optimal. sincerely -- since the early 1950's, a single company had monopolized the u.s. industry. they did what monopolies do best, raising prices while cheapening products. my first wheelchair came from this company. with that, i left the hospital, but after only half a block, i had a crack in the -- hit a crack in the sidewalk and destroyed the front caster. the company declared the chair beyond repair. so what kind of chair to people need in the developing world? , we have cars, buses with lifts. we have ramps on our sidewalks. the world is different. it will take what you can give

it. , riding onu do cobblestones every single day, coming down rocks, over muddy terrain, fighting to get in and .ut of your house an american chair does not work. it has to be tougher than what the gringos get by with. [applause] >> a few years later while working and washington, d.c., i was asked to repair the many breakdowns of the wheelchair of an attorney at the security exchange commission. manufacturehat the of all of our chairs was

bragging to stockholders that the subsidiaries were dumping shares overseas. the so-called sports model with $750 in today's money in england. $2750me chair listed for in the u.s.. that said it using these purchases was an illegal restriction of international trade and should be challenge.

he later became head of the equal implement opportunity commission. they ordered 10 chairs asking that they resent to washington, d.c.. the griffin bell opened an antitrust investigation. that investigation moved very slowly until 1977 when ralph nader and deborah kaplan challenged bell in a public forum shortly after the doj

filed an antitrust lawsuit. in 1979, a settlement was by the, perhaps prodded likelihood of a new administration that would be very friendly to monopolies. was -- theent monopolist swore they had never broken the law and promised to never do it again. competition blossomed in the u.s. wheelchair industry. some wheelchair riders found better wheelchairs but very little of this improvement trickled down to the poorer 80% of the world. the cost of imported wheelchairs were still far too high for developing countries.

they cannot be repaired in the poorer countries. steel can be repaired almost anywhere. wheelchairs made of exotic materials cannot be used to travel safely. they traveled with a large case of spare parts and has still needed the backup of npr to bail him out when things break down. classic steelh a bicycle can get parts replaced

or repaired or custom by the blacksmith and the bike shops on every corner of the globe. mobility inpendable mind i searched the u.s. and europe throughout the 1970's looking for inventors who wanted to bring the steel wheelchair up to the state-of-the-art of the bicycle. i found very little help. workingterners were with high-tech materials and trying to develop new high-tech wheelchairs. the relays if you get more help in the poorest part of the world than in the west. the wheelchair was a u.s. hospital model and it broke down

frequently. where is my clicker? -- -- theyhealth would help -- .hank you the wheelchair was a u.s. hospital model and it broke down frequently. each time that it broke they would help from a nearby blacksmith but redesign it so that it would not fail again.

as we developed together our becauseairs, skilled hottest fix the fixtures without making them anywhere near an expensive is a american equivalent. dozens of the survivors held a marathon writing wheelchairs clear across the area showing that were ready and willing to be part of the new nicaragua. the only woman entering the

race. she beat them all. [applause] within a week, a dozen new chairs were sold. and the shops have continued to sell chairs for the 35 years since then. the wheelchair network is here and in nicaragua has always been it's been tied to the

international growth rights movement. since everyone has equal opportunities again the disability. the movement opens lines of communication that are otherwise not allowed. the national disability group in south africa was the first multiregional group. there is paul silva of the u.s. peace corps. this is an ongoing activist group of disabled people. some of those chairs are very old.

when he was at years old -- we still take advantage of his great ideas. old,en he was eight years and we still take advantage of his great ideas. the greatly improved stability of the chair, notice it is longer on my chair. wheelbase% longer than a chair that is six inches shorter because my feet are behind it. stability. great the biggest injury cause of riders world over is falling forward in the chair.

it was three stories tall. it falls on its face and maybe breaks his femur in the process. the training includes welding spoken, destructive testing and over the edge learning to do wheelchair writing. our new shop in berkeley, california is our most wheelchair accessible shop yet. feedback from long-term users is critical. on -- it is critical to

keep on improving our chairs. has ridden and abuse the same chair since the 1985. he zones produce show me -- this proud to- he is always show me -- excuse me, this is hard. [applause] he is always proud to show me he has broken something new. mistakes happen. our original parking brake had a loop in the handle.

they switched it is more professional looking rubber handle. when this fellow but a new chair he could network it, he could not lock the brakes and thus he could not safely transfer. he hurt himself several times badly. custom break. needless to say he is much happier now. the chairs are now made in a few countries for shipping to other countries. married -- made in mexico and arrived in haiti shortly after the earthquake.

our chairs happen made in over 40 countries. there have been over 100,000 made. if they had one, it was one of it was one of the stub -- substandard chairs and they already have broken it. the best chairs were unless 10 or 15 years are several times longer than most other chairs.

that in be for a person with lessility legally paid than half of what others are paid, illegally less than that. there is no way they can come up with these $200 to replace this chair. the wheelchairs are being made five,nda, since 19 to the -- since 1965, that last much longer.

a regular wheelchair needs to have a high-strength axle. these forces -- sideways forces can bend most commercial wheelchairs. they have been the most repairable as like people give them tender loving care. andforks on the outside

three inches to the whip. it doesn't fit in as many outhouses. this woman said i had to trade chairs with her. she said it costs one third as much to travel home. she does not have to pay for a row of seats. we are working on this as hard

as we can. i have built nine different types of prototypes. in the picture i am riding one of them. on the back is a thin fork that doesn't want in the chair. if i make it strong enough it is too heavy. number 10 will be a little bit closer. as more respect that i have had in my life for anybody. amazing.tty

>> is tremendous. showing ingenuity and determination are key to being in the public interest. he is a founder of the indian law center, the resources center in 1978. a new york times reporter -- he said hours.

that is the spirit that robert coulter brings to his 40 years of work as an attorney. he has been involved over the long haul. fight in ander justices against the native americans. first the author of the draft of the u.s. declaration of the rights of indigenous people adopted by the general assembly in 2007. welcome to this -- >> welcomed to this anniversary of safe at any speed. and thank you for this .pportunity

i want to show you this video about our organization. ♪ >> these are the core beliefs of the indian law resource center. for more than 40 years the center has been a global force in challenging and building frameworks. we are seeing them on behalf of the mohawk nation's and others with the goal of changing these laws.

