ve that experience to know what's possible and how best to proceed. but i also know that we are living in an incredibly complicated time in american history. it is not a time for easy answers or glib answers or one-liners or applause lines. those are all great. that's part of campaigning. but at the end of the day we need a president who has both the experience and the understanding to deal with the complexity of the problems that we face. and i appreciate what both dean and sarah said about the experiences that i've been privileged to have during the last decades. i really believe that i can go into that office on the very first day and begin to do what is required. so i look forward to visiting with each and every one of you. i look forward to working with you not only as we move toward the caucuses.

i would be honored to have your support on february 1st, and then i will need your help as we move toward the john election because i don't want this election to be about me. i want it to be about us and the agenda we want to set for our country. you know, when i campaigned so hard against then senator obama i was working as hard as i could, he was working as hard as he could. and at the end of the day he won. and then i went to work to make sure he got elected, our president. and i was so relieved and happy when that finally happened. the sunday after the election bill and i went for a walk in an area that sarah would know. a big kind of nature preserve near where we both live. and we just wanted to let down because we'd been working so

hard to elect then president-elect obama. so we're wandering through the woods, and bill's phone rings. which is sort of a miracle since we have terrible cell coverage there. and he pulled it out of his pocket, and it was the president-elect. and he said i'd like to talk to you and hillary. and bill said, well, we're kind of in the middle of a forest. can we get home and call you back? and so we did. and when he called back, when bill called back he talked to the president-elect and then i talked to him and he said to me i want you to come see me in chicago.

i said sure, when? he said soon as you can get here. so i said ok. the following thursday i went to president-elect, i really want to go back to the senate, i'm very flattered, but there are a lot of other people who can do it. he said no, i know what i want and i want you to do this. i said, well, mr. president-elect, i really want to go back to the senate. and that's where i think i can best work with you and best serve you. he goes, look, i don't want to hear from you again until you say yes. so i told him no, you know again. later. and he just said don't call me till you say yes. and i did tell my husband, he's so persistent, i've told him no twice and he keeps saying, you know, i'm waiting for you to say yes. and bill said, yeah, well, i asked you to marry me twice before you said yes. so -- i guess there's a connection there. so then i stayed up that night. and i thought, suppose i'd been honored to win and i had wanted this incredibly talented american to be in my cabinet and i'd asked him, i'd want him to say yes. and i thought, you know, that's what i have to do. so i called him and said

president-elect, i would be honored to serve in your cabinet. and we immediately got started to work. a few months later on my very first trip as secretary of state i went to asia. and i went in park because everybody i called, all of the leaders in the countries that i spoke with were saying, you know, we just don't know whether the united states cares about us anymore. nobody's been paying any attention to us. we feel like we're not important anymore. i said we are and the president feels that way. so i went out and one of the countries i went to was indonesia.

in part because it's a very important country but also president obama had had a personal connection with it. and my idea was not only to talk to the leaders but to talk to the people, what's called public diplomacy. so that as i was out there talking to presidents and prime ministers and others i would also find ways of trying to connect to tell people, look the united states really does care about the world we're trying to create together, and that's part of my message from my new president. so i went on db-- i agreed to go on a show in jakarta, which was their morning show. and it was like a combination of mtv and a reality show and all of that. i had no idea what i was getting myself into. so i go onto the set and people are jumping and they're singing and they're dancing. and it's called "the awesome show." so i'm on "the awesome show." and i'm talking a little bit with the interviewer. and then they asked people if they have any questions. and somebody in the audience says, i want to ask you, we saw you campaigned very hard against president obama, he campaigned very hard against you. he won. you lost. and then he asked you to be his secretary of state. why? and i realized, you know, in a lot of these new democracies and

other places of course, you run against somebody and you lose, you could get exiled or imprisoned, even killed, not asked to be secretary of state. so this was a very legitimate question. and i thought i have to answer this in a very, you know serious way that maybe they can understand. if n. our democracy we do try to close ranks after we have hard elections. at least that's what we should be doing. so i said, well, you're right. we campaigned hard. he won. i lost. i then campaigned to get him elected. he asked me to be secretary of state. and i said yes. for the same reason. we both love our country. and at the end of the day to me that's what elections are supposed to be about. we can disagree. and we will. we'll have all kinds of arguments even about the best way to do things. but we should be coming from a place of love, of loving our country and of respecting one another. and we have to rebuild this feeling in our country again. we have too much work to be done. we have too many people who deserve a better shot at a future for themselves and their families. i want to be their champion. and with your help i will get up every single day doing the best i can to make sure that the country we love is the country we deserve to have. thank you all. [ applause ] >> so we're going to start introducing madam secretary.

>> transportation and infrastructure issues are being debated in congress. on the next washington journal we will talk to david jolly, who

serves on the transportation committee. then, a conversation with jerrold nadler about whether congress should renew surveillance programs. later, a look at the effect the drought could have on the economy. washington journal is lives each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on twitter. >> presidential hopefuls are campaigning in caucus states. potential presidential candidates sat down with w m you are last month and talk about climate change, social security, and isis. this is 25 minutes.

joined in and ask questions. before we start with all of that, let's get a look at the candidate. >> lindsey graham was born in 1955 and earned his law degree and law of service as a lawyer. he was assigned overseas and left active duty air force. he served until 1995 and he was elected to the u.s. house of representatives. he got reelected and is a strong

proponent of national defense and he lives in south carolina and is the member of the baptist church. >> good to see you. thank you for joining us. >> nice to be here. you are late to the primary party. , as far as the calendar goes. why did you decide to do this. >> after the primary, i think the world is moving at a faster rate than i have seen and i think my voice would be good to be have in the next. i have been problem-solving and it will be about the big thing. what do you do with the people who'll retire and how to you save the country from being

saved. somebody better come out to do saving. my goal is to keep the war over there so that it does not come over here. i want to do the big things. >> are you driven by foreign-policy and national defense? >> our country is more at risk today than i can remember. there is more ability and it is not an accident that it has gotten out of hand. the threats are growing and we are reducing military spending. that is nuts and somebody needs to straighten this out. i have been more right than wrong about foreign-policy and that is something i will enjoy talking about. >> let's talk about the deal. we don't know all the details. you have weighed in. do you believe that iran should

have a nuclear program? if so, -- >> i am ok with that. i'm not ok with the ayatollahs having the ability to make war. make sure you do not do north korea all over again. there are programs that do not enrich uranium. i argue that, if you have to take a country to not trust iran is at the top of the list. they are responsible for killing at least 1500 americans in iraq. it is a theocracy that has a dim view of the world and they are threatening israel daily. how many centrifuges should the ayatollahs have, they have toppled arab capitals and

chanted death to america and israel day in and day out. i would put them at the top of the list to make sure they do not have the capability. >> howdy you enter into a partnership? >> you can have a nuclear power program and your capability to make fuel is limited because the process to make commercial fuel can make a bomb. they can buy the fuel from russia and us. this i've dia that they have the right to enrich, i do not buy that. we told them in south korea that you do not need to make your own fuel. so, what i would do is tell them that, if you want a nuclear power program, you can have it. i believe that you are lying and i do not trust you. we are not going to give you sophisticated new the her

capabilities to make a bomb. and, if you want that, you cannot have it. >> inspections would be included. >> anytime anywhere, would be the phrase i would use. inspections would have to be anytime, anywhere. we are leaving this facility open and it is ill-conceived. >> how aggressive would you be in dealing with radical islam? >> i would make the purpose of my presidency to keep the word -- the war over there. you cannot kill your way into security. here's what you have to do. some of us will have to go over there to do the fighting? -- the fighting. we need more ground troops. this idea of destroying and

degrading isil won't work if the region doesn't have the capability to perform that job. if you beat them in iraq, you eventually have to go into syria. i don't know of any arab army that has the capability of going into syria without some of us being there, because we do things they don't do. and here's the question for america. does it matter if we defeat them? i would say it does, because when you listen to what they're telling you, they want to purify their, destroy the state of israel and come after us. and it is in our national security interest to make sure that they are degraded and destroyed and it's impossible to accomplish that goal in my view without having some deployed elements of the u.s. military helping the people in the region, because there are fighters intermixed among these guys with western passports and it's just a matter of time until some of them come back here if we don't put them on the run. >> quickly one more question and

we'll get to the audience. you've been in washington for a while as your bio alluded to. you know that there's frustration with washington. lindsey graham we ought to be there. >> i can imagine. how as president would you somehow bring these parties -- you need a republican president who says, 80 million of us are .2 retire and it is time to do what reagan and tip o'neal did, come to grips with the baby boomer retirement. younger people will have to work longer and people of income level will have to have subsidiaries and benefits that are going to fail if we do nothing. the republican has got to give, the democratic party has got to give.

