national rest of the community works with the united states as part of our coalition to go after isolate another extremists operating inside of syria. host: what in your view is the goal? guest: for several decades, russia was alive with >> they were concerned for humanitarian reasons, the dictator all caps off the. afi.add that experience for president putin let him do say this cannot happen in syria. syria has a naval base in

and wants to keep that base. it also shows an interest about -- they wanted to come together against the islamic state. those of the core interests in syria, and were the differences of thes around the fate syrian president. >> russians see him as an ally, they do not see an alternative, and their view is that they need to back the government of syria. there are shared interest in terms of the terrorist threat, but also differences. >> john is coming -- calling in

from massachusetts. >> good morning. how are you? >> we are good. what is your question for andrew parasiliti? stepping back at this thing observation, the united states has destabilized five countries over there, immigration and migrant problems in the world, and the reincorporation has been doing this,nd talking about anything about syria without -- it isbout absolutely ridiculous. i also wanted to bring in

historyal facts, being is written by the winners, most of the time. zi germany fell, i think goebbel's family died in the bunker with hitler's. >> and that is a lot to unpack. to's give them a chance respond to that. >> the rand corporation was established after world war ii, and we engage and work with the u.s. government and contracts to deal with all kinds of public policy issues, whether it is national security, a wide range of issues. we are also an independent think tank and have one of the most

well-established public policy phd programs in the country. so we are also university. with regard to the situation in -- did notd mention mention anything about oil, and had no plans to, with regard to syria. what we have tried to understand in syria is to reconcile two things. one is, and i think president obama and the obama administration is trying to work is out as well. one is the real threat that we face from these terrorist groups in syria. the islamic state, which happens to be losing territory, and al qaeda, which has helped them grow at this time has proven that their capabilities are growing. we have seen the attacks in europe. we have seen, in the unite states, the islamic state

inspired individuals and others, also getting attacks. that is a threat we need to deal with. the threat of refugees. this is a huge threat. syria now has 5 million refugees. that country of 22 million people where 5 million people have left. that has affected the politics of europe and syria's neighbors in a grave way. the humanitarian crisis is devastating. reconciling the deep humanitarian concerns we have in syria with the strategic interests and national security interests, this is a big challenge which is the obama administration is trying to work there. host: we are talking about the talks between the u.s. and russia over syria. we are speaking with andrew parasiliti. he works at the rand corporation as well as ator

previous executive director of the international institute of strategic studies. in today's "wall street journal" there is an opinion piece that points out the fact that president obama and secretary of state john kerry have not always been on the same page when it comes to syria. it says it took 7.5 years, but the obama administration is finally awakening to the nature of vladimir putin's russia. theriday, john kerry said syrian and russian government should face a war crimes probe for bombing civilians in syria while the u.s. intelligence community announce its belief that the russians are behind cyberattacks on the democratic national committee. they reflect say their frustration from kremlin state diplomacy, but it will not amount to much because of president obama's abdication in syria has left u.s. with very

little leverage on the ground. russia and probably china would veto the security council. what is your reaction? >> of course secretary kerry is frustrated. he worked very hard to try to work this agreement out. i do not know if i would say the russian interests here are not sincere. what they're are saying is that at the core of the deal for them , the request that the u.s. work with its allies in the region to separate those oppositionists who we support and are allies or alt who are not mosra qaeda. some of those groups are combing gold, working together with mostra in aleppo right now.

secretary kerry wanted it to but it is deeply complicated and difficult to watch. -- what may have been a shared interest did not happen. core concern failed. democrats can call republicans,, (202)748-8001. >> your guests cannot be unaware of the rp that sanctions within the pentagon led by ashton deal,, opposed to the

they deliberately targeted the russian backed syrian soldiers. i would just like to say, we are not all is stupid as you think we are. perhaps you would like to comment on that. guest: the united states has formally said it was a mistake that they bombed the syrian troops on secretary kerry said september 17. this at the united nations. the foreign minister said that conveyed a formal apology to the syrian government on their behalf. the u.s. has said it is a mistake, it is a war zone, and one of the reasons one has to be very careful when one considers what to do next in syria because you have u.s. troops on the ground, russian troops on the ground and in the air. you also have iranian troops and

al qaeda and the islamic state. danger an arena of brave with intense hostilities. with regards to the statement about secretary carter, he is the secretary of defense. i think reports of indicated there have been a wariness in the administration about working with russia. many in the administration do not trust russia for the reasons we discussed earlier this morning, because the russian because of europe, accusations of russian hacking, and complex interest in syria. what secretary kerry was trying to do with russia was find where the united states and russia could work together given all of the other problems. that did not work out, for the

reasons we now know. host: in today's "washington post," we have a story regarding another development with russia and syria. it says russia ratified a treaty with syria on friday that gives moscow its first permanent airbase in the middle east, a symbol of the kremlin's desire to project strength overseas as russian officials consider getting rid of other bases in cuba and vietnam. symptomatic of russian airstrikes in syria three moscow has no doubt about its commitment to the regime of assad. no indication the cuba or vietnam would be open to the return of russian military. how concerned should u.s. officials be at this latest development? guest: russia has always had a base in syria.

my own personal view is that if there is to be an accommodation with russia about syria, the first order of business is to eight knowledge its long-standing interest of their. when i look at the syrian case, i tend to see that we have in uprisingh a popular islamic state and al qaeda, , differing interests of the regional parties, turkey, iran, -- inarabia, and others this context, it is very, very difficult to find a solution. the parties on the ground don't want to stop the fighting. when you have a situation like that any studies will tell you for an need to look international solution. that means the united nations security council and u.n. agencies set the context for diplomacy. without russia, there is no un n international solution.

security council being able to assist and help move the process forward. many people have criticized what secretary kerry has tried to do. when we had the cessation of hostilities, people got relief. opportunity to experience life away from the bombs. collapsed, this is your result. this is what is happening. bleakternatives are all in syria. but the opportunity of working something out with of the united states should not be rolled out because actually it may be the and way to end the fighting escalation. host: peter on the independent line. you are on with andrew parasiliti. good morning. guest: good morning. i would like to tell andrew, the

big problem you will have now is this is just like the iraqi war and weapons of mass destruction. all the think takes funded by the industrial complexes and business bureaus that benefit when we go to war, the american people are starting to wake up. in take a look at isil syria, they were running wild until the russians got involved. what did the russians do? they bombed the oil supply. we have all this technology, 800 military bases over the world, and we could not stop isil and their oil supply, but the russians could? [indiscernible] give andrew parasiliti a chance to respond. guest: my reading of what is

happening over the last 5.5 years, going on six in syria is that president obama has tried to steer a course that has kept the united states mostly out of the war. obviously, we have special forces on the ground, working with the groups that we support. this is a battlefield, no question about that. the obama administration has been cautious. i think, cautious with an eye towards what happened in iran. what have been the consequences in libya. and the difficulty in seeing a path in syria where the terrorist threat exists, and trying to bring the war to a close.

