has a big boys. his colleagues are astonished -- big voice. his colleagues are astonished, slack-jawed at how successful his campaign was. i have colleagues as me all the time, what is the magic? there is an anonymous amount of respect for what bernie accomplished. if you look at the likely nominee for the republicans, donald trump, what are your thoughts? >> he's in over his head. he is great as a reality television host. but the skills required for that, arrogance, bluffing, that does not work out well in the political forum or to be president of the united states. less couple of weeks, he suggests he is in over his head. there's a character question. we disagree, republicans and

candidates. but most of the candidates has -- has a character test. like senator mccain. i'm not sure donald trump does that. he does a lot of time bragging about chasing women, and that he is than everyone else. that is not necessarily lincoln-esque. >> finally, do you have a sense of who hillary should take as mate?nning >> is a lot of names i would be happy with. elizabeth warren is one of them. sherrod brown. tim kaine. have really solid progressive credentials that would be a real asset.obviously, bernie sanders would be someone who should be on the list. >> do you think hillary clinton would consider him? >> i don't know. they have to work that out. she would be smart to want to embrace his success, and how better to do that than by selecting him? but there's also chemistry issues, and personal issues

between secretary clinton and sanders. i definitely think he is qualified. whether she would pick him, we will see. >> congressman peter welch, democrat from vermont joining us on capitol hill. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> madam president! we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ senator bernie sanders spoke

to supporters in washington dc thursday evening following meetings with president obama and congressional leaders. [applause] >> good afternoon! [applause] bernie is close! [applause] is we have been and together, millions of families across the country. in this, fighting against corruption, fighting voter oligarchy,, fighting and fighting the oppression that a small streams in the face of big national challenges. we are fighting for families, , weting against fracking

are fighting for our children, we are fighting against mass incarceration. [applause] we are fighting for working people, and we are fighting against mountains of college debt. [applause] that you canroven run a powerful campaign that inspires the majority of the american people. against walls,up when you stand up against the tyranny of the wealthy, and when you stand up, when you stand up for the love and unity of the american people. [applause] in other words, we are not just proving that bernie sanders is the best candidate to trump trump. [applause]

we have proven that the only way to be sure we can beat his candidacy is campaign -- his campaign of hatred and division, is with a campaign of integrity and love, and unity. [applause] and a campaign that is not afraid to be honest about what challenges our country. a campaign that is not afraid to say, it is time to end our endless wars. [applause] a campaign that is not afraid to say, if the minimum wage would have been $15, and allowed to keep up with inflation, then it should just be $15. afraid to that is not say, you know what? the health lobby is really powerful. but our families are more valuable!

[applause] believes, yout know what, if you were against the war in vietnam, then you should have been against the war in iraq. [applause] a campaign that says, you know what, if somebody's headscarf makes you uncomfortable, or someone being transgender make you uncomfortable, go ahead and be uncomfortable. [applause] we don't have time for that mess! we need to get on with democracy and inclusion, and lifting up all of those who have been pushed down simply because of who they are. [applause] and you know, i want to take a moment and thank the speaker of

the house for speaking truth the other day. because it is true. what he said about donald trump. somebody is not qualified to be a federal judge because of their ethnicity is the definition of a racist. [applause] benjamin jealous: but you know, the speaker of the house claims of jackdisciple -- kemp. he claims to be a disciple of jack kemp. and jack kemp was a member of the naacp, and a good friend of mine. and i'm pretty sure jack would tell you, that if you are convinced that your party's candidate is a racist, and makes racist comments, then you better look for a different candidate.

[applause] benjamin jealous: what is beautiful about bernie, the --son we are still sanders the reason we feel the bern, is that if you roll the tape on bernie and go back five years or 15 years, or 50 years, he's always given the same damn speech. [applause] bernie hasalous: stood up for racial justice. he stood up for economic justice. apparently because it is the only thing he knows how to do. [applause] benjamin jealous: and if there's for leadersm this, that big organizations in the this.y, let the lesson be

that we don't have to compromise with our values to back a winning candidate. [applause] can win.labor movement that the civil rights movement can win. and those who can keep moving can win. lesson from our rallies that should not be forgotten, it is one that bernie described to me as the revolution in the revolution.we were together in the ozarks , and we had just come from chicago and detroit. was theest applause same and the ozarks in front of a crowd that was about 90% white, antenna -- 10% of the men were wearing camouflage because they were going hunting. i can't say what time of day you know that -- do that because i don't do it. but they were in camouflage, on their feet screaming for racial endice, screaming for the

to the killing of unarmed black man. [applause] and that islous: the thing that the media has never quite figured out about telling the story of our campaign. stereotypes, in tell you that black church ladies are for hillary and young people are for bernie, and white dudes are for trump. but, you know, my mama goes to church and she is for bernie. [applause] and my dad is white, and he is for bernie. and my kids are young, and they are for bernie, too. [applause] and that is what we have proven more than anything in this campaign. is that the future of america is

the on stereotypes. the future of america is beyond hatred. [applause] the future of america does not have a wall running through it. [applause] benjamin jealous: the future of america is represented by bernie sanders, and his run for president! thank you, and god bless. ♪ >>[chanting] bernie, bernie!

[applause] senator sanders: thank you, washington! [applause]

let me thank all of you for coming out. jealous.ank ben less --hank for no cornell west. and let me thank all of you for being part of the political revolution. [applause] >> [chanting] thank you, bernie! senator sanders: a little bit over a year ago, we began this campaign. thought ise punditry that the campaign would not go very far. mid-june. we are in

states.ave won 22 and the results have not yet come in from california. [applause] over 10 million votes. and in every state and nonstate, i am aware of the issue here in washington dc. [applause] and i hope that the next time i'm back, we will be talking about the state of washington dc. [applause] but in every state and nonstate that we have run in, we have won

by very large votes, from young people. that that isn significant is that this campaign is based on a vision that our country must focus on social justice, on economic justice, on racial justice, on environmental justice. and when the overwhelming majority of young people support that vision, that will be the future of america. [applause] this campaign has done as well as it has because we are doing something unusual in american politics.

we are telling the truth. [applause] and the truth has to do with the reality of our lives, as we experience it, not what we see on corporate television. [applause] and what is that reality? allreality is that we hear of the time that we are a democracy. is,the fact of the matter even excluding the issue of washington dc, not having elected representatives in the congress -- ooing] senator sanders: -- is that all of you know big money is buying elections. right now, you have a couple of brothers called the koch brothers.

worth tens of billions of dollars, and they are determined to purchase the united states senate for right-wing republicans. have a handful of billionaires spending unlimited sums of money, you can call it whatever you want, but it sure is not democracy. [applause] me like it sounds to oligarchy. and what this campaign has been talking about from day one is the trend that we are seeing in our political life, in our economic life, in our media life, of fewer and fewer wealthy people controlling this nation.

and that type of drift toward oligarchy is something we must prevent. [applause] and that means overturning this disastrous citizens united supreme court decision. [applause] moving the public funding of elections. can you imagine two people, the koch brothers, one family in the process now of purchasing the united states senate. my view is not only should we overturn citizens united, but we should move toward public funding of elections. [applause]

but it is not just a corrupt system that wees have to address. it is a reagan economy. -- rigged economy. if you add it all up, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world is the united states, but most people don't know that, because almost all of the new income and wealth is going to the top 1%. the united states is not supposed to be a country which has more income and wealth inequality than any other major country honors. -- on earth. we are not supposed to be a country where the top 1/10 of 1% now owns almost 90% of the wealth of the country.

we are not supposed to be a country where the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom half of america, 150 million americans. income and wealth inequality, and a rigged economy means we are seeing a proliferation of billionaires and billionaires, and yet walk five blocks away from here, and we have people sleeping out on the streets. i'll rigged economy is when a mother goes out to work, and yet the wages she earns so low, she cannot afford decent quality ourd care for her children, provide security for kids need.

a rigged economy is when the united states has the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. a rigged economy is one ceos who make tens of million dollars a year cut back on wages, cut back on health care, cut back on the pensions of their workers. a rigged economy is 1 wall st's greed and recklessness and destroys theior economy, and then congress bills them out. -- bailed them out. in a rigged economy, wall street's illegal behavior ends up with no wall street executives going to jail.

a rigged economy is when mom is working, that is working, kids are working, and 57% of all new income goes to the top 1%. sisters, our job is to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%. >> [chanting] senator sanders: i have been in this campaign, to native american reservations. [applause] i was at the pine ridge in south dakota.

in pine ridge, life expectancy is lower than in many third world countries. i have been to flint, michigan, where the children are drinking water that is poisoned. i have been to detroit, michigan, where the public school system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. i've been to baltimore, maryland. where tens of thousands of people there are addicted to heroin, as they cannot get the treatment they need. this is the united states of america. we should not be having 47 million people living in poverty. [applause]

this is the united states of america. we should not be living in a country where the very very rich get richer, while almost everybody else gets more poor. this is the united states of america, where in the last 25 years, we have seen the middle class shrink and shrink and shrink, while almost all the wealth goes to the people on top. that is not what this country is about, and together, we are going to change that. [applause] is not just about a corrupt campaign finance system. it is not just about a rigged economy. it is about a broken criminal justice system.

