dysfunction is showcased before the american people, they will be increasing pressures on the republicans to get their act together. and that pressure will be most significant on that freedom caucus and those tea party members. so i think you will see a new speaker chosen that will be able to get enough votes on the floor. but not until sufficient pressure is brought to bear on that rebel faction. ryan: i want to turn briefly to cyber security. and the massive hack on the office of personnel management. do you have faith in the opm to continue to process and told security clearance information for the federal government? there is talk in congress about shifting the responsibility elsewhere. is this something you could get behind and where exactly should it be put? >> it's a good question.

there have been a number of members looking to shift that responsibility elsewhere. certainly opm didn't demonstrate the kind of alacrity they needed to to beef up cyber security in advance of these attacks or in the wake of these attacks. i think they have adopted a new management strategy and i'm willing to give it time to see whether they can get their act together. but i have to say, when this story broke and the hack was revealed, and we were briefed in the intelligence community by opm, it was one of the least impressive briefings i have ever had. i don't even feel that the briefers were fully candid with us. which is not an allegation i easily make about anyone. so i start out with deep skepticism about opm. its track record is very poor. i am willing to give the new management and effort to see if they can demonstrate success. niall: congressman, yet another

issue. the issue of gun control has of course, become prominent for rather tragic reasons in the past couple of weeks. on that point, on your twitter account, you addressed those who are rallying on social media around the do something hashtag, and you tweeted, i hear you, i agree with you, words are not enough. action needed on background checks, mental health, and gun violence. obviously, many people would agree that words are not enough on that issue. but being realistic about congress and about capitol hill, how much action can we reasonably expect on that topic? rep. schiff: unfortunately if you are a betting person and you bet against congress you almost always win. and certainly on the issue of gun safety, you would invariably win. but i'm not willing to give up trying. i just can't accept that we are going to have to go through this national tragedy each and every month or week. we had another campus shooting just within the last 24 hours.

we can't accept this and it is a terrible indictment of our current congress that something that is so broadly desired by the american people like universal background checks, that enjoys not only vast majorities of the general public but even majorities of the nra, that we still can't seem to accomplish that. so i think we need to stay at it. and we need to fight this until we get it done. people around the country need to make their voices heard. and they need to drown out those people that are standing in the way a very common sense reforms that would help improve the safety of the community. i do think that probably the one area that is more essential than others just given the common denominator in a lot of these shootings -- and that is too ready access to guns by people with serious mental health problems. we have to find a way of addressing that. in california, we took a significant step forward just recently by enacting a new law

that essentially allows family members and law enforcement to work together to get a restraining order against a mentally ill member of the family who seeks access to firearms. i think that is a vitally important step and i would love to see the rest of the country follow suit. host: do you think the democratic candidates for president are doing enough to focus on these issues? rep. schiff: i think secretary clinton has just recently outlined a very aggressive platform in support for a variety of gun safety legislation, as well as actions she would take using the executive power of the president. one of the items that secretary clinton mentioned is a bill that i have been carrying for a number of years and we may reintroduce. that is a bill to end the unique immunity from liability that the gun industry enjoys. we passed something in congress many years ago called placa.

it gives the gun industry a form of immunity, even from negligent sales to people who go on to use weapons to commit violent crime. they have an immunity no other industry has and we have to end that unique safe harbor for the gun industry and take a great many other steps as well. and i think the secretary certainly has been very vocal on this. host: we have about a minute or two left. just one or two more questions. ryan: i will be very brief. the u.s. recently reached an agreement with china about not conducting economic cyber espionage against one another. the director of national intelligence has said that he is not optimistic that this is actually going to work. he doesn't trust the chinese or the implementation.

do you think that this is going to be effective or has the administration gone out on a limb with it? rep. schiff: i think we have taken a first step. the president of china was here and acknowledged that use of cyber espionage is something all nations should condemn. that was a positive step. china has been the number one culprit in terms of cyber theft for r&d. china would be very latent in coming to the game, if they suddenly put an end to this kind of economic espionage. nonetheless, acknowledging the rules of the road is a first step. there are public reports of china making arrests. that is also a positive step. ultimately, i agree with director clapper. i think it is going to be necessary for the united states to initiate a series of escalating sanctions on chinese companies that are making use of stolen american research and development. the challenge is that china will reciprocate by sanctions against

american companies, and american companies don't engage in this kind of economic espionage but they will come up with a ruse or some kind of an explanation for why they are going to do a tit for tat. we will have to be prepared for some kind of economic reciprocity. until we embark on these graduated sanctions, i don't think we are really going to get china to alter its behavior at all. host: congressman adam schiff, thank you for being our newsmaker this week. rep. schiff: thank you. host: we will continue with our roundtable with niall stanage of "the hill" newspaper, ryan lucas with "cq roll call." ryan lucas, i want to begin with this revamped effort in syria. some have called it an admission of failure of the original strategy. what did you hear from congressman adam schiff about how hard this new effort is going to be?

