based on the standoff in air to drive a more hard and focused u.s. diplomatic process, leveraging the international serious support group to end the daily mask killing of civilians and egregious violations of human rights. i will interrupt myself right now because i missed a step, to ask each of you to give introductory comments and i apologize for that. [laughter] karen: but now you know -- [indiscernible] >> thank you for that introduction. and to pat, who has worked tirelessly. [applause] this is a very sophisticated audience. you know there will not be any easy answers in this part of the world. the problem we see our lack of legitimacy, sectarian conflict,

particularly conflict between the shia and sunni. they have an around for a long time but are feeding on each other in a toxic way aggravated by the a peoples of the region, so ordinary people can have their voices heard. a lack of institutional structures, most apparent in libya after the fall of gaddafi, when there was just nothing there. grievances have led to four wars and 10 years. saudi arabia had led to a more attractive international conflict. the insufficiently have seen.

throughout the region and despite decades of u.s. assistance in some cases, we see militaries cannot either with a couple of notable exceptions. in syria, an unprecedented level of violence has led to a refugee crisis. i would like to recognize the ambassador, with a long tradition of labor means introduction -- in parties, we must import tunisia's democratic experience with investment and attention. it is still the source of more isil extremists than any other country in the world. most middle eastern countries have fundamental week economies even with enormous troy m revenues. here are the staggering

demographics of the region and i would argue it was a major driver of the arab spring. subsidies and a lack of transparent integration, all discourage investment and job creation. in the middle east and north africa, 60% of the population is under 25 and youth unemployment hovers around 25%. a sense of grievance among young people has been greatly aggravated by substandard higher education, which raises expectations but does not prepare students for the modern labor force. the situation is more dire for girls with growing female participation in schools, but even lower employment rates. there are more women in school than men and they perform better, but opportunities continue to be limited. we have seen morocco and several countries push for important economic reforms.

the conference of saudi arabia was here last week promoting to diversify away from oil, which will be the key to the region. no one who has worked in the middle east for the past 15 years would have such an intense conflict between sunni and shia, between iran and saudi arabia and yemen and syria. and violent extremism is certainly getting the most attention in our country. the book of the under 30 generation in the region's coming-of-age and societies dominated by political leadership that they cannot change underperforming economist -- economies. without prospects, many of these young men and a few women are cursed by violence with religion used as a dark cover. it is not all bleak.

there has been considerable progress against isil and syria and iraq and now libya. losses of territory and money and recruits. for the manifestation of the sunni terrorist group will be been on a battlefield with a 65 member coalition. the administration has tried to shore up allies by reassuring the nuclear deal with iran, has not made a zero-sum game. reducing violence in libya and yemen it has led to a fragile cease-fire and improved its inadequate humanitarian access in syria.

we have tried to offer an warm our assistance program for both men and women. all of this will take years and years and the next administration will have to focus on supporting economic and political transformation within the region which will have to be led and nurtured by the people themselves. [applause] karen: thank you. linda: let me also start by thanking the policy group for inviting us here today. you are an important advocate for the voice of women around the world. i am honored to be here. i noticed -- we have some of our ambassadors.

he claims me occasionally as well. how we address the problems in africa and globally will determine the trajectory that africa will move forward on the nature. our goal is to partner with africa promote peace and prosperity. if we are successful, issues of terrorism conflict and migration will be less of a concern. while africa faces major security and put it, i firmly believe we are making progress that will allow for the continent to prosper and take its rightful place as a leader. africa's challenges seem daunting if we depend on the media and what we are reading.

boko haram has a devastating impact on nigeria and its neighbors. we read that in the press on a regular basis. it remains a threat against after an al qaeda and affiliates remain a threat. conflicts in places like south sudan and i saw the ambassador here, they continue to cycle economic growth and rob young africans of the opportunity for an education and a better life. there challenges with respect to governance as well. some leaders have shown it density to stand longer than the constitutional or they do not have constitutional limits. human rights issues and freedom of speech and chance elections continue to be issues. if that is not enough, we have

diseases such as evil and yellow fever, and the effects of el niño threaten efforts to develop and move forward. i know there will be addressed by my colleague and continue to rise on the continent of africa. added to that is a youth bulge with population figures as high as 75% under the age of 35 providing challenges as well as opportunities. how do we respond to all of the challenges and have a positive agenda? we know we must have a multifaceted response and we know it must be one that addresses the challenges but allows us to take advantage of the multitude of opportunities in this research rich continent sure we know the response cannot just focus on peace and security but must focus on the causes and we also know that africans must be part of the solution. they have to own the solution.

going back to the goals of partnering in democracy and peace and security, we focus on transparent elections with over 17 elections in africa this year alone. we are supporting regular transitions empower and transparent elections and we are supporting civil society and human rights. strengthening these elements in democracy will help lead to long-term stability. elections in nigeria last year were historic and they show the possibilities on the continent of africa. democracy and study are closely domestic. on the peace and security front, we are working with partners regionally and internationally to respond to the threat of terrorism and security. the au is a key partner. we are working to foster the capacity by not only dividing purpose but we are providing essential training to troops that make up the largest peacekeepers around the globe.

we have trained about 250,000 since the program started. in south sudan, our special envoy has worked around the clock to get a peace deal agreed to and signed and continues to work to ensure it is fully implemented in south sudan. prosperity has been deeply important. we must help african nations create opportunities for the next generation. we must ensure that africa's youth and their countries invest in the future. if they are not invested in, they are prime targets. all across africa, we are working with governments for economic reforms to to the slower global growth and we are working with sectors to promote entrepreneurship because we know

that is the key to success. and so the valley this week, over 100 african countries are participating and we are hosting a second business form to encourage the private sector. initiatives are globalizing things of dollars in interest in its from governments and businesses to add 60 million connections in the next years and this is due to creating opportunity. we are empowering women and youth through our security initiative. we support women's full participation and in conflict as well as post-conflict environments. we also support entrepreneurs through the entrepreneurship

program but the initiative that i think would be a came changer is the president's young african leadership initiative, which is bringing thousands of young africans to the united states for leadership training. this is the third iteration. we brought 500 and 2014 at 500 and 2015 and they are making a difference on the continent. these efforts boost economic growth and creates opportunity. this is what is required to create peace in africa and it is what is needed to alleviate mass migrations. there is much more to discuss but i look forward to hearing your questions. [applause] karen: thank you. anne r.: thank you.

