particular concerns. i feel myself distressed because of the necessity of securing personal right seems not to have pervaded the minds of men, for many other valuable things are committed -- omitted. without evidence of the commission seeing any evidence of the crime ought be visited. the crime was that property to be taken in the most arbitrary manner. without any evidence or reason. everything considered sacred could be in henry's room, be searched and ransacked by the strong hand of power. the virginia delegates went on to establish as part of the proposed ill of rights -- bill of rights the protection against the seizure by general warrants. it stated that every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and therefore, the search

had to be particular rise. -- particularized. it highlighted the absence of a protection against general warrants. from rhode island it was only with the understanding that the constitution would be amended with the prohibition on general warrants. in maryland, antifederalists warned that under the new constitution, officers would be able to enter your homes at all times by night or day. if you refused entrance, they can under pretense of searching for goods, break your doors, just, trunks, boxes. maryland also proposed that prohibition on general warrants be included. in massachusetts, pennsylvania, similar conversations took place. madisonbates prompted

when entrusted with drafting the bill of rights to bow to protect the right of conscience, freedom of the press, trial by jury, and security against general warrants. become to the fourth amendment that establishes the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affect against unreasonable seizures and shall not be violated. only probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation and describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. the first part of this clause establishes prohibition and the second part says what is required, even for a specific warrant to be valid. mind, onehistory in

could be forgiven for being somewhat surprised. on june 6, 2013, when the guardian announced the united states was collecting telephone , this orderillions required verizon to turn over all called detailed records including metadata created for communications between the united states and abroad, or wholly within the united states. issued by the surveillance court, this order did not name any individual suspected of wrongdoing. it did not specify a crime. there was no oath or affirmation. the order did not indicate the particular place to be searched. it did not appear to be tailored in any way. it demanded that documents

detailing citizens'private friendships, conversations, social network, and relationships, as well as their location as revealed from trunk identify, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for months at a time, be turned over to the government. it is important to note that a significant amount of personal information was entailed. one from stanford considered for a few months that collecting metadata of 500 volunteers. looking at the numbers dialed and patterns, they were able to ascertain highly sensitive to that information. one participant in the stanford study received calls from a pharmacy for a medical device that is used to monitor cardiac arrhythmia. another participant called a firearms store specializing in ar-15 semi automatic rifles

after telephoning customer service for manufacturing that produces the ar-15 line. a third participant called a locksmith, head shop, hydroponics dealer. have to wonder if they knew they were in the study they had volunteered for. telephoned their sister and called planned parenthood. later, what telephoned an abortion clinic and called it a final time. the telephony metadata provided gun purchases, heart conditions, cannabis cultivation, and the decision to have an abortion. it was a small sample over a short period of a limited number of calls. the order, it turns out, was in place for over a decade. it was a judicial risk and demanded that anyone circumvent -- served with it complied.

it was being used to find evidence of illegal activity. to be sure, there are differences between the general warrants issued by the founders and this general warrants that marks the telephony metadata program. it was physical entry into people's homes which was at stake where is now the collection of data is not involving a physical trespass. in the founding, if an individual's home was being searched, there was an element of embarrassment and also occurred, while today the programs are secret. and since everybody is subject, it does not carry the same imprimatur. setting those differences aside, they are strikingly can distant -- consistent. to that an englishman's home was his castle is largely in anti-federalist writings, and the same is at stake in this program and other programs that were at stake in the founding.

i would like to spend a moment on the privacy interest. embedded in the concept of the englishman's home being his castle are deeper understandings about what we ought and ought not to be forced to reveal to the government. access to our castle means access to our family, our friends, our bedrooms, our books, in our correspondence. further implicated as the right to solitude, the right to relax, the right to be unguarded and our actions and ideas and question the world and our role in it. who we are, who we want to be, how we evolved come all of this in protected space will we can interact with our own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. our ability to form intimate relationships and decide for ourselves different degrees of intimacy to contribute to our own development. as well as the strength of the social fabric.

underlying these ideas is a basic understanding that when you are subject to surveillance, you change your behavior. democratic deliberations turns on our ability to discuss ideas, however unpopular our views are so that we may further develop our ideas in the marketplace for ideas. that is exactly what dr. gibson says the symposium is about. a marketplace of ideas. if you think that everything you say and do is recorded and analyzed and subjected to algorithms, you change what you say and do and with whom you say and do it. these ideas were alive in colonial times. when complex relationships between different rights like the right to privacy, free speech, association, was understood and protected. other sets of arguments mark the

founders concerns. such as the potential harm that could follow from government amassing too much power in one place. for one, it gets the assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty wrong, instead you are potentially guilty until you are innocent or free of guilt. another way of approaching this manner is the possibility that individuals will target people simply because of their ideas, beliefs, or positions. such a power is right for abuse -- ripe for abuse. it can be used to prevent social, political or economic opposition. using intimate information to gain insight into our relationships and then using that to stifle opposing views. it can also override the structural division of power for our government at a federal level.

if the executive branch can collect all of the communications of judges, legislators, and secretly analyze. then many structural protections can be overridden. the amassing of this power in one place holds enormous potential for abuse. because of this potential for harm, the founding generation considered general warrants even more concerning the general warrants for arrest. the general warrants for search. it was even more concerning than a general weren't to arrest -- general warrant to arrest. defenders have defended the collection of metadata in three ways. first, they say congress specifically authorized them to collect the information when inserted information into the usa patriot act by providing them the power when the government has reasonable

grounds to believe that the tangible thing saw a relevant to an authorized investigation other than a threat assessment. so how did this program fit? the government interpreted the word relevant, the second clause underlined, to mean that all telephony metadata is potentially relevant, so we can collect it. the problem with reading it in this way is that it reads relevant out of the equation. if all telephony metadata is relevant, and so is all financial metadata, so were all gun records, educational records. everything becomes relevant, nothing is irrelevant. a further reads the first clause out of existence. the government, by reading it this way, approved it written large and turned this authority into precisely a threat

assessment, which is explicitly banned by the statute itself. second, proponents of the measure claim telephony metadata is not private. they point to a case in the 1970's called smith versus maryland, in which the supreme court held that the numbers one dialed from a telephone provided to a third party or not -- are not private. this was called third-party doctrine. in one case, for tricia mcdonough was walking down a street in baltimore when someone assaulted her. he took her purse and a monte carlo drove by her. later, somebody started calling her and making threatening phone calls. she saw the same 1975 monte carlo drive slowly past her home. she called the police and told them she was getting these phone calls. the police approached the phone company and said, we have is the

device that allows us to record numbers somebody dialed from their phone. in the 1970's, the police didn't have the numbers you called. you were built by the minute. -- billed by the minute. they did it as a favor for the police. they put it on the line and sure enough, the man who owned the license plate of the car that had been driving in runs, he called patricia mcdonough. they use that information to go into his home, they walk in the door, and there is the phonebook. they use that to build a case against him. supreme court said that by providing the telephone information to the company when you pick up your phone, you have no privacy interest in it. the argument is that if there was zero privacy interest in 1970, even now there is more of that information, it is still zero. zero plus zero equals zero. the problem with this argument, as i have noted already, is that there are enormous privacy

interests at stake . it is absurd to think that we have no privacy interests in our network. what we do, where we go who we , call, date, sleep next to, all of this is private regardless of whether the information is gleaned from metadata or a camera inside of our home. these are not the same interests they were at stake in 1970. then, it was applied to a landline. now we have mobile devices. to record where we go, where we are located, even when we are not on the phone. our phone can communicate with local cell phone towers, letting them know where we are. this reliance means that detailed social networks can be ascertained. it is not just one social network, but the entire social network.

