leaving the white house. rosalynn carter, tonight on "first ladies." examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama. >> here on c-span, "newsmakers" is next with a look at the refugee crisis in europe with -- europe. and at 8:00, our conversation as.h eric metax host: joining us today from the state department is the assistant secretary of state anne richard. thank you very much for your time.

secretary richard: thank you. host: in studio we have a foreign policy correspondent for reuters and a writer for "the washington post." first question. reporter 1: good morning. there was a recent eu report that suggested -- projected that by the end of next year the european union could see as many as 3 million refugees arrive at his borders. can you give us a sense of the scale of this crisis and how much worse it can get, even from now? secretary richard: we have seen hundreds of thousands of people from around the world flowing to europe over the last several months. this is not a new migration. there have been people taking these migration routes across the mediterranean, from libya to italy, from turkey to greece for years now.

what is different is the scale of the crisis, that so many have moved in such a short time. many in the western balkans route are coming from syria, but there also people from iraq and afghanistan and many from sub-saharan africa as well. this is very much a mixed migration, people seeking asylum and could qualify as refugees under international law, but also people fleeing for economic motives, looking for a better life. that is what they have in common. all are seeking opportunity, seeking a better life in europe. reporter: secretary richard, just to talk for a moment about the u.s. response to the refugee crisis from the syrian conflict, the numbers tell the story of a relatively slow response. as you well know in fy 11, fy 12, fy 13, the united states was

taking in numbers in the dozens and it has increased only in the last couple years to 105 four fy 14 and 1682 four fy 15. why has the pace been relatively slow? secretary richard: the u.s. is a leader in helping refugees around the world. we provide the most assistance to refugees of anywhere on earth. that is an important piece of it. less than 1% of the world's refugees will be resettled. the new piece of what we are doing is the syrians. most came in the fiscal year that just ended on september 30. so, we will expect to see the

numbers climb in the coming months and years. this is completely in keeping with our leadership on this, working with the u.n. refugee agency overseas. i think it is normal not to respond to a crisis in the early days by resettling refugees. because in the early days of the crisis, we were really hoping that the syrians would be able to go home again. as the crisis has stretched on now, for years, coming up on the 50 year anniversary in march, it -- on the fifth year anniversary march, it is clear even if we are able to come to a piece, -- to a peace, returning to syria will be slow. so many places have been bombed. hospitals, schools are gone.

there will be no quick return to syria. we also tend to bring people who have suffered so much that going home again would not be in the cards for them rid i'm talking about -- would not be in the cards for them. i'm talking about people with medical conditions, families with small children and no husband who need extra help. those are the most vulnerable people that the u.s. can help, in part by bringing to the united states and providing extra services and care here. reporter: david miliband, i am well aware that the united states will take in more refugees, but he has called for the united states to take in as many as 100,000. can you explain to us why from a moral or diplomatic or political point of view why the united

states can't or shouldn't take in as many as 100,000 refugees? secretary richard: from around the world, we will be taking in 100,000 refugees, but the issue here is why can't we take more syrians in? i agree with the impulse to take and many more syrian refugees and provide a fresh start here. i think most of the leadership of the obama administration are also championing to help refugees. the problem is the process you used to screen them before they get to the u.s. and the resources we put behind that process -- it takes between 18 months and 24 months to get a refugee from being referred to us to interview them to get their medical clearance, to get their story, their case put

together, to have that vetted by law enforcement, national agencies, and the all-important interview by the department of homeland security. then they get lined up to come on an airplane to the united states and start their lives over again, with the help of local groups across the u.s. that process right now is what is holding up bringing more. we are under direction from the white house now to take a very careful look at that process, see if we can accelerate it without cutting corners on security. reporter: the goal for this year is still 10,000, not 100,000? secretary richard: we could have a very high number that would have some value, but the decision was made to stick with a number that was realistic where we could deliver on the commitment to bring 10,000.