>> i'm going to wrap you up right there because i guarantee you the republicans will elaborate on that in a moment. when we come back, we'll bring the studio audience into the conversation. stay with us, we'll be right back. >> now, conversation with the candidate continues. >> welcome back to our conversation with the candidate. tonight's guest, republican u.s. tonight's guest, republican u.s. senator lindsey graham of south carolina. it's time to bring into questions from the audience. i'll jump in if needed to with a follow-up. let's get to it with the first question coming from ruth ellen mason of manchester. good to see you. we're both baby boomers. although, we have been called part of the silver tsunami. so what is your plan to protect social security for our generation and to make sure that

it's strengthened for our children and our grandchildren? senator graham great question. when i was , my mom died, and my sister was . we had a liquor store, restaurant and a pool room and my dad was a world war ii veteran and my mom was diagnosed with hodgkins disease, it wiped us out financially and a year later my dad died. we moved in with my aunt who never made over $, a year. if it weren't for social security survivor benefits coming to my sister from my parent's contributions, about $, it would have really been

tough for us. i'm , not married and i don't have any kids what would i do to save social security? almost anything. at the end of the day, you prevent social security and medicare from being ride out, do medicare from being ride out, do something like reagan and o'neal and sensin bowls. to the young people in this country born after , i want to make sure you have a system that works for you. at the end of the day, when i was born in , there were workers for every security recipient. today, there's three, in years, there's two. the way you save social security is you extend the life of the trust fund. you're going to have to adjust the age of retirement once again like ronald reagan and tip o'neal and people of my income level, making $, a year. my cost of living increase should be less than promised, take the money you would have given me to give it to somebody who needs it more. at the end of the day, we're going to have the means test benefits for operating income americans and we're going to have to ask younger people to

work a little bit longer. if we don't do that, we're going to lose social security and here is the reason you don't want to lose it. lose it. half of today's seniors would be in poverty without a social security check, and a lot of people are going to outlive their (k)plan so you're going to need the social security check in the st century as much as you did in the th century. my goal is to get republicans and democrats in the room and do something like sense and bowls, to save social security and medicare from being wiped out and the only way to do that is to have compromise from both this is coming from mike. >> thank you. many of us care deeply about the environment. my question, as president, how would you protect our energy environmental and economic security? >> great question. energy would -- i would have built the pipeline from canada to the gulf coast because we're

going to be using fossil fuels for a very long time. buying oil from canada is like buying oil from your cousin. the more oil you buy from people that hate your guts, the worst off you are. we're sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. let's extract them in an environmental sound way. let's build the xl pipeline. i would like more nuclear power plants, more bio diesel, ethanol. i'd like anything and everything we grow or produce here and at the end of the day i'd like to invest in technologies that can operate the economy with a lower carbon footprint. from the republican party point of view, what is our environmental policy? i believe that young people in the country are the most generation ever produced in america. i embrace clean air and clean water. with one condition. you've got to have a sound economy to get there. this idea of choosing between the environment and the economy is a false choice. the epa regulation controlling emissions is in overreach. the standards set by the epa regulation can't be met by

existing technology. i would work with congress to produce legislation to lower admissions, but do it in a way to create jobs. i've got three goals, become energy independent, have the energy independent, have the cleanest air and cleanest water of any place on the planet. at the end of the day, grow the economy in the process of transitioning from a carbon-based economy to a lower carbon economy. if you don't do it in an environmentally sound pro-business fashion, you're going to fail. >> do you buy the science behind

>> do you buy the science behind climate change. senator graham i buy what's coming from operating cars and modern machines is contributing to greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas effect to me is a real phenomenon. but you're not going to stop greenhouse gases through a cap and trade system that destroys the economy. we've got two things to do at the same time. protect job growth and move the world to a cleaner safer environment. climate change is real. cap and change as promoted by al gore is bad. there's got to be middle ground. josh very good. the next question coming from alley of concord. >> i'm a senior attending the university of new hampshire. when i graduate i'll be facing overwhelming amounts of debt if elected president, what would you do to ensure that young people could have jobs when graduating from college that they would pay back their student loans. >> great job. i would make it easier to create a job in america so you can get

one. what's so hard about creating a job in america now? you've got a business. should i hire people? what's my health care cost going to be? if you don't know the answer to that, you're less likely to hire them. if you're a manufacturer in new hampshire, will the e.p.a. regulation in carbon increase my power cost? if it does, by how much, and should i add new people? year, because i don't know what the congress is going to do with its budget. the only way you'll ever get a job in america is if somebody outside the government creates it, unless you work for the government itself. so my belief is that economic certainty in this country will create better job opportunities. energy independence is one way to create jobs in america. if we built nuclear powerplants, there would be jobs. there are lots of things we can do on the energy independent

side, but the regulatory and tax environment in america is so oppressive, most people won't expand their business because they don't know when the next shoe drops. i would go to flat tax, have a repertory reform that reflects a safe environment with the need to grow the economy and at the end of the day, tax policy and repertory policy really does matter but if you don't fix the retirement of the baby boomers, if you don't come up with an immigration system so people can hire workers they can't find here at home, then businesses are going to fail. the money you spent to go to college would be a wise investment over time. you don't think so now, but a college degree makes you much more employable down the road and i'm sorry you've had to borrow so much money, but it will pay off. >>. thank you for your question. we'll switch it up and go to a social media question. coming from facebook. are you on facebook? >> absolutely.

>> this is coming from bill ladd. a topical question. the question is, how will you strive to keep church and state separate? >> how will i strive to keep church and state separate? well, at the end of the day, i respect the fact that we are a religious nation, but we're a nation that you don't have to accept the particular style of religion. you can be agnostic, you can be libertarian or vegetarian or you can be a baptist like me. this whole issue about legislation and trying to protect religious freedom and at the same time not discriminate against same sex couples is a very complicated endeavor for a democracy. how many of you believe that you should be able to pray at a high school football game? >> you can raise your hand or not raise your hand. >> okay.

how many of you believe you shouldn't be offered a prayer at a high school football game? prohibited by the constitution. congress shall not establish a particular religion. the freedom to exercise your religion is guaranteed by the constitution. there's a limit on government and there's an empowerment of people. for years, we'll be trying to figure this out. the one thing i will not tolerate is a national religion, even though i'm a christian, because that is counter to what we are as a people. and you see how religion is playing out in the mid-east? the strength of this nation has been that people can worship god on their own terms. freedom of religion and the exercise clause is part of who we are. but we've benefitted as a society by having a wall between the government and the people. and let's keep that wall in place to make sure that nobody in the government can tell you what to do when it comes to your religious freedom. at the same time, for those who believe in god, you're not the enemy. we don't need to drive god out of the public square. got the right balance. >> thank you very much to

bill ladd for that question. back to the studio audience. a different take on foreign policy. >> for more than a decade, the media's coverage of american foreign policy is focused on our military's efforts to combat terrorism and extremism. i'd like to hear your views on the world international planning policy despite popular conceptions, international aide only comprises % of the federal budget. do you see international aide as an important tool in building around the world. senator graham: did y'all hear this question? 1% of your federal budget goes to foreign assistance. that includes running the state department, and our aide to israel. the american taxpayers help africa reduce motherhood child aids transmission by %. through programs created by the federal government partnered with the private sector, we've taken some of your tax dollars and put aids on the run in africa and saved an entire generation of children from certain death.

building a schoolhouse in afghanistan does more damage to the taliban than a brigade of soldiers. foreign aide is easily demagogued. it's 1% of the budget and we're broke at home. i'm sure there's roads that need i'm sure there's roads that need to be built in new hampshire. as a matter of fact, after last night, i can assure you there are new roads that need to be here's my view of defeating radical islam. you have to do more than kill the terrorists. you have to build up other people in the region and if you don't, you will fail as a nation. the good news for us is most fathers in the region don't want to turn their daughters over to isil. we're talking a lot of poor and corrupt countries. the mid-east is on fire. i don't know how to defend this country without some of us being over there doing the fighting, but i can promise you this, the way to destroy radical islam over time is to create capacity in the countries where they reside to do the fighting and extinguish this hateful ideology. a small schoolhouse in afghanistan that you wouldn't send your child to for

minutes can do more damage to this ideology than a bomb being dropped on their heads. the way you defeat this radical ideology is you help people in the region build better and stronger societies. you allow mothers' voice to be heard. when the biggest missing pieces in the mid-east is the ability of a mother to speak up and have a say about the future of her child. there's 6 million girls going to school in afghanistan today. it was illegal for a child to go to school in afghanistan. we've had soldiers die. at the end of the day, building up these countries and being their partner through thick and thin, even though many of them are corrupt, is in our national security interest.

