ophiles. russ in the current situation when we 1970 -- back to 1917.- back to we will mark the anniversary of year.17 revolution next that is all i will say on that. what is your question? >> my question is about the environment. russia constructs strategic

facilities and there are some organizations that are like isis but their agenda is the environment. organizationsntal are recognized as agents. how do you sort through all the communications to the president? in our province, there is manipulation of public opinion. thisf -- another thing, village was isolated from the they had supplies 20

kilometers away. the road will be built in 2018, but what will we do until then? >> i will point out this matter to the governor and he will respond with local authorities. this is unacceptable. this happens in different parts of our country and it is too bad that the local authorities are unable to cope with situations. regardless of where they live, people should not be isolated from the rest of the country and they should have access to basic services. you mentioned environmental organization and how we can differentiate between people who really care about nature and foreign agents and such.

do useough our rivals environmental organizations in order to slow down growing sectors. infrastructure projects in .ussia or power plants buildings how foreign supported certain environmental organizations and asked them to argue against construction of seaports and other infrastructure. moneyeven knew how much was donated by foreign governments to help those organization stop us. of course we should care about the environment. the nuclear energy agency should be mindful about that. and is a major company

after what happened at fukushima standardsrs said our were the safest in the world. we learned all the lessons we had during the soviet period and what happens abroad. our technologies are safest. abuse in the matter of the environment. i talked to one of my foreign friends and he had a meeting with one of his friends who works for an international environmental organization. he said they extorted $30 and then they would be off the hook.

they decided to dedicate this money and things like that happen. we are aware. of course, you cannot just ignore such situations. the only way to deal with a situation is to study this matter in a deep and professional way. you should look at the economic effect and environmental safety. consider all the factors. ok, what is this question you wish to ask? >> thank you, mr. putin. i know i looked a little silly .here, but my question online website.

i always watch your addresses and listen to your statements. you say great things and the next day things go in a completely opposite way. >> i think you are exaggerating. >> i will give you some examples. everyone was nodding when you said in your addresses that beressive thought should made. has heard of the movement that has very aggressive policies to cleanse the authority.

people are made to turn away from the church. movement they provoked the believers and they went to the police and roast a complaint on them -- went to the police and wrote a complaint on them. you say we are committed to truth and justice, but we see there can be a house his area, but he is a civil servant in a not very rich country. several years ago, you said you

are in favor of mayors being elected, but that initiative went the other way. why do you say one thing but in real life we see absolutely the opposite. another journalist, he has been and the for years now accusation leveled against him are absurd. we had no hope for justice. , a journalist who published a video where a boy was tortured. attracted the attention of the law enforcement, but she was the one convicted.

we need to do something about the justice system. please save the people. >> what you said about our judicial system, actually, recently we made a number of steps to make our legal practice more humane. this includes criminal law, administrative offenses and other things. we have been pursuing this policy intentionally and we will continue this work. actions,iews, radical we have a large and complex country. people who organize and provoke sedition and they do this on purpose.

they say they want to raise awareness and things like that. you should not go to extremes with that as well. you should be reasonable. patriots --s for so-called patriots and chauvinists. everyone should be reasonable. i have not heard the things you mentioned. i do not know if all those decisions were there. -- i do not know if all those decisions were fair. ae decision to build corporation or an executive building something ostentatious, i agree with that, people should

be more modest. i really hope they will hear me. the same goes for the bonuses they receive and their income. ofy should realize what kind country we live in and not make people angry. you mentioned the lawsuit. the court to decide the amount of compensation. individual who filed a lawsuit to protect their reputation, it is up to the court to decide whether this publication is really guilty. think it wanted to get several rbc,on robots from rm --

and the court said they were guilty but they were not find it very much. only 650,000 rubles. they complained that they were harassed and their children were approached. the oracle should be more careful in the way they do work. you should not interfere with their private lives. celebrities, athletes, people like that. we should all follow certain rules. we are all cultured people in our country. ?here is a question from cctv

>> good afternoon, mr. putin. on and like to follow up earlier question. the situation is very difficult. migrants and instability in the middle east. what othert of this, new approaches that great powers like russia and china find to resolve all those issues? >> we all know that the relationship between russia and china is very good. we describe it as a strategic partnership, but it is bigger than partnership.

what we have between russia and china, in recent years, economically, china is our biggest trade partner. there was a slight decrease in trade and export to do to objective difficulties, specifically low fuel prices, but we diversified our relations and the amount of trade in and productionrs has been increasing substantially. inhave a major joint project aircraft manufacturing, space exploration, energy, including nuclear energy. we have some very good projects. we continueructure,

-- there areinue certain difficulties but i will not talk about this right now. we have some interesting ideas about switching to a national trade.y in bilateral is going to use the rmb as a reserve currency. congratulations to china on that. this is a strong, stabilizing factor in international affairs. we treasure our relationship with china and we expect to continue developing it further in the future.

>> good afternoon, mr. putin. with the question i was going to ask last, but since my colleague mentioned this -- [indiscernible] >> a year ago, you said he would -- you said you would look into his fate. the case went to court. maybe you have been busy and you didn't have enough time. but please, you can do it. >> let me stop you there.

public, the presidential staff really look into this matter. if this went to court, it is not as simple as you say. >> you talked about mass media being responsible, but there is a different side to this. media outlets are being sued, case.ey always lose the the court demands that the article they are displeased about should be taken down or destroyed. don't you think this is a very dangerous precedent? courtsyou angry with the

or the fact that you don't have accurate information? you need to take a closer look. how do you expected them to protect their reputation? should they go to your office and get the billy club? they get to court like people do. rm -- rbc and sued. this was an insignificant amount rewarded. it will not affect the economics dancing. -- economic standing. let me start from a different angle here. the fact is that journalists

sometimes criticized government officials and businessmen, i think it is a positive. >> but what about the decision to take down the articles? >> i cannot comment on that. if it was a legal decision, if it was local, you have to comply with that. about taxes. >> in your address, you asked the government to work on the tax system after 2018. how do you see this new system and what will be your stamp if ce ifat will be your stan they decide to increase taxes? >> back in 2014, we decided not to increase the tax load on the

community. despite the different proposals from different agencies. eventually, there has been no tax hike. instead, we introduced a number of privileges and tax breaks for sme's. we were thinking that self-employed people will also ifeligible for tax breaks they perhaps the need some time to settle down. aboute also talking priority development areas and special taxes seems -- special tax regimes for agriculture.

