biggest parts of the economy and one of the biggest sources of jobs in america and increasingly recognized as one of the biggest components of public and personal health. many americans have food insecurity during the year. the use of antibiotics in livestock contributes to antibiotic resistance and obesity is one of the pressing concerns for individuals in the nation. we hope today's meeting to creation of bipartisan indeed, nonpartisan attention to these and other problems. as a new president and new congress come to power, it's important to ensure that food problems are on the table. and it's important that we present not only the problems but also the legal and the policy solutions to be considered. fortunately we have a who's who of policy expert.

the proceedings from today are to be published and moreover potential to be discontinued by policy makers and advocates and consumers as part of the 2017 political agenda. today's event is open to the press and is being live streamed and televised. for those who are not physically present, i'm told you can join in on twitter also using the #votefood2016. there are also twitter handles were available for the speakers on the biopages. please help us keep the conversation on social media and don't forget to add #votefood2016.

oscar cabrera, executive director, sarah roach and allyson and alissa. thank you to them. welcome to georgetown from the o'neil institute and it is my great pleasure to introduce to you as the next speaker david vladeck. david. prof. vladeck: thank you very much. [applause] good morning, everybody. we have a busy day ahead of us and wonderful potentialists, before we get started, i want to

point out that i've been slided, everyone else is the honorable and i'm not. so i wonder what that says. so today we have sort of the all-stars of the all stars in terms of public health and food safety and they need no introduction, so instead of reciting the biographies which are in your handouts, let me just sort of point out one or two of the key successes each of them had during their tenure as either secretaries of department of agriculture or commissioner of the food and drug administration. so the honorable danesh alella she oversaw the department during one of the most important periods in terms of food and health. this was the time when our nutritional labeling information package was being designed and the theme of her administration was making sure consumers were

better informed about the quality and ingredient's of the foods that they were eating, enormously important time, also real up in improvement. incredible gains were made during her tenure. the honorable glen, democrat from kansas, think about that. secretary of agriculture during just a tremendously transformative time during the department. the department moved away from what it used to be called poke and sniff meat inspection to more modern technique. also during administration, much more robust enforcement in safety laws including closing down meat processing plants that were unsafe. finally last and not at least, margaret, commissioner of fda, she oversaw the implementation

of the food modernization act. always a challenge. i can only imagine the battles that were fought and the blood that was shed in order to get those regulations through. so today what we are going to do is we are going to start out by asking -- by me asking, excuse me, one timely question, we are having election in november. we will have a new president. i won't say anything about that, but just assume for the moment that the new president in his or her wisdom decides to call on people who actually know what they're doing and calls up secretary shalela, glitman and

ask the following question, i have decided as president to create a new office in the white house, the office of the national food. assuming you accept my appointment, there are two issues that i want you to focus on, at the moment we now have 15 federal agencies responsible for varying parts of food regulation in the united states and as former government officials we all know that the three most dreaded words in the english language for people to work in government is interagency coordination. we all fear that. so the question is what changes, if any, would you recommend to the structure of our food regulation process in the united states and if so, how would you do it? and the next question is what

would be your first two or three policy initiatives which suggest i would move forward recognizing that in virtually every administration you have two years of grace before congress is over and you can't get anything done? we will start with that simple question and i would ask secretary shalala to go first. sec. shalala: oh, boy. number one, i would tell the president it's a bad idea to bad idea to have a czar for anything. [laughter] there are ways of getting done whatever she wants to get done without appointing a food. number two, i would say don't waste your time on reorganization. the politics of this are so dicey and peggy has had a lot more experience about rationalizing the food safety

system. number three, i would say to her there's a far more important issue if you insisted on a food that there should not be one american that goes hungry and you want to focus on the goal you want to achieve and then get the government organized in a way that you can achieve that goal. whether it's snap or wic, i would eliminate food insecurity in the united states by putting some system in place that would do that. mr. westmoreland: that's it? we will move in quickly. >> you don't want going into our policy substantive. >> you have 10 minutes. >> some of you remember the

movie the graduate, hoffman was trying to figure out what to do with his life and his father-in-law looks at him and and says the secret sauce, remember what the secret sauce was plastic. this was 1968 which is in the heart of my life, adolecence and vietnam. i think to some extent there are a lot of secret sauces today in different words but one of them is food and agriculture which has become much greater highlighted in the minds of the public, people are much more interested in this thing. there's a lot more health going on, mgo private sector relating

to food and nutrition and everything else. it's a game-changer in terms of the role of food and agriculture where as where it was 40 or 50 years ago where medical schools didn't give much attention to it. it was all thought to be farm issue and you ate what was put in your plait. there's been interest in issues and in terms of outside folks that are interested in them as well. i agree with donna that moving boxes around in government is generally not a productive idea. and, you know, for some time i thought if we started food safety by combining all food safety functions in the federal government, poultry along with noneating poultry would make a lot of sense. no way, we are not going to give up our jurisdiction, those things are not likely to happen formally, what happened in

recent years under the clinton -- under the obama administration is that, there has been a lot more collaboration and cooperation on issues like the food safety modernization act and food safety enforcement issues and so collaborating and working together is a better way of doing things than moving boxes around. i would say a couple of things that i would recommend, i still believe, one is that appointing competent able and intelligent leaders in cabinet and subcabinet posts that know something about what they're doing is critical and that is often not the case. often the people who are picked at the top, people notwithstanding or sitting next to me are often picked for political reasons or for relationship reasons and not always the right people to

manage the affairs of food safety, food issues down the government bureaucracy and i remember at usda myself, at the time picked not on subject matter, they were not stupid but other lines of work. it's very important that a president, vice president and cabinet leadership appoint competent able people who know something about what they're doing and have a broad view of the subject of what they're talking about. the second thing i would say is that in the case of usda, we were more than just a regulatory agency, we were a policy agency. i always thought that usda handled not only farm programs but most federal nutrition programs were in the department of agriculture, much of food

safety was there, virtually all of the conservation programs affecting private lands were there. snap and school meals and related things. it would be use that the name would be changed, either department of food and agriculture or agriculture nutrition and forestry to represent what it does because the department of agriculture is basically the leading food department in the government overall and yet it kind of hindered by this languaging that it's the department of agriculture or the department of farmers, when, in fact, it has a far broader role. in my judgment if we gave it the characterization of what it actually did, it would be a lot more helpful in working with the other departments on issues that needed to be done. i think secretary has done an excellent job of working across lines whether it's fda or usda, let me give you one example. when you go out to farm country you mention the three-letter

word, the three dirtiest letter words, epa, okay, and people see that as the enemy. they don't see the fda as the enemy. some do, but they see epa as the enemy. you know, a lot of this is political, a lot of this is style, a lot of this is sometimes not the best political judgments being made at the highest point. a lot of it is people that don't want to listen too out in the country side but if the department were characterized in such a way where it looked like they were -- they had a much more leadership role on the items within their jurisdiction, then i think that you could probably doo a better job politically with some of the other issues, conservation issues that are coming up. so we can talk more about policy judgments, but i don't think that reorganizing sake makes

sense, it's leadership the main thing that counts. >> most people would agree with you that agency leadership may make more of a difference than anything else including statutory mandate. commissioner, you are being recruited to be the food czar for the next president, what's your advice? >> i would agree that this is not a moment of reorganization, if we were starting from scratch, no one would design our current system and the notion of a single strong food agency would have a lot of appeal but at the present time i think there are too many important activities under way that need attention, focus and resources and that reorganization would actually create a terrible scrum where work would not get done

