investigation. thank you for being here. adam schiff: it's a pleasure. host: let me introduce our two reporters who will be asking the questions this week. chris strohm is with bloomberg news. he is a national security reporter. and josh gerstein, politico's chief investigator, working on a lot of these issues. josh, you are up first. josh gerstein: congressman thank you for being here. i wanted to start out by talking about the attack on tunisia on the tourists visiting the museum there. what does that tell us, the fact that about 20 people were killed there, now isil is claiming responsibility. do you think that they actually are responsible and have we accurately estimated the threat that they pose and how broadly they have spread out across the region? adam schiff: it is too early for me to say definitively whether that claim is accurate. but they are an enormous threat, they are percolating -- proliferating. there are more countries around

the world. they are pointing their flag, in some cases it is local groups that want to associate with them because they are the hot terrorist group that tracks resources and foreign fighters or domestic fighters. they have real operational control. then, it is others that may have an affiliation, but the control and command is not yet established. it is very worrisome, very strategic in the case of tunisia and the attack. trying to go after the tourism industry, trying to further destabilize the government. tunisia was already a concern, because you have so many people leaving tunisia to join the fight. this is one of the problems in the spread of isil and that is it is now much easier to join the fight, in their own neighborhood or in neighboring countries. there are a lot of challenges on our hands. chris strohm: congressman what is your assessment of the iranian influence in the region in regard to isil's activities , and also what is your

assessment of their ability to reach out and attack the united states, inside the united states? and what more should the u.s. government be doing? congressman adam schiff: let me start with the letter questions. we are fortunate, always have been with our oceans, but we are fortunate. we have had americans leave to join the fight. it is a fairly countable number, it is not like our european partners are facing, where they have hundreds of people leaving to join the fight. so, it is a manageable number for us to keep track of. still difficult, something that we worry about all the time. but at this point, i do not think that they have the capacity for any major attack on the united states. we are probably more concerned with people who are self radicalized, going online , inspired by isil's message. isil, in contrast to al qaeda, they are not looking necessarily for the spectacular attack. anyone that they can get to

claim the mantle of isil and carry out a low tech attack adds prestige to the organization. in paris, we saw attacks that were not very sophisticated in terms of weaponry, but nonetheless, devastating. i think they would be happy to encourage that kind of thing in the u.s. and that is something that we try to guard against. in the wake of what is happened in europe, we have taken a second, third, fourth, look at the people who were a concern to us to begin with. because as we have seen in paris, belgium, and elsewhere, it is often people you know about who are already on your radar screen that you need to , be sure that you take another look at. in terms of iran, and their influence in their own region and beyond, i am very concerned about their role in iraq, to the degree to which iraqis are very public about it. they have billboards, open supportive statements by the iraqi government. the iraqi government wants to reclaim their cities and they

want to do it sooner rather than later. and while i understand that impulse, at the same time, if they go rushing in to places like to create -- tikrit and muzzle -- molson -- and they want to substitute real readiness in the form of an iraqi armed forces that has strong sunni complement as well as shia, they may well end up trying to win the battle but lose the war. if you have iranian militias going into sunni towns, and after the battle is won, ethnically cleansing them, hauling people out and shooting them as we have allegations in places like diala, they will drive the sunni tribes further into league with isil. that would be a terrible course of events, so i worry about in terms of defeating isil and i worry about the long-term situation in iraq, if iraq

becomes some kind of satellite of iran. i think a lot of what is happening turned the expectations on their head that many had before the iraq war when people thought that these are traditional enemies, they have iraqis and persians and they don't speak the same language, they are not part of the same ethnic group. nonetheless, we can see how dominant iran has become. and that is a grave concern. host: before we leave the isil recruitment question, an interesting development recently with an anonymous hacking group joining forces with other groups, which is unusual for them to do, and delivering a list on twitter of organizations that they say are linked to terrorist recruiting. they are pressuring twitter to delete these accounts. i am wondering what you think about this and whether you think it is better for us to be able to seat and monitor activity, or force them off-line into other places? congressman adam schiff: we are seeing all kinds of alliances