it puts the impetus on us to improve our process a lot this year so we can do even more next year, and it also means we have to do more in terms of leaving the world in refugees for the rest of the world and also providing assistance in the region where 4 million refugees live in turkey, lebanon, iraq, and egypt. reporter: the new canadian government announced they would bring in -- do you say that this is unrealistic? secretary richard: i can't comment on the canadian process. in talking to the people who run the process to bring people to the u.s., here, we are working to bring in as many syrians as possible this year, to reach that 10,000 goal and build on

that. and we will have a steep ramp up in the numbers that we bring. could we do something bold like bring a lot of refugees on an airplane and fly them overnight to the u.s.? i don't think that is feasible in the post-september 11 world that we live in. i go to the hill of a lot now and talk to members of congress, representatives and senators, and i find them getting two messages. one is we should bring a lot of refugees to the u.s. the other is we should not do anything to bring someone who has bad intentions for the u.s. that we must keep up very strict security screenings. so, we have to do both. we have to bring as many as possible while proving to members of congress and the american people we are not going to bring in people who could cause harms to them -- cause harm to americans. i know most refugees are good people and are innocent victims of terrorist.

they are not terrorists themselves. nevertheless, i have heard the message loud and clear from congress that we cannot cut corners on security in running this program. so, we have to do both. host: secretary richard, the images that americans see is that some of these or many of these refugees are young males, some say of fighting age, and that, some americans see, as a security issue. address who these refugees are and how the united states decides which refugees are going to come to the united states. secretary richard: like i say, we run a program that is oriented to bring the most vulnerable cases to the united states. certainly within that there are

young men who are part of families. only 2% so far are single, young men of fighting age. that is not the typical refugee we are bringing. i take exception to the idea that if you see young men walking from syria to europe that they are a threat. these are actually some of the most smart, motivated, entrepreneurial people. as americans, we see this in our history. the people who can survive a long journey like that, the people who want to flee war and not participate in its, the people who prefer a long life to a short sacrifice are the people who could make, potentially, great citizens. they want to work. they want to finish their education. they want to live in peace. they want stability in their lives. that is what they are seeking in europe. when people see that movement and see a threat, i see people who could be a force for good. reporter: you talked about the

huge burden that the crisis placed on the countries neighboring syria -- a country like lebanon, almost a quarter of its population is refugees. jordan is also facing huge burdens and strains because of the strain of accommodating such vast numbers of refugees. turkey has over 2 million refugees in its borders. eight billion and budget funds on the -- i am budget funds on the crisis. -- eight billion dollars of unbudgeted funds on the crisis. what can the u.s. due to help these countries as well? and how much of a crisis is it for the neighboring countries of syria? secretary richard: this is where our aid has gone and about half of our aid has gone inside syria to help the people avoid becoming refugees.

we have been doing this for years now. we are, in some ways, the best partner to these countries in trying to call attention to their needs, trying to mobilize resources -- not just from the u.s. we are the leader in providing assistance to these countries, but also diplomatically, we are reaching out to other countries to convince them to join with us to provide assistance in these places where refugees have fled to so that they don't have to continue fleeing. what we have been able to do as the international community -- the people who come across those borders have been fed, kept warm, sheltered. but there are too many children out of school. there are too many adults who are idle and cannot get jobs and are forced into the underground economy because they are not authorized to work. these are people who want to take care of their families. the more we can do to support the refugees to have fuller lives and the more we can do to

help societies hosting those, i think that will really help the stability of this entire region in circling syria. reporter: in your testimony on the hill recently, you talked about the diplomatic process, pushing the countries who were not doing more. who is not doing enough? secretary richard: i would like to see more aid come from the gulf states and are relatively wealthy like lebanon. jordan. we would also like to see more from the so-called bric's. brazil, russia, india, china, and south africa. these are the nations that should and could be doing more on the humanitarian side.

