requirement of the administration to present a plan to defeat isis. this bill has been around for three, four weeks and we are waiting for the president to present a plan to defeat isis. there is a case to be made to say let's see what the plan is to defeat isis and wheth there is a case to be made to say let's see what the plan is to defeat isis and whether that requires or whether in our interest to have a new aumf to accompany the strategy to defeat isis. >> you think it's the president's responsibility. the speaker: this is congress' responsibility. the question is can we pass one give the military the tools they need to do the job and will the president accept that. will it handcuff the next president. the president put too many constrictions on the military. you don't take options off the table and don't telegraph what you will or will not do to your enemies. we don't want to repeat his mistakes.

can we put a new aumf? i think we can and should but we actually do have the existing authority. >> we are talking about a confident america. we are not hearing that from republican leaders. is there too much fear mongering from the republican party? the speaker: this is going to sort itself out fine. the democratic party was more competitive, you would be asking the same thing. you have the competitive republican primary, we have competitive republican primaries. i'm not worried about the outcome. the power is where it ought to be which is with the primary republican voter and the primary republican voter is a smart savvy voters who wants to win and make sure we don't repeat four more years of

progressivism. >> you said in an interview with the "new york times", you expect concern about the party indulging in our own version of identity politics trying to fuel themselves based on darker notions. whatever are you talking about? the speaker: the left plays and fuels themselves on envy, anxiety, class warfare. we shouldn't do our own version of that and not preying on peoples' emotions of fear. identity politics speaks to people in ways that divide people. and that's why our country is so polarized. we are all americans and we have common ideas and values and speak in ways that unify us. we need to have a positive

agenda based on core principles that are good for everybody that shows the rising tide and get prosperity and upward mobility and favorite tism for none. the role and goal of government is equality of opportunity so people can make the most of their lives. pursue happiness so long as they are not infringing on a person's right. take this with a grain of salt. the alternative is a government that equalizes the results of people's lives and government is so consolidated and so powerful, that doesn't work. that slows down economic growth, stops upward mobility. we don't want that. so we shouldn't go down the path of fueling a political movement we should heal and inspire and

unify and have an optimistic message. that's what ronald reagan did. they would like to bait us into a 1964 election. we can and should have a 1980 election and win with a mandate and get the country out of its ma lace and give the people of this country a confident future. >> it's not the other side -- the speaker: that's as much i'm going to give you on this one, mike. >> you want your agenda to impact the 2016 election? the speaker: our agenda. the lesson i learned in 2012 is you can't wait until mid-summer to start putting together your national campaign strategy. you have to start earlier than that and what i believe, what an 19 0 election was about was ideas.

we had a great messenger. but it's about ideas and you have to start earlier and have an agenda and ideas. we win ideas elections. >> the other 1980 parallel, jack kemp pushing ronald reagan. the speaker: jack kemp was my mentor. jack was my mentor. lots of books have been written about this. he, along with many other house growthcans, pushed april -- a progrowth agenda that was the right antidote for the malaise. ronald reagan picked up on that agenda, championed that into the general election, and we got reaganomics. we got tax relief, tax so i think that is the kind of

combination we as a party hope to build upon. want a house republican for nominee? speaker ryan: i want house republicans helping the nominee before the nominee arrives. the last thing we should do is sit around and wait. we know who we are, we know what we believe in. we know we want to have a solution for the debt. we want faster economic growth. we want to reignite economic growth. we want a stronger national security posture. we know these things. we should tell people what it looks like, how we get those things. these are unifying things within our party. we believe it will help propel not only the nominee but help us win. mike: last question. of a julyility nominee -- how worried are you

about a deadline? speaker ryan: i do not worry about stuff like that. i am not. mike: what are the possibilities? speaker ryan: i am busy working in congress. i do not think about stuff like that. couple jake: weeks ago you are trying to get into a new routine. have you found that routine? getting there? how has it changed? speaker ryan: i have more people with me. here, i just work. i work out and i work. i have that routine. at home, it is a similar routine. volleyball and basketball on weekends. packers had a good win on sunday. jake: you were there? speaker ryan: yeah. i pretty much got myself in a routine. jake: you had dinner with nancy

pelosi last night. what was the most interesting thing you learned? speaker ryan: the most interesting thing i learned -- this is newsworthy, that i had dinner with my counterpart? why should this be newsworthy? we did not know each other very well. i never served with her on a committee. she is a counterpart, and i thought it was a good idea to get to know her. mike: what did you learn? speaker ryan: i got to know her better. she is a very smart lady. passionate in her beliefs. she represents her caucus very well. we have opposite views on most things. but we are respectful of that. jake: you talked about not getting stuck on this rider or that rider, but the work of congress can be technical. speaker ryan: we need to raise because we can get

stuck in the here and now, the petty and small. but time is so tenuous. myust believe -- this is 17th year in congress. i believe we have four more years where we ignore the debt crisis, have government taking over the health care issue, weakening our military. we have horrible foreign policy. economic stagnation. wages are flat. ourr countries are eating lunch competitively. wewe keep down that path, will not give the next generation a more prosperous future. we have never done that before. every generation has made a sacrifice and decisions so the next generation is better off. that wewithout a doubt

will sever that legacy if we do not get on top of our problems. means fixingaze these problems while they are still fixable. give you one example. entitlements. most of them are age-based entitlements. security, mysocial mom and i needed it when i was young. but if we stay on this path, it goes bankrupt. the sooner we tackle these problems, the better off it is. our own terms, we can prevent these programs from going bankrupt without changing the benefits. the government can actually keep its promises to the people who are now depending on the programs to organize retirement around these promises. those of us in the younger generation, you and i are in the same generation? are you a millennial or something like that?

are not going to be there for us if we do not do something about it. let's get onake is top of america's problems now. impasse weast the have had to keep the promises that have been made on our own term. if we keep kicking the can down the road, it will be a european debt crisis without america backing us up. we will not be able to fund government programs and salt economic problems on our own terms. that is why we have to raise our gaze and tackle the problems before they tackle us. you were insistent that you did not want this job. were you wrong? speaker ryan: it is what it is. i am fine. tell.you love it, i can speaker ryan: i had to do it differently.

we should not be governing what this. i want to get us back to regular order. it is turning a battleship a little bit. we made some pretty good turns. we have more to go. i like it in the sense i see progress being made, and i am excited about 2016. i'm excited about our party giving the people of this country the choices they deserve whatve so they can decide this country looks like going forward. sliver of that role, in helping determine that, i feel honored to do that. now that you have the gavel, what has been the biggest constraint or power? speaker ryan: i am not a person who wants power. i want power to go out there, out in the country. i do not want it to stay in the capital.

if i can use the gavel to decentralize power out of washington, back to the people where it belongs, i feel i can make a difference. that is what i like most. mike: you are chairman of the national convention. you say you are not going to reject or bless any candidate. -- have been very speaker ryan: we use the word "trump" as a verb. your point? mike: what do you think of him? speaker ryan: i will not get into any of that stuff. i think that plan or comment deserved to be called out. my rule is not to comment on the people or the ups and downs of the campaign. mike: this was an extraordinary exception. speaker ryan: it is an extraordinary exception.

therefore, i will not be answering the question. mike: you said this is not conservatism, not what the country stands for. how did you decide to talk about him? speaker ryan: it is the first amendment. the bill of rights. religious freedom, pluralism, is who we are. this is why the country was founded in the first place. when you see your principles, , youunifying principles have an obligation to stand up for those principles. jake: you caught me off guard. i will take it back to you. i was enthralled with what he was saying. [laughter] speaker ryan: best white house correspondent at politico. earbuds. used to wear those are gone? speaker ryan: i walk with other people now. i have new friends.

i do not want to be rude to my new friends. jake: could you say affirmatively you will not be drafted into the presidential race? speaker ryan: that is ridiculous talk. i am doing this job. you should stop all that speculation. jake: i think you just stop it. speaker ryan: good. mike: jake was talking about your routine. when you are here, what do you do in the morning? speaker ryan: i go down to the gym at 6:28, start my workout at 6:30. workout until 8:00. mike: 90 minutes? speaker ryan: i get a shower also. i shower. do you really want me to get into that? when i shower? what kind of shampoo i use? then i go on my day. mike: who do you work out with? speaker ryan: a bunch of

members. i do not know that i should get into who they are. mike: what are you doing? speaker ryan: a lot of things, insanity, p90x, yoga. we do some cycling as well. spin. spin is cycling, just so you know [laughter] what do these groups have in common -- the rolling stones, ac/dc, rage against the machine. iza -- zac brown is not on my playlist. jake: you seem to take offense. speaker ryan: i do not know who they are. jake: what do the rolling stones, ac/dc and rage against

the machine have in common? speaker ryan: they are on my playlist. i am a bow hunter. we have gun season, which interrupts those season. bowt a decent 10 pointer in season. i am having a dry spell. i got a little busy. i like to make italian sausage, jerky. steaks and venison. that takes about three to get in the freezer, and i have one. the season goes to the end of the year. i will go back out in the woods. hunter, deer season is not over with, and i have a tolerant wife. mike: two more? speaker ryan: hopefully. we will see. ofre was a picture tweeted

you at lambeau with the packers. what was it like to be there with your kids? speaker ryan: awesome. we try to get in a game a year. at the end of the summer, when we look at the schedule, which came we were hoping to go to, i like going to december games, hitting the bull. -- bowl. it is just fun. it was like 50 degrees and raining. we just wanted to go to a december game. the cowboys, it is always great to beat the cowboys. jake: do you get better seats now that you are speaker? speaker ryan: not really. mike: what is your super bowl prediction? speaker ryan: as long as we can keep the old line healthy, which it is, and mccarthy is not we had a veryays,

balanced offense, if we hit our tempo, which we clearly can and can connect with the -- receivers, which he can that is the thing about going to a live football game. you can see how well receivers run the route. i think we can make it. i hate to say it, but my guess is it is the pats we would face. jake: i thought you meant they would win. speaker ryan: i probably should not do this, but i think the patriots have a decent chance of a repeat. they seem to be back on their game. i do not know if denver will get there. and russell wilson is playing pretty well. those guys are on an upswing. year.c is tough this

the division here is not so good. [laughter] speaker ryan: the rest is pretty good. you give us one thing to look forward to next year that you will, let's in the you will a cop which in the house? speaker ryan: we will go back to regular order. we should not take it as inevitable we will pile up appropriation bills. we have to stop thinking it is normal. i believe there are things where we can find common ground. external business reform is a good example. i think there are areas where we can make a difference, move forward. then we are going to disagree on a lot of this. that is a good thing. let's disagree by offering a big agenda. then, let the people decide. that is the way i see 2016 unfolding. mike: i would like to thank jake and anna for joining me today.

thank you to my amazing colleagues at politico who put on hundreds of amazing events. america, to bank of your colleagues, for making these conversations possible. we really appreciate that. thank you for reading playbook and supporting this event. i think the audience in live stream land. mr. speaker, merry christmas. speaker ryan: merry christmas. [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]

she spoke in minneapolis, minnesota. >> thank you, everybody. today it's my pleasure to introduce hillary clinton. you may have heard of her. [laughter] >> she's running for president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> hillary's running for president to make the economy work for everyone. not just those at the top. she's running to make our democracy work for everyone, not just the special interests. she's also running to be commander in chief, to keep

america strong and american families safe and secure. as we all know, maybe too well, there are a lot of people running for president this year. [laughter] >> but hillary is the only candidate who has the strength, wisdom and experience to be commander in chief. the recent attacks in paris and san bernardino reminded us that we find ourselves at a very dangerous and complicated world. we're in a global fight against extremist forces who use advanced technology and communications to orchestrate terror attacks and strike fear in free and peaceful people. so, as we all know, the stakes are high. and we need a president who's up to the job. hillary will not need on-the-job

training. as secretary of state, she led the charge to restore america's leadership of the world. she spearheaded a global sanctions coalition, and she -- excuse me. she did more here. [laughter] >> she spearheaded a global sanctions coalition against iran that spurred the agreement that will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, she brokered a ceasefire between israel and hamas, while championing human rights around the world. and she recommended to president obama, in the situation room, that he authorized the mission to bring osama bin laden to justice. she has been the only candidate in the race to lay out a specific and comprehensive plan to defeat isis in every place that it presents a threat. in the middle east, around the world, and, yes, here at home.

now she comes to minnesota, and may i thank her for coming to this wonderful university of hours. [cheers and applause] >> she's here to give more details on the last part of her plan, protecting america's homes, schools, houses of worship and businesses from domestic radicalization and foreign extremists. i have known hillary for a long time. there is no one i trust more to sit in the oval office. so please join me in welcoming the next president of the united states, hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: thank you, thank you. thank you. thank you all very much.

thank you. thank you. i'm delighted, delighted to be here at this great university. one of the premier public institutions of higher education in our entire country. yes. indeed. [applause] ms. clinton: just, you know, one of those statements of fact that deserves a response. i want to thank my long-time friend, vice president mondale, for his kind words. his support in this campaign means a great deal to me personally, because i admire so much his service to our country. he is a great minnesotan and a great american and we're so privileged to have him with us today.

[applause] ms. clinton: i want to acknowledge a few of the other elected officials who are here. i am delighted to be joined by former colleagues and friends amy klobuchar and al franken who are the dynamic duo for your state, and i am grateful to them for everything they are doing and their support of my campaign. i want to thank tina smith and steve simon, your secretary of state. [applause] ms. clinton: and i understand betsy hodges is here, mayor of minneapolis. [applause]

ms. clinton: i also want to acknowledge the dean of the humphrey school, eric schwartz. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: eric was my top adviser on refugee issues at the state department. i also had the great privilege of working with him when he was on the national security council during my husband's administration. you know, he brings a mix of expertise and empathy that has been conspicuously missing from much of our public debate. and i'm grateful that he is here today, but i'm also a little jealous that all of you here at the university get to have the benefit of his experience. over the past several months, i have listened to the problems

that keep american families up at night. most people don't expect life to be easy, but they want more security, a good-paying job that lets you afford a middle-class lifestyle, health care you can count on, a little bit put away for your retirement. being secure also means being safe, safe at home, at school, at work. and today, i want to talk about how we keep our country safe from a threat that's on everyone's mind, the threat of terrorism. but i want to begin by saying, we cannot give in to fear. we can't let it stop us from doing what is right and necessary to make us safe and doing it in a way that is consistent with our values. [applause]

ms. clinton: we cannot let fear push us into reckless action that ends up making us less safe. americans are going to have to act with both courage and clarity. now, as we all know, on december 2, two shooters killed 14 people at a holiday party in san bernandino, california. sadly, in america, in 2015, turning on the news and hearing about a mass shooting is not unusual. but this one turned out to be different. because these killers were a husband and wife inspired by isis. americans have experienced terrorism before. on 9/11, we learned that terrorists in afghanistan could

strike our homeland from fort hood to chattanooga to the boston marathon, we saw people radicalized here carrying out deadly attacks. but san bernandino felt different. maybe it was the timing coming so soon after the paris attacks. maybe it was how random it seemed. a terrorist attack in a suburban office park, not a high-profile target or symbol of american power. it made us all feel it could have been anywhere at any time. the phrase "active shooter" should not be one we have to teach our children. but it is. [applause]

ms. clinton: now we are all grappling with what this means for our future, our safety, our sense of well-being and our trust and connections with our neighbors. we want to be open-hearted. and we want to celebrate america's diversity, not fear it. and while we know the overwhelming majority of people here and around the world hate isis and love peace, we do have to be prepared for more terrorists plotting attacks. just yesterday, a man in maryland was charged with receiving thousands of dollars from isis for use in planning an attack. and here in minnesota, authorities have charged 10 men with conspiring to provide material support to isis.

but in the twin cities, you have also seen firsthand how communities come together to resist radicalization. local imams condemning terrorists and local activists pushing back against propaganda. i met with a group of community leaders who told me about some of the work and the challenges that they are dealing with. as the sirs somali police sergeant in minnesota and probably in the country, said recently, safety is a shared responsibility, so we have to work together.

the threat we face is daunting, but america has overcome big challenges many times before. throughout our history, we've stared into the face of evil and refuse to blink. we beat fascism, won the cold war, brought osama bin laden to justice. so no one should underestimate the determination of the american people. and i'm confident we will once again choose resolve over fear. [applause] ms. clinton: and we will defeat these new enemies just as we have defeated those who have threatened us in the past because it is not enough to contain isis, we must defeat isis, and not just isis, but the broader radical jihadist movement that also includes al qaeda and offshoots like al-shabaab in somalia. waging and winning this fight

will require serious leadership. but fortunately, our political debate has been anything but serious. we can't afford another major ground war in the middle east. that's exactly what isis wants from us. shallow slogans don't add up to a strategy. [applause] promising to carpet-bomb until the desert glows doesn't make you sound strong, it makes you sound like you are in over your head. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: bluster and bigotry are not credentials for becoming

commander in chief and it is hard to take seriously senators who talk tough but then hold up key national security nominations, including the top official at the treasury department responsible for disrupting terrorist financing. [applause] every day that's wasted on partisan gridlock could put americans in danger. so, yes, we need a serious discussion and that's why in a speech last month before the council on foreign relations, i laid out a three-part plan to defeat isis and the broader extremist movement. one, defeat isis in the middle east by smashing its strong hold by killing its leaders and

infrastructure from the air and intensifying support for local forces who can pursue them on the ground. second, defeat them around the world by dismantling the global network of terror that supplies radical jihadists with money, arms, propaganda and fighters. and third, defeat them here at home by foiling plots, disrupting radicalization and hardening our defenses. now these three lines of effort reinforce one another. so we need to pursue them all at once using every pillar of american power. it will require skillful diplomacy to continue secretary kerry's efforts to encourage political reconciliation in iraq and political transition in syria, enabling the sunnis and kurdish fighters to take on isis

on both sides of the border and get our arab and turkish partners to step up and do their part. it will require u.s. and allied air pour by strikes biplanes and drones with proper safeguards. it will require special operations units to advise and train local forces and conduct key counterterrorism missions. what it will not require is tens of thousands of american combat troops. that is not the right action for us to take in this situation. so there is a lot to do. and today, i want to focus on the third part of my plan, how we defend our country and prevent radicalization here at home. we need a comprehensive strategy to counter each step in the

process that can lead to an attack like the one in san bernandino. first, we have to shut down isis' recruitment in the united states, especially online. second, stop would-be jihadists from getting training overseas and stop foreign terrorists from coming here. third, discover and disrupt plots before they can be carried out. fourth, support law law enforcement officers who risk their lives to prevent and respond to attacks. and fifth, empower our muslim-american communities who are on the front lines of the fight against radicalization. [applause] ms. clinton: this is a 360-degree strategy to keep

america safe. and i want to walk through each of the elements from recruitment to training, to planning, to execution. first, shutting down recruitment. we have to stop jihadists from radicalizing new recruits in social media and chat rooms and what's called the dark web. to do that, we need stronger relationships between washington, silicon valley and all of our great tech companies and entrepreneurs. american innovation is a powerful force and we have to put it to work defeating isis. that starts with understanding where and how recruitment happens. our security professionals need to more effectively track and analyze ayesis' social posts and map networks and they need help from the tech community. companies should redouble their efforts to maintain and enforce

their own service agreements and other necessary policies to police their networks, identifying extremist content and removing it. now, many are already doing this and sharing those best practices more widely is important. at the state department, i started an interagency center to combat violence jihadist messages to have a better way to communicate on behalf of our values and to give young people drawn to those messages an alternative narrative. we recruited special lifts, fluent in urdu and somali to wage online battles with the extremists. these efforts have not kept pace

with the threat, so we need to step up our game in partnership with the private sector and credible moderate voices outside of government. that is just somewhat what we have to do. experts from the f.b.i., the intelligence community, state department and the technology industry should work together to develop a unified national strategy to defeat isis in cyberspace using all of our capabilities to denny jihadists virtual territory just as we work to denny them actual territory. at the same time, we have to do more to address the challenge of radicalization, whatever form it takes. it's imperative that the saudis, the kuwaitis and others stop their citizens from supporting madrasas and mosques around the world once and for all.

and that should be the top priority in all of our discussions with these countries. second, we have to prevent isis recruits from training abroad and prevent foreign jihadists from coming here. most urgent is stemming the flow from fighters from europe and iraq and syria and then back home again. the united states and our allies needs to know the identities of every fighter who makes that trip and then share information with each other in real-time. right now, european nations don't always alert each other when they turn away a suspected extremist at the border or when a passport is stolen. they have to dramatically improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation. and we're ready to help them do

that. we also need to take down the network of enablers who help jihaddists finance and facilitate their travel, forge documents and evade detection. and the united states and our allies should commit to revoke the passports and visas of jihadists who have gone to join isis or other groups and bring the full force of the law against them. as i have said before, united states has to take a close look at our visa programs and i'm glad the administration and congress are stepping up scrutiny in the wake of san bernandino. and that should include scrutinizing applicants' social media postings. we also should dispatch more homeland security agents to high-risk countries to better investigate visa applicants. for many years, america has

waived visa requirements with reliable procedures, including key allies in europe and asia. that makes sense, but we also have to be smart. except for limited exceptions like diplomats and aid workers, anyone who has traveled in the past five years to a country facing serious problems with terrorism and foreign fighters should have to go through a full visa investigation no matter where they're from. we also have to be vigilant in screening and vetting refugees from syria, guided by the best judgment of our security and diplomatic professionals. rigorous vetting already takes place while refugees are still overseas. and it's a process that historically takes 18-24 months. but congress needs to provide enough resources to ensure we have sufficient personnel

deployed to run the most thorough possible process. and just as importantly, we cannot allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values and our humanitarian obligations. [applause] turning away orphans, applying a religious test that discriminates against muslims, slamming the door on every single syrian refugee, that is not who we are as americans. we are better than that. [cheers and applause]

it would be a cool irony indeed if isis can force families from their homes and also prevent them from finding new ones. so after rigorous screening, we should welcome families fleeing syria, just as the twin cities and this state have welcomed previous generations of refugees, exiles and immigrants. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: of course the key is to prevent terrorists from exploiting our compassion and

endangering our security, but we can do this. and i think we must. third, we have to discover and disrupt jihadists' plots before they can be carried out. this is going to take better intelligence, collection analysis and sharing. i proposed an intelligence surge against isis that includes more operations officers and linguists. enhancing our surveillance of overseas' targets, flying more reconnaisance missions to track terrorist movements and developing closer partnerships with other intelligence services. president obama recently signed the u.s.a. freedom act which was passed by a bipartisan majority in congress.