i'm known as a hawk. but here's one thing i understand after many trips to the mid-east. foreign assistance, american businesses being involved overseas, is absolutely essential to our national security. if you think you can ignore the world and it won't come back to to bite you, remember 9/11. we didn't have one dollar of aide to afghanistan, we didn't have an embassy and we didn't have one soldier in afghanistan and they attacked us anyway. the people who are trying to kill us and destroy the region are motivated by a religious ideology that has no place for anybody in this room. they're trying to purify their religion and destroy all other religions. christianity is being slaughtered as i speak in this region. so ladies and gentlemen, it is in our national security interest to take the fight to these guys. but to do something even harder than dropping the bomb. being patient and building up other people who would one day live in peace with us. it worked in germany.

it worked in japan. it will work in the mid-east. but it's going to require patience and an understanding that there's no substitute for american leadership in the world. josh: have about a minute to go. time is flying so we'll wrap up the tv portion of the program with a question from twitter. all the candidates are being asked about it. what specifically would you do, this comes from jean, by the way, what specifically would you do to remove the influence of big money. senator graham: well, citizens united needs to be fixed. i was for mccain finegold, supreme court ruled -. the provisions of mccain finegold basically no longer apply. you're going to get sick of watching tv in new hampshire so the next president of the united states needs to get a commission of really smart people and find a way to create a constitutional amendment to limit the role of super pacs because there's going

to be $100 million spent on races in new hampshire which will be good for this tv station, with and everybody apart, you don't even know who the people are supplying the money. you don't even know their agenda. destroy american politics with so much money in the political process because they're going to turn you off to wanting to vote. josh: i can promise you we're not running off commission-based not running off commission-based salary. i appreciate that. putting your money in this. senator graham: i'm going to put every money i can into advertising in new hampshire. >> very good. we're out of time for just the tv portion of this. so yeah, we're going to come back to this. don't worry. coming up in our next conversation series with the candidate, former texas governor ricky perry will be on the program.

while we are signing off as we alluded to for television tonight, this conversation for senator graham continues online and on our mobile app as well. questions from our studio audience, all of it commercial free. for now, thanks for watching and have a great night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. ] >> more campaign coverage. next, a conversation with former texas governor and possible presidential candidate ricky perry. from wmur manchester in new josh: tonight, we'll be to governor perry where he stands in these issues on this campaign. i'll be getting to know the

candidate, quick questions, and after the break we'll go to the studio audience and let them ask their questions in the town hall format. before we get to that, let's look at the candidate's bio ricky perry was born in and grew up in paint creek, texas. where he was active in scouting and earned eagle scout. he earned a degree in animal science at texas a&m where he was a member of the core of cadets and a yell leader. he served in the u.s. air force in europe and the middle east. he served two terms as the texas commissioner of agriculture and three terms in the house of representatives before being elected lieutenant governor in 1998. he was sworn in as the th governor in texas in and became the longest serving governor in history of the lone star state. perry believes in strong motor security and tough physical discipline and is also married with two children. josh: governor perry, thanks for joining us this evening.

rick perry: good to be with you, sir. josh: this is the second time you're considering a run. how are you a different person and how are you a different candidate? rick perry: well, healthy for one thing. tell people humorously, if you plan on running for the presidency of the united states, i highly recommend you don't have major back surgery six weeks before the announcement. you're probably not going to perform quite as well as you would like to. and the other side of it is, we parachuted into this thing in august of with, frankly, no preparation. and being a governor and then being a governor for years is extraordinary experience, particularly on the executive side. but the preparation in an individual who's going to stand in front of the people of this country, talk about monetary policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, it takes years of study, intense focus, talking to some of the great experts around the world, and i hadn't done that,

and it showed. i jokingly tell people, i went right to the top of the polls if you all remember. it was three of the most magnificent hours of my life. it didn't turn out the way we wanted, but the fact is, if you're going to run for the presidency of the united states, you better be healthy because it's a marathon. and the second part of it is, you must spend a lot of time in preparation to be able to talk about this myriad of issues that you're going to be faced with and that you need to be very knowledgeable of. josh: let's talk about a couple of those issues in this race. one of them that you have experience with is immigration down in texas, obviously, a border state. and in this debate, let me ask you. let me phrase the question this troops in afghanistan and a lot of people wondering why they're not back home. do you think those troops should be rather than in afghanistan, on the border? rick perry: i think we can do both.

when you look at iraq, and i realize you didn't ask me about that, but when we look at iraq and see how that has deteriorated and when you see how isis has come into a very influential place, they control a larger piece of land in the middle east than the united kingdom, one of the reasons, i think the main reason you've seen isis and its ability to influence that part of the world is because america moved our troops out of iraq. i think had we left that military presence there to help manage that area, we had won the war. the peace was what needed to be addressed, and we backed out. we moved away, and when there is a vacuum, you're going to see that vacuum filled by something, in this case, we've seen isis fill that vacuum. so i think there is a role for some number of troops in afghanistan. obviously, how iraq gets dealt with now is anybody's guess, because we missed a lot of different opportunities. i think we could have stopped isis by supporting the syrian rebels and i think we've gotten rid of asad at that point in time.

then we miss an opportunity when isis went out of syria into northern iraq into that kurdistan region where the fighters are, weaponry, delivered to those individuals. they're great fighters fighting for their homes and families. i think we could have stopped isis there. but again, president took a step back and said -- you know, for whatever reason. i think it has more to do with the iranian negotiations than it did with us being able to stop isis. again, the bottom line is, we're going to have to have a presence in the middle east with our personnel to be able to maintain. i think the middle east is in chaos. i mean, you look at libya, egypt, isis, and we've got some real challenges. jos]h: sure, looking forward, if you're commander in chief in the united states, what's the first order of business when it comes to isis?

rick perry: you put a coalition together. that's what i don't see happening. obviously, the king of jordan, a person who really understands when we saw his pilot being burned alive on television, we realized this isn't just about isis going after christians. this is isis going after jews, it's going after christians, it's going after muslims that don't agree with their radical islamic approach here. you put a coalitioning it with the saudis, the jordanians, the turks, that would be the first order of business from the time you get the election over with, you talk and create those relationships. obviously, i've been into israel a lot of times. we've got a relationship with the king of jordan. we've got relationships with people, the young man who runs saudi aramco, went to school at texas a&m.

i have personal relationships with these people and it's creating that trust and creating that will of working together to stop this radical islamic movement that's creating great havoc in the middle east. >> we have about a minute to go before a break. you talk about coalition him and building. that takes time obviously. what's your first approach when it comes to an enemy? it appears to be bigger planning, whatever. rick perry: i don't think it does take that much time, because the relationships have been built over there. i think today, we have a president of the united states who's more interested in getting

a deal with iran, and quite frankly, getting a deal with cuba, two regimes that don't have the united states' best interest in mind and has really taken this step back, if you will. so a forward-leaning position. but to go back in and immediately create those personal relationships and those trusting relationships, i mean, israel doesn't know where the united states is going to be on any given day when it comes to their security. i'm not sure that the king of jordan would tell you, i know where america is going to be on any given day with this leadership. so clearly knowing these people and having personal relationships and them trusting us and knowing that we're going to be there, and on the other side of that is the individuals who don't have america's best interest in line, when you draw a red line and somebody crosses that red line, there is a consequence, and we haven't seen that. >> governor, we'll take a quick break and get to the studio audience from their questions. stay with us. >> now, conversation with the candidate continues. welcome back, everybody,

to our conversation with the candidate. tonight's guest, former texas governor republican ricky perry. but it's time to bring in our questions from the audience. i will jump in if a follow-up is needed. right now, let's get to it with our first question coming from joel mitchell. good to see you. >> good morning, governor. thank you for being with us. many political observers think that the primary focus of the next chief executive needs to be international relations. given that hillary clinton, the former secretary of state, will be the democrat candidate, why do you think you'd be better at dealing with foreign affairs than her? rick perry well, i think when : you look at -- you look at people's records, and you look at the results of those records. so when i think about secretary clinton, the first thing that comes to mind for me, i was a former pilot in the united states air force. i flew in that area, and i'm talking about northern africa and libya and what happened at benghazi. i think there's some great concerns about that. her testimony, her saying what difference does it make that these young americans lost their lives, that that ambassador lost their life, it makes a lot of difference, and i think she's got a lot of explaining to do.