arshad: thank you for that. and if i am not mistaken, the numbers showing how much has been pledged has been going down and i believe in the current calendar year the pledge is only at 45% of the current need for this year and in previous years it was higher. pledge is only at 45% of the current need for this year and in previous years it was higher. so, here is the question. as the magnitude of the crisis has worsened, the response of the global community appears to have diminished. why is that? secretary richard: you are absolutely right -- the response to the appeal for syria, but also responses to appeals for crises all around the world have been weak and have left what we

are calling the 60% gap of funding that ought to becoming in and is not. the fault is not the fault of americans. like i say, americans are leading the world in providing assistance to these crises, but collectively the world is not doing enough. now, we are seeing a quick turnaround in europe on this. they are trying to raise more money to provide to turkey and other countries in the region and to ensure that food ratios continue and there were not these certain cutbacks in assistance to the refugees as winter is going on. there is a shift going on. but it's still not enough. that is why i would like to see more contributions from countries that are not traditional donors and more consistent funding year in and year out instead of one time contributions and we do not hear

from countries for a while. we would really like to hear from countries that are engaged in this humanitarian endeavor. and also, we would like to see more private sector giving. businesses are one of the few positives with the crises of the last few weeks and months. i think the public is now paying attention to what is going on and coming to realize how many innocent people, how many innocent families are caught up in this crisis and really deserving of support. so, we would love to build on the impulse by ordinary americans to do something and to see more private giving. it's not really the u.s.'s government responsibility to collect those, but the u.s. has set up a website, refugees.gov, fugees.gov, to do more.

host: secretary richard, what could or should be done on the smuggling side of this? winter is coming. it is getting colder. those people are in more urgency to make his voyage. what can be done or what should be done by these countries about the smuggling situation? secretary richard: what i have found is, in talking to europeans and also people in other parts of the world -- in may, i was in southeast asia talking to governments about people getting into boats from bangladesh and from burma -- responding to smugglers, cracking down on smugglers is something that countries feel comfortable doing. they have law-enforcement. they have coast guard. that is one avenue and certainly one piece of the response that makes a lot of sense. but we need to make sure that when coast guard's respond, they do that -- when coast guards response, they do that in a humane way.

that the victims of smugglers, the clients of smugglers are not criminals. they are innocent people trying to survive. there has to be an appropriate response. yes, we would encourage more work by coast guards and law enforcement and border patrol to be vigilant and to help people who are en route, seeking a better life. host: ishaan. reporter: as you suggested, the refugee crisis has been politically polarizing in the u.s. it has led to comments about the cultural threat that they pose.

how dissapointing has this been to you? secretary richard: let me point out the difference between the discussions in the u.s. and the discussions in europe. in the u.s., we have a tradition of taking in refugees and no one is challenging that tradition. on both sides of the aisle, as the rep and for numerous administrations, republicans and democrats support strong funding and the continuation of a program to bring refugees to the united states. what we are hearing our concerns about security from some members of congress, and many of them are unfamiliar with the program. the more they learn about the program, i am confident they will come out supporting it even more. but we have to give them the best possible answers. we have to convince them we are

doing everything humanly possible to screen out bad actors and keep them out of this program. we brought 3 million refugees to the united states since the 1970's. in very, very few, a miniscule number, have had that intention. most of made perfectly fine residence of the u.s. and many go back to become citizens and give back more than we give them by offering them this opportunity. inside europe, as you pointed out, there is less of a tradition to do this, so, there is a lot more fiery rhetoric that we are hearing from all sides. so, for us, the challenge is what can the u.s. due to be most helpful to our european allies as they try to come to terms with this enormous wave of people, walking in, seeking

asylum. we have to work with the u.n. refugee agency and other organizations. we are providing assistance through them to help -- like macedonia, like serbia, like greece, so we can make sure that services are provided to refugees as they cross borders and attempt to enter europe. host: secretary richard, we have time for a few more questions. in europe, the british government yesterday said that the migrant crisis engulfing europe is likely to last for 20 years. what does that mean for europe? what does that mean for the united states? secretary richard: i think it is true there are no short-term fixes to the situation that has developed over the past couple of years. and to the large numbers moving.

what we want to see though is a whole range of things to help these people. some of it is aid to countries to people that are not getting economic opportunity. some of it is diplomacy in and around the syrian crisis so we can move toward an end to the horrible violence that has beset that country. and to calm down the situation in the neighboring countries. some of it is continued humanitarian assistance. some of it is resettling refugees. some of it could be and should be the legal avenues for migrants to go to europe and work, to send money home through remittances, the legally working in these countries, and moving back home to retire and enjoy the rest of their lives. it is not one thing that is going to change the situation.