it protects civil liberties while maintaining capabilities that our intelligence and law enforcement officers need to keep us safe. however, the new law is under attack from presidential candidates on the left and right. some would strip away counterterrorism tools even with appropriate judicial and congressional oversight and others seem to go back to discredited practices of the past. i don't think we can afford to let either view prevail. now, encryption of mobile devices and communications does present a particularly tough problem with important implications for security and civil liberties. law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals

warned that impen trenable encryption may make it harder to prevent future attacks. on the other hand, there are very legitimate worries about privacy, network security and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can exploit. i know there is no magic fix to this dilemma that will satisfy all these concerns, but we can't just throw up our hands. the tech community and the government have to stop seeing each other as adverse sears and start working together to keep us safe from terrorists. and even as we make sure law enforcement officials get the tools they need to prevent attacks, it's essential that we also make sure that jihadists don't get the tools they need to carry out attacks. it defies common sense that republicans in congress refuse to make it harder for potential

terrorists to buy guns. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. and we should insist -- [cheers and applause] we should insist on comprehensive background checks and close loopholes that allow potential terrorists to buy online or at gun shows and i think it's time to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines! [cheers and applause] i know that this will drive some of our republican friends a

little crazy. you'll probably hear it tonight. they will say that guns are a totally separate issue. i have news for them. terrorists use guns to kill americans and i think we should make it a lot harder for them to do that ever again! [cheers and applause] and there's a question they should be asked, why don't the republican candidates want to do that? you see, i have this old-fashioned idea that we elect a president in part, in large part, to keep us safe from terrorists, from gun violence, from whatever threatens our families and communities and i'm not going to let the gun lobby or anyone else tell me that that's not the right path for us to go down! [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: the fourth element

in my strategy is supporting law enforcement officers who risk their lives to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. in san bernandino, city, county, state and federal authorities acted with speed and courage to prevent even more loss of life. detective lazano, a 15-year police veteran assured terrified civilians, i'll take a bullet before you do. there is no limit to the gratitude we owe to law enforcement professionals like that detective who run toward danger to try to save lives. and not just in the immediate

wake of an attack, emergency responders will keep putting their lives on the line long after the cameras move on. it is disgraceful that congress has failed to keep faith with first responders who are feeling the lasting effects of 9/11. many of them were men and women i was so proud to represent as a senator from new york. zadroga 9/11 health act. it looks like majority leader mcconnell may have dropped his opposition. and i hope the american people will hold him to that and we will continue to honor the service and sacrifice of those who responded to the worst terrorist attack in our history. we have to make sure that local

law enforcement has the resources and training they need to keep us safe. and they should be more closely synced with national counterterrorism experts like fusion centers that serve as clearinghouses for intelligence and coordination. and we need to strengthen our defenses and wherever we are vulnerable whether it is shopping malls or higher profile targets like railways or airports. we have to build on the progress of the obama administration in locking down loose nuclear materials and other w.m.d. so they never fall into the hands of terrorists who seek them actively around the world. so we can be providing the department of homeland security with the resources it needs to stay one step ahead, not trying to privatize key functions like t.s.a., as some republicans have proposed.

and it's important for us to recognize that when we talk about law enforcement, we have made progress in being sure that our federal authorities share information with our state and local authorities, but that was an issue i tackled after 9/11, and we have to stay really vigilant so that information is in the hands where it needs to be. finally, the fifth element in the strategy is empowering muslim american communities on are on the front linings in the fight against radicalization. there are millions of peace-loving american muslims living, working, raising families, paying taxes in our country. [applause]

these americans may be our first, last and best defense against home-grown radicalization and terrorism. they are the most likely to recognize the insidious effects of radicalization before it's too late, intervene to help set a young person straight. they are the best position to block anything going forward. that's why law enforcement has worked so hard since 9/11 to buildup trust and strong relationships within muslim-american communities. here in the twin cities, you have an innovative partnership that brings together, parents, teachers, imams with law enforcement, nonprofits, local businesses, mental health professionals and others, to intervene with young people who are at risk. it's called the building community resilience pilot

program and it deserves increased support. it has not gotten the financial resources that it needs to do everything that the people involved in it know they can do and we have got to do a better job of supporting it. [applause] i know that like many places across the country there is more work to do to increase trust between communities and law enforcement. just last month, i know here, adown african-american man was fatally shot by a police officer and i understand an investigation is under way. whatever the outcome, tragedies like this raise hard questions about racial justice in america and put at risk efforts to build the community relationships that help keep us safe from crime and from terrorism. when people see that respect and trust are two-way streets, they

are more likely to work hand in-in hand with law enforcement. one of the mothers of the 10 men recently charged with conspiring, the terrorists said, we have to stop the denial, she told other parents that. we have to talk to our kids and work with the f.b.i. that's a message we need to hear from leaders within muslim-american communities across our country. but we also want to highlight the successes in muslim-american communities, and there are so many of them. i just met with the first somali-american member of the city council here -- [applause] ms. clinton: he was proudly telling me how much change somali immigrants, now muslim-americans have made in parts of the city and

neighborhoods that have been pretty much hallowed out. let's look at the successes. if we are going to fully integrate everyone in america, we need to be seeing all their chiropractics, too. -- all of their contributions, too. and that is one of the many reasons why we must all stand up against offensive, inflammatory, hateful anti--muslim rhetoric. [cheers and applause] you know, not only do these

comments cut against everything we stand for as americans, they are also dangerous. as the director of the f.b.i. told congress recently, anything that erodes trust with muslim-americans makes the job of law enforcement more difficult. we need every community invested in this fight, not alienated and sitting on the sidelines. one of the community leaders i met with told me that a lot of the children in the community are now afraid to go to school. they're not only afraid of being perceived as a threat, they are afraid of being threatened because of who they are. this is such a open-hearted and generous community, i hope there will be even more efforts

perhaps under the egis of the university and governor dayton and others to bring people together to reassure members of the community, particularly children and teenagers that they are welcome, invited and valued here in this city and state. [applause] trump's proposal to ban all muslims from entering the united states has rightly sparked outrage across our country and around the world, even some of the other republican candidates are saying he's gone too far. but the truth is, many of those same candidates have also said,

disgraceful things about muslims. and this kind of divisive rhetoric actually plays into the hands of terrorists. it alienates partners and undermines moderates. we need around the world in this fight against isis. you know, you hear a lot of talk from some of the other candidates about coalitions. everyone seems to want one. [laughter] ms. clinton: but there isn't nearly as much talk as it is to build a coalition and make it work. i know how hard it is. insulating potential allies doesn't make it any easier. [cheers and applause] -- insulting potential allies doesn't make it any easier. [cheers and applause] demonizing muslims makes it that much harder.

the united states is at war with islam. as both the pentagon and the f.b.i. have said in the past week, we cannot in any way lend credence to that twisted idea. this is not a clash of civilizations. this is a clash between civilizations and barbarism and that's how it must be seen and fought. [applause] some will tell you that our open society is a vulnerability in the struggle against terrorism. i disagree. i believe our tolerance and

diversity are at the core of our strengths. at a nationalization ceremony for new citizens today in washington, president obama noted the tension throughout our history between welcoming or rejecting the stranger, it is, he said, about the meaning of america, what kind of country do we want to be. and it's about the capacity of each generation to honor the creed as old as our founding, e pluribus unum. out of many, we are one. president obama's right. and it matters. it's no coincidence that american muslims have long been better integrated and less susceptible to radicalization than muslims in less welcoming nations. and we cannot give in to demagogue who play on our basic -- basis instincts and rely on the principles written into our american d.n.a., freedom, equality, opportunity. america is strongest when all our people believe they have a

stake in our country and our future, no matter where they're from, what they look like, who they worship or who they love. our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. as george washington put it. the united states gives to bigotry no sanctions, to persecution, no assistance. so to all of our muslim american brothers and sisters, this is your country, too. and i'm proud to be your fellow american. [applause] ms. clinton: and i want to remind us, particularly our that georgeriends,

w. bush was right. six days after 9/11, he went to a muslim community center and here's what he said. those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of america, they represent the worst of humankind and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior. [applause] ms. clinton: so if you want to see the best of america, you need look no further than army captain khan. he was born in the united arab emirates and moved to maryland as a small child. he later graduated from the

university of virginia, before enlisting in the united states army. in june, 2004, he was serving in iraq. one day while his infantry unit was guarding the gates of their base, a suspicious vehicle appeared. captain khan told his troops to get back, but he went forward. he took 10 steps towards the car before it exploded. captain khan was killed, but his unit was saved by his courageous act. captain khan was awarded the bronze star and purple heart. he was just 27 years old. we still wonder what made him take those 10 steps, khan's father said in a recent interview. maybe that's the point he went on, where all the values, all

the service to country, all the things he learned in this country kicked in. it was those values that made him take those 10 steps, those 10 steps told us we did not make a mistake in moving to this country, his father finished. as hard as this is, it is time to move from fear to resolve. it's time to stand up and say we are americans. we are the greatest nation on earth, not in spite of the challenges we face, but because of them. americans will not buckle or break. we will not turn on each other or turn on our principles. we will pursue our enemies with unyielding power and purpose. we will crush their would-be

caliphate and counter radical jihadism wherever it tax root. -- takes root. we are in it for the long haul and we will stand taller and stronger then they can possibly imagine. that's what we do here. that's who we are. that's how we will win, by looking at one another with respect, with concern, with commitment. that's the america that i know makes us all so proud to be a part of. thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] announcer: this year, our student documentary contest asks students to tell us what questions they want to hear from the candidates. follow our row to the white

house coverage, and get all the details about the student contest, and c-span.org. a few live events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span3. a state department special representative for pakistan and afghanistan testifies about u.s. relations and diplomacy in the region. we will have live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee. governorrto rico's will talk about his territory's economy and its $70 billion in debt. later, federal reserve chair janet yellen holds a news conference about about the u.s. economy and monetary policy at 2:30 eastern. announcer: abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside of the home.she

successfully lobbied congress to create the first white house library. color wasnhower's marketed to women eager to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the historical initiation. and nancy reagan saw her list mistakenly on a blacklist of communist sympathizers. she later became ronald reagan's life. these stories and more are ladies."in "first it makes a great gift for the holidays, giving readers a personal look into the first lives of american history's first women. share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. the book is available in

hardcover or e-book from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. be sure to order your copy today. announcer: next, the state department's special envoy for climate change talks about the agreement reached on the weekend in paris. also took questions, hosted by the center for american progress. good morning, and welcome to the center for american progress. i and the executive vice president of external affairs, and i am thrilled to see all of you for this fantastic conversation. for years, the science has been clear for anyone who was willing to pay attention to it. unchecked, climate change poses major challenges to our society and the natural world. threatening the world's cities and infrastructure. food security, public health. and the survival of countless species.

despite this very real and present danger, our congress has stood by and done almost nothing. since 2011, the only legislation that congress has considered has been to stop action on climate change. promote highly polluting sources of energy, block funding on research, and even prevent the state department from working with other countries on solutions. fortunately, none of these bad ideas have become law. but while congress dithered, president obama got to work. in june 2013, the president announced his climate action plan, and in the 2 1/2 years since, we have seen bold and unprecedented leadership from the administration on the issue of climate change. they have taken steps to enhance efficiency, boost renewables, curb tailpipe emissions, and cut pollution from our power sector.

as impressive as these accomplishments are, and they certainly are, we have also known that climate change is not a problem that can be solved by the united states alone. we can lead, but others must follow. that is why since 2009, the state department has persistently and resolutely toiled to bill consensus toward -- build consensus toward a global agreement on climate change. that work was not done in isolation. over the past year, the french demonstrated remarkable diplomatic skills and the chinese and indians stepped up to the plate. the private sector, civil society, and officials from every government around the world worked hard and it paid off. on saturday, 195 countries came together in the spirit of cooperation and solidarity around an historic climate

agreement that will reduce carbon pollution and make the world safer for our children and grandchildren. the paris agreement has been characterized as ambitious, flexible, transparent. the world is already transitioning to greater clean energy use. this agreement establishes a strong foundation for that action that will accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy for the world. as the administration has worked toward this achievement, the center for american progress has been right there. thinking through the problems, identifying solutions, and focusing the public's attention. our work on the green climate fund identified the tremendous opportunity the fund creates and how to get it off the ground. our work on the legal form of the agreement is an excellent primer for those hoping to understand what types of international agreements need to be considered by the senate and

which ones don't. our work on loss and damage list a path for how this important issue could be resolved. and throughout the run up to paris, we were always thinking how do we increase the ambition? so many people from so many countries deserve recognition for the work that made this agreement possible. but there is one man who has been the face of the united states to the world on climate change since 2009. and no one in the united states deserves more credit than he does. todd stern's career boasts an impressive list of accomplishments from harvard law school to senior white house negotiator at the kyoto and buenos aires climate negotiations, to the senior role in the treasury and senate judiciary committee. not to mention his time here at the center for american progress as a senior fellow. todd is the lead u.s. negotiator , and we are so very pleased and

honored to welcome him here for his first appearance after the paris agreement for a conversation with cap senior fellow, peter ogden. please, todd stern, welcome to the stage, pete, please join us. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction, it is wonderful to have you here. >> thank you to everyone here, and to my old home. there was a point in time in washington where everybody who was a democrat had worked for either john or tony, and i actually worked for both of them. i also want to thank everybody at cap and everybody else who is involved and has been involved and engaged in the n.g.o. world. or in some other aspect of working on and pressing on action on climate change because i think that there was a huge amount of momentum around the world this year coming from

n.g.o.'s in the u.s. and in ,urope, and around the world coming from business, the french were really good at developing what they call the pillar four for the paris event. that channeled that kind of intense interest and activism and momentum. it was a really very different story if i think all the way back to kyoto where the business , was basically lined up hard against action. so it -- all of that i think played a part. so i start with the thank you to all of you who have been engaged and glad to be here. pete: maybe a good place to start would be to get your kind of perspective on what the key elements of the paris agreement are. then we can dig into that. and talk a little bit about what it was like on the ground for a couple weeks. todd: i think that we have -- that we have, in fact, a major historic agreement that is built on a number of elements.

first of all, it's universal and lasting. it's sort of a not kyoto. it's an agreement whose expectations and requirements and so forth apply to everybody. so we tried the kyoto model. the kyoto model was all obligations aimed at developing countries. and developing countries not really having to do anything. and that failed as matter of politics, but also as a matter of being able to substantively deal with the problem. universal and lasting. it sets us on a path of high ambition built on the so-called indc's, the targets that 186 countries had put forward before the paris talk started. there are five-year cycles, so countries will have to ratchet up the targets every five years

, either on the basis that they put in a new target or if they are in the middle a longer target period they have to review, and decide whether to increase at that time in light , of science and technology and so forth. or at least put forward a communication saying that they have looked and they are going to keep -- stay where they are for that period. five-year ratchets which we thought were really critical. there are strong goals in the agreement both goal of keep temperature rise to well below two degrees and trying to pursue efforts to hold the increase to 1.5. as well as essentially carbon neutrality or climate neutrality in the course of the century. strong ambition. third, strong new transparency regime we think is critical. this piece of the agreement is legally binding. and it applies to everybody.

it's built on countries having to do inventories, having to report on the progress they are making toward their targets, getting -- being subject to expert review and peer review. all built into a transparency system that applies to both developed and developing countries. really important. it enhances the focus more than has ever happened before. with a particular emphasis on both national planning, international cooperation, support from richer countries to poorer countries, and so forth. then i guess, we could have started here because this is quite fundamental to the agreement itself. the architecture of climate -- of the climate regime has changed. the core here is that of course there has to be differentiation of the agreement, but we have really insisted and pushed for years since you were running around at the state department, pete, for a differentiation

regime that is built on essentially forward-looking rather than backward looking approach with nationally determined activity based on capacity and circumstances at the core of it. rather than saying every country that is in this category, set up in 1992, is only expected to do x and developed countries are expected to do y. even if those countries are china or korea or singapore or the oecd countries now in that category. that doesn't make any sense. instead, we have essentially changed the architecture. then there are provisions on the financial assistance and technical assistance which we think are strong and balanced and those are the key elements. pete: one of the things you mentioned at the very end which is one of the -- one of the threads that's been spun way

back starting in 2009 how to move forwards an arrangement in which the major economies are also not hung up or see an obstacle in setting a low-carbon path. one which they think can be consistent with their own development priorities. do you feel like something is -- what's changed between 2009 when that was so hard to see and for countries to want to embrace to today when not only do they set that but they agreed to a system of ratcheting them in perpetuity. what do you think changed? todd: i think it's a really good question and it's going -- this is a question the answer to which will evolve with more reflection and more kind of review of what's actually happened.

but i think i start the answer by saying that copenhagen, which is widely regarded as a massive failure, and definitely chaotic and failed in certain respects actually did very important things. in copenhagen was the first time where -- we come in, the president gets elected. secretary clinton comes to the state and i come in with her. and we are catching a negotiation that's right in the middle because that negotiation was launched in bali in 2007. so it's a two-year negotiation, and we are jumping on to a moving train. that moving train basically still premised on the notion that you are going to fundamentally have -- have a real fundamental difference between the kinds of things that developed countries would do and the kind of things that developing countries would do. one side would be legally binding and economy wide, etc., and the other sort of do what you can as you can.

and we came in with -- i have been through the wars in kyoto and buenos aries after that. i have been working on climate continually. i have been through those wars. i continue to be involved in my capacity at c.a.p., as i was also practicing law. great, great, great many countries were just not prepared to have that basic kind of understanding that they thought that they had agreed to in bali where you would still have a kyoto like separation. the countries were not prepared for that to change. we came in and said at that time we are not going to do a legally binding agreement just for the developed countries. we'll consider the legally

binding agreement if it's set up the right way, but not for just one side. not for us with leave china and -- leaving china and all the others out. that roiled the waters a lot. the danes, who played a great hand all the way up to the last couple months, figured out early on that this was not going to be the treaty that people were expecting, because you weren't going to be able to get that. so they started to convert this whole notion quietly and bit by bit and in a way that -- started to talk about publicly. this would have to be agreement that would be politically binding but not legally binding and where at least the big players all did something. and that actually happened in the copenhagen accord. but there was -- not without a lot of broken crockery. there was huge upset. huge kind of violent reaction

against being yanked out of the sold old system. -- the old system. that started it. the old system wasn't kind of definitively surpassed at that point, but that started it. i think that then you sort of have years of negotiation by the mandate for this one was reached in durbin. there were two critical things in the durbin mandate. one was that the agreement was going to be applicable to all. they took that plunge that everybody was going to be in. in a way even well beyond what happened in copenhagen. and -- at the same time they got language in there that they felt protected them. it was going to be under the convention. it was going to be protected by the classic principles of common responsibilities and so forth. i think those things were quite critical.

and then if you look at this agreement, there are still sort of protections from -- in terms of the way they would look at it. we reached an important one line fix in the famous china, joint announcement with china in 2014 where we took that kind of differentiated responsibility sentence which doesn't automatically mean this, but it's traditionally read by countries to be these two categories, we added a few words in the negotiation that was a part of that short statement , which changed the formulation little bit to make it more forward-looking, more -- with more of a sense of evolution. that line then got dropped into the lima negotiation last year. it was a bit by bit, people getting more acclimated.

and we were just -- we were just quite insistent about this for a long time. people knew, i think, there would not be an agreement with the united states unless we move past that whole architecture. pete: you mentioned that one of the challenges was trying to figure out the right legal form that would allow you to make -- to secure those gains. maybe we can talk a little bit about, again, the diplomacy on the ground. just as a general matter, one of the issues that arose at the very end was the question of some language in the text and the question of what it would mean, the overall legal architecture of the agreement. can you speak a little bit to that? how you felt when you saw the text. todd: so the last draft of the

text that we were supposed to be less iteration, i guess, came out around 1:30 on saturday, and comes online to everybody's computers. we all started printing it out. i started reading it right away. i was the one who saw in article 4, paragraph 4, this word shall that wasn't supposed to be there. it was supposed to be a "shoul"" and it was a "shall." it was a paragraph we had worked on very carefully and we had worked on in concert with the french. we worked through -- shared our -- the language and had agreement with the chinese. and all previous drafts had in that pivotal word had always been the same. the word matters because basically shall means legally binding and means should not legally binding in the way the

drafting of international agreements goes. somehow or other a gremlin got into the french typewriters and computers and the word popped out. it is a very interesting mystery as to what happened, because somebody, somewhere in the french or secretariat system , decided to do that, because you don't auto correct from should to shall. the law of fabious, the president of negotiations, and key drafters we were very close to, didn't know anything about it. i saw -- i actually saw the word. secretary kerry was there. we called him right away. he had no idea it had happened. none of the key drafting people knew it had happened. but somebody, somewhere changed it. we couldn't actually go forward because that would have made this whole agreement legally binding for the united states. that for reasons that are

probably obvious, that wouldn't have been so useful for us. but it was a genuine mistake. and i think the chinese knew this and the french knew it. but on the floor -- i wasn't -- i wouldn't say i was deeply, deeply worried, but i was worried. but there was, at that point, such a sense in the room and there had been an earlier gathering in the plenary before the text came out. there was a broad feeling among developed and undeveloped countries that this would happen. i can't imagine it would fall apart over this, but there is a history of tremendous amount of distrust and skepticism in these negotiations. the notion everybody thought it was a mistake as opposed what did the u.s. do? what did they fix? it's not that easy, you have to get over that.

then even the way -- these negotiations, this is a hardball environment. even for people in many countries who are difficult, fair number of difficult countries may come as a shock to you, but there are, so for some of those negotiators, whether it was a mistake or not, it was there. it was an opportunity. ok, you want me to agree to let this be fixed? what am i going to get? that would have unraveled the whole thing because you wouldn't have been able to stop that. there was 90 minutes of a lot of hustling around, diplomacy right on the floor and the back rooms right around the french and around the big podium area to fix that. and ultimately we did. the french handled it.

there was a lot of talking to a lot of people to explain what happened and quiet things down and to get the bolivians to talk to the nicaraguans and chinese to you talk to the south africans. there's a lot of calming that had to be done. pete: you said at the end there again, the french sort of handled that moment well. sound like they handled a lot of moments well. i think they have got a -- for people -- it's one thing to say it was diplomatically skillful. that word can sort of be abstract to people. what does it mean to be -- are there moments when you thought, you know, this is really well played. the french are doing this right. this was smart. or you sort of were able to -- in a more concrete way that people can wrap their heads around. todd: yeah. i think that they certainly played that moment quite well. and once there was enough discussions had gone on and the

proceedings resumed, they had a guy from the secretariat who has been there for a long time and who is just the picture of a pure contract, just get up and read through like 10 little corrections. there was supposed to do, here. the opening lines and just read what was supposed to be. it went really quickly. seeing broad support in the room. the whole thing was over before anybody kind of knew it which was good.

throughout the two weeks but also throughout the year they did a good job in having the process feel open and inclusive. thatg countries a sense everybody was getting an opportunity to be heard. thatimes you have sessions feel like they are a waste of time. them.is a purpose to there were two sessions on wednesday and thursday that went on for hours, late in the night. a room with a gigantic square table. probably 85 countries around it. countries were just giving

speeches. we've got things to do. what are we doing? this is a waste of time. to do totually smart give people that sense of being included. they spent the entire day on friday having groups. the islands, the african countries, the less developed countries and so on. each one coming in to sit with fabius to say this is what we are concerned about. it was important substance that happened. they also give people a chance

to be heard. this is an art not a science. these kinds of negotiations. it is an odd kind of .nternational body there is a new conference of the parties meeting at the end of every year. the french know how to do it now but they're not doing it. the kind of mastered it but then they were done. then somebody else comes in and they don't have a clue as to what they're doing. there was an oddity in the way this process works. the other thing we would be youear about. abou

were there for two weeks. president was there for several days. it was all leading up to that moment. what was that theory of the case? stern: i should go back a , not to tutor on horn. it reflects that we had from the beginning. durban in 2011. it came out of the conference with this new mandate. form but not clear

what the legal form would be. applicable to all. covering the various areas. out that it wasn't very complicated to figure out that other countries and gotten it right away. you have to have a bottom-up structure where the countries would determine what their commitments were going to be. in kyoto, because it was very there., having been fundamentally it was a three cornered negotiation between the u.s. japan and the eu. the less developed countries were on the sides of that. it was a real negotiation.

have negotiations like that. you have to have a bottom-up structure. it was originally nationally determined commitments. you don't want to let countries off the hook easy. you're put pressure on countries to do their best. we came up with the idea of having a first-round intended to determine contributions. countries would have to be exposed to the sunlight. guys like you and other ngos and other analytic bodies.

they are all going to say thumbs up thumbs down. pressure put on countries reputational pressure. most countries care about that. moreu favored an actual involved assessment process. whether the proposed targets were good enough. there was no way the developing countries going to put up with that. we were, we have a pretty clear idea in our minds about the legal framework. not through any connivance on our part. new zealand put forward a proposal that was very

constructive for mark warner to the legal form of the agreements. the rules were legally binding about the target itself. a very useful construct. that also was something that we started to work on. it didn't get settled all the way to paris. everybody knows what is going and but they didn't want to quite say so. transparency was going to be key.

have you no countries are going to actually do what they say? is it binding in that sense? the answer is no. you can't possibly get agreement for that at this point. so is legally binding but not in the punitive way. these are all elements that inform the kind of core architecture of this agreement. this can visit unfair to think everybody has to do the same thing. everyone should have the capacity to affect in this area but in a way that doesn't impede

their ability to grow. we had met this out pretty much from the beginning. we had this forum that we started called the major economies forum. presidentorerunner of bush's meeting. i don't actually know what the real story was behind it. was, sort of thought it they had undergone a lot of criticism. some point along the way they want to put more positive face on activities. in the climate arena.

is more or less the g20 minus three. we gave it a new name and we gave them new mission. to help facilitate negotiations. used that. it is was no tremendously useful which has met three to six times a year. i wrote an article that called eighte creation of the ee . not that different from the 17th ended up in the major economies forum. having gone through kyoto in buenos aires, realizing that circus is not the place we can

have intimate conversations about policy. we need to create that of the ministerial level. the trust and intimacy built up i am rambling too long. itself you found the need for a new culture. i was getting is a broader strategy. we do the patient diplomacy over time. my team goes 34 times a year.

we came into the year with a 90 it wasmpilation text everything but the kitchen sink countries who want to make sure their own pet issues were included. everything was put into this huge ungainly thing. there were four meetings of the sub ministerial level. the first meeting didn't really change that text very much.

the last meeting. in october 19 to 23rd. one guy from the u.s., one guy from algeria. that is what we decided to go for the big move from the end gamely mass to a stripped-down and very short text that is about 10 pages for the agreement and another 10 pages for the company decision.

climate doesn't work that way. the going with this stripped-down text and there's an uproar in the meeting the g-7 really pull together the hardliners and pull together the whole meeting.

even the progressive voices among the progressive developing countries were more or less silenced. it was very acrimonious just a month before paris. is very much focused on retailing a coalition that the eu had pulled together at the time of durban. he worked a lot with the islands in the least developed countries. they had interesting perspectives that are often afferent from the others

mission to get that coalition restarted. to put the u.s. firmly in that coalition where we had always sort of been on the margins. and to show flexibility in certain areas different from what they've done all year. that gave rise to what became known as the high ambition coalition. in paris. it was enormously important tactically.

various meetings along the way. there were maybe 30 countries that were at this dinner including the u.s.. was very close ongoing collaboration and interaction of this coalition in the days that followed. including a press conference where eight or nine of us were up on stage. including the u.s. for the first time. the press conference room was completely packed. this was already big news. impact thehad a big

midday plenary was on saturday. they were walking through what was going to happen that day. there was basically a march from the meeting room to the u.k. this is a big big center. it's a long way. it just swells. there were a zillion cameras. people were cheering. it was an amazing moment. i think it was also moving moment and also tactically important.