and as my friend carly fiorina says, just because you have a frequent flyer card on federal airplanes doesn't mean you've been a successful secretary of state. so i think it's very important for us to realize, this isn't just about whether somebody's been in a position. what have you done while you're in that position? years as the governor of the state of texas, and we've got a real record, whether the record is 1.5 million people added to the job population, the number of jobs created, . million people came into our state. and then having a philosophy, is america -- i happen to look at -- if hillary clinton is going to be the nominee, i think it's -- this is just the third term of barack obama from my perspective. you're seeing the same type of approach. i happen to think america has a role in the world. i don't think we back away from our responsibilities. i think we have a clear role in the middle east. i think we have a clear role in europe. for instance, i would have been sending american liquefied natural gas into the european

theaters to send mr. putin a real powerful message. but this administration has taken a step back time after time, except in two places, with iran and cuba, negotiating with two regimes that frankly don't have america's best interest in mind. so if hillary clinton is the nominee, i think she's got a lot of explaining to do. josh: joel, thank you very much for your question. a question from mary lou bieber and take it away. >> thank you for taking my question, governor. if you're president and are going to replace the affordable care act with something else, what would that look like, and how would you ensure that low income children and their parents here in new hampshire don't lose access to the care they currently receive?

rick perry: and i would repeal obama care because i think it's going to make access to health care substantially limited in the future. we already know it's going to be driving up health care costs, and i think more young men and women are not going to go into health care because of this one-size-fits-all approach. so with all that said, what do you replace it with? having been a governor for years, and knowing the strings that always get attached with programs like medicaid that

comes back into the states, we need senators and congressmans, and presidents of the united states, where we have the states coming up with the best ideas of how to deliver health care, and i think allowing those dollars to flow back to the states, without all the strings attached, i trust your governor and your legislature right here in new hampshire just as i trust a governor and a legislature in any other state, to come up with a menu of ideas, you know, is it health savings accounts? is it being able to buy insurance across state lines? there's a host of ways to make our health care more affordable, more accessible, and i'll suggest to you at the top of that is tort reform. being able to protect against frivolous lawsuits. we were just talking earlier with one of the participants in the audience who lived in corpus christi, texas, that our tort reform has saved billions of dollars in costs of the state of texas but more importantly, it expanded access to health care. we've got , more doctors licensed to practice medicine in texas. they've gone into counties where there wasn't health care before. so if you want to see affordability, you want to see access to health care, let the states be the laboratories of innovation. don't do it from washington d.c. and have this one-size-fits-all, because access to health care, whether it's our elderly, whether it's a young person who

can't afford insurance, i don't think the way you judge whether or not health care is going to be accessible is how many people you force to buy insurance. i think the states will come up with the best way to deliver health care for their citizens. as the president of the united states, if i decide to run, i trust the states. i trust the governs and their legislatures and their people to come up with the best ways. the current resident of the white house doesn't trust the states. josh: thank you very much. mary lou for the question. let's go on to dan bergeron. >> i have two siblings that have called the dallas area home for several years. both i and my son who is a freshman in college, we both have student debt. so given that between and the government is on track

to profit off student loans, so my question to you is, would you offer a plan that would help my family and several other families across the country with student debt? rick perry: i think the student debt story is one of the really powerful stories that needs to be told, and people need to really understand this. what are we getting from a college education today? i happen to be one of the first people, if not the first people, that came up with a degree plan. i'm talking about a total degree in the state of texas. now, they laughed at me, originally, when i said that in my state of the state address. but subsequently, there are different institutions in texas

s. so i think you have to have some innovation, but powerfully, the message needs to be sent to all of these institutions of learning, that you cannot just have free will to raise this tuition. when the federal government took over the federal loan programs, you saw the universities have basically a free shot to raise tuition, and that's exactly what they did. i think you move it back into the private sector and let the private sector run the loan programs, but also, there needs to be some clear controls on these universities, from the standpoint of just having them willy-nilly being able to raise tuition. so kids' futures are being destroyed because they're getting out of college, can't get a job. we've got some of the highest number of people out of work in this country. so getting the economy back going, and i've got a real plan to be able to do that, intertwined directly to our energy industry and driving down

the cost of electricity, bringing back manufacturing in this country. so you have an economy that's booming in this country. for kids when they get out of college, and get a job, and also to have some thoughtful processes in place and some protections so that we don't see these massive students' debts that are being created. josh: governor, thank you. dan thank you for the question. let's take one from facebook. claude snyder asking, would you support term limits for congress? rick perry: i'm not a big fan of term limits and let me tell you why. i think the key to our democracy is having an engaged constituency out there. and if you have a really great ceo that's running your country running your company, running your state, why would you want to limit them?

if you've got somebody that's not doing a good job, you go out there and fire them, and you do it through the ballot box. here's my great concern. if you put term limits into place, here's who you are empowering. i think it's kind of an easy way to go and say let's just term limit them or we'll keep mary and keep bill only in congress for six years, and then they're gone, we'll get a new one. that way they can't foul this up. if we do that, then what we have done is we have put the bureaucrats in charge, and the bureaucrats, i was in government long enough to understand the bureaucrats when they know that there's term limits. they'll go, oh, yes, sir, we'll get right to that, and they wink and nod, and then you're gone, and then they'll start winking and nodding to the next person. now, if somebody wants to come up with a way that says bureaucrats are going to get term limit as well, let's have that conversation. but until there's a level

playing field out there, just to limit the elected officials that we have in the state with term limits, i think we're doing nothing more than handing over the keys to the truck, so to speak, to the bureaucrats. josh: so claude, there's your answer. governor, thank you. let's move on to one from the audience from steven graphing. >> the lack of cooperation in washington seems to be a real point of frustration with america today. as president, how would you increase the productivity between congress and the oval office? rick perry: i agree with you. when i look at washington d.c., and i see, you know, whether it's on the house floor, the senate floor, people giving up, giving big speeches and walk off the senate floor and they don't have to address the issues, governs don't have that privilege. it's not a privilege. governors don't have that option. governs have to find ways to make their states work. and i think that's a -- i happen to think that's one of the reasons that we're going to

choose a governor who has substantial executive experience to be the next president of the united states. but reaching across the aisle, i've had to do that for, i mean, years as the house member, agricultural commissioner as the governor of the state of texas, i found the things that we can work on and i think it starts at the top. i don't see him reaching across the aisle and saying, hey, mitch mcconnell, let's work on the thing we can work on together. having a photo op or a beer, that's one thing. i'll be happy to have a beer with somebody and talk. the real key, find the places we can work together.

the most liberal democrat in texas, an african-american lawyer in downtown houston. i grew up on a farm. we're at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum. we found things we can work on. we passed a piece of legislation together to punish and to try to stop the sexual trafficking that was going on in the state of texas coming out of mexico. find those things we can work on. i believe with all my heart, democrats and republicans, have a lot of the same end goals. we want to live in a country where people have access to good jobs. we want to live in safe communities. we want to have a strong military so that we're not going to be attacked from outside this country. how you get there is where often the rub is. but we can find ways to work together. i believe in all my heart, but it starts at the top, and i'll be a president if i decide to run, that reaches out and finds those places where democrats can work with me on issues we believe in. but also, let me wrap up with

this, i'm also a big believer, that i'd rather have a half a loaf than no loaf. so compromise is not necessarily a bad thing. josh: thanks for the question. let's get to the next one. mary from rumney. >> good evening. 0 you've counted an impressive record of job creation in texas and used those jobs to recruit people to move to your state. can you tell us about your record in preparing texas citizens to fill those jobs? i'm interested in knowing more about investments your state made in its educational system, in particular around early childhood intervention such as preschool? rick perry: yes, ma'am. i'm not a big believer that you judge how well your workforce is going to be developed, strictly by how much money you spend. because if that's the case, you know, california and probably

washington d.c. would have the best records when it comes to their education. texas was th in the nation in high school graduation rates. about in the middle of the pack. last year, we got the numbers in. texas is now second highest graduation rates in america. we're the highest african-american graduation rates. we're the highest hispanic graduation rates. increase in hispanic participation in higher education while i was governor. if you want to have a better indicator of how a young person is -- or whether they're going to be successful in life, the first thing that you need to do is graduate them from high school. and we did that by putting accountability in our public schools. we increased the funding, but we didn't become the -- the second highest spending state in the nation.

