karrakesh and elsewhere dash has executed christians solely because of their faith. that it executed 49 coptic and ethiopian christians in libya and it has also forced christian women and girls into sexual slavery. we know that dash massacred in reds of shia turkmen mosul. besieged and starved a tushmen town and captured hundreds of shia turkmen women, raping many in front of their own families. ewe know dash has made a systematic effort to doe industry the -- destroy the cultural heritage of communities, destroying armenian and roman catholic churches, desecrating cemeteries and in palmyra, even beheading the 83-year-old scholar who had spent a lifetime preserving antiquities there.

>> just some of the secretary of state's briefing y earlier, we'll show his remarks in their entirety tonight at 9:20 p.m. eastern on c-span2 or watch them any time online at c-span.org. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, melanie campbell, president and c.e.o. of the national coalition on black civic participation will be with us to discuss this week's black women's round table summit and the state of black women report, including views of the 2016 presidential campaign. then the former district attorney for the u.s. district -- district attorney of district of columbia will talk about emails on hillary clinton's personal server in her time as secretary of state and

what gos we can expect in coming weeks. be sure to watch "washington journal" every day beginning at 7:00 a.m. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are programs to watch for. saturday night at 8:15 eastern a book discussion with city university of new york professor douglas rushkof, author of throwing rocks at the google bus he talks about how americans can build upon the digital economy by changing how they grow businesses to benefit employees and employers. then at 10:00 p.m., "afterwords" with law professor john yu, coed tore of "liberty's nemesis" which examines the growing presidential power during president obama's term. >> it seems obvious the government can't regulate the money you would use to participate in a constitutional right.

so citizens united says since you have a right to free speech, particularly as you said in politics, during campaign is one the framers wanted to have free speech, how can they say, but you can't spend money on using your constitutional right. >> on sunday night at 8:00 eastern, former first lady laura bush chronicles the live offings afghan women since the u.s. invasion in the book "we are afghan women." mrs. bush wrote the introduction to the book which was put out by the george w. bush institute. go to book tv -- booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> the supreme court is vested with this outsized amount of power and with that comes greater responsibility and the idea that you have individuals sitting on the court, unfettered, for 30, 35 years is just not -- it doesn't pass the smell test when it comes to a modern democracy. >> sunday night on "q&a," gabe roth talks about changes he'd

like to see at the supreme court including opening up oral arguments to cameras, imposing term limits on the justices and requiring justices to adhere to the same code of ethics that other federal judges follow. >> the supreme court decisions affect all americans. all americans are aware of the third branch of government and in the last 10, 15 year the third branch of government has become so powerful. the idea that issues on voting and marriage and health care and immigration and women's rights, pregnan sis discrimination. i could go on and on. issues that maybe 20, 30 years ago, congress and the executive branch would get together and figure out a compromise and put together a bill. that doesn't really happen anymore. the buck stops with the spoufert in a way that i feel is unprecedented in our history and given that the supreme court is making these very impactful decisions in our live, eleast we as a public can do is press them to comport with modern expecting

as of transparency and accountability. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> earlier today senate minority leader harry reid talked about the rise of donald trump, immigration issues, violence against muslims and president obama's nominee to the supreme court. he spoke for just under an hour. >> good morning, everyone. happy st. patrick's day. we're very honor -- honored to have you all here for a very important event and remarks on exactly what is happening in our politics today. just before president obama's second inauguration, the new yorker's andy boar wits published this fitting satirical headline, quote, republicans accuse obama of using position

as president to leave country. -- to lead country. i think that sums up where we've been the last several years. we have had year after year in which republicans -- republican politics has been a contest for who can say no the fastest, the loudest, and the longest. with no regard for reason or the best interests of the country. we've seen that particularly over the last 24 hours in response to the supreme court. truthfully, we've seen that the moment the american people elected barack obama, republicans -- republican leaders have made it their mission to block everything, literally everything the president has proposed. they've misled the american people about his policies, and over the last year, we have seen incredibly heated rhetoric around the president and the country's future. today, donald trump is the republican party's frontrunner and people are surprised that hateful, divisive rhetoric over the last seven years has contributed to a canada -- a

candidacy that mirrors those themes. we are particularly honored to have senator reid here to discuss those topics and many more. senator reid has been an incredible champion for the american people, siding with america's middle class, working to help all americans on almost every issue that i've worked on over the last decade. he's worked with past policies to help hardworking families to achieve the american dream, fighting his heart out to keep immigrant families together, protecting our environment for future generations, he's been an incredible voice for all of us. i'm really honored to have him here to talk about what's happening for the american -- with the american electorate, what's happening to our politics, where the republican party is going and what democrats can do about it. please join me in welcoming senator harry reid. [applause]

senator reid: excuse me. sorry i was a little late, there was quite a bad accident a few blocks from here that held us up a little bit. i want to take just a minute and publicly acknowledge john podesta. when john podesta came to me with this idea, i frankly was underwhelmed. i couldn't believe he could do what he said he was going to do. he was right, i was wrong. and i have such admiration for this man who could have been out in the private sector and made a fortune and that's not what he chose to do. and stepping into those big shoes, you've done an outstanding job, and thank you for allowing me to be here today. many americans are scratching their heads about donald trump. i know i have on more than one

occasion. most of us cannot fathom how he rose so far and so, so fast. his violent rhetoric -- his violent rhetoric is embarrassing, his proposals are dangerous. the republican establishment acts bewildered but they should not be bewildered. as much as they may try to distance themselves from trump now, republican leaders are responsible for his rise. for eight years, they replaced thoughful engagement with resentment and hatred. we're seeing it right now with president obama's nomination of merrick garr larned for the supreme court. a full month before we knew who would the nominee would be, the republicans pledged to block him and treat him or her like a pinata. this is the kind of mindless behavior that's hollowed out our political debate and created the conditions for trump to rise.

republican leaders created the drought conditions, donald trump has simply struck the match. republicans began charting the path to donald trump eight years ago. if you recall where our nation stood at the end they have 2008. president bush was on his way out of office after a failed presidency that left the nation teetering on the brink of disaster. president obama came into office with a broad mandate, promising solutions that were needed. republicans were looking to their leaders to bring them together, republican leaders chose the opposite path. instead of cooperating for solutions to help americans, republican leaders chose obstruction and scorched earth policies. at president obama's first inauguration, a group of

republicans went to a nearby restaurant to talk about opposition to the new administration. they decided on a two-fold mission. first to do everything in their power to keep president obama from being re-elected. second, prevent president obama from achieving any of his legislative goals. that manifested itself in one big lie that they repeated different ways over and over and over again. this is the lie. what hardships americans face could not be faced by smart policy solutions if those solutions were opposed by -- were proposed by obama. again and again republicans told americans that any policy put forward by democrats was nefarious simply because it came from president obama. we've seen this big lie resurface in the last 24 hours as president obama nominated merrick fwar land to the supreme court. the supreme court overwhelmingly

needs someone and the senate with a large vote selected him, confirmed imhim to the u.s. court of appeals to the d.c. circuit, the second highest court in the land. did it in 1997. at that time, 32 republicans voted to confirm him, including republicans koets, coffman, collins, hatch, mccain and roberts. here's what senator hatch said of merrick fwar land, and i quote. i know merrick garland very well, he was supported by all sides and the president knows that. he said a lot more, complimently things. republicans are slandering a good man, simply, why? because president obama nominated him. that's how they treated him over his entire presidency, for 7 1/2 years. it didn't matter where these ideas came from. didn't even matter if they came