growing up on both sides. they up and a lot of our expectations. -- they up in end a lot of our expectations. i think it is very positive that we can try to take isil off of twitter, to the degree that is possible. to the degree that we can interfere with their propaganda and recruitment online, which has been very powerfully used by them, i think it helps push them back. it helps defeat some of their goals of expanding their ranks and radicalizing people here. so, i applaud those efforts and i hope they continue. there are times where we will know of a terrorist group or someone using a specific platform or technology where we may not want to shut it down because to do so discloses that we know what they are up to and how they are communicating. i don't think that is the case with isil, particularly where they are using platforms like twitter to recruit people to get

out their gruesome videos. i think it is a mitigated benefit in shutting down. josh gerstein: do you think it is possible to force entities like twitter to shut down, shut these things down, because he talked about recruiting videos. fox news posted on their website one of the most gruesome videos that isil put out. how do you attack the social media problem without attacking news media decisions about what they should broadcast in terms of news? congressman adam schiff: i don't think that you can force them. i think you have to encourage them to be good actors, and i come from a part of the country that has been involved in a debate for a long time. i represent hollywood, burbank a lot of the entertainment industry and there has been a , long struggle over internet service providers, tech companies, that may allow their facilities to be used for intellectual property theft.

so i am quiet familiar with the challenges. obviously that is a very different issue and environment, but the challenge of getting some of these technology players to do what is in public interest without a mandate is a continuing challenge. i am pleased to see twitter taking action and i think we ought to encourage that and facilitate that. it is telling that you have isil threatening one of the cofounders of twitter, because obviously they are concerned about this, and it wouldn't be if twitter wasn't having an impact. i think the goal of the government ought to be to enhance the technology company's ability to do this, to join efforts in that, where we can. but i am not sure that there is a way of compelling it without stepping on first amendment freedoms. chris strohm: another thing that has been intense with isil is their use of social media and being able to radicalize people online.

what additional resources or activities do you think the u.s. government should be doing? i know that you just mentioned that you can't force these technology companies to take action. there can't be a mandate on them, but at the same time you mentioned working with them, law enforcement or the u.s. government can work with these companies, in which way? congressman adam schiff: well, these companies, if they have the capability, they could shut down all of isil's communications. but the challenge is how do we encourage companies to be good for print citizens, to take on these things on their own. to use it reasonable efforts to do that. we cannot ask them to devote all their resources in a way that might occupy a huge amount of their workforce in policing the internet. that is not practical or doable. but within the confines of what is economically feasible for them, i think we can, and it may

take the form of helping to supply them with information so that we can alert them, these accounts, these users are bad actors. it may be also trying to protect them, because as they take action against some of these bad actors, they may be facing reprisals. it would have to be a public and private partnership. i think that these companies they do not want these organizations using their technologies. companies don't want their products being advertised on sites that are posting gruesome videos and yet, it does happen. and i think calling attention to it, working with the private sector to make sure that there is a mechanism, technologically, for them to find and remove these postings -- i mean if i were a major american business and i saw these organizations

advertised on a site being used to put up these videos, it would disturb me. so, it will have to be a partnership. i do not think it'll be an issue of compulsion. josh gerstein: congressman, can i ask you about another aspect of the fight against isil, which is how will the u.s. government be setting up for this campaign, it is obviously going to go on. you have been a proponent for revising or coming up with a new authorization for the use of military force to address isil and the evolving threat of al qaeda. we are now at about 14 years after the september 11 attacks you encouraged the administration to put forward a proposal, they did so, but now it seems that congress has bogged down. what is your assessment if there is any possibility of reaching a consensus on this new proposal? congressman adam schiff: as you point out, the administration did put out a proposal. what they did is, look, it would be nice if they put something forward, but it is our institutional responsibility to declare war or to decide not to

declare war. we are the ones who stand to lose institutionally on whether the administration acts or not. now that they have acted and now that they have done what a lot of folks have clamored for, are we going to sit on our hands? there is no excuse anymore. i think what has to happen is the committees of jurisdiction need to take this up. i don't imagine that it would pass in the form that the administration put forward but , if not, they ought to take it up and what form they can get a majority of their members to put it out. i have concerns with the administration's proposal and probably paramount among those is that it does not repeal the old 2001 authorization that we passed in the days after september 11. in the absence of a sunset on that, when the new authority goes out of existence, maybe three years from now, next to ministration, the next administration can go back on reliance on the old one. and they can use the same argument that this president has used. it gives them the authority they