and new legislation would offer opportunities for things that were unhelpful rather than helpful to be introduced and i think that this is a moment to really focus on the task ahead and as has been noted, thinking about food very broadly in a comprehensive way that recognizes the importance of food safety but also food security, the issues of quality and nutrition, the linkage of our food system to other major pressing public health concerns such as antibiotic resistance and the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture and the relationship of food production to broader environmental concerns, food production, i understand is the leading cause of environmental degradation today which is no small problem for the country and for the world. it is a complex arena and i think, you know, we need to address it in all its many components. with respect to whether or not there should be a czar, i rarely

disagree with my former boss, donna shalala. czar i don't know but appointed real coordination in the white house is really important. we never knew who to talk to in the white house about our issues. we assumed often mistakenly that people within the white house were actually talking to each other and we often found ourselves in the situation where important issues were not being taken up because of a failure of a person in the white house who was fully knowledgeable and accountable and frankly an advocate for our issues because of all the competing priorities. sometimes these issues would drop lower on the agenda. i don't know if i should tell one story. would i get in trouble?

one shocking moment for me -- >> nonpublic stories. >> when we were trying to move forward with the -- the proposed changes to the nutrition facts label which was put out in final form just recently, but we were trying to get a briefing with the white house and it wasn't getting done and it wasn't getting done and i finally called over and said what's going on, there's time urgency here, we have to get the proposed rule out and then we've got to get a final before the administration closes. we are having trouble getting on the schedule because the same people that need to be at the briefing are working on syria now.

i resisted saying i hope there are more experts on syria than there are nutrition, in any case, there was this problem of -- of leadership within the white house in terms of who you talked to and who is the accountable for making sure issues move forward and decisions get made. certainly expertise really matters too. and i couldn't agree more with the notion of a new administration needs to really continue with tradition that i think the obama administration brought putting people with expertise into critical roles and then listening to them. of course, i think it's a critical time, focusing really on food safety for the purposes of this meeting and this panel to make sure that the food safety modernization act gets fully implemented. this is one of the most important historic undertakings in food safety in the history of our country. it's the first major set of new regs and new authorities in

about 70 years. and it's really an effort to try to shift our system for food safety from one that's reactive, waiting till a problem occurs and then trying to address it to one that focuses on prevents, which, of course, a core component of public health and this will benefit patients and consumers. it will also reduce preventible cost to our healthcare system and will advance our economy because it will prevent serious problems that undermine food producers and industry and that undermine public confidence in their products. so shift a focus to prevent is absolutely key and requires, you know, really a lot of work at every level across sectors, across levels of government, agencies of government to make this real. another important component reflects a broader reality which means working across borders as

well and the food supplies now increasingly globalized. i was shocked when i got to fda and learned some of the numbers that -- about 50% of fresh fruit and produce is coming from countries outside of the united states. over 85% of seafood is coming from outside of u.s. waters. these are products that are highly vulnerable to contamination and adultration and product that are hard to oversee in terms of fda's responsibility for protection of american consumers. the only way to do it is to actually understand and care about and, in fact, invest in strengthening capacity in oversight in countries around

the world. we are now talking about food coming in from well over 100 different countries coming in through multiple different ports of entry, several hundred ports of entry and from countries that have very unsophisticated systems in many ways, so you can no longer do what fda wants to do, stop the ship, inspect the barrel of malasis and say this is sugar water and you can't come in. so really focusing on globalization, the need for new global governance mechanisms to better address the oversight of food safety. also applying better science. this is the time when science advanced so greatly that we have new tools that we can already see are making a difference but we haven't adequately invested in them whether it's using sequencing to enable detection of outbreaks specially important in complex food supply where product that is are contaminated can suddenly appear in multiple countries and multiple parts of

the country better pointed use diagnostics so you can quickly detect if there's a problem and also, you know, really much more investment in understanding some of the important aspects of -- of disease surveillance with respect to antimicrobial resistance. eliminate the use of antibiotic but we need to understand the problem of ecosystem and impact on important drugs for human use and human disease. so lots more i could talk about but i think i've probably used up my seven to 10 minutes.

>> you have, but secretary shalala and secretary glickman have not. would you like to comment? >> i want to go back to the reorganization issue because i assume it doesn't surprise you that none of us think that the next president should spend a lot of time on reorganization. though they will because they'll be people in the white house that think that we ought to have a rational system, there be people in omb in particular that think we ought to rationalize the system. the problem we have is high government officials, is that we have seen the energy wasted and we so the politics as wearing us down on the reorganization. every one of these agencies or responsibilities has their own constituency and to go through that when there are so many more important issues, both my

colleagues here have pointed out, it doesn't seem to be worthwhile to us and so we always get recommendations of rationalizing the structure. the briefing book that's now being prepared for the next president will have a recommendation, let me assure you, for rationalizing the structure both in food safety as well as a whole set of other issues. mostly done by hill people or former omb types that think that that's the first thing that the new secretary or the new president ought to do, but none of us want to take our energy and do that. we are more interested in the outcomes and applying new science in all of this. second, while i don't believe in czar, that doesn't mean i believe in coordination. or a lead person that we can call about with these issues.

that't like agency heads are going to be held accountable for decisions made by that person, and people who coordinate out of the white house have to understand their roles and be sophisticated enough to understand they are not the people who have to testify and therefore they shouldn't have line authority as opposed to convening authority, coordination authority, forcing consensus where consensus has to be forced. there is a big difference between that and someone who thinks of himself as a czar is the only place i would make about this. >> i agree with what donna says as well.

if you are coming into this administration, what are the problems, the asteroids that are going to hit the earth if they impact the ability to produce enough healthy produced in a sustainable way to feed the country and the world. once you know what those big items are you try to figure out how to organize the government and who is going to do what and what is the best way to do it? that needs to be done. i don't think it has been done much by the government in the past, food and agriculture issues have not had high-priority attention unless there is a massive outbreak or the zika virus is hitting, so the first question i would do is have some team, what are those asteroids? we have to double food production in a next 30 years to feed a growing world and do it in a way that doesn't rip up fragile land, rainforests and everything else we need to preserve our environment. that is a challenge.

it is global, a gigantic challenge. in the context of climate change, whether variabilities, health and nutrition. understanding those issues, changing as time goes on and through finding a safe way to do these things. those asteroids will determine what policies we should pursue. what i find most disconcerting is the level of dollars and commitment to the research and development functions of food and agriculture arena. they are dwarfed by the level of commitment in other sectors.

i understand why the health sector, and infectious diseases or big draw, much more directly. the level of funding on food and agriculture in real terms has been falling year by year. the private sector picked up some of this but not the most important part to be done in the public sector through the land-grant, or anything else. from my perspective, what we don't know is going to kill us. we are going to change the ability to produce food to feed hungry people and we need to be focused on that from the top down. one specific issue in this area, you cannot produce food without water. agriculture is responsible for 70% of freshwater used in the world.

