget context of whether we can get to that outcome on the front end, which would be, i think, better politically, but also most importantly it would be better economically. questioner: if the domestic caps are lifted, do you still have a problem with using -- kind of boosting the overseas contingencies operations funding to cover defense spending? brian: what i find interesting about the overseas contingency operation is that it's traditionally republicans who have had a problem with this and have, i think, rightly referred to the inappropriate use of it as a slush fund. i think that one of the things that's important to understand with respect to funding for defense, is that providing some

certainty, forward certainty, is vital to them being able to prepare to execute missions. so part of why when you hear the chairman of the joint chiefs or secretary of defense describe why it's not a viable solution is because it creates constant annual uncertainty around funding levels. so we don't think that that is an appropriate approach or that it solves the problem. and i frankly think that, as you've seen from the war, as lindsey graham called it between republicans, there is a lot of discomfort on the republican side around using it as a mechanism as well. questioner: you used the phrase cadence of rulemaking.

i wanted to ask about that in regard to the overtime rules. it's been a year since the president called for those. every time i check with the labor department, they push off the target date. some month into the future. why is it taking so long and in the fourth quarter do you need to pick up the cadence a little bit? jeff: we're a few months away from getting that out the door and that will leave plenty of time to fully implement the rule. questioner: why is it taking so long? jeff: you need the appropriate analysis to set the level and once the proposed rule is ready, it will be announced and that will be within the next few months. questioner: i wanted to ask you about the rulemaking on existing coal fire plants. can you describe what the

practical implications might be from the administration's vantage point to his efforts to enlist the help of governors to do that? to tie things up legally? and can you also describe your political analysis of it, is it smart politics for republicans to take a stand? brian: i think this is another example of the president leading, the president setting clear objectives and pushing the policy agenda and republicans being in a responsive, defensive posture. the truth of this rule is that as i mentioned before, this rule is grounded in providing states flexibility to craft their own plans. and the environmental protection agency is working in a

bipartisan, pragmatic way at the state level to help states understand the options and the opportunities. and this rule is not even a final rule. this rule is in the proposed stage. and they are working through that process. and you're seeing, across the country, very constructive and pragmatic efforts in states across the country. in fact, just yesterday the national governors association announced a convening of their authority, a convening of their tools to try to work with states and do workshops to help states understand how they can work within this rule, how they can comply with this rule. if you look at the states that are leading that effort, again they are red states an blue -- and blue states and a part of

this is a because there is incredible economic opportunity that states understand in driving the clean energy economy in these states. i think that, you know, from -- you know, so what you have is you have a republican leader in mitch mcconnell who is going way outside the bounds of his -- the position that he was elected to. and i think that we all would be better served if he and others spent less time trying to lecture states about what they should be doing, when they themselves are focused on looking at how they can operate in their own best interest and more time trying to actually get some constructive things done in congress. like, for example, we could confirm a highly qualified attorney general nominee who has been sitting out there for more than 130 days. we're going to keep working on

this exactly as we have. and i think that that's going to be the path forward on this one. questioner: your assessment is for the republican party, it is smart politics or not? brian: i think that addressing climate change and putting the united states on the forefront of a clean energy economy is good substance, first and foremost, because it's taking on one of the most important issues of our generation. and i think increasingly it is good politics as well. because, you know, states should be given the flexibility to decide how they want to craft plans to have cleaner air and cleaner water for their kids. and address the fact that, you know, that climate change affects how exposed kids are to

asthma and has other important effects. i think as the president said last week, when he was doing an interview with vice, eventually the republican party is going to have to change their position on this issue because the public opinion is moving on it. the posture of climate denial is one that is increasingly not acceptable because it is so at odds with the science. i think that most importantly this is a very important issue for our economy and for the health of our country and we're going to keep pushing forward because of that. >> we've got only about 2 1/2 minutes left. there are seven people waiting. not everyone's going to get a question because i want to keep my deal with jen and end on time. michael warren, last question. questioner: how do more restrictive rules on hydraulic fracturing help economic growth? brian: we believe that in order

to have a durable industry in the future, you need to strike an appropriate balance between protecting public health and safety. and allowing for responsible production. i think if you look at the rules that we will -- that the department of interior will put out later today, they appropriately strike that balance. and they are focused on pragmatic but very important steps like disclosing the fluids that are being used in the fracking process. that is a step that is very important for from a transparency perspective, from a public safety perspective, but it also is important in terms of

having a template that this industry can work from, given the degree of public concern and localized concern about the potential health and safety impacts. the last thing i would say about this is that these are rules for fracking on public lands. about 11% of the fracking that goes on in this country happens on public lands. this is the portion of this issue that we the federal government have an obligation to set rules of the road for. but ultimately this is an issue that is going to be decided in state capitols and localities, as well as with the industry. we feel comfortable that what we put out today reflects an approach to our obligation, to balance those issues.