it is not zero plus zero, it is zero plus one yadabyte, which is a totally different level of inclusion. the third is that it is set to expire so we don't need to worry about the collection of telephony metadata. that is a red herring. something that is especially meaning to be misleading or distracting. new analytical tools compared with ways in which technology has catapulted our world forward makes this one of the most pressing questions of our time. telephony metadata collection is not the only game in town. myriad other mass collection programs are under way, giving the government insight into our most private affairs. there are just a few examples we know from documents that have been leaked.

also from verification on the ni -- starting in october of 2001, president bush operated a surveillance program entirely outside any statutory structure. stellar wind collected telephone and internet metadata as well as content. it was so secretive, that for a few years, the nsa itself was not allowed to see the legal reasoning. the legal reasoning has been provided by an attorney within the olc. he had anomalous view of executive power. olc has since repudiated the memos that he wrote at the time. when questions were raised after he left by jack goldsmith about the legality and constitutionality of stellar wind as the program was called, a concerted effort was made to shoehorn that program into the existing legislative framework.

this is how we get that absurd reading of relevant, where everything is relevant. trying to find a way to stick it into existing legislative framework. it was similarly transferred to portions of the 1978 intelligence surveillance act. we already have legislation that governed how we record numbers dialed from an numbers that call somebody for foreign intelligence purposes. the way that all internet metadata was precisely the same, by saying that all internet metadata was relevant, therefore we can collect all internet metadata. under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. this is an extraordinary have thebecause they same thing which in them. if everything is relevant, then, everything is relevant across the board, not just for national

security but for criminal law purposes. this program was officially ended in december of 2011, but internet metadata collection continues through a program called evil olive. we are discussed this only 41 of , the orders issued under section 215, there are 711 orders that we know have been issued under section 215. we do not know the other programs that have been continued underneath that section. in 2012, there were 212 applications alone in that one year. considering the statutory interpretation that is taking place, this could implicate millions of americans records. in 2008, congress added a new section to the foreign intelligence surveillance act to give it more flexibility in intercepting international content and traffic.

the reason for this was strong. previously, if you had a bad guy or bad girl, let's not be gendered. say we have a bad person in london calling a bad person in paris. previously, that phone call would go right across the channel and the intelligence companies in the united states should not be expected to go to a court every time they want to tap anyone international, especially bad people. the problem is that in an internet generation, when e-mail is now being carried to servers in the united states, those same communications might go through domestic borders. just because of how the internet is constructed. the argument was exceedingly strong. they said we should not have to go to record every time a bad person in london tossed person in paris just because they happen to use an american isp. congress said you are right, we

will give you new rules and increase some protections for u.s. citizens but for non-us persons believed to be located overseas, we will let you collect that without going to the foreign intelligence surveillance court. over the past two years, we have discovered that the nsa has used that provision, collecting massive amounts of information about u.s. citizens, including intercepting conversations of an entirely local character in the united states, because it turns out that if i were to text or e-mail somebody sitting here from here, it might go to canada. that can now be picked up through section 702. it turns out that not just international communications come domestically, but our domestic communications are carried internationally. there are two programs in the

public domain associated with section 702. the first program, prism, draws from google, yahoo!, apple, some of the largest indications -- communications providers, making the information that can be obtained substantial. e-mail, videos, photos, stored data, file transfers, network details, etc. the second is called upstream collection under 702, and that amounts to collection of information directly from the backbone of the internet facilities. it monitors all traffic crossing certain cables, not just information targeted at a specific internet protocol address or telephone numbers. by 2011, the nsa was declaring around 26.5 million internet transactions per year through the upstream collection. notably, the nsa interprets the statute to me not just to or

from the target. there is one order with 85,000 -- 89,000 targets. it is not just communications to or from, it is to, from, or about those targets, so content is being monitored. for any reference to the target or selectors associated. as the privacy and civil andrties board reported stated the fbi routinely used , databases for completely unrelated criminal activity to look for evidence of wrongdoing. a rule change allows law enforcement agencies to query these databases using u.s. persons information. collection of other forms of personal information have also been outside of fisa under guidelines. executive order 12 333

introduced in 1981 provide the framework. while the full scope is not discuss some of the programs. under one program called mystic, the nsa collects data from countries and in some cases, the content as well. a leaked nsa document notes some process systems hundreds of calls per day. some of these systems appear not to be for foreign intelligence purposes, such as narcotics trafficking or smuggling. sounding like a writ of assistance. basically, traditional law enforcement concerns. the data being collected, extends to e-mail lists. and contact lists. webcam images and chat sections appear to be collected. gchq, is one of our big partners, the nsa counterpart in the united kingdom.

from 2008-2010, gchq -- whether referenced a program called optic nerve in which webcam chats were collected in bulk regardless of whether the user was a foreign intelligence target. during one 6-month period, they collected visual data from 8 -- 1.8 million yahoo! users. turns out that nudity is a big problem, they are trying to figure out ways to keep the agents from looking all the nude photographs but they are finding it hard to filter out. text messages are similarly not immune. the nsa collected almost 200 million text messages per day globally, using them to ascertain travel plans and details. let me be clear, this information is being collected on individuals who are not themselves suspected of any illegal activity.

geolocational data is also being obtained, about 5 million records per day is being collected with more than 27 terabytes of information now associated with that. is subject to almost no oversight in the deep recesses of the intelligence community, dianne feinstein of the intelligence committee acknowledged they do not conduct oversight. the promise of big data and the technology age. what it means is that massive amounts of information can now be collected. in order to anticipate individuals who might engage in wrongdoing. that approach is what the founders rejected. while this information is being collected, and in certain circumstances it can be used and

is being used. the problem is, our communications are now global. we had historically counted on the borders of the united states to protect us but we no longer bound by geography and how we communicate. our conversations go internationally routinely, and when they do, they can be monitored under myriad programs. we used to have them in our replacement servers around the world where intelligence agencies can scan their content this fight the significant privacy intrusions that happen.

it can't be separated, these threats can't be separated from communication networks. they have to intercept information from the same networks that ordinary citizens use to communicate their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. digitization and the rise of big data means all of this information can now be analyzed. moore's available than ever before and it can be suggested .- objected at the samellection time looks a lot like what the founders were trying to avoid by preventing the government from using promiscuous search authority. it is exactly what gave birth to the fourth amendment. to conclude, in 1946, churchill warned us from this very place

about the dangers attached to tyranny. the risk that great power will erode the ancient rites by which english-speaking people rely. it is not without great concern that i returned to his words. although we face new enemies, it is our liberty that continues to define who we are. for centuries, the rejection of general warrant was essential for our understanding of the rule of law. but due to emerging technologies in the government's effort to harness technologies, this fight is not ours alone. the united kingdom, one of our closest allies, has itself been featured in the pages of "the guardian" and "the washington post" in participating in massive collection of information. his father, lord randolph

-- sir winston embodied the legacies of our nation. his father, lord randolph churchill, carried the line of lord of marlborough, while his mother was an american. he became the third honorary he proved a steadfast ally and became the first honorary citizen ever of the united states and owing the second to ever be awarded an honorary citizenship during their lifetime. when he came here, to westminster college, sir winston underscored that security has gained through freedom. the united states and the united kingdom have, throughout our history's pay a high price for the protection of liberties that we both hold dear. may we not falter as you look to the future and the dawn of the digital age. thank you. [applause] >> road to the white house

coverage takes us to new hampshire, about 40 miles northwest of boston where the sign outside the upper house in addition to tomorrow's oktoberfest dinner advertises marco rubio town hall meeting coming up shortly with the republican presidential candidate. we will have let and expect the candidate to be street and walking into the opera house, part of our coverage of the road to the white house, which concludes today over five hours of presidential candidate coverage. marco rubio here. jeb bush later on today, also donald trump and hillary clinton as well. we'll tell you more about that. the real clear politics rolling average has marco rubio in third behind donald trump and ben carson with 9.9%, the latest release of the real clear politics poll. so waiting for marco rubio, and coverage today of the town hall meeting here in derry, new hampshire.

