sec. carter: well, with respect to the first part, we are taking a number of steps. and i described a number of them earlier this week. and we intend to take more, to strengthen the execution of our strategy and hasten the defeat of isil. and the president will be here in the pentagon on monday, and he'll hear not only from us here in the defense department, his senior commanders in the field, about the military dimensions of the campaign to defeat isil, but also this is a national security council meeting. so the secretary of state and representatives of the intelligence community, law enforcement, homeland security, all of the parts that we know are necessary to protect our people, and strike at our enemies, will be involved. and i expect him both to hear what we're doing and continue to

say what he's told me and general dunford, certainly for the military campaign, which is that he wants us to continue to come to him with proposals for ways that we can strengthen the campaign consistent with our overall strategic approach. sec. fallon: thank you. the united states has been leading the coalition since last year against isil-daesh. and we are now fully part of that by our extending our operations to syria as well as iraq. secretary carter has asked other countries, including the united kingdom, what more they can contribute to the campaign as we move to this new focus on degrading the infrastructure that supports isil-daesh. and we will be responding to his letter in due course. so far as russian involvement is concerned, we have said from

the beginning, if russia wants to help in syria, where it has influence, it ought to stop propping up the assad regime, help us bring this civil war to an end, stop bombing the opposition groups that have been opposed to assad and start to play a more constructive role in the process of moving syria to a more pluralist future. >> question to secretary fallon, could you give us more detail about the british air strikes in syria so far? also, are we going to see a ramping up of the intensity in coming weeks? also, on the libya question, secretary carter, do you think it's a realistic prospect that ultimately the isis leadership might fall back to libya? sec. fallon: well, let me start with the first and then hand it over to secretary carter on libya. so far as strikes are concerned, we have doubled our strike force in cypress, moving aircraft

cyprus, moving aircraft there immediately after the vote last wednesday. we flew extra aircraft in on thursday. those aircraft were in action immediately on friday evening. and we have begun a series of strikes, successful strikes, against infrastructure targets, mainly in the eastern -- in the oil fields, the field in eastern syria. and we -- you should expect to see more of that, precision strikes, against key infrastructure. the oil well heads, the ammunition depos, the logistics, the command and control, the supply routes between syria and iraq, as we intensify the focus on degrading the support that isil derives from some of these revenue streams. with respect to is being isil

destroyed in its parent tumor of syria and iraq, we're not going to let it fall back anywhere, libya or anywhere else, where it is metastasizing. we're going to combat isil everywhere it appears. it must be destroyed in its birth place of the -- of syria and iraq. but it is metastasizing to other parts of the world. we'll combat it everywhere. of course, that includes in our own homelands. and so it won't have any place to fall back on. >> hi. thank you. two quick follow-ups actually and then a question. secretary carter, you said that the president has continued to tell you to come to him with proposals for fighting isis in iraq and syria. but on the hill this week, you essentially said if you had more options or ideas, you would offer them. what does that mean?

does that mean that there's sort of a stalemate, you're at a logjam here? sec. carter: no. it means that we constantly develop through new intelligence very importantly new techniques and tactics for attacking isil. i'll give you a few recent examples. the attacks on the oil and other revenue streams of isil, our ability to do that in a way that subtracts from isil's ability to earn revenues while not affecting the life of ordinary people who are simply victims of kind ofl movement, that intelligence is what allowed us to take these strikes. we constantly develop new opportunities. we also develop new tools. i described earlier in this week something we're calling the

expeditionary targeting force. that's a new way of being able to get in and strike leadership, key targets, gather intelligence. and i expect in a week, two weeks, six weeks, and so forth for us to be doing more and building more capability and having more and more impact every week. that's the whole idea. that's what president obama has asked us to do. and that's what we've been able to do and will continue to do. >> mr. fallon, one quick follow-up on vladimir putin. he also said today that the russians are now supporting the free syrian army. are you seeing any indication that they are providing any kind of air cover? he also mentioned ammunition and weapons. and secretary carter, my other question for you was about the special forces that are going into syria. john kirby over at the state department said this week there are actually a small number in syria already.

i know you don't want to get into operational security, and numbers where they are, but can you tell us, now that there's an acknowledgment that they have gone in, are they racing there right now, are they moving in and out? what specifically -- i mean, these are american troops operating in a sovereign nation at this point. so what can you tell the american people about what they are doing there? sec. carter: well, i'm not going to speak specifically about the actions of special forces, especially while they're ongoing. by the way, minister fallon, and the united kingdom, has what i think is a very admirable policy of not commenting on the activities of the special forces. so we obviously have them. they're extremely capable. we have acknowledged, as indicated, that they operate in syria.

i indicated earlier in this week, we're prepared to do more. but the specific movements and operations, we're not going to be able to describe. sec. fallon: so far as the russian move is concerned, they began by bombing the free syrian army. they're now claiming to be supporting the free syrian army. that is welcome. what they've got to do is stop propping up the assad regime, stop bombing opposition groups who are opposed to the assad regime, stop dropping unguided munitions on innocent villages and groups, and get behind the political process that is now under way of leading that country to a more pluralist government and a future without assad. >> thank you. secretary fallon, in your expanded campaign against isis, do youne scenario

anticipate sending ground forces to iraq and syria? in the last week, the u.s. has announced even more expanded role to seek out isis in countries around north africa, the middle east. would you consider sending forces to assist in those counter-terrorism hubs? and for secretary carter, in the incremental additions that have been made to the u.s. presence in iraq, at this point, if there are additional troops that would be announced, would those be coming out of the white house, or does the pentagon have the authority to continue to add troops if you deem it necessary? sec. fallon: on the first, we're not proposing to send combat troops back into iraq or into syria. prime minister abadi made it clear to me that they do not want to see british troops on the ground there, and i don't

want to see american troops there. they realize the security has to be achieved in areas that have been liberated from isil-daesh by homegrown forces that can enjoy the support and confidence of the sunni areas. that can't be done by western boots on the ground. so far as other countries are concerned, in countries in libya, yes, we've been working for a political settlement there. and if we can achieve a political settlement, which, as you know, is being negotiated at the moment, and there's an international mission to help provide training and support for it, of course we would be part of that. we're already providing training and assistance to the government of nigeria in its own campaign against the isil-daesh franchise boko haram in northeast nigeria. >> with respect to u.s. troops in iraq, let me just remind you that we have more than 3500 in iraq right now, doing a spectacular job. by the way, they'll shortly be, most of them, celebrating their

holidays there and not here. we all ought to keep that in our mind and take a moment to remember them over the holidays. obviously, the president is the commander in chief, so everyone deployed is subject to his approval. i write their deployment orders, i think very carefully about every single one. with respect to overall numbers, the president has indicated and shown a willingness to increase that number. most recently, as we've indicated in the last few weeks, as we develop opportunities to make good use of them. now, we obviously don't -- we try to deploy as few people as we can, simply in recognition of the fact that they're away from their families. but we have to do what we have to do to protect our country and to defeat isil. and the troops know that.

and typically, in this season, we bless them for taking it on. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you. michael, thank you. >> thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] was such an authentic person. i always thought that there was more to the story of lady bird then everybody had covered. she became the first modern first lady. veryad a big staff, a important project. she wrote a book as soon as she left the white house. she really invented the modern first lady. q&a,ncer: sunday night on the discussion of the book "lady bird and lyndon."

at thean inside look political partnership of lady bird and lyndon johnson. johnson is the perfect example of the conclusion i came to, which is that those women saw something in those men, the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world, and they married despite political objections -- parental objections. she is a good example of that. i had to find out more. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern and specific -- and pacific on c-span's "q&a." weekend onevery american history tv on c-span3, 48 hours of events that tell our nation story. an organizer:00, for the all african people's revolutionary party. by theothers are joined

u.s. field secretary. right.ink he is about no matter where you come out some embraceter, democratic socialism, others embrace the democratic party. announcer: and at 8:00, history professor elizabeth gray on the use of opium in the 19th century, and public opinion of its abuse by men and women. >> the attitude towards women drinking at the time was that this was very inappropriate, that a woman should not drink. would opium the something she would look to as an alternative? announcer: and sunday morning at 10:00, we look back to the 2000 campaign of al gore as he tours the state of new hampshire. mr. gore: you have seen new

hampshire changed to a time where you were using -- losing 10,000 jobs a year, to a time where you are gaining 12,000 jobs a year. --t is partly physical fiscal responsibility that president clinton and i put in place that turned the biggest deficit into the biggest surplus. theuncer: al gore won democratic nomination, but lost the general election to george w. bush in one of america's highly contested presidential elections. american history tv, only on c-span3. on friday evening, donald trump made a campaign appearance in des moines, iowa, where he held a town hall meeting and took questions. iowa hells -- holds its presidential caucuses on february 1. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

♪ >> ♪ we're not going to take it. no, were not going to take it. we're not going to take it anymore. we're not going to take it. it.we wainain't going to take we're not going to take it anymore. ♪ mr. trump: thank you, everybody. this is so exciting. we will do questions. we are doing really well. iowa has been amazing. we are doing so well and i love this place. i'm back here all the time and i will be here a lot in january. [cheering] you are going to be so sick of me. you are going to say we cannot give him the caucus.

no, you are going to like me and we are going to do a great job for you. most importantly, we will get to that office and do the right thing. we're going to do the right thing. so, a few things. so much has happened. when we first came out, we were all talking together and we were talking border security which we're doing so great with. we're going to build a wall. mexico will pay for the wall. we all know that. we will have security. the drugs will stop. people will come into the country but come in and be legal. that is the way. that is the way. it affects iowa so much. we are talking about repealing obamacare. it will be replaced. [applause] i don't know if you have been seeing what is happening but

obamacare is a total disaster. it is dying of its own weight. by 2017, he'll be playing golf and i will be working very hard. you are nottead, getting the people signed up. there has been a lot of talk about it. obamacare is dead. we will come up with something that will be so good, so much better. premiums are going through the roof. high, that or so are so unless you were close to death, i don't think you'd be able to use it. we will take care of that. by the way, we have a lot of good people. the y is really -- we have people. [applause] ago and theymonth

do a fantastic job. it is so important. it is another form of let's stay away from opec and the middle east stuff. it is so important. actually, what i don't understand, because the one guy that is doing pretty good with me in iowa is ted cruz. everything i say, he agrees with. no matter what i say. he agrees. with the ethanol, he has to come a long way because he is for the oil. i understand oil pay some a lot of money. the oil companies give him a lot of money. so, i'm with you. i'm with everybody. look, i'm self funding. i have no oil company, no special interest. i have no lobbyists that want me. they are representing countries that are ripping off the country. they are representing companies

that are ripping off the country. i am working for you. we will make america so great again. [applause] and maybe better than ever before. so important. when we first started, i talked about china and japan and mexico. mexico both at the border and in trade. abisco is moving there. ford is moving there. they took the big plant away from tennessee, a great state. we will do -- we will get it. we will do what we have to do, ok? thank you. look at that group over there. i talk about that a lot. about 2.5 weeks ago in paris, i'm speaking a little differently now. i can take care of china in my back pocket. that is easy for me.

that is what i do. [applause] we have all the cards. these politicians do not understand. we have the cards. with china, our people pay tax. they pay no tax. they call it a tariff because it sounds better. we will take care of that. what happened is with paris, it is a different mindset. when the polls came out last week, my numbers went way up because people feel more secure with me. yeah, really. [applause] who knows why? who knows? but, my poll numbers went up. whenever there is something i do that is proper, but controversial, they say now's he 's done. that's it.

that is the end. i will not go over all the different things because maybe you will change your mind. they will say that is it. it is over. and then they come and say, sir, your poll numbers went up nine points this week. they did? [applause] because i have to do what is right. i have to do what is right. you know what? if i don't make it, i don't make it. i have a good life. you all hopefully have a good life. i have a great family, nice people. they love me, i think, i hope. i think. but, i have a great family. i built a great business. thank you. who is that person? i love that person. stand up. i love that person. thank you, darling. i appreciate it.

spirit no matter where i go. we go to dallas, we have thousands of people. 35,000 people in alabama. 20,000 people in oklahoma. this is supposed to be like a record. it is big, yet it feels intimate. we are going to start taking questions. i just want to say -- i changed a couple of weeks ago. when i saw paris, i changed. and a big part of what i'm doing now is safety and security and smartness and smartness. [applause] it is interesting. it is to make america great again and safe again because we don't feel safe anymore. that welem we have now

never had to this extent is the power of weaponry. it is the power, the tremendous power. 100 years ago, i said do not go there anyway -- i said do not go. you will destabilize the middle east. the fact is right now we have to do things because we have some really, really sick th degenerates. and the press -- look at all the cameras going. nobody else has cameras like this. 100 times i make a speech, nobody cares. look at this. [applause] worry.n't they have me. that is why i'm walking around. they never pan the crowd. they never do. my wife, i had a crowd of 7000 people last week -- more -- 7000

people in a can finonfined spac. my wife said the speech was excellent. did you have many people there? i said what? she said they never leave your face. i figured the cameras were screwed up where you could not move it. anytime there is a protester, and they could be in the back corner of the room, the cameras swoop over there. it is true. it is true. [applause] no, i used to think they could not move. they're connected with the crazy computers. in the all days, everything was better. the car seats -- he would sit in your car, you want to move forward or back, you press a button. now you have to open up things and press a computer.

the same thing with cameras. i didn't think they moved. i figured they were fixed. then, i saw a protester and those cameras were bent in positions like you would not have believed possible. they are very dishonest people. not all of them, but most of them. the press is -- you have one of the most dishonest in your backyard. "the des moines register" is the worst. [applause] the worst. the worst. dishonest. very you have some reporter named jacobs. she is the worst. -- it is such so misrepresentation. i don't care. i'm saying in their backyard. they are failing anyway. they probably will not be in business in two years. "the desny, every time

moines register" does a poll, i always do badly. i believe -- i'm only doing this so they don't sue me -- i hope they do because they don't have enough money to sue me. i believe, and i may be wrong, i will say i'm sure i'm wrong, but it is my opinion that they don't do it properly. because they pull like 300 to 400 people, but i believe -- if they lose 20 people. forget that one. i don't know that they do that. do you do that? des moines i have a " register" poll, i do poorly. we had a great poll coming from cnn where we are leading by 13 points in iowa. [applause]

then, we had another one where we are doing very well. i think "des moines register" -- just watch. trump disappears. i think we will do so well. i think we will actually do better. we are leading in most of the polls. we are leading in every poll, except iowa, there was one poll. monmouth, what the hell is that? explain it. i don't like it because they'll we treat me badly also. i only like polls that treat me well, right? but, we are doing so well. nationwide, we are leading every poll by tremendous. we had one in georgia -- 44%. think of that. that is 44% with 15 people. i'd take 44% if we had three

people. but, 44%. cbs came out, as you know, "the new york times" a few days ago -- 35%. we are killing everybody in every poll. when des moines comes out, i 'm sure it will be negative. we are going to win. honestly, iowa is so important to me. anould say let's not -- i'm evangelical, a christian, a presbyterian. [applause] i love billy graham. he came out with the most beautiful statements. he was so incredible. i don't know if you saw this. he cannot with statements about -- came out with statements about trump. stand up. is that right? he was so incredible.

franklin graham, the son of billy graham. billy graham was unbelievable. they were incredible. so, i think we will do -- we are doing really well with evangelicals. by the way, i do like ted cruz, but not a lot of evangelicals, out of cuba -- come out of cuba. not a lot come out. i like him nevertheless. we are doing great with evangelicals. we are doing great with the tea party. leading with the tea party. [applause] doing fantastic with old and young and middle. we are doing great with everybody. it is very important to me to win iowa. i could put less pressure on myself and i could say i don't care about iowa, but i do care. i do care so much about it. that is why am here all the time.

then lies happen. they lie so much. the people of iowa can't be that stupid. the people of the country -- i'm trying to make a point. i said the people of the country cannot be that stupid. they cut the country out. iowa, i love you people. remember that. [applause] i was talking about something and i won't even mention what i was talking about because the guy i was talking about was actually a very good guide, but i will say this, we want to win iowa so bad. if i win, i think we run the table. i think we run the table. [applause] we go right through it. big in new hampshire, every poll. christie got an endorsement from this crazy newspaper up there. the weirdest deal i have ever seen. you know, the paper that was in

his state called up and said are you sure about that? nobody ever called us. can't believe it. we could go into that but it is not relevant. we are leading new hampshire big. we are leading in south carolina, like monstrous numbers. we are leading nevada, texas. we are leading everywhere. we are leading big in florida. -- but, rubio, nice guy when the people put you in position to be a senator, you have to go vote. you cannot be the number one person who does not vote in the senate. you have to say hey, i want to go and vote. he should stay there a little longer. go in vote, create a nice record. but, i don't know. how is he doing in iowa? not too good. not good.

it seems like a two-person race right now. it is an important race to me. win all of that, if we iowa, and a lot of people say we win virtually every state in the union and it is over quickly. [applause] now, we are going to take questions. one of the questions will be about what about the republican establishment? they have a problem. it is sort of like the fighters. the great champions. sometimes they go to the hometown of the guy they are fighting and they will say we never want to get a decision, we go for the knockout. because you get a lot of bad positions. they go into a hometown to fight and it is a decision. they say we are in a problem.

they lose the fight that they won. the only way they win the fight definitely, knockout. if we win iowa, think we will win everything after that. it will show how important it is. iowal pledge of this to even if i lose. i don't think i have ever said that in my life. we go and win, iowa is staying where it is in the chain. it is not moving. [applause] there is a big move for us to move iowa into a much further back position by the establishment. folks, i win, it is not happening. you are staying right here. it's great. [applause] you know, it is great.

if i don't do that, tana will be very angry at me. is she incredible? [applause] thank you. the whole staff. chuck and stephanie, where is my big i? guy? how good is he on television? where the hell is he? big sam, come here. >> there he is. mr. trump: look at the size of them. come here, sam. look at him. big sam. come here. are we going to win? >> we are going to win iowa and put them away. we will stand on their chest, stamp on their throats. we will have the biggest victory in the history of the caucuses in the state of iowa. [applause] mr. trump: beautiful. be careful. he did so well, i don't want him

falling when he is leaving. beautiful. thank you, sam. these are great people. i will be here that night. that week and a couple of weeks before. i will watch you. i will not give you any chance that we lose this. let's take a few questions. we will have a little fun. we did a big interview with cnn before this. with hillary missing today -- she was two hours late. did you hear? [booing] i may be wrong. if i am one minute off, they will call me because they love hillary. you know why? i don't know why. she was a couple of hours late and everybody left. you know what happened? she was sleeping. she could not get out of bed. she was sleeping is right. let's take some questions. >> we have sue from the aarp.

mr. trump: hi. >> hi, mr. trump. good to see you again. the social security administration reports by 2034, if nothing is done to update social security, the average 2034,is going to lose, in 25% of their benefits which calculates to about $4000 a year. my question to you is this -- what will you do to update social security? what are your specific solutions to update social security to put it on stable ground for future generations? mr. trump: i'm glad you asked me that question. you have been paying into social security and medicare, by the way. medicare does work. there is tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. we will not cut your social security and your medicare.

we will take the jobs back from all the countries that are ripping us off. we will become a wealthy country again and save you social security. think of it -- i cannot believe this number, but who was the mandatory the number? over 6 million people -- i cannot believe it -- are age 112 and over and getting social security. who is the man that told me that? i heard it, i read it. 6 million people are getting social security, meeting someone else is picking it up. who is that man? he is over there someplace. ok. 6 million people more. he came up to me tonight. it is an amazing statistic. we will have to check it. can you imagine -- we know there may be one million but not 6 million. anybody in this room 112 or

over? if they are, the want to shake your hand -- i want to shake your hand. 6 million people over 112 years old picking up social security. there is tremendous waste. what we are going to do is save medicare, save social security. we are not going to raise the age and do all the things that everybody else is talking about doing. they are all talking about doing it. you don't have to. we are going to bring our jobs back. we will make the economy incredible again. my tax proposal which is in great detail in terms of policy and has gotten tremendous reviews from a lot of people. taxese are going to cut tremendously for the middle class and businesses, because the middle class, our middle-class is being decimated.

sue, when that happens, you will see an economy that takes off. we will get rid of a lot of that debt. to $21$19 trillion going trillion right now. if you go back eight or nine years, trillion was not a word anybody knew and now it is routine. we are going to save your social security without cuts. we will make ourselves rich again. a woman said to me in new hampshire, she said, i'm voting for you, i love you, but it is very crude when you say you will make the country which again. i said i know it sounds that, but many things i say are crude. we cannot make our country great again unless we make our country rich again. we cannot let everybody in the world rip us off. [applause] we built china.

the money they took out of our country, we rebuilt china. they have bridges all over. they have bridges like the george washington bridge. maybe i should not mention that one particularly. bigger than the george washington bridge. only a few people got that. they have bridges going up. we have rebuilt china. they have taken our jobs, faith, manufacturing. they have taken our money. not going to happen anymore, folks. not going to happen. [applause] i know the great businesspeople. we have the greatest businesspeople in the world. guys like carl icahn. he calls me saying he wants to help. we are not going to use special interests. we use donors to negotiate with guy, because he gave some whoever it might be -- again, i'm the only one cell funding my

campaign. -- self funding my campaign. when these guys give money to politicians, to a large extent, they own those politicians. they will do whatever the hell the special interests and donors want. social security, we are saving it. medicare, we are saving it. we are going to make her country rich. thank you, sweetheart. >> we have a question back here from jeff. what is your question? mr. trump: hi. >> jeff morgan, and i have a question on behalf of veterans for a strong america. mr. trump: am i good with the veterans? >> very much so. mr. trump: we are leading with the veterans by like -- forget it. >> i have a question here that would like to read to make sure

i have all of it. andvets for strong america, their 500,000 supporters, endorsed you this past summer. hase then, the vfa collected -- >> come on, jeff. you knew you were doing this. you are going to get fired. >> i'm a little bit nervous. they have collected tens of thousands of signatures. they want to deliver that to the iowa campaign. those signatures are to talk petraeus andl betra the comparisons between hillary clinton and the general, and the double standards taking place. when you get into office, will you instruct the department of of hillary take care

clinton's accountability? mr. trump: yes, it is called -- [applause] what i like about jeff, he started off weak, but finish stroned strong. that was a long route to get to a good question. yeah, it is called the statute of limitations, right? it is a six-year statute. maybe five. yeah, you have to look at it. -- you know the story. it is a crime. she committed a crime. perhaps -- we have to have a fair justice department. and perhaps jeff will have some really good attorney general that will say -- look, we want

to be fair with everybody, including hillary clinton, but she committed a crime. she should not be allowed to run. she is being protected. i have little doubt they will find anything, but they have already found it. when you watch television, you have these big scholars, lawyers -- yes, she violated sections oh an so and so. many manny, many laws. you mentioned the general. his life was over destroyed over nothing. i think she will be their nominee. the only question is if she will be allowed to run. she is being protected by the democrats, by the president. why do you think she is going along with these insane policies of his? she goes along with everything. honestly in fairness to her, i

don't think she believes it. but i think she is afraid he is going to say, i don't like her anymore. i will get somebody else. i'm telling you. so, the question of statute of limitations -- it is a five-year statute of limitations. she has a problem. in one way, she is running for her life because i know one thing -- if she wins, that is the end of that. if she loses, she could have a serious problem. another question, please. >> we have eric. what is your question? mr. trump: hi. >> hi, i'm asking a question on behalf of the iowa coalition. we have syrian refugees coming in and we cannot vet them properly. what would you do immediately on the southern border? [crowd chanting]

mr. trump: it is always exciting. [cheering] mr. trump: out. out. get him out. [booing] get him out. get him out. [cheering]

>> there is always -- usa, usa, usa. >> usa, usa. there it is. mr. trump: that is a hillary supporter. au know, i always say it -- single person always want to be right in line with the camera. stands up, he is gone in a couple of minutes. tomorrow, the headlines will be protests. we have like 2000 people here. the headline will be this -- wait, this person.