i think it has to be moving in a smart way several different directions and wants. this is a role that the u.s. can play. the u.s. can foster looking at the global dimensions of the refugee and migration issue and also pull together the right people working with the united nations, working with other world leaders to develop smart approaches. it will not fix things overnight, but it will help to cut down on the number of people who are willing to take horrible risks, endanger their own lives, your family's lives, because they feel they have no other option. arshad: two quick questions. food rations, have a they they already been cut in recent months because of the insufficiency of the pledges?

and earlier in our conversation, you talked about the possibility there might be a diplomatic solution within months, but even if there were one, many of these people would not be able to go back home anytime soon because of the devastation within syria. one, what is your sense of what are the chances for a diplomatic solution within months? and two, is it essentially inevitable that most of these people will have to live through the winter not in their homes, and possibly not even in refugee camps, but rather living on the streets in neighboring countries? secretary richard: on the food assistance issue, the u.s. is the leader in supporting the world food program. what we're saying is they did not get enough funding from the rest of the world. they had to cut rations so they were targeting those most in need. it may have been a trigger that contributed to the large numbers walking to europe. more funding has come from other

countries so that the rations are now being expanded back up, but i would not discuss the world food program situation as stable. i think they are very dependent on significant funding this year because they are doing so many things in so many parts of the world. winter is coming. the winter can be harsh when you're not living in a proper shelter. humanitarians and aid workers know this. this is why they start in the summer months to prepare for winter. there is a great deal of effort now to make sure that people are not on the streets, that they have some kind of protection against winter, if they are displaced, if they are refugees living in afghanistan or pakistan. part of the problem is the needs are so great right now.

will there be a diplomatic solution? i pray that is the case. i know my boss, secretary kerry, is doing his best to get us there. it involves a lot of moving pieces. i think the secretary is an optimist and won't give up. of -- that means the rest of us have to double down and work even harder and see how far we can get in the coming weeks to bring the world together and develop some kind of path forward to put an end to the suffering of so many people. ishaan: i just want to follow-up on one thing you mentioned earlier. you said the gulf states have not done enough, or could be doing more. this is a criticism we have heard for a while. what are they not doing? and what would more robust

assistance from the gulf states look like? secretary richard: thanks for asking me about that. i do know it probably sounded like a blanket criticism, if you look closely the gulf states are not working like a block. i would put kuwait at the top of the list. they hosted the first three pledging conference is for humanitarian assistance to syria that raised a lot of money. so, they have made a lot of difference. and the united arab emirates are also providing a lot of assistance. but not all of the gulf states are doing that.

and like i say, in the past, what we have seen is the gulf states funding can be very intermittent. it can be a very generous announcement one day for one part of the world and then nothing for couple years for other parts of the world. so, this is why i don't really consider these states as fully invested in the international humanitarian system. and i don't know what these countries can be convinced to become part of the international humanitarian system the way i would like to see that happen. but i think we have to try. we have to try to invite them to be more regular donors and more involved in what the united nations does and what some of the world's top humanitarian organizations, nongovernmental organizations, red crescent movement are doing. arshad: are you talking about saudi arabia and qatar there? secretary richard: right. host: secretary richard, we are out of time. we appreciate you being this week's guest. secretary richard: thank you very much.

host: let me return to what you word from the assistant secretary. let's start where she ended in these gulf states. why do you think that is important? arshad: i appreciated she was willing to be as explicit as she was about that. diplomats are usually more cautious. i don't know the numbers about who is giving what, but for an american official actually point to a country or two and saving need to be doing more is fairly blunt. so, i was struck by that. ishaan: it's interesting. these are some of the wealthiest countries in the region. they are clearly stakeholders in certain negative and positive ways in the syrian crisis, and there is a since they are not doing a thing. the problem is a number of these countries are not signatories to

