the donaldssue with trump. i for donald trump. and kasich seem to think that they are out of the congress or whatever, outsiders, aboutey complain a lot how the congress never gets anything done or the but they are part of the government. they have been in congress for quite a well. -- quite a wild. donald trump is correct in .rying to bring jobs back remember to chicago where people are shot and stuff. it there.ve to leave we have reached the top of the hour. thank you for watching this morning and enjoy the rest of your week.

>> c-span2 today will have live coverage this morning of a discussion on the deputy chair of russia's people's freedom party. he'll talk about this report on treatment of russian opposition politicians. to speak out against president putin. live coverage of that gets under way at noon eastern. again, that will be on c-span2. vice president joe biden will be clarifying his position on the senate considering a supreme court nomination during a president's final year in office. opposition to the consideration has become known as the biden rule. and that's due to a speech he

gave in 1992 while he chaired the senate judiciary committee. we'll have live coverage of today's speech at georgetown law school. hat starts at 12:30 eastern. >> the need for horses on the farm began to decline radically in the 1930's. it was not until the 1930's that they figured out how to make a rubber tire big enough to fit on a tractor. and starting in the 1930's, 1940's you had an almost complete replacement of horses as the work animals on farms. i do believe one of my books on horses i read that in the decade after world war ii we had something like a horse holocaust. that the horses were no lodger needed -- longer needed and we didn't get rid of them in a pretty way. >> sunday on "q&a," robert gordon professor of economics at northeastern university, discusses the book of the rise and fall of american growth,

which looks at the growth of the american standard of living between 1870 and 1970 and questions its future. >> one thing that often interests people is the impact of superstorm sandy on the east coast back in 2012. that wiped out the 20th century for many people. the elevators no longer worked in new york. the electricity stopped. you couldn't charge your cell phones. you couldn't pump gas into your car because it required electricity to pump the gas. so the power of electricity in the internal combustion engine to to make modern life possible is something people take for granted. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and the a. -- "q&a." house speaker paul d. ryan delivered an address on the state of american politics at the u.s. capitol yesterday. during his remarks, speaker ryan

talked about the need for good policy and the house as a starting point for legislative ideas in washington. speaker ryan was introduced by new york congresswoman, elise stefan eck. this is just over a half-hour. -- stefanik. this is just over a half-hour. ms. stefanik: thank you for your patience. we are a bit late because of votes. thank you everyone for being here today. it is great to see so many young people in the audience. my name is elise stefanik, i'm proud to represent new york's 21st district in congress. it is an honor for me to introduce my friend, speaker of the house, paul ryan. i first got to know him in 2012 when he was selected to be the republican vice-presidential nominee.

my job was to prepare him for his vice-presidential debate. as you might imagine, a national campaign takes you to far flung orners of the country. the first session was in bend, oregon. i'd prepared reams and reams of materials, after he reviewed my material, he said, we need to dig deeper on policy. no surprises there. over the course of many weeks of debate prep, i had the honor of watching how paul would encourage his entire team to understand the power of ideas and to raise our gaze and work toward a brighter american future. after the 2012 election, which was disappointing to our team, i went back home to upstate new york, discouraged about the direction of our country. but i thought about my time working with paul and how at the young age of 28, paul decided to run for congress. it struck me that someone so young could make such an impact on the discourse in public policy.

i was 29 at the time and instead of complaining about the state of american politics from the sidelines, i started the process of running for congress. when the odds were stacked against me, 100-1, paul encouraged, stood by, and supported me. still the best piece of advice i have received came from speaker ryan who said, you have two ears and one mouth, use them in that ratio. he was highlighting the idea of listening to our communities. in my first year in congress i didn't anticipate that paul would become speaker. this is a job he didn't ask for but answered the call to serve. when i talk with my constituents in new york about the qualities that personify an effective public servant, i have come up with three characteristics. they have to be hardworking, they have to have integrity and they have to have political courage to put forth innovative solutions. speaker ryan embodies each of these qualities.

he is a happy warrior who understands the power of an idea, the power of the american idea and american dream. please join me in welcoming my friend and our speaker, paul ryan. [applause] mr. ryan: thank you. let's hear it for elise tefanik. don't forget to go vote. thank you for your indulgence and thank you for your patience. we have votes on the floor right now. i want to thank elise stefanik. she is inspiring. i also want to thank all of you for coming here today. i want to thank kevin brady, my friend, the chairman of the ways and means committee, for hosting us here today. i had the privilege of joining

this committee in my second term. my seat was right behind these flags. and it's a perfect setting for what i want to talk with you today about. because it is here in this committee that we debate some of the biggest, most consequential ssues. we debate our tax code, health care, trade, entitlement reform, welfare reform, this is a big deal to be on this committee. people have strived to get on this committee. understanding the privilege and responsibility that came along with it, we took our jobs very seriously here on this committee. and we always held ourselves to a higher standard of decorum. we treated each other with respect. we disagreed, often fiercely so, but we disagreed without being disagreeable. i speak of this in the past tense only because i no longer serve here in the ways and means committee. but it almost sounds like i'm, you know, speaking of a different time, doesn't it?

it sounds like a scene unfamiliar to many in your generation. looking around at what's taking place in politics today, it is so easy to get disheartened. how many of you find ourselves just shaking your head at what you see from both sides of the aisle these days? you know, i see myself in each and every one of you. i came here as a curious college intern. trying to get a sense of everything. trying to figure out, you know, where to take my own life. i would always ask older, more experienced people, what do you know now that you wish you knew hen you were my age? well, here's my answer to that question. here's what i know now that i want you to know, that you cannot maybe see yourself today. and this is not just a lesson for young minds but a message for all americans.

our political discourse, both the kind that we see on tv and the kind that we experience among each other, it did not used to be this bad and it does not have to be this way. now, a little skepticism, that is really healthy. but when people distrust politics, they come to distrust nstitutions. they lose faith in government. they lose faith in our future. we can acknowledge this. but we don't have to accept this. and we can't enable it either. my dad used to always say, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. one or the other. so i have made it my mission as speaker to raise our gaze and aim for a brighter horizon. instead of talking about what politics is today, i want to talk with you about what politics can be.

i want to talk about what our country can be. about what our founders envisioned it would be. america. america is the only nation founded on an idea. ot on an identity. that idea is a beautiful idea. a condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. our rights are natural, they're god-given, not coming from overnment. it was a beautiful idea, it had never been tried before. early on, our founders fought to establish a suitable order. they decided that we would not maintain this idea by force. in the first federalist chapter, in the first federalist paper, alexander hamilton wrote that in politics it is absurd to aim at making congress by fire or sword.

instead, we would govern ourselves with the people's consent. again, there was no manual for how to do this. that's why we call this whole thing the american experiment. it is still the american experiment. so they made each other and they made those who came after take an oath to uphold the onstitution. every generation since has inherited this esponsibility. leaders with different visions and ideas have come and gone. parties have risen and fallen. majorities and white houses won and lost. but the way we govern endures through debate, not isorder. this is the one thing about our country and this is one of the most important things about our country that makes it the greatest on earth. i must admit, i didn't always find this idea so exciting when i was young. as i said, i came to washington

unsure of what i was going to do with my life. then i ended up working for a guy named jack kemp. he went on to represent the people from western new york but he was a quarterback for the buffalo bills. one of the great quarterbacks of his time. and then he represented the buffalo area in congress in the 1970's and 1980's. he served in the cabinet under president h.w. bush, and like me he was one of our party's nominees for vice president. i first met jack kemp exactly where you would expect -- at tortilla coast. it was true. i was waiting tables. like you, i had student loans coming out of school. i had a few jobs. i was a waiter and i waited on jack kemp. i didn't bother him that day but i told a friend, one day i would love to have a chance of working for that man. as luck would have it, such an opening came up. the thing about jack was that he was an optimist all the way.