we did it with incentives, and i think there's some good examples of how people can pick and choose. and again, i go back to this whole th amendment concept of states picking and choosing from other successes. rick scott over in florida. i can promise you, rick gets up every day and figures out way to make his state more competitive. bobby jindal. bobby gets up every day trying to figure out how to recruit businesses from texas to florida. i have to look at my regulation policies to keep texas more competitive. but that's how you do it with competitive programs, and it's worked. josh: we're just about out of time this half hour. very quickly, for those wondering tonight in the audience, when will they know whether ricky perry is running again? rick perry: end of may, first of june.

josh: you came in late last time. that is all the time we have for the television portion of this program right now. coming up next on our conversation with the candidate series. we have former hewlett packard ceo carly fiorina. and this conversation continues online and the mobile app. more, all of it, commercial free. for now, thanks for watching, have a great night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. ] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> the head of the faa will talk about efforts to modernize the air traffic control system as part of a reauthorization hearing on federal aviation administration programs. watch live coverage from the senate transportation committee this morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3. later, also on c-span 3 civil rights and law enforcement officials testify about the use of police body cameras. that is live from the senate judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism at 2:30 eastern. >> the scottish national parliament gained 50 seats and this month's elections. the particles 56 of the total 59 seats allotted to scotland in the house of commons. the snp party leader spoke about

the election results and the scottish parliament. >> thank you. the next note of business is a statement on the outcome of the u.k. general election. the first minister will take questions at the end of the statement and therefore no interventions or interruptions. nicola sturgeon, ten minutes. >> thank you very much indeed. i'm grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on the outcome on the u.k. general election. let me take the opportunity to congratulate all those elected to serve as members of parliament. it's also of course an enormous responsibility and i know all those taking up seats for the first time will be feeling pride excitement and trepidation.

i wish them all well as they get to work on behalf of their constituents. my good wishes also go to those who lost seats last week. we also know from past experience what it feels like to lose. so while we may celebrate success, we take no pleasure in the personal loss that defeated candidates will be feeling. i wish each of them the best of luck in what they choose to do in the months and years ahead. [ applause ] so the result last week was of truly historic proportions. the snp now has the honor of representing 56 out of 59 seats in scotland in the north, south, east and west of our country. we secured 50% of all votes cast. 1.4 million people in total

voted snp. the largest number of votes that any party has won in scotland ever. the trust that the scottish people have placed in the snp to represent the country's interest is unprecedented. we will now work each and every day with determination and with humility to pay that trust in full. i also want to make clear we will also work and work just as hard to win the trust of those who did not vote for the snp last thursday. as scotland's government, we recognize the unique obligation we have to reach out to and speak for all of scotland. i pledge today that we will make scotland's voice heard, we will stand up for the progressive policies we put right at the heart of the election campaign. but we will also seek to build

unity in our country. there's one final point i want to make today about the nature of our task. during the election i spoke often about my desire to build a progressive alliance to lock the conservatives out of office. while scotland voted for that change, labor failed to win sufficient support in england and i regret that. our determination to work with others of progressive opinion across the political spectrum remains undiminished. we will build alliances to argue protection of the vulnerable against deeper welfare cuts. we will seek to defend our human rights protections. for the privatization of the national health service and safeguard the u.k.'s place in europe. a clear majority of people did not vote conservative last thursday and they deserve a

strong voice in parliament. i promise today that the snp and the scottish government will seek to be that voice. we will be a constructive principled, determined and effective opposition to the majority government and we will seek to be so on behalf of people not just in scotland, but people right across the u.k. resigning officer, the scale of -- presiding officer the scale of the mandate that the people of scotland gave does ensure a much stronger voice for scotland. but also strengthens the hand of this scottish government in seeking to secure the very best deal for scotland which in turn strengthens our ability as a government to deliver for scotland. yesterday, i visited the emergency department to thank our front line nhs staff for the hard work they are doing to improve waiting times and also reaffirm our commitment to support them and make the

further improvements that are needed. the delivery of health care and other services is the responsibility of my government and we will rightly be judged on our performance. we can do more to support and protect our public services if our budget is not being cut year on year. it is for these reasons, that we put an end to ones terty at the -- end to austerity at the very heart of the election campaign. at the very hard of the agenda. [ applause ] i spoke to the prime minister by telephone on friday. yesterday, i wrote to him to seek a meeting at the earliest possible opportunity and we're looking to meet later this week. let me be clear that public spending and the protection of scotland's budget will be key issues on the agenda when we do

meet. the issue of more powers for the scottish parliament must also form part of our discussions. i want to pay tribute to lord smith of kelvin. it provides us with a strong starting point. that is so necessary if we are to grow our economy faster and lift children out of poverty. they welcomed the proposals that lord smith brokered. but we've been consistent in our view that the proposals do not go far enough. the outcome makes abundantly clear that this view is shared by a significant proportion of the scottish elect rat. they must now agree with a process that looks again at the smith commission proposals. and that must be a process that

is made here in scotland. and one that involves wider scottish skoetociety. -- society. we believe the scottish parliament should move to fill financial responsibility. we want to see def lugs of 00-- see devolution of powers over employment policy including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes and equality. the powers we need to create jobs and lift people out of poverty. it is such a package of priority, tackling powers that we will now seek to build support for and agreement on. let me say this sincerely. i very much hope that scottish labor will now become part of this growing consensus. this morning i went with them and they agreed to call for powers over the minimum wage health and safety law,

equalities legislation and for greater responsibility on welfare to be devolved as a matter of priority to this parliament. for scottish labor to leave these powers in the u.k. labour government was perhaps understandable. but to argue these powers should remain in the hands with no mandate in scotland would be inexplicable to moth people -- to most people across our country [ applause ] i hope they'll now think again and help us to build economic prosperity and foster greater social justice. last issue i want to dress is one that was ironically talked about much more about our opponents opponents. the issue of independence. it is no secret that the snp supports independence. we always will.

this election was not about independence. it was about making scotland's voice heard at westminster. i said i would not take a vote for the snp out of endorsement of independence out of a second referendum. i stand by that. there will only be another referendum on independence if the people of scotland vote to have one. that is democracy. and of course it cuts both ways. i can't impose a referendum gents the will of the scottish people nor can david cameron rule out. it will be the people who decide. what happens to public opinion on this question the years ahead. it depends on the respect shown to the decisions the people of scotland has made. how david cameron and his

government choose to respond to the message scotland has sent will be crucial to how we move forward. last week's election didn't just result in records. it also resulted in record low support for the conservatives in scotland. it was the lowest share since 1865. so it seems to me that the conservatives now have a clear choice. they can't ignore the voice of the scottish people and let people draw their own conclusions about the ability of westminster to respond to scottish opinion. they can choose to demonstrate that westminster does listen. we will work in good faith to get that better deal for scotland. we will be constructive and seek agreement on issues where we can find common ground and always act in the best interest of all

of the people of scotland. presiding officer, we ask people to vote for us in this election to make scotland's voice heard at westminster. people place their trust in us last week to make scotland's voice heard loudly and clearly. we now intend in the house of commons and here in the scottish government to get on with that job on behalf of all of the people we are so honored to serve. [ applause ] >> thank you. i thank the minister for early sight of the statement which i will reflect on in a second. can i take this opportunity to congratulate the first minister on a remarkable result for her party. her campaign was led from the top with dignity and flare. the hard work and dedication of activists and volunteers cannot go unnoticed. one sentiment is that pride in

our democratic process. people don't just stand up for their beliefs, but they make the case for them. and then the people decide. and they decided to send a strong team of snp mps to westminster. the first minister refersed human rights protections. these benches will do everything we can to oppose any attempt to scrap the human rights act. [ applause ] enacted in the early days of a fresh labor government, the act embodies the civil and political rights fundamental to any liberal democracy. a threat to the human rights act is a threat to those very rights and it must be stopped. secondly and in closing, i've met and spoke with a number of constituents this week who are