but one of the things we're going it see going forward is a conversation that will play out across the country about where to strike that balance. >> i want to thank both of you for doing this. i want to apologize to my colleagues for not getting everyone in. hope you come back. thanks for doing it. >> the houses in the return next week with the republican budget agenda. we talked to a capitol hill reporter. >> paul prozac is but a reporter for cq roll call. the senate house take different paths to boost spending. how different are the as they are taking? >> they would both about $40 billion to defense next year. the reason the paths of different or because the senate proposes to offset the increased

by reducing defense spending later in the decades, starting by 2022. the house has a different plan. the house with offset some of that increase, but it is possible that that plan will be changed and that they will remove the requirement from -- to offset that. >> this is all contingent on the lco. explain that anda bit. >> it allows 523 bundling dollars of suspense pending next year -- $523 billion of defense spending next year. they are using war funding they are increasing that. that funding is outside of the cap.

that is how they get around the cap. >> c-span networks covered the house markups late in the session, and they worked out some difficulty over the defense spending. what was the issue, how did they resolve it? >> i am not sure they resolve this. the plan from house leaders to add a couple billion dollars more to defense spending and removed the requirement that defense spending be offset because some of the hawks in the house are concerned that if the money has to be offset it might be impossible to offset it and then they will not have the money to spend. so it looks like they are contemplating putting something in the rule for consideration of the house legit it, which would remove the hot set requirement .

host: you tweeted about the supreme court ruling that if the gop wants a great public budget. how would it do that? paul: the supreme court is expected to rule in june about this challenge to the health subsidies in the affordable care act. if they rule of those are illegal, then the republicans are going to want to have a plan to temporarily will face those subsidies. one way they could pass that is through the budget reconciliation process. the reconciliation instructions in these budgets which are very general, and will give them the flexibility to write a replacement plan to the supreme court decision. host: how will this into the

plan for decrease -- increased domestic spending? paul: they don't. both plans keep nondefense spending, domestic spending at the statutory cap levels. the president proposed increasing both defense and nondefense. the republican plans do not increase nondefense spending. host: the preparations chair is quoted as saying he would absolutely like to see those cap's legislative he lifted -- cap's lifted legislatively. paul: there's a good chance that could happen. what a lot of republicans foresee is that after these solutions are passed, a republican president later in the year could reach another agreement on a budget deal similar to the one that was

together by paul ryan and patty murray which would actually raise the cap for defense and nondefense. you have to pass a law to do that. host: in a best case scenario the house and senate finish the buzzer rose illusions by the end of the week. what is the deadline to get a final version out of congress? paul: they are shooting to meet the deadline, but they do not have to because they could pass it after the deadline as well. host: read more at cq.com. thank you for the update. >> coming up next, former maryland governor martin o'malley speaking last night at an event in iowa. and then at 7:00 a.m., like

washington journal. former maryland governor martin o'malley was in davenport friday for a banquet hosted by the scott county democratic party. this is part of c-span's road to the white house coverage. [applause] ♪ >> let's given up -- give it up for dave. [applause]

i want to thank everybody for being here, for what you have done to propel scott county forward. i ask you to please refrain from shutting out the latest score, but do it in another 18 minutes. thank you for your gracious introduction, and thank you for your perseverance and your leadership congratulations on your victory and a really tough year. we are lucky to have your leadership in washington. we are blessed by it. you will, i have no doubt, soon have company from the great state of iowa in congress. [applause]

governor o'malley: tom and i were speaking, we share a common affliction, where both -- we are both irish. he said it is not an affliction, it is our steel. we look forward to your leadership. thank you to the democrats for the invitation to be with all of you tonight. dr. maguire, thank you for your leadership of the state party. sometimes, there is a truth, it is not how low you go, it is how high you balance. [applause] how high you bounce. so, tonight, i want to talk with