it is quite an honor for me to be here. i appreciate the chance to have lunch with my colleagues. it does not happen often. a former colleague is here from the state department. he would say, "anne?" and i would have to train myself not to jump the it was this one. today is world refugee day here at i'm sure you knew that already. [laughter] anne r.: it is a moment to stop and think of the refugees and their plight and salute those who are survivors to hang in there and restart their lives and make a difference in the places that they go.

serious news today is that the u.n. refugees, they have announced their on now 65 million people's who are refugees and displaced around the world. 3 million people are seeking asylum, over 20 million who are refugees as they crossed an international order and are looking for help. and nearly 41 million are just waste inside the country and have yet to cross an international border and are looking for their own governments on how they get that oftentimes, they don't. this is a record-setting number. a very serious moment. there are three things a want you to take away from my brief remarks. one is that this is a global phenomenon. a lot of attention to europe. we are talking with colleagues

focused on the middle east and africa. we can pull in colleagues who cover southeast asia, south asia, central america, where we see people are on the move and fleeing persecution and leaned interest basis. the second is that refugees are not the same as terrorists. they are the victims of terrorism. [applause] anne r.: i knew this was the right group to come talk to. it is a very important difference. i meet the refugees, and their families. they are three generations trying to figure out how to survive a difficult situation and they are concerned about the future of their families education for their children. i want you to know the u.s. is a leader in responding to the

crisis around the world. we are the top humanitarian donor and the top destination for the agency's program to resettle refugees. if you look around the world, my colleagues have mentioned some of the places that people are fleeing. syria, yemen, nigeria, boko haram and northeast. these have been in the news most recently. there are also situations that have not been resolved. somali, afghan, the burmese, some of whom may finally be able to come home again but some feel persecuted and in may of last year, you will remember, they were abandoned in southeast asia and people were left on board. there were a mix of migrants from bangladesh, people seeking economic opportunities and refugees from burma.

the u.s. has traditionally led the world in eight. my bureau funds the international organization for migration, red cross, and the world food program, and this is something that most americans can take pride in and collectively, with all this funding, we kind of form to the back bone of the international and humanitarian system. if the u.s. funding was not there, my contention is that the entire ngo's out there, many of them would collapse. it is something that is taken for granted but it is very important. year in and year out to congress. for years, we had bipartisan support for strong international humanitarian support coming from the united states.

one of my chief concerns now is we could lose that bipartisan support that has built us into a leader in terms of humanitarian assistance around the world. number 182 syria and we are finding that in terms of helping europe, we really have a of a dilemma. it is not a matter of money. it is the matter of political will. in europe coming together to be decisive and decide how to do what they should in terms of helping legitimate refugees and stopping the dangerous flow across the mediterranean that is taking so many lives.

our boss, secretary, is constantly on the go. he is doing so in pursuit of peace. our point that what is needed on the humanitarian side, linda will have those discussions when she travels, and so will our bosses and so will the white house. when they are having a conversation about u.s. foreign policy, one aspect would be asking other governments to do more to help to respond to the crises to take steps entry people better in their own countries. the numbers pale compared to the large migrations we see overseas. for many years, we have been the leader in running a program to

take the most vulnerable refugees from around the world, bring them to the united dates, where they can start their lives. we took 70,000 refugees over the last three years. we are seeking this year to bring 85,000 refugees. and also to bring 10,000 syrian refugees. [applause] anne r.: i get criticized from the right and the left on this one. friends in one direction say that is not enough and friends on the other side say we are worried you would let terrorists sneak inside the program.

it is the most heavily vetted program of any traveler in the united states and it is ramping up sharply. right now, we have over 40% of the syrian refugees and we will see larger numbers in the coming days. stay tuned. we have done a lot to try to meet the targets. i mentioned central america. we have a new program to try to reunite children whose parents are present in the united states and bring the kids who have been left behind with grandparents safely to the united states so they do not have to make a dangerous track. the numbers are starting to increase. the biggest in our bureau, after world refugee jay, is looking ahead to september, when the president will have a leader summit on refugees, and he is seeking other countries to chip in. for those countries that can afford to provide more assistance around the world, for countries who hasn't resettle refugees were taken in a certain number, that they do more or

give certain scholarships or work visas or some sort of pathway. the third p's is countries throughout the years have hosted refugees that in light of everything going on in the world, that they do more and let the refugees support themselves and allow more children. three things i wanted to make sure you knew, crisis is global and refugees are not terrorists, thank you. [applause] karen: i have given anne patterson a whole lot of time to think that this question, i will not ask it first. i want to follow with anne richard and what you said. you noted the high commissioner made a very impassioned statement and gave you numbers for refugees and also said that against the backdrop, divisive

political rhetoric and migration issues and disturbing levels of xenophobia are together threatening international agreements which protects us -- those two fleed. we see borders closing. instead of political will, there is political paralysis. humanitarian organizations like minor left to deal with the consequences while struggling to save lives on a limited touch it. is this the perfect storm of issues driving the problem both in terms of the number of refugees and the reluctance to

take them in? is it no money, is it the pure volume? two questions that have come to the floor, you touched on this a bit, what is the best thing that concerned citizens could do to make a difference? and how do you get all of these countries that pledge a lot of money, and then we look at the amount of money that has come across and it is not there? >> what we saw is that the countries where the traditional donors to the humanitarian experts and the western europeans, korea, australia, and new zealand, and canada, the u.s., it was very clear as the numbers climbed in recent years, because of conflict, new conflict but also conflicts that are not being resolved. that is part of the answer is that we are not able to bring peace to parts of the world because the leaders do not seem intent on peace. they seem to be wedded to continuing a bloodthirsty

continuation of fighting. the same donors were the ones leading year in and year out and we have to get more donors to the table, we have to get more giving given the scale of what is going on. we have not succeeded in doing that. we have seen that some of the gulf states have become donors to humanitarian causes but they are not yet fully invested in the system we have or the echo system that we have. 21 crisis at one point, but maybe not routinely year in and year out. we are also looking for other major world powers to serve on the security council or the g20. we have not seen new donors and marriage other than a list i just put out. the europeans now, because of

the arrival of all the mixed flow of migrants and refugees into their country, they are putting a lot or aid in. the needs have increased. definitely, the concern about right-wing political parties is driving some of the immediate actions that europeans are taking. they are really focused on trying to stop the flow rather than stepping back the way you could and say, what kind of legal migration might we set up or what can we be doing in peace conferences to prevent this kind of flow, instead, we are doing things after they have shown up in europe. major donors are themselves involved in are reacting rather

than acting proactively. >> in terms of africa, economic verses, what do we call it, fleeing, i know it is not popular to talk about nation building anymore. we talked about capacity building. i wonder if you could look at the situation in africa where there had initially been a huge flow of migrants that went down for a while. how do you separate out economic versus refugees fleeing persecution or violence and as you try to address the problems particularly in countries where both exist, how do you prioritize in terms of where the scarce resources will go? >> i wish i had control of my our thai xing the resources. they are so earmark that you cannot prioritize the resources.