>> i know that we could continue to unpack what happened for a long time. i want to just use the few remaining minutes to talk about what is to come. you probably have not had a lot of time to think about what is coming next. as you said, one of the successes of paris was because of the activity at the society of the private sector. they all had a big hand in his victory. if people start to think about beyond, what kind of questions do you think could benefit from more thought and investigation? stern: the first thing is

that there will be a number of work,where further guidelines will be need to the put in place to implement and to provide more detail to the things that were great too. the whole transparency regime. we had one real priority, which was to not allow the effort that was an actual explicit effort by a number of countries to have a supershort transparency section.

we got will needed and then some. you'll still need to do more than that. a lot of guidelines the need to get negotiated in those areas. it will be important to make sure that the world is still watching. and that ngos and others can be clear. making sure the press are looking the other way. people that are trying to call back.

there we some number of areas in the international negotiations where we will need to do further work. the next step will be to map out exactly what those areas are and what the plans are to carry them forward. will also true that there be a tremendous amount of what needs to happen now that needs to happen at a national level. levels.operatives bilaterally or multilateral. there is a ton of work to do

get developing countries to help them develop an environment that can attract investment. about financelk and these overly politicized negotiations you often get the response that we want to talk about the private sector and you all was said it is your fault. obviously there needs to be substantial public money. where are we on this? in terms of getting to that hundred billion dollars commitment. the oecd did a study and found

that it was around 62 billion through 2014. about three quarters of that is public money. it is not the case that public money isn't happening. that if you step back what all of this is about is transforming the global economy. that is what this game is. we have to combat climate change. the steps that need to be taken to make that possible are key and the capacity to get private sector financing flowing around the world is critical. that requires the right kind of investment in the countries around the world. you can see the countries are doing it. places isof all

totally hardliners negotiations. including in those last minutes. somewhere in the range of 20 to almost 50% renewable energy in about five years. they made certain regulatory legal changes where they were paying way too much for energy. they relied a lot on and other expensive stuff. they got religion now and they are going whole hog. because you put in a tariff. you put in changes that made it

possible for countries to investors to actually depend on the purchase agreement as part of the facility that is going. that is what. there are many countries where this is not true. the clean energy transformation the needs to happen. that will be very important to drive assistance for adaptation. initiative the prime minister mission innovation. bill gates had a very important role.

premised on getting as many cleanies as we could energy r&d within five years. gates having rounded up i think about 25 of his multibillionaire investor friends. in the outputvest of research and development. what exists is not enough to like this problem. transformational

and inventions. we had investors ready to get discoveries over the various death valley's that make it hard to go from discovery to commercialization. i was very excited about this development. we've created a framework for international action that is going to last is going to ratchet up every five years. that is now for the first time ever established. under the banner of this structure take action. >> we have a few more minutes

here. and that todd will have to leave and start playing that game. i would love to be able to take a couple of questions from the audience. if you could please just announce your name and your organization. >> there is no question that what you have negotiated is an extraordinary achievement. there's also talk that even if every country achieves the , nobody falls below time, we are still only getting half way of where we need to be. probably less than halfway if we are shooting for two degrees. what do you think the impact would be internationally if we were able in the united states

and the next congress to elect or to enact a revenue neutral see on carbon emissions couple adjustment tox give other countries the economic self-interest and incentive to do the same thing? would that get us where we need to be? stern: that we say couple of things. you are right to say that these agreements don't get us all the way there. i would note that the climate which is a very analytic body analyzing these issues. a year ago they projected that we were on the path to 3.6. october 1 they revise that to 2.7. two and evenom

longer way away from 1.5 degrees but also a long way away from 3.6 degrees. i think that is very important. pricing carbon is a big big deal. we have implicit prices on carbon. the president try to get a real price on carbon back in the days of cap and trade. sunday that is going to happen. one would hope that it would happen sooner rather than later. the president has done what i is anby any assessment absolutely amazing job of driving forward change in this country on the basis of this legislation. the power sector. the vehicle sector. you can do more if you have congress.

that is something our future. the sooner the future income the better. i don't want to jump into that one. ideally isather see a world in which there was carbon pricing all over the place. whether it is priced at the right level or not. it probably won't be right away. i think that kind of thing probably will be important. we have to get as a virtuous circle where more action begets more action. the streethere

economic case says you are going with clean energy than the alternative. you didn't need legislation for computers to make typewriters obsolete. it was because it was a better cheaper product. >> i can't get agreement on my own dinner table and i'm amazed that you could get 195 countries to agree on what they had is much less something as complicated as this. did you have a team of psychologists working for you to figure out how to make people more constructive?

was french wine involved? stern: we did not have psychologists. we had some french wine, but is actually never the case that you get everyone to agree with you. , these are very contentious negotiations. it was striking to be sure. what you are doing is trying to to find the landing zone. to socialize those with enough important players.

there is never a combined moments. except maybe when the whole thing is done. everybody is relieved and pleased that something is happens. there seem tout be a lot of smiles at the end. i should spend some time trying how it all comes together. is a matter of countries evaluating their national interest in a hardheaded way.

also the phenomenon of different negotiating styles. generally developed countries don't tend to be this way. you definitely have some dynamic of the style where countries know they're going to get a lot less so when they don't get the moon they are not actually that disappointed. there's a lot of patient work that goes into it. nobody is so unhappy that people are prepared to block it. >> this was the store again would not have happened if not they are seven years of work. thank you so much for coming

here today. thank you for joining us. we look forward to keeping the fight going. [applause] [applause] clinton hillary

outlines her plan to combat come homegrown terrorism. >> on our next "washington journal," we look at your reaction to the gop debate from tuesday night. we will give an update on the government funding deadline, the federal budget and discussed mustek terrorism. -- discuss domestic terrorism. the fightill discuss against isis and the 2016 presidential race. "washington journal" is live every morning. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. narrative was a lightweight, actor that had

premature orange hair. all of the historians have consistently rated him low. i believe on an ideological bias. "q&a," a lookt on at ronald reagan's life after leaving the white house and a look at his life to his death. things up.make i write about the facts will . we have succeeded in positioning people's thinking of ronald reagan so the picture that emerges is of a serious, deep thinking, considerate, solicitous man

senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and house speaker paul ryan sat down separately with politico to talk about some of the challenges facing congress. challenges include combating isis, the 2016 elections, and the funding deadline. we start with senator mcconnell. [applause] >> good morning. thank you very much for coming to the final playbook breakfast of 2016, a double-header. >> we are very excited to welcome senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on stage to join us and start this discussion.

[applause] mike: thank you, my colleague, anna, is with me. we thank you who are joining us out in live stream land. go ahead and send us your questions at #playbookbreakfast. i will get them up here. we are excited to have a double-header. leader mcconnell and shortly we'll hear from speaker ryan. thank all of you who have supported playbook breakfast all year. we appreciate your coming out. we have had a lot of fun. and made a lot of news. before we kick off we'd like to thank john, larry, bank of america. the playbook event series is a forum for convening conversations about the most critical issues facing washington with the most critical players. we have taken the playbook series across the country.

this year florida, new jersey, massachusetts, california, new york, and some of you might have seen, chicago. bank of america's been a great partner in 2015 and we really appreciate that. mr. leader, thank you for being here on get away week. anna will kick us off. anna: we have big news today with the big $1.1 trillion spending bill. $750 billion in tax extenders that you guys are going to release. what are the republican wins in this package? leader mcconnell: at the risk of confounding you, we haven't announced it yet and i'm not going to scoop ourselves. what we are looking for on the tax side is to have a large measure as opposed to a short-term two-year what we used to call extender bill with more permanency for things that we think make a difference for the economy. for two reasons. number one, it reduces the base line for getting to comprehensive tax reform which the country desperately needs.

and number two, several of these extenders are so popular, for example, r&d and section 179 to the business community making those permanent, i think, is an important shot in the arm to our economy. anna: you sat down with my colleague, kim and burgess, they said that the headline of the story today's politico is mcconnell vows ambitious agenda in treacherous 2016. what do you mean by that? leader mcconnell: we had a regularly scheduled election in our country every two years since 1788. we could always say well, we can't do anything this year. it's an election year. so what could we conceivably achieve? the one thing the democrats succeeded in completing -- completely thwarting this year was a normal appropriations process.

they prevented us from getting on the appropriation bills, even though all 12 came out of the committee for the first time in five years. what i hope we'll do now that we have decided how much we are going to spend next year is not spend any time arguing about -- or obstructing the process of passing the 12 bills that fund the government. this has been dysfunctional under parties of both majorities. the last time we did it right was 1994. that's something i think we could have minimal arguments over and try to accomplish even in the mid of a contentious year. mike: mr. leader, in the story by my colleagues, they say that you have had a solid first year and they said this is in the paper that's on your chairs there, they said you have begun a victory lap of sorts. is that what this is? leader mcconnell: more than a solid first year. come on, now. [laughter]

let's compare it to last year, for example. last year we had 15 roll call votes on amendments in the whole year, 15. this year we had over 200. four of the last five years the democratic majority didn't pass a budget. we did that. admittedly that's a low crossbar just to get back to normal, but what i tried to do, accept the reality of the government we have. the president's not of our party. the democrats have enough support in the senate to prevent things from happening if they want to. so how do you break through that ? number you do it by issue one, selection. we did keystone pipeline. we enjoyed a large bipartisan majority. we did the therein -- iran nuclear review act. we did a multi-year highway bill. we did a rewrite of no child left behind. take the highway bill, for example, the democratic leadership actively tried to scuttle what was being developed by senator boxer and myself, and

failed. and the reason they failed is because the committee process worked. you had the ranking democrat on the committee committed to what we were trying to do and leadership simply couldn't thwart it -- the message is, if you go through committee on a bill that should enjoy bipartisan support, develops bipartisan support inside the committee, when it gets on the floor, even if the democratic leadership wants to thwart it, they can't. that's how we achieved as much as we did this year. mike: you do have a long list of firsts. you emailed us a year ago in january, 2014, two years ago you gave a speech restoring the senate has been harder than you thought. leader mcconnell: no, because it was a pent up demand on a bipartisan basis to get back to normal. i had democratic senators coming up to me before our new majority took over saying they don't like the job. mike: they still say that. leader mcconnell: not anymore. look at the bills they participated in and voted on.

many of these bills that i mentioned passed by overwhelming majorities. it wasn't just done by republicans. so they were saying that i worked hard to get this job, i took a lot of criticism, it was a contentious effort to get here. i don't much like this job. i don't think many of them are telling you that now. i'm sure they would like to be in the majority, but i don't think they enjoy being marginalized, being irrelevant, having all the action being in the majority leader's office rather than the committees. mike: you have empowered democrats. leader mcconnell: absolutely. i don't have any choice because it takes 60 votes to do most things that we do. i was always looking for the kinds of bills that were worth doing that enjoyed bipartisan support. i'd like to ask the representatives the coin of the realm in the senate is floor time. is the majority leader and the

person who decides what we are going to turn to, how are you going to use that coin? since it takes us three days to do the simplest things where the house can do it in an hour, how much time you have is the big decision. what are you going to allocate floor time to? i accepted the fact we had a divided government. barack obama is in the white house. we don't have 60 senators. what can we do? the american people seem to like divided government we have had it so often. more often than not since world war ii. what are they saying? i think they are saying, ok, we know you have a lot of differences, but why don't you look for the things you agree on worth doing and do them. that's been my strategy this year. still there are big, big differences. we put repeal obamacare on his desk. we are in the process of putting waters of the united states on his desk. and two of these clean power regulations on his desk. mike: as a student of history, do you assume that in january, 2017, we'll have divided government of some sort? leader mcconnell: i hope not.

anna: you said you have empowered democrats under your leadership. certainly your relationship with majority leader harry reid has been tense. maybe hit a low in recent weeks. how can you work together or do you work together and kind of repairing that? leader mcconnell: i don't think it's hit a low in recent weeks. i think the low point was when he broke the rules of the senate in the fall of 2013 to change the rules of the senate. the rules mean nothing if any majority at any given time with a simple majority changes the rules. and for those of you not familiar with it, the senate's rules don't go away tend of every two years, they are permanent. the rules of the senate require that you get 67 votes to change the rules of the senate. 67. what happened in the fall of 2013 in their desire to jam the minority, which had not used the

filibuster very often at all, on judges, was, ok, we'll just change the rules, like that. they overruled the chair with a simple majority and changed the rules of the senate. that was the low point of our relationship. i think it did a lot of damage to the institution. and further soured relations. so i think the last congress was the low point. i like harry, personally. i don't like the way he ran the senate as the majority leader. we have had from time to time worked around him to get things done with the new majority. fortunately there is a pool of democrats who want to be relevant. who think the job they were elected to ought to have some consequence, and they accept the fact we are in the majority. in order to advance the kinds of issues we have been talking about, it requires participation with us. mike: mr. leader, in september, carl and jennifer had a story in the "new york times" with the headline, boehner's exit will cost mitch mcconnell a kindred spirit.

how has the house been different with speaker ryan? leader mcconnell: paul's been around a long time. heat a pretty young guy but he's been around a long time. we have had the opportunity to work together. you'll have a chance to hear from him in a few minutes. he hired a guy that was thoroughly familiar with, long time friend, dave. we knew each other well so we didn't have to start from scratch. and i think paul can speak for himself, but i think he's in what i would call the make a difference side. you always have two kinds of people in politics, ones who want to make a point, and those who want to make a difference. we all from time to time want to make a point. we did that with the obamacare repeal which we are in the process of putting on the president's desk. i don't think the american people sent us here to do nothing. and they elected a government that neither party entirely controls.

i get the impression the speaker would like to make a difference given the cards that we are dealt, which is not the perfect hand from our point of view, and you can address the question to him, but i think the transition's been quite smooth. anna: one of the things i wanted to ask you about is the interview given to the "washington post" on the transpacific partnership, getting done before the end of obama's term, do you think it's punted to the next president? leader mcconnell: i haven't made up my mind. i'm disappointed at some of the -- at the outcome. but i'm not in any way regretful of doing trade promotion authority. all of you in the audience know what that is. it's a process by which this president and the next one can send a trade agreement to the congress and get it approved or it could be disapproved with an up or down vote. so i felt it was important to

get t.p.a. in place not only for president obama but for the next president. we have that. and i'm really not decided yet on the deal that he negotiated. it could have been, in my -- from my point of view, a lot bert. -- better. mike: you said it shouldn't come up before the election. do you assume this now goes to the next president? leader mcconnell: you heard trade discussed. all the democratic candidates are against the deal. many of the republican candidates for president are against the deal. if the president wants to succeed, he ought to take into account the reality of the political situation. mike: the result of that will be what? leader mcconnell: it's up to him to decide to initiate the process. mike: your wish would be? leader mcconnell: i think he ought to take into account the obvious politics of trade at the moment in our country. mike: with speaker ryan next year, what will the outlook be for tax reform? leader mcconnell: i would assume it would be how in his agenda, you're going to have him here in

a few minutes, if we get a larger tax bill here at the end of the year, we do have a significant positive impact on the baseline for comprehensive tax reform, which the speaker would like to do, and i would like to do. there are some challenges in doing comprehensive tax reform with this president. number one, i believe it should be revenue neutral to the government. reagan and tip o'neill had an agreement 30 years ago that tax reform was not about getting more revenue for the government but by -- about getting rates down to the maximum extent tenth possible for the largest number of people. we have an outrageously high corporate tax rate, which is one of the factors causing some inversions. we need to do something about that. we need to go to some kind of territorial system. and from my point of view, we need to treat taxpayers as nearly as we can similarly. that means most american

business, which is not a corporation, most is an s-corp. or l.l.c. they pay taxes as individuals. this president wants to keep the individual rate up here. so if you lower the rate only for corporations and you leave the rates for individuals up here, most american business doesn't get a tax relief. doesn't get any tax relief. so we have substantial differences with president obama about what tax reform ought to look like. summing it up, i think it ought to be revenue neutral to the government. i think we ought to treat small business just like big business. whatever revenue is produced by the elimination of preferences ought to be used to buy down rates, not be used to spend by the government. mike: last one. what would you say is the outlook for narrow tax reform next year? leader mcconnell: i don't know. i don't know. mike: can you imagine president obama wanting to do one more big domestic thing?

or do you think he's done? leader mcconnell: i don't know. you'll have to see what he does. [laughter] mike: question from our cybersecurity editor, david lynch. since the paris and san bernardino attacks, the heads of the f.b.i. and c.i.a. have both expressed mounting concern about terrorists using encryption to mask their plotting. yet there seems little prospect for administration or congressional action. leader mcconnell: this is an area i'm disappointed it. i think weakening the patriot act was a mistake. and we had internal divisions among republicans over whether that was the appropriate thing to do. the metadata system was lost in the bill that we passed in early summer. i didn't vote for it. our conference was split right down the middle on the issue of whether weakening the patriot act was a good idea. the encryption issue is another good reason for revisiting that whole subject and that could well happen next year. mike: what are the circumstance

where is that would occur next year? leader mcconnell: it could happen next year. based upon what's going on in the world. i think we can't put blinders on here. this is a growing and serious problem. and to the extent that our intelligence capabilities, which in my view have never been inconsistent with american privacy concerns, are weakened, you have to ask the question, is that a smart thing to do? i don't think it is. mike: would you like to see action on that next year? leader mcconnell: we may well do that. mike: what would be at the top of your list? leader mcconnell: one of our leaders on that, interestingly enough, if not our youngest senator, tom cotton, who has had a lot to say about this on the intelligence committee. has already become a leader. i think chairman richard burr has concerns as well. that could be an area we address next year.

anna: one of the things i wanted to talk about, immigration has been a big -- coming out of these terrorist attacks has been a big issue on the news and polls and 2016. that's a personal issue for you. your wife very successful from taiwan, first in the cabinet george w. bush's cabinet. do you think all this -- is it concerning to you? how do you respond to it? leader mcconnell: well, the president pretty much messed up the environment for doing anything on immigration. in a proactive way with his executive orders after the election. in which he did things that he had previously said on numerous occasions he didn't have the authority to do. proving he didn't have the authority, the courts have stopped him. so that's on hold. a separate issue is immigration concerns raised as a result of terrorists coming in. and i do think we need to continue to look at tightening up the various ways in which

people can come into the country. the key in my view on the infiltration of terrorists as opposed to the lone wolf factor, it -- is having safe places inside syria so people don't feel they have to leave. and that requires a more robust military approach to what we are currently doing. more robust. that's something the president's been reluctant to do. tightening up the entry is important. but you have the lone wolf problem, which apparently was the case in san bernardino. that gets back to whether or not we have the tools that we need to have on the intelligence side. to track and discover these people before they do something

like this. anna: speaking of having a more robust presence here. -- this year. you don't want to do an aumf -- leader mcconnell: the president thinks he has the authority to do what he's doing now. he's got a year left in office. i know the democrats in the senate well enough to know when they talk about an aumf they are talking about a highly prescriptive aumf. how many troops you have. how long they can stay there. maybe what they can do there. but if we are going to do an aumf, it ought to give the president all the authority that he may need. rather than trying to micromanage the conflict. so i can't imagine this senate getting more than 60 votes for the kind of aumf that the next president may need, which is the authority to do what needs to be done. in other words, not to micromanage the military employment, not to tell them how long they can stay there. so i would not want to saddle the next president with a highly prescriptive aumf.

