i have talked to a number of college presidents recently who have not only kept tuition slot, but cut it 20%-40%. they are very accepting to that. finally, we have to encourage states to reinvest in education. there are at least four legs to this stool. we have to hold ourselves mutually accountable to make college more affordable, and focus on success. in manyare many ways -- ways a hot topic in the media. secretary duncan: i don't think that is true. >> i will not ask who is competing with you, but some recent profiles point out that the matter in which the obama administration reforms were carried out has in part adoptivized states to

changes that did not already have broad support on the ground. the question that is now out aree is -- the reforms being delayed, some are even being challenged in court, how concerned are you that the legacy, not just the legacy, but what you spent so much time working on, is now at risk secretary duncan:? the mediaary duncan: loves to focus on conflict. but it does not focus on is collaboration. what you do not see is that over 40 states raised standards. historically, states dumped down -- dumbed down standards and told kids that they were ready to go to college when they were not close. we have the mind to kids and families for decades. that is starting to stop. many states are thinking about ways to reward and

incentivize great teachers. test scores can be a small part of this. they can tell you some things, and not others. we want to highlight great teachers. great teachers transform young people's lives. we need to pay them more, give them more leadership opportunities. anyone who wants to treat all thehers at th as the same values what they do and the means the profession. we are thinking differently about teacher evaluation and support, raising standards, turning around schools. part of the reason that graduation is up is we have invested $5 billion to turn around the lowest performing schools in the nation. it has not been perfect, but many schools are getting better. this work is hard. it is a very significant change. it is being done imperfectly,

but the nation is moving in a very different direction. the short-term will be bumpy and rocky, but the long-term puts us in a different spot. massachusetts, on virtually , k-12.easure, is higher 30% of their high school graduates have to take remedial classes in college. when that happens, no one wins. because families more money. it cost taxpayers more money. that is our highest performing state. decrease dropout rates, and make sure that our college graduates are truly prepared. >> it is clearly not all in folding the way you initially envisioned. secretary duncan: i do it is

very much how we envisioned. our honest hope was to get half of the nation moving in this direction. the fact that we have 46 states moving in this direction what we wildly exceeds anticipated. again, different states are doing this. the implementation is the hardest part. we need to do a better job of partnering and helping. this change is very difficult, and will be difficult for the next year or two, or three. long-term -- massachusetts raised its standards in the 1990's. when you then saw was a rise to the top. we are trying to get the nation to where massachusetts was. >> last question. this can also be seen in the effort to rewrite no child left behind.

you have legislators, not all of the republican, who would like to see federal testing requirements taken out. right now, the proposals before congress would take out those requirements. i guess my question is can you prepare these political relationships another to keep the elements that you and the president think are most crucial, to keep? we arery duncan: actually proposing a caps on testing, on what we would like to see in no child left behind. we think annual assessments have a place, but just a place, not the e all, and all. have al challenge is we congressonal

. we are collaborating, and working together. we hope congress fixes a broken law. it is way overdue. i'm very concerned with speaker boehner stepping down that the it getting fixed went down, not up. that is concerning to me. it saddens me that congress is serving the american people so poorly. >> why do you think the odds are down? secretary duncan: i think, in the past, you need a strong bipartisan bill. i think it is harder for whoever succeeds him to get to a bipartisan place. i hope i am wrong. full in this room are lot smarter than i, but to get to bill that the president supports, it has to be bill.ong bipartisan i figure this difficult for the

next leader -- again, i hope and pray that i am wrong. >> i'm assuming you don't want to stick around to be education secretary for the next president. tell me if i'm wrong. secretary duncan: my home in chicago. ty bet should the priori for the next secretary of education? secretary duncan: again, we have about two dozen folks running for president. just a couple of questions that i wish people in the media and voters would ask them -- first, what you doing to increase access to early high quality education? that is the best investment we can make. again, relative to other nations, we have a dismal record. second, what is your commitment to raise high school graduation rates, decrease dropout rates, make sure those graduates are college ready?

if we could ask those 4-5 simple questions, what are your goals for each of these, and what resources -- political, financial -- are you willing to put behind that? everything else is noise, small ball. "give political leaders of past because we do not ask the tough questions. republican, democrat, does not matter. who is willing to be the educationañ leade? >> as i thank you to say goodbye, are you talking to any of these candidates? are they coming to you for advice? goodtary duncan: we have relationships with many, not all. again, it is not about us, it is about leading the world in educational attainment. there should be nothing political or partisan about that. >> thank you very much.