[applause] and everyon here, person in this country, should be embarrassed by the fact that we have more people in jail than any other country on earth. name are we spending $80 billion a year to lock up 2.2 million fellow americans? understandur job to the cause of that issue, and to resolve it. , we know inns community after community throughout this country, and in the cities and in rural america, unemployment rates of

30%, 40%, even 50%. and when young people are hanging out on street corners, when they are not in school, when they are not at work, bad things can happen. so what i think and i know you think, is that it makes a lot more sense for us to be interesting -- investing in jobs and education for young people, rather than jail and incarceration. i want our young people in school, not rotting in jail cells. i want this country to have the best educated population in the world, not more people in jail. than any other country in the world. [applause]

but when we look at the criminal justice issue, it is not just the fact that we have high youth unemployment. it is also necessary for us to look at local police departments all across this country. when i was a mayor for eight years in burlington, pope -- vermont, working with police officers all over the country, the average police officer works hard, is honest, and is trying to do a good job. [applause] but like any other public official, when a police officer breaks the law, that officer must be held accountable. [applause] it is time for us to

demilitarize local police departments. to make local us police departments reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. end corporate ownership of prisons and attention centers. -- detention centers. it is time for us to have a law-enforcement culture that says that legal force, the shooting -- legal force -- lethal force, the shooting of somebody, that is the last response, not the first response.

it is time for us to take a hard look at the so-called war on drugs. millions of americans over the last 30 years have received police records, because of possession of marijuana. and if you are a 19-year-old kid, going out looking for a job , having a police record does not help. believe that at a time when the federal patrol thetance act, lists marijuana as a schedule one drug , it is time to take it out of the act. but when we talk about drugs,

there's another issue we have to put front and center on the table. that is, we have an epidemic in this country of opiate and heroin addiction. every day people are dying of overdoses of heroin or opiates. but to address this crisis, we have got to be smart. and being smart means that when we deal with substance abuse, or addiction, we understand that we cannot treat those issues as criminal issues, but as health issues. [applause] and that means that we need a revolution in mental health treatment in this country.

people in america should be able to get the mental health treatment they need, when they needed, not six months from now. [applause] way, this is not just drug abuse or addiction. there are thousands of people walking the streets of this country who are suicidal and/or homicidal. i want those people to be treated, and their problems to be treated like any other health-related issue. [applause] i don't want them to have to and maybe getrms, treated eight months from now. if you are facing a mental health cut -- crisis in america, you should get the treatment you need today, not eight months

from now. this campaign is listening to ordinary americans, and not just wealthy campaign contributors. and what i am extraordinarily proud of is that this campaign has received more individual campaign contributions than any other campaign in american history, up to this point. [applause] we have received 8 million individual campaign contributions. anyone know the average contribution? $27. you know what that means?

that means, despite all the rhetoric out there, we have shown the world that you can run a winning national campaign without being dependent on wall street, drug companies or big money interests,. [applause] bernie,ting] bernie, bernie! senator sanders: this campaign has been listening to working people. and what working people are telling me is that they cannot make it on a starvation minimum hour.f $7.25 an we have to raise the wage to a living wage, $15 per hour. [applause] [chanting]

$15! senator sanders: and when we talk about equitable wages, we have also got to understand that it is not acceptable that women they are making $.79 on dollar compared to men. that has nothing to do with economics. it is just old-fashioned sexism, and together we will and that. -- we will end that. [applause] and i know that every man here is going to stand with the women in the fight for pay equity. once a month, the federal government comes out with a report on official unemployment.

usually around 5% lately. anyone here believe that real unemployment nationally is 5%? you're right, it's not. there's another federal report which doesn't get quite so much publicity,hich adds not only does who are unemployed, but those who have given up looking for work, and those that are working part-time when they want to work full-time. means that almost 10% of our people are unemployed. and obviously in certain areas of the country, the number is much higher than that. a massivey we need federal jobs program to put americans back to work. we should be hiring teachers, not firing teachers. [applause]

creating the best child care system in the world, maintaining a dysfunctional system. once upon a time, the united states had the best infrastructure in the world. roads and bridges, and water systems, and wastewater systems, and rails, we had the best rail system in the world. no longer the case. to 13 millionup good paying jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, which is exactly what i intend to do. [applause] when we talk about why the middle class has been

oneppearing for 30 years, of the reasons is a disastrous trade policy, which has allowed corporate america to shut down in this country and moved to low-wage countries abroad. have a message for corporate america. that is, if you want us to buy your products, start manufacturing them here in the united states. [applause] this campaign is listening to young people. and young people are catching on. they are the future of america, and they are dammed determined to shake the future of america. shape the future of america.

what this campaign is about is thinking outside of the box, beyond the status quo. think about this for second. everybody here knows, no debate, we are living in a highly competitive global economy. that to succeed today and in the future we need the best educated workforce in the world,. no one denies that. our job, therefore, is to encourage people not just young people, but in a technologically changing society, all people to get the best education that they can. [applause] now, 40 years ago, you had a high school degree, you were doing ok. high school degree would enable you to go out and probably get a middle-class job. that was 40 years ago, not today. when we talk about public

education, it is no longer good enough to talk about first grade through 12th grade. we have got to talk about public education meaning free tuition -- at public colleges and universities. [applause] does anybody here think that is a radical idea? >> no! senator sanders: it is an absolutely common sensical idea. it will happen sooner or later. our job is to maket sooner. [applause] here invery child washington dc and in vermont, regardless of their income, to understand that if they study ,ard, if they do well in school

they will be able to get a college education. [applause] that is what america is supposed to be about. that anybody can make it into the middle class, regardless of the income of your family. anybody here have student that they are struggling with -- student debt they are struggling with? this.about it our job is to encourage people to get the best education they can, why are we punishing millions of people forgetting a college education -- for getting a college education? what i believed we have got to

do is to make it possible for everybody who has student debt to refinance their loans at the lowest interest rate they can find. [applause] opponents and the establishment media, they say bernie is santa claus. you are giving away all of these things. giving away free tuition at colleges, lower student debt, how are you going to pay for it? here is the point we have to address. in the last 25 years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1/10 of 1%. our job is to transfer that money back into the hands of the middle class. [applause] eight years ago, as all of you

know, against my vote, congress bailed out wall street. greed,reet's recklessness, and illegal behavior nearly destroyed the economy. millions of people lost their jobs, their life savings. congress bailed them out. ail out if congress can b wall street, it is wall street's timed out the middle class of this country. -- wall street's time to help out the middle class of this country. that is why i believe we must impose a tax on wall street speculation. and that would more than cover free tuition at public colleges and universities, and lowering student debt. now, wall street doesn't like this idea. what, wallyou know

street, you are going to have to learn. you no longer are going to get it all. [applause] campaign is listening to the african-american community. [applause] the african-american community is asking all of us, how does it happen that we can spend trillions of dollars on the war in iraq we never ever should , no problem, we can bail out wall street. we can give tax breaks to billionaires, no problem. but somehow when it comes to inuilding inner cities america, providing good education, good health care,

affordable housing, somehow we seem not to have the money. and what this campaign is about is making it clear. together, we are going to change our national priorities. [applause] more tax breaks for the rich. they are going to start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] wars we should never have gotten into in the first place. but yes to rebuilding our inner cities, putting americans to work, creating the kind of environment that our children require. [applause] and this campaign is also about

telling those republican governors all across this country, we will no longer allow you to suppress the vote. [applause] people have fought too hard and too long for cowardly republican governors to try to make it harder for people of color, for young people, for old people, to participate in the political process. [applause] say to those cowardly republican governors, if you don't have enough guts to participate in free and fair elections, get out of politics, get a new job. [applause]

>> [chanting] bernie, bernie, bernie! senator sanders: this campaign is listening to the latino community. [applause] and what the latino community is telling the world is that there are 11 million undocumented people in this country, many of them living in the shadows, many of them living in fear, and many of them being exploited every day on the job. i just came back from california, and we visited central california, and spoke to the farmworkers there. what we are seeing in that part of the world and all over the country is that people who have no legal rights can be forced to work longer hours than they are

, be paid wages lower than they are supposed to, have terrible working conditions, but they have no recourse, because they have no legal rights. that has got to change. [applause] this congress, congress must own endo its responsibilities, of broken immigration system, and move toward citizenship and comprehensive immigration reform. [applause] if congress does not pass comprehensive immigration reform on the path toward citizenship, i will use the executive powers of the presidency to move it along. [applause]

this campaign is listening to a people whose pain is almost never heard. and that is the native american people. [applause] a people of great dignity. now here's a people who have been lied to, who have been cheated, who have signed treaties which have been aggregated from way before the country even became a country. that, wedespite all of all the native american people the native american people adapt of gratitude that we can never fully repay. debt of gratitude that we can never fully repay.

the lessons they have taught us. maybe this is the most profound lesson. that is that as human beings, we are part of nature. [applause] not a complicated idea, but a profound idea, which tells us we must live with nature. and as we can see increasingly every day, if we continue to destroy nature, we are destroying the human species. yet, despite all the wisdom the native american people have given us, on their reservations and in their communities all across the country, unemployment and poverty skyhigh. access to decent education and health care, abysmally low.

our job is to totally transform our relationship to the native american people, and that is what i intend to do if elected president. [applause] now, as you all know, donald trump is among, many other things -- >> [boos] senator sanders: you didn't know that donald trump, among his many other attributes, is an extraordinarily brilliant scientist. [laughter] you didn't know, because he is such a modest guy. and he studied climate change for decades. after exhaustive study, he has come to the conclusion that climate change is a hoax. hand, i have,er

as a member of the city onmittee -- senate committee the environment, i have spoken to people other than donald trump on this issue. and they have a slightly different perspective. , climate change is very real. b, climate change is caused by human activity. climate change is already doing devastating harm in our country and countries all over the world. and this is what they tell us. and this is scary stuff, but we better listen. what they tell us is if we do not get our act together in a short window of opportunity, a bad situation will become much worse. and that means more drought, more floods, more extreme weather disturbances, more acidification of the ocean, more rising sea levels.

you know what else it means? it means that there will be more international conflict, as countries and people fight for limited natural resources. our job is to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet. [applause] we have a moral responsibility. of thishe custodians planet. and guess what? ain't another planet. this is it. destroy this one, and our children and grandchildren have nowhere else to go. i believe we have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil

fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. [applause] and by the way, when we do that in an aggressive way, we can create millions of decent paying jobs. and when we work with other countries, by the way, we save the planet. what this campaign is asking people time and again, in different ways, to think outside the box. don't accept the analysis or options that the corporate media gives you. or that congress gives you. the options are not, should we have a great debate on whether we cut nutrition programs for

children or whether we cut education -- those are the options. what do you think? we reject those options. [applause] at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the other option not put on the table is that the billionaires and corporate america will start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] and what this campaign is about, iether it is education -- mentioned free tuition at public colleges and universities. do all of you know that already exists in germany? it exists in scandinavia. this is not a radical idea. and when we talk about human needs, when we talk about affordable housing, where there is in city after city -- when i

was a kid, the expectation was that families should pay 25% or 30% max of their incomes for housing. did you know that? you are laughing, because today all over the country, people are paying 50% or 60%. how the healthy you have money left over to buy food to keep the house warm, to put gas in the car, if you're paying 50% or 60% for affordable housing? build millionso of units of affordable housing. [applause] our job is not to accept that fellow americans are sleeping out on the street a few blocks away from here. never accept that as a reality. we can change it. [applause] and when we talk about human

needs, it is affordable housing. it is education. it is decent and affordable nutrition. but it is also something else, where we are way behind other countries. not discussed very much in the media. but all of you know or should know, the united states is the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all right.as of right -- a the only major country. go to germany. go to scandinavia. go to the u.k. go to holland. go to france. go to canada. i live in burlington, vermont. 50 miles away from the canadian border. not a big deal. everybody in canada has health care as a right. we aren't the only major country that that does not exist. i think it is time to end that international embarrassment. [applause]

i have been criticized for saying this, so let me say it again. in my view, health care is a human right, not a privilege. [applause] that means if you are rich, you are poor, you are young or you able to you should be go to the doctor when you need to go to the doctor. act has donee care a very good thing. but we still have a long way to go. we had 29 millions americans -- million americans today who have no health insurance. we have even more, including many of you, who are underinsured with high deductibles and high copayments. is that right?