rural issues and rural people are responsible for 22% of the people living in the world, the rate of urbanization happening dramatically all over the world . not so much in the us but globally. sub-saharan africa, the conflict between water utilization to produce food and water utilization to keep us alive as urban residents, is one of the massive challenges in the future. i think we neglected that. water is to food what energy is to our lives, another issue. i mention that because if i were president i would want to bring people together to decide not how to regulate the food safety issue, or regulate the farm program, but i want to know how to meet these challenges in the next 20 or 30 years because those are the ones that will be determining whether we can feed the world safely and

environmentally soundly. >> ok, so let's drill down a little. commissioner hamburg talked about attitudes in food, the secretary reminds us that somehow or another we need to double food production in the next 10 years, quite a challenge. last week the new york times reported the incidents of a superbug that was resistant to antibiotics. that is scary. we have these dystopian futures ahead of us. how do we avoid it? let's focus on antibiotics in the food chain. commissioner hamburg spent a lot of time working on this but i want each of your comments how to successfully navigate this. would you like to start off? >> this is a pressing problem, not a new problem. it is one of those issues where many have recognized the growing

concern and spoken to some of the possible solutions but we have not moved as quickly as we should have, now we really do find ourselves in a frightening situation that we are starting to see seriously resistant organisms. at the same time we are not seeing a comparable expansion of new drugs in the timeline to treat critical aspects of human and frankly animal disease as well and new vaccines that could make a difference. this is a problem we need to address in an urgent way. it is one of those things that an incoming administration has to make a priority and it is increasingly a priority on the international stage as well. the linkage of animal

agriculture and human health and disease is a real one, we don't fully understand it but there is no question we need to rethink how we support animal husbandry and agriculture in this country to reduce the load of antibiotic use. the elimination for growth promotion which perhaps secretary goodman understand better than i. i don't know why it works but it does work in allowing healthier, more rapid development of various kinds of animals but it really involve throwing in the feed to animals, and is something that doesn't need to occur has negative consequences and finally in this country we are seeing the elimination for

growth promotion and that is happening in other places in the world. the next big challenge for the fda is to create a framework for oversight of appropriate use with the veterinary community which has been disconnected in many ways from antibiotics in the culture. it is different from human disease and health care providers but also think about the appropriate use for preventive purposes because there is a gray area between growth promotion and prevention. there are some very real and appropriate uses for animal health and agriculture and antibiotic prevention but you don't want it to be an ill-defined zone that can sort of spread into broader and inappropriate use.

that is the issue and this is an area we need to work on a global scale. we need to have common ways of addressing this problem across countries because these resistant organisms move around, we are tracking them and understand we live in a global world and these threats to health are global as well. >> you have done a lot of great work in this area which moved the ball forward in antibiotic resistance. i ordinarily don't read mother jones magazine but i was on a plane yesterday and a big story about purdue farms, one of the larger producers has gone to and antibiotic breed system for growth promotion. they still use antibiotics for disease, because if an animal catches disease you got to treat the disease or it can infect everything else but the idea of using massive amounts of

antibiotics for growth promotion -- the animals would grow faster and fatter when they have these growth promotions but after a period of time resistance would coming and affected negatively. there are a few others taking this attitude. purdue's attitude, i did it because consumers demanded it and it is a good lesson in agriculture, the power of consumers have grown significantly. part of this has to do with how we raise animals in the industrialized world. they are not raised in little five room hotels. they are raised in 500 room hotels the equivalent of 100,000 animals in one unit whether it is pigs, cows or chickens. when you put -- if you put 3 or 4 times the people in this room and kept us in here and we

couldn't go to the bathroom and we had to deal with each other all the time we would probably all get sick. so the methodology of what i call mass production of animals leads to diseases and that is why they inoculate them and for prevention and growth promotion . what i do see happening is clearly a movement away from using antibiotic growth promotion. you have done a lot of that at fda and a lot of companies have voluntarily done this on their own because their customers want antibiotics free as much of that means something in the world and frank purdue has done a good job trying to promote this thing. the research of development, how you keep animals well, because we are a protein-based world, people eat protein, they eat meat, pork, beef, lamb, chicken.

it is part of the world's diet forever. and how we keep these animals well to feed a large and growing world and do it in sense of agriculture prices as a challenge and that is something the research and development agenda needs to give high attention to. >> we have been using antibiotics for animals since the 1940s and numerous studies by the institution and others, the world health organization positioned, cdc has been warning doctors about overuse of antibiotics, we have known the link between antibiotics and animals and human health for a long time. underlying all of it, there is a consumer movement that will move will move the ball but underlying all of this is how to make it sufficient, whether we have enough faith in science and scientists.

every issue we are talking about we have a body of research we ought to be listening to and we have to figure out a way to put together the politics or inform the public the way to drive these positions. years i have 20 been unnerved by selective moving away from the science as we make decisions and we should be concerned about that and this is a perfect example where we have known this for a long time . in this case, where consumers are going to drive us in one direction, consumers can also drive us in another direction where there isn't clear science . and we have seen that in agriculture and food safety as well. i just think government in particular has to make science-based decisions and we have to explain it to the public and get a level of science literacy and comfortableness

with our scientists so we can do this. >> let me follow up, consumers moving the needle, antibiotic use. it is easy to see why chicken producers are sent to the market because their name is on the product. so you go to the grocery store you know you are buying chickens from perdue. you don't know that with respect to the products and so what is the transmission bill for informing consumers about antibiotic use, and is this an issue where we ought to focus on labeling a product, and letting consumers choose by putting a stamp on herds that have been raised with prophylactic antibiotics? >> omaha steaks.

>> or trump steaks, you remember. >> the interesting issue, i was involved in the motion picture industry for a while. there was a movie called "field of dreams." they were building a mythical baseball stadium in iowa and the line was build a stadium and there was a lot of negative feeling and kevin costner, this famous line, "if we build it they will come." it always struck me in agriculture the reverse is almost always true. if we grow it and raise it they will buy it sight unseen. in a sense that is the tradition of agriculture because people always assume the products are safe, and grocery stores reliable, we have a lot of trust in our food companies and that is the way it was.

that is going through a revolutionary period of time and different types of agriculture products. if you grow it and we know where it is grown and we know what kind of feed is put in and if we know where the product comes from and we think it is safe and doesn't have any gmos and if it doesn't have antibiotics and if it is sold at whole foods i don't know what all the things are, then we will buy it. the consumer overall has become a much bigger factor than 50 years ago. that is good, that is not bad. it has been driven by the marketing of food, walmart markets 23% of all groceries in the united states. one store. walmart and target and others can effectively set the agenda for what is actually bought. they are smart at figuring out

what consumers want in this process. along way of answering your question because i don't know what kind of label ought to go on what kind of product. i suspect some people would like an antibiotic label on meat or hormone free label on meat and by and large labeling is a good idea. with two provisos. what is there has got to be enough real estate on the food you are buying for the labelmaker, you don't need a microscope to figure out what is iin the product. and that is why modern barcodeing take that particular thing up. and number 2 is because the consumer wants something in their food doesn't necessarily mean it is the scientific thing or the right thing. it may be a cultural thing or an ethical thing, may have nothing to do with food safety whatsoever. more an item of choice.

