and that's -- there's no doubt when the vice president has talked about this issue, it's been incredibly powerful. >> we'll break away from the briefing for just a moment, the house is coming in for what we expect will be a short session. back later for legislative business at 6:30. the speaker pro tempore:s how the -- the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. lord, you know there are many americans who look to the people's house as uncertainty about the future of the economy and our nation's debt hang in the balance. as well, leadership in this assembly is being considered and will be determined in this coming week. we ask that you bless the members of the people's house with the -- discernment in

these trying times. we ask again that you impel those who possess power here to be mindful of those whom they represent who possess little or no power and whose lives might become all the more difficult by a failure to work out serious differences. may all that is done today be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by scombrafment maryland, mr. hoyer -- the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: 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. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute

speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina eek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the national defense authorization act, ndaa, is bipartisan legislation that our nation has depended upon for decades to support our service members and military families. in its entire history the ndaa has been vetoed only four times. by vetoing it last week, the president has made history. and as "the washington post" has identified, quote, not in a good way, end of quote. i am grateful for the leadership of the house armed services committee, chairman thornberry, and senate armed services committee, senator john mccain. as congress worked to fulfill its highest constitutional duty, to provide for our common defense, to protect american families from attacks, with worldwide conflicts at record

levels. as a grateful father of four sons currently serving in the military, and as a 31-year army veteran myself, i know firsthand of the importance of the ndaa to promote peace through strength. the ndaa is and always has been bipartisan legislation because the safety for american families is more important than partisan politics. i encourage all members of congress to unite on voting to override the president's veto. in conclusion, god bless our troops and the president by his actions must never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 26, 2015, at 1:17 p.m.

that the senate passed senate 1493. with best wished i am, signed, incerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12 ha of rule 1, the -- 12-a of rule by passing the normal committee process. later this week, a federal measure to re-authorize transit programs through november 20 and legislation that aims to protect etail customers. this week, the house elects a new speaker after john boehner

announced his retirement in hate september. paul ryan is running for the position. on wednesday, the republican conference will vote on his candidacy. if he received the support, it will be a full floor vote on thursday. if elected, paul ryan will become the 54th person to serve as speaker of the house and the first from wisconsin. we take you back live to the white house. josh has been briefing reporters. we continue live here on c-span josh: noted isil leader off the battlefield and to exploit significant intelligence assets there. there was a raid the president ordered last year inside of syria where the united states put boots on the ground inside syria to try to rescue american hostages that were being held by isil. that was a dangerous swoigs and looked a lot like combat. i think the point is that, yes, our military personnel are going to encounter risk when they are

in iraq. even in the course of carrying out a train advise and assist mission. i think we are trying to go to great lengths to help the american people, world, and iraqi people understand this is a marketedly different mission than our men and women in uniform were given in 2003. reporter: i guess i'm trying to understand the reticence to use frequently the idea that combat operations are part of this potential mission. you seem and the pentagon seemed resistent to acknowledge what is becoming increasingly clear. that there is a combat component to what we are engaged in trying to accomplish in both countries. josh: what we are trying to dorks we are not trying to resist anything. i think we are trying to be as clear as we can be about what exactly their mission responsibilities are. without in any way diminishing the amount of risk that they are sustaining or amount of courage

that they are demonstrating and carrying out the mission that president obama has given them. reporter: on the question of endorsement, you said and erica said the president will have a primary vote. is that the only way in which -- he will do this privately, express his preference. he will wait in the nomination process runs its course? or do you envision and the president envision announcing something before then? or can you tell us definitively he'll say nothing until the primary process and nominating process has run its course? josh: as of right now there is no plan for the president to make any sort of public endorsement in advance of his -- in advance of casting a ballot. even once he's cast a ballot, there is no specific plan for him to make that ballot public. but as the race moves forward, we'll keep you apprised about the president's desire to express his own preference in the race. right now the president believes it's important for democrats across the country to evaluate the different candidates and

eventually make a decision about who they believe should be the party standard-bearer in the next presidential election. reporter: he may acknowledge reality once it's clear but not put his thumb on the scale? josh: i think he'll always reserve that right. to weigh in publicly. at this point there is no plan to do that. reporter: for the budget deal, is the the focus entirely on raising the debt ceiling and getting a sequester resolved? are there any other issues in which you are willing or able or currently negotiating? or is this a very -- without -- just asking that. josh: i'm not going to get into a lot of the details. let me clarify a couple things. raising the debt limit is not in any way part of the negotiations. that is not something that's potentially that is an option but not being negotiated right now. we are not going to negotiate about whether or not congress should raise the debt ceiling.

they can pass it in a stand alone vehicle if they would like. they can attach it to something else that they could pass if they like. either way they have to get it done by november 3 which i believe is the date the secretary of the treasury indicated they would run out of essentially borrowing authority. the fiscal year ended almost a month ago now and the president agreed to sign a continuing resolution through december 11. but the president made clear he wasn't going to sign another continuing resolution like that. december 11 should give congress ample time to find bipartisan common ground and keep the budget of the united states government funded. reporter: to follow up on josh's original question. can you say definitively that

overcease contingency operations and the flexibility they provide will not be used as a mechanism to fund increased defense spending or increased -- is your position it's a gimmick if republicans are using it for things they want but it's not a gimmick if we find way to use it for things we both want? josh: it is the position of this administration, a view shared by mr. huelskamp from kansas, that the -- to a point. i think even in principle, i think we have this position for different reasons. but the principle is one that i think we both adhere to, which is that the reason republicans are seeking to exploit this o.c.o. loophole is because they don't want to adhere to the budget caps. mr. huelskamp believes we should adhere to the budget camps, even to the detriment of our national security. the administration takes a different position. we believe that congress should take the affirmative step of aising those sequester caps.

military personnel can engage in the kind of midterm and long-term planning i think we all would acknowledge is prudent and in the best interest of our national security. reporter: not going to be used either for domestic or defense? josh: we made clear what our principle is. this is something that -- this is something we have made clear as our principle in the context of these ongoing negotiations. reporter: are you saying the president would veto it if it came with any overseas contingency operations, financing on either side of the ledger? josh: i didn't come prepared to offer any veto threats today. what i tried to describe is to help all of you understand exactly why the president's so strongly opposed to this

gimmick. there are republicans who oppose this gimmick as well. and our view is that a responsible budget approach would include direct consideration of raising the caps and not using some sort of accounting gimmick to evade them. reporter: thanks. pentagon officials have been insistent that the mission to rescue the prisoners that claimed the life of master sergeant willard not an example of mission greenspan. do you stand by that? if so why? josh: yes, i stand by that. the reason simply is the approach the president has taken isimplementing this strategy to look for opportunities to capitalize on those elements of our strategy that have been particularly successful. one example is something the department of defense announced a couple weeks ago which is a decision to increase the amount of support that the united

states is providing to some elements of the syrian moderate opposition. particularly those elements in northeastern syria. we have done that because we saw that the preliminary support that we provided to them was support that they used to make important gains against isil in northeastern syria. the president sort of looking at this broader strategy that we have identified this as an element of our strategy that's worked particularly well. and so his team has worked to provide him sop some options to -- some options to essentially ramp up that element of the strategy. another thing that we have found to useful is our efforts build up the capacity and performance of some iraqi security forces, including peshmerga forces. we have seen those peshmerga

forces demonstrate important capabilities, and they have taken actions with the advice and assistance of u.s. military personnel in a variety of ways. so what you saw in the carrying out of this specific operation s an effort to capitalize on our success in advising and assisting peshmerga forces to carry out operations. again, this isn't an example of mission creep as much as it is an example of the administration taking a look at our strategy and trying to capitalize on those elements of the strategy that have been particularly successful. reporter: given the scope of that particular mission, given the fact the first ground engagement if you want to use the word combat or don't, since 2014, is this not a ramping up of military engagement there? josh: well, kristen, described some other operations in iraq and in syria previously.