he refused to accept that any part of america or the american idea could ever be written off. here was a conservative willing, no, no, here was a conservative eager to go to america's bleakest communities and talk about how free enterprise would lift people out of poverty. these were areas in the country that had not seen a republican leader in years, if ever. i accompanied jack on these trip, i saw how people looked up to him he found common cause with poverty fighters on the ground. instead of a sense of drift, i at that time began to feel a sense of purpose. jack inspired me to develop my professional life to public policy. it became a vocation to me. ideas. passionately promoted. put to the test. that's what politics can be. that's what our country can e.

it can be a confident america where we have a basic faith in politics and our leaders. that sounds like a long distance from where we are right now, doesn't it? it can be a place where we have earned that faith, all of us, as leaders. all of us as leaders can hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity and decency. instead of playing to your anxieties, we can appeal to your aspirations. instead of playing the identity politics of our base versus their base, we unite people around ideas and principles. and instead of being timid, we go bold. we don't just resort to scaring you, we dare to inspire you. we don't just oppose someone or something, we propose a clear and compelling alternative. and we don't just win your support, we win the argument.

we win your enthusiasm. we win hearts and minds. we win a mandate to do what needs to be done to protect the american idea. and in a confident america we also have a basic faith in one another. that's one of the most important lessons i would love to confer to you. we question each other's ideas vigorously but we don't question ach other's motives. if someone has a bad idea, we don't think that they're a bad person. we just think they have a bad idea. people with different ideas, they're not traitors. they're not our enemies. they're our neighbors, our co-workers, our fellow citizens. sometimes they're our friends. sometimes they're even our own flesh and blood, right? we all know someone who we love who disagrees with us politically or who votes differently. but in a confident america, we are not afraid to disagree with each other. we don't lock ourselves into an

echo chamber. we don't go into the echo chamber and just tell us what we want to hear where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. we don't shut down on people. and we don't shut people down. if someone has a bad idea, well, why don't we tell them why our idea is better. we don't insult them into agreeing with us. we try to persuade them. we test their assumptions. and while we're at it, we test our own assumptions too. i'm certainly not going to stand here and tell you i have always met this standard myself. there was a time that i would talk about a difference between makers and takers in our country. referring to people who accepted government benefits, but as i spend more time listening, really learning the root causes of poverty, i realized something. i realized that i was wrong. takers wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, trying to take care of her own family.

most people don't want to be dependent. and to label a whole group of americans that way was wrong. i shouldn't castigate a large group of americans just to make a point. so i stopped talking about it that way. and i stopped thinking about it that way. but i didn't come out and say this to be politically correct. i say this because i was just wrong. and of course there are still going to be times when i and you and we say things we wish we hadn't. there are still going to be times i follow the wrong impulse. governing ourselves was never meant to be easy. this has always been a tough business. when passions flare, ugliness is sometimes inevitable. but we shouldn't accept ugliness as the norm. we should demand better from ourselves. we should demand better from one another. we should think about the great leaders that have bestowed upon us the opportunity to live the american idea. we should honor their

legacy. we should build that more confident america. this as much as anything is what makes me an optimist. in knowing that ideas can inspire a country and help people. long before i worked for him, jack kemp had a tax plan that he was incredibly passionate about. you have to remember this about jack kemp. he wasn't even on the ways and means committee, the committee here that writes our tax laws. republicans were deep in the minority back then. so the odds of it going anywhere seemed remotely low, awfully low. but he was like a dog with a bone he believed passionately in his ideas even though the odds were stacked against him. he took that plan to any audience he could get in front of. he pushed it so hard that he eventually inspired our party's nominee for president, ronald reagan, to adopt it as his own. and in 1981, the jack kemp tax law was signed into law. lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of

american families back to work. all it took was someone to put policy on paper, someone willing to put an idea on paper and to promote it passionately. this is the basic concept behind the policy agenda that house republicans are building right now. as leaders, we have an obligation to put our best ideas forward no matter the consequences. with so much at stake, the american people deserve a very clear picture of what we believe, of what we would o. personalities, personalities come and go. but principles, principles endure. ideas endure. ready to inspire generations yet to be born. that's the thing about politics. we think of politics in terms of this vote or this election. but it can be so much more than that. politics can be a battle of ideas, not a battle of insults. it can be about solutions. it can be about making a difference. it can be about always striving

to do better. that's what it can be and that's what it should be. this is a system our founders envisioned. it's messy. it's complicated. it is infuriating at times. but it's a beautiful thing too. thank you all for being here today. really appreciate it. [applause] for the young folks in the audience, i'd love to answer some of your questions. o ahead. i can repeat it if you can't get t out. >> first of all, thank you for having this, this has been an awesome thing. i'm already geeking out over the

fact that i'm about to ask the speaker of the house a question. so you talk about introducing civility in politics. is that more incumbent on the american people, the students, -- institutions, the candidates? who is it more incumbent upon? mr. ryan: the founders created this new american idea, an amazing thing, unprecedented, never been done before. guess what, it's our job to preserve it. so sometimes today we see a politics that is degrading a politics that's going to the base, the basest of our emotions of what disunifies us, not unifies us. here's our job. as leaders, we need to raise our gaze, raise our game, and talk about ideas and try to unite us. not prey on people' separations or identities. your job as a young person, finding your way in life, is not impugn another person's motives. it's to listen and to try to persuade. it's to accept that people think

differently, they may have different ideas. they're not bad people. and that's unfortunately what is occurring all too often in our society today. so your job and each and every one of our jobs as citizens is to respect other people's opinions, be passionate about our principles and ideas and go and advocate for them without impugning another person's motives. our job as leaders is to offer a clear and compelling agenda, to talk about ideas and not to trade insults. they think you need a mic. >> my name is justin, i'm from congressman greg walden's office. thank you for taking the time to

speak with us today. you talk about confidence and optimism, i'm not going to ask you to name names or speak in specifics about the presidential election but just as our generation, how can we be confident that after this presidential election, that our generation can enter into an optimistic america, politically? mr. ryan: this is what inspired me to get into public service as a vocation, as i mentioned. i lost my dad when i was young so i grew up with mentors. jack kemp was one of my mentors. what inspired me to public service, among other people, was jack kemp and his sense of passion and optimism for good ideas, for making a difference in people's lives and having meaning. that's what politics should be, what it can be, what it has been. and that's what if we all work together and focus on it it can be again. the point i'm trying to make here is that right now, our sense of politics, and this isn't just the right or just the left, this is happening all across our country. we are slipping into being a divisive country.

we are speaking to each other in echo chambers where we only talk to those who agree with us and we think that there's something wrong with people who don't agree with us. we question and impugn motives instead of test theories and ideas. that is where it doesn't need to be and where it wasn't and where it shouldn't be. so the whole point i would make is, if we're going to keep this beautiful american experiment going, we're going to have to stay unified as a country that does not mean we have to agree with the same ideas or polities or candidates. it means we need to raise our respect for one another, our public discourse, so that we can get a better outcome at the end of the day. our founders were very clear about this. they made us this beautiful system. the system only works if we participate in the system with mutual respect for one another. anybody on this side? ow about over there.

>> thank you for being with us today, speaker ryan. i currently intern, kind of like you did, for congressman walberg's office. my question for you is one of leadership and certainly with this most recent leadership role you've assumed confers a lot of responsibility on you and your personal axiom to be part of the solution, not part of the problem confers even more responsibility on you. i think a true mark of leadership is learning from a failure. you speak of a willingness to be persuaded when your idea is perhaps not the best idea or the ability to persuade somebody when you think your idea is the better idea. so my question is, when has there been a moment in your career in politics or otherwise that you've been persuaded that one of your ideas or one of the things that you've done, perhaps wasn't the best idea and learned from that? mr. ryan: i can give you two examples.

i mentioned one in the speech which was i fell into the trap of thinking about makers and takers in the wrong way. about people who are struggling and for a moment need to be dependent on government who don't want to be. i was callous and oversimplified and i castigated people with a broad brush. that's wrong. there's a lot of that happening in america today. i myself have made that mistake. i think one of the policy examples of your question is, i spent the last two years touring poor communities around america. rural areas, inner cities, learning about just how people are trying to struggle with poverty. and one of the things i learned was, there are a lot of people who have been in prison -- been in prison who have committed crimes, that were not violent crimes, and who once they have that blight on their record, that they've been in prison, their future is really bleak. and in the 1990's, i came here in the late 1990's, we, i think, overcompensated on some of our criminal justice laws.

