mrs. clinton. on the one side you talk about an experience you had about explaining her health care program and you write she knew that program back and forward and answered questions, and 25 years later -- and this is when president clinton was trying to pass health care reform. and 25 years later, i marvel of that performance and you are critical of her on the same page. the clinton approach was to merge the the clinton approach was to try to merge the interests of wall street and corporate america with the needs of the american middle class at impossible task. while the clinton administration can boast some ositive accomplishments, i supported bill clinton, there were major policy flaws. tell me about -- after this is all over, what is your attitude toward the clintons, toward the politics, and toward mrs. clinton at this -- at the end of this campaign? senator sanders: the section of

the book you referred to was an event i went to at dartmouth medical chool. and i was then in the congress and hillary clinton was first lady and leading bill clinton, the administration's effort, for health care reform. i was able to hitch a ride on air force two with her and we chatted for a while and we went dartmouth because dartmouth is only across the river from vermont. what blew me is away is she got up there -- and i'm guessing now, a long time ago -- but maybe for an hour she spoke without any notes whatsoever. no notes. on an enormously complicated program, which was their health care approach, which was too complicated. but she knew it all. my point was that she was the front person for the clinton health care plan. she helped write it, she knew it, she answered questions flawlessly. that tells me that we have an extraordinarily intelligent person, and that was the memory

then. and that hasn't changed. i have a lot of respect for hillary clinton. we've known each other for 25 years, got to know each other for better or worse a little bit more in the last year-and-a-half. and she is a very impressive -- and i like her a lot. on the other hand, -- on the other hand, what is very clear is her politics and bill clinton's politics are very different than mine. in terms of their policy views, and in terms of their understanding of how you change america. in terms of policy, it was the clinton administration that brought forth nafta -- and i suspect had a democrat not been president at that time nafta would not have passed. i think that was a beginning of a series of disastrous trade agreements at the behest of corporations they wanted trade agreements. it was the clinton

administration that brought about the deregulation of wall street led by robert rubin formerly from citibank, i think, at that point. a major wall street force. and the point that i'm making is i happen to believe that at the end of the day politically you have to make a decision, and this is really the debate that we are going to have within the democratic party right now. and that debate is which side are you on? can you go out and raise substantial sums of money from the wealthy and wall street and other powerful special interests, and then convince the american people that you are on the side of workers and the middle class? or, do you finally have to say that we are going to take on the oligarchs, we are going to

take on wall street and the drug companies and the insurance companies, and the corporate media, and that we are going to bring millions of working people together to create a very different type of party, democratic party, than currently exists? and that is a fundamental difference that exists between bill and hillary clinton and myself. e.j.: i was going to ask you this, the next question later but let me just put it to you now. looking through the hundreds of questions, there were a number of people in the audience who basically talked about how the democratic party had treated you unfairly, what were you going to do about that, what was going to happen to the party. and when some clinton supporters, just people knew i was doing this, they wanted me to ask you in a rather pointed way, do you think that what you did in the primaries hurt hillary clinton? i'm sure you saw it and didn't like it, the distinguished scholar poll in the "new york times" where she talked about your told-you-so message that you're giving now.

i'll just quote her, mr. sanders refusele to concede in a timely way as hillary clinton won many more million votes, his constant harping that she was corrupt further -- furthered mr. trump's message and contributed to the con man's catastrophic victory. what do you say to those critics? senator sanders: well, i say to those critics, number one, that you could argue the exact reverse. that maybe i would have been elected president of the united states -- cheers and applause] but the presumption behind that question is that i guess we should anoint candidates for president. that a serious debate for candidates competing against each other is somehow a bad thing for democracy. the truth is, e.j., my campaign brought millions of people in to the political process, many of whom i suspect the overwhelming majority of whom ended up voting for hillary

clinton. [applause] but the second point dealing with the first part of the question, you know, i think any people have read some of the wikipedia -- the podesta emails that were released. and, you know, if you read those emails i think you learn that to say the very least the d.n.c. was not a neutral force in the campaign. that's to say the least. [applause] and that we had to take on -- and i'm proud of this. we had to take on the entire -- virtually the entire democratic establishment.

so, you know, do i think our campaign in a sense made hillary clinton a better candidate? yeah, i do. and i will tell you why. because by the end of the campaign, she was against the keystone pipeline, by the end of the campaign she was against the t.p.p. [applause] by the end of the campaign, she was supporting making public colleges and universities tuition free. [applause] and i think those and other ideas that we incorporated into the democratic platform -- which is the most progressive party platform in the history of this country -- i think all of that in fact made hillary clinton a stronger candidate. cheers and applause] e.j.: by the way, i don't think the letter was saying you shouldn't run. it was a critique of what you did after the votes were counted. senator sanders: apparently

people thought that california, people in california and four other states on june 7 should not have a right to determine who they wanted to see as the democratic nominee. e.j.: i am talking about after california. senator sanders: after california, this was my approach. my approach was to say i am fully prepared to support hillary clinton. and by the way, very few people in this country were caught in hillary clinton than i did. let's be clear about that. but what i was also determined to do is to say to secretary clinton, ok, we got 13.4 million votes. obviously you want those votes. i understand that. and i want you to have those votes. but you know what? i want you to speak to what many of those people told me during the campaign. they want to make public colleges and universities tuition free. they want to expand health care. they want you to be a more

progressive candidate. and that in fact ended up happening and i think that was an asset and a positive thing for secretary clinton's campaign. [applause] e.j.: there were a number of questions about the media, and i will just read a paragraph from your book. according to a study of media coverage of the 2016 primaries by the shornstein center on media politics and public policy, only 11% of coverage focused on candidates' positions, leadership abilities and professional histories. i find that hard to believe. my personal sense is that number is much too high. [laughter] a couple of things on that. talk about your critique of the corporate media and how does that fit in with the fact that donald trump has been waging a campaign on the media as allegedly liberal and is

clearly trying to discredit, if you will, factually oriented media. how does your critique fit with trump's critique? senator sanders: well, it doesn't fit at all. [laughter] e.j.: i thought you might say that but -- senator sanders: but here is the issue. it is -- in fact, i think the title of the chapter is the corporate media: a threat to our democracy. this is serious stuff. and it is all the more serious because you're not going to see it discussed on television. it is not going to be. and it is not going to be in most newspapers. but here's what you've got. you have approximately six major media conglomerates, time warner, etc., who now control bout 90% of the what we call media, which means that a handful of giant conglomerates exercise enormous power over what the american people see, hear, and read.

and we have got to disabuse ourselves of the idea that nbc, cbs, and cnn and fox -- they're objective. they're referees. they're going to give both sides of the story. the function of corporate media -- and i hope i don't shock anybody -- is to make money. that is their job. they are a business. they make money. and in fact somebody like a donald trump -- and e.j., correct me if i'm wrong. i'm sure you're familiar with it. the head of cbs and cnn both said trump was great for them. he was outrageous, he said outrageous things. their ratings went up. put him on again. every time you turn on the television there is donald trump saying something outrageous, attacking somebody. great tv. now, we had the misfortune of not being a campaign which believed that we should viciously attack our opponent. ok? and i tried to run as positive a campaign as i could. cheers and applause]

and i also -- also believed that a campaign, what democracy is about, is taking a hard look at the real issues facing the country and offering solutions for those problems. the problem is i could not do that in three seconds. and the problem is that is not what media is interested in. getting back to what ej jut -- getting back to what e.j. just read. and what he read is that study after study tells us most of television coverage is attacks. all right? and that works very well for television. how much discussion -- this blew me away and this is in the book. i quoted some guy who did a study. [laughter] and this is what the study said. the study said they looked at television over a period of time and they wanted to see how much discussion there was of poverty on television.

i think it was the evening news. the evening news or sunday news shows. i can't remember. it tushes out that 2/3 of the entire discussion of poverty was based on things that i said. now, that is pretty pathetic. that one candidate does two -- 2/3 of the discussion about one of the most important issues facing this country. do you know how much discussion there is about climate change on the evening news? virtually none. do you know how much discussion there is about comparing the american health care system to what goes on around the rest rest of the industrialized world where every country on earth guarantees health care to all people? virtually none. so the point about my critique was not that the media hates me and all that stuff. that wasn't the point. the point was that in a democracy we need serious discussion about serious issues. and that is not what the corporate media is giving us. cheers and applause]

now, trump's problem is what the media was discovering was a -- was that he was a pathological liar. and i don't say that i'm not -- i have many republican friends and we disagree. but every day this guy would say something that was completely awful. he was the only person in america who saw on television muslim celebrating the destruction of the twin towers. nobody else in america saw that on television except donald trump. and he was absolutely convinced that he saw that. and on and on it goes. the media had a hard time. they were trying to say, well, that's not quite true and he would take offense to that. that's a very different critique than my feelings. e.j.: i'm looking for a

question that someone asked to follow up on that, which was something like what in the heck happened? r, a third grader in the udience asked then -- i add the then. why did so many people vote for trump if that is the case? senator sanders: well, i think i tried to cover that in my earlier remarks. and let's be clear. there are people in america who are racist, there are people in america who are sexist, who are homophobes, who saw in the very ugly remarks made by mr. trump someone they felt comfortable with. let me also say i believe those people are a very small minority of the people who voted for mr. trump. as i said earlier, i think what trump tapped is the sentiment that there are millions of working class people totally ignored by the media, totally

ignored by the establishment, people who are hurting. do you know, e.j., i'm sure you are familiar with some of the studies that recently came out. we have in many parts of this country working people, working class people are seeing a decline in life expectancy, have you seen that? where in an ahistorical way, unprecedented around the world, you are seeing people living shorter lives than their parents because of the despair which leads them to drugs, to alcohol and to suicide. people are hurting. they are worried about their children. they are making $10 an hour or $12 an hour and they're not geg anyplace and they're wore -- not going anyplace and they're worried their kids will do worse. they worry about what happens when they get old. trump said, i hear you. i alone, i know how the system works and i alone can improve

your life. i think a lot of people gave up on the democratic party in terms of standing up for working people and they said, ok, i am going to go with this guy. let me also say, and we should not forget this, that trump enters the white house as the least popular person in this position in the history of this country. so don't think that everybody agrees with his sexist remarks, his attacks on women, his racist remarks, that would not be the case. i think there are a lot of people out of desperation saying, i'm hurting, i'm in pain, i am worried about my kids. this guy says he's going to do something for him. i am going to give him a shot. that's why i think he got elected. e.j.: i always thought that study -- [applause] i've always thought that study explained a lot about this election and its authors referred to them as despaired deaths in the working class. i want to lump three ideas together.

first, i have to give a shoutout -- and forgive me if i et my name wrong -- to megan phong mckin. the reason i give her a shoutout, today is her 21st birthday and she skipped -- [applause] and she skipped the happy hour where she could have had her first legal drink -- [laughter] and she asked a question -- i'll just read it the way she put it because i thought it was a lovely question. and i want to link it to several others. she said, there are so many people who say young people are only activists because they are millennials who are idealistic and think it's cool. how did you combat this when you were 21? what advice would you give to us? then, there were a whole stream of questions about what do we do now about the election of donald trump. and so to those two, i want to apen my own, in your remarks

tonight, you talked about how you look forward to working with trump on a whole series of issues. then you criticized him for naming steve bannon. you criticized his racism. there is, as you know, a very strong fear in the progressive community of normalizing trump of l, a real fear authoritarian streak. a really courageous russian dissident wrote a very powerful piece last week about autocracy d how auto krattcrats very slowly make you think what you want and then your rights is wrong. one said that trump owes our confidence. now is working with him fit with the need to resist normalizing this? and then to go back, what do you tell megan and all the people out there who asked what do we do?

senator sanders: let me start off with megan and say that, as i try to suggest early on, that every person out here is enormously powerful if you are prepared to use your power. and that in democracy we are strong when people stand up and fight back, and we are weak when we do not do that. so what i say to megan and to everybody here, everybody in this country, the majority of the people in this nation are not racists, they're not sexist, they're not homophobes and if we stand together, mr. trump will not be able to implement policies that are racist, sexist and homophobe. second of all, i think what we also have got to recognize and what trump's success was about

which the media inside the belta people do not understand is there are millions of people who are hurting. so what we are going to do is say to mr. trump, you told us in the campaign you are going to take on wall street but now a lot of wall street advisors are flocking to your campaign. are you going to be a hypocrite or do you have the guts to do the right thing? you said you're going to rebuild the infrastructure and create millions of jobs. in other words, our job is when he comes up with ideas that makes sense for working people, i think we should be working with him. when he is racist and sexist and homophobe and islamaphobe, i think we are going to be vigorously in opposition, and i think on climate change, there is no compromise. we have got to mobilize the american people. [applause]

and this gets back to transforing the democratic party -- transforming the democratic party. ordinary people have got to know that the democratic party has the guts to stand up to some very powerful people today whose greed is destroying the middle class and working class of this country. and if we can't do that i don't see much of a future for the democratic party. [applause] e.j.: i just want to pass along a thought from a canadian. they are looking for a new leader. could you propose yourself? senator sanders: no. e.j.: i'll put that aside. the other -- i like the chutzpah here. internship, question mark, with a phone number. there were a lot of questions about what democrats should do about the supreme court

vacancy. dahlia, the great writer on the court, recently said democrats should on principle oppose any nominee that trump makes because it's an illegitimate nomination given the blocking of merrick garland. what do you think of that and what will democrats do now you are responsible and in the leadership? cheers and applause] sandsnd i could only speak for myself. i can't speak for anybody else. think the writer you talked makes sense. the republican party has been extraordinarily arrogant in recent years. the idea that they would not even hold a hearing for garland when it's crystal clear that our constitution provides for the president to nominate an individual to become supreme

court justice and the senate holds hearings and goes about its business about whether or not they want to approve that individual. and the republicans refuse to abide by the constitution. and i think if the republicans think, oh, we're going to bring forth our person and we expect you to go along with quick hearings and to vote for this person, to say the least, i think they have another thing -- they better think twice about that. cheers and applause] but e.j., it is obviously terribly important what happens in the senate and what happens in the house, but it is far, far more important what happens at the grassroots level in this country. i was named today, as you indicated, a part of the leadership. i think my title is to be head of outreach efforts, and that's something that i take very seriously. so i think, again, whether it's the supreme court, whether it's

the fight against bigotry, whether it's the fight for climate change, our job is to bring millions of people together. republicans are many things. they are not dumb, and especially with regard to young people. if they see millions of young people demanding action on climate change, demanding that our energy system be transformed, if they say -- see young people saying we don't want to leave college $40,000, $50,000, $100,000 in debt, if young people are prepared to stand up, if working people are prepared to stand up and demand a minimum wage which is a living way, if we're all prepared to stand up and demand pay equity for women, if we are prepared to fight for a woman's right to choose and millions of us -- cheers and applause] it is no secret -- i mean,

everybody here knows it. republicans control the presidency, they ale control the senate, they control the house. they control almost 2/3 of the state legislatures. our job is to take politics outside of capitol hill and that is to mobilize people. [applause] and if the republicans, you know, mitch mcconnell, paul ryan, these are not dummies and if they look around and say we are about to lose be a entire generation of young people, we better move. we better become more reasonable in our approach. i believe we can do that, but my job is to mobilize people to stand up and act. e.j.: let me ask you a bernie sanders'-like question. you have spoken over and over again about the corruption in the political system, the power of political money. young people have voted against the republicans now for three, four elections in a row, people

have mobilized on climate change. they haven't moved at all. how can this penetrate? and it goes to a series of questions here on the links between protest politics and protest movements against donald trump and other forms of political action. how do you answer that? because if what you say is through, there should have been some movement from the republicans quite a while ago? senator sanders: well, the political difficulty that we have -- and this frightens me very, very much and should -- is n every american at we are rapidly losing our american democratic traditions, and by that i mean in vermont, we have town meetings, people come out and they yell at each other and it's one person, one vote. democracy wins. what we are seeing now as a

result of this disastrous citizens united supreme court decision is the ability of billionaires to buy elections. and let me be very clear about this. mitch mcconnell and many republicans believe that citizens united did not go far enough. they breeb that we should end -- they believe that we should end all finance restrictions, limitations, and that billionaires should be able to give directly, not independent expenditures, that if you want to run for office, the koch brothers will come up to you and say, e.j., here is $1 billion, we will support your campaign for presidency and we will give you your staff, you work for us. you're essentially a paid employee of the koch brothers. now, we got to figure out -- that's number one. and number two, we have to talk about voter suppression all over the country. [applause]

i just spoke with jesse jackson today and he was deeply concerned about what's going on in neck and elsewhere -- north carolina and elsewhere where very intentional efforts, as you know, desooned by republican governors and the -- designed by republican governors and the attorney general to make it harder for people of color, for older people, for young people to vote. it's not good enough for people to say, well, gee, i went to a demonstration yesterday. the world didn't change. i am giving up. that's not how it happens. put yourself in the historical context. think of the struggles 100-plus years ago that workers went through in order to gain dignity on the job and to form unions. think about what women went through for a very long period of time in order to get the right to vote, in order to get the right to have an education or the jobs that they wanted. some of those women died in the

struggle. some went on hunger strikes. some ended up in jail. think about the struggles of the gay community. how many decades and decades they fought with their straight allies in order to receive -- make sure that people have the right to marry someone regardless of their gender. change does not come easily. we are in a struggle, and we are in a struggle against very, very powerful people who want it all. that's the bad news. the good news is there are a hell of a lot more of us than there are of them. and we got to be smart. cheers and applause] e.j.: there were two questions in the pack that i thought a lot of people in the audience might be interested in hearing you answer. one from will was -- what did you think of larry david and

how he played you on "saturday night live"? and the other is from elizabeth who asks -- if you are stuck on a desert island with three politicians, who would you pick? that begs the question of whether you would want to be stuck on a desert island with three. >> i'm john baker, filling in for john eastman. john is on another panel in another room at this time. so at this point all i'm doing is welcoming you here on behalf of the separate of powers and federalism group of lawyers within the federalist society. and if any of you after hearing this are interested in joining our section, please contact either professor john eastman or dean recorder. so with that i'll -- dean reurter. so with that i'll ask that the doors in the back will be closed so we can start the program and it's my great pleasure to introduce judge william pryor of the 11th

circuit. [applause] judge pryor: good afternoon. will discuss justice scalia on federalism and separation of powers. now, justice scalia's views on this subject were fairly well-known. in 2008, he authored a forward to a symposium on the separation of powers as a safeguard of federalism in the notre dame law review. his forward entitled "the importance of structure and constitutional interpretation" left no doubt what justice scalia's view on the subject was. i'd like to read a couple of paragraphs of what justice

scalia said in that forward. "in the days when i taught constitutional law, the university of chicago law school had two constitutional courses. one was entitled "individual rights and liberties" and focused primarily upon the guarantees of the bill of rights. the other, i forget the title of it, focused upon the structural provisions of the constitution, principally the separation of powers and federalism. that was the course i taught, and i used to refer to it as real constitutional law. the distinctive function of a constitution after all is to constitute the political organs, the governing structure of a state. many of the personal protections against the state taught in constitutional law courses here, restrictions upon unlawful searches and seizures, for example, used to be taught in europe as part of

administrative law. they were, to be sure, made part of our constitution, though most of them, as an append idge to the original document. and that was no doubt desired but it is a mistake to think that the bill of rights is the defining or even the most important feature of american democracy. virtually all of the cubs of the world today have bills of rights. you will not feel your freedom secure in most of them." consider, for example, the following sterling provisions of a modern bill of rights. every citizen has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organizations for improving their activity and to criticize shortcomings and their work. persecution for criticism is prohibited. persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to

account. citizens are guaranteed freedom f speech of the press, demonstrations. exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the people and their organizations by broad dissemination of information and by the opportunity to use the press, television and radio. and footballly, citizens are guaranteed freedom of conscience. that is the right to profess or not to profess any religion and o conduct religious worship or aethistic propaganda. justice scalia wrote, wonderful stuff. these were the provisions of the 1977 constitution of the union of soviet socialist republics. they were not worth the paper they were printed on. as are the human rights guarantees of a large number of

still exwant countries governed by presidents for life. they are what the framers of our constitution called parchment guarantees because the real constitutions of those countries, the provision that establish the constitutions of government do not prevent the centralization of power in one man and one party thus enabling the guarantees to be ignored. structure is everything. justice scalia often said that chilly he always tried to get the bill of rights cases correct, he cared most about the constitutional structure cases. once or twice each summer he even taught a course called "separation of powers." his opinions on the structure issues of separation of powers and federalism often cited the federalist papers. he routinely urged law students and lawyers to real the whole of the federalist. this panel looks at justice scalia's federalist focus on the importance of separation of powers and federalism as

structural protections of liberty. and as usual, the federalist society has assembled a terrific panel to discuss these issues. i will introduce each of the panelists in the in order in which they will speak. they will each speak about eight minutes and then we'll have some responses to each other and then we'll begin entertaining questions from the floor. our first speaker very fittingly is professor john baker. dr. baker has been a visiting professor at georgetown law school and is a visiting professor at the university school of transnational law. he is professor emeritus of law at the louisiana state university law school. he's also taught at a number of other law schools. i should note, including tulane. professor baker received his j.d. with honors at the university of michigan law school and his bachelor of arts

magna cum laude from the university of dallas. he earned a ph.d. from the university of london. for several years, professor baker taught the course for the federalist society on separation of powers with the late justice scalia. our second speaker is professor jonathan turley. it's going to be tulane day. [laughter] jonathan turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. he began his teaching career at tulane law school and then joined the george washington university faculty in 1990 and then in 1998 became the youngest chaired professor in the school's history. he's the founder and executive director of the project for older prisoners. he has written more than three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals, including those of cornell, duke,

georgetown, harvard and northwestern, among others. he most recently completed a three-part study of historical and constitutional evolution of the military system. he has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues and is a frequent witness before the house and senate. professor turley received his undergraduate degree from the university of chicago and his law degree from northwestern university. and his first job out of law school was a law clerk on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit where yours truly was clerking for a judge that year as well. we go way back. luther strange is the attorney general of alabama, a high post in government. [laughter] before his election, general strange practiced law in birmingham, alabama.