>> one and three native women will be raped her lifetime and three of five will be physically assaulted. >> we wanted to be sure and establish legal rules that would that indigenous peoples on their land. you have full and complete legal rights in those lands. they have rights that can be protected in courts. rights that are protected by definite rules of law.

pres. obama: i can announce the nights it is letting it support. from thes coming helena, montana and washington, d.c. offices. we in the indian law resource center are experts in indian law working to protect these peoples and their communities. the ultimate goal is to make positive contributions that will have lasting effects. >> am not sure that actually -- up here with the advocates that belong up here. we are an american indian organization and we just work hard and worry about our funding and wonder what we can do to improve the future for indian and alaska native peoples.

i suppose in that basic way we are a lot like many of these organizations. detaillittle bit more about what we do. what we do is we provide legal representation. indian alaska natives and indian tribes. we are funded by foundations and we don't take any government money, it is a matter of our independence. it's less than $1.5 million per

year and only in recent years. we have an office in helena, montana and in washington, d.c. oft is headed by my partner some 35 years, armstrong wiggins. if you are here, racer hand and stand up. when we began this work, indian nations in the united states. were utterly dominated by the federal bureau of indian affairs. they suffered from extreme poverty, tribes had huge legal rights and that is still the case and practically no constitutional rights. nearly all tribes were completely dependent on federal support for food, shelter, health care, and other necessities.

we are frequently suffering massacres, murders, genocide, and the like. indian communities were and are still than i'd land rights and submitted to forcible relocation . as a result, indians in america and worldwide were disappearing with their culture and linkages. our human rights work involves thousands of it -- thousands of indigenous people worldwide though we just work in the americas. 370e is an estimated million indigenous people in at least 70 countries around the world. are americanoples indians, alaska natives, and other people about that. there is more of a definition. there are peoples that inhabit the country or a region and a time before other peoples of a

different culture or ethnic origin arrived or became dominant. assist tribes to change the appalling treatment and racist laws inflicted on them. a reasonably fair and workable legal system is always necessary for economic development and improvement of social conditions. in the united states, that does not exist today and the result is pervasive poverty, deprivation, and suffering. the casinos benefit only a few tribes, lawyers and courts have done virtually nothing to ensure constitutional rights and fair treatment for indian tribes. it was clear that we would have to do something different in order to overcome the incredibly unjust legal system of federal control that had been entrenched

for 150 years, and still is. we decided that we must listen to indian nations that ask our help and follow their decisions. we are working for indian nations, never trying to work alone. we were advising and assisting indian and alaska native nations. we plan a long campaign of writing, education, lawsuits, and organizing aimed at changing the law. we learned after years of work that the courts in this country were not open to any serious challenge to the legal system that affects indian nations. the very supreme court that had

ruled school desegregation unconstitutional also ruled the same year that the federal government is free to actually confiscate indian tribe's property without due process or compensation. we needed additional strategy for changing the laws and some of the indian nations. some of them pointed out that they have to participate in the community so we have to look at the international community to the united nations. the emerging law of human rights at the international level was promising because it condemned in no uncertain terms discrimination, genocide, and the denial of cultural rights and other wrongs.

1986, we had the opportunity to go to the hall of human rights in geneva, switzerland and i suggested to the indian nations that i was working with at the time that they consider proposing to the united nations a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. i wrote a draft for them to consider and they did consider it, reviewed it and modified it and took it to the united itions in 1977 and proposed to the united nations for adoption. our strategy was that by creating international awareness with pressure on the united six and other countries might be able to develop international legal standards on indigenous peoples. change the able to policies and courts and

lawmakers to reevaluate their laws and policies. the budget was never more than a few hundred thousand dollars per year. it became the largest and most heavily attended human rights process in the u.n.'s history. for the first time the people were permitted to participate in the human rights process. effectiveenormously with hundreds and hundreds of them that went to the united nations to negotiate. it was 30 years defer the general assembly adopted it in 2007 and the united states gave

its approval in 2010. big difference because the declaration proclaimed for the first time that indigenous peoples have the right to exist. the right to exist with their own government without discrimination, to own their land and resources and a host of other rights. this was a great change in the tide of history and it has changed how countries see indigenous people? -- people. in 2014, two years ago, we helped to win four more major commitments from the united nations general assembly. we want commitments to develop a permanent monitoring and

implementing body to see that it is carried into effect. commitment to create new rules in the u.n. that will permit indian nations and other indigenous governments to participate on a permanent basis in the united nations. after this we will not have to have special permission to fight for our rights. they will be there all the time. we also have a commitment to combat violence against indigenous women. we also went to take it to the united nations to encourage them to do more to respect sacred sites. our project against violence on indigenous women helped to

ensure a major change in united states law. videos about the epidemic of violence of native women and create advocacy and create international bodies. indian governments in the united states of power to help and prevent some forms of violence against indian women and much more needs to be done. we have litigated land claims, we have used federal courts to challenge federal government abuses, sometimes state government abuses. we have changed the united states laws in some important ways, but fundamentally, the unfair and racist legal

framework is still in place. we will have to focus on education to educate a new generation of lawyers and judges so we are writing materials to do that. it will take many more years to do that and change the law. ensuring the united nations will take many measures to see to it that countries respect these rights is another priority going forward. the indian staff in d.c. and a handful of amazing indian leaders from the americas -- over here at the organization of succeeded after

26 years of work. completingn negotiations on the new american declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. it was a tremendous job but they did and there were so few of them but it had to be done and they did it marvelously. expected totion is be approved by the general assembly of american states in a few weeks in june. the greed for indian resources seems to have grown in recent years, it's much more virulent. at the same time we are seeing a breakdown of the rule of law in the americas and a significant reduction in the willingness to enforce laws or abide by them.

extremelyors are dangerous for marginalized peoples. these indian communities have begun to assert the legal rights that have been created. indian leaders are being murdered in many countries. this is a very alarming development. they are being murdered by those who covet these indian lands and resources. it's a very urgent situation that we must address and must stop. we hope to train more indian lawyers and indian leaders and central and south america to assertem defend and their rights. the indian law resource center in that part of the world. i get moved by that.

fund raising concerns are serious. i'm worried that foundations seem to be trending toward short-term projects. this isn't good it took 30 years to get the u.n. declaration and it was worth it. requires serious time. we need to educate philanthropy to be responsive. we may need to look to individuals and families where foundations are falling down. for the long term we need to focus more on education and modern communications work. we need to try to engender the rule of law in many countries

and by this i mean encouraging political and social systems so that they are governed democratically by laws and not the arbitrary dictates of individuals. hope welong-term view i will see rich cultures and hundreds of thousands of indigenous communities thriving all around the world. see a greatant to body of fundamental rights recognized for other people's as well. this may not just be limited to indigenous peoples, i believe that most of the rights in the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples should be the rights of all peoples of the world. let's see if we can do something about that. thank you, very much.