if republicans. republican leaders repeatedly told the lie over and over in many danchte way. they said for everything that president obama proposes, even if it's a republican idea, it cannot help you and will hurt you. look at the affordable care act. in 2009, 50 million americans were suffering without health insurance. the center priest for reform probezzed by democrats is the individual mandate. where did that come from? from the conservative heritage foundation. but as soon as president obama proposed it, it suddenly became socialism in their eyes. but it's not just the affordable care act. democrats put forward one policy after another to address economic hardships faced by americans. many of these ideas were originally republicans. and previously enjoyed bipartisan support. yet one by one they were rejected by republican leaders who repeated the big lie, if obama supports it, it won't help

you. the list is long, very long. tax cuts, wall street reform, infrastructure investment. on each issue, republican leaders faced a choice, help constituents put food on the table, literally, or stick it to president obama. time after time republicans chose to stick it to president obama. instead of helping their own constituents. the examples continue. payroll tax cuts. mortgage refinancing. student loans. immigration reform. automobile bailout. all these policies used to enjoy bipartisan support. all of these policies would help the very people suffering most from the recession. but republican leaders kept repeating the big lie, if president obama supports it, it won't help you. like any lie, this kept putting republicans deeper and deeper into dishonesty. republicans soon found propping

up the lie meant they had to question any authority that might counter it. they started questioning science or any independent research that supported democratic policies. one example, climate change. in the face of scientific consensus worldwide, republicans say they don't believe the science. preventing gun violence is epidemic of mass shootings, republicans reject background checks and they claim more guns 53% of answer republicans think the unemployment rate is higher now. this statistic is sad. it's wrong. but not shocking.

despite 72 consecutive months of private sector job growth and unemployment rate below 5%, republicans are saying president obama has been a disaster. one after another, the facts were mowed down by republican leaders cast aside as collateral damage. no wonder millions of americans feel powerless. republicans torturing institutions americans relied on to help them face the challenges. instead of engaging on policy, republicans told americans, there is nothing to be done. o what wasteland have they created? resentment and hatred which they embrace and too cowardly to renounce. tea party flourished with dark money from the koch brothers. these far right groups varied,

but one thing in common, serious hatred of president obama. even observe anti-that the tea party is driven by the darkest forces in our culture. republican leaders tried to quash this. this resentment took three main forms, rendering president obama illegitimate. cond, fear mongering and pushing hatred. these were started by republican leaders for the past 8 years. the most recognizable attempt is the birther movement. it all started when a website asked where is the birth certificate? before long more and more conservative outlets were

discussing this absurd conspiracy theory. republicans in the house introduced legislation suggesting that our president wasn't born in america and who was the most prominent america to give the birther movement a platform, donald trump. mitt romney is speaking out against trump. romney knew how ridiculous the claims were and what did mr. omney do, he asked for trump's endorsement. mitt romney helped fuel the flames. as was reported in the "new york times," almost six years ago, and here's what it said. before the health care fight, before the economic stimulus package, before president obama even took office, senator mcconnell knew that republican

minority leader had a strategy for his party, use his extensive knowledge of senate procedure to slow things down that democrats would have in governing. that's from the "new york times." no president in history faced the number of filibusters president obama has faced. today, senator mcconnell has led republicans in 500 filibusters despite the fact that they launched it against good ideas. during the first six years -- the only six years that l.b.j. served as minority leader, my ix years, in the hundreds. the only possible message that is unprecedented this president and his ideas are illegitimate. senator mcconnell's rejection of

any proposal of president obama regardless of merits is the kinder, gentler version of birthism. trump was forging the senate republican caucus and seeing this played out over the debate over the supreme court. moments, the republican leader decided to abandon the constitution to apiece his radical base. that night donald trump followed and said republicans must delay, elay, delay. merrick garland's name hadn't been mentioned. but republicans were undermining president obama again, punch first and asks questions later s what we expect to learn from donald trump. senator mcconnell should look in

he mirror. mcconnell sacrificing the republican majority to allow donald trump to pick the nominee. the anti-muslim movement spawned donald trump. before he was elected, fox news convinced republicans that president obama was a secret muslim and groups stoked the flames of hatred. some speculate the muslim brotherhood were working in the obama administration and sleea law was taking over america. republicans didn't address the anti-muslim hate. w because of their inaction, they are reaping donald trump candidacy and he wants to block all muslims from entering our

country. is hird, republican party the most salient example of how they abandoned for fear and resentment politics and defining leadership for donald trump. they have allowed decades, decades of the movement to fester within its strengths. republican leaders looked on while steve king repugnant language against latinos such as dreamers were drug dealers. republican leaders said nothing, as jeb bush spoke, anchor babies want to said they round up, detain and deport immigrants with a massive deportation force. together with well organized groups republicans have pushed

hateful legislation to allow warrantless arrest and instead of stamping out this hatred, they adopted this as part of their platform. republicans countered with policy. and in the senate, they worked with comprehensive reform bill. but we watch as speaker boehner to the tea party radicals and refused to allow a vote. to this day, i have said a lot of time if speaker boehner gave it a vote. to his credit, president obama saw it. and countered with a series of executive actions and i appreciate it. republican response was both alarming and predictable. ted cruz tried to force a shutdown of homeland security.

all the time donald trump was watching, watching. he saw extremism condoned by republican leaders who are too powerless to do anything about it. when trump calls immigrants rapists and murderers, he learned that from generations of conservatives. the republican party has become without question the party of trump. the question before us now is this, what does trump's wife say about the debate and how should america respond? for conservatives, the answer is simple. supporters support donald trump a do it now. now. for too long, they have tried to have it both ways, giving trump occasionally a slap on the wrist every time he says something did he test tibble. this is the moral cowardice. after years of refusing to

renounce, they are supporting the birthers in the nation. what more do they need to see? trump has made disgusting sexist statements, he has inconsulted people with disabilities. people are being assaulted and taunted with racial slurs at his rallies and violence is being committed and trump encourages it all. no gray area here. time for senator mcconnell to find the background to say, enough, trump. enough. if they say trump is raceist, you shouldn't support him, period. if they refuse to revoke the support for trump, they should t on make america great hats

-- clearly the nation cannot land conservatives to respond to donald trump. how should they respond. we should double down on our ideas to recktive eye the damage trump is doing. we must challenge him boldly with the strength of our ideas and should do it now. we must continue to be the agents of change. we should remember that republicans' big lie is just that, a big lie and the truth is progressive policies will help americans. requiring employees to offer paid sick leave will help businesses stronger and college more affordable and ladders of opportunity to americans who now stee only stagnation. raising the minimum wage at $15 will put more money in the pockets of workers and stimulate the economy. fixing our roads and bridges

will create jobs. for every billion dollars we invest, 47 high-paying jobs and other low-paying jobs spin off. ensuring that women are being compensated and say equal pay for the workmen do. they should get paid the same. we must restore america's faith in the democratic process and fight for a supreme court that will overturn citizens united. it means taking a hard look at our government and doing whatever we can it is as effective and dynamic as possible. where there is gridlock, we should break it. this is what democrats did with the nuclear option invoking a logjam of historic proportions. and leaving judicial emergencies across the country. they wanted to get the nlrb. our guiding principles should be