fearful of plans to further attack disability benefits. there is fear and trepidation in the air. what reassurances can the first minister give those individuals that whilst there no question she will give voice to those fears that she will act here in this parliament to protect them as well. >> first minister. thank her for her gracious remarks and agree with her absolutely in what she said about the efforts of party activists and activists in all parties. the victory last thursday was down to the hard work of tens of thousands of candidates,

activists, supporters and members. my heart felt thanks to each and every one of them. can also say, i welcome her comments on opposition to repeal of the human rights act. i do think this is one example of i hope many examples where labor and the snp in that progressive alliance i spoke about can work together against some of the wrong headed measures put forward by the conservative government. any suggestion we should move back from human rights protection i think is appalling and completely wrong. we will do everything within our power to ensure that vital human rights protections remain in scotland and remain undiminished. and i welcome the support of the scottish labour party in that respect. also on threat to the support that people with disabilities that rely so heavily on, i think of the mainstream parties at this chamber, and corrected if i'm wrong on this, we were the only party to stand very firmly say that we would oppose the 3 billion pounds cut coming from

the government to the disabled people across our country. we will do everything we can to oppose that. disabled people should not pay the price of balancing the books. and we will also continue as well as opposing these measures, using the new voice that we have in the house of commons, we will continue in this place to do everything we can to mitigate against the well favor cuts. -- the welfare cuts. it goes back to what i said in the statement. rather than us simply standing here trying to mitigate measures from a westminster conservative government, let us join together in saying put the welfare powers in the hands of this parliament and this government so that we can stop these attacks in the first place. [ applause ] >> members who wish to ask a

question of the first minister should press the speak button. >> thank you. may i thank the first minister for advance notice of her statement. congratulations to those i have already expressed to david cameron. increasing both the number of votes and seats while already in office. while in scotland, we did not manage to add to the eat total we did contribute to the total of votes. the most of any election. i am naturally delighted that the conservatives have been returned to government to finish the job of an economic recovery which today's figure notwithstanding has already seen 175,000 more scotts in work over the last five years. our goal is to reach full employment. so that anyone who wants a job knows there is one for them.

she revealed a shopping list of request. can i ask her what level of support from scotland's business organization did the smith commission receive when examined this issue just a few shorts months ago? >> well, i would really hope notwithstanding my opposition to the conservative government and icon graduatelated david cameron on friday. no secret i didn't want him to be the prime minister. i really do hope that in the days following this statement, we have perhaps a different tone struck. i said in my statement that they scored their lowest percentage share of the vote in scotland since 1965. -- since 1865, that is a fact. the snp scored a record high share of the vote. whether it's on more powers

business taxes welfare powers, or continued austerity. i say this very directly to ruth davidson, it cannot be business as usual. if you simply turn your face against what people in scotland have indicated support for, what you will say to people in scotland is that westminster does not listen, cannot listen. let's have the discussion on how we want to build on smith. ruth davisson will put forward her views. i will put forward my views. the people of scotland must be listened to. that's the starting point i begin with and i hope it's the one ruth davidson will too. >> kevin. >> thank you. i'm pleased to hear the first minister say that snp mps will do everything to halt the

disability benefits cut. does the first minister agree with me that the best way is to bring all social security to this parliament. >> i do want to see it deinvolved to this parliament. the proposals put forward do not go far enough. they would leave the vast bulk of decisions in the hands of westminster. a debate between politicians this can often sound as if an academic debate, but this is very real for hundreds of thousands of people across our country. now, having power in the hands of this parliament doesn't put into the hands of this parliament a magic wand. tough decisions have to be taken. but we at least know we'll be taking them with values and

priorities uppermost in our agenda. so i hope, i'm not expecting to get agreement today on this from the conservatives, but i do hope we can form an alliance with scottish labor and others in this chamber to say that welfare powers, the decisions over support for the most vulnerable in our society should not be in the hands of a majority government in scotland. they should be in the hands of the democratic elected parliament and government of scotland. >> yeah, i congratulate nicola sturgeon on her party's victory. we have lessons to learn which we are absolutely determined to learn. but this parliament has a job to do every single day of the week. just this week, police with guns in the street, mental health services falling short unemployment on the rise, missed

for months on end, yet this first minister spends parliamentary time with a snp party statement that tells us absolutely nothing -- >> order. >> see, they don't like it. can i ask the first -- can i ask the first minister when she is going to give us a statement on even just one of these important issues that she's got responsibility for? >> first minister? >> well, i'll be standing here in this very place tomorrow at 12:00 noon to answer first ministers questions. as i do every thursday at 12:00 noon. that is hardly my fault. i think it's really important for this parliament to reflect on the result of the u.k. election and reflect on how we use what people in scotland said last thursday to seek to influence the decisions.

why do i think that is important? because the decisions that the westminster government takes impact directly on the ability of this government and this parliament to search the people of scotland. so i make no apology. to say that the u.k. government the austerity must stop and this parliament must be empowered to serve the people of our country better. the day to daywork of this government never stops. as i said yesterday when i visited edinborough and speak to the front lane staff, yes, there is work to do. yesterday's figures were the best performances we began publishing weekly statistics. let's be determined to support them to do even further. part of that support in my view, as we as first minister standing up saying loudly and clearly i do not want to see further cuts to the budget of this

parliament. >> we have very little time for questions. can i ask the questions brief as possible and for my part i will do my best to call as many members as possible. can i start by congratulateing the first minister on the scale of the snp victory. i want to ask about national insurance. i know that she wants it to be devolved. can i ask whether there will be an assessment and the flip side, what impact it would haven pensions currently linked to national insurance so we can take a considered view on the proposal based on the fullest evidence? >> there is no such direct lipg there. -- direct link there.

but that are put to one side. the debate about what further power should be devolved to this parliament. a proper process around that that allows as many voices and people in scottish society to be involved as possible. i'll be very happy to public analysis and assessment and evidence that makes the case that the more powers over job creation, the more powers over business taxes, power over welfare we have in the hands of this parliament, the more successful we can be in growing our economy, and lifting people out of poverty. >> thank you. in building alliances in particular regarding human rights. can i ask the first minister given the announcement about shipping desperate refugees back to the awfulness of the countries of origin, will the first minister also commit to building that alliance and reach out to the wider u.k. community?

>> well, i said during the election campaign i wanted snp voices in the house of commons to be voices for progressive change. the kind of change is progressive change i believe many people across the rest of the u.k. also want to see. we will continue to seek to reach out to build alliances with people of like mind not just in scotland but across these islands for the kind of change we want to see. i would hope that it would be possible to build an alliance in the house of commons as well as in wider society against the repeal of the human rights act. i think ordinary people across the country are appalled on the idea we would roll back on human rights protection. these are vital protection for people in all walks of life and we should work hard to protect them. the snp will seek to work with

others across all parties and people in new parties to build alliances for the kind of change we want to see and build alliances in opposition for what we don't want to see. >> being elected last week, it would have abolished the bedroom tax across the united kingdom. i know first minister would have supported that. instead, likely to be increased and extended. we worked together before to protect scottish households from the impact of the bedroom task. will she work with us again to maintain that mitigation in the face of any decision of this measure irrespective of any debate? >> yes, i will. we have mitigated the impact to the bedroom tax and we will continue to do as much as we can within the powers and resources

we've got to mitigate the impact. i hope that will be something around which we can unite. i've said this before. i didn't come into politics to simply mitigate the worst impact of welfare cuts. i want to be first minister so we can be the author of the changes that we want to see and the author of the kind of society we want to live in. yes, let's work together. but for goodness sake let's work to get it into the hands of this parliament. >> patrick harvey. >> thank you. can i add my congratulations to those who were successful. i'm glad that the first minister chose to have an early meeting with the stuc given the very direct threat with the right to strike coming from the new u.k. government.