i think we overcompensated on some of the laws where we had so many mandatory minimums and three strikes you're out that we ended up putting people for long prison terms which ends up ruining their life and hurting their communities where we could have had alternative means of incarceration, better means of dealing with the problem than basically destroying a person's life. so that is why i have become more of a late convert to criminal justice reform. it's something i never thought about when i was young for the -- about when i was younger in congress. it's something i thought just be tough on crime, be tough on crime. i think we as republicans and democrats kind of overcompensated on this in the 1990's. now that we see the path -- the pathology that's come from that, i think we have to go back and fix that. that's why as speaker, i talked to bob goodlatte about this last night, we're going to bring criminal justice reform bills which are now out of the judiciary committee to the house floor and advance this.

what we're learning is, what i learned, i didn't necessarily know this before, is redemption is a beautiful thing. it's a great thing. redemption is what makes this place work. this place being america. society. and we need to honor redemption and we need to make redemption something that is valued in our culture and our society and in our laws. and that is why i think criminal justice reform, something that i change my position on from learning about the power of redemption and the fact that our laws got this wrong, that's something we can improve, so that when a young man comes out of prison a person who is not a iolent criminal, who did something where he really needed addiction counseling, needed some other kinds of mentoring, maybe faith, that he can be actually go back and be a productive member of society, be a good husband and good father. make a difference. reach his potential.

that's something we want to see more of and i think our laws need to reflect that. i think i learned a good lesson about that over the last few years. he guy with the bow tie. oh, by the way, if you're a michigan state fan -- yeah, so what happened? i picked them to win the whole darn thing in my bracket so my brackets are destroyed because f that good grief. >> my name is jim betancourt i'm with representative steve king and trent franks. my question is, you talked about poverty and helping people rise up. how does your faith impact your role as speaker and when you assumed that and i heard that you were in a duck blind and i hunt -- mr. ryan: deer blind. eer stand. >> was it your faith that just said, yes i should do this? or how did you -- mr. ryan: catholic guilt had a part of this. to be very clear, i'm atholic.

you can't in my mind separate your faith from your daily walk in life. from your personal, private, public life. it's one and the same. so in my -- i'm a christian who chooses to practice christianity as a practicing catholic. and we have certain principles that i think are very important that apply very well to what we do in public life as lay catholics. and that is the principles of sincerity, solidarity, preferential option for the poor. what it means is, people. people are the solutions. it's one of the reasons why i'm a conservative. one of the reasons why i passionately believe in the constitution and concept of federalism. it's in perfect keeping with my tenets of my faith, which is, whether it's fighting poverty eye to eye, soul to soul, groups on the ground, poverty fighters, or making sure that we don't

have a big, arrogant, paternalistic, condescending government that is taking power from our lives, power from our communities and displacing, it gives me a sense of philosophy that's grounded in my faith but also a sense of how i should conduct myself personally and publicly. i think they're inseparable, number one, and number two, you're always going to fail. and when you fail and after you failed you ask for forgiveness and try to pick up and improve yourself going forward. to me, it's an inseparable thing. first i'm a husband and father. then i'm a public servant. that's just the way i order these things in my mind. using these principles, i think, gives me a sense of how to conduct myself. i'm going to do a bad job all the time but i'm always going to try to improve upon the mistakes i've made. any ladies? right there.

>> what role do you think members of congress have in bringing our nation together as it seems so divided? mr. ryan: i think how we conduct ourselves personally is very important. i think we set example and lead by example. but also, you have to understand who we are, especially here in the house. we are the part of government that's closest to the people. we are the part of government that is up for election every other year so we're closest to the people and we are the voice. what we have to remember is, as representatives of the people, we're also leaders. we serve in a constitutional republic. and that means members of congress, i think, need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. this is what we're laboring to do here in the house republican conference which is, we see problems in america, we think the country is headed in the wrong direction and as members of this congress we believe most people agree with us by virtue of us being here. i think polls show seven of 10 americans believe america is headed in the wrong direction. ok, then as members of congress it's not our job to just say,

we're as angry as everybody else, or to just put gas on the fire. it is our job to channel this concern, this fear this anger into solutions. into ideas on how to fix it. this is what our job as members of congress is if we don't like the direction the country is going if we don't like this particular policy or that trend, what are we going to do to fix it? how are we going to be part of the solution? if we in congress can't get that right, how can we expect the people that we represent to do it as well? if we can't raise our gaze, raise the tone of our rhetoric, the tenor of debate and offer real, concrete ideas and solutions to fix our country's problems, then how can we expect anybody else to do the same? so that is why through leadership by example i think members of congress need to be part of the solution by putting an agenda out there that says, america, we have problems that we can fix and we need to do this together, we need to unify.

what really bothers me the most of politics these days is this notion of identity politics. that we are going to win an election by dividing people. that we are going to win an election by talking to people in ways that divide them rather than inspiring people on our common humanity and ideals and common culture on the things hat should unify us. we all want to be prosperous. we all want to be healthy. we want everybody to succeed. we want everybody to reach their potential in lives. what policies do we need to get to achieve that? liberals and conservatives will disagree with one another on that. no problem. that's what this is all about. so let's have a battle of ideas. let's have a contest of whose ideas are better and have that kind of debate and members of congress can lead that and that's the thing we're trying to do how about over there with the sweater? >> aside from changing how

people approach different ideas -- sorry. mr. ryan: no. speak right into it. >> aside on changing people's approach -- on how they approach other ideas, what other institutional changes can we take to help minimize legislative gridlock? mr. ryan: legislative gridlock i think is opening up the rules process. when i became speaker, i made a couple of decisions which was not to have the leadership predetermine the outcome of everything, and that is kind of ended up happening. i came here in 1998. it was a different system and more members of congress could bring more amendments to the floor and you weren't sure of the outcome of something. when we lost the majority i think the then democrat majority -- look, this is critical, but i think they consolidated power greatly. i remember sitting here in this committee commiserating with my fellow democrats of how the committee was losing its power to shape legislation for rank and file members of congress to shape ideas and legislation because power was becoming consolidated. when we retook the majority, i

don't think we decentralized power enough. i think we still kept a bit of that consolidation of power. so what i am laboring to do is change the culture of this institution to decentralize the power so that ideas are done in the committees and brought to the floor by members of ongress. that cultural change, i believe, is going to help get a better result at the end of the day. perhaps a less predictable result but a better result. so i came in this job different than most people come in this job. most people who become speaker work their way up the leadership ladder, which is a fine path to take in congress. i never saw myself doing that. i always saw myself as a policymaker, hoping to be a chairman of this committee to write great policy. i was chairman of the budget committee and then chairman of this committee. and you spend your time in congress focusing. if you're a jack-of-all-trades in congress, then you make yourself a mile wide and an inch deep. that is in my opinion not an effective way to be an effective

policymaker to make this a good vocation so you need to focus and specialize. what do you do when you focus and specialize? you go on the committee in the area that you care about, the policy. so that is why i think these committees should be the ones writing the policy. and if you're not on this committee, if you care about this policy, then you should go and do something about it by having an amendment on the floor. but if leadership consolidates power and short-circuits that process, then i feel like this institution is short-circuited, this institution does not function at its full potential and that is one of the reasons why i decided to take this job because i wanted to see that kind of leadership change occur. i got to tell you, it's not easy to do. changing the culture is hard to change. i think we have made a great deal of progress. last five months, we have the biggest transportation bill we had since the mid 1990's. the most comprehensive rewrite of our k-12 education laws in 25 years. we finally rewrote our customs and border laws on international

trade that we've been trying to rewrite for decades. we had tax policy that we worked on in here for over 10 years we've made permanent. so we've made doc fix. a big medicare problem that was 17 times we kept patching this medicare problem one year at a time, one month at a time. we finally permanently fixed it. so by loosening control, letting policymakers actually write the policy i think we've gotten a better result. we had 120 or something like that amendments to the highway bill. i have no idea what the outcome of the highway bill would have been. it was very partisan for a while but we ended up having over 300 votes. so i think by loosening control of decentralizing power, subsidiary, so to speak, letting people do their jobs i think you get a better outcome and have more participants and the tenor and quality of debate improves as well. [applause] all right. they tell me i have to go. thank you very much, everybody. enjoy your time here.