[applause] ♪ is an honor to be here with former secretary of state madeleine albright. a lot of political discussion we darkhe heard has been very toned. what is your overview? there is a as bad -- tone of things are back in the united states now and the world -- what is your overview? secretary albright: the world is a mess. i'm not feeling dark about it. i do think that there are a whole host of issues that we are not there before, some due to globalization, some do to the rise of technology. questions around identity, and what the role of the united

states is. president clinton said it first, but i said it so often that i got identified with the word, "indispensable." we are indispensable. there is not something that says alone. think that what we are seeing is how the united states operates with partners to deal with some of the more competent issues that we are seeing. issuesof the most acute is of course the refugee crisis. you richly came to the united states with your family as a girl, a refugee. you have written about america's obligation to do more for the refugees from syria and elsewhere. tell what you think we should do, and whether that is can a mobile at this political moment in the united states when the tone is so anti-immigrant or foreigner. secretary albright: i do think we need to do more. the united states, as the pope remind us, is a country of

immigrants, where i think people are very grateful to come here. i know i am, and will always be. i do think that what has to happen is to figure out if we want others to do what they are supposed to do, which is bring the refugees in, then we have to take the lead on it. we have ant obligation to explain why this ,s important, but ultimately and i'm so thrilled to be an american, but i think most people want to live in the country where they were born, which means we have to work to resolve the issues that make people actually pick up and leave, and walked for miles, and , and beingf drowning treated like animals. i think that we do have an obligation to do more. >> you had a background in practical politics before

becoming a diplomat. how can you imagine the democratic party making the case to opening the borders to more refugees? secretary albright: i do think that one of the issues that is always out there is how domestic and foreign policy go together. there is no question that there is a sense in america that we , and aed from two wars sense of why aren't people more grateful to us for everything we have done. -- i dohas to be argued not everybody would be on top of each other. let me say this. i was just at the clinton global initiative. we were having a session with the king of jordan. we were talking about what neighboring countries have to deal with on the issue. jordan has refugees not only from syria, by iraq, and the palestinians. it is as though the united

states has 40 million refugees. somebody corrected me and said, no, 60 million. visualize this country as a front-line state that is at in a very difficult position. we are a very different country. i fly over regularly. there is a lot of space. >> we're talking about accommodating the results of middle east.in the is there anything that the united states could or should be doing differently right now about the underlying cause of the conflict in syria in particular? secretary albright: i do think so. i think we should have done something earlier. does not come in for your segments. we are dealing with a lot of what happened in the war in iraq. we can talk more about that, but

that is what has happened. thatteach, and they say foreign policy is decided on five factors. the first is objective. interestingly enough, that is not change that often. the second is subjective, how does the country feel about itself. i do think that people are tired. the third is how people organize. bureaucratic the politics that are reflected in like.he budget looks the fifth is the role of the individual. we should, despite tiredness and budget issues, go back and look at what we could be doing in syria in terms of establishing safe havens, and working and get a transition.

if in fact the issue is about elections, if there are elections there, they have to be monitored internationally, and be free and fair, and have a lot of people there observing what is going on. a lot of your working and work in your post secretary life has included issues of governance, ages said, ways the united states can think about governing more effectively. tell us about what you think are practical ambitions on the global scale? we will get to the domestic in a second. what are reasonable ambitions? secretary albright: let me just say, i believe in our value system. toelieve that people want make decisions about their own lives. there are a lot of people that x people are not ready for democracy. i think we are all the same.