and before establishing his own law firm, was a partner with bradley rand. he's chairman of the attorney association and served as coordinating counselor fort gulf coast states and the historic -- in the historic deepwater horizon litigation. general strange is well educated. he received both his undergraduate and graduate from tulane. he was a scholarship basketball player while earning his undergraduate degree at tulane. in june of last year, -- this year, i'm sorry, he was inducted into tulane law school hall of fame. roger is the founder director of cato center for constitutional studies. he's also the founding publisher of the cato supreme court review and the inaugural holder of cato's b. kenneth

simon chair and constitutional studies. before joining cato, roger held several senior post in the reagan administration, including at state and justice and was the national fellow at stanford's hoover institution. roger holds a b.a. from columbia university and m.a. and ph.d. from the university of chicago and a j.d. from the george washington university school of law. and finally, congressman ron desantis. since being elected to the united states house in 2012, congressman desantis of florida has served on the judiciary, foreign affairs and oversight and government reform committees. he is the chairman of the oversight committee national security subcommittee and the vice chairman of the judiciary committee's subcommittee on the constitution and civil justice. he earned a bachelor of arts, magna cum laude and was

captain of the varsity baseball team at yale. he also graduated with honors from harvard law school. while at harvard, he earned a commission in the united states navy as a j.a.g. officer. during his active duty navy service, he served as a military prosecutor, supported operations at the terrorist detention center in guantanamo bay, cuba, and deployed to iraq during the 2007 troop surge as an advisor to a u.s. navy seal commander in support of counterinsurgency operations in iraq. he's also performed duties as a federal prosecutor, taught courses on military law and written on constitutional issues. he's currently a lieutenant commander in the u.s. navy reserve. thank you for your service. we will begin with professor baker. [applause]

mr. baker: thank you, judge. in this convention you will hear a number of references to justice sclowa's lone disseptember in the 1988 decision in the independent counsel case, morrison v. olson. that dissent went from being largely dismissed to being universally celebrated. ed whalen, a piece in the national review online last month, in september, chronicle ed the movement of linda greenhouse to a conversion. ms. greenhouse now describes justice scalia's dissent as, quote, precient. that means far-seeing, prophetic. liberal columnist richard reeves used the same word in praising justice scalia's dissent in morrison back when ken starr was investigating the -- as independent counsel

president clinton. i think there was a connection there that caused some rethinking here. for the most part, however, liberal commentators have not praised justice scalia's opinions. most often detractors have used the word "uncompromising "ings negative way. as you heard from justice alito this morning, using the word uncompromising in a very praise worthy sense in talking about justice scalia. what the usual detractors do not understand is that justice scalia was able to be pressurent, far-sighted, prophetic, precisely because he was uncompromising in looking backwards. now, of course, virtually everyone knows that justice scalia looked back to the public meaning of the words of the constitution as understood at the time they were drafted.

also, most here in this convention will know that justice scalia's originalism was tied to constitutional structure as judge pryor just talked about. but how many of you even here realize that his understanding of structure came largely from the federalist papers? that's what i want to discuss and i'll make three pionts. hopefully i'll get to the third one. the importance of justice scalia's place on the federalist papers to how justice scalia's understanding of the constitutional structure, primarily separation of powers, as explained in the federalist, undergurged his approach to the text of the constitution. time permitting i'll mention something about federalism. first, on the importance of the federalist, as you already heard, justice scalia would routinely ask students and lawyers in meetings or groupings, have you read the federalists? and then some hands would go

up. i mean the whole federalists, and most of the hands would go down. his materials in the course that we taught, that he taught as well every summer on separation of powers, always began with federalist 47 and 48. those are the main ones on separation of powers, although separation of powers runs throughout the essays of the federalist. and usually after we got done with that, then he would go into an attack on the progressives and their attack on separation of powers. often it was an attack on justice cardoza's reference to separation of powers as, quote, a fetish. last time he taught, it was a sustained dialogue, against woodrow wilson in his attack on separation of powers as being terribly outmoded. early on in our relationship i asked him, when was it that he came to really pay attention to the federalists?

and he said it was when he was head of o.l.c. because he said the questions we were dealing with with, there was no case law. where would you turn? well, like the founders, like the first generation, like the martial court. where do you turn? well, you turn to the text. but in many ways the text is like the building plan, and it doesn't always explain exactly how things lock together when they could lock together in different ways. understanding that is really part of the context in which his originalism and his tectualism must be understood. some -- textualism must be understood. some have understood, as many taught over the years, marbury is this great triumph of chief justice marshall figuring out very cleverly how to get around jefferson. well, as leotis has written in

class before he was on the bench, then professor scalia would explain how this is really how the constitution as supreme law is supposed to work. now, this is give textualists some problem because there's nothing in the text that says, judicial review or what the court's power should be. it says about the rule of law. it says about its jurisdiction. but in our seminars he would be much more simple about it. e would just say, marshall plageurized federalist 78. it's that simple. now, fact is you can take most of the landmark opinions of the marshall court, even they they did not cite the federalists and they are straight out of the federalist. but this question of whether it is or isn't out of the federalist has to due with the legitimacy and limits of judging. think about it. there are many conservatives

who believe that somehow judicial review is illegitimate, and if it's ill legitimate, then the choice is, well, you will splitely illegitimate -- slightly illegitimate and strained. it's like partly pregnant. it's hard to go from partially to fully. and if you understand the separation of powers as he did, then there are times when you are forcefully, uncompromisingly limiting the power of one of the other two branches. but that doesn't make you an activist. and he really didn't use that term. it is a question for him of following the text, but text is tied to the structure. his citations to the federalist were not just window dressing. there was an article in which a

professor suggested that almost every time a supreme court justice cites the federalist it's really much about nothing. that was not the case with the justice, and you can see it if you read and analyze and compare, for instance, in morrison v. olson, the majority of the opinion written by the chief justice in the dissent. so if you look at that, what you will see, first of all, what's remembered are all the great one-liners and i heard it at lunch. a wolf comes as a wolf. that's what people remember. pailing the as demise in a way of -- what's the -- anyway. e said -- he said, i'm glad to e that those who live by the

epsi dix die by the epsi dix. he used those memorable phrases in order to pay attention to what he was actually saying. and what he wants you to do is look at the way he argues as compared to the way they argue. in many ways, the chief justice in that case was the textualist because he starts out with the appointments clause. doesn't mention separation of powers. then he goes to the removal. there's no clause on removal. it goes back to a famous decision in 1789 and the congress. and then he goes through all the cases. and then at the very end he says, well, what about separation of powers as a whole? justice scalia's dissent is the flip of that. he starts with the principle of separation of powers. then he works through it. completely different approach in terms of where you start. now, that can pose a problem for some textualists because

they say, you can say, where is separation of powers even in the constitution? there's no term there. that term appears in the 1780 constitution of massachusetts. it doesn't appear in our document because it's a blueprint. it's not an explanation. the federalist is the explanation of the blueprint. i wasn't going to spend much time on federalism anyway because although he got the federalism decisions right, he didn't much focus on them. why? well, as he said one time, the 17th amendment, direct election of senators, basically killed federalism. he also said, if the people won't preserve federalism, don't expect federal judges to preserve federalism. but more importantly in a way,

some of the important federalism cases are also separation of powers cases. think of the sovereign immunity 11th amendment cases. it's the -- it's the federal government, congress enacting something. think about obamacare. deralism is really the joinder of federalism and separation of powers. justice scalia's lone dissent in morrison, presidential powers as given in article 2 ultimately was vindicated. it will be interesting to see whether the constitution limits on the expansion of presidential power will be vindicated. although justice scalia died before the 4-4 split in u.s. vs. texas on the issue of president obama's order improperly -- allowing deferred action on the illegal aliens.

i don't think that there's much doubt about how he would have voted in that case. so i wouldn't be surprised to see justices who have taken so far a flexible approach to separation of powers. suddenly become uncomprow moyesing about separation of powers -- uncompromising about separation of powers is limited on the presidency of donald trump. thank you very much. [applause] >> first of all, i'd like to society to deralist speak with you today. the strongest memory i actually have of judge pryor when we clerked on the fifth circuit, my judge and his judge sat on the same panel and there was one case that was just

unbelievably sexy, constitutional case and john wisdom already senior status. my job was technically the head of the panel. my judge would defer, because he's a good guy, don't let wisdom get the case. lease for the love of god. please. just say you'll grab the case. he'll let you grab the case. here is pryor talking to wisdom. feverishly. and pryor looked up with the most menacing look i've ever seen in my life and sure enough they wrote the opinion and i've been bit ber it ever since. so thank you for this cathartic moment. anyway. it's a great honor to speak about justice scalia. shared a scalia and i

sicilian heritage. i am half sicilian and half irish, much like his kids, which i would make fun of him. away ustice scalia passed the post called me up and asked me if i wanted to say anything. we were standing by a bay window and justice scalia was holding forth on the story and the sicilian security guards kept moving us away from the window and scalia would move. the guy turns to me and says, why won't he move? we're afraid there's a hit team that's looking for the sicilian senator and we are afraid they are in danger at this window and the reason is justice scalia is telling a story. i'm pretty sure that he'd rather die than end the story but i know he'd rather one of us die. [laughter] but the fact -- i thought about that story only because people

have been trying to move scalia to the left or the right his entire life. he never did move. he's one of the few justices that could honest low say that he changed the court more than the court changed him. and the reason is because he came to the court with a very profound sense of the constitution and its history. one of the things that i think gave him that foundation, that legacy was that he based his opinions heavily steeped in the federalist papers. he also had a formalist approach to the constitution, which i am going to mention in a second. i share that approach. i am sort in a minority of academics, a formalist approach to the separation of powers. most academics view that view as naive and simplistic. in fact, i just gave a speech at georgetown where one of the questions is, do you accept, right, that words have no objective meaning? and there was a time when a statement like that would have

left me entirely confused. then i remembered i was at georgetown. [laughter] so the fact is the original deal that was struck with the american people is, those words did have meaning. while some of my colleagues view it as a precious lie, it was the original lie that the american people were given. and scalia saw it that way and it added a depth and coherence to his opinion. for me the really most indicative and profound opinion that he wrote was in prince and that, of course, was in early methodlogical definition of what we became quite familiar as scalia's analysis. he said in that -- famously said in that opinion, because there are no constitutional text speaking to this precise question, the answer to the challenge must be sought in historical understanding and

practice. when you look back at that statement and you see what came after it, you realize how profound that was. he tended to run home. he tended to run home to the federalist papers. he ran home to the text and to the original meaning. and in that decision, of course, in prince, you had this wonderful clash between scalia and suder over the federalist papers and they debated the meaning of numbers 27, 36, 44 and 45. what was interesting is that even suder acknowledged that the meaning within those federalist papers would or should be given great weight in the analysis of the case. this case dealt with having state officials who would be required to carry out federal functions or duties. and so what happened was this wonderful exchange, and quite frankly, scalia, in my view, got the better of the exchange

of what was meant by this structure. and it was scalia who would often talk about the dual sovereignty of federalism, this concrete notion of the relationship of the federal government to the states. and that sense of clarity, that formalistic approach was also evident in morrison, as was just discussed. i am not going to discuss it further since it was just discussed by john. he answered when the question, an he said that opinion was one of his most difficult, he went back to the federalist papers, where it said, the weight of legislative authority requires that it be thus divided. he was very conscious of these lines. as one -- that's one of the reasons i like his work so much.

i happen to believe that words do have meaning in the constitution, despite my own personal policies and interests. ting there are parts of the constitution that have static meaning. they must have static meaning. there's others that might be a little more fluid but when it comes to the separation of powers and federalism, those are static concepts that should not change through time. in that sense, scalia was the rock that would bring us become to that original meaning. scalia did in fact refuse to compromise because he had principles. that's playly why he'll have a legacy. there are many justices that came before him and i'm afraid that could follow that will not be able to make that claim. he was coherent and consistent because he had principles. people often criticize him as being dogmatic but you're supposed to be dog mat exon principles because if you're

not, you're what we call unprincipled. when he passed, i folet that not only did we lose a judicial icon and also a wonderful human being, i don't know anybody that ever knew scalia that didn't like him, he was remarkably likable. he would try to get into a fight with anybody. over any subject. because he really liked law students. if there was a pet in the room he would try to argue with the pets. because he was vivacious. he was intellectually alive and that's what come out of these opinions. he was a great believe for the a formalist separation, not just separation of powers but in term of federalism. when he left, i remember thinking about a wonderful quaker saying that said, quote, i shall pass this way but once, any good that i can do or any kindness let me do it now. let me not defer nor neglect it for i shall not pass this way again.

scalia didn't wait he didn't compromise he did what he could. and he remained confident about it and committed to it. like cause of that, his may not come this way to pass for some time. but there are many people who cherish the legacy he left, respect the principles he represented, and will carry on those very same principles in the future, i believe. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, jonathan. i'm going to take the risk of standing at this podium, even though i'm pretty far away from it. it's an incredible honor to be here, i want to thank the federalist society for inviting me, including me in this distinguished group of colleagues an friends, people i admire and have known for a long time. it's wonderful to be the attorney general of the state of

alabama at this time in our history, to be a conservative attorney general in any state, i get to serve in an office formed by my close friend jeff sessions and others that i have tried to follow in the sex years i have been in office, six very active years. i met bill many years ago and at the advice of jeff session he said you need to encourage young conservatives who want to run for office. i can'tn't -- i didn't know what that had meant. i volunteered for senator sessions. somehow or another, i guess nobody else would do it, or could do it, i ended up being the chairman of bill's election campaign when he took jeff's place. i'll never forget walking the halls, we stayed up all night on lech night and the judge knows the exact total to have his victory. but it was something like, how

many votes was it? >> 6,767. >> 6,767 out of -- >> out of 2.3 million. >> it was close. we were up literally all night walking the back room of the ballroom, we finally decided that we're going to go out and declare victory and make them prove we didn't win. and of course he did win. and the rest is history. en bill was attorney general there were maybe six or even, less than 10 attorneys general -- republican attorneys general in the united states. now there are 29. [applause] 29 conservatives. i was proud to be elected chairman of that group last weekend at our meeting in austin. two weeks ago, actually, the thursday of election, kim

strossel who will be here saturday to sign her book, wrote an article in the "wall street journal" and said the conservative republican attorneys general in the united states are the last line of defense in protection of the constitution and the rule of law. of course the world changed then and frankly my remarks today changed a little bit after that election. we're no longer the last line of defense, we're now the tip of the spear. but the whole issue and why i said it's been a his tore extime to be a attorney general, the oath we take is to uphold the constitution of the united states, of your respective state and uphold the rule of law. politicians come and go. some we'd like to go sooner than others. but they all eventually come and go. it preserves our liberty, our freedoms, our rights, our economy, everything we enjoy in this country, the constitution and rule of law. the previous panel said it

nicely, we don't get to pick and choose the laws we like and don't like. the ones we enforce and don't enforce. there's a democracy set up for that purpose, it works extraordinaryly well if we preserve it. we talked about federalism today, we'll hear from congressman desantis and others about what we understand about horizontal federalcism i feelism in our country. one thing i hope is that congress would reassert its proper role in our balance of power here in washington. a lot of power has been fwiven away. that's led to a lot of problems we've had to address. i have great hope about that but there's also the vertical separation, the states versus the federal government. that's where we attorneys general have been very active in the last six years. really eight years. i don't have the precis number, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by conservative attorneys across this country against the obama administration over the

last number of years for violating the rule of law. for exceeding the powers that congress granted to them. and we have won. i mentioned the last line of defense. i'll mention three cases that sort of illustrate the point. one has to do with bathrooms. i never thought i'd be lit gating in federal court about bathrooms. but the department of education in its wisdom decided that all schools should require all people, depending on their own definition of their sexual orientation, use the bathroom of their choice or face the loss of federal funds. that was done in -- done may 13 of 2016. on may 25, 11 states challenged that. and on august 25, a -- an issued.on was i asked school administrate

orrs, is this a problem, a significant problem that requires a federal mandate? you might not be surprised if you live in the real world, this supervisor said, that's not a problem at all. it occasionally happens in our school system well, do something revolutionary, we have the teachers and parents and the students an the administrators all sit down and see if we can work out an accommodation that works for everyone and that's what we've done. it's not a problem. it is a problem for 99.9% of the other parents who don't understand this when the federal government mandates something like that. so regardless of that, we were successful in that. immigration was mentioned yerler. the president issued his order in november of 2014 to legalize millions of immigrants in this country, less than two weeks later, 17 states filed a lawsuit challenging that action. and then on june 23 of 2016, two years later , in a 4-4 tie the supreme court put an end to the president's effort. and the last one i'll mention,

because it's particularly relevant to our discussion about justice scalia the power plan rule, tremendously important for my state, many states in this country, the e.p.a. issued their .ule in october of 2015 on that same day, 23 states filed a challenge to that ruling in federal court and on february 9, the supreme court stayed the clean power plant rule, which was quite extraordinary. that was the last vote, official act, of justice scalia. it was critically important. we have so much to -- we owe so much to his legacy, my final hope here that i'll express is that the congress and new administration will find a person who will fill the role that he has played, his shoes, in the coming days, months, and as they deliberate that, we republican a.g.'s look forward to that because i'll get back to where i started.

regardless of who is the president or who is in congress, we will continue to take our role seriously which is to uphold -- defend the constitution and defend the rule of law in this country. i appreciate this opportunity to be here and look forward to your questions and our discussion. thank you. [applause] >> i, too, want to thank the federalist society for inviting me here. when dean roither called me to see if i'd be interested in speaking he said he wanted some balance on the panel. balance? i thought, you must have read my forward to the -- foreword to the new supreme court review titled justice scalia's originalism: original or post-new deal? i think you know where that went. so i am going to bring a little balance. i'm going to be the -- i hate to be the skunk at the garden

party, well, actually, i don't hate it. now that i think about it. scalia. ed every time i ran into him we got into an argument he loved to argue. love it. if you took one position, he'd take the other and then you'd flip around. it was great fun to argue with him. but for our subject here today which is federalism and structural protections, he was absolutely right that the structural prosection to texts for liberty are the main protections for liberty. and he was connect also that the bill of rights was an afterthought, as he often said. unfortunately, too often he ignored the changes the civil war amendments made to those structural protections because he too little regarded the theory that undergirds the constitution and that led him place democracy over liberty.

that undergirding theory, state of nature theory, can be seen in the preamble. before that in the declaration. and before that in locke's second treatise, of course. but scalia wouldn't go there ever the positivist , he dismissed it as political os fiesing, unlike what he called the constitution's operative provisions. is method was textulism, literalism, all sal ewer to if you follow it, which he didn't always do. but those tools are insufficient when you get to broad or vague text. at that point you have to have a theory of the matter, you have to know where you're going and know what the presumption is. a judge can't simply throw up his arms an say, let the people decide unless the next clearly points that way. the constitution, after all, this constitution, which a judge takes a duty to uphold, was

written not simply to empower official bus to limit them as ell toward liberty, not simply toward power as the preamble and the declaration make clear, the bedrock principle , in short is liberty. reflecting the state of nature reasoning of the second treatise and the declaration, the preamble begins by recognizing that sovereignty rests with the people, government doesn't give the people their right they create the government to secure their rights. and toward that end, the framers structured powers, they divided powers between the federal and state governments, leaving most of it with the states, and they separated powers functionally at the federal level, pitting power against power as the federalist shows throughout. most important, though, they limited federal power through the enumeration of powers for a few national concerns. and to make that crystal clear, when they added the bill of

right they concluded with the ninth amendment which states plainly that we retain all the rights we never surrendered and the 10th amendment which makes it equally plain that the federal government has only the powers we gave it. in a nutshell, the constitution established the government of delegated, eyume hate rated and thus limited powers, further limited by our rights both eruminated and unenumerated. for all its virtues, the original design was fatally flawed as we all know. the civil war amendments fixed that by fundamentally changing federalism, mainly through the clause, which ts made rights good against the federal government, including natural rights in the fourth amendment, good against the states as well, save for those rights related to distinct federal and state functions. but we all know what happened to that clause and what happened six decades later when the new

teal court turned that carefully wrought design on its head by eviscerating the enumerated powers principle, bifurcating the bill of rights and the role of the court, judicial review and jettisonning the nondelegation doctrine. so rather than rehearse those developments here, i'll return to justice scalia's view. a textulist cannot, of course, ignore the plain text but he does. i'll start with a few powers cases where he tends to be better than rights. in fact, start with an anecdote. i invited nino over to cato in 1993 and -- with the idea of going toe-to-toe with him on the issue of the demise of the doctrine of enumerated powers. before we got that, however , he said, where's the wine? i said this is lunch. he said, so? so we had to send an intern out to get a bottle of wine and that

loosened our respective tongues as if either of us needed that, and we proceeded from there. and i did say to him at one point, nino, when are you going to revie the doctrine of enumerated powers. roger, we lost that battle a long time ago. thank you for that council of despair. but two years later, when lopez came down, he was on the right side, as he was in morrison when that came down five years later. and in prince, as john turley said, he wrote for the court in that case, saying that the congress had no power to dra goon federal officials into carrying state -- state officials into carrying out federal functions but eight years later, enraged the alifornia -- in rache, the california medical marijuana se, he interpreted it so

broadly no one would have recognized it. t in sebelius v. king -- and king, he redeemed himself, albeit in dissent. even the correctly decided powers cases, however, only scratch the surface of the enumerated powers doctrine. we're far down the road toward mass i, unconstitutional government and i'm the last to think that the court by itself will reverse that. in the rights cases, more promising, except that hear scalia is altogether uneven. in the interest of time i'll focus simply on the state police power cases where most of the confusion arises. consistent with the underlying theory of political legitimacy that i sketched earlier, the police power we enjoy in the state of nature, locke's executive power, and then delegate to government, is mainly there to secure our rights.