>> thank you. what a great lineup we have. this is spectacular. i am learning so much sitting backstage. next up is a fellow who is a founder and a longtime director of a public justice. his name is paul bland. equal access to the courts in this country. it is unjust, antidemocratic. it's two coyotes and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

he is now scoring great victories after years of fighting these. welcome, paul bland. >> it is incredibly cool for me to be in this building and in part 35 years ago i was in college. i felt like i was at home. vague name.ce is a we pursue high impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice to protect the earth sustainability and to challenge predatory corporate and government abuses and conduct. first of all, there are a lot of different public interest law firms out there. there are two things about our model. the first is we try to leverage resources. we will leverage and synergize

empowerment and so forth. the words leverage mean something for us. what we do is recruit groups of trial lawyers. people who are good at ferreting out the facts and we work with them on high impact cases. a lot of our cases we will have 10% of the time where we are able to recruit and get some of the smartest lawyers in the country and help us take on some really big causes. we have our own lawyers that we would never be able do. the second thing that is cool is we look for impact cases. we don't just look for cases where someone has been treated badly. work, people who do aid but we are looking for systemic change. something bigger and broader. case we can have an appeal or set a precedent. case we can have a

class action or get an injunction from the core that will change the way the corporations practice. the first part was about economic injustice. we of the sharpest division between the very wealthiest and the rest of the country we have had since the gilded age, probably worse than the 1920's. we ranked terribly in the world with respect to economic injustice. most americans live paycheck to paycheck. critique ofh warren the way our economy is set up, which she first articulated in her two income trap book. it is worse. many millions of people have had their homes foreclosed. the american economy didn't get this unfair by accident.

there is a ton of predatory lending. most people do not know how high the interest rates and the fees on the loans they are getting are. theft on ane extremely wide scale. there are a ton of people who live in situations which is a company town. are no longer considered employees or independent contractors. most of the things they need to have their job are provided by the corporation. you have a lot of people who were a generation ago working 60 hours a week and making good middle income sour -- salaries and now they are making 60 hours -- $60 per week. how did this happen? there are a bunch of things to be done about it? the first is that a lot of companies are able to get away

with this corporate cheating by using the force arbitration clauses. forced arbitration is what the company puts in the fine print of the contract. a provision that says, if we break the law, it cannot sue us in court. you have to go to a private arbitrator. we will pick the company that will pick the private arbitrator and everything will be a secret. whatever they decide if they make an error of law or fact, none of that is appealable. and you can never bring a class action. even if we cheat 100,000 people in exactly the same way through a predatory scheme, under the contract, everyone of you is atomized. you have to go on your own and separately figure out that you were cheated, separately figure out what the law is. if the file your own claim. you go by yourself. that is what corporate america's endgame is.

there is a terrific amount of evidence that in individual cases, the workers do worse in arbitration than in court. the award tends to between 20%-20 5% then it would be in % then it -- 20%-25 would be in court. it used to be the law that if you could prove as a plaintiff that the ban on class actions has the effect of gutting a consumer protection or civil rights law than a court would strike it down. this is my career for a while. if the ban on class actions in an arbitration clause would gut the consumer protection law, the court would throw it out. we had three cases against payday lenders. payday lending is legal in some places, illegal elsewhere, regulated a little in some

places and a lot and others. in liner -- north carolina it illegal. but they were doing it anyway. --got the court to define once we proved that, we could have five cases. i could only handle a couple cases at a time. two drug cases and one round and two and another round. relief $45 million in for the people. we paid out checks to 200,000 people. of 2011, by a 5-4 vote, justice scalia the opinion, the supreme court invented a new rule that never existed before.

gut said even if it would the consumer protection law, it still has to be enforced. it's the single worst case in the history of consumer law. literally hundreds of class actions thrown up across the country even when there was proof that they got the case going forward. no one's and it was fixed, -- no one's credit was fixed. it worked really well. we still have not given up. we find all sorts of different problems, whenever a company makes a mistake, they get greedy and sloppy. we've 20 cases pending right now. eightear, we have won reported appeals in different courts around the country knocking down these clauses.

withve been fighting hard the consumer financial protection bureau, which has just announced a proposal to that forw rule lending, the have the power to wipe away the forced arbitration clauses that ban class-action. the chamber of commerce is losing its mind about this. either these arguments that we do not need consumer protection laws because the magic of the free market will work. there is finally progress going on. we are taking down the clauses where companies make mistakes. i'm not handling as many cases against dell and at&t as i have. they are the ones whose lawyers are weaker. we find the arbitration clauses that are dinged up. if you are a predator animal

hind the herd, you don't get the healthiest thing. we find the companies with lousy lawyers and have drafted a cr arbitration clause. we pull that down as a message to the others. but there are barriers like arbitration with excessive court secrecy and the use of federal laws that wipe away good consumer protection laws and we work on a variety of different cases. it will externalize the cost of what they do. if you or someone say that coal is cheaper than solar energy, it's cheaper if you do not count all the different things that coal does, like making it harder for people to breathe and trip -- contributes enormously to climate change and destroys streams. as long as they can take all of these cost that products create,

and stick them on other people, it looks cheaper than it really is. that is really our motto. earth willity of the come as a surprise to no one -- is climate change. one of the first biggest drivers is coal and factory farms. approachesditional of environmental groups is to sue the epa. there has been some great work in that area, that we are much more interested in the corporations. it's a better use of our resources. it turns out that the coal plants frequently dump all kinds of stuff into streams rather than dead zones. you know the road in that cormac

mccarthy movie where everything is great and nothing is living. there are dead zones were co-pollution has gotten into plants. the second-biggest driver of climate change will stop a frequently dump enormous amounts of the newer in the stream. what we have done is gone after coal facilities, in a series of cases we've had success stopping mountaintop removal mining in which people bring gigantic machines -- [applause] thank you. they look like they are out of "star wars," they rip the top of the mountain off and dump all the loose rock into what used to be a valley. you have parts of west virginia that used to be these rolling hills that are now just flat. what used to be the mountainous flat, what used to be a stream is filled. a lot of people say, does this

violate the surface mining control act? we argued that it violates the clean water act. the used to be a stream and when it does not exist in them are we consider that polluted. [applause] we had a lot of success in that area. with the factory farms, there dairies in rural washington. this was the first in the country like it. they have so many cows, they cram them together, side to side to side. they can't even clean out where they are. they are producing more waste in the human population of hoboken, new jersey. they are having these piles of fieldseight football

wide saying it is not pollution and fertilizer. its really valuable if you can spread it over the state of iowa. when you pilot 50 feet high, several football fields wide, it is not fertilizing anything, it is killing them. it was all getting in the groundwater. the company said that is impossible. and we said, it's amazing because it turns out the groundwater downgrade from your factory farm is really polluted, and the water upgrade isn't. then we found out, they say all the water is safe. they bring in bottled water to the people who work and live there. it's safe enough for you, but not for us is the way they are approaching it. we sue these guys and we ended up winning the first ruling ever. [applause] thank you. that said polluting the factory -- dumping waste in a way that gets into the water supply violates the federal statute.

