veterans, welcome home -- and to vietnam veterans, welcome home, welcome home. [applause] jake: i would like to present mr. trump with his personal honor ring that we brought to you and that we hope that you wear it with pride and we can make america great again together, brother. make america great again together, brother. [applause] crowd: u.s.a!

[applause] mr. trump: that was amazing. isn't that better than this debate that is going on right now? [applause] mr. trump: they are all sleeping. they are all sleeping. everybody. i see two of my friends in the audience and they have come to become very famous and very rich. come up. she called me and she said, there is somebody who is so amazing, you have to see this. and i watched these two incredible women, these two beautiful women, and i watched them go back and forth. rowd: trump!

indiscernible] yelling] r. trump: amazing. crowd: trump, trump, trump! mr. trump: i really believed if we took them into a room and just talked to them, it would be fine. we want borders, we want the all, if we could sit with of them for about 10 minutes, maybe, maybe they would understand. say hello.

>> how are you all doing? >> you know, it really amazes me how people from the other camp want to, in here and mess this up. -- because their stuff is boring! [laughter] [applause] >> but we all know that donald trump is going to make america great again. don't we? >> now, we know that this is not a rally but this is for our veterans. but i want you to know that this is imperative that you get up and focus on what donald trump talks about an vote. -- about and vote. vote for donald trump. >> and all of them on the other side are debating. >> we have a negotiator and a ob creator right here.

>> that's right! and it is up to all of us to help donald trump make america great again. [applause] mr. trump: i tell you what. they are something. right? are they something. they have become an internet sensation. so just to sum up, we have an mazing country, we need strong leadership, we need passionate leadership, we need to take care of our health care, we need to take care of our borders, we need to make our military so strong, so big, so powerful, that nobody will want to mess with it. nobody, nobody, nobody will mess with it. [applause]

mr. trump: all over, and i tell this story all the time, i see these generals on talk shows and retiring and they are talking about where the enemy is and i don't want generals to talk, i want generals, and so do you folks, i want generals to have action. we want general george patton, we want general macarthur, we want people who were going to keep us safe. so i just say this. we are a country that doesn't win anymore. e don't win anymore. when was the last time that we won? we don't win in trade, we don't win in the military, we don't eat isis, we don't win anything, we are not good, we are just in the same place -- we don't beat isis, we don't win anything, we are not good, we are just in the same place. but we are going to get rid of obamacare and come up with a great, great, powerful, wonderful health care. [applause] mr. trump: we are going to win again. i tell you what, we are going to

win again. we are going to win at every single level. we are not going to be laughed at through the rest of the world. they cannot believe what is happening. we send guns over to our weapons. they hear one sound of the bullets. they drop them. the enemy takes them and now people come back from the middle east and they tell me, "mr. trump, they have better weapons than we do, they have the new versions, they have the best weaponry." i'm here to tell you it is not going to happen anymore. it is not going to happen. so this is a special might for e. we started out literally 24 hours ago, maybe less, we had no idea and we went out and we set up the website and i called some friends and we just cracked, the

sign was just given, and we just cracked $6 million, right? 6 million! [applause] mr. trump: and we have outside a list of the organizations and the folks that are going to be getting this money. they are going to divided up and they are going to get a lot of money, everybody is going to get a lot of money, and they are very great, and we wanted to make sure that people are doing this and the people are so important and we have picked out some really amazing, amazing veterans organizations. so this has turned out to be a much different evening. i thought this would be small and i didn't even know it was going to happen and it turned out to be a phenomenal, henomenal night. i got to be some veterans, i got to meet john wayne and your friends, they are something, i am not going to mess with them, ok? and i want to thank my entire family. i will tell you, you've got vanessa, don, jared, success.

and yvanka's going to have a aby next week. we have a hospital lined up. we are doing great. i was saying that it would be so great if she is going to have her baby and i a lot. tand up, honey, say hello. [applause] mr. trump: i want that to happen. i want that to happen so badly. and my boy eric who has been fantastic in my staff who has been great and again, thank you, sir, for that $1 million. i will tell you what, you are a special guy, and we love it. this is been a wonderful and to an amazing evening and you veterans are amazing people. you are brave beyond comprehension. on behalf of everybody in this country, i want to thank you for the job that you do, because

without you, we would not be here tonight. thank you all very much. fantastic people. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> friday, c-span's "road to the

white house" coverage continues with the republican presidential candidates. t 12:30 eastern time, governor chris christie holding a meeting in iowa. jeb bush is campaigning in carroll, iowa. and litter we'll join ben carson in iowa n hall meeting live at c-span 2. >> on the next "washington journal". david yepsen previews the presidential campaigns heading into the final weekend before the iowa caucuses. republican iowa state senator brad zaun discusses his endorsement of donald trump and his efforts to get voters to caucus for the republican candidate. and bob vander looks at the

world of social conservatives in the 206 campaign. as always we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> coming up -- a discussion about the role and history of the iowa caucuses. and later defense secretary ashton carter announcing change to maternity and paternity leave policies. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the "road to the white house" for the iowa caucuses. monday, february 1st, our live coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. stern on both c-span and c-span2. at 8:00 p.m. eastern we'll take you to a plup caucus on c-span and a democratic caucus on c-span2. see the event in is entirety.

be sure to join us on c-span radio and at c-span.org. >> next, a discussion about the role in history of the iowa caucuses. david redlanski was our guest on washington journal. we speak with him for about 45 minutes. the caucus is on februa. joining us from des moines this. redlawsk, theid author of why iowa? so, let's begin with the history of the iowa caucus. who decided that i was should go first and why? guest: good morning. accident,e or less an not so much that it was decided to go first but after the

disasters democratic national convention of 1968, the democrats revised their rules, they made it so that caucuses and primaries tend to be more open and available. and one of the effects of that in a caucus state like iowa was to require that the party publicly advertised and provide information about upcoming party events like caucuses. it is important to recognize that iowa is a caucus convention state. it is followed by county conventions in everyone of the 99 counties and send the congressional district conventions and finally he state convention. 1972,the rule changes in it turned out that the iowa -- itatic party couldn't got pushed into my.

you have to backtrack those steps and once you get back tracking, you find that you have to hold the caucuses in late january 1972. new hampshire had been first in the nation pretty much for as long as primaries existed. no one paid careful attention to that. it was rather an oddity rather than anything that happened on purpose. host: how do the caucuses work? guest: it works differently for the two parties. basic aspects are the same. voters go to a location in their precinct, not the place they usually vote in general elections -- a location in a school or church or public opening of some kind. will call a chair caucus to order.

at that point, if you are not signed in, you cannot participate. the doors effectively close. state, the chair will call the caucus to order, and do party business and then the parties diverge. if you are a republican, you will sit down and listen to other members of your caucus who are lucky and who are in a lucky spot -- you might get a candidate. you hear them talk for just a moment and with 11 candidates this year it will take longer than usual. following that, publicans will vote. the chair passes out a ballot. people will mark their preference and drop it on a box. it will be counted as reported to a caucus and said reported using a brand-new mobile app in des moines.