thus it's bounded by the rights that there are to be secured. nd the question then, from lockner to lawrence and many cases in between, the question should be what rights the state is secure big criminalizing, say the sale of contraceptives or the marrying of another race. if the state can point to no such right that settles it. the judge doesn't have to discover any unenumerated rights, it's the state that has to show rights to be protected under this epolice power. as with enumerated powers, then, where there is no power, by implication there is a right. hamiltonning wilson, and others objected to adding a bill of rights because they saw it was impossible to enumerate all of our rights and dangerous to enumerate only some. thus structural miment -- limits

were meant to secure our liberty, power pitted against power and later a narrow reading of the state police power consistent with the privileges or immunities we enjoy as citizens of the united states. indeed, did we have no rights prior to adding a bill of rights? or lose rights when we added one? that's the implication if judges are to secure only enumerated rights as many conservatives today, including justice scalia have argued. the ninth amendment was written to dispel that reading, to -- the textulists can hardly ignore it or ignore its complement vis-a-vis the states with the principles immunities clause of the 14th amendment. so why do so many conservatives indulge that reading? responding, understandably, to the perceived judicial activism of the warren and burger courts, big el, bjork, scalia and others

focused on the ocountermajoritarian difficulties in passing virtues. but they ignored the majoritarian difficulties which deeply concerned for the framers. the framers stood for liberty first, majoritarianism second. as only one means toward liberty. their main means was structured federalism. we think of federalism as state prospecting liberty vis-a-vis the federal government but it cuts the other way too, protecting against grass roots tyranny. and that's what justice scalia too little appreciated. was rk for securing it invaluable and he'll be long remembered for that. but let's secure the whole of originalism. thank you. [applause]

>> good afternoon, it's great to be here. judge pryor came and visited the harvard law campus back in my day. i don't think he was a judge yet. i think he was rumored or something, it was controversial, a lot of the harvard faculty thought he would commence a reign of terror on the bench, wuns i -- once i heard that, that was probably the best seal of approval i could imagine sort from hort of approval justice scalia himself. it's an honor to be here with him. i think of an anecdote, a constituent asked me about an issue with municipal trash cleanup in their neighborhood. i responded, i said, it's an important issue but i'm your federal representative in the u.s. kuok. we deal with federal issues. she said, i know, i thought i'd start at the bottom of the totem

pole and work my way up. the thing about that is, there's a truth to that, not just because congress is a punching bag but i think congress stands today as the weakest of the three branches in our constitutional system. i think justice scalia was always very, very articulate about identifying the structural constitution as the number one protector of individual liberty that you would have these different branches and they would compete with one another, they'd be zealous about guarding their power. that even more than the bill of rights, was how we would preserve and protect individual liberty. it's interest, the founders if you read madison, you read the federalist, we hear about three co-equal branches of government. the founders didn't envision them necessarily to be equal, they envisioned them to compete but madison said in republican government the legislative authority predominates. though the revolution was a

revolt against executive authority, they saw runaway legislatures in the states at the time. they wanted to have a government of, by, an for the people, they didn't want a tyranny of the majority. they knew that the congress would be powerful, but they wanted to have other branches that would also check it. but even with those checks they just thought the branch that was closest to the people, at least the house, would have the most power. of course if you look at the original constitutional design, just look at congress' power, the power of the purse, obviously the power to legislative. you can prevent an administration from stocking with personnel by not confirming people. you can impeach civil officers, the president, vice president. you can circumscribe the pow ore they have court or abolish the lower courts. they understand the presidency would be powerful in foreign affairs but it was more of a check on a legislature is how they envigged it.

if the congress isn't providing provisions, providing funding for the enterprises the president proposes will be nothing. the court were the weakest of the three branches of the government. they have neither force nor will but merely judgment. an important role, absolutely. but you're not able to legislate from the bench. and the current practice, i think, to me, the executive by far is the most powerful, then i would say the court this courts probably have as much legislative authority as we do, certainly they have more power over the constitution. part of the reason the executive has beginned so much power is through congressional neglect. congress will legislate and they'll say, we real really can't deal with these thorny issues, bureaucracy, you figure it out. the bureaucracy effectively legislates very important plcy derlingses. the hobby lobby was not written in as statute, it was an h.h.s.

regulation. congressional neglect, i think, has paved the way for administrative overreach. so a statute is ambiguous or a long statute that's been on the books for decades, the administrative agency, fwing beyond that legislating vast new policies that have a tremendous effect on american society and the american economy. i was, my first state of the union when i got elected in 2012, president obe ma came and he said, congress i want you to do what i say, but if you don't enact it, i'm going to do it on my own. and you know we can had just goten sworn in a couple of weeks ago, i said that's not how it's written down in the constitution. the thing that bothered me most about it was not that the president was asserting the authority but the -- because the founders assumed each branch would be assuming the authority. i look to my left, every single democrat in that chamber stood and cheered him when he said that. they were willing to put their

personal political viewpoint ahead of their duty to defend their own institution, which i think is defending the constitution. so it's a problem in both ways. the executive branch and congressional accountability, we did this with the i.r.s. in terms of dealing with the targeting, obviously the justice department was not going to do anything, we knew that from the beginning. but at least conduct oversight. at least get documents. they destroyed emails that were subpoenaed. the commission made false statements, admitted the statements were false. they didn't do due diligence, like look at lois lerner's blackberry so what happens? nothing. the lesson they take from this, is destroy stuff. don't worry about it. nothing will happen to you if the head of the executive branch concurs in kind of doing what you're doing. the courts have also helped the executive become more powerful by deferring to what the administrative agencies do.

to me, i think you should apply the law as it's written, not defer to the executive branch because that allows the administrative state to get bigger. so i think that justice scalia, nobody has been more influential for law students, for lawyers, for jubblings if you're on the center right. i just wish his wisdom would make its way more into the halls of the united states congress. because scalia understood that you have to defend your own turf. one of the things that frustrates me is some of my colleagues will say if we're debating a bill, you know, is it constitutional? do we have this power? we'll let the courts figure that out. we do -- we vote for whatever we think is good unless and until the courts stop us. the problem with that is, the courts can only decide cases or controversy. so basically anything that would not lead to a lawsuit, you're basically saying there's not going to be anyone that's going to stand up for the constitution? our duty is to defend the

constitution and act in conformance with the constitution. so i've always said if there's a bill that's not constitutional, my duty is to vote against it. regardless of what the courts may or may not do. it's not just the congress. president bush, when he signed mccain-fine fwolede , he said, i think it's unconstitutional but we'll let the courts figure it out. that's not the way to do it. if you're not convinced it's constitutional, you've got to err on the side of exercising your thorget to ditch the constitution. i think justice scalia would really, well, i think he was frustrated with congress. our big way to defend our powers, the obamacare program took funding that really was never appropriated, so rather than -- that's our core power, the power of the purse. we filed a lawsuit to try to vindicate that interest. we were able to move the ball forward a little bit but i think scalia would say, why are you running to the courts to do this? you should defend it yourself. you have the power.

you have the pow ore they have purse. you have the power to not confirm people. you have the power to impeach civil lawsuits. why don't you use those power raw you are than runs to the courts. at the end the day, we're in this budget problem, we co-these big omnibuses and we're not willing to take any political risk to really defend our turf, i think is the thing, so it ends up going, let's file a lawsuit and let's do it. it's an hn nor to be here. justice scalia was a man for all seasons. he was one of the few people to really make an indelible mark not only on the law but on political philosophy. i just wish everything that's been discussed on this panel and this conference can make its way into the halls of the congress and that we'll reclaim our constitutional authority and get the constitutional system back into its proper form. hank you guys. [applause] >> ok. i want to first invite our

panelists to respond to each other, from your seat, hopefully your mics are now live. for you to do that. i would expect that perhaps professor baker has some thing he is wants to say in response to -- >> roger thinks i'm going to attack him. roger and i debate every year. i didn't find much to attack on roger. i want to follow up with what jonathan turley said about prince, it was important that you did what you diden prince, jonathan. i want to add if you look at the separate opinionen by justice breyer, the amazing thing is justice breyer said, i dent see why the federal government can't order local officials to do it, it's more efficient. they do it in europe that way. it's more efficient. if you read the federalist, you will know that the crux of the whole problem and why we changed ,rom a confederation is in fact

in federalist 15, that whole point you can't have one government telling another government what to do because eventually it won't work. see brexit. >> i was going to add, i don't disagree, roger and i agrow on most things anyway, that's not a surprise, but one area of scalia's legacy which i do find problematic was his support for chevron. hat it was sort anomalous. he continued to support the idea of chevron as we had the rise to have the fourth grant, the rise of the administrative state. i think he certainly -- indicated some misgivings about chevron. but that was always, one part of his legacy that i thought was most sharply discordant with his views, particularly with regards to formalism.

but that's what i would add to, in terms of criticism. > i would just say on that, as justice alito said this morning, he was changing on that. and rger -- roger mentioned the, quote, post-new deal originalism, although he didn't articulate it this way, once you have the 17th amendment, the senate is no long aeroprotector of the states. that's what built the administrative state. he's trying to figure out how co-you -- how do you deal with this? how do you draw lines? and will the courts then end up replacing the administrative agencies in running everything what most people don't ups, especially pop ewists, is that that was a real structural protection that is the drive behind the administrative state and the uncontrollable budgets. that is just not widely known he understand that. and with that, it is very

difficult to reverse the dynamic and he doesn't -- didn't think the courts were in the business f reversing that die nam ex. [inaudible] [laughter] >> this is breaking down fast. i think we'll start with questions from the board. i'm going to begin with my usual admonition. these are the panelists. they were invited to be our speakers today. we appreciate your presence here. we love to have your questions. but you weren't asked to be

speakers today. i want to ask for questions, you can introduce it with a little bit but please keep it as a question. >> to the extent you enjoyed scalia original, i had to edit it. just kidding, it was pretty clear. i want to talk about skea loo, -- scalia's vote on rich, was that his accommodation of the new deal, was it a drug war exception? something else? >> i think it was his failure to agree with justice come mas on how properly to read the clause -- >> was it the necessary and proper clause? >> both of them. i think it goes back to what i said, the new deal is a watershed but it affects not just the interpretation per se,

it affects the dynamic and i think he felt that there was no way to undo that. when we would bring this up in sessions, he would say, that's ater under the bridge. look , he fought more battles than anybody else. i think that there were just some battles that he -- early on, he -- when we would cover flast, those of who this morning heard justice alito, how justice scalia excoriated him for not saying gnash should be overruled. early on when we were teaching, i said why don't you overrule that? he said my colleagues will never do it. he wasn't even arguing for it at that time he changed over time and was starting to argue for it. it comes down to the vote on the court. if there aren't vote there is to do something, it's not going to

get done. one time i had a case up there, he said i could ask him afterwards why they didn't take it. and you know, the votes weren't there is what it came down to. federalistle] if the is one of the central topics on this panel, if you're talking about the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause, which are the three clauses through which we've gotten leviathan, you can do no better than look at federalist 41, 42 and 44 respectively and you'll find exactly what madison thought those clauses were all about. and they weren't about allowing a decision like came out of rache. >> but when not just people on the left but overwhelmingly people on the right do not understand our structure, i mean, the latest, or latestest

poll on the electoral college is the vast majority of american people wan to throw it out. they have no idea of the -- what hat will do. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> and they dent know what it did. >> we're going to take a question from this side to my right. >> if you know me, i will show restraint and not ask about the 17th amendment, but i will -- what i will ask about, though is i was struck by congressman desantis' remarks on the federalists, i was thinking about federalist 62 where they made the argument for bicameralism, where the legislateture is the real threat and the remedy is to break the legislature into two parts. and use bicameralism. i would be curious about the panelest' reflections on bicameralism in the modern age

as perhaps it relates to federalist 62. it's not a well formulated question, maybe you can do something interesting with it. >> at least it was a question. >> i think it's different than how madison and hamilton would have envisioned it, they thought you would side with your constitution but in some of the budget fight the congress passed a unify budget for the first time in 15 years last year, 2015, we started to do appropriation bills in the house and it got to the senate and harry reid would filibuster the bill even being brought up. basically no agencies funded, go to the deadline and then force some kind of omnibus or continuing resolution. what they were doing, you had a minority in the senate siding with the executive branch over, you know a core power. i think that, we weren't able -- the senators weren't able to figure that one out. that is not, i think, what we should have been doing. they should have been standing with the house to try to rein in

the president is how it was deseened. >> i would add that i think that many -- i'm a madisonan scholar so i --st it's hard for the mo -- it's hard for me to say he got anything wrong but one thing i think he would have been astonish bied is the 2012 constituent state of the union. i was in disbelief when the president said, because you have not carried out my reforms i have decided to circumvent you and make yo a functional nonentity and he got rapturous applause from half the chamber. i think madison truly believed that institutional interests would overcome political alliances in that. i had the honor of representing the house of representatives in the a.c.a. lawsuit, i was surprised to see the level of democratic opposition. we were fighting other the power of the purse, the defining power of congress. and so there is a strange thing going on that i think that

madison did not anticipate with regard to who the members are and how they've changed. and i think that -- when i was 14-year-old poig, there were people there, giants, who fought for the institution, not just people like byrd and moynihan they put away their political allianceness and fought for the institutional integrity of both chambers. that's what's missing often today. you that in the words said. >> let's wait two months. i think you'll have democrats more receptive to these arguments. see how republicans respond are we going to defend the institution when the easy thing to do is fall in line behind the president. hope any the rubber doesn't meet the road on that, but i think it will be interesting to see how it shakes out. >> if i could just say i'm encouraged to hear the congressman's comments about

reclaiming the lost power of the legislative branch in this country. you know, i talked about the dozens of lawsuits we filed, it was because we were forced to file those lawsuits because it was very clear that the executive branch had overstepped its authority and when the president stands up and says, i have a pen and a phone and i'm going to do what i want to do and he's being applauded by congress, it's really disturbing. so i really, if you don't get anything accomplished in the next few year, we're looking for a candidate for a.g. in florida. you'll enjoy that job. >> part of it is political. we saw with the election outcome, some people were shocked. they thought the democrats would never lose the white house again, so part of it, is the republicans are going to be in that spot. us doing this is not setting bad precedent. now you support bad precedent and who ends up president? donald trump who many of them are concerned about.

never invest power into a person who you would not be comfortable if your greatest enemy exercised that power. >> on that point, i want to add that professor turley is the one who warned liberals before a house committee that if you don't stop this president, you're going to get a republican in here one day who is going to do the same thing. [applause] >> i want to reassure professor baker that idaho loves the electoral college and we don't want to give it up. but with a million and a half citizens we have a problem with overregulation. e have 722 sets of regulations in idaho that is pretty much strangling us. without the senator i don't chaha heck and given which got rid of the legislative veto for unicameral action,

idaho passed a constitutional amendment to have a bicameral legislative veto and so since we lost the -- since we got the 17th amendment, is the leage slative veto viable at the federal level on a bicameral basis? an i'm wondering what roger pilon and professor baker in particular. >> aupt legislative veto? >> i would love to have it myself. yeah, the two houses together could get rid of executive -- >> ok but here's the problem with many people on the left and right. they see a particular problem and they look only at that problem. and they come up -- come up with a slugs for that problem without thinking about the consequences, the new problems they're creating. you have to look at the whole body together and figure out what you're doing. remember, the 17th amendment was passed with virtually no opposition, by populists on the

right and left. except the populists on the left knew what they were doing. they were out to destroy separation of powers. nobody made the argument, structural arguments, and they made the same arguments that are today being made for term limiting members of congress. ok. they thought it would be bring senators closer to the people. nothing could be further from the truth. so you have to know something about the constitution before you keep changing things in it. it's a matter of looking at what worked and why it will work or to borrow a phrase, what really did make us a great country. >> justice scalia often said the 16th and 17th amendment passed at the height of the progressive era were key to understanding the emergency lee le vie than, however, neither of those

amendments expanded the power of congress. congress didn't have a bit more power afterwards than it had before, except as a practical matter a political matter, that is to say, now you got political forces calling for the demise of the enumerated powers doctrine but it fell finally to the court n 1937 to expunge that doctrine. >> but they would never have done it if senators were still protecting states because they wouldn't have put up with it. the idea -- >> political point. >> but it changes the dynamic of power. the federalist explain is human nature and what motivates people. today we think policy, well, wait a minute. policies are executed by human beings and what are their motives? i teach law. e --

one issue i see related to federalism, i want to ask you about it and what justice scali y thought. in the early 1800's, there was a case, hunter v. city of pittsburgh that talked about how states have authority over their local government. what occurred to me and many of my students when i teach them about state and local government law is the federal government exercises a lot of authority ver counties and cities. through a number of acts and statutes. i find it interesting because if you have federalism but the federal government is the one regulating city police departments or state or county police departments, not the state, do you really have federalism? >> you do.

>> federalism cuts both ways. it's not simply the federal government has limited power and the states have the balance of power. federalist 45. it's rather that the civil war amendments changed that arrangement fundamentally. now you've got federal power, essentially to negate state actions that are in violation of their own citizens. that's altogether different from federal power to give us obamacare, or what not. it's federal power to negate states that are running amok. that's the other side of federalism that the civil war amendments brought into being. and that's the side that so many conservatives find uncomfortable because they think of it as empowering the court to find unenumerated rights. what i tried to argue is no, it

empowers the court to tell the state, what right is this police power protecting? and when you look at everything from lockner to pierce v. society of sisters, miner, griswold, lawrence, you find these are essentially morals arguments, they're not defense of rights of the individuals. >> my name is justin pearson, i'm an attorney at the institute of justice. >> can you speak a little closer to the microphone. >> my question is directed at congressman desantis. i want to preface this by saying i appreciate what you said about the duty of elected officials to not support unconstitutional legislation. bymy question to you, congressman, is whether you think that is mutually exclusive with the role of courts to use the constitution to serve as an additional bulwark against

legislative encroachments as hamilton promised in federalist when elected officials nail to fulfill that duty? >> oh, no, abslutly, justice scalia would say the idea of judicial rejew is not that we're smarter and know these great policy questions, it's a lawyer's job. you have a constitutional tech and a statutory text. if they're harmonious, fipe. if there's a conflict, your job is to identify that conflict and prefer the fundamental law of the constitution over the trandsyent impulse os of the people represented in statute. so that is legitimate. but this is something that these cases are brought to them. they can't go out and d it. they can't go beyond what the case. is i would also say that just because a court has found something to be constitutional, you honestly as a legislator believe that it is not constitutional that the court got it wrong, i still think you

have a duty to vote against the statute. many people say, the court rules, and you won't be criticized but courts don't always get it right. we have to render our own judgment. it doesn't mean you don't follow court digs but we're not any obligation to vote for statutes you don't believe are constitutional. >> i would just add that a lot of times don't realize you can have two separate viewpoints wean the congress and courts. when the court rules on something as to whether it's necessary and proper, their ruling as to whether the congress could find this necessary and proper. it doesn't mean that as a member of congress you have to say it's necessary and proper and that is constitutional issue. >> 25 years ago i was newt gingrich's first committee counsel and we thought congress could fix everything. but i'd be interested in the opinion of the panel about an

effort that's now going oncoming up from the states. there are now 900 state legislators and six governors and 19 state legislative chambers and the republican national committee's unanimous endorsement in the republican platform for a constitutional version of the rains act that almost every republican voted for that would require congress approve major new regulations and the idea is that in the same way states were able to force congress to propose a bill of rights without a convention and more recently the 17th amendment and presidential term limit, that pressure if the states could persuade congress to do what's in its own interest and reclaim the executive branch, the article 1 power stolen by the executive branch. your thoughts on regulation, freedom amendment and the strategy? >> i'm generally against amending on issues like the rains act because we just passed the act. i think it's important to use the constitution for things we

cannot achieve legislatively. i testified in congress asking them again to bring up this erains act. to ink it's a useful tool habit ress back in the of governing. ting it's a lie that congress is governing when most of the decisions are not being reviewed, they're being done endependently. that's a serious danger for a democrat exsystem. more and more are being decided by this insulated fwroup of agency officials who the public has no interaction with and doesn't know who they are. even trivial things like some unknown office declaring that the redskins can't use the red consistency name. this is a raging debate, i'm not involved, i'm a bears fan, but the fact is, you know, you have this unknown office and say, we're going to set they will question. you don't have trademark

protection, you can't use that name. it's an example of what we talked about with the fourth branch. largely that's insulated from congress. congress doesn't have the ability, the staff, to seriously look at agencies that would change if we had something like the rains act and i think you just pass the act rather than something like it -- rather than amend the constitution. >> i would submit a constitutional amendment of four words. and we mean it. >> i'm warren bellmore i'm a recovering attorney with one question. left and y vitality if not why not. according to justice scalia there's not. he used to say that was the only keas and the companion case where they applied that. but that's before he start red thinking chevron.

>> the only limit we had on delegations of broad general thorpt to the executive branch, something that might still have some vitality. >> ok, let me read this first. so buses to the gaylord for the annual dinner can be boarded on the desail street side of the hotel. you can access that by exiting the hotel at the door to the outside near the gift shop. ask a staff member, they can direct you. buses will lead for the gaylord from now until 6:00 p.m. for the return trip, buses will depart at the conclusion of the dinner and then every half-hour with the last bus loading at 11:30 p.m. so will you please join me in thanking this panel. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

>> more from the federalist society here on c-span at 9:00 eastern when supreme court justice clarence thomas speaks to the group's annual

conference. torl night, supreme court oral arguments in the case of the city of miami suing bnk of america and wells fargo under the fair housing act, alleging discrimination against african-americans and hispanics in home mortgage lending. the supreme court oral argument at 8:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night over on c-span2. in january, more than 3 freshman members of congress will take the oath of office. c-span spoke with some of them about their new jobs. here are two, starting with florida democrat charlie crist and then virginia republican scott taylor. >> there are a lot of good people in this class. they all want to work hard and do what's right. i think what's right is that we

work together. that we don't separate by republican, democrat, independent, but realize we're all americans. and we now have a duty more than any other time in our history, except for maybe the civil war, to bring this country together. people are counting on it. >> orientation here on capitol hill, can you describe the feeling? is it like the first day of school? >> we're very much so, yeah, it is. that's a good analogy. you're learning where your office might be, trying to find out who your staff might be. it's very exciting time. really is. everything's new. >> what advice are you giving to your fellow freshmen members in dealing with the press, the political pressures of being in office, if you give one or two pieces of vision, what would it be? >> just be yourself. be true to yourself. if you speak from the heart, you don't have to worry about what you're saying, you'll be fine, just be honest. >> i know your opponent ran on issues of reforming money and politics and campaign finance. is that an important issue for you? is it something that you feel like you can make a changes on here on capitol hill now?