also high-tech business, including small, high-tech businesses would be eligible for less payments in terms of the payroll tax. 2018, this period will end. right now, we need to think , togetherarefully with the business community and the experts, including rbk because you are our media outlet and the focus is on business. you have good experts on your broadcasts. with that together, we would be able to draft an action plan for

the next four years. solution, we will provide a sustainable foundation for the business community over the next four years. there.back over that poster is about the tragedy that happened. afternoon. we are a regional newspaper. , our regiont week became top news for a tragic region -- a tragic reason. leaving theince is fight -- our province is leading

the fight against illegal circulation of alcohol or substances containing alcohol. there are a number of measures that will be implemented to achieve that and it is comforting to know that it is not only our problem. there are other regions suffering from the same thing. suggestions is to excise duty. there is no proper control. and another big problem is the number of drunks. it is not only people at the very bottom, but people with low

income. they cannot afford to buy alcohol in stores, so they go to illegal traders. take of all, what is your on the measure suggested by the authorities? measures goingny to be taken against the alcohol addiction on the population in general? >> first of all, what happened is a tremendous tragedy. certainly this is an outrage. inspections and other agencies that were supposed to whoented did not do it -- it didpposed to prevent not do it.

a number of foreign states set thoseorkshop to create bottles and they used methanol. poison, but some of the people decided to generate extra cash. somewhere, that the methanol and he used it and that led to the poisoning. as for what the government isn't , theseith excise duties are proper measures, but it is too little too late.

the business segment is now complaining that perfume and other items are going to cost more. admit, still to these actions are justified because of these tragedies. i instructed the government to set up a plan and i'm hoping it will yield results and save the lives. as for the level of our addiction, indeed, it is a problem. any worse int other countries. europeany in nordic countries. we do have a program in place. things.t simply ban

behough some bans need to instigated. buys should be no beer near schools. we need to enforce these decisions and continue to work on this. there needs to be a lot of education. i would like the media to support us in this work. this is extremely important. demographics depends a lot on this, so, overall, it one of the .ey areas of our joint work

we need to end our press conference. love can turn into hatred if we sit here too long. a question on georgia? >> there was a question on the russian drink. but we will get back to it. culturally our relations were reinstated, but that is where it stopped. one of the reasons are the territorial problems that exist. what are our prospects in terms of political dialect or are we stuck with the status quo?

participationy of between the ukraine and the eu, but what about georgia, which is going to have the same with europe? it is going to come fast. the regime in europe is a thing of the past, regardless of whether we refer to ukraine or georgia. we need to establish it is a free regime for all citizens of areas. blame.ot us who were to started,t russia who

startentually we need to thinking about normalizing relations and perhaps we could go back to a visa free travel for georgians. some georgian officials, it is very important to establish a relationship between law enforcement agencies and security services in terms of fighting terrorism. will notew regime undermine our security. we need to have cooperation in fighting terror.

last time or before that. that. >> thank you for qas in particular. thee exporting to china and u.s. >> the market is boundless. force, there r wouldn't have been any of this, to see us any time. the question about your your people, our to create a ts platform. so if i come every time to --cuss the brand leave ou think we could

that long? > mr. putin, we have a lot of things to be proud of. on the plane.hour i'll explain. > so what we want is to basically restore -- we want to things in kiev, and here.bring them is the president going to upport this idea and maybe do russia?l over recently, w, just some low skill

markets. it's all been reviving. if you have an idea in terms of goods, i think we can we can do that and i'm the mayor of moscow will could talk they governor.with the >> i can tell him you support this project. >> thank you for the invitation. i'll try to come as soon as possible. question, final otherwise is going to be an event. okay. a couple of questions.

>> thank you, i'll be precise. when do you think you'll meet donald trump and strategic issues you'll have? for me to say lt that. the newly elected to ident needs to have time build his new team. have ot expedient to meetings that are not prepared for. our ways to normalize elections during the election campaign. that it would be proper to normalize our worse ns and it can't be because, well, it can't be worse and i agree with him so

think of how to make it better. >> good afternoon. which of the mistakes you made do you think is the biggest one and what do you think biggest mistake as president. president. >> i've been asked questions like that several times. mistakes.on makes can't live your life without mistakes.

o i'll repeat what i said to iously, but i'll try certainly do some homework so we'll have fewer mistakes in the work in anhat we all efficient way. translator: you talked about an immoral person but it's impossible without but children these days spent all their time on the internet. games, but it's the journals and magazines that of reading.abit to the libraries, and

there are s that cuts, so they can't buy as many thatines and the magazines they want, so is there going to e any support so the libraries need.ave everything they my second question is from an aide. he asked about robots. are you of robots kremlin?in the > we need robots in production in the industry. we do with delicate issues and on us ly a lot depends and we need humans in this area. rely on we can't ofots in deciding the future

millions of people. children's s, for books, i agree with you. the trying to revive a new movement, but at base. it's important to come to lynn, at the books, to watch in the books. modern media love ooks but we also need to provide the right content on modern media that is necessary education of the younger generation. so that we can influence their souls, their minds, to shape their orld view, attitudes to live. be turned intoto

bothmedia centers offering books and online activities. there are other sensitive areas need to focus more on it, but ust at the federal, regional and he municipal level. if think need additional ofport, from us, we'll think that but we'll try to support -- it's up to them. just earmark money, it's not always the most efficient way of support, but we definitely need to do that.

says -- that's not true. there are things that can be some d for but there are things that raise questions. about the budget. -- programs et --era, but we have a company hey don't go straight to the budget. money ends up in accounts so this money, our why don't they go to the budget? could be spent to improve

social sphere or something. why? in these accounts? maybe we should just take them. you represent a liberal business paper and you're saying away.ed to take it indeed, we do have the funds, but it's absolutely transparent. they are after the control of and we use some from that source for other projects. ast year and this year -- issued additional money to projects in science and education. applies to the

megagrants. earmark money for production for airlines. big so use their funds for viation projects and for the new aviation engine. luckily, we have a dimension, first one in 29 years, and we also need a new one, 30 tons, and together with the chinese be able to build a new long range passenger jet. but this is the cost we're going

to use for extra projects. happy new tmas and year. thank you so much for your patience. good luck. mra [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [unintelligible voices]