at that point, republicans will move on to collecting delegate and they will elect some large. they also do party business with electing precinct people and voting on potential platforms to send to the county convention. democrats do much of the same stuff but the thing and that is different is how they vote. when the chair says that it is time, what he or she will do is tell people to go to a particular part of the room. to physically stand up and move. have a publicts vote. everyone can see who use of art. they moved to different parts of the room, they are counted and if any of the groups and candidates do not have 15%, they have to do a real line. and in the real line process, anyone can move but usually

people who move will be those in groups of less than 15%. they can try to get people over to them or they can go somewhere else. finished, everyone will be counted again. if there still remains a group of less than 15%, just the people in that group must then realign or they can go home. at that stage, the chair will do caucus count and they will count the number of delegates that each group is entitled to elect based on the size of the group. the group's elect the delegate. so the hillary clinton group will elect hillary clinton. the chair will report that delegate count to the democratic headquarters in des moines and then they move forward and do business. how will we know

the winner of the iowa caucuses? probably relatively quickly this year. by relatively quickly i mean within a couple of hours after the 7:00 start time. republicans take about an hour to do this process. the expectation this year is app,because of the mobile the results will come in electronically at the party will begin to approach the results online as they come in. so we will see the trend almost immediately. we will begin to see the big picture soon after that. for the democrats, it takes longer. that process can run as long as two hours depending on the need .o do the final realignment

and they will report the results as a covenant that but i would expect the republican numbers before the democrat. host: this used to be referred to as a beauty contest. how has that changed? guest: the beauty contest aspect was on the public inside. that was because the votes had no connection to the delegate counts. could win most of as the ron paul folks did in 2012. the reason they could do that is because they stayed when everyone went home and they did the party business and elected themselves and they got county committees and so on. are year, the republicans binding the reports for the national convention. that means the island republicans will report the

iowa at thein national convention if there is a contested first ballot. if there is an uncontested ballot than the chair will work on hundred percent of iowa's vote for that person. unlikeat means is that 2012 when the ron paul delegates go to the floor of the convention, they refused to vote. and that cannot happen. either the vote will be proportional or it will be hundred percent to the winner. becomes -- then the delegates are free to vote. on the democratic side, they are not bound. but because they are elected by their preference group, hillary clinton people are elected by delegates, and in

they are less likely to shift their allegiance unless their candidate asked them to. host: we are talking about the role and history of the iowa caucuses. we have a line for the iowa voters. we have david breslau skier -- we have david redlawsk here. are on the line. caller: i am deeply offended by the two ugly that has existed since 1976. i never agreed to have iowa and new hampshire go first. we have 50 states here and your guest seems like a nice this is outrageous that these two small haveresentative state subverted our process. .e need to start from scratch

i would like to see a national referendum of the 50 states and see if the other 48 states agree that iowa and new hampshire second forirst and the remainder of our democratic form of government because i don't think it is right. has said, it was an accident of history. host: why is it right? guest: well, the interesting thing is -- this argument is made all the time. otherrly every cycle states try to go first since this started in 1972, they haven't been successful. there are a lot of things to argue on both sides but the basic idea of iowa and new hampshire is that it is an opportunity for candidates to get out and talk to voters. one of the biggest values of

this process is that candidates have to talk to real people on the ground. they cannot win these events by dropping a massive amount of money on advertising. if we started in a large state ,ike new york or california neither of those states are anymore presented of the country to iowa or new hampshire. he would not have the same kinds of grassroots policies that make candidates better. it helps them learn what is on people's minds. -- i have listened to hundreds of questions. we have the same kinds of questions that people around the country are asking.

people are forced to actually respond to voters. could that be done somewhere else? intentionally. that youok, we argue could start a process like this in any small state but the key idea it -- key idea is that candidates can get out and meet virtually everyone who will vote for them when the time comes and i think that is incredibly powerful. host: so are the candidates hearing what is on the minds of a variety of people? -- i was hijacked our democracy and it is hearing just the voices of a certain part of our country. how can that be reflective of how this election will turn out? , most obvious is that it is demographic. is one of the five white to states in the nation. it is also before the union. this is one reason by a victory

by bernie sanders in iowa and then in new hampshire may signal much less about the state of the democratic already raised their first appears. jeff greenfield has made these arguments before. these are old arguments. yes, iowa doest not look like california. it does look like new york and neither does new hampshire. about it wehink have a sequential system. somebody has to go first. there isn't a way to get around that unless we have a national primary. think of it broadly. by, hampshire, south carolina and nevada. when combined, these four states will go before super and they are a good reflection of --

iowa, economically is a good representation. financial services are huge as our wind energy and alternatives. new hampshire has a different kind of republican party in iowa does. and in south carolina, the democrats, half of the voters are african-american and then in nevada, the latino population is significant. when you put them all together you get something that begins to approximate the country as a whole and i think that is the way to think about it. argument is that someone has to go first and it on theo be a place where ground operations and building a campaign is like building a business. realng real people with concerns and i once have the same concerns that the nation has. and needing to be able to respond to them -- that is critically important.

redlawsk is our guest and he is taking your comments and questions about the iowa caucuses. we are five days away. here are the phone lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .epublicans, (202) 748-8001 , (202) 748-8002. and i will voters, (202) 748-8003. caller: i am still having a hard time understanding how the candidates are picked. how many candidates as a having candidatesthe total -- how do super delegates into play? is it a undertake all?

-- a winner take all? guest: iowa has about 1% of the country's population and it has roughly 1% of the delegates for the two conventions plus or minus a bit because there are bonuses depending on the republican party. but a good rule of thumb is that it is roughly proportional to population. iowa is an evenly balanced state politically despite recent successes for republicans. a voter registration is evenly balanced. it is an even state and that is true with the delegate count. the superdelegates for the democrats are usually people who are in various party offices and political offices, members of congress and they are not process at all.

the delegates are selected proportionally. this is true for the democrats and has always been true for the democrats because the delegates are assigned based on the strength of the candidate in that precinct. precinct -- if -- it sanders gets 45% will probably round to 50% in the precinct. for the republicans, the actual physical human beings who get to go do not have to reflect with the voting in the caucus was. harshly because it was a secret ballot so you don't -- it will probably round to 50% in the precinct. know area earlier, thisoned year, at the national convention, he will not get to vote whatever way they would like to vote. their votes are recorded based on what happens in the caucuses.

no national delegates are being picked on monday night. it will reflect the state parties equivalents. national convention delegates will not be picked until the congressional elections in april. joey in nebraska, you are next. caller: i'm just going to throw out a brief comment quickly and listen. i took part in the first congress -- first caucus in barack obama and hillary clinton first ran. for us it was historic for nebraska. we've never had a caucus of until that point and of course, we elected barack obama as

president later on. it was in the lancaster county for me. and you guys are right when the experts say that when you caucuses, it is not the same as showing up in rallies. you have to be disciplined. you have to corral people i do to decide which side wins. it in my case, we went back and forth between hillary clinton and barack obama. it has been several years so i don't remember the exact outcome but i think it was a win for obama. personally speaking as a citizen, i prefer a straight vote to the caucus because it is too much horse training in my opinion. i went to university and i took sociology and you get into a lot of groupthink. i prefer a straight vote.

how can we encourage everyone to do this? that's all i wanted to say. because the c-span cameras will be there to show you how the caucus unfolds. and look at that when it gets underway. , onell be at 8:00 eastern hour behind. what did you hear there? guest: primaries are easier. there is no question about it. the polls might be open for 12-14 hours and you show up where you always show up and if there is no line you are in and out in a few minutes. one of the things the democrats caucus does is allow people to express a second choice. it is the case that in the

delegate selection process across the country whether in primaries or caucuses, there is a threshold applied differently in different places. the bottom line is if a candidate does not get 15% at the state level or the district level, that candidate gets no delegates from those voters. so the voters that but it for those candidates are unrepresented. process, if you are below 15% and supporting a candidate not doing so well, two things can happen. you can convince people to join you and your candidate gets you can sayrt, or my second choice is a different candidate and i will go register my second choice. in american politics we rarely get to do that. we either win or lose. in the caucus process you don't win or lose, you win but even if

you lose you have the opportunity perhaps to express your second choice. i think that's a pretty good set up. host: let's show viewers who won in the past in iowa caucuses. 2008, barack obama. 2004, john kerry. 2000, al gore. in 1988, richard gephardt. the caucus winners on the republicans, you have rick santorum. 2008, i got to be. 2000, george w. bush. 1996 and 19 88, bob dole. what percentage of the iowa population shows up? it varies tremendously. republican on the side is usually a little bit less than on democrats. in 2012 and 2008, republicans had approximately 125,000.