>> i think it's a very important issue. overturning citizens united is something that i think's very important. dark corporate money in politics, we've got to get that out of here. they call the house of representatives the people's house. we have to return it to the people and make sure that they're the ones who are represented, they are the ones we're fighting for and we understand they're the boss. >> speaking of being the boss, are you prepared to be one of 435 as opposed to the boss in the state of florida? >> absolutely. i'm an old football player. i've played quarterback a little bit at wake forest. the clear to me that being part of a team is a lot of fun. and when you're governor or chief executive, it can be a little lonely sometimes. so this is a lot of fun. i'm really enjoying my new colleagues. >> thank you so much for your time. >> my pleasure. >> we're with congressman elect scott taylor of virginia's second district. a republican. hell tel us how orientation is going for you so far as you get to know this new job. >> the going very well. a lot of bipartisan level, they're very, very helpful. want you to be successful, of

course. i've been quite impressed by it. going very well. >> former navy seal in a district that has a big naval presence, for those that don't know about the second district, tell us a little bit about it. >> sure. of course we have the largest naval facility in the world. however, we have eight major military installations. we cover every single service, we have more veterans in the military than any other congressional district in the nation. it's an honor for me to be there. >> a district that has been impacted by cuts under sequestration come. talk a little bit about how that's affected your district? >> the absolutely affected our district for sure. people have been furloughed, laid off, there's been problems with maintenance schedules. training and everything like that. it hurts our national security. on a bigger level, my district, also the nation as well. it's been on reprieve nor a year. the coming back. i'm umheer trying it maake sure we do something about that, to make sure we protect our national security and of course my area. >> how do you make that argument? is the republican leadership in congress willing to lessen? >> i think they are willing to listen. they understand very well that our national security and military moving forward.

you have to make the argument, you have to make the argument that you have to be able to thread a needle between fiscal hawks as well as military hawks. i think we can do that. we have the ability to do that. i'm looking forward to getting people around the table and making that happen. >> what lessons do you take from being a navy seal to now being a member of congress? >> sure, well, i've had the pleasure of serving with some of the greatest people i will ever know who taught me loyalty, honor, working within a team, an elite team. but also having the ability to navigate through chaos with clarity. i don't get overwhelmed when things are highly stressful. i remain calm and make decisions. that is a direct reflection of my training. >> what are your thoughts about president-elect trump and the role he's going to be taking on, specifically as commander in chief? >> sure, he's a practical guy. i think you're going to see a lot of things change here. he basically articulated what a lot of people in the nation were feeling. i have high hopes, i'm confident he'll be able to bring people together and get things done. i'm looking forward to working with him. >> you defeated randy forbes in the primary. how do you defeat -- for those

who didn't follow that race. how did you defeat a seven-term congressman who has been up here and has so many connections here in d.c.? >> sure, well, i mean, hats off to him with his service, wish him nothing but the best. him and his family. we took our message to the people. a lot of people know me in the area there as well. we worked really, really hard. people had confidence in my background and what i wanted to do moving forward. they stuck with me. >> congressman forbes being mentioned as a possible navy secretary. is that something that would you support? >> i don't get -- that's the decision of the administration. but i think he's a competent, capable guy, for sure. i wish him the best. if he finds himself in that role, i'm looking forward to working with him. >> lastly, you have thought about your committee assignment here in capitol hill? >> sure, with a logical committees from my background and education and district would be house armed services, foreign affairs, however, that is plan b. plan a is to shoot for appropriations because virginia will be without an appropriator for the first time in 102 years. and i think the very crucial that virginia have an

appropriator. that's plan a. plan b would be house armed services and foreign affairs. >> for viewers who don't understand the different rankings of different committees on capitol hill, and the ones that are most sought after, why is appropriations the one that is always at the top of everyone's list? >> as you know, appropriations is an a committee. it's hard for a freshman to get that. i think we have a good case for your average person out there. a lot of committees authorize what's going on. the appropriators actually move the money around. so that is where the money comes from and gets moved around. it's a very sought-after committee and hard to get. >> what are some other examples of those very sought-after, hard to get committees? >> energy and commerce is one as well. appropriations, of course. both of those are a committees. the not typical for a freshman to get. we're still working really hard to make sure we get on appropriations. >> thanks for the time. [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] >> follow the transition of government on c-span, as donald trump becomes the 45th president of the united states. and republicans maintain

control of the u.s. house and senate. we'll take you to key events as they happen, without interruption. watch live on c-span, watch on-demand at cspan.org, or listen on our free c-span radio app. >> thank you all very much. welcome to congress. >> president obama's in germany today. he spoke this morning during a joints in conference with chancellor angela merkel in berlin about relations with germany. donald trump's election and u.s. policy toward russia. chancellor merkel: welcome to the president of the united states of america, to germany. in its capacity as president, the united states, let us emind ourselves, after visiting us in his capacity as candidate here in berlin, we

. en met in other places we saw each other when he gave a speech at the gate. we met again. at the g-7. then hanover fair comes to mind and today he is again here in berlin. eight years are coming to a close. this is the last visit of barack obama to our country, to germany. i am very glad that he chose germany as one of the sort of stopovers on this trip. and thank you very much. thank you for the friendship you've always demonstrated. thank you for the reliable friendship and partnership you demonstrated in very difficult hours of our relationship, so let me again pay tribute to what we've been able to achieve, to what we discussed, to what we were able to bring about in difficult -- about. difficult hours come to mind, as i said. those that had a bearing on the cooperation of our intelligence services, and i'm very grateful

that barack obama, as president, very much put protection of privacy on the agenda. today, due to the threat of islamist terrorism all over the world, through the threat of i.s., we recognize how important the cooperation with intelligence services. first and foremost of the united states services is. we need this cooperation, let me say this from a german perspective very clearly. our bilateral relations are very good. they're very close. in the areas of business, the economy rning the united states , america were our most important trading partner. both for germany and the european union. the european union and the united states of america are the big, important economic areas for us. which is why i've always come out strongly in favor of concluding a trade agreement with the united states of america. we have made progress, quite a lot of progress. it can be stopped, those negotiations, but we'll keep what we have achieved so far

and i'm absolutely certain that one day we'll come back to what we have achieved and build on it. because -- that is my deep conviction. globalization. i think we share this conviction. is that globalization needs to be shaped politically, it needs to be given a huge face, but we cannot allow to fall back into pre-globalization times. this conclusion of trade agreements that go beyond the mere trade agreement, customs agreements, are most important. i'm very pleased we were able to bring this to fruition between canada and the e.u. yeeve made great progress, particularly if we look at one of the great global issues, namely climate protection, the engagement of the current administration under the leadership of barack obama, this paris agreement would never have come about. there has been a change in the attitude in the united states towards that agreement. but there is also a better

cooperation with china. so last year we were able to conclude a paris climate agreement, which will lead the way for the rest of the world. which is groundbreaking. and together we'll see sustainable development goals of the agenda, 2030, for the whole world. this is indeed a change that we see and step by step will be implemented. there's another point i wanted to mention here, particularly the engagement and commitment to africa. for us europeans, africa is a neighboring content that's of prime importance. we as germans, we as members of the european union will have to deal with this. it will be at the top of our agenda. there are a lot of areas where we cooperate, fight against isil, for example, here, nermjermny was able to contribute to a certain ex tent, in certain areas. we'll continue to do so. for example, in supporting the peshmerga in air policing.

but we also have to acknowledge that the united states of america bear most of the burden. they bear the brunt of this responsibility, so i take your remarks very seriously, barack, that the european union as a whole, but also germany and -- needs to recognize that this is our alliance, our common alliance, a cross atlantic alliance, that we have to step out our engagement. in the long run we will not be allowed to accept this imbalance as regards to the contributions we give to this alliance and we have understood this message and we have started to react. we have worked very closely together, for example, in afghanistan. we're continuing to do so. i'm very pleased that this military engagement together with a political road map that we've developed, we were able to continue. we want to bring about a political solution there. we worked very closely together on the issue of annexation of

crimea and russia's attempt to actually conquer ukraine and actually they did so, conquered part of the territory. we tried to come to a peaceful settlement here on this. our interests are very much aligned. our attempts, our cooperation are very much aligned. we continue to build on what we've already achieved in these last months of the administration and we will continue also with the new administration. this is the end of an eight-year cooperation that was very close indeed. from a german point of view, german-american and european-american relations are a pillar of our foreign policy. foreign policy that is obviously guided by interests, but that is very much also committed to shared values. so we have a platform, democracy, freedom, respect of human rights, that we would like to see respected all over the world and also a peaceful world order. we have shared those values, we continue to share those values, and obviously we will continue

to cooperate with the new administration. but today i think the word gratitude is at hand. thank you very much for this cooperation. president obama: it's wonderful to be back in berlin. this is my sixth visit to germany. it will not be my last. i have somehow continued to miss octoberfest. that's probably that's something better for me to do as a former president rather than as president. i'll have more fun. it's also wonderful to be back with my great friend and ally, chancellor merkel. as i reflect back over the last eight years, i could not ask for a steadier or more reliable partner on the world stage. often through some very challenging times. so i want to thank you for your friendship, for your leadership, and your commitment to our alliance. and i want to thank the german

people for the incredible partnership that our countries have been able to establish all these years. last week marked the 27th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. the united states was proud to stand with the people of ermany as this nation and this continent reunited and rebuilt and reached for a better future. it's a reminder that the commitment of the united states to europe is enduring and the rooted in the values we share. values that angela just mentioned. commitment to democracy, commitment to rule of law, our commitment to the dignity of all people. in our own countries and around the world. our alliance with our nato partners has been a cornerstone of u.s. foreign policy for nearly 70 years. in good times and in bad. and through presidents of both parties. because the united states has a fundamental interest in europe's stability and

security. the commitment that angela and i share to this guiding principle has formed the basis for our conversations this afternoon. we discussed our efforts to keep our countries competitive and create jobs and opportunity on both sides of the atlantic. the negotiations on agreements like t-tip have been challenging and obviously at a moment when there's concerns about globalization and the benefits that accrue to particular people, it is important that those negotiations and channels of communication remain. because ultimately what we have shown over the last several decades is that markets and trade and commerce can create prosperity in all of our countries, that the not a win-lose situation, but it can be a win-win situation.

at a time when the european project is facing challenges, it's spembley important to show the benefits of -- especially important to show the benefits of economic integration by continuing to invest in our people and working to reduce inequality, both within and across our countries. i reits its rated our hope that -- i reiterated our hope that the britain's exit from the e.u. will be done in an orderly and transparent fashion and preserved as closely as possible the economic and political and security relationships between the u.k. and e.u. and i continue to believe what i said in hanover. that the e.u. remains one of the world's great political and economic achievements and that those achievements should not be taken for granted. that they need to be nurtured and cultivated and protected and fought for. because the achievements that we've seen on this continent,

in con trat -- draft -- in contrast to a indict -- in contrast to a divided europe of the previous century, are ones that remind us of how important it is that we work together. and that we are willing to uphold principles that have resulted in unprecedented prosperity and security throughout europe and around the world. with the threat of climate change only become more urgent, angela and i focused on the need for american and e.u. leadership to advance global cooperation. both of our nations were proud to join the paris climate agreement, which the world should work to implement quickly. continued global leadership on climate, in addition to increasing private investment in clean energy, is going to be critical to meeting this growing threat. of course we discussed our commitment to meeting shared security challenges from countering cyberthreats to ensuring that iran continues to

live up to the terms of the iran nuclear deal. i commended angela for her leadership, along with president hollande in working to work with ukraine. we continue to stand with the people of ukraine and for the basic principle that nations have a right to determine their own destiny. and we discussed the importance of maintaining sanctions until russia fully complies with the misn -- minsk agreement. the coalition against isil, we're putting that terrorist network under tremendous pressure. here in berlin this week coalition officials are working to make sure we remain focused on our mission to destroy isil. we're vell grateful for the vital contributions germany has made to this fight. training local forces in iraq, sharing intelligence, providing reconnaissance aircraft, including the recent deployment of additional nato awacs. and as iraqi forces continue the liberation of mosul, i'm

pleased that nato will be meeting the commitment we made in warsaw to begin training additional forces in iraq, which started this january. we also continue to stand united with germany and our nato allies in our ongoing efforts to build peace and stability in afghanistan. on syria, it's clear that the indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the assad regime and russia will only worsen the humanitarian catastrophe and that negotiated end to the conflict is the only way to achieve lasting peace in syria. angela and i also agree the need for a comprehensive and humane response to the devastating humanitarian crisis in syria. and for the influx of my grants and refugees from around the world. the ed to build on progress achieved at the u.n. refugee summit, which yielded new commitments from some 50 nations and organizations. the united states is doing our

part by increasing the number of refugees we resettle and i want, again, to commend angela and, more importantly, the german people, for the extraordinary leadership and compassion that you have shown in the face of what i know is a very difficult challenge. you are not alone in trying to deal with this challenge. this is not an issue that any one country should bear. but it's in need of an international response. i not only intend to make sure that we have put in place more robust support from the united states, but i'm hoping that that continues beyond my administration. on this final visit, i am reminded of the visit i made here before i became president. it was eight years ago. i had no gray hair. but i believe today what i said then. if you want a model for what is possible, if you want to see how to build a peaceful and

prosperous and dynamic society, then look at berlin and look at germany, look at chancellor merkel. her personal story helps to tell the story of incredible achievement that the german people have embarked on. and i think it's something that you should be very proud of. it is not inevitable that we make progress. it requires hard work. ometimes it may seem as if progress is stalled. but what the history of post-war germany shows is that strength and determination and focus and adherence to the values that we care about will result in a better future for our children and our grandchildren. on behalf of the american

people, i want to thank the german people, i want to thank chancellor merkel for your deep friendship and your steadfast partnership. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. mr. president, you and the president-elect have very different views on russia. after your meeting with him last week, can you assure chancellor merkel that a trump administration would also support strong sanctions against moscow? similarly, what have you told president putin about russia's influence on the u.s. election and how would you advise european countries to deal with the same threat? lastly, if i may, would you like to see your friend, chancellor merkel, run for re-election next year? [laughter]

president obama: now your german. showing off. >> has the american president calmed you in the sense that on the policy of his successor on climate change and russia, he has belaid your fears? are you concerned that the common european policy towards russia will collapse and also the election of mr. trump, and would you as a sign of civility, wouldn't you actually have to declare that you are going to be a candidate again? president obama: well, i try to make it a rule not to meddle in other people's politics. all i can say is that chancellor merkel has been an outstanding partner. chan lore merkel is perhaps

our ly leader left among closest allies that was there hen i arrived. so, in some ways we are now the veterans of many challenges over the last eight years. and although we have not always been in sync on every issue, in terms of our core values, in terms of her integrity, her truthfulness, her thoughtfulness, her doing her homework, knowing her facts, her commitment to looking out for the interests of the german people first, but recognizing that part of good leadership on behalf of the nation requires engaging the world as a whole nd participating effectively in multilateral institutions, i

think she's been outstanding. so, the up to her whether she wants to stand again and then ultimately it will be up to the german people to decide what he future holds. if i were here and i were a german and i had a vote, i might support her. [laughter] but i don't know whether that hurts or helps. [laughter] th respect to russia, my principle approach to russia has been constant since i first came into office. russia is an important country. it is a military superpower. it has influenced -- influence

in the region, and it has influence around the world. and in order for us to solve many big problems around the world, it is in our interest to work with russia and obtain their cooperation. i think we should all hope for a russia that is successful, where its people are employed d the economy is growing and they are having good relationships with their neighbors. and participating constructively on big issues like climate change. so, i've sought a cruktive relationship with russia, but -- constructive relationship with russia, but what i've also been is realistic in recognizing that there are some significant differences in how russia views the world and how

we view the world. the values that we talked about, the values of democracy and free speech and international norms and rule of ability of ng the other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity, those things are not something that we can set aside. issues like ukraine, on issues like syria, we've had ery significant differences. and my hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where

we can cooperate with russia, where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to russia where they are deviating from our values and international norms. that the t expect president-elect will follow exactly our blueprint or our approach. ut my hope is that he does not simply take a real politic approach and suggest that, you know frk we just cut some deals with russia, even if it hurts people, or even if it violates international norms, or even if it leaves smaller countries vulnerable, or creates long-term problems in regions like syria, that we just do whatever's convenient at the

time. that will be something that i think we'll learn more about as the president-elect puts his team together. i am encouraged by the president-elect's insistence that nato is a commitment that does not change. nd his full commitment to nato as the foundation for our international security i think is very important. finally, in terms of my conversations with president pute an, these are conversations -- putin, these are conversations that took place before the election. as i indicated, there has been very clear proof that they have engaged in cyberattacks. this isn't new. it's not unique to russia. there are a number of states

where we've seen low-level yberattacks and industrial espionage and, you know, other behavior that we think should be out of bounds and i delivered a clear and forceful message that, although we recognize russia's intelligence gathering will sometimes take place even if we don't like it, there's a difference between that and them either meddling with elections or going after private organizations or commercial entities, and that we're monitoring it carefully and we will respond appropriately if and when we see this happening. i do think that this whole area of cyber is something that at an international level we have to work on and develop

frameworks and international a s so that we don't see cyber arms race. a lot of countries have advanced capabilities and given the vulnerabilities of our infrastructure, and our conomies to digital platforms, we have to be careful in making sure that this doesn't become a lawless, low-level battlefield. and we've started trying to put together some principles that were adopted in the g-20, the g-7, and at the u.n. levels. but a lot more work remains to be done on that front. chancellor merkel: well, allow

me if i may to underline, first of all, that i'm very much impressed that, in spite of a very tough election campaign, this transition period in the united states of america, because it is -- it follows democratic principles, is working smoothly. because this is all about the american people, it's about the destiny of the american people. the outgoing administration is sharing, it's -- its knowledge, its expertise with the incoming administration. and this to us is a sign of encouragement. to continue the good cooperation that we have built between the united states of america and the republic of germany, that is in our mutual interests, so we will continue this. i will continue this, i approach this with an open mind and i'll do it on the basis of a deep conviction with president-elect donald trump. secondly, on russia, i can only repeat what the president said

previously. this is all about respecting certain principles. i'm saying this from a european van -- vantage point from a german vantage point. the fact that for over 70 years we have been able to enjoy peace, to live in peace, very much depends on territorial integrity and sovereignty of each and every european country being respected. in european history, the reverse would be the start of a very bitter road down a slippery slope. and we have to nip this in the bud. we have to stand up resolutely against such attempts. but we are pinning our hopes on political efforts, which is why we launched the normandy process, in close coordination with the united states of america. particularly from a german perspective, from the european perspective, i can only say again, russia is our neighbor. just look at poland. the european perspective.

so we have an interest in seeing this relationship be a good one. we have a lot of historical ties, of course. a history that we share. but this community keep from us wherever we feel there are very grave differences of opinion to raise them with them. but, again, with political means and always trying to work for political settlements. this is what i'm going to continue to work on. on the question of whether i'll put up a canadasy, i will do this at the appropriate time and this is not today. reporter: german press agency. mr. president, your country is divided. you are the first black president, first african-american president, who did so many things so differently, who raised so much hope all over the world. do you think that you have perhaps in a way put too much of a strain, maybe too much demands on the americans, and

to what extent do you think your successor may well be a threat to the rest of the world , security, because there are, after all, nuclear weapons here in germany to which he has access now. will you want to be now, madam chancellor, see to it, new administration try to make europe and germany less dependent on the united states and are you afraid of this wave of populism hitting germany, hitting europe as well? and the personal question. president obama, paid tribute to to you as an outstanding politician. you are somewhat more sober when you describe your partner. how difficult is it for to you take leave today of your partner? president obama: my guiding principle as president has been , try to do the right thing even when the not politically convenient -- it's not politically convenient.

to look at long-term trends in ur economy, in our society, in the international sphere, and sing my best judgment, shape policies that will serve the american people, keep them safe, keep our economy growing, t people back to work, and best ensure peace, cooperation nd stability around the world. and based on current surveys of public opinion in the united states, it turns out that the majority of americans think i've done a pretty good job. that we haven't in fact gone oo fast, as you describe it. but what is certainly true is that the american people, just

like the german people, just like the british and people around the world, are seeing extraordinarily rapid change. the world is shrinking. economies have become much more integrated. .nd demographics are shifting because a of the internet and communications, the clash of cultures is much more direct. people feel, i think, less certain about their identity, less certain about economic security. they're looking for some means of control. that the hat means is politics in all of our going to require

us to manage technology and global integration, and all these demographic shifts in a way that makes people feel more control, that gives them more confidence in their future. but does not resort to simplistic answers or divisions a crude r tribe or nationalism which can be contrasted to the pride and patriotism that we all feel bout our respective countries. i think that our politics everywhere are going to be oing through this bumpy phase. but, as long as we stay true to our democratic principles, as

long as elections have integrity, as long as we respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, as long as there are checks and balances in our governments, so that the people have the ability to not just make judgments about how well government is serving them, but also change governments if they're not serving them well, then i have confidence that over the long , progress will continue. and i think it's especially important for those of us who a world where we're interdependent, that believes in mutual interests and mutual

respect between nations, it's particularly important that we reach out to everybody in our countries, those who feel disaffected, those who feel left behind by globalization, and address their concerns in constructive ways. as opposed to more destructive ways. and i think that can be done. but it's hard, it requires creativity, it requires effective communications. part of what's changed in politics is social media and how people are receiving information. 's easier to make negative attacks and simplistic slogans than it is to communicate complex policies. but we'll figure it out. so, ultimately, i remain optimistic about not just

america's future, but the direction that the world is going in. and part what have makes me most optimistic is if you look at the attitudes of young , across the board young people are much more comfortable with respecting differences, they are much more , mfortable with diversity they are much less likely to divide attitudes that us between us and them. ey see themselves as part of a global economy, that they can navigate successfully. showing enormous creativity and entrepreneurship and working with each other across borders. so that's where the future is.