we are headed toward a court order, and we have complete news protocols in which we are dealing with the waste completely differently and for the first time in a generation, many indigenous americans will be able to drink clean water for the first time. [applause] the last thing that i wanted to talk about is the abuse of power. there are a lot of different ways in which civil rights are violated. we have experts going after several different cases. a have one in texas with latino american guy who gets arrested, he is behind on his child support for a couple months. he had custody for most of his now he isost custody, behind it gets arrested. seven days later, he is to.

seven jailers were on top of them in the sale. they said that he had the shakes. it does not manifest through broken ribs, severe bruising, and hemorrhaging. he also has boot marks on his back and torso. he was murdered. this is not ok. the black lives matter movement is about something that is really important. it something that trial lawyers are particularly well situated to go after. [applause] bullying project where we have changed the way that schools approach things. is antate new york, there enormous amount of anti-semitism. our friends told us it turns out there is a significant klan presence, not that far from albany. we had clients and kids who would go to school and were being beaten up and called all sorts of epithets for being jewish. kids held down where another kid scritches a swastika on

therefore had. the school says, they need to get over it and protect themselves. totally wrong. that is not an appropriate way for schools to deal with it. we sued them. we not only got money, but we got to change the way they approach these problems. a variety of things to train these teachers, to put the students through educational programs. every incident when there is a swastika on the wall have to be photographed, washed off, and painted within the day. a variety of things that change the way the school operated. it wasn't enough to get money, we have to have a change in the system. [applause] thank you. we have a lot of different situations we are going about. violence against women. some campuses are good about it, some schools try to discourage women from coming forward. that's not ok and we are going after that. there are a variety of different

things. [applause] some of these problems seem so big that they are helpless to people. when we first heard working on climate change, a good friend and litigator said, that is an issue that is too big. you can never make a dent in that. over the last couple years, we have shut down one of the 10 biggest carbon dioxide polluters in america. if we are able to hold coal and factory farm to internalize their costs, then alternatives will not seem so expensive by comparison. [applause] thank you. bywe are able, bit by bit, documenting the case, by pushing for the government to take action, now with the change in the supreme court, possibly relitigating cases, going after the situations, we can make a dent in predatory lending. these problems are not hopel ess.

i'm filled with hope. i'm filled with anger. i don't think it's something we have to give up on. if we double down, we can change this country. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. this concludes our morning session. is a video rich complement to your c-span viewing. of our government related programs like the house, and senate hearings, are live on the site. you can watch it on your desk top, laptop, and even your smart phone or tablet. in our videoalso library. if you miss an episode of any

program, you can find it online and watch at your convenience. the video library contains more hours of c-span programs and its powerful search engine helps you find and watch programs going back many years. television,on your we published our schedule for all three schedules -- for all three channels. this is a public service. watcher,e a c-span check it out. it is on the web at c-span.org. >> in a newly released political podcasts, house speaker paul ryan said he wants unity in the republican party and is still not adding on donald trump winning. >> great to be here. >> we will hear an excerpt in just a moment but what is your overall take away? >> it is pretty interesting.

paul ryan a couple of weeks ago told cnn he was developing a wait-and-see attitude. he wanted to see if his tone had changed. i have seen no shift in this even after the summit last week. it is funny. the word ryan keeps using is "party unity" and trump keeps using it, too. we had a 45 minute sit-down for the podcast. his definition is different than donald trump's. donald trump's definition of unity is for paul ryan to stand behind him and smile next to chris christie. paul ryan's is different. he wants donald trump to stop speaking as harshly about immigrants. and he has issues with other

policies, especially the temporary ban on muslims. ryan was, prior to trump, considered to be the new standard for the republican party and he was the guy drafted by his own people to take over for john boehner after tom -- kevin mccarthy's candidacy for speaker fell apart. he was the ultimate "young gun," but events have passed him. there is a sense what paul ryan will be -- and what he articulated he wanted to be -- the "keeper of the conservative flame" while the trump storm either blows over or changes into a full-blown hurricane. >> where did the interview take place? glenn: it took place in the speaker's conference room at a highly polished oak table, in a grand room. what you would imagine the capital building looks like.

paul ryan says to me, see the carpet? brand-new. see the drapes? brand-new. we had to rip everything out after john boehner left to get the smell of smoke out. and i realized on one wall there were no oil paintings, just cardboard images of presidents and he said, the librarian of congress refused to allow john boehner to hang oil paintings because the nicotine from the smoke would get all over them. >> this is available online at politico.com. >> do think he could really win? >> yes, of course. >> if you are betting would you bet he would win? >> i am not a betting man. i think if we get our party unified and we do the work we need to do to get ourselves at full strength. and we offer a clear and compelling agenda that is

inspiring and inclusive, that fixes problems and is solutions based and based on the principles, then yes i think we can win. this is we, not just one person. this is a we effort. i am a jack kemp guy. i believe in a type of politics that may not be invoked today but nevertheless is the right kind of politics. by jack kemp, be optimistic, inclusive, principled, and evangelize your ideas and principles to everyone but especially to those are not familiar with them. that to me is important. that is why i think we should spend our time talking to people who may have never listen to us in the past. to compete for their hearts and their minds. >> i know you do not look in the rearview mirror and i think that is admirable but we have seen a campaign where that has not happened and it has been the opposite.

paul ryan: that is not just this process. the republican primary process, the democrats are doing the same thing. bernie sanders and hillary clinton are at each other's throats competing over democratic voters. republicans did the same thing for republican primaries. the question going forward is, can we now move and appeal across the scale into cross broad-spectrum's of voters and do so in a way that is inviting, interesting, principled, and has good solutions? i believe we have an opportunity because seven out of 10 americans do not like the path we are on. they think we are going in the wrong direction. therefore the other party, the whatnot of the white house, has an obligation and opportunity to offer a better way. >> a portion of a 45-minute podcast interview conducted by glenn thrush of politico with house speaker paul ryan. you said he also took 2012 too

seriously, that was one of his mistakes four years ago. can you elaborate? >> yes. i asked him about joe biden he said joe biden had been a more difficult challenger then hillary clinton and they had an energetic debate in kentucky and -- in 2012. where biden came out of the box almost shouting at ryan and i thought ryan's answer to that question was the most interesting in our conversation. he said, and i paraphrase, i won that debate because i did what i needed to do and that is i kept my cool when i was being attacked. he said, it is one thing to have an intemperate 68-year-old -- referring to biden's age at the time -- it is another thing to have an intemperate untested 43-year-old. speaking of himself.