need. i hope they will take this up in a regular, ordered process and i am certainly going to do , everything i can to encourage colleagues to move for, even if it is a bill that does not have my support. hopefully, we will see one it iakin to something i introduced last year. if we establish the precedent here, to go to war, without congress and without our approval, it will be a terrible president for the future. future presidents will look at this as a way to go ahead without congress and we will have seriously eroded our checks and balances system. host: let's move forward to israel. i am wondering that with the resounding victory by benjamin

netanyahu in the elections how , do you think that he and our president can repair relations? adam schiff: i hope that we can repair the relationship. i am concerned about some of the things that netanyahu said during his campaign, walking away from a two state resolution. if that is more than a campaign pledge, it means there will be a serious breach between the u.s. and israel on policy, in terms of a second state. that, in addition to the iranian nuclear issue, he holds out for a very serious disagreement between two allies. i think that we will get cents probably in the near future, was this a pledge that he intends to follow, or something he said in the heat of battle. i will be concerned if that reflects new israeli policy. chris strohm: wanted to ask you

about the hacking attacks that companies have been experiencing sony, target. , i know that you are working on legislation. what is the status of the legislation that you are putting together and what will it accomplish? i know it is focused on information sharing, but beyond that, what additional things should the u.s. government do to help companies that are being attacked? congressman adam schiff: we are very close in the house intelligence committee to having a cyber bill. it could be introduced next week. the senate has already put out a bill. i think that both products will

be substantially similar. the good news is, last year we were far apart on key issues and concern in the privacy community, that is the need to have a civilian portal be the intake in which any cyber threat information is shared. and the requirement that personal information be stripped out for being shared with the government. on those two points, there has been a convergence between house and senate, republicans and democrats. so we are ahead and it gives me optimism that we can move forward on a bill. hopefully, we will have a mark up as soon as next week and we will be conferencing with the senate and talking together with committees, judiciary and homeland security, to make sure that we have all of our ducks are lined up and we can move forward on passage. what we would like to see, when a company is attacked and they

find out from us, more than we find out from them, we would like to be able to get that information, so that we can share it with others who could be attacked in the same way. using the same malicious code. we would like to be able to share information with companies, saying hey, this attack is coming, this is what you need to do to protect against it. we do not want this to be a surveillance authority, this is not a surveillance program. i know that when you hear information sharing, it sounds like -- what kind of information is this? we are not interested and in sharing people's information, we are interested and the methods of attack. we are optimistic about where we are. i think that we have met the vast majority of the privacy issues that have been raised

, and we will have a product that is effective to counter these attacks. chris strohm: companies are also struggling with what they can do to fight back, how to take offensive action against the hackers. what you think about companies taking offensive action, or is this something that the government should be doing more? congressman adam schiff: i think it is natural for these companies to want to strike back. the problem is that if you do not strike back in a sophisticated way, you could end up striking back against innocent parties that had nothing to do with the attack. some companies could have had their computers used, without even knowing. if you don't know what your doing, you could do damage to people who were not part of the a salt. -- part of the assault.

so, that is not something we want to see companies take on themselves. i do think the government has a lot of work to do, and outlining offensive capabilities and strategy, so that we can provide a deterrent to those who are not only stealing or attacking us. that is a technical question, we need to make sure we have capabilities of doing no collateral damage, going after these organizations attacking us, but also that we have the right policies in place. what are the red lines going to be and what is the proportion of , response in a cyber attack? it might be a cyber equivalent or in something outside the cyber realm. i do not think we can have a cookie-cutter approach, because a lot depends on the nature of the attack and attacker. in the case of north korea on sony, for example, we could devastate north korea, if we chose to. we have far superior cyber

capabilities than they do but we , are extremely vulnerable because even an unsophisticated attack from korea would do a lot more harm. the reason why it is an open question speculation is that there lights are going out all the time. they are so primitive, they have a lot more to lose than we do. you cannot say the reaction on north korea should be the same as on others. we will have to treat each case on its own, in some cases, there may be economic repercussions or cyber repercussions. josh gerstein: you served on the house committee of benghazi, which has for better or worse found itself at the heart of the clinton e-mail situation. the fact that she was using this private account.