responding to the needs of hard-working americans ffment our government institutions have outgrown certain norms we should meet the needs of the modern air averha and get involved with public service. and only the best people we are committed and living real results for real people. most of all, we should resist the urge to water down or run away from our policy solutions. resist the urge to move to the right. a few months ago i met with the .ew governor of louisiana a fewd the governor-elect questions. i asked him how he survived down there. he said if i supported obamacare, i just said yes. if you are progressive and get

over your principles, then and this is a direct quote, people just don't think you are a liberal, they think you are a liar. so let's be proud of who we are. and let's not be shy. democratic policies for the last seven years created 14 million jobs and dropped unemployment to 5% and 20 million americans get health care. today there are more jobs and clean energy than there are jobs in the coal mines. trump says he wants to make america great. which america does he want to take us back, the time before african-americans before civil rights or before women had the right to vote or before child labor laws, maybe he wants to go back before the time of medicare or social security or the national labor relations act or the clean air act. we only have one america that's

already great. we know what needs to be done. if trump's anger with our ideas, we will win and we wilt trump, trump. [applause] host: thank you so much for those remarks on a whole range of topics. we'll have questions and we'll have questions from the audience. thanks for being here. >> we have a lot of time because we do nothing in the senate. host: i wanted to ask you one particular question about the supreme court nomination process. mitch mcconnell, he said yesterday, yesterday or this morning that he just wants to let the public decide about the

confirmation of the justice. what is your response? >> i'm reaching into my hip pocket here. here's what he said yesterday. this is a quote, this is what it's all about. the reporter said if your goal is to allow people to have input into the supreme court nomination, why not hold hearings on garland? here is what he said. yeah, that's not the goal. the goal is to let the american people pick the next president who will make the decision. this is what it is all about to them, i guess, about the presidential election. we have done this since 1900 we have picked six supreme court justices in a lame duck session of a presidency.

this country waited for 18 months and the court locked at a 4-4 tie is unfair to the country and litigants. a lot of these people waited decades to get there and now they'll have to wait another few decades. it's awful what they have done. host: we did a report that tens of millions of americans that would be stuck so long from immigration cases, women rights cases, not just a handful of people and litigants but has impact on everyone. just to follow up on that, where do you see the debate going on the supreme court? we have heard that some republican senators will ctually meet with the nominee.

really threatening his majority in oshed to take this position. why do you think he is doing what he is doing? senator reid: the republicans are doing this led by mcconnell to satisfy these very loud, rich, right-wing people. i think that's what they want to do. this is a big issue with them. i can't imagine how this is going to help the republicans who are running for the senate to have the gall with a straight face we refuse to meet with this person no matter who it is, we aren't going to hold hearings, not going to have a vote. it's hard for me -- i don't know who came up with this and did it quickly. scalia -- had just died i mean

within hours. host: what impact do you see a nomination is increasingly to have on the senate landscape? , he may be : well right because if he is legitimated, he will build a wall to keep us from going into mexico. they'll be happy to do that. host: do you see him having an impact on the senate races? senator reid: i don't know how anyone, some of these people are running for re-election, portman

-- i don't know how these people can run and say i'm supporting this guy for president. you can't run away from it. he's the nominee. i don't know if it gets much better with cruz. your main focus was on donald trump. what are your thoughts about ted cruz? senator reid: here's what i said about ted cruz. as i have been in public service , jim demint, i disagreed with him on everything politically, ut i always appreciated jim de mint, he told everybody how he felt.

it was no surprise. he wrote a book what he wanted to be and i have to say this about cruz, he at least has some presumes. i don't like what he stands for but he stands for something. very little which i gee with. i'm not as turned off by cruz. trump stands for nothing. and that's for rubio. he didn't stand for anything. host: you really lay out the level of obstruction and the connection between the obstruction and the rise of trump. do you expect that people that the republicans -- do you hear of any republicans re-evaluating this stance. is there a chance that november if democrats win the white house and take the senate, we could

see some reevaluation? senator reid: i see people writing books about the senate and leadership. how about the things being done to correct the senate. i had a nice conversation with tom daschle this week. tom has a recent leader and has no idea what has happened. this is unbelievable and i said and it's true. they filibuster things they wanted to get done just to stalt for time. they have to file it, two days and may have to have a vote and then have a vote and 30 hours wasted and only on the legislation then and have to get off of it and cloture again, few more days, vote, 30 more hours, unbelievable the time we have wasted. people do not understand the

ends to which they have gone to stop obama progress for our country. host: do you think -- if you have a trump candidacy that is ry ineffective, do you think we could get -- we might have the hope we could return to a period of even in 15 years ago where -- 10 years ago, nine years ago, there was filibusters occasionally but not the unprecedented filibusters we are ealing with now.

tremendous concern by the american people. they think the system is broken and if it continues, it is broken. i have hope the next congress can do better. but it will only come about to return to college yalt and so we can get things done.

right now, republicans have chosen of not getting anything done and that can't continue. host: do you think there is a place for moderates in the republican party today? primaries in a lot of them and moderates used to go 100th he moderates he day of ed roy ball and said i'm going to start a hispanic caucus. and tip said to him, in the phone booth. there better be a small booth. and the reason we were able to get a few things with all their obstruction in the first -- ress -- got a lot done

first congress. it was the best ever. and we had people to work with. usan collins, olympia snow and arlen specter. we had 57, 58, 59 for a short time. 60. but contendy was sick. moderates then were more than they are now. you have to search hard. susan collins and i don't know who else you would say is a moderate. host: thank you for your comments. we have questions. identify yourself. senator reid: once they identify themselves can we reject the question? host: you will do whatever you want.

reporter: in 2013 you broke the logjam that was for the court and there is a filibuster, do you regret doing that for the supreme court nominee and seeing there is a new precedent. looks like there will be a higher bar. do you think the nuclear option or change of rules? senator reid: i did that on purpose. looked back on my experience. for example. clarence thomas, if you look support for of him. and i decided to whole the story and i will be quick. i called home to see how the kids were doing and talked to my wife. 5:00, 6:00 in the evening.

somebody i don't want to vote for. she said why are you going to vote for him? she's right. why am i go go to vote for clarence thomas. i called my counterpart in nevada and said i'm not going to vote for thomas. he said come on over. we both didn't vote for him. thomas got 52 votes. there was not a suggestion or whisper in our conference we would vote against him. remember, if you look -- we have people who -- him as an example who didn't get the majority of votes in the judiciary committee. they still brought him to the floor. same with bork. we brought him to the floor. so i say the supermajority supreme court on purpose. the return of those days where

we do is the right thing. are we a better country? i shouldn't answer my own country if we filibustered thomas. he time was right. reporter: senator reid you said you think senator mcconnell is going to cave on the supreme court. several report republicans said they would be open to considering the nomination after the election in the event that a democrat wins. is that what -- most likely option for this caveg? senator reid: describe the caveg we feel appropriate. ere's how i feel about it. it has already started and this may not sound like a great break

through but a significant number of republican senators said they will meet with him. maybe they will be brow beaten by the leadership. but i think that's a break-through. a break-through they will sit down and talk to this good man. that's a break-through. we shouldn't cut any slack to anybody -- i think we should do it now. t is unfair to have this man treated differently than anybody else. let's have the hearing. let's have him come to the senate floor and have a debate that the american people can watch on the committee and on the floor. [indiscernible question] senator reid: of course, it's possible. think it sets a precedent for the country.