the mission to try to rescue american hostages. the mission to take one isil leader off the battlefield. those are a couple of examples of missions where u.s. military personnel did put themselves at eat risk to try to further high priority objective. this situation is a little different because this is a mission that was carried out by iraqi peshmerga forces. they did that with the support of u.s. military personnel who, given the way that the operation unfolded, moved in to provide some direct assistance to these iraqi fighters. so, again, i think this reflects on the part ness of the military to carry out operations in pursuit of our broader goal that does result in our military personnel being in

very dangerous situations. again, i think that's why we have been quite candid about the amount of risk our military personnel are encountering. and not thinking to diminish it in any way, rather seeking to help the american people understand exactly what our strategy is to ultimately destroy isil. reporter: i want to get your take on the president's take of recent comments by the f.b.i. director. he seemed to suggest that he believed there is something to the so-called ferguson effect. that he believes that part of the explanation for an increase in violent crime may be because you have police officers who are hesitant to engage. what is the president's take on that? does he think it was appropriate for him to make those comments? josh: i haven't spoken to the president about it. and i don't know if the director has communicated those views to the president directly. i will say that the available evidence at this point does not support the notion that law enforcement officers around the country are shying away from

fulfilling their responsibilities. on the contrary, i think you have seen a lot of local law enforcement leaders indicate that police officers and sheriffs and other local law enforcement officials are actually dedicated public servants who, on a daily basis, are putting their lives on the line to serve and protect the communities that they are assigned to. reporter: sounds like this white house disagrees with the characterization by the f.b.i. director. josh: again, i think what i'm merely citing to you is the fact that the evidence that we have seen so far doesn't support the contention that law enforcement officials are somehow shirking their responsibility. in fact, you hear law enforcement leaders across the country indicating that that's not what's taking place. so what this administration is, however, concerned about is making sure that in those communities where there has been an uptick in violence and crime that this is something that

merits serious consideration. that's not something that we are seeing in every community across the country. but there are some communities that are dealing with a serious uptick. i know even here in the district of columbia that there have been meetings convened to try to assess exactly what can be done violence.at uptick in it's something that local law enforcement officials take quite seriously. they can count on the support from the obama administration and the f.b.i. as they consider the range of responses to address any increase in violence in their communities. reporter: finally, josh, the last time the president actually weighed in on the black lives matter movement, and i was wondering why did he feel it was important to weigh in? can we expect to see more of that? will he try to meet with them? josh: i don't have any meetings to announce to this point. the president, however, himself

acknowledged that in the task force on 21st century policing that he convened, it included some activists as well as leaders in law enforcement. and as the president said in his comments, by assuming the best in people, that we can sit around the table and try to come up with some solutions that are in the best interest of law enforcement. that are in the best interest of communities across the country, and the results would actually lead to lower crime rates, which is a goal we all share. i don't know of any additional meetings the president has, but i think his approach to this is one that is consistent with somebody who is seeking an honest answer to a legitimate problem. julie. reporter: can i follow up on hat as well. he rejected the term and said he

didn't feel like that was something that has contributed to the problem in our society and the ways that the president has talked about it. the 1980's and 1990's. do you think that was something that has actually been a crisis. i wonder if the president heard that portion of the speech and what he thought about it. and whether he agreed with what mr. cummings seemed to be suggestioning which was the incarceration of many people in that era had actually promoted safety in a lot of his communities and has contributed to a fall in crime. josh: i haven't had this direct conversation with the president, but what i can tell you is what the president's focused on right now is making sure we have a criminal justice system that works for the united states in the 21st crentry. -- century. maybe there is an academic discussion that can be had about the impact of sentencing policies in the 1980's and

1990's. the justice system and the way it's applied it's having on communities across the country here in 2015. the fact is there have been legitimate concerns that have been raised about the way that these policies have been implemented in communities across the country. that has had been impact on crime rates, but it's also had an impact on the perceptions of fairness and justice in the united states. these are values that are critical to the success of our country. reporter: the f.b.i. director seemed to push back on the idea that mass incarceration was a phenomenon to begin with. was a problem that contributed -- josh: again. there will be -- i think what the president has been focused on is building bipartisan support. in an era of congressional action that not characterized by a lot of bipartisanship, we have seen democrats and republicans step up in the united states senate and offer up a piece of legislation that would address some of these challenges.

i can speak to the range of director's views on these topics, but i can surely confirm for you that the president's committed to working in bipartisan fashion to try to address some of these problems that have been raised. he's been pleased so far by the reception he's received. reporter: he does believe it is a problem? josh: i think he --i think the president certainly does believe there are certain elements of our criminal justice system that are not serving the country and communities all across the country very well. that after all is what the president believes should precipive some needed reforms that would have the effect of making our community safer. reporter: on the budget, can you characterize what kind of progress has been made? i know you said you -- when you say nothing's agreed to until everything's agreed to. right now nothing is agreed to. that makes it sound like some things have gotten closer than they were when you started these discussions the.

can you give us a sense whether things are moving along in a way you think might be a deal before the deadline? josh: i think what i would just say is that these are negotiation that is have been taking place -- negotiations that have been taking place over the last several weeks. it's fair for you to assume that the conversations wouldn't continue if no progress was being made. but at this point i wouldn't characterize the amount of progress that's being made pry hairly because there are no agreements that have been reached. i think what we have found is that there actually are democrats and republicans on capitol hill that are interested in having a constructive discussion in this regard. but we are -- we do not at this point have an agreement to announce. reporter: can you give us -- can you shed any light on the president's visit to the metropolitan club earlier today? he strolled across to the restaurant, did whatever he did?

josh: he was relaxed? reporter: he was pretty happy. can you give us a sense what was the nature of that visit? did he make public remarks? josh: the president did attend a least a included at couple dozen former united states senators. i believe this was a group that was organized by two former senate democratic leaders, tom daschle and george mitchell. and this was an opportunity for those senators to get together in a social setting and enjoy lunch. they invited the president to attend because it's right across the street. the president went over there to see some old friends and to ngage in some socializing. the plan when the president walked over there was not make any sort of formal remarks. i haven't gotten detailed

readout of his visit. but the plan was for the president to walk over there and shake hands and visit with friends. april. reporter: i want to follow-up on kristen and blackwatch but move in a different direction. tomorrow the president addresses the international association of chiefs of police. the largest gathering of police. this is coming just days after chris christie made his statement president obama is supporting the lawlessness by not supporting justifying black lives matter. what do you say about that as the president is meeting police officers, whom some are still upset about some of the comments from this podium and from other people in the black community as it comes to black lives matter. josh: i think the president covered this in his interview. i refer you to his remarks as it relates to governor christie. i think we all have a reason to

think he would say something outrageous about the president. he's probably hopeful it will boost his ratings in the republican presidential primary. it might. i think that's why you find me not taking them particularly seriously. reporter: i hear you loud and clear when you say political. but doesn't it come at a bad time? as the president -- josh: no. i don't think i'm the only one that doesn't take it very seriously. reporter: what can you tell us about the president's meeting this morning with teachers and secretary duncan? josh: i did get a readout of that gathering. let me see if i can pull it out for you. the president did have the opportunity in the oval office today to meet with teachers and representatives of states and school districts to discuss their shared efforts to reduce the amount of time students spend on redundant or low quality tests while ensuring teachers and parents have the information they need to measure student progress. the president led a discussion

about how the federal government can be a good partner with states, districts, and teachers in assessing student learning in a smeart way. many of you probably saw the facebook video that the president released over the weekend where he raised his concerns about the amount of testing to which our students are subjected. the president acknowledged that there is more that the frl government could do to make sure there isn't too much emphasis on testing. being able to measure students' progress in the classroom is important. and we do need tests. we also need to make sure that students aren't spending too much time focused on those tests. there are a variety of ways to measure student progress. there are a variety of ways to that progress. but most importantly, there are more important ways for our students to learn than just by filling in a bubble. assuming that students still do that. i might be dating myself unwittingly there.