[indistinguishable voices] >> earlier today there was a call for the end of israeli settlements in the west bank was the only country to abstain while the rest of the council voted in favor. forward ution was put by new zealand, malaysia, venezuela and senegal. the vote the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., samantha power explained why the u.s. was support of the resolution and why it did not use its veto

as some were calling for. begin with a quote. the united states will not upport the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by israel action could other create the confidence needed for participation in these talks. further, settlement activity is necessary for the security of israel and only diminishes the confidence of the arabs, that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated. the end of the quote. by was said in 1982 president ronald reagan. he was speaking about a new launching at he was to end the israeli-palestinian conflict. course, timately, of president reagan's proposals

were not realized his words are illuminating in at least two respects. first, because they underscore he united states's deep and long standing commitment to chievingta comprehensive and lasting peace between the israelis and palestinians. hat's been the policy of every administration, republican and democrat, since before president through d all the way to the present day. second, because president eagan's words highlight the united states's long standing position that israeli settlement territories occupied n 1967 undermines israel's security, harms the viability of two-state outcome peaceroad for prospective and stability in the region. it reaffirms its consensus that legal ents have no validity. the united states has been sending the message that the must stop privately

nd publicly for nearly five decades. through the administration's of johnson, richard nixon, gerald ford, jimmy ronald reagan, george george h, bill clinton, w. bush, and now barack obama, the only nce 1967, president who had not had at least one israeli-palestinian security council resolution passed during his tenure is barack obama. so our vote today is fully in bipartisan history of how american presidents have pproached both the issue and the role of this body. of this consistency position across u.s. administrations, one would think that it would be a routine vote to allow the pass sang of a resolution with the elements in this one. reaffirming the long standing

u.s. position on settlements, and mning violence incitement, and calling for the parties to start taking reverse ive steps to current trends on the ground. these are familiar well components of u.s. policy. but in reality, this vote for us was not straightforward. because of where it's taking united nations. for the simple truth is, that for as long as israel has been a member of this institution, israel has been treated differently from other nations united nations. and not only in decade past, uch as the infamous resolution that the general assembly adopted in 1975 with the support majority of member states officially determining that zionism is a form of racism, but in 2016, this year, one 18 only look at the resolutions against israel adopted during the u.n. general or the 12n september, israeli specific resolutions adopted this year in the human

ights council, more than those focused on syria, north korea, south sudan put together. to see that in 2017, israel treated to be differently from other member states. administrations before it the obama administration has worked tirelessly to fight for be el's right simply to treated just like any other country. from advocating for israel to finally be granted membership to a u.n. regional body, something no other u.n. member state had een denied to fighting to ensure that israeli ngos are not denied u.n. accreditation simply because they are israeli to getting yom kippur finally to gnized as a u.n. policy pressing this council to break its indefensible silence in terrorist attacks on israelis. as the united states has said such unequal treatment not only hurts israel, of ndermines the legitimacy the united nations itself.

the practice of treating israel ifferently at the u.n. matters for votes like this one. for even if one believes that proposed today is justified, or even more events on the ground, one cannot completely the ate the vote from venue. and member states that say they are for the two state solution ask themselves some difficult questions. for those states that are quick o promote resolutions condemning israel, but refuse to recognize when innocent israelis victims of terrorism, what steps will you take to stop israel differently? for those states that passionately denounce the crossings in gaza as exacerbating the humanitarian nothing of theay resources diverted from helping tunnels sidents to dig into israeli territory so that terrorists can attack israelis you dor homes, what will to end the double standard that

ndermines the legitimacy of this institution? member states should also ask themselves about the double it comes to n taking action. just this morning, we came and we as a council were unable to muster the will o act to stop the flow of weapons going to killers in south sudan who are perpetrating u.n. trocities that the has said could lead to genocide. we couldn't come together just flow of arms. earlier this month, this council could not muster the will to simplest of resolutions calling for a seven day pause in the savage of innocent civilians, hospitals and schools in aleppo. on israela resolution comes before this council, the willuddenly summon to act. it is because this forum too biased ntinues to be against israel, because there are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed in resolution, and because the united states does not agree

with every word in this text, united states did not vote in favor of the resolution. this is because resolution reflects the facts on he ground and is consistent with you policy across republican and democratic administrations throughout the state of israel, that the united states did not veto it. united states has consistently said we will block that we thought would undermine israel's security or seek to impose a conflict. to the e would not have ret the resolution pass had it also not addressed terrorism and which ent to violence we've repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the and, inian leadership which of course, must be stopped. unlike some on the u.n. security council we do not believe that outside parties can impose a solution that's not been two parties. the nor can we unilaterally

recognize a future palestinian state. precisely our commitment to israel's security that makes the united states stand in at we cannot the way of this resolution as we eek to preserve a chance of attaining our long standing objective. wo states living side by side in peace and security. let me briefly explain why. problem has t gotten so much worse that it's now putting at risk the very two-state f that solution. the number of settlers in the authorized israeli settlements east of the 1967 ines has increased dramatically. since the 1993 signing of the slo accords which launched efforts that made a comprehensive and lasting peace possible the number of settlers increased by 355,000. population in er east st bank, and jerusalem now exceeds 590,000.

nearly 90,000 settlers are of the separation barriers that was created by israel itself. since july 2016 when the middle east quartet issued a report highlighting nternational concern about a systematic process of land seizures, settlement expansions legalizations, israel has advanced plans for more than 2,600 new settlement units. yet rather than dismantling outpostsd other settler which are illegal even under sraeli law there is new legislation advancing in the sraeli knesset that would legalize most of the outposts. the israeli prime minister recently described his "more committed to settlements than any in israel's history." of his leading coalition partners recently declared that the era of the two state solution is over." at the same time, the prime minister has said that he's committed to pursuing a

two-state solution. but these statements are i would reconcilable. one can't simultaneously expanding israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. to make a choice between settlements and separation. 2011, the united states vetoed a resolution that focused exclusively on settlements. if settlements were the only factor harming the prospects of a two-state solution. changed mstances have dramatically. since 2011 settlement growth has only accelerated. since 2011 multiple efforts to peace through negotiations have failed. and since 2011 president obama kerry have y repeatedly warned publicly and privately that the absence of towards peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the two state threaten t risk and israel's stated objective to amain both a jewish state and democracy. moreover, unlike in 2011, this

esolution condemns violence, terrorism, and incitement which lso poses an extremely grave risk to the two-state solution. this resolution reflects trends will permanently destroy the hope of a two-state solution f they continue on their current course. the united states is not taking -- has not taken the step f voting in support of this resolution, because the resolution is too narrowly focused on settlements. all know or we should all know that many other factors contribute significantly to the perpetuate this conflict. let us be clear. even if every single settlement be dismantled tomorrow, peace still would not be attainable without both sides uncomfortable truths and making difficult choices. indisputable fact yet it's one that's too often overlooked by members of the by members of and this council. for palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious. in addition to taking