[applause] sorry. you know, it is interesting because i've learned so much. i've never done this before. i have never been a politician. i hate being a politician. i know politician so much. if you cannot make money with politicians, there is something wrong. it is amazing. i see these people and sometimes -- i have had 20,000 people. not even a murmur, just love. every once in a while, you have somebody stand up. every single time it turns out to be a big story. it is a shame. that is the press also. >> until we were so rudely interrupted, eric go-ahead and ask your question. mr. trump: we will probably have another one stand up at some point. refugeese syrian

coming in through the southern border. what can we do right now to protect the southern border? >> thank you. mr. trump: i said at the beginning we will build a wall. it is going to be a real wall. -- you see that feeling? -- ceiling. that is nothing compared to the wall. we can build it, we can build it right. it will be strong and powerful and as beautiful as a wall could look. it has to be beautiful because someday they will name it the trump wall. [applause] it is going to work. walls do work. they wanted to build a wall 20 years ago. they could not get environmental impact statements. china is building in the south china sea massive military

bases. why? they are not supposed to. they have no respect for obama, our country. they are not supposed to be doing this. we can get them to stop by saying we will not do business with you anymore. we don't have to go to war. it is economics. the whole country would collapse in two seconds. we have such power and we don't know it. they are building massive -- now, they have little islands. put the biggest excavators. i said to a friend of mine from china, very rich and successful -- he paid me a fortune so i happen to like him. i said jokingly, how long did it take them to build these massive violence? islands. ? how long did it take them to get

the environmental impact statement? he said nothing. they said they will build there and they were digging two seconds later. bigave a problem -- i'm a believer in clean air and clean water. i'm a big believer. i have gotten so many awards for the environment. we'reou look at how impinged -- the wall was stopped because they could not get an environmental impact statement. among other things. orre was probably a snail turtle or snake or something. you are ruining the habitat of a rattlesnake. i don't know. they actually have a lot of people, people that would now be against it, but they wanted to build a wall years ago. i said bomb the oil.

i've been saying that for years. now they are. one of the reasons that we did not bomb the oil, obama did not want to hurt the environment. i heard that and i thought somebody was kidding. i thought a comedian was saying that. it turned out to be true. it going into the atmosphere. this is the way we fight today. i'm telling you, we are being led by stupid people. we are being le by stupid d by stupid people. [applause] saying takeve been the oil. i didn't want to go into iraq, but once we were there -- we should not have been there, but we left the wrong way. first of all, we have a president who told him a date.

it was like 18 months later. they said wow, don't believe it. they don't want to be killed. the enemy said they would leave on a certain date? the pulled back and then now you see what happened. it is a disaster and iran is taking over iraq. weekse sent 50 soldiers ago and the president announces we are sending 50 soldiers. he thinks it is a good press announcement. it is not. 50 soldiers is not a lot even if they are elite. those 50 soldiers, because of that announcement, have a target on their heart. why does he have to say that? why can't he let 50 soldiers go there quietly? stealth. why can't he just do that? [applause] why can't he do that?

grave50 soldiers are in danger today because of that. and, they probably don't even know that, but everybody is looking for them. we have people that don't know what they are doing. we still have general douglas macarthur, general george patton -- these were real people. [applause] today, we have generals that go on talk shows. i saw a general the other day on a talk show. he said -- this is serious. they are good men, but you have to lead these men. the generals, you have to have power over them. he said we are in the worst shape in terms of preparedness that we have been in for decades . this is the time where we have to be in the best shape because the world wants to kill us. they said we are in the worship we have been in many decades --

worst shape we have been in many decades. he should not be saying that because you are telling the enemy that. the enemy feels emboldened, right? we should not be saying it. [applause] even if it is true, you don't say it. you do the opposite. one thing i will do -- i will build the military so big and so strong and so powerful that -- so powerful -- [applause] that nobody is going to mess with us. nobody will mess with us. in many ways, it is the cheapest thing you can do. everybody is toying with us right now. it is the absolute cheapest thing you can do. ok, come on. >> we have roger right here. what is your question? >> hello. mr. trump: hi. >> what is your response to

those that want to enact more laws regarding firearms in an effort to keep evil people from doing evil things with firearms? mr. trump: you are right. i'm a big second amendment person, by the way. [applause] here. get over here. my gunman. this guy, he has one of the great places. might as well give him free publicity. my son buys weapons from him. my son and i are members of the nra. come here. [applause] looks like somebody was aiming at him. you know my sons, right? they are serious believers in the guns. what is the name intercompany -- name of your company? >> we are the largest supplier.

[applause] thank you all. mr. trump: you have a great company. this is long before i was ever thinking about doing this, right? >> a long time. mr. trump: they make you a lot of money? i hope they negotiated a little bit. it is a great company. thank you. be careful. [applause] my son is a really great marksman. i'm a member of the nra, but not such a good shot. if you think about that question now there is tremendous pressure to get rid of the guns, the magazines, the bullets. i will the three bullets in every magazine, then 12 and then 23. will't think the bad guys say i don't want to break the law, but i will put three bullets in. these people.

i have arguments with them all the time. i'm a practical guy. if i didn't believe it, i could not say it. in france or in california -- i have permission to carry which is a big thing in new york. i have a license to carry. but, in france or california or all these places we have seen shooters, if instead of having hundreds like in france, hundreds of people in that room -- paris as the toughest gun laws in the world. france has the toughest gun laws in the world. nobody has guns except the bad guys. worst,lked in with the toughest, best best weaponry you can have and they said over here, boom. over here, boom. they kill 128 but many more are dying right now. they are in terrible shape in the hospitals.

they wiped the place out and they could have stayed there longer. you have those two sleaze bags from california, the married couple. a young married couple did the shooting. they are not a young married couple. they are the worst. they are sleaze. [applause] the young married couple. that is no young married couple. they walk into a place and they killed 14 people and others are going to be dying probably. if somebody had guns -- nobody had a gun. look at this guy right here. stand up. how would you have done if you had a gun? would you fire back a little bit? they would have been in trouble. believe me. that guy. [applause] to an ivyi went league college and have a lot of

friends. i argue with them. i say, ok, we're in paris. there are hundreds of people and you have no gun. don't you think they would have been better? they lose the argument, but they never change their mind. we have to fight for the second amendment. it is so simple. it's so simple. [applause] -- believe me, they want to take those guns away and you always know the bad ones will have the guns and have it more so than ever before so we will protect the second amendment if i'm president. [applause] will also bee saying merry christmas again. [applause] do you ever notice -- do you

ever notice -- [cheers] that's right, brad. merry christmas. by the way, merry christmas, everybody. and happy holidays. i have a lot of friends that aren't christian. they like christmas. everybody likes christmas. it is politically incorrect to say merry christmas anymore. president, merry christmas, happy holidays, enjoy yourselves. we are going to say merry christmas again. we are going to bring our country, bring that spirit back. go ahead. >> we have greg. what is your question? >> hi, i'm twith the tea party patriots. this comes from the eagle forum. when nominated, what do you

intend to do with ted cruz? will you name him you are vice president -- your vice president or -- mr. trump: he is a good guy. >> or appoint him to the united states supreme court? mr. trump: that second is interesting. i like ted cruz a lot. he is doing well, i'm doing well. it is not a contest between the two of us. i do like am. him. i would say we would certainly have things in mind for ted. he is someone i can certainly say that for. [applause] i like him, he likes me. he put out a tweet tonight and said donald trump is terrific. that is a nice word. other candidates are not exactly saying that about me.

will you say hello to phyllis for me? she is an amazing woman. >> we have ruth from iowa pays the price. >> thanks. hi, i appreciate you are not bought and paid for. i know you said super pacs are a scam. our politicians have been corrupted by donors. andwill you fix this mess improve accountability and campaign financing? [applause] mr. trump: great question. the super pacs are horrible. i have had many set up for me from people i do not know. some people called it the art of the deal pac. i started going around and see the corruption with the super pacs, where they are stuffed with money. people that put the money in our dealing with candidates. the whole thing is wrong.

i see it. bush has $125 million. $2 billion, it would not make any difference, ok? [applause] million --25 honestly, he is a nice person. he is a very nice person, but $125 million. people giveourself, $2 million, $7 million -- you know what happens. some of the super pacs are actually running the campaign. another thing that is interesting -- one of the super pacs has $6 million. of the $6 million -- this was reported on the front page of -- ones angeles times" of the candidates which i will not mention the name. of the $6 million, after all of

the bloodsuckers took their cuts, the fundraisers, they had $140,000 left for the campaign. that is better than being a real estate broker. i would rather do that than sell houses. they had $140,000 left. it was in the newspaper. i think i believe it. i have seen it. the romney campaign -- the guy made tens of millions of dollars raising money for romney. you give them money and they get a cut. our laws are so corrupt. our campaign-finance laws mr. trump: i don't necessarily want to stop people from giving, because i think that is a good thing. but you have to get away from the super pac's. what you have to have his people have to know who it is, so you have to open up the process and let people know -- if they want to give $1 million, then they

can, but you must know who it is. that puts a little pressure on guys like brad, who raises hundreds of millions of dollars. pac, itept of the super is no good. it is no good. it is a very dangerous, terrible thing. we will change our laws because you really have no choice. it is so out of control. it is so terrible. the papers that are in this room tonight should look at this, there is so little money left over for the candidate, that is one of the reasons i'm so happy that i'm doing my own. we actually sent legal letters to around eight or nine super pac's. first of all, i'm sure that out of some of them, they sold the money. send i have no money and sets up a donald trump something super pac. he sets it up. all of a sudden he has two main dollars. people send him money.

how much of that money do you think he is to use to do what he is supposed to be doing? that is common sense. maybe all of it. but, i doubt it. so we sent legal notices to everyone that we could find having to do with donald trump. we do not want their money. we said, don't do it. we don't want it. ideally, give the money back to the people that gave it to you. but the super pac concept is correct and it is terrible and it should be ended. we will go to new campaign-finance laws that will be terrific. ok? thank you. [applause] mr. trump: go ahead. >> we have kevin with america's renewable future. >> good evening, mr. trump. think you for coming to iowa. i'm a native of des moines, so on behalf of des moines i would like to think you for coming. thank you for supporting the renewable fuel standard. you talked about this a little bit earlier. senator cruz is not in support of that.

you thinkll me, do that is because of his ties to big oil? mr. trump: yes, it is. [applause] mr. trump: it is. if he is from texas, to the best of my knowledge, there is a lot of oil in texas. he gets a lot of money from the oil companies and he is told -- totally against ethanol and everything else that you are talking about. i am not. i'm totally in favor. it is a big industry here. [applause] mr. trump: you know, is that industry is upset, iowa has problems. i was here through weeks ago with a group -- any of the people here that were at that meeting? they were such amazing people, right? stand up. we had a good meeting, right? i learned so much about it. i was in favor of it even before. that is correct, either member you very well. how could you forget? it was amazing. looking at the plants. also, beyond even the fuel

capacities which we want to create as much as we can, tremendous numbers of jobs in iowa. i say to myself, if ted cruz is against ethanol, how does he win in iowa? that is very anti-iowa. i don't know how he wins in iowa. [applause] mr. trump: but i totally for it, ok? thank you. >> thanks. >> what is your question? of servinghe honor iowa as the republican national committee woman. i do have a question for you on establishment or a late gop, whatever you want to call it. as the state central committee, we are neutral. this is not to hurt you or harm you, it is for clarification. when we see you make a statement and sometimes it is controversial, as we have noticed, -- mr. trump: sometimes purposefully though. firestorm, the fact

checkers come through and your constitutionally sound. you agree with the party platform. i have not found anything where i see you in contradiction, unlike other candidates that are in contradiction to the platform. with the public. you have unleashed america from the bondage of political correctness. [applause] mr. trump: wow, thank you. thank you. [applause] question, whymy wouldn't a gop, or rnc be thrilled with a candidate that has the numbers that you do, that is resonating with the public, and is saying the things that is obviously -- mr. trump: come here. bring her up. so nice. [applause] mr. trump: when she first started that question, i thought oh no, here it comes. after midway through, i really appreciate it. come on over here.

get under there. that's great. that assessing nice question, thank you. come here. don't fall. [applause] mr. trump: thank you very much. that is so nice. what is your name? >> i appreciate you writing. there are a lot of other things that you could be doing. we appreciate you running. i will not fight you for the microphone, ever. [applause] >> why is it, why would they not be thrilled that you are -- the numbers that you have, the crowds that you have, the message that you are bringing, you are reviving the heart of america. this is what we should want. why? [applause] mr. trump: thank you. be careful. i was a member of the establishment six months ago. i gave the range of $50,000 to the republican governors

association. i gave tremendous amounts of money away. i was like the fair-haired boy. once i said i was running, they said what? you're not supposed to run. then i ran against all of these senators and governors and everyone said, well, i don't know. my ways that, if you run, you are going to win. she understands the love people and people love me. she said -- you have to actually go and run. you have to announce that you are running. because, nobody will believe that you are running. i did not want to announce because i did not want to announce and then have things not work out and be like some of these guys were there at zero. many of them are at zero. finally i said, we are going to do it. there were too many things that i watched on television with our president and the decisions that are made. horrible, dirty, traitor, and --

they get five killers that they have wanted for nine years. the worst killers. they are all back on the battlefield. some a decision. iran deal. how bad is that? they self inspect? ok, we are not building. they promise they're not building nuclear weapons. that's ok. we give them $150 billion and we do not even get our prisoners back? the whole thing is crazy. i saw this. and i said to my wife, i don't know if i will do well or not. who knows? is a risky thing. i have always heard that if you are successful person you cannot run for office, especially president. i see it all the time. the people go after me. i don't even care at this point. i say, we have to do it. i looked at it the last time with mitt romney and i did not do it and i probably should have, because you let us down. look, he let us down. we had a failed president. he was a failed president. just as bad as he is now. it is true. [applause]

and mitt romney let us down. that last month it was like he was not even campaigning. i said, why are you jay leno or david letterman? why are you not doing a? he just did not do it. so he lost the election. i backed john mccain and he lost. i backed mitt romney and he lost. this time i said, i'm doing it myself. we're going to win. [applause] but, there is an establishment out there. it is a real establishment. real people. there are people that are used to having their little puppets all over the place. there are people who are used to giving donations and having control. they are people that may call me, i will treat them with respect, but i will not be doing bad things if it is bad for the country. i will not let ford will they plant in mexico if i can keep it in michigan. [applause] mr. trump: i'm not going to let

the car companies and nabisco and all of these people and all of these companies -- i am all for free trade and i think it is great. i am for it. it has to be smart trade. i will not let them move to mexico and sell things without tax or anything. we lose our jobs and our factories and they go over here and make it and we let them come through. how does that help us, folks? i went to the best business school in the world, believe me, it does not help us. trust me. we will not make is like that anymore. we can't. we own 19 train dollars. the establishment is not ever probably -- in the end, if this country mming even the establishment, they will say it is a good thing. they will be beneficiaries also. we have a real establishment and they have never seen this happen before. a writer called up and said -- to my the top journalists way of thinking, certainly in the country and beyond, and he

said, mr. trump, how does it feel? and i said how does what feel? how does it feel, what you have done has never, ever been done before? i said, what have i done? he says you have dominated the summer of donald trump. now they call it the autumn of donald trump. hopefully they call it the spring of donald trump. i want the next autumn of donald trump. [applause] writer,p: i said to the i don't know what you are talking about, i have not done anything. friendly, if i don't win, i consider this to be a total waste of time. i'll be honest with you. as much as i like eating with you, i want people to do anything. he says, no you have one, even if you don't win. i said no, i don't win. if i do not win, i have wasted my time. is, the establishment cannot believe it. they have never seen a happen before. i was on the cover of time magazine four weeks ago or five weeks ago. time magazine was going to pick the person of the year.

everybody, even my enemies said that donald trump is going to win. i said, i want win. they said why? i said i was. just like i should have gotten the emmy for the apprentice the first three years. i was nominated and i should have. and i said i will never win. because i'm not hollywood establishment. said,th time magazine, i -- o'reilly is a great guy. he did an editorial at the end of the show saying, nobody has done more than donald trump. he should have one. i probably should have, in all fairness. but he said, nobody has done more -- taken over -- what we have done has been amazing. it is not just me, it is all of us. from dallas and mobile and oklahoma. all of us. because the spirit -- bill o'reilly had a whole big thing. the other shows, where they said, donald trump, what do you think? well, angela merkel got it. what did she do? she has destroyed --

she is in the process of destroying germany. with the migration. we have to help the people at the migration. we have to create a safe zone someplace in syria. i do not want them coming into this country. i don't want them. we don't know who they are. [applause] mr. trump: we don't know who they are. [applause] then with their printing presses that now do the forged passports. you heard about that. so, we do not know. the bottom line on that is it is such an interesting question. you will know in about a month or two whether or not the establishment has treated me fairly. but the only thing that i can iowa, ihis, if i win think it is over. i have said before. iowa,e, i think if i win new hampshire is amazing, people are amazing, you would love the people and they would love you. you have everybody. the whole country is in love. i call it the noisy majority.

it is no longer a silent majority. it is the noisy majority. [applause] but, if we win like i think we are going to win, because we have such a big lead. honestly, it is not going to matter, they can do anything. i don't care about the establishment. they can't do anything. the only way they can do it is if i'm a little bit short. if i'm to vote short i have a problem. i will have to go in that convention and deal with all of these bloodsucker politicians and they will make their deals and i will have all of the money guys around and they will be in the back room making deals. but, if i get the number of delegates, there is not a thing that they can do. i will end up doing fine with the establishment. again, i was a member of the establishment six months ago. that was a nice question and i appreciated, thank you. [applause] >> we have had there. what is your question? >> hello. my question is regarding education. in the past, you have come out

against common core. mr. trump: absolutely. [applause] mr. trump: that was an easy one, i'll tell you. a, gore is a symptom of larger disease, and that is the fact that the government thinks you know best our children, rather than our parents. with the recent passage of the every student succeeds act, the back room deal made by republicans and democrats kept the federal government and education. what will you do to return power to parents and make them have the choice on how to educate our children? thank you. [applause] so, common core, i'm such a believer in education. i had an uncle was a professor at m.i.t.. he was a brilliant guy. in fact, i just retweeted an article about him today. you have to read it. when i see somebody like jeb bush -- i will tell you one thing i respect, he did not change his views. he knew he was going to get killed on this issue and i respect that to a certain extent. but, it is so wrong.

common core is a total disaster. we have people -- [applause] we have people, bureaucrats in washington telling you how your child should be educated in iowa and new hampshire and all of the different places that we go to. it is ridiculous. i go around and i see the principles -- i have seen so many students and teachers and professors and principles and i have seen some of the people. somein iowa, i have seen of the love that these parents give to those schools. this is real love. these are smart people. these are people that are not working for a paycheck. these are incredible people and i have seen -- member this -- our educational system is a mess. we spend more money per pupil as a government than any other country in the world and we are in 20th place. i mean, like double what anyone else has.

i want to bring education back to the local areas. you will have parents and you will have unbelievably talented people and they love their kids and they want their kids to be well educated because it is so important. and you'll be very happy with it, ok? thank you. [applause] >> ok, we're coming down to logan. what is your question? >> hello. mr. trump: a tough looking cookie. go ahead. >> i represent a cooperative. we're wondering what your plans are for providing clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy? mr. trump: you people do it. i have gotten to know you really well. you people do it. we are backing you 100%. the job and the spirit that you all have, you are always perfectly i tired with your green, we are backing you 100%. you do a phenomenal job. there should be more people like you in this country. the whole grid is a disaster.

the whole country. the infrastructure of our country is falling apart. and nobody can build like me. that is what i do, i build. on pennsylvania avenue, a big, tremendous hotel. that i got from the government of the united states. from the obama administration, a couple of years ago. we have the best plan. the gsa is terrific. they're very talented people. we are under budget and ahead of schedule. that is what we do. when you see these things, where they are building a bridge and dollarscost a billion and then across $12 billion -- how about when they built the hospital that cost $3 billion. i look at it and i can tell you how much it will cost. sir, $3250 million, no billion. $3 billion? do you think somebody got rich on that when? we are going to stop all of this debt. we are going to make our country so strong and so wonderful. we love it anyway.

but it is so sad to see what is happening. it is so sad. and we are going to change it around. are we all finish with those questions? >> you have one, joe? we have one more. your planner doesn't let up. she is brutal. corey, she is brutal. she did a good job on the apprentice though. >> i had a really good mentor. [applause] andtrump: i'll tell you, there is another special person who did a great job on the apprentice great shawn johnson. she is another champion. she is another one. and she is an incredible young woman. she is getting married. she is fantastic. wherever she may be, say hello. go ahead. >> mr. trump, can you talk about your jobs program? we don't have enough work to pay people a living wage. mr. trump: that is true. we have such a problem and the biggest problem i have relates

to education. the hardest thing that you get is when you go around and you see students and somebody students come out and here's and they always want to talk about the loans. student loans. and they are going through nice colleges and their good student to work hard to could be really top in their class. and they get on the say, mr. trump, we have no jobs. we can't get jobs. they can get jobs. we are to bring our jobs back from china. we're going to bring our jobs back from all of these places overseas that has stolen our jobs. we will bring our jobs back from south america and will bring them back from mexico. we will have jobs again, believe me. we will be manufacturers again. we will start making apple computers in this country. does it doll good to= to make them in china? we are going to bring our jobs back. ladies and this has been a lot

of fun. this is the first arrived in this kind of a thing, and it has been amazing. yes? mr. trump: thank you. thank you. [applause] mr. trump: i thought you were a protester at first. [laughter] mr. trump: isn't that a terrible way to end? a protester in your final words. that was very nice, thank you. we love the military. thank you. [applause] mr. trump: so, i just want to thank you all for being here, we love you all and it is so important. iowa is so important to me and the relationship that i developed here have been amazing. we are going to make our country great again and we're going to make our country safe again. thank you all for being here. thank you. [applause] ♪ where not been a take it no, we angered and take it

were not a take it anymore ♪ >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. rallies, meets-and-greets. always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website, c-span.org >> democratic residential candidates martin o'malley visited a mosque. he talks about these san bernardino shootings and criticized donald trump for his attempts to ban syrian immigrants. this is about a half an hour. brothers and sisters, we do

have a very special guest today. please show you, some courtesy and help us to welcome governor martin o'malley. we are facing a very difficult time here. we have people who are attacking our community all of the time. we are delighted to welcome people who are coming in or her willing to show public support for community. we a 501(c)-three. we do not endorse political parties or candidates or issues. however, we are delighted to welcome people who are coming out and are willing to show their support and are willing to talk about and ask us for our support. those were likely to come out when they are seeking our support and to talk with us and to hear us out and your concerns are those were likely to be listening to us even after they are elected. please keep that in mind. we will have an opportunity. there will be a press conference afterward. there will be an opportunity before that press conference to stop and say hello. i encourage all of you to come

by and shake hands with the governor and say thank you for coming out. whether or not you choose to support him is your personal decision. we do not have anything to do with that. but i can tell you this, the holocaust was because people were not paying attention to the civic process and were allowing events to take control. we cannot do that as a community. a community. we are delighted, again, as a 501-c3. martin o'malley is running for the democratic nomination for the president. we are happy to have him. at the end of this, when he finishes speaking, i expect to see the rafters roaring with her applause. [applause] gov. o'malley: it is wonderful

to be with all of you. i enjoyed listening to your sermon. to all of the leadership here.te with you today. my name is martin o'malley. and the former governor of maryland and i'm running for president of united eights. i'm seeking the democratic party's nomination. and i certainly would love to have your help. we have qualified to be on the ballot here in virginia. maybe some of you have signed my petition. my primary reason for being here today is that this moment in our country's history, i wanted to be here just to be present with you, and solidarity, in these challenging times. i have had a real blessing to be able to travel throughout our country. in fact, i just came back from a redeye from san francisco, i think i was, i think. what i find throughout our country is it is really deeply

inspiring for all of our diversity as a people, many people of many different faith. we are nonetheless united by our belief in the dignity of every person. by our belief in the common good that we share in our own responsibility to protect and to advance the common good. and by our understanding that we are all in this together. fact share an solidarity as americans and as children of one god. wherese times, i suppose fear and division is in the air, it is easy for unscrupulous politicians or hate-preachers, no nation is a man from the hate-preachers, to turn his upon ourselves. that sort of language that you hear from donald trump is not the language of america. i know the linkage of america's future. i speak to our young people under 30 every single day and i rarely find among them any that feel like donald trump. [applause]

throughout my service in maryland, we celebrated the fact that we were one of maryland. we would host an event every year in the governor's mansion. i know that my muslim neighbors make america strong. they are our doctors, our lawyers -- [applause] and so, i suppose that my message here today is not only one of solidarity, but also of encouragement. anduse, in order to rise you meet these challenges, we need each other. we need each other. we particularly need our american muslim neighbors. i know that there have been many acts of violence. i know that there are acts of ignorance that have been encouraged. by some in our political discourse. but the larger arc of our history, as i was listening -- there is a larger arc of love and generosity and risk act for

one another. , and i know that our young people understand, that the tragic murders that took place in san bernardino does not define islam anymore than that horrible murder that took place in charleston defines christianity. [applause] together, we have what it takes as a people to rise to this challenge. and to rise to this occasion. every generation always faces challenges. we face challenges, too. the changing nature of conflict in the world. but the world has never needed america to act like america more than right now. to appreciate that we are all in this together. that each of us has a dignity and a freedom and a calling. and that each person is needed. and so, i say to you, here today, that together we shall overcome these challenges.