the u.n. convention, so as the secretary was saying, they do not have an immediate role in this whole process. but it is clear these are countries that have the wherewithal, have resources, have the logistical capability -- saudi arabia organizes the hajj every year. they could do much more. host: do you sense a frustration on the part of the united states? and what is going on that the assistant is essentially calling these countries out? arshad: i think you hear a little frustration there, perhaps. one thing in their defense, i believe the saudi's have argued have argued they have done much more than israel is. i think the problem is whether

the money gets funneled through the u.n. system or on a private or bilateral basis. the reason that the u.s. and other countries want it to goes through the u.n. system is it allows them to prioritize and make sure the money goes where it is needed most. it may be that they are indeed doing more than is commonly understood, but the americans also feel like if you put all of the money in one pot, you can give it up more efficiently. ishaan: and to be sure, there are probably lots of things frustrating her. even at home domestically, there is a very polarized partisan conversation about the role the u.s. should lay in resolving this crisis -- play in resolving this crisis and aiding syrian refugees. host: let's stop about a timeline for peace. she was talking about a diplomatic solution there, possibly in the coming months. what are the two of you hearing about a solution to what now will be five years of civil war in syria? arshad: i have been to vienna a number of times, including about

two weeks ago for one round of talks on this. that round included the united states, saudi arabia, turkey, and russia. and the state department officials have been quite explicit that this is an iterative process. one meeting, two meetings, there is supposed to be a third meeting next week -- is not going to bring about a solution. i don't think they have any idea whether it might be achievable in months. it wouldn't surprise me if it took longer than that, because there is a sharp divisions, notably over whether assad can stay in power. ishaan: in the context of the crisis, this is not even a question of months. the state of syria has unraveled to the point that it is a question of decades. i was in turkey recently. officials there think of it a --

think of it as a two or three decade aftermath. host: anne richard --arshad ishaan, thank you both for being part of "newsmakers."

c-span.org for your best access to congress. all persons having a business before the supreme court, give their attention. forced interment of japanese americans during world war ii. tsu took his case to the supreme court. after the attack on pearl

sent thehe president japanese americans to internment camps across the u.s.. they were a hundred feet wide. they did not have ceilings. freezing evenen in the daytime. the only ceiling that they would have would be a potbelly stove. challenging the evacuation -- r, fred coral motz to korumatsu.

peter irons. karen korematsu. executive director of the fred t korematsu institute. the coral motz to life before during and after the court decision. on the case as you watch, order the landmark case at c-span.org. all campaign long, c-span takes you on the campaign to the white house. news conferences, or rallies, speeches. cover ispaign event we available on our website at

c-span.org. former mayor and governor, martin o'malley held a town hall at the university of new hampshire this week. this is 45 minutes. [applause] [no audio] i am a mike gallagher. it is great to see you all here. obviously people are interested in public policy. particularly if you are a junior and senior, it is important that

you watch. i ask the just moved to new hampshire just about a year ago. before i was in washington working in public policy for many years. where i hadaryland the privilege of having governor of an alley -- o'malley as my governor. he was a very effective governor. he froze tuition. he got minimum wage rates raised. the dream act. on governingked well and efficiently. something he did as mayor of baltimore. is why he holds a unique distinction as a governor of that era.

recession hit, before the financial crisis. he was reelected after the crisis hits by a greater margin. he had to make all the same tough decisions and choices that governors all across the country had to make. it said something about the people having faith in the governor. i will in did there and say well, governor o'malley. thank you michael. thanks very much. thanks for your kind introduction. i apologize. my campaign up ain't was late at bwi. it was the southwest airlines flight. i was about an hour at late. i hope i am not making you miss

class. thank you for being here. thank you for all of you new hampshire voters for being here. united,me when citizens the great thing about new is that one person matters. every individual matters. , inow given your unique role ites how you new hampshir take your responsibility. that is a tremendous service to the rest of the country. get of the country do not the opportunity to see each of us. i have now firmly secured third

place for the democratic party's nomination. thank you very much. [applause] did you enjoy the debate? it is good to have debate. debates are how the most important office in our country makes decisions. where going to have another debate. the field is narrowed to three. about my leadership, about my aboutacy, most important this country. i am martin o'malley. i am a lifelong democrat. i am running for president for united states. im in a to win it. i need your help. i'm running for one reason only. i want to rebuild the truth of

american dream that you and i share. askedet bruce springsteen , is a dream something that does not come true? or is it something worse. i remember it very well. i stood in line with my citizens as i thought and defended each person's home against these monolithic machines. limbo dance ina terms of job losses and despair. the democratic party decided to move the country forward. that is exactly what he has done. 67 months of positive job growth. very very good news.