i hope you're learning some good lessons. thank you so much. i appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> roll call has an article today reviewing speaker ryan's speech yesterday. it says in part the speech drew criticism from democrats who said ryan miss add chance to denounce donald trump. and some republicans who say the g.o.p.'s only policies have contributed to the political climate. a close source to ryan says the speech was designed to build the confidence on america mantra and help refocus the presidential racial on the pick picture. rather than adopt the frontrunner's frash style of politics, he chose to lead by example and remain above the fray. you can read the rest of that article in roll call today.

c-span3 will have live coverage today with the discussion of deputy chair russia's freedom party. he'll talk about his report and treatment of russian opposition politicians who speak out against president putin. live coverage gets under way at noon southeastern on c-span3. joe biden will clarify his position on the senate considering a supreme court nomination during a president's final year in office. opposition to that consideration has become known as the biden rule. and that's because of a speech he gave in 1992 while he chaired the senate yeark. we'll bring you that live -- judiciary committee. we'll bring you that speech said live at georgetown law school at 12:30 eastern. >> students told us that the economy, equality, education, and immigration were all top issues. thanks to all of the students and teachers who competed this year and congratulations to all of our winners.

and every week day in april starting on the first, one of the top 21 winning entries will air at 6:50 a.m. eastern on c-span. all the winning entries are vailable for viewing online at student.org. >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton delivered remarks yesterday on her plans to combat terrorism and boost homeland security. during an address at stanford university in california. she was introduced by michael mcfall, stanford professor and former u.s. ambassador to russia under the obama administration. while secretary clinton was serving as secretary of state. this is a half-hour.

michael: welcome, everybody, to the freeman spogli institute for international studies. stanford's nonpartisan, interdisciplinary institute. nonpartisan, interdisciplinary institute for researching and finding solutions to the world's most important policy issues. tragically, as we were reminded in brussels yesterday, countering terrorism remains one of the biggest security challenges of our era. for america, our allies and the world. f.s.i. is dedicated to expanding the policy dialogue on this most difficult issue and that's why we're delighted to have secretary clinton here today. in the future, we look forward to hosting our candidates and their advisors to discuss this subject and other foreign policy issues.

i first met secretary clinton as a parent when she delivered her daughter to the farm. that's what we call it here. as a freshman. she won't remember but i told her to tell her daughter to take my course on russian politics. [laughter] i joke that it was a mick, we like to say here, an easy a. chelsea never did take my course. but years later i had the opportunity many times to discuss all things russian with her mother in washington, moscow, st. etersburg and even vladivostok our last trip together in the government. when i had the great privilege to work for secretary clinton. as the u.s. ambassador to the russian federation. so it's a true honor for me to welcome back to stanford university, secretary hillary clinton. [applause] secretary clinton: thank you

very much, mike, thank you for the introduction and your service to our country and our partnership during the four years i served as secretary of state. what happens in vladivostok stays in vladivostok. i am delighted to be back here at stanford, and i will never forget the day we first brought chelsea here. i brought her to visit when she was thinking about schools but i knew as soon as she saw stanford that this is where, if she were fortunate enough to be admitted, she would certainly choose to come. and then, of course, i remember when bill and i brought her here to begin her freshman year and then the dinner for parents that mike was referring to, so it's a great treat to be back and now

that my daughter is a mother herself, you can imagine there's already talk -- at least among one or two members of our family, since her husband is also an alum of stanford, how good charlotte would look one day in cardinal red. i am delighted to be here with some very distinguished uests. secretary schultz, secretary perry thank you, both, for being here with us. lanny, thank you. and marcos, thank you. and others. it's really a great treat to be not only at the university but at this particular institute as well. you have really made stanford a center for national security scholarship and that is the principal reason why i am here

today. yesterday's attack in brussels was the latest brutal reminder that our fight against isis and radical jihadist terrorism is far from finished. more than 30 innocent people are dead. men and women hurrying to catch a plane, waiting for a train or meeting a loved one. hundreds more are wounded, including three mormon missionaries from utah. a u.s. air force officer, his wife and four children, and other americans. it's understandable that americans here at home are worried. the threat we face from terrorism is real, it's urgent and it knows no boundaries. even as brussels grieves, the memories of paris and san bernardino are painfully fresh as well. on saturday, a bombing in istanbul killed four people,

including two u.s.-israeli dual citizens. many other places have been targeted in the past year alone. hotels in west africa, beaches in tunisia, a market in lebanon, a russian passenger jet in the sinai. isis is attempting a genocide of religious and ethnic minorities. it beheads civilians. it enslaves, tortures and rapes women and girls. walls will not protect us from this threat. we cannot contain isis. we must defeat isis. this will be one of the most important challenges facing the next president who takes office on january 20. our new commander in chief will walk into the oval office and find a world of hard choices and complex problems. that president will sit down at

the desk and start making decisions that will affect the lives and livelihoods of every american and people around the world. so the stakes could not be higher. today, i want to emphasize three oints. first, we face an adversary that is constantly adapting and operating across multiple theaters, so our response must be just as nimble and far reaching. second, to defeat this transnational threat, we need to reinforce the alliances that have been core pillars of american power for decades. and third, we need to rely on what actually works, not bluster that alienates our partners and doesn't make us any safer. let's begin by being clear about what we are facing. isis controls a shrinking but

still sizeable territory in iraq and syria. it leads a far-flung network that includes affiliates across the middle east and north africa and cells in europe, asia and even here in north america. it's also part of a broader ideological movement that includes other terrorist groups. we need to do battle on all these fronts. last year, in speeches in new york and minneapolis, i laid out a three-part plan to defeat isis in the middle east, around the world and here at home. recent events have only reinforced the urgency of this mission. first, we do have to take out isis' strong hold in iraq and syria. we should intensify the coalition air campaign against its fighters, leaders and infrastructure. step up support for local arab

and kurdish forces on the ground, and coalition efforts to protect civilians. and pursue a diplomatic strategy aimed at achieving political resolutions, syria's civil war and iraq's sectarian divide. second, we must dismantle the global network of terror that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters. this means targeted efforts to deal with isis' affiliates from libya to afghanistan. it means going after the key enablers who facilitate illicit financial transactions and help jihadists to arrange travel, forge documents and evade detections, and it means waging online battles with extremists to discredit their ideology, expose their lies and counter their appeals to potential recruits in the west and around the world.

third, we must harden our defenses and build our resilience here at home. we need to counter each step in the process that can lead to an attack. deterring would-be terrorists and discovering and disrupting plots before they're carried out. our enemies are constantly adapting, so we have to do the same. for example, brussels demonstrated clearly we need to take a harder look at security protocols at airports and other sensitive so-called soft sites, especially areas outside guarded perimeters. to do all this, we need an intelligence surge and so do our allies. we also have to stay ahead of the curve technologically. that does mean working with the brightest minds here in the silicon valley to more effectively track and analyze

isis' social media posts and map jihadist networks online. when other candidates talk about building walls around america, i want to ask them -- how high does the wall have to be to keep the internet out? and we also have to tackle a thorny challenge that is top of mind here in the bay area. navigating the security and civil liberties' concerns surrounding the encryption of mobile devices and communications. impenetrable encryption provides significant cybersecurity advantages but may also make it harder for law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals to investigate plots and prevent future attacks. isis knows this too. at the same time, there are legitimate worries about privacy, network security and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors, including terrorists, can exploit.

there may be no quick or magic fix. in the apple case, the f.b.i. may have found a work-around. but there will be future cases with different facts and different challenges. so the tech community and the federal government has to stop seeing each other as adversaries and work together to protect our safety and our privacy. a national commission on encryption, like senator mark warner and congressman mike mccaul are proposing could help. and our security professionals could use the advice and talents of technology professionals to help us figure out how we do stay ahead of the terrorists. our fight against radical jihadist terrorists will be long, and there is very real risk of future attacks here at home. but pursuing this comprehensive strategy will put us in the best position to defeat isis and keep our families and communities safe.