all of you about the story of us, about all of us, the story of baltimore, and the story of iowa. the story of maryland, and the story of america. the story of us. and 200 years ago, in the war of 1812, the british had just taken washington, and had burned our public buildings to the ground. the capitol building and the white house. the people of my home city could see the glow from the flames in the skies to our south. now we knew that they were coming for us. amidst the ashes of washington the commanding british general at the time declared i am going to march on baltimore, and dine there. even then, we had great restaurants. [laughter]

then he said, i am going to burn baltimore to the ground. our nation was not yet 40 years old. think about it. the american dream was facing extinction. imagine what we felt at that moment. anger, fear, disbelief confidence shattered, trust gone. there are moments in the life of our country, and these are the defining moments, when it seems the american dream is hanging by a thread. for america, there is always a yet. the final thread that holds us could just be the strongest. 50% of us in the city were immigrants.

one out of five african-americans of a very imperfect country. only a third of those defenders were free. somehow together we transformed our loss. we transformed our despair. instead of digging graves, we dug trenches, and we built ramparts by the sea. over the shock and all of its day, the people of baltimore stood firm. all of us as we did tonight, now singing the star-spangled banner. the flag was hoisted in defiance over fort mchenry when the british gave up. as we sing that song, let us remember the colors of the actual star-spangled banner were

stitched together by black and white hands. men's hands, hands of freedom, hands of bondage. the hands of a nation that is always growing and always evolving. the thread, i submit to you, that held together the stars & stripes is the same that holds us together now. it is the thread of human dignity. [applause] the dignity of every person, the dignity of home. the dignity of work. the dignity of neighbor helping neighbor so all of us can succeed. with our countries future hanging in the balance we stood as one and the american

dream lived on. fast forward. 1999, there was a different battle unfolding on the streets of baltimore. this time, honestly we were losing. when i decided to run for mayor that year, my city had allowed ourselves to become the most violent, most addicted, most abandoned city in america. our biggest enemy wasn't the drug dealers or crack cocaine. it was a lack of belief, a coulter of failures, countless excuses about how nothing would work and why none of us should bother to try. we set out to make our city work again. to make the dream real again. and our fight to survive, we brought for word a new way of governing, a new way of getting things done.

i started setting goals with deadlines. what is the difference between a dream and a goal? a deadline. [laughter] instead of counting budget inputs, we started measuring the outputs of the actions we were taking. we started managing for results. we saw trash so we picked it up every day. we began to relentlessly close them down. guess what? when the people of baltimore saw their government was working, they rallied. [applause] together, we put into action that most important belief that unites us, the belief that we are all in this together. that in our community there is no such thing as a spare

american. baltimore went on to achieve the biggest reduction in crime of any major city in america. [applause] in this battle, between our violent pasts, and are safer future, the future won. that future lives on. seven years ago, it seemed like our entire economy was hanging by a thread. didn't? you watched the tv. you wondered how it can get worse. millions of people lost their jobs. we refused to give up.

we elected a new president and barack obama to make the tough decisions, and that is what we are doing. [applause] the president provided leadership, and the states had to make choices of their own. unlike some other states, and maryland we did more, not less to make our children winners. we tossed aside the failed policies of the past, the trickle down economics, and we embraced the economics of inclusion. we returned to the truth our grandparents understood so well. the more a person learns, the more a person earns.

a stronger middle class is not the consequence of economic growth. a stronger middle class is the cause of economic growth. [applause] in other words, we returned to the middle class economics that made america great. the commonsense economics that understands the more workers earn, the better customers businesses have, and the more our entire economy grows. we passed a living wage, the first to pass a living wage, and we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. [applause] we make college more affordable for more people.