if i had control, i would put more in democracy and government. the key to me is having a stable country that takes care of its people. if you have that, you do not have people fleeing for economic or will reasons. i would put more in that direction than what we are currently doing. we tend to focus a lot of our funding on security. we focus our funding on initiatives that have been earmarked by congress or other types of initiatives that are all good and contribute in some way to our ultimate goals, but they may not contribute directly, as we would want them to. for example, if you look at our charts, a lot of money goes to health. who would argue against

supporting health programs given we still have ebola and malaria and any number of health issues on the continent. but those issues as well are related to the link strong institutions, ensuring that countries are stable and govern well so that funding could go to areas where it is required. we focus a lot of attention on route causes. we know we have to take a multifaceted approach that is not just security but ensuring that the governments take care of their people, that they are concerned about what they have, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who are displaced and who are not able to take care of basic needs on a daily basis. karen: one of the pending crises is can you saying it will close

the camp where i believe it is 400,000 mostly somalia refugees. is that, how likely is that to happen and what will happen not only in terms of their own welfare, but what will happen if they get sent back to somalia where we have an extremely the carious security situation? >> we both worked on the issue. i think my challenge is to encourage to stay the course and to be a credible host to refugees in honoring their commitment under the geneva convention. we have pushed very hard with the canyons. i think through the efforts, the

canyons are less of -- and about insisting that refugees go home immediately. i was the refugee court in kenya from 1993 until 1996. during that time, canyons threatened to send refugees home. it is no different than what is happening in all of our countries. one countries start to have problems, serious security issues, we blame those who are the most boehner ball instead of blaming refugees -- the most vulnerable instead of playing refugees. we are looking at ways to address kenya's concerns and at the same time, trying to repair the situation in somalia so the refugees can come home. a whole generation of children have been born and brought up in those refugee camps. we see these camps not as being

permanent, and yet they are. anne r.: the goal is that people do not have to live in refugee camps for very long. if they get to go home again, that would be the best outcome. somalia is a tricky place right now. it is very much an experiment and that people be allowed to settle in a new country like some of us here, that is only a fraction of the world's refugees. another option is people would be allowed to stay where they fled and the numbers are so big now that just saying that is probably the message a lot of countries do not want to hear. what i like about the answer is it true -- it shows you a tricky balance act that is diplomacy. as someone who has worked on

these issues for a long time, and has been in very tricky situations before. linda is a bit of a legend for our folks, though she is not old enough to be a legend. because she keeps going back and so the tricky balancing act is to say, we are not intend on having this forever as a major city of refugees. at the same time, please don't make artificial deadlines and please work with us in terms of solutions for people. karen: i think the whole conversation about refugees leads us directly to the middle east. we all know the fears, 400

thousand people dead, half the population of syria displaced or fled the country. and now, this has been an issue for a long time, that has been the subject of a political debate in the country. some people are very strongly saying that not only should we now intervene militarily, but we should have a long time ago, and it ranging from airstrikes to trips on the ground. you have other people, i will not mention any names, that we should be directing all of our attention to the islamic state. you have a dissent memo i mentioned that was leaked last week that said 51 state department officials, many of whom work on the issue, saying, it was a humanitarian situation,

saying this is clearly unacceptable and we need to do something else, to take military action and get assad to come to the table and negotiate his own exit. how likely is that to happen? how likely is a policy shift, whether that or something? anne p.: i think you are seeing to stress, the in norma's loss of life, particularly in lebanon and jordan, 70,000 people are sitting in no man's land now. and jordan, but there is a long history in the state department going back many years. i think this was an expression of frustration and dismay by number of people who worked on

this very closely. let me assure you that the issues are grappled with at the very highest level of the administration every single night. there are not really any good answers in syria. it is not just to go bomb. it is, in the complex legal issues, in the u.s. military deployment, there are a range of complications that result from this. one issue i think that it is important to focus on, secretary kerry's in this respect because he put together an international coalition, which, despite its shortcomings, has at least enabled access to get through to 700,000 people who did not have it before and to impose a

cease-fire in part of the country. there is an international effort underway under the auspices of the u.n. and this is extremely fragile. obviously insufficient. it is really the only way forward to solve the situation in syria. i would not anticipate a change in policy. i think the issues are struggled with every single day. but i think to go down the path that the secretary has laid out is really the only prospect that i see right now. karen: the central parts of the administration of counterterrorism policy, are working on the ground. i mission earlier that saudi arabia has been vocal about his disagreement of some aspects of the policy. there are other disagreements, not only with the saudi's but with turkey and other countries

in the region. how long can the coalition hold together, as other countries believe that something else needs to be done? is there some danger, particularly, it would not be likely to happen this year, but if you see a new administration coming in and the opportunity for them to start going along, how important are these partnerships and how do we keep this together amid a lot of disagreement? anne p.: i think the counter isil will hold together satisfactory because success breeds success. many others in the administration, how military -- let me stress that. militarily vulnerable isil has proven to be.

in most cases, there has not been a direct confrontation with isil. it has melted away and a lot of simultaneous pressure has been put on isil. it has turned out to be a fan -- fairly manageable military target. i think what you may be asking is about syria and how long can the differences of view hold together? if anything, it has gotten better. two years ago, policy disputes among turkey and saudi arabia, and egypt and all the other players in syria, they were really quite profound. each of these countries were going their own way and supporting their own proxies. that has gotten better. there have been a number of efforts in the administration and the secretary's efforts is one of them but there are others to bring these countries together. it is not perfect. there are many disagreements that persist.

there is still -- then there was a couple of years ago. karen: this is a question from the audience that i think applies to what all of you do, especially as terrorism and capacity building belong together. i will just read it. it has been observed that the geographic commanders, super ambassadors with responsibility and that they have a lot more resources than the state department has. what is your level of interaction with the commanders? do you feel it is fully integrated? >> i started with them at the very beginning in the africa bureau and worked with dod on the development.