that is an incredibly emblematic statement. this is a guy -- and it puts him stylistically and spiritually in opposition to the approach of donald trump. a guy who believes in discipline and self-containment. >> what do you think house speaker paul ryan wants from donald trump and republicans in the house, senate, and gop leadership? >> let me take priebus out of this. i think what paul ryan once from donald trump is the same thing

he wants from his own tea party caucus. that is to shut up. [laughter] >> he wants them to tone it down. come to consensus on policies and present the republican party as a substantive alternative to the obama era and to what hillary clinton is presenting. i think it raises the question as to whether or not paul ryan will ever meet the threshold of unity he set for donald trump or will he as so many others have done, he caved to the inevitable. >> do you think the house speaker will serve as the conservative speaker? >> he can withdraw if trump suggests he does. it will be an interesting dynamic. a real test for donald trump's capacity to deal with any kind of dissent or anyone who disagrees with him. if trump wants to -- if ryan does not enter the convention having already endorsed trump, it would be difficult optically

-- difficult situation optically for the republicans. if the guy with the gavel does not support the guy with the megaphone. >> this is the headline. speaker ryan saying, trump could wind up but i am not betting on it. for available at political.com. commentary by glenn thrush. thank you for being with us. in june, the united kingdom votes on whether to remain in the european union. and then former senator carl levin talks about corporate tax evasion. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, with presidential candidate bernie sanders declaration, congressman from -- the future of the sanders candidacy and his support of political

contribution reform. and then a florida representative in the ongoing concerns of tsa wait times at airports. theexecutive director of president's committee on the arts and humanities, antonio award-winning -- be sure to watch c-span's washington journal. beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, tuesday morning. join the discussion. last december, president obama signed the cyber security act of 2015 which includes provisions regarding internet monitoring that monitors -- moderates surveillance laws. aboutr tim kaine talks cyber security at a form for the center for strategic and international studies. that is live at 8:30 a.m. eastern. by irsions of misconduct

commissioner surrounding the irs targeting investigation. committeeoversight chair will testify. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. united think, the of votes on a referendum whether to remain part of the european union. we will hear from british house of commons member chris grayling who favors leaving the eu. rep. holding: i want to welcome everyone to the gold room in the u.s. capitol complex. it is a honor and a privilege to grayling,christopher the leader of the house of

commons. chris will talk about brexit, britain, and the united states. brexit, if anyone does not know by now, refers to britain leaving the european union union. been a member of the british parliament since 2001 or he has held a number of senior positions. he has been educated at asbridge, the same college oliver cromwell for those english history buffs are among us. cromwell'ssaid that skull is buried somewhere at chris's old college. in america, we call that real history. [laughter] there has been a lot of rhetoric about brexit from the white house. i am happy that chris is here to explain what brexit could mean to the united states. it is also appropriate that chris delivers a brexit address

on his trip to america in the united states congress. why? because it was the second continental congress that had its own vote for independence and i adopted the declaration of a vote for brexit would be a british declaration of independence from the european union. although i cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of the brexit referendum, next month, i do know for certain that the special relationship between the united kingdom and the united states will indoor regardless of what that outcome is. without further a do, i wish to introduce my friend, chris grayling. [applause] thank you, george. it is a privilege and an honor to address you here on capitol hill at what is a crucial time in my country, for both of our

countries. and at a time when a fierce debate is reaching about the uk's future. i can start by expressing my thanks to heritage and to george holding for making tonight's event possible. to get you toike do some alternative history. i want you to imagine a cold, february evening in new hampshire in 2008. i young presidential hopeful, maybe a new senator from illinois, turning up in front of a crowd of potential supporters on a campaign visits. i want you to imagine him, taking a powerful speech, advocating change for the united states. ,t is a tough and complex world he might have told his supporters. no one country can stand alone. we have to face up to challenges together. of course, we are a proud, independent nation, but there is

so much more we could achieve. there is a better way for the future. that he might have told crowd, is my vision for the future. we would be better off as part of an american union of nations feared working together to secure a stronger future for our continent. to bringat union together all of the nations of north and south america. it should have its own parliament. and the institutions needed to support it. that parliament should be in a neutral location. what about panama city? of the twothe cusp halves of the americas. we should get that parliament the power to make the majority of our laws. should have common roles in including the hours that

we work, the way we manage our agriculture, the way we regulate our banks, the way we operate our sales taxes, the way we manage our aviation. all of these things would be better off done by an international organization rather than by us here in the united states. oh, and we should allow other countries to be able to decide what happens here in the united states even if we disagree. we should also have a supreme court of the americas. in mexico city. that would outrank the united states' own supreme court. we should even consider having an army of the americas. and do away with antiquated ideas like the united states having its own military. and to achieve this dream, he would have argued, we have to give every citizen of the americas, the right to live and work wherever he or she chooses across the whole of north and south america. why shouldn't every mexican have

the freedom to move to new york city if they choose. there should be no restrictions on movement at all. so, if this young barack obama had turned up in new hampshire in 2008 and made that speech, how many votes do you think he would have gotten? not a lot, i suspect. suggesting that the united states should be part of such an organization did not seem to me to be an obvious way to gain a presidential platform in this country. ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly where the united kingdom finds it self today. we have joined such an organization. as an economic partnership designed to facilitate cross-border trade in much the same way that nafta does here. that it has become something very different.