i don't see what the u.s. government, and what the obama administration has done until this being one that looks to point, escalate syria. i think the obama administration wary of cautious and escalation, and has tried, to work out the best approach to keep the u.s. out of syria and trying to bring the war to a close. that is what they were trying to do. in ansenator john mccain op-ed in the washington journal said, if we do not stop assad now, we can only expect years of war. you agree with that assessment? guest: what would happen if the idea is -- let me put it this way. we do want to stop the war in syria. there is no question about that.

in that general principle, i would agree. every day the war goes on in syria, it is more tragedy for the syrian people. it gives life to al qaeda and the islamic state and potential for refugees and humanitarian disaster. how do you bring about an end to the war? that is the question. if what is being proposed is an escalation of u.s. engagement in the middle east, i would say, what are the consequences of that? is that something the american people want and to what end? no question about assad's record in syria. the record has been atrocious, they have to answer for that. but for the u.s. to intervene while fighting the islamic state and al qaeda,

given all the other factions and interest on the ground, it would be intensely complicated in a win it isre we go much, much harder to get out. have dale calling from arkansas. good morning. you are on. go ahead. caller: i just want to ask if we are giving enough attention to the refugee problem spreading out across the globe. that somebodye could take the opportunity, especially russia, of communicable diseases, such as smallpox. i know that russia kept a supply of smallpox which was basically eradicated, as was polio at one time. we have taken in some refugees, and i notice that in northwest

arkansas in the last month or so, there have been about 400 cases of mumps showing up out of nowhere. they say it came from iowa. i kind of don't believe that. veteran,ld cold war and we were a nokia laded -- innoculated. pursuinginking about inoculations for civilians here in the united states and abroad? host: let's give andrew parasiliti a chance to respond to that. guest: i think he is right to draw attention to the refugee crisis. this is something that has affected europe and continues to do so. most studies will tell you that refugees, once they leave, it takes an average of 17 years for them to return and be repatriated. when the war of syria ends --

there is no sign of that at this time -- it will take them years to go back. and how they come back and how that all works out, a very grave situation. when you have these massive refugee camps you have the potential for disease, you have children who need education. so you have a generational challenge of young people who grow up in a climate of war and conflict. in a state of despair, away from their country, and without getting proper education, housing, shelter, and medical treatment, that in turn becomes a long-standing problem. in syria comes to an end, the humanitarian crisis will continue to be a challenge for us at the top of that agenda. host: a "new york times" piece points out one aspect of the russian-syrian relationship could be due to the timing of

the u.s. election. it says that it offers the kremlin an opening in syria. it says the strategy of vladimir putin of russia is to move aggressively in what he sees as a prime window of opportunity in the four months between now and the presidential inauguration when mr. putin inaugurates that departing president obama will be able to intervene. do you agree? guest: i think the russian campaign and aleppo is in part timed with the u.s. election cycle. there is always a concern among

international players when a new president comes in. that is an uncertainty and an unknown. the russian intervention in a has continuedia to escalate, they see an opportunity to eliminate al-nusra and other groups in syria. if the russian and syrian government, also those involved here retake aleppo, what you will see is the syrian government will control most of the key cities in syria. that will be a major victory for the syrian government. it will not be the end of the war, but a major victory. and in a post from the new york times, it is accurate in terms of saying that is part of the calculation of putin intensifying the campaign at this time. host: kathleen is calling in on the democratic line.

caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. you are on with andrew -- andrew parasiliti. caller: i agree. we are not allies with russia. president putin does not have our interests at heart. i believe president obama was because he is never going to agree with anything that we do. i would like to hear your words , will it ever be in line. guest: u.s.-russian relations, from the very top, secretary kerry, secretary carter do not trust putin and relations are not good for all three regions we have discussed.

relations are not good for all of the reasons we have discussed. said, given the situation we are in and the severity of wascrisis in syria, secretary caret and the obama administration were trying to do is, given that environment, to try to end the war in syria. when you deal in the middle east and a place like syria and international affairs, interests will almost never be perfectly aligned. it is just the nature of a difficult situation. about theked complexities of the war in syria. what we were trying to do is find where there might be a convergence of interests, and that is in dealing with these terrorist groups and moving the process ahead, getting peace talks going.

it did not work out, but it is a worthy effort, and sometimes when you have difficult overall relations with russia, if you can find targets of opportunity where you might be able to do some good, in bringing to a close one of the most severe conflicts happening in the world today, if not the greatest conflicts we are facing, then i think it is worth a chance. >> what is iran's role in all of this? they are the closest ally. russia, is 100% behind a thought in this campaign. they provide military council and advice, supporting them with hezbollah,s ally, the shiite group is also

fighting in syria. , andran is very interested that group is opposed by u.s. partners and allies in the region like saudi arabia in particular, who have backed. and the rebels are looking to confront iranian influence there. >> we have dan calling in from bridgewater, new jersey on the republican line. caller: good morning. i was familiar with the founders of the rand corporation, and i strongly supported them in their two goals. one was anti-communism. another was support for israel and zionism. as the communist issue ceased to be a matter of concern, the dominant withcame the invasion of iraq.

the united states has created a tremendous chaos. given powertingly to the shia, provoking saudi's to take action in syria, as the leader of the sunnis against a .awed --assad this internal conflict of the middle east is a result of the chaos we created. and which israel supported us on, and which the rand corporation supported us on. i think it is quite conceivable that the russians might be seeing the united states as promoting chaos in the middle east rather than any definitive purpose which may be good for israel, but from the russian point of view, this is quite a problem. they have so many sunni muslims in their country, it is quite a

problem. host: let's give andrew parasiliti a chance to unpack all of that. >> he raised the question of israel's interest in syria which we did not discuss. israel is right on the border of syria. israel is in a technical state of war with syria. obviously, while syria has always been a challenge for israel under assad, the prospect of a destabilized syria, the of a destabilized syria, the prospect of radical groups taking over syria or a syria that becomes divided into warring factions is also a concern for israeli strategic decision-makers. a complex situation as well. he also mentioned, in terms of russian interests, which we have discussed, there is also a shared interest.

-- interest by the united states and russia in defeating these terrorist groups. he is right. rebels,e chechnya and some operating in israel, working with al-nusra and other groups. obviously, syria a lot closer to russia than the united states. those key points on israel and russia are worth considering. host: what is behind the difference in the reaction to -- of israel to the situation in syria, then -- than other countries? last month israel did fire one missile after mortar went over into their area. but up to a year ago, you could go up to the border of syria when you are in golan heights. why the difference in approach their?