>> and inside the opera house in derry, new hampshire, waiting for republican presidential candidate marco rubio in a town hall meeting about to get underway. the report this afternoon about an endorsement for marco rubio from newly elected illinois representative, darren lahood, endorsing marco rubio, a report

just out in illinois. this is the first of several events live, road to the white house coverage here on c-span and c-span2. marco rubio and the town hall this afternoon. in new hampshire later, 7:00 eastern, he's in concord, new hampshire. then we move to the democratic side with hillary clinton the day after the first democratic debate in las vegas. she's holding a rally this evening at 8:30 eastern. that, too, will be here on c-span. over on c-span2, meanwhile, donald trump is in richmond, virginia, today, a campaign rally for him, and that's at 6:30 eastern over on c-span2.

>> senator marco rubio, in derry, new hampshire, should be getting underway. the house and senate are out this week for the columbus day break, but word from the hill, they tweet the house is going to consider transportation funding, days before the deadline when they return. also, politico's jake sherman writing that speaker boehner may be looking to move a debt ceiling bill. they may he may be doing this

before he leaves congress, a tactic aimed at helping the next republican leader, according to multiple sources, with knowledge of internal party planning. politico says timing has not been decided, but the treasury department says the nation's limit needs to be raised by november 5. speaker boehner would like to resolve the issue before a new speaker is sworn in. boehner expects to step down october 30. they declined to comment for the story. both the house and senate out this week and back for legislative work next week. we're outside of the opera house, opera house here, understanding that marco rubio has been across the street and we'll be able to see him walk over once he's ready to and get underway with the town hall meeting here in new hampshire.

>>ed audience waiting. so are we, maybe a few minutes more before marco rubio gets underway with the town hall meeting here in derry, new hampshire. while we wait, part of this morning's "washington journal." host: it is a very early morning in las vegas, and adam green, after watching last night's debate and taking part in it, is joining us from that city this morning, co-founder of progressive change committee. appreciate your time this morning. let's get your thoughts. what do you think? who best expressed the progressive point of view last night? guest: well, one thing that was very clear watching the debate at the wynn hotion last night was the center of gravity in

the democratic party has really shifted over the last few years in an economic direction, toward the warren wing of american politics, as we call it, after elizabeth warren, the popular senator. this was the first debate in -- debate in presidential history where issues like debt-free college, expanding social security benefits, jailing wall street bankers that broke the law and breaking up too big to fail wall street banks, too big to jail wall street banks as well, actually got air time in a presidential debate. so we are really thrilled about that. there were definitely some differences between the candidates, but really, hillary clinton, bernie sanders, martin o'malley also had strong performances last night, no doubt about it. host: i want to you respond to hillary clinton when she was asked if she's a progressive. ms. clinton: i'm a progressive, but i'm a progressive who likes to get things done, and i know how to find common ground, and i know how to stand my ground, and i have proved that in every position that i've had, even

dealing with republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly, but we found ways to work together on everything from reforming foster care and adoptions and children's health insurance program, which ensures eight million kids. so i have a long history of getting things done rooted in the same value i've always had. host: adam green? guest: i'm really glad you played that quote, because i think it's important for two reasons. one, she was asked flat out are you a proifing or call yourself a moderate. in yesteryear, when bill clinton was running, he would have called himself a corporate democrat. that was where the party was in 1992. it's bennie involving over time. and the general election electorate has been evolving over time. we're now living in an economic populist era. so it was very significant she called herself a progressive. now, the part about a progressive who gets things done is really interesting. you know, obviously any progressive wants to get things done. the question is, what is the vision to get things done? here's where i think we're

going to have different visions for how to govern. bernie sanders' vision seems to be to lead with really big, bold ideas, inspire the population to rise up, a revolution as he calls it, and he's promising a government where he rallies the people to pressure congress to get big ideas, like expanding social security benefits for all seniors. debt-free college, tuition-free college, it's all accomplished, and other things like that, breaking up the big banks. hillary clinton has also some -- is going the same direction on some of these issues, is agreeing with goals like debt-free college, breaking up too big to fail, wall street banks and others, but she's basically saying i know how to build consensus in congress, so i really do think it's multiple governing visions about how to get things done that are in this primary. host: adam green, you say she's going that same direction. do you trust that she would stick to progressive principles that your group has outlined? guest: another great question,

one we hear a lot from our members in washington and others. so the first point is that, you know, it really does matter -- words do matter for action. we've been living in an entirely different world if there were one top presidential candidate that said don't take on wall street, we don't need debt-free college, and don't worry about social security, and another saying the opposite of that, expand social security, let's have debt-free college, let's break up too big to fail. instead we have candidates all in, marching towards the north star that is the elizabeth warren world view, economic pop you're lism. and that matters, because it means that in 2016, we have the prospect of senate candidates, house candidates, as well as presidential candidates, all basically off the same book, all getting united, big-picture vision, big ideas to voters, and that's what crushed democrats in 2014, not having the big vision. the words do matter. we're really thrilled that everybody is marching in that direction. that said, you know, we're going to have our work to do. hillary clinton, you know, her

wording so far on the transpacific partnership has been positive, but tentative. she said based on the information i know now, i oppose it, which means if she learned one new fact, she could change her mind. you know, we'll see if she fates for some of these things if elected, and partly it's a job for the grass roots, to "make them do it," right? but again, if we have democratic party unity around big, bold economic pop list ideas in 2016, if we have candidates getting ideas on the stump, paying tens or in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars in tv ads to get this message across, part of their self-identity becomes at one with these issues. and that's why what we're doing at the progressive change committee is not just asking candidates to get on the record, but really working with candidates to try to get them to go deep on these things and make big ideas a centerpiece of their campaign. host: adam green, you brought up elizabeth warren a couple of times, and there's headlines, pushing democrats to talk about

these issues. are you still hoping that elizabeth warren is a candidate? guest: i mean, there are a lot of people who would absolutely love that. the progressive change committee led the draft warren for senate campaign in 2011, raised her about $100,000 before she even decided to run, which they got on the first week of her campaign, and ultimately raised her about $1.17 million in small dollar donations, made about half a million phone calls for her campaign as well. we were not part of the draft elizabeth warren for president effort, but we have been urging all candidates and really working very hard to incentivize all candidates to take what we call an elizabeth warren wing position on issues like debt-free college, breaking up too big to fail banks, and others. so i don't think she's going to run, but it's very clear that the debate stage last night was influenced by elizabeth warren's presence in the national dialogue, no doubt about it. host: well, there's also a draft biden effort that's going on. you're probably familiar with