[applause] gov. o'malley: thank you. thank you. thanks a lot. thank you, very, very much. >> the press conference will also be an opportunity to say a personal greeting and thank you to the governor. any of you who would like to attend that press conference, please do so in the area downstairs. we need the entrance as clear as possible. if you have to leave, please -- also, -- you'll have an opportunity to hear from him at the press conference, as well. thank you. [applause]

gov. o'malley: thank you. thank you. were all in this together. gov. o'malley: thank you. and wonderful community. >> we appreciate you coming. gov. o'malley: thank you. gov. o'malley: thanks a lot. an honor to be with you. thank you a lot. >> [indiscernible] gov. o'malley: thank you. i will make the offering and you

decide. >> thank you so much. thank you, thanks a lot. will pray for each other. thank you. it is great being with you. an awesome community. good to meet you. thank you for having me. a great honor to be with you guys. thank you. good to be with you. >> thank you. [indiscernible] gov. o'malley: thanks very much for all of your comments. >> we will do it together. gov. o'malley: thank you, we shall. how are you? good to see you. congratulations, i am voting for you.

gov. o'malley: good to meet you. >> [indiscernible] gov. o'malley: thank you. it's a pleasure. >> pictures are great. thank you sir, good luck to you. gov. o'malley: things are having me. >> we want you back as the next president here. gov. o'malley: thank you. [indiscernible] gov. o'malley: thank you. nomalley.com.rtio we can stay in touch. >> [indiscernible] gov. o'malley: i have some friends here. the best way is to sign up on the website.

we will stay in touch with you as the campaign progresses. you can send a check, absolutely. i will need that. thank you, please, absolutely. what is your name? khaled. gov. o'malley: awesome. >> [indiscernible] we're all in this together. >> [indiscernible] gov. o'malley: this is when we need to come together. i would be honored to have a picture with your father. thank you. a great honor to be here, thank you. how are you?

thanks a lot. thank you, guys. thank you for having me. if you are the nominee, you will get my vote. gov. o'malley: thank you, thanks a lot. good being with you. hello. how are you? good to see you. >> thank you so much -- gov. o'malley: such a nice community. >> thank you. thank you so much. gov. o'malley: thank you. >> [indiscernible]

gov. o'malley: let me get in the middle, here. thank you. who has the camera? >> thank you very much. bless you. and your family. gov. o'malley: thank you. a wonderful day with you. thank you. sure, man. thank you. thank you very much. [indiscernible] thank you. gov. o'malley: this is quite a center. it is good to be here. >> thank you. gov. o'malley: thank you for your kindness. sure. thank you. it is great being with you. hang in there, now. we are all in this together. thank you. sure.

turn it around, hold on. how to redo this? >> we are also very proud of the fact that we had a number of people in our own community who are members of the u.s. armed services and who have served their country in every way to defend their country. i am proud to ask another -- ran of the u.s. army to have him say a few words on behalf of all veterans, including myself who served honorably in the armed forces. [applause] my name is or she. i was born in michigan and spent much of my life in virginia. i'm currently a graduate student

at georgetown university. i'm a proud muslim. and i'm a proud military veteran. [applause] >> i am listed in the army in 1999 at the age of 18 upon graduating high school. i served five years and was able to attain a ranking sergeant. i was serving in the third infantry division on 9/11. american muslims were also attacked on 9/11. after my military service i took part of the invasion in iraq and spent much of my time in baghdad and falluja. after he left the service, i spent a decade continue to serve our country abroad both in afghanistan, iraq, and elsewhere. i also work for the fbi in maintaining the national watchlist. muslim,r, a devout spent seven years as a translator and the u.s. embassy in iraq. safeguarding our troops and translating for generals.

my brother is currently serving in the united states navy. now, we find that our faith in our commitment to this nation is being questioned. i feel that my family service to this country as well americans is being demeaned, unjustly. muslim americans are no different from any other american. they are your classmates, your soldiers, and your countrymen. standing together as we are today, christians, muslims, jews, and seeks, and others, and i hope and pray that we can fight intolerance with tolerance , division with dialogue, and fear with friendship. thank you. [applause] >> you will notice behind us that we have a selection of community leaders, people from other mosques throughout virginia. i think it shows that this is a

good cross-section of what this muslim community really is in the united dates. we represent countries from malaysia to morocco and everything in between. many are americans, native americans, african americans, all others. we are americans like everyone else. jim to like to also ask say a few words very briefly. before we introduce our guests. [applause] thank you. what is happening today is not unusual. it is not an unusual occurrence in the history of our country. in times of great stress, in times of dislocation, we have always had voices of division and hates that come out to speak. you can never forget that. this is an american what is happening. unfortunate, it is very american. it happens all the time. but what also happens all of the time, is the voices that bring us together, voices of hope,

voices that stress what better angels are saying to us come forward. withmessage always comes the message of division. [laughter] the point is, since i have met martin o'malley on the campaign trail, i have been witness to the fact that he has the voice that i think brings us together. a voice of america's future. i am proud to be here because i love this community in and i 's pain.

also, because i love martin o'malley. the message that ultimately will triumph. thank you. [applause] >> for those of you who were not at the air service, i would like to reintroduce our religious direct her. he has really represented a america and the voice of american muslims. >> thank you. this means a lot to us. i would like to say to my fellow asricans, we have many times muslims seen the violence of terrorism. it is a cult. the value of what this religious service is all about.

we were taught to love our neighbors. whoever takes one life has taken the life of all humanity. whoever saves one life has saved whole humanity. martin o'malley, i would like to thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you to all of the leaders at the adams center. thank you for your warmth and hospitality. it is a great privilege and blessing to be here. especially at this time in our country's history. i want to especially thank our veteran. thank you for what you said and what you have done for our country.

[applause] said theld trump hateful things he did about wanting to seal off the borders and prevent our muslim american neighbors from traveling, i had to ask myself, will they began with the patriotic muslim americans serving in our armed forces around the world keeping us safe? the truth of the matter is this. i want to say a couple words about san bernardino and the tragic murders. now grievingo are and our country for that tragic loss of life. those attacksthat do not represent islam any more than those mass shootings that have happened in other places in the country represent christianity, anymore that violent extremism represents

judaism. violent extremism is not with the muslim american people of our country are about. i know this because they are my neighbors. [applause] we have a challenge because democracies are most vulnerable after an attack. that is what democracies are vulnerable in turning upon themselves. if we get above the values -- give up the values, that is what gives us the freedom to worship, freedom to associate. if those are the first things we give up because of our reluctance to speak up and give voice to the truth, shame on us. donald trump and his sort of language is not what our country is about or where it is headed. enough for evil to succeed if the good men and

women do not speak up. i wanted to be here today in solidarity. i have served just over the river from you and maryland for two terms. everybody always likes their neighboring governor better, right? [laughter] this region of the country our diversity is our strength because of the work i have done with our muslim american neighbors and maryland. feeding the hungry. today with me, feeding the hungry. clothing the naked. providing help to reinforce the fabric of who we are as a people. this is our challenge. this sort of scapegoating language, this fear-driven politics, has consequences. its consequences go far beyond the flash in the pn of the polling that some of the networks put up on the news.

it has consequences for our families. it can make people more honorable in our own country. we have heard of mosques being attacked, people being harassed. the incident that took place i think in philadelphia. this is the time when we need to from many strong cultures comes one strong country. that truth is needed today. we are a great people. [applause] values are not the values of violent extremist nor are they the values of hate preachers like donald trump. our values are those of generosity, compassion, mercy. doing justice. walking humbly with god. [applause] and daughters of

abraham. unitess far more that us. at this moment of challenge, we must remember we are one people. cause is one.our wehave to help each other if are going to succeed. those words of frederick douglass still ring true today, don't they? i want to thank you very much for what you are doing in defense of our country, in defense of american values, in defense of those human universal values that all of us share. i thank you for coming out this afternoon. thank you very, very much. thank you. thank you. >> the governor will take some questions. >> sure. >> governor, this all began because of the events in san bernardino. what have you done to pray with

or reach out to those are? : i have notalley gone to san bernardino since that happened. that i can tell you this, a former have as governor and as a former mayor, i have often been at the sites of mass shootings. sadly and tragically and our country, there are far too many mass shootings that happened on a real or bases. to the mother or the father that -- to carry a child caught who has to bury a child, the motive of the one who pulled the trigger has nothing to do with changing the unfathomable laws. my heart goes all to all of mass affected by the shootings in our country. we have a terrible problem, it

is the scourge of guns and gun violence. we bury more people because of gun violence they and any other developed nation on the planet. we have to do better. there are common sense things we have to be doing to keep guns out of the hands of violent extremist of all stripes. perhaps the tragedy in san bernardino is a good opportunity for us to shake ourselves out of the indifference that sometimes attended the other 350 mass shootings that happened this year. maybe we can ask ourselves, are there not to actions we can take that her life-giving instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying there's nothing we can do about it. thank you. thank you. we are proud to welcome politicians over the last decade. we have had politicians from

every state and national office here with us. we do not introduce -- and doors any candidates. we are a 501 c-three. we're glad to welcome up martin o'malley and he had one of the most inspirational speeches we have ever heard. thank you so much for reading here. [applause] hethe members of the press, talked about governors across the river. coming governor will be at 2:00 tomorrow afternoon in fairfax. we would be happy to cover that was local news as well. governor, thank you very much and best of luck to you. [applause] >> we are in this together. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> you were great. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, take care. >> thank you. >> god bless you. >> thank you, what is your name? >> absolutely. >> thank you, ma'am.

>> thank you. lot.s a we'll see you, thanks a lot. >> hope you enjoyed the break. my wife loves you. >> thank you. thanks a lot. >> thank you. murmuring]

>> thank you. >> thank you, god be with you. >> thank you, good being with you. >> thank you.

[crowd murmuring] did receive it. there should be an e-mail as well. >> thank you. murmuring] >> ok. you can e-mail it to me. laughter] murmuring] a it was an honor and pleasure. >> thank you. murmuring]

>> sadly, we all mail what extremism look like. we have all had enough visuals over the last year. and began with paris charlie hebdo and hopefully it will end with only paris and san bernardino. the other atrocities we have seen. we'll all know would extremism looks like.

what does moderation look like? is moderation merely the absence of beheading? the absence of shooting in oh cents? s? shooting innocent or is it something else? not just the absence but something more forward-looking. today we will take a deep dive into what could be a very sensitive topic. a topic i think resonates well beyond this room and well beyond the policymaking environment in washington into our great national debate about the role of religion in society. and expectations of welcome and participation

muslim americans and our society and what we mean by moderation in the context of what we are talking about today, islam and religion more generally. pleased to have the pairing we have today on this podium to discuss this very sensitive but extraordinarily important issue. moderate islam? what does moderation mean as -- in islam? how does one achieve moderation? we are fortunate to have two ofple who exemplify what one the our speakers is professionally associated with, the concept of moral average. the concept that courage is not just on the battlefield but it

can display ine society and culture and it is about ideas and beliefs. standing for them. being about change even if there is a great personal call. both our speakers have exemplified that ideal of moral courage within the context of islam in our society. first i am very proud to turn to her should munch a. i is not the first time -- will turn to our first speaker. the founder and director of the moral codes project at new york university. she is a prominent speaker, lecture, public figure, intellectual, author of books

"ch as, allah, liberty, and love." taken this message to the screen with a very successful and me-nominated pbs documentary, "faith without fear." i am delighted you could take the time to join us today. i do not call it a debate. i co-led a discussion and exchange of views. that is the spirit in which we will proceed. after she speaks, i am delighted to introduce my colleague, the western fellow at the washington institute. the founder of a movement of moderate islam. it is arabic for moderation. a term found in the koran

itself. he is a political scientist with degrees from two american universities. he established the american university at a school in jerusalem. with moralown brush courage not to long ago when he took a delegation of palestinian students to auschwitz's. he has suffered for that in his own work life environment to back in jerusalem. the object of death threats and car bombings. car burnings. i am very pleased, though, that he is at home here in washington so he can spread his message islam.oderation in i am intrigued as a student of , a site of politics, i am

intrigued to have two people who bring so much intellectual and personal experience to the themes we are talking about today. in themes of moderation islam. how these words that differ and can be applied. i am looking forward to their exchange. we will have time for lots of discussion. >> thank you. >> thank you. i am happy to be here. i am suggesting perhaps that heammed is not a moderate, is a reformer.

that may or may not mean you will have to change the name of your movement, sir. that, i want to explain the what i mean by the difference between these two ideas. reformist.d to do that, i will start with a very brief video. it is a video i did in london, england, for the guardian newspaper. it is only about one minute long but it will give you a good foundation for what i am about to say over the next few minutes. let's roll. video clip] ♪ the exhibit to all of the traits of orthodoxy including dogma and fear.

what they are most afraid of is the fear of busting out of group identity. why do moderate reformist deny this essential fact? to ine they are steep group identity so that speaking out is selling out. i am not a moderate muslim. i am a reformist. that means somebody who recognizes that the koran contains three times as many verses calling to muslims to engage in critical thinking following. blank it is at least as authentic as the so-called moderates. >> ok. so, things are changing. explain what i mean by that in just a moment. let me start with the concept of the moderate muslim. i mentioned in my video for the guardian that very often moderates are marked by

defensiveness. , first andss foremost, about western imperialism. so much so that they are distracted from dealing with the imperialist within islam itself. the extremists who study after target and kill muslims on far greater numbers they undo foreign and aerial powers. so, defensiveness is one the modernist muslim. another is fear. fear of what? fear of busting out of group identity. is manyt i mean by that moderate muslims are prone to calling people like me and

people like the professor sellouts, traitorous, you have uncleabout it before, toms, native informants, simply for taking the risk of speaking truth to power. of having the moral courage to do the right thing in the face of our own fears of being stigmatized. where does this fear and defensiveness come from? i think it is cultural. not religious. as a matter of fact, the koran , many progressive passages about the need to display moral courage. example,passage, for says believers, conduct yourself with justice and bear true witness before god even if it be family,yourself, your

or your parents. so, speak truth to their own -- your own when there is a justice of monks your own. that is chapter four, verse 135. there is still another verse much more beautiful than this one that states, god does not change the condition of the people until they change what is inside themselves. that is chapter 13, verse 11. i could go on but i give you just two examples of where the bravecalls on us to be within our own tribe. so, the defensiveness and to the fear of many moderate muslims is not, religious, i would suggest it is cultural. what do i mean by that? i mean that within particularly care of culture, there is a custom known as honor and in

particular, it refers to group honor. primarily, are the biggest victims of this as women position of the carrying the shame in the family. so that if a woman is accused of transgressing moral boundaries by, for example, being seen by a man whom she is not related to or perhaps dating or, god forbid, dating somebody outside of the faith, she will be, in many parts of the world, accused of dishonoring the family and will pay a very heavy price for it. but i can assure you that men honor.o victims of group in that, they too, are infantilized. mean to be children. made to be children.

so much less is expected of men in terms of maturity thing and is expected of women which means umbrella men under the of group honor can get away with all manner of crimes and of mistreatment of others simply , you family -- simply because they are not the ones who bring shame to the family. it is the women. --different ways, the sexes both sexes' choices are limited as to what they can do and dream of doing. this fear then that i talk about among moderate muslims comes from the idea that i must go along with the consensus in my , then because if i don't , i am causinghaos

division, and that is among the worst cultural crimes that one can be accused of. that things are changing. you know, in this country, the media and many policymakers continue to use the phrase "moderate muslims," "where are the moderates?" let me propose to you that moderates are not what we ought to be seeking. what we ought to be seeking and supporting our reformists -- supporting are reformists. and now let me connect these two ideas of the moderate and the reformist. rob very kindly mentioned that a

few years ago pbs commissioned a documentary based on my first book. "faithumentary is without fear." pbs, in its wisdom, and i mean that quite sincerely, sent me and the star of the documentary, my mother, to detroit to do a screening among arab-americans. my mother had no idea what was in store for her. i did. i went because i was interested to see how my mother would handle the hostility. came, and mytility mother was shocked, but she was shocked by something more that happened afterwards. during the reception, during which pbs made copies of my book available free of charge, and, boy, were they snapped up.

i have to believe that there was some huge bonfire in detroit that night. [laughter] irshad: out of the corner of her eye, my mother noticed that, over the course of a two-hour reception, a group of young muslims was forming, and it got bigger and bigger. and after all of the tv cameras and all of the microphones left, these young muslims approached me and my mother, and they said, manji, thank you so much for supporting your daughter. it is so rare to see a muslim parent stand by his or her daughter as she speaks some very, very hard truths." and my mother diplomatically, graciously, but somewhat frustrated said to them, "well,

thank you, but why didn't you say that when the cameras were here and when the radio microphones were here, so that other freedom-loving muslims could see that they are not alone?" and a number of these young people looked at each other sheepishly and one of them finally stepped forward, just a manji,bit, to say, "mrs. you don't understand. we live here. twoand irshad get to leave hours from now, but we stay in this community and we can't afford to be accused of dishonoring our families." this is america. these are children of the first amendment. pressure the cultural of group honor intimidated and silenced them from speaking

their truths as budding reformist muslims. is why iy, this suggest to you that professor dajani, as i mentioned, one of my heroes, is not a moderate. he takes risks. he takes risks that ruffle feathers within his community. he is willing to put his life on the line for reconciliation. he is not defensive -- not defensive about the backlash that comes his way. quite the opposite. he seems to be extremely, if i can use that word, calm and levelheaded and philosophical about it.

and -- and what i would like to leave you with is this -- the good news is that the mohammed dajani's of the world, though they are rare, will be more and more populous as you see the next generation of muslims grow up. notknow, not to recently -- i did an hour debate on al jazeera about whether there is need for reform in islam. and afterwards, certainly i received hate mail. sure, i got vitriol. that's to be expected whenever you take a position on anything these days. but what i also got were love bombs, more than hate mail, love from young muslims on twitter, on facebook.

and here is a sign of progress, not a single death threat. kooky to suggest that is progress, but on this issue, it is. i think what had happened was since 9/11, when many of the people who are now on twitter were about this tall are about -- are now this tall -- they have not internalized the defensiveness that their older brothers and sisters, that their parents and their antennal goals their aunts and ncles have. for them, open dialogue and honest debate are almost a given. and that's what i will go out on a limb and predict that, in my lifetime, however short or long a visible we will see

movement for gay and lesbian dignity among the new generation of muslims. -- see see in months imams and not just lay muslims arguing for the full and unconditional equality of women. and we will see audible calls for respect of religious minorities within islam. all of which are supportable within the koran. the question is not about religious reform as such. question is -- the question is about cultural reform. and as martin luther king, jr., himself came to understand, cultural reform takes a very long time. if a country like the united

born of the enlightenment, of scientific rationality and individual liberty, needed more than 200 years to seriously tackle legislated segregation, surely we can give some of that time to muslims to tackle our versions of segregation as well. thank you very much. [applause] mohammed: thank you. much, and that was very touching, irshad. thanks, robert, for actually having opened this discussion. a think of myself more as

moderate rather than a reformist. thethe reason is that meaning of reform is to go back to the original, and i don't want to go back to the original. i don't want to go back to the state of affairs that was. i want to go to the state of affairs -- i want to move on from the past to the future. and that's why i would like to call myself a moderate rather ehop reformist, and i that irshad will follow my road or my path, rather than lead me to her path. and maybe this way, we can be dialogue.ve this

actually, because i believe that moderation is balance, balance is justice, and justice is humanity. and this is my philosophy. this is my religion. while i myself believe that islam, christianity, and judaism are religions of moderation, reconciliation, and peace, and religion is an essential part of the herman -- human pursuit for felicity and security, and thus it is part of the solution, someone else may argue that religion promotes extremism, and thus it is part of the problem. who is right? who is wrong? can both be right?

where you stand depends on where you sit. where i see hope, you may see despair. where i read love, you may read hate. where you find conflict, i discover peace. it is like the nine blind people who have asked to describe an elephant, and each actually touched the elephant, then gave their own description, so they came with different answers. with the point is that they are all wrong and they are all the point is that they are all wrong and they are all right. we can be both right and wrong depending on where we are. this is the middle part, the gray zone that we have. he who knocks -- a hindu knocks on the door of his muslim neighbor and asks if he could borrow a copy of the koran. of course, said the muslim, let me get you a copy from my library. a week later, the hindu returns.

"thanks so much," he said. "fascinating book. but i wonder, could you give me a copy of the other car run -- other koran?" it,"you're holding responded the muslim. mean?"do you "the one muslims practice." similarly, i saw islam without muslims and muslims without islam. this applies to other religions that we can look to. jew and see he is a jew without judaism. and weemist christian, can see him as a christian without christianity. thatn this way, i believe

the problem is in whether or we -- whether we are muslims, christians, or jews, what divides us is how we look at the text, how we read the text, what we do about the text. so, what the holy books say and what people understand, claimret, and glean -- are often totally different things. when reading the holy books, you may discover freedoms in the same line in which another macy strictures -- another may see strictures. what you see depends on what you're looking for. as english poet william blake once wrote, "both read the bible blackht, but thou read while i read white." extremists read the holy books with a closed mind.

they read it selectively, taking verses out of context or misinterpreting verses to meet their own needs, agendas, views. that's why extremists exist in all religions. we don't see things the way they are. we see them the way we are. and in this way, this is what reflects -- differentiates between an extremist and the moderate. the question is that all religions, whether muslim, christianity, judaism, hinduism, whatever religion you seek -- all religions share the moral values of moderation, peace, love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, tolerance, charity, justice, doing good, and forbidding evil. this is the whole idea of the golden rule, present in all religions.

due to others as you want them to others as-- do you want them to do to you. when we treat others kindly, fairly, and lovingly, we are truly living torah. we seek refuge in the cross. thereran also says that may spring from among you a community who would invite to goodness and enjoying right enjoin rightd conduct and forbidding evil. one of my favorite verses in the koran. for peace,ions call whether it is christianity, judaism, or islam. here, i believe that -- what my philosophy is is to try to seek in the interface of all religion a medium value, and this value is moderation. so this is where we would all stand. plato -- plato

wrote about moderation, aristotle wrote about the golden mean, bhutto wrote about the middddle way -- buddha wrote abt the middle way. covey's book about "the third alternative." the wasatia, which talks about the straight path. they are all different expressions reminding of moderation as human -- a human core virtue. we seek moderation. in judaism, in christianity. we find it also in islam. to give an example in judaism, when the torah -- the talmud says the torah may be likened to two paths -- basically, it is walking in

the middle, because you are .rotected by the peripheries if you walked in the peripheries, you stand to fall into corruption and evil, whereas the middle road can help by making that balance. so, basically, we find moderation also in christianity sm, judaism, in all religions. today i want to focus on moderation in islam, because there are those who are saying that there is no moderation in islam. i'm not here to defend islam. islam has got to defend it. islam has god to defend it. i am trying to seek this middle value that we have. some --

the court of moderation in islam lies in two verses -- the core of moderation in islam lies in two verses. one, we have created you a temperate nation, a balanced nation. two verses. this is verse 143, and it comes exactly in the middle. "middle" means lnguistically. religiously, it means "center." this verse is preceded by another verse. foundation, built on three columns or three bricks. it's the idea that -- first, it is preceded by verse

142. wills to awhom he path to path," a deliver it was. "and thus we created you a moderate nation," which builds on the golden rule. walk on to justice. justice is the core. the verse itself talks about being a witness. to be a witness, you have to be truthful. you have to be honest and truthful to be able to be a witness. maybe some are not, but this is the characteristics of a supposed witness. here, we have the road taking us to the middle part that will lead us to justice, and

injustice we find humanity -- and in justice, we find humanity. this is the middle, the golden mean within islam, in terms of moderation. a muslim moderate adopts an islamic understanding of the koran that is rational, progressive, and humanistic, which can only be gained through accepting the koran as the only divine authority. he combines rationality, faith, and science in order to have a better comprehension of islam. what are the characteristics of such a moderate? a moderate believes in doing what is right, because this is what the koran says, and this is what all other books say. doing what is right is the core essence of what being a moderate -- is the core essence of being a moderate. the question is what is right and how do you know you are doing what is right.

the answer is found in the holy books. -- in surah,h verse 3 and 4. so, actually, the holy books are the guiding light for a moderate. so, basically, a muslim moderate believes in diversity and pluralism, because this is what the koran says. have made youwe into various nations and tribes." multi-religious, multilanguage. lord pleased, he would have made one nation."

basically, he had created us in , in tongues and colors. so, indeed, you do not guide whom you love. god will guide. a muslim moderate believes jihad is the spiritual trouble -- struggled to rid oneself of evil and sin, and not struggle against non-muslims or a war waged to convert non-muslims, since it is god who guides. i'm not supposed to be a preacher. it is god who guides us rather than people. and so, the best jihad is the word of truth before the tyrannical despot. we tend to see that whoever is guided is guided for himself. and a moderate believes in

religious freedom, because the koran says "there shall be no compulsion in religion." "this is the truth from your lord. let him who will believe in it it."im who deny deny and god on judgment day will judge where we differ. i'm not here to judge you, whether you believe what i believe or do not believe what i believe. this is god's will. it is god on judgment day that will decide on that in which we differ. in more than one verse, we hear the echoes. "i will judge between you concerning that in which you differ." so, if a christian believes in jesus, son of god, and i believe as a muslim, jesus is a profit, it is not my place to the crowd

-- to tell the christian he is wrong. god will divide between us on judgment day. that's why i seek the values that are common and reject the values in which we differ. because those other values are not the reason why i should be in conflict with the others here on this earth. that's why a muslim moderate does not believe in death penalty for converts, for agnostics, for nonbelievers, or at best it's -- or apostates. ifause the koran says someone does not believe in god, his account is only with the lord. it is not up to me to kill him. it also believes in the equality of sexes, because god has created men and women from the same soul. is that's why it is not man

preferable to woman. i do not believe women should stay at home or be uneducated. i also do not believe as a moderate -- i also believe as a moderate that women have the right and freedom to wear and learn what they desire. a moderate does not believe feminism undermines the islamic way of life. aisha, the third wife of the profit, was a champ and -- of was a champion of women's rights. i do not believe the female gentlemen duration -- female genital mutilation is an islamic tradition. it is not mentioned in the koran. also, a moderate does not believe in stoning an adulterous woman, since there is no correct -- no mention in the corona of stoning anyone. -- no mention in

stoning anyone. the guilty women to houses until death takes them or allah ordains for them another way." there is a verse that calls for flogging, but i would like to look at this one, which does not. moderate does not believe in suicide bombing against civilian targets. condemns committing suicide or taking the lives of innocent persons. it does not believe in punishment for lesbians or homosexuals since sex preference is not a sin and there is no sanction penalty in the koran. the koran is full of verses which talk about the children of israel.