you begin by think about where your kids go to school, or what language, etc. then, what goes up the change, in terms of making decisions. i am chairman of the board of the national democratic institute. elections are necessary, but not sufficient. what has to happen is develop some institutional structure for governance, rule of law, the capability of having the right of assembly, commercial code, any number of things. they take a while. americans are the most generous people in the world with the shortest attention span. what we have to figure is it takes a while. you cannot impose democracy. that is an oxymoron. you can't, in fact, provide the nuts and bolts, and talk about the nature of the relationship with the governments. i have said all along, democracy has to deliver. people want to vote and eat.

there has to be an economic component as far as the deliverables. there is not just american democracy. there are other aspects. we have been in the eyes of a number of countries, and we talk about what the nuts and bolts are. what is the main aspect of democracy, and i say, compromise. say, yeah, like you guys. we are not the test example. >> i have lived outside of the united states, and when i come back, i'm always surprised by how the nation is so robust, except for the national level of government. more aboutcribe that, and how we can recapture the golden age of jesse helms? [laughter] secretary albright: you will not

believe this. what happened is i was ambassador at the u.n., and i got a phone call from him saying that i had been invited to a college in north carolina, celebrating its bicentennial. i thought i could get out of it by saying, i would be happy to do it if you come with me. back and said, i have rearrange my schedule, and i'm coming. if you are invited by someone, and they are supposed to introduce you, they will not a jerkhey think you are . i was asked about the united nations, and various issues. what happened was we had been driving around north carolina, at first looking for barbecue places. he was bionic with an artificial hip. we are getting out of the car, and i'm hanging on to him. all of a sudden, there is a picture of the odd couple.

we disagree on many things. he said to me, miss madeleine, we will make history together. he was very instrumental as far ofnato expansion, any number aspects that we doe disagreed upon. we saw what it is like -- found things to agree on. i go back to my five factors. i think we have to get some bipartisan support for foreign policy. >> you are able to speak on what is like to conduct diplomacy when the surface level attention in washington is so difficult. hasn't made a difference -- hasn't made a difference that

domestic politics are so divided now? secretary albright: i have always been a believer in the interaction between domestic and foreign holocene. i have been an advisor to betty presidential candidates. often, foreign policy is important. i think it is important for us to recognize that. have just been in new york, and met with a foreign leader. this foreign leaders said, we do not understand when we see you as more monolithic. when some member of congress says something totally outrageous -- i think you had one of them here -- basically, they don't understand. i think that it is somehow all connected. part, ast -- the other a democracy, we have to explain our foreign policy to the american people. you cannot have foreign policy without domestic support. i happen to believe that americans are better off when the united states is respected and understands that we are the

indispensable nation. [applause] >> in the final couple of minutes, i would like to talk about actual politics. if you were assessing the likely foreign policy of a republican administration, donald trump, or otherwise, how different you think it could be from the last eight years or eight years before that? secretary albright: given what i have heard, very different. i think there is a real difference, if i might say so, america is essential in foreign policy, but does not be dictating to everybody. diplomacy isct of putting yourself into the other persons shoes, and understanding that every agreement cannot be a zero-sum game. we need to respect the countries that we deal with. we cannot insult everybody. i think it would be very

different. i happen to think that what president obama is doing is understanding the partnership aspect of the indispensable. americans do not like the word "multilateralism." it has too many syllables. it is basically partnership, and understanding what the world is like, and the you need to have partners. if you look at issues like on a change,- like climate nuclear proliferation, or disease, no matter how powerful the united states is, we cannot do it alone. finally, on hillary clinton, if she became president, how would her foreign policy likely differ from the past eight years? also, how should we feel about the e-mail situation? secretary albright: i know her very well, and admire her. i think she would be the best prepared person to be president than anyone we have had in a

very long time. [applause] make thate is able to domestic and foreign policy, given her experiences. one of the major thing she did as secretary of state was restore america's reputation. you cannot militarize democracy. you cannot invade countries for no reason. i think that she really would be amazing. [applause] i think she has said that she made a mistake on the e-mails. she has apologized for it. i think that i am very lucky because i went to college sometime between the invention of the ipad and the discovery of fire. [laughter] i did not use e-mails. >> we have only a few seconds. what is the thing that you feel most optimistic about in foreign policy in the united states now? secretary albright: that we will have president clinton -- no, what i really do feel optimistic about is that we have the capability of making decisions,