anybody know how many people in this country die every year, because they don't get to the doctor when they should? that's right. 40,000. i talk to doctors all the time. you know what they say? they say patients come into their offices much much sicker than they should be. and the doctor says, why didn't you come in one year ago when he first felt sometimes? and people say, i did not have any health insurance. or they had a high deductible and could not afford it. 40,000 people a year die because they go to the doctor too late. that is why i believe we should pass a medicare for all single-payer program. [applause]

the issue is not what is right or wrong. anybody with any sense of morality understands that health care should be a right, that it is a disgrace that we have so many people uninsured and underinsured. the issue is the power of the private insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry. we i think it is time that , that we told the drug companies they cannot continue to charge us the highest prices in the world by far, for the medicine we need. you've got one out of five americans that cannot afford to fill prescriptions their doctors right. you have old people cutting their pills in half, because they can't afford the medicine they require. and yet, last year drug companies made $50

billion in profits. enough is enough. we will tell the pharmaceutical industry they will stop ripping off of the american people. what this campaign is about is learning the most important lesson that american history can teach us. changet is that real the topkes place from on down, but always from the bottom on up. [applause] that is the: history of america. i want you to think about it. plus years ago, there were workers all over this

country working seven days a week, 12 hours a day. they had no rights at all. but with great courage, they organized and they stood up and told their employer, we are not animals or beasts of burden. we are human beings. and they stood up and formed trade unions. [applause] 150 years ago amongst the abomination of slavery, there were african-americans and their then, who wereck sometimes going to jail, sometimes getting killed, sometimes getting beaten, sometimes losing their jobs. but millions of people said, this country will end racism and bigotry and discrimination. [applause]

and think about the courage of those people. if there in the south was a meeting of black and white workers it was against the law and they could be arrested. today.bout 100 years ago women in america did not have the right to vote. that they wanted or the education they wanted. 10-year-old girls do not know that, but it is true. women stood up and fought back. and at a time when the establishment and the ruling your job aso them, a woman is to stay home and have , women stood up and said, you will not define us, we will

define ourselves. [applause] now, it is easy to look back and say, women do not have the right to vote? is crazy. but understand what it was like in that culture at that time. the courage that those women showed, think about something even more contemporary. think about the fact that if we were here 10 years ago and somebody came up and said bernie, i think the by the year legalgay marriage will be in every state in the country. [applause] sen. sanders: if somebody had said that 10 years ago, you know what the person next to them would have said? you are crazy. there is too much homophobia and

prejudice and bigotry, a cannot happen. but what happened is, the gay community and their straight allies fought an incredibly courageous battle. and what they said loudly and proudly is that people in this country should have the right to love each other regardless of their gender. [applause] sen. sanders: think about something even more contemporary. if we were here five years ago, no time at all. , youne jumps up and says know bernie, this federal minimum wage of $7.25, we have to raise it to $15 an hour. the person next to him -- think about this. they would say, you are crazy. $15 an hour, you want to more than double the federal minimum wage. maybe we will get nine dollars too radical,15 is

too crazy, you are an extremist. you are laughing, but what happened? workers in the fast food industry in mcdonald's, in , and iking, in wendy's had the privilege to be marching with them on the streets right here in d.c. [applause] up andnders: they stood they said, you know what, we $7.25, ore it on eight dollars or $10, and we need $15 an hour. and you know what happened? once the people started dealing with that, seattle, they passed it, and los angeles and san francisco, $15 an hour. state,fornia, new york

and finally cities and towns all over the country, $15 an hour. so what seemed impossible, what seemed radical just a few years ago is now commonplace. $15 an hour? that is what we need. here is the point of all that. what seems radical today will seem mainstream tomorrow if we stand together and make those changes. [applause] sen. sanders: what i am seeing all over this country, it is extraordinary. and i haveto coast, been coast to coast, people are standing up and looking around. they say, you know what?

having the top 1% owning more wealth than the bottom 90% is unacceptable. class yearmiddle after year decline, people having to work two or three jobs, unacceptable. having veterans sleep out on the street, unacceptable. citizens living on year, on in11,000 a adequate social security, unacceptable. schoolyoung people leave $50,000 in debt, unacceptable. having our infrastructure collapse in front of us while sony workers are sitting out to rebuild that

infrastructure, unacceptable. country arever this looking at the status quo and they understand that it is too late for east tablet meant politics and establishment economics. we need real change in this country. what people also understand is that no president, not bernie sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. are we need in this country millions of people standing up, fighting back, and demanding the government that represents all of us, not just the 1%. [applause] that is what this campaign is

all about. and next tuesday here in washington, you will be having the very last primary of the democratic nominating process. extraordinary if the people of washington, our nations capital, stood up and world that they are ready to lead this country into a political revolution. thank you all very much. [applause] ["starman" by bowie]

[muse]

>> coming up tonight on c-span, house speaker paul ryan meets with republicans on the national security agenda. after that, the second day of the democratic national committee platform hearings. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with the news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, we are devoting the first hour of the program to the life and legacy of mohammed ali. then, with the release of the bipartisan policy commission report on retirement security

earlier this week, the cochairs of that commission, kent conrad of north dakota, and james talk about the commission's findings, the obstacles to workers financial security, and ways to enhance and secure retirement and personal savings. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on friday morning. join the discussion. >> republican presidential candidate donald trump and senator mitch mcconnell are among the speakers at the faith and freedom coalition conference. you can see it friday starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. secretary, 72 of our delegate votes go to the next .resident of the united states

>> next, house speaker paul ryan joins congressional republicans to unveil their national security plan, vocus thing on border security and fighting terrorism. from the council for foreign relations, this is 90 minutes.

>> good morning. iank you hall for being here, am angie mitchell, the chief correspondent from abc news. i usually anger a program on msnbc at noon every day, but i am here instead. moment such an important in our history. reallybeen out doing dangerous things. i have been involved in serious combat in the last nine months, i would say. in dangerous places, facing extraordinary challenges, unlike the national security i have been covering, i have been covering the 2016 campaign. here to a relief to be talk about terrorism and national security. and what we can do to make our economy secure, because i think that is also a national security issue. we are credibly honored today to have the meeting house chairman

from the national security and foreign policy of foreign and thecommittee, speaker of the house, paul ryan. it is my great privilege to introduce paul ryan. i want to thank you for a line me to moderate this. it is such an honor. improving national security, speaker ryan will give opening remarks. he was elected to congress in 1988, representing the first --trict ever since, served he has long advocated fixing the nation's tax code, and reforming entitlement programs. he ran as the republican nominee for vice president. houseame speaker of the seven months ago. in april he made his first visit as -- foreign visit as a speaker to the middle east.

taking over this position last fall, speaker ryan helped republicans create six different task forces to show how republicans would govern ifhey take back the white house. they have dubbed this, a better way. today he is unveiling the national security agenda. earlier this week he unveiled their domestic agenda, and appropriately for those of us who have some memory, the district of columbia. evoke thetrying to memory of jack kemp, a friend to many of us in journalism. join me in welcoming speaker paul ryan to the podium. [applause] mr. ryan: thank you very much andrea, appreciate it. and i want to thank you for

hosting us. it is kind for you to take her time out of this day and give us this beautiful facility. i do not want to take up too much time today. all the members you will be hearing from, they put in the long hours and hard work for this. them, asr to hear from i know you are. i do want to say a few words about why we thought this plan was so necessary. in january we came together at our retreat in baltimore and discussed what is it we ought to do to offer the country a better way. to take the problems of the day and offer people real solutions. weone of those areas where thought this was so sorely needed was in the area of foreign policy. the prime minister of india yesterday, it was a great day. he spoke before congress. it was a great moment for the growing friendship between our two countries.

the main reason it was notable is because nowadays it is so rare. in the past seven years, our friendships have frayed and our rivalries intensified. it is not too much to say that our nana mise -- enemies no longer fear us and our allies no longer trust us. i think it is a direct result of the president's foreign policy. he has backed away from syria. without iran would not get nuclear weapons, but the deal he negotiates all that ensures it. until ited away isis threw off the iraqi government. his response to russia's aggression has been timid, at best. all he did was create a void. but really, he created many voids around the world. and now, our enemies are stepping in to fill those voids.

this is what happens when america does not lead. do we think our allies have to do more? absolutely. but they will not do more to defend our shared interests if they think america will leave them in a lurch. america has to set the standard. byhas to show the world words and by deeds that diplomacy, trade, and cooperation are in all of our interests. willwise, other countries pursue their own narrow, short-term interests. that means less safety for all of us, less prosperity. we need a confident america. that is what will keep the peace. that will keep us safe. and that is what this plan will do. in here we lay out four objectives. keep americans safe at home, defeat the terrorists, advance

america's interests abroad, and her new our national security tools. we lay out 67 policy steps that we will take to put this plan into action. means securing our borders. that means stopping cyber attacks. that means taking the fight against terrorism to the enemy. it means building a 21st century military, revamping the veterans affairs for our veterans, and sharpening law-enforcement tools. it means expanding america's influence, which means, expanding free enterprise and the community of free nations. that is what will restore confidence. that is what we want to do. that is what we are seeking with our policies. i am so proud of the work of the work our members have put into this. this is just the second part of our six part agenda which we will be unveiling over the next few weeks. you want to learn more about this, go to our website,

better.gop. thank you. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. joining us now, the chairman of the house of homeland security , toittee, michael mccaul talk about homeland security. as the first piece of this foreign-policy agenda. senator mackall, thank you very much. these are controversial times, and you have talked the borders, the airport problems we have. i have interviewed you many times on this.