"remember that i have exalted you above the nations." god'srate believes in messengers, without discrimination between any of them, because the koran says god does not discriminate between any of them. a moderate does not believe all the ahadith are the authentic sayings of the prophet and accepts only those in harmony and consistent -- and that are consistent with the koran. he does not believe that the koran abrogates early holy scriptures. he believes in all holy books and teaches his children the wisdom contained in them. actually, i tend to find that a lot of what we are being told -- taught as children, islamic wisdom, has been taken from jewish wisdom.

so, basically, that's why i think that our children should be taught christian wisdom, jewish wisdom, muslim w for othern also religions. there is a lot of wisdom we can learn. and the wisdom of gandhi, which says religions are different roads emerging to the same point. what does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal? notrates fight evil by remaining by standards -- remained bystanders. a standup to the extremists -- they stand up to extremists committing terror and violence in the name of god and strive to spread the values of moderation, reconciliation, tolerance, and coexistence. an open mind leads to moderation. moderation leads to reconciliation. reconciliation leads to peace.

peace leads to democracy. democracy leads to stability, security, and prosperity. this is the model of moderation. so, it leads us -- we have to have an open mind to be able to be moderate, and in this way it leads to security event you a. even a christian, now today, when he says that muslims should not be part of this community or should not come here, has a fear that is actually telling him that an extremist will not he is eradicated by waging war of hate , but by having muslim and islam out lied to conquer fear by

promoting moderation and reconciliation in the midst of crisis and conflict. when moderates keep silent, extremists claim they are right. a bystander.e i speak to an ole fear and to break the wall of silence. i am a moderate. >> at good. thank you very much. pose a couple of questions. first, now that you have heard how mohammed has explained his view of moderation, i will just mention a couple of words in his definition. rational, progressive, humanistic, believer of diversity, pluralism, a quality. is this how you view moderation? where does that stand between

moderation and reformism? are we talking about definitions? >> first of all, i do not see this as a semantic debate. i see this as a practical discussion about reality. when professor talked about moderation it with the errors that you just gave us, i'd buy it. i love it. i think it is wonderful. and, in theory, therefore, in theory -- i would be a moderate. moderateeality is that they do not behave in weight you have just described. this is a vision, professor, that you have a nuncio before all of us. it is a beautiful vision and i believe we will get there is a critical mass of muslims.

we will get there. but we are not there precisely inause moderates do not act pluralistic ways. in ways that humanize all kinds of people. in ways that give equal value and equal treatment to the lives of people other they end their own group. i think what this comes down to a something that's martin luther king, junior, pointed out when he was having to encounter tepid liberals in the south. that in times of moral crisis, moderation is a copout. and, what he meant was that when a system of belief that has the andntial to be wise

tolerant and mature, when that system of belief has become so opposite ofo be the what it was meant to be, then being moderate in the way that you described well not swing it the pendulum back to wisdom and maturity and health. rather, one has to be what he called radical. what i would call reformist. this tohe was saying those in the united states south in agreement with him that segregation, segregation racially, was wrong. but rather they and all of these protests and demonstrations and calls for justice now, they

wanted to take it slowly. -- moderate supplanted to the moderates wanted to be incremental in ending segregation. martin luther king pointed out that the impact of injustice is not incremental. it is heavy. it is urgent. that is why we have to take a more -- again, what he called radical approach to ending racial segregation. i would argue that in the same vein, we as muslims need to take a reformist approach to ending the injustices that we see happening in the name of our religion. in, when we do, we will not get to a point of utopia. we will get to a point of moderation.

describing the process. the process of reform. you are describing, in my view, the destination. the destination is, indeed, a humanistic, kind, loving, compassionate, merciful islam. but we are not going to get doing actsy by not of terror. we're going to get there by aanding up, by vocalizing pluralistic vision of islam, and this is key, by taking the backlash that you have taken and i have taken from our peers and our elders and sometimes our own families. it, that is what stops most moderates from becoming, in

their hearts, though they may be reformers, from becoming those reformers. the cousin is the fear of busting out of groupthink and out of dogma. the personal consequence and cost that it takes. that is why we see, behind moderatesrs, many saying the kinds of things you are saying, but in public they are on script. they will condemn israel. they will condemn america. they will condemn india for kashmir and all sorts of others. are loath to point to even one finger at ourselves as muslims. in own up to the fact that we, as muslims, are responsible. for what is happening in the name of our faith today. again, i want to emphasize this is changing.

in, you know, anybody who follow thatl media will attest young people, young muslims today, do not use the word moderate to describe themselves. they are increasingly using the our ward. d. the r wor reform. so i think, professor, those using the word reform to describe ourselves, we are wanting to get to your destination, but like martin luther king, junior, we do not believe that an absence of tension will get us there. we have to work and create the construct of tension to achieve the presence of justice. robert: lahore,, powerful argument. that to achieve this goal of moderation you have to be a

nadja tator. almost radical. the term that you used from reformist.er king's does one also have to be radical, reformist, to achieve the objectives you outlined? mohammed: it when i was reading the first book, i came across a story that she has mentioned in which she talks about her being iset and as president, shoe young in high school, she was elected president of the class. and then she brought these photos of ayatollah khomeini and put them there. and the supervisor came and saw them and said, you should put them down. have not appropriate to them. so, she said, why? when iremember that's

was also elected president of the american university in president of the student council, i also brought to a picture of jake of era, chen, and put it in -- of lenin, and the president saw them and asked me to put them down. i asked the same question, why? but we are moved on from there. now she mentions martin luther .ing, who is also my hero along with gandhi. i put down the pictures of che g uevera and put up the picture of martin luther king and gandhi. however, i also believe in the , jews of this rabbi who

came to him regarding a festering conflict between them and when the first said his side more right,, it was and when the second told his side of the story, he said, you are also right. and then when they left, the wife looked at him and said, but rabbi how can they both be right? and the rabbi said wisely, you are also right. [laughter] and then one rabbi explained to it is she was upset, because usually the rabbi gets money from the one who loses. noif both wins, there is money there. so that is why she was somewhat upset. anyway, the point is, i believe worked for south africa might not work here. might not work. -- we should see

things as they are and then we should learn from other experiences. but we should not copy them because they might not work. for instant, there is a lot of israelout boycotting because of what happened for south africa. which i believe is wrong because i think that we should boycott givingwho are anti- palestinian rights. or who arere against pro-occupation. for those who do not believe in collaboration or coexistence. you do not boycott the whole entity, those who are supporting the cause and to those who are against the cause.

basically, what worked for south africa will not work in our case, in israel and palestine. s.at is why i am against bd that is why a believed i had clogged is the answer. maybe that was the -- that is why i believe dialogue is the answer in our case. that to iin the sense believe that in trying to reach out to the other, we need to bring the good in the other. withis what i am against trump and his speeches where he is trying, like mccarthy before him, he is trying to bring the evil in the individual. he is not trying to bring the good. in his appeal, he might make -- disaster.ring --

actually, this is what happened in rwanda. cause theio protest whole mess occur of hundreds of thousands of people within four months. this is what happened in germany in the holocaust. it was actually the incitement, the continued incitement against jews that cause, eventually, to erupt into the holocaust. the holocaust did not happen in a vacuum. similarly, the rwandan massacres to not happen in a vacuum. in this way, we have to be very careful about what we say and what we do. that is why i believe in balance. i believe if we adopt balance and whatever we do, whatever we say, then we will be able to other and be the able to resolve conflicts within

a balanced view. leeing ourselves, like harper's and in the novel, "to to whereckingbird," the skin of the other and see the point of view of the other. that is why i believe the israeli-palestinian conflict will be resolve one we do that. that is my hope. that is why when people ask me, are you optimistic or pessimistic, why aren't you when you see what is happening, why are you still optimistic? i see you are looking at the present. i am viewing the future. that is why a remain optimistic and that is what i hope will happen in dealing with this conflict. that is why a remain moderate. just add quickly, i want to echo and applaud the professors condemnation of latesttrump's

statements. there will be more, i am sure. -- banningng muslims incoming muslims from the united states. i recognize that to and calling suggesting that moderation, and times of moral crisis, will not solve the moral crisis. i realize that my statement could be misconstrued as meaning that in moderation is the better approach. deration is the better approach, and therefore trumpian moderation is fine. that is not the case. back to martin luther king for a moment, one of his informal teachers, someone from whom he learned, was able -- was a woman

by the name of lillian smith. a white woman from the united states itself. first of all, the fact she was a woman, defectors white, and she taught him how to stanford's rights as a lack man, puts a lie to the politics of identity. a tangent.that as regardless of our skin color, gender, sexuality, nationality, able to put ourselves in the shoes of the other. we are able to empathize regardless of the identity we carry. martin smith taught luther king, among other things, that there is a difference between a destructive extremist and take constructive extremist. -- and all shet meant by constructive extremist was somebody who, like professor dish on a, was willing to speak

truth to the power of society to change andds offer a constructive way for how to get to that change. so, even calling somebody like that an extremist in today's context would sound scary and misleading. but what she was pointing out is that you have the choice of silence or you have the choice of becoming vocal. and if you become vocal, make no mistake, you will be deemed and many moderates, and just as i have been likened to osama bin laden by many moderates. i have been told i am the liberal version of osama bin laden, which makes me wonder, when was the last time i ordered lanes into buildings. you know, -- i ordered airplanes

into buildings. you know, when we talk about change and positive change in articular, moderation is destination is both beautiful and an islamic. it is a process and a means it is what lillian smith called walking like a chicken down the middle of the road and being won over by vehicles coming from both sides. you have to stand for something. again,is is why, professor, with every shred of respect that i can muster, i wholeheartedly embrace your point that moderation is what we , but i suggest to you that in order to get there we need tension.

we need people to get out of their comfort sounds and begin thinking and engaging. to be an uglyve engagement, but it does have to be engagement. in most people will not engage and lust they are somehow riled up to do so. -- and some people will not engage unless they are somehow wild up to do so. up to do so.iled they are exchanging platitudes about love and common ground, but they are not challenging what it is in our own believe system that is different from the others and why. in whether we need to change ourselves in order to get to that point of social cohesion and coexistence. so, tension is key. but it can be a creative tension

, not a destructive one. mohammad: i believe in interfaith dialogue because i have seen there is a log of ignorance about the other. we as muslims do not know much about christianity and judaism. christians do not know much about islam. i was at the jewish university couple years ago, a seminar about anti-semitism. i was the only arab or palestinian are muslim at that meeting in which he was arguing koran was anti-somatic. he was bringing versus saying that the koran describes muslims so jews as pigs and apes and i did notked, because

think the koran does that. i had not, at that time, read the koran. , when it was my turn, i actually challenged him, saying that i do not believe the crown does that. and so he got upset, lefty room. he left. but then he came back. he went to his office, to get the koran, went and bought the copy from the store and came back and said, may i read to you the versus? in t read two verses which said --t it god -- that said god god punished the sabbath breakers by making them into apes and monkeys and pigs. swine or something. and so i said, but this is not about jews. this is about god punishing sabbath breakers.

is punish. breaker it is a punishment, not about the jews as a religion. there are many verses there that are also misunderstood. so basically he came and sat next to me and i whispered to him, i hope this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. but the point, my point, is that interfaith dialogue helps to clear the air, helps to actually explain. helps us understand. and, that is where i favor or support interfaith dialogue. average: let me ask you about a different grenade you put into the conversation earlier. about culture. suggested if i

understood you correctly, that the problem we are focusing on is deeply connected to culture, not religion. that this has a lot to do with the arab culture, not so much how one reads the holy books or what is in the koran, but culture. thenwant to ask you, and ask you, mohammed, if it is culture so much, why not focus on culture? why focus on islam? why not take on arab culture question mark into to you, mohammed, is this right? is this really not so much a problem of how we interpret the holy books, but this is arab culture. this is a problem that a slim at it to the 300 million arabs in this world, not the 1.345 muslims of this world. it is a particularly arab problem? ad: first of all, i want to

contest the premise of the question you asked. that it is limited to 300 orlion not the one point to 1.3 billion muslims. the problem we are facing is that arab college has colonized the faith of islam. this is a problem for all -- the arab culture has colonized the faith of islam. so this is a problem for all. even indonesia, once a haven of pluralism and tolerance, has, in recent years, become the of,pient, the reservoir, you know, billions of dollars of the tro-dollars from the arabian then saliva. llars from the

arabian insula. especially where wealthy heir of tourists go. women and those parts of indonesia are now forced to wear a --. ae point is there is colonization happening, but moderates do not speak about arab culture colonization of islam, they speak only about american or israeli or sometimes a indian colonization of what are considered muslim lands. why, youis, again, know, moderation in theory is a beautiful thing, but in practice is actually a very narrow and reclaimingroach to the better angels of islam.

not, then, tackle culture and set of religion? that is precisely what i do it my work. but then, why the trouble with islam instead of the trouble with arab culture? well, in part as muslims ourselves have an twine to arab the practice of islam. so often muslim women outside of the middle east properd that the only way of presenting herself as a muslim woman is to wear a pre-islam medicare arab garment jab and sometimes a veil. so, at the end of the day, we have to separate culture from religion and then, in doing so, take the best of both.

robert: ok. mohammed? mohammed: in the culture, in a sense is that arab culture or is another? the arabs have the problem of islam because of the fact that islam, the koran, is in arabic. so they want to apply the language, and as a result they impose their terminology or understanding or understanding of the crown. the problem is that -- or understanding of the koran. the problem is extremism and moderation. you were talking about what has happened in these countries regarding imposing. i think this is related to the extremist of the reformers, such different types.

try to impose this extremism. it has nothing to do with being arab or being within the arab culture. university, a professor tells students who are poor, unless you wear this fail you will not get a scholarship. so the scholarship is linked to what you wear. il,unless you wear this ve you will not get the scholarship. they have shifted because there is a scholarship, not because it is what they want to wear. what because of the family, or the girls are doing it because the others are doing it, the oppression. i would say that i do not know if it is an honor culture.

it is a backward culture. it is a traditional culture, yes. but arab? i do not think so. i would not put it on there because it is within the other culture, you would find those also extremely modern as to have studied in the west or who are promoting values that are taken from the west or believed in the west. robert: ok. let's open the floor to questions. a fascinating exchange. please feel free to identify yourselves when i call on you. try to keep your question brief. we will start over here. >> greeting. have issue with professor

dajani's words because it is not uncommon to take words out of the koran and say this means this and so on. it is wonderful, but not practical because in reality you can feel a lot of other ideas from extremists who emphasize ,he radical part of the koran the anti-democratic parts of the koran, and the ayatollah koran and the part against women or other people. basically, it is not a good idea to do the literal reading of say islam isr to moderate. it does not work. it has not worked so far. i think the better idea, maybe, is to take a page from the christian reformation.

although i agree with the professor that each culture is different and all that. but what happened in christian reformation, they distanced themselves from the literal reading of the text. of intention. in islam, it is 700 years ago, the ideas. to berpose of which was the intention of the law-given. not the word of the law-giver. robert: can we ever, by focusing on the literal reading, reach the goal you want to attain or do we have to transcend bad into -- transcend that into a higher level of trying to understand the intention. mohammed: the intention is humanity, the good of humanity. readingy, if you are

the koran with that intention, you will read a verse that will say cut the hand of the thief a hand then you will miss that it says, but if he repents, then god is forgiving. so basically, if you want to take the first part and cut his hand, or you want to take that part figuratively speaking and say, how do i cut it not by really cutting, or most people would be handicapped. as a result, it would be a problem in society. that by teaching him a profession. in this way, i cut his hand. basically, it is whether you read that verse with a human eye, with a human heart, or read that you read it with the heart of stone. in this way, you can cut the hand or do whatever you want. and that is what i believe the difference between the moderate and the extremist.

the extremist read it with a -- the extremist read it with a heart of stone. the moderate reads it with a heart of flesh. so basically, that is what the koran is all about. that is what islam is all about. that is what all religion is all about. had: let me admit the professor is talking about his interpretation. and yet, if we look at the koran literally, you know, one of the things i have been so surprised over the years, and researching and studying the koran, is that it does differ from the bible. both the old and new testaments in significant ways. one of those ways is, as i mentioned in the guardian video, the koran, taken literally, contains three times as many verses calling on muslims to and analyze and reflect

and re-thinker rather than monfils submit. and so on that basis alone, if more muslims,many took seriously the very book that they claim to be inspired by, we would see the kind of ajaniior that professor d is talking about. instead what we get from many thingse muslims is these like, if you kill a human being, ofis like killing all mankind. sorry, that is not what it says. it's as if you kill a human being, it is like killing all of mankind unless you're killing that human being as punishment or other villainy in the land. in other words, if you consider a american boots on the ground

in a muslim land as being that clause,n within that passage of the aran, gives the extremist loophole. give us the extremist and escape hatch. and so, once again, you know, sanitizinglot of going on and what the cron says. says. any person who reads the koran and seeks to be co-hand about it will be forced to choose. i cherry pick. cherry pick. i would argue with the greatest of respect, that professor dajan i cherry picks. beingestion is not who is true to the koran.

the koran is an incredibly complicated document. the question is who is being honest about their selectivity theyo what end are selecting. i am selecting in order to bring angels of islam. in, if that forces me to cherry tick, i plead guilty. -- and, if that forces me to i plead guilty. mohammed, it depends on how you -- mohammed: it depends on how you pick. lord'sse is like the prayer. seven verses. the last verses say, guide as to the right path, not the path of those whom you have west. not those whom with you are angry. when i learned that, i thought

those who were blessed were pious. god was angry with those who do not believe in him. between. in the hypocrites. now it is being translated or arerpreted to say blessed the muslims. god is angry with the jews. the christians. same thing with the verse. we have created a moderate nation. a middle ground nation. and a word is interpreted to be moderate, the radicals interpreted to mean there is no middle ground in islam. you are either right or wrong. it, this verse means that jews who areetween madeets and christians who

their profit a god. so you must go beyond cherry picking and go into the text itself and try to misinterpret them put down interpretation into the text in order to make it look like a clash of civilization. islam is better than others. the koran meant islam to include christianity and judaism because it meant believing in god and worshiping god. surrendering to god. the radicals would say no. islam means we have to erase all other religions were all other religions have to convert to become muslims. they are playing with the text much more. are islamat they cherry-picking, but also more dangerous as the interpretation.

>> i am formally with the defense department. issues in strategic the battle of ideas in the air about world. my question to you, and there is a lot of debate and controversy, most of the audience here is not muslim. i hear about interpretation of the koran not being muslim, it is interesting. fori could see an argument it and against people like me and governments that are not muslim, so to speak, not involving themselves in this discussion. it has to come from the muslim world. a good friend of mine who is a archbishop and express cappelli this has to bed -- he was an archbishop in and plan church said this has to be

muslim. what role can the non-muslim world play in the debate you are both deeply involved in? not only in terms of non-muslims in general, i mean government. i mean think tanks like the washington institute, other think tanks and so on. what role should non-muslims play in the debate you are both, frankly, risking your lives in what you are doing. love it: good question. -- robert: good question. myhad: i mentioned in informal -- formal remarks that supporting dissidents within the muslim world is key. to two things. one to their survival, and two, bringing to this part of the

world and interpretations of islam that typically media will not offer. it is through the support of ofse with dissenting points view that we will ultimately, i think, understand there is truly diversity within the world of islam. and, it is not like muslims understand us yet. many reforms, particularly of a certain generation. i am talking about elders. to theto believe that new generation has a different point of view are different interpretations and many, as i mentioned in my story about the kids in detroit, are afraid to fork their interpretations fear of being stigmatized and ostracized and their families, more to the point, being pilloried for doing so.

so, by bringing to this part of the world those voices that offers something fresh and different and giving them places to do their scholarship, giving them platforms to express themselves and creating, at ,niversities and other places even hospitals, for example, as muslim chaplains, reformist muslim chaplains, creating positions for them to begin to engage conversations and engage in conversations with muslims and non-muslims, i believe it is the kind of soft power that america, you know, has the genius and the resources to, you know, to offer -- too often to the world. i might add, by the way, it would not hurt to bring some

reformist with chaplains to prisons as well. robert: thank you. that role still non-muslims play? see three entities. government, civil society, think tanks. believe it isi the role of governments really to put a lid on extremism islamophobia, is anti-semitism, whatever type. the government should actually not allow this because it poisons the environment. then, there are the think tanks, whose role is to be a forum for such a dialogue in order to build bridges between civilizations and religions and

communities. and then there is the civil society, which should actually, within the community, try to be open to various religions. that is why we are starting in -- to openouse that it for christians, muslims, jews, whatever, to do entities there. in berlin there is a mosque, church, synagogue being built where people can go and pray. that i believe is very important in order to build ridges between the communities to help them to understandand this is what america's all about. multiculturalism. multi-pluralism. in this way, what we need to do is not look at islam is the

enemy but as extremists within islam. so many incidents have happened before what happened in san bernardino, when not committed to muslims, but i christians walking into a church and killing. oh, if it is a christian is a murder. the first time it happened when a muslim did it, that it is islam and the religion. so, rather they ana it is an extremist, similar things have been done before. people are being, instead of looking at the problem about 50,000-100,000 as the enemy who are the extremists within islam, they want to portray islam, which has 1.6 billion, as the enemy. in set of taking islam as an ally and order to fight this war of extremism and terrorism, so this war of enmity and hatred,

they want to make islam as part of that. so that pleases people like ice is very much because they claim they represent islam when they do not. isis very much because they claim they represent islam one they do not. that is part of the big problem we are facing and that is why any statements like trump and al hopefuls arei not helpful, because they are bringing the evil in the people rather than the good. : i think mohammed and i agree on far more than might have ran suggested -- and suggested this afternoon. suggested this afternoon.

the reason i can remain a muslim with integrity is this. we as muslims are to worship one god. pointed -- not self-appointed ambassadors. it is god who guides us, not people. worship onere to god and not self-appointed ambassadors. to believe as if we -- behave as if we have a monopoly on truth and values. it is a spiritual duty for muslims to help build societies in which we can disagree with one another in peace and with civility. because anything less means that somebody is playing god. and so here is the delicious, perhaps paradoxical bottom line. us toping one god obliges defend human liberty.