i suspect going back to my original point consumers will want to be more and more educated as to what they are eating and it is the job of the food industry and the regulators to make sure people have the right, the best scientific basis, education so they can make intelligent choices, not choices based on fear or the latest news story. >> let me ask commissioner hamburg this question, let me add one more factor. there has been enormous controversy over gmo labeling and questions about labeling, for example whether the animal was raised with hormones. what do you think is the right balance for consumer labeling of these kinds of products in the united states? do you favor greater --

accepting the point that there is limited real estate and you don't want to fan suspicions that are not science-based where do you come out on labeling things like gm ohs, hormone use, antibiotics, are these the kinds of things we need to provide modern consumers or do we need to be more restrained? we will start with the commissioner who had to make these decisions recently. >> it is a complicated area and i support consumers desire to have information about the products that they eat. it links into a number of comments that have been made about the complexity of labeling as well as the need to have science-based approaches in terms of what mandatory labeling, the gml is troubling

because it is an arena where many people quickly jump to the level of anxiety about an arena of science they don't understand to adopt the negative stance towards gmo despite the fact that there have been lots of scientific studies looking at the safety of these products. you can't know everything. the vast body of science, there was a recent review that i saw reported by the national academy of science, taking a deep dive, the opportunity for gmo foods in terms of addressing critical issue of food security . and how can we produce enough food going forward, how can we produce plants that are drought

resistant or disease-resistant , so we can respond to growing demands for food? and how can we enhance protein density, this is the area that worries me the most, the we not enter a period of what some call science denialism out of fear, the positives are very compelling especially if we care about food security around the globe. and i to worry the calls for mandatory labeling of gmo, potentially sends the message that these are dangerous and that concerns me going forward, . i think if people don't want to

consume gmo containing foods they should be able to access products that meet those needs . voluntary labeling can address that. i worry about government deciding mandatory labeling in that context. >> gmo is the exact issue i worry about along with peggy, you have to make science-based decisions, you have to protect fda as a regulatory agency to make science-based decisions, i spent most of my time at hhs over a eight year period from fromotecting the fda political pressure, from the white house and the hill, from onng interfered with

science-based decisions and with gmo issues on every with thing we had. and we had the bovine growth hormone issue. i am chancellor of the university. the way it would stop at that time was pediatricians in the state went and testified before the legislature arguing the milk was safe for kids. that stopped it at least for a while but if we are not willing to tie ourselves to science-based decisions we will be in big trouble in this country. and part of the response ability i felt has secretary was to protect the fda which was regulatory agency and on occasion i had to say it is a regulatory agency, and neither you nor i should be interfering in their decisions. and as long as they are making science-based decisions and they continue to, otherwise we

undermine science in general when we selectively pick out these issues and i consider that the most dangerous aspect of government. >> i do think there is a growing lack of trust by americans in all of their institutions, government, politics, business, regulation. and i think while i agree both of you on the gmo issue, i need gm foods and they are perfectly safe, we have to make sure we have a regulatory system that is modern and deals with these issues. because the whole field is changing so dramatically there are new ways to manipulate genes we didn't have before, in order to give the public the trust that decisions are made

independently and on the level. that doesn't mean excluding industry from the process but it does mean just saying something is safe doesn't make it safe unless you have a regulatory process people believe fully examines these particular issues. in the house, i was involed and we implemented the organic standards act and the organic standards act created a whole new industry and agriculture where by and large it is certified organic, doesn't have gmo in it with limited circumstances and finding a way to allow people to buy non-gm oh foods without mandatory labeling is a much better way to go. i see some food manufacturers made the decision to go with labeling and mandatory labeling scheme, and some in the farm

community have not necessarily done a very good job explaining benefits of gmos. a lot of consumers don't see the things that have happened to benefit themselves. if we could develop products that have drought resistance, pest resistance growth qualities people can see, they facetiously say if you could have a gmo seed that would grow hair on my head and a tremendous opportunity but that obviously happened like cialis or something like that . but in any event what i am saying is these issues do require a regulatory system that the public has trust in, on the level. that system may need to change as time goes on as consumers

want to know more about what is in their food. i agree with donna that daniel patrick moynihan said you can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. in this debate on food especially gmos and other related things people often let their ideology and their opinions equate to facts. that can't be helpful either. >> food agencies are vulnerable to pressure from both the public as well as congress and it is reflected in congress. i remember the reauthorization of the fda when we were trying to get it through. we got drug advertising because of a deal on the reauthorization of the fda. i wasn't desperate to get the reauthorization. i left congress at 3:00 in the morning after arguing vehemently with senator frist who admits il

not -- we will not agree to the reauthorization of the fda, we can live without that reauthorization. but the senators were so desperate to get it off there plate that they cut the deal on the reauthorization, i left thinking i had made it clear where the position was. we got the expansion of healthcare costs as a result of the connection with fda reauthorization. that is not acceptable. to give you some sense why the financing of the food safety system is not outside the political realm, it is very much tied into it and we are very vulnerable because of the way we finance safety in this country.

because you cut deals as you are going along, and pressing congress on these issues, we continue to be backing up on what we think are good science-based decisions. >> i applaud donna for her leadership. as not an independent regulatory agency, as a regulatory agency that as such really needs a special role. i also want to wonderscore it -- underscore, while it drove me crazy the importance of notice and rulemaking to open the regulatory process and make sure consumer and other stakeholder voices are heard and to say the comment period was taken very seriously. off in the process of rulemaking took longer for all kinds of reasons, it is something very

important in our system of government that is often underappreciated. i think, also a plug going back to the first question, the implementation has to be adequately funded. there initial legislation was the possibility of user fees. government funded at the present time and is inadequate. implementation out there in place. we need to make sure the opportunities are represented.

they did not be get into the private equite world. now, all over the country, food items are a giant part in what they are investing in. they are lookign for ways, they are trying to use less water, more technology. so, really it is important that th epower centers are not just the fda, and the four seed companies. this is becoming a decentralized issue. mustarticular system cope with a more diverse group of players.

with young guys going out of silicon valley, we see food as a dramatic new opportunity. >> we are seeing a fraying of the boundaries between food and drug as well. we learn more about relationships between nutrition and health. products and approahces no long er are how it was organized. food and drug related activities, and the legal regulatory structure that supports that. it's a whole new era. hopefully it will be a science haven't talked much about nutrition, a special with michael jacobson sitting there

would also to talk about how we can change our system, regulatory but importantly food production so that we can produce foods that actually will support health, not increase risk. >> that leads me to my next question. if you watch tv in the morning, you see a constant barrage of ads for breakfast cereals to kids. most of the cereals are mostly sugar and fat, may be sprayed with some vitamins so they say they can have vitamins in them. and as commissioner hamburg knows, there's been all sorts efforts that congress has draw up guidelines, nutritional guidelines for food products that are advertised directly to children. and we know that in many of

these food products, sort of negative nutritional value. what's the right approach to this? congress passed the ftc, fda, cdc and the department of agriculture to come up with voluntary standards for foods marketed directly to kids. we did. somehow commissioner hamburg avoided it but i was a pinata at a major congressional hearing which was really unique because i was beaten up by both democrats and republicans. the only act of bipartisanship i think that's taken place in the last eight years. how do we crack through this? how do we make sure origin people are actually getting foods that are nutritious and we can start curbing some of the direct marketing to kids, which is only getting more intense now that they're on the internet all the time.

and brands like coke lure kids to their sites with fun games. but that message is to drink more coke. >> i think i would start, one of the things i learned when i got to the clinton foundation was president clinton and the clinton foundation and our spinoff, the alliance for a healthier generation, they are private sector initiatives that are going on all across this country we have 37,000 schools to the alliance which have taken out all of the sugar drinks from the machines. in fact, they have been so successful that president clinton told me a story. he was at a hillary clinton rally at one of these schools. he was so excited to be mythical but someone fainted at the rant around rent around to the machines and they couldn't find a sugar-based drink any of the machines. he called me up and said we are killing people. i explain to them it was the unintended consequence of good public policy. [laughter] >> at any rate so we had some orange juice and they took care of the person that had fainted.