innocent lives the incitement to of ence, glorification terrorists and the growth of violent extremism erodes rospects for peace as this resolution makes crystal clear. the most recent wave of palestinian violence has seen hundreds of mmit attacks including driving cars into crowds of innocent mothers and stabbing in front of their children. yet rather than condemn these and other radical factions and even certain have used fatah social media to incite others to follow in their murderous footsteps and while bashar assad party leaders have made clear their opposition to violence, terrorism and extremism they have too often to condemn specific attacks or condemn the praise upon the perpetrators. our vote today does not in any way diminish the united states's and unparalleled commitment to the security of israel. democracy in the middle east. we would not have let this

resolution pass had it not also counterproductive actions by the palestinians. israel to recognize that faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. israelis are rightfully making sure ut there is not a new terrorist haven next door. resident bo be and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to that's ecurity because what we believe in. our commitment to that security it never waivered and will. even with the financial crisis nd budget deficits we repeatedly increase funding to support israel's military. obama september, the administration signed a memorandum of understanding to rovide $38 billion in security assistance to israel over the next 10 years. the largest single pledge of ilitary assistance in u.s. history to any country. and, as the israeli prime our ter himself has noted military and intelligence cooperation is unprecedented. believe, though, that continued settlement building

israel's undermines security. some may cast the u.s. vote as a agn we've finally given up on two-state solution. nothing could be further from the truth. one of us can give up on a two-state solution. we continue to believe that that pathion is the only viable to provide peace and security for the state of israel and freedom and dignity for the people.nian and we continue to believe that the parties can still pursue his path if both sides are honest about the choices and have the courage to take steps will be politically difficult. while we can encourage them it's to mately up to the parties choose this path as it always has been. they will y hope begin to make these choices before it's too late. thank you. see that entire u.n. security council meeting tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. expect to hear more about israel and palestine in the coming days. the hill e at newspaper, which reports that

secretary of state john kerry is his vision lay out for the peace process. the details of the speech have ing when and where not been released. but an obama administration will al has said that it include a comprehensive plan for a two-state solution that goes the settlement issue. about that more atthehill.com. >> this holiday weekend on c-span here are some of our featured programs. a look aty we'll take farewell speeches and tributes for outgoing members of congress and the white house. 12:30 p.m. eastern with senator barbara -- of p.m., nd and at 2:00 tributes and speeches for vice president joe biden. christmas at .m., the white house. join first lady michelle obama as she receives the official tree.house christmas tour the white house and see decorations. make christmas crafting projects with children of military

families visiting the white finally, the tree lighting ceremony on the national mall. 8:40 p.m., hear from former house speaker john boehner on and his presidency, time in the congress. nd at 9:40 p.m., attend the portrait unveiling of outgoing senate minority leader harry reid. never.at of speakers include hillary clinton, vice president joe biden and charles schumer. sunday, at 12:30 p.m. eastern we'll hear from retiring member f congress, representative charles wrangle of new york. then at 2:10 p.m., from the capitol re theater on hill we take you to the romeo death mocke wrongful trial where supreme court associate justice alito served 6:30 esiding judge and at p.m. a look at the career of vice-president elect mike pence as vice ew role president. c-span c-span and

the c-span radio app. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] . titled "the poll six of resentment." of the book?enesis why did you write it? >> i study public opinion. i'm a professor at the university of wisconsin in madison and i was interested in of way people make sense politics. the way they interpret politics, nd i live in wisconsin, i love wisconsin, and i was very interested to hear when people thinking, and ere also, how they were thinking about our university. wisconsin was sort of out of

convenience and just by chance, being a pretty fascinating place to study public opinion. >> especially in light of what with the results in wisconsin, michigan, and pennsylvania, flipping from republican, giving donald trump the presidency. you write a lot about scott alker and the recall petitions that he faced as the republican governor in the badger state. audience re with our part of what you wrote in your book, "the politics of resentment." my window -- this is a state in the the debate over appropriate role of government has played out prominently since 2000. t's been a partisan battleground. you can see the push and pull of here in multiple ways. so explain. sure. well, wisconsin, as many people know, has been a swing state for some time. it sort of has this independent culture. our political and the battle of what is the

government role of has been playing out here as we le, you know, at times voted for democrats, at times we've voted for republicans, and my travels in around the state was a lot of discontent with government, and wide range of people. of context, it makes it possible for politicians of many different make an o come in and argument for change that appeals to people. in that not unique respect and that's happening in lot of places in the country, obviously. but we're -- our election of walker in 2010 was a flash point, if you will in some ways, and through a lot of national attention. so we've been a window to things on in other parts of the country for some time now. > you break down many of the socioeconomic issues, and the

that affect wealthier americans and also the between rural and urban. when you consider how much the very top income earners make bulk of the he population, income equality in the united states looks even worse. here are the figures. the average u.s. income for the 1%, 1.1 million, and for the $29,143.%, it was just a year. the disparity in your mind? aware most people are there is a disparity but the extent of it is often pretty people.g to >> why is the middle class shrinking? great question. i would say, you know, it's artly, when you have income inequality of that magnitude,

that means that there is a smaller group of people who have a larger and arger portion of the wealth so that means, you know, less wealth for a middle class. also, clearly has something to do with the shifts in our conomy and the nature of manufacturing, and so what we've considered middle class jobs for so long have changed. extent, cease to exist. it's partly the nature of the and who is le holding wealth in the population. catherine t is kramer, and we're dividing our this lines differently for segment. if you live in rural america, 202-748-8000 for those of you outside the urban areas and urban iving in cities, 202-748-8001. let's talk about the election of

donald trump and the impact in wisconsin. what did you see first hand and trump could that win wisconsin? honest, i wasto be surprised that trump won wisconsin. partly because i was following the end of the campaign like everyone else. in them. lot of stock but in the lead up to the election, i definitely heard a of support for donald trump. that probably would surprise a lot of people who were not supporting donald trump clinton rting hillary or bernie sanders even earlier. oftentimes that support was people acknowledging some of the that donald hings trump said on the campaign trail, and never the less and i y supporting him think that mix of attitudes is somewhat surprising to people strongly, so m so i wasn't as surprised as a lot

of people, is probably the thing to say. >> the one phrase you alluded to earlier and you write a lot your book is the term rural consciousness and in the consciousnessural is a term i'm using to csi a strong sense of identity as a with a rson combined strong sense that rural areas are what you call the victims of injustice. sense that rural areas do not get their fair share of get their respect, or the resources that they feel re necessary the particular puzzle i focus on in this book is why people prefer less overnment when they might seemingly benefit from more of it. >> right. you viewers who live in rural areas, having areas, will n rural kind of laugh that that's a revelation at all. i was basically, what hearing was something that people have been talking with each other about in small rural places d around the country for some

time. it's this feeling of, you know, like this were just on the short end of the stick. no one pays attention to us. we don't get our fair share of resources. that, you know, actually, respected, by folks who live in the cities. that view was a surprise to me, interactions with folks, you know, as i've been talking about that point of sharing my books with time with, spent their reaction to me sometimes is, no kidding, lady. i'm sure some of your viewers are familiar with what i'm talking about. write in the book that voters are looking for somebody that they can connect question, donald trump, who lives in trump tower n the 68th floor is a billionaire and yet seemingly able to connect with wisconsin voters in a way that hillary was not able to do so. so explain that.