mike: anna will ask you a question about a specific senator in the second, but to pull back, what are the chances that republicans keep the senate and you remain majority leader? leader mcconnell: it's going to be a challenging cycle. state the obvious that the key to the republican majority lies in purple states. new hampshire, pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, one blue state, illinois. nevada, colorado, florida. what do they all have in common? every one of those states except illinois will be the same states that determine who the president is. so i'm hoping for a presidential nominee who can carry purple states, who can actually get elected president because those are the states -- i would add one more to that group where we don't have a senate race, that's virginia. a purple state that clearly will be in play in the general election of the presidency. obviously if we have a presidential candidate who is

doing well in purple states it would make it easier for us to have a majority in the next congress. anna: speaking to your point on the purple states, how would senator cruz as a nominee affect the race of senator kelly in new hampshire? leader mcconnell: good try. [laughter] you know i'm not going to start commenting on various candidates for president. i like them all with great interest. [laughter] mike: you won't resist this. how would donald trump as a nominee affect re-election of senator rob portman in ohio? leader mcconnell: i'm still not going to get into the presidential race. [laughter] mike: you talked about the ability to win in purple states. would some -- not naming names, would some of these candidates be more helpful to keeping the majority -- leader mcconnell: come on, mike. [laughter] let's don't waste each other's time here. i don't want to get into the presidential race. i have already stated it would

be extremely helpful in holding the senate to carry purple states. all of you can draw your own conclusions about which candidates are most likely to carrie purple states. mike: as a republican party, how do you hold purple states? what is the key to that? leader mcconnell: i think our members want to be able to say to their constituents they were a part of getting results. getting results on things that were worth doing. what i wanted to convey, i said this after my own re-election in louisville last year i wanted us to be a constructive right of center governing majority. a constructive right of center governing majority. no antics like shutting down the government or threatening to default on the national debt. no feeling among the american people that if they were to marry up a republican president with this republican senate it wouldn't be a good thing. i want them to think that's a

good thing. i think for people like kelly ayotte and pat toomey and ron johnson and rob portman and mark kirk, they want to make the argument that they have been -- they have made a difference. not that they have sat around all the time making points, but that they have made a difference. i think we have an agenda that we have accomplished here in the first year that will help them do that. mike: mr. leader, chance here for a little reality check. this is the gray beard dinner written up in the lead store -- story of the "washington post" g.o.p. to gird for a floor fight about preparing for a brokered convention. what happened at that dinner? leader mcconnell: we were just talking about politics. [laughter] a bunch of politicians talking about politics. no conspiracy theories that i heard. mike: set the scene. tell people what the dinner is and what it was like. leader mcconnell: it's a group that gets together periodically and has no particular agenda and

certainly has no ability to control any particular outcome. like a discussion group. mike: "the washington post" said, near the end mcconnell and r.n.c. chairman acknowledged to the group that a deadlock convention is something the party should prepare for. leader mcconnell: yeah. the meeting is called off the record for some reason. [laughter] so i don't have any interest in quoting myself or others. this is a group that gets together periodically. i frequently go. we talk about politics. that's what we do in this town. and it's supposed to be off the record. i was among those rather appalled to hear people who are in the meeting talking about it. mike: now that we are on the record in front of cameras, is a deadlock convention something the party should prepare for? leader mcconnell: it hasn't happened in a very long time.

i think it's highly unlikely to happen. and what delegates do at a convention is determined by state law anyway. and i guess the only way that could happen would be if you went past one ballot because most states bind the delegates for the first vote, although some may bind them beyond the first vote. i don't in a moment it's an interesting thing to discuss but highly unlikely. mike: highly unlikely, not impossible. what is your worry about it as you go into this -- leader mcconnell: i got a big job to do here and i follow the presidential race, obviously. but handicapping every possible outcome is not something i spend much time doing. anna: turning back to the senate and your job, one of the questions that is outstanding is how many judges the senate will confirm. can you give us any insight into your thinking on that, or when

you view the cut off, unofficial cut off date? leader mcconnell: there isn't any particular unofficial or official cut off date. the president has gotten a huge number of judges over the first six years. it was an explosion of judges right at the end of last year. and so most of the judges that were in the queue were already confirmed. and his overall record over this eight years is going to compare pretty similarly to previous presidents. anna: can you -- leader mcconnell: i don't have any specific. mike: mr. leader, tradition you have you take freshmen, republican senators on a trip to hot spots, afghanistan, iraq, israel, etc. in the middle east. you did two trips this year because you had so many freshmen. what do you get out of those trips? leader mcconnell: a lot of the freshmen did not come from the house, so they haven't had a chance to visit places that have

dominated or national security and foreign policy discussion over the last decade. so for the last few cycles, and this year as you indicated, i had, fortunately, a big group, so we went two times to israel, jordan, iraq, afghanistan. it's a way to immerse yourself in the situation quickly. because they have continuing important relevance. an example, it was clearly a huge mistake for the u.s. not to leave a residual force behind in iraq. whether you supported the war or didn't support the war, president bush handed over to president obama a war that was won. and rather than using the model of germany, japan, and korea where -- after the conflict ended, we left a residual force, with very

good results. we left altogether. there is no question in my mind, that is why iraq is a mess it is today. wouldn't have prevented syria , but it is why iraq is in a mess today. the president has been struggling over the last three, four years with a political desire to be them to say at the end of his years, we are out of afghanistan. that would be a big mistake. we have a president there who is a good president who wants us to stay. all the military feels we need to have a residual force. the optimum number would be 10,000 for counterterrorism and ongoing training of the military. i hope he doesn't double down on the mistake he made in iraq. >> number of polls show that terrorism is in the minds of voters. senator mcconnell: this is a

serious problem. isis is not the j.v. team. they control large swaths of land in syria and iraq. they have to be defeated with boots on the ground and don't necessarily have to include a large combat force of the united states. but we are going to have -- without american leadership, it will not happen. we have to rally the saudis, the egyptians to join a kind of well led and supported by air power american effort to defeat isil , and until that happens, the problem will persist. you need to have safe zones inside syria so people don't feel like they have to run for their lives.

>> we are going to need more troops, and as my friend points out, they are not boots, they are people. yes,ity leader mcconnell: you will need more boots they , don't have to be all of ours. america needs to stand up and says here's the plan. here is what we need to do. i need this many troops from you, france, for example or britain, for example. this many troops from you egyptians, saudis, jordanians. it requires american leadership or it will not happen. until that leadership is provided by this president or the next one, the problem will continue. >> we have a number of interns with us today. some watching online stream. you were an intern for a senator john sherman cooper. what is your advice for interns? [laughter] mcconnell: it was to me a transformative event.

i had always thought i wanted to try and succeed in politics. even as a young guy. that particular summer was the summer that the senate broke the filibuster on the civil rights bill, 1964 and senator cooper was right in the middle of that. and we were a border state and even though we were not overwhelmingly hostile to civil rights. i was in the mailroom. most of the letters were for people who did not like the bill. i remember getting an opportunity to ask him one time whether he was worried about that or not and he said something akin to this, there are times when you need to lead and times when you need to follow and this is an example of stepping out and trying to convince people this is the right direction to take. he was an inspirational figure. i hope you are working for somebody you like and enjoy and

you are learning lessons every day about how to conduct the job if you ever get to be a senator , or congressman. mike what were your duties in : the mail room? [laughter] majority leader mcconnell: sorting the mail. this was in the dark ages. it was all snail mail. we got very few telephone calls because it was a long dance -- distance call. people did not want to pay for it. sorting the mail and putting it in different camps and giving it to the right legislative assistant to answer. mcconnell, we appreciate you are a faithful reader of political -- politico, and you like the trivia questions. we thought it would be fun to ask you tomorrow's trivia question today. anna: lauren sent this to me this morning. is most openly associated with illinois, but the 16th resident was born and

partially raised in kentucky. what city was he born in? senator mcconnell: hodges. -- hodgin ville. anna: yes, indeed. [applause] very good. thatity leader mcconnell: was a softball question. mike: here is the hardball. [laughter] how is your team going to come back next year? majority leader mcconnell: well. first of all they need to get pelbon.cap upon -- pa the player with the most number of strikes is not a teambuilding exercise. i think they need a solid, good hitting outfielder. jayson werth is getting older, not playing many games anymore. we could use another starter , although i think this young

guy in the minors may be there jordan-- the answer to zimmermann's departure. i gave you more than you wanted. mike: you often watch the games, and when you are there you watch them with george will and charles krauthammer. senator mcconnell: they know a lot more about it. and a lot of other things. always a humbling experience. mike: anna, thank you for your coverage. mr. leader, thank you. [applause] thank you, sir. now my colleague jake sherman and ryan are going to join us. welcome. thank you for coming in, mr. ryan. thanks for coming in. we have some family members. jake sherman's wife is here on his birthday eve.

my sister bonnie and my neice grace are here from ethiopia. right here in the front row. grace is 10. she came from ethiopia when she was four. >> all i want for my birthday is to get out of town. so if we could expedite that process. jake mr. speaker, you said in : 2016 you want to have a big year and want to be the proposition party and not the opposition party. he made comments to a local paper, and kenosha, you want to be more involved in the micro issues of policy and governing. more or less likely that now that you are speaker some sort , of narrow or tax reform gets done in the next year or so? i like micro

policy, fashioning policy. it is more micro than macro. i have always been as a committee chair, a micro guy. way ofto find a balancing that. obviously, i have to do macro. to your question about tax reform, that will have to be one of the crown jewels of our agenda. we have to show the country how we get the economy out of neutral, jobs growing, which is growing, and how we get america competitive again, and families and businesses growing and tax reforms critical to that. ways and means committee is going to take a lead, but i have a deep interest. i will work closely to roll this out. getting it done in 2016 is not going to happen because of president obama is president. offering an agenda, that will get done because we only did the country. jake: no hope? speaker ryan: no, because of president obama. can you imagine him wanting one more thing? speaker ryan: i think

international is one more thing. that's something we were talking about last year, just this fall. so we have issues that i think people on both sides of the aisle will acknowledge we are losing our competitive edge internationally, because of the index of our tax code. that is something we should definitely explore. i would like to think that is something we can explore in 2016, which is sort of comprehensive tax reform. >> you could imagine getting action on that? speaker ryan: i would like to see it. >> one speech was announced by your staff along with the #confidentamerica. you want to be a happy warrior. speaker ryan: i am a happy warrior. i was raised by jack kemp. he was my political mentor, the best happy warrior i knew. that is what i think inspires the country. my whole message was we as conservatives should not go down the path of playing identity politics. we should practice unifying politics, inclusive politics, inspirational politics. that means an optimistic agenda.

we believe in our principles that make this country great. it just goes to say that if we take these principles we believe in, liberty, freedom, free enterprise self-determination, , the bill of rights, apply those principles to offer innovative solutions that fix problems that people are confronting every day, that our country is facing, so we can make the country better and restore confidence in this nation. that's something to be happy about and something to unify and win converts to this cause, and win an election and get this done. we need a mandate election to break us out of the slog and it can only be won if you present an agenda to the country, straightforward, honest and if you win that election, then you have the moral authority and the mandate to put it in place and fix these problems.

mike: my colleagues did a piece on politico the other way -- other day, the paul ryan way. what is the hallmark of that? speaker ryan: it starts with air conditioning. it's hot in here. [laughter] it's 80 degrees in here. i come from wisconsin so we like it cold. the paul ryan way, it shouldn't be the paul ryan way but the founders' way. let's get back to legislators legislating, let's get back to actually doing things methodically, deliberating. we call it regular order around here. i call it democracy. and then let's end the cronyism and get back to our principles, . we believe in limited government, strong national security. we have 45 million people stuck in poverty. we need to do something about these things and we believe that our principles are where we need to go to come up with solutions. so my way has always been oppose

what you don't like, but then propose what you do like. we are pretty good at the opposing part, we have to get better at proposing. mike has the freedom caucus been : tamed? speaker ryan: i don't like that construct. i reject the premise of the question of taming a person. giving people more say-so in how congress operates? yes. are we decentralizing power in the way congress is run and managed? absolutely. i did not like the way things were going. people knew that. i didn't want the job in the first place but now that i'm in it, i like it. one of the things i have learned in the last couple of weeks, we cannot just consolidate the power of this place. we need to decentralize and let members do their jobs. we have had three conference reports in 10 days on something that i have worked on, our customs enforcement, we we

needed to rewrite our customs laws. it is been a couple decades in the making. we did this the right way, regular order way. we had a huge highway bill. first time in a decade. huge rewrite of esea. all of those went through the conference committee process, where the experts of the policy, people who go to congress, get on a committee and specialize in these areas -- whether education, trade or transportation -- they are the experts. they are the ones who aggregate the thoughts and reforms, and ideas. we had a huge amendment process could floor, so everybody participate, and we had a conference committee. we had huge partisan votes. good reforms. that's the way i think congress ought to run. that's not what we are doing with an omnibus. i want to get off of doing things like this. but that to me is the way forward. we are not taming people, we are liberating people. freeing people up so they can participate. mike why do you think if you looked at washington and a

less couple of years, the government shuts down tomorrow -- well, it does. [laughter] you don't see the hysteria we have seen in the past. why is that? speaker ryan: i don't know, you tell me. [laughter] mike: i don't know. we get these countdown clocks. i think we have been pretty clear. we are not going to have a shut down. i never thought we would. we aren't. we are putting the bill together. we have been negotiating. we will be posting sometime today, we are waiting for the scorekeepers did -- to finish drafting. i knew we weren't go to go meet december 11 deadline and needed to get it right. it took us a few more days. we'll have to do another short-term, because i have not going to waive the three-day rule. the c.r. expires tomorrow but we'll do a short-term and pass this on thursday.

i don't know what mitch said about when the senate can take it up, but hopefully thursday. >> do you think there will be a big republican vote? traditionally these spending bills have been carried by democrats? speaker ryan: i'm not going to predict how the vote count will go down. you win some, you lose some. the day, we are going to get this done. let me say something about this process. we should not be doing things like this. i have been around for a while , and i have watched this from the outside. now on the inside i feel even more strongly, we should not be putting together appropriation bills this way. we should not have a handful of people in a room putting together a trillion dollar spending bill. this should be done under regular order and bring these bills to the floor. the experts, the committees who are in charge overseeing the committees write the bills and members of congress, if they want to, can try to affect the bill and rewrite it. that's how things should be done. this really in my opinion is no way to run a railroad.

i don't want to see it repeat itself. i just don't think it is the right way to govern. mike: i'm going to go to my colleague bryan bender in a second. but first, the trade deal. what are the prospects for the t.p.p. and congress next year and do you plan to bring it to a vote? speaker ryan: i think it is very possible. i just don't know when the answer is. we are still scrubbing it. we dill have a lot of questions, ways and means going through their analysis of it. i am as well. i have been pretty busy. it's very important. there are concerns on all sides of the aisle on this issue but something that's important that we want to get it right. i don't have a set date. but if we conclude this is the right way to go and there is a lot of promise with an agreement that has 40% of the global g.d.p. where america is writing the rule that in the global economy. the ambition is right where it ought to be.

the question is, does the agreement deliver on the ambition, and if it does, we want to move as soon as we can. like you areunds headed that way. so is it likely? speaker ryan: i don't know, but i'm not foreclosing any option. mike: my colleague has a question. after the paris attacks, you said that the attacks were an act of war. in february, president obama said to congress -- sent to congress a formal request an authorization for military force against the islamic state and virtually nothing has happened in nearly a year. couple of weeks ago, 35 of your colleagues wrote you a letter, republicans and democrats saying that congress is abdicating one of the most important responsibilities by not debating and voting on what is becoming an expanding war. they argue that the aumf passed

after 9/11 and one passed in the fall of 2002 need to be updated. isis didn't exist back then and the iraq authorization did not authorize military force inside syria. if you don't agree with them, if so, what do you plan to do, and if you don't, why not? speaker ryan: how many questions was that? [laughter] i do believe we have legal authorization under the old a f.s -- aum i do believe it would be a good sign for american foreign policy to have a new one updating our aumf to declare our mission with respect to isis. that would be good for putting america in an offensive posture. so the question is, can we write an aumf that the president will sign, where he is not going to handcuff the next president and get consensus on how to do that.

that is what we are trying to figure out right now. i have talked to ed royce and mac thornberry, plenty of members in our caucus who think this is a debate we should have. i agree it is a debate worth having. but what i do not want to do is have an aumf along the lines of what the president has been discussing, and i am hoping he will change. now that paris has occurred and other developments. that doesn't handcuff the next president of the united states from doing what that person thinks is necessary to defeat , not just contain isis. we just passed the defense authorization bill and it had a huge bipartisan vote was the requirement of the administration to present a plan to defeat isis. this bill has been around for three, four weeks and we are waiting for the president to present a plan to defeat isis. there is a case to be made to say let's see what the plan is to defeat isis and whether that

requires or whether in our interest to have a new aumf to accompany the strategy to defeat isis. the strategy we have right now is not working. mike you think it's the : president's responsibility. speaker ryan: no, congress is the one who declares war. this is congress' responsibility. the question is can we pass one give the military the tools they need to do the job and will the president accept that. i think what the president sent us handcuffs the next president. the president put too many constrictions on the military. first of all, you don't take options off the table, you don't telegraph what you will or will not do to your enemies. the president is guilty of that, over and over. we don't want to repeat his mistakes. can we put a new aumf? i think we can, and we should. but we actually do have the existing authority. one. the current >> we are talking about a confident america.

we are not hearing a lot like that from other republican leaders. is there too much fear mongering from the republican party? speaker ryan: i think this is going to sort itself out fine. if the democratic primary was more competitive, you would be asking the same thing on that side of the aisle. you have the competitive republican primary, we have competitive republican primaries. i'm not worried about the outcome. the power is where it ought to be, which is with the republican primary voter, and the primary republican voter is a smart voter, that wants to win, and make sure we don't repeat four more years of progressivism. i think they are going to elect a nominee that can take us all the way. mike you said in an interview : with the "new york times", you expect concern about the party -- expressed concern about the party indulging in our own version of identity politics trying to fuel themselves based on darker notions.

whatever are you talking about? speaker ryan: the left plays and -- identity politics fuels , themselves on envy, anxiety, class warfare. we shouldn't do our own version of that. we should not be preying on people's emotions of fear or whatever. identity politics speaks to people in ways that divide people. and that's why our country is so polarized. let's stop speaking to people as if they are in a subgroup in america. we are all americans and we have common ideas and values and speak in ways that unify us. that is why i think we need to have a positive agenda, based on core principles, that show good solutions that for everybody, that shows the rising tide and get prosperity and upward mobility and favorite tism for -- and inequality for all, favoritism for none. believes the role

and goal of government is equality of opportunity so people can make the most of their lives. pursue happiness however they define it, so long as they are not infringing on another person. take this with a grain of salt. the alternative is a government that promotes to equalize the people's lives, that has government so consolidated and powerful, micromanaging our lives, that does not work. that slows down economic growth, stops upward mobility. creates more animosity and class warfare. we don't want that. we should not go down the path of fueling a political movement on anxieties. we should heal and inspire and unify and have an optimistic message. that's what ronald reagan did. some people on the other side of the aisle would love to see if they could bait us into a 1964 election. we can and should have a 1980 wection, working -- where can win big, and the mandate

where we can get the country out of this malaise, and give the people a confident future. mike: at the moment, is not the other side -- speaker ryan: as much as i'm going to give you on this one mike. [laughter] your you said you want agenda to impact the 2016 election. speaker ryan: yes, our agenda. the lesson i learned in 2012 is you can't wait until mid-summer to start putting together your national campaign strategy. you have to start earlier than that. what i believe, what an 19 0 was about was ideas. we had a great messenger. but it's about ideas and you have to start earlier and have an agenda and ideas. i believe you have to start earlier and have an agenda. make it an ideas election. we win ideas elections. mike the other 1980 parallel, : jack kemp pushing ronald reagan. jack was my:

mentor. lots of books have been written about this. he, along with many other house growthcans, pushed april -- a progrowth agenda that was the right antidote for the malaise. ronald reagan picked up on that agenda, championed that into the general election, and we got reaganomics. we got tax relief, tax so i think that is the kind of combination we as a party hope to build upon. want a house republican for nominee? speaker ryan: i want house republicans helping the nominee before the nominee arrives. the last thing we should do is sit around and wait. we know who we are, we know what we believe in.

we know we want to have a solution for the debt. we want faster economic growth. we want to reignite economic growth. we want a stronger national security posture. we know these things. we should tell people what it looks like, how we get those things. these are unifying things within our party. we believe it will help propel not only the nominee but help us win. mike: last question. of a julyility nominee -- how worried are you about a deadline? speaker ryan: i do not worry about stuff like that. i am not. mike: what are the possibilities? speaker ryan: i am busy working in congress. i do not think about stuff like that. couple jake: weeks ago you are trying to get into a new routine. have you found that routine?

getting there? how has it changed? speaker ryan: i have more people with me. here, i just work. i work out and i work. i have that routine. at home, it is a similar routine. volleyball and basketball on weekends. packers had a good win on sunday. jake: you were there? speaker ryan: yeah. i pretty much got myself in a routine. jake: you had dinner with nancy pelosi last night. what was the most interesting thing you learned? speaker ryan: the most interesting thing i learned -- this is newsworthy, that i had dinner with my counterpart? why should this be newsworthy? we did not know each other very well. i never served with her on a committee.

she is a counterpart, and i thought it was a good idea to get to know her. mike: what did you learn? speaker ryan: i got to know her better. she is a very smart lady. passionate in her beliefs. she represents her caucus very well. we have opposite views on most things. but we are respectful of that. jake: you talked about not getting stuck on this rider or that rider, but the work of congress can be technical. speaker ryan: we need to raise because we can get stuck in the here and now, the petty and small. but time is so tenuous. myust believe -- this is 17th year in congress. i believe we have four more years where we ignore the debt crisis, have government taking

over the health care issue, weakening our military. we have horrible foreign policy. economic stagnation. wages are flat. ourr countries are eating lunch competitively. wewe keep down that path, will not give the next generation a more prosperous future. we have never done that before. every generation has made a sacrifice and decisions so the next generation is better off. that wewithout a doubt will sever that legacy if we do not get on top of our problems. means fixingaze these problems while they are still fixable. give you one example. entitlements. most of them are age-based entitlements. security, mysocial

mom and i needed it when i was young. but if we stay on this path, it goes bankrupt. the sooner we tackle these problems, the better off it is. our own terms, we can prevent these programs from going bankrupt without changing the benefits. the government can actually keep its promises to the people who are now depending on the programs to organize retirement around these promises. those of us in the younger generation, you and i are in the same generation? are you a millennial or something like that? are not going to be there for us if we do not do something about it. let's get onake is top of america's problems now. impasse weast the have had to keep the promises that have been made on our own term. if we keep kicking the can down the road, it will be a european

debt crisis without america backing us up. we will not be able to fund government programs and salt economic problems on our own terms. that is why we have to raise our gaze and tackle the problems before they tackle us. you were insistent that you did not want this job. were you wrong? speaker ryan: it is what it is. i am fine. tell.you love it, i can speaker ryan: i had to do it differently. we should not be governing what this. i want to get us back to regular order. it is turning a battleship a little bit. we made some pretty good turns. we have more to go. i like it in the sense i see progress being made, and i am excited about 2016.

i'm excited about our party giving the people of this country the choices they deserve whatve so they can decide this country looks like going forward. sliver of that role, in helping determine that, i feel honored to do that. now that you have the gavel, what has been the biggest constraint or power? speaker ryan: i am not a person who wants power. i want power to go out there, out in the country. i do not want it to stay in the capital. if i can use the gavel to decentralize power out of washington, back to the people where it belongs, i feel i can make a difference. that is what i like most. mike: you are chairman of the national convention. you say you are not going to reject or bless any candidate. -- have been very

speaker ryan: we use the word "trump" as a verb. your point? mike: what do you think of him? speaker ryan: i will not get into any of that stuff. i think that plan or comment deserved to be called out. my rule is not to comment on the people or the ups and downs of the campaign. mike: this was an extraordinary exception. speaker ryan: it is an extraordinary exception. therefore, i will not be answering the question. mike: you said this is not conservatism, not what the country stands for. how did you decide to talk about him? speaker ryan: it is the first amendment. the bill of rights. religious freedom, pluralism, is who we are. this is why the country was founded in the first place.

when you see your principles, , youunifying principles have an obligation to stand up for those principles. jake: you caught me off guard. i will take it back to you. i was enthralled with what he was saying. [laughter] speaker ryan: best white house correspondent at politico. earbuds. used to wear those are gone? speaker ryan: i walk with other people now. i have new friends. i do not want to be rude to my new friends. jake: could you say affirmatively you will not be drafted into the presidential race? speaker ryan: that is ridiculous talk. i am doing this job. you should stop all that speculation. jake: i think you just stop it.

speaker ryan: good. mike: jake was talking about your routine. when you are here, what do you do in the morning? speaker ryan: i go down to the gym at 6:28, start my workout at 6:30. workout until 8:00. mike: 90 minutes? speaker ryan: i get a shower also. i shower. do you really want me to get into that? when i shower? what kind of shampoo i use? then i go on my day. mike: who do you work out with? speaker ryan: a bunch of members. i do not know that i should get into who they are. mike: what are you doing? speaker ryan: a lot of things, insanity, p90x, yoga. we do some cycling as well. spin.

spin is cycling, just so you know [laughter] what do these groups have in common -- the rolling stones, ac/dc, rage against the machine. iza -- zac brown is not on my playlist. jake: you seem to take offense. speaker ryan: i do not know who they are. jake: what do the rolling stones, ac/dc and rage against the machine have in common? speaker ryan: they are on my playlist. i am a bow hunter. we have gun season, which interrupts those season. bowt a decent 10 pointer in season. i am having a dry spell.

i got a little busy. i like to make italian sausage, jerky. steaks and venison. that takes about three to get in the freezer, and i have one. the season goes to the end of the year. i will go back out in the woods. hunter, deer season is not over with, and i have a tolerant wife. mike: two more? speaker ryan: hopefully. we will see. ofre was a picture tweeted you at lambeau with the packers. what was it like to be there with your kids? speaker ryan: awesome. we try to get in a game a year. at the end of the summer, when we look at the schedule, which came we were hoping to go to, i like going to december games,

hitting the bull. -- bowl. it is just fun. it was like 50 degrees and raining. we just wanted to go to a december game. the cowboys, it is always great to beat the cowboys. jake: do you get better seats now that you are speaker? speaker ryan: not really. mike: what is your super bowl prediction? speaker ryan: as long as we can keep the old line healthy, which it is, and mccarthy is not we had a veryays, balanced offense, if we hit our tempo, which we clearly can and can connect with the -- receivers, which he can that is the thing about going to a live football game. you can see how well receivers run the route.

i think we can make it. i hate to say it, but my guess is it is the pats we would face. jake: i thought you meant they would win. speaker ryan: i probably should not do this, but i think the patriots have a decent chance of a repeat. they seem to be back on their game. i do not know if denver will get there. and russell wilson is playing pretty well. those guys are on an upswing. year.c is tough this the division here is not so good. [laughter] speaker ryan: the rest is pretty good. you give us one thing to look forward to next year that you will, let's in the you will a cop which in the house? speaker ryan: we will go back to regular order. we should not take it as

inevitable we will pile up appropriation bills. we have to stop thinking it is normal. i believe there are things where we can find common ground. external business reform is a good example. i think there are areas where we can make a difference, move forward. then we are going to disagree on a lot of this. that is a good thing. let's disagree by offering a big agenda. then, let the people decide. that is the way i see 2016 unfolding. mike: i would like to thank jake and anna for joining me today. thank you to my amazing colleagues at politico who put on hundreds of amazing events. america, to bank of your colleagues, for making these conversations possible. we really appreciate that. thank you for reading playbook

and supporting this event. i think the audience in live stream land. mr. speaker, merry christmas. speaker ryan: merry christmas. [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] >> live events to tell you about for today on c-span3. the state department special representative for pakistan and afghanistan testifies about u.s.-pakistan relations and u.s. diplomacy in the region. you will have live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then puerto rico's governor talks about his territories economy and its $70 billion of debt. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern. later, federal reserve chairman janet yellen holds a news conference to talk about the economy and u.s. monetary policy at 2:30 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3.