i have seen it constantly improve. i speak on the phone with general rodriguez. we scheduled a phone call but we also talk to each other probably is often or more often than that when there are issues that come up. i do not feel they are acting as super ambassadors but they had tremendous resources we do not have. that is something i wish we could correct. into many areas where it is probably not -- not appropriate for the military to be in that

it is hard to say no when we need. we do coordinate closely. we have annual strategic planning committees. when the general is in town, the two of us will meet with him together to discuss issues of mutual in certain where we have the most concern on the funding side. >> we see them and talk to them all the time and at various levels, not a day goes by that we do not have constant contact with them during not

surprisingly, you do not get to be a general in the u.s. by realizing how this has to work. they have a lot of people will. i think the budget is 4% of the question scale we cannot match. when you get into enormously complex post insertion situations even more so, regrettably, it will only bring the dod that has the resources to bring to bear on the situation because it is a question of scale. i wish were otherwise but it will not. we have first is defined. karen: do you find that with refugees? i remember covering and it was a lot of tension on the civilian side on who can be in charge and do you see that now?

anne r.: with colleagues at the office of development, to brief military colleagues would go out and work as policy advisers to brief them about what to do when a crisis erupts so that they understand that you bring the u.s. military in in a quick way, if the crisis is of such a magnitude and it is a natural disaster where they will be shooting at each other. there is such a magnitude that only the u.s. military has the capacity, a lot of things very

quickly. they are not the low-cost option and are not an option that can be used without thinking very carefully in those few hours before you deploy them. but they are the best in the world of being able to go across the globe very quickly. in peacetime, that can be lifesaving piece. for most of the time, we have civilian response mechanisms are we have my bureau of the state department, the u.s. office of investment office, we have established relationships with international organizations that know what to do in the nongovernmental organization. we work very closely with the u.n. leadership and with others to respond to two crises so

there is a strong response so the military does not have to be called upon to get involved. karen: two audience questions have to do with the islamic state. one is, what additional steps if the department taking in terms of social media and second, and i am assuming this is about syria, has russia been an assistance or an obstacle? anne p.: we have a little office handling social media and it has roughly 100 people on an expansion now and there is a lot of analysis and frankly, people like anne, a lot of this starts in social media. i think our efforts in this respect have improved.

very importantly in my view, we have set up joint in this country because we cannot message muslims as effectively as people who live in the region. if we are going to do one in indonesia and other countries where you can get the word out to mostly young men who may be attracted to the ideology, on the second question, the relationship with russia has been very complex and not to beat around the bush about it, russia is a player in syria and went in there to preserve their interests and it leased to preserve aside temporarily. but the russians will be key in moving him out at a certain time. we're in constant contact with the russians here and we have channels in geneva and people

talk to them every single day about the cease-fire and extended in detail conversations. our intelligence people work with them to resolve issues of fact. it is challenging at times. very challenging at times. but i think it is fair to say that the cease-fire has been held in important areas in the country and it is always being negotiated in other parts of the country's as well. it certainly will not be taken in by this and the proof will be in the results. for that matter, the rest of the international community to advance the cease-fire. karen: they have been saying

things in recent days with the government about moving toward islamic state headquarters. this is a major objective of the force that the americans have trained. is everyone going to come together and either shoot at each other or single by? anne p.: i think they would say it is unlikely the syrian regime could reach that but for us and the coalition, eliminating the state is very important because it is bemoaned in the headquarters and isil. they are under enormous and brutal conditions. to free them would be humanitarian in and of itself. it would also be a huge intelligence troth because there is a lot of reference there

about foreign fighters. it is very important but again, the military success against isil has been significant. karen: we only have three more minutes. i want to ask you about, you mentioned the syrian refugees, while we're on the subject of syria and the administration was going to take 10,000. i think it was within the fiscal year, by the end of september. they have now taken i believe around 300, are they going to make it? >> yes, we are going to make it. karen: good. [applause] karen: and here is a really good question about nigeria, which is, what keeps a nigerian army

to get to the unit -- from the united states and others from hunting down and destroying boko haram. i have her the terrorists are integrated into communities in northern nigeria. is this part of the problem in defeating them? >> i think there is no one answer to that. i think of we look back a couple of years, it was a lack of capacity, believe it or not, in nigeria and the army. a number of years in terms of training and equipment and morale. that has changed but it does not change overnight president bihari is focusing on making sure the army is having the capacity to respond and working with neighbors and other

partners to improve the response against boko haram. it is not an easy task. it is an organization that continually marks itself, they are fighting on many different fronts and some of them are in communities, making it very hard to figure out who is who. and where they are. i think with all of our efforts, working with the multinational task worse and the eu, working with the neighbors have suffered recently from a major attack and we were just talking about that, that it will take even more efforts to deal with the issue. we were concerned about the impact isil would have in terms of what capacity they are giving the group. so it will take some time and i think that is the answer.

karen: time for one more? i am personally interested in this is a good question. it says going forward, what do you see as the best way to balance between the military and support for human rights and civil rights and economic development? anne p.: that is a reay good question and we struggle with it almost every day in the department. there is no question that the situation is more unsettled now. you are seeing pockets of isil, not very large ones, but with a population largely alienated from the central government, it has potential to become a problem. you are seeing a human rights situation that is extremely disturbing. but in my view, in the long term, you are seeing an economy that has not been able to adjust

to 800,000 jobs each of needs to create every single year. it is important with 90 million people that we maintain contact and we encourage them to improve their human rights situation and improve capacity on the military side. we try to balance our objectives there, which are several. security be one of them, an important one. with human rights situation and encourage political development. karen: thank you all so much. [applause] karen: great contribution. a lot more questions. thank you. and thank you all so much for coming. >> let's thank ambassador patterson, greenfield, and richard for being exceptional role models worldwide. [applause]

and karen deyoung you asked the most probing question. thank you and come back soon. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

them over on our companion network, the senate just finished voting on a number of gun control measures. one would have increased funding for the background check system. that measure was floated down. -- was voted down. another to require background checks for gun sales at shows. also failed to move forward. legislation to let the justice department seek a court order to

delay gun purchases for three days by old on the government's no-fly list. that also did not move forward. and the final measure getting a vote today from california wouldat dianne feinstein allow the justice department to block suspected terrorists on the government's no-fly list from buying guns. again the senate has voted on all four proposals and all failed in the senate. democratic senator planning a news conference about gun control measures voted on today. we are going to bring you that here on the c-span networks when it gets underway. right now on c-span, a conversation. right now, a conversation from this morning's washington journal on the voting rights act. host: joining us is marc veasey of texas. good morning. guest: good to see you.

host: you were a lead plaintiff in the challenge to the state id law. could you set up what the voter id law does in your state? id law in worst voter the entire country. let me go step-by-step through some of the provisions of the law that makes it so egregious. you can have a drive or his license or a task or, a ha we are now going to the democratic senators news conference. the room is starting to be filled with some senators coming in for this event. this is a news conference about gun control measures voted on today. we are standing by live for the beginning.