this is about 600,000 republicans, rounding here. number in the the state. basically 2012 was a record turnout and so had 2008. prior to that, turnout was more in the realm of 60,000 voters. democrats, 2008 turnout blew through the roof and through the walls of a lot of places the democrats were having caucuses. about0 democrats also 600,000, showed up. 2004 roughlyle the 125,000 and in 2000 it had been in the 60,000 or so range as best we know. obviously then it varies a lot.

right now we are all wondering what it will look like. democrats do not expect to hit the 239,000 number again but i think they expect to be higher than 125,000 that came before. republicans are preparing for an increase anywhere from 10 to 20 in some counties. in some counties that might have a 50% increase. regardless, it's a nomination contest so a lot of people do not vote. that is true in primaries as well. host: matthew is an independent. go to thendents caucus and participate? they can. i'll has same-day registration web you are independent or not an eligible -- not a registered voter. just go to the precinct, register to vote right there, and pick your party. it is technically true that if you are a democrat and you want

to caucus for republicans, you can do that. we registered to vote as a republican and walk right in. anyone can come and caucus as long as you are eligible. you just have to, i think you can do it online but you absolutely can. host: matthew, an independent in green bay, wisconsin. enjoyed thei really washington journal and wish there were more shows like this. guest, has ask the there been any talk about broadcasting media reform? socially? that's all i have to say, thank you. mr. medlock, did you

follow that? i'm not exactly sure what he means when he says broadcast media reform. essentially we have the media we have because we have the first amendment. the media has the absolute right to approach campaigns and elections in any way they wish. as useful always be as we want or comprehensive as we want. i think they tried very hard. maybe the caller is suggesting how we have all trump all the time. in any case, it could always be better. host: walter in new york, a democrat. caller: yes, i have a question and it is not particularly political. but is that real gold on the dome of the temple, and if so, where does it come from?

guest: it is real gold and my understanding it has been refurbished very recently. the iowa state capital has multiple domes. it is a pretty unusual building. my understanding is they are all gold cap. the corner ones may not have read -- been refurbished recently. unfortunately i have no idea where it came from. i think it's been there for a long time. host: david a read lock is a fellow for citizen engagement and co-author of the book why iowa. we are talking about the role i .ill place here spencer, in arizona. republican. caller: good morning. my comment is i don't think the people in iowa, south carolina, or new hampshire understand what

is going out on the west. those people voting are clueless and really don't know what's going on. you cannot tell me their primaries or elections or caucuses have anything to do with what we face out west. host: ok, let's get a response. lot doestually, i a have some idea. granted, iowa is not on the border. immigration to iowa has been significant. -- the latino population .s one of the fastest-growing it's small at the moment but it won't be for much longer. there are folks here who are undocumented, particularly for the meatpacking industry. there have been rates from time to time by the federal government. there are real issues and people

here at the caucus events i go to that talk a lot about immigration and those issues. there's also a growing political involvement by the latino community and iowa. more and more are now eligible voters, there are very strong efforts underway to get them engaged in the process so they can become part of it. to the extent the caller is talking about immigration undocumented and legal, iowa has been dealing with both for quite a number of years in both positive and negative ways. the: what about on republican side, evangelical voters and criticism they have. that their role is outside compared to what the rest of the country has for the nomination process in iowa. the republican evangelical community is large and iowa, relatively speaking.

anywhere from half to 60% of republican caucus-goers are likely to be considering themselves evangelical or born again. they do play quite a significant role. at the same time, evangelicals play a tremendous role in the modern national republican party. whether it was iowa or other candidatesleast some would be taking tremendous efforts to get their support. the iowa republican party is perhaps more evangelical christian than many of the parties. i will go back to the argument that it's not just about one state. republicans in new hampshire are different. and my sense there are more libertarians, more of the new england republican. few balance across multiple early states, i think you get a pretty good republican

reflection. caller: good morning. off, on the last caller i would have to disagree with you. reallyin the northeast don't understand what's going on with federal land in the midwest theour immigration in southern borders nearly as much as the people who live there. secondly, i just read a wonderful several pages on the web about the iowa caucus. i would like to remind people that if you are 17 at caucus time, if you will be eligible to vote for president later on, during the general, you can actually go to caucus at 17. i think that is a really cool thing. host: i want to take that. what does that mean for

campaigns that are energizing younger voters? --ald trump, bernie sanders donald trump, bernie sanders. it is a fascinating piece and i talked with 100 folks who was a key player in inventing the caucus process in 1972. the reason 17-year-olds can caucus is because one of the activists involved at the time was a high school student who was not going to be 18 by caucus date and they wrote that into the rules that he could be involved. it is important because it does mean that people younger than 18 can start getting involved ahead of the general election and cast votes. for many that show up it will be the very first vote that they cast in an american election. for the campaigns, it means trying to reach out to them. the problem of reaching out is that unlike registered voters,

it's hard to figure out where they are. cere are all kinds of list can use for unregistered voters and identify them as people not on the list are tougher to find. but campaigns make real efforts to do that and they always remind people that they can vote y're going to be 18. host: what kind of organization do you have? must you have? where do you concentrate your resources? specific counties or do you spread it across all 99? guest: it depends. it depends a lot on the strategy the candidate has adopted and the party of the candidate. for republicans, a vote is about. anywhere you can get a republican vote is valuable to

you. there are vote rich republican parts of the state especially the west and northwest in particular. but the more urban areas like des moines and cedar rapids and davenport are places with plenty dates andican candi campaigns tend to be relatively broad unless they have a specific strategy where they go after a specific order who can be identified in a particular part of the state. it is a little different. the delegates i mentioned that they were elected precincts are preset. that is the number of delegates preset the caste based on the democrats voting strength in the prior general election, not based on how many show up. this is true for republicans as well that does not have the same impact because they report the vote count. the democratic party will not report the vote count. they will report delegate count.

what that means is you could have massive turnout in a precinct in iowa city if you are bernie sanders. that will increase the number of delegates elected from a precinct. in a sense you can have almost too many voters and a precinct. where you went to a rural part of the state it might have 20 caucusing and it takes 10 of them to win have the delegates. there will be fewer delegates but instead of taking 50 people to win it may only take 10. for democrats there is a geography to the caucus and smart campaigns learned that and figure out where to build their support. generally, while you want the numbers, you really need to delegates. today with the headline the rest of the republican rivals by for third place in iowa. candidates try to present themselves as alternatives to

donald trump and ted cruz. rivals are and other subscribing to an old adage. there are three tickets out of iowa. historically that has been true, typically if you didn't fish in one of the top three slots your campaign probably wasn't going very far for much longer. certainly finishing at the bottom generally results in dropping out. this was not true for john mccain. he finished at a very close fourth and became the nominee in 2008 but otherwise it's typically true. the question of whether it is determined will be later. polling at this point suggests ted cruz and donald trump neck and neck and marco rubio fairly far behind. the rest of the field, rand paul may be close to rubio and the

rest of the field is dropping back. the real question is the value of third-place even this time, given what i have been calling the trump umbrella. the reason this matters, and we document this in the book in "why iowa? the question is how the media talks about the outcome afterwards. we see very real shifts and media attention waste on whether in, do better than expected, or do worse. if you do worse the media starts ignoring you and that is a killer for candidates typically. you do better than expected, lots of media attention shifts to you. while herick santorum, was not announced as the winner on caucus night, he was the one or. mitt romney was second. huge media shift to rick santorum post-iowa.