reporter: i'm a federal employee. everybody keeps talking about -- senator reid: where do you work? >> federal relations -- everybody talks about the court eat being vacant for a year -- senator reid: more than that. >> the reality is that the new president would be coming in who will have hundreds and hundreds of cabinet appointments and sub-cabinet appointments to make and every time a new president comes in there is a huge backlog. if you add a supreme court nominee it could go a year and a half or two years or block nominations.

senator reid: your experience working with federal bureaucracy is very important to this issue we have before us. another thing that has happened, we have had scores and scores of nomination that have been held up. really hard to comprehend ambassadors, they held up -- they even held up the foreign service officers, the most nonpolitical people in the world and all they had to do der the statute is pass -- approve their pay raise. these are people that work on some of the most remote, difficult places in the world and they have held up their pay raises. i say to this man he is absolutely right. we already have so many people

at should be working with in the federal government -- a lot of them quit and go back to their regular jobs. your point is very well taken. [indiscernible] with ivy capital. last week there was a press conference with the prime minister of canada, mr. trudeau. and president obama at that point said -- was talking about negotiations and he said at times, you only get about 60% of what you like and if you get 60% of what you like, you sort of hold your nose but the other party holds their nose as well, but you get a negotiation out of it. i'm kind of curious rather than

creating this adverse i can't recall type of approach, if you cross the step, rubicon by having an issue -- let's say leader mcconnell specifically wants and negotiate with him with respect to that particular issue, such as standing back from guantanamo bay, for instance. giving that particular issue, let's say to him, with respect to the agreement that -- senator reid: here's the problem we have. kind of living in the past. that's how they used to do things. my first 30 years in congress, that's how we did things. legislation is the art of compromise. i have been fortunate on a

number of things that's not the now the law. i never got things. compromise. and that's the way the legislative process works. the problem is we don't have anybody to negotiate with. i didn't say it to be funny, they filibustered for things they wanted. host: i mean something we have done here a great deal, infrastructure. hundreds of republicans supported an infrastructure bill in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 couldn't get that same precise bill again and all that changed with a different president. senator reid: we lost a million teachers, police officers and firefighters in the first year of the meltdown. so an amendment was offered on the senate floor saying let's

get all those people back. great for the economy and safety of this country and here's how we are going to pay for it. anyone who makes more than $1 million a year will pay a tax of 2/10 of 1%. the rich people didn't care. every republican voted against it. this was clearly to help their constituents. being been granted lately a guy -- i ran the floor for six years for daschle, i did the floor. he did the political stuff. i did the floor. at's how i got to know trent lott so well. i was in and i took care of the republicans. if there was a unanimous consent request, democrats got something, and republicans got

something. and i was well liked by the republicans because i will protected them. there is no one to work with anymore. they are afraid. they are afraid. what they'll do is democrat and republican will introduce a bill knowing it's not going to go anywhere. host: one last question. >> i wanted to see how concerned are you that democratic turnout in the presidential primary has been lower than republican turnout. you talked about doubling down on ideas, but how does that translate into votes? senator reid: it's something we can't ignore. but most pundits and political science believes that the massive turnouts have been as a within thehe rivalry

republican party. with the democrats we had this thing going with hillary and bernie for a long time, but it was a love fest. criticize each other. had a little so back and forth. so there wasn't much interest in the democrats versus republicans. i think donald trump has brought people out that never voted before. and i think this should be a concern to the american people. host: thank you so much for your remarks today. thank you for being here and thanks for taking questions and grateful that you do every day on the issues that matter so much to progressives and all americans. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by tional captioning institute]

>> after speaking at the center for american progress, senator reid returned to capitol hill where he and other democrats met with president obama's nominee to the supreme court. merrick garland. democrats denounced republicans hearing ng to hold a

on the nominee. they spoke for about 20 minutes. senator reid: merrick garland is a fineman in every way. his character is impeccable. his record of public service is unsurpassed and his time on the bench has been really very, very exemplary. all we're asking is for the republicans to do their job. now mitch mcconnell set out and did it publicly his number one goal is to make sure president obama was not re-elected. he failed miserably. we are going to have a supreme court justice. and it's the right thing to do

and mcconnell leading the troops ver the cliff. senator stabenow: good afternoon, we know one of the most important constitutional duties as a u.s. senator is to confirm justices of the united states supreme court, which is right behind us. yesterday president obama did fulfill his constitutional duty. he did his job in nominating judge garland to the supreme court. and as senator reid has said, he is a highly qualified, distinguished individual who deserves an up or down vote to the highest court in the land. despite this nomination, our colleagues on thor side of the aisle refuse to do their job, refusing to even move forward,

refusing to even meet with him, refusing to hold hearings or to have a vote. now i heard someone say, it's not about the person, it's about the principle. first of all, the american people know that this president has announced an eminently qualified person to the united states supreme court. we believe in the principle of doing our job. that's why we are here. not only does judge garland have stellar credentials and experience, he was confirmed as chief judge of the d.c. court of appeals 76-23. seven of those republican votes came from members currently serving. we stand with working men and women everywhere, who have to do their job, who wouldn't be able to say, you know, there is a part of my job i don't like, i'm not going to do it for a year.

nobody else would be able to do that. but somehow, the folks across the street think it's ok for them to do that. so we are going to hear a distinguished hard-working doctor in a moment talking about why it's important she do her job and we as united states senators shouldn't be held to a different standard. republicans in the senate need to do their job. >> article 2 says the president shall nominate and the senate shall appoint ambassadors, public ministers and ministers and judges of the united states. it's right there in the constitution with no exceptions for election years. this is our most basic responsibility. the president has done his job

and sent us a qualified nominee. now it's time for the senate to do its job. that means giving judge garland a fair hearing and a vote. we are ready to get to work, but the republicans have refused to do that john kerry job. what world are they living in? american workers wake up every day and go to work. they can't pick and choose which parts of their job they would like to do or when they would like to get started. the american people deserve a senate that does its job. it's time for senate republicans to end the republican gains and fulfill their duty and join us in restoring the supreme court to its full strength. enator king. senator king: we have the supreme court, but the number four and the word shall aren't

among them. as in the term of the president is four years, not three years and one month. the word shall, the president shall nominate with the advice and consent of the senate is a mandatory term, it's not permissive. this is an obligation on the president and i believe it's an obligation on the senate not to confirm the nominee but to hear the nominee, to discuss it, debate it, to let the american people understand who the nominee is and how they fit into the great tradition of justices of the united states supreme court. what's the practical effect of where we find ourselves today. basically, we are putting the supreme court without a justice for really two terms. we are in the middle of a term now that will end in june or july. there will be no ninth justice to contribute to the decision making of this term of the court over the next several months.

