obviously, this is a really difficult year for republicans in the senate. we knew that going into it and we know the rhythm of senate elections. it was up -- it was who was up six years ago, the numbers work very much against republicans this time, 24 senate seats, 10 democrats. because of the wave that occurred six years ago that means you've got a lot of republicans who are naturally vulnerable. they are in blue states. there are seven of them and then there are others. and it means the democrats survived a difficult election and you're not going to find many vulnerable there. what has happened now with trump and with the discord inside the republican party is that the number of seats that are now in play on the republican side has expanded. and it has expanded for a number of reasons. it was striking to me yesterday that mark salter who has been a

close adviser and eight to john mccain for many decades, co-author of the books, the best selling books that mccain has done, said that's it for me, i'm voting for her. and for john mccain, when you have a republican candidate who said waterboarding, that's not enough, that namby-pamby stuff. we are going to go for real torture and we are going to kill their families at the same time. this has to be a very difficult moment. and in a state where arizona itself may well be in play, and you have a guy who's been around for a long time and has plenty of enemies in his own party, you have to say arizona is in play right now. grassley, in iowa, having taking the stand he has has seen his support the client significantly, and all of a sudden, iowa is in play. if you put that together with the seats as you can see on the chart, those of you in the room

have in front of you, where we know which seats are very much in the tossup category. the open seat in florida that marco rubio is giving up. mark kirk's seat in eleanor. rob portman in ohio, pat toomey of pennsylvania, ron johnson in wisconsin. you've got a whole lot of seats that could potentially change hands. and on the democratic side you nevada, which is harry reid's open seat, and given what may well be a very significant uptick in hispanic turnout there, i think the odds are good that democrats take a majority in the senate. but then we just have to point out that the worm turned very sharply in 2018 as the chart shows. you have 24 democrats of the next time, a lot of them invulnerable places. if hillary clinton wins the white house, then there's likely

to be, as they're almost always is, a set of headwind. the democratic tenure as a majority of the senate is likely to be a short one. the house of representatives -- it is striking here, we have a chart that shows all of the seats you could potentially, at least at this point, putting the tossup category. you always end up with one, too, or three that are in there, that end of being upsets. -- end up being upsets. 13 democrats, 45 republicans. you look at that, and you say all of a sudden everything falls apart for republicans. i have to say i am not sure it is going to work that way. our politics has become so tribal, that in the end i think we're going to see a lot of people come back. i am waiting to see how ted cruz makes the pivot to pathological liar to i am going to support this guy. >> their wives could have lunch together. mr. ornstein: exactly.

all the ex-wives -- and we can have a unity lunch. we see marco rubio, already, perhaps, giving him a template for how to make the pivot, but a whole a lot of people will be making that pivot, and it might not turn out to be as dire as it looks right now. factor weis another have to keep in mind -- the koch brothers and their allies amassed a war chest of between $800 million and $900 million, and they have spent some on building the most sophisticated voter identification we have out there, and they have more troops on the ground than the republican national committee. my guess is a lot of that money goes into house and senate races, and identifying republican voters, making sure they turnout at the polls, and telling them in many cases, do whatever you want the presidential level, but just make sure you protect our last lines of defense.

that will be a lot of money and a sophisticated effort. i will say, getting back to henry's point, it raises another interesting and somewhat troubling element, which is donald trump is now going to pick his chairman of the republican national committee. he will not have complete control over the members of the rnc, most of them will not be warm to him, and you will have a struggle for the structure of the party, and in the meantime a parallel structure that is already being built outside. those forces use the short term and theirh brothers allies -- they have been recruiting candidates in primaries, doing what a party organization does. there are a number of fronts here, including more than we have seen before. now, let me just say if the democrats somehow pulled off a aunning upset and won majority in the house, and winning 30 seats is still a very serious uphill battle, and if

they win the house and the senate, anyone that thinks that will lead to a way of legislation is missing the boat here. democrats when the house, that means they will have 20 new districtsat won in that are much more republican, and in midterms they are in trouble. the idea they will go out on long limbs to vote for sweeping legislation, giving -- given what we know is the history of members of the house to immediately run scared and away from their party will be a challenge, and republicans will unite in opposition. i would add that if they win the house or they don't, if republicans hold onto their majority, the smaller majority -- if you look at the republicans is being vacated and those that are the most in jeopardy, they are the remaining , somewhat conservative, in today's congressional context, which is very conservative generally in a past context, but you put together people like

erik paulsen in minnesota, lee zelman of new york, least of phonic -- these are people that are going, and the freedom caucus forces will have a higher proportion and more leverage in the house of representatives. paul ryan, who you will recall that it trod rally in wisconsin -- trump rally in wisconsin had no.ple yelling out paul ri the idea that the most is viewedve speaker , with all these other challenges, if they lose the white house, means that congress is going to be a very interesting and not terribly edifying place, whether it is for the next president, or for the rest of us. ms. bowman: thank you very much. i will turn to john to talk about the governor's races, but norm mentioned how proud we are of this series.

this is a bittersweet moment for norm and for me because this is the last time we will meet in this room. we have been meeting every two years for election watch -- almost 100 sessions. we are moving to 1789 massachusetts avenue. we are hoping we'll have our first fall session in september at the new building. this has been a long run. of course, norm and i were children when it started. it is been a long run. mr. ornstein: we should note that 1789 is not a year we want to have as a model, but we are stuck with it. >> we get george washington sworn in as president april 30. mr. ornstein: i am thinking french revolution. ms. bowman: john, the governors. mr. fortier: i have a few words to say about the governors, and then i want to ask norm a

follow-up. there are not so many governors. not like the big cicadas of the other years. many of them are safe. overall, republicans have enormous advantage in governorships -- 31 public and, 18 democrats, and one independent -- 31 republicans, 18 democrats, and one independent. i would say if you're looking for change, probably all things being equal, assuming not a blowout without trump losing badly, but a relatively neutral environment, there are slightly more democrats in trouble, three, really. west virginia in particular. an open new hampshire seat that is competitive, and an open missouri seat that is competitive. on the republican side, you have a couple -- north carolina where , the race is shaping up to be close and potential an outside

chance in indiana, but i guess i'm going to focus on north carolina. it looks like a mild republican pickup in a field or a group that already have a big advantage in. what i did want to ask was on the congressional question, i think we all agree that if there were a big win for hillary clinton over donald trump a lot of those features will fall. but what if donald trump does pretty well? whether he wins or not -- he has different asterisk. there will be people that will want to run toward trump, part will want to run against him. what you say to those people that will be conflicted. they might benefit in some ways, but also be troubled? mr. ornstein: you are absolutely right. i do think that we are going to find a lot of republicans who will come back into the fold. it may get closer than it would otherwise be. we're not going to see, i think the kind of blowout of a , goldwater losing 45 states or a mondale or a mcgovern losing 49 states.

