tv French Ambassador on U.S.- France Relations CSPAN November 1, 2018 5:26pm-6:25pm EDT
re-elected here for maine's 129th legislature, i would look forward to sponsoring that again and getting that in for the people of maine and for the people of the united states. >> and what i would like to see the midterms elections is that the economy stay the way it is. it's doing really well. we would love to see it continue, at least i would. really concerned about that. and as far as the tax implications, congress just passed a tax package. it's really going to benefit a lot of americans, and i think the investments are going to come and hopefully we see that after the midterm elections, that those continue to come and make america -- keep america strong. >> voices from the states, part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. next, the french ambassador to the u.s. talking about the state of u.s.-france relations. this was hosted by the hudson institute in washington, d.c. it's an hour.
>> ambassador, we are so pleased and honored to have you with us today as you were reminding me earlier, america's first treaty alliance was with france. it was such a stressful event that we didn't sign another one until 1949, i think. but france is america's oldest diplomatic relationship. at times, it's been one of the stormiest, but over the centuries, it has endured, and the french have a tradition of sending very interesting and informative observers to the united states. we've probably learned more about ourselves from one frenchman than from whole university departments of american studies.
in any case, i was hoping you might want to start off today with just some thoughts about the state of the world, u.s.-french relations, whatever is on your mind. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure. u.s. and what is striking is the first time, i think, in my life -- i don't know -- does it work? >> yes of can you hear him? >> not as well, no. >> we hear you but not the ambassador. >> we're checking. is it on? >> is it working? >> yes. >> okay. so, what i was saying is i think it's the first time in my life that the political life in the
u.s. is so comparable to the european political life. i'm not sure it's a compliment but it's a reality. and -- which says a lot about the fact that the crisis that we are all facing is really a crisis of our western democracies. whatever the national characteristics, you know, the reality is that in all democracies, we are facing the same rebellion of part of our voters. >> switch. >> barely off the mike also. >> so, going back to what i was just saying, saying that our two societies, our two -- our democracies are facing the same
crisis, and -- which leads, of course, to political tensions in both countries. we have two presidents who, however different they may be by their age or by their profile, and by their political leanings actually have been both of them have been elected as, in a sense, populist leaders, which means as leaders who have been elected -- in the case of the french, in the french case, it was a populist campaign on the centrist platform, a pro-european platform, but fundamentally, president macron was not a politician and you know, in france, to be president, usually, you have to be around for 30 years. in this case, he has never been elected. he was not a politician and
nevertheless, he was elected. and it may explain why our two presidents have a good relationship. it's because they have two mavericks who have been elected through the same anger of the voters. so, once you have -- that's the first reality. the second one is that the president, the french president, has a strong majority in the parliament. he's there for three years. he's very well determined to reform the country, and -- which creates a particular situation in europe, a bit by chance, which means that france has been, by default, right now, the natural interlocutor of the united states, because the uk is facing the very trying challenge of brexit, which is of course --
really is calling all its political energy to solve this problem in a complete way for the british interest and on the other side, you have seen this morning the declaration of the german chancellor. so, it means that, again, by a sort of default, we are, for the moment, a very important interlocutor of the united states, and as you know, in politics, you have to be pragmatic. it's not a question of feelings, and in a sense, we are delivering. what does it mean that we are delivering? it means that the french soldiers are right now on the main battlefields against terror, we are with the americans. we are deploying 4,000 soldiers in africa right now, facing the terrorists in the region and the americans are supporting us, and we are the main contributor to
the military operation, side-by-side with the americans, i should say, simply because the security is critical for our own national security. so, you have seen president macron was the first one to be invited to a state visit by president trump and the relationship between the two countries is quite strong. so, which means that so far, we have been sort of good at avoiding, really, confrontations and reaching what i call a gentleman's disagreements. and -- which is apparently a diplomatic quality. so, that was my short introduction. >> short and, i think, very, very informative. i would like to follow up with your observations about the
united states, because you -- as an ambassador, you have a unique kind of position where you talk to people on all sides of the political divide. you hear the candid views of republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, never trumpers and administration officials. how do you read the american political situation today? how much trouble are we in? >> no, in a sense, i am privileged because i'm not an american in observing what is happening in the u.s. in the time of intense polarization. i should say, for me, the first element i want to emphasize is how emotional are the americans today on both sides. and -- which means that really,
basically, people are launching epithets at each other, you know, or make -- you know, really, are more in a sort of moralistic tone than a political one, and i think it's especially i should say, for the democratic side, for the democrats, you know, really, i think that what has happened in this country, what is happening in all the democracies is calling for a political response so i guess it's not enough to say that i don't like the person. i think it's much more important to say, actually, i don't like his or her politics and actually, if i was elected, that would be the politics, which means taking it seriously, to account seriously what the voters have said, the anxiety they have expressed, the demands they have presented, and to try