how is this agenda you're putting out, how does it improve , given what sharing is now the failure we see? this is a very important document for republicans and the nation. it is our number one responsibility under the constitution. i would say we are in the highest threat environment since 9/11. and last point of departure airports are a serious concern. i just returned from cairo, egypt to look at their airports. they have daily flights into jfk. that concerns me. there are many last point departure airports that are not alure, and we know that qaeda and isis are intent on putting bombs on airplanes, as resolve with the russian jetliner. we do not know for sure about the egyptian airliner. al qaeda in the arabian

peninsula is really focused. our blueprint calls for a beefing up of security in those last point of departure airports, better vetting, better screening at airports. it is about identifying threats and keeping them outside of the country, whether they are bad people or bad weapons. terris, or weapons of mass destruction. the border applies, as well. we need a secure border to stop central terrorists from entering the nation. isis talks about taking a pakistan nuclear weapon and smuggling it across the u.s.-mexico border. areof these components vitally important to protecting americans here at home. i think this document that we worked very hard on gives a good

blueprint to protect americans. add, we have had so many terrorist sanctuaries pop up overseas, and safe havens, and from there they can conduct external operations. that raises concern, whether it is in yemen, or the sinai peninsula, tunisia, libya. course,s strong, and of iraq and syria. and we saw what happened in brussels and paris. we do not want to see those types of active shooter plots and suicide bombers happen here in the united states. document, tohis protect the american people with an overarching vision for security, for a strong america that can face threats and the 21st century. how would that be different, going forward?

say, under president trump. first of all, let me join the speaker in thinking you and the council on foreign relations for offering us this forum today. michael mccaul and the work our committee members have put in as well. you will hear a lot of criticism today of the current administration, including from me. but this is about a better way because we think there are a lot of things not being done by this administration that should be done by a new president who would sign into law bills we have been working on in congress for the next few years. is in those major areas conjunction with the homeland security committee, the judiciary committee has control over immigration policy and enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the country.

we are a nation of immigrants. there is not a person here in this audience who cannot go back a few generations are several generations and find someone from their family who came to the united states to better their lives for themselves and their families. we are also a nation of laws. i believe this administration has lost sight of that. the first thing we call for is enforcement of our current laws. that means it when people show up at the border, some enter the country illegally, and we are not doing as much as we could to apprehend them. some turn themselves in. -- dumpeddubbed their their documents in mexico before arriving at our border. they are admitted in the country and given a date to appear for an asylum hearing, and a been a great majority of them do not ever show up for those hearings. that is a decision that this administration has made to not

detain people on a much higher percentage basis. or find some other way to assure they will return to be adjudicated properly. we also have a problem with people entering the country and claiming political asylum or refugee status, and not being held until that determination is made. we have bills that have passed out of the judiciary committee that we think should be utilized to make sure that americans are kept safe by making sure the people do not enter the country who may perpetrate a terrorist attack. we have also found that we have problems with our legal immigration system as well. to 40% of people here illegally entered the country legally on student visas or others, and then overstayed their allotted time and not left

the country voluntarily. problems withd the processing of people into the country. the woman who with her country perpetrated the horrific terrorist attack in san bernardino, california. the evidence is very strong that they were not properly vetted visas, andpply for she tried to join her husband. and bills have been passed signed into law, such as the visa waiver modification. others have passed the house of representatives with a strong bipartisan vote, like checking up on refugees coming from certain war-torn countries or countries dominated by terrorists in the middle east, like syria and iraq. these are a part of our agenda to keep americans safe. the other world the judiciary committee plays in this process is in terms of making sure that our law enforcement and our

intelligence gathering organizations of the tools they need to gather the information and keep america safe. at the same time we have to make sure we are protecting american civil liberties. last year congress passed into law the usa freedom act, which stopped the government from ofhering huge quantities metadata. not just telephone, but financial and health information. then taking that information and ostensibly good purposes, but having the government store large quantities of data is for and what most americans think the government should be doing. we stop to that. but at the same time, give additional tools to law-enforcement and intelligence organizations to be able to track terrorists more efficiently, while there are suspected terrorists in the united states. we have made an important contribution to a better way

forward to keep americans safe. our next panel will discuss how to address these foreign-policy issues going on offense. the defense has got to be strong, as well. defense, howf a does a ban on muslims contribute to our national security? you cannot ban an entire race or religion from coming into the country. what you need is a proper vetting system. and as we tied up the visa security standards, it is very important. passed in introduced the house. what we have to do is target the threat and properly vet. i marked of a bill that deals with tightening up these standards using social media,

what was not done in the san bernardino case. is the document we hope the nominee will read and pay attention to. there are ways to properly vet and protect us from coming in -- any religion on coming into the united states. hurtsthink that rhetoric national security, in terms of interactions with foreign leaders? mr. mccaul: this is a better way us, and weadvise hope the nominee will read that, as well. we have to be careful in our rhetoric because that can inflame the muslim community and in fact help their recruiting efforts.

i see this from a homeland standpoint. but i see threats of their, as well. on the offense to take out the threat -- for instance in libya, we are holding back our military strikes that could take out a large training camp over .sis we have the same problem in yemen. finally after three and a half years we are starting to ramp up our military operations. but that alone will not solve the problem. it has to be a political and diplomatic solution. and if i can mention countermeasures that are so important here. we need to develop a counter isistive, against propaganda. it is a war of ideology at the

end of the day. strikest be won by war alone. and i have tasked to the department of security to make it a priority and a focus, and the state department. you cannot just do it with the united states flag, you have to do it through community leaders, religious leaders, and win a war of ideas. ms. mitchell: how do you win a war of ideas? i have cover the state department since 1994 and have watched them a craddick republican administrations and secretaries of state of all description, unable to use our diplomacy in a truly effective way against this type of topic in the. and isis is so much more adept at social media. we have a new generation of terrorists who are very effective on the internet, and a radicalized enough people to recruit 40,000 jihadists into iraq and syria, the largest in

history. now they do the external operations. so we have to counter that message, some private companies like google and facebook are trying to counter that -- that message. and we need the local communities -- and the sunni needs to step up to the plate to protect their own backyard and religion. and it istte: important to understand that legislation advises the state department when they announced a policy of not examining publicly available social media. but that is important to do because it can give you leads and clues to the background of the person applying that is coming into the united states. malik had already been radicalized before she applied

for her visa. she went through several interviews and it was never determined that she was a threat to the united states. but if they did background checks like social media, or checking where she was educated, they might have had a more informed body of information to determine whether or not she should have been admitted to the united states. ms. mitchell: i want to ask about cyber security because we have seen a complete failure throughout the government of government websites, it.h did not it knowledge we have seen the hack of the state department, [indiscernible] mr. mccaul: we talked a lot about active shooter's with isis, and we looked at the

potential consequences, far graver a threat in many ways. when you look at criminal theft of i.t. and espionage in china. espionage 20 million clearances from the u.s. government with absolutely no consequence to it. this administration did not respond to that kind of attack. we have to have a better proportion of response when they attack us like that. the cyber worker pieces keep me up a night. it is the ability to shut things down, weatherby power grids, financial institutions, caused utter chaos in the nation. but physical in terms of what can be done offense of way, we need to do a better job on the defense to protect this nation. and betterte: resources to our military and intelligence organizations to be

able to combat cyber crimes of all types, from identity theft to cyber warfare. you also need to recognize that encryption technology is a good thing. it causes problems for us, but when done well and done right, it is the most effective at hacking into government agencies, retail businesses, banks, all the different types of ways we of seen people made vulnerable. encryption is a good thing and we should be working to make sure it is stronger and stronger, where working with intelligence organizations him on forstmann to make sure they have tools. that is why the judiciary committee works together to create a working group on this very subject to come up with proposals based upon work with intelligence and law enforcement

organizations, technology companies, civil liberties organizations to find the appropriate way to advance this technology. we are not going to stop it. we do not want the bad guys to have access to it. it hinders our own access to it. but at the same time, find ways to make it possible for law enforcement. mr. mccaul: one of the greatest challenges to federal law enforcement, encryption is a cause for us. the end to end encryption? themccaul: you look at paris attacks, brussels. i do not want to see that happen in the united states. what worries me is that they can communicate in darkness now when we cannot see what they are saying. what they'ree saying in advance, it is hard to disrupt the plot. arenow individuals in syria talking to individuals in the united states, as i speak. and we cannot see what they are saying. this is one of the biggest threats.

and congress needs to deal with this issue, as well, and tackle this. because god for bid and active , we need to fix this problem. it is highly complex, as bob knows, but it is one of the greatest challenges we have. ourmitchell: and one of members, please identify yourself with your name and affiliation. questions, not comments because they want to get through as many of you as possible. we have microphones. >> thank you for being here, i'm from the naval postgraduate school. i am struck by a number of things. the incredible complexity and interdependency the world is today. and a number of things one needs to know. democracy is very hard

to do, and when we go into iraq and decimate all the leadership and expected to miraculously -- we have to understand these countries, first of all. but the thing i am asking is, what does the u.s. have to offer these countries? there is an egyptian now doing terrorist work that was an a program here last fall. there were 17 people in the do nothe said, americans understand why people become terrorists. he says you do not recognize these are young men with no opportunities, no purpose in life, they are offered $2000 a month, a gun, and a truck, and a reason. he said, you cannot deal with of that. none of this has easy answers. if you have easy answers, please share them with all of us here.