that. commercials for encouraging the vice president to run, running yesterday on cnn leading up to last night's debate. i want to show our viewers and get your reaction. >> for the rest of our lives, my sister and my brothers forget rest of our life my dad never failed to remind us that a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it's about your dignity. [applause] it's about respect. it's about your place in the community. it's about being able to look your child in the eye and say, honey, it's going to be ok. and mean it, and know it's true. you never quit on america. and you deserve a president who ill never quit on you. host: adam green, should he run? groip joe biden there mentioned

dignity, respect, place in the community, and there's no doubt that joe biden has all of that. he's very respected. there's a lot of love out there for him. that said, especially after last night's debate, right now there's not a clear rationale for a biden candidacy. we'll see if that changes. if he runs, there will be a lot of questions asked of him. early on in this campaign, we were talking about how there were many unchecked boxes, boxes with hillary clinton. she hadn't yet come out on issues related to wall street and corporate power, issues related to campaign finance reform, issues related to social security and debt-free college. now she has on all of them, social security being a very big exception. but joe biden, we start that process again. you know, he said several weeks ago, expressing his views on bernie sanders, he likes bernie sanders, but joe biden then said, qut i am not a populist." well, we are living in an populist era. we're living in a time where, among general election voters,

republicans, democrats, independents, the idea of expanding social security is popular by 70% to 15%. debt-free college, the idea that you can go to a college in america, whether it's through student pell grants, work-study, some contributions, a mix of all of those, you should be able to graduate from college with zero debt. like, that's 71% to 19% popular. so he better be a populist if he runs, and there will an lot of questions if he does run. host: adam green, the politico reporting that the vice president invited back in august elizabeth warren to an aunnouns the saturday lunch at the naval observatory, where he liz. according to sources connected with elizabeth warren, he raised clinton's scheduled appearance at the house benghazi committee next week, even hinting that there might be a running mate opening for the massachusetts senator. are you saying those two, vice president joe biden and elizabeth warren, if they were on the ticket, that their ideals, their visions would match up?

guest: i'm not saying they wouldn't match up, but they have the same vision or the same theory of governing. we work very close well elizabeth warren. she is just amazing at not just giving voice to a populist message and inspiring democrats, republicans, dependents alike, but also sifting out tragedy, where those on the inside of government work in partnership with those on the outside of government, and really take advantage of this bottom-up and somewhat internet era. joe bide suspect from a different generation in terms of when he rose to political power, when he was elected to the senate. he very much is kind of a shoot from the hip, you know, kind of guy. that's what makes him lovable. but they have two completely styles and governing philosophies. also, there's one of my favorite chris rock lines way back in the day when there was the prospect of bob dole seeking colin powell as his running mate. chris rock said, why would colin powell run against

someone he could beat? he can beat bob dole. similarly, elizabeth warren could beat joe biden handily in a primary. i don't imagine her being a vice-presidential nominee. it would be a demotion for her, giving her strong voice up in the senate. so i don't see it happening. host: all right. we'll get our viewers involved. a republican in atlanta, hi there, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i just need a little bit of time here, because one of my feelings is there was only one honest man on the stage last night, and that was bernie sanders. back in the 1960's, he had a ook called "forgotten man," by rose martin. more recently i remember an interview that brian lamb did hlayes, it name s was also "the forgotten man" n. both of those books, they asked

hillary, are you a progressive, and i can remember that same question during her first run against president obama, and she said, she answered she was a liberal, and she said, no, i'm a progressive in the definition of progressive in the early 20th century. well, the progressives in the early 20th century were registered members of the american communist party for the most part. bernie sanders admits that he's a socialist. the rest of them on the stage call themselves something else, but they're actually socialists, the same as bernie is. that's why i say he's the only honest man on the stage. host: ok. adam green? guest: first of all, hello. i feel like every time i come n c-span, you call up. it's someone talking about old-school communism. a few points, bernie sanders is an honest man on stage when it comes to his issue position, and that is part of what is

making him resonate so much with voters. i was actually in europe recently when jeremy started to rise, and part of what spoke to them is they have been saying the same economic populist things for years, and there's a real trust gap in america and across the world, especially given the wall street collapse and so many people's retirements and homes being flushed down the drain as a result of irresponsibility. they want someone who is known from the start that corporations need to be held accountable. now, one thing we've seen in polling is that people really don't care about labels very much. you know, the same "new york times" poll that showed that over 70% of the population wanted a public auction when it came to the health fair. in the same poll, 20% call themselves a liberal, right? same thing with wall street reform, same thing with social security. you know, people don't wake up in the morning and think of themselves as a capitalist, a socialist, or anything in

between. they think about the debt that their kids are accumulating for college. they think about, you know, whether their parents can both eat and have their medicine if they're on social security. and they care about whether their life savings will be gamble ad way by wall street. bernie sanders is giving really valiant voice to these issues, and it's had a real impact on the race. again, hillary clinton has been marching in the same direction of these things. there's some differentiations, which we should talk about. an you know, i think he is honest page. host: victor in new york, a democrat. hi there. caller: good morning, c-span. i just have one comment and a question. i support bernie sanders, but realistically, he's not going to get the democratic nomination for presidency. and i'm leaning to supporting hillary. now, my question is, how many other congressmen and senators

have a progressive agenda? >> outside the halligan tavern, marco rubio heading across the street to the opera house in derry, where he's going to hold a town hall meeting with new hampshire voters and others walking across there with major garrett of cbs news. live coverage, road to the white house coverage here on c-span. >> as a unique environment. people are very frustrated. they're very angry at the lack of progress. they're really frustrated that despite a republican majority in the senate, nothing's happening, also in the house as

well.

[applause]

>> will you all stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance the flag is over. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [applause] >> thank you, everybody, and welcome to the derry opera house this afternoon for a meet and greet with senator marco rubio. i'm the chairman of the derry republican party, and on behalf of the republican party, i'd like to welcome you to this event today, and we should get a lot of good q&a and discussion in with the senator. i am now going to turn it over to our senator from our district, who will introduce senator rubio. [applause]

>> thank you. welcome, everyone. thanks for coming. how's everybody doing today? awesome. listen, for those of who you don't know me, my name is regina, state senator for derry, hamp stead, and windham. i'm also proudly a co-chair, one of the co-chairs of senator rubio's committee for new hampshire. and you all prove why new hampshire is such a important part of the primary, because we ask the questions, and we vet our candidates like no one else can. i'd like to thank senator rubio for coming to derry. marco is a u.s. senator from florida. he's also -- he's also a former speaker of the house from florida. e is a -- he's an all-around

great guy. he comes from very humble beginnings, and i proudly -- and i will proudly endorse senator marco rubio. thank you, senator, for coming, and please give senator marco rubio a very warm welcome. [applause] senator rubio: thank you, thank you. thank you. thank you very much. let's get started. let's get started. thank you so much. you know, i've been watching on tv for years on c-span, and now i'm actually on it. so that's pretty good. you walk in, it almost feels like you're going to give a speech or acoustic performance, because it has that feel to it. i'm really honored to be here today. thank you for all of that introduction and all of you for coming. this is important. this is actually, as you walk in, no matter how many times you've done this now, it really strikes you that the presidency in the united states is the most important political office on the planet, and yet the