if we wait until a new president is elected and that person nominates a new justice let's say within 10 or 15 days of their inauguration, you are talking about february. the average time for confirmation is 70-90 days. february, march, april. you are into may before you have a new justice. that's the end of the next term. so what you have done is compromise the integrity and the continuity of the supreme court for two terms. there is one other term that i would like to address a bit that's been used rather loosely around here in the last several weeks. that term is lame duck. the definition of a lame duck in political terms is between the election and inauguration of the new president. that's the lame duck period. to define lame duck as the fourth year of a presidency, by

that definition, one-third of the senate and the entire house of representatives are lame deduction today. should they -- ducks, should they argue they can't take positions on controversial issues because it's a presidential election year. i think to even state that underlines how unsustainable that position is. so nobody is standing here and saying judge garland should be confirmed. the simple message is judge garland should be considered. there should be hearings. and to hold to a position that i won't even meet with the nominee, to me just doesn't pass the straight face test in terms of our obligations are around here not only as united states senators, but as people. that's a common courtesy in a situation such as this. i hope -- we have had comments in the last few days by several of my colleagues on the other

side of the aisle who and i'm in a peculiar position being independent, i'm not sure which side of the aisle, i'm in the middle, but there are comments there should be hearings, and should be meetings with the nominee who appears to be credentialed and i don't know that yet because i haven't had a chance. but that's what i intend to do and that's the responsibility of every member of the united states senate. again, nobody is saying there is a yes or no vote that is required but what we are saying is there is a constitutional obligation to meet, discuss, debate, hear and understand this nomination. the final point i would make is, i don't understand what people are worried about if they have hearings. are they afraid they'll like him? [laughter] senator king: i don't get that or that somehow they'll be hypnotized voting into a way

they don't want to vote. let's have hearings and vote on the process and let's get on this process so we can fulfill the obligations that the constitution and the people of the united states have entrusted us with. senator schumer: thank you. first let me thank my colleagues for their outstanding remarks and as they said so well, president obama has done his job. he has nominated an outstanding injuryist and now time for the senate republicans to do theirs. judge garland puts the law above ideology, exactly the type of nominee that republicans profess to love when it comes to the supreme court. you simply can't lay a glove on him. if republicans continue to stand in the way and refuse to do their job, it will only be because they want donald trump

to pick the next nominee. occasionally republicans may try to distance themselves from him with their words, but their failure to do their job and give judge garland the consideration he deserves ties them to trump in a way they cannot untangle. if the republicans in the senate want to continue to tie themselves to donald trump, so be it. he won't make america great again, but he will make republicans the minority again. so the message from the american people to senate republicans is simple do your job. the american people overwhelmingly believe republicans have the responsibility to do their job because people get up and go to work every day and do theirs. if people -- if the average person said i'm not going to do my job, they'd lose money,

they'd get fired. why do the republican senators think they are any different. and joining us today, we have someone who gets up and does her job every day, who will talk about what happened to her if she tried to do what republicans are doing now. dr. ould like to thank sharma for joining us today. >> good afternoon. i'm an every day doctor for every day people. i take my job very seriously. my patients' lives depend on our health team to fulfill our duty. my patients' families depend on our team to take responsibility and to do our jobs every day. in order for our patients and communities to achieve good health, everyone on our health team must work together. we have a duty to be held accountable to peoples' lives, to serve our patients and our

community as a team. even in the most adverse i can't recall situation where there may be resentment, everyone does their job together and not divided, because that is what is best for our patients. if a doctor doesn't want to see a patient or a nurse chooses not to do vital signs or a specialist doesn't want to give us advice, the whole system becomes dysfunctional. it is our responsibility to work together despite disagreements. we, too, are public servants at the most public servants. aren't we the same where we must work together and produce the best outcomes for our country. millions of people are depending on the supreme court to make critical decisions that affect their lives. our president just fulfilled his constitutional zute to the american people by nominating a candidate for supreme court justice. now it is your turn.

be a part of the team. the american people elected you into office to be a public servant and fulfill your obligation to advise and consent, not divide and resent. as you depend on us in health care, we depend on you. so please do your job. [applause] senator schumer: another person who has to show up and do her a nurse.wyery, >> i'm a registered nurse at a small community hospital in michigan. and i work 12-hour night shifts and as you can imagine when morning rolls around i'm ready to go home. and if a patient rolls in 15 minutes before i start punching out, gee, i don't feel like giving you pain medicine because it's almost time for me to go. i'm calling on senate

republicans to do their job just like the president intends to do his job until his final day in office. thank you. senator schumer: and next -- you are always so eager. next we have brent, who is a heavy equipment operator. >> i'm a heavy equipment operator. i have to plow the snow out of the streets and if i decided not to come to work i wouldn't have a job very long and i want the republicans to do their job and get their work done. senator schumer: we would like to have harry reid come forward and take questions. > do your job!

[indiscernible question] senator reid: no one can say better

>> here is a look at what is happening primetime. starting at 8:00 eastern, testimony from michigan governor rick snyder and epa administrator mccarthy on the drinking water contamination in flint, michigan. on c-span2, remarks by harry reid on the nomination of merrick garland to be the supreme justice. and that c-span3, a senate hearing examining how to improve the limitation of the health

care law. all tonight, in primetime. secretary of, state john kerry kerry says the state department believes isis has committed genocide in iraq and syria. here is a portion of the briefing from earlier. taxes they are responsible for genocide under groups under their control, including the ziti's, christians, and a shiite muslims. by self proclamation, by ideology, and by actions. what they say, what they believe, and what they do. ash is also responsible for crimes against humanity, directed at these same groups, and also sunni muslims, kurds, and other minorities. i say this even though the ongoing conflict and a of access to key areas has made it impossible to develop fully detailed and comprehensive

picture of all that they are doing, and all it has done. we have not been able to compile and complete an idea. we don't have access to everywhere. review ofnducted a the vast amount of information gathered by the state department, by the intelligence community, by outside groups during my conclusion is based on that information, and on the nature of the acts reported. we know for example, that in august of 2014, daash killed of and trackomen and men the of thousands of them on mountain without access to food, water, or medical care. without our intervention, it was clear those people would have been slaughtered. rescue efforts, aided by coalition airstrikes ultimately saved many. but not before daash captured and enslaved many women and

girls, selling them at auctions. raping them at will. and destroying the communities in which they had lived for countless generations. tool w that in most --mosul and elsewhere, they have executed christians on the basis of their faith. too many done that ethiopians, and forced many women and girls into sexual slavery. massacredat daash many turks. starved ad and turkish town, and seized the women, raping many in front of their own families. we know that in areas under its control, daash has made a systematic effort to destroy the cultural heritage of aging communities, destroying

armenians, syrians, orthodox, and roman catholic churches. blowing up monasteries, and tombs of profits. desecrating cemeteries. beheading andven 83-year-old scholar who it spent a lifetime preserving antiquities there. >> just some of the secretary of states briefing. we will have the remarks in c-spanntirety tonight on two. or you can watch them anytime on the line at www.c-span.org. >> c-span's "washington journal," lie with news and policy issues that impact you. friday morning, melanie campbell, president and ceo of black civic participation discusses a black women's and a 2016summit, estate of black women in the u.s. report.

and a former u.s. attorney for the district of columbia talk about the investigation into the e-mails sent to and from hillary clinton's personal e-mail server. also, the secretary of state and what we can expect in the next weeks. be sure to watch "washington journal," beginning friday morning. join the discussion. >> this weekend, the c-span's cities tour takes you to montgomery, alabama to the city's history and literary culture. on book tv we show you a house that was the turning point for scott and zelda. when they moved here, the idea was to regroup. this house was not a landing pad, it was a regrouping stage. it was not the sort of place where you are going to find scott and zelda engaging in

domestic activities, if you will. it was the sort of place where they would be planning their next move. --and on american history tv >> george wallace really does try to reach the moderates and campaign for the foreign working-class, for progressives. he gets the support of the naacp in his initial campaign. unfortunately, he loses by a significant margin to john patterson. he is devastated by this loss. wallace, all the ones to be as governor, and he is really upset by this loss. he considers it a failing. when people ask him what the take away from 1958 campaign is, try to talk about progressive improvements in good

roads and good schools, and no one would listen. started talking about segregation, everyone stopped and started listening to me. watch saturday at noon eastern. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span city tour working with our cable affiliates and cities across the country. >> earlier today, alabama senator jeff sessions discussed populism in the united states. a donald trump to be the presidential nominee and discusses how trade and immigration policies have affected the populist movement and advance the trump candidacy. it is held by the american council for capital formation. it just under one hour. ladies and gentlemen, we are extremely pleased to have senator sessions here with us today.