we froze college tuition increases, zero increases for four years in a row. by investing more rather than less, by partnering with teachers, we make our public schools the best in america five years in a row. [applause] economic participation means political participation. while other states were putting up barriers to keep people from voting, we made it easier for all people to cast their vote. we harnessed the power, as iowa has, of renewable energy. to create new jobs in this new economy, while answering the moral challenge of climate change, to create stronger

communities. we took action to restore the health of the waters of our chesapeake bay, and we made maryland one of the top states for upward economic mobility. we maintain the highest median income in the nation. maryland has created jobs at one of the fastest rate in our region. better choices, better results. we are americans. we make these choices for the future of the dream we share and the dream that we have the privilege, if we so choose to pass on to our kids. when a family can send their children to a good school, and get a good education, the dream is alive. when every family through hard

work, their hard work, and claim a seat at the table of american prosperity, that dream is alive. none of these things happen by accident. they happened by choice. our economy is the product of the choices that we make together. it doesn't blow in here off a polar vortex or across from the gulf stream. the choice to believe in one another, the power of the american dream, and our ability together to make it come true, our economy is the product of the choices we make. here is the good news. as a nation, we have achieved 60 months in a row of positive job growth. [applause] there is no progress without a job. 60 months of consecutive month over month job growth.

that is the good news. as a party we haven't done the job we need to do at talking about the good things we have done. but, the vast majority of us are working harder, only to watch our families fall for further -- fall further behind. we have to acknowledge the work that remains undone. most are more worried than ever that our children will not enjoy the quality of life that we have enjoyed. or a better quality of life and we have enjoyed. there is a pessimism that has penetrated into our consciousness as americans. we need to recognize that. you have seen the look in your neighbor's eyes. i have too. for too many of us, the dream of things that could be and that once were seems to be slipping from our grasp. get this.

50 years ago, the nations largest employer was gm. the average gm employee could pay for a year's tuition at a state university with two weeks of wages. americans are worried. for good reason. for the last 12 years, wages have been going down, and not yet up. last year, wall street bonuses alone were double the combined earnings of every single american working for minimum wage to take care of their family. until we solve this problem, we cannot rest, not as a party and not as a people. our nations future is at stake. not long ago, the washington times ran a story with this

headline. the headline said, "american dream is dead." let me say to the pundits writing these premature obituaries of the american dream, the american dream will never die on our watch because we choose to fight, and we intend to win. [applause] do you mean to tell me we can concentrate wealth in the hands of the few like we never have before, but we cannot eradicate childhood hunger? i don't buy it. are you telling me we can invest the driverless car but we can create a job that feeds a family or sends a kid to college? this is not the american dream.

this is not how our country is supposed to work. this is not how our economy is supposed to work. we still have work to do's -- do, scott county, don't we? [applause] dr. mcguire, it is going to be up to the democratic party to finish the work. it is up to us to restore the american dream. it is up to us to finish the work that we have begun, to make our economy work for all of us again. you see, the tea party republican party is no longer the republican party of years past. would that they were. there was a time when the republican party had leaders, a

vision, foresight. compassion. lincoln asserted our unity. and our common humanity. eisenhower liberated europe and and build the nations highway system. now republicans dismiss science. now they fight against equality in any of its various forms, and education. they of poor health care. and any increase in the minimum wage. think about that. an entire party dedicated to keeping wages low for american workers. what have we come to? they question vaccines and climate change. give them a few more weeks and they will be shunning copernicus. [laughter] here in iowa, house republicans are saying your state can't afford to invest in schools but they are willing to spend twice as much on a tax cut that would benefit the wealthy the most.

this is exactly what the field of 2016 republican candidates are offering. to double down, on this failed economics of the past, where you concentrate wealth at the top and keep wages as low as you can for everybody else. what kind of economy are they creating? their choices would give our children a future of less. they can offer that path if they like. we have better choices to make. making do with less is not an aspiration worthy of a great people or a great nation. we will not be, and we cannot be the first generation to leave our children with a future of less. not for my kids, not for yours. [applause] we are americans. turn to your neighbor and tell them we are americans.

go ahead. we are americans. [applause] we are americans, and we make our own destiny, not anybody else. the future we choose is a future of liberty, justice, and opportunity for all. [applause] do me a favor. [applause] think for a second, close your eyes if that helps. think about your parents and grandparents.