>> diane is on her way. nelson is here. don't worry. just have to wait for diane.

senate republicans should be embarrassed, of course they are not area they are not embarrassed because nra is happy. 90% of americans support expanding background checks. it is not 90% of democrats, 90% of american people. andcrats, republicans, independence. democrats, republicans and independents. the nra says no, so republicans do nothing. the junior senator from new hampshire has said she is going to vote yes on everything. mind andd make up her not be a hypocrite.

from ther senator hampshire says she is voting yes on everything. that is not logical but that is what she is doing. republicans need to stop siding -- gun extremists, as been a lot of talk about what they are going to do next. it is my understanding mcconnell will move to a cornered amendment, which is not anything to do with the work being done by collins and some others. , i'm told thehis nra doesn't support even that. so i would hope the republicans that -- i would hope senator collins would drum up 20 votes or so to make it doable. going to hear from

senator feinstein next, who has been working on this and she as a result of the murder of mayor of san francisco. we will hear from bill nelson, chris murphy, from richard movements all, cory booker, then i will take a few questions. >> thank you leaders. this timess shooting, the largest in history. 49 dead, 53 injured. another chance for congress to take meaningful action, another missed opportunity. we couldn't even agree to prevent known and suspected terrorists from buying guns. the power of the gun lobby over certain members of the senate seems boundless. the alternative some are suggesting is to limit the no guns for terrorists legislation to cover just no-fly zone. that is a serious mistake.

we use very narrow lists. if we do that we are left withis if we do that we are left with a hill that has no teeth. this is many individuals who shouldn't be able to purchase guns. briefa few minutes of review, my staff came up with multiple examples of individuals charged with crimes related to terrorism who also flew on planes. it is impossible to tell common people with ties to terrorism wouldn't be covered by the collins amendment. if we only focus on the no-fly list, we ignore nearly 900,000 foreign nationals on the terrorist watch list who can legally purchase guns. example, 20 million on the visa waiver program alone can come from european countries with no visa into this country

and be of a to buy guns. -- determined by the fbi to be known or suspected terrorists. was theslation that fetid today included second amendment protections and the in thisto appeal a appeal and deny guns administratively -- to appeal and deny guns administratively. more important it would keep deadly firearms out of the hands of known and suspected terrorists. we will be able to revisit this bill at some point in the future and cooler heads will prevail. i find it really inexcusable that any individual at all, a felon, it did mistake of user, someone mentally ill can buy a

weapon online or in a gun show with no scrutiny at all. the murphy amendment was such a good amendment. it seals all those loopholes and background checks. hoping one day the climate will change. my own personal view is we going into an election season, and america you have to stand up and you have to say i'm going to vote only for people who will do something to close the terror gap, to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally incompetent and who use them illegally. this next election can produce something. nelson.

>> thank you for your leadership. i am mortified by today's vote. we learned in the months after sandy hook and the nra has a vice like grip. 90% of the american public wants change. americans believe in expanded background checks. 80% of americans think that terrorists should be able to buy guns. republicans think that terrorists should not be able to buy guns. don't think that democracy allows for this congress to be so out of step for the american public for very long. i am mortified by today's vote. my spine is strengthened by the fact that we have 40 democrats on the floor demanding change. of americansons

join our crusade to end this .pidemic of gun violence as republicans scramble as we find some wayo out of this mess, as they try to -- weome way to show that are closer than ever before to breaking the nra's grip on this. terrorists today are using assault weapons rather than ied's our airplanes. after september 11 we decided we weren't going to allow terrorists. they specifically recruited lone wolf attackers to go to gun shows to buy assault weapons. we should take the same tact. the american people aren't giving up.

we will watch how these negotiations play out. they are simply evidence of the fact that republicans know they are on the wrong side of the electorate. democracy doesn't allow for this place to be this far out of step for very long. let me introduce my partner and all of this, senator blumenthal. sen. blumenthal: i want to thank senator booker, part of the team that went to the floor and joined us in a rare moment of history. for the republicans to say that they have alternative proposals, there would be no debate let alone any amendments or proposals.

forcing them to address this issue. my reaction to this vote today is exactly what i heard from the gallery three years ago when this body fail to adopt common measures. shame on you. that what was shouted from the -- that is what was shouted from the gallery that day. that is what people are shouting at the senate of the united states today. diane expressed the hope that cooler heads may prevail. what we need is more courageous heads. those heads will come when our republican colleagues, now that we look at themselves in the mirror, we have to look at their constituents in the eye between

now and november. thisolitical dynamic of nation has changed. the american people have turned a chapter because the terrorists have turned a chapter. this fight is no longer about the 30,000 individual people lost every year to gun violence. it is about making americans safe against our enemies. we need to take the fight isis but also pardon our defense at home. that means common sense sensible measures like keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists with really effective measures. urge colleagues -- the current

wolfsal is described as a in sheep's clothing. i think it was a sheep in wolves clothing. we needd the toughness in such a measure. the republicans are indeed scrambling. they can't figure out how to stay on the good side of the nra and still be credible with the american people. i can say i am determined to see thatnsense solutions reflect common ground, but they and stope effective the kind of terrorist extremism

and every day gun violence on our streets. we are not giving up, we are not .oing away, we will not relent i would like to introduce a great partner from the state of .ew jersey now that he has arrived, a great partner and friend from the state of florida. don't nelson. >> one i going to tell 49 grieving families? what i going to tell the emily's of those still in the hospital fighting for their lives -- the families of those still in the hospital fighting for their lives? what do i tell the trauma surgeon whose bloodstained shoes have been showed on a picture on so many news programs.