maybe that makes me a moderate. maybe that makes me a reformer. but what i do know is that it makes me a friend and admirer of mohammed dajani. mohammed: and me the same. get anyit does not better than that. this is fascinating. i am >> jim kessler will discuss the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and its effect on the current debate on gun control. sepp on the tax breaks that are set to expire at the end of the year. lisa freeman reports from paris on the u.n. climate change talks. washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern with your phone calls, tweets and facebook

comments on c-span. all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> monday on c-span's landmark cases -- >> you have the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent. is that clear? >> yeah. >> you sure you understand? >> ernesto miranda was arrested in 1963. after two hours of police questioning,he confessed and signed a statement saying his confession was given voluntarily. at trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. his lawyer argued he had not been told the rights to an attorney or the right to remain silent. the case went all the way to the supreme court. follow the case of miranda versus arizona and the evolution

of policing practices in america with our guest jeff rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center, a former u.s.ll, district court judge. that is live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. wellackground on each case you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book which is available at c-span.org/landmarkcases. today, ashton carter met with british defense secretary michael fallon to discuss cooperation in the fight against isis and iraq and syria. afterwards, they spoke with reporters for about 20 minutes. rters for about 20 minutes. >> the united kingdom has been a strong member since the

beginning of the campaign. significant contributions to air operations including strikes against isis in iraq. and reconnaissance missions in both iraq and syria. partners have provided robust support, advising, assisting, and building capacity of local forces taking the fight to isil in both iraq and syria. as we put a increased pressure and intensify airstrikes against isil's financial infrastructure across syria, we appreciate and to the world appreciates the uk's contribution to this necessary and critical mission. with strong allies like the united states and the united kingdom need to bear every instrument of power against this

barbaric foe, we will defeat isil and we will ensure they stay defeated. our work together extends far the middle east. we must continue writing the new playbook. one that includes preparations to encounter new challenges like cyber and hybrid warfare. we must continue to adjust our posture and presence in response to russian aggression and support our allies. last month, the u.k. released its strategic defense and security review. a blueprint for british priorities through 2020. it establishes a strategic framework. on powerorated focus projection, innovation, and deterrent's. a series ofs

decisions that will allow the u.k. to continue to play a leading role in strengthening the international order in confronting security challenges across the road. at the department of defense, we welcome the strategic depth and insight of this review and look forward to working with our british allies to make it a reality. i want to commend the united kingdom for making sure these problems -- plans are resourced for deciding early two continue meeting at the pledge allies made in wales to contribute 2% of adp to defense. targets matters greatly to the nato alliance and send is our commitment to ensuring the sums are invested as strategically and deliberately as possible. with our two military renewed focus on improving the operation and interoperability of forces,

we will support our common defense by making sure our common citizens get the most for every dollar and pound spent. the united states values the and cover meant close, during, and global defense partnership. today and in the days to come, we will continue to strengthen collaboration and leverage our capabilities to engage the world as strong, spoiled, allies. >> i am delighted to be here with secretary carter and i want to thank him for his typically generous welcome this afternoon. we have been reviewing the campaign strategy to degrade and -daesh.isil

our decision was to extend strikes as secretary carter said. we have already been playing the second biggest part against these terrorists and iraq. providing a large percentage of the reconnaissance and up to one third of the precision type strike capability. we can now treat this as one theater and use our expertise in its isis-daesh heartland. we have more than doubled the number of missions we fly by day and night. there will be plots against both of our countries as we take the fight to iso- --

isil-daesh. just like the ones in san bernardino. make ourdoes not homeland security and he was. that is a counsel of despair and wrong. we must defend our values as much as our streets and remember these people do not hate us because of what we do, but because of who we are. the investments unannounced and our strategic defense review, along with our decision to increase defense spending every year, will deliver bigger, stronger defense said that the united kingdom can continue to play leading role in global defense and security. the united states remains our closest strategic partner and wrubel worked together to large global stability, to get to our shared interest, and to deliver prosperity for our people.

major defense projects such as f-35 demonstrate our long-term commitment to the u.k.-u.s. defense relationship. this enhances that with new priorities. not least the doubling of our drone fleet. secretaryeed with carter today that we will strengthen the way our bilateral relationship is governed and nowct it on equipment we want to take a more structured, program-based approach so that our governments and defense industries can deliver these capabilities against some cannding timelines and build on our existing strong industrial collaboration. the strength and the depth of our political resolve are deeply outlined national security and defense strategies and the extraordinary courage and skill of our armed forces add up to a

relationship unlike any other. with that, happy to take questions. mr. secretary, considering some of the criticisms that came up at the hearing the other day and the fact that president obama will be here in the pentagon to discuss the fight , shouldisis on monday the american people take this as a suggestion that there is a need to invigorate or change if not the strategy, the implementation of the strategy against isis in iraq and syria? secretary, earlier today, our russian president vladimir putin said again that he would like closer coordination with the west in syria what do you think of that?

do you think there should be some greater ordination up with russia as more of the strikes continue? sec. carter: well, with respect to the first part, we are taking a number of steps. and i described a number of them earlier this week. and we intend to take more, to strengthen the execution of our strategy and hasten the defeat of isil. and the president will be here in the pentagon on monday, and he'll hear not only from us here in the defense department, his senior commanders in the field, about the military dimensions of the campaign to defeat isil, but also this is a national security council meeting. so the secretary of state and representatives of the intelligence community, law enforcement, homeland security, all of the parts that we know

are necessary to protect our people, and strike at our enemies, will be involved. and i expect him both to hear what we're doing and continue to say what he's told me and general dunford, certainly for the military campaign, which is that he wants us to continue to come to him with proposals for ways that we can strengthen the campaign consistent with our overall strategic approach. sec. fallon: thank you. the united states has been leading the coalition since last year against isil-daesh. and we are now fully part of that by our extending our operations to syria as well as iraq. secretary carter has asked other countries, including the united kingdom, what more they can contribute to the campaign as we move to this new focus on degrading the infrastructure

that supports isil-daesh. and we will be responding to his letter in due course. so far as russian involvement is concerned, we have said from the beginning, if russia wants to help in syria, where it has influence, it ought to stop propping up the assad regime, help us bring this civil war to an end, stop bombing the opposition groups that have been opposed to assad and start to play a more constructive role in the process of moving syria to a more pluralist future. >> question to secretary fallon, could you give us more detail about the british air strikes in syria so far? also, are we going to see a ramping up of the intensity in coming weeks? also, on the libya question, secretary carter, do you think it's a realistic prospect that ultimately the isis leadership might fall back to libya?

sec. fallon: well, let me start with the first and then hand it over to secretary carter on libya. so far as strikes are concerned, we have doubled our strike force in cypress, moving aircraft cyprus, moving aircraft there immediately after the vote last wednesday. we flew extra aircraft in on thursday. those aircraft were in action immediately on friday evening. and we have begun a series of strikes, successful strikes, against infrastructure targets, mainly in the eastern -- in the oil fields, the field in eastern syria. and we -- you should expect to see more of that, precision strikes, against key infrastructure. the oil well heads, the ammunition depos, the logistics, the command and control, the supply routes between syria and iraq, as we intensify the focus on degrading the support that

isil derives from some of these revenue streams. with respect to is being isil destroyed in its parent tumor of syria and iraq, we're not going to let it fall back anywhere, libya or anywhere else, where it is metastasizing. we're going to combat isil everywhere it appears. it must be destroyed in its birth place of the -- of syria and iraq. but it is metastasizing to other parts of the world. we'll combat it everywhere. of course, that includes in our own homelands. and so it won't have any place to fall back on. >> hi. thank you. two quick follow-ups actually and then a question. secretary carter, you said that the president has continued to

tell you to come to him with proposals for fighting isis in iraq and syria. but on the hill this week, you essentially said if you had more options or ideas, you would offer them. what does that mean? does that mean that there's sort of a stalemate, you're at a logjam here? sec. carter: no. it means that we constantly develop through new intelligence very importantly new techniques and tactics for attacking isil. i'll give you a few recent examples. the attacks on the oil and other revenue streams of isil, our ability to do that in a way that subtracts from isil's ability to earn revenues while not affecting the life of ordinary people who are simply victims of

kind ofl movement, that intelligence is what allowed us to take these strikes. we constantly develop new opportunities. we also develop new tools. i described earlier in this week something we're calling the expeditionary targeting force. that's a new way of being able to get in and strike leadership, key targets, gather intelligence. and i expect in a week, two weeks, six weeks, and so forth for us to be doing more and building more capability and having more and more impact every week. that's the whole idea. that's what president obama has asked us to do. and that's what we've been able to do and will continue to do. >> mr. fallon, one quick follow-up on vladimir putin. he also said today that the russians are now supporting the free syrian army. are you seeing any indication that they are providing any kind of air cover?

he also mentioned ammunition and weapons. and secretary carter, my other question for you was about the special forces that are going into syria. john kirby over at the state department said this week there are actually a small number in syria already. i know you don't want to get into operational security, and numbers where they are, but can you tell us, now that there's an acknowledgment that they have gone in, are they racing there right now, are they moving in and out? what specifically -- i mean, these are american troops operating in a sovereign nation at this point. so what can you tell the american people about what they are doing there? sec. carter: well, i'm not going to speak specifically about the actions of special forces, especially while they're ongoing. by the way, minister fallon, and the united kingdom, has what i think is a very admirable policy of not commenting on the activities of the special

forces. so we obviously have them. they're extremely capable. we have acknowledged, as indicated, that they operate in syria. i indicated earlier in this week, we're prepared to do more. but the specific movements and operations, we're not going to be able to describe. sec. fallon: so far as the russian move is concerned, they began by bombing the free syrian army. they're now claiming to be supporting the free syrian army. that is welcome. what they've got to do is stop propping up the assad regime, stop bombing opposition groups who are opposed to the assad regime, stop dropping unguided munitions on innocent villages and groups, and get behind the political process that is now under way of leading that country to a more pluralist government and a future without assad.

>> thank you. secretary fallon, in your expanded campaign against isis, do youne scenario anticipate sending ground forces to iraq and syria? in the last week, the u.s. has announced even more expanded role to seek out isis in countries around north africa, the middle east. would you consider sending forces to assist in those counter-terrorism hubs? and for secretary carter, in the incremental additions that have been made to the u.s. presence in iraq, at this point, if there are additional troops that would be announced, would those be coming out of the white house, or does the pentagon have the authority to continue to add troops if you deem it necessary? sec. fallon: on the first, we're not proposing to send combat troops back into iraq or into syria. prime minister abadi made it

clear to me that they do not want to see british troops on the ground there, and i don't want to see american troops there. they realize the security has to be achieved in areas that have been liberated from isil-daesh by homegrown forces that can enjoy the support and confidence of the sunni areas. that can't be done by western boots on the ground. so far as other countries are concerned, in countries in libya, yes, we've been working for a political settlement there. and if we can achieve a political settlement, which, as you know, is being negotiated at the moment, and there's an international mission to help provide training and support for it, of course we would be part of that. we're already providing training and assistance to the government of nigeria in its own campaign against the isil-daesh franchise boko haram in northeast nigeria. >> with respect to u.s. troops

in iraq, let me just remind you that we have more than 3500 in iraq right now, doing a spectacular job. by the way, they'll shortly be, most of them, celebrating their holidays there and not here. we all ought to keep that in our mind and take a moment to remember them over the holidays. obviously, the president is the commander in chief, so everyone deployed is subject to his approval. i write their deployment orders, i think very carefully about every single one. with respect to overall numbers, the president has indicated and shown a willingness to increase that number. most recently, as we've indicated in the last few weeks, as we develop opportunities to make good use of them. now, we obviously don't -- we try to deploy as few people as

we can, simply in recognition of the fact that they're away from their families. but we have to do what we have to do to protect our country and to defeat isil. and the troops know that. and typically, in this season, we bless them for taking it on. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you. michael, thank you. >> thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite co c-span,weekend on tonight at 9:00 eastern, executives from pender and spotify on how technology impacts the entertainment business. are the date when music is not the only thing you want to listen to? some morning commute is one hypothesis. if you are on the separate and in your car, maybe you do not

only one music. maybe you want news, weather report, maybe it you want to see fallon," therey is other content you want to experience during that time and that is the hypothesis we are testing. to see if people are interested in experiencing that. >> sunday evening at 6:30, john council on foreign relations on rebuilding national alliances. >> thanks to my 18 years on the house armed services committee, i knew many months ago that the only way to solve the problem was to call for an international inlition to defeat isis syria and iraq. we have to join with our allies, jordan, egypt, the goal states, saudi arabia, to organize the coalition on the ground and to deny them the territory that they need to survive.

experience,long know that air campaign on its own is simply not enough. >> for more schedule information, go to our website, www.c-span.org. navytired air force and offices testified about the effectiveness of ongoing military operations. panelists made suggestions. senator john mccain chaired the hour and 45 minute hearing.

senator mccain: well, good morning. we have reviewed the reforms on our defense acquisition management and personnel system, and our past few hearings have considered what most view as the essence of goldwater nichols, the roles and chairman's of the joint chiefs of staff, and the commanders. this morning, we seek to understand how goldwater nichols has impacted the effectiveness of u.s. military operations, and what reforms may be necessary. we are pleased to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses, who will offer insights from their many years of experience and distinguished service. general norton schwartz, former chief of staff of the air force, and president and ceo of business executives for national security. admiral james stavridas, former european commander and u.s. southern command or. -- southern command and currently the dean of the fletcher school of law and diplomacy at tufts university, and frequent appearances on various media outlets.

dr. christopher lamb, director of the institute and the national defense university. more than anything else, the goldwater nichols act was the result of escalating concern in the congress and the country by the effectiveness of u.s. military operations in the vietnam war, the failure of the hostages in iran and grenada all pointed to the defense enterprise the need to be addressed for the sake of national security, and particular, goldwater nichols insured community and the forces jointly. as we have explored in previous hearing, many questions remain about the balance our military is striking between core military competitiveness, competencies, and joint experiences. as it relates to combat effectiveness, there is no doubt -- as one former chairman of the joint chiefs put it -- no other country can match our forces on the battlefield and fight jointly. the subject today relates to the many steps hold water nichols -- goldwaterchols

nichols took to improve the command. and made commanders asked responsible to the president and secretary of defense for the preparedness of commands. it also removed the joint chiefs of staff from the operational chain and permitted forces out of command from approval. -- and prevented forces out of command from approval. commanders were given the ability to issue authoritative direction on all aspects of operations, joint training and logistics, and internal chain of command, and personnel within their assigned areas of responsibility. these steps were effective in establishing clear command authority, and responsibilities that translated to a more effective fighting force than we had in the 1980's. however, 30 years later, we have to take a hard look at this command structure -- in light of current threats and how our model of war fighting has evolved. the united states confronts the most diverse and complex set of crises since the end of world war ii, from china, russia, the

growing asymmetric capabilities of nations -- ranging from iran to north korea. and the persistence of islamic extremism and cyber terrorism, these cut across regional structures embodied by geographic combatant commands. so we must ask, what are the current combatant command structures that best allows us to succeed in the 21st century? should we consider structures organized less around geography? at the same time, as numerous witnesses have observed, while combatant commands were originally envisioned as the war fighting arm of the military, the department of defense -- that function has largely migrated as a joint task force, especially on an ad hoc basis in response to emerging

contingencies. this suggest that people have identified a shortcoming in the current design, and have adopted measures to work around the system, as we see quite often. this should inform our efforts to reevaluate and reimagine the command. at the same time, combatant commands have come to play a very important piece time diplomatic function. these developments argue for this change, and at a minimum, it would call into question the top-heavy and bloated structures that we see in the command. time and again during these hearings, we have heard how dramatic increases in military and civilian staff have persisted, even as resources for war fighting functions are increasingly strained. as former secretary of defense for policy michele flournoy pointed out this week, combatant command staffs have grown to 38,000 people. that is nearly three divisions

worth of staff in just the combatant commands alone. we have to ask if this is truly necessary, and whether it is improving our war fighting capabilities? at the same time, we have to examine whether the duplicate functions in the joint staff, combatant commands, and subordinate commands can be streamlined? that includes the question of whether we really need all of the current combatant commands? for example do we really need a , north and south com? do we really need a separate com headquartered in germany, when the vast resources reside elsewhere? we have to revisit the role of the chairman of the joints chiefs and the goldwater nichols strengthens the commanders at the strength of the services. has that gone too far or not far -- or not far

enough? secretary of defense robert gates raised this issue when he testified before this committee, because of his frustration with the lack of responsiveness. many of our witnesses have discussed whether the chairman of the joint chiefs has statutory authority to perform the strategic integration of the department of defense all too often seems to do poorly, integrating priorities, efforts, and resources across regions, across domains of military activity, and across time. balancing short-term and long-term requirements, the question has been raised -- whether the chairman should be placed in the chain of command, with the service chief and combatant commanders reporting to him? testimony in favor and against. i look forward to exploring this today. these are questions that have direct bearing on the effectiveness of u.s. military operations.

and as a consequence, on the well-being of our war fighters. we go it to them to look at this seriously, ask tough questions, challenge gold assumptions, and embrace new solutions, if and when it is needed. i think i witnesses again and i look forward to the testimony, senator reid? senator reid: let me join you in welcoming the witnesses. i have had the privilege of working with general schwartz. and admiral stavridas as medication commander, in the defense department now. i deeply appreciate it. thank you very much gentlemen, as the chairman said, we have undertaken a very rigorous -- under his direction -- review of goldwater nichols. and we heard just a few days ago from secretary of defense, former secretary of defense michele flournoy, about one of the initiatives. in her words, it was oblivious many hoursr consumes

and it has become a routine bottom-up staff exercise that consumes many man-hours, rather than a top-down leadership exercise that sets clear priorities and allocates risks. one of the things i would hope the witnesses talk about is the planning process, the formal and informal process, how we can improve that. that is just one of the items. i think there is a long and important list of topics that we could discuss. the role in the authorities assigned to the staff, whether he should be placed in the chain of command for military operations, improving structural reform to combatant commands and field activities, and the potential benefits of adopting organizational changes, including consolidation and functional teams to achieve efficiencies and provide senior civilian and military leaders more timely recommendations. in previous hearings, our witnesses have observed better

capitalizing on the gains achieved through those improvements may require significant changes to enter -- to enter agency national security structure and processes, as well as this was made by jim walker, the godfather, if you will, of the goldwater nichols. in his words -- no matter how you transform the defense department, it is quite broken. and the problems that confront this nation require an inter-agency response. being able to executed a national security mission by itself is long going, we do not have the ability to integrate everything that exists. i think it is important to keep that in mind. and the chairman, again, let me commend him for beginning this process with the department of defense. i hope it is a catalyst on the issue for serious review by other committees and other agencies about how, together, we can improve security in the u.s.

thank you. senator mccain: welcome, general schwartz. general schwartz: thank you, chairman mccain and ranking member reid for improving dod's internal governments and defense organization by the goldwater nichols reforms. it is a privilege to return to this room and offer a few related ideas on how to improve performance in the department of defense. it is a special pleasure to sit beside the finest flag officer of my generation, jim. while there are many issues that warrant attention resource , allocation and overhead reduction and joint credentialing of military personnel and the potential for consolidation, among others, i wish to focus this morning on the three that i am persuaded that hold the greatest promise

for particularly positive outcomes. they are the role and authority in the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, rightsizing the combatant commands and establishing the joint task forces for the execution of operational missions. i'm certainly prepared to address the other matters you mentioned, at your discretion. in my experience as a former member of the joint chiefs of staff, and the joint staff of the functional combatant commander in the chief of service, i have come to the conclusion that the chairman's informal role in supervising the combatant commanders in the jcs is insufficient for the demands of our time. while it is true that delegated authority from the secretary of defense is an alternative, there should be no doubt in the armed forces about the directive authority of the chairman.

subject to the close and continuing scrutiny and oversight of the secretary of defense. strategic guidance for employment, force allocation trade-offs between combatant commands and establishing strategic priorities for the armed forces should not be the result of bureaucratic negotiation. or the exclusive application of personal persuasion. but rather, the product of strategic leadership. this capacity is constrained by the chairman's inability to exercise executive authority on behalf of the secretary of defense. and the remedy i suggest is to place the chairman and the line of supervision, between the secretary and his or her combatant commanders.

the nine combatant commands are complex entities, none of which are alike. some with regional response abilities and functional roles, the command strives to serve both peacetime, crisis response, and war fighting obligations. the composition of the combatant command staff clearly reflects the inherent tensions in this excessively broad mission array. peacetime administration, deterrence, training, and partner engagement versus maintaining the capacity to conduct complex contingency operations in peace and war. the proliferation of resource directorates, joint intelligence 2s security assistance , program offices, typically j4s, partner engagement, typically j9s, are the result of

this expansive assigned mission set. and over time, the war fighting role of the combatant commands have evolved to be honest exclusive use, some would suggest excessive use, of joint task forces, up to and including four-star led assigned missions. the simple question in my mind is, can a combatant command, no matter how well tailored, perform each and every associated task with equal competence? i do not think so. and the attempt to infuse greater inter-agency have to heft into the combatant command has come in my experience, detracted the core operational focus in either peacetime or in conflict. how have we squared the tension between combatant command

peacetime and wartime roles? i would argue by again, extensive use of joint task force organizations to execute operational missions. it is my conviction that the efficacy of the task force employment model is beyond dispute. the national counterterrorism joint task force and straights conclusively -- demonstrates conclusively in my mind the enduring value of well-trained , standing, the tour, -- mature and equipped joint task forces. , it may well be that high performance parallels exist for national joint task forces in the surface, maritime, and air domains, as well. what we should continue, however, or what i should say we should discontinue, is the proliferation of joint task forces and each combatant command, with the attendant service component and

headquarters staff. task force 510 in the pacific command might qualify, however, as an exception to the rule. in short, mr. chairman, we need to have within the armed forces a strategic leader who can exercise executive authority. we need to aggressively taylor combatant commands headquarters, composition to its core mission or missions, and refrain from creating subordinate task forces out of service headquarters. and finally, we need to drive toward employment of long-term, highly proficient national joint task forces for combatant command employment. thank you, chairman mccain, ranking member reid, and members of the committee.

i trust my presentation will assist in advancing the noble cause of goldwater nichols reform. senator mccain: admiral stavridas? admiral stavridas: other distinguished members, pleasure to be back with you. and to be here with general schwartz, who was not only a service chief, but a combatant commander, as well as being director of the joint staff -- there is no one who can talk more coherently to these issues than him. and as well my good friend, dr. christopher lamb, who can best address the questions of planning and strategy that senator reid raise the moment ago. i spent 37 years in uniform, i spent probably a decade of that in the pentagon. i wish i had been at sea during those years. but in that time, i managed to serve on the staff of the secretary of defense, the secretary of the navy, the chief of naval operations, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i have seen sort of inside the building, and as senator mccain

mentioned, i was twice a combatant commander -- once in europe and once in southern command, latin america and the caribbean -- so i am going to simply walk into four or five ideas that i think might be interesting for this committee to discuss and debate, none of these are fully formed ideas. but i think they relate to the objective of what the committee, i think very correctly, seeks to do as we sit here kind of three decades after goldwater nichols. and they all rate in one way or -- and they all relate in one way or the other how the department is organized. i will start with one i think that is controversial, but ought to be considered. and that is doing need a cyber force for the u.s.? i would invite you to think about where we were 100 years ago. we had an army, navy, and marine corps. did we have an air force? of course not. we barely flew airplanes 100

years ago. i would argue today that it feels like that moment a few years after the beach at kitty hawk. clearly, we need a cyber command. and i think we are moving in that direction. but i think it is time to think about whether we want to accelerate that process, because our vulnerabilities in the cyber domain, in my view, are extraordinary. and we are ill-prepared for them. and therefore, some part of our response will have to be done by the department of defense. and the sooner we have not only a cyber command, but in my view, a cyber force -- small, capable -- i think will be well served. i think we should have a discussion. secondly, to the question of the inter-agency and the power of how to bring those parts of the government together, i think an interesting organizational change to consider would be to at each of the regional

combatant commands to have a deputy, who is a u.s. ambassador or perhaps some other senior diplomat. i think you would continue to need a military deputy, and order to conduct military operations. but a great deal of what combatant commands do is diplomatic in nature, and i think having a senior representative from the interagency present would be salutory. this is been tried, and i think it would be an effective an interesting idea to consider to look at combatant commands. thirdly, and the chairman mentioned this, in my view, geographically, we have too many combatant commands. we have six today. i think we should seriously consider merging north and south

m and merging u com and africa com. there are obvious deficiencies in doing so, operational additional benefits that derive. and i think finally, it is a way to begin reducing what has been correctly identified as the bloat in the operational combatant command staffs. fourth, i would associate myself with general schwartz and a number of others who have testified with the idea that we should consider independent, general staff in strengthening the role of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. frankly, in practice, as a combatant commander, i would very typically all the chairman. check signals with the chairman. i would not undertake a radical departure without talking to the

chairman. i think putting the chairman in the chain of command, as general schwartz as outlined and a number of other witnesses have mentioned, is efficient, sensible, and frankly, codifies what is in effect today in many ways. in addition, i think the chairman would be well served with what some have termed a general staff. this is the idea of taking midgrade military officers of extraordinary promise and pulling them from their services and more or less permanently assigning them to this general staff. this model has been used in other points i other nations in history. i think it is a powerful way to create efficiencies and avoid duplication, because i doing so,

you can reduce a great deal of what happens in the combatant commands today. so, in addition to strengthening the position of the chairman, i think it would be worth considering whether a general staff model would make sense. fifth and finally, i think that we talk a great deal appropriately about joint operations. it is important to remember that joint education is extraordinarily important in both ultimately the conduct of operations, the creation of strategy, the intellectual content of our services. so, i would advocate considering whether we should integrate our joint educational institutions. probably by taking the national defense university, putting it back to three-star rank and giving that officer directive authority over the nation's war colleges. this would also create a reservoir of intellectual

capability, which could match up well with the idea of a general staff. five of those ideas are controversial. but i think they should be part of the conversation that this committee is on packaging, which is one that is deeply important for the nation's security. thank you. senator mccain: thank you. dr. lamb? dr. lamb: thank you for the opportunity to share my views on improving the effectiveness of military operations. it is a great honor, especially so considering the distinguished service of your other witnesses today -- general schwartz and admiral stavridas. it is the high point of my career to be sitting with them today, and in front of you. and i am really truly humbled by the opportunity. also, i want to knowledge the presence of my wife, who, in light of the unconventional things i'm about to say, decided

i needed moral support. and i agree with her. senator mccain: we will hold her in no way responsible. [laughter] dr. lamb: she will appreciate that. i argued for three sets of organizational changes to increase the effectiveness of u.s. military operations. first, to impress the persistent lack of preparedness for irregular threats, i argue we should give u.s. relief for small unit conflict, and the marine corps has the lead for larger irregular conflicts. second, to make the best possible investment in military capabilities and maintain our advantages in major combat operations, i believe we should encourage the use of horizontal teams in the department of defense, and support their work with collaborative management -- whether joint scenarios, operating concepts, risk metrics, and institutional knowledge. and i completely agree with general schwartz, we should

invigorate our approach to headquarters, so we have standing task force to experiment and test with joint concepts. finally, to better integrate military operations with other end meant of national power, i believe we need legislation that allows the president to empower leaders to run inter-agency teams. none of these recommendations are unique to me. and they have all been made before by various groups and individuals. but i hope now is an opportune time for the senate and the leadership in the department of defense to reconsider the merits. in the brief time remaining, i would like to address some likely questions, particularly with respect to horizontal or sometimes referred to as cross-functional teams, because i know that members of the committee have expressed some interest in that. and so, i want to raise a number of questions that are likely to come up in this area. first of all, it is often asked if all national security problems are not inherently

complex, and therefore require cross functional teams? my response to that would be no. it was famously argued the most important judgment a commander has to make is determining the kind of war in which they are embarking, not mistaking it for nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature. the same thing holds true for national security, more generally. we need to determine the problem being addressed. not all military tasks are in physically joint. not all national security missions are intrinsically inter-agency. if we say otherwise, we greatly increase the risk of failing to bring the right expertise. another question that arises is whether all groups with representatives from functional organizations are in effect cross-functional teams? no. there is a huge difference between a committee and the team

in the executive branch. the numbers of a committee, to use some shorthand, typically give priority to protecting the parent organization equity. and the members of the cross-function team give priority to the mission. why do some groups work like teams, others work like committees? for example, why don't all executive branch cross-functional groups work as well an army battalion headquarters, which also has to integrate functional expertise from the artillery, infantry, armor, etc. i think the answer is a difference is the degree of autonomy exercised by the functional organizations, and the degree of oversight exercised by the common authority. and the battalion headquarters, all the participants share the culture, have the obligation to follow legal orders, and received direct an ongoing supervision from the battalion commander. most interagency groups consist from organizations with quite different cultures, different

legal authorities and obligations, and no supervision from the only person in the system with the authority to direct the behavior -- the president. another question often raised is whether we do not already have an effect good inter-agency teams with empowered leaders, for example, the state department's country teams. ambassadors having given authority by the president. well, first of all, there are notable exceptions. particularly with respect to military and covert operations. but in any case, the ambassador of authority is not sufficient. many are perceived as representing states' interst, rather the national interest. and the direct supervision of the president is so far removed that many of the people on the country team feel they can do that and actually be rewarded either parent organization for