to basically articulate the policy. so, my advice would be less -- be less moralistic, which is very french, be more -- but be more political. >> that's right. so, that's very good. french ambassador advises americans, be more french. it's probably good advice right now. you mentioned brexit, and this is clearly an issue that has been rumbling along for a long time. the eu seems to have been moving a bit in the direction of a softer approach, the british, on their part, don't seem to have much of a consensus at all. where do you think this is going, and is there any kind of a positive role the u.s. can play or should we just sort of
wait it out? >> of course we do regret, you know, the decision of the british. it's, frankly, according to us, it's a lose-lose situation on both sides of the discussion, the british or the eu people. and it's a waste of energy, especially at a time when the eu is facing so many different challenges. it's a self-inflicted crisis. the british -- the british have decided to leave. it's their decision. secondly, they have also set red lines. they said, we don't want any competence of the european court of justice. we don't want free movement of people, and we want to be able to negotiate our own trade deals. so, for now, for more than one year, we have said, considering your red lines, what we can offer to you is a free trade
agreement the way we have signed a free trade agreement with canada. of course, for the british, it's a loss. they had full access to the wider free trade arena in the world, and now they are going to have, you know, to be treated like the canadians to watwards european union, and as they are good diplomats, they want to have their cake and eat it, so basically, they have been knocking at our door now for one year trying really to say, oh, we want to be more on that, more on that, so that's the first problem. the european union is a set of norms. you know, you take off the norms, there is nothing, really, left of the european union. it's not a territory. it's not a nation. it's a set of norms that the member states have accepted. so, we can't change the norms which are the basis of the european union for the sake of the -- of the uk.
so, we have always repeated to the uk, free trade agreement, free trade agreement, but nothing else considering your red lines. the second problem is, of course, the british are negotiating with themselves because there is a lot of disagreements between them. you know, really, it reminds me when, as a poor french diplomat, i was negotiating with the americans. the americans are first, what you call the intra-agency process, so you have this process, interagency, usually you are waiting the result of the process during three months and at the end, the americans are arriving with the result and they say, oh, please, don't touch it. don't negotiate it. you know, it was too tough to negotiate. the british are doing a bit the same. you know, really, they are spending weeks and months, you know, fighting, infighting, negotiating, and after that, you know, coughing up the blood, they came to us saying, please
don't. of course we are not obliged to accept it. so it's a complicated negotiation because of the british political situation because the complexity of the issue. you know, in 40 years, hundreds of agreements, actually, have been negotiated between the uk and the eu and you have to cut all these links so it's really very messy. and when you have a negotiation, also, it's very important to know that closer to -- you get to the date line, more melodrama you have. so, there will be -- there is melodrama. there will be melodrama. doors will be slammed. chests will be banged. you know, really, that's the part of a negotiation. but i'm quite -- really, i do believe that at the end of the day, we will have an agreement. it's really in the interest of both sides that we will have an agreement.
as you know, now, the best point is the irish border, because if the uk is leaving the european union, there will be a hard border on the irish border, and -- which will be contrary to the agreement which was negotiated when the uk was in the eu, so it was quite possible simply not to have a border anymore between northern ireland and ireland. now it will be more complicated. so, that's the point of the negotiation. again, there will be still a period of tension, periods of tension, but i'm quite optimistic about an agreement. >> we've talked about the difficult negotiating partner to one side of france and then on the other, you have another, i think, where president macron, really at the beginning of his
term in office, made a very impassioned call for a renewal of franco-german cooperation, and the -- almost a relaunch of the european union. since then, and at the time, the germans were saying, this is very nice, but we're having an election, talk to us after the election. then after the election, well, we have to have a colation, talk to us when the coalition is formed. and the coalition was formed. the coalition is still very new, and we need some time, and now it looks like, well, our coalition is breaking up, and we still can't talk very much about europe. how do you get a process going when -- because in some ways, this is an even better strategy for not negotiating than the british or the american one. >> you know, what is striking for somebody of my generation is the question of the future of
the european union. for my generation, the european union was a moral imperative, something that nobody could really even discuss. we had been invaded three times in 70 years by the germans. our territory had been devastated, and so we reach, i guess, two conclusions. the first one was nuclear deterrence. we needed nuclear deterrence because in time of danger, you are alone and we were alone in 1940, and the second one was never again. and so, it was the reconciliation with germany. i was educated, like all the french, in a fiercely anti-german family, but -- and that was, of course, the feeling of all the feelings of all the french, and nevertheless, there was a sort of will to say,
again, never again, we have to build europe, to build europe. and the point maybe is that we have been too successful, which means all the young europeans, the idea that germany could be a threat, of course, doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't make any sense. so the question mark is, why european union? what is the use of european union? so, you can say it's very good for prosperity because it's the larger free trade area in the world, but frankly, it's not with that that you excite the enthusiasm of the crowds. and especially at a time where there is what the populist -- the populist wave, and here, the populist wave, as washington, d.c., and wall street as targets. in france and europe, it's brussels, because brussels appears as, you know, really the beacon of globalism. you know, really opening the borders, really signing free trade agreements with everybody,