how is donald trump able to voters?o those >> i think what happened is donald trump came along and right.ou know, you're you're right to be upset. you're right to think that getting what you deserve. he gave the people an explanation of what was going not getting were their fair share. about where the jobs that seemed have disappeared, where they have gone and he also gave blame. targets to so immigrants, for example, talking about immigrants coming in and taking jobs. basically, he said, you know, you're right, you're right to be upset. deserving, you are hard working americans and what you deserve is going to people who are less deserving. so, you know, he leafs in trump tower in the middle of new his message appealed to people who live center ry far from that of wealth and power.

> let's bring in our callers katherine kramer, joining us this friday from madison, wisconsin. from keith.ller is good morning. >> good morning. i was one of those who marched with the otherol people, who were protesting the ttacks on public sector workers, we were making the higher pay of he public sector workers would boost all workers, because it kind of like a race to the top and what i think this author does, i saw her on c-span giving a talk at the library in it on c-span,ched what she does is she kind of issue of the whole race. it's central to solidarity of the working class. much more difficult for us to organize along class owners and the

politicians who are basically by the nd paid for owners, they are pitting workers against one another, a prime when scott his was walker, he was caught on video talking to diane hendricks, one richest people in the tate, he claimed he was going each t workers against other." -- some kind of conspiracy. he actually admitted he was workers against each other. bit black workers against white workers. men against women. public sector workers against private sector workers. he succeeded. he succeeded in pitting work eric against each other and of this, 30 years workers being pit against one another and that's why we uffered and declined in our living standards, the working

class. >> thank you for the call from wisconsin. we'll get a response. i have to say on that. i think racism is the baseline. to start with our discussions of controversy over get what. that ourrom the moment federal government has been talking about redistribution, a part of the story so shortly after the civil war, when our federal government the resources nd to actually distribute or used as ate, race was way to divide people amongst other. asically white farmers from freed african-americans. and we, you know, clearly, as a really come never

to terms with that, and it of our a part discussions about redistribution, who should get what. in my book is to try to ease into, i shouldn't to come around to the question of race as carefully as possible. ecause what i don't want to happen is for people to hear what i have to say, or read my away and say, see, those people in rural america, they are just a bunch of racists, and leave it at that because it's so much more complex than that. nd we're not ever going to repair the divisions in this country if we simply keep very simple g lines, and so the complexity, as i see it, this. when people are talking about who is deserving an feeling like they are deserving, and they are not getting what their fair share is and it's going to undeserving, e racism is in those conversations, because nfortunately, we have stereotypes about who is hard working and who is not in this

often very are racial, meaning people of color attributed with laziness more than white folks but when people are talking about those people in the city, in the city, ple they are oftentimes talking about me, too. about are often talking white professionals, and nderstanding the ways in which class and race and region are intertwined is really important figuring out how we actually come together as a country, and organizing oses of workers, it's helpful to guying lines.se so, i really appreciate bringing because i, of race in no way, want to skirt it. this e, it's central to whole conversation. >> the subtitle to katherine book read as follows, rural consciousness in wisconsin walker, ise of scott

keith mentioned her appearance book tv.'s if you want to watch this as ell, and all of our nonfiction book tv programming, you can out online or go to booktv.org. a full offering this weekend as we prepare for the holiday weekend. let's go to don also from wisconsin. in the more rural area. please.d, >> good morning. thank you for taking my call, c-span. i appreciate it. i'm hoping that you don't cut me off. i have a question about resentment and wonder if that anything to do with possibly the 13th amendment, servitude and people forcing people to do illegal the 183 s like corporations, that embezzled assets, and rement doingsin downplayed it by

cover-up. >> i think part of the resent. in i've heard, you know, many communities around the with does have to do perceptions of government perceptions of government not being -- not attentive to people like me. people he extent that is eive that government allowing corruption or the government workers, like the fficials, are doing it themselves, yes, that definitely feeds into the resentment of why make orking so hard to ends meet when people are breaking the rules and are in it get more? o i think those perceptions of government being broken come in many forms and i think what you

form.mentioned is one readofessor kramer, let me three tweets. donald trump would fill um stadiums while hillary could not gym.a high school that was the most accurate poll, tv.the bias polls given on and another comment from dean who says trump used propaganda simple minded.e first on those two comments, reaction. got the in terms of who bigger crowds, the trump an element -- had of entertainment that drew and also an son, relatedn to new stories to the trump campaign. you know, was that a lack of nthusiasm for hillary clinton or was it just really heightened

interest in donald trump? that a littleying bit wrong, but i think part, you crowds forraw of big donald trump was a recognition that at almost every campaign newsworthy ing happened. so we have to keep that in mind. know, appealing to the simple minded. lot to say on that. it's's a common, you know, a common notion that people who donald trump were fooled or ignorant or not less educated, spend time o and with people in my field work, theseknow voted for trump it thatey ask me how is all those smart students at madison voted for hillary clinton? with them?g what are they not get something

so my point in bringing that up that on both sides, we're wondering what's wrong with eople who voted for the other candidate. and to attribute other people's of ces to ignorance kind verlooks the fact that we all subjectively define our self interest. now, i don't want to ignore, though, the extent to which many things donald trump said on the campaign trail have been proven by fact checkers to be inaccurate. in other words, lies. you know, that's important. and deserves attention and you might say, okay, folks who voted for a candidate who gave outright lies, isn't there an of ignorance to that? there is definitely an element so my point, ion, i guess in general what i want to say is, yeah, we have to pay to where there are inaccuracies in our campaigns ut i think we should be cautious about explaining other

people's votes as lack of -- as presence of ignorance. he his is a tweet from max, wants to know, were new contact with the hillary rodham clinton lend perspective? f so, were they receptive to your ideas? >> i was not. i don't, you know, my job is not to consult with campaigns. everybody o help better understand the american public. so i guess the answer is no. i was not in contact. >> from dayton, ohio, lynn is ext, we're dividing our phone lines between urban and rural callers. lynn.orning, >> good morning. it just seems to me that people in ohio near the end of the to vote were bombarded with

it made it eport, seem like something hillary clinton was to engulfed in, didn't have a significant amount of authority as smart as donald rump's misguidedness or outright lies, that he was which prettyublic, much verified that she was going more of a chance of being fully involved in more the tice, as far as government and the corporate figures have done to the middle 30 years now. >> we'll get a response. for the call from dayton. >> yeah. perspective to hear. i'm not really sure i have much the to say on top of what caller said. so thank you for the call.