she disclosed at a press conference a little over a week ago that she deleted or destroyed something on the order of 32,000 e-mails that her lawyers determined were private, what was your reaction when you heard that and what do you make , of the suggestions that some neutral party, retired judge, be brought in to make sure that she handed everything over? congressman adam schiff: in terms of getting rid of personal e-mails, i think she has a right. the government has no right to those private e-mails. they are hers to do with as she chooses. in terms of whether we should ask for, demand, or subpoena her server, i think we need to treat this like other investigations in the past and not use a different standard because she is a likely candidate for president.

that would be an abuse of our authority as a taxpayer-funded investigative committee. when a like issue came up in the last administration when karl , rove and other high bush officials were using a committee server to send out work e-mails, we did not demand that the republican national committee turn over their server. that would have been an overreach. instead, we worked with them and said these are the documents we need, this is when we need them, satisfy us that you are sending the right documents. that's the same approach we ought to use here. we do not need to establish a different standard. the reality is, the way that the system works, all federal employees from the secretary of state on down, they make the decision on what is it personal and private. if secretary clinton had used two different blackberries people would have still said how do we know that her private

blackberry she wasn't using for official purposes? so we would have the same issue. i think we should handle this the same way we haven't handled others. josh gerstein: you don't think the fact that she returned these e-mails months after service does it make a difference that it was so long, going back later? congressman adam schiff: i think we should follow the model the other investigative committees have used. the issue really is the effect of this on the presidential race. there you have identical issues with governor bush, who waited seven years to turn over a lot of his e-mails and we still , don't know whether he turned over all of them, because they have come out in different ways.

i think it is hard for us to criticize senator clinton. it would be hard for jeb bush to criticize secretary clinton when he is taking a long time to turn over his e-mails. chris strohm: a senate seat opening up in california, what are the conditions that you would want to see to get in the race? congressman adam schiff: i would like to see a strong candidate from southern california. we haven't had a senator in a long time. it is something i will continue to explore and talk to friends and supporters about and hope to , make a decision by the end of may. host: you said that your decision may be affected in this, how so? congressman adam schiff: i think there should be a candidate with security experience, in times like this.

with all the challenges we are facing. i think that would be an asset. host: thank you for being our guest on newsmakers this week. we are back with josh and chris. gentlemen, we had a very wide ranging conversation with congressman adam schiff. the number two on the intelligence committee. but let me focus on congress. let's look at the debates in congress. where do you think this is going? chris strohm: the congressman said it is bogged down, not been able to talk about certain parts whether there will be a , geographical restraint on it whether you are going to -- what kind of authorizations they will provide.

at this point, it doesn't seem to have a way forward. the administration gets to continue on this path without congress weighing in. josh gerstein: i think this is why they were reluctant to bring a proposal to congress, because they could say that there was no obvious consensus. it was unclear that they represented a majority. there is a a huge majority of members would like to see some action on an aumf a decade and a half after that, too far gone. should we let any president do what he or she wants with future groups. there's a seems to be no, no consensus. chris strohm: i think the

one dynamic that could force congress into doing something would be the continued spread of isil and the advanced attacks they carry out. the congressman mentioned looking at tunisia as a point of hope in the region and now he is seeing the setbacks coming into play. to did the degree that they continue their attacks and expansion, and the administration wants to extend their military activity in other regions of the world, that might tip congress toward stepping in to do something. host: let me also ask about the iran negotiations and the rejection of those on capitol hill. the congressman used strong

language to describe iran and its influence. how does that affect the gop leaders? josh gerstein: that letter sent to ayatollah, it garnered strong statements. clinton had a strong opinion on it. i think that for the moment, criticism from democrats who might have been skeptical of what the administration is doing has been dampened a little bit because of the feeling that this tactic employed by the republicans was so over the line that it brushed back. chris strohm: if the issue was not already polarizing, that

letter made a greater wedge between republicans and democrats. a lot of democrats, and some republicans try to separate , these issues by talking about the iranian nuclear negotiations versus the iranian influence in the region and what that means for iraq. especially democrats will try to say, let the administration continue to negotiate with iran and look at that as being a credible form of activity, but then they will criticize what iran is doing in the region. obviously the congressman talked about some of the dire repercussions that that can lead to. host: finally on the benghazi investigation committee, he said that gop is playing politics with hillary clinton's presidential campaign. they continue to have things leak out.