he didn't get the nomination but his campaign went further than it would have otherwise. the difference this time for , given whatis that we are seeing with the media and donald chunk, it is hard for me to imagine shifts in attention. donald trump wins, it will be all trump all the time and if he doesn't, it will still be all trump all the time. this is a very odd year. for the democrats, the same thing happens typically. but for democrats if a smaller field with only three candidates. if bernie sanders wins, there will be a lot of talking about how it is just like 2008 and hillary clinton lost again which will not be to her advantage. wins, i think she's in much better shape but if she barely wins, that might be a win for sanders. then there is martin o'malley

who is pulling much lower than 15%. but through various possibilities, might do better than expected. said,to add to what he this is from the washington times, saying on the republican side i don't think there's any doubt that iowa is, if not make or break, close to that for ted cruz because if senator cruz doesn't win iowa eight makes it even more difficult to imagine anyone other than mr. trump winning new hampshire. let's go to teresa in des moines. will you be caucusing? guest: absolutely. host: four home? whom. all hillary clinton. if any of you martin o'malley voters don't win, you can always go my way. i have a question.

you don't think it's stupid but i wondered this forever. who, exactly is an evangelical voter? host: not stupid at all, thank you. guest: no, not stupid. from the standpoint of categorization, we are talking about people that will tell us on a survey that they are born again christian. they will typically tell us they are very conservative. and issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are high on often just the most important issues for them. the other thing we often ask in surveys is how often people go to religious services. evangelicals will show us very strong tendencies to go much more often than most. there are also certain denominations that can be

identified but there's a lot of self identification that goes on here. many say something about horsetrading. intin o'malley as many know the democratic forum the other night told delegates the hold straw. it is trending on twitter. don'te meant by that is go over to another candidate. the problem is in some precincts, if you doesn't reach the threshold, those folks have to realign or convince enough people to join them to reach the threshold which means taking them from clinton or sanders. or literally go home. chance to hold straw with o'malley after the first alignment if he's not viable. host: how many go home? guest: not a lot but there are

always some. anecdotally in 2004, a good number of kucinich supporters when they were viable in there on precinct to go home and did not stay to realign but i think that is relatively rare. host: front page of the washington times, rnc backs down from nomination rules because the nomination rule change to trip trump. donald trump's campaign feels it can ill afford anything less than a first ballot win. the republican party this month has been privately warned not to attempt to change its rules this late in the game. several influential leaders on the republican national tomittee withdrew plans lower the threshold and make it easier for other candidates to challenge mr. trump. walk us through this. is, tothe starting point win the nomination you need 50%

plus one of the delegates at the convention. that's the most important point. there is some probability, we don't know what it is until .oters start voting if you look at the polling, mr. trump is pulling in the early states at about one third. the field may of be hard for anyone to get 50% plus one. if that happens you go to the convention on the first ballot and see what the numbers are. and the convention the horse trading begins. thebeing able to challenge front runner if it is trump or anybody. what makes it interesting is that every convention, essentially adopts its rules as one of the first things it does. in theory, the rules are changeable right up to the last minute.

inreat example way back 1976, when ronald reagan was challenging, they came to the republican convention unclear whether ford actually had 50% plus one. the very first battle was over end, the and in the ford forces one and it became clear he would win. david redlawsk co-author of "why iowa?" >> on the next "washington thenal," a preview of presidential campaign heading into the final weekend before the iowa caucuses. zond discusses his endorsement of donald trump and his efforts to get supporters to caucus for the republican presidential candidate. then, the president and ceo of the family leader and a

supporter of presidential candidate ted cruz looks at the role of social conservatives in 2016. as always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> friday, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues with the republican presidential candidates. at 12:30 eastern time, chris christie holds a town hall meeting in iowa. over on c-span2. at 1:45, jeb bush. you can watch it live here on c-span. later, we will join ben carson for a town hall meeting in iowa city, where he is campaigning with chuck grassley. live at 3:00 eastern on c-span two. >> the weekend prior to the caucuses, there will be a frenzy

of activity across iowa. there are somebody candidates on the republican side, three iowa candidates on the democratic side, and they will have each of them six events per day. what we will be looking for are those events that really give you a sense of what it is like to campaign for the caucuses. keep in mind, the key is organization. you need to make sure those people who support you get the caucuses. it will be interesting to see how the candidates are trying to close the deal, sell their message, and convince those people who might still be on the fence to go for the candidate. what you will see is wall-to-wall coverage on c-span as these candidates make their final pitches. >> c-span this weekend, live coverage of the presidential candidates in iowa. ashton carter announced the military will expand maternity and paternity leaves, expand access to childcare and fertility resources.

this is the newest initiative under his force of the future plan. the briefing is 40 minutes. sec. carter: you know that over the last several months i've been laser-focused here, we all have been laser-focused. and i've spoken many times on accelerating the campaign to defeat isil, defeating it first where it took root in iraq and syria, and elsewhere in which it has metastasized, and protecting our people and our homeland. and what we must remain absolutely focused on delivering isil a lasting defeat, we do not for a moment lose sight of america's leading role around the world. and additionally, certain long-term imperatives of this great department of defense, and particularly, what we must do to build the force for the future. when i became secretary of defense, i made a commitment to building america's force of the

future, an all-volunteer military that will defend our nation for generations to come. i've proudly stated that today's military is the finest fighting force the world has ever known. but that excellence is not a birthright. it has to be earned again and again by investing in what matters most, which is our people. by drawing from the best america has to offer and from the broadest possible pool of talent, we can ensure that the force of tomorrow remains as great as the force of today. that's why i announced in december that we're opening up all remaining combat occupations to women, so that 100 percent of americans who can meet our exacting standards can contribute to our mission. that's why in recent years, we allowed gay men and women to serve openly. that's why we're developing new approaches and incentives for recruitment, so that we can

reach and draw from a broader cross section of americans. and clearly, fairness is important, but always, always the mission effectiveness of our force comes first. we are not google. we are not walmart. we're war fighters. but that doesn't mean we should not be challenging ourselves just like the private sector. to modernize our workplace and workforce, to retain and attract the top talent we need, so that our force can remain the best for future generations. as you know, last year, i asked my team to come up with a set of proposals and reforms to help us build the force of the future. the military service chiefs and secretaries, supported by one of the department's most innovative minds, under secretary brad carson, have brought their ideas

to bear in working groups led by the deputy secretary of defense work and vice chairman selva to get their input on ideas, analyze the impacts of proposals on mission effectiveness and integrate feedback. and of course, i want to say especially secretary of the navy mabus has been a leader in so many of these issues. i introduced our first link to the force to the future in november, a set of reforms that help connect our men and women in the military in more structured and career-advancing ways to our most creative industries and to our culture of innovation. and as i said then, that was just a beginning. today, i'm announcing the next link in the force of the future: a set of several initiatives with a singular focus -- strengthening the support we provide our military families to improve their quality of life. these reforms focus on family

issues that impact three critical areas for the force of the future: recruiting, retention, and career and talent management. it's something that's been said so often before, but is so true. while you recruit a service member, you retain a family. so what we do to strengthen quality of life for military families today, and what we do to demonstrate that we're a family-friendly force to those we want to recruit is absolutely -- absolutely essential to our future strength. we all know that our all-volunteer force is predominantly a married force -- 52 percent of our enlisted force is married, and 70 percent of our officer force is married. we also have another 84,000 military-to-military marriages -- 84,000 -- with 80 percent of them stationed within 100 miles of each other.