the states are more firmly red and blue now, although some of those red states may be in play. but if you have got lawmakers in states that are still swing and could turn close they have a huge dilemma on their hands. and how do you and they -- embrace trump, where you know in the process, you may end up linked to him for minority might turnthers who out in more substantial numbers? but if you get distance from him, you will create a backlash among a lot of others who see you as betraying the cause. so i think there's no easy way out of it. and my guess is you're going to find some people who handle it in a very clumsy fashion and , others who may be a little more adept. house, they are used to

running away from their candidate, and trying to run as individual lawmakers, but much of this will depend on the turner. 1.i didn't make, but should, for those of you thought indiana was abramowitz, a good political scientist, has developed a simple model to look at the democratic contest that has three components -- the region -- is it a state in the south or outside of the south? what is the percentage of minorities -- of african-americans voting? and what is the percentage of democrats who voted in the democratic primary in 2008? and he is been just stunningly accurate within a point or two of every contest, and in a week -- a week ago, he said hillary clinton would get 47% in atlanta. -- indiana. ahead, and itoked looks like bernie will win in oregon, but possibly lose in

kentucky, and not that this matters in the end. she was still win the nomination, that we look at the tea leaves. this is what happened, the campaign moved in that direction. a lot of it and that includes a lot of our politics more generally is, doesn't have quite as much as we think the events in the campaign suggest. ms. bowman: michael? mr. barone: we have been through a period of very high persistent partisanship roughly equal size , blocks on both sides and very persistent voting patterns. we had in 2012 only 26 congressional districts out of 435 devoted to split tickets, that is vote majority president in one one party, elected congressman of the other parties. it is the lowest number since 1920. i do think, americans, however, are capable of splitting tickets. it's not that hard. if you want to do it. they just haven't been in the

habit of doing lately because george w. bush for ameg defid e party,ned the republican and barack obama defined the democratic party, and people voted accordingly. does that all child defined the republican national does donald trump defined the republican trump-- does donald defined in the republican party? many people do not want to be identified with their party leader. when richard nixon was reelected in 1972, he carried, i think, 389 congressional districts against george mcgovern. half of them voted for democratic congressman. so, the americans are capable of splitting tickets if they want to. in this context, i think turnout is going to be important. we had a surge-increasing surge

of turnout during the george w. bush presidency, including the repudiation of the bush presidency. we have had declining turnout during the obama presidency, particularly of democrats, but not any surge of republican turnout. i have been of the view that the fact of republican turnout was a lot bigger in the primaries this year and caucuses that -- than democratic turnout has, perhaps, some significance for the general election. and others in the 538.com website, for example, have pooh-poohed that and said in 1976 it didn't. i don't think that's relevant. i think, i think it may still have something, but i don't feel i have any confidence how it is going to work out there. in my initial presentation, i mentioned the rules for both

parties. if you look at if the democrats had rules like the republicans, which include winner take all primaries, hillary clinton would delegates 2-1. the bernie sanders campaign would have disappeared almost as much as the john kasich campaign disappeared sometime ago. ms. bowman: henry, a quick comment, and then a question. mr. olsen: with respect to turnout, i have been looking at purple state turnout, and with the exception of ohio, and also with the exception of pennsylvania, republican turnout has vastly exceeded democratic turnout. we have two competitive races, and if everyone who cast the republican ballot in the primary cast a republican ballot in the fall, the democrats would need to win between 53-60% of t carry and 60% of the remaining voters in order to carry each of those states by one vote.

i think that's the promise and the pitfall of the republican party is that, of course to put that coalition together means to put those three factions together in a coherent way, and the reason why trump may not win is precisely his inability to do that. i do think it indicates where a unified republican party could go, which is it would be actually hard for a democratic party to respond when you have 50% of the general election voters in the state to are actively considering themselves republicans. we have never dealt with that in our lifetime. ms. bowman: all right. now we are going to turn to your questions. i should tell you that cnn has come out with its first matchup. 41% trump.clinton, 13 points. double-digit lead. i should point out that that handout will be available to

anyone outside, and we can e-mail it to anyone. we'll be updating it throughout the summer. joshua myers could this be the : year the libertarian party breaks 5%, and could that have any long-term consequences? my initial answer is no, and why would libertarians want government money? [laughter] ms. bowman: right here. larry: two i very much. we're talking about the soul of the republican party here, and it is my opinion, and i may speak for some around the table here the real issue is out is , the party going to coalesce around this person, or are we going to coalesce around america? i think this is not a condition where we should be -- the party is second to the country and i think most of us agree to that.

i would just like to know, most of you said there was going to be some coalescing around this man, even though they said some very negative things about him in the past. what can we see for the party if that becomes the norm? ms. bowman: another question is what should the never trump movement be doing now? your point of view is clear -- mr. fortier: your point of view is clear from the question. they shouldn't coalesce around trump. i think he will get less coalescing than other republican candidates have gotten, but i think he will get more than the tenor of your question suggests. billve people like kristol, the editor of the "weekly standard," talking about a kind of bases for republicans to vote for and to come out and vote for so they

will come out and vote for republican candidates, in the senate and the house, and so forth. i suspect not a whole lot is going to come out of that, and so forth. is obviously a different situation from which we face where both parties have nominated candidates in recent cycles who have been widely acceptable to the party's constituency, and the question is how much of the party's trump notcy considers acceptable, and does trump add some people in the contest to compensate for that? my view is he is probably unacceptable to fewer than the tenor of your question suggests, and the number of new people he brings in his fewer than the anti-trump people would suggest.

mr. fortier: i think there will be a fair amount of coalescing. anti-trump forces don't have a lot of places to go. i think there are several dangers. if after the convention there is some coalescing, and i do not put much stake in the matchup polls at this point, but if the trump by ants show lot, the lack of and is you is or might be very strong. naturalnk there is a place to go, and the natural tendency is to come together, but if it is not enough, that will show in late-summer, early-fall. mr. olsen: i think you will see a lot of pivoting. newt gingrich, who has set a lot of nice things about donald -- one part of

the mantra -- we cannot allow heather clinton to transform the supreme court into a liberal court that will change the country for decades and others will be using the mantra anything will be better than hillary clinton. my guess is some people will coalesce around them. there is some that won't. that is true of people outside of the political arena, but i the best -- vast majority will fall in line, and they have to live with the consequences. one part of this is when they do the second autopsy, and this time it will be a real dead body, most likely, it will be back to the same set of issues. the aunt expanded base angry, white, working-class voters? and if you have an immigration position that has taken you so far away from that, and a rhetoric that is going to so alienate the growing forces in the electorate, you are in trouble, and that is going to be

a battle that will follow, but those who fall in line are going to make it much harder to have that battle won by those that think you need to broaden your base. ms. bowman: we have a question in the back, then mike gonzalez in the fund. >> to her, generally. i was wondering if we could move to discussion about split-ticket voters. there was a poll that 50% of clinton voters in ohio are still going to vote for portman. i was one if you could speak to how the gop could target these split-ticket voters, and what the strategy should be involved to motivate them to vote for gop senators. guest: -- ms. bowman: split ticket. mr. barone: if you're running rob portman's campaign you talk about his campaign, his legiation against opioid abuse, which is a real problem in parts of ohio. done forat others have