ryan: i think that he acknowledged it is going to be an uphill battle. but the main accomplishment is that they have realized that the train and equip program, which congressman schiff said and that many outside of congress have said, didn't really have a chance to succeed. it was never a good idea. building a force from scratch was not going to work. scaling that down and using smaller groups with the right sort of support may be effective. it is basically building off of a model that they used with syrian kurds. u.s. air power helped deal the islamic state one of the worst defeats in the past year. host: tens of millions of dollars spent already on that training and recruiting effort. there is an expectation that the administration wants to shift the money that congress has already approved for this effort to this new revamped program. do you expect congress to look into the use of that money a little bit more and put more restraints on how the

administration tries to divvy that money up? ryan: at the moment, i don't think so. there has been about 50 million of the 500 million that has been used. lawmakers have been calling for this program to be overhauled. some went as far a saying it needed to be scrapped entirely. i think so far the reaction has been positive to with the administration has proposed. host: lots of questions from you on the benghazi committee. the congressman of course is a member of the select committee. how do you think democrats are changing their approach to hillary clinton's appearance before the select committee later this month? niall: i think one of the key things that has changed pretty recently is that democrats are starting to see an upside to the benghazi committee. in other words, they believe that there could be a view among

voters that republicans are overreaching with this. and i think that is what we heard the congressman talking about. i think they will obviously be hoping that hillary clinton acquits herself well on october 22, when she goes before the committee. i think they now see a potential political dividend and we see that even at the presidential level where hillary clinton recently released a video picking up upon the remarks by kevin mccarthy that we talked about, suggesting that the committee was from her point of view sort of hopelessly politicized. host: you mentioned an ethics complaint that has been filed. what is the timeline and process for that? is that something that could have an impact on the committee's upcoming hearing? niall: i think the broader approach is not on the ethics level. i think it is a general atmosphere of disapproval and frankly democrats are trying to get -- use various weapons against the committee if that is

not a bad choice of metaphor in this case. and so, a combination of these votes that they have taken in the house, as well is committee as well as the claims that hillary clinton has made are all intended really to undercut the idea that the committee is generally interested in finding the truth and instead make the case that it is interested in trying to capsize hillary clinton's presidential hopes. host: i want to get your thoughts on what he had to say about cyber security. certainly an issue he is very much involved with in his subcommittee work. ryan: i think he had a point. that the u.s. may have to ultimately turn to sanctions to make sure that the chinese live by the agreement that the chinese president made with president obama. everyone that i have spoken to

has definitely expressed concern that the chinese are not going to live up to this agreement. i think it was very much worth doing but that ultimately it may require further steps on the administration's part to make sure that it is implemented. host: we're going to leave it there. this week, ryan lucas of vq roll -- "cq roll call," niall standage of "the hill" newspaper. thank you for joining us. >> and to :00 a.m., live coverage from the troubled silver convention in manchester. 10:00 a.m., live coverage from the problem solver convention in manchester.

then tuesday, a live coverage of governor kasich at a townhall meeting. and on wednesday, former governor jeb bush will speak at a 10 hall -- townhall meeting in concord. radio, c-span, c-span and c-span.org. >> dr. ben carson talked about the importance of the constitution at a luncheon hosted by the national press club friday. he is promoting his new book titled "a more perfect union." this is an hour.

mr. hughes: good afternoon and welcome. my name is john hughes. i am an editor for bloomberg. and i am president of the national press club. [applause] mr. hughes: thank you. our guest today is republican presidential candidate and neurosurgeon, dr. ben carson. he will discuss his newest book, one he wrote with his wife candy. titled "a more perfect union: what we the people can do to reclaim our constitutional liberties." first, i would like to introduce our distinguished head table. from the audience's right, joseph morton. he is the washington correspondent for the omaha world herald. he is the membership secretary of the national press club.