you know, this is a very personal issue for me. having served as a senator from ew york on 9/11, having seen the horrors that were produced by a well-planned and executed attack on our country, knowing how important it is that we do stay ahead of those who wish to o us great harm without panic, without paranoia but with resolve, not to give in to the very behaviors that the terrorists are hoping to ngender. we can't let fear stop us from doing what's necessary to keep us safe, nor can we let it push us into reckless actions that end up making us less safe. for example, it would be a serious mistake to stumble into

another costly ground war in the middle east. if we've learned anything from iraq and afghanistan, it's that people and nations have to secure their own communities. we can and i argue must support them, but we can't substitute for them. it would also be a serious mistake to begin carpet bombing populated areas into oblivion. proposing that doesn't make you sound tough. it makes you sound like you're in over your head. slogans aren't a strategy. loose cannons tend to misfire. what america needs is strong, smart, steady leadership to wage and win this struggle. to do that we need to strengthen america's alliances in europe, asia and around the world, and that is the second point i want to emphasize. on 9/11, nato treated an attack against one as an attack against all.

on september 12, headlines across europe, most notably in limon, proclaimed we are all americans. there were very few planes in the air that day but one was a british jet carrying the u.k.'s top national security leaders to washington to offer any help they could. now it's our turn to stand with europe. we cherish the same values and face the same adversaries, so we must share the same determination. this is especially true at a time when europe faces multiple overlapping crises. from president putin's aggression in ukraine to the massive influx of refugees to continuing economic challenges to the rise of right-wing nationalist parties. we have made so much progress together toward the goal of a europe that is free, whole and

at peace, and we can't risk letting it fall apart now. for decades, republican and democratic administrations have understood that america's lliances make us stronger. secretary schultz compared the slow, steady work of building diplomatic relationships to gardening. he knew that when you cultivate effective partners you can arvest real rewards. allies extend our reach, sharing intelligence, provide troops in conflicts like afghanistan, offer bases and staging areas around the world for our military and serve as a partner against competitors like russia and china. and by the way, both moscow and beijing know our global network of alliances is a significant strategic advantage they can't match. nato, in particular, is one of the best investments america has

ever made, from the balkans to afghanistan and beyond, nato allies have fought alongside the united states, sharing the urdens and the sacrifices. in the 1990's, secretary perry helped guide nato's expansion based on the alliance's core tenants of collective defense, democracy, consensus and cooperative security. they became known as the perry principles, and they're still at the heart of what makes nato the most successful alliance in history. turning our back on our alliances or turning our alliance into a protection racket would reverse decades of bipartisan american leadership and send a dangerous signal to riend and foe alike. putin already hopes to divide europe. if mr. trump gets his way, it will be like christmas in the kremlin.

it will make america less safe and the world more dangerous. when it comes to the struggle against isis, we need our allies as much as ever. we need them to be strong and engaged for they are increasingly on the front lines. london, paris, madrid, brussels, istanbul, they've all been hit by terrorism. and as we saw when a terrorist cell in hamburg carried out the 9/11 attacks, what happens in europe has a way of making it o america. so it's essential that we have strong partners who can work with us to disrupt plots and dismantle networks in their own countries before they lead to attacks in ours. america needs european intelligence services working hand in hand with our own, including where they may have better reach and expertise, like in north africa. we need european banks to stop terrorist financing.

we need european planes flying missions over iraq and syria, and european special forces helping train and equip local anti-isis forces on the ground. we need european diplomats and development experts working to improve governance and reduce the appeal of extremism across the wide arc of instability that stretches from west africa all the way to asia. together we can do more and more urgently to support moderate voices and stand with tunisians, libyans, kurds and others in the region who are trying to do the right thing. and as we should, of course, be closely consulting with israel, our strongest ally in the middle east, we also have to extend our consultation to arab partners as well. all of this will make america safer and help defeat isis. there's much we can do to support our european partners, helping them improve intelligence and law

enforcement, facilitating in information sharing, working more closely at every level. there's also more they can do to share the burden with us. we'd like to see more european countries investing in defense and security, following the example germany and others have set during the obama dministration. the most urgent task is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the middle ast. thousands of young recruits have flocked to syria from france, germany, belgium and he united kingdom. their european passports make it easier for them to cross borders and eventually return home. radicalized and battle-hardened. we need to know the identities of every fighter who makes that trip and start revoking passports and visas. stemming this tide will require much better coordination among every country along the way.

right now, many european nations don't even alert each other when they turn away a suspected jihadist at the border or when a passport is stolen. and turkey, a nato ally, still has more work to do to control the border where most foreign fighters cross into syria. after the paris attack, france and belgium pledged to move forward together on reforms, but that's difficult without the european union. in january, the e.u. announced a new integrated counterterrorism center, but intelligence cooperation still lags and the e.u. keeps delaying a vote to share traveler information between member states. it's actually easier for the united states to get slight manifests from e.u. nations than it is for e.u. nations to get them from their own neighbors. thanks to an agreement that the

united states negotiated when i was secretary of state. there also has to be a special emphasis on identifying and investing in the hot spots, the specific neighborhoods, prisons and schools where recruitment happens in clusters as we've seen in brussels. and it's time to make good on the promise of establishing a new unified european border and coast guard to strengthen the continent's external borders which are under unprecedented pressure from refugees and migrants. now, this is a heartbreaking crisis. last year the world was horrified by the photo of a drowned toddler lying on a turkish beach. in the months since then, hundreds more children have died trying to reach safety. we've seen europe and syria's neighbors in the middle east struggle under the weight of this challenge. it's too big for any one

country or even continent to handle alone. i'm glad that the e.u. and turkey are now working closely together. and the united states should do whatever we can to support that. the only truly effective answer is to go to the source, end the conflict that is displacing all of these people so we have to support and maintain the crease fire in syria and we should also -- sees fire in syria and we should create safe areas where syrians can remain in the country rather than fleeing toward europe. in the meantime, it would be ong to shut our doors to orphans or to apply religious tests for people fleeing from prerscution. that's not who we are. we should be vigilant in screening and vetting everyone. we can't allowed terrorists to intimidate us and abandoning our values and humanitarian obligations, but we also have to be smart and vigilant about

how we process people into our country. it would be doubly cruel if isis cannot only force families from their homes but also prevent them from ever finding new ones. that brings me to my third point. in our fight against radical jihadism, we have to do what actually works. one thing we know that does not work is offensive, inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes all muslims. there are millions of peaceloving muslims living, working, raising families and paying taxes in this country. these americans are a crucial line of defense against terrorism. they are the most likely to recognize the warning signs of radicalization before it is too late, and the best position to block it. last year in minneapolis, i met parents, teachers, moms and

-- imams and others from the somali american community who are working with law enforcement and metal health professionals to intervene with young people at risk of being radicalized. efforts like that deserve more local and national support. since 9/11, law enforcement has orked hard to build trustful and strong relationships with american muslim communities. as the director of the f.b.i. told congress, anything that erodes that trust makes their job more difficult. we need every american community invested in this fight, not fearful and sitting on the sidelines. so when republican candidates like ted cruz call for treating american muslims like criminals and for racially profiling predominantly muslim neighborhoods, it's wrong, it's counterproductive, it's dangerous.

as a spokesman for the new york police department pointed out last night, that kind of blanket bigotry would treat the city's nearly 1,000 muslim police officers as threats. it's hard to imagine a more incendiary, foolish statement, he said. commissioner bill bratton at the nypd was even more blunt his morning. he said senator cruz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. demonizing muslims also alienates partners and undermines moderates we need around the world in the fight against isis. there's been a lot of talk from both republicans and democrats about the importance of building coalitions with muslim nations. having actually done this, i can tell you insulting allies and partners is not a good way to start. another thing we know that does

ot work, based on lots of impurecal evidence is torture. -- empirical evidence is torture. many intelligence, military and law enforcement experts have attested to this fact. it also puts our own troops and increasingly our own civilians at greater risk. i am proud to have been part of the administration that banned torture. after too many years in which we have lost our way, and it i am president, the united states will not condone or practice torture anywhere in the world, even when we're up against opponents who did not respect human life or human rights, torture is not the right choice. as senator john mccain has said, the high standard to which we hold ourselves isn't about our enemies, it's about us. it's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. america is a great nation.