that are private sector initiatives, things going on and we did many of of these things when we took on the tobacco industry. and that is the our schools across the country that have removed the sugary drinks from the machines in their schools. 37,000 that we personally have been involved in with our alliance with our healthy schools program program. in addition to that we've done exercise programs and worked with a lunch and breakfast programs in those schools. that's having tremendous impact. the president, clinton, got a lot of criticism because he cuts these deals with things like mcdonald's. mcdonald's longer markets for their kids meals, french fries and coke. if you order a mcdonald's keep meal in this country you get milk and apple slices off with a hamburger.

so we've gone part of the way there, and he has been criticized because he's not a purist about these things. anything we can do, 70% of mcdonald's kids meals are now bought with milk and its low-fat milk if i remember correctly, and with apple slices. we can do things voluntarily with the private sector, with not-for-profit organizations like the clinton foundation, the alliance for a healthier generation. the are 50 of these or positions working with schools and working with kids. we did it with tobacco. we did some regulatory stuff but at the end of the day, organizing the states and not-for-profit organizations, so there's lots of things we can do outside of the regulatory framework i think think the left -- that will have just as great impact in getting it repaired much. our biggest strategy has to focus on low-income neighborhoods in which they don't have access to healthy foods.

we've got to find an imaginative way of doing that. in haiti we are sending kids school -- whether a bag of apples or whether it's a bag of vegetables. we got to find a way in this country to get healthier foods to the families. we haven't even started to think imaginatively about ways to deliver to low income families healthy foods. i would argue that we are just going to do work outside the government framework complementary. meanwhile, while we are taking on all of the regulatory burdens and the politics at the same time. >> secretary glickman? >> i agree with much of what donna said. when i was at the motion picture association we were involved in the ratings movies. most fun things i ever had in

life was to look at this movie and kind of help the others make a decision. we went to this thing where we added smoking as a factor in the ratings of movies. that when you see a movie it is rated and they give the descriptors it was a gratuitous smoking are excessive smoking. at almost will always come almost always caused the movie to be rated r if there is lots of smoke. a committed group of people, from a nutrition professor we want any movie that shows high fat foods to have an r-rated movie in a. and i said i don't think we can do that. because of the foods are not inherently unhealthy. smoking is inherently unhealthy. flexabilityt the of the situation. tom cruise eating a half piece of pizza and i would be pg-13. a couple of things.

one, michelle obama and the administration has done a lot in the school meals area to try to reduce fat content and improve the nutritional quality of program that's gotten some controversy. but i think it will have some real, real impact. the medical community needs to do much more. donna and i talk about this. at the bipartisan policy center, we did a study that was just astounding, find out how to -- few medical students get any training in nutrition. none or zero our primitive training. we saw a nice alternative to the university of miami but if you have your primary health people and it doesn't have to be doctors can it can be physicians assistants owners assistants who don't have a background in health or nutrition, if somebody comes to them with a problem of the people don't know anything about it, it's a gigantic gap in our society.

the are some medical schools trying to do that because the health community needs to be trained and they within of the business and corporate and insurance communities. a lot of companies are changing their insurance model for the people are healthier. they get benefits in terms of either cost reductions on address or other kinds of benefits as well. the pentagon which is the largest single of were in the united states has a healthy base initiative where they've got all the service is working on a pilot program to increase health and nutrition and physical activity as part of the training of recruits. maybe that's another thing. i agree with donna. a lot of this will have to come from these outside forces. press from consumers who are demanding it as well as from the community as well. there are also some other things in the farmers market initiative. my former colleague at fda josh schumacher has got double up box communities and the ability to

get fresh fruits and vegetables as part of her snack benefits or wic program benefits. the wic program is a profoundly significant program in this area. got to make sure that doesn't get cut because it is not an entitlement program. it's an appropriate program and provides basically prenatal through i guess two years old. whatever it is, five company what it is largely based on specific foods that have direct nutritional impact for small children. it's going to take a combination of some government engagement like school meals together with the private sector and things that donna has talked about. >> my favorite one is at the university of miami i was going to get we can stop the kids running across the street to fast food on the weekends at night, late at night. they get back from a party. we started late night dining. at the university of miami, free for the students from 10:00

until 3 a.m. you can go to one of the dining halls and get much healthier food. while we reduce the income of the fast food operations around the anniversary, it actually gave us an opportunity to make occupation to good nutrition for our students because that was the one time when they ate fast food. because the students are very oriented towards, college students are very oriented towards healthy foods but they did have access to them on the weekends late at night. it took some talking to convince them to run a dining room from 10:00 at night until 3 a.m., but my own view of universities they are organized for untold hours, hourscome not for kids hours and just give think about their hours if you really want to affect their behavior. >> nutrition education which is part of all r&d in terms of food and agriculture, is the public is in large part confused about the messages they get.

they see all the ads on tv. most of those are highly coloric, dense foods. window to the old days you would see, face a healthy. but you see the dancing strawberries or blueberries based on these kinds of programs that farmers could support self-help. but that's a rare. almost, all the messages people are seeing, i watch a lot of television. i mean, i'm not telling i'm proud. i watch it morning, noon and night when i am home. and this is not just a problem for people who are five or six or seven years old. this is a problem for everybody. there is virtually nothing advertised that's healthy. not very much. and, because commodities are not advertised. there's no money in that. you advertise when you enrich

the foods. don't doot sayin gthey good work in this area. they are offering their products. we are being encouraged to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables. this is a generic problem for the whole society about how we deal with this cacophony of messaging that's coming. some of hamburgers i've seen are so big it would take an elephant to put in your mouth. that's what's being advertised. on television and it looks good and quite frankly after i see it i want one. [laughter] well, i don't have much to add, i do watch television, but probably not quite as much as you got what you described. but i do just want to, on a couple of the important roles of government. i agree it's going to take change that occurs at many different levels and is reinforced in education and in the community behavior, and in

company behavior in response to consumer demand. some of the activities the fda really are important and make a difference. i mentioned the nutrition facts label that was just announced the update. this update does address every concern but it is going to make with a redesign calories more prominent which really matters . it will include added sugar which i think is very important in terms of people really understanding the sugar that is just empty calories added to so many products. and it's going to hopefully clarify some other aspects of nutritional content to make it easier for consumers to know what's in the products and make informed choices. the work that's been done on menu labeling which is a component of little recognized of the affordable care act, one which a joke when i first learned this was an fta responsibility and the bill, i

thought this a big pretty straightforward. internet to be incredibly complicated determine what in establishmentike was. in all honesty it was one of the areas that almost quit over because of fights around whether movie theater food should receive menu labeling. >> can i stop you? i was involved in directly with that because a movie theater will get the vast majority of the revenues from the food that they serve, not from the tickets they sell. so that's why they were effected. >> and they have menu boards and they frankly have food that the public should know how calorie, fat and sodium and sugar dense they are. >> remind them. >> movie theaters were in the final, so delighted about that. but also fda does play an important role in terms of what is in processed food.