while we often speak of commitments to family and country in the same breath, the stresses of military service on our families are heavy and well known. among the stresses military families face, having and raising children is near the top. and we know that, at 10 years of service, when women are at their peak years for starting a family, women are retained at a rate 30 percent lower than men across the services. we know that a high level of work -- excuse me -- of family conflict -- work and family conflict is one of the primary reasons they report leaving service. to build the force of the future, tackling these problems is imperative, especially when the generation coming of age today places a higher priority on work/life balance. these americans will make up 75 percent of the american workforce by 2025. nearly 4 in 5 of them will have

a spouse or a partner also in the workforce -- twice the rate of baby boomers. these americans wait longer to have children, and when they do have children, they want to protect the dual earning power of their families to provide for their children accordingly. we will address these generational changes in how we continue to recruit, retain and attract the best america has to offer by setting a more competitive standard across our joint force for parental leave, by making quality child care services more accessible and more flexible, by helping our men and -- men and women meet current career demands while preserving their ability to start a family down the road, and by making an option available for troops to trade

the ability to remain at a station of choice, at their commander's discretion, for an additional service obligation. each of these initiatives is significant in its own right. taken together, they will strengthen our competitive position in the battle for top talent, in turn guaranteeing our competitive position against potential adversaries. the first initiative i'll outline today involves providing a more competitive standard for maternity and paternity leave across our joint force. today, i am setting 12 weeks of fully paid maternity leave as the standard across the joint force, doubling this benefit from six weeks when i entered office. this puts dod in the top tier of institutions nationwide, and will have significant influence on decision making for our military family members. certainly, offering a more generous standard for maternity leave is imperative for attracting and retaining talent. we see the same phenomenon year after year -- women at peak ages for starting a family leave the

military at the highest rates. additionally, medical data also indicate this offering 12 weeks of maternity leave is also imperative to military mothers themselves. they show -- these medical data show that spending more time with infants and recovering from their pregnancies is, as a medical matter, very valuable to mothers to facilitate recovery, feeding, bonding, and more. private-sector data also strongly suggests a direct benefit on retention, and that employees who have access to and make use of parental leave perform better when they return to work. they stay with their organizations longer and are able to make greater contributions. i reviewed studies, surveys and inputs from across the services, and evidence and perspectives from all parties concerned with this issue, and particularly the views of our joint chiefs of

staff. i've taken time to consider the diversity views and different data points on this important subject. i concluded that 12 weeks of maternity leave across all of the force establishes the right balance between offering a highly competitive leave policy while also maintaining the readiness of our total force. and i don't take lightly that 12 weeks of maternity leave represents a downshift from what the navy pursued last summer, but i believe that we will be at the forefront in terms of competition, especially as part of the comprehensive basket of family benefits we're providing across the joint force. and i should just note that for navy mothers that are currently pregnant, we'll ensure that they can take those 18 weeks of leave. and we also realize, whether in raising a family or caring for an infant, this is not just a mother's responsibility, which is why this year, we will seek

authorities to increase paid paternity leave for new fathers from 10 to 14 days, which they can use in addition to annual leave. for those who want to become dads, or are about to, i want them to know this leave is available to them and i want them to make full use of it. second, and next, to build the force of the future, improvements to quality of life for military families must extend beyond the first critical months of parenthood. with the investments we're making in child care, we will provide the men and women of our military greater flexibility to meet the demands of modern family life. now many within our force already benefit from some of the highest quality child care available, and dod subsidizes the cost of child care to ensure that it's affordable across the force, no matter what your rank. it's one of the many areas where

the military already stands apart. but today, nearly half of all military families have to rely on an additional child care provider to meet their needs, in part because the hours we provide don't match their demanding schedules. in some respects our child care options today reflect the needs of a different era, of a time when, for the vast majority of military families, only one parent worked outside the home. that's a problem we need to address, and as we looked at this issue over the past nine months, we saw a link between dissatisfaction with child care and difficulties with retention. whether for single parents, for families where both parents work outside the home or for every mother or father in our military, child care hours should be as responsive as possible to work demands. based on feedback, therefore, from surveys and pilot programs,

and in the interest of responding to typical work hours at our installations, we will increase child care access to 14 hours a day across the force. by providing our troops with child care they can rely on, from before reveille to after taps, we provide one more reason for them to stay on board. we show them that supporting a family and serving our country are by no means incompatible goals. third, we can also make relatively inexpensive improvements so that our workplaces are more accommodating to women when they return from maternity leave, with a focus on making it easier for them to continue breast feeding if they choose. to make the transition between maternity leave and returning to work for military mothers smoother, to enhance our mission effectiveness, and to comply with standards that apply to nearly every organization outside the military, i am

requiring that a mother's room be made available at every facility with more than 50 women, which means the establishment of some 3,600 rooms across the country. this is an issue, by the way, that my friend sheryl sandberg first illuminated for me, and i'm pleased to see that with these investments, we'll make sure that we provide better options and choices for mothers across the force. fourth, we can also be more creative about making reasonable accommodations for members of our force who face difficult family geographic situations while at the same time, as is here as elsewhere, preserving our force's effectiveness. data and surveys show that allowing family members to trade the ability to remain at a station of choice in exchange for an additional active duty service obligation is one approach that could increase

retention, while preserving readiness. only in extreme circumstances are such arrangements currently made. but for a family who has a son or daughter who receives treatment at a particular hospital or who suffers from a particular disability, remaining longer in location where their specialized high-quality care can make a world of difference. other families want to remain in one place longer to allow a son or daughter to finish high school in one place with friends, teachers and teams they're close to. or perhaps to be close to grandparents or other family. these are all important. when the needs of the force permit a service member to stay at their current location, we will empower commanders to make reasonable accommodations, in exchange for an additional service obligation. finally, as a profession of arms, we ask our men and women to make incomparable sacrifices. we ask them, potentially, to

place themselves at risk, of sacrificing their ability to have children when they return home. it's clear that the benefits we offer our troops can better account for this. we can help our men and women preserve their ability to start a family, even if they suffer certain combat injuries. that's why we will cover the cost of freezing sperm or eggs through a pilot program for active duty service members -- a benefit that will help provide men and women, especially those deployed in combat, with greater peace of mind. this investment will also provide greater flexibility for our troops who want to start a family, but find it difficult because of where they find themselves in their careers. particularly, for women who are mid-grade officers and enlisted personnel, this benefit will demonstrate that we understand the demands upon them and want to help them balance commitments

to force and commitments to family. we want to retain them in our military. we're also committed to continuing to look at how we can provide advanced reproductive technologies like ivf to a wider population. today, we provide reduced cost treatment at six locations across the country, and we will study how to broaden this coverage in the future. by providing this additional peace of mind for our young service members, we provide our force greater confidence about their future, while providing one more tool to make the military a more family-friendly employer; an employer that honors the desire of our men and women to commit themselves completely to their careers, or to serve courageously in combat, while preserving their ability to have children in the future. there's no reform that we can make that will meet the particular circumstances of every military family, and ultimately there is no way to separate service from sacrifice.

military service will require uncommon dedication in every generation, including the coming generation. but i'll mention just one story that helps capture the commitment of our service members and the complexity of starting and supporting a military family today. when they met in japan, lieutenant jack eaves was a young service warfare officer. and lieutenant hannah foster was serving as a judge advocate general in the navy, having graduated from princeton and harvard, and clerked for justice kagan. within days of first meeting, they were instantly taken with one another. in the next months, you might say their relationship developed quickly. but as hannah said, quote, "in the navy, it's kinds of accelerated. you have to make decisions. you never know what will happen with your life," unquote. she was right to prepare for uncertainty, because a few months after they met, the horrific japanese earthquake struck, and both were called to

provide assistance at sea. and jack subsequently had been ordered home in may. they didn't know when they'd ever see each other. in an exchange between ships, over e-mails, they made up their minds -- they decided to get married. now, it wasn't traditional, and it wasn't easy, but they made it possible, and making wedding arrangements was just the beginning. they both wanted to start a family. but planning for when they would be in the same place and when they would be at stations long enough to be rated by commanding officers didn't give them much time. they overcame challenges of distance and their limited months limited months together to make it work, and today, they have two wonderful children. hannah has recalled those critical moments when they were serving offshore, wondering, quote, "how long we'd be out to sea," unquote. she was referring to their ships, but also their relationship, and whether something enduring was possible.