process to get there begins here in places just like this, where our fellow citizens get to engage us and ask us questions and hear from us, and so it's really rewarding part of this campaign, and one of the most enjoyable things that die. it's like doing an editorial meeting five times a day, but the editorial board are the people that you're going serve if they give you the opportunity to serve, so i'm grateful to all of of you for being a part of this. so i think i'll begin by telling why you i'm running for president, which is the most important question that anybody running for president should have to answer. the reason i'm running for president is because i want this to continue to be a country where people can do for their children what my parents did for me and what your parents did for you. for over two centuries, unique in the history of the world, this country has been a place where no matter where you started out, no matter how poor your parents were, how disconnected from power they might have been, this was the place where, if you worked hard and you persevered, you would be able to go as far as your talent and your work would take you. the place where people, through

hard work and perseverance, could achieve not just a better life for themselves, but an even better life for their children. and the result is the american miracle, exemplified by the american dream. and that's why, for over two centuries, we have been a nation where each generation has left the next better off than themselves. that american dream is what makes it special. even the poorest country on the planet has the rich. what makes america special is people who don't come from wealth and privilege and who may never be rich still achieve happiness because their hard work and perseverance, they achieve the life they wanted. if we lose that we stop being special. we will still be rich and powerful and important but we won't be special. if we ever become a country like the other places, where what you can do with your life is determined by what your parents were or did, we stop being unique and exceptional.

it should concern us that for the first time in a long time, a majority of americans that dream and attribute is no longer within reach. it should concern us that a majority of americans don't believe it is heading in the wrong direction but they are convinced that their children will live a life as it is around. why is this happening? two reasons. we are looking for a time of extraordinary economic and geopolitical transformation. this economy looks nothing like economy i grew up in. not to mention the one in 50 years ago. yet we have government policies that do not reflect the economy. which leads to the second reason. under the modern history of the country, there has never been a time when the political class is so out of touch than it is today. i wish i could say it is one political party but it is both.

leaders and both are out of touch and outdated. who do not remember what it was like to live paycheck to paycheck or never did. likeon't know what it is to our thousands in student loans or have forgotten. who don't know how difficult it is for small businesses to survive and thrive with all regulations and burdens of government. the result is an extraordinary sense of frustration. that is why this election matters more than most. this is not just a choice between political parties. this is not just a choice between ideologies. the election of 2016 is a generational choice. about what kind of country we will be in the 21st century. each generation of americans has choice in keeping america a special country. now the time has come for us to make the same choice. there are only two.

we will either be the first americans to leave our children worse off than ourselves, or our children and grandchildren will be the freest and most prosperous that have ever lived. i am confident i know which road you want to choose. roadconfident i know the the majority of americans want to choose. i believe we will choose a future better than our past. a life for our children and grandchildren better than our own. there are things we will have to do and have to do them right now. the first is become globally competitive economically because we live in a global economy. it is an economy dramatically different from the one we had not so long ago. this will report or to turn page on leaders and ideas that no longer work. and embrace ideas and leaders relevant to the 21st century. what is globally competitive? having leaders that understand the government doesn't grow the economy, the private sector

does. you would know that by watching last night's debate. i caught enough to know the democratic party is more liberal than it has been its michael dukakis, maybe before. leaders that were arguing he will grow the economy because we will build more roads and bridges. i like those and it may help, but only the private sector creates more jobs and better paying jobs. jobs that pay more and provide upward mobility. the job of government is to make it easier for the private sector to succeed, to make america the cheapest, fastest, easiest place in the world to create millions of jobs that pay more. that is why we need to work on our economic policies. we need a tax code that makes us globally competitive. have a tax code that makes us among the most competitive and in some places in the world to start a business or expand an existing one. we need a regulatory code that is flattened out and some for fight and less burdensome. we have billions upon billions of regulatory cost.

this is crippling on small businesses that cannot afford the army of lawyers and lobbyists necessary. we cannot for our economy. we have a debt crisis and we will have one at some point. the oh close to $19 trillion which is more than the size of our economy. there are no plans to address it. that's why we must deal with the drivers. the drivers is not foreign aid, less than 1% of the budget. it is not defense which is the most important obligation. the driver of our long-term debt is the way important programs are currently structured. medicare, medicaid, and social security. i am from florida. there are a lot of people there on medicare and social security. one of them happens to be my mother. i can say this unequivocably, i am against changes that for my mother.

i'm against changes bad for people like her. we can save social security and medicare without changing anything for her, people like her that are retired, or people about to retire. here's the truth people can started notching. my medicare and social security and for those younger than me will be different than it works for our parents and people on it now. it has to either not exist or be different. what army by different? i may have to retire sooner than my parents. my benefits if i made money will not grow as fast as they did for the people that are on it now. my medicare benefits could be the option of taking that and using it to buy a private plan i like better. that is not too much to ask to me at 44, after everything my 85-year-old mother did for us. i set her age, she will get mad. my older mother says, that is probably not good either.

she is on social security and medicair. it will work differently than it did for people like us or people that are retired or about two. we can bring stability to this program and the long-term and we can say that and balance our budget and we don't have to change anything for the people on it now or about to retire. be globally competitive, we can utilize our energy resources. we have an abundance of oil. we should explore more and exported. the impact that would have on the world's dramatic. the world wouldn't have to buy it from a gangster in moscow. they wouldn't have to buy it from a radical shia cleric. they can borrow it from the most stable and freest con three -- country on the planet. this won't just lower the cost of living by making it cheaper to power utilities, it will be easier to manufacture energy costs. overhead is one of the most

significant parts of manufacturing. if energy becomes more affordable, he will have a manufacturing renaissance which means we can be a country that makes things again. not simply a country that does things only. last but not least, if we want to become globally competitive, we must repeal and replace of obamacare. [applause] we must are placing with a system that allows every american to be in charge of their health care insurance and ideas that will allow you to take your own tax money, whether it is your own that came from your employer or comes from a tax edit and you can use it to buy insurance you decided you want from any company across state lines that will sell it to you. this will drive choices and competition and lower prices ending good and improve coverage. it is better than putting the government in charge. and better than the program we have now.

[applause] i am confident if we can do these things, the american private sector will take care of the rest. these are the most innovative, creative, and productive people on the planet. the american private sector represented by many not all of you here today will not only create millions of new jobs if we allow this country to be globally competitive, they will create millions of better paying jobs, that pay substantially more than what we have today. those new jobs will require more skills than ever. the second thing we have to do is modernize. is some of the best jobs of the 21st century, less than four years of traditional college. that's why we must reinvigorate vocational training. we need to stop telling young americans. nothing can be further from the truth. we need to produce more we

elders, machinists, airplane mechanics. we should open federal financial aid so the students can do that. when they graduate, they don't just get a diploma, their industry certified and ready to work. some of the fastest-growing jobs of the 21st century. [applause] we need more competition and choices. is why i think we need to open it up for more competition, innovation, and for technology to enter the education space. programs that allow someone who is 30 years old who has to work full-time and raise a family to get ready for what they already know. we are not going to make you sit in the classroom and take verses on what you mastered on your own through life experience.