>> we do not have easy answers. the best things we have to offer is the example. and i know, and i have read societiesely about that are predominated by a has a veryure that close interrelationship between .he government and religion in the united states it is different because we have a constitution that protects religious freedom in ways that are simply not respected in these countries. nonetheless, i believe that making people aware around the world that freedom is a very precious thing, and worth having, will eventually win the day, even in some of these most difficult countries, like countries in the middle east. in the meantime, we have to deal with of this terrorist threat. we cannot say it does not affect us over here. an importantt is

question. i just came back from the region. many hotspots. we had to deal with it offense, taking up a threat. military, but the political and diplomatic resolutions, like in iraq it broke down, it imploded. formation ofhe isis began. now we are seeing it in sinai, tunisia, and libya. that is where the counter narrative and the war of ideas and ideology -- we have to do a much better job at this. and i don't think we are doing as good of a job as we could. we talk about foreign affairs and economic assistance packages , but it is really a combination. it's not all about drone strikes. ms. mitchell: jane harman.

congresswoman jane harman, former member from california. ranking on intelligence. ms. harman: thank you. i was elected with you, rob, and i worked very closely with you, mike, on the homeland committee. my question is this. a republican agenda is a good thing to have in an election year and there are lots of things on this agenda that i strongly agree with. if a democrat is elected president, will you work with her to enact parts of this agenda and hopefully as compromise occurs, try to put the country first because all of us are going to be victims of terror attacks, not just people in one party. mr. mccaul: terrorists don't check our party affiliation. they don't care if we're republican and democrat. i am hopeful of this document. it will be the house g.o.p. blueprint, but as i mentioned at the outset, i hope this is a document for all americans because i think these principles are correct.

and it is a better way forward. and so obviously we're going to work with whoever the president is on trying to advance this agenda. mr. goodlatte: and many of these items are in here that we've already been working on in a bipartisan way in the congress. there have been some things that have been very positive, signed into law by the current president. the answer is congress has the responsibility to the american people to work with whoever the chief executive is. i will say that i hope it is somebody other than the lady that you're referring to because the track record of the current president working with us to not take his pen and his cell phone and bypass the congress but actually work with the congress has not been good. and we're looking for leadership that says i want to work with the congress and i want to get things done and that includes foreign policy and actual -- national defense issues where it is especially important that we have a coordinated effort to represent the united states before the rest of the world. ms. harman: well, i strongly agree and hopefully we have

that. mr. mccaul: my concern, as well, i think not to be too partisan but i think the administration and mrs. clinton and the foreign policy, she's the architect of much of this after the arab spring and it has created -- my concern from the homeland standpoint is so many terrorist sanctuaries and safe havens that they can operate out of to attack americans in the homeland, that's one of my biggest concerns. we want to change that course. ms. mitchell: there is a question back there. thank you, jane. >> thank you. i'm richard downey from consulting. great comments. thank you very much. chairman mccaul, you opened your remarks by saying that we need to secure the border. there are a lot of people who say that the border is more secure today than it has ever been. my question is, what is the criteria that will let us know that we have a secure border? donald trump is going to build a wall. is it zero migrants coming

across, is it a percentage, is it zero flow of drugs, is it some percentage? what's the criteria to let us know when we have a secured border? mr. mccaul: it's when we can gain operational control. you can define that. we're catching less than half of what is coming in. what bob and i worry about is what's coming in we don't know , about? we know we are apprehending special interest aliens from countries that concern us. we're apprehending them. how many have gotten in this country? that's one of the biggest concerns. i believe, and i have a bill that got out of our committee is a multi-layered approach to basically create a barrier to prevent illegal aliens but also potential terrorists from coming into the united states that involves not just fencing, although fencing is important and infrastructure, but also , technology and aviation assets

and manpower to respond. one important program we passed was the department of defense transferring excess surplus property from afghanistan to the southwest border so we have that visibility. right now we can't see 100% what's happening on the ground. if you can't see what's happening, it's very difficult to respond to it. so i think the answer is, when we achieve operational control. we're far from that right now. mr. goodlatte: and i agree with all of that. the other piece of it, you have to have the will to enforce the law. and when you have policies now where border patrol agents and i.c.e. agents are on a vy frequent basis complaining about instruction from their superiors to not turn people away, to not detain people, to let people in even without documentation, that part of people being admitted in the country not because they evaded detection, but said, here

i am, i want in, and the administration finding more and more reasons to let them in as opposed to turn them away and , not enforce the law once they overstayed their presence in the country is an equally important , component of that. the 9/11 hijackers and the san bernardino killing all took place with people who were at least initially lawfully present in the united states. mr. mccaul: bob and i worked on the u.s. exit program that deals with visa overstays. 40%, as bob mentioned the hijackers, it's the political will that's missing. we can get this done. it's achievable, but we just don't have the political will to do it. ms. mitchell: thank you very -- >> thank you very much. barbara from the atlantic council. i look forward to reading your report. how are you going to muster the

financial resources to pay for the barrier, the additional personnel, also the additional visa people that would be required to do a better job of vetting? is that specified in this document? what would you take from in order to pay for this? thank you. mr. mccaul: we don't specify what it comes from where but it's all about what is your priority. i think bob and i agree. this should be a priority for the nation because the number one principle in the constitution is providing for a common defense, whether it be our military hitting isis overseas, or protecting our prevent to protect and bad people and bad things from coming in. we didn't talk about the drug cartels and the damage they do. in my bill we looked at potentially the o.c.o. funding. there's emergency funding. it's an emergency situation to potentially pay for that. where there's a will there's a way. the problem is the will's not there. mr. goodlatte: yeah. when you express that will in a way that says to people in central america and other

places, if you come to the united states you are not going to be admitted under the terms they are now being told they are being admitted. there are savings to be achieved by not having people make that long dangerous journey across mexico to show up at our borders because they were given a promise and paid money themselves to pay coyotes who are part of the organized crime syndicates in mexico. we are creating this problem by sending the wrong message about what will happen when you arrive at the u.s. border. >> william hauser, armed forces and society. you, gentlemen, are students of history. how can you support a candidate whose movement may, four years

from now, come back to threaten our democracy? [laughter] mr. goodlatte: that's a very general statement. i look for more specifics. for example, i am very encouraged by the list of supreme court nominees that the candidate that you refer to, mr. trump, has put forward as potential replacements for justice antonin scalia. his death was a tremendous loss from my standpoint, in terms of someone that respects the constitution, the rule of law. i believe those are 10 potential nominees who reflect that. i am encouraged by a candidate who says he wants a vice-presidential nominee who understands the legislative process so that he, meaning mr. trump, can work better with the congress. something that would be a vast improvement over the current circumstance that we find. these are things that you have to look to to determine who would make the best president of the united states, and i agree with mike.

you also have to look at the track record of the person who was our secretary of state and i think a lot of the problems that we have now exacerbated during her leadership or lack of leadership in working in the obama administration. so this is going to be a great presidential debate. i look forward to hearing more, but i like what i've been hearing lately from that candidate about who he would want to see involved in positions of leadership in our government. mr. mccaul: bill, if i could answer that, too. i think it's important that our nominee has good advisors and good advice on this particular issue which is the most important issue facing the nation, i believe. so good foreign policy advisors, good national security advisors. i've had discussions with mayor giuliani about trying to get advisors. you know, reagan wasn't his strength, but he made it his strength because he surrounded himself with good people and

good advisors. and one i think exercise by producing this report is not only to educate our own members moving forward but to advise and support the nominee. >> chairman goodlatte, do you have any concerns in a separate way from the 11 potential supreme court justices that he might nominate, when he talks about a federal judge and says affirmatively he does not think that a federal judge can be unbiased because of his ethnicity, does that raise concerns about the judgment and his respect for the separation of powers? mr. goodlatte: i think we have a long tradition in our country and in our party of respecting people's rights under our constitution. and i hope that our candidate does surround himself with the types of people that mike described that will encourage him to look at it from that

vantage point. it is no doubt that we have a very outspoken candidate, and i'm sure we'll have a lot more to hear from him. i am looking for lots of different ideas from him that will cause me to believe that he will surround himself with good people here he ms. mitchell: and listen to them? mr. goodlatte: and listen to him and follow their advice and exercise good leadership. ms. mitchell: more questions. yes, sir. >> i'm mark with the electronic privacy information center. and i want to thank you for raising the issue of the opium data breach and, mr. goodlatte, for your leadership on the encryption issue. it seems part of the cybersecurity threat facing the united states is not only the vulnerability of government agencies and u.s. business but actually the personal data of u.s. consumers and u.s. citizens

being stored by these large organizations. and americans seem to reflect a they are notn that receiving adequate protection. so my question is simply this. to what extent do you think data protection should be an issue in this election season? mr. goodlatte: well, i very much believe it should be and is an issue in this election, and i think that's driven primarily not by government, not by business but by individuals who understand that the way their information is stored and the value of information that is intangible, that is stored in the cloud and other ways has changed dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years and therefore their expectations with regard to what protections should be provided for that information has changed as well and i think the congress and the administration need to reflect and respect that change of

attitude. understanding all the while that mike mccaul's concerns and my concerns about national security and about keeping people safe from people who would abuse this technology is important. it is also important to understand that the technology itself can be used in a positive way to advance and protect people's lives. that's why we passed unanimously 419-0 the reform legislation just recently that's now over in the senate. i hope the senate acts upon it because that is an enhancement of the protection of people's privacy that i think they want and expect. mr. mccaul: i will say in the cybersecurity bill we passed, we met very closely with the privacy advocates. that was very important to me that we protect personally identifying information. as we try to share these malicious codes to protect not only the federal government and the o.p.m. breach was really an assault on the country, an act of espionage by china, but also

protect the private sector, critical infrastructures by getting these codes to be able to lock the door so that networks can't be penetrated and intruded by criminals, espionage and nation state actors. ms. mitchell: that concludes our time with this first panel, but i want to thank chairman mccaul and goodlatte for participating and we have a lot more to come. thank you for starting the3 actors. >> that concludes our time with to first panel and i want thank chairman mccaul in participating. come.ve a lot more to and thank you for starting the conversation. . [applause] >> and while we change places here, our next speaker is the house majority leader, kevin mccarthy. leader mccarthy was first lected to congress in 2006, representing california's 23rd district. elected as thy was

majority leader in 2014. terror g the paris attacks in november last year, creating a d with new task force on homeland security to address critical security gaps at home and abroad as well as tackling the foreign fighter flow to iraq and syria. he stays in regular contact with our allies around the globe and very involved in creating this better way agenda. welcoming me in majority leader kevin mccarthy podium. [applause [applause]. mccarthy: this is part of speaker ryan's plan of changing the house. the house becomes changing ideas, provokes debate and lays agenda. a lot has changed in the last few years. there was a time not long ago when america stood with its allies and against its enemys and when america's strength and engagement led to peace and

prosperity, not just here but around the world. current the administration's direction, america took a step back from he world and it had allowed others like isis, russia, and china to fill the void. time and s shown us again that the world can only be safer place when america leads, and we need american leadership again. we need american leadership in the middle east to stop the rising tide of terrorism in the alliesthat threatens our and has already spilled over into america and european soil. but it's not just suni-sponsored terrorism. destabilizing regional and global activities has only increased since the signing of the iran deal. the iranian government has proven what we always knew. hey had no intention of changing their ways. we need american leadership in alliance support our structures and to ensure that our allies are holding up their end of the bargain.

then we can present a unified nd hardened front against russian expansion that has increased tensions to the sinces that have not seen the cold war. we need american leadership in of , to defend freedom navigation, and to stop the power n the balance of that would threaten our allies and interests in the region. china's illegal land, reclaimation, and north korea's advancement, pose strategic threats to the region. what our task force on national security has done is outlined a different path than the one that the president obama has led us down the past seven years. it is a path that recognizes safe if we only be proactively engage abroad, rather than hide behind our the motion eave challenging problems for others to deal with. demands we that invest. invest in our unmatched military

capabilities. that means cyber defense, active and our reserve forces, veterans so that every part of the defenses have the resource needs.s it unfortunately, america has lost significant standing on the stage in the most recent years. and that respect can only be strong with a investment, firm resolve, and proper leadership. through deliberating this task force of national security, has shown what it will america safe and regain our standing in the world. and the he resources will. the question we bring before the american people, will we make choices? i want to thank the task force, all the man, and members within congress who participated. what s the question of america and the world will look like in the future. the world of safer when america leads. thank you.