he didn't know of midst the screams and the cries if they were black or white or gay or straight as they brought in over 40 all at one time into that trauma operating room. what am i going to tell the community of orlando that is trying to come together in the healing? sadly what i'm going to have to tell them is the nra won again. >> it is clear we are at war with terrorism. it is clear there are people that are plotting against us every day. there are folks seeking to inspire and radicalize folks here and abroad to attack this country.

what we have seen from san bernardino to orlando, a vote was taken to make us safer and you saw senator after senator leave us with these keeping vulnerabilities. someone on a visa waiver, people like those who carried out the attacks in belgium, a visa waiver country, can get on a plane and instead of doing their attack in belgium they can come to the united states, walk into a gun show, by a trunk full of weapons and carry out the same attack overseas. awaree in a nation now some folks who are under fbi investigation, who are on the terrorist watch list, who are on the no-fly list can't get on a

but they can carry out unspeakable violence by going to a gun show, going on the a church, aing into mosque, a playground, and carry out unspeakable violence. vote was just taken that someone can be a criminal and make terroristic threats, could have stopped their ex-girlfriend , been arrested for that and can still go to a gun show, can still go on the internet, get a weapon and kill them. our job is to protect this nation, protect our citizens. what happened today is so

troubling and disturbing and literallyg that when our enemy is telling people to exploit these holes, to kill us, we have left these loopholes open. i am angry, i am frustrated, but i will not let this finite defeat undermine our infinite determination to close these keeping loopholes. we may have lost today but we will not give up. in my appeal to the american people, we have the overwhelming majority of folks with us. is time we begin to demonstrate the truth, that the power of the people is greater than the people in power. they cannot block sensible commonsense legislation from

having this kind of grievous bloodshed again and again and again. if we do nothing, more people in our country will likely die. folks who say time and time again we are at war , what we have been doing by not closing this loophole, those people who seek .o get weapons to kill us i willnot stop fighting, stand with my colleagues here and we will continue this effort. it is our hope that folks will start lifting their voice, that we will not wait until the next mass shooting that seems to happen every two months. there is enough blood and enough

death, enough killing going on. we have all the evidence we need to do more. doing nothing is unacceptable. >> i want to extend my personal to senator durbin and senator schumer who are here . where's patty? and of course the statements made by the senators. to take a few questions. i'm happy to do that. votinghave two democrats against measures like you are talking about. how do you get everybody else on board yucca >> it is interesting you would directed to our democrats. i think you should not focus on

the one or two that voted against them. i think you should keep your focus on republicans, we are doing our job. >> don't you need your people? >> please, there is 46 of us. republicansearlier, are just about as phony as anyone can be. all they care about is taking care of the nra. get a difficult situation like the senator from new hampshire, junior senator from you can't explain what she is doing. the people of new hampshire going to recognize that. >> what do you think you meant in this really trying to do? do you see a serious effort to

legislate, and you think the democrats can vote for it? >> i think susan collins is a serious legislature. i don't know any of my colleagues have seen this. it's been kind of secretive. i would hope we can see that soon. mcconnell is filing another piece of legislation on some completely different thing. keep in mind what we have to do around here. let's look at the forest. he has found closure on something tonight, i'm sure they will deliver their attention away from the votes. going to be will to get to that on wednesday. that is 30 hours after that.

now we are into thursday and we haven't even done the bill of our own. zika, moret about than 1000 women are certainly have had that we births of children in the united states with small brains, schools that are not right. and we are doing nothing on that. we have waited forever to do something about puerto rico. where is something on opioids? people are dying every day with opioids. we are waiting to go forward on that. where's the responsibility of the majority here? >> susan collins is a serious legislature. it's a good thing.

the key question is not whether susan collins will try to offer a compromise, but if that is whether republicans will finally join her so we can get something done. is the key question, not whether susan collins is willing to compromise. for the first time with the and 20hanging republicans finally stepping up to the plate and passing the most modest of measures, that will stop terrorists from getting guns. we have heard mention the fact that everybody if somesan, and we know is going to pass, she is out there alone all the time. one more question. >> why does the mention fault the wayside is the only bipartisan background check will? offered bill?, we

senator mcconnell that he could do that today, he refused to do it. of hoursset aside one and he said no. he is off doing something else. thanks, everybody. , senate democrats wrapping up their news conference on today senate votes, in which four measures were all blocked. next, a conversation from this morning's washington journal on the presidential election campaign fund, which provides public funding for presidential campaigns. most candidates have stopped using the system.

joining us is marilyn thompson. good morning. this is called the presidential election campaign fund. tell us about it and how to get started? guest: it has a rich history. it was actually debated in the 70's. presidentidea of theodore roosevelt who proposed it back in his 1907 stated the union address. -- the state of the union address. it took a while to get to congress. there were a lot of varying opinions on whether it was necessary and needed and if it would work. effect andwent into was used in the 1976 election. run,d a very successful funded -- it funded some of the

lesser-known candidates are both parties throughout the 70's. people seemed to love it. they were contributing to the little checkoff on their income tax. peak, there was about 30% participation. campaignn to drop as finance began to change. they didn'ted that really want to give their dollar, which ultimately became three dollars, so they are been hasecting this money which very strict rules about how it imposedsed and limits on campaigns in order to receive it. at this point, no one really wants it. it has come to be known as the losers fund because it is mainly given money to a bunch of off-the-wall candidates in

recent years. major candidates can't agree to use it because they don't want to lose. host: for more specifics, the presidential election fund, how much sits in there currently? guest: it is $313 million sitting there stagnant. they are paid out very little money so far. martin o'malley filed a claim for some of it. jill stein, the green party candidate, just got a tiny bit of it. by and large, most candidates, including bernie sanders said the system was too broken for them to even participate. host: was it broken because of the limits the amount of money they can take and the rules involved? don't reallyles recognize the change of pace and composition of the modern

campaign. for instance, it said -- sets specific limits for each state. that haverly states become so important to winning out -- an election, these are very miniscule amounts of money you can spend. in new hampshire, you can spend around $1 million, that's it. so do you really want to play ball when the other candidates are saying i'm not playing ball and can spend whatever they want. candidate, how do i become eligible and how much can i get? a process, you have to show that you have support in at least 20 states. you have to submit very extensive paperwork to the federal election commission showing that you received the --ions in small amounts donations in small amounts from