but we have to create that bridge. to the future. and that means making sure we're paying attention to the wages of workers in countries, making sure that we're investing in their education and their skills, that we are growing the economy in smart ways and rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in science and development, and to those y true values that helped get us here. and if we do that, i think e're going to be fine. chancellor merkel: well, on the issue, first, of independence of germany. after the time of initial socialism, germany has been given an enormous amount of help, particularly and also from the united states of america, the fact that we were

le to enjoy german unification is due first and foremost through the help of the united states of america. and ever since germany was able regain its unity, it's an an even stronger position to give its contribution to upholding this order to which we feel committed and for which particularly people in the german democratic republic stood in the streets to keep this up, to maintain this order . particularly also in our country. now, we're trying to do more than it used to be 26 years ago. and there are a number of other areas where we have to also make a stronger contribution. in ll all have to do more development cooperation. it's important that these disparities in the living conditions cannot be allowed in

this digital period to be two markets. each and every one must be given an opportunity to participate. which is why germany's fate in many ways depends on the firmness of its alliance with nato, with the european union, e cannot stand alone with 80 million people. in this world of today, you can't achieve much if you stand on your own. so alliances are part of our destiny as a nation, part of our future as a nation, and this is what guides me in my policy, what guides my government as a whole. secondly, this wave of populism that seems to again uffle -- engulf us, look at, in your words, to come from the united states. look at the european parliament. there are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions, for -- who are sort , well, hing policies of

very unfriendly policies. we have them here in europe too. we have them here in germany too. to take up where the president left off, digitization is, in a way, a disruptive force, a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change, transformation of society. look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented, consequences, or industrialization, what sort of consequences that had. very often it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while, until society learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage it. i think we live in a period of profound transformation. very similar to when we had a transition from agricultural societies to industrial societies. when we see shifts of huge production lines from certain

areas to other countries, people tends to ask the question, where's my place in this modern world? we have this here, they have it in other countries. trying to keep a society together, trying to keep the older and the younger people together, trying to keep those who live in rural areas together with those who live in cities is one of the most important and most noble tasks of politicians these days. trying to see to it that each and every one can find his or her place. but those that are -- belong to certain groups say, we are the people, and not the others. that is something that we cannot allow to happen. that is something that i think at the time in the g.d.r., at the time when we had this, where the people stood in the street and said, we are the people, that was something that filled me with great joy. the fact that these people have hijacked it is not something that fills me with great joy. we have to find new ways of addressing people, new ways of

getting into contact with people, but i'm optimistic that we will be able to do so. now, taking leave from my partner and friend, well, yes, it is hard. if you've worked together with somebody very well, leave-take something very difficult. but we are all politicians. we all know that democracy lives off change. so, in the united states of america, the constitution has very clear stipulations on this. it's a top rule. eight years. that's it. out goes the president and a ew one comes in. if it's in the german interest to have good transatlantic relations, well, the task is also to look ahead. but we have freedom of movement in the whole of germany. so if we want to see each other, well, i'm game. so we're not completely out of this world, as we would say. [inaudible]

reporter: thank you very much, mr. president. you spoke a great deal about what you characterize as a crude form of nationalism, perhaps, on the rise. i'm wondering if would you advise some of those protesters at home to stop demonstrating against some of the charged rhetoric that has been used by donald trump. and i'm wondering as well if you've advised your successor to be extra mindful of what you see as some very worryy some trends, particularly when -- worrisome trends, particularity i will when it comes to making some of his potentially powerful staff picks. in these final weeks of your presidency, do you believe you have any leverage to stop bashar al-assad and vladimir puten from continuing to bomb aleppo? chancellor merkel, i'd like to ask you, bashar al-assad has described donald trump as a natural ally. your own foreign minister has described donald trump as a preacher of hate. i'm wondering, would you tell americans that they now have a

erception problem? president obama: one of the great things about our democracy is it expresses itself in all sorts of ways. and that includes people protesting. i've been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years. i suspect there's not a president in our history that at some point hasn't been subject to these protests. so, i would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign. i wouldn't advise them to be silent. what i would advise, what i advised before the election, and what i will continue to advise after the election, is that elections matter, voting

matters, organizing matters, being informed on the issues matter. and what i consistently say to young people, i say it in the united states, but i'll say it here in germany and across europe, do not take for granted our systems of government and our way of life. i think there is a tendency, because we've lived in an era that's been largely stable and peaceful, at least in advanced countries, where living standards have generally gone i there is a tendency, think, to assume that that's always the case. and it's not. democracy is hard work. in the united states, if 43% of eligible voters do not vote, hen democracy is weakened.

if we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not, and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are getting their information and sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have roblems. if people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process, and are taking absolutist viewings and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down. i think my most important

advice is to understand what are the foundations of a and how we racy have to engage in citizenship , not just when something upsets us, not just when there's an election or when an issue pops up. it's hard work. the good news is i think there are a lot of young people, certainly who were involved in my campaigns and continue to be involved in work, not just politically but through nonprofits and other organizations that can carry this hard work of democracy forward.

here in europe there are a lot of young people who forget the issues that were at stake during the cold war. who forget what it's like to have wall. there are times when i listen to the rhetoric in europe, where an easy equivalent somehow between the united states and russia and between how our governments operate versus other governments operate, where those istinctions aren't made. i've said many times around the world that, like any government, like any country, like any set of human institutions, we have our flaws, we've operated imperfectly. there are times when we've made mistakes. there are times when where i've made mistakes or oured a sfration hasn't -- our administration hasn't always aligned ourselves with the values that we need to align

ourselves with. it's a work of constant improvement. but i can say to the german people that the united states has been good for germany. has look out for germany. -- looked out for germany. has provided security for germany. has helped rebuild germany. and unify germany. and i can say across europe that many principle as that have been taken for granted here around free speech and around civil liberties and an independent judiciary and fighting corruption, those are principles that, you know, not perfectly, but generally we have tried to apply not just in our own country, but also with respect to other foreign policy. and that should be remembered. because at an age where there's

o much active misinformation and it's packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a facebook page or you rn on your television, where overzealousness on the a u.s. you know, official is equated with constant and severe repression seems e, if everything to be the same, and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect. we won't know what to fight for. and we can lose so much of what we've gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and

market-based economies and prosperity that we've come to take for granted. that was a long answer, wasn't it? i don't remember if there was a second part to it. i got all caught up in that one. reporter: i asked if would you vits the president-elect -- [inaudible] president obama: yes, i did. i did. he ran an extraordinarily unconventional campaign and it resulted in the biggest political upset in perhaps modern political history. merican history. and that means that he now has to transition to governance. hat i said to him was that what may work in generating enthusiasm or passion during elections may be different than

what will work in terms of unifying the country and gaining the trust even of those who didn't support him. he's indicated his willingness to -- his understanding of that, but you're absolutely right. that has to reflect itself not only in the things he says, but also how he fills out his administration. and my hope is that that's something that he's thinking .bout ecause not only is the president of the united states somebody that the entire , untry looks to for direction but sets the agenda internationally in a lot of waits. -- ways.

with respect to syria, we are going to continue to work as we have over the last five, six years to push towards a political transition and settlement. it would be naive of me to suggest that with russia ommitted militarily as it is to supporting what in many cases are barb rouse tactics by the assad regime to crush the opposition, the sort of indiscriminate bombing that we've been seeing, not just in aleppo, but in many parts of the country over the last several years, it would be naive of me to suggest that there's going to be a sudden 180-degree turn in policy by either assad or russia or iran at this point. but we are going to continue to make the argument, we are going

to continue to try to find humanitarian steps that can reach the people there. we're going to continue to try to obtain cessations of ostilities that lessen the human tragedy. and the migration that's taking place. but ultimately the way this is going to be resolved is going by ve to be a recognition russia a and a willingness to that a lasting, durable peace with a functioning country requires the consent of people. you cannot purchase people's consent through killing them. they haven't made that

transition yet. but we're going to keep on rying. america america i think i can speak -- chancellor merkel: i think i can speak for the whole of the federal government when i say en in e are no longer in a election mode in the united states, we're in postelection mode. there's an interest of the federal government of germany to cooperate well with the united states of america. . this is on the basis of shared values and i believe these are shared values. so as to my position on resident assad, as president tried to kill his own people. he has bombed them with bombs in a most terrible way. he has brought untold suffering

over his people and aleppo. when you talk to the syrian refugees who have fled here to germany, they will tell you their own personal story and the great majority of them fled from assad and most of them fled -- i on't see him as an ally. >> mr. president, you describe your hopes rather more in great historical terms, let me break this down in months and years, the fact that steve bannon was made at a chief strategist eeting and prominent republicans did not decide to join this team, what makes you confident that president trump can be a partner to the world

and germany? madam chancellor, if you hear those words of president of the president with regard to you, can this not sort of demand too much from you and from germany because too much is demanded, too much is expected from you demanded of you. president obama: i'm always optimistic. there are times when i was in the oval office and people would come to me with all kinds of political problems and policy problems and international problems and my team would be getting discouraged and say to and i would them, i have to be optimistic

because the odds of somebody named barack obama being president of the united states were very low. and the fact that in my lifetime, i have seen such enormous positive change in the united states and around the world. that although history does not travel in a straight line, it moves in the direction of justice and freedom. nd a better life for people. but we have to fight for it. we have to work for it. cautiously ptimistic about my successor

and the shift from campaign mode -- there's e is something about the solemn ,esponsibilities of that office the extraordinary demands that ,re placed on the united states not just by its own people but by people around the world, that forces you to focus. that demands seriousness. about you're not serious the job, then you probably won't be there very long because it

will expose problems. even when you're doing a good job. even when you are attentive, there are so many things that come across your desk that people are going to question you and you are going to have opponents and going to have critics and you figure that out pretty fast when you're sitting there. and i think the president-elect is going to see fairly quickly demands and responsibilities of the u.s. president are not ones that you can treat casually and that in a big complex, diverse country, the only way you can be successful is by listening and reaching out and working with a wide variety of people.

and so it is my hope that that is what will happen. and i'm going to do everything i can to help assure that that happens. it is absolutely true that chancellor merkel is going to have significant responsibilities, has had extraordinary burdens that she's had to carry. if she chooses to continue, you're right, she will have big burdens. i wish i could be there to lighten her load somewhat, but she's tough. and i have -- i know what it means to carry burdens because the fact of the matter is if there are problems around the world, the first question people ask is why isn't washington doing something about it. this is why it's so important

ot to discount or take for granted, the important of the trans-atlantic alliance and this is probably the best place for me to end. in international forum, in g-20's and g-7's, in the united nations, the united states and germany are not always perfectly aligned. america and europe are not always perfectly aligned, but the voice that speaks out on behalf of some dissident who is jailed halfway around the world, the voice who is expressing concern about some child in an african village who doesn't have clean drinking water or subject to a terrible disease, the voice that insists on rules and norms governing international affairs,

the voice that helps to steer the world away from war wherever ossible, that's our voice more often than not. and we're not always successful. but if that voice is absent or that voice is divided, we will be living in a meaner, harsher, more troubled world. and we have to remember that. and whoever is the u.s. president and the chancellor of germany and whoever is the leader of other european nations and other democracies around the world, they need to recognize that. there are going to be forces for argue for sin civil, looking the other way with

somebody else's problems that are not going to champion people who are vulnerable, because sometimes that's political convenient. and if we don't have a strong trans-atlantic alliance that's standing up for those things, we will be giving to our children a worst world. we will go backwards instead of forwards. whoever the president is and the chancellor of germany is and our citizenry who decide who our presidents and chancellors are need to remember that. it is a very kel: good thing after eight years of cooperation that the president of the united states says this is the cooperation that we cooperated well. i feel that this is a very good, a very positive message and

indeed encouragement for me. now, secondly, i know very many people and many more that i don't know and many politicians who stand up for the same values of democracies of open societies of respect for the dignity of man and i feel that we are in a community of people here who stand up for these values, who try to maintain them and wherever they are not, stand up for people's rights to enjoy them as well. and this is where every effort. but we are gratified to know there are many, many people who feel committed to this goal. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by

tional captioning institute] senator sessions: a lot of great people making applications for the transition committee. my former chief of staff is doing a great job under incredible demands. and the whole team is working long hours, i mean 20 hours a day kind of work and just remarkable what is happening.

i'm one of the co-chairs of the vice ee under president-elect trump. i have been in a number of meetings, while he talks to people under consideration and he would like to meet and talk to and just see who they are, he just does a really good job and engaging and talking to them. good vibe, good feel, has a good feel for people and has a good ability to size up people in an effective way. a y anne asked me to share few thoughts. she is a great positive leader. the whole team is working well together. rines priebus can talk to three

people on the phone at the same time. he knows everybody and has good judgment. steve bannon is a powerful intellect and thoughtful leader that provides good advice. so it's a good team right now. reporter: would you like to serve? senator sessions: i would be honored to be considered and let mr. trump make those decisions. reporter: do you want to be secretary of state? senator sessions: if he asks me, i'll share with him, but i'm not talking about my agenda at this point. we got a lot of work to do there, but i do feel from my conversation with senator mcconnell and others that the house and senate are charged up. they believe we have a new leader that the president will be the one that sets the agenda and the whole congress will be

supportive. [indiscernible question] senator sessions: i plan to go back to d.c., so i don't know, i don't think so. reporter: how long you plan on staying? new york? senator sessions: not much longer. reporter: have you seen hamilton? senator sessions: i have not seen it. i am not committed to go that. reporter: will mitt romney meeting with donald trump. he was a rival in the campaign season and now that the campaign season is over, how do you see it? senator sessions: i think it is good that president-elect is meeting with mr. romney and meeting with a lot of talented

people who he has a good relationship with. and i think mr. romney will be quite capable of doing a number of things. but he will be one of those that's reviewed. and mr. trump will make that decision. [indiscernible question] senator sessions: people have to ake that decision. > one more question? [indiscernible question] senator sessions: thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by tional captioning institute]

>> follow the transition of government on c-span as donald trump becomes the 45th president of the united states and republicans maintain control of the u.s. house and senate. we'll take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span and on demand or listen on our free -span radio app. >> today, the director of national intelligence announced he is resigning january 20. he made the announcement at a house intelligence committee hearing chaired by devin nunes.

mr. nunes: today, we welcome director of national intelligence james clapper, deputy secretary robert work, who will discuss the support that our intelligence community provides to our war fighters and the department of defense. thank you for being here today. the united states faces grave security threats from terrorist threats to cyberattacks. the intelligence community provides our military with critical information across the full spectrum of conflict. when they do not integrate effectively we risk intelligence failures that put our war

fighters' lives at risk. they have failed to respond to the concerns on a range of critical national security issues including those raised by the committee during the worldwide threats hearing this past february. the committee is alarmed at the threats of national security as we documented in our august report. investigation has found that the d.o.d. and the facilities planning has been plagued by significant flaws including disregard for coast-effective alternatives. the committee has not seen any meaningful corrective actions by the d.o.d. or i.c. i thank the department of defense for their ongoing investigations into both of these issues. once they are complete, i will invite the i.g. to present their findings in open session. if necessary, we may ask the

three of you to return following the conclusion of those investigations. i also commend the work of the government accountability office which recently released a report finding that the department of defense did not follow best practices when conducting its joint intelligence analysis complex consolidation analysis of alternative processes. i would like to recognize the ranking member for any opening comments he would like to make. mr. schiff. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. chairman. m trying to get used to this new committee and lap of luxury here in the ways of means. i thank your many years of service to the country. director clapper, in particular, i want to thank you for honorably serving us since the 1960's first as an air force

officer as director and undersecretary of defense and the last six years. you took a position that was still very much in the process of formation and gave it very substantive and effective content and we are very grateful for all you have done. you have exhibited sober judgment and put the fate of the nation first. i hope as you look back on your career, you don't lament your many appearances before us. we certainly don't. and there was a rumor out there that you might be asked to stay on a little bit longer than the transition and i hope you stay on four years longer, but that's probably the last thing you want to hear. [laughter] deputy secretary work and deputy secretary, i want to thank you for your extraordinary service

to the country and grateful to both of you and look forward to our continued work together and whatever plans come to you both down the road. as we near the end of the congress, now is an appropriate time to reflect on the values that save our work and how those manifest in the national security domain. our country is best served when we conduct ourselves worthy of the american people. this requires the commitment to intellectual honesty and respect for the rule of law and accept accountability for the mistakes and what we learned from them and avoid repeating them. we must all work together to solve problems on a nonpartisan basis. the intelligence community and at times the military operate in the shadows but no way diminishes our responsibility to assure that we act according to these principles and in fact the responsibility is very greater.

at home we rely to be objective and honest about the challenges we face and that candor is what allows the most senior leaders to make hard choices about how to protect americans. abroad as we engage in war fare to protect ourselves and allies and world stability, we expect you to comport with the rule of law. even in the shadows, we must all act as if you are in the spotlight because you are. the world often sees what we are doing. the intelligence committees do our best to shine a light in a constructive way. the people expect that is responsive and transparency and open to the oversight committees. the committees act as a critical check on the most secret committees of the i.c. and d.o.d. and provide oversight and

we hope sound judgment and either authorization or disapproval. each of us must strike the right balance between protecting privacy and civil liberties and ensuring national security. it is never clear and never a bright line. but it must be our goal in the i.c. and department of defense and here in congress. i look forward to a discussion about how the i.c. can and does support the dipt of defense. we pursue our bipartisan oversight of the critical work you do now and into the future. i thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. mr. nunes: we do have your opening statements for the record. i want to keep your opening statements to no more than five minutes because we have a lot of questions and we will have a series of votes and i want to get through those questions as possible. who is going to start off. director clapper.

you are recognized for five minutes. mr. clapper: chairman nunes, ranking member schiff, members of the committee and thanks to the ranking member for your very gracious comments. i submitted my letter of resignation last night which felt pretty good and i got 64 days left and i would have a hard time with my wife with anything past that. thanks for having us to discuss the intelligence community's support to the department of defense. i'm joined by my friend and colleague, bob work and my partner undersecretary of defense for intelligence. to the two men whom i greatly admire. we'll do our best to discuss as much as the i.c. support to the department in this unclassified environment obviously noting some details may need to be followed up in a classified setting. i included a brief update of the

challenges this committee knows well. in the interest of time, i think i will skip by those. you are well familiar with them. just to as a stage setter for constant challenges that we face. as i said before this committee many times, our nation is facing a most diverse array of threats than i have seen in the 63 years and that is what makes this topic so important. never before the tension community and the department of defense needs to work closely. we have a shared responsibility to keep our nation safe and secure. i have a long history of serving in the department and intelligence roles to include as the director of intelligence for three of the combatant commands for both d.i.a. and n.g.a. for nine years as deputy secretary of defense and technical intelligence centers and i

served two combat tours during the southeast asia conflict. i experienced the department and n.i.c.'s collaboration. since the standup, the relationship has grown closer. when i first took over in 2007, i established a dual hat relationship with usdi. it's called the director of defense intelligence. and this position serves as a bridge to serve collaboration and information sharing between the intelligence sharing and d.o.d. and march sell, i must say has taken this arrangement to the level.

adopted the same approach. we learned the hard way and insular approaches to intelligence are not the way to operate. to penetrate those stove pipes one of the tools is joint duty where officers serve outside of their home agencies. this is integration at the most basic level person-to-person. e i.c.'s policies not only mandates but seeks those who want to become a senior officer. 5,000 officers have completed joint duty assignments. this is stark contrast to my war where you saw civilian employees in the war zone. the members are serving

shoulder-to-shoulder sharing the same risks and enduring the same circumstances. and more recent graphic example of that in my visit to kuwait last week. assigned joint duty is one of the many ways we build strong bridges. i want to take note of the fact that secretary carter presented me with the department of defense public service award, the highest such award he can give. the award was not for me. i accepted it on behalf of the men and women of the intelligence community who work to support our missions. and award is a symbol of that commitment to mission and i thank the secretary for honoring us, the intelligence community. and mr. chairman, if i may, i did want to comment specifically on the issue of integrity at

centcom. recent information that i thought would be useful to share with you. since we have 2016 results of our survey within which reflected the 22% of centcom and analysts objective issues, this represents a decrease from 41% in 2015 and comparable to 16% who reported issues in 2014. centcom j-2 objectivity numbers are on par and slightly higher than 2016 i.c. wide average of 17%. also indicate that centcom j-2 were more likely to seek assistance to resolve incidents. objectivity ed issues and sought assistance up from 42%.