>> thank you. joining us jimbo from alabama. what part of the state do you jymbo?n, >> north alabama 30 miles south of huntsville. >> go ahead with your question comment. >> yes. i thank you for the opportunity views.ress my kramer, like to ask ms. think as far as the material -- being done to the of the united states, millions of people, consistent and persistent attacks on labor past? in the im a vietnam era veteran, and see that the labor unions have on down indled right almost to nothing. the tax money which is

fleeting,ore and more now they are doubling down, they want to on tax breaks for the wealthy. poor going working to do in the future? >> that's a great concern to raise. labor unions are a really important side of organizations that represent workers' and without labor unions, there aren't -- there structure that's in place to represent workers. nd i definitely hear a lot of concern in my field work about labor unions from folks. onestly sometimes it's people who were a part of a union or are, and proceed corruption, so sometimes people the union but more oftentimes, and especially among retirees who are part of union, i hear people talking about how grateful they were to

union and ted by a how grateful they are to now be able to be in retirement and you know, a decent quality about labor ncern unions is something that's very widespread and labor unions are popular in public opinion polls. ut for people who have been represented by labor unions, they generally find a whole lot ableatitude that they were fighting on ne their behalf. >> a tweet from sandy beach. we get a lot of tweets from now we know this individual livers in wisconsin writing following. it wasn't only trump. wisconsin rural voters like me voted to defeat radical liberals in madison.

outcomes.the state katherine kramer, can you elaborate. that's true. -- she may vernment be also referring to the 2010, outs, outstate wisconsin or rural wisconsin has been voting for consistently etty now for some years. ky bell who says i've lived in big cities and now in a very rural town. for city dwellers. they are missing life. let me go back to your book, you write the following in. an atmosphere of resentment it's tough to take the high road. you say, t politics, gives little incentive for elected officials to pursue such behavior. it's time that those of us with the power to vote demand it of them. what were you referring to?

think, you know, it's asy to understand why a politician might tap into the divides among us, right? our attention to the ways in which we don't like population, in the politicallyou know, advantageous. and, in my mind, that use of cut tment, the only way to through it is for people, somebody to rise above it. it would be a political leader who refuses to use that us of rhetoric, that pits against one another. but it might also have to come citizens and to vote for fuse candidates or take stances on on, you know, us

versus them ideas, but instead or he merits of the policy on the merits of the policies hat the candidate is representing. that's a tall order. but it is my hope, and, in my classes at the university of i regularly dison, talk with students about these types of issues and i see, in young people, a desire for kind of a higher type of which we're not pitting ourselves against one another, but we're trying to to make t ways everybody better off and to refuse to vote on the basis of another.t toward one >> the book, "the politics of resentment," our guest, katherine kramer joining us from madison. to north carolina, welcome the conversation. >> good morning. how are you in >> fine, thank you. >> my question is this. all the years i've been working out here, i have my own usiness, i see foreigners come to this country, where americans

have to train them or americans lose their jobs, as an what upsets men, is whenever it's time to vote they come to our community but $133 billion or more a year on illegal immigration that could come to our communities. we have to take care of children once they get here. y question is, why don't they just shut the board down, say no one can come in without due bring guns back, bring lety back, just cut it off, their borders -- if we stop we train americans instead of fighting illegal immigration, that money could be for businesses to train americans, and it would cost us a lot less. you.k ray.ank you, >> well, i guess i have a lot to that. response to one is, i think there is a lot extent nceptions in the

of illegal immigration and just, motivation for people to come here, and the fact is that a lot of businesses -- i mean, i am speaking here with wisconsin in mind. there are businesses in my state that are grateful for immigration. i'm thinking in particular the dairy industry. i should distinguish here between people who do not have their papers or are undocumented immigrants, or immigrants who arrived here illegally. it is kind of a case in point, right, that people are struggling to make ends meet, and so often, we are turning to undocumented immigrants and assuming that it is because of them that we are struggling. i just find that very sad. it is the kind of political

argument that is not about, ok, how do we ensure that everybody has a decent quality of life. instead, it is shifting our anxieties toward blaming a particular group of people that we do not have a better in that sense. host: let's go to anthony. good morning. caller: i am so glad that i got a chance to talk about this subject. my take on it is three-fold. minimum wage -- americans voted against their own best interest when they elected donald trump. he wants to lower the minimum wage, ok. a lot of people scream about food stamps. you are not getting a lot of

food from food stamps. some people are getting $50 a month. try to live off of $50 a month for one person. another thing, i continue hearing about people talking about minorities getting food stamps and subsidies. there are more white people in america on these programs and programs than there are blacks. i mean the entire black race here. the thing i really want to say is this country needs to start trying to address racism because this has been going on too long, and racism is not something that people are born with. we teach our children these things, and we have to understand that if you want to succeed in life, you work hard. you don't just climb up, make yourself feel better to put somebody else down. that does not help your situation at all. we need to start spending less money -- we spent almost $1 billion every year on defense. the next 10 countries don't. we need to start spending that money on education here in our country.

that thing about donald trump talking about blocking immigrants, the plan he has come of those jobs, 25 million jobs -- from what i understand, they will have to import people because we do not educate our kids well enough. when you look at the systems around the country, the water systems are bad, the school systems are bad, and now we are getting people having to start digging holes, digging up coal and everything. if a person wants to go in get black lung, thinking about a short-time deal for their lives, what about their children? host: anthony, thank you. we will get a response. professor cramer? guest: thank you for the call. several things -- just be notion that we have not dealt with racism and we need to deal with racism, i agree with 100%, so thanks. also, with respect to education,

a really key, central issue, and what has really interested me in my fieldwork in wisconsin is just the -- it is a pervasive sense that people want a high quality of education in the community, and what i find really interesting, really important for our debate about whether we are going to put funding into education or not, is that there is a perception that, of course, we value education, and it is really important to us, but if we pay in, if we are asking higher taxes for education, that money is not going to come back to our community. so there is the sense that people value education, yet they do not believe that higher taxes is actually going to improve education for people like them. i think that is a really important sentiment to pay attention to. but i agree with the caller that education is central to progress in any society, and i am, you