they called it a quiet border when i was there. guest: i think israel would prefer it remain a quiet border. as we have seen in the course of the war, there have been groups, terrorist groups that have begun to operate on the syrian border in israel. a that is a concern, and hezbollah, which is again on the of basedrthern border , in lebanon, but the expansion of the influence in syria is also a deep concern for israel. and what that means in terms of israel's concerns is front and center in their minds. host: we have vonn calling in.'s you are on with andrew parasiliti. good morning. caller: i have a question, or hypothesis and question, how much is the putin-obama relationship directly related to

racism? i was reading online that russia , russian public figures refer term.ma with a derogatory he is very disrespected in russia. is it because of racism? obama tried to reach out to putin and was rebuffed. i just want to know how much is due to racism? host: let's let andrew parasiliti respond. guest: there is no doubt that the putin-obama relationship has not worked. the collar is right that president obama, when hillary secretary of state, tried a reset in u.s.-russia relations. another effort, looking out, u.s.-russiaat

interests were not perfectly aligned. they try to work out some type of arrangement so they could avoid conflict and escalation. that did not happen. president putin himself is a complicated personality and clearly he speaks to both exploit what he considers u.s. weakness in places. he also tried to find some common ground. the relation is very bad right now. i just don't know about the issues of whether racism, or whether that has to do with things. certainly the relationship is poor and probably irreparable. host: president putin and donald trump are fond of talking fondly

of one another. there is a so-called bromance going on there. what is president putin's interest in praising one of the presidential candidates? is it to influence the elections? can it be trusted? influences trying to the election for donald trump, is probably not helping because it is hard to imagine right now given the political climate in the united states that anything the russian president is going to say will be to the benefit of anyone he would praise or refer to in any positive way. in terms of whether he is trying to complicate the u.s. electoral process, we have the issue of hacking, which is maybe more deliberate.

that may also be in their strategy, as well. >> next we have joe calling from butler, north carolina. you are on with andrew parasiliti. good morning. caller: i happen to agree with the caller two callers ago. it looks like the united states, russia, and israel are working together against any real opposition to establish a real islamic state. a real islamic state, not these bloodthirsty hoodlums that you call isis. for instance, if the only real opposition with any potency -- they continue to call them terrorists he cannot name a , single time when al-nusra

attacked russian soil, russian interests, united states soil, or united states interests or territories. attempt to pretend that we are somehow supporting the rebel resistance to assad but at the same time making sure there will never be an islamic republic north of israel. >> let's let him respond. guest: that is just something -- simply not correct. the united states and the united designated al-nusra a terrorist organization. it is al qaeda's largest affiliate ever. al qaeda, we may recall, attacked the united states on september 11, 2001. this is an affiliate.

this is related, they brought so much tragedy and killing to the people of the middle east. and the united states has now rightly pointed out that this group in syria deserves american attention, and that is why the u.s. and russia were working to work against it. the united states is not opposed to islam or islamic government in the region. manyrk closely with countries in the region, like saudi arabia, a close ally. that is simply not the case. and other islamic friends have suffered even more than we have as a result of the islamic state. >> i just want to get your reaction from another russian-related story in today's "wall street journal."

they have a sophisticated, system bordering poland, according to government officials, introducing a powerful military aspect into an already tense region and promoting concern by allied officials. the naval ship how much of a concern should this be to western officials? >> given what russia has done in the ukraine, and taking over crimea, having its influence in , and nowof ukraine what you have reported with regards to what is happening in poland, this continues to be something the united states will give top priority to.

it contributes to this overall climate of the deterioration a russian relations and the absolute lack of trust. when you see american officials at the top expressing their concerns about what we were , a lot ofdo in syria the reason for their skepticism was based on what happened in europe and elsewhere. host: judy, you are on, we just have a couple minutes left. caller: i just want to say, i feel sorry for the people in syria and what is happening to them. but i do not understand why all these people -- you mute your television and listen to the phone? ok. we had some issues there.

andrew parasiliti, director for the center for global risk and security at the rand corporation and former foreign policy advisor to chuck hagel of nebraska, thank you for joining us today. >> thank you for having me. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's washington journal, live every day. coming up sunday morning, writers campaign correspondence ginger gibson previews the second presidential debate at washington university in st. louis. plus, charlie cook, editor and publisher of the cook political report and rothenberg and gonzales report on the latest from the presidential race, including expectations for sunday's debate. talk about key swing states in the senate and the likelihood of a democratic takeover of that chamber. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00

eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. c-span 2016 campaign bus is traveling throughout virginia to ask voters, what are the most important issues in the election, and wide? john david allen, i am a freshman in college, and the most important issue to me in this election is the and refugeecrisis crisis and also the economy. has not been doing that well economically lately. i feel that the immigration crisis, illegal immigrants coming in, is a very big problem. >> my name is violet lewis, i go to the university, and the most important issue in this election are social issues, specifically abortion and also our immigration. creamy -- colin

creeney. i think national security is the most important issue. we have problems with borders and foreign threats. i feel that is important in this upcoming cycle. my name is alex, i got to college. i think the most important issue in the 2016 election is the economy. i am class of 2020, the most important issue for candidates to address would be , theitutional rights values that people like thomas jefferson held, preserving this country. >> voices from the road on c-span. justice supreme court elena kagan talked about the life and legacy of her friend and former colleague, justice

antonin scalia. joining her is the university of notre dame law professor william kelly, former law clerk to justice scalia. and leonard leo, executive vice president of the federalist society. this was in colorado springs, colorado. this is about an hour. >> sometimes people talk about members of their profession as lions of the profession and i often have a difficult time understanding the analogy. not so with justice scalia. he was, in his personal life, docile. and in public life, he had a roar that could be heard for miles. and so we thought it would be fitting today to bring together a few people who knew him very well to talk about his legacy both personally and professionally. next to me, of course, is

justice kagan who truly needs no introduction. you had one last night. we were very fortunate to have her with us for the fireside chat. so i'll keep this brief. safe to note that she's held pretty much i think every job in american law any young lawyer would aspire to have. and she did it as the first, the first female dean of the harvard law school and the first female solicitor general of the united states. in her first oral argument in citizens united before justice scalia. we're going to hear that story this morning. next to justice kagan is my friend, bill kelly. he's now a professor at notre dame. he started his career as a law clerk to justice scalia and in between those two things, he's done some mighty interesting things himself. he's served as an assistant to the solicitor general of the united states, arguing before

the supreme court. spent time in private practice and was deputy council to the president of the united states in the bush administration. he's a wonderful friend and a real pleasure to have you here. he's also written one of the, i think, most insightful summaries of the justice's career, it's in the george washington law review, "justice scalia and the long game." next to bill is leonard leo. leonard is a close personal friend of the justice and his family so we get that perspective with us today. you may have seen him on c-span reading from the scriptures at the justice's funeral. he's the executive vice president of the federalist society. he's served on the united states commission on international religious freedom. he's been a u.s. delegate to the u.n. commission on human rights among many, many other things. please join me in welcoming this wonderful panel. [applause]

>> now, i plan to promptly get out of the way here. but to start things off, i think everybody who knew the justice probably has a favorite anecdote. the man was larger than life. would each of you please share with us your favorite scalia anecdote. justice? justice kagan: i'm not sure i have a single anecdote. but i have two ways that i'm going to remember him. the first way is at conference, at the court. and no particular conference, but just the experience of sitting with him at conference. the way the conference table works in the supreme court, the chief -- it's a long kind of rectangular table and the chief justice sits at one end and the senior associate justice sits at the other end and then it goes around the table in order of signorelli.