trying to sort out what is not just best for us, but the rest of the world. i'm often asked if i am an optimist or pessimist. i'm an optimist who worries a lot. it does not happen automatically. we will have to work at it, and have the help of the media. i have to say that. where these issues are complicated, and require the care to be able to explain what is going on. it is really hard. >> that is a whole other conversation. for now, join me in thanking secretary albright. [applause] ♪ >> good afternoon. i can't believe you are all still there. it is amazing. ist we are going to do here kind of a bifurcated thing. i'm going to talk to senator

murphy for a few minutes. senator murphy is going to depart, and i'm going to bring out more senators. senator cowan's and senator houten to talk about the general same basket of issues, foreign policy. senator murphy, welcome. thank you for being here. as everyone has pointed out, it is a pretty busy day in world affairs. i want to ask you, you, as a leader, of a democratic faction in the senate, that i think of factionost progressive on foreign policy, the way you may frame it is the faction that has learned the most over the last 15 years of american engagement in the world. , start withk you syria, and ask you, is there anything that can happen in the broad syria and iraq theater that would cause you to advocate

for the use of greater american military force -- greater than usedower -- then has been so far? senator murphy: i think that is unlikely. i think there is still this leftover hubris from the iraq war, in which neoconservative republicans, but so many democrats, view the power of america in the middle east in this paternalistic lens. i would argue that we have our .ands full today i did you can make an argument that we do not even have the capacity or funds to do all of that, never mind are likely increase our military presence inside syria. my argument is that we should understand the limitations of

american power in the region. we should have a narrow view of our interests, which, to be, is keeping isis on the run, so they do not focus their attention on us. right now, i'm arguing, as loudly as i can, for the united states to stay out of the civil war, no matter how awful it may seem to watch these images inside syria layout, and focus our attention on airpower. ultimately, i think ground forces makes the situation worse, not better. >> there is nothing like a true realist. morality has always informed our foreign policy. at what point does it become too much to bear watching a quarter million dead, enslavement of women -- i don't have to give you the litany of things going on -- is there anything on that front that says we do have to go in and help people? senator murphy: we do have to go

in and help people. that is why does a constable the united states is largely on the sideline with regards to the refugee crisis. i certainly would entertain a zone that safe can be enforced by coalition troops. i'm not sure that can happen. i think that is worthy of consideration. there was a moral imperative behind the iraq war. there was a moral imperative behind our intervention in libya. we certainly know how the first turned out. it created more misery than it eliminated. in the second case, while the jury still may be a little bit out on libya, it seems as though our intervention there made things worse. we had no plan to clean it up. i think there is a proper response to the moral catastrophe inside syria. i do not think it is one that

involves u.s. forces on the ground. isis it possible -- and this what more hawkish immigrants would say -- is it possible that your faction has overlearned the lessons of the iraq war? senator murphy: i think if we overlearned lessons, we would be isolationists. what i would suggest is that we are just fighting and asymmetric war with all of our adversaries , russia, china. we are overly dependent on this robust military, while they are fighting with social media, economic aid, energy assistance. revolutionary the war, except we are the british, marching in with armies line by line, and our adversaries are the patriots, hiding behind trees. we have differently resource our intervention so we do not have a

military budget that is 20 times that of our state department. that is the kind of robust american presence that many of us want to see. >> you are more hawkish on russia, particularly on ukraine issues, then you are on some middle east issues. i want you to talk about that for a minute. maybe this is just because you spent a lot of time with john mccain on this issue, and he has one you down -- it is a totally plausible theory, right? you have said we could make the mistake of signaling weakness to russia and that could have downside affects with even the way the chinese deal with south china sea issues. when you talk about the power,ions of the u.s. does that not reinforce a

reality that might not be useful for policymakers? senator murphy: there might be something useful in the ukraine. the world is watching with one superpower trying to reset borders through military force. robust there is a .esponse i do not think it is a military conflict -- conflict as much as a economic conflict. i do not think they want to the ukraine.n more i have called for military assistance, i have been louder in my calls for more economic assistance because that is where the gain is. as much as john, having traveled with him to the ukraine three times, has probably one me down, i think it is ridiculous that we spend all of our time talking about javelins to the ukrainian