i think the point the president s making is something that school districts and teachers and parents welcome. reporter: this is a change in approach. how long has it been in the works and are you going to try to incorporate this attitude in the legislation on the hill that's still being negotiated? josh: i actually think it is accurate for you to say it has been a long-standing principle of the administration. that it's important for us to measure student progress. but the president has always made the case that standardized testing is not the only way to evaluate student progress. and that an overly time consuming focus on standardized testing is not the best way to ensure that our students are getting a good education. so i think those principles in general are principles that the

president has long championed. i would acknowledge the president believes there is more that we can and should do even as the federal government is a partner to these local school districts as they try to tackle this problem. reporter: how does that relate to legislation on the hill? josh: the president is in the context that have video made clear that he believes that education legislation would be an appropriate venue for steps to be taken to try to reduce the amount of time currently spent on testing inside the classrooms while still protecting the ability of administrators to evaluate student progress. reporter: is it something you're going to insist on? josh: the president's made a pretty forceful case about why that's the best approach. again this is something that democrats and republicans on capitol hill will have to consider. i will say that i think this is the kind -- that this principle

is one that democrats and republicans should be able to agree on. but i said that about other things that didn't make much progress on capitol hill. kevin. reporter: i want to ask you about the word mission again. i want to make sure i'm understanding you. is it the administration's position that any mission by its very nature would not be engaging in a combat mission moving forward? josh: i think, kevin, the president has been quite clear about what exactly our strategy is inside of iraq and in syria. this is a strategy with many components that includes everything from shutting down the flow of foreign fighters to try to counter isil's ability to finance their efforts, but it also includes the military component. that military component is focused on building up the capacity of local fighters, both in iraq and syria, to take the fight to isil on the ground. and the united states and our coalition partners have unique capabilities, including

airpower, to support those ongoing efforts on the ground. the president has made clear that in terms of the fight on the ground this is not a fight that the united states can fight for them. and in iraq we have forces operating under the command and control of the iraqi central government that we can support as they take the fight to highsle. inside of syria, the situation is a little bit more difficult because there is not a central government that is focused on fighting isil. and that means that the united states and our coalition partners have looked for ways to try to support moderate elements of the syrian opposition to take that fight to isil and at least in some isolated cases, particularly in northern and northeastern syria, those forces have made progress thanks in no small part they received from the united states government. both in temples some equipment that they have received, but also in terms of some air strikes that have been carried out in advance of their operations that have made their ground operations more successful.

that long explanation is necessary because it helps to differentiate between the train, advise, and assist mission that our military personnel are rrently undertaking from the long-term, sustained ground combat operations that u.s. military personnel were involved in starting in 2003 and going ll the way up to 2010 or 2011. so the reason that we have -- describing this approach may not lend itself to a reasonably sized bumper sticker, but i do think it is important for people to understand precisely exactly what our men and women are doing inside of iraq. now, let me just end by saying this, this explanation is in no way intended to diminish the service and bravery and

professionalism and skill of our men and women in uniform. it also means that our men and women in uniform on some occasions are going to encounter very dangerous situations. in the case of master sergeant wheeler, it cost him his life. diminishing his contribution to our country's safety and security. certainly no diminishing his sacrifice. but he was part of a different mission than military operations that were carried out under the orders of president bush in 2003 and 2004. reporter: is there video of that rescue and raid? josh: you do know that some kurdish officials have released some footage of the -- from i believe one of the helmet cameras that was worn by a kurdish peshmerga iraqi fighter.

i know that some of that has been released already. reporter: is it your view, is the president's view that that is video that should be widely consumed? what's your reaction to the fact that it is out there? video his is obviously that was leased by kurdish officials. this is video that was essentially collected by a peshmerga iraqi fighter. so that's a decision for them to make. i think that what they were illustrate, it seems, is the capacity and professionalism of those peshmerga fighters. they are operating in a dangerous situation themselves, and they were carrying out an operation that resulted in the rescue of, i believe, 70 or so prisoners, including 20 members of the iraqi security forces. this is an operation that resulted in five isil terrorists

eing detained by iraqis. and a number of other isil fighters being killed. in addition, the united states recovered important against -- intelligence materials and assets about isil, and after the operation was completed, there was an air strike against this isil facility that destroyed it. so i think this is a testament to what was accomplished in the course of this particular mission. and accomplished by peshmerga iraqi fighters with the important and some cases necessary support of the united states military. reporter: couple quick ones. i'm reaching out to the pentagon through my colleagues on this one. the navy, according to reuters, is sending war ships within 12 nautical miles of the unofficial islands built by china in the south china sea, sometime in the next 24 hours.

what is the white house's reaction? why wouldn't the chinese consider this a provocative action? josh: well, kevin, for those kind of operational matters the department of defense is the right place to check. let me just discuss the policy principle at stake here. without confirming any sort of operational decisions being made. the president actually when he was standing next to president chi in the rose garden indicated the united states was -- would operate, fly, or sail anywhere the international law allows. that certainly includes the ability of our navy to operate in international waters. this is a critically important principle, particularly in the south china sea, because there are billions of dollars of commerce that flow through that region of the world every year.

maybe even more than that. ensuring the free flow of this commerce and that freedom of navigation of those vessels is protected is critically important to the global economy. that's the principle that's at stake here. for any sort of operational updates, i would refer you to the department of defense. reporter: last one. is it your plan, i know you haven't announced anything specifically, should we expect secretary lou to come here in the coming days? josh: he just works next door. reporter: we'd love to have him here. we have questions, obviously, and i think from this vantage point it would be easier than talk down pennsylvania. josh: we'll consider t i know he did an interview with fox business wrn the last week or so. we'll certainly entertain that option. hank you for the invitation. reclaiming my time on chicago tomorrow, the president seemed frustrated about gun control

recently. and been criticized for perhaps giving up any new initiatives. is he going to talk about new initiatives at all tomorrow about gun control? are there any new initiatives about a national gun control initiative from this white house? josh: jim, i think it would be difficult for the president to go and address the gathering of the international association of the chiefs of police. in a city like chicago that has been dealing with a plague of gun violence of late, and not talk about steps we could take to reduce gun violence. so i do think you could expect the president to touch on this. but the focal point of the president's remarks tomorrow will be on some steps that we can take to reform our criminal justice system and try to advance an ongoing bipartisan debate about the best way to do that in a way that's consistent with keeping our communities safe. the president's view as has been

articulated by him on a number f occasions is that they are locking up a large number of nonviolent offenders in our prison system for a long period of time is not consistent with our goal of trying to reduce crime. so that's a point the president will make again. as it relates to our efforts to utsue steps to gep keep guns out of the hands who shouldn't have them, i don't have an update for you on the administration's ongoing efforts to scrub the law as the president described it to see what sort of authority he may have to try to implement some of those clutions. we already know some of the things congress could do. those are commonsense things that would make our community safer. make gun violence at least a little less likely by keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. we can do all of that without undermining the basic constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. these are measures that are so

common sense that majority of americans support them. majority of democrats, majority of republicans, even a majority of gun owners support them. but we haven't seen congress take the action we'd like to see. reporter: the president's hometown, a place where i worked for nearly 30 years, is, in -- ,, often used as a evidence against gun control because of the -- very strict gun control laws. is the president frustrated by the fact that people can go outside the city limits and buy guns? does he want to do and will he still try to do something about that before he leaves office? josh: as you point out, jim, i think the city of chicago is a good illustration for why allowing local jurisdictions to put in place these gun safety laws doesn't work. because it's too easy for those with bad intentions to just cross the city line or cross the unty line to go and make a

handgun purchase that they are prevented from making in some other jurisdictions. often somebody who is seeking to evade gun laws like that is somebody that probably shouldn't have a gun in the first place. this is somebody with a criminal record, somebody who may be the subject of restraining order, or maybe even somebody with a mental problem. chicago ends up being a pretty good illustration for why those kind of national laws are important to the safety of communities all across the country. reporter: if i could, on the issue of abortion that dr. ben carson brought up over the weekend, he said that he likened it to slavery. was wondering if the president heard those comments and has any comments himself on that? josh: i haven't spoken to the president about this. i think i sort of put this in a similar category as the comments rom governor christie.