40 years when they sense the party is not strong or might be unpopular with significant parts of their unelected. emphasize the specifics of those issues, the character of the candidate, and things of that nature. voters are capable of splitting tickets, they just haven't felt the need to do so lately. you know, given the choices before us, they may -- you know, it is quite possible they will need more, and i do not think they really need a mechanism of a third party, which is not going to be competitive anyway, to bring out voters for down-ballot people. -- one of the --mr. ornstein: one of the challenges for mitch mcconnell, they said

keep us in power. this is a congress that left without dealing with the zika virus, which is becoming a -- a huge epidemic in the country, without dealing with puerto rico, which has gone past the deadline for a budget, is not going to do a budget, which appears to have difficulty doing an appropriations bill, and is not acted as a congress on the opioid legislation. if they cannot get much done, that is a slender reed for people to run on. mr. olsen: this is a party that remains mired in the past and a repeat of the 1992 campaign where it appears that dole is going to lose.

put her in the white house, but don't get her a blank check, vote republican down ballot. ms. bowman: go first to you, then mike gonzalez. >> my question is to henry. is theely do you think possibility of unifying these different factions of the party, and you mentioned immigration and nationalism, but there is one strong message of trump, which is the anti-trade and anti-globalization message. how do you put it together with the business conservative coalition? thank you. ms. bowman: mike gonzalez has a question, and then in the front. mr. gonzales: very similar to the question you just asked. i'm mike gonzalez from the heritage organization. would agree, that a yearning for national identity, not nationalism, is the important thing right now.

around the the theme different factions build, but how does that take place? how does the reckoning happen? if trump wins, obvious, the populist will be ascendant, and everyone will have to glob onto them, but let's say trump loses. there has been so much self-incrimination, how does the ship up look? >> my name is joe freeman. think theeman: do you --ublicans might consider reconsider their opposition to the barack obama nomination to the supreme court? -- dish ein: ok the possibility

of unifying the gop -- that is a matter of choice. if people want to find peace and hang together, they will find a way to do so. if they think that it is better to try and continue the warfare to try to engage and have your faction be dominant under the misguided belief that somehow you can put together a national majority by having only two prongs of the stool rather than three, then we won't unify the gop, but it is a matter of choice from other different factions, and i can't say what the probability is of that, but as far as the possibility i think you have to have a unifying message that forces around a limited, but active role for government to care about people like me. that's essentially what the plea of the trump voter is, that you have not cared about a

person like me for decades. and that's always been the weakness of the republican party. republicans do well at saint we care about people, but have a really hard time saying people like me. with respect to how do you do this, i think what you need to do is you need to do an immigration policy that's more like australia and canada that says we need immigrants but we are going to decide who they are and bring them in. canada has a larger share of foreign-born population than we do, but they do it by choice. australia's conservatives dealt with immigration by saying if you are a refugee come in here land on ourry to territories, you're not going to be admitted to australia. largetoo, have a immigrant population, but it is not one that places the

foreigner ahead of the citizen. with respect to trade, what you need to do is stop treating people who are indirectly harmed by trade as collateral damage in the willy-nilly pursuit -- a tony blair approach. that means a more robust system and an attempt to bring people to work. need to rethink our social safety net, that, on the margin, says that if you are of low skill, you will get a handout. nothing to help you get really back on your feet and help support you recover some of the income you have lost because of the jobs that we have encouraged south koreans or burmese to have.

a republican party that is portrayed, but for a serious way of accommodating the people that are dislocated by trade, letting in the immigrants that we need but only the immigrants that we need, i think that could unite this wing. it requires choice and compromise. that may be something that certain elements of your republican party are unwilling to do. 1964, it debacle of was not just party leaders like nixon who said we had to accommodate the goldwaterites, it was the goldwaterites who said they had to stop trying to overturn the establishment. that is when new strains of conservatism came in and buckley moved to the most electable conservative model. >> i was going to say, on immigration, it would be interesting if the scenario that norm talked about came to pass,

the democrats had majorities in each house of congress and the presidency, whether they would bring forward immigration legislation, which they did not do when they had votes to pass the so-called comprehensive bill in 2009 and 2010. from a democratic point of view, you would have the potential to million 3 million or 4 net democratic votes. they may be fearful of blowback. i fear they would not do what i think the country should do, which is have a system emphasizing high skill immigration like australia and canada. the democratic party, on the supreme court, is obviously totally hypocritical. the idea that a democratic congress in the eighth year of a republican president would confirm a republican appointee to a democratic appointed supreme court justice is absurd. they would not do that in a

million years. the republicans aren't going to do it. if hillary clinton is elected, and particularly, if democrats get a majority in the senate, i would expect judge garland to be -- judge garlands to be confirmed in december. they would have to eat words to do that. judge garland is a decent sort of judge. he is unlikely to roll the way republicans would like on a lot of issues. >> they are in a box right now. moran, aticed jerry very conservative senator from kansas who is up for reelection, he said, we are to hold a hearing. the club for growth and -- we ought to hold a hearing. the club for growth and others came down hard on him and said maybe it was time for a primary challenge. wasnext day, jerry moran

saying, not only should we hold a hearing -- not only should we not hold a hearing, but this guy is a dangerous leftist. that is the problem that mitch mcconnell has. if we get to october and the cnn results are still what we have, it is going to be a debacle. republicans are looking out there and believing that very possibly the day after the election, president obama said the voters should choose, so i am withdrawing this nomination, and i will let the next president, hillary clinton, pick a nominee. in october,l come and especially if chuck grassley is underwater in iowa, go ahead and confirm. if he kept the nomination, i think it may happen in a lame-duck. what i think is happening now is republicans in the senate having said, we should let that go. that wouldn't filibuster for an extended period of time, any

nominee from hillary clinton. we could end up with a four p four supreme court -- with a 4-4 supreme court for a significant time. but we could have, and i could see this playing out through much of 2017, is yet another change in the filibuster rules. i don't thing that would happen until we get eight or 10 months of a filibuster. that would be unfortunate. do want to disagree on the merrick garland issue. i think it is very unlikely that republicans will go back on this , no matter how badly they are , and confirming somebody in a lame-duck or early on during the election. there will be opposition to a new nominee by hillary clinton or perhaps more than one nominee. you have the potential for other nominations either from

resignations, especially on the democratic side. there will be intense pressure to fight back. i think the filibuster is always under stress there. there is some pressure to get rid of the filibuster as they have for lower court justices. ms. bowman: we have time for one more lucky questioner. in the meantime, political corner is going to be having some special events this summer. in september, this team will be back, and in october, and on the thursday after the november election. >> can you please explain why the system allows different levels of social classes to vote. system -- whyss

would every level of criminal activity be allowed to vote? >> i'm not aware we let every level of criminal activity vote. we just saw and executive action in virginia, which is perhaps of dubious legality, to have convicted felons who have served their sentences to vote. i think arguments could be for and against that as a public policy. we have sort of gone from manhood suffrage, which meant white men basically, as far back 1810's, we moved in that direction. i think that, despite some lament over results in recent years, and each of us perhaps as our different lists of the mental results, we are not going -- of lamentable results, we are not going to go back on that.