military when we are dramatically under-resourcing the government, which is on the verge of falling apart. >> right. is russia on the march today, and if so, whose fault is it? senator murphy: russia is playing in two theaters in which they have headlong vested interest. to some extent we should not be surprised russia is in the ukraine or talking about increased engagement in syria. these are not new feeders for them. it does not mean we should not contest the foreign movement, but we should have the knowledge of history to understand that when other countries like russia have more vested and deeper vested interest than the united states does. i think that is where in the middle east we particularly fall into these traps over and over again. we think we can have these half measures and a real return on our -- on our investment.

the train and equip program is an example when other countries have been there for a longer time, have more at stake, and will put more resources in that the united states. that is a lesson we need to learn. >> would you be pleased to see russia make gains against isis to the extent they are fighting isis? senator murphy: i do not think they are fighting isis. i do not take them as face -- at face value. >> you think there is a military solution to any issue in the middle east? senator murphy: i do not think there is a military solution, but there is a military component. you do not gain stability in a place like iraq unless you blunt heisel. .- isis iraq is a place where they have not done the political work to take advantage of a military victory. that is frustrating to me. we are not driving a hard enough bargain. the military is still 96%

shiite. there is no sunni national guard. even if they were able to take ramadi, there is no security force that can hold that city. we continue to view interaction -- intervention in a military lines and in the absence of political reconciliation, the military victory will be three. there is a component. go hand-in-hand. we will set of the -- celebrate the retaking of ramadi and with no solution to the military crisis committee will be gone in months or years and we will wonder why. >> one last question -- is hillary clinton too hawkish for your taste? senator murphy: no. i believe hillary clinton has learned the lessons of the iraq war. she is the originator of ways to exert soft power in the world in the way we have not in the past. i have differences what president obama, i probably will

have differences with president clinton, that i ultimately think she has learned the lessons that many of us are trying to remind colleagues up on the -- a regular basis. a would you agree with president biden? senator murphy: i think most people in practice are trying to put into place the kind of strategy he originally outlined with less geld. i think both would be capable leaders and inherent what is ultimately a much maligned, but important legacy from president obama, realizing limitations of american power, not buying into these people who come up with a plan to change the political realities on the ground without understanding steps two, 3, 4. >> and president trump? he saysmurphy: listen, the world be a better place. he says it himself.

>> it is going to be luxurious. senator murphy: every single day. he says it himself. >> thank you. bring me more senators. senator chris coons of delaware, and senator tom totten. please say hello to them -- tom cotton. please say hello to them. i ame way, after these two bringing the senate foreign relations and midi out for a photo and group hug. it will be unprecedented. senator scott and, you heard senator murphy, who talk about the limitations -- like many about the limitations of american power. that kind of talk is not sit well with you for a couple of reasons. do you believe the democrats are defeatist on these issues question mike senator cotton: the limitations -- defeatist on these issues? senator cotton: the limitations

are largely self-imposed. it sends a bad signal when we are driving down the military at a time the world is growing more dangerous at the macro level. at the micro level, when we see gaps in the persian gulf, that sends a bad signal to our allies in the region. ultimately there is a debate between hard power and soft power. soft power is very important. it has been since the beginning of our republic, but soft power .ithout power is just softness we have to have the capability and the ability to use the capability when interests are threatened. have your kunz, republican colleagues learned lessons from iraq to your satisfaction senator coons: -- satisfaction? senator coons: i think many have. cotton?about senator sure,r coons: i am not

but i respect he has learned lessons that many in congress did not know, exactly what it means to sign a blank check to the people of the united states and serve in our uniform. i deeply respect senator cotton's service to our nation. i think those who have served in military are bringing a new perspective that, in many ways, was missing for a long period, when the generations that fought the second world war and the conflicts of the cold war were retiring and there was a gap in veteran representation in congress. i do think we need to look at the reach and scope of american power, not just military power, but diplomacy, development, and so-called soft power. there are ways in which that power is ebing diffuse as the world is becoming more interconnected. incan make smart investments ensuring not just that we have a robust and capable military, but that we also have a coordinated