niority. and for all the time that i have been at the court, justice scalia was the chief associate justice so he sat on the opposite end of the table and as the junior justice, i sat on his right down at other end from the chief justice and justice scalia would keep up a kind of running patter throughout our conference. our conference, it's a pretty formal affair, everybody talks in turn and so forth. but justice scalia would sort of sotto voce comment on everything. comment on the cases, comment on everything that was being said about the cases. and anybody who knows justice scalia knows that he has really -- he had really an extraordinary sense of humor. he was an extremely witty man. so i would just be laughing all the time. except, you know, he was doing it kind of sorta so much so that nobody would notice him and i would burst out laughing on occasion and the chief justice would be looking down on the

table, what is going on there, and why is justice kagan interrupting the proceedings? and i always wanted to kind of go like this. like, it's his fault, you know? but when i remember him, that is the way i remember him most and best, is getting me into trouble at conference all the time because of his just incredible wit and maybe his irreverence, as well. the second way i remember him is as -- this is as different as different can be but is as a hunting partner. so, there's a story behind this. i grew up in new york city. we did not do a lot of hunting. but as i went through the nomination process, people asked me a lot of questions about whether i had, you know, any connection with hunting or guns or gun culture or what-not.

and i failed all of these questions miserably because the answer was, no, i've basically been an urban east coaster all my life, this is something that's pretty foreign to my set of experiences. i was once talking to a senator and he was asking me all these questions but i said you know it's true that i've not had these experiences but i said i'd like to have them and if you would invite me to your ranch to go out hunting with you, i'd love to come. and the senator, this abject look of horror came over his face. [laughter] and the white house staffer who accompanied me on all these visits had fallen off the sofa and i thought, ok, i went too far so i tried to pull it back a little bit and i said i didn't really mean to invite myself hunting with you but i will tell you what, if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed, i promise you that the first thing that i'll do is i'll go to justice scalia and ask him to take me hunting.

when i did get confirmed, one of the first things that i did was i went to nino and i told him this story. and he thought it was hilarious. i mean, he was just -- he thought it was the funniest thing and so he took me to his gun club and taught me how to shoot and taught me about gun safety and at a certain point he said ok, i think you're ready to go. and he invited me out with a long-standing group of hunting buddies he had. we went out to near charlottesville, virginia, first time, and we shot quail. and what surprised me and i think is a measure of his incredible personal generosity, was that he didn't do this as a one-time thing, a funny story and i'll let kagan satisfy this campaign promise of hers, but he kept on asking me and he basically said join our group and be a part of this thing that he loved so much.

and one of the reasons i'll remember it, him always in that context, is because one of the things that i think made justice scalia justice scalia was this incredible joy of life. and i've really never seen anybody enjoy something more than he did hunting. it was sort of wonderful to watch this man have this incredible joie de vivre as he did this thing. also, it was on those trips where i got to know nino extremely well. we came out to wyoming for a few days once we went to mississippi , for a few days. on these day trips, it's two hours in the car to charlottesville or richmond, two hours back. there's a lot of time to talk. so a lot of my personal connection with nino came from those trips. and that's the way that i find

myself remembering him over and over again. bill: thank you for inviting me. as i was thinking about this, it occurred to me, it's not every that one sits on a panel with a supreme court justice. as justice scalia would have said, a supreme justice. so that's a little intimidating but not nearly as intimidating as it was over 30 years ago to be a rising second-year student on the harvard law review facing the supervising editor elena , kagan. she was truly scary then. [laughter] bill i think she'd agree, too. ise first thing she does talk about this conference where no human being is allowed to go unless they have a commission to the supreme court. how do you follow that?

i can't follow that but when i think about anecdotes and the justice, the idea of joie de vivre comes to mind. the laugh, the laugh. he would laugh a lot. things held say believed to be obviously true, and wait for you to react. if you disagreed he would express false outrage and if you agreed, he'd laugh, laugh, laugh. the one anecdote that comes to mind sitting here is when i was with him -- my wife and i were expecting our first child, 28 years ago, his 30 term. -- his third term. and i knew that the boss had nine children so i was looking for tips. justice, any parenting tips? no, come on. tips? what do you mean? besides, maureen did everything. but i'll tell you this, if she's a pain in the neck when she's young, she'll be a pain in the neck her whole life. [laughter]

bill and if she's not, she's : not, so you've got a lot at stake at the beginning, let me tell you. i can say happily that it turned out well both at the beginning and at the end. leonard: well, i guess there are two things that come to mind. one is a story that the justice used to regale us with lots of times and we never told him we had heard it several times already. and it had to do with his senior year at georgetown. and, of course, he was a great student there. and there was a tradition back then that you had to have an oral exam before a board of priests at georgetown. i don't think they do that now. but he had his oral exam and as he describes it, he was hitting them out of the park, one question after the next. he knew his renaissance

literature, he knew his history. he had been grounded in ancient history. he thought he was just doing great. then the chairman of the board, a priest, said we just have one final question for you, mr. scalia. what was the most important event in human history? and he doesn't remember the answer he gave, but what he remembers is all sorts of events in human history rushing through his mind. you know, the polyponesian wars, incidents from the roman empire the invention of the printing , press. and he rattled off one of these events in human history and the priest just shook his head and said, no, mr. scalia, the incarnation of christ. and he describes himself as just shrinking just to a tiny little

person in front of this committee. and what was wonderful about the story for all of us who always heard it was, first, as a thing -- as i think bill alluded to, he loved to joke about himself. he had a great self effacing sense of humor so he was telling a failure of his which i think said a lot about the person, the way he opened up to a lot of people. but secondly, i think it said a lot about both his humility and about how he views human life. he was looking -- the way he puts it, he was looking for some great event in human history, something man did that made civilization great. and what the answer that was the one he was supposed to give had nothing to do with human greatness. i think that says a lot about who he is and how he conducted his life.

>> i loved fly fishing with the justice. as you know, i would say he fished exactly as you'd expect someone from queens, new york, to fish. [laughter] >> there are no fish in this river. that was the one time we'd take judicial notice on fishing trips. [laughter] >> growing up in colorado, you learn how to fish on the water with gentleness. there was no gentleness. [laughter] >> but what he lacked in finesse he made up for in enthusiasm. justice, you've spoken about his contributions to statutory interpretation. and i wonder if you'd share some of your thoughts with us about textualism and his views on that. justice kagan: i was very honored last year to give the antonin scalia lecture at

harvard law school. a donor wanted to honor him and thought the way to do so was to establish this lecture series and i was asked to do it and thought it was really a terrific honor. and this was when he was alive. and i went and i spoke with my friend and one of his clerks about his contributions to statutory interpretation. and i think what i said there was that he should have declared victory long ago, that this is, i think, what justice scalia will go down in history for more than anything else, as having changed the entire enterprise of statutory interpretation. so if you'll indulge me, a story about a particular case of mine which i had in my first year with the course. -- with the court. a case called millner, a freedom of information act case. and it dealt with the scope of

an exemption for the freedom of information act, meaning that the scope of something where the government could hold back rather than disclose materials. and it was an exemption for, i think it was called internal personnel procedures and practices. and somehow the d.c. circuit had created out of this idea of you can withhold materials relating to internal personnel practices, this exemption that said you can withhold anything that would created out of this idea of you allow people to violate the law. and the way they did it was, you know, there were a set of d.c. circuit opinions about this exemption written by really superb judges at a time -- since the time when bill and i both went to law school in the 1980's. and they didn't really mention the text of the exemption until like page 18 of the opinion. and they just talked about allp.