it's ironic that government has formed with the direct backing of one of of four in those eligible to vote. does the first minister agree even if there was a popular mandate for this policy, there is no justification for this direct assault on the right to strike op people in scotland or elsewhere? will she ensure that such proposals have no future in scotland? >> well, very much agree with that and given assurance to they would have the backing of the scottish government and indeed the backing of my party. i don't believe that is the priority in scotland. i don't believe it's what a majority people in scotland want to see efforts being spent on. instead i want to work with stuc to make sure we are doing what needs to be done to increase productivity, to get more people

onto living wage to deal with contracts. these are the priorities we should be focusing on. this government will stand against any attempt by the conservative majority government to crackdown on trade union rights. i hope with perhaps of the exception of the scottish conservatives that will we will united in this chamber to saying no to those kinds of attacks. >> does the first minister agree that the prime minister is successful and brings forward an early eu in our referendum then a double majority must be required to ensure scotland is not taken out of the eu against its will? >> yes, i do agree with that. the indications that we might see it brought forward from 2017

to perhaps as early as next year. the snp opposes that referendum. if there is to be one, we think it is absolutely unacceptable and indefenseble for any constituent part of the u.k. to be taken out of the european union against its will. there will be amendments to that bill to introduce as a double majority rule in order for the u.k. to come out of the european union then it is not enough for the u.k. simply as a whole to vote for that. each and every member must also do so. i would hope that we would have support for that from every single quarter of this chamber. [ applause ] >> mcintosh. >> thank you. could i also begin by thanking those who won the right to represent scotland in the

westminster parliament and also thank those who stood down and for all their public service to this country. there are going to be areas where we continue to disagree. the first minister believes that we could do more if we had more powers in this parliament. does she also agree with could do more using the powers that already exist in this parliament? >> first minister. >> well, can i echo ken mcintosh's comments. i think it's a point well made to say there was mp's who didn't stand for reelection and we wish them well too. i agree notwithstanding the disagreements we have across the chamber, i do believe it costs scrutiny in using the powers we have to mitigate the impacts of the cuts we have coming at us from westminster.

we spend over 100 million pounds mitigating the impact of welfare cuts. we will continue to do that and look for ways in which we can do that further and better. we are investing money in supporting food banks and supporting efforts to tackle food poverty. i will always listen to anybody who comes to me with ideas on how to do that better and more effectively. there is a limit to what we can do to mitigate u.k. government welfare cut from within the fixed budget that we have. everybody has to understand and realize that. yes, we will do what we can to mitigate. the most effective thing we can do is get the powers out of the hands of westminster and into the hands of this parliament. >> thank you. presiding officer. a number of organizations

including trade unions have said that the smith commission proposals fall far short of the aspirations for scotland. does the first minister consider that today's agreement goes beyond the smith commission proposeals which should be seen as a starting point. >> yes, i do. when the smith commission proposals were published members will recall that the stuc were one of the biggest critics. said that they did not go far enough. the agreement we have reached today -- you know we don't -- the scottish government and the stuc don't agree on absolutely everything. but there are key areas where we do agree and we have agreed to jointly make these calls. all of these areas will take us beyond the starting point of the smith commission proposals. there are two points -- i meet the prime minister hopefully later this week.

is there an agreement on the part of the u.k. government to move beyond the smith commission proposals. i need that confirmation from the prime minister. if there is that agreement, then what is the process we then put in place to decide and determine the extent to which and the areas in which we move beyond the proposals of the kmit commission? -- the smith commission? that process has to be robust, transpire transparent and has to be made in scotland. it needs to give organizations the opportunity to input their views. these will be the issues. i will report back to parliament on progress in due course. >> would the first minister agree democratic front if any politician rejected by the elect

orate were to return to westminster by appointment to the house of lord's and in particular given that the liberals have 101 members, more even than the total number in the u.s. senate, now that they're down to eight, it's time for some 80 or 90 of the existing ones to consider resignation? >> first minister. [ applause ] >> i'd go slightly further. i think the house of lords is a democratic outreach in and of itself. [ applause ] i look forward to the day which may not come within this time of parliament, but i look forward to the day when the house of lords is no more. people with no democratic mandate should not be writing the laws of our land. yes, i do think it would be deeply democratically wrong for defeated mp's to find their way back to westminster via a seat

in the house of lords. we don't have defeated mps and we don't appoint to the house of lords anyway. i would hope they would each give a commitment that they will not seek to get round the democratic will of the scottish people in that way. no defeated candidate from the election last week will find their way into the house of lords. [ applause ] >> thank you. when the first minister meets with the prime minister, will she make it clear it is not acceptable for the u.k. government to seek to repat rat powers -- of the further additional significant powers which this country was promised in the closing days of the referendum, powers which the people of scotland have now demanded so loudly and clearly in the election result last week?

>> as i think i made clear, i will be seeking to have that conversation very directly with the prime minister. let us be quite calm and rationale about this. we have our differences of opinion. we will not all agree. one think i do think we can say very clearly is that there is no substantial opinion in scotland that the smith commission proposals do not go far enough. that's the first point we need to establish. then we need to put that process in place to number how we go forward and in what areas we go forward. i'll end with this simple point. the conservatives led by david cameron cannot act as if it is business as usual in scotland. they cannot carry on as if nothing changed in scotland last

week. everything changed in scotland last week and westminster must listen. >> that ends the statement from the first minister. next act of business, can i just remind members we are probably going to have to drop at least one speaker from the next debate because i have allowed all the questioners on this one. >> transportation and infrastructure issues, including the future of amtrak, are being debated in congress. on our next "washington journal" we will talk to congressman jolly. then a conversation with gerald nadler about whether congress should renew nsa surveillance. a look at the effect the drop in

the west could have on the u.s. economy. a " washington post" correspondent joins us. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling to the c-span online store at c-span.org. up next, army and air force officials talk about u.s.- russian relations and look at the current tensions russia is having with the west over the situation in ukraine. the center for strategic and

international studies hosted this hour and 15 minute event. -- and 50 minute event. >> good morning at welcome to csis. my name is andy -- i'm director of the program. i'm delighted to present the program with u.s. army war college carlyle scholars program to talk about from cooperation to competition, the future of u.s. russian relations. to talk about from cooperation to competition, the future of u.s.-russian relations. russian aggression in 2014 caught a lot of us off guard forcing reactive measures and reevaluation of u.s. policy towards russia. russia has used nonlinear approaches and operated just beneath additional thresholds of conflicts take full advantage of u.s. and nato policy limitations.

in light of the strategic challenge, members of the carlyle scholars program at the u.s. army war college conducted a war game last month in the middle of april. unfortunately, i was not able to participate myself as i was in moscow at a conference organized by the russian ministry of defense. and in the war game, they revealed four key considerations for the future policy and strategy. this panel of presentation will present the findings from that war game and also from the assessment study that the scholars program conducted in preparation for the exercise. the views presented by the panelists are their own and should not be implied to be those of their sponsoring service, the u.s. army u.s. army war college. i will briefly introduce our panelists in -- today, and in your materials, you have a fuller fuller fuller bio graphy. but directly to my right is

colonel gevjon coy from the royal edmonds army and is currently a fellow at the u.s. army war college. lieutenant joe hilbert is just to colonel coy's right, and he is a career army field artillery officer and has experience supporting light airborn armored, and special operations forces. and directly to joe's right is dr. james mcnauten who earned his ph.d. in history from johns hopkins university. i presume we are co hv-co-alumni. oh, the home campus. from the mother ship. he served as staff historian from several joint and army headquarters. directly to dr. mcnauten's right, is lieutenant colonel

christopher lai. he is a c 130 master navigator and u.s. weapons school graduate. he graduated from the u.s. air force academy -- excuse me, christopher. i know these mix-ups in services can be a little touchy with a b.s. in u.s. history and earned an m.a. in history from the university of central arkansas. finally, to my far right, last and hardly least, is lieutenant colonel karen briggaman. she is a strategic officer with military experience ranging from the tactical to the strategic level. so with that, let me turn the floor over to colonel floy who will introduce the program. >> thank you very much for hosting us today here. good morning to everybody. i'll explain a little bit about where we come from and why we're sitting on this table, so what led to this. first of all, we have five of

six students from the u.s. army war college. the six students was already moving to his new assignment in europe, so he couldn't be here, so we're actually five of six. he was on the war college. but we're in the special program called the collis program. the idea behind that is that we do the curriculum in four months instead of eight to nine months, just condense it a little bit. so we have got more time to do research, to do engagementes with think tanks or state department within there as well. and to do more research. and we want to do our own, that we are really motivated to do. so that's part of the program. we started in october 2014, and i won't go through all the steps in this slide.

we started in russia and the russia-asia relationship actually. it was programs we were already doing at the u.s. army war college and over time we had meetings from many respected experts from think tanks, from universities, dod, state department as well. and and those meetings were to confirm, improve or help our understanding of the systems. that's what we did over time. the war game was actually a month ago, but prior to that we had many meetings in washington on think tanks to discuss our view on what we thought the russian system was like. we used what we call operational design. it's a way to frame the environment, frame the problem and the approach to the system. we started with first

understanding the problem. we looked into putting in scramsochi, to find that out. and looked for problems within the current system and fractures that are in the system as well. for that environment, we used visualization of the russian are bear. and russian bear with his own dna, and he is moving through a forest, and he used keys that control the bear or used keys that moved counter to the bear. so that's what we used to frame the environment, so to say. and then we framed some approaches, and those approaches are approaches on how to influence the russian system and those approaches led to the war games that we did in april.