and complicated diplomatic and development effort. a lot of the conflicts currently emerging around the world are emerging in places where there is a humanitarian crisis that is humanitarian the -- military crisis. what is happening syria are places where the combination of development problems, humanitarian problems, and security problems, reinforce each other. i do think we need to learn lessons from iraq, but also other theaters in places where the suite of american resources has to be put. , do youor cotton disagree with anything that he said in that regard? senator coons: --senator cotton: i think are different tools, but the fundamental tool is military strength and the willingness to use military strength when our interest and allies our -- are threatened. one of the key lessons of iraq is security has to come first.

that was a mistake of the bush administration that decision-makers have acknowledged. that is why we have this urge. anyone in iraq in 2006 on the front lines to tell you that without that kind of security there is not any opportunity for the development of political reconciliation, economic growth, or anything else. you see that play out in iraq or other places on the world -- around the world. >> i want to talk about syria and the ukraine, but in many ways, iraq is patient zero. the you think iraq was winnable, senator coons? senator coons: i do not think the context of building a new nation with saddam hussein was winnable the way we put resources in it. >> could it have been won with better planning? senator coons: absolutely. it was possible. could extrapolate that if we have -- >> i could extrapolate

if we had the will -- senator coons: yes. senator cotton: not only do i agree with chris, but it was won in 2011, and unfortunately i think we squandered that. we could have had a victory in iraq before 2011 if we have not shortchanged security in the early days of the iraq war, but were always takes a long and winding path. president lincoln did not suspect he would be fighting the civil war for four years, i would imagine. the iraq war is one where we snatch defeat from the jaws of in 2011. >> you were in the minority in current day america in believing america should do all of the things you believe it should be doing. why should america the the world's policeman?

senator cotton: most people think about it policeman stopping crime, but the more important job a policeman has to cop oneter crime -- the the beat that understands what is happening in his neighborhood , who is there as a reassuring presence to the peaceful and the the, who is there to deter wicked, and ultimately there to stop and punish those who act on that wickedness. that does not mean we can intervene anywhere in the world, but it does mean as the global superpower we have global responsibilities. in many cases, that is military. economic,ses it is diplomatic, humanitarian, or so forth, building alliances that can largely fend for themselves. what you see around the world when america withdraws or recharges is not a return to a natural order or stability, but disorder and instability. , very few coons democrats would say america

should be the world's policeman. where do you come down on this? i'm talking about how much of a presence we have to maintain in the vital regions of the world. are we the guarantors, and you resetpresident obama has our relationship with those regions to our detriment, as set -- senator cotton does question mark -- does? senator coons: we have significant challenges. the significant challenges in iraq, syria, russia, ukraine, expansionist china, the potential for real conflict in the south china sea i think are really straining our ability to be as engaged as we need to be. the world's policeman implies, i think, the mindset that we should go in with military source everywhere. effective policing strategy is a preventive policing strategy that recognizes it is very rare that a swat team is breaking

down a front door to shut down a crack house. security,o provide which is our core goal, stability and order for the world -- you have to make everything that makes the rule of law work. you have to embrace multilateral institutions that provide the framework for rule of law, security and develop for other andtries on their own terms you have to partner closely with other allies so they are bearing some of the costs and sacrifices involved in pushing back against expansionist powers like vladimir putin's russia. senator cotton: let me say i do not think chris and i are disagreeing here. when you're talking about a policeman's role, it is not always were usually look like what happened in iraq or afghanistan, or what happened in the 1980's with iran. it is largely a matter of presence and leadership --

having carriers in the east asia theater, having carriers in the mediterranean and the persian gulf, having troops deployed in germany throughout the cold war to maintain a presence in europe. we invest our military and have them deployed around the world so that we hopefully do not have to use them to begin with. when --or cowan's -- senator senator coons:, -- senator coons, senator cotton came to a lot of people's attention when he wrote an open letter warning about the american constitutional process as senator cotton understood it. what was your reaction when you second,out this, and, talk about the role of oversight of foreign policy. it was a regret that he was the only democrat.