20 states. they look at that very closely and then they qualify you for the fund. 2016, you could've received up to $48 million in the sounds like a lot money to the average person. the truth is, not in this day and age and in modern campaigns. host: it seems it is more about the roles involved with what you can do with it. otherwise, other sources of money are free of those rules. guest: bernie sanders, the biggest advocate of small donations, he was the only candidate specifically grilled about this. , i'm not goingid to play with this. it would guarantee that i could win an election. host: $300 million since in this president and -- presidential campaign fund. you contribute it.

want to learn about the fund and the public funding of campaigns with our guest, here are the numbers you can call. -- ,202) 748-8001 for republicans (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 four independents . let's start with bob in minnesota. you are on with marilyn thompson. i think the time is toht for something like this happen. i think people are disgusted with money in politics. these sanders campaign is a good example of that. there are good reasons for it,

hughes electronics in 93 complained to president clinton that sanctions on technology was hurting its company and they satellites onhing chinese rockets because of this. there was a technology transfer. that, we had the tiananmen square issue. host: what point would you like to make with our guest? when it comes to the other funny of campaigns or this fund? caller: i just think it's important to get the money out of politics. it's too damaging, it's damaging for national security and everything else. guest: i would have to tell you

that all the polls show that americans are really fed up with the current state of campaign-finance. they want change, that is very clear. i guess the question is, is that the way to do it or is there a better way? host: joe in new jersey, republican line. caller: i supported bernie sanders for president and i still think he is an eligible candidate. dismissive.k it's honestly, i don't like the rather -- rhetoric of the democratic party right now. you didn't treat bernie sanders that well when he left. thank you. fund was the idea of this

if it is going to come from the public was to hopefully have a pr sense of politicking? politicking?e of -- pure sense of politicking? guest: precisely. there had been many scandals leading up to roosevelt election. he gave a very vocal defense of creating a way for the smaller donor to participate in this process and get it out of the hands of corporate money. that idea took a wild to catch fire. administration after another ran into scandals about money, it's like a good idea. -- it seemed like a good idea. it worked effectively for a

number of decades. host: jimmy carter and ronald reagan both depended on the fund during their campaign. did, --.s they last week, jimmy carter was at a forum being interviewed by bill clinton, whose wife has certainly been spending quite a bit of money. carter made a passionate defense of public financing as one of the ways that you might regain public confidence in the system. if you wa to go to our website and see that exchange with the former president about the issue of public financing. marilyn thompson writing about it with the atlantic. she is a fellow at harvard on which she did research. topic? -- why this topic? the fellowship is a

wonderful opportunity for journalists today again. -- i was looking for a niche in politics, i was looking for something no one was writing about at the moment. that led me to this. the core as touched i talked with people at harvard and people out in the campaign-finance world. there is a lot of activity around this debate even now with representative david price being a leader in trying to get the fund performed and modernize. -- reformed and modernize. d. host: what kind of reforms are we seeing potentially? david prices build --

bill would make the fund more viable by increasing the max you get. currently it is a one to one match. he is suggesting that it should be a 621 match. the ad -- 6-1 match. the idea being give the candidate enough money to run a legitimate campaign and then see how it turns out. host: tom from illinois, you are next. caller: thank you for receiving my call. steps does your guest in vision that the government can take to rid politics of money? maybe thend that person on the street may want to contribute to a bernie sanders or even a donald trump, but how can we pull the majority of the , the largeions

and have the media be more -- a new bill was introduced last week to address the abuses of corporate funding in campaigns. it is a comprehensive package. the general idea is to limit corporate and increase public participation. i had some very interesting conversations in the course of doing this paper, including one of my favorite examples of people i used in the paper was from tacoma, washington. he is just an average citizen, but he believes so strongly that americans, regular people need

to participate in this process, that he gives to his favorite candidate regularly in very small amounts. he has had some problems -- despite having problems keeping a job. it is interesting to hear how passionate he was and how passionate some of the campaign-finance advocates are about public participation. that is really the only way. corporate limits on and size of individual donations and scale it back. host: if i were a candidate and i got funds from this campaign, can i still accept superpac money or is that it? guest: you have to agree to restrict your fundraising and spending limit. we are now in the era of big

money. you, by accepting this public funding and the notion surrounding it, just dooming yourself? host: andrew from massachusetts, democrat line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my hall -- call. i wanted to ask about public perceptions around this campaign fund. himself --p has made said he is the answer by self funding his campaign. guest: i think this may be andrew from cambridge, massachusetts who was my researchers on this researcher on the product that project. because you were deep into this as i was, donald

trump, by saying he was self-funded automatically excluded himself from the public financing system and the primaries -- in the primaries because the law specifically limits the amount of money that you can put into your own campaign. restriction tight and it has not changed over the course of 25 years. from -- trump, he is a very interesting example of how financing is changing. he is benefiting from free media. he is racking up the hours on cable television at no cost to himself. i was just checking the numbers before i came on the air. at this stage, donald trump has total spending's pales in comparison to hillary clinton.

he has figured out a way to get the media attention without having to pay for it. host: john from connecticut, independent line. caller: i love that last statement. that shows you how smart that guy is. i get really upset when i see the amount of money spent. thatabsolutely nauseating the ordinary american can sit and watch television and watch this amount of money that's people and most of the don't have a job that pays more than 10 dollars an hour. it's money that counts. it doesn't matter have what we think or how we vote. it's going to be money. it's pretty sad. i think bernie sanders should jump ship and run as an independent. i think he would get much more votes. thank you very much for your program. guest: that is a very thoughtful

comment and it is very interesting. look at the money being spent on the congressional level, the senate level. the problems are pretty much the same across the board. there has been a movement throughout the state and local governments to impose new systems and public financing models in those localities. they're beginning to show some positive effects. north dakota, this is where john is. republican line. caller: good morning. i think the party has so much money, why don't they start using that money to pay off the debt that we have got in this country instead of spending billions of dollars on campaigns .

all it's about is money, not being elected and doing the job to support our people that they were elected for. people as i did the reporting for this article said there are $313 million sitting there that nobody can touch and nobody wants it. think of the national need that that could address. in total terms, it's a relatively small amount of funding. even so, there are some very worthwhile efforts, social programs, just basic debt reduction. why do you want money sitting -- sitting there? host: could it be transferred to something else? guest: all of that could be done if congress decides to take it on. are a lot of interesting

conversations about how to free that money up. i will be watching this very closely. our guest is also a fellow -- former deputy editor at politico. our guest is marilyn thompson from the washington post and a contributing writer at the atlantic. the piece is the price of public money. olympia, washington. june is next on the democrats line. caller: i am calling about two things. one is that i've heard nearly $2 of free advertising has been given to donald trump from the media. i'm so tired of hearing about him, i can't stand it. wrote a letter to msnbc to complain about their coverage of the election.