for those who don't know, february 28 you with a first senator to endorse mr. trump. you became chairman of his foreign affairs advisory talked recently, about support, for folks inside the belt who know what the media is like. there are two things the elite say. she writes of the protected and the unprotected. the protected make public policy, the unprotected live with it. the unprotected are starting to the protected by the confident, secure, and successful. they are protected from much of

the roughness of the world. they are protected from the world they created. that was peggy newman. your and a tight schedule so i would turn it over to you. and the reasonow the senator has to leave early, is the secretary of defense will be testifying. do, we willgoing to have a bunch of famous reporters sitting here. and we will give you unedited tapes. go for it. sen. sessions: thank you. , he is a great friend with some good programs. i have benefited from attending, thank you for that. how did we get here? how did all this happen? bit oftell you a little a story and how i feel about it. election, there

is a shocking event, the republicans know. we kind of deal romney said can't win with 47%, if we only have 47% we are going to lose. that was negative when it leaked out in the campaign. geniuses wanted to tell us how to win the next election, said you have to be more moderate, and that was their agenda. there is a big meeting, i don't know why they invited me -- [laughter] the pollsters and politicians when around and i question that. it was a little bit tense. i questioned it, i did not feel good about it. people think you go from a section of conservative to liberal and the people in the middle are moderate.

these are decent people working every day, who want to vote for who they think are right, worried about their future, children, a lot are frustrated and angry. many of them think we are a bunch of crooks and a like what is going on in washington. how do you appeal to them to get over 50%? that is how you win elections. those primarily below $50,000 a year in income. victory we have had on a national scale proved it could be done. the 30,000 dollar-$50,000 a year worker. romney lost to that by 15 points, and the under $30,000 earners as well. immigrants, nativeborn african-americans,

that is where the election is being lost. somebody needs to be talking to them about their concerns. they are not concerned about somebody who would like to enter the country illegally. that is not on their mind primarily. they're worried about their jobs in the future of their country. they are americans. they're concerned about america, not the global economy. officials, id guess it is my lawyer training, i am a trustee for business people and stockholders. what helps them? so that has been the dispute. it has been bubbling and brewing. so they brought out the big amnesty bill. that was going to fix everything

and win elections 30 years from now. but i am primarily worried about the election in november, not 30 years from now. that is how this went down. i question the amnesty bill. i think we proved conclusively it did not do what it promised. it suggested it would reduce immigration and and illegal saidration, but one expert it increased legal immigration 50%. the american people did not know what was happening in the legislation. we get one million people a year, that is a lot. we have 700,000 people in the country on work visas. less than half of those are agricultural or seasonal visas.

we have 600,000 students who have been improperly given the right to work. 100,000 refugees, who can take any job. historic amount. we are very generous on immigration. by ending illegal immigration, you're going to dramatically change the situation, it is not true. get this. maybe a glass of water would help me. 2000-2014, i am telling you the moment what is happening and why people aren't easy and unhappy. we had 16.7 million native-born

americans added to the country. from 2000-2014, they had less of jobs in 2014 van in 2000. immigrants added 5.7 million jobs. all these jobs through that whole more than a decade went to immigrants. wages are down. what a participation rate, despite unemployment rate, is the lowest in 40 years. cammarano testified yesterday that in 2003, three quarters of americans in their inking years were working 2015, only two thirds were working. many were taking jobs in

manufacturing. lower wage jobs with less benefits, less retirement. people are not happy out there, we have to recognize this. i believe that immigration is impacting their ability to get a job. if you travel like i do, and alabama, a number of robotics are being implemented in the manufacturing process. it is huge. is also a factor in the fact that not that many jobs are being created. robotics saves labor, but it is just a fact. we have a harder job for our own people. harvard, the most knowledgeable and recognize man probably in the world on immigration and wages and jobs, testified for the first time in

a number of years. he has testified a number of times. yesterday, for our subcommittee that a there is no doubt immigrantsof wage into any sector of economy pulled down wages. it is an absolute fact. how could it be otherwise? said, the wages should be going up and set it down. yesterday settled for ever in my mind the argument that flooding the labor market with extra bring down wages. but people are worried about it. there is nothing wrong with discussing this. is it immoral?

you can't discuss the interests of the american people when you consider what an immigration policy should be? the u.k. has reduced its immigration flow. i think people feel like, who was representing me? for 30 years, our promises to fix illegal immigration and six a system so as honest and fair and the american people can be proud of it, promise, promise, promise and what we get is a bogus amnesty bill that makes the situation worse. it was stopped in the house by the narrowest of margins. members on both sides met in secret for months to write up this bill, ran it like a political campaign, spend over $1 billion, they had political through,ts who ran it and not many of them opposed. it got stopped.

do we want to listen to the people, for a change? is that liberal, to say you want an immigration policy that is sustainable, that protects the interests of americans? shouldn't we have a policy based on the ability to be productive and flourish in america, not people we know are not going to be successful in america. that is a big issue. the other one is trade. i have supported all these trade agreements. i voted against one because it changed immigration law. i voted for the caribbean initiative, and the korean deal. let's look at the korean deal. beenromise is always have that it will be great for everybody. going to lift wages and help us export.

good trade deals can do that. but they are very good friends, our allies, i am proud of their achievements. president obama signed it, and he told the world that he would byrease our exports to korea $10 billion annually. at the time he signed it, we have a transcript of it. what happened? we had no increase in exports to korea. to do unitedce states increased to $12 billion, and the deficit has increased 280%. does anybody care? say weybody go back and will sue you for malpractice for this misrepresentation? the american people are not happy about it. they never thought these trade

deals were as good as a lot of people thought. they have been dubious about it. but trade is always good. but i believe the right way to think about it is, a trade agreement is a contract between two parties. and the contract, my daddy always said, should benefit both sides, not just one. negotiate anshould agreement that conserve your national interests. it is just that simple. this is what romney said in iowa eight years ago, i have never forgotten it. and i think it is accurate in his abandonment of his position. probably cost him the election. said, if you don't stand up to china, they will run over you.

but, they say a few stand up to china, they will cause a trade war. but, we are in a trade war, we are just not fighting. then he said the key thing. anyway, they have more to lose than we do. think about it. we have the leverage. they have to have our market. people, not free market but merck and telik -- ilic, we ought to say, you don't buy our chicken, you don't have access to our products. grow up. undermining the welfare of american manufacturing and american workers on some theory that the united states must sign any trade agreement around the whole world and make this whole thing wonderful and we will live in peace and harmony forever. , and i thinkvative

from an american spectator's a cast of mind, a way of approaching things. that i am mind, is dubious about these processes. i look at the result, they are not so good. should we be listening to the american people for a change? is that liberal? tougher, makeo be sure it is lawful, and does not impede the ability of americans to find jobs? that has been the debate going on publicly and not so publicly within the republican congress for quite a time. have arguments being tested out in the markets. who is paying at the top?