a reporter for the gray sheet. jennifer laszlo, president of respectability usa. benji saarland is political reporter for msnbc. candy carson, she is the wife of our speaker. [applause] thomas burr. he is the washington correspondent for the salt lake tribune and he is the vice president of the national press club. myron is a george washington university professor and former president of the national press club. kevin merida, he is the managing editor of the washington post. gabriel dibenedetti is a national political correspondent for politico.

yasmin al sabawi, the correspondent for the kuwait news agency and the director of strategic communications for the data quality campaign. [applause] i also want to welcome our other guests in the room today and our c-span and public radio audiences. i want to welcome our audiences watching a live stream on our website, press.org. you can also follow the action on twitter. use the hashtag, #npclive. well, our speaker today has never served in congress, or as the governor of a state. or in any elected office of any kind. he did tell me he was elected -- and that gets applause. he did tell me he was elected to the yale board.

this is one of the reasons that dr. ben carson's supporters say they want him to be the next president. he is not part of the washington establishment that so many fault for gridlock and ineffectiveness. so far, on the campaign trail, he has separated himself from better funded candidates with the political experience that he lacks. recent polling has dr. carson running second nationally for the gop nomination, behind donald trump and ahead of carly fiorina. in campaigning, he has shown his sharp opposition to obamacare, his support in the second amendment, his concern about the federal debt and his goal to stop abortion. he also says all options must be on the table when confronting russia's vladimir putin.

his life story has become familiar to many. he grew up poor in detroit with a single mother and excelled in school. he rose to become the director of pediatric neurosurgery at johns hopkins. he became the first person to successfully separate siamese twins. joined at the back of the head. he won the presidential medal of freedom in 2008. he has published several books including his autobiography, "gifted hands." during various media appearances, he has made a lot of headlines on issues such as the mass shooting in oregon, the debt limit, and whether he can vote for a muslim for president. we all know, the best place to make news is in this room and at this podium. please give a warm welcome to

dr. ben carson. [applause] dr. ben carson: thank you. thank you very much. candy and i are delighted to be here. i will get right into it. why did i write this book? and, america is such a great place and i am so glad that i was born here. i have traveled to 57 different countries. gotten to know a lot of people and a lot of ways of life. this remains the place that is the land of dreams. i know a lot of people like to criticize our nation and demonize it and say it is responsible for a lot of

horrible things. and yet, i see a lot of people trying to get in here and not a lot of people trying to get out. so i am not sure that is all that legitimate to be honest with you. growing up in poverty, with a lot of disadvantages, the thing that was really great was that i was still able to focus on my dreams. my dream of becoming a doctor. it was the only thing i ever wanted to do. i skipped right by policeman and fireman and went straight to doctor. [laughter] i loved anything that had to do with medicine. i even enjoyed going to the doctor's. i even endured shots because i liked the smell of the alcohol swabs. during the process, were there hurdles along the way? absolutely, tremendous hurdles along the way. but nevertheless, it was still possible to realize that dream.

i want to make sure that that continues to be the case. one of the reasons that it was possible is because we have a system that did everything possible to create fairness. even when there were people in the system who did not want to be fair. and that is why it is so important that we must preserve our constitution. virtually, all americans know that we have a constitution. how many people actually know what is in it? and how many people actually know what is behind it? and of course, it is the mechanism that guarantees our liberties and that provides the guidelines for the restraint of government. because our founders recognized that it was the natural tendency of government to grow.

and to invade every aspect of your life and try to control your life and that is what people do. that is what they wanted to avoid by doing this and that is why it is so important that we understand it. in 1831, when alexis di tocqueville came to america to study our great country, because the europeans were so flabbergasted that this fledgling nation, barely 50 years old, was already competing with them on virtually every level. he was going to dissect it and see what was going on. one of the things that really impressed him was how educated the people were. anyone finishing the second grade was completely literate. he could find a mountain man on the outskirts of society and the

guy could read the newspaper. and could tell him how our government worked. nowadays, we do not seem to emphasize civics and things like that in school anymore. i am sure some of you have seen some of those man on the street interviews situations where they go out and ask very basic questions and people have no clue what they are being asked. who is the first president? for example. and they answer, reagan? they have no idea. it is funny that it is so sad. because, our founders particularly franklin and jefferson emphasized education and they emphasized being informed. they said our system of government and our freedoms are dependent on the well informed and educated populace. because they recognized that if