[applause] [applause]. ost: let me, first of all, thank leader mccarthy for his comments. we're joined on stage by four chairman.mittee we have the chairman of the veterans affairs committee, jeff florida. and the chairman of house of lligence, devin nunez, california. he chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, ed royce, also of california. and finally, the house armed

committee, mr. thornbury of texas. thank you all. all of these chairman are also of course on this task force on national security. we're going to have a discussion our how we advance interest abroad renewing our security tools. start with north korea, to take an easy subject. that confirmed this week north korea restarted their roduction of plutonium fuel, showing that they plan to proceed with their nuclear all of in defiance of the international sanctions. royce, ask you, chairman what is the best way to try to eter north korea aside from trying to rely on our efforts with the chinese? to have slowed this young leader down at all.

chairman royce: and i'm not so sure they tried to slow them down. the only thing that has worked is the sanctions on delta asia. think think about it, back to 2006-2007, when that was tried, we actually shut down their mission production line. he couldn't pay his generals, and that's the one point in time hen things were really desperate in north korea. our treasury department had done they were caught counterfitting $100 bills. department convinced the administration department to lift the sanctions at that time. legislation in december. it was signed by the president, a sanctions effort on north korea to do exactly what we did then, exactly what was successful. so at this point in time, we've that through with the united nations. we have an initiative, which of hard the flow currency that north korea needs, both to pay its military and to carry out its missile program

and its nuclear program. withwe have to do is stick that policy. we need tough enforcement on and the new chapter that anyone now dealing with korean banking system to be able to bank with the united states. that's a tough decision to make, but they will cut off now their work with hard currency in north korea. i believe that that is the way to get them to the table. what aboutman nunez, our intelligence efforts in this regard? is this one of the hardest targets we have, and how are we continuously surprised by what doing. un is ep nunez: i don't think any of

us in the intelligence community are surprised. have felt for a long time the administration down played the youth of the leader of north korea and i think misjudged how he would act, and if you look at what they're doing, this is forlar behavior they've had many decades now, what's appening in north korea, is absolutely just -- it's -- you know, there's probably 5 million people or more that are living like animals. you know, i've been on the border of north korea before on the south korean side, and i've it.er seen anything like just hill sides, not a weed, not a stick, anything. so i don't think we're surprised. i just think as chairman royce said, this is going to take the chinese working with the new administration if we're going to . t something done there host: chairman thornbury, how concerned should we be about the chinese in the north korean

seas? port accesss denied a couple of weeks ago in hong kong, for one of our carrier groups. escalating, nots deescalating, at a time when you have secretary newman, secretary kerry in beijing this week working on other aspects of the relationship. rep. thornbury: it is escalating and i think we should be very concerned, despite what the chinese have said in the past, they are clearly building of the ocean out in the south china sea, and part of their objectives is to control key shipping lanes and out, so that so that they essentially have are dominance in that region. on a hink even kind of broader point, which is connected to the north korean question you were asking, the world is watching what happens. see the russians take

rovocative action not just in crimia and ukraine but in buzzing our ships. the press report are today was did a similar e thing with one of our airplanes, watches, and they see how we respond, if we do, and that informs the chinese and north koreans and the iranians and others of what they can get away it. one book described it as a probing action and i think you see these aggressors all around and one of ting us, the proposals putting out today, is military strength and leadership, engagement in the world, not trying to lead from and d, but being strong that is essential. it doesn't automatically solve all these issues we're talking about, but it's essential, and if we don't do that, then you're more to see the chinese be

aggressive, putin be more aggressive, as well as north korea, iran and others. host: i have to ask you about onald trump's suggestions that we get out of alliances like nato, that we let south korea nd japan on their own arm themselves, that we don't work in concert with our allies. ow does that fit with the agenda that you lay out today? can't ornberry: well, i world view or anybody else's. the agenda we lay out today talks about the importance of alliances. as frustrating as it can be to ork with allies, and we encourage, for example, our european allies to do more, to our joint more, to efense efforts, but whether we're talking about the pacific, the middle east, africa, or europe, alliances are essential. but we've got to be a good ally, and as you heard the speaker say there are moreg,

questions than ever about how and ble we are as an ally, we have got to turn that around, because we will not attract who have are -- or countries who have doubts about us. i think irman miller, you have been advising the nominee in some regard on national security issues. what do you see as the prospects as he becomes the commander in chief, president trump? rep. miller: a strong commander in chief. question as it relates to nato, and the truth is, our nato partners aren't going to have to pay more of their fair share, and that's what mr. trump has been talking about. much of the gdp that some of our allies have been spending have een on programs other than what's required as a nato partner. i don't see anything wrong with asking them to step up and do what they're supposed to do. the united states does and always does more. said, parteagues have of the problem that exists out

here today certainly is one of trust with our allies. we have allies that will say, we trust now whether we can the current administration. and then the vacuum that is created where countries like russia, china, can probe and probe until we finally push back and say enough is enough and that hasn't happened yet, so they're going to keep doing it. host: let me ask you about syria war.the ongoing civil we have seen an explosion of not but of ration, casualties, civilian casualties. we've seen the challenges of any kind of nd up resistance force. what do you s, think the possibility is based on what you know, and you have allgreater information than of us in the audience, of ctually reaching the kind of diplomatic solution with russia as engaged as it is? which is the policy that

secretary kerry has been trying allies.ge in with the rep. nunes: well, i think it's almost a fool's error to believe that you're going to truly end this quickly. the russians are on the offensive. they have very few rules of engagement, so they're killing the e, most likely into thousands. just yesterday, there was even attacks, and it looks like attacks.discriminate it's almost -- the administration is kidding going to , if we're continue with the rules of engagement that we have now with syria and iraq, and we're going to continue to downplay the growth of isis and al-qaida, leads you to bad decision making. so if you're asking me, you -- you know, s what do we promote as a republican party? look, let's identify the problem. to try to say that isis or al-qaida's only in syria, that doesn't -- you know, that's not

a policy. if you even include iraq, that's not a grand strategy. if you have to look at north africa, which, quite frankly, is here a lot of this problem began in the first place, because a lot of the weapons and the fighters originally came, transferred after libya collapsed, began to transfer syria, joined all the groups, and then you started the civil war. actually go n to fter isis and al-qaida and hopefully fix the problem in syria has to be and that's sing, they need is a fresh set of eyes and leadership to do that. host: and chairman royce, when we're looking at what's happening in iraq right now, you've got an attempt to go back fallujah.o take back concerns that moza should be the first priority, do fallujah

first. increasing role of the iranian-backed militias. hat is the possibility that iran will end up having more nfluence in iraq than even we, after all of the blood and made there. ve rep. royce: this goes to the original blunder on the part of the administration. we needed to tilt to iran but we need to tilt to the people in point in time when the election was stolen and the ople in iran were crying engagement, the po polling, as you know, show that want a westernle style democracy without a theocracy. instead, the administration made the decision to engage with the ayatollah. made the decision to go forward and investigate. and in so doing, empowered is regime in t military

so many ways and subsequently, as bought into this idea now, that they can't defend the seen n regime, and we've this in a whole slew of decision to ng, giving them access the dollar, the attempt to do that, the heavy water subsidy and so forth, but you also see it in the policy decisions of ever moreran to exert influence in baghdad. when we pulled out the u.s. resence in baghdad, the iranians moved in, in terms of their influence. ost: doesn't that really go back to the previous decision, malaki. for wasn't malaki cracking down leaders that ni led to the growth of iranians. rep. royce: and we pushed on that, we in congress pushed on that issue. but the situation you have today iran is which dictating terms. so when i move legislation or we to, to arm the kurds, or

or to arm the suni tribes the azites, or we try to reach re out to the christians, "no, no, no" comes the retort out of baghdad. you've got to go through us. which means you've got to go through the influence that the shias and especially iran have here. so instead of seeing on that 650-mile front in which the kurds and others are battling, instead, you sis, see a situation where it's the coming in from iran where the influence and the decision making is empowering fight er fighters from iran to go into fallujah. can you imagine the situation bring shia into a suni rea where you allowed the tribal leaders to be pushed out, that want to do the fighting and take their villages back.

no, the solution here should have been to assure that the suni tians, the kurds, the tribes, be given the weapons those weapons d to the united states to take their villages back. movement of shia militia into those areas that is compounding all of those problems and, again, that goes to the deverence that we're in allthe iranian regime of this, in order not to offend. we're walking on egg shells, and that makes it impossible for us to have a grand strategy here, to eliminate isis and do some of need to do. ngs we host: chairman thornberry, when we look at north africa and what congressman nunes referred to as the growth there of some of these terror groups, how inansive can our military be this area, libya and other areas. reconcile what

some have are called neoisolationist groups within the republican coalition who want less engagement, not more engagement, because there are in two epublican party, strands of thinking about how we should be. should we be helping libya right becoming vent it from a totally failed state? rep. thornberry: i think actually what you see is a lot of frustration at military tied.ment with our hands and just going back to some of questions you were asking about iraq and syria in the engagements have had severe constraints about them, hich have made them less effective than they might otherwise be. host: talking about syria? rep. thornberry: well, no, i'm talking about iraq as well, and certainly the red line in syria, the limitations on where we can drop bombs, the limitations on where our people could go.