we can ask the president about it, if he wants to weigh in he will. reporter: you talked about criminal justice reform. obviously this is something the president is pushing for. wonder if you could lay out what the president has been doing towards the legislation as being under consideration and also there are some democrats who have raised concerns about the senate judiciary committee bill was the way by expanding which extenders are eligible for mandatory minimums there is some concern that it won't reduce the kind of mass incarceration the president has criticized. could you talk about that. josh: i think what we have seen is a good start by democrats and republicans in the senate to try to come together around a set of principles that we believe would be in the best interest of a fairer criminal justice system. but also safer communities across the country.

some of the principle that is are included in the bill would reduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. would provide current prisoners the tools and incentives they need to turn their lives around. there's also proposals in there to give nonviolent skwlufe nile -- juvenile offenders a second chance and reform of the juvenile justice system in this country is also priority of the president's. and the benefit of these proposals, there are many, one of them is that it would yield some savings for the government who pays a lot of money to a lot of people. by reforming some of those guidelines, you could save money and actually invest that funding in some proposals that would actually contribute to public safety. those are broad set of principles.

they have gotten strong bipartisan support. i think the president would be the first one to acknowledge that we are still in the early stages of this. there will be both a debate on the floor of the united states senate and also have to be a similar process in the house of representatives. but i think the president is convinced that if we continue to pursue these policy priorities in bipartisan fashion, that we are much more likely to yield both a positive result but also, most importantly, a result that can actually be signed into law by the president of the united states and implemented to make our criminal justice system more fair. reporter: how optimistic at this point is the white house that criminal justice reform law will come to the president's desk? josh: we have a long way to go. making prediction abouts bipartisanship on capitol hill -- about bipartisanship on capitol hill are not usually good bets. i think most observers would say that this crimes in a justice

reform debate is off to an unusually good start. and we have seen a genuine commitment on the part of democrats and republicans to try to work together and identify some common ground. there actually is common ground to be seized here. we are hopeful that democrats and republicans will be able to seize it and advance it. swrrks c., last one. reporter: how closely is the white house following the elections that took place yesterday in ukraine? especially the fact that although the initial reports from international observers is that they are pretty much moving on their way to democratic process, they have not totally complied, needless to say, with the minks agreements because there are areas in ukraine where citizens have not been able to practice their franchise. josh: do i have a statement on this. the united states congratulates the people of ukraine for exercising their vote in the local elections. according to initial reports, these elections largely

reflected the will of the ukrainian people and generally respected the democratic process. there are 132 political parties and many government and civil society groups participated in pre-election preparations and election day observation that contributed to a largely successful election day. the local elections are an important step as ukraine moves forward with difficult reforms to decentralize political power, and we look forward to a second successful round on november 15 in which a single candidate did not achieve a majority yesterday. we do hope that citizens living in the conflict zone internally displaced persons and refugees will soon have the opportunity to exercise their right to choose their leaders. we call upon russia and the except pra 'tis to negotiate in good faith and political working group, selections can take place in separatist controlled areas as soon as possible. thanks a lot, everybody.

>> the house will take up a discharge pe significance to allow the house to consider a bill that would re-authorize the ex-port import bank. it would bypass the normal committee process. later on this week in the house, we expect them to take up a measure re-authorizing federal highway and transit programs through november 20. and legislation that aims to protect retail customers. and this week the house selects a new speaker. after current speaker john boehner announced his retirement in late september, wisconsin congressman and ways and means chair paul ryan is running for the position. on wednesday the republican conference plans to vote on his candidacy. if he receives the support, there will be a full floor vote

this thursday. if elected paul ryan would become the 54th person to serve as speaker of the house and the first from wisconsin. there is news this afternoon that congressional leaders are nearing a deal on a two-year budget agreement that would increase millary and domestic spending in exchange for long-term spending cuts on social security and medicare. nothing yet, but tweets saying the house sources suggest there is no final deal but hopeful something comes together to file tonight in the house. the house, by the way, comes back at 6:30. ear tweets suggest that the two-year budget deal will include a clean suspension of the debt limit until 2017. jake sherman from politico tweets as of now it would increase defense and domestic smending by $50 billion next year. $30 billion the following year. eric watson from the hill tweets, the emerging budget deal does not address exim. that will happen, indeed, when the house comes back tonight at

6:30. we'll update you as soon as we find out more information. >> tonight on the communicators, republican representative from tennessee, marsha blackburn, vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, talks about cybersecurity and data breach legislation. she's joined by john mckenen, technology reporter for the "wall street journal." >> as individuals become subjected to these breaches, many people v. they have come to realize it's not if you have your data breach, it is when is your data going to be breached. so having a federal standard and exercising some preemption and setting a period of time, a framework of time, that companies have to conduct that information, and then to inform consumers and set penalties for enforcement, those are appropriate steps that should be taken, and they are the steps that are covered in the data

security legislation that we have worked on at energy and commerce committee. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators, on c-span2. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by congress on an economic issue like health care at least -- >> the case is lochner whether a majority rule, state legislature, can take away your life and liberty without due process. the court rules, no. i think it's a wonderful decision. >> this week on c-span's landmark cases, we look at lochner vs. new york. in 1995, the u.s. legislature

restricted the baking employees to 10 house per day tore 60 hours per day. the bakery owner violated that law and was fined $50 t refusing to pay he, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. find out why lochner is one of the most controversial decisions in supreme court history as we explore this case with our guest, randy barnett, professor of constitutional law at georgetown university law center and author of the book "restoring the lost constitution." and paul ken, political science professor at texas state university and author of "lochner v. new york" landmark cases, live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and -span radio. >> c-span's road to the white house coverage continues now with remarks from republican presidential candidate, carly firoina. she spoke friday to supporters on the economy, persecution of christians, and hillary clinton's appearance before the house select committee on

benghazi. from south carolina, this is 50 minutes. ms. firoina: thank you so much. great to be here back in something sfpblgt thank you for that wonderful introduction. thank you, children, for the pledge of allegiance, you did so well. how many of you watched the benghazi hearings a little bit? clinton se hillary continues not to answer the fundamental question, which is, since she clearly knew that this was a purposeful terrorist attack on the night that it was going on, why did she get up the next day and address the person people and talk about a videotape that did not represent our values, and why did she continue to talk about that for many days and weeks to come? in a way i think those hearings as admirable a job as trey gowdy d. he has done an admirable job

leading that effort, your own mrs.gowdy, it's clear that clinton will not be held accountable. for her actions there or elsewhere until an unless we have a nominee who is prepared to hold her to account. during a general election debate. [applause] now, maybe some of you haven't quite decided if you're ready to support me or not, but every one of you i know in your heart of hearts cannot wait to see me debate hillary clinton. [applause] there is only one way that happens, folks, there is only one way that happens. i do occasionally feel a certain amount of empathy for hillary clinton. as i have said publicly on other occasions because there are things that are different about

running for president as a woman. for example, early on in my campaign i was asked on a saturday morning television show, national television, whether i thought that a woman's hormones prevent her from serving in the oval office. my answer was, gee, can we think of a single instance in which a man's judgment might have been clouded by his hormones? [applause] there are many differences between hillary clinton and i. and one of the main ones is this. i will never ask for your vote because i am a woman, although i'm proud to be one. i will ask for your vote and your support and your prayers because i believe i am the most qualified candidate to win this job and to do this job. [applause]

when i launched my candy say way back in may nobody gave me a chafpblets knows voters never heard of me, i never held elected office, nobody gave me a chance. i reminded george stephanopoulos this morning on good morning good morning -- "good morning america." i was on his show. during the august 6 debate i wasn't even on the main stage. the cnn debate in september i had to fight my way on the stage. by the way shannon helped me with that fight tremendously, as did many of you. thank you so much. [applause] in the debate next week i'm number four. so i'm feeling pretty good. we have come a long way. [applause] the truth is i'm stim introducing myself to the american people. it is still true that next week during that debate, 40% of

republican voters don't know who i am. and they still don't know that i'm running for president. so allow me to take a moment, if i may, before i talk about what's at stake in our nation, to just introduce myself a bit to you. i won't make this too long, but i must start when i was a little girl i was in church on a sunday morning. my mother was my sunday school teacher that year. and she looked at me and she said to me and the rest of her sunday school students, what you are is god's gift to you. what you make of yourself is your gift to god. and those words have stayed with me all my life. perhaps because as that little girl or even as a young woman i didn't feel particularly gifted. and her words were a promise that i had gifts and a challenge to find and use those gifts. i would learn conservatism literally at my dad's knee. i adored my father and i would sit at his knees and watch him watch the news every night when he came home from work. i would watch him yell at walter conkite.