-- rewarded by their parent organization for doing so. i will stop there, but want to close by anticipating one final reaction to the proposals for horizontal teams. some will invariably complain that this is all rather complicated, and that at the end of the day, we are better off just finding and appointing good leaders. this is an understandable but dangerous simplification. first, as jim likes to say, there is no need to choose between good leaders and organizations. we need both. horizontal teams cannot be employed to good effect without supportive and attentive senior leaders. but neither can senior leaders of functional organizations solve complex problems without organizations that are engineered to support cross-cutting teams. second, in the current environment, leaders simply lack the time to supervise every or even the most important cross-cutting problems. neither is it sufficient to simply insist that subordinates

get along. the heads of functional organization have an obligation to represent their organization's perspectives and expertise. this obligation, reinforced by bureaucratic norms and human nature, ensures the group members with diverse expertise will clash. conflicting views are healthy, but they must be productively resolved in a way that gives priority to mission success, and not less noble factors. finally, i would dare to say that the intense focus on leadership particularly in this town, has always struck me as rather un-american. our founding fathers realize the american people needed more than good leadership. they paid great attention to organizing the government, so that it would work well or work well enough, even if it is not always led by saying, sensitive -- led by saints and savants. we should do the same with respect to the department of

defense and the national security system. right now, i do not believe the men and women who go in harm's way are backed up by the best possible policy, strategy, decision-making. that can and should change, and i'm glad the committee is looking into the matter. thank you again for this opportunity to share results from our research from the national defense university. i look forward to answering any questions you might have read -- you have. senator mccain: thank you very much. let us start with a fairly easy one. is there a reason why we should have a north and south com? and is there a reason for us to have an africa com based in germany, right next to euro command? let me start out with a fairly -- and let me add onto that 1 -- is in there now and need, as -- isn't there now and need, as much as we are trying to reduce and streamlined, is in there now a need for a cyber command, given the nature of that threat? general?

general schwartz: the original thinking on north com was concerned about having assigned forces to a senior officer, with responsibilities for the u.s. and domestic circumstances. that notion foreclosed at the time the possibility of having a joint command for both north and south america. in this time, now, with the passage of time to consolidate both of those organizations, as admiral stavridas suggested, the rationale for africa was somewhat different. it was the place it on the continent. as you recall, there was an effort to place it on the african continent. senator mccain: that did not turn out very well. general schwartz: it did not.

but you can appreciate how that thought process preempted other situations at the time. with the passage of time, it is a good way -- that is an act of consolidation that certainly makes sense to me. and with respect to cyber com, yes, once they have assigned forces, it is time to establish cyber com as independent com. admiral stavridas: sir, i think we should merge north and south. not only for efficiencies, but i think there are cultural connections -- canada and mexico, two largest economies in the americas -- into the flow with our work and world to the south. predictably, there will be objections based on norad. i think that can be easily handled with a sub-unit in some

way. africa was a good experiment, but i think it is time to amend -- time to admit merging it back together -- as you said, the forces are all in europe. and those connections between europe and africa would actually be very positive, and in some sense, well-received in the african world. and cyber command, i have already addressed. it is absolutely time to do a grade the real question? do we want to go one step further to a cyber force? senator mccain: that is really important. two. -- thank you. doctor? dr. lamb: i would make the following observation, i think that decision is best linked to other recommendations that have been made here today, including whether we increase or beef up our ability to field a joint task forces, standing joint task forces, whether we have a general staff or a chairman in the chain of command. i think that would impact a lot

the effective span of control that combatant commanders could exercise. senator mccain: thank you. this whole issue of joint task forces, i think, is one of the most important aspects of it, obviously. since there is now a gap between the organizations in being and the appointment in every crisis of a joint task force, whether it comes from command or it is obvious that that is where the operations are, finally, in a more philosophical plane, one of the much criticized but yet pretty successful staff structure has been the german staff. names like schleifen, leudendorff, keidel. and every time we start talking about centralizing authority in

the joint chiefs of staff, that issue is raised -- the german general staff system is not something that we want to emulate. and yet, there are others who say it was not because of the staff system that they lost, it was for other reasons. so, give me more of a fundamental view, do you want to centralize this much power in the hands of one individual? or authority, in the hands of this one individual? general? general schwartz: mr. chairman, i would not create a general staff. i actually believe there is risk of having the brilliant view become self-serving. however, it is necessary that a chairman in the chain of command connect to a general staff. by retaining a similar

arrangement, as we have now come over the joint staff is a creature of the joint chiefs. you minimize concern about a rogue individual. i would at least have a robust discussion about the pros and cons of the general staff. admiral stavridas: in terms of the concerns raised about the german general staff, you know, that rattles old ghosts in our memories. but in a day, it was political -- but at the end of the day it , was political leadership and economic collapse in germany that led to the rise of fascism. the german general staff was perhaps a tool of that. i think here in the u.s. the culture in the military is so strongly one of subservience to civilian leadership that i would not believe that to be a significant concern, when wade

-- when weighed against the efficiencies. dr. lamb: i would second what admiral stavridas said, about there not being a threat to civilian control of the military from a general staff. but i do think it is worthwhile for the committee to ask or take up an issue that michele flournoy raised about consensus. even compare to osd the joint , staff is well know for its extensive coordination to ensure consensus afforded to the chairman. i think it would be very interesting to hear from the former and current chairman what they think of their staff performance, and that regard. for the committee to get to the heart of why consensus tends to rule in the way the joint staffs runs. i don't think it is served particularly well to date. senator mccain: i would make a comment that, being a student of world war ii, they did not have

any lawlessness. there were just brilliant guys name marshall, lehy, king who won the most seminal war of modern times. i don't know how we look at that aspect of it, certainly was a factor -- the major factor in winning world war ii. senator reid? samir reid: thank you and thank you for your thoughtful testimonies. two issues emerging among many, one, putting the chairman and the chain of command and creating a general staff. there are pros and cons as you point out. and since you give him are some most intellectually honest people i know, it helps us that we propose a lot -- what is the con? what do you worry about, if we had a chairman in the chain of

command, if we did it, we would have to create sort of a buffer against those downsides? general schwartz: the traditional thinking of having the chairman in the chain of command is potential for abuse, for excessive exercise of one's authority, and underlining, as chris lamb mentioned, the fundamental principle of civilian authority. that is the downside. but i believe that, and given my experience, the chairman and the secretary operate so closely in today's environment that there is a level of supervision which mitigates that possibility. but that is a legitimate consideration. senator reid: putting the chairman of the chain, he was -- would still be supportive?

general schwartz: of course, exactly. correct. senator reid: so the practical effect would be injecting him between the service chief and the service sector? what does that look like? general schwartz: the practical effect is there an authoritative referee, and he is either the deputy secretary or the secretary. and it seems to me that having someone in uniform with executive authority, probably supervised and contributes to effective activity. senator reid: on both of these issues, the chairman and the chain? admiral stavridas: let me take the chairman position first. we have correctly identified it as one of the cons. i will give you another one. having put that much authority into one person, what if you get an extremely mediocre chairman?

someone who is not smart, not effective? we have a very good up and out system, we are probably going to get very good chairman. but that level of power and authority, you need to worry not only about abuse of power, but lack of capability in it, as well? in terms of the general staff, i think the term would be general staff -- the officers would have been plucked out of the 04-05 level, and they would not have the robust level of operational experience that we see on the joint staff today. that would be a con. again, my intuition is that both the pros outweigh the cons. that would be part of the conversation. : dr. lamb, your

comments? dr. lamb: the relationship between the chairman and the secretary has been extremely tight. i'm not sure what the value soadded in inserting, informally into the chain of command is. there are issues there, that some secretary teams have worked very closely, and the secretary's interest in decisions have been passed to the chairman agreed in other cases, you can think of secretaries who have dealt with combatant commanders at length. so i think i would be kind of agnostic on that. but i'm inclined to think there is not a lot of value added to that. the more important decisions the chairman needs to work on our use of force development. this is where we really have to work hard to preserve the qualitative advantages that we currently enjoy. and i think most people agree are diminishing. and there, to get to the issue of the general staff, i think he needs really dedicated, deep expertise on his staff. and currently, we tend not to

have that. we bring people directly and from operational commands who have never worked those brought -- those broad issues before. we throw them at a problem for a couple of years, then rotate them out. my view would be that more stability on the general staff, it would probably do a good thing on the whole. senator reid: thank you for your service and testimony. >> thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today. it is nice to have you here, some interesting comments. admiral stavridas and dr. lamb, in 2009, in relation to the dod secretary bob gates, he said , this is a department that plans for war. it is not organized to wage war, and that is what i'm trying to fix. that is from bob gates. do you believe it can be fixed? share your thoughts on that.

general schwartz: i believe the model for employment, once again i will try to re-emphasize my earlier point, we have migrated perhaps more by chance and by design, but the joint task forces are the way we operate today. and it seems to me that professionalizing those entities in the same way that we have grown the special operations national joint task force is the model for the future. in the other operating domains. >> thank you. admiral stavridas: i agree with general schwartz. as a general proposition, we should make the point that the department of defense operates

very effectively in a number of venues. we could be better and more efficient if we had a model like general schwartz is suggesting, in my view. dr. lamb: i appreciate the question. i am personally fascinated by secretary gates and his tenure as secretary of defense. i think he is a remarkable man. he is been very candid in his memoirs about the experience he had leading the department of defense in a time of war. i have looked at what he had to say very carefully. and i think it is interesting, and what really seems to frustrate him is that even though we had troops on the battlefield in contact with the enemy, the service chiefs were called to their statutory obligations to raise, train, equip forces of the future. and he couldn't get enough ability in the field for the problem we were currently trying to master. and this is a source of frustration to the secretary, and i think it underlies the

comment you quoted him on. for me, the problem there is, in part, our lack of preparedness for irregular warfare. the services, whether we're talking about preparing for future irregular conflicts, or engaged in them currently, they have always given priority to what they consider the core possibility of fighting and winning the nation's large-scale conflicts. we have never been good at being prepared for a regular war. and i think that is true over the last 60 years. i think we do need some changes there. for me, the solution is to put someone definitively in charge of being prepared for irregular conflict created that is something we have not done. we always turn to the services and say you're equally responsible for being prepared for irregular conflict. they invariably consider a less included case. we do not go to those complex thinking, planning, prepared them with the capabilities etc.

i think that is what frustrated the secretary, and i think it can and should be fixed. >> there were a lot of provocative comments the secretary has made. and that is good, because we are spending the time talking about some of those reforms and thoughts that he had agreed in regards to regular warfare, asymmetrical warfare, we really did not starting about -- at least i was not so much aware until about 15 years ago or so, when really started taking a looking at the force -- taking a look at the force, but how can we empower the combatant commanders to make the decisions on their own? do we empower or can we empower them to do that? any thoughts, or does it need to be a top-down approach? why can't it be a more bottom-up approach and taking those risks? general? general schwartz: i think thoughtful combatant commanders will do exactly that. however, it is important to

assign missions and to distinguish what the priorities are. that is a function of this -- the pentagon in this town. and we have not been terribly good at that. >> we have not. thank you, general. thank you. >> i will direct these to general schwartz and admiral stavridas. i'm so appreciative when you guys come in and are so candid and tell us exactly what you have seen, and your experience. i am having a hard time with why you cannot make these changes on the front lines when you are in charge? is the system so bogged down we are throwing so much stuff here, but how do we keep the

separation of civilian oversight as we do, which is unbelievable. and i'm glad we do it, that is concerned we have to balance. but when we have the report that found less than 25% or one quarter of active-duty troops were in combat roles, and with majority instead performing overhead activities, and if you look at it from the standpoint of all the pay increases, we are giving the same pay increases to 75% of the people that don't see any action. are you all, i think we need to know from you now, in your role, not being constrained in your remarks, how do we get to where you are able to make the decision when you are in charge and in power? they are saying it cannot be made, the military cannot change. only under the goldwater acts

way back when, we found some he -- so many regulations and oversight that it makes it impossible to govern. who makes the decision? should the commission be in place? and for those concerned about giving total power to the joint chiefs and the chairman and still having the civilians in control, and advisory capacities, i do not know how to circumnavigate this final question. you both can answer. i know we are talking about north and south com. i would ask the same question about national guard and reserves. and overormer governor my car, and i would have gladly -- and over my guard, and i would have gladly shared with the president, and if the only reason we have the reserves doing what they are doing and the guard doing what they are doing is because of separation of oversight, that is the make -- that does not make any sense to me. we could save a tremendous

amount and use the reserves in a much more i think effective role in a much more cost-effective. but i do not see that happening. so whoever wants to chime in, please do. general schwartz: thank you. first, i actually believe that giving the chairman hopefully a very capable individual directive and executive authority would change the dynamic in what you are saying. >> and right now, you are saying that person does not have that? general schwartz: at the moment, he does not. he can encourage, persuade, but he cannot compel. that is not a business-like approach to the problem. secondly, with regard to the guard and reserve, it is at least in part a function of statutory authority, as you are aware as a former governor and others here on the dais, the reserve is a title 10 responsive

to the service leadership. and the guard's title 32, a more complex arrangement. i think it is safe to say that at least the army and the air force have a preference for maintaining both of those entities because access to the reserve is cleaner and more expeditious in most cases than it is in some cases with the guard. admiral stavridas: you do touch on an important aspect, which is reforming pay, benefits. i think those authorities derive from all of you here on capitol hill, based on proposals that can come, and i think you are spot on. why do we pay in 2003 exactly

the same amount of money? it really is, in my view, ripe for a new look. in the building, they have the authority to build that in proposals and move it forward. i hope use burn them to do that -- i hope you spur them to do it. i think providing the authority to go into government and move civilians that have been there, just simple authorities over the gs system would be helpful. in terms of the guard and reserve to the degree the , committee wants to really let your finger, reach up and touch the third rail you can , look at an alternative model. we have an air guard and a land guard, if you will, we have a coast guard. the coast guard resides, as you well know in the department of

, homeland security. it is a very different model. if you want to look at efficiencies and structures, that might be an interesting model to look at, as to whether it pertains in the air and on the land, as it seems to work quite effectively, in my view at sea. these are huge questions. in terms of do you need a commission, i would say what the committee is doing right now is the basis of driving these thoughts forward, and i hope you continue at this. >> senator fischer? senator fischer: gentlemen, recently a friend and i have been having discussions from a 1984 speech by casper weinberger. it became known as the weinberger doctrine. the third rule that he laid out would be that military forces should only be committed after the military and political

objectives have been clearly defined. there has been criticism lately because of recent campaigns that we have seen in afghanistan and syria, and criticism that perhaps we have not seen that end result really clearly defined. i think in the future complex, tash future conflicts, -- future conflicts especially when we , look at the cyber area, it will be a difficult challenge to define what is ahead. i guess i would like to hear from all of you, if you believe these evolving trends are going to continue to change how we look at laying out those objectives in the future, and are we going to be able to look at a comprehensive strategy, comprehensive plan for the future?

or are we going to have to look at it more incrementally, as we move forward? and what are the risks that would be involved with that? if i could start with you general. general schwartz: as i see it, the role of civilian leadership where,ecide the why and and the role of the uniforms is to offer advice on how. both are essential ingredients to success, and the desire for --rity in the why and aware here is important to those who serve in uniform, without a doubt. here isthe clear thing

that there is a need for understanding that these are complex circumstances, but it is important for there to be support for the mission. if i may offer a piece of advice, the absence of the authorization for use of military force in current day is less than ideal. i agree with general schwartz. the ideal structure, senator, would be crisp, clear direction from the political level, coherent strategies that have been explained to the american people and has reasonable support in our democracy. then the military conducts

detailed planning which really of thisrecision piece going forward. how to make that link more effective, a lot of what we were discussing today would be helpful in that regard. the degree in which our military can be given that kind of strategic clarity will be the degree to which we are successful. >> would you both say that is a role that we as members of this senate should continue to require? to limit risk even into a future where the nature of warfare may change? admiral: yes.

>> dr. lamb, if you had comments. >> one of the jobs i had was helping prepare and overseeing the nations war plans. one of my observations was the operational plans are crystal-clear compared to the strategic guidance we are often able to get. your previous witnesses have spoken about strategy and the point of view of need for more gray matter. my view is a little different. i think there are political and bureaucratic forces at work that tend to militate against that. you ask why we don't marshal our resources against that, the answer is twofold. right now, there are great political and bureaucratic as incentives for that kind of clarity. there are three ways to attack this problem.

the safer thing is to say we will do all of those things. if you look at all of our public strategy documents, there is a long laundry list of objectives and you don't have that clarity. when it comes to of limiting the strategy, you have bureaucratic forces at play. i'm convinced after a year of study that a lot of popular opinion about what went wrong in iraq is wrong. if you have real strategy, it exists not on paper but in the minds of the key

decision-makers. it's in their minds. if you are going to get a clear, cohesive implementation of the strategy, everybody has to be working together. that did not happen in iraq. we could go into detail on why but the point is we had people in one part of our national security system working hard to go in one direction and the people on the ground in baghdad supported by other people go in another direction. the results were not good. when it comes to strategy, we have political and bureaucratic problems. there is one reason i favor these cross functional teams. i think they can put the strategy together and have a better chance of implementing it in a unified way. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the senator bringing up the doctrine.

i think there are many reasons why an authorization is really important. one is the legal requirements of article one and two. the second is the sign of resolve you show to adversaries, allies, troops. the third is the one the doctrine gets at, which is it helps you clash out at the beginning what is the mission in goal. president bush presented an authorization right after the attack on 9/11 and congress rejected the originally presented version and came up with something different. president bush presented an authorization right after the the war against isil is one we started on august 8, 2014. within a couple weeks, we now

have to go on offense but we didn't have a discussion, the administrations presentation of the rationale and i fought the president for not sending an authorization to congress for essentially six months after the beginning of the war and now it's been 10 months since he sent an authorization. still haven't had the discussion you should have. i think the weinberger doctrine is a good way to look at it. just walk through if you are looking 15 years ahead, how does the cyber force look? is there a cyber academy? >> it's probably numbered in thousands of members. quite small. less than 10,000, probably. what you have today is each service academy building in itself a small cyber academy.

i think there would be an educational pipeline, a career path. you have to get away from some of the traditional go to boot camp, shave your head, crawl your way up i'm not sure that will attract the people we need in a cyber force. this may be a highly paid. the closest analogue to what we have is special forces. that's roughly what it would look like. i do believe it's time we get after this because i think our vulnerabilities are significant. >> a second question to another idea you had.

i thought it was intriguing, a civilian deputy within the cocom's. i gather there is an unstated assumption about the nature of the american military mission now, that so much of it is diplomacy. the nations that want us to spend a special purpose to train militaries, so much of it is on the border between diplomacy and military are working out what the japanese situation is, that's to format it as much as military.

is that your thinking behind the recommendation? admiral stavridis: it is. the structure as it was in effect when i was in command, i had a military deputy and i think you need to continue to have that for the combat operation. but we also had instead of a full lad, political adviser at the state department, a senior ambassador, and he or she was capable of doing that kind of engagement, diplomatic work, working with hosted nations, helping resolve innumerable

challenges. it's a low-cost and it is also a strong signal to the inner agency about how we want to work together to address problems. >> sounds like a fletcher school dean idea. one last question for you, doctor. the idea you have advocated in your opening testimony about having some primary responsibility for a regular war rather than everybody feeling like a regular wars are a lesser responsibility. talk a little about that.

elaborate, if you would. dr. lamb: i think we have a parallel with regards to special operation forces in general. hobby services before we combine them had special operation forces. they knew what they wanted to use them for. they want a priority for the service. congress created u.s. socom. we have unparalleled capabilities. those have only improved over the last 10 or 15 years. when it comes to working with the host nation forces, we are not quite as sharp. there is a number of complex reasons for that, which have been discussed by many. i think the committee needs to take that issue up with so comm leadership. they intend to improve the capabilities. with regard to the marine corps, not every problem, not every problem can be handled was a small special operations team. the question is who in the department of defense is really responsible for being prepared for that mission? we go on these missions whether it's panama, somalia, we go not really prepared, kind of learning on the job, seeing the

situation demands. not only not having the equipment but not being able to generate it quickly in response to urgent requests from forces in the field. i think we can do better than that. the marine corps would work well in that regard for a number of reasons. it has a history of greater involvement. it's already a joint force with capabilities well integrated. there's a lot of advantages there. we've come to a point where we cannot afford this without some clarification of roles in the department. >> thank you. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today. admiral, i wanted to ask you about the preposition of commander. we had testimony this spring from general john kelly, the commander, about how the networks are working over our southern border. the sophisticated smuggling network that i can assure you now are being used to devastate

my state with how heroin is coming in but also the issue he raised as well was that he believed adherence to isis have called for filtration of our southern border. i wanted to ask you about your thoughts on that in terms of the use of those networks to not only on things like drugs but also as we look at this terrorism challenge. admiral stavridis: it is absolutely something we should be worried about. this is the convergence of these drug routes, which are extremely efficient, with the possibility of moving them to the really dark end of the spectrum, weapons of mass destruction with narcotics. with those higher level threats convergence, we are at a greater risk. what we should do about it is exactly what we're talking about

here, thinking holistically about how you create a network to combat a network. this is a very sophisticated, private, public elaboration with international abilities ranging from moving submarines with 10 tons of cocaine to aircraft's. you need to bring the interagency, special operations. this also argues for emerging of northcom and southcom. there is a quick basket of ideas. >> i appreciate it. i don't love anyone else wants to comment. i also wanted to -- not to pick on you today, admiral, given your position as the commander of nato, what we've seen recently with iran, on october 10, they conducted a ballistic missile test.

we learned they tested a missile on november 21. as i look at -- first of all, a clear violation of u.n. resolutions. also from what we understand, the report suggests it has a range of 1200 miles. that would give them a capability of hitting eastern europe and places we are concerned about. i have been asking why aren't we responding to this? what do you think our response should be? should there be some response? it strikes me as a very important issue because it is already in light of the jppoa.

they're violating existing u.n. resolutions and it seems to me if there isn't some response to us, they are going to continue not only as this doesn't bode well for the jvp away, but assumed capability that could go even further to hit the u.s. admiral stavridis: as i've said often, we are concerned about iran's nuclear program but it's a much bigger problem than that. they see themselves as an imperial power dating back 2.5 millennia. they are currently in control of five capitals of the region. jcpoa is going to shower resources upon them. there are a highly dangerous opponent. first, we should hold iran to the commitments they have made and if that means that agreement is broken and we therefore

returned to a sanctions regime, we need to face that. secondly, we need to use all of our clandestine, intelligence capability to truly understand what's going on. third, we need to stand with our sunni allies in the region and of course, with israel, who will be the bulwark against this kind of expansion. we looked at the missile defense system and should continue to move in that direction. that's kind of a beginning but i think iran will continue to be a geopolitical threat to the u.s. >> thank you. >> thank you all very much for your service and for being here today. dr. lamb, you talk about flattening the structure of the military to set up special teams that have commitment to mission as opposed to what groups of bring to task. i really like that idea. i think one of the things if we look at the private sector, one of the things they've figured

out is that the top down approach is not as good for decision-making. one of the challenges -- i guess i should ask the general and admiral what you think the challenges are of trying to move from what has been a traditional hierarchy to a structure that allows that team approach to really address the challenges we are facing. general, do you want to start? general schwartz: i don't know if the committee -- here's an example.

a be the best recent example of how the team approach produces extraordinary results. the bottom line is chris lamb's while does work, there's evidence of that. there is a new generation of military leadership that gets it, i think. we should support that, encourage it. through your oversight, we should mandate it. general schwartz: core question going forward. what mitigates against it, what makes it difficult is the built in structure of the military. this is an organization where one million people get up and that on the same outfit. you have to start cracking that mentality. there is a generational shift. this is not an on and off switch between a highly chaotic silicon valley-like entity. we need to dial that more toward team approaches, international cooperation's, strategic to

medications without losing our ability to deliver lethal combat power. >> you spoke about the coast guard having a different model. one of the things i remember after the bp oil spill when they are talking about the response in rescuing people -- not the oil spill, hurricane katrina -- was that the coast guard was very effective in responding both of and on the bp oil spill because they were able to make decisions on the spot without having to check with anyone. what's different about the coast guard model and how do you transfer what is effective about that or should we be looking at transferring what's effective about that to address some other challenges? dr. lamb: we spent some time looking at the coast guard model.

the coast guard would say their leadership model and their training model is different from some of the other services. they are used to thinking about problems across functional ways. they has some natural advantages. >> can you explain when you say their leadership model is different. what's different that gives them that ability to focus? admiral stavridis: they begin their lives at the coast guard academy with an appreciation of the fact they are but one entity within the department of homeland security, which has 19

different entities within it. they know they straddle that border. law-enforcement, rescue, environmental. there mentality is simply one of cooperation, working together. it's hard to find a better integrated organization than the coast guard. i think we could learn a lot from that. general schwartz: they have much greater experience with state and local leadership than typically does through the active duty forces.