the past ut over several months, the administration has been loosening those restraints somewhat. you've seen somewhat of effectiveness at least in territory. is that you've had seven and-a-half years of trying narrative, that the terrorists were on the run, we don't really have to be arious about it, and there is lot of frustration. i don't think it's just republicans. at engagements that are half-hearted, or have these sorts of constraints on them. now, having said that, you remove all constraints. are we going to be able to solve libya tomorrow? of course not. ut i do believe our military very good ave gotten at working with others, trying indigenous forces, to push back against these terrorists is a way forward, but to what one gets back

we were talking about while ago. there are other people, other countries who are willing to be much more engaged but they're not going to do it on their own. they've got to see u.s. leadership. that's why the central thrust of this document is strength and engagement. host: let me ask all of you about trade and the transpacific partnership. we've heard from both presumptive nominees criticisms of these trade deals. ow would you leaders in the house approach these trade contrast to ly in what we're hearing from both of the nominees? >> one of the things i think the american people maybe are not beijing has that got an initiative under way, for across reements all supplant u.s. f influence throughout that region. nd those trade deals, andrea, are based on a concept of trade,

with no e, but standards. no rules. what the united states needs is free trade agreements with high rules that ith protect intellectual property in this scussed this document. this is what is in the interest of u.s. jobs. but it's also in the interest of u.s. national security, because i guarantee you, when you have a comingon where europe is to us and saying, we're willing but ve you market access, we need to set standards so that actions being no individual g european state can stand up against that. but if we're all in agreement with very high standards, this can re-assert basically the rule of law. we need agreements also that ensure that on these disputes,

that they go to arbitration so we're not locked into some legal overseas, in say southeast asia. but all of this requires an not standing that this is happening in a vacuum, that beijing is on the march selling to supplantat tries across the entire pacific rim the influence of the ideals which we have advanced and which have created the engagement with share our t frankly concepts. in most cases, our democratic ideals, with a very different competing agenda, and i think that is what we need to articulate. to : any of you others want comment on trade? served on the e trade committee and worked on it a long time. finally -- they dragged their

feet and finally got tpp moving forward. as it stands right now, it can't pass congress because it can't pass the vote. is going to have to be changed but i agree with what chairman royce is saying. you can sum it up to either we write the our allies rules of trade or let bad regimes write the rules of trade. o we're going to have to as a congress work with whoever the next president is to make sure gets done al ultimately but it's a better deal for the american people at the same time. >> and i know you talked about tpp but when you look at a china that steals hundreds of billions of dollars of intellectual property from got nited states, we have to stop china from doing that, we're all i think free traders, but we're all for fair trade. but you certainly don't want to be trading with somebody that steals your intellectual property from you as well.

questions e we go to from our members, i want to talk and the dimir putin, way you would foresee in the future dealing with vladimir putin. we've heard from mr. trump raising putin as a strong leader. going forward with ukraine, with his increasing role, russia's increasing role in the middle east in the past year, in strikes r with the air that took place in september, right after his meeting with the becoming and him involved in the air strikes in syria, just wondering if we can go down the road and talk about how do we deal with russia? rep. thornberry: on a tactical level, i think there is huge ipartisan support on both houses of congress to provide ore systems to ukraine to be able to defend themselves, and it is a prime example of what i was mentioning earlier.

it's not just the weapons, but we are training that providing ukraine is restricted, aggravating him or, you know, and i think that does lead to frustration. i would just say for my part, putin y with dealing with and russia is we have to do so from military strength. baseline.ust a you can negotiate here or there. you can have sanctions. you can do this or that. but he is also watching and our ning to the status of military. lots of things were in trouble their military modernization, including their nuclear modernization, is advancing at a pace far beyond strength so military is the key baseline from which him.an deal with rep. royce: and more back bone rather than backing down.

eight a delegation of members into eastern russian-speaking ukraine and spoke to the communities there, the different minority groups. the message from everyone is that, look, we can catch the come in gents that here. their russians are a little different than ours. we're holding them. we can't stop the russian armor, thornberry's point, they say why? us, won't you give us, sell the anti-tank weapons so that at least we can stop the armor. citizens there throwing sand bags taking up positions. they're on the front, and hey're asking us for the ability to defend themselves. our relationship with russia is partly a policy failure of this administrati administration, going back to the restart with russia. when you think about it, at that time, the administration made decision to pull out eastern

europe. the very missile defense system we were pulling, and into the republic, in case there was ever a launch from europe towards the united states. and in exchange for doing that, s and on and weaknes on it went with our red line in ukraine, weakness and no pushback. we see what the take-away was, not just for the russians. broadcasting into russia in the same way that russia uses r.t. television? why don't we have an effective policy today, reform the b.b.g., i have legislation to do that, that we put in the n.d.a. bill with your help. and as a consequence, why aren't e up on the air, not with national public radio for russia, but with what reagan did using social ope,

media, using television, using radio to tell the russian people the truth. effective in as the past. but if they only hear one side of the story, and we're not end up where you we are today, and i think there's a big take-away from that. rep. nunes: i'd just add quickly, not being able to understand putin's plans and largest s has been the intelligence failure since 9/11 that, you know, all -- you asked the question about trump and being willing to talk to putin. remember, every president has, since putin has been in there, has tried to meet and work with putin, so this is really not a change. host: it's the praise of him, is what i was referring to. rep. nunes: i'm not sure the other presidents have praised tell vladimir i'll meet with him after the election. let's be honest here. so -- but without force, putin is not going to come to the

table, so you're going to have to do both. you're going to have to have force. you're going to have to be willing to do influence, like ukraine alked about in and other places. and then, you might be in a position to where you can actually deal with putin, and the best way for this to be fixed is for us to actually be ble to talk to, you know, one of the world's nuclear powers. but it's just not going to happen right now while he thinks that we're weak and not willing . do anything host: congressman miller, anything to add. rep. miller: i agree with what my colleagues are saying and not long ago, the key phrase was "trust but verify" and that's what we have to to do. host: and we'll bring our members. and we'll your hands get the microphone to you. ld identify yourself. the nce: mr. bander with group.

congressman royce, thank you so much for what you've done on the agenda for freedom in the middle east. my question is, would you be pen to options or having considered in the past with working with our arab allies in syrian on to provide rebels man pads or modified man pads that could potentially take gun ships andsian these horrible war planes that are dropping these bombs on syria on a regular basis that are causing the chaos isis needs to fight them? rep. royce: if we were to do would want say, we to put timers on those that would scuttle the ability to use those after a certain period of time. we have the capability to do this. but we also have the capability of sitting down with turkey and other neighboring states that idea of a safe zone for the civilian population all across the north, and as you know, the jordanians have urged his across the south, provide an area where we can at least

to be fed, vilians to get medical care and so forth. the fact that we are so determined not to make a decision. look, avoiding the decision is a decision in and of itself, and that's been part of the problem since the outset when you saw eople on the streets of damascus that first day, cnn was they were marching saying "peaceful, peaceful" and e saw the automatic weapons fire open up from the regime, and you just knew there was going to be a problem. but there was effort to just put it off, don't engage. the red s no -- lines -- they blew right through the red lines. now, o as a consequence, when you have arab states and you have turkey, and you have others in the region that are urging you forward with the idea gesture, of tarian

this area of up protection, at least we should be engaged in leading on that from behind is ot working in terms of stability in the region, and it's got to be reversed. host: let's try back there on the aisle. audience: i'm mark jacobsson. department of defense but i'm speaking in my capacity as a council member. in the document that came out this morning, there was paragraph regarding the u.s. agency for international evelopment and it noted specifically that must keep pace with innovation, that programs in the workforce, quote, have pace with the rapidly changing development landscape. i don't completely disagree with concern is that it points directly at the executive branch and i'm more concerned about congress being able to provide the authorities needed

to build upon those successes at us id. and really for chairman royce and chairman thornberry because d.o.d. verlap of activities. what do you have in mind for of usaid toflexible uild upon their successful programs and also recruit and retain the type of talent needed for this 21st century development approach? rep. royce: i think it's an excellent question you've asked and i've had the opportunity oversee seas to see where usaid flexibility, and when they had the flexibility and capability of working with some that maybe came out of central asia, where you have doctors here in the united states, you have business people here who have been successful. they want to put their money back. hey want to help the teaching colleges, or they want to help young women s for and so forth.

with a little bit of partnering this can be a force multiplier in terms of offsetting what's coming out of the deal-bending madrasas, all right. but again, you need to build that flexibility in so you're really with those that know those villages. the americans that are originally from those areas that are now investing their dollars, their contributions in it, but with a little help, a little usaid, in that kind of an effort, you're much more effective than going through the government, for example. these are the types of things we have in mind. audience: i don't think we've had a secretary of defense testify in front of our years who n recent has not emphasized the of having a state a.i.d. becoming more effective. and so i do think that one of the most important things that

we could do that are in this sections that specifically talk about updating, modernizing our aid programs, the state department, and its diplomacy. we talk about, for example, the account, andallenge how providing incentives for aid move in our to direction can be a useful thing. it hasn't been done very well in years. but you know, we talk a lot for updating the military the 21st century. certainly, the state department just as much.d it finally, i noticed it this stabridas and al eneral kelly recommended allowing counter-terrorism spent by p funds be a.i.d. in those situations where the military judges that it would help protect our people.

hat sort of flexibility across agencies where it has helped agreed-upon n objective is absolutely something we should pursue and hat's just kind of a small tactical example, but we need to look at that sort of thing. here. over audience: thank you for this thoughtful discussion and your leadership in support of national security. there have been suggestions that in the fight against terrorism, we should resort to water killing and, worse, the of family members of terrorism suspects. as you know, chairman thornberry as part of the defense measure a t year, the congress on very strong bipartisan basis chairman amendment by mccain to prevent watering by leaders such as general petraeus. as a result, the current chiefs and the current

of staff have said they would refuse to conduct water boarding. would you advise, whoever the next president is going to be, to abide by the law and military ers and refrain from water boarding and other controversial tactics? ion rep. thornberry: i would advise the next commander in chief and serve in the military to abide by the law, the do not believe military will carry out an order that goes contrary to the law. i would also advise the next commander in chief and all people in military to quick talking about it. quit saying what we're not going o do, whether it comes to interrogations or military activities or whatever, we have overboard in ruling out all only of options which simplify the enemy's calculations. so i am not for putting a bunch of things in law that we're not going to do.