and they talked about all things they found in the legislative let -- redcord and how it made sense for the exemption to exist. , ashether the exemption was interpreted by the d.c. circuit in a way that was going on for decades, by the time it got to the court. and i remember going to conference one morning and i in.t nina on the way he was down the hall. and he would come out of his office door and looked down the hall to see if anybody was just me.d it was and he would wait for you to come. and i always felt like a teenage girl, like somebody was waiting for me to walk to school together. and anyway, so he waited for me

to come down the hall and we walked the way to the conference room and i said, you know can i -- you know, the way that we do statutory is different. you cannot imagine anybody writing these decisions down. nobody on the court, on the left or right, nobody would think you could write a decision that did not mention the statutory tax. nobody would write a decision which placed front and center, random materials from the legislative record and history. nobody on the court would think it was enough to say, it kind of made sense as we see it. and that has changed in the prior couple of decades and really it changed because of justice scalia. and i felt that justice scalia,

i mean the rest of us were not. -- were not purist enough. sometimes we would say something that he thought was not completely in keeping with the focus of the text. but i thought that he had won 80% of the game and in that the only reason everybody did not recognize that, or that the moved courts had extremely far in his direction, was because he kept demanding we go the last 20%. [laughter] been: in fact, if he had more of a diplomat or less of a fighter, what he would've said is, isn't this cool? everybody interprets statutes the way i have been saying they should. and i think that is right. >> you want to answer to that?

i think that is right, it was part of his personality. he believed humans were in perfect -- inperfect. so the last event would have been difficult for him to take. it wrinkles -- rankled. almost single-handedly he transformed the terms of not only how things were done, but the debate of how things are done. those who do not agree with his ,nterpretations and theories they have to agree with him. in that really is quite a change over the last generation. addonly other thing i will on this, i would convince everyone that his last book, could potentially go down as being important as blackstone's

commentaries. leonard: here is the exposition of how much he cared about language and construction. taking on the construction and trying to explain its determinant meeting to the interpretation. even with these canons thrown about. he had an incredible, extraordinary breadth of knowledge. is a think that final work very important capstone to his career. elena: it is a terrific book. and you and i talked yesterday about the lochner decision, a decision last year where the court wrestles with very weird statutory language and i wrote the dissent and we really went at each other.

one notable thing about the opinionswas that both relied on justice scalia's book. you cannot make anything of it, sometimes there are good arguments on both sides, and can be found in the many pages of the book. , and heis a sign of will see this over the next decade, that that will be the standard reference when it comes to statutory interpretation questions, and the statutory canons. >> ok. -- now-- it will not be be everywhere. we have to hear the story about citizens united. i cannot imagine. that was your first. i need to hear that story. elena: it was my first appellate

argument and i was nominated to the position, for whatever reason, because i had not done in appellate argument. one be ate the first the supreme court and of the importance of citizens united, i was nervous. and making me more nervous, the day before i had gone to the court, because the day before -- wasink, general souter, he looking to be nice and making conversation. he said he would be on the bench for the justices, when you go up, this is what they look that -- at. it is a few pages with standard biographical material and who has made the motion for you to be a member of the supreme court bar. but attached is a list of the

arguments you have done in the past. [laughter] me a pile of hands papers and there were three other lawyers who were arguing that day and the first one was ted olson, and to the list goes on and you are flipping pages and are there are 90 arguments. and the next one had done 75 arguments. and the third one was floyd abrams, he was new to the court, he had only done 25 arguments. and then it said my name and there was like, no paper. [laughter] elena: so i said, are you trying to psych me out? so i get up there the next day and my heart is really pounding and i almost could not hear anybody it was pounding so hard. i get up to the podium and i -- and, um, i had a few

sentences memorized to get me into the argument. and i thought i would get about 5-6 sentences out before i was interrupted. and i got one single sentence out, a short sentence too. -- no,m the bench i hear no, no. [laughter] and then he proceeded to tell me why the single sentence i uttered was 100% wrong. but it was great for me that day, the best thing, because when that comes at you you have to deal with it and say something back. and i said something back. and i thought, ok, i am in it. it was a great favor he did to me, i think. for the entire year i loved

being questioned by justice scalia. i argued a wide range of cases and some in which justice scalia naturally agreed, predictably. and some justice scalia, he did not agree. either way, i loved being questioned by justice scalia. he asked questions in a very straightforward way. they were extremely tough and aggressive, but there was never any thing hidden orof hidden agenda -- or no sort of hidden agenda. you knew where he was coming from and what he meant. and he also gave you a chance to respond to those questions, which sometimes you do not have. but he was fair in that way. he was going to give you the best he had, but he was going to give you a chance to argue back.

for the entire year, i so enjoyed the back and forth with justice scalia. picked it, probably if i a single justice where i was inh him or against him, case and case out, those were the exchanges i enjoyed best. >> as a law clerk, give us insight into his workings. he could be tough on council -- counsel. give us some insight into why. thirdi was there for his term. he was a young person and still learning the job here one thing about becoming a federal judge -- job. one thing about becoming a federal judge, there is a lot of law to learn. we expect them to become experts

in every area. and it is a hard thing to do. and when you are on the supreme court, you are expected to write opinions that will meet the stern criticism of the smartest people specializing in patent law, federal courts, criminal procedure -- and the whole gamut. you are supposed to be an expert at the level of, true experts in every subject. it is hard to do. there is a lot to learn. so it was exciting for him and incredibly exciting and fun to be with him as he was figuring out what he thought, because he generally do not have views about most questions when he began. he knew about administrative law and regulatory questions that came before him on the d c circuit, but he was not a world expert on criminal procedure. so he was learning and he loved

it and it was fun. but it was hard. his process was, after he read the briefs and you had read them, he would gather everything for a meeting, before the conference in every case. and the group would talk about every case for as long as it took for him to get to a point where he knew where he thought -- what he thought. and it explains his experience.y and the challenging one i had. because, imagine what it was like when there was nobody listening. [laughter] bill: it was fun and very challenging. excitementnd the was, we felt like he was different. he was new and different because

he cared about theory and methodology and the right way to do the job appropriate to the role of judges. he really cared about that from the beginning. that wase him work out really quite extraordinary. and part of the reason why i think he was so aggressive in argument and frequently so, and sometimes with his opinion he was aggressive, particularly in his opinions. for him it was not personal, it was about the law. when he put the rope on it was -- robe on, it was the office. he understood that in a way, from case to case across 30 years, that was extraordinary. he did not care who won the case. he did not care.

if it was a government or criminal case, the government must follow the law. what is the law? what is the right legal answer? it wasn't that he did not care about the human consequences of the cases, he thought that the people of the united states established ways in which the legal system would resolve questions about legal rights and duties and he had been given the power to decide who should win. as the lawar dictated the answer. for him it was law, not personal. and case after case, term after term, that is who he was. he was no more thinking that it was his role to decide winners in losers in a legal case, terms of consequences and outcome, then he would of thought it was his role to go to congress and to try to urge them

to pass a law that would have consequences. that was not his job. with the ideas and illegal materials, that is what he cared about. justice's about the personal life. he was a big family man. he started his career in ohio. leonard: yes, he started his ineer as a practicing lawyer ohio. looking back on his career, not necessarily what you would expect. he was occasionally asked about it by law students. he gave them interesting answers. we talked about it at one point. he said, when he got out of law school and entered into the practice, he loved the law. he was very good at it.