for example, a move to reduce to the greatest degree possible trans fat in foods which is linked to serious disease and heart disease is a leading cause of preventable death and disability in this country. yesterday or the day before i guess, finally the voluntary sodium guidelines were announced, that reflects a very science-based, very thoughtful effort within the fda within different categories of foods establish very reasonable, achievable targets for sodium reduction in the american food supply. because consumers are often challenged that they want to make changes in their diet but it's hard if the foods there in

the marketplace and that it the and in some cases can afford, have more sugar, more sodium, more fat than they need. so i think that all is or important. then the role of fda and actually calling companies to task when they are making false claims about the nutritional value of foods. all of these areas that the activity, again have to underscore dramatically underfunded, and fda i think could move more quickly and more robustly, but it does make a difference i think for consumers and for health. >> we have about 10 minutes left at like to invite members of the audience to ask questions. there are microphones in either aisle. please identify yourself. you will be on tv. we need to know who you are. and please short questions.

no speeches, just short questions. [inaudible] >> could you make an argument for or against moving the dietary guidelines from the usda to perhaps the institute of medicine, cdc or the national academy of sciences? >> there are actually joint between hhs and usda. at in my case the assistant secretary for health negotiated them with usda. we did not have a disagree with you every once in a while they would bring something up to dan and i. but they were science-based, a little bit of a negotiation,

more on how they look than what was in them. but i didn't come of all the problems we had, that was not one of them in terms of joint working. i don't know, peggy, whether you had a different -- >> no. i think that is true. i do think it does play an important role in terms of providing science-based input in the nutrition area. and many other areas as well around policy development and in the nutrition space it has historically played an important part speak we consulted with them. >> we consulted with the other health agencies and the department including the cdc and the national institutes of health to see whether there was some other aspect. but i don't think that was an area where i felt the need for kicking it someplace else because of the way the process worked.

and, frankly, the two sectors secretaries that i chance to work with, we just always left it to the scientists in our departments, and the public health people to come to us with any recommendations. >> nonetheless and i would agree, nonetheless interest groups, including commodity groups, have internet process to offer their views. sometimes very, very intensely. as the people in the public health community. does a prospective by the meat industry or somebody that's not part of classic nutrition science community, do they have a role in what the final decided in a political process? probably. i wouldn't tell you that there was total purity in a situation but you're going to get that whatever you put this function in. this is a pretty transparent place to have it.

>> so let's move onto the next question. >> thank you. i'm the professor at the law school at a faculty director of the food law initiative. commissioner hamburg, i was excited to hear you say out loud that agriculture is one of the leading causes of environmental degradation because that's so often left out of these kinds of conversations. so my question for the whole panel is about. meaningful regulation in that area for the whole history of environmental law has been such a nonstarter. what would your advice be for the next administration if they wanted to take on this issue to try to break the logjam? >> it's important look at that whole ecosystem. this is hardly my area of expertise. but as a citizen of the world i think it's something we really need to address that i think it's starting to address an interesting some of the big

conservation programs are creating programs in these arenas to work with governments and industry to find ways to reduce the burden on the environment. big part of it is understanding. i mean, i had been working the food arena for it while without appreciating the seriousness of this problem. and it was brought to my attention, and when i sat and looked at the data, i thought wow, and i thought frankly i need to start to educate myself and start to do work in this arena. so education really matters. and i think they're starting to be models for how to manage situations, you know, don't destroy the rain forests in indonesia to grow palm oil with

our other strategies to produce the necessary and perhaps healthier oils, and you can maintain the rain forest. there are other ways to do agriculture that are less water intensive. but i have to say it's not my area of expertise but i think it is a problem we should al llearn more about. >> this is an area in which the nature foundations are working with small farmers all over the world. american farmers have gotten this a long time ago. my family, which lives in north dakota and my brother-in-law and sister are north dakota wheat farmers among other things. my brother-in-law and sister are so sophisticated on this issue because has to do with her livelihood. and their ability to to market their products.

around the world, that major foundations, but it's gates or rockefellers, the event the clinton foundation working africa are all consciously working in agriculture and, of course, rockefeller has been working agriculture for a very long time. so there's a lot of things going on in addition to the international organizations that are working, government organizations. >> i agree with what peggy said this is food and agriculture. when you just say agriculture and it's got to be about farmers, the grain growers and the cow produces. that's just not true. is all part of a big industry. second of all politically it is true a lot of farmers in this country believe they are being persecuted by the elitists from washington who come down with regulatory approaches that are dramatically impacting the ability to produce. most of the newer farmers understand they have to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

there are problems. methane emissions from cows for example, is a big problem. it's less when you grass feed the the animal and when you grain feed the animal. pesticides leaching and fertilizing leeching our big problems as well. but politically we have to work together to solve these problems, rather than look at production agriculture like it is the tar baby, the cause of all these things. that's what a couple of things, new technologies, precision agriculture, helping farmers are -- know exactly where they need to put their inputs on and what they should and other inputs on. finding new ways to feed animals with feed or other feed products that produce less of a belching effect, for example. r&d has a lot to do with is the -- with this. r&d agriculture has a big part to play in the environmental world but it has to be done sensibly and went to do this bringing the farmers and

producers into the solution as well. >> next question. >> i'm michael jacobson for the center of public interest. two quick comments that any question -- >> no, no, no. just a question. >> okay. i think all three of you basically buried the issue of government reorganization. fight like to ask dr. hamburg a quick question about the organization. some people on the outside have expressed concern that the commissioner of the fda is largely focused on drugs and medical devices and that the foods division is kind of a stepchild. those people have suggested breaking the fda in two. have a foods division at a drugs and medical devices, i don't know about tobacco. what do you see as the pluses and minuses of breaking the fda up and still reporting to hhs leading congressional oversight the same?

>> my first wish would be to have fda be an independent right -- regulatory agency. but it is a concert that i think it's rare to have a commissioner that actually has had experience across all the domains of fda activities. i actually in retrospect realized i was the unusual in that i came in from having both done drug and vaccine research and development issues and as commissioner of health in new york city been very involved with food safety and restaurant inspections and other things. so both were familiar to me. when i get the fda it was clear that a commissioner could not really bring both the expertise and the day-to-day oversight that was neccesary across all

the domains of activity that was what i did a reorganization to create a deputy for foods and a deputy for medical products and tobacco. you look at the fda today as commissioner certainly does not have a lot of depth of experience on the food side, but we have a deputy for foods and outgoing mike taylor who was among the most expert around and now steve who also was just years and years of experience on food safety and nutrition issues. so i think that your concern is a real one, but it can be addressed within the structure of the fda but again i think if you tried to divide it up you actually do harm to the day-to-day work. it would be very hard to increase the expenses of the agency that you have to create parallel administrative and other support systems. as i mentioned that is i think a growing need to look across areas of fda in terms of food,

nutrition and health and the medical products site. so i don't see the would be huge benefits. again if i were starting from scratch, would i've done it this way? i'm not completely sure but i think it can and does work, but it needs to constantly be addressed to make sure that the organization within fda and expertise within fda is supporting the needs of the program. and again, i hate to be a broken record, but funding issues matter. the food side has always been underfunded in comparison to the medical product site. i don't think that is something that really should be accepted as a norm. we need to keep fighting for more food, for more money for the food and nutrition side of the house. >> i am sorry but we have run out of time. for those with questions, i'm sure our panelists will stay

around for a couple of minutes. please join me in thanking, this is a just a terrific panel. [applause] >> thank you so much, everyone. >> please be back here at 10:45. [indiscernible]