hannah and jack made it possible. they became lifelong partners. they have two kids, and their family's off to a great start. but in the life of their young family and the life of their young careers, they could have used a little more support, and the same is true for so many of our military families. at each stage of the game, hannah and jack had to worry about promotion boards, rating periods and additional calculations which made the first year of family life even more complex. as we introduce today's reform -- reforms, our calculation is quite simple. we want our people to be able to balance two of the most solemn commitments they could ever make: a commitment to serve their country and a commitment to start and support a family. and whether they're soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines, with the investments we introduce today, we want to ensure that no military family finds itself at sea. we want to make sure our troops have our support, and first and foremost that our force remains

effective and always ready. with what i've announced today, i believe our military will be better prepared for the future, and my successor's successors will continue to inherit the finest fighting force the world has ever known. we will become a more powerful magnet for the high-end talent we will need in the coming generation. we will make it easier to retain the top talent we have and to develop future leaders. we'll improve the quality of life for our families and enhance our mission effectiveness. we'll ensure the force of the future remains as great as the force of today. and i assure you there'll be more initiatives to come. so thank you very much. i look forward to answering your questions. let me just say -- bob? >> mr. secretary, thank you. a question for you about afghanistan. this morning at his confirmation hearing, general nicholson was asked about the situation with the taliban, and he said the

taliban came at the afghan forces more intensely than perhaps we anticipated, and because of that, we did not make the advances we projected, that we thought we would make. and he also agreed with senator mccain that the security situation is deteriorating. is the taliban, in fact, on a comeback? and does the u.s. military need to go at the taliban more directly? sec. carter: well, with respect to the taliban coming back, that's happened this past fighting season. we expected that, as widely observed and reported. and the afghan security forces fought extremely well. they are, however, a force in the making, as you know. so we expect the afghan security forces to be stronger -- much stronger this season than they were last season. they would have been, by the way, yet stronger this past season, had it not taken so long for the political transition to occur in afghanistan -- we all

know that. and -- but the afghan forces continue to make progress, and they fought hard. [inaudible] -- the taliban fought hard, but the afghan security forces fought hard, too. and they did so, this season, without the level of assistance that they got from the coalition in previous years, and they did well. and we expect them to do well this year -- this season also, because they have a bunch of new capabilities that have gotten delivered and they're training on. now, it's going to be tough, there's no question about it. i was in europe last week and met with president ghani. he fully understands that, as does the ceo, abdullah. so we're expecting a tough fighting season ahead. but the afghan security forces are going to be tougher this season also. they fought hard this past season. tara? >> [inaudible] the second part of my question about whether the u.s. military needs to take a more direct role in combat against the taliban.

sec. carter: well, we have rules of engagement now that have been very well thought through, that general campbell has authority to use, that allow us to do what we think needs to be done. obviously we adjusted our plans -- the president did -- months ago in view of circumstances, and you can expect that that will occur in the future as well. he's indicated as much. and i need to emphasize, bob, which i'm sure you know -- which is we're in this for the long run. that is, the president has made a commitment, and all the coalition members have to stick with afghanistan. that's not just for the year 2016. it's the year 2017 and beyond. so, for example, the funding for the afghan security forces will be part of the fy '17 overseas contingency operations budget that we submit. it will -- all of the coalition partners have indicated they're going to -- that they're going to make their contributions. so the afghan security forces are a force in building and it's important that the investments continue to be made in that. tara?

>> [inaudible] -- being there for decades? just a follow-up for what bob was asking, do you anticipate u.s. forces being in afghanistan for decades, as it -- sec. carter: well, i don't know about -- i don't know about decades, but i'll tell you one very positive thing about a presence in that part of the world. here we have a government that welcomes a presence by the united states, has a strong posture towards terrorists, has a strong posture towards how it treats its population and how it wants to develop its economy in a part of the world that -- where america has important interests. and so i -- having a friend and a military partner in afghanistan in the long run is a good outcome, just like we have with so many other countries around the world, very positive military-to-military

relationships. now tara. >> okay, thank you, mr. secretary. one on the initiative and then one on libya. on the initiative, to remain at duty station, what kind of additional service obligation would a service member have to give? and if there was a family where both husband -- both partners were serving, would they both have an additional service obligation? and then on libya, last week, general dunford mentioned that the u.s. made the expanding its role against isis in libya, and i'm wondering if you could expound upon that. is the u.s. considering airstrikes against isis insurgent? if not, what sort of role would the u.s. have to counter the group's growth in libya? sec. carter: okay. first with respect to the service obligation, that is a matter upon which the commander will have substantial discretion. that's an important principle. and i want to emphasize something i said, which is we have to balance the flexibility

here against our necessity as america's fighting force to send people where they're needed. and that's why there's a trade and that's why there's commander's discretion. so it's actually going to depend upon the circumstance. we'll give some broad guidelines -- we're working on them now -- across the services. but it's important that commanders have flexibility here for the very simple reason you can understand, which is we've got to have people go where they're needed to defend us. with respect to libya, you know, we watch that situation very carefully. obviously, i've talked about the need to destroy and defeat isil in syria and iraq, and i've always talked about the other metastasis, and one of the ones that we watch very closely is the one in libya, and there's a

lot going on in libya right now. not of a military sort, but there's a government in formation that the united states is supporting. secretary kerry and his people are supporting. there is a troubled environment on the ground in which we're watching that isil doesn't sink roots. we're not the only ones who are concerned, by the way, libyans themselves, i should note, don't welcome outsiders intruding on their territory, and that includes isil. so there are a number -- there is a lot of civil war and disturbance going on in libya. but as a general matter, the populace is not welcoming of outsiders who come there, and that's good.

and, therefore, in the first instance we're looking to help them get control over their own country and, of course, the united states will support the libyan government when it forms. i should say we're not in the lead for doing that. the italians are by who -- by dint of both geography and history and the level of commitment have indicated that they'd take a lead in doing that. we have indicated we would support them. so we're watching the situation very carefully, and there's a lot going on there right now. but we haven't made any decisions to take military action there. we will continue to protect ourselves, take counterterrorism actions, you know we've taken some actions there in the last year. but it's a situation that i think, as general dunford has observed really, bears close watching and concern. let me see.

andrew? >> on the maternity leave, as you mentioned, this policy you're announcing today is going to significantly reduce what the navy and marine corps gets from the current 18 weeks. can you elaborate a little bit on why you thought 18 weeks was not appropriate for the entire force? sec. carter: well, in determining this -- by the way, for the entire joint force. we looked for a standard that would be -- and 12 weeks is extremely generous by any -- it puts us in the very top tiers of american employers. but then, you have to balance that against the readiness costs associated with it. so, we leaned very far forward, and this puts us in a very far forward position. but i came to the conclusion that 12 was the right number

here, as we struck that balance. i thought it was important that we have the same standard across the joint force. and then, just -- i want to repeat something i said, out of fairness to individuals who have been affected by the temporary action of the navy, we'll make sure that they're -- they have this -- the benefit that they were promised if it affects them. but 12 is a -- by all of our internal data, by external comparison and by balancing the benefit in terms of force retention -- remember, that's our objective -- against loss of readiness and a single standard across the joint force, that's the right place we landed. and that's what i thought, and