i have long been a supporter of something that will not happen in this country, which is the australian system of mandatory attendance at the polls. in australia, you don't have to vote but you have to show up, and that makes you subject to a small fine if you don't. this gives them 90% or more turnout. belgium has this as well. it does not create disaster. there are always questions of whether the least informed are out there voting. the fact is, most people who vote are very little informed. it begs the question of what do you believe by a republican form of democracy? i believe in enhancing the electorate. we had a literacy test at one point, and then not sure i want to turn that into an iq test. frankly, there are a lot of people we know with very high iqs that i would just as soon not vote. >> brazil, which is now in the

process of impeaching its president is on the list of mandatory voting countries. of course, we have impeached president's in this country as well. ms. bowman: we're out of time. join me in thanking the panelists. is at the reception desk and we will be here for a few more minutes to answer any additional questions you have. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [indiscernible]

>> this weekend, the c-span cities tour toes -- cities tour posted by our partners, takes you to san bernardino, california. , 14 people 2, 2015 were killed and 22 are seriously injured in a terrorist attack in san bernardino. we will talk with congressman pete aguilar about the attack. his district includes the inland regional center. >> we talk about terrorism, the fight against terror, it isn't something that is in the abstract anymore. it is something that, across this country, means something. ins isn't a big city here

san bernardino. this could happen anywhere. >> we will also speak with a san bernardino city councilman about establishing a permanent memorial for the victims of the attack. >> it provides a sense of remembrance. it highlights their lives and what the community did -- and what they did for our local community. will always be a year-to-year place where we can find a place for consolation. we are thinking of serenity garden, prayer chapel of some sort around this area. >> on book tv, we will learn about the family of wyatt earp. his book talks about the earps' notoriety and their connection to san bernardino. 1852,goes back to about when the father of wyatt earp, earp, he basically left

his family temporarily. they were living in illinois. he heard about the gold rush in northern california. before he went back to the midwest, he ventured down to southern california and he passed through the san bernardino valley. he vowed that one day he would come back. >> on american history tv, we will visit the san bernardino railroad museum, and talk about the importance of the railroad to san bernardino, with the san bernardino historical society but -- society vice president. >> construction was completed in 1918. it replaced a wooden structure that was approximately 100 yards east of here, which burned in 1960. it was built a lot larger than it was needed because they decided to house the division headquarters at this location at that time.

tour,ch the c-span cities saturday at new eastern on c-span book tv, and sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> michigan governor rick snyder during a speech inflamed this afternoon as he apologized of his handling about crisis.r this happened a short time before president obama took the same stage. youernor snyder said, " didn't create this problem, government failed you." replied of the audience , "you failed us. " gov. snyder: today is an opportunity for us to focus in on understanding that we need to work together. we have a short-term water crisis that needs to be repaired.

issue aboutng-term building a stronger city of flint to create job opportunities for everyone. and tellto come here you, you didn't create this problem, government failed you. i apologize, and i will work hard to fix that. we all need to work together, and so i would like to thank the president for coming here today. it is part of the process to say how we can all work together. i'm committed to working with the mayor, the city council, the neighborhood leaders, the all of you, on strengthening flint. we need to work together with the county, and the federal government. i want to thank the president for sending outstanding people such as dr. laury.

on puttingng hard important programs in place. i want to thank you for coming here today. this is an important moment to show how we can work together to say, you deserve better, and bring that to the city of flint. thank you for the opportunity to come share a few thoughts, and i look forward to the president's comments and i thank you. -- thank him. snyder'sgovernor remarks, president obama spoke to residents of flint. he promised that he would make sure that leaders at all levels of government don't rest until every drop of water that flows through city pipes is safe.

[no audio]

>> as you can tell, we are having audio difficulties with this clip. on in oure it later schedule. nine: 30 p.m. eastern time. -- 9:30 p.m. eastern time. [no audio]

>> you can see all of what president -- liveashington journal" every day with news and policy issues that impact you. von,day morning, becky eviction services vice president of the national council of , specificallylth on the u.s. house to pass opioid legislation. changescil is pushing to the legislation to make it similar to what the senate has passed. david bossie from citizens united will be on.

be sure to watch beginning at 7 a.m. thursday morning. ,> in both iraq and afghanistan i helped both the countries with their constitutions, being sort of the facilitator of agreement on key issues among the iraqis or afghans. the heads of state or government are very anxious to meet with you when you ask for a meeting. &a" theay night on "q former u.s. envoy to iraq and afghanistan discusses his envoy.""the >> we saw house r. kelly exploited it -- how it was exploited, but we corrected by reaching out to the sunnis, by establishing a unique -- a unity government, to bring about security.

violence was way down. unfortunately, when we left, the vacuum was filled by regional powers pulling iraq apart. and we have ice is now. >> sunday night at -- and we have isis now. >> recently, our campaign 2016 bus made a visit to pennsylvania during its primary, stopping at slippery rock university, washington and jefferson college, where students, professors, and local officials learned about our road to the white house coverage and online interactive resources. visitors were also able to share their thoughts about the upcoming election. pennsylvania, we visited a middle school to honor 7/9 graders in their contribution to the contest. you can view all the winning documentaries at studentcam.org.

>> president obama in flint, michigan today, to talk about the water contamination crisis there. we will have those remarks during our primetime lineup tonight on c-span. water analysts and journalists discuss water quality and policy. this program in march was held in new york city. >> good morning. i am john friedman, and i am , with theashington dc partnership for ge water business. ge is one of the world's leading water treatment companies. we have 50,000 customers in 130 countries. i had the honor on tuesday of attending the white house water

summit. peter, marianne, you were there as well. one of the really interesting things i heard was from the president's science and technology advisor. he said that while numbers are never everything, they are always a great starting point. in your opening remarks, when you talked about the state of the nation's water challenges, you laid out numbers that are very sobering. i will add to that of the american society of civil engineers just released a report giving the country's water and wastewater infrastructure a grade of d-. that is even worse than my grade in calculus 2 at the university of virginia. i still don't know why it took that class. i was a history major. we are losing 7 billion gallons of water each and every day through that d-infrastructure --

through that de-minus interest -- that d-minus infrastructure. while these challenges are great, they are also solvable. ofs morning, we have a panel four and credible experts who are going to tell us how we go about solving these challenges through policy. i will work for my left to the end. we will start with brett walton. he is a reporter for "the circle f blue." it is a news agency that shines the light on water use globally. ceo for dickason is the the water alliance in chicago. she provides leadership and best practices around using water sustainably.

have lynn broaddus, who works with clients to develop natural resource strategy. he also worked for the johnston , and perhaps even more important, like me, a graduate of the university of virginia, who plays tonight against iowa state. peter is a world-famous water policy expert. i've seen you testify before congress. peter probably doesn't even know that yale is a basketball team, but they beat baylor in the ncaa

tournament before being desperate for losing a close game. that brings us to our panel discussion. i think each of our panelists should take one or two minutes and just tell you a little bit more about themselves so you have some context when they start asking you questions. walton: thanks, john. circle of blue, we are a news agency, a nonprofit news agency that reports on water. we view water as a lens to view the world, through all these connecting challenges of energy, agriculture, food production. we find water and the related challenges one of the most compelling stories of our time. we are telling the story of the united states, china, india, mexico. but we see is that systems that are nod decades ago

longer suited for today's environmental and social conditions. we have a changing climate and changing demand patterns. the story is twofold. -- one, to policymakers, do they recognize the change. two, how do they respond to it? is the response sufficient, where are the gaps? where do we need to see more action? i'm glad to be on a panel about communication of these challenges, because it is a big problem. there are a lot of big words and concepts that the translation to both the public and the policymakers to understand what the best changes could be. i represent the alliance for water efficiency, which is a nonprofit organization formed in 2007 to promote the efficient and sustainable use of water in the united states and canada. you might wonder why we were , when energyn 2007

organizations very similar to ours have been around for years. we wondered the same thing. there were a number of us working in the field of water efficiency and we realized there was no kind of national platform for at because he -- for advocacy of efficiency issues. we decided to do just that, to provide not only technical information about what the best practices were in water efficiency, what the most cost-efficient options were, but also doing research on what the next leading edge should be, and providing guidance to both state and federal legislators and policymakers about policy that would promote efficient solutions. that is why i am pleased to be a part of this panel, where we talk about what our ideas are for policy barriers. i would just conclude by apologizing for my voice. i have been sick this week.