we have also heard that the national archives have not set up a system and is concerned about having all records appropriately. where do you see this going next with the committee? josh gerstein: i think there will be continued efforts. even speaker boehner said that whether it is through committees they will continue to press the , issue. i do not think it will go away soon, unless secretary clinton agrees to maybe a neutral arbiter to go through records. even that i do not think that will bring the issue to a conclusion. there will be all kinds of questions about going back, i it will be a repeat of what we saw with the irs saga with people trying to find servers and backup tapes. i just don't think it is an issue that goes away easily. there is no way for her to dig herself out at this point. host: thank you to both of you for being here.

that is it for our time. >> isis rears their ugly head, and this army is shaky could we should not be surprised at that. you cannot do decades of stuff with eight years. especially when you have taught them on a model where there going to have u.s. advisors and partners with them. afghanistan, according to the president's announcements, we currently have 10,000 troops there in a training role. we draw down to 5000 year, and zero after that. i would warn that we will see similar to what we saw in iraq. that afghan army will be shaky without usl. >> tonight on q&a, lieutenant general daniel bolger on the failed u.s. strategy in iraq and afghanistan, and what we should have done differently, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.

>> martin o'malley addressed democrats at the iowa democratic party banquet on friday and death import, i would. he is considering a run for president in 2016 and has appeared at numerous campaign events and fundraisers in the state. this is about 30 minutes. [applause] ♪ thank you very much. thank you congressman. thank you for your kindness generosity, and leadership. i want to thank everyone for being here to propel scott

county forward into the future. i understand there is a big game on tonight. go, hawks. yes. [applause] i ask you to raise refrain from shutting out the latest score. feel free to 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 in a really, 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 and congress. [applause] i want to congratulate you on your selection as your party chair.

tom and i were speaking. we share a common affliction, we are both irish. [laughter] he said it is not an affliction. we look for to your leadership and thank you to all of the scott county democrats for the invitation to be with all of you tonight. dr. maguire, thank you for your leadership of the state party. sometimes, you know there is a truth that it's not how low you go, it is how high you bounce. [applause] tonight, i wanted to talk with all of you tonight about the story of us, about all of us. about the story of baltimore and the story of iowa, about the story of maryland, and also the story of america. the story of us.

200 years ago in the war of 1812, the british had just taken washington, and they had burned our public buildings to the ground, the capital in the white house. we knew they were coming for us. amidst the ashes of washington the commanding british general of the time declared "i am going to march on baltimore and dine there." even then, we had great restaurants in boston. [laughter] then he said," then i'm 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. and yet, for america there is always a yet. the final thread that holds us could just be the strongest. 50% of us in the city then were immigrants, one out of five were african americans of the still

as yet very imperfect country. only one third of those black defenders were themselves free. somehow, together, we transformed our loss. we transformed our despair. instead of digging grades, we dug trenches and built ramparts by the sea. against the overwhelming shock and all force of its day, the people of baltimore stood firm. all of us as we did tonight announcing the star-spangled banner, that giant flag that was wasted in defiance over fort mchenry when the british guns finally give up. as we sing that song today, let us also remember that the colors of the actual star-spangled banner were stitched together by black and white hands, men's hands, women's hands, hands of

freedom, hands and bondage, the hands of a nation that has always grown and always evolving to the. the threat that held it together then, is the thread that holds us together now. it is the threat of human dignity. [applause] the dignity of every person, the dignity of home, work, neighbor helping neighbor so that all of us can succeed. in other words, with our country's future hanging in the balance, we stood as one. the american dream lived on. fast-forward in 1999, there was