>> american history tv on c-span3. on real america. >> or the 100,000 cubans fleeing to cuba. click on the 100 kilometers from the port of marielle to key west florida and nearly 2000 votes. why are there so many? >> approximately 125,000 cuban refugees arrived in florida for the port of marielle cuba. here interviews of the new arrivals to america and find out why they left some the morning at 10:00 on the road to the

white house rewind the 1992 democratic and republican conventions. bill clinton except his parties nomination in new york city. >> in the name of the hard-working americans make up our forgotten middle class, i proudly accept your nomination for president of the united states. bushcumbent president hwb -- george h.w. bush excepts his nomination. >> i'm proud to receive, and honored to accept your nomination for president of the united states. 4:45 not ichiro historian -- an architectural historian on the creation of greenwich village. >> it give us we already understood, if the six avenue was washington square, west of six avenue was the lower west side. nobody ever cross that line. people from west of six avenue

might cross the line to work as a servant in washington square. but the people in washington square never want on the other side of 6th avenue. >> at 8:00, on the presidency -- >> it is unanimous, unanimously commander-in-chief, unanimous the president of the congressional convention. unanimously appointed as the lieutenant general and commander-in-chief. before the armies out to be based for the service in the united states. what a record. >> george washington scholar explores that even though washington was officially retired, he continued to meet with political figures from the new capital, and was often called upon to craft policy. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. >> supreme court nominee merrick garland was this year's commencement speaker at niles west high school.

the d c circuit court of appeals judge was a graduate of the school in 1970 and valedictorian of his class. this is 15 minutes. judge garland: many things have changed since that first graduation speech i gave here. on this very spot in 1970. the electric typewriter was cutting edge technology. and paul mccartney was about the taylor swift is today. [laughter] judge garland: but there are things that never go out of style. paul mccartney is one of them. i hear you had tie die day this year.

well, in 1970. every day was tie-dye day. in 2016 the team brought home the illinois state championship. congratulations. [applause] judge garland: and on may 29 of both the years, the cubs were in first place in their division. here's hoping 2016 works out better than 1970 did. most important it's every much a big a thrill an an honor to speak at your graduation. as it was to speak at mine. spent for the i basis for the kind of career i have had and for the kind of person i am today. i owe this place a lot. of course, i didn't know it at the time. like you, i said on this graduation field.

like today the sun was shining brilliantly. the future stretched out in front of us with what seemed like endless possibilities. and my friends and i looked on that future with great anticipation. but in all of us, there was also, as i expect a small pressure of fear. even if were were too cool, and to announce it. endless possibilities seem great in theory. but how would they work out in practice? endless possibility means you might have to choose, paths that are different from those who have planned on taking today. were we prepare for the obstacles that lay ahead or even for the first month of college really going to attend? unfortunately i'm here to

tell you that you cannot anticipate the twists and turns that life will take. nor should you. life would be pretty boring because you could plan it all out on graduation day. no one can or should try to anticipate everything, i can tell you that niles west does or at least did it for me. the next best thing. it prepared me for the unexpected in two important ways. first, niles west made me feel part of the community. a big place, even bigger than it is in your day. but the world you're about to enter is bigger still. and although west was big, and it is big as the big place made of smaller places. kids feed in from lincoln hall. and lincoln junior high. [applause]

judge garland: fairview, parkview, and culver. in turn kids feed into those middle schools from smaller neighborhoods and in the end from their families. west takes each of these communities and stitches them together into a larger fabric, like the hope for our country. of thenly great field united states. out of many, makes one. west was the place where you knew some since kinter garden and some since the beginning of the year. it was a place where people with different interests, kids of the basketball team and in the chorus, the auto club and on the debate team, could find common ground. accident,ot happen by it was due to the work of our immensely dedicated teachers.

several of whom came back today. you. [applause] niles west was also a place families were involved. many of the same parents who came out to hear me at graduation had watched me grow up on the little league field. here's what i look like then. [laughter] judge garland: all this meant that it was a place where friendship are formed. i mean lifetime, several of my closest friends today were my closest friends at niles west . and my best friend was my best friend at niles west. so why is any of this important?

because when hard decisions have to be made or bad things happen, you don't have to handle them alone. your community, your friends, your family will help you through it. because they care about you. they don't care what position you've atained. how much money you have made, they care about you. and bad things do happen even to good people. if i ever doubted that the bombing of the oklahoma city federal building in 1995 made it painfully clear. but the weeks, i spent also made me see just how important community, friends and family are when bad things happen. oklahomans lined up to offer care and comfort to those who are hurting. neighbors and strangers alike. they also join together to help the investigators, firefighters

and the rescue workers would flock to the city to help. they kept a food line going for us 24/7. nearby tables were piled high with donations. everything from toothpaste to sweaters to green jackets. one resident set up a laundry service for us. another offer to cut our hair. in oklahoma they called us the spirit of generosity, the oklahoma standard. i know a similar spirit runs through lincolnwood, martin grove and niles. [applause] judge garland: so when you leave here keep in touch, with your friends. remember the cell phones the culture to put down? starting today, they want you to

use those phones all the time. to call or text them. second, west fixed in the a set of values. those valleys were first taught by my parents who were involved with the lincoln would community. yeah, but those -- but those values were confirmed by this high school. foremost among them was the responsibility to give back. my day we had a great variety of ways to do that. most prominent was our hunger hike, and marathon walk which sponsors pledged money to feed the hungry. i had last week you put on a tremendous dance marathon to help the homeless. you were a lot smaller than we were. dancing a was a lot more fun than hiking was. and all of us, you and i were

lucky to have been born in the place, and time, that got us to this graduation ceremony. all of us to that went to "new -- niles west, you and i, you are better prepared to face the uncertainties of our future than many of our fellow americans. yet, not one of them did anything. to deserve that initial lock. so pay it back. devote some part of your life to public service. it does not matter what kind of public service you choose. after graduation, i thought i would be a doctor. but after my college roommate, the same best friend i mentioned finally let me know that i , wasn't all that good at math. i shifted course and chose a career in law. specifically a career devoted to taking care of the rule of law that civil society depends on. as a federal prosecutor that meant convincing residents of

dangerous neighborhoods that we could keep them safe and bring violent gangs to justice. as a judge it means showing litigants that the courts will decide their cases fairly and impartially. looking only to the law and not to our personal preferences. but that is hardly the only kind of public service available. and if you don't believe me, just ask one of my favorite people, hermione granger. the minister of majoric once did. "are you planning to follow a career in magical law, ms. granger, he asked? now, i'm not. i'm hoping to do some good in the world." that doesn't mean that you and your friends have to vanquish lord voldemort. not everybody is a particular set of skills required to

accomplish that task. tolds professor dumbledore harry potter it is our choices are,t show what we truly more than our abilities. so make the choice to do some good in the world. on this memorial day weekend, it is particularly appropriate to log those who, like your assistant principal made the , choice to defend the country in the armed services. [applause] judge garland: some of you will be fortunate enough to be able to do good through the kind of work that you choose. but your country and your state and even this community have all kinds of needs. and you can help meet many of those needs just by dedicating yourselves to working afterhours to assist others 121 -- one-to