if i start having a coughing fit while i talk, please forgive me. it is often said that all water is local, and we need some. thank you very much. i am president of a little company we started last year, broadview collaborative. we work with nonprofit and foundation clients, but also with water innovation startup the small some of innovators that are looking to break into and change some of the ways we do water. started,f -- when i prior to start a male company, i was with the johnston foundation , which is an unusual foundation, where we didn't give grants but we brought people together for dialogue. i was charged with starting to

lead a national conversation around water. one of the first big consensus reports that we put out was in 2010 for national water policy. what was really interesting, especially from a 2016 perspective, is that when we were shopping these around to federal agencies, local groups, whatever, a lot of the response was, what is the big deal about water? why are you so worried about water? i will include that in having trouble getting traction with the u.s. department of energy at the time. i am happy to say that come before all the wrong reasons, that sentiment has changed. first texas was having a drought , but then the california drought happened, and that was a very big deal. caught people's attention

around water quantity issues. the morning having to make a statement and take on a lawsuit to push upstream on their water quality problems, that is getting traction locally but it hasn't really been a national story like it should be. meeting some of our rural areas and the horrible human stories that come along with that is still not really getting national attention and national traction. virginia --ton west when charleston, west virginia experienced a shop of its water because of a chemical spill that was probably very preventable, and i got a blip of national -- that got a blip of national attention but didn't go to any changes. detroit, again, kind of their problem. not until the flood situation have we really -- i hope this is

really what will get our national consciousness wrapped around water. i think that we will have plenty of chances to talk about what that may or may not bring about, the good and the bad. i think that one of the things that we will be addressing today is sort of these multi-partnership things. it strikes me that, in my pro bono part of my life, i actually have a foot in most of the camps that need to be at the table. i am on a board along with marianne dickinson of river network. 500epresents more than watershed organizations, a private citizen organization and a local voice, a citizen advocate, such a critical part of the work that needs to happen around water. i also chair the board of the nelson institute for

environmental studies at university of wisconsin madison. there is the academic role that drives a lot of the innovation that we see. boarden, i also am on the of the water environment federation, which is really a utility organization which prevents wastewater utilities and storm water. the utilities sector needs to be at the table. i think that maybe that partnership gives me a slightly unique perspective into all those worlds that i am really looking forward to. what role colombia can play in helping to drive this forward. mr. gleick: good morning, everyone. i am delighted to be here. first of all, thank you for hosting this.

second, a lot of people in the room, i know. you, i have seen for the second time in a week which is a remarkable thing. i am the director of the pacific institute in oakland, california. research androfit policy group working on solutions to the world's water problems. we do a book every two years called "the world's water." we did a book a couple of years ago on the 21st century u.s. water policy. i am a scientist, but that is what is to does, we merged science and policy. water, as we heard this morning in some very interesting -- from water deficit

to water surplus. you can't address is just with science. you have to address policy. it is a very complicated issue. the secretariat for something called the u.n. water mandate, the part of the u.n. that is bringing together water stewardship. there is the global compact, the effort to bring the globe together, and the ceo water mandate. together very closely with some of you in the room on this component. i will stop there. i think we have plenty to talk about. >> one of the things we heard at the white house water summit is that so many of these water

issues that we are facing our local and regional. and yet, policies are often made at the national level. so, i want to start with the national level. peter, i think i go to start with you because i ever did testify on this topic. what needs to be done from a national standpoint to address these challenges? mr. gleick: water is local, mostly. but the kinds of pricing issues we heard about comedy regionalization of small-scale water systems we have heard about -- water really is local. having said that, there are fundamental things that the u.s. needs to do at the fundamental -- at the federal level. i don't normally like to list things but i'm going to just to get the conversation going.

mr. freedman: rick perry, peter. mr. gleick: what a sad comparison. i will try to do better than that. i have 11 things. we have to combine and streamline federal agencies. there should not be a department of water, i am not suggesting that. but we need to a better job at the federal level of integrating the activities of the federal agencies to deal with water. revive -- 2 -- we need to revive river basin commissions, and states that share rivers needs to work together to manage those across state boundaries. we need, third, a national water condition -- national water commission. there has not been a national water commission in the united states since, i think, 1970. the world is a little bit different today. 4 -- we need to improve data.

the state of water data, and this was mentioned earlier, is sad. sad is a polite term. we don't collect water data on water use. it is in paper form or databases that are not easily accessible. fundamentalto be a revolution, and there ought to be, given technology today, in the way we collect, distribute, and manage water data. that is from the national level to the personal level. we talked right utility bills. h, we have to do a better job of using economic tools. water pricing structures at the local level. the way that the federal government deals with water and the water that it distributes through federal water systems is an important part of this. we have to fund the state's revolving loan fund fully.

we can talk about that later maybe in the context of the flint disaster. sixth, we have to integrate climate change into every aspect management,nning, and use. as some people have already mentioned, climate is water. as we change the climate, we are waterentally altering availability, quality, distribution, and demand. th, we need to update the water loss. they are greatly out of date, and congress needs to do that, and they are abdicating their responsibility in this among other things. eighth, command management and supply our keys. we focused in the past on supply. there is an enormous amount that we need to do on demand management.

will talk about this, i imagine. the idea of treated wastewater is important. is pretty low on my list. there are other things we should be doing on wastewater treatment and reuse. let's integrate water policy with other policies. land use policy, national security policy. we talked earlier about energy, but there are a lot of things we do at the federal level that are not explicitly water, but really are, and that we don't integrate. corporate water stewardship. the corporate sector has a huge role to play here. it is a key part of the future of water, figuring out how to move towards sustainability in the corporate sector.