>> so as gert-jon mentioned once we completed the process of design and collaboration of the different organizations you saw on the chart, we thought we would take it and get close as we could to a random field experiment, and in this case would be a war game. what you see on the slide in front of you is how we laid that out. our first problem statement, when we looked at the national security strategy and a lot of other strategic documents, we talk a great deal about strengthening and enduring alliance with europe. the question was then well, given that how should the u.s. consider its policy towards russia? how should that impact it? so the purpose of the event was to come up with policy considerations, and then you see some of the other objectives that you see there, with really the final research question being what kind of insights can we gain that we could then use to inform policymakers?

this was the methodology. so as gert-jun mentioned, we met with several folks along the way in building that assessment. and then we took those engagementes and invited people with whom we engaged others to come to the barracks and participate in this war game. we divided into three games, a russia team, u.s. team, and a white celled or controlled group. then the way the war game would work, we started out in a large group plenary session. we presented our assessment of the russian system. we presented what we currently understood u.s. policy toward russia to be and we let the russia team and the u.s. team go to their break-out rooms and either refine or confirm what had just been presented to build what would be their base line in going forward. in each case we told the u.s. team if you're an advisor to the president and the same thing to the russian, consider yourselves

advisors to president putin. we brought them back into the plenary session. each side had an opportunity to brief the other and then they had a chance for questions of clarification from one side to the other, and that was as well with the white cell of the control group. once they had baselined their policy going into the game, we then provided what we call a strategic insert or scenario that each side would have to deal with. what we found was, there was not a lot of movement from the way we had designed the russian system or the way we had presented u.s. policy, so we felt like we had a pretty good base line going in and after they'd come into the plenary session, a pretty good refinement. so we started with the first scenario, the two teams would then go to the break-out rooms, the russia team and the u.s. team. they would confirm the policy they had was it still valid? if it wasn't valid, what changethey need to make and what was going to be their strategic approach going forward given this new environment or given

this scenario? they then came back into the larger group, briefed each other, and it was kind of a courtroom type setting. they'd brief -- one side would brief, the other side would brief, and they'd be allowed to provide a counter argument back and forth and then the white cell again would ask questions for clarification. once that term was complete, we shoot the next inject. as the russians and the u.s. teams went away, the white cell went through a debriefing process. what did they hear that was feasible? what did they hear that was not feasible. how did they understand what they heard, and that's how we gathered the data. we repeated that process through five different injects. these were the -- it should say scenarios. these are the scenarios that we went through, with the strategic end state of the game being we really want to see a secure stable and prosperous europe. we met the alliance with the national security strategy and the alliance of what we think would be our view, and russia that acts responsibly and honors territorial sovereignty.

these are the five different scenarios. the first one you see is a rapid movement toward energy independence in europe. we had to suspend a little reality and say if you could be completely independent from russia, what would that look like and how would both sides react? the second one, probably more plausible, and maybe even more urgent, is expansion of the ukrainian conflict. if it were to go beyond the line of control if there was an expansion in other regions of interest, and then they strategic miscalculation of sorts. the third move was uncontrollable uncontrollable naturalism. we characterized naturism as a weapon of nationalism. what happens when he loses control of the nationalism. talking about falling off the bear or the bear takes off on its own. how do both sides react. the fourth one you see the power turning against putin. this was not meant to be a coo

of sorts. these powerly advisors, what would they advise to now as far as what is left and how to go forward with it. the final turn, getting beyond crisis, was less than a strategic scenario as much as it was, what does each side want to see from the other, both from a russian side and then from the u.s. side? in the end these were the considerations after distilling the data we got from both sides or from each of the terms, these were the four key considerations we saw. the first one, compete with russia it maintain an international order. it sounds counter-intuitive. we talk about cooperating where we can. what we found is each turn on the u.s. side would come in the russian side would come in competitively. at one point, a participant said we're in an environment where we're competitive and compete.

compete when you can compete and cooperate when you can cooperate. while you would think that order would come through cooperation in this case, the competition has got to be resolved first. the second one was clearly articulating a position towards russia, eastern europe and the ukraine. the u.s. team would come in and debrief, and we often found that there was a little bit of ambiyou goity that came out. the policy had to be clear with regard to each. the third challenge, russia and the competition of ideas and influence. that was a consistent comment from the white cell, the u.s. teams lack of a good information policy or information strategy. and the last bullet, the blinding flash would be obvious, but with two election cycles coming up, both in the u.s. and with russia in 2018, clearly, that timeline needs to be

leveraged. we felt like from president putin to maintaining the power. one of the comments was we need to look for what is going to be crime crimea in 2017. by no means is it an attempt to influence the u.s. national election but whatever policy is built, it's going to have to survive both our own national election and be implemented by a new administration going forward toward and stepping right into an election cycle on the russian side. with that, i'll pass that off to dr. jim mcnau10 who was one of the observers of the u.s. team. >> thank you, joe. i had the opportunity to be a note taker sitting in and listening to the u.s. team's discussions over two days of the war game. and i want to start with two general observations and i look forward to questions and discussions after our introductory remarks here, and my observations really are on

point 1 and 2 that you see on the screen here after watching a mix of people trying to come up with the u.s. policy or what the policy would be with some of these hypothetical situations, it was very interesting to find out that really, they were confronting a c change in u.s. policy, and it was clear to them that something had changed in the international environment. the tough part was figuring out what to do about that. they realized for the past two decades at least, our relations with russia in general have been based on the concept that we would encourage russia to become a normal country within the european security architecture and the european community and that russia would be encouraged to play by the rules and the u.s. could treat them as they treat any other regional power around the world. after the seizure of crimea and

when the conflict erupted in eastern ukraine, it became very clear that that set of assumptions was no longer valid. and so everyone could see that c change. but the hard part among the players who were trying to formulate in this academic environment, what should u.s. policy be, was to figure out how to compete with russia. it's very difficult to jettison those set of assumptions and long-range policies that the u.s. had worked with for many, many years. but we considered alternative features within the war game and it became clear that at least for the next several years, the u.s. would have to be -- would have to manage strategic competition with russia, rather than simply treat russia as another normal country in the environment. the second general observation i would like to start with is that it's easy to say that the united

states needs to artechulate a more clear position towards russia and eastern europe and ukraine, but there are some severe challenges we discovered and joe is absolutely correct that the u.s. team ended up being more reactive than proactive, as it struggled to balance several major sets of considerations. the united states policy is not developed simply in washington d.c. we must take into account our nato allies and other partners and countries in the region, which means a great deal of consensus building and discussions before a policy can be, in fact, clearly stated by our leaders. a secondary of where we have challenges to developing that policy consensus is the lack of clarity on how russia is going to respond. as we work through hypotheticals

and we can do this, we could put troops in the baltics. we could send armaments, lethal equipment to the ukrainians. we could tighten sanctions. at each step, we just lacked an understanding of the russian system to where we felt comfortable that if we do this, ty sure russia will do that. so that really muddied the policy waters as well, made it difficult to achieve a consensus. and finally, there are clearly areas that everyone agreed on that we really -- we very strongly want to continue to cooperate with russia, in areas such as the discussions over the iranian nuclear program. this is something quite important for very valid reasons that we need russian cooperation to continue. so how do we change to a situation where we're managing strategic competition while maintaining these areas of cooperation with russia and it

took a lot of time and oftentimes the result was quite messy when it came time to go into the plenary session and say okay, u.s. team, now, what have you come up with as far as the policy? that was one of our great challenges. and i will be -- turn to my colleague, chris leigh who will talk a little bit about what he saw while observing the russian team. >> thanks jim. i was an analyst or an observer. we must note that none of us here were participants during the war game. we facilitated and observed. we took notes. which a lot of it is a unique vantage point, i would dare say, and without any of our sort of predispositions since we've done doing this since october. i'll just start with a couple of general comments and if we can speak with a little bit more