i think it validates, more than i suspected, the hunger for the american people for somebody that listens to them. we promise that these trade agreements are going to be great, promise we will fix immigration, but 30 years, and it has not happened. people have a right to be mad. all this is populism. from formerail alabama justice, great legal author, he said jeff, they put down populism, but there is nothing wrong with honest populism. an honest defense on the rights of working americans who represent the majority that will be on election day. they want to be sure someone will be talking to them in protecting their interests. wherek we're at a point

this is making itself felt in a way it has not before. it will predict how turn out, there are a lot of factors in the debate. but the debate has been transformed and it is perfectly legitimate that people face the question, how are the american people doing? the average family is struggling. how can we make their lives better? capitalists, you press a button, and emerging markets, right? if you're working at a plant in alabama that closes, you just can't go to, vietnam, or wherever that job went to -- there are human beings and representatives. we have to know we represent human beings. concerns, and we are going to protect their interests.

go into factor, i will detail, but it is important. the concept of nationalism is that it is somehow bad. in my view, the nationstate is not obsolete. asope is unable to function an entity, really. they seem incapable. the sacrifice for denmark and the u.k., maybe, but who is brussels, die for where i am going tonight, for a conference. this whole idea of an international trade agreement, where number nine gets the same boat as a leader of the economy of the greatest economy in the world. give me a break. that is not good trade negotiations. we do not need to go into a transatlantic union. these it should be bilateral, in my opinion, and we should do those.

we reach agreements with our partners, maybe some of us have in an agreement we signed bilaterally. but i go bilateral trade and focus on that. mark, you're anxious, i can tell. marx: thank you -- sen. sessions: thank you all for letting me share that. i am just looking at the data. they can honestly be said that we should pay more attention to the people who fight our wars, raise our children, and create the next generation, that hopefully will keep us strong. ark: senator, you said you would take some questions. think you asked me a question.

i am with the "wall street journal." you talked today about your concerns of immigrants taking jobs away from americans. you've seen, i'm sure the trumps workers of temporary workers at his resorts. have you talked to him about the issue, are you concerned about him taking advantage of the program? i will be frank about it. he used what the law allowed him to use. what we learned from the gang of eight program, it had no real reform in it. it was legal for california edison and disney to set a contract to replace their entire i.t. department, their own --

fire their own employees and cheney replacement. when everyone thought the program was set up, they could not find a certain talented workers. that was not so. remote beaches probably do have seasonal problems, and we are not going to and seasonal workers in the immigration bill. so, i don't see that as a big problem. thatid he will end program. bills, grassley, cruz, bills that will change it significantly. i think we will always have a program that allows seasonal workers to always have some kind that allows a limited

program of high skilled workers. say i have an $80,000 a year salary and i need to bring in someone else, the market should work. but you can flood the market and it won't work. reporter: some of this sounds like the outcome of a 20 year process of globalization, whether joining the wto, nafta. do you think it is time to extract ourselves from the united nations, any of these global management structures? no, i never said we should get out of the u.n.. say wet prepared to should get out of the wto.

power does the road a that the united states has, potentially. look, this is my view. , probablyg partners more than europe, smaller countries for the most part. they are very nationalistic. policieste national designed to exploit trade agreements and increase their manufacturing and reduce the imports that they have. they just do. it is the world we're living in. you see china, invest in this give market, you have to us your technology and half your company and they steal our technology. states is theited most willing to defend itself and has the leverage to push

back. we have gone very far. i don't see us retreating significantly on trade. i have said and think candidates should say we have not eliminated a single job in the future as a result of our trade agreement. and currency issues. a fight over this and george bush's former trade representative led the battle to tighten controls on currency abuse. it was always resisted. it did not have any affect and is not in the tpp. if it is not signed, it will not have currency control. chairmanal reserve said, our currency could wipe

out in a few minutes the effects of a trade agreement that took years to negotiate. that is a big factor that is not being addressed. about one more from "the washington post," she used to be a neighbor. reporter: thank you. said, donaldmark trump's national security team, he said yesterday he is largely dependent on himself to formulate his foreign and national security policy. could you tell us if it is important to you at this point in the election to put together a team of experts, and where you are in that process, trump has said it will be a couple weeks but he is been saying that for a long time. trump's instincts have been proven wise.

bush, throughout iraq and afghanistan, and i believed in that and fought for it. iteel like after all we did, was a mistake of monumental maintaining in not troop strength in iraq with 15,000 troops, mosul would never have fallen off. going to zero is an unmitigated disaster. on, in, he did say early the process, he did not think iraq was good. you can judge for yourself how well you think that was. libya he wase totally right on that. he questioned syria. i think he has been right on that.

and i think his emphasis on a more realistic, pragmatic foreign policy is good. made,k an argument can be that there is no reason for the united states to be at these should bes, and we able to break up this logjam. it may not work. putin may not be able to be dealt with, but i do not condemn his instincts that we ought to attempt to do that. so, i think you would have a foreign policy, that would we identify an enemy he would move with the strength and vigor and her be more reluctant to see us and mashed and conflicts around the globe for which there is no end in sight. ability, we can topple most any government.

but what do you do after that? like libya. we have a million people in north africa wanting to come to the united states. an unmitigated disaster. i went there with john mccain. qaddafi quit holding bonds, he was building houses. apartment complexes, is what they were using the money for. and that was stopped. a humanitarian disaster. it is going to fall in a few president, ande we created help. in honesty, you could say this refugee crisis and the humanitarian losses, the deaths -- assad and sawed his brutality would not have been nearly as bad if we had not shown more restraint. i don't think this is a trigger-happy guy.

i will be talking to mr. trump to try to make sure i am sharing with him honestly. a lot of these private conversations the candidates are having, i don't think anyone kasich's caller: -- is, orry take -- team cruz's for that matter. thank you very much, we appreciate it. [applause] well, thank you again senator sessions. this is the kickoff of something all my colleagues at the accf

are all excited about. we have six former democratic members, and six former republican numbers. is just the beginning. what i thought i would do when i found out yesterday about the secretary of defense having the meeting with the senator sessions, i thought we would try to do a cnn type of thing, so we have cameras here from cnn, c-span, and journalists who i have hopefully convinced to come up. shareybe they want to some of their views on what was said? if not, they don't have to. entertain questions and discussions from you all. in terms of background, we have 10 prominent journalist here. about eight countries representative. the republic of south africa, the republic of lithuania,

egypt, we have a bunch of countries here. it was good for them to hear that perspective. instead of moving up. , if any of the journalists want to come, just go ahead. if not, we will just entertain questions. does that make sense? any of the journals want to comment on what has been said? my god, they can't be shy. journalist: i sent myself this e-mail because i got a tweet yesterday that was interesting to me. the way the senator describes the populist movement is different than the populist people i hear from. me, i voted for trump because we need a nutcase to get rid of the car salesman who have been lying to us all these years.

which i think is a much more's the sink way of summing up the populist appeal then this discussion here. and to some degree, explains better the voters real motivations than a global discussion about the wto and trade. mark: anybody else want to weigh in? nobody. some of you may have heard of --rles murray, the renowned here is what he says about trumpism: it is the voice of the beleaguered working-class, saying that it is falling away. growth,out economic jobs, and a higher standard of living. but for someone living in a town where a big company is it shut down, the factory moves the jobs to china, or the roofer, who watches the contractor hire illegal immigrants because they are cheaper, anger and

frustration are rational. make a clear, i am not a supporter of any one candidate, but there are certain anxieties that are being demonstrated out here. of course, the interesting question is, after the campaign, whoever gets elected, what next? does anybody want to weigh in? could you identify yourself sir? i am a trained lawyer in washington. i can remember a campaign for john kerry in 2004. say they aree shipping our jobs to asia and ,hipping our children to iraq that captured some of the frustration in the american people and what they see has happened here.