finally, environmental justice. we have failed grossly in this country at integrating environmental justice issues into water. flint is a good example. the report that was waved around this morning on flint, which came out yesterday, concluded that one of the most fundamental failures of flint was an environmental justice failure. there are issues about funding, .bout water cutoffs the epa has a standard for how much a family ought to be able to spend on water bills. there are millions of people, probably, who pay more than that. there are project management issues in the western u.s.. there are certain kinds of pollutants that not been addressed. it gives you but some sense of the broad nature of these things and the

appropriate federal role. you talked about economic tools. i think you are talking maybe about federal funding for infrastructure. i'm curious about the price of water. this is a question for anyone on the panel. one of the things you mentioned theng the earlier panel was 2000 water utilities. the national association of water companies is something you know more than anyone. my question is, if water tariffs are too low, is there something that can be done to change that? that seems the baseline for a lot of the challenges in underinvestment on infrastructure. ms. broaddus: certainly we need

this around water, but to do it in a way that allows baseline the people have the most challenges paying. in some ways, social justice is a lot about somebody else paying the cost for somebody else's action. i think that plays out in lots of ways, certainly in a flint kind of way. but also, with the water utilities throughout the country that are having to handle agricultural runoff, and communities is small and large have to then pay for that agricultural runoff both in terms of quality of life in the water that flows through their communities, but in very direct costs for how you treat that water to make it potable. cyanobacteriahe growth fromalgae

agricultural runoff, and des moines are the ones we have heard a lot about. some of these small, rural communities, which don't have the money to's -- to pay for that cleaning, i think this gets back to agricultural policies in terms of how we can -- it is not just putting less fertilizer on have a majort we opportunity to driving our policies that improve soil health to allow us not only to hold onto those nutrients but ,se less of them, irrigate less because the soil will hold more water. i think that is one of the ways we shift the action back upstream to the people that can control it, so that those downstream, and those with wells in those communities, aren't paying the price for something they didn't do. how we find at equitable ways of paying for

water, we certainly -- everyone is talking about how rates are going to go up. that is plain and simple. we also have to look more broadly for ways for people to share that responsibility of keeping the water clean in the first place. does the alliance for water efficiency think about water tariffs? we do think about it quite a bit. as revenues are going down for water utilities, the hit to the revenue stream is very significant. model fored a rate equalizing the revenue requirements with the revenue they need to collect and give them options of how to restructure their rates to do that. while it sounds like it may result in very large rate increases, i might point out that the average rate increase

for the average consumer in the united states is the equivalent of a hot dog and a coke on a monthly basis. but, in cases where it is going to be high, this is where we need to look at the whole subject of investment and how that should work, whether the investment should be assisted by federal and state supplements. thingk the most important i want to say about the whole water conservation issue is that financed now don't get for any water efficiency reason. they don't have an asset to put on the balance sheet to match the liability of the deck. when he is to do it in the 90's but we don't do it anymore because of this accounting problem. it exacerbates the issues. they have to pay for all the efficiency programs upfront out of operating funds, then they

take a hit on demand productions. all of that is right at the beginning of the benefit cycle of efficiency. when the benefit kicks in in terms of reduced rate costs, it is 5, 6, 7 years later, well beyond the election timetable of the local official who had to improve -- had to approve the rate increase. we have a political problem, a financial accounting problem, and we need to solve those barriers in addition to equalizing the impact on environmental justice. mr. freedman: peter, i know you want to comment on that. yout, then we will come to because i want to hear there is a communication angle to all of this. at -- mr. gleick: we can come up with rate designs which are equitable, which cover fixed costs, which give utilities the ability to develop

reserves so that they can get of times where revenues drop during droughts. we did this in the energy world. we diss aggregated the ability of energy utilities to invest in efficiency. let's do for the water sector what we did for energy, and allow them to invest in conservation and efficiency. mr. freedman: brett, did you want to comment? the initial question was individual water bills and affordability. we quickly got into the discussion of agricultural runoff and foreign policy. that shows the lead between one item that we talk about and the other, and the disconnect we have in a lot of the

conversations about these topics. utility officials are not all that involved in setting agricultural farm regulations. but, if you want to address affordability issues, that is one of the things that will have to come into the picture. it is a big picture. when we talk about affordability issues and infrastructure, we are also talking about aging infrastructure. that is the headlines on the stories you read. to really address this is a much bigger conversation. multiple sectors, multiple players at the table that will need to talk about this. peter, i just want one of the items in your list of 11. you mentioned the national water condition -- national water commission. what would be jurisdiction of the national water commission be?

how would it fit in with what the department of the interior does? anytime national and water are set in the same sentence, i think states get very nervous. i don't believe a national water commission would solve our water problems. has been athere problem for 50 years, to discuss the role of the federal government. this is an advisory way of dealing with what the federal government ought to do to help the states and local agencies do what we need to do better, which is provide safe, affordable, reliable water systems. part of it could be, very explicitly, here are the things we're not going to talk about the federal level because they are state and local responsibilities. does the water

-- does the alliance for water efficiency -- we have been: doing a lot of thinking about why on-site reuse does not seem to be taking hold in this country. california has had a graywater standard, legislation in place for 20 years or more. there aren't large-scale inywater installations california, mostly because local public health officers are reluctant to give approval. when you are talking about blackwater, treatment systems that would recycle all water used on-site, like the machine does at the san francisco public utilities headquarters building, those are always headquartered on a pilot basis and not really able to be replicated on a major scale across the country.

largely, it is because we lack the national guidance for adequate treatment standards to enable this technology which is available, which is being sold by ge and others all around the world, but not here. we really would like to see better deployment of that .echnology and better use of it we have to deal with the national barrier policy issues. it has to be guidance coming from epa. there has to be guidance that local public health officers can use. that is something that could be on the list for the national water commission to look at. sort of right up there with it is right water harvest as a source of water supply, which is a lot easier to clean and sewage is.

very few places are looking at that for potable water supply. health commissioners still get a but there is out, work being done to figure out how that can work any more sensible way. the white paper that the columbia water center has put out leading up to these talks have been about distributed water, how we can come up with other ways to use less energy, have a lower infrastructure burden to maintain as we look to the decades and century ahead of us. i think that rainwater harvest is going to be a critical piece of that. mr. freedman: it seems to me that water reuse, use of wastewater to be reused for things like agriculture, industry, even drinkwater, is one of the keys to addressing the water scarcity challenge. is there a communications angle here?

oftentimes coming here one of the main barriers is reluctance of communities to use treated wastewater for those purposes. there was an image problem with the use of wastewater. i might have to say the phrase. the phrase that peter does not want me to say, but i have to tap."s "toilet to that is the way wastewater was branded for so long. the industry has moved away from that, as the panel here shows. people are coming around to it. it comes back to having a utility that is able to talk about this stuff with their customers, and having a presence in the community, so people in san diego have come around to the idea of water reuse after four years. it is on the utility. a lot of utilities are starting to do better with their .ommunications

having mascots, water drops, big out tohings that go community events and talk with the kids. it is being honest about what is happening, and people will come around. mr. freedman: more education and outreach. peter, did you want to comment? it is time to stop calling them wastewater treatment plants, it is time to start calling them water recovery plants or something better. that is good. i like that. we have been talking a lot about national policies, and yet, as we said at the outset, a lot of the challenges we face these days are at the local and regional level. should we be trying to engage members of congress at the local and regional level, because they're the ones, for example, the congressman who lives in flint michigan, is someone who

now i'm sure cares acutely about water policy issues -- is that something that should be done? i am going to take the opportunity to answer this question to do my policy barrier issue. is we need a national commitment to water and efficient water, sustainable water use, as we have a national commitment to energy efficiency and efficient and sustainable energy use. are are the same, and they connected in such a way that the investments and the policy emphasis should be the same on both sides. this is an issue that congress needs to look at. it is well beyond a local congressional district. it is something that is regional, state, and national and focus. think at one of the december 15 meetings, you talked about a moonshot for water, like the sun

shot initiative. weeally think that is what need. i took a look at some of the investments that had been made both in the private sector as well as on the federal side. the stanford woods institute for the environment did a paper in 2014 where they looked at 13 years of investment in the u.s.. in billion was invested clean energy, but only $1.5 billion in water. that is on the private side. federal spending is even worse. it is at least $290 billion a year, with energy incentives of about $47 billion. but, you don't have a similar investment on the federal side in water. the state revolving fund's are dwindling in size, and you don't dwindling incentives like you have -- any incentives like you have in energy.