a different sort of battle unfolding on the streets of baltimore. this time come up 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, and most abandoned city in america. our biggest enemy was not the drug dealers or cracked cocaine it was a lack of belief, a culture of failures, countless excuses about how nothing would work and why none of us should even bother to try. we set out to make our city work again, to make the dream real again in our fight to survive, we brought for a new -- forward a new way of getting things done. i started setting goals with deadlines. what is the difference between a

dream and a goal? it is a deadline. [laughter] instead of simply counting budget inputs, my team started measuring the actual outputs of the actions that we were taking could we started managing for results. we saw trask -- trash in our streets and alleys, so we picked it up every day. we begin to relentlessly close open or drug markets down. guess what? when the people of baltimore saw the government was working, they rallied as well. [applause] together, we put into action that most important belief that unites us, the believe that we are all in this together, that in our community there is no such thing as a spare american and over the next 10 years baltimore went on to achieve the

biggest reduction in crime of any major city in america. [applause] in this battle between our violent past and are better safer future, the future won. and the dream lives on. seven years ago, sometimes we americans have short memories, but just seven years ago it seemed like our entire economy was hanging by a thread, did and it? -- didn't it? the meltdown on wall street nearly plunged our nation into a second great depression millions of people all over the country lost their jobs. millions lost their homes. as a nation, we refused to give up, and we elected a new president and barack obama to make the tough decisions to move

our country ford, and that is what we are doing. -- move our country forward, and that is what we are doing. [applause] the president provided leadership, and then the states had to make choices of their own. unlike some other states, they tried to cut their way to prosperity. in maryland, we did more not less to make our children winners in this challenging economy. we tossed a side the failed policies of the past, the trickle down economics that got us into the mess in the first place, and we embraced instead a different sort of economics, the economics of inclusion. we returned to the truth that our parents and grandparents understood so very well in their hearts, that the more a person learns, the more a person earns. that 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 actually made america great, the commonsense economics that understands that the more workers earn, the better customers businesses have, and the more our entire economy grows. we pass a living wage, became the first state in the country to pass a living wage, and we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. [applause] we make college more affordable former people, in fact we froze college tuition increases, zero increases for four years in a row.

by investing more rather less, by partnering teachers rather than belittling teachers, we made our public schools the best in america for five years in a row. [applause] economic participation also means political participation and while other states were putting up barriers to keep people from voting, in our state, we made it easier for all people to cast their vote. [applause] and we harnessed the power indeed as i or has harnessed the power, of renewable energy, to create new jobs in this new economy while answering the moral challenge of climate change, to create jobs to create stronger communities, and we took action to restore the health of the waters of our chesapeake bay, and together we

made marland one of the top states upward economic mobility. together we maintained the highest median income in the nation, and together maryland is creating jobs at one of the fastest rates in our region. better choices for better results, we are americans, and we make these choices for the future of the dream we share and the dream that we have the privilege, if we should 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 their hard work can claim a seat at the table of american prosperity, then my friends, that dream is alive, and none of these happened by accident. they all happened by choice. our our economy, in other words

is the product of the choices that we make together. it does not blow in here offer a polar vortex or across from a gulfstream, the choice to believe in one another, the choice to believe in the power of the american dream, and the choice to believe in 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 now achieved 60 months in a row of positive job growth. [applause] there is no progress without a job. 60 months of consecutive job growth. that is the good news. frankly, as a party, we have not done the job we need to do of talking about the good things we have done.

but, the vast majority of us are working harder only to watch our families fall further behind. and we have to acknowledge the work that still remains undone. most of us are more it -- worried than ever sometimes that are children will not enjoy the quality of life that we have enjoyed, or a better quality of life than we have enjoyed. in other words, there is a pessimism that has penetrated deeply into our collective consciousness as americans. as a party, we need to recognize that to her have seen the look in your neighbor size, and i have two. for too many of us, the dreams of what could be an what were seem to be slipping from our grasp. get this, 50 years ago, the nations largest employer was general motors, and the average

general motors employee could pay for a year's tuition at a state university with two weeks of wages. americans are worried, and for good reason. for the last 12 years wages have been going down and not up. last year, wall street bonuses alone were double the combined earnings of every single american working for minimum wage to take care of the 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, " american dream is

dead." well, let me say to the pundits writing these free obits worries of the american dream, that 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, do you mean to tell me that we can concentrate wealth in the hands of the very few like we never have before, but we cannot eradicate childhood hunger in the united states of america? i don't buy it. are you telling me that we can invest in a driverless car, but we can't create a job that feeds a family or sends our turn to college? i don't accept that. neither should you. this is not the american dream. this is not our country is supposed to work, and this is not how our economy is supposed to work.