i thought the senator really captured a lot of that in his remarks to this group today. anybody else? will just call on somebody, the foreign diplomats will be nervous. other thoughts? yes, sir. >> my name is vincent rodriguez. is, it was brought up by the media, that trump hired for an immigrant workers to do part-time work. saidrump during his debate there are jobs americans don't want. have, is why is there so much of a focus on stopping immigration when the economics tell us that immigrants can earn a higher salary here and want to come here? especially with the upcoming

itemization of jobs, i don't understand why we don't focus more on specializing our own so that computers and machines can't necessarily take jobs from regular people. mark: anybody want to weigh in? yes, sir. >> from congressman brooks office. there are 7 billion people outside our borders. less than amake welfare recipient. themuld take a billion of and not help the rest, and be like india. there is a balance somewhere, is what we are talking about. is, what areotion

we helped by flooding the country with the vast numbers of people, given our population today? automation, it does not help us to add more people while we automate. well we have a distinguished journalist here from a very well-known conservative magazine, who has had some issues with trump, if he or she wants to comment, they can. if not, they need not. i guess they need not. since i have these journalist here, i have two pending pieces. pass --bout trump's path to the white house through the coleman county. mccolm county.

that is in michigan, the home of -- one of the most studied counties in american history. kennedy, andfor 66% for reagan. , and in at the numbers that state you don't vote by party. you had a tremendous increase in turnout and a tremendous reawakening of what might be the reagan democrats. making onem just comment. is anybody here from npr? npr talked about reagan democrats but losing npr republicans. i don't know what is happening there. thing, i wentm

back and looked at populism. there is right-wing populism and left-wing populism. theymatter of fact, characterize trump as a right-wing populist. you have he we long as a left-wing populist. the only concern i have, and we do have some distinguished economic journalism's, it is not an economic theory. >> my impression is, that it is not an economic theory at the grassroots. ross perot was more of an economic theory. this one seems a little less focused on anyone economic theory. i think the senator was alluding males,ticularly white who are very concerned about their place in the economic and

social structure of the world. that somehow,se their place in the country has been eroding and their country's place in the world has been eroding. those are both frightening things. individuals, at least one foreign journalist here. mark: when i talk to him late yesterday evening, i think foreign observers weather from the embassy or journalists, are intrigued with what is going on. comparing it to what is going on in europe. this individual would like to comment, i would sit -- be so happy, because i need participation. could you identify yourself? i am here in washington for

"german business daily." one thing i have noticed covering the primaries, germans are always seen as specialists on angst. and wherever i go on trump or cruz rallies, whenever you identify yourself as german, the people you talk to immediately say you are crazy, and talk about the refugee crisis. when you talk to german officials they are much more optimistic. they recognize the problem that happened new year's eve, but say they have made great progress so far in processing and getting into the immigration. it is interesting because it is do attitude the germans

usually associate with the u.s., and it is basically turned around. you have angst here. mark: great comment on that. angela has recently lost to right-wing parties, did she not? >> it was her party that lost, on top of a ticket where people from her own party were critical of her immigration policies. but the people who won in those states, the green candidates, in the most conservative part of the country, a green candidate won the most votes. he is pro-immigration. backlash is a huge a true, but also not the whole picture.

still a big majority of the country thinks it is right, what he did. and she is being credited for that. our numbers go up again. is still open. one terror attack will change everything. mark: other comments, suggestions? i know a lot of you folks out here. yourself if you like, but you don't have to. >> regarding the middle east, all the nominees on the partyican and democratic in their debates, the dilemma between keeping the bad leaders in the middle east, or push them it isp down and create --

a big guy lemon now. dilemma now.g the democratic people said that we should not accept bad leaders, and asked him to step down. is, both sides skip an important issue. now we have a political vacuum in the libya, syria, yemen, iraq. some countries are financing

terrorist activities. we discovered we have isis, in a bad terrorist. and then we have good terrorists to read we can deal with them, we can speak with them, [indiscernible] you have twoe, points of view in the u.s.

situation willan and somee middle east, other partsrests in of the middle east. we need more debate about this situation. our political journalists can probably comments better on that. i do want to say one thing before everybody leaves, and that is, if you talk about the rise of populism, it is on the left and on the right. with,r thing i am toying you have an avid socialist running and an avid capitalist running, and what do they have in common? what they have in common, is an attack on capital.

it in terms about of physical capital or financial capital. intriguing,icularly is the young people's attitudes toward that. noonan, anggy adviser and speechwriter for president reagan, who basically adjustede young kids don't know anything about socialism or capitalism. and they need to be educated on the merits of both. on the other side, you have on the center-right, bill dalton, and advisor to bill clinton, expressing the same sort of concerns. and that is about basic economic education in this country. one thing for sure, it is not a boring time. i want to thank you all for coming. i am sorry sir, you are? >> i am from the chinese embassy.

i really am impressed by what the senator has said. i have several points. i reallyall, advocated,what he is immigration, trade, and other issues related to u.s. national interest. i think they are all correct from the american point of view. the issue is, is what approaches you have for those issues that are relating to other countries. you mentioned about china, about the war. there,de war is already the issue is that we are not fighting the war. i think there are approaches. one is solely concerned in u.s. interest, and the second not only consider u.s. interest, but think of the issues -- interest of other

countries combined. one, if yousecond take the second approach, it will impact other countries, but to a limited extent because you take in their interest to. the first one is simple, you only take into consideration u.s. interest, and it will certainly impact other countries because it is simple. but it will impact negatively other countries. the second thing, we have been talking about trump. many of the people have changed their mind from a month ago. they were not taking this into serious consideration. himnow that they are taking very seriously into think many of and

the issues he expresses are correct or targeting against some of the interests of the american people, especially those weak groups. i think we really get a lot from these sessions, and understand how american politicians think of some of the issues. pretty -- i really appreciate that senator sessions said we will not leave the united nations. that is good. is not exclusion list. ionist.us many people would say that if you leave them it is reasonable, that i appreciate the senators

-- mark: thank you, and that is one of the things we want to pursue. thank you, to david, the vice president in charge of our 2016 election project. we have gone through 10 ,lections at the accf interacted with it advisers of many candidates. that is our strong front, whether it be obstacles in 2008. we're looking for ideas, and obviously what is going on in the u.s. election has impacted abroad. diplomats herey from bulgaria, south africa, who want to come together with an idea on the election and the ramifications, we would be very interested. suggestions your are always welcome. it is a busy time for everybody. we thank you for being with us today. [applause]

[indiscriminate chatter] ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. friday morning, melanie campbell, president and ceo of the coalition on black civic participation discusses this week's black women's roundtable sentiment. --roundtable summit. and view of the 2016 campaign. a former u.s. attorney for the

district of columbia talks about the investigation into the e-mail sent to and from hillary clinton's personal server during her time as secretary of state. what developments he thinks we can expect in the coming weeks. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern friday morning. joined the discussion. >> coming up tonight, michigan governor rick snyder and epa administrator jane mccarthy testify on the flint water contamination. national security advisor susan rice on policy in central and south america. followed by senator jeff sessions on the role of populism in the 2016 campaign. house oversight and government reform committee held its third hearing on the contaminated water in flint, michigan with epa administrator gina mccarthy and michigan governor rick snyder testified. this is three and a half hours.