the tougher news is this. back -- badhe economic policies that predate term.residents in justicegrowing that threatens the terror this country apart. eight years after electing president obama unemployment is new york city of the three candidates in this race, i

am the only one with executive experience. what is that mean? that means i did not serve for 40 years. my background is as and executive. pulling people together to get things done. iran for mayor because we were not doing very well but because we were trying to overcome some of these pretty deep lines of division that all of us americans have inherited. we put our city on a better path. we greatly increased drug treatment. we did not make her a immune from setbacks. we did save a lot of lives. i had to leave my state through this recession. some other governors try to cut

their way through prosperity. we did more on education. we did more to make college more affordable for our people, we invested more to bolster our competitive advantages in innovation and the economy that we share. we raise our goal for minority and women in business participation. we exceeded them in the recession. re-rates -- lip, re-raised the minimum rage. wage. passing comprehensive gun safety regulation, repealing the death penalty. i would submit to you the common thread running through all these is the formulaic actions. not words but actions.

it includes more of our people, more fully in the economic, social, political life of our country. that is what we need to do again as a nation. the economics that led us into that they crash are not the s that are consistent with american capitalism. will throughout one example. my dad flew 30 three missions over japan. home, he understood that the more they would learn, the more they would earn. the better their economy would be doing. they sent them to college on the g.i. bill. my daughters graduated from college in the last two years. with a mountain of bills. what a contrast.

we are very proud of them on graduation though, we are going momentroud of them every for the rest of their lies. we are the only nation that with a are cohorts mountain of crushing debt that we do now. that is a choice. progress is a choice. job creation is a choice. if we actually want to make our economy working for everyone and we need to make better choices. living,i are part of a self creating mystery called the united states of america. mystery is athe very concrete thing. that promise says wherever you start, you start in our country. for your own hard work, your own talent, your own grits, your own love of family you should be able to give -- get ahead. that is what earned us the name

of the land of opportunity. what we need to do, there is three primary areas where we need to make the better choices. which allow for our economy to work better. second is to make the investments only the ones we can make in our country that makes our economy expand for the next generation. the third thing is to square our shoulders to the great shoulder -- challenges of our times. go briefly into that and let's open up for questions and answers. and if you have answers, i have a search for answers. wage and labor policies. thank you for the sound effects. -- remember member as americans, r e economy is not

money it is people. it is all of our people. we need and you foreign policy of engagement and collaboration, a new national security strategy. it ito threat about depends on our economy getting stronger at home. we need to use common sense wage and labor policies to allow everybody to get ahead. not just the highest percentage of earners to get ahead. raising thever -- minimum wage. raising it to $15 an hour wherever we can. the more money we earn the more money we will spend the more our economy will grow. that means we need to pay overtime pay for overtime at work again. something that we start -- stop doing in the 80's. we need to stop cutting social security.

people are moving to social security with less savings that in decades and decades. to expand the social security's that people do not retire in poverty and united states of america. we need to fight for equal pay for equal work between men and women. we need to work for expanded family leave. you want to get wages to go up for everyone? let's do a couple of other things. let's make it easier rather than harder for people to join labor unions and bargain collectively for better wages. let's get 11 million of our neighbors -- laborers to get out s. shadow you can apply for that. secondly the investments in our own country. that are a lot of nations

are sitting in the middle class. our cause in the world is the lead by example by the rise of the middle class free from fear and oppression. we need to make the investments in our country. china and india are not going to do it. nations do not bill generational wealth and patch on greater opportunity by a locking cash in the closet. or even in the u.s. treasury. the way nations bill generation wealth are to invest in things that will serve it beyond one generation. think about the infrastructure we are traveling on that our grandparents built. other thingsouple that last beyond one generation and can create cycles a prosperity. affordable college, i have a plan to move us to debt-free college over the next five years. i see did as governor, we are