>> abigail fillmore was the first are slaty to work outside the home. private school and successfully lobbied congress for funds to create the first white house library. and eisenhower's hairstyle level of pink created a fashion sensation. andas marketed as a color stores a sold clip on bangs eager to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association. a young actress who saw her name mistakenly on a blacklist of sis active communist sympathizers in the 1940's. she appealed to the screen actors guild had ronald reagan for help and later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of 35 iconic american women." it makes a great gift for the holidays, giving readers a look

into the personal lives of every first lady in american history, stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. share the stories of america's first lady's for the holidays. c-span's book "first lady's" is available as a hardcover or e-book from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. be sure to order your copy today. >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton talks about her strategy for trying to prevent terrorist groups such as isis from recruiting in the u.s.. her remarks come nearly two weeks after two isis inspired terrorists killed 14 people in san bernardino, california. this is clinton was also critical of donald trump and senator ted cruz. she spoke in minneapolis, minnesota. e spoke in minneapolis, minnesota. >> thank you, everybody. today it's my pleasure to introduce hillary clinton. you may have heard of her. [laughter]

>> she's running for president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> hillary's running for president to make the economy work for everyone. not just those at the top. she's running to make our democracy work for everyone, not just the special interests. she's also running to be commander in chief, to keep america strong and american families safe and secure. as we all know, maybe too well, there are a lot of people running for president this year. [laughter] >> but hillary is the only candidate who has the strength, wisdom and experience to be commander in chief. the recent attacks in paris and san bernardino reminded us that we find ourselves at a very dangerous and complicated world.

we're in a global fight against extremist forces who use advanced technology and communications to orchestrate terror attacks and strike fear in free and peaceful people. so, as we all know, the stakes are high. and we need a president who's up to the job. hillary will not need on-the-job training. as secretary of state, she led the charge to restore america's leadership of the world. she spearheaded a global sanctions coalition, and she -- excuse me. she did more here. [laughter] >> she spearheaded a global sanctions coalition against iran that spurred the agreement that will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, she brokered a ceasefire between israel and hamas, while championing human rights around the world.

and she recommended to president obama, in the situation room, that he authorized the mission to bring osama bin laden to justice. she has been the only candidate in the race to lay out a specific and comprehensive plan to defeat isis in every place that it presents a threat. in the middle east, around the world, and, yes, here at home. now she comes to minnesota, and may i thank her for coming to this wonderful university of hours. [cheers and applause] >> she's here to give more details on the last part of her plan, protecting america's homes, schools, houses of worship and businesses from domestic radicalization and foreign extremists. i have known hillary for a long

time. there is no one i trust more to sit in the oval office. so please join me in welcoming the next president of the united states, hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: thank you, thank you. thank you. thank you all very much. thank you. thank you. i'm delighted, delighted to be here at this great university. one of the premier public institutions of higher education in our entire country. yes. indeed. [applause]

ms. clinton: just, you know, one of those statements of fact that deserves a response. i want to thank my long-time friend, vice president mondale, for his kind words. his support in this campaign means a great deal to me personally, because i admire so much his service to our country. he is a great minnesotan and a great american and we're so privileged to have him with us today. [applause] ms. clinton: i want to acknowledge a few of the other elected officials who are here. i am delighted to be joined by former colleagues and friends amy klobuchar and al franken who are the dynamic duo for your

state, and i am grateful to them for everything they are doing and their support of my campaign. i want to thank tina smith and steve simon, your secretary of state. [applause] ms. clinton: and i understand betsy hodges is here, mayor of minneapolis. [applause] ms. clinton: i also want to acknowledge the dean of the humphrey school, eric schwartz. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: eric was my top adviser on refugee issues at the state department. i also had the great privilege of working with him when he was on the national security council during my husband's administration.

you know, he brings a mix of expertise and empathy that has been conspicuously missing from much of our public debate. and i'm grateful that he is here today, but i'm also a little jealous that all of you here at the university get to have the benefit of his experience. over the past several months, i have listened to the problems that keep american families up at night. most people don't expect life to be easy, but they want more security, a good-paying job that lets you afford a middle-class lifestyle, health care you can count on, a little bit put away for your retirement. being secure also means being safe, safe at home, at school, at work. and today, i want to talk about

how we keep our country safe from a threat that's on everyone's mind, the threat of terrorism. but i want to begin by saying, we cannot give in to fear. we can't let it stop us from doing what is right and necessary to make us safe and doing it in a way that is consistent with our values. [applause] ms. clinton: we cannot let fear push us into reckless action that ends up making us less safe. americans are going to have to act with both courage and clarity. now, as we all know, on december 2, two shooters killed 14 people at a holiday party in san bernandino, california.

sadly, in america, in 2015, turning on the news and hearing about a mass shooting is not unusual. but this one turned out to be different. because these killers were a husband and wife inspired by isis. americans have experienced terrorism before. on 9/11, we learned that terrorists in afghanistan could strike our homeland from fort hood to chattanooga to the boston marathon, we saw people radicalized here carrying out deadly attacks. but san bernandino felt different. maybe it was the timing coming so soon after the paris attacks. maybe it was how random it seemed. a terrorist attack in a suburban office park, not a high-profile

target or symbol of american power. it made us all feel it could have been anywhere at any time. the phrase "active shooter" should not be one we have to teach our children. but it is. [applause] ms. clinton: now we are all grappling with what this means for our future, our safety, our sense of well-being and our trust and connections with our neighbors. we want to be open-hearted. and we want to celebrate america's diversity, not fear it. and while we know the overwhelming majority of people here and around the world hate

isis and love peace, we do have to be prepared for more terrorists plotting attacks. just yesterday, a man in maryland was charged with receiving thousands of dollars from isis for use in planning an attack. and here in minnesota, authorities have charged 10 men with conspiring to provide material support to isis. but in the twin cities, you have also seen firsthand how communities come together to resist radicalization. local imams condemning terrorists and local activists pushing back against propaganda. i met with a group of community leaders who told me about some of the work and the challenges that they are dealing with.

as the sirs somali police sergeant in minnesota and probably in the country, said recently, safety is a shared responsibility, so we have to work together. the threat we face is daunting, but america has overcome big challenges many times before. throughout our history, we've stared into the face of evil and refuse to blink. we beat fascism, won the cold war, brought osama bin laden to justice. so no one should underestimate the determination of the american people. and i'm confident we will once again choose resolve over fear. [applause]

ms. clinton: and we will defeat these new enemies just as we have defeated those who have threatened us in the past because it is not enough to contain isis, we must defeat isis, and not just isis, but the broader radical jihadist movement that also includes al qaeda and offshoots like al-shabaab in somalia. waging and winning this fight will require serious leadership. but fortunately, our political debate has been anything but serious. we can't afford another major ground war in the middle east. that's exactly what isis wants from us. shallow slogans don't add up to a strategy. [applause]

promising to carpet-bomb until the desert glows doesn't make you sound strong, it makes you sound like you are in over your head. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: bluster and bigotry are not credentials for becoming commander in chief and it is hard to take seriously senators who talk tough but then hold up key national security nominations, including the top official at the treasury department responsible for disrupting terrorist financing. [applause] every day that's wasted on

partisan gridlock could put americans in danger. so, yes, we need a serious discussion and that's why in a speech last month before the council on foreign relations, i laid out a three-part plan to defeat isis and the broader extremist movement. one, defeat isis in the middle east by smashing its strong hold by killing its leaders and infrastructure from the air and intensifying support for local forces who can pursue them on the ground. second, defeat them around the world by dismantling the global network of terror that supplies radical jihadists with money, arms, propaganda and fighters. and third, defeat them here at home by foiling plots, disrupting radicalization and hardening our defenses.

now these three lines of effort reinforce one another. so we need to pursue them all at once using every pillar of american power. it will require skillful diplomacy to continue secretary kerry's efforts to encourage political reconciliation in iraq and political transition in syria, enabling the sunnis and kurdish fighters to take on isis on both sides of the border and get our arab and turkish partners to step up and do their part. it will require u.s. and allied air pour by strikes biplanes and drones with proper safeguards. it will require special operations units to advise and train local forces and conduct key counterterrorism missions. what it will not require is tens

of thousands of american combat troops. that is not the right action for us to take in this situation. so there is a lot to do. and today, i want to focus on the third part of my plan, how we defend our country and prevent radicalization here at home. we need a comprehensive strategy to counter each step in the process that can lead to an attack like the one in san bernandino. first, we have to shut down isis' recruitment in the united states, especially online. second, stop would-be jihadists from getting training overseas and stop foreign terrorists from coming here. third, discover and disrupt plots before they can be carried out. fourth, support law law

enforcement officers who risk their lives to prevent and respond to attacks. and fifth, empower our muslim-american communities who are on the front lines of the fight against radicalization. [applause] ms. clinton: this is a 360-degree strategy to keep america safe. and i want to walk through each of the elements from recruitment to training, to planning, to execution. first, shutting down recruitment. we have to stop jihadists from radicalizing new recruits in social media and chat rooms and what's called the dark web. to do that, we need stronger relationships between washington, silicon valley and all of our great tech companies and entrepreneurs. american innovation is a

powerful force and we have to put it to work defeating isis. that starts with understanding where and how recruitment happens. our security professionals need to more effectively track and analyze ayesis' social posts and map networks and they need help from the tech community. companies should redouble their efforts to maintain and enforce their own service agreements and other necessary policies to police their networks, identifying extremist content and removing it. now, many are already doing this and sharing those best practices more widely is important. at the state department, i started an interagency center to combat violence jihadist

messages to have a better way to communicate on behalf of our values and to give young people drawn to those messages an alternative narrative. we recruited special lifts, fluent in urdu and somali to wage online battles with the extremists. these efforts have not kept pace with the threat, so we need to step up our game in partnership with the private sector and credible moderate voices outside of government. that is just somewhat what we have to do. experts from the f.b.i., the intelligence community, state department and the technology industry should work together to develop a unified national strategy to defeat isis in cyberspace using all of our

capabilities to denny jihadists virtual territory just as we work to denny them actual territory. at the same time, we have to do more to address the challenge of radicalization, whatever form it takes. it's imperative that the saudis, the kuwaitis and others stop their citizens from supporting madrasas and mosques around the world once and for all. and that should be the top priority in all of our discussions with these countries. second, we have to prevent isis recruits from training abroad and prevent foreign jihadists from coming here. most urgent is stemming the flow from fighters from europe and iraq and syria and then back home again. the united states and our allies needs to know the identities of every fighter who makes that

trip and then share information with each other in real-time. right now, european nations don't always alert each other when they turn away a suspected extremist at the border or when a passport is stolen. they have to dramatically improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation. and we're ready to help them do that. we also need to take down the network of enablers who help jihaddists finance and facilitate their travel, forge documents and evade detection. and the united states and our allies should commit to revoke the passports and visas of jihadists who have gone to join isis or other groups and bring the full force of the law against them. as i have said before, united states has to take a close look at our visa programs and i'm glad the administration and

congress are stepping up scrutiny in the wake of san bernandino. and that should include scrutinizing applicants' social media postings. we also should dispatch more homeland security agents to high-risk countries to better investigate visa applicants. for many years, america has waived visa requirements with reliable procedures, including key allies in europe and asia. that makes sense, but we also have to be smart. except for limited exceptions like diplomats and aid workers, anyone who has traveled in the past five years to a country facing serious problems with terrorism and foreign fighters should have to go through a full visa investigation no matter where they're from. we also have to be vigilant in

screening and vetting refugees from syria, guided by the best judgment of our security and diplomatic professionals. rigorous vetting already takes place while refugees are still overseas. and it's a process that historically takes 18-24 months. but congress needs to provide enough resources to ensure we have sufficient personnel deployed to run the most thorough possible process. and just as importantly, we cannot allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values and our humanitarian obligations. [applause]

turning away orphans, applying a religious test that discriminates against muslims, slamming the door on every single syrian refugee, that is not who we are as americans. we are better than that. [cheers and applause] it would be a cool irony indeed if isis can force families from their homes and also prevent them from finding new ones. so after rigorous screening, we should welcome families fleeing syria, just as the twin cities

and this state have welcomed previous generations of refugees, exiles and immigrants. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: of course the key is to prevent terrorists from exploiting our compassion and endangering our security, but we can do this. and i think we must. third, we have to discover and disrupt jihadists' plots before they can be carried out. this is going to take better intelligence, collection analysis and sharing.

i proposed an intelligence surge against isis that includes more operations officers and linguists. enhancing our surveillance of overseas' targets, flying more reconnaisance missions to track terrorist movements and developing closer partnerships with other intelligence services. president obama recently signed the u.s.a. freedom act which was passed by a bipartisan majority in congress. it protects civil liberties while maintaining capabilities that our intelligence and law enforcement officers need to keep us safe. however, the new law is under attack from presidential candidates on the left and right. some would strip away counterterrorism tools even with appropriate judicial and congressional oversight and others seem to go back to discredited practices of the past.

i don't think we can afford to let either view prevail. now, encryption of mobile devices and communications does present a particularly tough problem with important implications for security and civil liberties. law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals warned that impen trenable encryption may make it harder to prevent future attacks. on the other hand, there are very legitimate worries about privacy, network security and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can exploit. i know there is no magic fix to this dilemma that will satisfy all these concerns, but we can't just throw up our hands. the tech community and the government have to stop seeing each other as adverse sears and start working together to keep us safe from terrorists. and even as we make sure law

enforcement officials get the tools they need to prevent attacks, it's essential that we also make sure that jihadists don't get the tools they need to carry out attacks. it defies common sense that republicans in congress refuse to make it harder for potential terrorists to buy guns. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. and we should insist -- [cheers and applause] we should insist on comprehensive background checks and close loopholes that allow potential terrorists to buy online or at gun shows and i think it's time to ban assault weapons and high-capacity

magazines! [cheers and applause] i know that this will drive some of our republican friends a little crazy. you'll probably hear it tonight. they will say that guns are a totally separate issue. i have news for them. terrorists use guns to kill americans and i think we should make it a lot harder for them to do that ever again! [cheers and applause] and there's a question they should be asked, why don't the republican candidates want to do that?

you see, i have this old-fashioned idea that we elect a president in part, in large part, to keep us safe from terrorists, from gun violence, from whatever threatens our families and communities and i'm not going to let the gun lobby or anyone else tell me that that's not the right path for us to go down! [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: the fourth element in my strategy is supporting law enforcement officers who risk their lives to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. in san bernandino, city, county, state and federal authorities acted with speed and courage to prevent even more loss of life. detective lazano, a 15-year police veteran assured terrified

civilians, i'll take a bullet before you do. there is no limit to the gratitude we owe to law enforcement professionals like that detective who run toward danger to try to save lives. and not just in the immediate wake of an attack, emergency responders will keep putting their lives on the line long after the cameras move on. it is disgraceful that congress has failed to keep faith with first responders who are feeling the lasting effects of 9/11. many of them were men and women i was so proud to represent as a senator from new york. zadroga 9/11 health act.

it looks like majority leader mcconnell may have dropped his opposition. and i hope the american people will hold him to that and we will continue to honor the service and sacrifice of those who responded to the worst terrorist attack in our history. we have to make sure that local law enforcement has the resources and training they need to keep us safe. and they should be more closely synced with national counterterrorism experts like fusion centers that serve as clearinghouses for intelligence and coordination. and we need to strengthen our defenses and wherever we are vulnerable whether it is shopping malls or higher profile targets like railways or airports. we have to build on the progress

of the obama administration in locking down loose nuclear materials and other w.m.d. so they never fall into the hands of terrorists who seek them actively around the world. so we can be providing the department of homeland security with the resources it needs to stay one step ahead, not trying to privatize key functions like t.s.a., as some republicans have proposed. and it's important for us to recognize that when we talk about law enforcement, we have made progress in being sure that our federal authorities share information with our state and local authorities, but that was an issue i tackled after 9/11, and we have to stay really vigilant so that information is in the hands where it needs to be. finally, the fifth element in the strategy is empowering muslim american communities on are on the front linings in the

fight against radicalization. there are millions of peace-loving american muslims living, working, raising families, paying taxes in our country. [applause] these americans may be our first, last and best defense against home-grown radicalization and terrorism. they are the most likely to recognize the insidious effects of radicalization before it's too late, intervene to help set a young person straight. they are the best position to block anything going forward. that's why law enforcement has worked so hard since 9/11 to buildup trust and strong relationships within muslim-american communities.

here in the twin cities, you have an innovative partnership that brings together, parents, teachers, imams with law enforcement, nonprofits, local businesses, mental health professionals and others, to intervene with young people who are at risk. it's called the building community resilience pilot program and it deserves increased support. it has not gotten the financial resources that it needs to do everything that the people involved in it know they can do and we have got to do a better job of supporting it. [applause] i know that like many places across the country there is more work to do to increase trust

between communities and law enforcement. just last month, i know here, adown african-american man was fatally shot by a police officer and i understand an investigation is under way. whatever the outcome, tragedies like this raise hard questions about racial justice in america and put at risk efforts to build the community relationships that help keep us safe from crime and from terrorism. when people see that respect and trust are two-way streets, they are more likely to work hand in-in hand with law enforcement. one of the mothers of the 10 men recently charged with conspiring, the terrorists said, we have to stop the denial, she told other parents that. we have to talk to our kids and work with the f.b.i. that's a message we need to hear from leaders within muslim-american communities

across our country. but we also want to highlight the successes in muslim-american communities, and there are so many of them. i just met with the first somali-american member of the city council here -- [applause] ms. clinton: he was proudly telling me how much change somali immigrants, now muslim-americans have made in parts of the city and neighborhoods that have been pretty much hallowed out. let's look at the successes. if we are going to fully integrate everyone in america, we need to be seeing all their chiropractics, too. -- all of their contributions,

too. and that is one of the many reasons why we must all stand up against offensive, inflammatory, hateful anti--muslim rhetoric. [cheers and applause] you know, not only do these comments cut against everything we stand for as americans, they are also dangerous. as the director of the f.b.i. told congress recently, anything that erodes trust with muslim-americans makes the job of law enforcement more difficult. we need every community invested in this fight, not alienated and sitting on the sidelines. one of the community leaders i

met with told me that a lot of the children in the community are now afraid to go to school. they're not only afraid of being perceived as a threat, they are afraid of being threatened because of who they are. this is such a open-hearted and generous community, i hope there will be even more efforts perhaps under the egis of the university and governor dayton and others to bring people together to reassure members of the community, particularly children and teenagers that they are welcome, invited and valued here in this city and state. [applause]

trump's proposal to ban all muslims from entering the united states has rightly sparked outrage across our country and around the world, even some of the other republican candidates are saying he's gone too far. but the truth is, many of those same candidates have also said, disgraceful things about muslims. and this kind of divisive rhetoric actually plays into the hands of terrorists. it alienates partners and undermines moderates. we need around the world in this fight against isis. you know, you hear a lot of talk from some of the other candidates about coalitions. everyone seems to want one. [laughter] ms. clinton: but there isn't

nearly as much talk as it is to build a coalition and make it work. i know how hard it is. insulating potential allies doesn't make it any easier. [cheers and applause] -- insulting potential allies doesn't make it any easier. [cheers and applause] demonizing muslims makes it that much harder. the united states is at war with islam. as both the pentagon and the f.b.i. have said in the past week, we cannot in any way lend credence to that twisted idea. this is not a clash of civilizations. this is a clash between civilizations and barbarism and that's how it must be seen and fought. [applause]

some will tell you that our open society is a vulnerability in the struggle against terrorism. i disagree. i believe our tolerance and diversity are at the core of our strengths. at a nationalization ceremony for new citizens today in washington, president obama noted the tension throughout our history between welcoming or rejecting the stranger, it is, he said, about the meaning of america, what kind of country do we want to be. and it's about the capacity of each generation to honor the creed as old as our founding, e pluribus unum. out of many, we are one. president obama's right. and it matters.

it's no coincidence that american muslims have long been better integrated and less susceptible to radicalization than muslims in less welcoming nations. and we cannot give in to demagogue who play on our basic -- basis instincts and rely on the principles written into our american d.n.a., freedom, equality, opportunity. america is strongest when all our people believe they have a stake in our country and our future, no matter where they're from, what they look like, who they worship or who they love. our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. as george washington put it. the united states gives to bigotry no sanctions, to persecution, no assistance. so to all of our muslim american brothers and sisters, this is your country, too. and i'm proud to be your fellow american.