know, obviously i believe in education. i am a university professor. i would note devote my life to it if i didn't, and i am very proud of public school teachers. you know, just speaking personally, i am with you. i think education is central, and we need to value it. host: our conversation with katherine cramer is part of a weeklong series here on "washington journal" as we bring you some of the leading authors we have featured this past year on c-span2's booktv, and on our sunday "q&a" program. you teach political science and history at the university of wisconsin. what are your classes? guest: i teach mainly political science, public opinion, political psychology, and this semester, i'm winding up a class

on citizenship. it is called citizenship, democracy, and difference, and it is called a service learning class, which is a class in which students are engaged in the community as part of the course work. so they are learning through working with the local city government and with the local community center about how to put their ideas of good citizenship into practice. so, hello to the students. it has been an awesome course. host: this is a tweet from jan, playing on the title of your book. she said, "the resentment vote is out of the box. it will never be put back in." guest: hmm. that is the big question right now, right? i certainly hope it will, because basing a democracy,

on resentment does not bode well for the future. host: joe from crystal lake, illinois, good morning. caller: good morning. host: tell us where that is located in relation to chicago. caller: 75 miles away. number one -- thanks for taking my call. the public school system is in shambles. i talk to college graduates, and it is like talking to people that just are in the middle of their freshman year in high school. i have had many people in my generation -- i am 75 years old -- tell me that they are sick and tired of talking to adults that -- and they are going to talk to them like they are babies. they cannot have their way. and another thing, and you are a professor, and you could not see the momentum that donald trump was getting across the nation?

good grief. i mean, you have got to go back to school yourself. anybody with any common sense whatsoever with the -- all you would have to do is drive through the industrial parks in rural america, and there is nothing but vacancies and empty buildings. one more thing, i heard president obama talking to a crowd prior to the election, and he said, "i know you'll be disappointed when ptt passes and i send jobs to vietnam," and the crowd just did not say anything. they did not apply, they were like, it is hard to explain. someone should have gotten up and started shouting, what do you mean? host: joe, thank you. we will get a response. professor cramer?

guest: i do not know some much about that statement about president obama's statement at the event. i guess i will just refer the caller, not to assign you homework, but to refer you to my book, and actually what my book is about is sort of the momentum that you talked about us professors missing, and about just recognizing the sense of discontent across many parts of the nation. in particular, my focus was on wisconsin. thanks for encouraging me to go back to school. i love school, so i am all for it. thanks for your call. host: why do you think governor scott walker's presidential bid ended so early? guest: hmm. well, i don't know for sure, but in part of it may have been that

he has done extremely well here in wisconsin in terms of gaining support. but i think from being in a spotlight in a statewide way to being in a spotlight in a national way -- it is a very different set of concerns that you have to address and a different level of intensity. and i think, you know, perhaps that was maybe too early of a jump for him. i am not sure. but i also think the nature of this republican primary was very different. i mean, with the extensive field, the number of candidates, and also the presence of donald trump. clearly he is a different kind of politician who shook up this campaign in many ways. and i think the way in which he drew a lot of the attention to

himself just from the start meant that what the other republican candidates were dealing with was, you know, trying to make a name for themselves in a very small amount of airtime, basically. so it could be the mix of those things and probably other things that i am not aware of. host: a quick question from mary potter. please ask how twitter and social media affected the outcome. did you delve into that area at all? guest: sort of by asking people where they are getting their information, but currently, i am dialing into with it with some colleagues here at the university of wisconsin, chris wells, others and i hear are are interested in that.

i do not have a great answer for you now, but hopefully i will in a short amount of time. host: up next with our guest, katherine cramer, "the politics of resentment," good morning. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam veteran as well, a white woman. i have lived in the country, city, overseas, i have lived in many different places. the number one bias probably all over the world is not race, is gender, and i am wondering why we are not talking more about that. there is a different mentality in the country versus the city, and i have seen it -- people do not trust women. women do not trust women. and i think it is something that we need to think about. the reason why i believe trump was voted in was because it was a woman running against him. people don't use their intelligence when it comes to voting. a lot of people voted with their

emotions, and i believe that that is why trump won. and there is a difference in the mentality between the people who live in the country and the people who live in the city. host: thank you, teresa. we will get a response. you guest: thanks for bringing up gender, sister. i agree, it is a huge issue. it is interesting how little it was talked about in this campaign, and at the same time what a massive role it played. i do not think it is a coincidence that donald trump and some of his, you know, kind of shockingly not -- gender equal things that he said on the campaign trail -- it is not a

surprise, and it is not a coincidence that he was running against, you know, the first viable, national party female candidate. the contrast -- i mean, the dynamic that you mentioned that people were uncomfortable with a woman as president i think is something that we really have to come to terms with. and public opinion polls say that an overwhelming amount of people say they would vote for a female candidate for president if it is a very good candidate, and yet i do think there are many ways in which the country was not willing to elect a female president. here, i should back up to say i am thinking mainly here not of public opinion polls, because like i said, public opinion polls say the majority of voters are ready to vote for a woman

for president, and yet i am thinking mainly of my fieldwork, in which it is not a cross-section of wisconsinites, not a cross-section of people in the united states, but i have often been in conversation with people talking about their perceptions of hillary clinton, very negative perceptions of her, and their thoughts on how having a woman as president of the country, almost the exact phrasing is they are not ready for it yet. it is very interesting the way in which we don't talk about it much, but it is a big issue, and it is present even though we are not talking about it. host: derek, our last caller from columbus, ohio. good morning. you are on with katherine cramer. caller: good morning, and good morning, mrs. cramer. i have a couple of comments in a question for you. i will start by suggesting that

donald trump has used for years and years the same sort of methods used by dictators all over the world. most especially adolf hitler comes to mind, where he creates red herrings, such as the people who worship islam or the mexicans, they get all of the people who were already prone to the anti-u.s. government, pseudo christians, to make them the big demon bad guys. they are hoodwinked, and they cannot see that. all they want is a bad guy, and misogyny and race and that sort of thing, i have never understood how people, both democratic and republican, are always voting against their best interests, or they become

apathetic and they don't vote. one comment, off track, the character in your face tells me you're a fighter, and you have been fighting for a long time, but you are working against inalienable odds. i just want to make the comment that you should keep fighting the good fight. there are those of us around who really support your philosophy. and my question to you, and you may have to write another book to answer it entirely, why are so many people so beguiled and so full of ignorance, i guess, that they cannot see the demon when it is coming? i.e. that they are working against the interest of all people. is it race, is it hatred, they don't like the government? everybody knew that hillary is no angel, but she was a much better choice than a donald trump. and not only the people who voted for trump, but the people who failed to vote for hillary, what do you think caused that