the united states of europe though it is on that path. to it is closer and closer becoming a single government for europe. any of its key players have that as a clear goal. given the issues that the eurozone faces, it is inevitable that it will reach at the point of becoming a full federation. from the perspective of the united states of america, an equivalent body on the other side of the atlantic might be radically seem attractive. people here in washington regularly describe europe that it is a single entity. i really want to disabuse you of that. the united states and the european union may be comparable in terms of size that they are very different. it is much more realistic to think of the comparison between different parts of the european in terms of the

comparison between the united states of america and olivia rather than a comparison between nevada and maryland. we are talking about different countries. different histories. different languages. different histories. a huge gulf between them. it is those golf in a continent -- it is those gulfs that has brought the eurozone to a point of collapse and lead to social breakdown in many parts of the european union. greece has been the worst example. but youth unemployment in spain is near 50%. i want to tell you a little bit i think has gone wrong and why the united tinkham should not be part of what comes next. and also, why it is in the interest of the united states to say -- tuesday outside of the argument. the seminal moment for the european union came in my view 17 years ago with the creation

of the single currency. the countries that joined the euro created the economic equivalent of the san andreas fault. they tried to create a single economy in a geographic area where there was no single government, no common culture, no commonality of performance, and where the traditional escape valves when things go wrong, in underperforming nations disappeared. the countries of southern europe, ran up massive deficits living the life of riley off of a strong currency. countries back to a degree of rectitude. ks retire -- the gree at 55. they hoped someone else would come along and paid the bill. and someone else did come along, the germans, the european central bank, the imf, all

stepped in to prevent a collapse. you cannot carry on doing that. in a single currency area, if things look doubtful, the wealthy transfer all of their money to safe havens in places like frankfurt. resulting collapse affects everyone. thatscue is not an option it is hardly an acceptable option to the citizens of the country that have to do the bailout. what is where the eurozone finds and self now. they cannot carry on that way. they have managed to stabilize things once but it is hard to see how they can withstand another major shock. solutionno easy either. you cannot take a country out of the eurozone without creating a massive collapse either. ofgreece had been forced out the euro, it would've been left with a devalued currency, unable to afford to pay its euro itominated debts come and

would have had massive losses across the continent. the pressure would have built up in other countries and the contagion would have spread. it will spread again if and when this all happens again. future isevitable starting to take shape. my former u.k. government collie, william hague said once, the euro is like a burning building with no exits. they have no choice but to make it work. no choice at all. there had to be a bailout of course. but the rules have to change. if the u.s. bailed out argentina and then had no control over argentina policy after the bailout. you would not do it in the united states. who on earth believes countries in northern europe would go back to the way things work. that leads them down a single, inevitable path.

it means political union. there is no other way. there has to be a single government for the eurozone. there has to be a united states of the eurozone. the plan is already taking shape. merkel, and her deputy, the italian finance minister, the french president, the speakers of the biggest eurozone parliaments, the presidents of the big eu institutions -- a have all called for political union. it means according to the french president a eurozone parliament, commonn touch it, and a cabinet. inevitably, it means giving up independent nation status. that is the decision they took back in 1999 when they created the euro. europe -- in european terms, it really does mean finishing off our equivalent of the vicious american union. not just with the parliament in panama city, but with a single

government for all of the americas there as well. europe has no choice but to make of fiction a reality. they are getting ready. they are beginning their preparations now. a whole new raft of european a wholeion to harmony new range of powers held by member states a wheat us on the other side of the referendum into. there is a tidal wave of more europe ahead of us. where does that leave the united kingdom? we did not join the eurozone in 1999. nationsof the 28 number of the eu have so far adopted the euro. only two nations, us and denmark are not committed by treaty to do so and the rest recommitted to joining the euro two months ago in brussels. had needs --at we

we don't need to join the euro. out of some measures. the deal that our prime minister did in brussels in february simply cemented the opt outs. it gave us a few extra protections. it does not change things. the eu will still make laws for us in the same way. you can still be outvoted on almost anything and we are regularly. the european court of justice will still act as our supreme court. laws will besame made in brussels. for example, it is the job of brussels to decide on working conditions in our factories and in our offices. to decide on the environmental rules that can hold back the development of new housing estates.

to set the standards of our transportation system. to decide on who can be defined as asylum-seekers. tamponswe levy a tax on as a luxury product. believe it or not, that is a true one. how our farmers work their land. how cancer research is conducted. how powerful our vacuum cleaners are allowed to be. the rules on fishing in our waters. the aid we can provide to struggling industries like steel . the hours that doctors work. i could carry on with examples for half the evening. it is a process. year after year after year. .he way it works is this the european union is governed under two documents. the lisbon treaty and the charter of fundamental rights. they are both vaguely worded

documents. the vagueness gives freedom to those in the european institutions who seek broader toers in the european union mission creep in brussels to take control of more and more activities. the one that irritated me twontly is the story of heroic americans who wrestled a terrorist to the ground on a train in the netherlands. saidrussels institutions that security on our trains is a problem so we should take control over it in brussels and not leave it up to the other governments. that is the mentality. the member -- unless the member states in the eurozone moved for its governing themselves, many of those changes inevitably will be applied to the u.k. as well. subject to eu wide legislation in those areas. for example, if the eurozone

takes a decision about how to operate their banks, britain and the city of london are affected by the same law changes and we can do nothing about it. as the eurozone federate and the , whatomes a single block does happen to the bit stuck on the edge, the united kingdom? we will have little ability to defend our national interest. we will be outvoted all of the time. more, our lawmaking will be sucked into brussels. we will be of marginal importance politically, we will still put a large slice of the be outvoted will again and again. the united states, our friends and allies, would never, ever accept that here. why should it expected its closest ally to do so? that is why we must leave.

but where does that leave the united states and our mutual friendship? no two countries have worked more closely together over the years to secure peace and democracy and prosperity wherever we can for the united states and the united kingdom. some of the great international partnerships have been between the leaders of our countries. roosevelt and churchill. truman and at play. thatcher and reagan. leaders who worked together to shape the world in which we live. in twod side-by-side world wars. in korea. in kuwait. and iraq. in afghanistan. and now in the area as we work andackle the threat of dash try to bring peace to that war-torn country. we fought for the nato alliance in the aftermath of the war. we stood firm with our allies to be sure that peace reigned in

europe. today, the work that we do together to secure a more stable world continues as strongly as it ever has. our intelligence professionals work side-by-side in a seamless adult against the threat of terrorism. perhaps more than any two countries on earth, we share the fruits of those labors in a way that strengthens our mutual security and that of our allies around the world. but our relationship is about so much more than security. britain's states is biggest trading partner. the united kingdom is one of the biggest international markets for u.s. goods and services. roots.e cultural you're after year, at the oscar ceremony british actors and actresses feature high on the

nomination list. u.s. tv is challenging the best of british on u.k. television channels. our people crisscross the atlantic to share and the experiences that each of us have to offer. but above all, we know that we can always count on each other. even when the united states faces challenges elsewhere, the relationship between our two countries remain idle for both of u londonrack obama visited in april, he made it very clear that he believes britain should stay in the european union. a number of other u.s. politicians have made a similar argument. and often they have done so with honest intense and with what they believe to be the best interests of the united kingdom at heart. but ladies and gentlemen, the view from washington is not