[applause] ms. clinton: and i want to remind us, particularly our that georgeriends, w. bush was right. six days after 9/11, he went to a muslim community center and here's what he said. those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of america, they represent the worst of humankind and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

[applause] ms. clinton: so if you want to see the best of america, you need look no further than army captain khan. he was born in the united arab emirates and moved to maryland as a small child. he later graduated from the university of virginia, before enlisting in the united states army. in june, 2004, he was serving in iraq. one day while his infantry unit was guarding the gates of their base, a suspicious vehicle appeared. captain khan told his troops to get back, but he went forward. he took 10 steps towards the car before it exploded.

captain khan was killed, but his unit was saved by his courageous act. captain khan was awarded the bronze star and purple heart. he was just 27 years old. we still wonder what made him take those 10 steps, khan's father said in a recent interview. maybe that's the point he went on, where all the values, all the service to country, all the things he learned in this country kicked in. it was those values that made him take those 10 steps, those 10 steps told us we did not make a mistake in moving to this country, his father finished. as hard as this is, it is time to move from fear to resolve. it's time to stand up and say we

are americans. we are the greatest nation on earth, not in spite of the challenges we face, but because of them. americans will not buckle or break. we will not turn on each other or turn on our principles. we will pursue our enemies with unyielding power and purpose. we will crush their would-be caliphate and counter radical jihadism wherever it tax root. -- takes root. we are in it for the long haul and we will stand taller and stronger then they can possibly imagine. that's what we do here. that's who we are. that's how we will win, by looking at one another with respect, with concern, with commitment. that's the america that i know makes us all so proud to be a part of.

thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] >> on our next "washington journal," we will get your reaction to tuesday nights gop debate and talk to debbie dingell. we will give you an update on the funding deadline, the federal budget, and dismissed the terrorism. then we will get the spending bill and federal budget, the new jersey republican law to talk about the fight against isis, and the 2016 presidential race. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation by phone, facebook, and twitter. week is authors week on the washington journal, with the future nonfiction author monday through friday in a one-hour conversation with you. starting monday, december 21 at

9:00 a.m. eastern, former missouri state senator jeff smith on mr. smith goes to prison. tuesday, constitutional attorney john whitehead on his talk "battlefield america: the war on the american people." university of georgia law professor is our guest on wednesday, a december 23, talking about her book "how the other half banks." at 8:30 a.m. eastern on thursday, december 24, political scholar matthew green joins us to talk about "underdog politics: the minority party in the u.s. house of representatives." author,december 25, historian, and lecturer craig theley discusses "last act: final years in emerging legacy of ronald reagan."

be sure to watch over the washington journal" during authors week, starting december 21. c-span presents of the landmark cases, a guide to our landmark cases series, which was 12 historic supreme court decisions, including margaret versus madison, brown versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona, and roe versus wade. features cases" introductions, backgrounds, highlights, and the impact of each case, written by the veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro and published by c-span in cooperation with cases" isark available for $8.95 plus shipping. your copy today at c-span.org/landmarkcases.

next, the state department's special envoy for climate change talks about the international climate agreement reached over the weekend in paris. todd stern also took audience question at this one-hour event, hosted by the center for american progress. good morning, and welcome to the center for american progress. i and the executive vice president of external affairs, and i am thrilled to see all of you for this fantastic conversation. for years, the science has been clear for anyone who was willing to pay attention to it. unchecked, climate change poses major challenges to our society and the natural world. threatening the world's cities and infrastructure. food security, public health. and the survival of countless species. despite this very real and present danger, our congress has stood by and done almost nothing.

since 2011, the only legislation that congress has considered has been to stop action on climate change. promote highly polluting sources of energy, block funding on research, and even prevent the state department from working with other countries on solutions. fortunately, none of these bad ideas have become law. but while congress dithered, president obama got to work. in june 2013, the president announced his climate action plan, and in the 2 1/2 years since, we have seen bold and unprecedented leadership from the administration on the issue of climate change. they have taken steps to enhance efficiency, boost renewables, curb tailpipe emissions, and cut pollution from our power sector. as impressive as these accomplishments are, and they certainly are, we have also

known that climate change is not a problem that can be solved by the united states alone. we can lead, but others must follow. that is why since 2009, the state department has persistently and resolutely toiled to bill consensus toward -- build consensus toward a global agreement on climate change. that work was not done in isolation. over the past year, the french demonstrated remarkable diplomatic skills and the chinese and indians stepped up to the plate. the private sector, civil society, and officials from every government around the world worked hard and it paid off. on saturday, 195 countries came together in the spirit of cooperation and solidarity around an historic climate agreement that will reduce carbon pollution and make the world safer for our children and grandchildren. the paris agreement has been

characterized as ambitious, flexible, transparent. the world is already transitioning to greater clean energy use. this agreement establishes a strong foundation for that action that will accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy for the world. as the administration has worked toward this achievement, the center for american progress has been right there. thinking through the problems, identifying solutions, and focusing the public's attention. our work on the green climate fund identified the tremendous opportunity the fund creates and how to get it off the ground. our work on the legal form of the agreement is an excellent primer for those hoping to understand what types of international agreements need to be considered by the senate and which ones don't. our work on loss and damage list a path for how this important issue could be resolved.

and throughout the run up to paris, we were always thinking how do we increase the ambition? so many people from so many countries deserve recognition for the work that made this agreement possible. but there is one man who has been the face of the united states to the world on climate change since 2009. and no one in the united states deserves more credit than he does. todd stern's career boasts an impressive list of accomplishments from harvard law school to senior white house negotiator at the kyoto and buenos aires climate negotiations, to the senior role in the treasury and senate judiciary committee. not to mention his time here at the center for american progress as a senior fellow. todd is the lead u.s. negotiator , and we are so very pleased and honored to welcome him here for his first appearance after the paris agreement for a conversation with cap senior fellow, peter ogden.

please, todd stern, welcome to the stage, pete, please join us. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction, it is wonderful to have you here. >> thank you to everyone here, and to my old home. there was a point in time in washington where everybody who was a democrat had worked for either john or tony, and i actually worked for both of them. i also want to thank everybody at cap and everybody else who is involved and has been involved and engaged in the n.g.o. world. or in some other aspect of working on and pressing on action on climate change because i think that there was a huge amount of momentum around the world this year coming from n.g.o.'s in the u.s. and in ,urope, and around the world

coming from business, the french were really good at developing what they call the pillar four for the paris event. that channeled that kind of intense interest and activism and momentum. it was a really very different story if i think all the way back to kyoto where the business , was basically lined up hard against action. so it -- all of that i think played a part. so i start with the thank you to all of you who have been engaged and glad to be here. pete: maybe a good place to start would be to get your kind of perspective on what the key elements of the paris agreement are. then we can dig into that. and talk a little bit about what it was like on the ground for a couple weeks. todd: i think that we have -- that we have, in fact, a major historic agreement that is built on a number of elements. first of all, it's universal and lasting.

it's sort of a not kyoto. it's an agreement whose expectations and requirements and so forth apply to everybody. so we tried the kyoto model. the kyoto model was all obligations aimed at developing countries. and developing countries not really having to do anything. and that failed as matter of politics, but also as a matter of being able to substantively deal with the problem. universal and lasting. it sets us on a path of high ambition built on the so-called indc's, the targets that 186 countries had put forward before the paris talk started. there are five-year cycles, so countries will have to ratchet up the targets every five years , either on the basis that they put in a new target or if they are in the middle a longer target period they have to

review, and decide whether to increase at that time in light , of science and technology and so forth. or at least put forward a communication saying that they have looked and they are going to keep -- stay where they are for that period. five-year ratchets which we thought were really critical. there are strong goals in the agreement both goal of keep temperature rise to well below two degrees and trying to pursue efforts to hold the increase to 1.5. as well as essentially carbon neutrality or climate neutrality in the course of the century. strong ambition. third, strong new transparency regime we think is critical. this piece of the agreement is legally binding. and it applies to everybody. it's built on countries having to do inventories, having to report on the progress they are making toward their targets,

getting -- being subject to expert review and peer review. all built into a transparency system that applies to both developed and developing countries. really important. it enhances the focus more than has ever happened before. with a particular emphasis on both national planning, international cooperation, support from richer countries to poorer countries, and so forth. then i guess, we could have started here because this is quite fundamental to the agreement itself. the architecture of climate -- of the climate regime has changed. the core here is that of course there has to be differentiation of the agreement, but we have really insisted and pushed for years since you were running around at the state department, pete, for a differentiation regime that is built on essentially forward-looking rather than backward looking

approach with nationally determined activity based on capacity and circumstances at the core of it. rather than saying every country that is in this category, set up in 1992, is only expected to do x and developed countries are expected to do y. even if those countries are china or korea or singapore or the oecd countries now in that category. that doesn't make any sense. instead, we have essentially changed the architecture. then there are provisions on the financial assistance and technical assistance which we think are strong and balanced and those are the key elements. pete: one of the things you mentioned at the very end which is one of the -- one of the threads that's been spun way back starting in 2009 how to move forwards an arrangement in which the major economies are also not hung up or see an obstacle in setting a low-carbon

path. one which they think can be consistent with their own development priorities. do you feel like something is -- what's changed between 2009 when that was so hard to see and for countries to want to embrace to today when not only do they set that but they agreed to a system of ratcheting them in perpetuity. what do you think changed? todd: i think it's a really good question and it's going -- this is a question the answer to which will evolve with more reflection and more kind of review of what's actually happened. but i think i start the answer by saying that copenhagen, which is widely regarded as a massive failure, and definitely chaotic and failed in certain respects actually did very important things.

in copenhagen was the first time where -- we come in, the president gets elected. secretary clinton comes to the state and i come in with her. and we are catching a negotiation that's right in the middle because that negotiation was launched in bali in 2007. so it's a two-year negotiation, and we are jumping on to a moving train. that moving train basically still premised on the notion that you are going to fundamentally have -- have a real fundamental difference between the kinds of things that developed countries would do and the kind of things that developing countries would do. one side would be legally binding and economy wide, etc., and the other sort of do what you can as you can. and we came in with -- i have been through the wars in kyoto and buenos aries after that.

i have been working on climate continually. i have been through those wars. i continue to be involved in my capacity at c.a.p., as i was also practicing law. great, great, great many countries were just not prepared to have that basic kind of understanding that they thought that they had agreed to in bali where you would still have a kyoto like separation. the countries were not prepared for that to change. we came in and said at that time we are not going to do a legally binding agreement just for the developed countries. we'll consider the legally binding agreement if it's set up the right way, but not for just one side. not for us with leave china and

-- leaving china and all the others out. that roiled the waters a lot. the danes, who played a great hand all the way up to the last couple months, figured out early on that this was not going to be the treaty that people were expecting, because you weren't going to be able to get that. so they started to convert this whole notion quietly and bit by bit and in a way that -- started to talk about publicly. this would have to be agreement that would be politically binding but not legally binding and where at least the big players all did something. and that actually happened in the copenhagen accord. but there was -- not without a lot of broken crockery. there was huge upset. huge kind of violent reaction against being yanked out of the sold old system.

-- the old system. that started it. the old system wasn't kind of definitively surpassed at that point, but that started it. i think that then you sort of have years of negotiation by the mandate for this one was reached in durbin. there were two critical things in the durbin mandate. one was that the agreement was going to be applicable to all. they took that plunge that everybody was going to be in. in a way even well beyond what happened in copenhagen. and -- at the same time they got language in there that they felt protected them. it was going to be under the convention. it was going to be protected by the classic principles of common responsibilities and so forth. i think those things were quite critical. and then if you look at this agreement, there are still sort of protections from -- in terms of the way they would look at

it. we reached an important one line fix in the famous china, joint announcement with china in 2014 where we took that kind of differentiated responsibility sentence which doesn't automatically mean this, but it's traditionally read by countries to be these two categories, we added a few words in the negotiation that was a part of that short statement , which changed the formulation little bit to make it more forward-looking, more -- with more of a sense of evolution. that line then got dropped into the lima negotiation last year. it was a bit by bit, people getting more acclimated. and we were just -- we were just quite insistent about this for a long time.

people knew, i think, there would not be an agreement with the united states unless we move past that whole architecture. pete: you mentioned that one of the challenges was trying to figure out the right legal form that would allow you to make -- to secure those gains. maybe we can talk a little bit about, again, the diplomacy on the ground. just as a general matter, one of the issues that arose at the very end was the question of some language in the text and the question of what it would mean, the overall legal architecture of the agreement. can you speak a little bit to that? how you felt when you saw the text. todd: so the last draft of the text that we were supposed to be less iteration, i guess, came out around 1:30 on saturday, and

comes online to everybody's computers. we all started printing it out. i started reading it right away. i was the one who saw in article 4, paragraph 4, this word shall that wasn't supposed to be there. it was supposed to be a "shoul"" and it was a "shall." it was a paragraph we had worked on very carefully and we had worked on in concert with the french. we worked through -- shared our -- the language and had agreement with the chinese. and all previous drafts had in that pivotal word had always been the same. the word matters because basically shall means legally binding and means should not legally binding in the way the drafting of international agreements goes. somehow or other a gremlin got

into the french typewriters and computers and the word popped out. it is a very interesting mystery as to what happened, because somebody, somewhere in the french or secretariat system , decided to do that, because you don't auto correct from should to shall. the law of fabious, the president of negotiations, and key drafters we were very close to, didn't know anything about it. i saw -- i actually saw the word. secretary kerry was there. we called him right away. he had no idea it had happened. none of the key drafting people knew it had happened. but somebody, somewhere changed it. we couldn't actually go forward because that would have made this whole agreement legally binding for the united states. that for reasons that are probably obvious, that wouldn't have been so useful for us. but it was a genuine mistake.

and i think the chinese knew this and the french knew it. but on the floor -- i wasn't -- i wouldn't say i was deeply, deeply worried, but i was worried. but there was, at that point, such a sense in the room and there had been an earlier gathering in the plenary before the text came out. there was a broad feeling among developed and undeveloped countries that this would happen. i can't imagine it would fall apart over this, but there is a history of tremendous amount of distrust and skepticism in these negotiations. the notion everybody thought it was a mistake as opposed what did the u.s. do? what did they fix? it's not that easy, you have to get over that. then even the way -- these negotiations, this is a hardball environment.

even for people in many countries who are difficult, fair number of difficult countries may come as a shock to you, but there are, so for some of those negotiators, whether it was a mistake or not, it was there. it was an opportunity. ok, you want me to agree to let this be fixed? what am i going to get? that would have unraveled the whole thing because you wouldn't have been able to stop that. there was 90 minutes of a lot of hustling around, diplomacy right on the floor and the back rooms right around the french and around the big podium area to fix that. and ultimately we did. the french handled it. there was a lot of talking to a lot of people to explain what happened and quiet things down and to get the bolivians to talk

to the nicaraguans and chinese to you talk to the south africans. there's a lot of calming that had to be done. pete: you said at the end there again, the french sort of handled that moment well. sound like they handled a lot of moments well. i think they have got a -- for people -- it's one thing to say it was diplomatically skillful. that word can sort of be abstract to people. what does it mean to be -- are there moments when you thought, you know, this is really well played. the french are doing this right. this was smart. or you sort of were able to -- in a more concrete way that people can wrap their heads around. todd: yeah. i think that they certainly played that moment quite well. and once there was enough discussions had gone on and the proceedings resumed, they had a guy from the secretariat who has been there for a long time and

who is just the picture of a pure contract, just get up and read through like 10 little corrections. there was supposed to do, here. the opening lines and just read what was supposed to be. it went really quickly. seeing broad support in the room. the whole thing was over before anybody kind of knew it which was good. throughout the two weeks but also throughout the year they did a good job in having the

process feel open and inclusive. thatg countries a sense everybody was getting an opportunity to be heard. thatimes you have sessions feel like they are a waste of time. them.is a purpose to there were two sessions on wednesday and thursday that went on for hours, late in the night. a room with a gigantic square table. probably 85 countries around it. countries were just giving speeches. we've got things to do. what are we doing?

this is a waste of time. to do totually smart give people that sense of being included. they spent the entire day on friday having groups. the islands, the african countries, the less developed countries and so on. each one coming in to sit with fabius to say this is what we are concerned about. it was important substance that happened. they also give people a chance to be heard. this is an art not a science.

these kinds of negotiations. it is an odd kind of .nternational body there is a new conference of the parties meeting at the end of every year. the french know how to do it now but they're not doing it. the kind of mastered it but then they were done. then somebody else comes in and they don't have a clue as to what they're doing. there was an oddity in the way this process works. the other thing we would be youear about. abou were there for two weeks.

president was there for several days. it was all leading up to that moment. what was that theory of the case? stern: i should go back a , not to tutor on horn. it reflects that we had from the beginning. durban in 2011. it came out of the conference with this new mandate. form but not clear what the legal form would be. applicable to all. covering the various areas.

out that it wasn't very complicated to figure out that other countries and gotten it right away. you have to have a bottom-up structure where the countries would determine what their commitments were going to be. in kyoto, because it was very there., having been fundamentally it was a three cornered negotiation between the u.s. japan and the eu. the less developed countries were on the sides of that. it was a real negotiation. have negotiations like that. you have to have a bottom-up

structure. it was originally nationally determined commitments. you don't want to let countries off the hook easy. you're put pressure on countries to do their best. we came up with the idea of having a first-round intended to determine contributions. countries would have to be exposed to the sunlight. guys like you and other ngos and other analytic bodies. they are all going to say thumbs up thumbs down. pressure put on countries

reputational pressure. most countries care about that. moreu favored an actual involved assessment process. whether the proposed targets were good enough. there was no way the developing countries going to put up with that. we were, we have a pretty clear idea in our minds about the legal framework. not through any connivance on our part. new zealand put forward a proposal that was very constructive for mark warner to

the legal form of the agreements. the rules were legally binding about the target itself. a very useful construct. that also was something that we started to work on. it didn't get settled all the way to paris. everybody knows what is going and but they didn't want to quite say so. transparency was going to be key.

have you no countries are going to actually do what they say? is it binding in that sense? the answer is no. you can't possibly get agreement for that at this point. so is legally binding but not in the punitive way. these are all elements that inform the kind of core architecture of this agreement. this can visit unfair to think everybody has to do the same thing. everyone should have the capacity to affect in this area but in a way that doesn't impede their ability to grow. we had met this out pretty much from the beginning.

we had this forum that we started called the major economies forum. presidentorerunner of bush's meeting. i don't actually know what the real story was behind it. was, sort of thought it they had undergone a lot of criticism. some point along the way they want to put more positive face on activities. in the climate arena. is more or less the g20 minus three.

we gave it a new name and we gave them new mission. to help facilitate negotiations. used that. it is was no tremendously useful which has met three to six times a year. i wrote an article that called eighte creation of the ee . not that different from the 17th ended up in the major economies forum. having gone through kyoto in buenos aires, realizing that circus is not the place we can have intimate conversations about policy. we need to create that of the ministerial level.

the trust and intimacy built up i am rambling too long. itself you found the need for a new culture. i was getting is a broader strategy. we do the patient diplomacy over time. my team goes 34 times a year.

we came into the year with a 90 it wasmpilation text everything but the kitchen sink countries who want to make sure their own pet issues were included. everything was put into this huge ungainly thing. there were four meetings of the sub ministerial level. the first meeting didn't really change that text very much. the last meeting.

in october 19 to 23rd. one guy from the u.s., one guy from algeria. that is what we decided to go for the big move from the end gamely mass to a stripped-down and very short text that is about 10 pages for the agreement and another 10 pages for the company decision.

climate doesn't work that way. the going with this stripped-down text and there's an uproar in the meeting the g-7 really pull together the hardliners and pull together the whole meeting. even the progressive voices among the progressive developing countries were more or less silenced. it was very acrimonious just a month before paris.

is very much focused on retailing a coalition that the eu had pulled together at the time of durban. he worked a lot with the islands in the least developed countries. they had interesting perspectives that are often afferent from the others mission to get that coalition restarted.

to put the u.s. firmly in that coalition where we had always sort of been on the margins. and to show flexibility in certain areas different from what they've done all year. that gave rise to what became known as the high ambition coalition. in paris. it was enormously important tactically. various meetings along the way.

there were maybe 30 countries that were at this dinner including the u.s.. was very close ongoing collaboration and interaction of this coalition in the days that followed. including a press conference where eight or nine of us were up on stage. including the u.s. for the first time. the press conference room was completely packed. this was already big news. impact thehad a big midday plenary was on saturday.

they were walking through what was going to happen that day. there was basically a march from the meeting room to the u.k. this is a big big center. it's a long way. it just swells. there were a zillion cameras. people were cheering. it was an amazing moment. i think it was also moving moment and also tactically important. >> i know that we could continue

to unpack what happened for a long time. i want to just use the few remaining minutes to talk about what is to come. you probably have not had a lot of time to think about what is coming next. as you said, one of the successes of paris was because of the activity at the society of the private sector. they all had a big hand in his victory. if people start to think about beyond, what kind of questions do you think could benefit from more thought and investigation? stern: the first thing is that there will be a number of work,where further guidelines will be need to the put in place to implement and to

provide more detail to the things that were great too. the whole transparency regime. we had one real priority, which was to not allow the effort that was an actual explicit effort by a number of countries to have a supershort transparency section.

we got will needed and then some. you'll still need to do more than that. a lot of guidelines the need to get negotiated in those areas. it will be important to make sure that the world is still watching. and that ngos and others can be clear. making sure the press are looking the other way. people that are trying to call back. there we some number of areas in the international negotiations where we will need to do further

work. the next step will be to map out exactly what those areas are and what the plans are to carry them forward. will also true that there be a tremendous amount of what needs to happen now that needs to happen at a national level. levels.operatives bilaterally or multilateral. there is a ton of work to do get developing countries to help them develop an environment

that can attract investment. about financelk and these overly politicized negotiations you often get the response that we want to talk about the private sector and you all was said it is your fault. obviously there needs to be substantial public money. where are we on this? in terms of getting to that hundred billion dollars commitment. the oecd did a study and found that it was around 62 billion through 2014. about three quarters of that is

public money. it is not the case that public money isn't happening. that if you step back what all of this is about is transforming the global economy. that is what this game is. we have to combat climate change. the steps that need to be taken to make that possible are key and the capacity to get private sector financing flowing around the world is critical. that requires the right kind of investment in the countries around the world. you can see the countries are doing it. places isof all totally hardliners negotiations. including in those last minutes.

somewhere in the range of 20 to almost 50% renewable energy in about five years. they made certain regulatory legal changes where they were paying way too much for energy. they relied a lot on and other expensive stuff. they got religion now and they are going whole hog. because you put in a tariff. you put in changes that made it possible for countries to investors to actually depend on the purchase agreement as part

of the facility that is going. that is what. there are many countries where this is not true. the clean energy transformation the needs to happen. that will be very important to drive assistance for adaptation. initiative the prime minister mission innovation. bill gates had a very important role. premised on getting as many cleanies as we could

energy r&d within five years. gates having rounded up i think about 25 of his multibillionaire investor friends. in the outputvest of research and development. what exists is not enough to like this problem. transformational and inventions. we had investors ready to get

discoveries over the various death valley's that make it hard to go from discovery to commercialization. i was very excited about this development. we've created a framework for international action that is going to last is going to ratchet up every five years. that is now for the first time ever established. under the banner of this structure take action. >> we have a few more minutes here. and that todd will have to leave and start playing that game. i would love to be able to take

a couple of questions from the audience. if you could please just announce your name and your organization. >> there is no question that what you have negotiated is an extraordinary achievement. there's also talk that even if every country achieves the , nobody falls below time, we are still only getting half way of where we need to be. probably less than halfway if we are shooting for two degrees. what do you think the impact would be internationally if we were able in the united states and the next congress to elect or to enact a revenue neutral see on carbon emissions couple

adjustment tox give other countries the economic self-interest and incentive to do the same thing? would that get us where we need to be? stern: that we say couple of things. you are right to say that these agreements don't get us all the way there. i would note that the climate which is a very analytic body analyzing these issues. a year ago they projected that we were on the path to 3.6. october 1 they revise that to 2.7. two and evenom longer way away from 1.5 degrees but also a long way away from