and this is time for american leadership, smart, strong, steady leadership. no other country can rally allies and partners to defeat isis and when the generational struggle against radical jihadists terrorism, only the united states can mobilize action oa global scale in defense of our people and values. america doesn't cower in fear or hide behind walls. we lead and we succeed. throughout our history, we have stared into the face of evil and refused to blink. whether it was fascism, the cold war, or hunting down osama bin laden. and we will defeat isis too. no enemy or adversary should ever underestimate the determination of the american people. i will never forget what it was like to arrive in brussels for

the first time as secretary of state in march of 2009. i was on my way to nato. nato headquarters was buzzing. hundreds of young people of the european parliament had stood and cheered, not for me, but for the idea of american leadership, for the promise of an alliance that delivered unprecedented peace and prosperity on both sides of the tlantic. that's what we need to remember today. americans cannot, and i believe, will not turn on each other, turn on our allies or turn away from our principles. we're in it for the long haul, and that means we are going to work together and we are going to prevail. this may be another one of the long struggles that we have confronted from time to time in our history, but like all of the rest of those, if we can

forge a bipartisan consensus, if we can bring our people to understand what this struggle means to us, if we can maintain our alliances and our partnerships, we will be successful. and that will benefit not only our country but the world, and that, when you boil it down, is what american leadership has to be about. thank you all very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> well, democratic presidential candidates bernie sanders and hillary clintonally

are statistically tied, according to a new poll. the blerk politics poll said those who have voted or plan to vote in a democratic contest, 48%. is 47% to hillary's along with a fox news poll in february that had him up by three points. quick reminder of our live coverage today on c-span3, shortly, we'll bring you a discussion with the deputy chair of russia's people's freedom party. he's expected to report on the treat of russian opposition politicses, those who challenge president vladimir putin. live coverage of that starts at noon eastern. it will be on c-span3. also, coming up today, vice president joe biden is expected to clarify his position on the senate's consideration of a supreme court nomination during a president's final term in office. opposition to the nomination has been known as the biden rule. that's because of a speech he gave in 1992 while he chaired the senate judiciary committee.

live coverage of that speech today at georgetown law school. gets under way at 12:30 eastern. >> the made for horses on the farm began to decline radically in the 1930's. it was not until the 1930's that they figured out how to make a rubber tire big enough to fit on a tractor. and starting in the 1930's, 1940's, you had app almost complete replacement of horses as the work animals on farms. i do believe, in one of my books on horses, i read in the decade after world war ii, we had something like a horse holocaust, that the horses were no longer needed and we didn't get rid of them in a very pretty way. >> sunday night on "q&a," robert gordon, professor of economics at northwestern university discusses his book "the rise and fall of american growth," which looks at the growth of the american standard

of living between 1870 and 1970's and questions its future. >> one thing often that interests people is the impact of superstorm sandy on the east coast back in 2012. that wiped out the 20th century for many people. the elevators no longer worked in new york. the electricity stopped. you couldn't charge your cell phone. you couldn't pump gas into your car because the -- it required electricity to pump the gas. so the power of electricity in the internal combustion engine to make modern life possible is something people take for granted. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> this morning on "washington journal," we talked with two national security officials about the fight against isis and the nation's security. this is about an hour. washingto.

host: we are back this morning with a roundtable discussion about the fight against isis. joining us is kurt volker, the former ambassador to nato and the executive director director of the mccain institute for international leadership. also with us is michael breen, the ceo of the truman security project. inc. you for being here. i will ask both of you for this question. what is the significance of the terrorist attack in brussels? >> it is a human tragedy. and the continuing pain that europe and other parts of the world are experiencing -- it is an important moment for europeans and for us as well. to step back and look at how we have done since 2014, the brussels attack. how have we done with the

improvements we have made to the security systems? there are still differences in the level of security in the united states? they have a good plan. but they've only implemented about half of those. so there have been legal reforms training but that has only been done by some departments. sharing of the information, particularly what they collect about airline passengers. eurozone, europe is only as strong as the weakest link. there are a lot of phone our abilities and it is a good time for european leaders to bring everybody to the table to try to broker a compromise as quickly as they can. the deadlock is not serving them well. kurt: it is clear that isis is intent on attacking europe. that is one observation.

that means if we don't deal with this soon, we will have a friend in europe. these things are connected. the islamic state in syria the front in europe. the second thing is, as michael was saying, europe has not done a good job on getting a handle on the disenfranchised radicalized situation in the eu. i think they need to come to the realization that they need to have a more secure footing when dealing with isis. host: i want to share a couple of headlines to the point that you are making. specifically, the issue of open borders in europe and dealing with what is happening in syria. the wall street journal -- suicide bomber. one of these bombers was caught at the border in turkey. they say they have got the guy

and they say, he has no direct connection to isis. he just has a criminal record and turkey lets them go. and inside the wall street journal, the brussels bombings as itccelerated u.s. blows off the last remaining stage route for the third fair for militants who carried out the deadly attacks. there is a connection between syria and the groups in europe. they are a disfranchised community. they will create even more disenfranchised communities. i don't buy the line that there is one route out of syria and it is called turkey. there are plenty of ways that they can get out. and isis will not be deterred. host: what do you think? michael: i think that is clear. it is absolutely clear. pass out.o one

as we analyze this, we have to be thinking about, dealing with the refugee crisis in a way that is -- if you have seen the level of description -- of destruction that we have seen, rubble -- these refugees have nowhere to go. i was recently in jordan and it is a refugee camp. it is a humanitarian crisis on a scale that we haven't seen since the second world war. and it is mostly women and children fleeing destruction. isis is a predator on that human misery and they will continue to do that. especially in europe. we have to be thinking much more long-term, unfortunately, about how to deal with the masses, the scale of the refugee crisis, and confront that. because what we end up with is a

bunch of refugee camps where kids have been out of school for 10 years. there is no prospect for your children to have a better life. we are creating a situation in which isis can have an easier time radicalizing communities. host: what about the recently struck deal between europe and turkey. does that help? michael: i don't know how much it helps. to me, we are looking at the margins. i think the europeans are in a difficult position as far as the policy perspective and from a human perspective. what is calledt for, whatever else we are going to do in syria and iraq, we have

to leave the world in confronting the scale of the crisis and making sure that we don't waste a generation in the middle east and we don't hand the initiative to isis by putting millions of people in a hopeless situation. host: so you are saying we have to deal with the situation in iraq? kurt: we do. it gives them hard national security regions. ais crisis is creating situation in the middle east. it is turning into a conflict across the whole region. russia is exploiting and strengthening its role in the mediterranean. whenever we need to do something, it is our european allies who come with us. we're seeing them put up orders in set the eu for the first time. chances of a british exit vote are going up. merkel, that is

going down. it is really cracking right now. host: what is your prescription for dealing with this? kurt: dealing with isis in syria and iraq. i don't think the strategy of airstrikes and minimal support to opposition groups is sufficient. i think we have to have a robust u.s. military commitment to the crisis itself. to try to negotiate this. the russians are in their supporting president assad, that is just going to make the crisis bigger because they are the ones fighting these refugees out. putin sayse vladimir something, we don't have to believe it. russia fully intends to keep aces in syria. air bases and ground basis. what we're talking about is the amount of russian fighters that are contributing to the syrian

fighting effort. if they're successful in encouraging the government to continue the momentum, russia can't afford to back off a little bit. host: washington times notes this this morning. 6.5 billionore than dollars, but mr. obama said a wider bombing campaign quickly to more terrorist attacks like those in brussels. i want to get your reaction to that. michael: i think there are hard-nosed security reasons for dealing with the underlying causes. i'm skeptical of russian claims that they have withdrawn, just russianskeptical of claims that they have not targeted civilians. they have. so i think we need to watch their actions. i am a little bit more optimistic -- i wouldn't say

optimistic, but i see a necessity for the negotiations. ultimately, it is a hard road and it is hard to see how we get there but ultimately, this is over when there is a future in that region of the world in the hands of its people. that is a long road to get there. that takes american leadership on every front. but i would say, as you are talking about domestic politics earlier, the fundamental underpinnings of the world -- people are being questioned on their domestic politics with our allies in europe, in a way that i have never experienced. and i think this is really worthy of our full attention. the underpinnings of political word -- political world order need to be addressed.