not only do we not have a tax exempt or a tax credit, we tax personal individuals for doing the right thing and investing in water efficiency on their property. we have to fix this. i thought the opportunity was the stimulus bill. billion. that should have been a big slice going to water issues. billion or something went other things, only $12 billion went to efficiency and green energy topics. that results in a huge disparity in policy. have been dwindling over time. -- srf's water srs have probably invested over 30 years. we are talking about the health

of our existing infrastructure in addition to expansions to accommodate growing populations and new sustainable water uses. we have to figure out a better way to manage this money so it is funneled to the right places to help resolving some of our water issues. parity, that's what i'm always harping on. energy.arity with i would like to see water efficiency and sustainable water have the same federal investment level, the same federal policy. we do need federal attention on this. thee days i think we have attention of the members of congress who represent the down and out urban areas. up to add money to the pot in those areas, i think. my concern is that it will be a

knee-jerk reaction to send more money, to build we are ready went has-- flicked -- received is badly needed money, srs,f we just increase the if we just hand out federal grants, that doesn't get us to the solutions that we need to be able to be resilient for the decades to calm. i think to come. i think we need to look at other bills, not just the money that goes specifically to the water sector. ethanolr that goes into has huge impact on our water system overall. investments in renewable energy in water sipping renewable such as solar and wind have huge impact on our resources. we need to open our mind on what are the other funding that have

of big impact on water. >> i agree with that. one more example is the farm farm bill. they have had over the years a little bit of money for farmers to improve it irrigation systems. that money has disappeared immediately or the demand for that money has been enormous. the demand reflects the need nationwide to figure out how to grow more food with less water. it is a demand management argument. 80% of the water that is consumed goes to the agricultural sector. we haven't talked much about it, but it is critical. farmers whounding need help to do that. one of the ironies in

california, 25% water reduction mandates for communities, our culture continue to pump a lot solving water -- today's problems at the expense of tomorrow. we have been talking a lot about the u.s., you e.on the u.s. borders. i reminded of a few years ago i was in australia with a senior government official and asked, implementing a direct potable water solution and how do you get people comfortable with this ? he said we have engaged universities, and we have research papers and state quarter meetings and strategy j meetings and we found that it works best when we don't say anything at all. learn,essons that we can

brett, have you seen anything from a community occasion standpoint -- a communication standpoint? it work inseen india, china, and mexico. water and food and energy are tied together throughout the world. initially, it is the information we have to bring to people -- good information and data collection is essential up --. how do we know how much water was available after the drought. how much should be allocated to the environment and how are we going to do that. the big lesson from most of , you have to know what you have before you can do much about it. the u.s. is still at that phase. we do have a lot we collect

from other countries grade australia has been mentioned. a specific institute and sydney and we published a report that was released a couple of weeks ago. the experience with their millennium drought and lessons at could be applied to california from that experience. and thetralia did investments it may, both good and bad, can be used for -- as examples for other areas. israel is a huge model for us. following what israel has been doing for a long time. we are holding a conference in 80% of their7 good water use is recycled.

they are already doing a lot of what we are talking about here. they have made national investment a priority. i was at a conference where the prime minister said we want to be the leading water technology nation in the world. was a huge commitment coming from the top and it made wethink about the u.s., do ever really talk about water international platform? i don't think we have had water as a discussion for presidential campaign since 1936. we don't talk about water. it's an invisible issue. that's probably the whole thing we aretragedy in flint, going to hopefully start talking about it in a national dialogue for the first time. >> that's a good point. i think tuesday's white house

water summit was a great step in that. a lot of time, work that's being developed in the u.s., but we can't find a place to try it out here goes to other countries. i think of right here in columbia, of the macarthur fellow this year for his work in developing technology for distributed sanitation and resource recovery that for the most part is being piloted and other countries. we could use it right here, in some of the world and poorer areas of our nation. sometimes the brains are here, we just don't have the akamai mark drivers or the political will to use it here. >> that's a great point. did you want to make a point, peter? >> a number of great examples have been given.

one of the lessons from australia was nine years of drought really concentrates the mind. argued in -- i have our fifth year of drought, we , it took rainy winter australia nine years to do some of the fundamental things we have not done in california. crisis is a bit of a motivator. education is important. singapore, which has been highlighted in a number of example ofn, is an education and communication. they have done a good job of educating their population about water. they need to use it more efficiently. -- education is a piece of that. law is a piece of this. ofn africa got rid apartheid, the rewrote their

constitution. they put in our constitution a human right of water. they also wrote into their constitution and human right of water, which was a legal precedent in my opinion. nobody is doing it all right, but the lessons we can learn are sometimes incredibly important. >> do you have questions from the audience? membersple audience inquired about water in the agricultural sector. how can we incentivize water

conservation's, soil health and areff reduction and what possible policy options? >> sometimes i think we have to get out of the way. some fairly well-publicized examples. there is a great line that says they are working with ranchers, crops as amulti--- way to feed their cattle they are reasoning -- raising. there is nothing fancy about these guys. one of them sad and pardon me if this is offensive, one of them said "if i had done about this years ago, i would have 12 kids by now. if i had so much time on my hands. because it is so much easier and cheaper to do it that way.

" you pierce similar things from commodity crop growers trying waysays and sometimes old to multi-species recover crops that renew the soil and they reduce their overhead and capital costs. it can be self driving, but right now the policies that come out from the department of agriculture and those that advise farmers are going in a different direction. stop that. there is a lot of money -- money is a hard thing to push against -- i'm speaking to those interests that are making money off of fertilizers and herbicides and irrigation equipment and that sort of thing. question, andeat it's a tough one and we don't talk about agriculture enough.

the is an example where federal government has a role to play and already does. farmers pay less for water than they do for state water. those farmers are less likely to be growing water efficient crops .n a water efficient measure subsidies were crops drive choices the farmers make in terms of what they plant as do crop prices internationally. the farm bill example is a way to help farmers make improvements they want to make but can't afford to make. energy policy was also raised. the idea that we subsidize don't get order to -- me into the iowa caucus debate -- that has a huge water application -- implication.

things that the federal government does player world and they can change how we use water, and how much we use in the agricultural sector. commentdy else want to or next question? is thatext question given the crisis is a motivator, what can be done now to capitalize on public attention regarding water -- water quality in california and in flint? >> do you upset with that? crisis is a motivator, but you have to be careful not to oversell the danger. about can be offputting crisis all the time. with's a huge opportunity people's attention, people are reading more than ever.