picture their faces. they understood the essential truth to the american dream that we share. the stronger we make our country, the more she can get back to us. and to our children. and to our grandchildren. the poet laureate of the american dream, bruce springsteen, -- [laughter] bruce springsteen asked once, is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse? when the american dream is denied, our hopes fade, and our days unfold not in the light of possibility, but in the darkness of fear. to make the dream true again, we must fight for better wages for all workers so americans can support their families on what

they earn. [applause] what does this mean? you know what it means. your parents and grandparents know what it means. raising the minimum wage. raising the threshold for overtime pay. and respecting the rights of all workers to organize and bargain collectively. [applause] to make the dream come true, we must not allow another wall street meltdown to bring down the hard-working families of our country. we have a responsibility to put that repeat performance beyond

the realm of the possible. by reinstating glass-steagall, and holding people accountable when they break the law. [applause] to make the dream come true, we have to embrace our clean energy future and recognize renewable inexhaustible sources of energy represents the biggest business opportunity for our country in a century. [applause] clean water, clean air. human rights. clean water, clean air. these things are human rights. no generation has the ability or the right to deny these rights to future generations. to make the dream come true we must expand social security benefits, and not cut social security. [applause]

and to make the dream come true, we must invest more in education, not less. which means universal pre-k to help our children reach their god-given potential. [applause] closing achievement gaps, making cal which -- making college more affordable, these are the choices we make in every generation. to make the dream true again we must recognize policies of economic inclusion, economic participation are policies that are good for women, and good for families, like equal pay, equal work. paid leave, expanded childcare. it is good for our economy. [applause] sing it with me people. when women succeed, america succeeds. [applause]

the most fundamental power, the most fundamental power our country has is the power of our moral principles. triangulation is not a strategy that will move america forward. history celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience. we must be unashamed and defenders of the american dream that we share, and the better choices necessary to pass it on to our kids. the dignity of every person tells us the right to marry is not a state right, it is a human right. [applause]

when refugee children arrive on our doorstep, fleeing starvation and death gangs, we do not turn them away, we act like the generous, compassionate people we have always been. [applause] the enduring symbol of our nation is not the barbed wire fence, it is the statue of liberty. [applause] this is what we believe. this is who we are. we are americans, and in god we trust. [applause]

yes, you and i are proud to be members of the democratic party. let the tea party measure their success by how many times they can shut down our government. we measure success in jobs and opportunity for all. let them speak for the sad yesterdays that were. we speak for the better tomorrows that can be. [applause] make no mistake about it. the american dream is what makes america exceptional. fear and anger never built a great nation. our country is built by the compassionate choices that we make together. to live lives guided by better angels. we love what our country can become.

take pride, take pride. [applause] take pride in your work as democrats. take pride in what you believe. the next time somebody asks you after an election who you voted for, don't be shy. tell them. i mean it. if a child asked you who you voted for i want you to tell that child i voted for you. when you see someone sweating through another long shift and they ask you who you voted for i want you to tell them, i voted for you. when you see someone with health insurance who did not have it before, and they ask you who you voted for, i want you to tell them, i voted for you. when you see someone who wants nothing more than to have their

family treated with dignity and respect under the law i want you to tell them i voted for you. when you see someone who hungers for opportunity, and a good job, i want you to tell them i voted for you. we are democrats for a good reason. ours is the party of optimism. ours is the party of the people. ours is the party of the better future. ours is the party of the american dream. together, we will make that dream true again. thank you, scott county. [applause]

>> this week in the c-span cities tour has partnered to learn about columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum is the restraints of a confederate ironclad. those oval-shaped that you see are actually begun poor of the jackson -- gun ports of the jackson. the particular gun we are firing today is built specifically for the jackson. it was completed in january of 1865 . the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that their "true ironclad from the civil war that we can study

right now. the jackson is right here, and this is why this facility is here in. it is first and foremost to tell the particular story of this ironclad, and to tell people that there are more than just one or two, there were many. >> today on book tv, and sunday on american history tv. >> in a moment, washington journal with your phone calls and the latest news. then an oversight hearing with chairman tom wheeler. >> coming up on this morning's washington journal, a look at the security of u.s. embassies worldwide. following the recent attack of the u.s. a ambassador in south korea.

then a discussion on the u.s. tax code. and maryland state delegate corey mccray talks about his efforts to ♪ host: the obama administration topping the technique called fracking. it would allow companies to disclose the types of chemicals used in the process. there is a temporary suspension in the iran nuclear talks. march 21 is the self-imposed deadline of the talk. " wall street journal" is urging counterparts to not rush disclosing