the benefits are therefore for every single american to experience. the piece that we enjoy, the certainty that when i put my daughter to bed, things will be ok in the morning. these are things that we have gotten from our country. but there are alliances and practices that support that reality. and i think it is time for us to take stewardship of that before we have missed it. host: i want to tell our viewers, that you have served. combat assignments in iraq and afghanistan from 2002-2006. do you agree with the president, that if we step up combat against isis, we are looking at more terrorist attacks? kurt: if we increase bombings, we will have more terrorist attacks --

we need to set a serious goal of eliminating isis and we are going to meet arab allies to do that. that is not something we can do alone. he set a clear goal, bombing may be part of that. we will need ground forces and we will need a clear goal and economic numbers. people have to -- we will need to uncover the dangers of the regime. host: let's get the calls. bill, in norfolk, connecticut. .aller: thank you for c-span my problem is i think in order to beat isis to straighten this country out, we need a complete overhaul of our government and stop applying political generals -- appointing political

generals. roosevelt would roll over in his grave if they -- if he saw all of these dummies running this country. we don't need anymore summering to be isis. we don't need any more of those million lamp$40 that not all those power lines down. these congressmen only goes to congress just to bring military and they don't really seem to care about anything. inare never going to win donald trump is our only answer. host: let's go to valerie. hi, i hope you can hear me, i am on my cell phone and i just did a 12 hours shift. i tried to get in on the other subject, but i agree with

everything that the republican said instead of the part about donald trump. have are going to republican, i hope it is donald trump. how can you think that the whole fightcan get together and a small group -- it is really the idea, it is not a group of people. you can't kill the ideal. they want freedom just like we do. i think those people in the want russia and everyone to pull out so they can solve their own problems. host: ok, valerie. think what bill questions is a good answer.

it americans have a right to ask. a lot of blood envoy treasure spent. what effects have we seen for all the force put in? that raises an important question of our strategy and we changed it a lot. number two, do we need to focus on modernizing our national security capabilities? that is not just the military, that is our intelligence, the way we leverage democracy and economic development, and i think we need to rethink our strategy. i will say i have to respond to the donald trump thing. in national security conversation about terrorists

that is merged with a dark street of politics that go back a long way. should i fear my neighbor because their name is different from mine? there got is different from mine? their god is different from my? ine? donald trump is on the other side. host: in the paper yesterday they were making a comparison .etween the fires from syria very few can united states. the reason the papers were talking about the cultural integration of muslims in our

country versus those in belgium, but all across europe. do you agree? basies.hey have support there are disenfranchised muslim communities in europe in ways we do not have here. we have more integrated muslims in our society. that is true. there are basic reasons for this, which is intelligence and policing and the distance we have from the conflict. it is hard to get here both geographically and of our security measures where we are much more on a war footing. valerie makes a good point about the influence of outside powers in the middle east. we have to remember that there is a homegrown violent ideology in the middle east that is

targeting other muslims in the region and parting us. i don't think the muslims in the region can handle it alone. i think they do need our help in attacking isis and going after these extremist. host: glenda, savannah, georgia. you are next. caller: hi. it seems like everyone is surprised, but when president bush declared war on terror, the battleground moved and the germans were saying, please don't do this, these young men are going to come back with all are goingkills and we to reach the horror of the hisls, and saddam kept finger on the --.

we are always going to be fighting because the idea of fighting -- the ideal like that lady said, terror is amazing. let's have ambassador that one.e guest: they are trying to go after us in new york, boston, washington d.c., our shopping ands -- we can't sit by cebu will do nothing about it. we do have to go after the terrorists, there i ideology -- their ideology. they do not represent the majority of muslim opinion and the people in the middle east. very a small minority, but dangerous. we can't just sit by and let them attack. nika play role does

in this? this?o play in guest: take one example -- in afghanistan, we remove the taliban to go after osama bin laden. along that came nato to try to stabilize afghanistan, a decade worth of effort. in bosnia and kosovo, we get about 50% -- 15%. importantly, we get a lot out of the fact that europe is a secure place that shares our value and contribute to common efforts in the world. if europe is in trouble as it is

today, that is going to rebound back to the united states. host: we have an obligation. guest: we also have an interest. both. host: after what we saw in paris and now in belgium, these our nato allies under article five. are they at war, or do we need to respond? guest: you are now getting into technical territory. i apologize for getting -- giving a technical answer. that is an attack on one is an attack on all. cross-border land invasion with tanks -- if it is a terrorist attack, it is less on aus if it is an attack country, or an incident. after 9/11, we agreed to invoke article five as an attack on the united states. our allies agreed to that. that was the basis of are going to afghanistan together. european allies have not gone to

nato, not have invoked article five as a response to terrorist attacks in europe. the are more reluctant to think in terms of a military response to what they see as a police challenge. they see that as a national and eu effort. they may want more u.s. support. there is a degree of pride in europe about wanting to solve problems without us. at the same time, we see these incidents escalating. host: i am going to give you the next call mr. breen. amin, go ahead. caller: i am an american muslim and a vietnam that -- vietnam veteran. when i look at the refugees coming from syria, i see a lot of women and children and i can can't the that -- why muslim men of syria go to saudi

arabia, go to jordan, go to places right there close to their home, be trained to fight, and then come back and help the other people who are helping them? i don't understand my saudi arabia and all the other countries that we have given aid years, whyuries and don't they play more of a role in helping us to defeat isis? how do they expect is way over here in the united states to accomplish something that they can't seem to accomplish in their backyard? host: michael breen? guest: first of all, thank you for your service and i think it is a good opportunity -- more muslims have given their lives by a fair margin than anybody else in the fight against extremist groups and terrorists. i have had the privilege of knowing and serving with them. that gets lost in our conversation, but very many of

dom are doing what they can to hold the line against isis. we can't forget that. many of them have been our friends for quite some time. this does raise the question of the region's response and i think it comes down to this -- my saudi arabia and other powers in the region are more interested in continuing a proxy war with iran and syria. interested than ending the fight. anything we do, it can be as integrated as you want it to be. if there is no plan to govern syria, that is plausible, we end up in a very difficult situation trying to impose order on a region, which did not go so well the first time we tried it back in 2003.

this process of putting the region back in the hands of the people who live there is critical. it does tend on their willing to fight for that. i don't think that will enough willingnesshink the is lacking. no one wants to join a military force that has no opportunity to win, no training, note equipment . i would like the united states take a much more leaning approach. there has to be a flag you can rally under. we can do something, but the region has to do that, too. clinton proposed intensified airstrikes. and greater efforts to apprehend those who enable islamic states. can you govolker, back in time to heal the divisions between sunnis and shiites and all these different

ts the don't trust united states is on their side? is too late.ia, it we could have done it for years ago, but not today. the best we can hope for is that we get stable lines of control. you will have a sunni area in the north end of east and a kurdish area. if you can have lines of control that stabilize, then you have a purpose of negotiating. have, the beginning of a solution. the idea that you are going to have one government in syria to encourage all working together, i don't see it. hascially since the sod strengthened in the area. nashville,, republican.

caller: i was just wondering, why can't we just blast them right off the map? i remember desert storm, you know, we went over there and we did our business over there and we give the money to rebuild. why did we give money to rebuild the city after we go and bomb them? guest: of course, we could put a couple of arma on the ground and roll through. he did not take as long in 2003 to get to baghdad. the next 10 years were harder than the first month. that is the question. and groups like that, they come to a place where people do not have basic services and the present themselves as the only alternative.