i admire his: boldness. >> would you would stop with the gentleman from delaware and the jammin from arkansas? senator coons: i am not allowed to be the senator from dollar? -- delaware? i have sent letters, but always consulting. has, thehe senate congress has, a critical role to play in oversight of the implementation of this deal. as i said at both the university of delaware and at the carnegie endowment, after coming to a decision to support the deal, it is with some real concerns. i think there are some real challenges in the short term, the middle-term, and the long-term, if it is fully implement it. we can expect the iranians to cheat. they have a long history of

cheating in flagrant and marginal ways. we can use the proceeds of sanctions relief to try to fund terrorist organizations in the region and promote destabilizing activities. we could foresee in 10 to 15 years them having industrial scale cap ability threatening to the stability of the world. the congress has to be engaged inr a long period of time restraining and deterring all three of those actions. but i still think, having 12 tons of enriched uranium go out of their hands and having real-time, 24/7 surveillance of their known and declared facilities is better than the alternative. >> i'm sure the audience does not want us to relitigate the you deal, but i should give a minute to respond to that -- i want to sharpen it and broaden it by asking this -- it seems the democrats on iran and other issues are worried about the behavior of regimes. it seems the republicans are

more concerned about the character of regimes. in other words, when you worry about the character, you do not think there is a deal to be made because of the very nature of the regime. democrats seem to be thinking, ok, they seem to be bad, but i have a way of roping them in. is that a fair understanding of a crucial difference between the way democrats and republicans understand treaties and obama administration diplomacy? senator cotton: i would say character leads to behavior. it is leading to destiny. >> behavior can be controlled from the outside? senator cotton: i would say it is the opposite of controlling iran's behavior. they will have sections relief and they give groups like hezbollah $1 billion, $2 million -- think about what that will mean after they spend their money on hospitals or swimming pools, as some administration official said they would. we are rewarding their behavior.

the nuclear consequences are by far the most grave, but they are also longer-term. there is the immediate political consequence. benjamin netanyahu had to fly to moscow last week. i do not know what they discussed, but i am sure it has something to do with iraq's shipments of rockets into hezbollah. for the first time in 40 years, a country like israel has to worry about russian presence on the battlefield in defending its core national security interests, in part, i would say, because of the immediate rewards we gave to iran in this deal. >> do you want to deal with that behavioral point of view? thetor coons: i would say speeches --senator cotton: i would say chris's speeches were eloquent and i could cut and paste and made it my own. they outlined the same concerns. >> it is fair to believe that

the democrats believed that through treaty and oversight you can curtail the behavior of nefarious regimes? senator coons: yes, and at the end of the day, my gut reaction to this complicated and difficult deal was if we're going to end up having to use military force to take out iran's nuclear program or deter ambitions, i would far rather do it having tried diplomacy seriously first, and what all of our european allies on our side and with us in that effort, and with the intelligence we will get from inspections than do it now with none of those. >> for the record, this is not a treaty. if it was a treaty -- senator cotton: it was an agreement. host: let me -- >> let me ask you, quickly, senator cotton, how will your path not deal to work?

senator cotton: i would have gone back far beyond the last three or four months. dealt i am asking you to with the reality that you in the senate were handed -- there was a deal the executive branch negotiated, and there was no deal. given the choices, you went for no deal. how would your choice not have led to a confrontation? it is possible that it would have heard >> and that is ok? senator cotton: you see throughout human history if you're not willing to confront a threat when it is in its early stages, you have to confront it when it is more great to confront. that is not to say military forces the first option, but it has to remain an option. until iraq -- iran recognizes , they will betes key players in the region, and until they renounce efforts to try to kill us and allies, it will remain a threat to the united states. it might one day lead to military conflict.

i worry military conflict could be much harder because of the presence of more conventional weapons in the region and ultimately can be nuclear. >> a quick interjection? earliercoons: to your point, i think it was a republican president that denounced the evil empire but was able to reach arms agreements to with strength the threat of the nuclear arsenal. i think it is possible to see a regime as evil and to oppose their values and actions, yet come to a diplomatic resolution that improves our security. senator cotton: i would agree, but ronald reagan did many other things, like deploying medium-range missiles to europe, and only sitting down at the ofy end of a long period time in which she was confronting him in those ways, and it was different that the soviet -- in that the soviet union had thousands of warheads and we were at parity.