we have access to information at our fingertips. the ability for people to see something that is important, it has never been greater. the importance is making sure that the information is understandable, taking this white pepper that has been circulated, a comprehensive look at america's water problem. it is 30 different directions. the human mind can only handle so much. taking the crisis and breaking it down into understandable and show connections between all of these concepts is something that will mark -- start to move some action. largely made our water infrastructure invisible, not just because it is very beneath the ground, but because we have spent 30 or 40 years not talking to the customer about what it is they are drinking. part of that was delivery.

it didn't want the consumer to worry. --t managers did not fill up did not want to fill a board rooms with citizens who will oversee what is going on. when i was terrible waterboard my general manager told me to. trying to invite people to the board meetings. that only works when times are good. when suddenly a crisis happens like in flint, and the consumer has no concept of anything about that system and what it needs were, or the fact that the money municipal coffers was costing the ability to do infrastructure repair and replacement, then they are not in a -- what we need to do a lot of a fine education and discussion, so that when the

prices hit, the citizens can be informed participants in the change. that is the biggest problem we have right now. a lot of angry people who are still not well informed, but angry. that's the problem with crisis management. that's how we make policy and move mountains in government. opportunities of crisis defense and a creative opportunity it can present is what me need to take it vantage of. things there is a lot of very low level conversation happening but right now has to do with the social institutions that push back and that our watchdogs on water. ever since the clean water act, we have -- it has a provision that for citizens have standing to protect and enforce the same water act laws. as a result, we have a whole package industry of citizen

groups that can and will push the resource was -- recover facility -- when they feel that the clean water act is being violated. it is not fun for the industry to get that kind of pushback to that is what has moved us along and cap the process honest and transparent. i'm the drinking water side, we do not have those social it tookions in place, citizens in flint to keep pushing and pushing. these were not organizations. ngo world right now, do we do?hat the existing water groups, they had to put their head around drinking water.

, how toealizing incorporate that into the work that we do? there needs to be and there will be a shift in our institutions. one of the i think exciting pieces of that is i think this us toe what finally gets take water out of the canoe paddling environment world in which i live into a much more integrated conversation that represents america as a whole. that is a pretty exciting opportunity. >> i think we have time for one more question. considering implementing policy at the local level, how can you overcome the disparity between states that do this well

versus states who do not do this very well. >> get an advocate. anybody else want to take a crack at this? votewas going to say to which is the same thing. >> i was talking to somebody, doing a project around lead and water and what should be invested in. , hisi called scott ryan gig is innovation and startup technology. he said first often terms of where the investment needs to be is democracy. every foundation would should be given 5% of their grant to democracy. that will keep the water safe. >> peter? little, again, a

there is a federal role in oversight. this came up in flint, too, as an oversight role that maybe they did not lay as well as i we don't havery 50 state water quality laws. we have federal water quality laws. we don't want there to be disparities to different communities because some may be weaker than others in the standards. there is a federal role and i would argue updating the safe drinking water act, and expanding hugely the numbers and types of chemicals that are regulated in our drinking water, and then helping the states meet their responsibilities in meeting their standards. i think what i'm going to do is ask each of you if you have any final thoughts you would secondsshare, 10 or 20

with the audience, then i will make a wrapping up comment. i like to talk about the language we used to talk about these problems. through meetings like this and discussions we have we use technical language that makes the eyes glaze over after a little bit. aging infrastructure and silos -- oneigation and these way or telling stories about american waters. we have to be able to take what happens in these discussions and show its effect on human lives. and to write that in a way that gets people's attention. -- issueslate come into concrete things. it >> i'll take my last opportunity to indicate a more policy out like to see. we link so much water in this

country, there is no excuse for not making it a requirement that water systems that are applying for federal money need to demonstrate adequate water loss control programs. that is something we can easily do. something -- write reiterate something we saw in the white paper that columbia water center has produced. we have a lot of challenges them, it is address important that we do so in a context of climate change and social equity. we have a great opportunity ahead of us to do that. let's not solve today's problems with yesterday's technology. i agree with that. one of the ways i'd like to describe this problem is we have 19th-century infrastructure and

20th-century institutions and 21st century water problems. a 21st-centuryd institutions to deal with the 20th-century problems we fail to solve and the new problems we are adding on my climate change. take a new approach. i want to wrap up by saying thank you for hosting this event. think each of you, i learned from you every time i see you. organizing a great water week in the great white house water summit. we will look with interest for the result. thank you very much. [applause] to hoped iran and iraq, help

facilitate agreement on key issues among iraqis or afghans. they are anxious to meet with you when you ask for meeting. ambassador to .rect discusses his memoirs extremists exploited and although we corrected it towards the end of the. outs there and by reaching to the sunnis, by establishing a unity government. to bring about security, violence went way down. unfortunately, when we left in the vacuum was filled by the apart,owers pulling it

now we have isis. book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are programs to watch or. the saturday hence sunday at 130 eastern tv is at the third teens writers conference. the coverage features panel discussions on hip-hop and literature reflections on hip-hop and race and -- as well as panels on diversity and writing programs and black writers in the digital age. then it 730 eastern, historian and it gordon reed and jefferson scholar examine the maturation of thomas jefferson, from his .olitical ideology

on sunday night at 9:00, washington post reporter peter marks, author of good for the money. ceoiscusses how former aig helps the company to be profitable again. metheny --viewed by bethany mclean. >> he was the only person who thought this was possible. government didn't think this was going to happen, the company was ready to split it apart and the american people had no expectation that this was going to happen. youidea that it went crazy, have to be crazy to take this on. he was the right kind of crazy. >> go to book tv.org for the complete schedule. of american history tv on c-span3. the: tell program,

and other programs aimed at domestic targets. fbi surveillance of law-abiding citizens and groups, political ,buses of fbi intelligence specific cases of unjustified intelligence operations. >> the 1975 church committee hearings.onvened saturday night at 10:00 eastern. they question associate counsel of president nixon. >> we have taken black bag jobs for number of years since 1956, they have been successful and valuable on matters involving espionage, they felt this was

something that given in the revolutionary climate, we have the authority to do. she came and she said, she was from czechoslovakia, in a concentration camp. her, what is happening to us? smoke, --ou see the survivor talks about her memories of a concentration camp in poland. this was part of the u.s. holocaust museum first-person series. named alexander -- office in into

nearby pittsburgh, shot him twice and stabbed him. is one of the great failures and assassination history. not only did he fail to kill him he undermined the strikers for whom he was professing sympathy. in many ways, public opinion they thought this violence was a discredit to the movement. >> robert childs on that labor and social unrest of the turn it a 20th century. sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the 19th g-8 residential campaign george wallace. for the complete history go to c-span.org. tonight on c-span, john kasich announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

then analysis of the 2016 elections from the american enterprise institute. president obama visits flint, michigan, and discusses its contaminated water system. today, john kasich, the last republican challenging donald trump for the presidential nomination, dropped out of the race. it shortly before his formal announcement, donald trump said he would be interested in vetting case a guess his possible running mate on the ticket. this announcement from -- vetting john kasich as is possible running mate on the ticket. this announcement from ohio is about 15 minutes. [applause]