but he thought it was important to be a good father and husband, and he wanted a reasonable, legal career. one where he could spend time with his family. and one that was not going to be as frenetic. he said that jones day was a term that recognized the importance of balancing work and family. and you see it throughout his career, even though he was extraordinarily busy, obviously with being a lawyer and then an academic, then a judge. he always had time for his family. they are a closely knit family. greatave great, they had fun together. particularly at the dinner table, where there was a lot of talk, much like around the conference table.

jokes. these great so he had a great family life. you see a twinkle in his eye when he talked about his children and many grandchildren the people for get the number, 42.s very large, a very large number of grandchildren. so he was also of course devoted to his faith. and there is one image that is marked in my mind about that. communion, he would go to the back of the church, go back to the pew, kneel, bow down, completely still and silent for a long time. in hiss face cupped hands. and that was for me just a tremendous symbol of his

humility. think it spoke volumes .bout who he was and that was very much in stilled upon his family. though they tell different stories about the rush, you have nine children, so you have to get out of the house, getting to mass late and roughly around. but ultimately he imparted a sense of faith and family on his children and he can see it in them. they are all great kids. aty of you you probably saw the celebration of the funeral mass in washington. and it was extraordinary to see his son preside over the mass for two hours at least.

to have to cross the casket, stand before his family to deliver what was probably one of the most powerful speeches i have seen. and that is a tribute to his dad. that was in many ways a manifestation of that upbringing. so it gives it, it is really quite powerful. >> can you share with a holiday parties were like with justice scalia? has a the supreme court christmas party every year and justice scalia, i do not know if he was the self-appointed sort of head of singing. he had a great voice, so he room, wherend the the caroling took place and he would be caroling with a great

deal of gusto. his singingterms of and music and the joy he brought to that, the thing i remember is, than the holiday party we have a tradition at the court, many traditions, some of them peculiar. one of them is we gather for everybody's, any justice's birthday and we sang happy birthday to whoever it is. and justice scalia was the only one of us who could sing. [laughter] would so justice scalia sing and we would go kind of -- mmhmm. you know? [laughter] elena: and after his passing, we needed to kind of carry-on with that without his voice and it really sounded atrocious.

it was terrible. [laughter] like, oh myof us gosh. >> bring him back. we talked about justices and their statutory contributions, but we have not touched on his contributions to the interpretation of the constitution. some people expressed surprise when the justice ruled in favor of criminal defendants, in the sixth amendment context, the rule of lenity, or the doctor and just last term. in the last term. did you see those as the prizes? -- surprises? do not think in general it was surprising that his methodologies would lead him to rule in favor of criminal defendants. when people sometimes criticize

him and other judges and justices for being results oriented, i often think, as a policy matter do you think it is a good thing if an obviously guilty person goes free? of course not, but there are more important values at stake than that immediate question. so he took some time intellectually to come to the view that he thought was the right way to interpret the competition -- constitution. and one thing he would say, you cannot beat something with nothing, and that is what he would say. and so, if he believed the constitution was originally understood, the original meaning, required in outcome than that is where he would go, without favor.

every time. and one thing about justice was hes personality believed his views. he believed that the default position of human beings in this country was one of freedom, that is where we start. you are free and something has to intervene to change that in the law. in the constitution, originally there, any abridgment on freedoms was out of bounds. but the fundamental fact for him extent that he was libertarian when it came to criminal procedure cases, it is because he believed the constitution itself was founded upon libertarian premises when people were dealing with situations where criminal law

was at stake. and those that made the law wanted to make sure that the freedom of people could not be abridged in specific ways and he followed that. like to either of you comment on the original is him from the justice? was part ofhink it a broader enterprise for him, which is the preservation and defense of the structural constitution. mostnk one of the important contributions he made was inspiring to generations of law students -- two generations of law students to think about the constitution in really important ways. if you go back to the 1970's and 80's, when you ask people about the constitution or about

constitutionalism, they tend to think about rights. seatnal procedure right and protection. and i remember he used to say over and over again, when he would speak with law students, he is to ask -- why is america such a free country? if you think it is the bill of rights, you are crazy. every banana republic -- every public -- every republic had a bigger and better rights -- a bill of rights than ours. the point he was making was that without the structure of the constitution and separation of powers, checks and balances, talking about these features all of the time, without those things that freedom is only

partially guaranteed. so it is tied up with original is him and interpreting -- original is him and interpreting laws in the constitution, is part of this commitment to defending the structural constitution. -- in ourrk constitutional system. elena: i am reminded when bill said that it did not have to be perfect, just better than the other contenders, i was reminded of a joke justice scalia used to tell. it was two guys in a forest and a bear comes along. and one starts running and the other says, why are you running, you cannot out run a bear. and the guy says, i do not have to outrun the bear. i just have to outrun you. and that is true with respect to methodologies. nothing is perfect. what is better than the rest is

the question. it is going to be no shock to you that -- is not better than the rest. and i will not take time to talk about that. but instead come a just to say one thing about justice scalia's contributions, which is i think he put on the table for wholutely everybody, those reached his answer and those that didn't come a fundamental question and -- didn't, a fundamental question, that everybody had to come up with a way of resolving problems of the disciplines judges. but a judge could not do what he or she wanted, that they could not say here are my values, my politics, here is the way i think the perfect world would look like. that is not the way to do the

law or constitutional law any more than it could be for any law. so what justice scalia, with his -- what his outspoken and even aggressive formulation of originalist principles and methodologies, what it did was make everybody else, those that those share his answers, could grapple with this question -- if it is not the originalist answer, what does discipline judges? and you have to come up with an answer to the question. and if you do not have one, then originalism does win. and the way it loses only way another method of and petition for the constitution -- interpretation for the constitution can be better, is its other-- among

, sochers -- other virtues that it is about the law. >> i also get the impression that he improved upon the enterprise in important ways. leonard: when i went to law school, we talked about the original intent and how law students have a tendency of trying to get into the heads of particular framers. exclusively about the public meaning and the originalist materials that way. , hetheory of originalism actually improved upon its approach in a way that is very important for people across the ,deological spectrum because there are those on the left that use this principles

now more than 20 years ago. and that is probably now because it has been tweaked by justice scalia. about, twoadd a word separate points -- bill: i think that in these ises in which we live, it important to note and reflect upon the reality that the nine justices who disagree about big singingvery sharply, happy birthday to one another. that we are speaking about friends who disagreed about the questions. and it is the supreme court and how it functions should be a role model for us in our personal lives. and the second point, the justice did not believe in precedence. in his office, talking about

cases, he would point to the law he said, i am responsible for the vote, and for what i say. which wene way in temper the fundamental disagreements about how judges should go about their jobs, and how judges should interpret the law, is through the doctrine of presidents. -- presidents -- precedence. agreeason that they could on a case, is because they believed it would lead to an outcome. it is a safety valve that we have. >> all three of you are among the finest legal educators in the country, and i know that justice scalia cared