67% seeking assistance, rated senior's centcom as satisfactory in protecting analytic products from deliberate distortion. i mention this only to make this -- this is a one-year period but it does show a positive trend. and i would also comment that there has been a change in both and ommander and the j-2 centcom and i'm not casting aspersions but i think a change has been a positive development. with that, i'll stop and turn to secretary work. mr. nunes: you are recognized or five minutes. >> chairman nunes and ranking member schiff, it's an honor to appear before you to discuss the

support the department of defense has received from the intelligence community. as the chairman said, this is the unclassified hearing so it precludes me from getting into any specific details, so let me just state that the support we receive from the i.c. community has been absolutely superb. great to be here with the director of national intelligence, jim clapper. nobody no more qualified. march sell has been tasked by me to find your letter of resignation and lose it because we would like to see you stay as long as possible. but as jim gets ready to hang up his spurs, the secretary and i are exceedingly grateful to his tremendous contributions to the intelligence community and intelligence support to d.o.d. he knows better than anyone, the value of the d.o.d.'s eight members that the i.c. brings to the intelligence arena.

and march sell is my battle body, the primary intelligence adviser to the secretary and me and responsible to jim in the role of the director for defense intelligence. this dual-hat role was established and institutionalized when jim was the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and has been a smashing success in our opinion. i can't overstate the team that understands the war fighting experience is plugged in and appreciates the entire capabilities the i.c. can bring to bear. we all understand and understand the importance of these relationships which is why i comment on them. thanks to jim and march sell and the directors of the combat support agencies, the relationship in our view and the rest of the throo of the intelligence communities and

d.o.d. have never been better. i have worked in this business now for a little bit of 2 1/2 years and had the opportunity to work with jim and his principal deppies. stephanie is one of the members along with the chairman of the chiefs of staff. these relationships and cooperation are absolutely crucial as we seek to allocate our intelligence sources to meet the challenges that jim spoke about around the world in fighting isil and other extremist groups and monitoring iraq's programs and ensuring iran does not develop further capability and keeping an eye on russia in the ukraine and scrutinizing china's activities in the south china sea. the demands on the intelligence

community are formidable and the i.c. is working as best as they can and we would consider their job to be outstanding to try to apply scares intelligence resources across all of these challenges. usdi and d.i. rely on several joint forums where the fedges chiefs and the combatant support agencies, c.i.a. and d.n.i. convene and these are -- include regular visits to our regional combatant commands. participation in the afghan which we call the war fighting cig and all of these are designed to address the operational needs. we have 10 combatant commands and representatives on them. that is another indication of how close our relationship is and their robust presence and

even in afghanistan, iraq, syria and other places worldwide especially in this zero-sum budgeting environment speaks highly of the orientation of the entire i.c. so i'm very grateful to be here today and i'm grateful for the committee's interest in this area and i look forward to your questions. mr. nunes: deputy secretary, do you have an opening statement? >> i do not have a formal opening statement and would like to make two points. first as director clapper and deputy secretary work have indicated, i essentially have i look ting changes

forward to touching on that in the questions and answers. and it's just to echo the thanks that have been provided thanks to the team that i have been able to serve with on this side, the director and also to this committee. i suspect this will be my last opportunity to appear before you before the transitioning government in january. i at an early point in my career to serve as a staff member on this committee for three years, which was an opportunity to learn about the importance of oversight and the critical

driver that oversight can be in ensuring that government functions effectively and i thank the committee to be able to do that and have a productive elationship. mr. nunes: first, i'm going to start with you, and this is for all of you, are you familiar th the free online

encyclopedia? mr. clapper: in general i am. mr. nunes: does the department of defense or the intelligence community edit pages on behalf of the u.s. government? >> i can't speak on that. i know i personally never edited a page. mr. clapper: i don't know off my head. i don't think so. but i don't know. >> i have no knowledge whether or not it happens or not, sir. mr. nunes: does the d.o.d. or the i.c. use it as an official source of information? >> i don't know, congressman. mr. clapper: i would have to look into that. i don't know off hand if it has ever been. i don't know. >> i know that the department and i.c. community uses a lot of

open source information. i don't know whether or not it is one of those open sources. mr. nunes: on march 212, you and director clapper met with chairman thornberry and representative fleeling to analyze regarding the joint intelligence analysis complex slated to be built in the u.k. do you recall that meeting? >> i do. mr. nunes: director clapper, do you recall that meeting? mr. clapper: yes. >> you informed that the department of defense did not intend to re-evaluate lower cost sites for the intelligence center. as justification for your decision, you provided the committee with two documents regarding communications infrastructure supporting the island. azores

i ask the clerk to distribute one and two which is one of the documents provided for justification for the department's decision. mr. nunes: everybody has the documents now? secretary work, are you aware the sict portions of this document that you passed to three committee chairmen to meet ublic law or plagiarize from wikipedia. 2. did not provide exhibit

i have never seen exhibit 2. i can explain. mr. nunes: exhibit two are the pages that were i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america rised that were met. >> i did not know that the information in that document came from there. mr. nunes: all of the graphics in which you provided us, everything is highlighted, that was all taken directly out of what we have in exhibit 2 to provide to three committee chairmen to fulfill the requirements of the national defense authorization act. >> if i may, sir, i would like to clarify. what i did in that meeting, i was required by the national defense authorization act to make a determination that our movement was operationally the right call to make and i made that determination and communicated my intent to do

that. the second thing i needed to do is certify there were no d.o.d. missions that could be transferred and i certified that we were not intending to do so. at that meeting, you asked me two questions. you said what about the housing osts on the base and you questioned me on the communications information. i provided you a -- one document that was provided to me, i think it was by disa and i committed to you to make a deep dive, which i did. mr. nunes: i'm just alarmed that would rely on a free online wikipedia known for students i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america rising their homework and that the department of defense would use it to provide any

information to congress to put in any report. >> again, mr. chairman, this had no bearing on my determination or certification which was required by law. mr. nunes: you are not bothered that the department of defense, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that anyone in your department would be providing you information to give to the congress that was i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america rised and it was every single graph in the document was taken from winch ikipedia >> the cost for the cables -- mr. nunes: secretary work, you are not answering the question here. we need to know whether or not is it appropriate to take information from that site and provide it to the congress? >> i would say i'm surprised wikipedia from a

age. >> i'm not certain of the exact dates but we have been in communication. mr. nunes: the committee received this information on the intelligence center requirements earlier this week. >> i am. mr. nunes: on tuesday, the department of twe defense chief information testified before this committee that the department of defense leadership decided not to brief committee staff because of the tone of a letter sent from the committee to the department of defense.

did you direct the department of defense c.i.o. not to provide the requested information because of the tone of the letter? >> no, i did not. i would like to explain it. you called me in september of 2015 as the chief operating officer as the department of defense, i oversee developing a defense program for the secretary in accordance with his strategic guidance. i'm responsible for every single aspect of that program. as you can imagine certain items do not rise to my level of attention and certain do. in september of 2015, you called me and asked me to personally get involved in reviewing the information that was being provided. and i committed to you that i would. we briefed you and the two other chairmen in march. at that point, you brought up new information that was new to

me and said i don't believe you are being served rite in the information on the communications and i don't think you are being served right by the information on housing. i committed you to do a deep dive. that was done in may. since may, we have getting that information to you. from the beginning, mr. chairman, i thought this was a communication between you and me and you asked me to do this personally. all of the interactions i had was with you and the chairman. we were told you did not want to receive it. we had a hearing scheduled in september which was postponed. i regret that this information was not communicated but we have had the information since may and we have been trying to communicate it to you. mr. nunes: so the issue with this is, your chief information officer refused to or the department, i shouldn't say you, or the chief information officer

said the reason that you would not brief the committee staff because of the tone of the letter. but you did remind me of one thing and i do remember that phone call and i just for the record, i informed you that the congress had been given false or misleading information. >> i understood that was your opinion, yes, sir. mr. nunes: you were informed by this committee that we were provided false and misleading information. >> i have no indication that that was true. mr. nunes: i want to pass out the email, exhibit 3, that went from our staff to the department of defense because i would just like to ask you what is the problem with the tone of this letter that would lead the department of defense not to send us the requirements for an intelligence center.

>> i haven't seen this particular one. all i can tell you you asked me in march to do a deep dive and i got the best experts in the department of defense. mr. nunes: this is legislative branch of government. we asked in august of 2015 and your chief information officer said he was told by superiors not to provide information because of the tone of the letter. to me it seems like a very nice letter. it says thank you for the quick reply and it says thanks for "the help." is there a problem with the tone of this letter? >> i don't know what letter what he was talking about. what i can say is, ever since our first meeting, i said it is very important to the three

chairmen that we provide this information to them. i want to deal directly with the chairmen and provide them with the best information that we have. everything that you asked or any of the chairmen asked -- mr. nunes: i appreciate that. but your department decided not to send information to this committee because of the tone of a letter and this is the letter and i don't see anything wrong with the tone of the letter. >> mr. chairman, you mentioned at the early part of the hour there are two investigations ongoing, one by this committee and one by the d.o.d. i.g. when an i.g. investigation occurs we stop all interactions with the committees but we said we will continue the interaction with the chairman and we will be careful and deliberate on the way we come forward. i regret that he used the term

tone. i have instructed everyone that we need to be very deliberate because of the close attention and i have emphasized everyone in the chain of command that our -- all of our analysis has to be unimpeachable. mr. nunes: deputy secretary, i understand there are two investigations ongoing, but just so you know, this was in august -- this was august 3 of 2015. the letter to the d.o.d. i.g. requesting an investigation was not requested until nine months later. why for nine months did your department decide not to provide what is really basic information to this committee? >> again, sir, when you asked me to get involved in this, i did. i ordered the deep dive. i have absolute confidence that the j-6 on the staff, and d.i.a. have now come together to work

the information you requested. mr. nunes: clearly, deputy secretary, you are not responsible for providing the information but someone in your department the told the c.i.o. that. who would have instructed the c.i.o. not to provide the information because of the tone of the letter. >> i don't believe anyone did and i don't believe that he was trying to make any aspersions. we believe congressional oversight is extraordinarily important. since the meeting with you in march, we have had six separate letters. we have provided over 1,000 pages of documents. we have provided 11 people to testify before the committee. there are people being testified. we believe we have been extraordinarily responsible. and if you look at the g.a.o. report -- mr. nunes: i would like to talk about the responsiveness. this committee has uncovered instances where the department of defense has provided

information to other committees, particularly the senate armed services committee months before providing the same information to this committee. is its the d.o.d.'s policy to provide information to the senate before providing it to the house? >> no, sir, it is not. mr. nunes: why did it happen? >> again, sir, we have offered to brief this information to you since may -- mr. nunes: has nothing to do with that. but information we asked for a year and a and-a-half ago that we did not receive. on monday, the department of defense provided the committee with the communications requirement. i understand that the infrastructure as it is configured does not have the desired band width, did the d.o.d. ask the providers to update its infrastructures to support its requirements. >> i would defer to the experts in the j-6. however i have been briefed it

is not normal policy for us to go out and say what is possible in the future. we do all our analysis is what is available today. mr. nunes: when they testified before us two days ago, he did indicate that they did not ask the local provider. so now i have -- this is the same question i asked the other day when the bases around the world need extra band width do we not just ask or do we ask the local provider can we increase our bandwidth? >> you have to put this in the context about what this question was about. there is no comparison. mr. nunes: the question is, could the communications infrastructure meet the requirements or not. that was the question. >> the question you posed to me was whether or not the movement

to krauten -- mr. nunes: how do you know the answer if you never asked the provider if the local infrastructure would work? >> i know the answer because cape who is the best analysis took a look at the one-time costing factors and looked at seven and all of them, there was never an instance where cape was able to close the business case. mr. nunes: we were briefed on that study and quite enter kaining. on september 1, 2016, you sent a letter to the committee saying you released funding to phase two. when did you release the funding? >> soon after that letter, i assume. mr. nunes: soon after the letter that was dated on september 1. >> i can't tell you the exact

date that money transferred but that was the date. mr. nunes: there would be no reason for this notification to have been delayed? >> i can't imagine one sir. it might have been delayed because of the staffing process of the letter coming up to through me. i go through hundreds and hundreds of pages. perhaps it was delayed slightly. mr. nunes: was there an active g.a.o. location into the analysis of this location? >> there was an a.o.a., yes. mr. nunes: at the time of your decision, was there an active nvestigation into d.o.d. staff passing false information? how does it set locations for facilities. we asked you this session earlier in closed session. does the department of defense choose locations or facilities

based upon where personnel want to live? >> we do not. we have a range of factors that go into the decisions about where to base facilities and particularly when it comes to intelligence facilities. the operational mission orientation and criteria associated with that are the greatest of the factors. mr. nunes: we chose locations based upon mission requirements? >> that's one of a range of criteria that factor in. for me wearing my intelligence hat and intelligence responsibilities, the mission relevance and the ability of that location to service the intelligence mission tends to rise to the top of the list, yes. mr. nunes: i'm going to stop here and come back later. but i'm going to yield to the ranking member. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. clapper, i wanted to ask you

about your parting thoughts on russia and the threats posed by russia. you and the secretary of homeland security acknowledged about a month ago that russia had been hacking into our political institutions and interfering with our election and this was coming from the highest levels of our -- kremlin. what is your assessment that is likely to continue into the next administration if president-elect trump, if there is a situation between he and mr. putin don't materialize, would you participate that the russians will hack and dump documents that might be damaging to a trump administration? would that be consistent with what you know of their playbook? mr. clapper: thanks for the question, sir. i don't anticipate a significant change in russian behavior.

we gave considerable thought to diming out russia with that statement. we waited until we felt we had sufficient basis for it and we did and both from a forensic as well as other sources of intelligence led us to that statement. it may have had the desired effects since after that -- after the issuance of this statement and the communication that i know took place between our government and russian government, it seemed to occur have curtailed the cyberactivity that the russians were previously engaged in. the russians have a very active and aggressive capability to onduct operations, so-called

hybrid warfare and has been a practice of theirs going back to the soviet era and i anticipate that it will continue. mr. schiff: i want to drill down a little further into your comment that russian activity curtailed after the issuance of the statement. the dumping of documents didn't end with the issuance of a statement. we you implying by this that know whether the documents provided to either cutouts or wikileaks have all been provided to the statement that was should or is it entirely possible that the dumping of documents continued after the statement and what may have been avoided was a further escalation of the interference in the form of trying to monkey around on

election day or thereafter? mr. clapper: i was referring to the cyber reconseans that we had observed that state entities had observed prior to the statement. and that sort of activity seemed to have curtailed. as far as the wikileaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. we don't have as good insight into that. .

intensification.

and recently since yet another reaffirmation the ceasefire, the number of incidents has increased. i think both countries will probably engage in actions and counteractions to try to promote instability. and clearly the russians want to a ain influence in traditional part of a greater russia, which is ukraine. so i suspect that sort of pressure will continue. i don't see much prospect for resolution or compliance with the accords.

it will continue the stale mate we are in. mr. schiff: do you ascribe any significance to the timing of that resumption of that campaign following the discussion with the president-elect? mr. clapper: i can't speculate on what impacts any discussions with the new administration would have but i can tell you that the russians are sustaining their behavior. they are increasingly putting re pressure on opposition on

aleppo and indiscriminately bombing women, children and hospitals and that will continue. that is having a negative effect on the oppositionists on morale and willingness to fight. this plays to assad's objective, achieving a military victory. and he is probably less interested in any form of negotiations. mr. schiff: do you foresee any change in the increasing russian be lidgerans nato countries, their acts in the air and the sea? do you see any changes in that in light of a potential different relationship between the president-elect and the kremlin? mr. clapper: no, i don't. the russians have recently and yed their lone carrier

conducting some operations. they have sustained the presence of their artillery and deployment of very advanced air defense systems. and so at least i think that what that indicates that clearly the russians are there to stay and they want to maintain the presence and the base in syria as their only base outside the former soviet union. the permanent base they maintain and i expect they are planning on expanding their operations. mr. schiff: one last question on russia, 30,000 foot question, and that is one aspect of the putin doctrine has been to enhance his own stature at home by provoking confrontation with

for his by framing people at home, the united equivalenthe russian to the great satan. how will he square that with his comments or overtures to the president-elect? in other words, does the kremlin need the american booingey man to maintain popularity at home and how will they deal with that conflict if there is a different lip between the president-elect and the kremlin? mr. clapper: all i can say here this in has played to spirit of nationalism, if you want to call it that in russia, by appealing to the citizenry

and i think somewhat as a distraction for or at least offer compensation that the russian population continues to suffer because of the economic straits they are in and the continued contraction of their economy. he does appeal to the patriotic spirit of the russian people and to conjure up his standing up to opponents in the west, notably the united states. nd as a way of re-affirming in their minds russian greatness. mr. schiff: let me ask one last question about isis and the

there have been a number of statements from the pentagon about the timing of the campaign. -- the campaign against racca. about had concerns whether we have the forces to undertake that. whether it is premature. but there have been public comment about two imperatives accelerating that campaign and one is an intensification of plotting by isis against the united states and the need to move quickly. the need to diminish that threat. and the other is the fear of people, isis figures, leaving mosul and reinforcing efforts in rocca. how much are those two concerns driving that campaign and how do you ascribe that threat to the united states rum isis at the moment in terms of

external operations planning? and the military trade-off of moving more quickly than the forces are prepared but the necessity of cutting off people that are fleeing those all -- fleeing mosul? the campaign design that was settled on a year ago today is generally going on along the lines of which we expected. it always was to isolate mosul and rocca and then to reduce them. we are far ahead on the mosul campaign because we have reliable partners on the ground. the iraqi security forces, especially their counterterrorism service have really been getting after the bad guys. we have been providing a lot of support in going after the external operations leaders, both in iraq and syria. that is the president's and that

concerny's number one going after the external ops guys and we have had a lot of success. the room can't -- the campaign to isolate rocca was always number two in the queue. the syrian democratic forces are the isolation force and they are in the process of isolating rocca and the force that will ultimately reduce rocca is now being determined among all of the actors in the region. meanwhile, we continue to head every single external ops guy, either on the front or al qaeda in syria or isil. >> i don't think we can make a direct correlation between as the pressure increases on the caliphate and it shrinks, that

we can rate -- relate that directly or we don't have evidence to raising the threat to the homeland. that has been a constant with isil and i don't think there is a direct relationship between the diminishment of their territory and the magnitude of that threat. it is still a concern of ours. have had a lot of success in taking out both leaders of the external operations and some of their lesser lower-level people. >> i yield back. >> mr. khan awaits is recognized. russia today -- the propaganda arm of putin is well-funded. they have a scheme, a playbook that says, if we can force the

court -- force the americans to question one another, how does the line of questioning relative to trying to create some sort of a sinister link between whatever mr. trump may have done -- how does that play into the playbook? as trained professionals, intelligence professionals, is that in fact exactly what they are trying to get us to do? they have incurred some budget cuts on their network and have not been all that successful in can -- in conveying messages here in the u.s. they do broadcast elsewhere and that is exactly what they tried to do particularly in europe. having traveled there and , they are focusing

much more on europe then the united states. >> it is in their playbook. if you look at what they did in ukraine and elsewhere, they get the citizens to turn on themselves. that line of questioning you will hear all dated eight will rtplaying directly into the playbook and they are quite successful in europe. though, wem that have been fighting in afghanistan and iraq for a long time. you give us a couple of examples where we are better today than when we first started -- lessons learned that are now part of the norm versus -- dir. clapper: in terms of sharing intelligence with dod? >> gathering and sharing. are you better now than you were

in 2003? dir. clapper: i think so. >> can you give us some examples? dir. clapper: i cannot go into specifics in this setting. i did visit kuwait, the task force command they are last week. there task force command last week. the contributions the agencies have made, specifically nsa and dia. townsend was very high regarding what the intelligence community is doing on his behalf. i think this is emblematic of the relationship because these are combat support agencies in dod as well as well as being parts of the intelligence community. i am happy to give you specific examples that would be

classified to illustrate that. >> you mentioned joint duty and the successes early on. i had questions regarding the impact it would have on the personnel and their career paths if they left their home agency and went somewhere else. can you talk about the impact that has had on career development? as well as our commanders -- our commanders-- are willing to give up their best and brightest to go to the intel agencies? is the joint duty working the way you intended? >> congressman, i will take a first crack at this great in my experience, the joint duty program for intelligence officers has soft to model the successes of the joint tours of duty on the military side under goldwater nichols which had been successful in driving that integration in the last 30 years for the military.

the same is starting to play out in the intelligence joint duty program. that in almostis all cases, individuals who serve a joint duty gain experiences that make them far more valuable and developed as leaders for the intelligence community upon completion of that joint duty tour. that said, one of the things we need to continue to work on in the years ahead is how to make that return back to the home organization even more effective so that in a seamless way, they are able to come back to their home organization, to the right kind of job that fully leverages that kind of assignment. >> we have had to go to school on this a bit on how to manage this arrangement. it is easier and more convenient when you manage a workforce that is self-contained within a particular agency. in my own headquarters, where we have maintained 40% of our

ease from our detail other components and you do need to pay attention to that and manage their assignments, interim they get appropriate ratings and bonuses where appropriate. thei think though enrichment of the force, and the professional capability of the force is far better. there has been a profound sociological change in the intelligence community. thousands of employees have times sincetiple 9/11. and that has had i think of profound change in the professionalism and the identification with the mission of our civilian employees. your time has expired. >> thank you, chairman. your you gentleman for service. mr. klapper, a word of advice

when you talk about retirement. you mentioned your wife. a friend of mine retired and his wife said i married you for better or for worse but i did not marry you for lunch. good luck with that. in the time we have, would you give us a little of your thoughts concerning the homeland are yourity -- what priorities or chief concerns besides cyber attacks? to me, it is a concern that the coulds could be more -- be generated from the outside but also less sophisticated and harder to stop or even know about. dir. clapper: you have touched on what is of great concern to us -- not so much the massive complex attack that we suffered caused but rather those by individuals or small cells of people. that is a tremendous challenge for us.

one of the things i have tried iswork in my time as dni promoting not only the horizontal integration across our agencies but also vertically with these date, local, and private sector. i think we have made a lot of improvement there. i will for example be meeting with my homeland security and law enforcement advisor group tonight which is an outstanding andp of chiefs of police law enforcement intelligence representatives who do great work. the creation and operation of the fusion said -- fusion center network across the country which are increasingly becoming more netted is a great bulwark against foreign attacks. but i will leave this job ofcerned about the impact

so-called lone wolves or homegrown extremism. that is a very complex problem that requires i think first and foremost community involvement. intelligence and law enforcement clarifyo much to help the picture of what that threat is. that --essman, may i may i that in addition to counterterrorism and cyber threats that the director mentioned, on the military side, we also think about threats to regarding more traditional military capabilities involving missiles. one of the main projects we have how toy is to look at improve our intelligence indications and warning to better be able to respond to those types of contingencies as well. i think it is important to think

about the full spectrum of threats to the homeland that we face. >> i have heard several talk about the affects of sequestration on our protection of the homeland. --t concerns me is you could if you could add a thought and i note this does not come out of this committee but homeland security grants to local governments cut by 50% roughly in the last five years -- transportation security grants 75%. out.structure was zeroed your thoughts? --. clapper: sequestration the specter of sequestration which it runs through 2021 continues and potentially has impact across the board. that is something we struggle with every program year and of course the uncertainty that

creates and the painful trades -- they are ae fact of life. it is -- program at -- programmatically it has become the new norm having lived with it for five years. mr. pompeo: i sit on a joint task force along with others looking into the manipulation of intelligence at central command. to read had a chance the interim report filed by the task force? that.lapper: i have read clearmpeo: there are cases of intelligence manipulation. what accountability for any person associated with that has been held? we have been waiting for

is the completion of the ig investigation. mr. pompeo: we have soldiers in the field and we had intelligence not getting to the right place. to tell a soldier that they are waiting for an ig report is unacceptable. tell me who has been held accountable. >> i would have to ask if any particular people have been held accountable. and overave said over again is we expect the highest standards in the intelligence been a day. esther pompeo: did we get that -- mr. pompeo: did we get that? >> director clapper spoke to the overall assessment and we are improving. , i will add that we are not able to take authoritative personnel related actions on these instances and

allegations until the ig investigation is completed. it has taken quite a while. we are as eager as this committee is to get the result of that id investigation and be able to take action on those. in the interim, there are some systemic and management actions we have taken on the dod side working closely with director klapper and his team. first inform us, as director klapper mentioned, in the natural changeover of duties at central command with the commander and the j two, we both have along with the director of dia strongly emphasized the need -2 to look at the situation. we have also taken a number of initiatives. we are in the process of ensuring that there is an in place.