they do it brutally and in no anyone i know would consent to live that way. in thevery deep believer american values we bring to that question. the question is how do you get there in this region? star.as to be our guiding nothing else has worked. guest: i agree. i would come back to the question and say, he has a good point. we should go in and rollover isis first. we have all these difficult challenges. no doubt about it. even with what hillary clinton just said, those are good steps, but is that going to do it? i don't think so. this this is the headline morning out of the middle east, syrian forces fight islamic state at the gate upon myra. -- plamyra.

of the you make , archaeology, artifacts? what is happening in this country? guest: i spent some time in syria record for the war. tragedy for everybody. there is no doubt about it. the culture, the history, i mean, i think we are going to look back on this period is probably the most in tragic in the last five to 10 years. question is where do we go from here? think -- there for humancompeting

life, one is isis' view, one is and ithoritarian view, reject that. then there is the third view, the view of united states has championed. that, in my experience, is what most syrians want. andou go to a refugee camp talk to serious, you know what they want to do? they want to send their kids to college. they are living in tents and they are upset about the lack of graduate opportunities for their kids. these are people who have the same kind of concerns i grew up with in a middle-class household. they want to go back to syria and's in their kids to college. how do we provide that for them?

there is a long way to go here. is, it is a bit of a chicken and egg question. that is a real debate. my own view, which i have reservations about this view, trying to wait until the fight stabilizes before you start negotiations is to to three years of work. have ayou have to balance of forces first. want to come to your point about the cultural issues. we do have a major humanitarian crisis. whathas to be the focus of we think about.

it is important to understand why isis is destroying cultural artifacts. because it proves them wrong. their claim is that the legitimacy is based on their ideology and their system of governance. the fact that there is in error territory in muslim territory, successful history that treating mohammed is a threat to their ideology. so they are methodically trying to eliminate anything other than what they can show as a validity of their own ideology. guests arewo referring to our negotiations dealome sort of peace right now in syria. that is where the secretary of state is, in moscow talking to the russians president and foreign minister to discuss the placee truce that is in that will spark you in brokered peace talks. jersey,stfield, new

independent. caller: good morning. i just want to ask the acid or his opinion of what globalization has done for our country. abouther gentleman talked nato, but our founding fathers were nativist. what it has gotten into is where we are bankrupt and hated throughout the world. talk about the origin of isis. bush made it was saudi arabia for a long lease for oil and they would put holy troops -- they would put military troops in the holy land of saudi arabia. we had invaded countries where our infrastructure is destroyed. donald trump is on the right track. host: i will have the ambassador respond. globalization is the

question you brought up initially. there is dark sides to globalization. there is the ease in which terrorists can communicate and their ability to blow up things. it has led to a movement of jobs and shifting of economic power. there is also some positive benefits as well. livingng the standard of for the western world. -endoved into higher industries and been very successful. you kind of have both, yet internet, information, communication, travel -- it is a mixed bag. -- the secondng addresshe way i would

your question, i understand what you are saying about fortress america and pulling back and reinvested in our own society, but the problem is that the rest of the world does not stop. the rest of the world continues to find ways to go after us and to pursue their interest and -- their interest at our expense. we are the number one target of everyone else because we are the weakest and best thing around. atcannot just sit back expect things to stay as they are. if we do that, they will get worse. host: barbara, baltimore, democrat, good morning. guest: pretty much a generalization. i would like to commend you on this program. i am a black retired teacher and i am a democrat and i go along a lot with what donald trump says. you immediately say i am not a fan of donald trump, that should not be necessary because i think

a lot of the younger people now, the reasoning is not there because we have gangs we are dealing with. neighborhoods, you have problems there that i hate , but i in an analogy think we are giving too much information. i heard donald trump and another person on terrorism make the comment that we are talking about it to specifically. because if you have a plan against the enemy, not only do you have a plan, but you have a plan against someone who has no fear. michael breen? host: perhaps belgium would not have happened if one of the people would have been tortured? guest: my organization released stronglyetter

condemning the idea of torture by americans. it does not work. it is not who we are. to us and as damaging are men and women as it is to the enemy. don't kid yourself, terrorists have as much fear as anyone else. experienceenough with them as anyone else. we do not have to resort to these kinds of methods to win the second world war. i don't think it's time to turn to this now. it is an effective. it does not work. that is a clear consensus of most experts. host: let's talk about the size of the movement in europe because the front page of the financial times this morning -- the police going to the brussels bombers to the november assault in paris. saide's prime minister

many were being hunted. journal"e "wall street in a raid that lasted more than two hours, investigators found 33 pounds of explosives, 40 gallons of acetone, and a suitcase filled of bolts. what is your dealing with -- andt: organized, trained, funded. it is multiple cells of jihadists. people who have grown up in these communities in europe and and beenalized -- radicalized. there are people from syria and isis on missions to europe to go create terror cells and create terrorist attacks in western europe. it is a war. host: jennifer, you are next in

new york, a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. for a person who sits back end why watch as each and every day, the americans speak the way that they do, the politicians speak as foolish as they do. this is an ideology you will never beat. muslim must announce that religion. that is number one. number 2 -- keep them out of our country. sure up the borders. number four -- what are you doing about the airports with bomb-sniffing dogs? police are unprotected. the amount of people that will now rise up because secretively, these muslims believe they are a

game. this is a religion that calls to murder. get rid of it! the announce it! host: we had a number of islamic clerics and muslims come whather and denounce happened in belgium and also call on americans do not attack them all. michael breen? guest: i agree. you should ask the muslims buried in arlington what they think quite frankly. this is a country founded on the toa that if you subscribe the set of values and willing to sacrifice, no matter where you were born, no matter what god you pray to, we are all americans tend when we stand equal. americans, we stand equal. we are taking a step back here.

one of the reasons -- in order to carry out the kind of attacks we have seen in europe, you need a supporting network of people to help you do that. a sickly a committee that supports -- basically a community that support itself. americans who made the decision to go to syria and 20 terrorist organization. robust much more security procedures in place, but much more importantly, is the strength of our values. that is our best defense. there is no amount of law enforcement you can put into place. people fight for this country because they believe in it. our front line of defense are our local communities. when people called to ban one of the biggest religion from our shores, we have to be brave to

say this is the land of the free. host: what she said is a perspective and perspective is a reality, are americans who believe like that you are does, caring enough from arab leaders? guest: no. that is an issue from what they hear based on what is broadcast and what information is out there. i will give you an example. let me make a couple points. one of them is that more muslims have been killed by isis than anybody else. they kill muslims. [laughter] second, muslims know this and they hate us. they want to do something about it. ,e have countries in the region saudi arabia, uae, qatar, jordan, lebanon, turkey, and iraq all determined to go after isis. a muslim countries. all muslim countries.

they are trying to do that. --example i want to give isis captured a jordanian highland, put him in a cage, and burn him alive. find a single person sympathetic to isis after that. a muslim king goes on bombing runs himself. it is not the case to say all muslims support isis. and islam is a religion we cannot work with. it is an extremist version of islam, that has to be taken out and we need the rest of the muslim community to help us do it. matt.that's go to caller: good morning. thank you for your two guess.

this is a very important discussion. i have a brother who came home from deployment. he has been deployed nine times in the last 10 years. i spoke with him very clearly about a lot of things we were together. one of the things i kept hearing from him what the american people are not knowledgeable about what we are doing. wehad one person that says talk too much, we talk not enough. one of the things that would help united states in its fight is what happened after 9/11 would happen again if the country would come together, stand behind our troops, an d our congress. they have avoided this for 18 months. my brother told me that the jordanian people of america. maybe he is wrong. maybe he had a misconception.

thefor a man who defends freedoms of our country, i think he might be on the right track. our propaganda, hate speech, it is just unbelievable. host: michael breen was justin jordan. guest: i have to strongly agree with your brother. we thank him for everything he is doing. i grew up in new hampshire, so it is great to hear good since coming from new hampshire -- from concord. got to visitly with our fighter pilots. they believe deeply in what they are doing. we are not sharing that effectively as we could be doing with the american people. you are right. this is a region that really does want united states to be its best self and put its best foot forward. dan, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: thank you. i have a question for mr. breen.