-one. in fact, the most personally rewarding experiences of my career have not been the high profile cases i've investigated or the legal disputes i've resolved. they have been the 18 years i've spent tutoring students in reading and math at an elementary school in washington, d c but many of you are already way ahead of me in that regard. the niles west literacy center has 155 student tutors and averages 215 visit as day. now, that is impressive. [applause] judge garland: but even more impressive is the fact that though students are tutoring their fellow students at this school where students speak a total of 90 different first languages. nice work, tutors. [applause]

judge garland: you should engage if public service not just for the benefit it provides others, but for what it will do do for you. when you're facing the unanticipated fists and turns that life will surely take when the bad things happen, it can be a tremendous solace to get outside yourself to focus on someone else. so, instead of taking a selfie, turn the camera around, you know, the way we used to take pictures? you'll have a much more fulfilling life by turning your focus outward to helping others. well, that's enough serious talk about the future. what about the present? i'm hoping i'm not about to lose the parents in the audience with this final recommendation. if you can take a little break this summer. you've worked very hard. now is the time to take that car trip across the west, your friends to get in that canoe and paddle out across the lake. just don't make this same mistake my friends and i did

when we first took that trip. make sure you all knew how to canoe before you head out into the lake. [laughter] judge garland: before closing, i want to thank tea gonzales for speaking after me. as some of you have probably heard the last time i shared a , niles west stage with a student speaker that speaker's microphone was cut off. i had to defend his right to speak. i was talking on tea to do the same for me. i guess both of us are relieved but that wasn't necessary. congratulations, class of 2016. [applause] judge garland: this is for all you've done and for all that you will do. your parents are justifiably proud of you. and as someone who well remembers high school graduation, not just as a student but as a parent of two

daughters, i urge you to remay -- repay your parents by remembering to phone home. often. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, judge garland and on behalf of niles west high school and the class of 2016, i present you this gift. [applause] judge garland: i want to thank you. and only my friends the class of 1970 probably will know what i mean. but this is as close as i'm ever going to get to looking like bobby hull. [applause]

>> thursday marked 30 years of gavel-to-gavel senate floor coverage. tonight, we will air a special program featuring video from the senate floor going back to the first televised session. will also have inside analysis and senate parliamentarian. here is a look. a 21st centurys is the duchenne conceit in the 18th century. it is trying to make the best use of the technology in the 21st century to remain true to its 18th-century conception. it really, it is a difficult thing to do to forge compromise. everybody has to give a little when you forge compromise. that is not photogenic. camerastain extent, the both reveal the greatness of the senate, and conceal it by not

being able to show these kinds of discussions taking place. indeed, is a humbling moment for me. i am honored to service majority leader. i recognize the majority is slim. this is still one of the most closely divided senate's and all of history. we have just witnessed something that has never before happened in all of senate history. during ae of power session of congress. 30 years of gavel-to-gavel senate for coverage tonight and it :00 p.m. eastern on c-span. -- 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now, republican president candidate donald trump.

this is about an hour and 10 minutes. ♪

mr. trump: this is amazing. redding, we love redding. thank you very much. i think it's 104 degrees. is everybody ok? if anyone not feeling well, come up here, we have plenty of water to share. this is hot out. i want to thank you all. they got some very bad news, the worst jobs report in 6 1/2 years ok. i don't know if you saw that. it is going the wrong way.

they are playing games. it's going the wrong way. they had a labor participation rate, it fell to 62.6%, which is one of the worst in many, many, many years. so we know what we're doing. we are going to turn it around and make america great again, bring back our jobs, bring back our jobs and bring it back fast. so you remember the 1237 and they said, maybe at the convention and i said we are going to reach it easy. who would have thought we reached it before hillary clinton. she can't close the deal. she can't close it. she's working hard and can't close it with bernie. good old bernie. we love our bernie. i tell you what, what a mess she's in. and the people with bernie don't want to vote for her and they want to vote for trump. you saw that poll.

because whether you like bernie or not, he's right about one thing, trade is a disaster for our country. one thing he is right about. the trade deals that our country makes are an absolute disaster. hello. look at all those people over there. this is crazy. wow. i wish these camera guys would spin it around. they are so dishonest, 100 something degrees out here to have this number of people. are we happy to be here? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: on june 7, you have to get out and vote, because you know, we are setting records. we have already broken the record, in all fairness. i like that cap. he has the same cap i have on. hunters, the n.r.a., they gave me the endorsement. you saw that. great, great people. wayne and chris, they are great

people. they gave me the earliest endorsement i think they have ever given to anybody. national rifle association. we are going to protect your 2nd amendment. we will protect your 2nd amendment. i love you, too. nice guy over there. big strong guy. i love you. so, look, we have had an incredible period of time june 16 we started and it's been an amazing ride. all over the world they are talking about it, it's a movement. they said they have never seen anything like it. the biggest crowds of anybody by far. the other night, bernie had 3,000 and i had 17,000. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: and they talked about me, donald trump made a speech, never mentioned the number of people and bernie has had a massive crowd of 3,000 people. i tell you what, the press is so

biased against us, but i believe we have the numbers. i really believe it. you know, they used to call it the silent majority, now i think we are going to call it the noisy majority. we are not silent. last night, in san jose, we had an amazing crowd. it was packed and it was incredible and at the basketball game on, which is that area, the san francisco game, and we had some crowd. it was absolutely incredible. and it was a love fest inside, no problems whatsoever. we went on and spoke and had a good time for an hour and i said i want to get you guys so you could see the san francisco team, the warriors, who won. but i wanted to get them out and i said we don't want to get out. we had an amazing time. that was it and we wrapped up

and everybody was cheering forever and they walked out and they get accosted by a bunch of thugs burning the american flag, burning the american flag. you know what they are? they're thugs. build that wall. you're right. [crowd chanting "build that wall"] mr. trump: we are going to build the wall, folks. don't even think about it. you saw -- i have a lot of endorsements and paul ryan just endorsed me and mitch mcconnell, but we have tremendous support. when you think that in the history of our party, more votes than anybody that has ever done this before. think of it. more than dwight eisenhower. i mean he won the second world

war, more than ronald reagan who we all love, more than anybody and we have a lot of endorsements and very popular within the party and polls are coming out showing we are doing well and winning. the fox poll came out a few days are winning by three points. we are beating hillary. [applause] mr. trump: did you see that phony speech she made yesterday. and people think, oh, did she speak well. she has a teleprompter here and there. do you notice, donald trump is a bad man. donald trump has a bad tone. we need a tough tone in this country. we don't need this kind of stuff anymore. she said, i don't like the tone of donald trump, that was a while ago. she said i don't like his tone. and i'm saying to myself, they are chopping off people's heads and killing us at the border. our country's a mess. we have the worst jobs report in

6 1/2 years. our labor participation rate, you are talking about decades of a disaster. people are making less money now than they made 18 years ago and working harder. and i'm supposed to have a nice tone. hello, everybody. how's everything. we are going to bring back our jobs. we are going to take our country back. we are going to run it properly, folks. and you are going to be proud of your country again. [applause] mr. trump: and you know they do research. u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a. i like that. i like that. so california, good place. i'm going to play heavy in california. i think we can win it. i mean we get crowds like this all over the place and didn't give you a hangar. they don't give hangars anymore.

but it's amazing the kind of reception that we have. and every magazine and every newspaper whether they like us or not and i say folks, i'm a messenger. am i doing a good job? [cheers and applause]