you get credit for what you can prove you know are learned. and whatever you are missing for your degree, you will be able to learn it from a variety of sources. creating an alternative of crediting processes that allows people to package learning from a variety of sources emma open higher education who have to work full-time who afford to drop everything and sit in the classroom for 2-4 years to become a paralegal or a dental hygienist or any of these other professions that pay more than the job some are trapped in. we will have for your colleges but we cannot continue to have people borrowing thousands of dollars to pay for degrees that don't lead to jobs. when i am president, we will pass a law called right to know before you go and i will sign it. here's what the law says. before any student takes out the student loan, the school has to tell you how much people make when they graduate from that school with that degree so you

can decide if you will borrow 15 thousand dollars to take on a degree. he deserved to know before you borrow thousands of dollars whether you can find a job. we are not going to ban these degrees or say no one can study political science or greek philosophy. study whatever you want but you deserve to know the market for philosophers has tightened over the last 2000 years. if we can do these two things, make america globally and create policies that make it easier and cheaper for people to be globally competitive, we will not have an economical recovery. we will have a renaissance. the growth of prosperity unlike anything we have seen. that will matter if we don't to the third thing, keep our people safe. it is the most important obligation. [applause]

that is the reason we have a federal government, they are involved in all sorts of things that have no business. ,hey have no business in k-12 we don't need a common core, a national school board. there's something the federal government has to do that only they can do and that is keep a safe. it is failing at every level. it is failing to protect our sovereignty as you have seen with illegal immigration. it has not improved. protect us failed to abroad. look at the world around us. you have a lunatic in north korea with nuclear weapons. . iran about to receive $150 billion in sanctions relief which they will use to build vessels -- missiles. you have a gangster in moscow threatening nato and to divide europe and sowing instability in the middle east. you have radical jihadist groups

across multiple continents that are not just threatening neighbors, they are recruiting americans. , you have theeast chinese rapidly expanding their military capabilities, taking over the south china sea, and hacking our computers, stealing our secrets. the private information of americans. in the face of these threats, what are we doing under barack obama? demoralizing and destroying our military with a shortsighted defense cut that doesn't do anything to balance our budget. the sequester doesn't do a thing, because defense bending best spending is not -- is it is the reason why one day we will not be able to live up to the commitment we make to our men and women in uniform which is this, we will never put them , they will have better weapons, better training,

and better information than their adversary. this is a promise we have made to our men and women in uniform and we will not be able to keep that promise if we keep destroying defense spending. when i'm president. [applause] when i'm president, it will be my highest priority to restore our military and ensure it has sufficient funding to confront the challenges of the 21st century. when they come home after taking care of us, we will have a be a system that takes care of veterans. system that takes care of veterans. a system where it someone isn't doing their job they will be able to get fired. i'm proud i passed a law that allows the v.a. secretary to fire executives that are not doing their job. they have only fired one person. when i am president, people will get fired if they don't do their jobs. the other thing is, we need to ensure that the benefits follows

that veterans, not the other way around. [applause] if you are a veteran and if someone there cannot see you in a timely fashion emma you will be able to take benefits to any hospital or provider that can see you and will take upon the payment we need a foreign policy of clarity. it means this. our allies know they can trust us and our adversaries know not to test us. which is the opposite of what we have right now. there is no better example than what's happening in the middle east. there's only one pro-american free enterprise democracy there, israel. have a president that treats the prime minister of israel with less respect than he treats the ayatollah and iran. if i'm president, our allies will know they can rely on us and our adversaries will know not to test us.

if we can do all of this, protect our country from threats, if we can rebuild our economy by making a globally competitive, and if we can make it easier, faster, and cheaper for people to acquire the skills they need to benefit from the new economy, the 21st century will be the greatest era in our history. if we fail, do nothing, you and i will be part of the first generation in history of this country that leaves our children were soft -- worse off than ourselves. i appointed at all these challenges primarily to let you know we can fix them all. here is the truth, this is not news. this nation has always faced great challenges. ours is not the story of a country that had it easy. ours is a story of a nation that for over two centuries has always confront a great challenges and has faced them,

overcome them, and embrace these opportunities. a nation founded out of a great challenge. declare your independence from the most harmful empire and the world, that was a great challenge -- most powerful empire at the time, great challenge. then this was a nation that had to confront a great world war. and a great depression. and the second world war. and the cold war. and the 1960's, where the civil rights era, the vietnam war, lyrical assassinations that happened all seemed to rip the nation at the seams. gain the oand a nation had to do what it had to do. we raise our challenges and embrace opportunities. everyone in this room today inherited from the american second before us not a perfect country, but the best one. and the nation better than what they grew up in. our time has come. now the time has come for this

generation to do its part. that is why this election is important. we can't do that if we just keep electing the same people with the same ideas. we can't do that if we keep promoting the next person in line or the most familiar name what a person the experts tell us we have to vote for. andave to turn the page elevate new leaders with new ideas relevant to the times in which we live. this is what we are being asked to do. this is why support term limits and why i'm running for president. why after four years in the senate i chose not to run for reelection and aspire to the highest office in the land. if we keep electing the same people, nothing will change. when i first ran for the senate for and half years ago, the entire republican establishment in washington, d.c. aligned against me on behalf of my opponent who was the sitting governor of florida. we were successful, obviously.

when i chose to run, some of the same people came out again to tell me it wasn't my turn. that i had to wait in line. i didn't know there was a line. i don't know what we are waiting for. we cannot afford another four years like the last eight. another, the speech i just gave you, i may not be able to give it. it may not be true that we can solve these problems. we may not be able to avoid bidding our children -- avoid leaving our children worse than ourselves. every single one of us in and out of government and politics are called to do our part. some of you have. i can see from your hats and shirts that you are veterans that served in uniform and we are grateful for your service. [applause] i have been blessed with the opportunity to try to do it in public office.

i have always approached it with acknowledgment that america doesn't only a thing -- owe me a thing. i have a debt to america i will never fully repay. for me, it is not just the country i was born in. this is the nation that has changed the history of my family. neither of my parents were born in america. they were born on the island of cuba. the families that weren't rich, powerful, disconnected from privilege. to america in 1956 because it was the one place on earth where people like them, through hard work, had a chance at a better life. my father had a difficult. when he was four days shy of his ninth birthday, his mother passed away. my father had to stop going to school. he would work to the next 70 years of his life. in america, my parents had all sorts of jobs. my mother built aluminum chairs in a factory.

and she was a cashier at a coffee sjhop. then a hotel in miami beach. then she was a made in las vegas and a stock clerk in miami. my father was primarily a bartender. he worked on nights and weekends and holidays. on days i'm sure he didn't feel like working. that wasn't the dream he wanted for himself, he was grateful for his work, but when he was young, he had big dreams because young people do. his dreams became impossible. when they came to america, they found a new dream and purpose. to give us the chance to do the things they never could. they didn't want what happened to them to happen to us. they wanted to make sure all the doors that have closed for them would be open for their children that's why my parents worked so hard, my father in particular. he stayed behind a small portable bar for decades so i could have a chance to be whatever my talent and work with

allow me to be. the journey from behind that portable bar to where i am today, for me, that is the essence of the american dream. it is what makes us a special country and different. it is not just my story, as americans, it is our story. who among us is not just a generation removed? we are all just a generation or two removed from someone who made our future the purpose of their lives. it reminds us that whether or not we remain a special country will be determined by whether or not that journey is still possible for the people trying to make it. that is the great calling of our time. we must want to save the american dream, but we want to expand its what it reaches more people and changes more lives. that future is within our reach. i am here to answer your questions and do what it takes to earn your support and keep it. and encourage you to go out and find more people.