>> thank you all very much. >> thank you. your years of service. i want to focus a bit on your recommendation all caps with regard to north comm and south comm. we are interested very much in what's going on in the arctic. there is a requirement for the secretary of defense to put together an arctic operations plan for the first time. we think it's progress. just given your background, one of the many challenges we have there is when you look at the arctic, it's a classic scene of different combatant commands where forces -- i'm sure you all noticed the massive russian buildup. yesterday, there was another article about a new

missile-defense system. huge exercises. we're looking at getting ordered the only airborne dct in the entire asia-pacific. as you know, that takes a lot of training to have your forces up there well trained and be able to operate in 30 below zero. i would appreciate your views on the arctic but also that merger idea and how it would enhance or diminish.

we think there should be more attention on the arctic given all that's going on up there right now. general schwartz: it's important the arctic be assigned as a mission to one of the combatant commands. that has yet to happen. it should transpire. that's point one. point two, we only have one operating icebreaker. this is unthinkable for the u.s. clearly, that coast guard platform, we need more of that and we need the other kinds of wherewithal that will allow us to assert our sovereignty in the arctic. >> we have one and the russians have 40, i believe.

admiral stavridis: russia has 38 plus two icebreakers. the chinese have 16 icebreakers. the danes have eight. this is beyond a pedestrian point. i agree with the signing it to u.s. northern command in its entirety. i think it would not be diminished by the merger. when you look at the level of activity to the south and what north comm is doing, i think it would be valuable because it would further solidify her integration with canada. lastly, we should be working with nato.

this is a nato frontier. canada and the u.s. are nato nations and we need to get that border as importantly as we do of the borders of the alliance in eastern europe and to the south on the mediterranean. >> general, could you speak to the strategic location of the forces up there? when you speak about having it completely with regards of

having it under north command, do you think the operational forces should be also under the command given they are very oriented toward the asia-pacific. i know you and the strategic location of alaska is such that those air forces, army forces can really be anywhere in the northern hemisphere within 7, 8 hours. would you mind speaking about that? general schwartz: if the constraint of signed forces to see domestic can be overcome, that makes sense. to assign those assets in alaska that have the opportunity to reinforce america's claims in the arctic as well as be deployable for other missions that might be a sign is certainly the right approach. admiral stavridis: we spoke a lot about the unified command plan, which kind of divides the

world. the other important document is called the forces four document, which assigns those forces. it's renegotiated typically every two years. that would be a very important, new way to think about this assignment. >> thank you. >> thank you. a couple quick points. amen on the icebreakers. it's preposterous we don't have more significant icebreaker capacity given what's happening in the arctic. secondly, would you agree it would be advantageous to the u.s. to acede -- could i ask why agnostic? >> i am concerned about our willingness to protect navigation around the world and the way other nations are

interpreting their control over the areas. >> my concern is other nations are going through that process making claims and we're standing on the sidelines. your gestures won't show up in the record. admiral stavridis: we are much better inside that treaty then outside it in terms of protecting our rights. we could have a long hearing and i'm sure such has been done. call me back on that one any time. >> i want to associate myself with the comments of senator ayotte. it's hard to interpret exactly what they are doing. some think it's the struggle of the hardliners. on the other hand, it would be very dangerous for us to establish the precedent of blinking violations. and a great believer that implementation is as important as vision. i voted for the jcpoa.

it was based on the understanding it would be enforced and i think this could be interpreted as an early test of our resolve. i take it you agree, general. general schwartz: i certainly do. if it's a violation of u.n. resolutions, we should call that out without hesitation. admiral stavridis: i agree as well. i have been hopeful of this agreement but i'm increasingly skeptical that it will be the right step for u.s. national security. it certainly gives way to the negative side of that equation. >> dr. lamp, and your remarks he spoke about how we need to be thinking about unconventional

warfare and suggested several areas. you speak about persuasive communication. in my view, there are two friends with the war with isis. one is military, the other ideas. we're badly losing the war of ideas. it strikes me that a huge gap in our national strategy. my sense is it doesn't have the priority it should. would you agree? dr. lamb: i absolutely would. i think there are two issues here. organizationally, we are not well organized to treat the issue of communications. we get public affairs, public diplomacy, -- >> usia was abolished 15 years ago. dr. lamb: we don't have a

dedicated organization to deal with this anymore and we are confused about -- americans are sensitive about government control or use of information and we are losing this game. i would concur on the substantive front, we are having political problems with deciding the best way to deal with the issue with the fact that some terrorists happen to also be muslim and islamic. we want to emphasize that the islamic religion is peaceful and tolerant but we do have this strain within that religion that sees the world differently and our ability to deal with that in a forthright way is handicap. i am surprised by the number of senior leaders who have said from their memoirs in their tours of duty that this is an achilles' heel for us and we still haven't effectively identified the enemy we are up against, how to turn that issue into something that the islamic

world debates itself about what it's going to do about this strain within it. organizationally, we are really on our heels in this regard. >> ultimately, that's where this battle will be won or lost in my view. there are now 100,000, 200,000 jihadists. there are 1.6 billion muslims. that's the battlefield. there can only be one within the muslim community but we have to lead it. we have to at least work with the non-jihadist muslim community worldwide. general schwartz: i would close by saying we need to give voice

to those who have escaped isil-occupied areas. >> seems to meet natural. admiral stavridis: it is a battlefield but it's also a marketplace and we have to compete. we have to recognize that. it's a very important aspect of how we communicate. we are pretty good at dominating markets. we should bring some of those skills here. >> it's ironic we are the people who invented facebook and twitter and we are losing on that front. thank you very much, gentlemen. one additional question.

you are talking about combining several of the combatant commands. are there any savings to be had? if so, we would like to quantify them because in fiscal year 17, we will face a $15 billion shortfall somewhere real like to be. we are going to have to find some places where it can be saved in staff, personnel, noncombatant areas. perhaps you have an immediate response or for the record. general schwartz: in the business world, we call those synergies. i cannot offer a number but certainly there are those in the department who could answer that question for you and would recommend you press for that. admiral stavridis: yes, there are savings. i would recommend not only

pressing the department but getting someone on the outside to take a good look at that. >> thank you very i appreciate your testimony. >> i appreciate any comments about the hearts and minds but first you have to kill them. as long as the perception is that they're winning, they will also win in other areas. i believe that one of the reasons why these young men are most attracted is they think they are joining a winning cause. the event such as san bernardino and in paris are one of the greatest recruitment tools they have. until we beat them on the battlefield, i think that our messaging efforts will be severely hindered but i also agree that there is going to be a long fight using the most advanced technologies and i would also point out we still have a big problem with the ability now of isis to be contacted and direct a young man or woman to a secure site.

that's just not right. it's not right. i see heads nodding and that is not recorded. admiral stavridis: i agree on both fronts. i think this also gets into the cyber piece of this. there are ways we can track, control, roddick it in the cyber world. i also agree the leading edge of this has to be hard powered. in the long game, it's a mix of hard power, smart power. at the moment dealing with the forces against us from the islamic state, we half to go hard now. >> did you have any comment, doctor? dr. lamb: i think this is a good example of the military

information support. if you look at how they are trained and equipped, it's not to the same levels of efficiencies. i think there is room for improvement there. >> thank you. dr. lamb, as a graduate of the instituition of which you are presently employed, i want to thank you for your continued good work and i think the admiral and general for your many years of service. this will probably be the conclusion of this hearing we are having as we try to address this entire issue of reform, ability to get into the challenge, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. i believe coldwater nichols could never have come from within the pentagon.

we intend on a bipartisan basis to work with the pentagon and secretary carter as closely as we possibly can but i think it's a well-known that we have to lead. it's not to the exclusion of the pentagon but it certainly is the responsibility i think we have and i'm proud of the modest measures we have taken this year but i think next year is really where we can make a significant impact and the series of hearings we are now concluding with now gives us an excellent basis for the kind of reforms that need to be made. it is disappointing to our constituents when i go back to

arizona and someone asks me about a $2 billion cost overrun of one weapon system. it's hard to defend, hard to justify. then when we see the combat capabilities going down and yet the staff and support going up, we are still not able to conduct an audit successfully for the department of defense and no one can tell this committee how many contract personnel are employed. a pretty large task ahead of us. if we pursue the principles you have recommended to us today, some of those are aspects of this challenge will follow. you have been very helpful and

admiral, i asked the panel yesterday's you all would prepare notes of condolences to be delivered to senator reid saturday afternoon. would be much appreciated. >> go army. admiral stavridis: go navy. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> googling and 48 hours ago go fishing books and authors every weekend and tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards years and new york times columnist teresa brown discusses her book, the shift. it gives readers a first on account of her experience in patient care and safety.

health care is only going to get more and more complex. we are going to need better and better nurses to meet all those complex needs. how to keep us strong and healthy and encouraging that, is huge. we pay lip service to that, but we do not really emphasize it. >> on sunday afternoon at 1:00 p.m. eastern -- which i have been part of all my life, was not so different from the world of petty criminals, robbers, and racketeers. but it was disguised and therefore less obvious to see. for 25 years in my career i looked at america as an idea. i defended american principles of the american dream, the american founding.

i've looked in american politics as a debate. the republicans believe in liberty, the democrats believe in equality. republicans want equality of rights, democrats want equality of outcome. it is the point of view of the criminal underclass that this way of looking at american politics is complete and total nonsense. examining america and american politics in his newest book stealing america. what my experience with criminal gangs taught me about obama, hillary, and the democratic party. and then former democratic presidential candidate lawrence lessig talking about running for public policy. >> we have a system where

members of congress spend 30% of the time raising money from the helpd they cannot b being more concerned with the interest of that 1%. the basics of equality is denied. book tv all week every weekend on the c-span2. >> donald trump made a campaign appearance in des moines, iowa, town halleld a meeting at the questions from the audience. from the iowa state fairgrounds, this is one hour 15 minutes. ♪ >> ♪ we're not going to take it. no, were not going to take it. we're not going to take it

anymore. we're not going to take it. it.we wainain't going to take we're not going to take it anymore. ♪ mr. trump: thank you, everybody. this is so exciting. we will do questions. we are doing really well. iowa has been amazing. we are doing so well and i love this place. i'm back here all the time and i will be here a lot in january. [cheering] you are going to be so sick of me. you are going to say we cannot give him the caucus. no, you are going to like me and we are going to do a great job for you. most importantly, we will get to that office and do the right thing. we're going to do the right thing. so, a few things. so much has happened.

when we first came out, we were all talking together and we were talking border security which we're doing so great with. we're going to build a wall. mexico will pay for the wall. we all know that. we will have security. the drugs will stop. people will come into the country but come in and be legal. that is the way. that is the way. it affects iowa so much. we are talking about repealing obamacare. it will be replaced. [applause] i don't know if you have been seeing what is happening but obamacare is a total disaster. it is dying of its own weight. by 2017, he'll be playing golf and i will be working very hard. you are nottead, getting the people signed up.

there has been a lot of talk about it. obamacare is dead. we will come up with something that will be so good, so much better. premiums are going through the roof. high, that or so are so unless you were close to death, i don't think you'd be able to use it. we will take care of that. by the way, we have a lot of good people. the y is really -- we have people. [applause] ago and theymonth do a fantastic job. it is so important. it is another form of let's stay away from opec and the middle east stuff. it is so important. actually, what i don't understand, because the one guy

that is doing pretty good with me in iowa is ted cruz. everything i say, he agrees with. no matter what i say. he agrees. with the ethanol, he has to come a long way because he is for the oil. i understand oil pay some a lot of money. the oil companies give him a lot of money. so, i'm with you. i'm with everybody. look, i'm self funding. i have no oil company, no special interest. i have no lobbyists that want me. they are representing countries that are ripping off the country. they are representing companies that are ripping off the country. i am working for you. we will make america so great again. [applause] and maybe better than ever before. so important. when we first started, i talked

about china and japan and mexico. mexico both at the border and in trade. abisco is moving there. ford is moving there. they took the big plant away from tennessee, a great state. we will do -- we will get it. we will do what we have to do, ok? thank you. look at that group over there. i talk about that a lot. about 2.5 weeks ago in paris, i'm speaking a little differently now. i can take care of china in my back pocket. that is easy for me. that is what i do. [applause] we have all the cards. these politicians do not understand. we have the cards. with china, our people pay tax. they pay no tax.

they call it a tariff because it sounds better. we will take care of that. what happened is with paris, it is a different mindset. when the polls came out last week, my numbers went way up because people feel more secure with me. yeah, really. [applause] who knows why? who knows? but, my poll numbers went up. whenever there is something i do that is proper, but controversial, they say now's he 's done. that's it. that is the end. i will not go over all the different things because maybe you will change your mind. they will say that is it. it is over. and then they come and say,

sir, your poll numbers went up nine points this week. they did? [applause] because i have to do what is right. i have to do what is right. you know what? if i don't make it, i don't make it. i have a good life. you all hopefully have a good life. i have a great family, nice people. they love me, i think, i hope. i think. but, i have a great family. i built a great business. thank you. who is that person? i love that person. stand up. i love that person. thank you, darling. i appreciate it. spirit no matter where i go. we go to dallas, we have thousands of people. 35,000 people in alabama. 20,000 people in oklahoma.

this is supposed to be like a record. it is big, yet it feels intimate. we are going to start taking questions. i just want to say -- i changed a couple of weeks ago. when i saw paris, i changed. and a big part of what i'm doing now is safety and security and smartness and smartness. [applause] it is interesting. it is to make america great again and safe again because we don't feel safe anymore. that welem we have now never had to this extent is the power of weaponry. it is the power, the tremendous power. 100 years ago, i said do not go there anyway -- i said do not go.

you will destabilize the middle east. the fact is right now we have to do things because we have some really, really sick th degenerates. and the press -- look at all the cameras going. nobody else has cameras like this. 100 times i make a speech, nobody cares. look at this. [applause] worry.n't they have me. that is why i'm walking around. they never pan the crowd. they never do. my wife, i had a crowd of 7000 people last week -- more -- 7000 people in a can finonfined spac. my wife said the speech was excellent. did you have many people there? i said what?

she said they never leave your face. i figured the cameras were screwed up where you could not move it. anytime there is a protester, and they could be in the back corner of the room, the cameras swoop over there. it is true. it is true. [applause] no, i used to think they could not move. they're connected with the crazy computers. in the all days, everything was better. the car seats -- he would sit in your car, you want to move forward or back, you press a button. now you have to open up things and press a computer. the same thing with cameras. i didn't think they moved. i figured they were fixed. then, i saw a protester and those cameras were bent in positions like you would not have believed possible.

they are very dishonest people. not all of them, but most of them. the press is -- you have one of the most dishonest in your backyard. "the des moines register" is the worst. [applause] the worst. the worst. dishonest. very you have some reporter named jacobs. she is the worst. -- it is such so misrepresentation. i don't care. i'm saying in their backyard. they are failing anyway. they probably will not be in business in two years. "the desny, every time moines register" does a poll, i always do badly. i believe -- i'm only doing this so they don't sue me -- i hope they do because they don't have

enough money to sue me. i believe, and i may be wrong, i will say i'm sure i'm wrong, but it is my opinion that they don't do it properly. because they pull like 300 to 400 people, but i believe -- if they lose 20 people. forget that one. i don't know that they do that. do you do that? des moines i have a " register" poll, i do poorly. we had a great poll coming from cnn where we are leading by 13 points in iowa. [applause] then, we had another one where we are doing very well. i think "des moines register" -- just watch. trump disappears.

i think we will do so well. i think we will actually do better. we are leading in most of the polls. we are leading in every poll, except iowa, there was one poll. monmouth, what the hell is that? explain it. i don't like it because they'll we treat me badly also. i only like polls that treat me well, right? but, we are doing so well. nationwide, we are leading every poll by tremendous. we had one in georgia -- 44%. think of that. that is 44% with 15 people. i'd take 44% if we had three people. but, 44%. cbs came out, as you know, "the new york times" a few days ago -- 35%. we are killing everybody in

every poll. when des moines comes out, i 'm sure it will be negative. we are going to win. honestly, iowa is so important to me. anould say let's not -- i'm evangelical, a christian, a presbyterian. [applause] i love billy graham. he came out with the most beautiful statements. he was so incredible. i don't know if you saw this. he cannot with statements about -- came out with statements about trump. stand up. is that right? he was so incredible. franklin graham, the son of billy graham. billy graham was unbelievable. they were incredible. so, i think we will do -- we are doing really well with evangelicals.

by the way, i do like ted cruz, but not a lot of evangelicals, out of cuba -- come out of cuba. not a lot come out. i like him nevertheless. we are doing great with evangelicals. we are doing great with the tea party. leading with the tea party. [applause] doing fantastic with old and young and middle. we are doing great with everybody. it is very important to me to win iowa. i could put less pressure on myself and i could say i don't care about iowa, but i do care. i do care so much about it. that is why am here all the time. then lies happen. they lie so much. the people of iowa can't be that stupid. the people of the country -- i'm trying to make a point. i said the people of the country cannot be that stupid.

they cut the country out. iowa, i love you people. remember that. [applause] i was talking about something and i won't even mention what i was talking about because the guy i was talking about was actually a very good guide, but i will say this, we want to win iowa so bad. if i win, i think we run the table. i think we run the table. [applause] we go right through it. big in new hampshire, every poll. christie got an endorsement from this crazy newspaper up there. the weirdest deal i have ever seen. you know, the paper that was in his state called up and said are you sure about that? nobody ever called us. can't believe it. we could go into that but it is not relevant. we are leading new hampshire big. we are leading in south

carolina, like monstrous numbers. we are leading nevada, texas. we are leading everywhere. we are leading big in florida. -- but, rubio, nice guy when the people put you in position to be a senator, you have to go vote. you cannot be the number one person who does not vote in the senate. you have to say hey, i want to go and vote. he should stay there a little longer. go in vote, create a nice record. but, i don't know. how is he doing in iowa? not too good. not good. it seems like a two-person race right now. it is an important race to me. win all of that, if we iowa, and a lot of people say we

win virtually every state in the union and it is over quickly. [applause] now, we are going to take questions. one of the questions will be about what about the republican establishment? they have a problem. it is sort of like the fighters. the great champions. sometimes they go to the hometown of the guy they are fighting and they will say we never want to get a decision, we go for the knockout. because you get a lot of bad positions. they go into a hometown to fight and it is a decision. they say we are in a problem. they lose the fight that they won. the only way they win the fight definitely, knockout. if we win iowa, think we will win everything after that. it will show how important it

is. iowal pledge of this to even if i lose. i don't think i have ever said that in my life. we go and win, iowa is staying where it is in the chain. it is not moving. [applause] there is a big move for us to move iowa into a much further back position by the establishment. folks, i win, it is not happening. you are staying right here. it's great. [applause] you know, it is great. if i don't do that, tana will be very angry at me. is she incredible? [applause] thank you. the whole staff. chuck and stephanie, where is my

big i? guy? how good is he on television? where the hell is he? big sam, come here. >> there he is. mr. trump: look at the size of them. come here, sam. look at him. big sam. come here. are we going to win? >> we are going to win iowa and put them away. we will stand on their chest, stamp on their throats. we will have the biggest victory in the history of the caucuses in the state of iowa. [applause] mr. trump: beautiful. be careful. he did so well, i don't want him falling when he is leaving. beautiful. thank you, sam. these are great people. i will be here that night. that week and a couple of weeks before.

i will watch you. i will not give you any chance that we lose this. let's take a few questions. we will have a little fun. we did a big interview with cnn before this. with hillary missing today -- she was two hours late. did you hear? [booing] i may be wrong. if i am one minute off, they will call me because they love hillary. you know why? i don't know why. she was a couple of hours late and everybody left. you know what happened? she was sleeping. she could not get out of bed. she was sleeping is right. let's take some questions. >> we have sue from the aarp. mr. trump: hi. >> hi, mr. trump. good to see you again. the social security administration reports by 2034, if nothing is done to update

social security, the average 2034,is going to lose, in 25% of their benefits which calculates to about $4000 a year. my question to you is this -- what will you do to update social security? what are your specific solutions to update social security to put it on stable ground for future generations? mr. trump: i'm glad you asked me that question. you have been paying into social security and medicare, by the way. medicare does work. there is tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. we will not cut your social security and your medicare. we will take the jobs back from all the countries that are ripping us off. we will become a wealthy country again and save you social security. think of it -- i cannot believe this number, but who was the mandatory the number?

over 6 million people -- i cannot believe it -- are age 112 and over and getting social security. who is the man that told me that? i heard it, i read it. 6 million people are getting social security, meeting someone else is picking it up. who is that man? he is over there someplace. ok. 6 million people more. he came up to me tonight. it is an amazing statistic. we will have to check it. can you imagine -- we know there may be one million but not 6 million. anybody in this room 112 or over? if they are, the want to shake your hand -- i want to shake your hand. 6 million people over 112 years old picking up social security. there is tremendous waste.

what we are going to do is save medicare, save social security. we are not going to raise the age and do all the things that everybody else is talking about doing. they are all talking about doing it. you don't have to. we are going to bring our jobs back. we will make the economy incredible again. my tax proposal which is in great detail in terms of policy and has gotten tremendous reviews from a lot of people. taxese are going to cut tremendously for the middle class and businesses, because the middle class, our middle-class is being decimated. sue, when that happens, you will see an economy that takes off. we will get rid of a lot of that debt. to $21$19 trillion going trillion right now. if you go back eight or nine

years, trillion was not a word anybody knew and now it is routine. we are going to save your social security without cuts. we will make ourselves rich again. a woman said to me in new hampshire, she said, i'm voting for you, i love you, but it is very crude when you say you will make the country which again. i said i know it sounds that, but many things i say are crude. we cannot make our country great again unless we make our country rich again. we cannot let everybody in the world rip us off. [applause] we built china. the money they took out of our country, we rebuilt china. they have bridges all over. they have bridges like the george washington bridge. maybe i should not mention that

one particularly. bigger than the george washington bridge. only a few people got that. they have bridges going up. we have rebuilt china. they have taken our jobs, faith, manufacturing. they have taken our money. not going to happen anymore, folks. not going to happen. [applause] i know the great businesspeople. we have the greatest businesspeople in the world. guys like carl icahn. he calls me saying he wants to help. we are not going to use special interests. we use donors to negotiate with guy, because he gave some whoever it might be -- again, i'm the only one cell funding my campaign. -- self funding my campaign. when these guys give money to politicians, to a large extent, they own those politicians.

they will do whatever the hell the special interests and donors want. social security, we are saving it. medicare, we are saving it. we are going to make her country rich. thank you, sweetheart. >> we have a question back here from jeff. what is your question? mr. trump: hi. >> jeff morgan, and i have a question on behalf of veterans for a strong america. mr. trump: am i good with the veterans? >> very much so. mr. trump: we are leading with the veterans by like -- forget it. >> i have a question here that would like to read to make sure i have all of it. andvets for strong america, their 500,000 supporters, endorsed you this past summer. hase then, the vfa

collected -- >> come on, jeff. you knew you were doing this. you are going to get fired. >> i'm a little bit nervous. they have collected tens of thousands of signatures. they want to deliver that to the iowa campaign. those signatures are to talk petraeus andl betra the comparisons between hillary clinton and the general, and the double standards taking place. when you get into office, will you instruct the department of of hillary take care clinton's accountability? mr. trump: yes, it is called -- [applause] what i like about jeff, he

started off weak, but finish stroned strong. that was a long route to get to a good question. yeah, it is called the statute of limitations, right? it is a six-year statute. maybe five. yeah, you have to look at it. -- you know the story. it is a crime. she committed a crime. perhaps -- we have to have a fair justice department. and perhaps jeff will have some really good attorney general that will say -- look, we want to be fair with everybody, including hillary clinton, but she committed a crime. she should not be allowed to run. she is being protected. i have little doubt they will

find anything, but they have already found it. when you watch television, you have these big scholars, lawyers -- yes, she violated sections oh an so and so. many manny, many laws. you mentioned the general. his life was over destroyed over nothing. i think she will be their nominee. the only question is if she will be allowed to run. she is being protected by the democrats, by the president. why do you think she is going along with these insane policies of his? she goes along with everything. honestly in fairness to her, i don't think she believes it. but i think she is afraid he is going to say, i don't like her anymore. i will get somebody else. i'm telling you. so, the question of statute of

limitations -- it is a five-year statute of limitations. she has a problem. in one way, she is running for her life because i know one thing -- if she wins, that is the end of that. if she loses, she could have a serious problem. another question, please. >> we have eric. what is your question? mr. trump: hi. >> hi, i'm asking a question on behalf of the iowa coalition. we have syrian refugees coming in and we cannot vet them properly. what would you do immediately on the southern border? [crowd chanting] mr. trump: it is always exciting.