-- cronkite. and i would ask him why. he would explain. the next morning i would sit at the breakfast table and watch him yell at the "new york times." and i would ask him why. from both my mother and father, i learned that there is no substitute for hard work. that there is dignity in all work if done with excellence. that family brings purpose to our lives. and faith brings meaning to our lives. that values are what guide your behavior when no one's looking and you don't think anyone's ever going to find out. in the end your reputation and your integrity are the most precious assets you have. fast forward i would start my career in the middle of a deep rescission. typing and filing and answers the phones for a little nine-person real estate firm. one day two men came up to my desk. they worked in that little nine-person firm. they said you know we have been watching you. we think you can do more than type and file. do you want to know what we do? and that was my introduction to business, literally.

eventually i would get an m.d.a. and go off to work at at&t as an entry-level salesperson. i started in washington, d.c., when at&t used to be the bell system. a million employees. some you may remember that. it was there i met my husband, frank, about 34 years ago. we have been married over 30 years. he brought with him two little girls. tracy and lawrie. and they have been an enormous blessing to me for so many reasons. including that i was not able to have children of my own. today we have two granddaughters, cara and morgan. we have had, like all families, we have been very blessed, frank and i. we have had good times and we have had hard times. you heard from shannon, i battled cancer and the love of my family and the power of my faith saw me through that. my faith in my family saw us through the tough times of bearing lawrie when she was taken by the demons of addiction. i have been all over the world.

i have lived and worked and traveled all over the world. and i am keenly aware that it is only in this nation that a young woman can start out the way i did, in the middle of a deep recession, typing and filing, go on one day to become the chief executive of what we turned into the largest technology company in the world, and run for the presidency of the united states. that is only possible here. [applause] and i think it is worth asking why. the why. the reason more things are possible here than anywhere else on earth. because i think it is forgetting forgetting the why that we go the wrong direction.

and i think our nation is in a pivotal point. my mother was right. everybody has gifts. everyone has potential, far more than they realize. and yet, more things have been more possible for more people here because our founders knew what my mother taught me. our founders knew that everyone has potential, god-given gifts. and in this nation, you have a right -- it was quite a radical idea at the time -- a right to the fill your potential, the use your gift. it is what they meant when they said the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and the really radical part of their idea, which founded a nation, was that this right to fulfill your potential -- to use your god-given gifts -- comes from god. they cannot be taken away by man or government. i started on the journey of onsidering running for president when iran into a man

after speech i had given -- when i ran into a man after speech i had given. he said, you know carly, we don't think of ourselves as a ation of limitless possibilities anymore. that really landed. because when we do not think of ourselves that way, we are losing the core of who we are. we used to know that if something were worth doing, we would figure out how to do t. if it were hard to do, even better. we would pull together and get it done. we just knew that our children and grandchildren's lives were filled with great possibility. we doubt that now. the truth is we have reached the point where the possibility for americans -- the potential for this great nation -- are being crushed a government that has grown so big, so powerful, so costly, so complicated, so in apt -- so inept.

in a country that refuses to do anything about it. those are really harsh words, ladies and gentlemen. but they are what the majority f americans believe. americans are smart. as citizens, we know that something is wrong now. and we know that it is about much more than replacing a d with an r. the system is not working anymore. 75% of american people think the system is corrupt. 82% now think we have a professional political class that cares more about the protection of its own power, position, and privilege than getting anything done. and i agree. my fellow citizens, i think it is time to remember that we were intended to be a citizen government and to take our government back.

[applause] and we need to take our government back because we have festering problems that never gets solved. and never really gets better. we still are not caring for our veterans, those who have served us. how long have we been talking about tax reform? reducing the size of government? securing the border? how long have we been talking about holding people accountable? government has gotten bigger and more complicated, more powerful, more corrupt every year for 50 years. so you see, it is not just bout an r for a d. it is about putting someone in the oval office who is not afraid to challenge the status quo, and who has a track record of producing results in solving

problems. [applause] there are a lot of good people who work hard every day. some of them are politicians. politicians are bad people necessarily. but a lot of politicians are managers, not leaders. there is a big difference between managers and leaders. managers are people who do the best they can within the existing system. they never really challenge the tatus quo. they operate within the system, even if it is broken. and because they operate within the system, instead of trying to fix the system, the kind of tinker around the edges of the problems. leaders are different people. they say i am not going to accept a system because it is broken. they understand that it is

their job to challenge the status quo. a leader's highest calling always is service to others. it is always to unlock potential and others. and the only way that happens is to actually challenge the status quo, solve problems, reduce results. the difference between management and leadership eminds me of something margaret thatcher once aid. i admire her greatly. she once said at a pivotal point in that nation's history, "i am not content to manage the decline of a great civilization." i think we have been managing the decline of this great nation for quite long enough. [applause] i am prepared, though. with your votes and your

support and your prayers, to lead the resurgence of a great nation. [applause] what is it we need to do? we know what we need to do. in order to get our economy growing again, we have to start thinking about small business. and quit protecting big business. the bigger and more powerful government gets, the more powerful the wealthy and ell-connected get. it is called crony capitalism. progressives want you to believe that. [applause] we need to get our small businesses and entrepreneurs growing again. we need to quit interdependence. and we have to encourage, indeed require, that people go to work. because dignity and purpose come from work.

[applause] we have to reform the tax code, quit talking about it and do it. 73,000 pages to 3. that is the question. if something is so collocated that you do not understand it, what is the percentage you are getting taking advantage of? 100%. unless you have all the resources, you are getting taking advantage of. we know that we actually have to know where your money is being spent. we have to go to some zero-based budgeting. hen that be helpful? to actually know. [applause] ask yourself, how is it possible that every year the federal government spends more money and yet never has enough money to do the important things.

yesterday, yesterday, president obama vetoes the national defense authorization act. here is a dangerous time in our world, and basically what he says is, we do not have enough money. not for my priority. how is it that we always spend more money and never have enough? it is always spoken for. that is why we have to go to a system where every single dollar has to be justified every single year. the only way you spend less overall and prioritize what you spend. [applause] we have to hold people accountable in government. no one is ever held accountable and government. not mrs. clinton, not be senior executives of the v.a. who permit over 300,000 veterans to die, not the people in the irs to target conservatives. no one is ever held to account.

and we have to move to a system where there are consequences. [applause] and we also know we have to lead in the world. we have to get our economy growing again. we have to cut government down to size and hold it accountable, and we have to lead in the world. which means that not only do we have to take care of our veterans, those who have served us, because when we do not care for them it is a stain on our honor. but it also means that people feel as though military service is no longer honored and valued. we have a have the strongest military on the planet. everybody has to know it. [applause] and we actually have to send a signal, a really powerful signal, to the world that the united states of america will lead again. [applause]

and on day one in the oval office, i will make two phone calls. i will call netanyahu and tell him that we will stand with the state of israel. always. [applause] and the second will be to the supreme leader of iran. who might not take my call. [laughter] but he will get my message. and the message is, new deal. new deal. [applause] ntil you open every military and every nuclear facility anytime to anywhere inspections, we will make it as difficult as possible for you to move money around the global financial system. we can do that. we don't need permission to do that. and we must do it. because the money, the money is being used to build military capability, nuclear technology,

and to sew murder and mayhem throughout the middle east. with those two phone calls, the message will go out around the orld loud and clear. the united states of america is back in the leadership business. [applause] i am want to finish up here in a minute so i can take your questions. but let me close by saying this, ladies and gentlemen, we must win in 2016. [applause] so think carefully about who can win. i have been tested. and i will not falter, and i will not shrink from this fight, and it will be a fight. but we also have to have somebody to do the job. because the job needs doing now.