someone analysts can come to anonymous -- anonymously. thosem glad you are doing things. they sound great to me. i have to tell you that the american people and our soldiers deserve not to wait to hold accountable those folks responsible for putting that in the field. there are indications that information was withheld from the presidential daily briefing until -- testified. is that accurate? dir. clapper: i am aware of the reports and the examination done by our analytic integrity officers found no substantiation of that. >> there are also press reports conversationsad

with great frequency circumventing the chain of command. come toified that they the national level only through the dia. how do you square conversations you are having with the j to add one command with that testimony? dir. clapper: the conversations i had with the j two was only for tactical updates. not to discuss a broad assessment. in i would also comment that every one of these it was a split screen and the j two was always represented in these dialogues. the reference to a assessment finding their way into national intelligence estimates or pdb articles is done through the defense intelligence agency, not direct from centcom or any other command. clapper, president

obama removed iran's designation as a proliferator. change its activities in any way to prompt this removal? , if i amper: i believe correct, iran is still a state-sponsor of terrorism. the designation was removed as a proliferator of wmd. iran's tell me if behavior has changed to justify such removal? -- such a removal?

dir. clapper: i cannot say that iran's behavior has changed. has continued its aggressive missile development and missile fielding. in terms of its proliferating to -- i countries, i cannot would have to research that and provide on a classified basis if we have information on that. >> thank you mr. clapper. thank you mr. chairman. >> i want to devote my five minutes to the topic of cyber security. and in particular let me start with you director klapper and thank you for your service. we really appreciate all you have done over the length of your long career. i would like to start with you. let me give you the bulk of the

time. what i am interested in is not achievements and the progress we have made because clearly we have with integration system but as you think about withdrawing on the field, what would you identify as the most specific weaknesses, unaddressed vulnerabilities, areas of focus for both the ic and this committee in terms of our defense against cyber threats? we need -- i think we make a healthy investment in the national intelligence program on intelligence to support cyber threats. obviously, it is always good to as amore money but i think proportion of everything else we have to look at, i think we are in reasonably good shape. is the challenge for us always going to be the fundamental fact that the

internet is insecure and any time you have a dependency on internet, we are going to have -- we are going to be playing catch-up in reaction to defending our networks. the other issue i would mention is the creation of both the substance and the psychology of cyber realm. the that has been a challenge. there is whether you basis ora binary asymmetrical basis via cyber us all and you react in the cyber context or do you retaliate some other way? i think that is going to be a challenge for the country -- >> is the challenge as you identify it one of the

development of the doctrine or is it a technical issue? dir. clapper: i think it is more the development of a doctrine and policy. and developing a body of law through experience. years toundreds of develop the law of the state which may be a rough analog to where we are with cyber. and we have not had enough time get to develop that body of law. and until such time as there are some norms developed and we have a firm definition of what deterrence means and that is recognized by both state and nonstate actors, we're going to have a problem with cyber defense. >> one specific question on that topic. the committee has spent a great deal of time in the cyber security information sharing act. how are we doing with respect to the private sector, working with

security agencies to address the cyber threat? is there enough communication, or kenmore be done? dir. clapper: i think there is. i think this is a shared responsibility a cross the ic. fbi is involved. and very importantly the department of homeland security. this also, when you say engagement with the private sector, that is as big as all outdoors. and finding the right and keeping active the right conduits so that we can share and by the way the sharing needs to be two ways, down to us and from us to them. there is a lot of improvement that have been made. the department of homeland security has made huge strides there but that is not to say that there is not more to do. >> i yield back.

terms of cyber security, the number one thing we are turned to do is secure our networks. we have made progress on this. we are building of our cyber workforce. we should have all of the cyber mission teams in fy 17 and making sure that we have the right people. the other thing we are really worried about and we are looking at heart is the internet of dod things. all of our weapons systems that we generally operate today were designed in an era where cyber security threats were not that stressing. so going through all of the different systems that we have, identifying cyber vulnerabilities and prioritizing them have -- has been a big focus of the department. we have a cyber scorecard briefed every month to six weeks and we are looking at all of these different factors on trying to improve our cyber security. we have a long way to go but we

have made a lot of progress. you is to clapper for your service. i would like to get back into this centcom discussion. we the reason why investigated this and the first place. as you remember, general jim mattis left abruptly in 2013. the director of intelligence remained in place for the first part of 2014. under general austin. and around june, that changed. there was turnover of people over at centcom. intelligence started coming out regarding mosul which was inaccurate. i think everyone can look back at that now and say -- mosul did fall.

capabilitiesve the that some people thought. thenhe intelligence since has been in dispute. as you know, 40% of the workforce, twice the number of typical combatants felt -- of thecal commands felt that final product had been somewhat distorted. and through our review, many of those employees to this day believe that the culture at --tcom has been a somewhat has been somewhat toxic to use a word that came up time and time again. right now, we are back in mosul again. we have people there. how do we know that the intelligence coming out of centcom today is anymore reliable then it was coming out two years ago? dir. clapper: we do not depend only on centcom for intelligence

reporting. in fact, one of the reasons i do consult with them is to ensure that we are on the same page. other national whats that tell us whether we are seeing operationally or what we are hearing reported operationally comports with what we are seeing through intelligence. and my absurd -- my observations through the current campaign are that they do. >> as you know, we have the largest number of folks working in intelligence at centcom than at any of the commands. tospend quite a bit of money make sure that these folks are well-equipped and well manned to make sure that they provide the best intelligence to the were fighter and the combatant commander as possible.

are you confident that is occurring today? that the intelligence coming out of centcom has improved? i think it is beyond dispute that we had a problem to years ago. has that been cleared up? dir. clapper: i am somewhat removed from the command but what -- from what i have observed, that is the case. i don't know if you were here earlier when i quoted the latest statistic from our analytic survey which reflects a positive trend. the number of respondents reflecting analytic integrity issues has declined. their comments, on management response when they did have issues has increased. -- the reflections of this at centcom are beginning to level out and comport with all of the other combatant commands. i do think by virtue of the

change in commanders and the that thatthe j two, has been a change in the avenue is. i have been encouraged by the trends, particularly this year. >> thank you. >> i am going to tell members that we have three votes now with a motion to recommit. i will try to keep this open so members can come back. at the end of the motion to recommit, we will have to end the hearing. mr. murphy is recognized. esther murphy: thank you mr. -- how important is it that we have rules of engagement with cyber to let adversaries know, state-sponsored or not, that they know that there will be a response? dir. clapper: this gets to the

point about developing a body of law. is conveying those messages much easier with nationstates recognizes that there are mutual vulnerabilities. the greater challenge for my part is the non-nation state entities which over time are more to develop capabilities in the cyber realm to commit to render a tax. the notion of building a sense of deterrence, the psychology of deterrence is going to be difficult. are is certainly progress with the chinese as a result of the agreement struck in september of 2015.

and we will have to see whether that is continued. but i think the greater challenge is non-nation state entities. >> with things moving as quickly as they do with technology and ciber, how has your experience been for recruiting the best talent in the world to make sure we are a step i had? -- a step ahead? dir. clapper: we have sustained a level of recruitment and we continue to be able to bring great, young people into the community. the greater challenge is retention. they will come to us either as young civilians or as military and then they become very attractive and appealing to commercial sector. so then, we have a challenge with retaining people in the face of some pretty appealing compensation packages that a lot

of our people have had experience in the intelligence community get and that makes them very attractive. >> i think we would be remiss if we did not pick your brain briefly in what you think and based on your experience over the next 5-10 years, the greatest threats we face as a nation. what we are doing to address that and what we should be doing especially with a new administration coming in. dir. clapper: are you speaking only of cyber? >> in general. dir. clapper: that is a hard question to answer because from an intelligence perspective, we have to be a alert to all of these threats. i wish i could rank them and pick and choose which ones to worry about but unfortunately, they are all a problem for us. so whether it is the nationstate

challenges posed by the likes of russia, china, north korea, and iran or transnational concerns like counterterrorism, like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is personally a growing concern for me. the challenges posed in the cyber dimension. approach hasnd our been to try to maintain a balance so that we can protect and to address the full range of threats. so i am hesitant to try to pick one and say -- this is the one that is going to confront us or say this will be the worst in the next 5-10 years. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to hear that things are better at centcom. i served on that investigation

and clearly we have concerns about what went on in 2050. i know that has been addressed to some degree. what are the root causes in your opinion of the unacceptable climate -- command climate that was existing at centcom at the time? >> this is something that secretary carter and i have discussed. we want to know what happened and why it happened. we have been looking to director klapper and undersecretary thisse lecture to say -- is what we think the problems were. we have tried to get after it. the thing that the secretary and i, trying to stay above the ig investigation is simply to say, we expect, we expect all of our intelligence analysts to have full freedom to say what they need to say, to speak truth to

power, we expect the chain of command to pass that information up the chain. every decision we make on the campaign is based on the assumption of good intelligence. so, it is very important to us and we are waiting the judgments of the intelligence professionals on how we can improve. >> when do you expect that we will get that? we have gotten a lot of information on our committee and our investigation. open source news has provided much information. when do you expect we will get something back? wrong"ard to " right or if you keep playing with that. how do you avoid it happening again when we are taking far too long to figure out what happened and why it happened. we have honed it down to the j. so long and weg have gathered so much invest --

so much information? >> one of the largest jobs is to be patient when these type of investigations are ongoing. i cannot tell you when it will be finished. >> i don't know that you should be patient actually. i think it is time we come forward and let the american people know what was taking place. at least let this committee know what had been taking place. hopefully, it is corrected. frankly, i am surprised you are content with 25% in this survey as being acceptable. i would be shooting for a lot less than that. comment,re free to director klapper if you would like to. i think it is important to bear in mind that we are having -- this is a debate about subjective subjects. where there can be room for honest analytic disagreements

because we are always operating from incomplete or less-than-perfect facts. and so, people who are experts in this can have and do have honest disagreements. so i do not find the figure, then giving the -- given subjectivity of the subject matter, i do not find that a alarming and that is pretty much on a par with the behavior. i would be more concerned if it was zero. if there were no disagreements -- no dissent anywhere at anytime. to me.uld be disturbing i would want to know why that is so. >> i can understand that argument for the 25% that i sure cannot for the 40%. that does not fly in the face of what is going on at the other commands and that is unacceptable.

the fact that we have had so many whistleblowers come forward speaks volumes. we have an obligation here to have oversight. lives depend on this as you well know. lives depend on the type of reporting that is going up. so, we have had plenty of testimony on our side. there should be something that the ig should come forward with and very soon. not just try to run out the clock. i would think that before you go , this would be something you would want to have resolved and taking care of. dir. clapper: yes it is. your report took me and the rest of the intelligence community to task for seemingly sitting on our hands and not doing anything and not taking corrective action about this which -- when we were ned not to. enjoi i would like to get this resolved. in the interest of general

moved ontohas another assignment, exactly what will be important and it would be great if it happened before i leave. and if i may, i do need to clarify my statement about resignation. it is not effective until noon on january 20. not immediately. >> i appreciate your time and service to the country and i hope this is wrapped up and rectified so that we can move forward in a positive way before you leave. thank you. >> mr. castro is recognized. mr. castro: director klapper, thank you for your service to the nation in this role and so many others before it. we appreciate it very much. we have just, off of unprecedented intrusion from a foreign government in our democratic process in an election that just finished last week and also unprecedented

intrusion in a director of our intelligence community. based on those two things, i have a few questions. the first is, do we know whether the russian government or those responsible for the hacking of , shareocratic committee any information with americans during the last year or year and a half? rather notr: i would respond off the top of my head. in any event, this would probably be best left to a classified session. >> ok. i will be sure to follow up with you on that. the second session is as head of the u.s. intelligence community, do you believe that the fbi director breached any protocol in his actions during the last month? dir. clapper: i have no reason to question the director. i have -- i think extremely

highly of him. so whatever actions he took, and he did so with what he thought was best. i have no basis to question him. >> thank you, mr. castro. i am going to get back to the remaining questions that i have. so i will try to get through them quickly. secretary work, are you familiar with the decision by you, in 2011 -- with the decision by eucom in 2011? >> i do know that an aoa suggested that we should consolidate. >> but the requirement was specifically to be an hour outside of london. are you aware of this requirement?

aware of a specific requirement. i am aware of the analysis that was done to support the move. >> director clapper are you aware of this? dir. clapper: no, i am not. learnedcommittee has that the decision was made before an aoa was never completed. -- was ever completed. claims that despite dod's claims that they looked at 16 locations, 15 of the 16 alternatives -- there is no documentation on 15 of the 16 other alternatives. do you know what happened to this documentation? dir. clapper: no sir. i do know that the investigation

occurred approximately six years after that was done. one of the things they did say that we were lacking documentation that the most important conclusion that they made was that our actions were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing the ods .ggression out for choosing raf that to me is a slamdunk. thiscept for the fact that committee cannot find any documentation of any work done on 15 of the 16 sites that you supposedly looked at. >> all i can say is that three different secretaries of toense, one -- undersecretaries of defense for intelligence, we have had three successive aoa's. they were looked at in an audit they said our

conclusions were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of making our decision. in my view, we have looked at this three different times. congress itself has agreed with our finding by funding phase one of the project. and they also approved phase two subject to my determination and certification that we spoke to earlier. ok thatou think it is there is no evidence that shows you ever looked at 15 of the 16 sites? >> i will have to go back and look -- it was described by gao as the dod body of evidence. another finding. straight out of the report was that dod provided the required information in response to committee direction and statutory provision. >> we have evidence that a

commander's decision -- decision brief was done in 2011 where the requirement was an hour outside of london and we have had people testify to that fact. after the fact, it appears that there is no information. you can do all the studies you want, but if you have people come to this committee and say -- we are not going to give congress the answers because we do not like the tone of the letter. you delay those answers. i am sorry, there is no evidence here that shows essentially someone just wanted to go there in 2011 and that was the decision made then and everything since then -- there is no documentation to document why that decision was made. let me go back to the director -- on july 20 7, 2015, i visited you in your office and informed you that a whistleblower had approached the committee and indicated false information had been provided to the committee

regarding the intelligence center. do you remember that meeting? dir. clapper: yes. >> on march 21 this year, you and myselfairman that if we moved to the intelligence center outside of the london evarts, that civilians and contractors would not move to the new location. can you explain why that is the case? dir. clapper: i don't think i said that. i think i said that based on briefings i had received at jack molesworth-- at jac that the civilians probably would not move. that was the specific reference. what a general statement that they would not go anywhere else -- i do not believe i said that. >> they would go only -- they would go other places. dir. clapper: i don't know. the specific issue that i was briefed on was reaction to the possibility of a move to the air base in the azores.

this was a briefing from the commander when i visited there -- i am not sure when. the commander of the jac. >> he said that the civilians there.ot move their -- , these arer: yes older people that have children in schools, particularly of high school age. i do not think that the general reaction to that, to move to an island in the middle of the atlantic ocean was not very positive. that has been compounded by the 414 of the intelligence authorization act, taking away their housing allowance which is this criminal -- which is discriminatory and has had a negative impact, not only on dia civilians but i see employees --

but ic employees in general. >> itself like we are making decisions based on where people want to live. dir. clapper: this whole moving was a wash to me. untilnot get involved there was the potential of expense. when i got into this, and discovered that it would have potential morale impacts and people would probably not take their families to that airbase. in light of the facilities that they knew were not there. >> are you aware that the azores islands are a popular vacation spot and have daily flights? dir. clapper: no, i am not. >> do we have trouble getting people to move to hawaii? dir. clapper: actually, we do because there are issues there with compensation for the very high cost of living.

that is problematic as well. living the cost of the in the azores is low. dir. clapper: you are talking about hawaii? last i checked, it was a popular vacation spot. dir. clapper: it is. you can spend a couple -- a lot of money for a couple of weeks but living there and supporting a family, it is quite expensive. >> the azores is also a popular vacation spot and has a cheaper cost of living. dir. clapper: in hawaii, there are high schools and medical facilities and commissaries. and that is lacking right now at that airbase. >> last i checked, i do not think anything was lacking there.

i don't know if mr. schiff is going to be back. i want to thank you for appearing today. the committee remains deeply concerned about these issues. we look forward to the ig centcom report and the ig's report on false information and misleading information provided to congress. hopefully, the ig can get to the bottom of these problems and help the committee uncovered what exactly has happened here. our robust oversight will continue for the remainder of this year and into the next congress that i want to thank all of you for your service and your attendance here today. the meeting is adjourned.

coming up tonight, president obama and chancellor merkel holding a conference in berlin. live with justice clarence thomas and and then a look at elect -- vice president elect mike pence on capitol hill. president obama and angela merkel held a news conference in berlin. it spoke about their years of -- facebook about their years of french it. this is about an hour.

chancellor merkel: welcome to the president of the united states of america, to germany. in its capacity as president, the united states, let us remind ourselves, after visiting us in his capacity as candidate here in berlin, we then met in other places. we saw each other when he gave a speech at the gate. we met again at the g-7. then hanover fair comes to mind, and today he is again here in berlin. eight years are coming to a close. this is the last visit of barack obama to our country, to germany. i am very glad that he chose germany as one of the sort of stopovers on this trip. and thank you very much. thank you for the friendship you've always demonstrated. thank you for the reliable friendship and partnership you demonstrated in very difficult hours of our relationship, so let me again pay tribute to what

we've been able to achieve, to what we discussed, to what we were able to bring about. difficult hours come to mind, as i said. those that had a bearing on the cooperation of our intelligence services, and i'm very grateful that barack obama, as president, very much put protection of privacy on the agenda. today, due to the threat of islamist terrorism all over the world, through the threat of isis, we recognize how important the cooperation with intelligence services. first and foremost of the united states services is we need this cooperation, let me say this from a german perspective very clearly. our bilateral relations are very good. they're very close. in the areas of business, the economy, the united states, america were our most important trading partner. both for germany and the european union. the european union and the

united states of america are the big, important economic areas for us. which is why i've always come out strongly in favor of concluding a trade agreement with the united states of america. we have made progress, quite a lot of progress. it cannot be stopped, those negotiations, but we'll keep what we have achieved so far and i'm absolutely certain that one day we'll come back to what we have achieved and build on it. that is my deep conviction. globalization. i think we share this conviction. is that globalization needs to be shaped politically, it needs to be given a huge face, but we cannot allow to fall back into pre-globalization times. this conclusion of trade agreements that go beyond the mere trade agreement, customs agreements, are most important. i'm very pleased we were able to bring this to fruition between canada and the e.u. yeeve made great progress, particularly if we look at one of the great global issues, namely climate protection, the engagement of the current

administration under the leadership of barack obama, this paris agreement would never have come about. there has been a change in the attitude in the united states towards that agreement. but there is also a better cooperation with china. so last year we were able to conclude a paris climate agreement, which will lead the way for the rest of the world. which is groundbreaking. and together we'll see sustainable development goals of the agenda, 2030, for the whole world. this is indeed a change that we see and step by step will be implemented. there's another point i wanted to mention here, particularly the engagement and commitment to africa. for us europeans, africa is a neighboring continent that's of prime importance. we as germans, we as members of the european union will have to deal with this. it will be at the top of our agenda. there are a lot of areas where

we cooperate, fight against isil, for example, here, germany was able to contribute to a certain ex tent, in certain areas. we'll continue to do so. for example, in supporting the peshmerga in air policing. but we also have to acknowledge that the united states of america bear most of the burden. they bear the brunt of this responsibility, so i take your remarks very seriously, barack, that the european union as a whole, but also germany needs to recognize that this is our alliance, our common alliance, a cross atlantic alliance, that we have to step out our engagement. in the long run we will not be allowed to accept this imbalance as regards to the contributions we give to this alliance and we have understood this message and we have started to react. we have worked very closely together, for example, in afghanistan. we're continuing to do so. i'm very pleased that this military engagement together

with a political road map that we've developed, we were able to continue. we want to bring about a political solution there. we worked very closely together on the issue of annexation of crimea and russia's attempt to actually conquer ukraine and actually they did so, conquered part of the territory. we tried to come to a peaceful settlement here on this. our interests are very much aligned. our attempts, our cooperation are very much aligned. we continue to build on what we've already achieved in these last months of the administration and we will continue also with the new administration. this is the end of an eight-year cooperation that was very close indeed. from a german point of view, german-american and european-american relations are a pillar of our foreign policy. foreign policy that is obviously guided by interests, but that is very much also committed to shared values.

so we have a platform, democracy, freedom, respect of human rights, that we would like to see respected all over the world and also a peaceful world order. we have shared those values, we continue to share those values, and obviously we will continue to cooperate with the new administration. but today i think the word gratitude is at hand. thank you very much for this cooperation. president obama: it's wonderful to be back in berlin. this is my sixth visit to germany. it will not be my last. i have somehow continued to miss octoberfest. that's probably that's something better for me to do as a former president rather than as president. i'll have more fun. it's also wonderful to be back with my great friend and ally, chancellor merkel. as i reflect back over the last eight years, i could not ask for

a steadier or more reliable partner on the world stage. often through some very challenging times. so i want to thank you for your friendship, for your leadership, and your commitment to our alliance. and i want to thank the german people for the incredible partnership that our countries have been able to establish all these years. last week marked the 27th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. the united states was proud to stand with the people of germany as this nation and this continent reunited and rebuilt and reached for a better future. it's a reminder that the commitment of the united states to europe is enduring and the rooted in the values we share. values that angela just mentioned. commitment to democracy, commitment to rule of law, our commitment to the dignity of all people. in our own countries and around the world.