, in myve hours of time mind, to donald trump. a minute to hillary clinton and the seconds to bernie sanders. i supported bernie sanders and actually donated money, which i rarely do. it was a small amount of money, .ut even so, i was really hurt after five seconds, they were tired of listening to him and what he had to say. i can understand young people supporting him. we have -- we give interest-free money to the banks and then the government loans that two students who are trying .o go to college

the government could help students directly. host: thank you, june. guest: i want to recommend you take a look at a paper that just came out within the past several person, thenother wonderful tom patents and -- patterson. he did a paper that is getting a lot of attention really analyzing media coverage of the candidates during the primaries and establishes with very high level of certainty how trump fared in comparison to other candidates. for those of us in this business you see how this played out. my research assistant andrew and i did an article for u.s. news & world report earlier in the season that was just amazing to

show how trump basically recognized and capitalized on by getting comments amazing coverage after each one. we documented that in a series of graphs. was barack obama's position on public funding? many people feel that obama totally betrayed them in .he system in 2008, obama said he would accept public money, he was always a campaign-finance reform advocate. again, in the midst of campaigning, realized what he was up against, he changed his position. he said no, i won't take public money. i'm going to go out and try to raise money over the internet

and through small donations and the actually did with huge success. but he abandoned the public finance system. financethe campaign reformers have not forgiven him for that. that he wouldthem take this on as a cause and try soget the system refined that it could be a viable system. for politicaled reasons that he really couldn't take it on. he had a hugely successful effort. look at the comparative analysis. could he have one with the cost of living adjusted amount that would have been available at that time? no. host: ted on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i was thinking we should

probably take all the money out of the election from corporate cs.nsors and pa maybe have a $1000 donation per citizen and that's it. you're a candidate, you should be limited to about $1 million and have a public platform for debate on every night of the week and we can get together and elect the person who's really qualified. that's a good idea. i don't see a lot of bipartisan agreement on how to address the system. there has been a divisive feeling about it from the beginning. host: jamie from iowa on the republican line. caller: hi, my name is jamie.

i follow politics, i have for years and years. i'd like to make a statement. that people see having power were actually created by the federal courts and i think that those should be revoked because i think they have an unfair influence on the american public. i think they have a lot of ideas, they put false ideas out there. i think it is interesting that bernie sanders is running for free college when the time that he served for office, they increased the percentage rate of student loans. questionsswer some runningose interesting point for the candidates? guest: i would have to say that many people agree with you that a lot of the burden for fixing

campaign-finance is now centered squarely on the supreme court. couple ofmade a decisions over the past few years, most notably citizens united, that have completely changed the landscape of public finance and campaign-finance in general. fixing the system may be hard to believe as many people we have the supreme court take action to refine or revoke citizens united. host: rich creek, virginia. independent line. joe, good morning. caller: iran for public office one time. think one way you can make it change for the states to their of electoral college where the electoral votes

are delegated out by congressional district. that way, the politician not to spend the same amount of money that they would in a lower populated area. after an election, when someone gets elected, like some of the incumbents, they should not be allowed to have that money in their account. for those who don't have money to run against those who have 3 million or $4 million in the bank account. the best way to fix it is for the states to change the electoral college system to electoral votes delegated out by congressional district. interesting. one of the original theories behind public financing touches on something that you noted. it is something -- which is how

do you level the playing field? guydo you give the little as good a chance at getting elected as the well-funded guy. that was the motivating force for the idea in the beginning. it has worked when it has been effective. as we mentioned, jimmy carter was a nobody. he was a georgia governor who had very little public name recognition. you, this system allowed them to get elected. host: as far as the fund itself. candidates take money and are no longer the race, do they have to give it back? guest: no. martin o'malley putting his claim a little over a million

dollars. within a couple of weeks, he dropped out. it did allow him in that final stage of the campaign to get bank financing to show that he was going to be able to repay the loan, but know you do not have to pay the money back. according to the federal election commission, it is supposed to be very rigorously audited to make sure that there is no misuse of public funds. i found this fascinating as i was doing my research. the program has fallen into such disuse over the years that it's relegated to a single employee at the federal election commission, that is how the fund in -- is administered. in an ideal world, they will go back and audit martin o'malley like they said they would and

make sure the money was properly administered. everett, massachusetts. republican line. stephen, hello. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for answering the phone for me today. i would like to ask the lady a question. i will make it real short. -- like to find out, is bernie sanders got his money from donors, small donors. that is great. donald trump -- i'm talking about the primaries. he got his money through himself. two questions. clinton, i see on msnbc, cnn and fox news, i watch everything. , she gets itmoney

from saudi arabia, from kuwait, she gets donations. she is using that money through the foundation and so forth. that's the first one. could you explain that. andrew, how dois you know andrew? isn't that a conflict of interest? i could've sworn that you know him and he worked for you or something. if you can answer those two questions, i'd appreciate that. thank you again and i'm glad that you are on. guest: to the first point, you may be a little confused. hillary clinton for the selection is not allowed to take foreign donations and she is not

taking foreign donations. there has been a lot of press coverage about money that is theg -- that is coming to clinton foundation for its various programs. a lot of that money is in fact from foreign interests. for strictly the campaign purposes, she is not allowed to take foreign donations. if she were, that would be a clear fcc issue. as far as andrew and conflict of interest. andrew worked with me for three months as a research assistant. he is a harvard student. he is a great guy and it was a wonderful relationship. i think he is still very interested, at least interested enough to call in with a good question. host: democrats line from indiana. caller: good morning. thank you.

. have a solution i am a democrat, i am 79 years old. i have served as a legislature. -- legislator. what we need to do is bring the amount of time for campaigning down to the first of the year of the election year. limit the money from outside interests. we need to bring the abc, nbc, cbs into this. the airwaves belong to the people. therefore, they should be forced

to give a certain amount of time to each citizen who is running for office because the airwaves belong to the people. host: thank you, caller. guest: you made a very good point fair at the beginning about the amount of time spent on fundraising. that is a big concern in the campaign finance world. someone made the point in my interviews that if you look back at when ms. public financing system was functioning well in the days of ronald reagan for , ronald reagan did not spend all of his time out on the road raising money for the party or for himself. compare that to the current situation with president obama constantly on the road