sort of thing? merry christmas to everybody. host: thank you for the comments and the questions. we will get a response. guest: thanks for the call. that's not a great way to start it? -- i guess i am pausing because i personally have found it helpful to encourage myself to not make judge -- not assume people are voting against their interests, because what i know about interests is in the realm of politics, there is very seldom something that we can objectively define as someone's true interest. and oftentimes we are defining the our interests in pretty subjective ways. so that is kind of an abstract way of saying don't be quick to say that people are voting

against their interests. if we are going to repair our country, we have to understand why people are voting the way that they are, which i realize is the root of your question -- why are people voting the way that they are? i think much of the motivation that i have heard in people voting for trump and supporting trump is the perception that the system is so broken, that of course we need someone saying he is going to come in and shake things up and change things drastically, drain the swamp, if you will, right? and part of that, the contrast between trump and hillary

clinton, on that dimension, oftentimes these folks are perceiving that hillary clinton is part of the problem, and she has been a part of the federal government in a way for many years, the 30 years that donald trump often mentioned, right? i know you will say in response, well, donald trump is not exactly draining the swamp so far, so are they voting against their interests? again, it is partly, i mean, understanding the nature of the depth of discontent that would lead people to vote for someone even though there are a parts of what he is saying and supporting that they do not agree with, it is a mix of many things, but for me, the issue is just the level of discontent, the feeling like so many different, kind of powerful structures and people are against you, i think that

feeling is what oftentimes motivates people to vote for someone who other people see as destructive and see as someone who will take away the rights and liberties of other people. you are right, though, that there is a whole other book, if not volumes of books, to be written on this discussion. it seems to me to be kind of the central question that we are facing right now. host: if you write that next book, we would love to have you back. katherine cramer, the book is called "the politics of resentment." a professor of political science at the university of wisconsin, joining us from madison. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. and thanks to your callers. >> next week "washington journal" will devote its programs to key issues facing the trump administration.

we will look at national defense issues, including challenges facing his team ahead, and a mattis.ook at james then how congress and the trump administration could change trade laws to create or stave jobs. environmental policy, how climate issues like be impacted by the congress and the incoming administration. thursday we will talk about immigration how trump and the new congress might change immigration policy. friday, we will look at the future of the affordable care act and how the republican congress and the new administration will repeal and keyace the aca in the actors. jack bergman spoke with

c-span for a house freshmen profile interview. a retired lieutenant general in the u.s. marine corps, he represents michigan's first congressional district. it is in the northeastern part of the lower peninsula, and includes the entire upper peninsula. >> general jack bergman, representative-elect for michigan's first district, republican. this is your -- you are here in washington for orientation week. how has it been going? representative-elect bergman: great. it has been busy meeting all the new representatives and the staffers, who are going to do most of the organizational work that allow us to do legislative work. >> talk about your military career.

when did you begin it, and talk about moving through the ranks. mr. bergman: i graduated from college in 1969 and joined the marine corps through an officer candidate program. went to flight training, flew helicopters in vietnam, and then got out from active duty, but i stayed in the reserves. while i was a reservist in the 1980's and 1990's, i flew airplanes for northwest airlines and started a few small businesses in the medical equipment arena. but moved up through the ranks by just doing what other good marines and service people do, which is take on the tough missions and get them done. >> you were a commander in the marine corps forces reserve for how many years? mr. bergman: i was given that job after spending two years in washington, d.c., promoted to lieutenant general, moved to new orleans two months before hurricane katrina.

finally took off the new form. it was a fantastic experience. we have sites all over the country, 100,000 people responsibility, and we were very involved in the mobilization of reserves and guardsmen for the operation iraqi freedom and enduring freedom. it was a busy time. >> talk about how that experience will help you representing michigan. mr. bergman: what will help is i had a chance, number one, the lead at the highest levels, and was importantly, to work with all groups, with different countries, different coalitions, different groups may have different viewpoints but if they are all coming together for a common purpose, to get something done, that will greatly help me here in working with all of the congressmen from around the country. i am only one of 435, but we will come to consensus on the

tough decisions to move our country forward. >> what are some of the issues you want to work on? mr. bergman: we got a whole lot of debt and the debt is one of the biggest challenges. we have to tackle the debt and make some tough but wise decisions on behalf of the american people. we have unprecedented national security issues we have not had previously. all you have to do is look at the world situation. we will have to do without to make sure we keep our people safe. we just have to make sure that our people have jobs and opportunities so they can raise a family like my parents did, after persevering through the great depression and world war ii. in the world they handed us, we have to ask the question, what is the world we are handing in my case, our eight grandkids?

>> what impact did your parents impact have on you? mr. bergman: i was raised by depression era parents, met in 1938. my father was in world war ii in the south pacific. i was raised in a small town, middle-class family who we had all the love and discipline we needed. we had values and faith, but my parents always expected outcomes. it was not good enough for them for me to come home with an a. congratulations. now, what do you do with it? that will serve me well. >> why? mr. bergman: because of the constituents, when i promised the constituents of the first district is that we are going to talk about outcomes. it is not just coming here to represent them, it as what have we act accomplished? >> when did you decide to run and why? mr. bergman: about a year ago my

wife and i were here and realized our representative was going to retire, so it was an open seat. we had already talking about what is the world we were leaving our grandkids so we do threat we would throw our hat in. >> what do you hope to accomplish in your first year or two? mr. bergman: representing the constituents of the first district, they elected me and are writing my paycheck and will write my report card. never i can do to make sure they can raise a family, have a job, live where they want to live in some of the most beautiful geography in our country with all the natural beauty we have, if i can accomplish those things that they say at the end of two years, he did not get it all done, but he certainly had a good start. >> anyone or anything you are looking forward to doing in

washington? >> just working. as a marine, give me the mission. give me some basic tools and i will figure out the way. and already, the people i have met here, now all we have to do is figure out how to work to make the tough decisions. i am just looking forward to the challenges. >> anything that has surprised you so far? mr. bergman: not really. not really. i guess, maybe one thing. i always knew the staffs would be good and professional out here, but the interactions with the staff from all different arenas, all different areas, i know we are going to have a lot of good work we get done and we are going to have some fun in the process, and we are all going to learn. >> thank you very much for your time. mr. bergman: my pleasure. thank you. the transition of government on c-span.

we will take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span, on demand at www.c-span.org, or listen on our free c-span radio at. -- app. >> tonight the un security council eats to consider a resolution on israeli settlements in the west bank. after that, russian president holds a news conference in moscow where he is asked about topics, occluding the u.s. election and the war in syria. on friday, the un security council passed a resolution that calls for an end to israeli settlements in the west bank. the u.s. was the only country to abstain from the