the only state when i was governor that did not increase tuition. investments in research and development. in the 80's when i came out of high school, the amount of our discretionary investments in r&d etc. were noton, at the level they are now. it is all about greater discovery and distribution for human problems. ,he third piece is as americans every generation we have figure out how to square our shoulders to the great challenges of our times. and today in these times, the great challenge i am talking about is climate change. [applause]

the greatest business opportunity to come to united states of america in the last hundred years, speaking for our own party, we sometimes make the connecting the dots. often times the dots draw a straight line to hell. they do not draw the dots to a fertile ground of success. i am the first candidate to put forward a plan, let's hope not the last, to move us to a 100% .lean a electric grid by 2050 if you think this is high in the sky, i've been doing this for a long time in iowa. this, 30% of the electricity

generated in iowa comes from iola wind. that was not true 15 years ago. it employs 4000 people in the new wind industry and as you go across i 80, and you see big trucks with huge turbine pieces on them, the great thing about those is that they are too big for them to make sense to import them from china so they have to be produced here in the united states. a circular economy, what a novel idea. so look, those are some thoughts for you. there are other things we need to do as well. one is the great anxieties that i sense is this, especially among older people -- a sense that we can barely give voice to, and maybe we might be the last generation of americans who is able to give our kids lives that are healthier and with more opportunity.

i don't sense that much among younger people. in fact, when i talk to the young people of our country, don't find the gridlock that characterizes our politics. instead, i really encounter young americans who deny that climate change is real or you think we shouldn't do something about it. i rarely meet young americans who want to discriminate against gay americans and their emily. -- and their family. all that tells me that we are moving towards a more compassionate and connected and generous place. we are standing on the threshold of a new era of american progress. we have need of the new leadership required to the cross that threshold to take the actions, not the words, to make

tomorrow better. you know what? our country has never needed us more. we will actually give americans, remember that we are all in this together, that we need each other and that we have to help each other if we are going to succeed. i need your help in this campaign and i know when a guy comes before you and he stands here with 5% national name recognition, which by the way is up 500% compared to where it was in the first debate, that there is a fine line between delusion and imagination. but i'm not mentioning this. our country is looking at new leadership and we will find it in one party or another. because we can't be this dissatisfied with the gridlock politics and the really shout past each other and the way the economy is leaving most of us behind.

it won't. so i need your help, i am excited and a lot of people tell me, you are facing a tough fight. i like a tough fight. i have drawn a tough fight. i think that is a way of god telling us that we are fighting for something worth saving. the american dream is worth saving and this planet is worth saving. i need your help and i thank you so much. [applause] martin o'malley: yes there? [indiscernible] martin o'malley: let me go to this gentleman first. [indiscernible] >> hi, thank you for being here. i want to bring you to climate change. i think you are asking for answers earlier and i think i might have one for you. we can't

overcome climate change without -- just relying on clean energy, we have to rely on reserves that we are burning on the ground. in order to stick to the two degrees celsius guage that the world has come together is the acceptable level of warming, i am wondering if you accept that? martin o'malley: yes. i do. and let me show you how i have demonstrated that by the actions i have taken. in our own state, we passed the gas reduction bill. rates are up from 7% up to 20%, which almost seems quaint and we passed the builder cut energy consumption bill and a broke with my own party and urged the obama administration repeatedly

not to allow drilling for oil off the east coast. and in the chesapeake bay. i came out against drilling in the arctic. gov. o'malley: so this is what i believe. some of these things need to stay in the ground. >> a follow-up question. one of the biggest things that an executive can do, stop new leasing on public land. that is where a lot of are: reserves are. martin o'malley: i read that the other day. >> and i am wondering if you would and new leasing of fuel on public ground? martin o'malley: i probably would. we aren't going to get to the clean energy future with an all of the above strategy. we need to be intentional and move towards it. i