and to do the job, it requires a leader to understand how the economy works. so we can get going again. [applause] we need a leader to understand how the world works, and who is in the world? and what our allies and adversaries expect and need from us. that is what our government has become -- a giant, bloated, corrupt bureaucracy. we need someone who understands echnology. because technology is a tool that can be used to reengage citizens once again. it is a tool i will use. but it is being used against us. and perhaps most importantly of all, we need someone who understands what leadership is. all of those many years ago when i was a receptionist, i thought the leader -- a leader -- was someone with a big office and a big parking space. a bunch of perks. and i realized there were

people with big titles were not eading at all. leadership is not about those things. it is not about the size of your office, airplane, ego. it is about challenging the status quo. leadership -- [applause] leadership is about solving problems and producing results. leadership in service to others. and the highest calling of leadership is to unlock potential and others. we now need a leader who will unlock the potential of every american and of this nation. thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen. [applause]

questions? es, sir. queen latifah: thank you for coming here today -- questioner: thank you for coming here today. you mentioned cronyi know it is complicated. capitalism. [inaudible]

ms. fiorina: democrats are worse. we have done it, too. the question was about crony capitalism. first of all, i understand really well. a nine person real estate company cannot understand government. a $90 billion technology company, that's what i ran, can. we could hire the accountants and lawyers and lobbyists. my husband frank and i have been very fortunate. we can hire an accountant. my husband started out as a tow truck driver. in a family-owned auto body shop. that family-owned auto body shop can't handle it. this is the truth we must tell the american people. because the progressives want the american people believe that it is they that care about the small and the power -- powerless. but in truth, the impact and consequence of every one of their policies is to crush the

small and the powerless. why? because when you have some thing is big, complicated, yet to be big, wealthy, and complicated to deal with t. moore, dated the tax code gets, it is true that only the big can deal with it. republicans have been guilty of this, yes. there are a lot of candidates running for president who support subsidies of various kinds. subsidies, tax credits. i do not. i have been very honest. i have gone to iowa and said i know it matters a lot to you to have renewable resources. i support that level playing field. but by 2020, the government should be out of the business of setting prices, guaranteeing prices to markets.

let us give everyone a window to get prepared. but the only way to level the playing field between small and powerless, and big and powerful, is to simplify government dramatically. simplify the tax code, hack through the regulatory thicket and get the government out of picking winners and losers. and that applies to everybody. [applause] this is why challenging the status quo is hard. guess what happens when you decide what happens? when you say the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers? everybody that has benefited from that status quo rushes into protected. it is human nature. it is why change is always ard.

there have been people who benefit from the status quo. companies, individuals, special interests -- every single one of those groups will come in to protect what they have. which is why the power of citizenship is so important. ours was intended to be a citizen government. we cannot take our government back unless, as citizens, we are prepared to participate. limit is user question to say this -- let me use your question to say this. once a week, i will go into the oval office. the president has a weekly radio address. i'm going to ask you to take out your smartphone. anybody still use a flip phone? [laughter] you have to upgrade, sir. you have about 18 months, start

shopping. i will go into my office and ask citizens to take out their smartphones. do you think it is important that we know where your money is being spent? to go to somewhere near zero-based budget. press 1 for yes. do you think that instead of a 73,000 page tax code, maybe it should be 3. press 2 for no. after 50 years of not doing so, should we roll it back? press 1 for yes, 2 for no. by the way, i know that a bunch of you are going to be sitting in their saying "1!" it means we found common ground etween democrats and republicans, men and women, young and old. 75% is a huge majority. we can govern differently.

one last thing on this. why do i say i am so confident? why do i say i'm so confident that the political class response to pressure? because we have evidence of t. i mentioned the v.a. scandal 18 months ago. when we learned that veterans were dying before they got an appointment, the bureaucrats ere cooking the books so we do not find out. the american people were so outraged that congress reacted. and they passed a bipartisan bill in three weeks, demonstrating they can do something. in three weeks, passed a bill that said we can fire the top 400 senior executives. by the way, only one person has been fired because the pressure

do not stay on. and the horrors just keep coming on. it is a proof point. with concerted effort, the political process will move. so go get your new phone. es, sir? uestioner: [inaudible] ms. fiorina: it is hard. o first, we had not undertaken a major reform or rollback of regulation since ronald reagan. that is how long it has been. a can be done -- it can be done. we have a veritable thicket of hings to do.

in the next five years, 256,000 baby boomers will retire out of the federal government. i will not replace a single one. it is a window in time to make a big move. [applause] second, if we go to zero-based budgeting and we establish that every dollar has to be justified, every single year, guess what? there will be a lot of dollars that we should not be spending. what does technology permit us to do? it permits us to put every single one of those budgets out for everybody to see. and there will be things that are outrageous. you need a whole lot less irs agents. if you start to roll back all of the epa regs that this demonstration has put into place, ladies and gentlemen, who are these role makers?

they are bureaucrats. they're not elected by anyone. when we roll it back, and we must, when we do a top to bottom review, we need a lot fewer people. and please be assured that one of the first questions i will ask you is, do you think that bill that got past that allowed us to fire the top 400 senior executives of the v.a. for dereliction of duty, do you believe that process ought to apply? all throughout government. press one for yes, two for no. we get it done by taking advantage of every single person that retires. by making sure that as we

simplify and examine government, that we do not replace. we do it on making sure every time we roll back, the people responsible for administering that are no longer there. and we make sure that there is consequence in the federal government for failure to perform. [applause] questioner: [inaudible] ms. fiorina: the question was about priorities. if the goal is to reduce spending but invest properly, what are they? to strengthen our military and care for those who have already served. let me start by saying that the federal government's priorities need to be those things a are responsible for constitutionally.

for example, the federal overnment is responsible for ecuring our borders. because if we cannot secure our borders, we cannot protect our sovereignty. [applause] that means a big priority has to be to actually make sure we understand who is coming into this country and who is not -- who should not becoming into this country. we have to put a huge priority on fixing the illegal immigration system, which has contributed to this problem for 50 years. what is another responsibility? roads and bridges. guess what? we never have enough money to fix them, we are always asking taxpayers to pay more. we have aging infrastructure. i would not do it by saying you have to have a union contract to get the work. that is how the present

government does it. education is a hugely important priority to the young lady's question. for 50 years, the department of education has gotten bigger under republicans and democrats alike. in fact, it has deteriorated. we have had goals of these centralized education programs to close the achievement gap between low income and high income children. nd that gap is greater now than it was 20 years ago. what can you conclude? that spending money does not have a lot to do with the quality of education. what does? what does? we know the answer to this. what are the two most important things in a child's education?

a good teacher in the classroom and an involved parent document number, or community -- involved parent, community ember. we need to have more power and control in the hands of community and family. when we take away choices, we take away their chances. these wonderful children who stood up and gave the pledge of allegiance are at a charter school. the truth is, every parent should have as many choices as possible. chargers, vouchers, parochial, homeschooling. this is an area where we have to have a fight with the other side. because the other side is totally on the wrong side. but they are also robbing too many children of their chances. emocrats are continuing to

protect and preserve the status quo of the teachers' union. the result is that too many kids are trapped in failing schools. [applause] common core is a really bad idea. it is a version of crony capitalism. textbook companies helped write it. [applause] and testing equips helped write it -- companies helped write it. it is a standardized bureaucratic program to teach teachers how to teach and students how to learn. the reason i say we have to have this fight is because we believe that every child has god-given gifts. that every child wants to learn. that every child can learn. that a child's opportunity to learn prepares them for possibilities later in life. sometimes i tell people, progressives actually believe that.