there would be a roughly equal outcome. power, and ronch had this much power, and the results were like this. >> i could do this all day, as you know, the we have little time left and since i have senator coons here, i want to ask a question -- joe biden, tell us what you think will happen and if you would support them? senator cotton: i would support ns, that the constitution does not allow it. senator coons: i have campaigned for him. i think he is one of our most senior voice the national security, he chaired the foreign relations committee, has seen many of the current challenges in the world develop over decades and i think is a well grounded person to be our national leader. he also has in his gut a passion for the middle class and an ability to fight for them. he and his family are in a

difficult place to take on the rigors of a presidential campaign, and i just pray for them that they will take the time and really make the right decision. >> what about your personal opinion? senator coons: i was just with him for several hours this week. i do not have any special insight. i think he is capable of being a successful candidate. if this were a few years from now and the sharpness of bows -- bo's passing had the chance to heal, he would be in it, but he is first a family man. senator cotton, who is your candidate? senator cotton: at the risk of offending some of my colleagues, i strongly support bernie sanders in the democratic primary. [laughter] >> thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span, utahe on governor gary herbert talks about his initiative. the governor's speech at the national press club starts in a couple of minutes. we join it as soon as the house pro forma session is over. our road to the white house coverage continues this afternoon. live at 2:30 p.m. eastern, hillary clinton is in florida, near fort lauderdale. she will be speaking at a grassroots organizing meeting. that is live. >> c-span weekend features politics, nonfiction books and history. with nasa's announcement of liquid water on mars, the science, space, and technology , -- discussing

the national conversation at the washington ideas form including mitt romney and senior advisor to president obama, valerie jarrett. on c-span2, book tv, saturday kumar discusses her new book on presidential translations -- transitions. sunday at new, we are live with nationally syndicated talkshow has thom hartmann, who authored many books. join our three-hour conversation as we take your text, e-mails, facebook comments, and tweets. on american history tv, on c-span three, saturday night -- saturday afternoon at 2:00 p.m., in his book "the dead shall rise" the author explores the

murder of mary fagan and the arrest and lynching of leo frank. sunday afternoon at 4:00 p.m., the documentary on the supply and demand of fossil fuels in the u.s. and the look at alternative energy sources. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org. parks sunday on "-- >> sunday on "q&a" the author to the companion book "landmark cases" tony morrow on the cases featured in the supreme court's new term. tony: one of the judges that did not get a position because of this suit and the supreme court dead -- dealt with this. it was called marbury versus madison. -- thoseas one of them judges. the court said, basically, he

probably deserves some remedy, but the remedy that congress has provided for this goes beyond the power of congress -- the theority of congress, so, supreme court was going to strike down that a law -- that law. this is something the court had never done before, you know, declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. >> that is sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. on monday, as the supreme court c-spanthe new term, debuts "landmark cases." on the debut, we look at the real story in the market versus madison case. -- marbury versus madison case. >> john marshall established the court is the interpreter of the

constitution in the famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison. justice ginsburg: marbury-medicine is probably the most famous case. omar andg is a key cliff sloan. cases" is the life and times of the people that were in these cases. c-span,eres live on c-span3, and c-span radio. background, order your copy of "landmark cases" companion book at a c-span.org/landmarkcases. gaveling inhouse is momentarily forwards expected to be a brief pro forma session. after today, it will be out until tuesday at noon.

on the docket, a bill to repeal the crude oil export ban it also, house republicans holding leadership elections to replace outgoing speaker john boehner, who will be leaving congress october 30. we take you live now to the house floor here on c-span. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the speaker's room washington, d.c.,, october 2, 2015, i appoint the honorable max thornberry to act as speaker pro tempore on this day, signed john a boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer quib offered by the guest chaplain, christ church, washington, d.c.,. >> let us pray, god, creator of