we still have work to 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 once when the republican party had leaders of vision foresight compassion. lincoln asserted our unity and our common humanity. eisenhower liberated europe and

he built the nation's highway system to connect us. but now republicans create traffic jams. now they fight against equality in any of its berries forms, and education. they are poor health care. and any increase in the minimum wage. think about that. an entire party dedicated to keeping wages low for the american workers. what have we come to? they even question taxing's and climate change. [laughter] give them a few more weeks and there will be shunning copernicus. [laughter] here and i will, house republicans are saying that your state can't afford to invest in their schools, but they're willing to spend twice as much on the tax cut that would benefit the wealthy. this is exactly what the field of 2016 republican candidates for president are offering.

they want to double down on this strange, failed traveled on 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 a are they creating? the choices give our children a future of less. we have better choices to make, because making do with less is not an aspiration. it is not worthy of a great people are great nation. we will not be and cannot be the first-generation to leave our children with the future of less. not for my kids, and not for yours. [applause] we are americans to turn to your neighbor and tell them, we are americans. go ahead. we are americans.

we are americans, and we make our own destiny, not anybody else and the future we choose is the future of liberty justice, an opportunity for all. [applause] do me a favor. [applause] think for a second, closer rise if it helps. -- close your eyes if it helps. picture your grandparents. it should their faces. they understood the essential truth of the american dream that we share.

-- picture their faces. the more we help our country the more she can get back to us and our children, and to our grandchildren. the poet laureate of the american dream, bruce springsteen. [applause] [laughter] bruce springsteen asked once, is the dream alive if it don't come true? or is it something worse? when the american dream is denied, our lives strength -- shrink, and our lives fade in the darkness of fear. to make the dream true again, we must fight for better wages for all workers so that americans can some port their families on what they earn. [applause]

what does this mean? you know what it means. your parents and grandparents knew what it means. in marines -- means raising the minimum wage, raising the threshold for overtime pay, and it means respecting the rights of all workers to organize and bargain. [applause] [applause] to make the dream come true, we must not allow another wall street melt down to bring down the hard-working families of our country. we have a responsibility to put that sort of repeat performance beyond the realm of the possible, by reinstating -- and holding people accountable when

they break the law. [applause] to make the dream come true again, we have to embrace our clean energy future, and recognize that renewable inexhaustible sources of energy represent the biggest business opportunity for our country in a century. [applause] clean water and clean air, a human right. these things are human rights, and no generation has the ability or the right to deny these rights to future generations. to make the dream come true again, 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 all of our children reach their god-given potential. [applause] closing achievement gaps, making college more affordable again for all, these are the choices we make is americans in every generation, and to make the dream true again, we must recognize that policies of economic inclusion and economic participation are policies that are good for women, good for families, like equal pay, equal work, paid leave, expanded childcare is also good for our economy. [applause] sing it with me people, when women succeed, america succeeds. [applause]

but the most fundamental power the most fundamental power our party and our country has is the power of our moral principles. trying to asian is not a strategy that will move america forward. history celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles inconvenience. this day and each day, we must be unashamed and unabashed defenders of that american dream that we share, and the better choices necessary to pass it on to our kids, the dignity of every person tells us that the right to marry is not a state right, it is a human right. [applause] and 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. [applause] we are americans, and in god we trust. [applause] yes. yes. 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 and let them speak but the fact yesterday before we speak with a better tomorrow. [applause] make no mistake about it. the american dream is what makes america exceptional. fear and anger and never build a great nation. our country is built by the compassionate choices that we make together. to live life gathered -- by our better angels. we love our country. we love what our country is, and what our country can become. so take right.