[cheering] mr. trump: out. out. get him out. [booing] get him out. get him out. [cheering] >> there is always -- usa, usa, usa.

>> usa, usa. there it is. mr. trump: that is a hillary supporter. au know, i always say it -- single person always want to be right in line with the camera. stands up, he is gone in a couple of minutes. tomorrow, the headlines will be protests. we have like 2000 people here. the headline will be this -- wait, this person. [applause] sorry. you know, it is interesting because i've learned so much. i've never done this before. i have never been a politician. i hate being a politician.

i know politician so much. if you cannot make money with politicians, there is something wrong. it is amazing. i see these people and sometimes -- i have had 20,000 people. not even a murmur, just love. every once in a while, you have somebody stand up. every single time it turns out to be a big story. it is a shame. that is the press also. >> until we were so rudely interrupted, eric go-ahead and ask your question. mr. trump: we will probably have another one stand up at some point. refugeese syrian coming in through the southern border. what can we do right now to protect the southern border? >> thank you. mr. trump: i said at the beginning we will build a wall. it is going to be a real wall. -- you see that

feeling? -- ceiling. that is nothing compared to the wall. we can build it, we can build it right. it will be strong and powerful and as beautiful as a wall could look. it has to be beautiful because someday they will name it the trump wall. [applause] it is going to work. walls do work. they wanted to build a wall 20 years ago. they could not get environmental impact statements. china is building in the south china sea massive military bases. why? they are not supposed to. they have no respect for obama, our country. they are not supposed to be doing this. we can get them to stop by saying we will not do business with you anymore.

we don't have to go to war. it is economics. the whole country would collapse in two seconds. we have such power and we don't know it. they are building massive -- now, they have little islands. put the biggest excavators. i said to a friend of mine from china, very rich and successful -- he paid me a fortune so i happen to like him. i said jokingly, how long did it take them to build these massive violence? islands. ? how long did it take them to get the environmental impact statement? he said nothing. they said they will build there and they were digging two seconds later. bigave a problem -- i'm a believer in clean air and clean

water. i'm a big believer. i have gotten so many awards for the environment. we'reou look at how impinged -- the wall was stopped because they could not get an environmental impact statement. among other things. orre was probably a snail turtle or snake or something. you are ruining the habitat of a rattlesnake. i don't know. they actually have a lot of people, people that would now be against it, but they wanted to build a wall years ago. i said bomb the oil. i've been saying that for years. now they are. one of the reasons that we did not bomb the oil, obama did not want to hurt the environment. i heard that and i thought

somebody was kidding. i thought a comedian was saying that. it turned out to be true. it going into the atmosphere. this is the way we fight today. i'm telling you, we are being led by stupid people. we are being le by stupid d by stupid people. [applause] saying takeve been the oil. i didn't want to go into iraq, but once we were there -- we should not have been there, but we left the wrong way. first of all, we have a president who told him a date. it was like 18 months later. they said wow, don't believe it. they don't want to be killed. the enemy said they would leave on a certain date? the pulled back and then now you

see what happened. it is a disaster and iran is taking over iraq. weekse sent 50 soldiers ago and the president announces we are sending 50 soldiers. he thinks it is a good press announcement. it is not. 50 soldiers is not a lot even if they are elite. those 50 soldiers, because of that announcement, have a target on their heart. why does he have to say that? why can't he let 50 soldiers go there quietly? stealth. why can't he just do that? [applause] why can't he do that? grave50 soldiers are in danger today because of that. and, they probably don't even know that, but everybody is looking for them. we have people that don't know what they are doing. we still have general douglas

macarthur, general george patton -- these were real people. [applause] today, we have generals that go on talk shows. i saw a general the other day on a talk show. he said -- this is serious. they are good men, but you have to lead these men. the generals, you have to have power over them. he said we are in the worst shape in terms of preparedness that we have been in for decades . this is the time where we have to be in the best shape because the world wants to kill us. they said we are in the worship we have been in many decades -- worst shape we have been in many decades. he should not be saying that because you are telling the enemy that. the enemy feels emboldened, right? we should not be saying it. [applause]

even if it is true, you don't say it. you do the opposite. one thing i will do -- i will build the military so big and so strong and so powerful that -- so powerful -- [applause] that nobody is going to mess with us. nobody will mess with us. in many ways, it is the cheapest thing you can do. everybody is toying with us right now. it is the absolute cheapest thing you can do. ok, come on. >> we have roger right here. what is your question? >> hello. mr. trump: hi. >> what is your response to those that want to enact more laws regarding firearms in an effort to keep evil people from doing evil things with firearms? mr. trump: you are right. i'm a big second amendment person, by the way. [applause]

here. get over here. my gunman. this guy, he has one of the great places. might as well give him free publicity. my son buys weapons from him. my son and i are members of the nra. come here. [applause] looks like somebody was aiming at him. you know my sons, right? they are serious believers in the guns. what is the name intercompany -- name of your company? >> we are the largest supplier. [applause] thank you all. mr. trump: you have a great company. this is long before i was ever thinking about doing this, right? >> a long time. mr. trump: they make you a lot

of money? i hope they negotiated a little bit. it is a great company. thank you. be careful. [applause] my son is a really great marksman. i'm a member of the nra, but not such a good shot. if you think about that question now there is tremendous pressure to get rid of the guns, the magazines, the bullets. i will the three bullets in every magazine, then 12 and then 23. will't think the bad guys say i don't want to break the law, but i will put three bullets in. these people. i have arguments with them all the time. i'm a practical guy. if i didn't believe it, i could not say it. in france or in california -- i have permission to carry which is a big thing in new york.

i have a license to carry. but, in france or california or all these places we have seen shooters, if instead of having hundreds like in france, hundreds of people in that room -- paris as the toughest gun laws in the world. france has the toughest gun laws in the world. nobody has guns except the bad guys. worst,lked in with the toughest, best best weaponry you can have and they said over here, boom. over here, boom. they kill 128 but many more are dying right now. they are in terrible shape in the hospitals. they wiped the place out and they could have stayed there longer. you have those two sleaze bags from california, the married couple. a young married couple did the shooting.

they are not a young married couple. they are the worst. they are sleaze. [applause] the young married couple. that is no young married couple. they walk into a place and they killed 14 people and others are going to be dying probably. if somebody had guns -- nobody had a gun. look at this guy right here. stand up. how would you have done if you had a gun? would you fire back a little bit? they would have been in trouble. believe me. that guy. [applause] to an ivyi went league college and have a lot of friends. i argue with them. i say, ok, we're in paris. there are hundreds of people and you have no gun. don't you think they would have been better?

they lose the argument, but they never change their mind. we have to fight for the second amendment. it is so simple. it's so simple. [applause] -- believe me, they want to take those guns away and you always know the bad ones will have the guns and have it more so than ever before so we will protect the second amendment if i'm president. [applause] will also bee saying merry christmas again. [applause] do you ever notice -- do you ever notice -- [cheers] that's right, brad. merry christmas. by the way, merry christmas, everybody.

and happy holidays. i have a lot of friends that aren't christian. they like christmas. everybody likes christmas. it is politically incorrect to say merry christmas anymore. president, merry christmas, happy holidays, enjoy yourselves. we are going to say merry christmas again. we are going to bring our country, bring that spirit back. go ahead. >> we have greg. what is your question? >> hi, i'm twith the tea party patriots. this comes from the eagle forum. when nominated, what do you intend to do with ted cruz? will you name him you are vice president -- your vice president or -- mr. trump: he is a good guy.

>> or appoint him to the united states supreme court? mr. trump: that second is interesting. i like ted cruz a lot. he is doing well, i'm doing well. it is not a contest between the two of us. i do like am. him. i would say we would certainly have things in mind for ted. he is someone i can certainly say that for. [applause] i like him, he likes me. he put out a tweet tonight and said donald trump is terrific. that is a nice word. other candidates are not exactly saying that about me. will you say hello to phyllis for me? she is an amazing woman. >> we have ruth from iowa pays the price. >> thanks. hi, i appreciate you are not

bought and paid for. i know you said super pacs are a scam. our politicians have been corrupted by donors. andwill you fix this mess improve accountability and campaign financing? [applause] mr. trump: great question. the super pacs are horrible. i have had many set up for me from people i do not know. some people called it the art of the deal pac. i started going around and see the corruption with the super pacs, where they are stuffed with money. people that put the money in our dealing with candidates. the whole thing is wrong. i see it. bush has $125 million. $2 billion, it would not make any difference, ok? [applause] million --25

honestly, he is a nice person. he is a very nice person, but $125 million. people giveourself, $2 million, $7 million -- you know what happens. some of the super pacs are actually running the campaign. another thing that is interesting -- one of the super pacs has $6 million. of the $6 million -- this was reported on the front page of -- ones angeles times" of the candidates which i will not mention the name. of the $6 million, after all of the bloodsuckers took their cuts, the fundraisers, they had $140,000 left for the campaign. that is better than being a real estate broker. i would rather do that than sell houses. they had $140,000 left.

it was in the newspaper. i think i believe it. i have seen it. the romney campaign -- the guy made tens of millions of dollars raising money for romney. you give them money and they get a cut. our laws are so corrupt. our campaign-finance laws mr. trump: i don't necessarily want to stop people from giving, because i think that is a good thing. but you have to get away from the super pac's. what you have to have his people have to know who it is, so you have to open up the process and let people know -- if they want to give $1 million, then they can, but you must know who it is. that puts a little pressure on guys like brad, who raises hundreds of millions of dollars. pac, itept of the super is no good. it is no good. it is a very dangerous, terrible

thing. we will change our laws because you really have no choice. it is so out of control. it is so terrible. the papers that are in this room tonight should look at this, there is so little money left over for the candidate, that is one of the reasons i'm so happy that i'm doing my own. we actually sent legal letters to around eight or nine super pac's. first of all, i'm sure that out of some of them, they sold the money. send i have no money and sets up a donald trump something super pac. he sets it up. all of a sudden he has two main dollars. people send him money. how much of that money do you think he is to use to do what he is supposed to be doing? that is common sense. maybe all of it. but, i doubt it. so we sent legal notices to everyone that we could find having to do with donald trump. we do not want their money. we said, don't do it.

we don't want it. ideally, give the money back to the people that gave it to you. but the super pac concept is correct and it is terrible and it should be ended. we will go to new campaign-finance laws that will be terrific. ok? thank you. [applause] mr. trump: go ahead. >> we have kevin with america's renewable future. >> good evening, mr. trump. think you for coming to iowa. i'm a native of des moines, so on behalf of des moines i would like to think you for coming. thank you for supporting the renewable fuel standard. you talked about this a little bit earlier. senator cruz is not in support of that. you thinkll me, do that is because of his ties to big oil? mr. trump: yes, it is. [applause] mr. trump: it is. if he is from texas, to the best of my knowledge, there is a lot of oil in texas.

he gets a lot of money from the oil companies and he is told -- totally against ethanol and everything else that you are talking about. i am not. i'm totally in favor. it is a big industry here. [applause] mr. trump: you know, is that industry is upset, iowa has problems. i was here through weeks ago with a group -- any of the people here that were at that meeting? they were such amazing people, right? stand up. we had a good meeting, right? i learned so much about it. i was in favor of it even before. that is correct, either member you very well. how could you forget? it was amazing. looking at the plants. also, beyond even the fuel capacities which we want to create as much as we can, tremendous numbers of jobs in iowa. i say to myself, if ted cruz is against ethanol, how does he win in iowa?

that is very anti-iowa. i don't know how he wins in iowa. [applause] mr. trump: but i totally for it, ok? thank you. >> thanks. >> what is your question? of servinghe honor iowa as the republican national committee woman. i do have a question for you on establishment or a late gop, whatever you want to call it. as the state central committee, we are neutral. this is not to hurt you or harm you, it is for clarification. when we see you make a statement and sometimes it is controversial, as we have noticed, -- mr. trump: sometimes purposefully though. firestorm, the fact checkers come through and your constitutionally sound. you agree with the party platform. i have not found anything where i see you in contradiction, unlike other candidates that are in contradiction to the platform. with the public.

you have unleashed america from the bondage of political correctness. [applause] mr. trump: wow, thank you. thank you. [applause] question, whymy wouldn't a gop, or rnc be thrilled with a candidate that has the numbers that you do, that is resonating with the public, and is saying the things that is obviously -- mr. trump: come here. bring her up. so nice. [applause] mr. trump: when she first started that question, i thought oh no, here it comes. after midway through, i really appreciate it. come on over here. get under there. that's great. that assessing nice question, thank you. come here. don't fall. [applause] mr. trump: thank you very much.

that is so nice. what is your name? >> i appreciate you writing. there are a lot of other things that you could be doing. we appreciate you running. i will not fight you for the microphone, ever. [applause] >> why is it, why would they not be thrilled that you are -- the numbers that you have, the crowds that you have, the message that you are bringing, you are reviving the heart of america. this is what we should want. why? [applause] mr. trump: thank you. be careful. i was a member of the establishment six months ago. i gave the range of $50,000 to the republican governors association. i gave tremendous amounts of money away. i was like the fair-haired boy. once i said i was running, they said what? you're not supposed to run. then i ran against all of these senators and governors and

everyone said, well, i don't know. my ways that, if you run, you are going to win. she understands the love people and people love me. she said -- you have to actually go and run. you have to announce that you are running. because, nobody will believe that you are running. i did not want to announce because i did not want to announce and then have things not work out and be like some of these guys were there at zero. many of them are at zero. finally i said, we are going to do it. there were too many things that i watched on television with our president and the decisions that are made. horrible, dirty, traitor, and -- they get five killers that they have wanted for nine years. the worst killers. they are all back on the battlefield. some a decision. iran deal. how bad is that? they self inspect? ok, we are not building.

they promise they're not building nuclear weapons. that's ok. we give them $150 billion and we do not even get our prisoners back? the whole thing is crazy. i saw this. and i said to my wife, i don't know if i will do well or not. who knows? is a risky thing. i have always heard that if you are successful person you cannot run for office, especially president. i see it all the time. the people go after me. i don't even care at this point. i say, we have to do it. i looked at it the last time with mitt romney and i did not do it and i probably should have, because you let us down. look, he let us down. we had a failed president. he was a failed president. just as bad as he is now. it is true. [applause] and mitt romney let us down. that last month it was like he was not even campaigning. i said, why are you jay leno or david letterman? why are you not doing a? he just did not do it.

so he lost the election. i backed john mccain and he lost. i backed mitt romney and he lost. this time i said, i'm doing it myself. we're going to win. [applause] but, there is an establishment out there. it is a real establishment. real people. there are people that are used to having their little puppets all over the place. there are people who are used to giving donations and having control. they are people that may call me, i will treat them with respect, but i will not be doing bad things if it is bad for the country. i will not let ford will they plant in mexico if i can keep it in michigan. [applause] mr. trump: i'm not going to let the car companies and nabisco and all of these people and all of these companies -- i am all for free trade and i think it is great. i am for it. it has to be smart trade. i will not let them move to mexico and sell things without tax or anything.

we lose our jobs and our factories and they go over here and make it and we let them come through. how does that help us, folks? i went to the best business school in the world, believe me, it does not help us. trust me. we will not make is like that anymore. we can't. we own 19 train dollars. the establishment is not ever probably -- in the end, if this country mming even the establishment, they will say it is a good thing. they will be beneficiaries also. we have a real establishment and they have never seen this happen before. a writer called up and said -- to my the top journalists way of thinking, certainly in the country and beyond, and he said, mr. trump, how does it feel? and i said how does what feel? how does it feel, what you have done has never, ever been done before? i said, what have i done? he says you have dominated the summer of donald trump. now they call it the autumn of

donald trump. hopefully they call it the spring of donald trump. i want the next autumn of donald trump. [applause] writer,p: i said to the i don't know what you are talking about, i have not done anything. friendly, if i don't win, i consider this to be a total waste of time. i'll be honest with you. as much as i like eating with you, i want people to do anything. he says, no you have one, even if you don't win. i said no, i don't win. if i do not win, i have wasted my time. is, the establishment cannot believe it. they have never seen a happen before. i was on the cover of time magazine four weeks ago or five weeks ago. time magazine was going to pick the person of the year. everybody, even my enemies said that donald trump is going to win. i said, i want win. they said why? i said i was. just like i should have gotten the emmy for the apprentice the first three years. i was nominated and i should have. and i said i will never win.

because i'm not hollywood establishment. said,th time magazine, i -- o'reilly is a great guy. he did an editorial at the end of the show saying, nobody has done more than donald trump. he should have one. i probably should have, in all fairness. but he said, nobody has done more -- taken over -- what we have done has been amazing. it is not just me, it is all of us. from dallas and mobile and oklahoma. all of us. because the spirit -- bill o'reilly had a whole big thing. the other shows, where they said, donald trump, what do you think? well, angela merkel got it. what did she do? she has destroyed -- she is in the process of destroying germany. with the migration. we have to help the people at the migration. we have to create a safe zone someplace in syria. i do not want them coming into this country. i don't want them. we don't know who they are. [applause]

mr. trump: we don't know who they are. [applause] then with their printing presses that now do the forged passports. you heard about that. so, we do not know. the bottom line on that is it is such an interesting question. you will know in about a month or two whether or not the establishment has treated me fairly. but the only thing that i can iowa, ihis, if i win think it is over. i have said before. iowa,e, i think if i win new hampshire is amazing, people are amazing, you would love the people and they would love you. you have everybody. the whole country is in love. i call it the noisy majority. it is no longer a silent majority. it is the noisy majority. [applause] but, if we win like i think we are going to win,

because we have such a big lead. honestly, it is not going to matter, they can do anything. i don't care about the establishment. they can't do anything. the only way they can do it is if i'm a little bit short. if i'm to vote short i have a problem. i will have to go in that convention and deal with all of these bloodsucker politicians and they will make their deals and i will have all of the money guys around and they will be in the back room making deals. but, if i get the number of delegates, there is not a thing that they can do. i will end up doing fine with the establishment. again, i was a member of the establishment six months ago. that was a nice question and i appreciated, thank you. [applause] >> we have had there. what is your question? >> hello. my question is regarding education. in the past, you have come out against common core. mr. trump: absolutely. [applause] mr. trump: that was an easy one, i'll tell you. a, gore is a symptom of larger disease, and that is the fact that the government thinks you know best our children, rather than our parents.

with the recent passage of the every student succeeds act, the back room deal made by republicans and democrats kept the federal government and education. what will you do to return power to parents and make them have the choice on how to educate our children? thank you. [applause] so, common core, i'm such a believer in education. i had an uncle was a professor at m.i.t.. he was a brilliant guy. in fact, i just retweeted an article about him today. you have to read it. when i see somebody like jeb bush -- i will tell you one thing i respect, he did not change his views. he knew he was going to get killed on this issue and i respect that to a certain extent. but, it is so wrong. common core is a total disaster. we have people -- [applause] we have people, bureaucrats in washington telling you how your child should be educated in iowa and

new hampshire and all of the different places that we go to. it is ridiculous. i go around and i see the principles -- i have seen so many students and teachers and professors and principles and i have seen some of the people. somein iowa, i have seen of the love that these parents give to those schools. this is real love. these are smart people. these are people that are not working for a paycheck. these are incredible people and i have seen -- member this -- our educational system is a mess. we spend more money per pupil as a government than any other country in the world and we are in 20th place. i mean, like double what anyone else has. i want to bring education back to the local areas. you will have parents and you will have unbelievably talented people and they love their kids and they want their kids to be well educated because it is so important.

and you'll be very happy with it, ok? thank you. [applause] >> ok, we're coming down to logan. what is your question? >> hello. mr. trump: a tough looking cookie. go ahead. >> i represent a cooperative. we're wondering what your plans are for providing clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy? mr. trump: you people do it. i have gotten to know you really well. you people do it. we are backing you 100%. the job and the spirit that you all have, you are always perfectly i tired with your green, we are backing you 100%. you do a phenomenal job. there should be more people like you in this country. the whole grid is a disaster. the whole country. the infrastructure of our country is falling apart. and nobody can build like me. that is what i do, i build. on pennsylvania

avenue, a big, tremendous hotel. that i got from the government of the united states. from the obama administration, a couple of years ago. we have the best plan. the gsa is terrific. they're very talented people. we are under budget and ahead of schedule. that is what we do. when you see these things, where they are building a bridge and dollarscost a billion and then across $12 billion -- how about when they built the hospital that cost $3 billion. i look at it and i can tell you how much it will cost. sir, $3250 million, no billion. $3 billion? do you think somebody got rich on that when? we are going to stop all of this debt. we are going to make our country so strong and so wonderful. we love it anyway. but it is so sad to see what is happening. it is so sad. and we are going to change it around. are we all finish with those questions? >> you have one, joe? we have one more.

your planner doesn't let up. she is brutal. corey, she is brutal. she did a good job on the apprentice though. >> i had a really good mentor. [applause] andtrump: i'll tell you, there is another special person who did a great job on the apprentice great shawn johnson. she is another champion. she is another one. and she is an incredible young woman. she is getting married. she is fantastic. wherever she may be, say hello. go ahead. >> mr. trump, can you talk about your jobs program? we don't have enough work to pay people a living wage. mr. trump: that is true. we have such a problem and the biggest problem i have relates to education. the hardest thing that you get is when you go around and you see students and somebody students come out and here's and they always want to talk about the loans. student loans. and they are going through nice

colleges and their good student to work hard to could be really top in their class. and they get on the say, mr. trump, we have no jobs. we can't get jobs. they can get jobs. we are to bring our jobs back from china. we're going to bring our jobs back from all of these places overseas that has stolen our jobs. we will bring our jobs back from south america and will bring them back from mexico. we will have jobs again, believe me. we will be manufacturers again. we will start making apple computers in this country. does it doll good to= to make them in china? we are going to bring our jobs back. ladies and this has been a lot of fun. this is the first arrived in this kind of a thing, and it has been amazing. yes? mr. trump: thank you. thank you.

[applause] mr. trump: i thought you were a protester at first. [laughter] mr. trump: isn't that a terrible way to end? a protester in your final words. that was very nice, thank you. we love the military. thank you. [applause] mr. trump: so, i just want to thank you all for being here, we love you all and it is so important. iowa is so important to me and the relationship that i developed here have been amazing. we are going to make our country great again and we're going to make our country safe again. thank you all for being here. thank you. [applause] ♪ where not been a take it no, we angered and take it were not a take it anymore ♪

>> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. the best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies and meet and greet. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website c-span.org. coming up this morning on c-span, washington journal's next, with your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. and in the journal" is hington next, and michael mccall on terrorism and the obama dministration strategy on combatting isis, and republican presidential president jeb bush campaigning in new hampshire. in about 45 minutes on "washington journal", we'll talk o jim kessler about the 1934 assault weapons ban and its