that's what all of our joint chiefs of staff and the chairman thought as well. jennifer? you are sneaking in -- you can. >> can i take you back to the incident with iran and the ten u.s. sailors? sec. carter: sure. >> did iran violate international law by detaining the u.s. sailors, and how did you feel when you saw the video with your sailors with their hands up, being held at gun point? sec. carter: well, the second part's easy. i was very, very angry at it. and i'm not going give you the international law answer, but i can tell you, americans wouldn't have done that. i said that before that for me as secretary of defense -- i think it's probably true of everybody in the department -- to see our guys in that situation on iranian tv, that's really not okay. and we -- again, we would not have done that. and i asked everybody at the time, and i hope everybody keeps that in mind as you think about that, remember as you're thinking about our guys that

you're looking through the lens of the iranians. so, they are being debriefed and explaining what the circumstances and so forth. our first interest for their guys was their own health and welfare. the navy has been attending to that, and that's important. but -- this is not the way they should have been treated, and it's very -- for certain not the way americans would have treated foreign sailors in a comparable circumstance. >> did the u.s. sailors behave appropriately from your point of view? sec. carter: they -- you know, you're looking through the -- this is why it's important to remember, you're looking through the lens of an iranian -- i have no reason to believe anything else. and they -- this was a situation in which they were -- that they were put into coercively, and then filmed, again, not something we would ever do.

>> secretary carter, just to follow-up on earlier questions regarding afghanistan and then libya. there was also discussion at the confirmation hearing this morning of the potential need -- whether -- the question of whether or not there's a need to expand the pace of american air operations in afghanistan, and expand the circumstances in which air strikes are authorized in afghanistan. do you believe that the pace of air operations in afghanistan needs to be picked up, and that the circumstances in which they can occur should be expanded? and then on libya -- sec. carter: well, let me just -- one at a time. let me see, just before i forget. for afghanistan, general campbell already has significant discretion in that regard. and obviously we're constantly

considering what we're doing there. but i think the biggest uptick you're going to see in the coming season, in terms of close air support for the afghan security force, is going to come from the afghans themselves, because of the upgrades we're making in their helicopter force, which come online, because of the delivery of a-29s, which just landed at kabul international airport, two weeks ago, because their increased use of their most effective form of direct fire, which is long-range artillery. so for all those reasons, the indirect fire support for afghan operations in this fighting season will be much stronger than it was in the last -- completely independent of american participation. and then -- then what was the other one, libya? >> on libya, yeah. do you think that there needs to be a government actually formed and in place before there's additional american action against the islamic state -- military action? and can you give us a -- sec. carter: no. no, no, no, no. no. i don't want to give that impression, because remember, we've taken action against the

islamic state. we have to protect ourselves, and there's no question about that. but it's also true that we're supportive of government formation, and if there's government formation, that gives us new opportunities, which are to support a -- the security forces of the government, who themselves, we expect, will want to expel isil from their own territory. so, it's very much to be welcomed if there is government formation, because of the expectation that that government, with our help -- remember, the italians indicated they'll be in the lead, but with the help of the international community and international coalition, we'll expel isil from their territory, which -- that's the outcome that we're looking for. barbara? >> can i follow up on that for a minute? when you look at libya and you talked about, you know, the need to protect ourselves, what's

your sense of the real threat that isis in libya does pose at the moment? what's their capability? what threat do they pose to the united states? can you talk a little bit about how big this effort is that the -- sec. carter: i'm going to be careful, because i don't want to go into intelligence matters. but as general characterization, they are trying to consolidate their own footprint there, and they're very focused on that. we're monitoring that. that's a concern to us, because isil obviously tries to destabilize places where they are. and isil around the world has indicated that part of its ideology is to attack westerners, including americans. so we have to look at this with great concern, and that is why we've taken some action already in libya against isil members, because of the threat they pose to the united states. >> when you say consolidate their footprint in libya, can we

make sure we understand what you mean there? sec. carter: it means -- >> do you think they're trying to develop a capability, command, control -- be able to launch attacks from libya? what do you mean? sec. carter: well, they're establishing the -- installations where they train people. they're welcoming foreign fighters to flock there, the way, in years past, they did in syria and iraq. and they're trying to take over the reins of the economy and tax it the way you see isil doing in -- so you see the same kind of ambitions on their part that you see realized in full flower in syria and iraq. and we don't want to be on a glide slope to a situation like syria and iraq. that's the reason why we're watching it that closely. that's the reason why we develop options for what we might do in

the future. tom? >> thank you, sir. can we go back to afghanistan? has general campbell indicated that he needs more than 9,800 troops that he has now to complete his mission? and would you be supportive of adding troops? sec. carter: he has not indicated more than 9,800 -- 9,800, by the way, is the number this year. we would always consider requests from -- from command -- that's why he's there. and, by the way, john campbell is exceptional. we've had -- we've been really lucky. we've had an unbelievable string of commanders in afghanistan, of which j.c. campbell is the latest one. but we always listen to them and always consider their requests. that's my job. my -- i'm the open door for commanders to tell us what they think we need, and then we consider that, and eventually if i -- if i agree with it and with -- on the chairman's advice and

so forth, we take it to the president. that's just -- that's just normal. >> one more question? mr. secretary, many of the things you discussed today, whether it's adding child -- more child care hours or increasing fighting against isis or keeping troops in afghanistan longer all are going to require more money, yet your budget is still capped here. how do you plan to find the extra funding for all these initiatives? sec. carter: well, for the initiatives i announced today, you've got a couple of different things going there. so with respect to what we've been talking about counter isil and so forth, that is funded in oco, it's budgeted separately, i'm sure you know that. with respect to the initiatives i announced today, in every case, we looked very carefully at the costs, which are sometimes not monetary costs, but they're costs in terms of -- pardon me; i always tell peter there's something about this room. lost man-hours and we did

calculate them. and that's one of the reasons why you're always trying to find the sweet spot in a personnel management decision between additional cost and quality retention. because remember, it's a huge loss to us when we have someone who's been with us for a number of years and has reached a level of proficiency in contribution to the force and then decides to leave. so that's the reason why it's -- we are so intent upon making these investments. so all of these are in the -- will be in the services budget and incorporated in the -- in the service budgets. the wars as you -- as you well know, are funded separately. >> do you project a major spike in that oco funding to address these increased operations for the war? sec. carter: well, we're going to submit a budget based upon our anticipated needs over the next year.

now, it's in the nature of oco -- oco is supposed to be responsive to what really happens. so our experience with oco is sometimes, if you go back over the last number of years, sometimes there's been more and sometimes, actually, there's been money that congress has taken back at the end of the year because it hasn't been expended. so the theory of oco is variable costs that cannot be built in and predicted. and this year won't be any different from any other year, we'll just have to see how it goes. >> thank you, everyone. sec. carter: listen, thank you all very much for coming. i really appreciate it. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up on c-span, our wrote to the white house coverage continues with three campaign event in iowa. first, senator rand paul in des moines. then, rick santorum indianola. after that, donald trump at

drake university. >> on the next "washington journal,'david yeltsin for the des moines register previews the presidential campaigns heading into the final weekend before the iowa caucuses. republican iowa state editor brent zaun discusses his endorsement of donald trump and getting voters to caucus for the candidate. plaats,vander supporter of ted cruz, looks at the role of social conservatives in the 2016 campaign. take your we will calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal," live its :00 a.m. eastern on seas. today, c-span's road to the

white house coverage continues with the republican presidential candidates. at 12:30, chris christie holding a town hall meeting. live on c-span2. at 1:45, jeb bush. you can watch it live on c-span. later, we will join ben carson for a town hall meeting in iowa city, where he is campaigning with chuck grassley. live at 3:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. begins atbruary 1, 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will bring you live pre-caucus coverage, taking your phone calls, tweets, and texts. then we will take you to the republican caucus in the democratic caucus on c-span2. see the event life in its entirety, and be sure to stay with c-span and join in on the conversation.