i believe if we can do this together, we won't just change our party, we will change the direction of this country. we will be held to say that our children were left with a country better than our own. and the 21st century wasn't as good as the 20th, it was better. it was a new american century. thank you for the chance to speak to you. i look for to your questions. [applause] thank you very much. let's get started. is there one or two microphones? we have two. please find the young man and young lady with a flag. let them flag you down, i guess. yes sir. >> my question is how did your

faith affect what you do? mr. rubio: in terms of my life for politics? my faith has a huge influence on me. it teaches me to care for the less fortunate. the first thing i learned from my faith is the most important job i have is as husband and father. the most in full until job i will ever have is the 15 through 17 years i have to influence my children. not just by what i say to them but by what they see me do. public service influences me and a lot of different ways. our nation was founded on spiritual principles. the notion we are created eve will -- equal with certain rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. the only reason we have a government is to protect those rights. i believe every human being has god-given rights and the job of the government is to protect. beyond that i would argue that

is one of the reasons i've come to be a strong supporter of free enterprise. it is the only economic and the history of the world where people can achieve the potential even if they aren't born into great wealth and privilege. travel around the world here is what you will find. the more government dominates the economy, the more people influence government at the spencer everyone else. thewill find societies with same rich families and same big companies that dominated those countries decade after decade. only in free enterprise can an employee become an employer. only in free enterprise can someone that is born into a family that isn't poor or connected, through hard work, discipline, self-control, and talent achieve a better life for themselves and maybe put their former boss of the business because you are better. that is why i love free enterprise. the only way to eradicate poverty is to allow people to find better paying jobs.

free enterprise does that better than any other model in the world. my faith has influenced me to care about the less fortunate. i support a safety net. i don't think it works without one. i also know the safety net cannot be a way of life. it cannot become a lifestyle. it has become that for many. my faith teaches me that is not good for the soul or for people or their aspirations. all those reasons i am glad my faith influences my role in government and how i govern myself. [applause] >> what i would like to do is ask you a question. i feel and comfortable saying it. i have watched your speech a couple of times, i haven't heard anything new so i want you to say something new. my question is about new year's spending. you said before and i agree the

government's role is military. you also said you wouldn't cut your mother's social security. two things i really like. i have a hard time balancing the two and that military spending has been cut recently but we are jets, we haveuper multiple hundreds of bases throughout the world. there's a lot of waste in our pentagon spending. raised want taxes to be to pay for government spending at the expense of the younger people that are not in this audience that are going to suffer with a cut in social security. mr. rubio: the me begin by saying defense spending is not the reason we have the debt. i agree with you about waste. i don't like it in any program even if it is a small portion of our budget. i do support reforms and we need more competition and defense contracting. many of you in business know this, there's only one bidder on the project and you won't get a

good price. no doubt we need to do a better job. we have to understand the threats this nation faces are significant. economic implications of global instability are greater than they have ever been. this is the most powerful nation on earth, the most important, the largest economy in the world, we are economically impacted by global instability. one thing that helps ensure stability is a strong u.s. military. it prevents war. every time we have cut defense spending significantly we had to cut back and it cost more money. the misunderstanding about the debt, the issue isn't just the sheer amount of dollars we go, it is what it represented as a percentage of our economy. it is too large. think of the economy as a pie and the debt is a slice. today, the debt is as big as the pie. the only way to deal with than amick and sustained

economic growth, that makes the economy bigger, but also reforms our whole line on spending increases in the future. the majority as many increases in the future will come from mandatory spending programs for future generations when they retire, people like me and my children. those programs will not be able to afford us if we do not make reforms on how they work for us. the good news is, if we can make those reforms now, we can bring those mandatory spending programs, the art of the spending, under control. we also have to do the economic growth part of it, sweat talked about how we can grow the economy. separate the debt under a manageable level. if our debt was to chilean -- if it was $2 trillion, not $19 trillion, we would be very happy. our goal is to make the economy bigger and hold the line on the growth and our debt by reforms to the mandatory spending programs. that brings a spending on a art

that is more sustainable and submitted it becomes much more manageable. cutting defense spending has never worked, cutting waste absolutely, but cutting defense spending has never worked, we need to modernize our long-range bomber. one of the key components of our nuclear triad is the ohio class submarines, we still need more those says that you mentioned because cell technology has never mattered more than the -- in the 21st century. we are on track to have the oldest and strongest name -- smallest baby in the country at a time when our potential adversaries is expanding their own -- expanding their own capabilities. thechinese are undergoing most aggressive military expansion and a history of the world. the north koreans possessed dozens of nuclear weapons and a long-range missile that can already hit the united states. the iranians are about to get $150 billion in sanctions relief

, which they will not use to build bridges -- bridges and hospitals. they will use it to build long-range missiles back and hit the united states, and eventually they will use it to build a nuclear weapon or by one. these are real threats, and that of these things i will talk about matter if we are not safe and military component of this is critical. [applause] yes, -- >> while you were in the senate, i looked up and discover that you missed more votes than anybody there, republican or democrat, over 8%. also one last week which had to do with military spending. i want to know what your reason for that. >> i'm here in new hampshire talking to you. i have been in the senate for four years and i am proud to serve the people of florida and the united states. people come to your office, i

have been through a dry food -- drive-through at mcdonald's and a woman came to his -- came to be with a story of her family and i was happy to help. i have veterans with issues at the v.a.. we love doing that very much. i am frustrated, i am in washington, d.c. watching all these problems and nothing is happening. we when the majority in 2014 and still nothing happens. nothing is going to change it was before the right person in the white house that's why i decided to run for president. to run means you will miss votes, everybody who is ever run for president out of the senate has missed votes. i'm not on vacation, i am here talking to you about the future of america and i hope we can be successful in this campaign so we can make a difference so the next time they take votes in the senate, it will not be show votes, both can actually pass and we will have a president that can actually sign things like the keystone pipeline.

[applause] i have four children and middle school and high school and my question is, as president, what would you do to put education back in the hands of parents and local government? , and free uschoice from common for -- common core. all federal institutions in common core would cease and desist. [applause] i support curriculum reform. we did it in florida when i was a speaker of the house. we improved the curriculum at the state level. if you have a problem with this do -- with the school curriculum, you can go see your school board members, the principal, you can go see the legislator. try going to the department of

education, you will find a person to talk to. we don't need a national school board. i don't think we need a department of education at the federal level. [applause] i feel strongly about that as a parent. >> i served in iraq, and i had the pleasure of having a dozen and a half iraqi foreign nationals working for me as translators. these were people who were fully vetted and had no promise of any consideration for getting out of the country if things went south. in the news we see her about refugees out of syria and figuring out what countries are going to take what percentage of refugees who are not that it. as president, would you support policies for someone who put themselves and their families at personal risk to serve without servicemen go to the back of

line and allow people who are not that it to go to the front of the line? >> word gets around. it's unlikely people go quietly into the night. they tell other people, americans the trade me for that americans turned their back on us. it's one of the things that putin is taking advantage of. thatenner that he argued he is using in the middle east is that barack obama is an unreliable guide. us, two weeks and already conducting operations and we are more reliable than america. he is making that argument to iraq, injections, syrians, let me say this. we always accept refugees in this country. we accepted them from vietnam after the fall of south vietnam. not that we don't want to except refugees, it's that in order to accept them, they have