really the best way of judging what is right and wrong for the united kingdom. and i think president obama was wrong to insert himself in the debate in the way that he did. in the same way, that the united kingdom should respect the big decisions taken here in the united states, so the verdict on the future of the united kingdom must be won by the people of the u.k. although. on the inside or the outside of the eu, britain's relationship with the united states will and must remain strong. neither of us should ever be at the back of the line when it comes to working together. if britain chooses to leave, our partnerships in defense, intelligence, counterterrorism, in trade, and in culture should remain strong and unchanged. neither of us would benefit from growing apart, and neither of us

should want that to happen regardless of how britain chooses to shape its future. we have a unique and special relationship that has survived changes in government, and changes of circumstance. that relationship will and must stay strong regardless of how the british vote in june. as david cameron himself has said, he believes our best days together at lie ahead. ladies and gentlemen, our friends here in washington and across the united states should understand the challenge we face, should challenge the dilemma as to eu changes, should understand that people in the united states would never accept the same situation that we together find ourselves and. and i hope and believe that our friends in the united states should stand aside, and leave the united kingdom to reach our

own best view on how we secure our future. thank you. [applause] i'm willing to take any questions if anyone has any. yes, the lady here. the london mayor was very firm in the way that he rebuked obamas comments in april. do you share his opinion? there are things that president obama said that i profoundly disagreed with. could take 10 years for the united states and the united kingdom to agree to a trade deal when it actually took two years to make a deal with the australians and with the canadians. i did not feel that to be a

comment from a close ally. suspect there were a lot of politics and play in what he was saying. we did agree with -- disagree with what barack obama said. i would hope that britain would never be at the back of the line when it comes to any discussions with the united states. we are the people at the end of the phone line when international crises hedge. i thought barack obama was making political comments but not ones i felt were consistent with what i would have hoped to hear from the country i regard as our closest ally. other questions. anyone? yes. u.k. trade outside the european union. once you depart the european union, presuming you do, you

will have to come up or you would like to presumably negotiate trade deals with other nations around the world and even with the european union itself. are theling: we european unions biggest market. outside the european union, the united kingdom what amount to 17% of eu exports. we run a huge trade deficit to the tune of 16 billion pounds a year. in goods alone it is 100 billion pounds a year. market to them. the discussion always seems to take place in the prism of our access to a single market. it is more about the deal we would do with them so they could continue to access the market of the united condemn which is crucial to 5 million employees and tothe european union key industries like agriculture

in france. i am actually confident that we will carry on trading normally with the european union. we have a free trade agreement at the moment. i see no reason for that to change. when it comes to trade deals around the world, there are a number of deals to which we are already a party. those would continue unless those nations chose to impose tariffs. ist it has enabled us to do something we cannot do right now which is to negotiate our own free-trade deals with parts of fastorld which have growing, dynamic economies. europe is being left behind internationally. it is not where the growth of the next 20 years is forecast to be, in asia. for britain, it is across commonwealth countries. where we are not currently legally able to do our own free-trade deals. a strangeo me

situation where we cannot negotiate free-trade agreements across the commonwealth. my view is that we will carry on trading normally with the is inan union because it their commercial interest to do so. aheadl be able to push with better trade deals around the world. i would like to see us do a trade deal with the united states even though it is our biggest trading partner. but i see nothing to suggest that we will do anything else except develop new trading relationships and grow. the chief economist of the world bank said as much recently. any other questions? reconcile,ou obviously sovereignty is the foundational premise for brexit. that there is a huge lack of support in scotland and northern ireland for brexit.

how do you reconcile that we need sovereignty where populations who have been formerly advocating for sovereignty seem to be leaning towards union with europe? mr. grayling: the gap in scotland is not as big as sometimes suggested. as it is in wales. we have to look at it through the prism of being a united kingdom. in scotland, the scots voted tuesday as a united kingdom and we have to vote as a united kingdom. there has been talk that if we leave the european union, would scotland pursue a second referendum? are two big reasons why i do not think that will happen. the first is that the collapse in the oil price has left the foundations of the potential financial position of an independent scotland extremely shaky. if they had become independent in march, as was their

intention, then they would be in deep trouble now with deep spending cuts and tax increases. he other point is that there is no way they would be a loud to rejoin the european union because from the point of view of the spanish who have a , if thewith catalonia spanish except the principle that the scottish can leave the united kingdom and join the european union, there were eight would be the same as that would happen with catalonia. gentleman with the beard. i was wondering if you could comment on the impact that you see a possible brexit happening with intelligence sharing. mr. grayling: our key relationships in intelligence and security are with the united states. they are with countries like israel. saudi arabia. and countries in asia.

yes, we work closely with them. it is certainly the case that we cooperate with other countries in europe but i would argue that -- theyecurity services are the best in the world. they are in a valuable -- source for other intelligence organizations. that relationship will continue because they need the expertise that we have to protect their citizens. around the world, our security relationships are all high lateral. there is no obvious reason why we cannot have bilateral relationships with the european union as a whole or with individual member states of the union. think we have to give up our national sovereignty in order to be able to work together to combat terrorism. since they need us to help them protect themselves, it is

inevitable they will want to continue that cooperation regardless of what happens. the gentleman there. >> do you think a brexit would have implications with the u.s. relationship with russia? especially regarding the lack of unity in the face of increased tension? mr. grayling: the organization that has made the most difference to standing up against any expansionist tendency from the soviet union and which has been on the front line now against a potential expansionist pressure from today's russia is nato carried of which we remain a key part and we will remain a key part. in the eastern mediterranean where there is now an operation to slow down migrants into europe, it is a nato operation. thatabsolutely confident we will be able to continue to any together to resist

attempts by russia to expand its in europe.nfluence i don't think our membership in the european union or non-membership will change that at all. economic terms. sovereignty and freedom. how is that breaking down? mr. grayling: if you look at the on the ground campaign, the issues at the four for the remain campaign it is economic gloom and doom if we leave. with some slightly exaggerating claims. principalve side, the argument is around the cost of the european union and the pressures that come from unlimited migration within the european union and the pressure that places on our public services. our population is increasing.