passionately about legal education and one of his great programs he was involved income of the renaming of the george mason university law school, in his honor. can you talk about his conservation to education? being a he always loved teacher. even when he was a judge, he was a good teacher. he talked about imparting ideas on future generations. i think it is fitting that there inld be a law school named his honor, because of his dedication to teaching the law. and george mason obviously is a school near where he lived and worked. he also gave a dedication speech at george mason many years earlier. it is in that respect a very

appropriate place. but he had a tremendous love for legal academy broadly. he had great affection for what was going on at harvard, particularly under justice keggan's leadership. he loved his years teaching at uva and chicago, and even stanford, briefly. and he loved crisscrossing the country and talking with law students. he used to spend 1.5 hours on his feet, taking question after question. student with a law sigma what should i do here at -- what should i do here at law school? it goes back to a point you made about how justices should be experts at everything. tax,intellectual property,

take the statutory courses, --rn how to be a real lawyer take those other real law courses because that is what you would need, and he would express this. bill: he would often say the reason that he wrote his separate opinions was for future generations of lawyers. given the rest of his personality, he was surprisingly optimistic. he believed that good should prevail. he would make the case and say, maybe next time. sometimes it happened.

but he also wanted to make his separate opinions, especially his dissenting opinions, for folks to read. guess law folks have short attention spans. i part of that, he thought, am thinking about 10 years from now if not today. elena: he succeeded in that. i was a classroom teacher and i thought that -- taught thousands of students and the most fun classes almost always justice scalia involved a justice scalia -- always involved a justice scalia opinion. sometimes he wanted to shake them. he said, look past the way that we write. and he was so, the way that he writes is mesmerizing.

and positions you do not think you would ever be attracted to, would all of a sudden become attractive because the way he argues them. times did say a number of that the target audience for him was law students, and he hit the bull's-eye, because students come in, they open the textbooks with dry opinions, and nobody looks at them with a sense of -- and there is no life. and then you read a justice scalia opinion and you start smiling and nodding. you start fighting with him within the opinion. are, just, the opinions they just -- it is hard to describe. year after year, class after

class, these students would come came toay, you know, i law school as a liberal and i find myself really attracted to what he is saying. he would say that is from the power of his ideas. i will let him have that. but in addition, he had an incredible power behind his style. he knew what was going to make law students take notice, and they did. >> where will we rank justice scalia in the pantheon of justices 100 years from now? elena: i am not sure i want to do a ranking, but one thing i said at harvard, and i am glad he was alive then and he knew i said this. he actually critiqued my lecture. [laughter] elena: it was fantastic.

he watched the tape and came back and had like four points of agreement and four points of disagreement. [laughter] elena: i said, you took an hour of your life to listen to that? he said of course. but one of the things i said then. , youd, you know all about know, 100 years from now most of forgotten.es will be we seem important now, but in the long course of history, i assure you if you go back to justices in 1916, you will not know those names. i think that is true for the current court and modern justices. not true of justice scalia. i think he will rank as one of the most important figures on the court, because of the

methodological positions we have talked about. a cousin of the way that he wrote. because of the way that he changed the way that we talk about law. i think that is maybe the most fundamental thing and probably a little bit implicit. but agree with him or disagree with him, he changed the framing of legal arguments. he changed the way that we speak and argue about law. a pretty big accompaniment. 100 years from now people will say, who were the important supreme court justices, regardless if you agree or disagree with their decisions -- he will be high on the list. bill: i agree. i did write one time, you know justice scalia, when he was

nominated there was a lot of commentary that this very young and charismatic and charming into full of life person would be very effective on the supreme would charm his colleagues to agree with him. and that was part of the narrative before he was confirmed and then years later, it is he alienates people. and it is my view, this is a long game, and he wanted the words and ideas to matter over time. thisnk what was said about is exactly right. i think he will be remembered for that. he will be remembered as well, although not unrelated, for his prose. it was unbelievable.

it is no insight to say that after justin -- justice jackson, it is hard to find a better prose than that of justice scalia. and i think that that can be distracting from the underlying substance. beguiled byt being the writing, without looking at the underlying substance, that can be true. opinions areon's better written. having said that, what they that justice scalia would say is that clear writing is a sound -- is a good thinking. i think that he will be treated kindly on both fronts. leonard: i have no doubt that justice scalia was a good justice. and i hope you will be remembered as a great american,

which not only has to do with the quality of work product, the integrity, the honesty, the dedication to the country. dedication to faith and family. and some i hope is that he will be a great justice to many people, but also remembered as a great american who defended the .ountry's principles and talked about what character should be more broadly. >> please thank the panel. [applause] elena: thank you. bill: thank you. leonard: thank you. [applause] >> before the second debate

debating -- between hillary clinton and donald trump, we are looking at past debates. tonight, the 1992 town hall debate between george dubya which bush, bill clinton, and ross perot. >> you can move factories south of the border, have no environmental controls, and no retirement, and you do not care about anything except making money. there will be a job sucking sound. >> if all jobs where moving south, it is because they are lower wage. i have just negotiated with the president of mexico, the north american free trade agreement. >> you need to increase investment and reduce the deficit by controlling health reductions proving in defense and asking the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share of taxes. >> then the 2000 presidential

debate between george w. bush and vice president al gore. >> if national security is at stake, if we have allies. if we have tried every other course and we are sure military action will succeed, and if the cost is proportionate to the benefit >>. i would take use of force very seriously. i do not think we can be all things to all people. i think we need to be careful. >> and the 2012 debate between president barack obama and mitt romney. >> if we do what i am planning on doing, being energy independent, within eight years you will say manufacturing jobs come back. >> we cannot just reduce traditional sources of energy, we need to look to the future. that is why we double efficiency for cars. any car you buy, you will end up

going twice as far on a gallon of gas. >> watch past debates, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. watch anytime at c-span.org. and listen on the c-span radio app. "first ladies" is the name of the book. it presents a history on the lives of iconic american women. what is this? mark: it is a book that grew out of our series on television, "influence and image." we took that and put it into narrative form. so every first lady has a chapter in which you learn about her biography, which includes her time as first lady. some had more influence, some

had less influence. >> was it easy to find records? mark: some were easy. mrs. adams, there were lots of. there were thousands of letters between her and john adams, where she is lobbying him on slavery. martha washington burns all of her letters between her and george washington. there are only two of them that exist. so you go from one extreme to another. and the farther along in time, you see the adaptation of technology and the role of first ladies emerges as well. now, they have a very public role. in the past they could kind of , get behind the scenes. i do not think you can do that anymore. >> a former first lady is running for president. chapter on is a

first lady, hillary clinton. you read that chapter, and you know right away she is the most famous woman in the world. when she is on the campaign trail in 1992, when things are getting sort of rough for the clintons, it shows how hillary reacted to things i think she read it -- think she would've rather not have happened, but it shows a very jazzy first lady back in 1992. >> what did you learn from working on the book? mark: my favorite stories are the ones where i knew nothing about these first ladies. lucy hayes, she is very ahead of her time. she is pushing cause. and then grace coolidge is almost like a rock star in her time. she is the opposite of calvin coolidge. you learn even about modern first ladies. lady bird johnson -- all first ladies, you learn it in the

book, all first ladies go back to her as a role model. she is one of the first to take on causes. does as well,elt but then there is a break. and then lady bird johnson takes on this cause of beautification. so i learned that she really played a role. >> what about richard norton smith? mark: a great friend of ours, his idea for the series. he is a guest on the martha washington program, the betty ford program. he makes the point that some first ladies have more of an influence on the way we live our lives. look at betty ford. she comes out for eera. she is ahead of the curve. and you think about her causes after her time in the white house. the substance abuse and the way

it had an effect on a lot of people's lives. maybe more than some presidents have. >> here is the book. "first ladies." now available from your favorite bookseller and online. >> in his weekly address, the president highlights a wage growth over the course of his presidency. and they need to continue to strengthen the middle class. representative todd young of indiana delivers the republican address. he is critical of the obama administration and outlines the republican agenda for national security, the economy and health care. hi, everybody.: eight years ago we were in the early stages of what would become the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. we did not know where the bottom would be.