our alliance with our nato partners has been a cornerstone of u.s. foreign policy for nearly 70 years. in good times and in bad. and through presidents of both parties. because the united states has a fundamental interest in europe's stability and security. the commitment that angela and i share to this guiding principle has formed the basis for our conversations this afternoon. we discussed our efforts to keep our countries competitive and create jobs and opportunity on both sides of the atlantic. the negotiations on agreements like t-tip have been challenging and obviously at a moment when there's concerns about globalization and the benefits that accrue to particular people, it is important that those negotiations and channels of communication remain. because ultimately what we have shown over the last several

decades is that markets and trade and commerce can create prosperity in all of our countries, that the not a -- it is not a win-lose situation, but it can be a win-win situation. at a time when the european project is facing challenges, it's especially important to show the benefits of economic integration by continuing to invest in our people and working to reduce inequality, both within and across our countries. i reiterated our hope that the britain's exit from the e.u. will be done in an orderly and transparent fashion and preserved as closely as possible the economic and political and security relationships between the u.k. and e.u. and i continue to believe what i said in hanover. that the e.u. remains one of the world's great political and economic achievements and that those achievements should not be

taken for granted. that they need to be nurtured and cultivated and protected and fought for. because the achievements that we've seen on this continent, in contrast to a divided europe of the previous century, are ones that remind us of how important it is that we work together. and that we are willing to uphold principles that have resulted in unprecedented prosperity and security throughout europe and around the world. with the threat of climate change only become more urgent, angela and i focused on the need for american and e.u. leadership to advance global cooperation. both of our nations were proud to join the paris climate agreement, which the world should work to implement quickly. continued global leadership on

climate, in addition to increasing private investment in clean energy, is going to be critical to meeting this growing threat. of course we discussed our commitment to meeting shared security challenges from countering cyberthreats to ensuring that iran continues to live up to the terms of the iran nuclear deal. i commended angela for her leadership, along with president hollande in working to work with -- to resolve the conflict in ukraine. we continue to stand with the people of ukraine and for the basic principle that nations have a right to determine their own destiny. and we discussed the importance of maintaining sanctions until russia fully complies with the minsk agreement. as part of the coalition against isil, we're putting that terrorist network under tremendous pressure. here in berlin this week coalition members are working to make sure we remain focused on our mission to destroy isil. we're vell grateful for the

-- very grateful for the vital contributions germany has made to this fight. training local forces in iraq, sharing intelligence, providing reconnaissance aircraft, including the recent deployment of additional nato awacs. and as iraqi forces continue the liberation of mosul, i'm pleased that nato will be meeting the commitment we made in warsaw to begin training additional forces in iraq, which started this january. we also continue to -- january. we also continue to stand united with germany and our nato allies in our ongoing efforts to build peace and stability in afghanistan. on syria, it's clear that the indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the assad regime and russia will only worsen the humanitarian catastrophe and that negotiated end to the conflict is the only way to achieve lasting peace in syria. angela and i also agree the need for a comprehensive and humane response to the devastating humanitarian crisis in syria. and for the influx of my grants and refugees from around the

world. we need to build on the progress achieved at the u.n. refugee summit, which yielded new commitments from some 50 nations and organizations. the united states is doing our part by increasing the number of refugees we resettle and i want, again, to commend angela and, more importantly, the german people, for the extraordinary leadership and compassion that you have shown in the face of what i know is a very difficult challenge. you are not alone in trying to deal with this challenge. this is not an issue that any one country should bear. but it's in need of an international response. i not only intend to make sure that we have put in place more robust support from the united states, but i'm hoping that that continues beyond my administration. on this final visit, i am reminded of the visit i made here before i became president.

it was eight years ago. i had no gray hair. but i believe today what i said then. if you want a model for what is possible, if you want to see how to build a peaceful and prosperous and dynamic society, then look at berlin and look at germany, look at chancellor merkel. her personal story helps to tell the story of incredible achievement that the german people have embarked on. and i think it's something that you should be very proud of. it is not inevitable that we make progress. it requires hard work. sometimes it may seem as if progress is stalled. but what the history of post-war germany shows is that strength

and determination and focus and adherence to the values that we care about will result in a better future for our children and our grandchildren. on behalf of the american people, i want to thank the german people, i want to thank chancellor merkel for your deep friendship and your steadfast partnership. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. mr. president, you and the president-elect have very different views on russia. after your meeting with him last week, can you assure chancellor merkel that a trump administration would also support strong sanctions against moscow? similarly, what have you told president putin about russia's influence on the u.s. election

and how would you advise european countries to deal with the same threat? lastly, if i may, would you like to see your friend, chancellor merkel, run for re-election next year? [laughter] president obama: now your german. showing off. >> has the american president calmed you in the sense that on the policy of his successor on climate change and russia, he has belaid your fears? are you concerned that the common european policy towards russia will collapse and also the election of mr. trump, and would you as a sign of civility, wouldn't you actually have to declare that you are going to be a candidate again? president obama: well, i try to make it a rule not to meddle in other people's politics. all i can say is that chancellor

merkel has been an outstanding partner. and chancellor merkel is perhaps the only leader left among our closest allies that was there when i arrived. so, in some ways we are now the veterans of many challenges over the last eight years. and although we have not always been in sync on every issue, in terms of our core values, in terms of her integrity, her truthfulness, her thoughtfulness, her doing her homework, knowing her facts, her commitment to looking out for the interests of the german

people first, but recognizing that part of good leadership on behalf of the nation requires engaging the world as a whole and participating effectively in multilateral institutions, i think she's been outstanding. so, the up to her whether she -- it is up to her whether she wants to stand again and then ultimately it will be up to the german people to decide what the future holds. if i were here and i were a german and i had a vote, i might support her. [laughter] but i don't know whether that hurts or helps. [laughter] with respect to russia, my principle approach to russia has been constant since i first came

into office. russia is an important country. it is a military superpower. it has influence in the region, and it has influence around the world. and in order for us to solve many big problems around the world, it is in our interest to work with russia and obtain their cooperation. i think we should all hope for a russia that is successful, where its people are employed and the economy is growing and they are having good relationships with their neighbors. and participating constructively on big issues like climate change.

so, i've sought a constructive relationship with russia, but what i've also been is realistic in recognizing that there are some significant differences in how russia views the world and how we view the world. the values that we talked about, the values of democracy and free speech and international norms and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity, those things are not something that we can set aside. and so on issues like ukraine, on issues like syria, we've had very significant differences.

and my hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with russia, where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to russia where they are deviating from our values and international norms. and i don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our blueprint or our approach. but my hope is that he does not simply take a real politic approach and suggest that, you we just cut some

deals with russia, even if it hurts people, or even if it violates international norms, or even if it leaves smaller countries vulnerable, or creates long-term problems in regions like syria, that we just do whatever's convenient at the time. that will be something that i think we'll learn more about as the president-elect puts his team together. i am encouraged by the president-elect's insistence that nato is a commitment that does not change. and his full commitment to nato as the foundation for our international security i think is very important. finally, in terms of my conversations with president putin, these are conversations that took place before the election. as i indicated, there has been

very clear proof that they have engaged in cyberattacks. this isn't new. it's not unique to russia. there are a number of states where we've seen low-level cyberattacks and industrial espionage and, you know, other behavior that we think should be out of bounds and i delivered a clear and forceful message that, although we recognize russia's intelligence gathering will sometimes take place even if we don't like it, there's a difference between that and them either meddling with elections or going after private organizations or commercial entities, and that we're monitoring it carefully and we

will respond appropriately if and when we see this happening. i do think that this whole area of cyber is something that at an international level we have to work on and develop frameworks and international norms so that we don't see a cyber arms race. a lot of countries have advanced capabilities and given the vulnerabilities of our infrastructure, and our economies to digital platforms, we have to be careful in making sure that this doesn't become a lawless, low-level battlefield. and we've started trying to put together some principles that were adopted in the g-20, the

g-7, and at the u.n. levels. but a lot more work remains to be done on that front. chancellor merkel: well, allow me if i may to underline, first of all, that i'm very much impressed that, in spite of a very tough election campaign, this transition period in the united states of america, because it follows democratic principles, is working smoothly. because this is all about the american people, it's about the destiny of the american people. the outgoing administration is sharing its knowledge, its expertise with the incoming administration. and this to us is a sign of encouragement. to continue the good cooperation that we have built between the united states of america and the republic of germany, that is in our mutual interests, so we will continue this. i will continue this, i approach

this with an open mind and i'll do it on the basis of a deep conviction with president-elect donald trump. secondly, on russia, i can only repeat what the president said previously. this is all about respecting certain principles. i'm saying this from a european vantage point, from a german vantage point. the fact that for over 70 years we have been able to enjoy peace, to live in peace, very much depends on territorial integrity and sovereignty of each and every european country being respected. in european history, the reverse would be the start of a very bitter road down a slippery slope. and we have to nip this in the bud. we have to stand up resolutely against such attempts. but we are pinning our hopes on political efforts, which is why we launched the normandy process, in close coordination

with the united states of america. particularly from a german perspective, from the european perspective, i can only say again, russia is our neighbor. just look at poland. the european perspective. so we have an interest in seeing this relationship be a good one. we have a lot of historical ties, of course. a history that we share. but this community keep from us wherever we feel there are very grave differences of opinion to raise them with them. but, again, with political means and always trying to work for political settlements. this is what i'm going to continue to work on. on the question of whether i'll put up a candidacy, i will do this at the appropriate time and this is not today. reporter: german press agency. mr. president, your country is divided.

you are the first black president, first african-american president, who did so many things so differently, who raised so much hope all over the world. do you think that you have perhaps in a way put too much of a strain, maybe too much demands on the americans, and to what extent do you think your successor may well be a threat to the rest of the world, security, because there are, after all, nuclear weapons here in germany to which he has access now. will you want to be now, madam chancellor, see to it, new administration try to make europe and germany less dependent on the united states and are you afraid of this wave of populism hitting germany, hitting europe as well? and the personal question. president obama, paid tribute to to you as an outstanding politician. you are somewhat more sober when you describe your partner. how difficult is it for to you take leave today of your partner?

president obama: my guiding principle as president has been to try to do the right thing, even when it's not politically convenient. to look at long-term trends in our economy, in our society, in the international sphere, and using my best judgment, shape policies that will serve the american people, keep them safe, keep our economy growing, put people back to work, and best ensure peace, cooperation and stability around the world. and based on current surveys of public opinion in the united states, it turns out that the

majority of americans think i've done a pretty good job. that we haven't in fact gone too fast, as you describe it. but what is certainly true is that the american people, just like the german people, just like the british and people around the world, are seeing extraordinarily rapid change. the world is shrinking. economies have become much more integrated. and demographics are shifting. because of the internet and communications, the clash of cultures is much more direct. people feel, i think, less certain about their identity, less certain about economic security. they're looking for some means

of control. and what that means is that the politics in all of our countries is going to require us to manage technology and global integration, and all these demographic shifts in a way that makes people feel more control, that gives them more confidence in their future. but does not resort to simplistic answers or divisions of race or tribe or a crude nationalism which can be contrasted to the pride and patriotism that we all feel about our respective countries.

i think that our politics everywhere are going to be going through this bumpy phase. but, as long as we stay true to our democratic principles, as long as elections have integrity, as long as we respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, as long as there are checks and balances in our governments, so that the people have the ability to not just make judgments about how well government is serving them, but also change governments if they're not serving them well, then i have confidence that over the long term, progress will continue. and i think it's especially important for those of us who

believe in a world where we're interdependent, that believes in mutual interests and mutual respect between nations, it's particularly important that we reach out to everybody in our countries, those who feel disaffected, those who feel left behind by globalization, and address their concerns in constructive ways. as opposed to more destructive ways. and i think that can be done. but it's hard, it requires creativity, it requires effective communications. part of what's changed in politics is social media and how people are receiving information. it's easier to make negative attacks and simplistic slogans

than it is to communicate complex policies. but we'll figure it out. so, ultimately, i remain optimistic about not just america's future, but the direction that the world is going in. and part what have makes me most optimistic is if you look at the attitudes of young people, across the board young people are much more comfortable with respecting differences, they are much more comfortable with diversity, they are much less likely to express attitudes that divide us between us and them. they see themselves as part of a global economy, that they can navigate successfully.

and are showing enormous creativity and entrepreneurship and working with each other across borders. so that's where the future is. but we have to create that bridge. to the future. and that means making sure we're paying attention to the wages of workers in countries, making sure that we're investing in their education and their skills, that we are growing the economy in smart ways and rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in science and development, and that we stay true to those values that helped get us here. and if we do that, i think we're going to be fine. chancellor merkel: well, on the

issue, first, of independence of germany. after the time of initial socialism, germany has been given an enormous amount of help, particularly and also from the united states of america, the fact that we were able to enjoy german unification is due first and foremost through the help of the united states of america. and ever since germany was able to regain its unity, it's an an -- in an even stronger position to give its contribution to upholding this order to which we feel committed and for which particularly people in the german democratic republic stood in the streets to keep this up, to maintain this order. particularly also in our country. now, we're trying to do more than it used to be 26 years ago. and there are a number of other areas where we have to also make

a stronger contribution. we will all have to do more in development cooperation. it's important that these disparities in the living conditions cannot be allowed in this digital period to be two markets. each and every one must be given an opportunity to participate. which is why germany's fate in many ways depends on the firmness of its alliance with nato, with the european union, we cannot stand alone with 80 million people. in this world of today, you can't achieve much if you stand on your own. so alliances are part of our destiny as a nation, part of our future as a nation, and this is what guides me in my policy, what guides my government as a whole. secondly, this wave of populism that seems to engulf us, look at, in your words, to come from the united states.

look at the european parliament. there are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions, who are sort of preaching policies of, well, very unfriendly policies. we have them here in europe too. we have them here in germany too. to take up where the president left off, digitization is, in a way, a disruptive force, a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change, transformation of society. look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented, consequences, or industrialization, what sort of consequences that had. very often it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while, until society learned how to find the right kind of policies to contain this and to manage it.

i think we live in a period of profound transformation. very similar to when we had a transition from agricultural societies to industrial societies. when we see shifts of huge production lines from certain areas to other countries, people tend to ask the question, where's my place in this modern world? we have this here, they have it in other countries. trying to keep a society together, trying to keep the older and the younger people together, trying to keep those who live in rural areas together with those who live in cities is one of the most important and most noble tasks of politicians these days. trying to see to it that each and every one can find his or her place. but those that belong to certain groups say, we are the people, and not the others. that is something that we cannot allow to happen. that is something that i think at the time in the g.d.r., at

the time when we had this, where the people stood in the street and said, we are the people, that was something that filled me with great joy. the fact that these people have hijacked it is not something that fills me with great joy. we have to find new ways of addressing people, new ways of getting into contact with people, but i'm optimistic that we will be able to do so. now, taking leave from my partner and friend, well, yes, it is hard. if you've worked together with somebody very well, leave-take something very difficult. but we are all politicians. we all know that democracy lives off change. so, in the united states of america, the constitution has very clear stipulations on this. it's a top rule. eight years. that's it. out goes the president and a new one comes in. if it's in the german interest to have good transatlantic relations, well, the task is also to look ahead.

but we have freedom of movement in the whole of germany. so if we want to see each other, well, i'm game. so we're not completely out of this world, as we would say. [inaudible] reporter: thank you very much, mr. president. you spoke a great deal about what you characterize as a crude form of nationalism, perhaps, on the rise. i'm wondering if would you advise some of those protesters at home to stop demonstrating against some of the charged rhetoric that has been used by donald trump. and i'm wondering as well if you've advised your successor to be extra mindful of what you see as some very worrisome trends, particularly worrisome trends, -- particularly worrisome trends , i will when it comes to making some of his potentially powerful staff picks.

in these final weeks of your presidency, do you believe you have any leverage to stop bashar al-assad and vladimir puten from continuing to bomb aleppo? chancellor merkel, i'd like to ask you, bashar al-assad has described donald trump as a natural ally. your own foreign minister has described donald trump as a preacher of hate. i'm wondering, would you tell americans that they now have a perception problem? president obama: one of the great things about our democracy is it expresses itself in all sorts of ways. and that includes people protesting. i've been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years. i suspect there's not a president in our history that at some point hasn't been subject to these protests. so, i would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the

issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign. i wouldn't advise them to be silent. what i would advise, what i advised before the election, and what i will continue to advise after the election, is that elections matter, voting matters, organizing matters, being informed on the issues matter. and what i consistently say to young people, i say it in the united states, but i'll say it here in germany and across europe, do not take for granted our systems of government and our way of life. i think there is a tendency, because we've lived in an era that's been largely stable and peaceful, at least in advanced countries, where living standards have generally gone up, there is a tendency, i think, to assume that that's

always the case. and it's not. democracy is hard work. in the united states, if 43% of eligible voters do not vote, then democracy is weakened. if we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not, and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are getting their information and sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems. if people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the

democratic process, and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down. i think my most important advice is to understand what are the foundations of a healthy democracy and how we have to engage in citizenship continuously, not just when something upsets us, not just when there's an election or when an issue pops up. it's hard work. the good news is i think there are a lot of young people, certainly who were involved in my campaigns and continue to be involved in work, not just politically but through

nonprofits and other organizations that can carry this hard work of democracy forward. i do think sometimes there is complacency. here in europe there are a lot of young people who forget the issues that were at stake during the cold war. who forget what it's like to have wall. -- to have a wall. there are times when i listen to the rhetoric in europe, where an easy equivalent somehow between the united states and russia and between how our governments operate versus other governments operate, where those distinctions aren't made. i've said many times around the world that, like any government, like any country, like any set

of human institutions, we have our flaws, we've operated imperfectly. there are times when we've made mistakes. there are times when where i've made mistakes or our administration hasn't always aligned ourselves with the values that we need to align ourselves with. it's a work of constant improvement. but i can say to the german people that the united states has been good for germany. has looked out for germany. has provided security for germany. has helped rebuild germany. and unify germany. and i can say across europe that many principles that have been taken for granted here around free speech and around civil liberties and an independent judiciary and fighting corruption, those are principles that, you know, not perfectly,

but generally we have tried to apply not just in our own country, but also with respect to other foreign policy. and that should be remembered. because at an age where there's so much active misinformation and it's packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a facebook page or you turn on your television, where some overzealousness on the part of, you know, a u.s. official is equated with constant and severe repression elsewhere, if everything seems to be the same,

and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect. we won't know what to fight for. and we can lose so much of what we've gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we've come to take for granted. that was a long answer, wasn't it? i don't remember if there was a second part to it. i got all caught up in that one. reporter: i asked if would you visit the president-elect -- [inaudible] president obama: yes, i did. i did. he ran an extraordinarily unconventional campaign and it resulted in the biggest political upset in perhaps modern political history. american history. and that means that he now has to transition to governance.

what i said to him was that what may work in generating enthusiasm or passion during elections may be different than what will work in terms of unifying the country and gaining the trust even of those who didn't support him. he's indicated his willingness to -- his understanding of that, but you're absolutely right. that has to reflect itself not only in the things he says, but also how he fills out his administration. and my hope is that that's something that he's thinking about. because not only is the president of the united states

somebody that the entire country looks to for direction, but sets the agenda internationally in a lot of ways. with respect to syria, we are going to continue to work as we have over the last five, six years to push towards a political transition and settlement. it would be naive of me to suggest that with russia committed militarily as it is to supporting what in many cases are barbarous tactics by the assad regime to crush the opposition, the sort of indiscriminate bombing that we've been seeing, not just in aleppo, but in many parts of the country over the last several

years, it would be naive of me to suggest that there's going to be a sudden 180-degree turn in policy by either assad or russia or iran at this point. but we are going to continue to make the argument, we are going to continue to try to find humanitarian steps that can reach the people there. we're going to continue to try to obtain cessations of hostilities that lessen the human tragedy. and the migration that's taking place. but ultimately the way this is going to be resolved is going to have to be a recognition by russia and a willingness to pressure assad that a lasting,

durable peace with a functioning country requires the consent of people. you cannot purchase people's consent through killing them. they haven't made that transition yet. but we're going to keep on trying. chancellor merkel: i think i can speak for the whole of the federal government when i say that we are no longer in aen in -- an election mode in the united states, we're in postelection mode. there's an interest of the federal government of germany to cooperate well with the united states of america. we believe these are shared values. position -- he is actively

tried to kill his own people. hashe most careful way, he brought untold suffering to the people. when you talk to the refugees, them have fled to germany. they can tell you their personal stories. a great majority of them fled from assad. the of them not even from i.s. president,r. describe your hopes and great historical terms. the fact that stephen bannon was made as chief strategist, the

that -- did not lose -- choose to join the transition. what makes you confident that president donald trump can be of benefit? in regards the words of the -- toont said about you much is demanded and too much is -- expected of you. can you meet them? i am alwaysama: optimistic. times when i was in the oval office and people would come to me with all kinds of

political problems, pollute -- policy problems, national problems, and my team would get discouraged and depressed. , i have to to them be optimistic because the odds somebody named barack obama being president of the united states were a variable. that in my lifetime, i have seen such enormous positive change in the united states and around the world. that although history does not flow in a straight line, it moves in the way of justice and freedom and a better life for people.

we have to fight for it. we have to work for it. what makes me cautiously my successorout and the shift from campaign mode -- there ise something about the solemn responsibilities of that office. the extraordinary demands that ,re placed on the united states not just by his own people but by people around the world. that forces you to focus. that demands seriousness.

and if you are not serious about probably willyou not be there very long because it will expose problems. even when you are doing a good -- there are so many things to come across your desk that people will question you and you will have a opponent and critics. and you figure that out pretty fast and you are sitting there. i think the president-elect will that they quickly demands and responsibilities of a u.s. president

and that in a big, complex, diverse country, the only way that you can be successful is by listening and reaching out and working with a wide variety of people. and so it is my hope that that is what will happen. and i'm going to do everything i can over the next two months to help assure that that happens. it is absolutely true that chancellor merkel is going to have significant responsibilities, has had extraordinary burdens that she's had to carry. if she chooses to continue, you're right. she will have big burdens. i wish i could be there to lighten her load somewhat, but she's tough.