3.6 degrees. i think that is very important. pricing carbon is a big big deal. we have implicit prices on carbon. the president try to get a real price on carbon back in the days of cap and trade. sunday that is going to happen. one would hope that it would happen sooner rather than later. the president has done what i is anby any assessment absolutely amazing job of driving forward change in this country on the basis of this legislation. the power sector. the vehicle sector. you can do more if you have congress. that is something our future. the sooner the future income the better.

i don't want to jump into that one. ideally isather see a world in which there was carbon pricing all over the place. whether it is priced at the right level or not. it probably won't be right away. i think that kind of thing probably will be important. we have to get as a virtuous circle where more action begets more action. the streethere economic case says you are going with clean

energy than the alternative. you didn't need legislation for computers to make typewriters obsolete. it was because it was a better cheaper product. >> i can't get agreement on my own dinner table and i'm amazed that you could get 195 countries to agree on what they had is much less something as complicated as this. did you have a team of psychologists working for you to figure out how to make people more constructive? was french wine involved? stern: we did not have

psychologists. we had some french wine, but is actually never the case that you get everyone to agree with you. , these are very contentious negotiations. it was striking to be sure. what you are doing is trying to to find the landing zone. to socialize those with enough important players.

there is never a combined moments. except maybe when the whole thing is done. everybody is relieved and pleased that something is happens. there seem tout be a lot of smiles at the end. i should spend some time trying how it all comes together. is a matter of countries evaluating their national interest in a hardheaded way. also the phenomenon of different negotiating styles.

generally developed countries don't tend to be this way. you definitely have some dynamic of the style where countries know they're going to get a lot less so when they don't get the moon they are not actually that disappointed. there's a lot of patient work that goes into it. nobody is so unhappy that people are prepared to block it. >> this was the store again would not have happened if not they are seven years of work. thank you so much for coming here today. thank you for joining us. we look forward to keeping the

fight going. [applause] [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] a few life events to tell you about for today on c-span3. a state department special representative for pakistan and afghanistan testifies about u.s.-pakistan relations and u.s. diplomacy in the region. we will have live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then puerto rico's governor

talks about his territory's economy and it's more than $70 billion in debt. live coverage from the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern. later, janet yellen holds a news conference to talk about the economy and u.s. monetary policy. that is our 2:30 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. >> attorney general lynch took part in a panel discussion on gender bias in law enforcement. she also announced new justice department guidelines from law enforcement handling sexual assault cases in their communities and within their departments. >> good morning, everyone. iis is a very good day, and am looking forward to hear from the ag andd the panel discussions.

my name is ron davis, and i of the director. i am trying to find out where i work. [laughter] it's my pleasure to call this meeting to order. it's also my distinct pleasure to introduce the attorney general who will be kicking off the meeting. ard,re i bring the ag on bo a little bit about her, if i may. she needs no introduction, but i think you should know that our attorney general, the 83rd of the united states, a lifelong prosecutor and has been an outstanding advocate for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, and recognizes the need to ensure that law enforcement responds without bias. she makes clear that these can and must be done with our local law enforcement, who work tirelessly to protect and serve our communities, as well as advocates who ensure that our

work is informed by the experience of survivors. one thing about this attorney general, she made it clear from day one that she wants to make strategic partnerships and work hand-in-hand with law enforcement, to make sure we are doing this in the best interest of this country. today is furthering that agenda. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in announcing the attorney general, the honorable loretta lynch. [applause] mrs. lynch: thank you, everyone have a seat. good morning. what a team, what a team. i'm so happy to be here. thank you for that introduction. i'm so pleased to be here today with so many of my colleagues from the department of justice who spent time working on this issue. you'll hear from them later.

we have our civil rights division, head of the office of violence against women, ryan davis. my warm-up act, so to speak. i did tell them not to sing so, you're welcome. [laughter] lynch: that particular trio should tell you the focus of the work we are all here to talk about today. not just live for instant, not just civil rights, but the focus on victims of domestic and sexual violence. it is important that all three of those thought processes, all three of those advocacy communities, all three of those issues be together at the table. i'm really happy to be here with all of you, because the fact that all if you have come here today for this important discussion is so important. you are the advocates. you are the dedicated law enforcement officers, community leaders that we lean on so much,

and that we need and that we t of thisave as par vital discussion about how the doj can help our state, our local, and our tribal partners, particularly our tribal partners, more effectively combat the scourge of sexual assault and domestic violence. those of you who work in the field do not need the statistics or the data or the information that we will be providing to let you know that sexual assault and domestic violence is a particularly heinous crime that impact longt and an after the initial impact of the blows, long after the violence. i think many of you also saw a recent studies that talks about the long-term adverse health consequences, even years after they escape situations involving domestic violence and sexual violence. the fact that that is often the only factor that can be

attributed to the increase of these health concerns for women. the physical and emotional trauma goes for years. there are consequences for the survivors, and we also know there are grave consequences for the loved ones, for children who are also victims, witnesses, and who also bear the psychological scars of domestic violence as well. we also know that this can in fact harm not just a woman, not just the child, but the entire family unit in the community. community is caught up in either supporting the family or supporting what seems to become a web of lies used to hide it conceal this violence. this eats away at the health, not just the physical health but the mental health, of everyone involved in this particular issue. the brunt ofalso

sexual violence and domestic violence is borne disproportionately by women and lgbt individuals, as i've noted, it harms us all. it weakens us all. it weakens the fabric of protection we tried to build around victims. it weakens the communities that we need to be strong and vibrant to protect all victims. as you will learn today, but i'm certainly happy to reinforce, the department of justice is committed to doing everything that it can to help prevent these crimes, to help investigate these crimes, and to help prosecute these crimes. that also includes working to ensure that our greatest partners in this effort -- the state, local, and tribal law enforcement leaders on we all rely -- have the necessary tools and training and resources that and need to fairly effectively address the allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence. not only do we know this is a

widespread problem, it is a problem that often hides in plain sight. it's a problem that often doesn't present as what it is, because victims are either unable or prevented from speaking up. a victim centered goal thatthat is the i believe everyone in this room holds, helps the victim to find a voice, but how do we train ourselves to recognize the victim all edgy and reach out to them? part of our ongoing effort, and in response to our many requests to our law enforcement partners, i am so pleased to announce that undo justice department guidance is designed to help state, local, and tribal agencies eliminate gender bias from their policing practices has been issued. this is the result of work, effort, and dedication from everyone in this room and beyond, all the organizations that you represent, and we thank

you so much for this contribution. as we know, sometimes this bias, whether implicit or explicit, can stand in the way of effective law enforcement and can severely undermine their ability to keep survivors safe and to hold the offenders accountable. for instance, we have seen situations where false assumptions about things like alcohol use or the physical strength of the victim's partner, or sexual orientation, can lead police officers to make judgments about the truthfulness or credibility of a survivor's account for the severity of the assault. these assumptions can be wrong. when this comes at the beginning of the case in particular, they can send the case into a spiral of ineffectiveness, and the victim back into a spiral of despair and pain. when that happens, justice is delayed and victims suffer, which is no one's goal. that will belines

discussed today were prepared in consultation with law enforcement organizations to best address their needs, and with the advocates who do such vital work in this area, who are really on the front lines of providing guidance and comfort to victims who often have no voice. it's designed to help combat bias. in a number of important ways contains guidelines for recognizing and addressing stereotypes and assumptions. it contains interview techniques that encourage victims to share critical information. it contains recommendations for gathering and using crime reporting statistics to inform an evidence-based and data driven strategy. isen together, this document a blueprint that law enforcement can follow if they develop victim centered, trauma informed approaches to handling cases of sexual assault and the mystic violence. we know that this approach can work. we have seen its impact before. one example.

, montana, after a 2013 investigation found that several local entities were failing to meet their legal responsibilities and responding to sexual assault complaints, we reached four agreements. these agreements were geared toward changing the community's collective practices and policies, and took extraordinary cooperation of the local police department. they have made tremendous strides. they are providing more comprehensive victim services. they are working to promote trust among members of the community. they are demonstrating that rela al and lasting progress can be made when we make it together. the guidance that we are announcing today is an important addition to a wide array of steps that the department is taking to assist our state and local and travel partners on issues of domestic and sexual violence. i'm tremendously proud of our

national institute of justice, our research arm. we are working to help law enforcement better understand and address sexual violence, with funding and research and .ata we provide grants and technical assistance in the way we handle these cases. the office of violence against women announced just today seven pilot jurisdictions that will receive funds and technical assistance through the sexual assault justice initiative. it's designed to bolster the response at the state and local level. september, i was tremendously proud to join vice president joe biden to announce that we will be offering $41 million in grants to 20 jurisdictions to help them

eliminate, eliminate or reduce backlogs in untested sexual assault kits. but of course without the evidence, we can't build the cases. these are tremendously important initiatives, and the department is committed to continuing to support them, but of course we still have a great deal more work to do. every time a victim is afraid to come forward, every time a young lgbt teenager contemplates suicide as opposed to seeking help, every time a child witnesses their parent either inflect or be the victim of violence is a step that we have to acknowledge and take as a responsibility on all of us to find and address these situations. i want you to know that in all of our efforts, the justice department is committed to working alongside professionals like all of you, assembled here today. from the law enforcement

officers who were the first to feel the complaint and investigate the crime, to the service providers who work so tirelessly to help these survivors heal, and to the public officials who are tasked with creating stronger and safer neighborhoods. you know your community's best, and the department of justice relies on you. we need you to tell us what challenges you face, what trends you are seeing, and what assistance you need. and we are ready to offer that assistance. together, we can ensure that survivors get the support that they need. thather, we can ensure justices faithfully served. together, we can ensure that everyone who has ever lived in fear in their own home can walk out of the door and stand in the sunlight. that is my commitment to you on behalf of the department of justice and as the attorney general of the united states.

i thank you, all of you, for coming here today, and for all the work you have done that led you to this moment. this is a great moment. we are going to seize it. we are going to move forward, and we are going to help people. thank is a very, very much. [laughter] [applause] >> i was given the daunting task of following our attorney general. we have a lot of good coming forth. i want to thank the attorney general for her words that are always inspiring and always energizing. her leadership at the department of justice and her unwavering dedication has simply been

astounding, and she takes very seriously our commitment to protecting our most vulnerable citizens from harm. it's a pleasure to join you all this morning. i feel like i know almost all of you in the room. as the attorney general andlighted, gender bias stereotypes combined with misinformation about sexual assault and domestic violence can have a devastating impact on all stakeholders across society. from victims seeking protection to police officers investigating crime to prosecutors administering justice. in order to collectively advance hat type of victims -- tah is so vital to protecting safety, we need to proactively identify and address harmful stereotypes based on gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or race. we also need to recognize and address the unique harm that survivors experience at the intersection of discrimination on the basis of race and gender,

, because in america we guarantee equal justice dignity, and fairness for all people, regardless of what they look like, who they love, and with which gender they identify. today that simple but unwavering theef continues to find vibrancy of our nation. you just heard from the attorney general about the justice department's investigation in montana. there are folks in this room who helped lead that investigation. i want to briefly illustrate the troubling trends we discovered there with ted examples that i think really show why the leadership from that department has been so incredible, and why we see such a transformation over the last two years as a result of their leadership and work. wereotypes about women, as all know, and misinformation about actual assault prevented the police from completing their investigations, and in one instance we found a female

student who told the police officer that while intoxicated her assailant held her up like a sack of flour. as she resisted and eventually fell over. of detective omitted many these key details from the report and concluded that the assault was largely voluntary, and identified a primary event as suspicious activity. in another disturbing report, two officers responded to an assault in a residence hall, used the term "regretted sex" within your shot, assessing her credibility before conducting an investigation. this diminish the likelihood from the outset that she or other sexual assault survivors would be willing to participate in the prosecution of their cases. these stories illustrate the consequences that can result when law enforcement don't have the guidance or tools they deserve in responding to reports of sexual assault.

without established protocols and conference of training in place, gender stereotypes and bias can undermine the quality of investigations. but the agreement that we reached really demonstrates the promise and potential for meaningful reform. when law enforcement agencies collaborate and coordinate with the communities that they serve. the leadership of many law enforcement officials in this room and beyond around the country demonstrates the shared and dedicated commitment to preventing and responding more effectively to sexual assault in the mystic violence. i will say again that the leadership that has been demonstrated by the police department and in the community really serves as a guide for the nation. while still a work in progress, it has inspired all of us to share that story in rooms where we are talking about these issues. aday's guidance marks critical step toward helping state and local law enforcement agencies across the country intoporate key principles

clear policies, conference of training, and effective supervision measures to more effectively rechecked victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. these principles include utilizing interview tactics that encourage a victim to participate, replacing prejudiced statements that assume what happened with open-ended questions to learn what occurred. they advised police officers to adopt a victim centered approach that addresses the medical, emotional, and safety needs of the victim, including referrals to appropriate services. they urged law enforcement agencies to train their officers and recognized the potential abusers to report domestic violence complaints preemptively, portraying themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. these principles along with several others outlined in today's guidance are illustrated with case examples that reflect lessons learned and feedback we heard from all of you, from folks outside the room, from advocates, from service providers, those on the front lines of this work, as well as

from the settlement that we reached with police departments and civil rights divisions. onlowing each of these cases array of stakeholders from law enforcement leaders to the civil rights advocates to service providers, really requested the justice department issue detailed guidance. survivors,e of you, law enforcement leaders, service providers, advocates, because you raise your voices, because you let the productive conversations about this very complex challenge that we are because you contributed thoughtful and innovative ideas, today we are taking a very significant step toward preventing the kind of sexual assault and domestic violence that deserves no place in the civil society. i applaud each of you for your steadfast efforts, and i commend you for your leadership on this vital work. we are going to be relying on you to help push this out to generate conversations in rooms all over the country like this one, and i'm deeply grateful for

the partnership that we have had with this important initiative. we have heard from all of you recently at a convening where we got a lot of input into the guidance and what will be most useful to support law enforcement as they do their very difficult jobs in the field every day, as we incorporate that. many of you are in this room -- we are grateful for that input. i look forward to all that we will be able to achieve on this front to protect all the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in the future. thank you so much. [applause] >> thanks. i had at the office on violence against women, and i am also intimidated to be up here with the attorney general. she said it all, and i am so

thankful for her leadership and for making sure that the guidance came to fruition. i also want to thank the needy group t my partners in this. hashigh point of my office been forging these true partnerships between the civil rights division, and really working with the extraordinary staff of the civil rights division. also it's an honor to join all of you that are here today, distinguished panelists and guests here this morning. the passage of the violence against women' act, we have worked to improve the reponse . over the past 20 years, vital funding has yielded dramatic results in many jurisdictions across the country. this transformed the way communities respond to sexual assault and a mystic violence.

and providerst are working together as never before. we now have specialized law enforcement and prosecution units and improved training for police, prosecutors, and judges. today we have pioneering interventions and innovations such as enhanced offender training, domestic violence court, and the use of evidence-based lethality assessment to curb domestic violence homicides. the justice department and are the partners elsewhere should be rightfully proud of all our compliments that we have made. we also know that our progress has been uneven and in many communities they still struggle. if you've already heard this morning, the civil rights division has engaged in groundbreaking use of their authority to hold j jurisdictions accountable. while the civil rights divisions

investigations have exposed how gender bias can undermine police response to sexual assault and domestic violence, these investigations have also paved the way to progress and reform. collaborations between law enforcement and victim service providers and advocacy organizations and other promising practices can create meaningful change in both law enforcement as well as their communities as a whole. for our many partnerships and state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, the civil and theivision, ovw, cops recognize that we are seeking assistance in support to improve response to domestic violence and sexual assault. the guidance being issued today is intended to reflect a further our partnerships who are dedicated to policing in a way that is free from bias. to support them in keeping their communities as a, it also reflects our partnerships with

advocates and service providers to make sure we here the voices of survivors. we will hear from our panelists about houthis guidance can be implemented on the ground, and promising practices they see in the field. i want to thank them for their advice they provided to the department. i also want to thank those of you in the audience who attended the roundtable discussion we had this summer that was cohosted by cops and the police executive research forum to review and discuss the draft. insight, criticism, and experience were invaluable in creating this final document. before turning the discussion to the panel, i would like to briefly share with you the eight fundamental principles to prevent gender bias in policing. i realized that they may seem elementary to many of you, and indeed these principles are only a starting point for police department who are lookings to strengthen their policies and

training. i will run through them quickly. one, to recognize and address biases, assumptions, and stereotypes about victims. two, treat all victims with respect and employ interviewing tactics that encourage a victim to participate and provide facts about the incident. three, investigate sexual assault or domestic violence complaints thoroughly and effectively. four, appropriately classify reports of sexual assault and domestic violence. five, refers victims to appropriate services. six, properly identify the assailant in domestic violence incidents. officers who commit sexual assault or domestic violence accountable. maintain, review, and act upon data regarding sexual assault industry violence. what these guidelines ask of us is to continue and to deepen our

relationship the between law enforcement and advocates, between all members of our communities. i want to thank all of you for your commitment in supporting victims, holding offenders accountable, and keeping our communities safe. i look forward to continuing that partnership, identifying and testing promising practices through projects such as the new sexual assault justice initiative that the attorney general announced, and showing that funding provides communities with resources and technical assistance as they work to improve their response to sexual assault and domestic violence. together we can truly address this with sensitivity, expertise, collaboration, and justice. thank you. [applause] >> we are about ready to start the panel, but i want to share a couple words with you. myaddition to being --

background is 30 years of law enforcement. we took this up last august, when we convened with the police executives, and i saw all the law enforcement officers and we sort of talking about the issue. i have a confession to make. i sat there and i started thinking about my response to sexual assault victims and to domestic violence and to a lot of the issues we are talking about, 30 years of the law enforcement, thinking about what i missed. i started thinking about the judgment calls i made and how counterproductive they probably were. those were the times, and there are so many lessons learned that there is no excuse. for me, this is a reconciliation. i can correct that by making sure that the field understands the impact that it has. i think back to my 30 years, and i have to start with an apology.

to apologize for how we have how we havend allowed these stereotypes and biases to inform our decisions. i really want to thank bonita for the way she did it. my field is a very good field and we have honorable men and women in service, but i think we engage in adopting better when people respect our input and opinions. needar all sides of it, we to realize that there is only one side. i really appreciate the way it was done. i think it was very respectful to the industry. i think the industry will respond in kind and how we distribute this, implement this, and make sure we strive to do better. said that the cops are here to make us advance the field, and i said that because coming from the field, when i

got to d.c. i started searching the building, looking behind doors, looking for the magic answers, the answers to the problems we all have. bottom line is we don't have them. we don't have an mdc you have them. you are working with victims and survivors, working with offenders, holding them accountable. you have the solutions. anyone that does not engage you would be incomplete. i want to thank the advocacy groups for engaging in making sure we have a thorough response. it's one of my favorite phrases -- we have an opportunity right now, with everything that's going on, talking about trust, and that applies across the board. i have the ability to serve as the executive director of the president's task force, which is a fancy way of saying i have a

front seat history. there are recommendations addressing the issue of gender bias. it's not only a specific recommendation, there are two or three major pillars that address it. legitimacyhave trust if implicit bias influences the way you investigate crime. you cannot effectively hold people accountable for violence if you are biased in your response and how you investigate. you are not respecting the community. this guidance will go to train education, to make sure we empower and educate the officers to do a great job. this task force ties perfectly to what we are doing today. what comes out of it during this moment, this moment where trust -- it is a question of whether we should earn the trust, is keep in mind this phrase. cannot justic safety

in the absence of crime, it must include the presence of justice. to start working on this project, justice to me was always a process. i have to expand the definition. that means starting from the moment the officer gets the call, the victim makes the call, to the moment the offenders prosecuted and held accountable. i want to thank you for the education. it's now my responsibility to make sure we share this with the world, and together we can make sure this is something that will make this a fighting moment. i am excited about today and want to thank you for all the work you have done and the work you're about to do. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. and now i am very pleased to

introduce the panel who can talk about how to effectively implement the principles in this guidance. i'd like to announce the panelists, and as they come up, i will introduce them. i want to say that these panelists are remarkable not only because they represent leaders and advocacy, but they are people who provide extraordinarily important input, and who worked with us throughout this process to make sure it would be as effective as possible. our panel moderator is tom kenwa y. he's a retired police chief from vermont. he was also the commissioner of the vermont department of public safety. he has worked for the department of justice on some of our most important cases. this is the attorney general of the state of illinois. carol tracey, the executive director of the women's law project.

major sabrina harbour with the baltimore city sheriff's office. lisa jacobs, vice president of -- john goldshire, and ferrman. me in to ask you to join welcoming our panelists, and we will try to take this guide instead make sure it does the work it was intended to do. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, good morning. it's a pleasure to be here. i'd like to thank the department of justice for asking me to moderate this panel. it's truly an honor to part of this day's conversation, because this is historic. i know these challenges. i know these challenges will following 30 plus years in law enforcement. years as an two

independent monitor for the department of justice for the missoula police department and the university of montana police department as the attorney general and the director of civil rights division. it was a pleasure being a part of that process, and quickly, in missoula, it has been described as transformational, and the transformation started with a courageous conversation by the missoula police department around examination of gender bias in its response to domestic assault and sexual assault. it also included the community coordinated response, a true community coordinated response, which created policies and standard operating procedures complete with full multidisciplinary team input on these policies. the university police department, the city police department sharing in policy language or consistency in response.

over 5000 hours of training. for this police department. a real connection. creatingmmitment to training and systems for supervisors. making sure supervision is a key any transformation. data transformation and analysis. new police chief wants to believe there is possibility for bias. but it starts with looking at data and in analyzing that data for trends. creation of a special victims unit. police department recognized they needed a special

department. they exemplify professionalism in this guidance and and resulted in going beyond that guidance with the creation of a special victims that unit that includes advocacy involvement from start to finish. the most exciting lessons is the external review panel in which four applicants in the community were specially trained to understand the policies and provide additional information and guidance and feedback to officers. advocacy background to onvide feedback on officers all felony assault cases. they review all in cases. responsibility and and accountability that focuses specifically on sexual assault. the gaps in ask an -- the gaps in sexual assault that allows

for bias. the community is addressing it, not just the police department. and lastly, memorandums of understanding between all parties to make sure there are no gaps in the system. to make sure there is communication between all involved to ensure justice for these crimes. this is a great example of what a community can accomplish when police departments use the guidance and take leadership will stop to better protect in and vindicate sexual assault victim. the work has been described as transformational. beay's guidance can considered the same. transformational. with local, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies. we know, effective

organizations are constantly striving to raise the bar. what good organizations do. the maintenance of the public trust requires agencies to examine the potential for gender bias. today's guidance and the eight powerful principles designed to prevent such bias will assist communities across the country. be partuly an honor to of this and help promote this historic guidance. i would like each panel to share their initial thoughts and reflections on this new guidance and how they and others can use this in our collective work to encourage better treatment of suffering from the violence. i would like to start with illinois maternal -- the

attorney general. >> let me start by saying thank you to everyone in the room. there has been a german does amount of work done. i want to particularly say thank you to loretta lynch and the department of justice. to the others. it is incredible work that has been accomplished. i particularly appreciate being part of this, even a very small part of it as attorney general. part of whether or not it, the attorney general is frontline. playing a significant role when it comes to developing law enforcement policy, practices, and legislation. we also do tremendous amount of work in funding crime service

providers here and around the country so we have a very deep and meaningful relationship in seeing what they have to contend with in domestic violence centers and crisis centers for rape. i have been working on law, policy, and programs to prevent and respond to a sexual assault and provide assistance to survivors of this terrible crimes. it has been frustrating, to be honest. because those crimes are so prevalent. as you know, these statistics are absolutely alarming in terms of the number of women, people in the lgbt community who are impacted by sexual assault and violence. to win frequently, we have seen these crimes do not seem to be prioritized. victims who come forward are not

to be believed. they are not taken seriously. unfortunately, they did not receive a justice and because they did not receive justice, they have felt re-victimized. once they feel re-victimized, we have a circumstance where there is not cooperation because there is not trust. so we do not have successful prosecutions. so instead of reducing and curtailing crime taking place in homes and our communities, we see the opposite. the crimes continue. this guidance is very important and it does not come a moment too soon. to give you an example, we of studies series around universities in the state of illinois. one member of law enforcement said when he was at the academy he learned that 85% of allegations of sexual assault

were false. that story demonstrates the incredible need and importance for this guidance. in so i appreciate all of the work this guidance does and i want to highlight five things quickly. it provides the legal justification and basis to make sure we are addressing gender police work. i think the recommendations that to go through the research-based best practices in terms of its -- victim-sensitive techniques are incredibly important. the most important thing we can do is when someone comes forward is to believe them. to listen to them and not to blame them. trust, get thef necessary information, have successful persecution into

reduce crime. i want to also talk about the need to always write reports. make sure we are connecting survivors with the services they need so they can rebuild. sexual response teams are very important, to make sure all of the stakeholders come together. have workedent i with an illinois, they are hungry for this guidance. every summit we have had was oversold. law enforcement coming forward wanting to know what best practices are. wanting to know what they can do to reduce sexual assault and domestic violence. when executed, this guidance will increase survivor participation because it will increase their trust. it will lead to successful prosecution. that will lead to increased public safety overall.