but they don't, not if you look at the consequence of the policies. i quote the head of the chicago teachers union who took to the microphones in the middle of a strike in chicago. the issue was teacher accountability and she said this. she said, we cannot be help held accountable for performances of students in our classrooms because too many of them are peer and come from broken families. what was she saying? if you're poor and come from a broken family, you can't learn. but never mind. some of us are smarter and better than others and will take care of others. that is not what i believe. that is not what you believe. and that is not the united states of america. [applause]

and if we do away with all of these department of education programs and put the money and resources and the choices and the cap ability and the power back where it belongs -- and the responsibility and the power back where it belongs, we need a whole lot less people in the department of education. [applause] yes, go ahead. you are trying to hand a mic to this nice lady. questioner: you spoke about defense, how specifically would you strengthen the u.s. armed orces? ms. fiorina: first, let me say that in the defense department, i have advised two secretaries. -- secretaries of defense. there is something called the tooth to tail ratio. tooth, fighting men, technology, weapons, material, the tip of the spear, in other words. tail, pentagon bureaucracy. the defense department has been measuring tooth to tail ratios for a long time and we have the worst tooth to tail ratios we've ever had. in order, we don't have enough

at the tip of the spear and we have way too much in the rear of the can boose, right? we have to invest in reform. what does that mean? let me start with the fundamental thing, ladies and government, we must honor, we must value, we must care for, we must listen to the members of our military services. this administration does not. it is pretty clear. that it is important to nderstand how terrible the situation is for so many of our armed services who are out there. i know moms, maybe some of you do too, who have sons and afghanistan. they are not shipping chocolate chip cookies.

they're shipping blankets and pillows and m.r.e.'s. i was watching a young man graduate from the military academy. marines. i watched his family. they had that combination of happiness and sadness, of pride and fear. we have to care for those who serve for us. specifically, however, the army battalions -- we need about 36. we need 440 new naval vessels. the air force is in relatively ood shape. we need to stand with our allies and stand with our adversaries. we have a plan. there is a priority in which this has to be done. i have said that i would talk to netanyahu, the supreme leader of iran. i will not talk to vladimir putin. although i have met him.

i will not speak to him until we are in a position of strength. [applause] right now we speak from weakness. specifically, one the places i will start is rebuilding the fleet under his nose. rebuilding the defense missile program under his nose in oland. and conducting regulatory military exercises in the baltic states. we must impose no-fly zones in syria because the president of russia cannot tell america when and where to fly. [applause] we have a whole series of allies were asking us for help and support. i just got up phone with the foreign minister of australia. japan, the philippines -- all of asked for specific support. technology, intelligence haring, weaponry in some

instances the pushback back on the rising adversary of china. we have a whole set of allies in the middle east you know that isis is evil. but we had denied the most basic request. we have denied the kurds, king abdullah of jordan -- i have known him for a long time. e have denied intelligence sharing. there is a whole set of things that we must do to build up our own military capability, not only to honor those who serve, but to help our allies help s. and they will help us. but they need to see leadership, support, resolve, and strength on the part of the united states of america. [applause]

are you handing the microphone to someone? last question. questioner: thank you. hi, my name is kaitlin. i am a homeschooled student. one of my classes is debate. we got an interesting question this week, i was hoping you could answer it. ms. fiorina: oh? questioner: my question for is you whether the u.s. government should financially support countries that persecute christians. ms. fiorina: it is a great question. by the way, the first thing i would say is we must condemn the persecution of hristians. and this administration has been violent. [applause] john kerry announces with great fanfare that we are going to accept into this country 100,000 syrian refugees. hanks a lot, you will not be

around to figure out who these eople are. and we do not know how to figure out who they are. this is a dangerous thing. our hearts break when we see the pictures, we cannot simply let people in here if we do not know who they are or what they plan to do. but what is amazing to me -- what is amazing to me is that this administration has been utterly silent about not just the persecution of christians, the crucifixion of christians, the heading of christians, the mass exodus throughout the middle east. we cannot be silent. and the short answer, of course, is no. but it is also true that we have influence over some of these nations. when we say nothing, when we do nothing, we lose all of our influence. so not only will i speak out,

but my actions will be consistent with my words. and that is what the world needs to see from the u.s. action that is consistent with words. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate very much you being here this afternoon. it is a beautiful friday afternoon. and you are exercising citizenship by being here. and i hope i can continue to count on your citizenship, as well as your support and your votes and prayers. and i want to close by reminding you of who we are. because i think we remember who we are, we can do everything that must be done to solve all of our problems.

and to heal all of our wounds. it is easy to get discouraged and say the problems are so huge, there is nothing we can do. but the truth is, yes, the problems are huge. but the answers are clear. i said that we have to remember we were intended to be a citizen government. that is true. i also want to remind you of who we are in more detail by asking you to think about two of the most powerful symbols of our democracy. because i think they tell us everything we need to know about who we are. picture in your mind's lady liberty and lady justice. lady liberty stands tall and strong, which is the way america must always be. she is clear eyed and esolute. she does not shield her eyes from the realities or the evils of the world. and yet, she faces out into the world. which is the way america must always face. and she holds her torch high because she knows she is a begin of hope in a very troubled -- a beacon of hope in a very troubled world. lady justice holds a sword by her side, a warrior for the values and principles that has

made this country great. ith that scale, she is reminding us that all of us are equal in the eyes of god. and so all of us must be equal in the eyes of government -- powerful and powerless alike. and she wears a blindfold. and with a blindfold, i think she is reminding us -- he is saying to us -- that it can be true, it must be true. that in this nation, this century it does not matter what you look like. it doesn't matter who you are. it does not matter how you start. it does not matter your circumstances. here in this nation, every american life must be filled with the possibility that comes from their god-given gifts. and we must be one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen.

[applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> all campaign 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're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always every campaign event we cover is available on our ebsite, at c-span.org.

>> the house is in recess until 6:30 eastern today when members will gavel back in for votes and speeches. it's expected that the chamber will consider a bill on dyslexia research as well as a petition to authorize the house to consider a bill that would re-authorize the export-import bank, bypassing the normal committee process. later this week a measure to re-authorize federal highway and transportation programs through november 20, also legislation that aims to protect retail customers. follow the house live here on c-span when they gavel back in again. that will be at 6:30 eastern today. this week the house selects a new speaker. after current speaker john boehner announced his retirement in late september, wisconsin congressman and ways and means committee chair paul ryan is running for that position and wednesday the republican conference plans to vote on his candidacy. now, if he gets the support there will be a full floor vote on thursday. if elected, paul ryan would become the 54th president to serve as speaker of the house and the first from wisconsin. along with that news today,

there is news that congress and the white house are homing in on a budget pact. "the hill" says this afternoon that senior white house officials and congressional leaders are nearing a deal to raise the debt limit and set the federal budget for the next two years. according to sources familiar with those talks, the agreement is not yet final as negotiators still need to settle a dispute over a controversial policy riders. but congressional leaders hope to announcing is monday evening, according to a senate source. the deal will cover the 2016-2017 fiscal years and raise the nation's debt creeling to march of 2017. according to a congressional source. again, that from the hill this -- from "the hill" interest this afternoon. also "politico" tweeting out that house republicans have called a 6:00 p.m. closed party meeting as congressional negotiators near a budget deal. we'll keep you updated on the latest with this story. >> tonight on the communicators, republican representative from tennessee, marsha blackburn, vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, talks about

cybersecurity and data breach legislation. she's joined by john mckinnon, technology reporter for the "wall street journal." mrs. blackburn: as individuals become subbletsed to these breaches, and many people have, they've come to realize it's not if you have your data breached, it is when is your data going to be breached. so, having a federal standard and exercising some preemption and setting a period of time, a framework of time, that companies have to conduct that information, and then to inform consumers and set penalties for enforcement, those are appropriate steps that should be taken and they're the steps that are covered and the data security legislation that we have worked on at energy and commerce committee. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on he communicators on c-span2.

>> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states draw near and give their attention. >> we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by congress on an economic issue like health care, at least since lock in her. >> the case in lock in her is whether a majority rule, a state legislature, can take away your life and liberty without due process. the court rules no. i think it's a wonderful decision. >> week on c-span's land mark cases, we look at lock in her v. new york. in 1895 the new york legislature passed the bake shop act, restricting the working hours of bakery employees to 10 hours a day or 60 hours per week. bakery owner joseph lock in her violated that law and was fined $50. refusing to parkse he took his case all the way to the supreme court. find out why lochner is known

as one of the most controversial decisions in supreme court history as we explore this case with our guests. andy barnett and paul ken. -- paul kens. landmark cases, live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3 nd c-span radio. >> last week the democratic national committee held its annual women's leadership forum here in washington. democratic presidential candidates bernie sanders, hillary clinton and martin o'malley delivered remarks. and during the event former rhode island senator lincoln chafee announced he's dropping out of the race. this is almost two hours.

ms. wasserman schultz: good morning and welcome to the national issues conference at the women's leadership forum. an arm of the democratic women's alliance of the d.n.c. [applause] thank you so much. i am thrilled by the dynamism of this year's participants. thank you to democrats all across the nation. looking out into the audience, i see new faces and familiar friends. i want to take a moment to eight knowledge that we are holding this conference during breast cancer awareness month as new guidelines are causing confusion for women across america. there are three different groups saying 50, 45, and 40 are the recommended ages to egin receiving mammograms.

i cannot say it loudly enough, women in america must be their wn breast health advocate. keep their awareness continually on the rise and ask questions and seek information from their doctors. wednesday, when vice president biden made his announcement, he talked about his desire to engage in the fight to cure cancer. for millions of cancer survivors, those words rang so meaningfully. we can expect great things from him. please join me in honoring the service of our vice president, joe biden. this is an exciting year for he conference.

we have lined up incredible women and we are all looking forward to a special address from president barack obama. since its founding in 1993, and then first lady hillary clinton, we work to and the gender disparity in politics. raising millions of dollars and recruiting women to work in public office. we have developed a network of democratic women who are leaders in their communities at grassroots levels.

so many of you have given your time and money and advocacy to helping us advance our candidates, initiatives, and values. i am thankful to each of you. thank you so much for your long-standing commitment because that is how our party has been able to help america move forward together. when looking at this powerful network, we see a diverse party. some see us differently. someone took to foxnews airwaves and said the dnc was run by an estrogen cabal. damn right it is. let me acknowledge some of the fine pairs of ovaries. we know how to get things one.

that is why women lead this organization. the democratic party recognizes hat. i want to name a few. our wonderful ceo. the women's leadership forum director. our remarkable senior staff. we have smart and dynamic women taking our party to the next level. we have some pretty fantastic men working at the dnc, too. let's hear it for the men,

too. i will take us any day of the week compared to the gop presidential candidates. i will refer to them as team estosterone. debbie, how can you call them team testosterone when carly fiorina is running for president? having the same parts does not give you credit if you are wrong on every important issue.

[applause] when you oppose paid leave requirements and when you live out women's health organizations, you are no better than any of the other republican candidates. i just had to get that out of the way. let's get on with our business f the day. for those of you were not able to join us yesterday, we had an ll day training session. that effort was to recruit and train women at all levels of democratic activism. i know i attended so many of those trainings as a young college student when i was first beginning my career and those activities are what eventually helped give me the confidence to decide to run for office when i was 25 years old.

that focuses on fundraising, civic engagement training. participants have the opportunity to engage with some of the brightest stars in our party. we have owned the important work of mobilizing, engaging, and training democratic women leaders. we should be proud of our collective efforts these past two decades. but we should be clear about the work ahead of us. t is women voters who will put our democratic nominee in the white house as the 46 president of the united states of america.

[applause] women voters make up more than half of the electorate. with more and more women serving as the primary bread winning in their household or being a single patient or holding stressful or multiple jobs, many of the issues in public discourse are women's issues and family issues. equal pay in the workplace, increase in the minimum wage, access to affordable and quality child care, a solid education, and paid family leave. those are real issues. this is about paid family leave, as paul ryan tries to cobble together enough of this onference to be the next speaker, he was very clear about his concerns about his family time.

because of his young children. isn't it great that paul ryan can have that conversation in public and not be criticized for asking for more time with his family? i wonder if his name was paula ryan, it would have been as easy to speak out? congressman ryan, you deserve quality time with your family. i especially know how precious that is. every mother and father in america deserves that time, too. [applause] every family. we democrats will be loud and clear in calling on you to make paid family live leave a priority at the outset of your speakership. we will hold your feet and every republican foot to the fire. make no mistake. you don't have to be a brain surgeon -- [laughter] or even a political scientist for that matter to know which party is talking about

advancing this and other important issues. and which party is talking about rolling back progress and taking us back to the failed policies of the past. democrats of course are the party of inclusion. empowerment and opportunity for all. our candidates walk the walk on a number of issues important to women and families. bernie sanders has made the paycheck fairness act a pillar of his campaign. martin o'malley once paid leave to be available for all families. hillary clinton is fighting hard to protect women's comprehensive health care and lincoln chachey has highlighted the importance of early childhood education and environmental integrity which we all know has a significant impact on the health and wellness of families. republican presidential candidates of course want to bring back the tired old trickle-down economic policies that benefit the well connected at the expense of women and families. just look at their rhetoric and actions on equal pay, for example. jeb bush doesn't think more laws are necessary to ensure

equal pay and didn't even know what the paycheck fairness act was when he was asked about it. [laughter] chris christie vetoed equal pay legislation calling it senseless bureaucracy. vetoed it. marco rubio said paycheck fairness act wases about scoring political points, wasting time and was a show boat and of course rand paul compared it to the sove yet pilot bureau. that's just one issue. ted cruz was all about shutting the government down over planned parenthood funding. he of course would know how to do this since he wased architect of the 2013 shutdown that cost our economy $24 billion and put thousands of families' immediate economic security at risk. marco rubio has indicated he'd ban all abortions even in the case of rape and incest. jeb bush also bolstered about his record of defunding women's hate care in florida and donald trump and ben carson, don't get

me started -- [laughter] -- i mean, what are they even talking about anyway? let me know if you figure it out. [laughter] trump, with his outrightmy sodgeny, and ben carson's offensive comments that sought to shame and blame women on issues like abortion and violence, and for jeb bush, and john kasich, their comments about women include frat parties and references to hot women. this cannot -- you just cannot make this stuff up. the bottom line is that we can't let republicans get away with their distortions and their warped vision of women's rights in america in the 21st century and i know if this crowd has anything to do with it, we won't! [applause] they also won't get away with it in part because our candidates are eclipsing them. our democratic candidates delivered an incredibly strong performance last week in an astounding 15.8 million viewers

tuned in to see it. we also learned that our candidates earned the support of more than one million don'ters from all across the country in record time, we're simply outpacing the republican field. our candidates have strong visions for moving america forward and we saw that at last week's debate and you saw the reaction. substantive. serious. classy. like going from kindergarten to graduate school. that's how our debate was compared to the small tent, big circus debates we've seen from the republican candidates. they are so set in their ways the only thing we've heard from their two debates is that they want to drag america back to the policies that contributed to the great recession. that's the contrast. you know what's at stake. you remember what it was like when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. when foreclosure signs adorned streets throughout every state. when the middle class was brought to its knees. but we fought back, didn't we?

under barack obama's leadership and democrats in congress' leadership. [applause] our country is stronger than that. and we fought our way back thanks to democratic leadership that has now delivered 67 straight months of private sector job growth. yes. more than 13 million new jobs. millions of americans now have health insurance that did not ave it before. and opportunities are being expanded to more and more families across america. that is what we want the american people to see. i join you in your excitement to hear from all four of our incredible candidates in just a moment. there's no doubt how important it is we focus on the next 12 months. but make no mistake, there are elections in many places in just 12 days,