>> republican presidential candidate rand paul spoke to voters at drake university in des moines. he asked them to caucus for him. afterwards he answered questions from the audience admit them before boarding the seas and bus to take telephone calls. this is an hour in 10 minutes. another republican presidential candidate, rand paul. let's see what he had to say. talk. him let him talk. let him talk. -- president paul. president paul. president paul. president paul. president paul. [applause] any fans of freedom in the house tonight? [applause] you guys arel, if

not here to hear from me, i do have a few announcements. one awesome announcement. we are planning on turning out 10,000 college students for rand paul. [applause] right here at drake, we do have a meet up location, this one is at 6:00 p.m., we are going to be right in here, we are expecting tons and funds of folks, grab one of our cards, and if you are not a student, we are trying to build a big coalition. we have at these of volunteer cards, and if you want to help out in the caucus or help us with phone calls, fill this out and we will get you all set up. if you want to speak, we can even get you set up with that. who is ready to hear from the next president of the united states? [applause] >> president paul. president paul. president paul.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our next president, mr. rand paul. [applause] mr. paul: thank you, thank you. are there any liberty lovers in the house? [applause] mr. paul: thank you, thank you. welcome to the home stretch. here we come, iowa. i want to tell you why america needs to hear your voice. we live in a world that is increasingly becoming a more from tradition -- becoming unmoored from tradition, and our way of life.

full garrity is accepted as the vulgarity is accepted as the norm. a stranger can no longer wonder awe is as good in on as dead. to think that there is something in our minds that we cannot religiousness. in order to embrace the mystery, we must be free. without liberty, our senses are dole and dumbed down -- are dull and dumbed down by regulation. of question we face is not

the moment but of such a magnitude that we choose today, whether liberty can survive in a democracy unrestrained by a constitution. choosesvilization that to transfer the fruits of labor from one group to another, can such a civilization long endure? what we eventually run out of other people's money? [applause] mr. paul: the american experiment with liberty is not totally won. today, tomorrow, and the day after, we must fight to restrain big brother. [applause] will you stand together against the rising tide of government excess that threatens to trap us in the clutches of big brother?

will you stand with me? [applause] >> president paul! president paul! president paul! mr. paul: liberty is under assault like never before in washington and on the campaign trail, and republicans and democrats alike call out for bigger government. understandsdent who the corrupting influence of big government can stop it. is forright, the call enlarging the military state. on the left, the call is for enlarging the welfare state. and the dirty little secret? the dirty little secret in washington is that the right and the left always get what they want, more spending. and you, you get stuck with the bill. in washingtonices for more spending are actually

right now coming from republicans. recently, ted cruz and marco rubio -- crowd: boooo! they put forward an amendment for military spending of $200 billion. this would add $200 billion to our debt. when i countered them with an amendment that would cut domestic spending in order to pay for it, they refused. the inconvenient truth is that you cannot be a conservative if you are liberal with military spending. [applause] mr. paul: we do not become a stronger or a safer nation if we borrow from china to inflate our military budget. we stand more on her military budget that russia plus china plus the next eight countries

combined. there is waste everywhere. from $43 million to a natural gas gas station in afghanistan to $1 million for a televised cricket game in afghanistan. they don't even have televisions in afghanistan. with thisroblem unholy compromise, the republicans, they get more republicans and they get more military spending but only if they trade democrats a whopping them is expanding. if we want to balance the budget and if we truly do believe in what we say in, all spending must be restrained. [applause] mr. paul: every republican says they are for balancing the budget but nobody ever does it.

introduced three budgets that are balance and i can do it by reducing spending across-the-board. the national taxpayers union is recognizing me as the most frugal lawmaker in washington. spend too much money but they are also carelessly infringing on our civil liberties. both parties are conjuring to an assault on your rights. the right attacks your fourth amendment, the left the texture second amendment, i am the only candidate that stands for the entire ill of rights -- the left attacks your second amendment, and i am the only candidate that stands for the entire bill of rights. [applause] >> president paul! president paul! president paul!

president paul! [applause] terroristsince the attack in san bernardino, the left has called out for more gun control while the right calls out for more people control. the left calls for more bands on gun sales -- bans on gun sales and the right to clamors for our records. i don't know about you, that i would say that our phone records are none of their damn business! [applause] they claim we can't be safe without letting the government inspect everything, collect all of our records, what there is no evidence that these actions make us any safer. two bipartisan commissions investigated the government's bulk collection of data, and they found absolute zero plots.

circuit court, the court just below the supreme court, ruled the collection of your phone records are illegal, and yet some still want to bring it back. marco rubio wants to bring it back. he says you cannot be saved unless we can look at everything from your phone. i say it is wrong and we need to protect your privacy. [applause] mr. paul: no ted cruz, he claims he was with us on reforming the now ted cruz, he claims he was with us on reforming the nsa, that i think he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. he said he voted for a bill to reform the nsa so he can allow the government to collect 100% of your cell phone records. crowd: booo! if his goal is to

protect 100% of your cell phone records, he greatly misunderstands the liberty movement. [applause] i've got a better idea. how about we collect 0% of yourself on records? records?r cell phone [applause] i am president, we will once again respect the fourth amendment with asthma -- protectmuch vigor as we the second amendment. when i am president, we will once again defend the entire bill of rights from top to bottom. [applause] ted cruz, donald trump, marco rubio -- crowd: booooo!

>> boo trump! mr. paul: -- they all tell you that they want to carpet bomb the middle east. ted cruz says he wants to make the sand glow. says the problem is we haven't been willing enough to use our nuclear weapons. i am the only candidate that asks, will indiscriminate bombing of civilians create more terrorists than it actually kills? [applause] i am the only one willing to point out that every time we have used our military might to topple secular dictators from hussein to results have been chaos and the void is not filled with jeffersonian democracy, but with radical islam.

us $4aq war alone cost trillion. we lost 5000 of our finest young men and women. more live with catastrophic injuries. as commander in chief, i will never, never ignore the human cost of war. [applause] crowd: president paul! president paul! president paul! no more war! no more war! mr. paul: i like it. i like it. the other candidates offer you more of the same. macho rhetoric and fear mongering and perpetual war. marco rubio says we should shun cooking -- shun putin.

chris christie says he wants to shut down russian planes flying over syria and iraq. yet no one asks what is next. on the stage, i ask for a reasonable foreign policy were we strand -- where we stand strong enough. we do not want to start world war iii. [applause] mr. paul: when i am president, i will adhere to the reagan doctrine that war should be the last resort, not the first. [applause] mr. paul: and when i am we will only fight wars that are constitutionally

declared i congress. congress.d by [applause] mr. paul: when i am president, we will only use war to defend america, not for regime change and not for nationbuilding. one candidate in particular wants you to give him power. he tells you he is so rich he must be smart. [laughter] >> trump! mr. paul: if you give him power, he will fix america. but you know, there is another tradition in america, a tradition that believes that power corrupts and that our goal should not be to gain power but to contain power and to limit presidential power. [applause]

mr. paul: our founding fathers feared centralization of power. "wherein powere, is centralized, no one is safe in his person or possession." our founding fathers wrote this ofrestrain centralization federal government and trump is ignorant of this tradition. in many cases, he is overly opposed to this philosophy. he believes that the government has the right to seize your property and give it to a rich crony for eminent domain. it -- thisoor and to is abhorant to anyone.

he supported bailing out the big banks. he has used the government to get rich and bully the competition and now he asks you to give him power. boo!: notpaul: this race should be about which candidate, or, this race should be about which government will protect you -- which candidate will protect you from the government. this is not about grabbing the ring of power. having gollum elected is not a good thing. [laughter] [applause] only one inam the this race who doesn't want power