but thanks to your hard work and determination, and smart decisions we made, today is a different story. we turned it into a record straight of job growth, creating more than 15 million new jobs and cutting the unemployment rate in half. getting wages to rise again was a harder task. even before the recession, working americans faced slowly growth. between 1980-2007, real wages barely grew. policies arehe working, working families are finally seeing their incomes raise. since 2012, wages have grown 20 times faster than they did over almost three decades. last year, the typical household by $2800.d -- rose

and across every race and age group in america. we lifted 3.5 million people out of poverty, the largest one-year drop in the poverty rate since 1968. more middle income families saw the biggest boost, in part because 18 states and the district, as well as more than 50 communities, have given americans a raised by raising the minimum wage. and states that raised the minimum wage have seen chambre earnings growth in the weighted jobs -- low wage jobs. strengthening benefits helps too. i made action to make sure that workers can earn seven days of paid work leave on the job. and we're helping states expand opportunities to save for retirement. but there is a lot more we should do to strengthen the middle class and help americans get ahead. moreg childcare

affordable, for example. making sure that women earn equal pay for equal work. guaranteed sick leave, increasing federal minimum wage, and preparing those for the jobs of the future, and closing tax loopholes. thatst need a congress cares about the issues, one that will finally put politics aside and act on these commonsense ideas. that is how we will build on the progress we've made. and achieve one thing we should all agree on, securing a brighter future for all of our children. thank you and have a great weekend. representative young: hello, i am todd young parent i'm a proud marine -- young. i am a primary. when i was first commissioned, i tot to a quantic -- i went quantico. one day, i cleaned my rifle and

brought it back. my sergeant declined to take it, saying it was not clean enough. i told him it was as clean as when i checked it out. he responded, lieutenant, this is the united states marine corps. we leave things better than we found them. today, hoosiers and all americans are looking back at the last eight years and ahead to the next four years. i think we would be well served to ask whether barack obama and hillary clinton's leadership has left things better than they found them. as i have traveled across indiana, the answer is clear. the failed policies of barack obama, hillary clinton, and democrats in congress have left hoosiers worse off. the prospect of getting a good education are narrower. and the government regulations and obamacare are choking families and small businesses.

it is time for a new way forward. first, national security. as a naval academy graduate and a marine intelligence officer, i understand the threat of safety. for the last eight years, president obama and secretary clinton have shrunk from the national stage, paying ransom to our enemies. republicans want america to be strong and engaged, not weak and disconnected. i've advocated for a new style of leadership in my -- and my fellow republicans and i believe if we are committed, the future is promising. on the economy and education, it is getting harder for families to get by and get ahead. my wife and i have four beautiful children. we want for them what every parent wants, a good education that leads to a good paying job

and a meaningful career. the rising cost of college, abetted by a government takeover of student loans, is putting a squeeze on families. republicans think the answer lies not in washington, but here at home, in indiana -- at home. in indiana, i have authored a bill that will help students graduate debt-free. they are already working at purdue university in our state. they can work everywhere, allowing graduates to pursue their dreams and take risks without lenders breathing down the next. on health care, i talk to hoosiers almost daily who have been burdened by obamacare. whether it is a family that cannot afford the premiums, or a small business that cannot afford to hire more employees. this is a boulder on the back of our economy. republicans know we cannot continue down this road, we need

to repeal obama care and offer a better solution to the nation's health care problems. repealthored an act to the obamacare provision that changes the definition of full-time work to 30 hours a week. i've also authored an act, a bill that will cut regulations by giving congress the final say. my parents are not very political people, they probably only listen to addresses like this with her son does them. my mom is a nurse and my dad a small business owner. they taught me that hard work and big plans where the gateway to the american dream. like many americans, after eight years of failed democratic leadership, they are frustrated that the dream is being mortgaged. i am frustrated too, but it is not enough to do in our own frustration. he must act, we must be bold and

courageous and decisive. and we must get back on the path to prosperity. we must chart a course toward safety and opportunity. thank you and god bless indiana and the united states of america . >> our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span with live debates for the u.s. house, senate and governor races. between meal love and doug allen, followed and a caught by the arizona contest between john mccain and ann kirkpatrick. on tuesday evening at 7:00, the carolina debate between pat mccrory and roy cooper. , debating0 eastern for the utah u.s. senate. and on thursday, just after

noon, the pennsylvania eighth district debate. and at 7:00, republican senator richard burr and deborah ross debate for the north carolina u.s. senate. on friday night at 8:00, the debate between ron johnson and former democrat senator. , debatinged at 10:00 for the nevada u.s. senate. our complete coverage on c-span and online at c-span.org. and listen on the c-span radio app. ♪ isour c-span campaign bus traveling throughout virginia this week, asking voters to what is the most support an issue to you and why? >> my name is john allen and i am a freshman. and the most important issue to me in this election is the

immigration crisis and refugee crisis, also the economy. our country has not been doing well economically lately and i feel like the immigration crisis, with illegal immigrants coming in, that is a big problem. >> my name is a violet and i go to longwood university. the most support issue to me is social issues, specifically abortion. and also the immigration system. intendame is colin and i college. and i feel like the most support an issue in this election cycle is national security. i feel as though we have problems with borders and foreign threats. and i feel like it is important in the up and coming cycle. >> my name is alex and i think the most important issue in 2016

is the economy. >> my name is harrison and i go to hampton sydney college. and to me the most important issue for candidates to address rights, constitutional and those values that thomas jefferson held, and preserving those principles. ♪ >> from the road on c-span. >> here on c-span, the communicators is next with a look at self driving cars. followed by house speaker paul ryan and other speakers at a republican fundraiser from earlier today. and at 8:00, the look at past presidential debates continues with those candidates that ran in 1992, 2000 and 2012. >> this week, "the communicators" goes to

pittsburgh to look at self-driving cars. we talk with one of the nation's key self-driving researchers at carnegie mellon university and take a ride in the autonomous car that the niversity is developing. raj rajkumar of carnegie mellon. what are we looking at right here? what is this? raj: we are looking at a cadillac which is capable of depriving itself. >> the car looks pretty normal from her. raj: that's a car that we bought new from a cadillac dealership in pittsburgh and outfitted with it a bunch of sensors and computers. added software to it, bam, it drives itself. >> you wouldn't give us a ride? raj: we would lo