the people were not well informed, that they would be easy to manipulate. all it would take is dishonest politicians and a complicit news media and off you would go into another direction there he quickly. now, i will tell you right off the bat before i go any further, i am not politically correct. i will not be politically correct and that is one of the reasons that a lot of people in the press do not like me. it is ok because what i really love is this country. i do not necessarily care whether the press likes me or not. therefore, i am not going to conform to all of their little requirements. people will ask me all of the time -- why don't you just do this or do that and they won't say bad things about you. because this is america and i

will not do that and i never will. i want to touch on some of the aspects of america that i touched on in the book like the balance of powers, the check and balance system, the separation of powers. i believe this is so vitally important and it was a touch of genius by our founders because they recognized that each branch, executive, judicial, and legislative would want to maintain their power and they would push back against excesses in the other branches. that works extraordinarily well. in a government like we have when they all are exercising their power appropriately. unfortunately, we have a legislative branch that really acts more like a peanut gallery.

they sit there and watch it with the others do, sometimes complain about it. but they really do not offer any resistance because they are afraid someone might blame them. newsflash, you are going to be blamed anyway. so, what they really ought to be thinking about is how do they get involved and be more proactive. you know, case in point, i think about the recent decision by the supreme court on gay marriage. now, first of all, let me just say, i have nothing against gay people whatsoever. i know a lot of people do not believe that because we live in a society now where if you do not accept their entire agenda, then you are a homophobe. but, i personally believe that any two people regardless of sexual orientation or anything else have the right to associate

together. if they want to have a legal contract drawn up which allows them to share property and have hospital visitation rights and do whatever they want, absolutely. i do not have any problem like that. that is the kind of country this was designed to be. live and let live. not impose your values on everyone else. and that is the problem. but what the supreme court ruling did, that changes essentially the definition of marriage -- it does not take into consideration the implications of that. if you change it for one group, why won't you change it for the next? what defense you have against the next group? are you going to say we will only change it for this group? that would not be fair. why change it in the first place?

it has been working very well for thousands of years and that is what happens when people go in and start tinkering with things without thinking about the implications of it. the legislative branch however, i would have thought would have been already prepared with legislation in case the supreme court came down with that decision to make sure we preserved the right, the religious rights of everyone. not everybody agrees with their new definition of marriage and it is a conviction and a religious conviction. and they need to make sure that they can protect people's religious rights. they have been johnny come lately but i call upon congress to do that now. there are people who are losing their jobs. their livelihoods. that is not fair.

it is not what america was supposed to be. unless, all of the branches of government are functioning the right way, these are the kinds of things that happened. because, there will be overreach by any of the branches because they are composed of people and people are not perfect. but that is why we have the counterbalance in order to be able to rectify the situation because one group may not take into consideration the ramifications of what they are doing. also, the constitution indicates that civil issues really should be dealt with at the local levels. at the state levels. there is a reason for that. it was because the legislators and the judiciary at the local level are subject to the will of the people. the people vote them in, the people vote them out and our founders felt the people should be the ones who determine how things work and the standards by

which they lived. when you take those issues and you bump them up to a level where the people making the decisions have no obligation whatsoever to the people, then you wind up an oligarchy type government and that is not what the founders intended for america. so, we are somehow going to have to look into ways to rebalance that because if we continue down that pathway, you can see how virtually everything that they intended will be upset. we do not want that to happen. the preamble to the constitution talks about the role of the government in terms of promoting the general welfare. that does not mean that we want

to put everyone on welfare. that is not what the general welfare is. it means that when we do things, we want to do them in a way that they benefit the entire society. it is very important that we take care and make sure that everyone is taken care of in an appropriate way. when i say we, it does not necessarily mean the federal government. i get criticized, inappropriately by the way, by people who say that i grew up poor and benefited by some programs and now i want to withdraw all of the safety nets. this is nothing but a blatant lie by people who need to characterize me as heartless. they love to do that.

they love to say that ben carson is insensitive. they need that narrative. that is the only way it can be acceptable because i do not fit into their general description. a black person who is a conservative? they cannot quite deal with that. who talks about self-reliance and that you are not dependent on them? how could you possibly say such heresy? it is necessary to demonize in a business like that and i understand that. i am actually willing to fight with them. i will continue to fight with them. i am fighting for something even greater. and that is, i am fighting for the people of the united states because you see we have very smart and very capable people in