and that is something we do not believe can be sustained. those are the issues at the heart of the battle. i do think the sovereignty point is one that needs to keep being made. we need to take back control of our democracy. we have lost too much control of our democracy. i have experienced this repeatedly as a representative of the u.k. in the council of ministers in brussels. i have found myself powerless to avoid changes that will to really affect britain and business. always extra burdens and extra bureaucracy. government minister, i believe i should be able to say no to that because it damages my country but i cannot. the gentleman there. >> you think president obama's comments will help or hurt the brexit cause in the long run? mr. grayling: they have been

counterproductive. a lot of people heard them. be the united states should telling us what to do. i have heard white a few people on the streets say they were deeply unimpressed by what he said. i am not sure it was an entirely bad thing. but i think the message that i gave earlier is very important. we have had a number of interventions by u.s. politicians and military figures. i don't think they have taught through precisely what they are arguing for and against. us toy are arguing for continue to give up our ability to govern ourselves as a nation. this is not an economic exercise. the european union is no longer an economic entity and has not been for a long time. it is a political project. it has always had the goal of ending up as a political union. the decision to form the euro has made that an inevitability.

i don't think that is fully understood by those in washington that have chosen to insert themselves into the debate. that is one of the reasons i am here tonight and why i will be doing further meetings here is to explain to people here why actually this is a very different debate. the one i think many people here expect us to be having, and imagine us to be having. i don't think people understand the degree to which we are already giving up and will to a much greater degree give up our ability to govern ourselves. i don't think anyone here with think that is a good idea. any other questions? yes. a littleyou speak of bit about the political impact of a vote on leadership in the conservative party? the u.k. decides to stay

in or to leave the eu, if this opens up riffs within the conservative party moving forward? mr. grayling: the way it has developed so far is the relationship within the conservative party are remarkably good. we are having a lively debate. have been a few sharp public exchanges. i have seen no evidence of acrimony behind the seas. i am confident we can unite again afterwards. i also believe david cameron should remain prime minister, what may. there are some that believe he should go. i think that is nonsense. the if we voted to leave, last thing i would want us to do is start the process by having a leadership contest and have a new prime minister a gear into the process. placedthink he is best to lead us out. he is the person that has a

relationship with key european leaders. we will have to work this out. no one has done this before. there is a formal process. be whater appear to they are on paper. he will have to discuss the carryterms of how we will on together. as good friends and neighbors. i just don't want to marry them. we have to find a modus operandi for the future. layers thato many we will have to continue to work with. we just don't have to do it as part of a merging political bloc. he can do it as friends and allies. the same way that we do with the united states. yes, the lady there. very much for coming over. we appreciate your insight and willingness to engage in this dialogue. i admit this question is stemming out of ignorance. i have seen headlines about additional directives coming out

of brussels that would limit political free speech about the european -- about the union. i wonder if you have looked at that at all? how concerned are you about that kind of potential censorship on british freedom of the press should you stay within the eu? mr. grayling: i have not seen any particular suggestion that they would seek to limit freedom of the press. there have been a number of changes to data protection rules. and in particular, the right to be forgotten which came out of a european court recently which has allowed some people to remove articles about themselves from search engines. i don't believe they are realistically planning to censor people from criticizing the european union. that does not mean they do not spend a lot of money trying to encourage people to say nice things about the european union. and it doesn't mean that they don't determined efforts to make

sure that individuals associated with brussels are always saying nice things about the european union. but the reason that did cause me concern is that there has been a push in brussels to enable of the european union to override some of the constitutional principles of individual member states if the eu decides they are not consistent with the charter of fundamental rights. there have been issues in hungary. the hunt and government has been criticized. government hasn been criticized. that is an interesting dilemma. while you may not approve of changes made by a government, it is an elected government. it would be a dangerous step for the european union to put itself in a position to override

constitutional arrangements made by individual member states. there will be in the end a single government for the european union. i am certain. there will be a single cabinet and treasury. in reality, that control will happen without any degree of consciousness. it is an inevitable part of the change that is going to come. yes, the gentleman in the back. >> what is your contingency plan for theeferendum is u.k. tuesday in the eu? how would you protect your solvency? mr. grayling: the british people will have taken a decision tuesday. the things i have described are inevitable. 5-10 years down the road, we will be less and less in control of the power in our country. we will not be completely run by

the federation of the eurozone but in a whole variety of i couldt areas of law, go on for several hours walking through the areas of the european union. y is sobon treat vaguely worded they can do anything they want to do. security is a matter of national government to the eu members. but, the european court of justice decided that the rules around the free movement of european citizens were more important than the provisions that gave member states power of their -- over their social security. it has taken more decisions about how we run our -- system. i don't have a contingency plan. there is none. we will have voted to stay in something that will change in

the ways i've described. i don't suggest for the moment that we should rush out and fight the battle again next year. road, the british people will be saying -- what is going on here? any last questions before we wrap up? ok. you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause]

>> left december, president obama signed the cyprus it cyber security act of 2015. -- cyber security act of 2015. tim kaine talks about cyber

security policy at a form hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. later in the morning, the house judiciary committee looks at allegations of misconduct by the irs commissioner surrounding the targeting investigation. the house oversight committee chair testifies. that is live at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. q&a,is sunday night on u.s. senate historian betty talks about the areas events in senate history and the worker office does. june 1990 eight as a newly minted senate has story. my colleagues told me it would be nice and quiet. we have an election coming up. you will have a lot of time to get comfortable. within a few weeks, the house had decided to impeach bill

clinton. we got very busy very quickly. and had to do a good deal of research on impeachment trials. the senate leaders at the time, trent lott and tom daschle really wanted to follow historical president as much as they could. night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. c-span.org is a video rich complement to your c-span viewing. most of our government related programs like the house, senate, and congressional hearings dream live on the site. if you are away from your television, you can watch it from your lap top or desktop and of thearchives has all programs online in the video library. if you miss an episode of washington journal, tv or any show, you can find it online and watch at your convenience.

the video library contains more than 200,000 hours of c-span programs and its powerful search engine helps you find and watch programs going back many years. to watch on your television, c-span publishes its on air schedule for all three networks and its radio station. just click on the schedule link. you are a c-span watcher, check it out. it is on the web at c-span.org. >> next, former senator carl lemmon talks about curbing tax evasion. election inun for 2014. he joined us on mondays washington journal. host: joining us is former u.s. senator carl levin representing

michigan from 1979 to 2015. now he is with wayne center university. good morning. guest: good morning. host: what have you been doing since congress? guest: at wayne state law school, i helped to teach a tax course. the tax professor there, a wonderful guy, alan shank, talked about what the tax code is supposed to provide. and i used my subcommittee hearings to show how a lot of people even eight and avoid paying taxes and were using gimmicks. taxes and were using gimmicks. and to teach students to show how broken our tax system is. and how it has taken advantage of some of the wealthiest individuals among us and some of the most profitable corporations among us. host: how do they do that? guest: there are a lot of loopholes. one of the corporation, apple, shifts its intellectual property to itself