i'm for leaving them guessing, nd i think that is more effective. host: yes, on the aisle. can we get a microphone to the please? isle, thank you. audience: thank you. ashley arbach from the state department. firstly, thank you very much for the time. we greatly appreciate it. you talk a little bit about the united nations in your vision statement and you talk a little bit about what you don't see as he appropriate role of the united nations, and i was curious, what role do you see the u.n. playing, specifically in areas like peace-keeping? how do you think through issues related to allowing other ountries onto the security council and who would you like to see as the next secretary general of the u.n.? if not a name, character trait. thank you. rep. miller: yeah, i think the united is to have the

nations operate in a way with peacekeeping that we have more contributions from other members of the united nations. the united states has carried a this.heavy load in all of however, at the end of the day, veto power that we can exercise in the united ations but i think there's an expectation on the part of the american public that others are going to carry their share. and especially with peacekeeping around the world, and we just india prime minister of here yesterday. india makes a contribution in peacekeeping. -- all theng all our member states, step up your effort. you can do more. the united states has provided worldrella to protect the

throughout the cold war. today, it's going to be necessary for us to lead the war isis and sm, against affiliated groups. so we have a certain expectation, and that expectation is that other states play ing to step up and their fair role and share here ping.rms of peacekee in terms of the politics within united nations, i'll pass on that question, but thank you. audience: jim slatery from riley rhine. agree let me say that i with my former colleague, jane harmon, that there's some very ideassting and productive here and i appreciate the conversation we've had today, but i know these ideas are going to cost a lot of money, and i

know we have a huge national problem, and debt the military even acknowledges that this debt problem is a national security issue. nd i'm just curious, how do we propose to really pay for this? and you know, where are the resources coming from? and are we going to have a thoughtful debate with the american public about just paying for the kind of that you all envision globally?of us support rep. nunes: the quick answer is, yes, there's a plan and that's what part of this is about. so we're unveiling this week, two of our proposals. the first one earlier in the week was to fix the poverty programs. this is about national security. you're absolutely right. the debt is $19 trillion, going to $21 trillion. you'll see in the coming month, is you'll see us unveil ways to fix healthcare and also

ways to fix the tax code so that ou can grow the economy, because the bottom line is, we're not going to get out of his mess that we're in unless we get above 4% growth and we have to get above 4% growth for everal years in a row, and that's what our policies are driving us to do. so when the speaker talks about a better way forward, he's talking about in six different areas, because our debt is being driven by lack of growth, because of a bad tax code, and then entitlement programs like social , medicare and security, that are not on stable ground right now. and so those have all got to be sooner we get to them the better, and that's what we're trying to present here today. host: and i think we just started the conversation, which is really good, because we're going to have to leave it there. chairmen have very busy congressional schedules. speaker and nk the leadership mccarthy and, of course, congressman goodlatte and mccaul and our congressmen

ry, nunes man thornber and miller and, of course, ed royce as well. all.k you thanks to the council. thanks to you for being such a group. [applause] >> thank you very much andrea. announcer: republican presidential candidate donald trump and senator majority mcconnell are among the speakers at this year's faith and freedom coalition conference. you can see it live friday starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]. announcer: c-span's "washington journal" live, every day, with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, we arey devoting the first hour of the program to the life and legacy of muhammad ali. then, with the release of the bipartisan policy commission retirement security earlier this week, the cochairs former commission,

senator kent conrad of north former deputy commissioner of the social security administration, james lockhart, talk about the findings, the obstacles to worker security and ways to enhance and secure retirement and personal savings. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," beginning eastern, 00 a.m. friday morning. join the discussion. announcer: coming up on c-span, the second day of the democratic national committee platform hearings. after that, president obama's endorsement of hillary clinton. later, senator bernie sanders speaks to supporters in washington d.c. >> we are going public. we'll be watched by our friends and by people across the country. and i would hope as i've said before, that the senate may

change. ot as an institution, but may become a more efficient body because of televised proceedings. >> the proceedings of the united states senate are being roadcast to the nation on television for the first time. d in hat we have operate secret until now. millions of americans have sat at the galleries and observed senate debates during their on.its to washingt but today, they can witness the proceedings in their own homes. >> and in effect, the senate floor has been a kind of a stage. the senators have been acting on that stage. he audience is in the galleries. and by our action today, we fundamentally altered that situation. we've simply enlarged the galleries. we have pushed out the walls to include all of the american watch. who wish to announcer: commemorating 30

years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span 2. announcer: on the second day of the democratic national committee platform hearings, the panel considered national security issues, including combatting isis, the israeli alestinian conflict, iran's nuclear program, and relations with russia. this is two and-a-half hours. >> thank you, everybody. i think we are going to actually get started. limits very tight time this afternoon. must unately, we really end at 5:00.

so let me just say that we are really going to enforce the three-minute rule on speakers, apologize in advance for any rudeness associated with want to hear o from everyone and also try to limit the questions to two questions from the committee members. so we have agreed to that, and i think -- >> i want to say, she's the tough momma, and i'm the lax me, so you can go crazy with and just talk about whatever. >> nope. agreed at's not what we to. i'd like to welcome frank clemente. he's the executive director and cofounder for americans for tax fairness, a diverse campaign of national state and local organizations united to support the tax system that works for americans. prior to founding americans for ax fairness, mr. clemente served as issues campaign

director at the change to win federation and director of public citizens congress watch, a national consumer watch dog organization. thank you. >> thank you. pleasure to be here today. 'm glad i didn't come between you and your lunch a few minutes ago. i eel lucky about that, guess. americans for tax fairness more than epresents 400 state and national organizations with a total of tens of millions of members. points o address three today about tax fairness and next week, i'll give you more detailed written testimony. first, making our tax system reversing itical to income inequality. wealthy people don't pay their fair share of taxes, and neither do many big corporations. a lot of the income of the wealthy is shielded from taxation through loopholes or is more lightly taxed than the income of working people. that's why the 400 richest americans paid a 23% tax rate in

2013. they had an income averaging $83 million each. major reason for thissin equity is the income derived from wealth, capital gains and taxed about half the rate as income from work. ecause wealth is so concentrated, 83 percent of the benefits goes to the top 1%. from the lso benefit massive tax loopholes by some of use, iggest corporations that's because ownership of those corporations through so concentrated among the wealthy. y second point is this: creating an economy that works for everyone requires a bold and progressive tax reform agenda that raises a lot more revenue. it's not enough to dream big. do big, like we did decades ago. hat means raising several trillion dollars in new revenue over the next 10 years. roads, eded to fix our

bridges, mass transit, and water systems. flint, hould be no more michigans. quality preschool should be four-year-olds,l regardless of income. all working parents should have access to affordable child care. to make college more affordable. some of us want to make tuition universities, and major new investments are needed find ate clean energy and the next generation of medical cures. pursuingf aggressively these initiatives in recent years, we've let our public wither away under austerity budgets demanded bay conservatives. domestic discretionary spending. that's the portion of the budget that funds all the things i just talked about. was 5.1% of the economy back in 1980. projected to be about half that. just 2.8% of our economy. clearly, we must raise a lot more revenue. taxing to start by

wealth-like work. we need to create a surcharge top marginal tax rate for millionaires and billionaires and most ensure ntly, we need to corporations pay their fair share of taxes. rejecting form means neutral form. we need a lot more revenue from pay rations, they need to the $700 billion they owe on the that they have in profits stashed offshore. savings.that's in tax and we also have to have a tax system that stops encouraging corporations to shift jobs and profits offshore. that means ending their ability indefinitely delay paying u.s. taxes on overseas profits and making sure offshore at the same taxed rate as domestic profits. i'll stop there. host: are there questions from committee members? warren. warren: thanks, frank. i just want to ask a quick question on deferral, on the ability of corporations to shift

their profits and sometimes to avoid offshore taxes.federal income we all know about the famous cayman house in the islands, a building with some 5,000 corporations. in your opinion, how big of an issue is deferral? and should be ended it be in the policy platform we're working on? >> deferral is the central issue in the tax reform debate right estimation, at least from a progressive side of things. deferral is, it's in the aw and it allows u.s. corporations and profit in that case generate offshore, they do ot have to pay taxes on those profits until they repatriate them as dividends to the corporation. what that means is we have $2.4 rillion in profits they owe taxes on that has accumulated

offshore. they owe $700 billion in taxes on those profits. they do not want to bring them back here because they don't want to pay the $700 billion they owe. what they're doing is they've got an army of lobbyists, swarming capitol hill, demanding that congress pass legislation that would let them bring those profits back at a fraction of what they owe. $700 billion is how much was spent in the recovery act as a result of the great recession. we cannot let that money go without it being paid. they want to pay perhaps a 10% tax rate, pennies on the dollar, raises it a couple hundred billion dollars. this is the central fight. his is the tail that's wagging the dog of the corporate tax reform debate right now. a lot demands corporate tax rates but this debate is being giant multinational corporations. they want to bring the profits back for cheap. we're not talking about hundreds of companies here.

there are 10 companies that have 0% of this $2.4 trillion offshore. the lead is apple. all the $200 billion, money we spend on our iphones, whatever, -maces, uch of it is offshore where they're paying less than 5% tax rate. why are they paying so little? because most of the money is stashed in tax havens. what are they waiting for? s to re waiting for congres give them legislation to bring it back. this is the fight. this is the key place we can get money out of corporate tax reform. host: are there any other questions? much, frank. [applause] >> thank you, frank. our next testimony comes from nationalgrace from the womens law center. she's the senior vice president leads program where she

the center's agenda to eliminate barriers to employment, education, health and and lift ve rights women and families out of poverty. vice to being named senior president, she led the center's initiatives, ation including working to promote equal pay, combat harassment, and sexual assault in the workplace, as well as at school, and advanced equal access to with a n programs particular focus on women and thank irls of color. you. thank you so much for having me. i want to begin to say what an here. it is to be the national womens well center has been working since 1972 to dvance the issues that really cut to the core of women's lives. we have a broad set of recommendations we'll be delivering to the committee in write ing that goes to our full agenda but i wanted to of the most pressing issues facing working women in today's economy. for many parents,

jobs, the low wage conditions of their jobs are up to fail andem meeting the demands of work and home lives becomes an impossible juggling act. we know that women are making up 2/3 of the workers in low-wage jobs and jobs such as home childcare and restaurant workers, and that are than 4.5 million mothers with children under the age of 18. mothers in know that the low-wage workforce are disproportionately women of color and immigrant women. and the wages that they take home are far too low to support themselves and their families, making it difficult to pay for life's necessities, whether rent or loan payments or critical health services, including reproductive health services. ut in addition to the wages,

many low-wage jobs come with schedules that are unpredictable, that are unstable, that are just inflexible, and these conditions wreak havoc on the parents childcare and ess pay for childcare. it's not a sustainable solution. the agenda details many of thew things we have heard about today which would also address the race and gender pay gap. going to focus mostly on the recommendations around childcare. it is essential we expand access. that requires increasing ending for the major childcare program, the newly reauthorized block grant. it is currently so underfunded it is only serving one in six eligible