i want to begin by applauding law enforcement in illinois and around the country who have started these commonsense strategies and proto-effective they are when it comes to reducing crime in communities. it can be done. department ofn justice and everyone involved for providing the training and resources. together, we are going to be able to pursue justice for all. thank you. [applause] >> definitely some key issues addressed in that. i, too, would like to thank the department of justice for this guidance. too often, sexual and domestic is marginalized in spite of the prevalence and

severity of these crimes in our homes, our schools, and our communities. the obama administration is to be commended for elevating the .ritical nature this guidance is unprecedented for its occult -- acknowledgment of a gender-based crimes, its inclusion of the importance knowledge base of the impact to and policing as outlined in the 21st century policing report. it provides a framework against need which we can assess and measure progress. i am the director of the women's law project in philadelphia. based publicia- interest law center. we work on intersectional issues connected with reproductive

rights, violence against women, and gender discrimination in employment and education. on sexual work violence began 15 years ago in the aftermath of an investigative report by the philadelphia inquirer that alleged our police department special victims unit was not investigating about one third of cases reported to it. we lead and advocacy effort that led to read investigation. the allegations proved to be correct. commissioner timothy displayed remarkable transparency throughout the investigation in admitting and describing and releasing the data of his investigation and putting in appropriate management, and education

requirements in the department. he called on us to review the sex crime case files because he saw the public had lost confidence in the police department. the confrontation into an extremely productive collaboration that continues to this day under commissioner charles ramsey. what i know from experience is that cultural norms about the women in society still have deep roots in victim-laming. rape victims are characterized as liars. legallyve been viewed and socially on one hand as a property of men and on the other hand as responsible for male behavior. such -- be a party to to suggest police are immune from these behaviors.

be full hardy to suggest police are immune from these behaviors. this kind of gender bias is exacerbated when racial bias is added to it. where bias is explicit, and it is explicit threat this country, it has to be rooted out. there is no place in 21st explicitolicing for racial or gender bias. examining this is complex right absolutely necessary -- but absolutely necessary to reverse the norms of 21st century amerco. i want to ignore knowledge how hard the work is. aad review 400-500 cases over four-day. . i never look forward to it.

i hate to reading the circumstances of bio human behavior. and i am only reading the paper. ile human behavior. and i am only reading the paper, not the reports. i have nothing but respect for all of the men and women who take care of this type of work every day. is one of the reasons our case review is effective. our eyes sometimes catch problems that get lost in the chaos of the day-to-day work of the department. we are proud of the work done in philadelphia, but we not done. there plenty of guidelines we need to work on. we know our issues are not unique to philadelphia. beenother departments have

subjected to scandal and scrutiny and i applaud the investigative journalists that have uncovered this. i have also learned the critical importance of leadership. supervision is everything. leadership is everything. community engagement as necessary. transparency works. i urge police department departments to fully engage local community to engage fully. data,transparent about issues, and problems. knowing can solve this alone. we know police response should be the last resort to dealing and issues of sexual domestic violence and frequently it is the only resort and it has to be good. this is a strong starting point and i am hopeful the philadelphia police department will be the first to implement it. >> thank you.

external review department has had great success and it was followed, modeled after you. the good work you are doing in philadelphia. so, thank you for that. next, your thoughts. >> hello. i would first like to thank the department of justice for having me on the panel and for including the uniformed law enforcement leaders on this discussion. frequently, law enforcement

professionals have not been exposed to people it marginalized communities. they just do not know what they do not know. frequently, they are just not informed. it is not that they are trying to hurt anyone. what this guidance does in particular is it provides a law enforcement leaders with an to assist with development of policy and training. i believe that first and enforcement,law everything we do begins and ends with training. it would be critical for this guidance to be integrated at every level of training. more specifically, at entry in-service, at

supervisor, and at command-level training. what i mean by being an entry-level recruit training, it should be there at in-service training, particularly because this is when police officers can become very cynical. at rollcall training, also, would be a good idea. at supervisory training, because supervisors frequently need to be reminded to follow up and monitor the behavior of what the officers are doing. also, at the command level because that is often where i am finding that the training is missed. on may hit the bias training all the other levels, but then

frequently the commanders have is goingy no idea what on at all these other levels within the organization. so i would also think it would be a good idea for the guidance to come in at the command level. in also, for it to be implemented as part of the policy in organizations. additionally, as a part of promising practices, community involvement would be an excellent idea. northern district commander, i brought the trans community into the northern district to assist me with training. because i would add that, people often times are not trying to hurt anyone. some of the comments that could be used that could be offensive and harmful, i want the transit

-- the transgender community to come in and assist me to help drive the information forward. it was helpful and it helps to forge relationships with the officers within the district. they ended up giving us information that as listed with criminal activity and this was information that we would not have known otherwise relationships been gained through that training. it was not just effective for the officers in one way, but it was also advantageous for us in another way. practice formising community involvement as well.

that the in-service training can also remind the veteran officers of the importance of aggressively investigating these types of cases. sometimes, when they have years can sometimes forget how important it is to continue to aggressively investigate these types of cases. things i wanted to mention about that whole community piece is also the as itaith community relates to sexual violence. the community liaison should be used to get this guidance information out. many times, the interfaith leaders are the first point of contact for individuals who are in this type of situation. sometimes forge some type of relationship with

and get them involved some type of way in the training as well, i think that could be beneficial also. principle seven, that says hold officers accountable, i think is a and important element as well. my overarching themes are training and accountability. are my primary to focuses as it relates to the uniform section. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, major. thank you for one of many national law enforcement leaders who were involved in this conversation to help us get to where we are today. thank you very much. next, ms. jacobs.

ms. jacobs: thank you and good morning. i think i want to echo where bonita started. on such aind yourself star-studded panel and it starts out with the art to meet general just -- when it starts out with the attorney general and the department. 20 years ago i was about six months into my job here. i became an alum of two of the three offices that have helped to lift up and get this guidance out. -- the violence against women -- we can talk off-line. i am looking for a hat trick. you know how that is. i want to start by offering my profound thanks to the office on violence against women to get

this guidance out. long, useful process. one that has enabled us all to share our own perspectives and arrive at a common sense of where we need to go forward. i think it is terrific that i have followed not only, as i said, the brilliant folks within the department, but my colleagues on the panel. they have done a lot of work already. i can almost go all right -- i think it was important that the major started talking about, what happens when law enforcement goes into a community with which they are not familiar and they do not know what they do not know. -- is going toas provide a terrific opportunity for people to be able to sit

down, whether as community advocates -- i think the which already has that coordination going on with law enforcement and advocates will provide some instant entree and many places to take this guidance, to sit down and talk about an and make it real. think the principles articulated are stellar. they are the right ones to move this discussion in the right direction. particularly -- i think those who made previous comments because when law enforcement does this work and when you look at the work, you know the bulk of the work they are doing is response to this kind of violence, they encounter people at their worst. they also encounter people who

are complicated. lgbthey may encounter and couple. that lgbt couple may also have an overlay or, they may already be suspicious of law enforcement. they may feel like their relationships are not going to be respected. there may be an additional overlay there, whether or not you are dealing with race, with lgbt status, with a trans person. we know when we look at these multiple layers of who we are, and i say this as a woman of color, things get more complicated. ward to i look for working with people in this room, with the national task force, which is an umbrella group that works on reauthorization of violence against women at the federal level. i had the privilege to be on the phone with employees yesterday

to talk about this guidance. there was so much excitement and interest. there was frustration that they did not already have it. the web, can we get it? i want to lift up particularly our native sisters who are very interested in the guidance for obvious reasons. when i was here 20 years ago, but of what i was doing was listening to them talking about with the challenge for them look like. geographical distance. them inons laid upon terms of stereotypes about lazy natives, drunken natives, etc.. intersects with gender. i look forward to working with everyone on these issues and want to say that while i am so excited about doing this, the challenge is somewhat daunting. one of the things many of us have looked at and heard about this year is a survey the

national domestic hotline did. and i am going to invest a few thoughts about that. 600 40 sexualbout survivors of domestic and sexual violence that called the hotline for help. have had reached out to law enforcement and have never had. of the half that reached out to law enforcement, about 20% of them said they would never do it again. that they were afraid. that they were threatened with arrest. they were arrested. and of the half that had not reached out, there were similar numbers. about 25% to said they would not reach out because they were afraid that male law enforcement to not understand women. that male law-enforcement did not understand issues of race and immigration status. so, i look forward to working collectively to bring to bear all of the groups that work on

this. to lift this up and get it implemented because it is so sorely needed. thank you again for your hard work on this. [applause] >> thank you. professor, your thoughts? >> thank you. i want to echo the thanks to the panelists, to the department, to the office of violence against women. office. the cops it is a little daunting to follow all of the speakers is morning. i almost want to say, we should go on and start getting to work because there's so much to get done. at this is a memorable day and has brought together a lot of the work we have heard about and a lot of work that has gone on. i want to commend in particular the department for its work in

developing the guidance and also for its work in responding to complaints and investigating complaints on the ground and for working with local law enforcement to eliminate gender bias in policing. i am particularly referring to the investigations we heard about this morning. the guidance importantly identifies critical principles i will not repeat. you have heard about them. it calls on law enforcement officers to translate those principles into policies, training, and supervisory protocols and i think that is a point of departure for all of us to think about after today. i thought it would be helpful to reference a recent survey of service providers who work with violence survivors that was conducted by the university of miami school of law. this was a complement to the survey of hotline callers mentioned.

arereport reminds us why we here today. of the challenges we face. and of the work that remains to be done. despite all of the critical and good work that has fundamentally less few decades, and overwhelming majority of service providers still reported that police sometimes or always do not believe survivors or blame them for the abuse. many raised concerns about gender bias and also about biases against african american women, latinas, and native american, muslim and women of other ethnic grounds as well as general bias against immigrants and og bt-identified people. there was widespread concern about ramification for survivors have criminal records, our sex workers, have mental illness, or drug addiction. there is a deep concern about

collateral consequences of law enforcement involvement, including involvement with child protection services with fears that calling police will trigger immigration or deportation. fears that arrest will lead to loss of housing, unemployment, or well for benefits or the survivor would face arrest as a result. at the same time we face these challenges, service providers talked about many useful practices. they talked about the importance of leadership from the top and i think we've heard some stellar examples of that and that we can all as prior to mode. it suggested periodic review similar to the ones with her to about from the community can be helpful. they talked about how community-based practices such as coordination among law enforcement, advocates, and service providers, particularly to address high-risk cases have been useful. how multi-disciplinary response teams that coordinate responses

have been helpful. task forces, coalitions, and partnerships between service providers and police departments can really make a difference. one thing we know after all of these years of work is that domestic violence and sexual violence are complex problems and require nuanced solutions. i think the police department for bringing us together to take the next step. ae report highlighted majority of service providers were not aware of the department authority.oversight of course, that authority in the capacity of the department is limited, but that tells us we have a role opportunity for public education here. what are some things we might do going forward? what are some ways the guidance may be used in communities? public education materials might be disseminated with a summary

of the guidance including information about how to lodge a complaint. how the process of starting an investigation might work. the guidance can be a starting point for local convenience for the guidelines to have a conversation between law enforcement, community partners, advocates, survivors, to talk about how to improve practices and policies. both on gender and other forms of bias and how those biases affect policing, and also about the collateral consequences. nuancedl require a response, but they are critically important to pay attention to. i have no doubt local advocates and law enforcement will come up with many other creative strategies that will respond to needs of particular communities. i look forward to being part of that and want to say thank you for your work on this.

[applause] >> thank you. we keep hearing the importance of leadership and certainly the international department of chiefs of police deals a lot with leadership. we would love to hear your thoughts on the guidance. >> thank you and good morning. it is good to be last. [laughter] my distinguished colleagues have raised all the points we need to hear about the guidance. i will wrap up by saying a few short rings. i want to thank everybody in this room. everybody hears clearly passionate and devoted to him anyway will respond to assault and domestic violence in america. think theecially first three, because we have done the best work we do in

collaboration with the department of justice and this guidance is one more example of how important your work is. think you. simply put, 18,000 some police agencies and 18,001st some responders went to work, and i'll might long they were already at work and they were responding to these crimes. terrible crimes. complex crimes. bottom line, the decisions those officers make and have made and will make our life i've and changing decisions for the people they engage. this is serious business for all of us. we spent over two decades working with the office of violence against women and others to come up with best practices come up, and training on this issues. i have to, i must, i will think of the woman who led this charge. she will be critiquing my

presentation in the back of the room later. this bias issues there. it is a. it exists everywhere. this is the troubling point today, all of the good work, all of the policies, protocols, procedures, are entirely useless in the face of bias on the part of a police officer. so what we have to do is change that aggressively. tax force says that cultural deep policy, we even for lunch every day. we have to make sure every officer has imprisoned and exquisite bias training and understands the potential for bias that they hold. that we all hold. that is the work to be done. i think i can make it clear endorseat we adopt and these guidances. and our associate commentary cunningham, will spend about that later.

action has to be taken. the action we will commit to his with our 25,000 some members into reach around the country, we need to get out and revamp. we need to take a hard look at what we have done into embed this new guidance into everything we are working on currently. unique training program or a state association or individual agencies. we must embed this and make sure it becomes a focal point of all of the policies. without it in there, we won the risk of failing in the calls the officers are responding to. at americanass university and ron recently said, he finds himself in a opportunity for change in policing america. i thank you, because that got into my head. heads.l as my students'

we can all work together to make that change successful. thank you. [applause] >> excellent. we have about 10 minutes left. i would like to summarize before i push this out for questions. there were some major themes. the first, an examination. what we do not know. as major harper said. what we do not know, we do not know. i am looking at and examining that. the second one was leadership. the important role leaders play in police organizations around these issues. certainly, training being a part of that. i point to something major harper said, training at all levels. we cannot excuse folks from training on these important

issues. this cannot be a one-time conversation but rather a continuous conversation, as mr. fuhrman said. make sure you are integrating this into everything we are doing. trust, collaboration, key parts of everything this panel talked about. have had many outstanding opportunities to collaborate with community partners and i believe in the creativity that can come to communities from communities. it does itself best. by bringing the community together, we'll see more collaboration, trust, and culture being a piece of the conversation that must occur. we also heard at accountability. not just accountability for offenders but accountability for police officer's. the women and men in our dovision -- profession who

the important work. they are in it for the right work, but when it does not meet up to the high standards of our profession, they have to be accountable especially as it relates to allegations of sexual misconduct and domestic violence. and we talked about transformation. that is a theme of the day as well. this is a time for change. an opportunity for transformation. we have seen it in places like mozilla that has been spoken about and we hope to see it -- in places like missoula. i would like to hear from anybody in the audience that might have a question or comment or a panelist. any thoughts? questions? i am from the new orleans

family justice center. i want to take this opportunity to really support this guidance and we have been at this for eight years. we have been at the forefront of the advocacy movement to make these cultural changes and i am here to say that it is working. we are making strides. we have a long way to go. the incorporation of advocates at every level. it is the thing that makes the difference. the fact to bet we have consolidated the systems under one roof and worked day in and day out to communicate, share,

review, talk about the cultural survivorse impact on and what that means in long-term training, id the think. i am here as a testament. we get reports from the inspector general that devastate police morell, but it is critical we continue to support them, to help them find solutions not just blame them. we need to work at this day in and day out. i want to thank all of the departments. i wanted to thank the civil rights division although it has been a hard process as a community, it makes a difference when the police chiefs really embrace this as an opportunity to make deep cultural changes. it won't happen without that. >> thank you, mary. nice to see you again.

good efforts being made in new orleans. major ted harper, i would be interested to know your thoughts. how do we operationalize these things? how do we in law enforcement operationalize these core principles. starts witht leadership and has to start at the top with a commitment from the leaders. say, i amo simply going to make it happen. personally speak with the leaders in my organization and integrate this to our policy. our in-service rhymes. i am going to make it happen. [laughter] i mean, you just do it. you have an opportunity.

leadership is about action. we appreciate that. ms. jacobs, you have written about violence against women of that can make women, including transgender women, invisible in our culture. and you talk a little bit more about that? how does this relate to that end how do we continue to look at all kinds of biases around these issues? >> thank you for the question. moment of great opportunity, particularly at the end of last week, we saw the whole squad decision coming. hold accountable former law -- who had to hedge chosen a particular universe of women to play on. ey on.s to the -- to pr

on how multiple identities come into play. he chose women who were black, who were poor, who had substance abuse issues. some of whom had been prostituted. he chose them because he viewed invisible or disposable in and expected that law enforcement and prosecution would do the same thing. and, i think we have a perfect model in what what to see withneed this guidance. law enforcement stepped forward, did the right thing. held their own accountable. did the investigation, gave the investigator's feet as they needed and they demanded accountability. that jury, and many of us, myself and others, were very concerned. it was an all-white jury looking

at crimes committed against imperfect victims. no victims are perfect, but again -- the choice had been made by this former law enforcement officer to prey on people who would be deemed the least credible. and they did not reach out to law enforcement except that last victim and the law enforcement person made a mistake. they did not reach up because they did not expect to be believed. what law enforcement did in that issue is the bedrock of restoring trust. they saw those victims. they said, we see you. we hear you. and, we are demanding accountability for you. into that, combined with some of the things that major tapp

about,was talking pulling in people of faith. looking at how appropriate linguistic responders can be brought to bear, that is how we will get this done. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for one final question. >> good morning. thank you very much. this has been phenomenal. one of the things i have been working hard on with the air force, is what you all talked about and touched on. when it comesult to sexual assault cases, believing it is not true. i call it the myth of false reports would expect to what happens with sexual violence.

this goes back to what kind of checks and balances do we need to implement in order that this automatic default is not gone to. it is about cultural change and leadership at every level. have a training go by where they sit in the classroom and then go by the water cooler and start talking. this is this, this is that. there are individuals that i know, growing up in law enforcement, there are people, official leaders, but unofficial leaders that can be change agents. we have to find a way to make them change agents. we have to make policy have teeth. that there is nowhere for that individual to hide. i like calling it turning the lights up. when you turn the lights up, the roaches scurry.

make that stove hot, because if a thief will not steal a hot stove. of times it seems to me there are elementary things we employ. but this is a top leadership issue, but it is also that first line supervisor who sees their men and women day in and day out and has the ability to really ensure some accountability. how do we make sure they are doing that? >> i do think it the process in philadelphia is a good model. the military has been to us to see if it can be replicated. it does root out problems and it does lead to policy changes and quite frankly, when you think about the philadelphia police

work being reviewed by feminist lawyers, imagine what that reaction is like. it is one where they learned it is useful. .e things they do not and sometimes, some of the things that happen, one year when a group of individuals put in a pile problems that we have, and it turned out we all had identified one officer, and not knowing it, because the participants are women's law part -- project, and others including the children's alliance, we had all identified one individual whose interviews had turned into interrogations. officer neededt to be relocated to a different position in the department, or maybe that officer was burned out. there are times when we will see

a case and the captain or lieutenant will say, that is odd. we do not expect that from that one. something is wrong. so our oversight can be sunshine, it works in so many other arenas and it is not that difficult. we have a huge volume in philadelphia. we have over 5000 cases coming into the special victims unit and we're trying to figure out how to do this more effectively in domestic violence only have 150,911 calls coming in. none of us -- where we have 1 50,000 domestic violence calls coming in. to 911.

i urge people to look at this process, none of us get paid for it. we all volunteer at our time. like, wee say things interviewed the lieutenant over the problems, they walk away and say, that is not that bad. not the only, but it is an accountability measure. needed.is >> thank you, carol. i think external review is the future. we're talking about accountability, collaboration, advancing public trust. external review, certainly, the work i have seen is instrumental. one less comment. as you like to comment? tags very much so.

-- >> very much so. icp's motto is helping leaders of today and helping leaders of tomorrow. we need to make sure that held accountable and immediately by sergeants, lieutenants, captains. they are educated and told, that was wrong. let michelle you how to do it right. we need those guys. the mid-line supervisors modeling great behavior to bring up young people to do this right. then those midline people can become our future police chiefs. >> very well said. >> there are a couple more people who want to speak on this. i wanted to say, as a district commander i did my own integrity tests. i did not have a whole bunch of time on my hands. so if i heard a call for service

go out, i would ask, how was the call for service. how did the officer do? a hand, just get additional information about how the call for service was. that gave me a lot of gratitude to deal with a lot of issues at my level. an so mr. fuhrman made excellent point. i do not know how you may integrate that into what you do, but just an idea. i did my own integrity test. comments?er closing >> let me say in terms of what everybody else has said effectively. leadership, training, accountability, i can tell you what we have in illinois that is affect the. -- veryurvivors speak effective. having survivors speak and having a law enforcement and

others listen. it is very powerful. addition, bringing together everybody. you talk about it in terms of an audit. i do not know how many -- how up in most police departments need to feminist lawyers to an audit, but i have seen great success enforcementng law prosecutors and advocates together to do case reviews on a weekly, monthly basis and there is an immediate accountability. identification of problems, it solutions that can be implemented quickly. that is one of the most effective models in dealing with these issues. it is intimidating to be the last comment, but i would like to make sure we keep in mind as we close this inspiring discussion is to keep survivor safety and a time to meet and dignity in mind as our goal when

we think about our goal in the we want to accomplish. that should be front and center. >> i would like to close with a cup final words. inspiration in opportunity. this is exciting and historic. i look forward to continuing this conversation around the country with all of you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i wanted to echo major tapp harper. taking this and we're going to use the guidance and make sure it is implemented at effectively. they queue all for coming today. thank you for your commitment. in terms of commitment, we wanted to recognize the office of the vice president has joined including one

from the council of women and girls at the white house. this is from the top administration. please join me in thanking our moderator eight and our panelists. [applause] let's go get to work. thank you. washington journal is next. we'll look at today's news in and take your calls. is set to funding expire at midnight tonight so the government is expected to vote on that today. live coverage on c-span. narrative is he was a lightweight, grade b actor with premature orange hair which ford said about him. even with all of the successes