to be vetted and not easy to that someone from syria. you can't just pick up the phone. it's not that we don't want to do it, it's that we may not be able to do it. it may not be possible to that people and we may not be able to accept refugees because of that. the instance that you pointed out, people who have served along our men and women in it is wrong that people like that have been pushed to the back of the line. [applause] i have to say, i have heard you speak several times about climate control and not fighting it because the u.s. can't win the battle alone. introduced aently groundbreaking program to limit

carbon emissions with a cap and trade program. i am wondering, when you are president, what will you do to match their commitment to fighting climate change? >> the chinese is said that in the year 2030, able begin to do some stuff, we will see. they continue to admit more carbon than any other nation on earth. the second point i would make is the climate is always changing. there has never been a time when the climate was unchanged. the debate for me is, what can we do about it? andve people come forward say they want me to pass this law, whatever it may be and i asked them, if we pass this law, how many inches of c rise will prevent? well, it will prevent anything for 150 years. so it won't have a measurable impact on the environment. on the other hand, i asked economists what it will do, they

say will make living in america more expensive, it will make it more difficult for businesses to succeed in america as opposed to somewhere else. i am presented with options that noe deep economic cost, environmental benefit, how is that a good deal for the country? as president, i will not support anything that does nothing but hurt the economy and nothing for the environment. i think the american innovators will help solve a lot of this by making us more energy-efficient. i have no problem in leaving the -- leading the world in solar, wind, and other renewable sources. we will also lead the world in oil and natural gas. we will not emasculate the american economy -- economy and hold us back from it -- economic growth and development. especially when billions of americans are stuck in low-paying jobs. i am not supporting any policies that are better for the economy and did nothing for the environment. [applause]

i don't do this kind of thing and -- >> it's not that bad. >> i noticed you are talking about, having children. you have young children a lot of generation,bout our the ones that count now, the ones whose votes of the coming forward. how do we get better paying jobs? you got us where working paycheck to paycheck, barely making it, working two jobs. we can't get ahead and we don't follow those tax breaks we don't fall into obamacare. now, we areon suffering the most. how is the president -- what is something you can do in the next four years to help us. >> we will have a profamily tax code because for working

families, is more special than ever to raise children. here's the bottom line, we need to create government policy that makes it easier for the private sector to create jobs for you to pay more. that is not happening right now. jobs that pay more are not being created. then obliterate is down to 5%, there are things they're not telling you, the millions of people not even looking for work anymore and the jobs that are being created don't pay enough. you can't live on those jobs. we need to make america the best place in the world create jobs that pay more and what is holding them back, i will tell you. a lot of it is government policies that make it harder to hire people, that make it more extensive to hire people. obamacare makes it more expensive to hire people, and more spencer to pay the more so they don't hire more. regulators, especially for small business, makes it more spencer to be in business. for the first time in 35 years we have more businesses dying than starting, that's not good

for job creation. if i invest money in a small business to grow it, i have to take that money back in my taxes over a large number of years as opposed to getting it back right and once. if we had a tax code that said the more and -- the more you invest the less you pay, knowingly hire more people, they would be able to pay the more. that's why we need to reform the tax code. we can't be globally competitive with the most expensive business tax rate on the developed world. we have to make america the best place in the world for the private sector to succeed and in turn, the private sector will create more jobs that pay more. my father was not a business owner. storeed a small grocery for a second and a half. he was largely an employee, he worked as an employee at a hotel. the reason he had a job that paid enough for him to be a will to support his family was somewhat wet access to money risk that money to build that -- risked that might to build that

hotel. when he to get back to a place in our economy were people are incentivized create more sources of employment that pay more so that people can make more money. we have to ensure that our government is not doing anything to make your life more expensive. by passing ridiculous executive orders that make your energy bill go up while your tax -- where at -- while your income is flat. better paying jobs will require more skills than people have right now. i don't know your story, but i would guess that if you are working full-time, you can just drop everything and sit in a classroom for four years. if we can make it easier and cheaper for you to acquire an additional skill through a couple of hours -- two courses online allow you to receive a certificate, suddenly you qualify for a new job that pays more, we have to make easier for you to do that as well to mull -- my policies are designed around that. we want to make america the best

place in the world to make better paying jobs and make it easier for you to acquire the additional skills you need to qualify for those better paying jobs. [applause] >> thank you for coming. my question is on the constitution. five, there is a movement throughout this nation right now to have an article five convention. , disapproveove that it, and if so, why? >> if that's what citizens want, we should do it. make sure we know how it will turn out because if you open up the constitution, you are also opening up the people that want to re-examine the first amendment, people that want to re-examine the second amendment. people that want to re-examine some other fundamental

protections built within. ultimately, there is a provision that exists for citizens to amend their restitution and re-examine it. if citizens want to do that, i will be supportive of it. the same group trying to pass legislation that violates because edition of the same groups that will try to change that violate -- change the constitution. [applause] that president is going to be able to appoint one, maybe two more supreme court justices. what is going to be your criteria for appointing them? >> my criteria for appointing justices, not just supreme court justices, are people that adhere to the constitution. any view the role of appellate judge to apply the constitution, not to creatively manipulated. not to spin it to reach a policy conclusion that they want. we have now reached a point where we have judges basically who believe we have justices, at

least five of the supreme court that believe that their job is to find creative ways to manipulate the constitution to reach a policy outcome that they personally favor. that is not the job of the justices. the job of our justices is to apply the constitution as quickly constructed by the founders and the amendments of followed. the job of the appellate court is to apply the constitution, not too expanded or manipulated. my number one criteria will be this, are you a straight constructionist? do you believe the constitution as written should be lived by and you understand that the only way to change that is through convention or amended process, not a creative judicial decision that spans the reach of the federal government. at the end of the day, that document is a document of limitation. the constitution is a document that limits the power of government. it basically says very straightforward, these are the only powers the federal government has.

if there are not outlined here, the federal government does not have these towers, they belong to the state, local communities and to people and we justices that understand that more than ever. [applause] you.t to thank i would stay longer, the only reason i am to cut it short is because i have to catch airplane. they don't wait for me. the good news is, we will be back in this community and we have enjoyed this tremendously and i will stay around for a few more minutes say hello to you in person and i look forward to seeing you all again. [applause] [greeting and thanks]

>> senator marco rubio run -- rounding up a -- wrapping up a time of meeting in new hampshire. you can see all of this event online at c-span.org. politico writes the last week during a campaign swing through las vegas, marco rubio held a meeting in an office at the venetian. they spent more than $100 million on the looking candidates during 2012. stressed that the magnate had made no decision on who he would support but that the momentum had strongly shipped to the florida senator and endorsement could come at the end of the

month. more road to the white house coverage coming up for you today. 7:00 p.m. eastern, jeb bush is also in new hampshire in concord. that is live on c-span and live 8:30, of the clinton holding a rally in las vegas -- hillary clinton holding a rally in las vegas. on c-span2, road to the white house coverage continues in richmond. thou trump is there for a rally at the speedway and our coverage on c-span2 starts at 6:30 eastern. all caps a long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. every campaign event we cover is available on our website, at c-span.org. tonight, journalist was ari bihari talks about his jailing

and imprisonment by the erotic government -- by the he romney -- irani government. here is some of that. when i was in prison and being interrogated, my -- became my muse. when i got to prison, i saw -- d guards in 10 days and i decided to write a book and every time it was saying something stupid or he was making a presumption about my life or life in the west, i would say -- [laughter] basically, he did not have any other human contact