so the populist anger is mainly directed at not only but mainly directed against brussels. so, the question that we have all -- we all have to answer is how to convince our citizens that european union remains of critical importance for our security and also for our prosperity. and again, the jury is out. at the same time, you should -- you may see that countries which are actually experiencing populist or neopopulist, really, governments like hundred dgary poland actually are not talking about leaving the european union and prime minister has been very keen on saying, really, they don't want to leave the european
union. and also, beyond all this name calling of -- the name calling of our times, the fact is the european union is muddling through in a very eu way, which is not very glorious but it's muddling through, creating, for instance, you know, border guards, european border guards, and trying to also respond to the anxieties of the citizens and including on immigration. so, again, it's tough, and -- but we have to move forward. and going to your question, it's true that macron has really basically -- has made the -- europe has, in a sense, is waving the flag of europe, and it's not very easy. you said because usually we are working with germany and it's true that germany is going through, right now, for
particular moment, but you have also had the italian elections. so, in a sense, what will be a test will be the european elections. there will be elections to european parliament, i think, in may, may 2019, and macron is trying to set the stage in terms of nationalist against europeans, and he's trying to create -- he has been creating a party with other european leaders, especially leaders, the prime minister of netherlands, for instance, or scandinavian leaders, really to have -- to present, to sort of center or center of the left platform really against the nationalist. and the result of the elections will be important in themselves because european parliament has some powers, but also the
message that these elections are going to send. but you know, there is a book, a book has been written about macron called "at the same time" because he is, you know, usually when you ask a question to the president, he is say, oh, yes, the answer is a, and you say, oh, that's a right wing answer, but immediately after that, he said, at the same time, it could be b, which is a left wing answer, which means that he is trying to really make a sort of synthesis of the different possible responses. he's not prisoner of political -- really a political line. as i have said, it's different. he has been elected in different way and he wants to be
different. so yeah, there are some measures. you say, oh, that's right wing. some measures, it's left wing. in a sense, he has understood that a debate is not so much right against left, that the debate, as you know about what the far right is saying, globalist against nationalist and he wants tock pa be part of debate. he's accepting this debate, but at the same time, for instance, on immigration, there was -- he has a bill voted by the french parliament, which was quite restrictive. and also, he is using also, you know, the signal -- the symbolic signals also, for instance, of commitment to the nation. you know, the flag, national ceremonies, the celebration of the centennial of the first world war, so he's also aware of the anxieties of our citizens and trying to respond to these anxieties.
>> talking about italy, then, the third problematic neighbor of france in a sense. how do you see ---- how will france respond to the italian position on budget? >> i am going to give a courageous answer. that is the confidence of the commission. really, first as you can guess our relationship, our relationship with italy is totally critical for us. william frenzel is the first, the second investor in italy, our major companies are really linked. there is also that we have the question of immigration from the mediterranean sea.
so now, again, name-calling between paris and rome, at the end of the day we will have to cooperate. i noticed as i have said for the prime minister of hungary that the italians have never said that they want to leave the european union. the question they are asking in a sense, it has been a question for some years, which is to say, that the austerity policy which is -- has been imposed on europe , you have a lot of people who are considering that this austerity policy in a sense had a destructive consequences on the economy of the member states of the euro zone. it is
a debate which is going for all of europe p in countries -- all of european countries. it's an imposed austerity and we have to put into it. >> i would like to ask you one more question on my own behalf and then gives the audience a chance. this would be, we noticed a dramatic turn in the restaurant -- in the us chinese relationship. from where you are sitting, vice president pence from a couple weeks ago gave a striking speech about you is chinese -- you asked chinese relationship -- united states and chinese relationship. there have been a number of other steps before and after
that suggest a turn of united states policy toward a much tougher approach to china. from the european perspective, from a french perspective, how does all of this look and how do you see this line of administration policy shifting world politics if at all? >> there are a lot of people who are saying basically that our politics are back. i think that never left the states. -- the stage. we believe it's power politics because so far for the last decades our politics were about winning the favor of the west and especially of the us. the fact is we are simply seeing a rebalancing of the world between world powers. obviously china is on the rise and that
is less obviously because we can discuss it in comparative terms the uss in decline. the us -- qs -- the us is in decline. it's always a difficult moment. i want to find a new balance between this emerging china and on the other side the us and the other powers like japan. it's not a normal -- abnormal that we hear attentions. for the audience, it has always been the case, for the audience they know what is poor -- power politics. we consider that, a way of civilizing the power politics.
we may be hiding under a cloak of decency, under the balance of power, but we also create frames for kanosh -- negotiating and that is a reason why so much is committed to international organizations but without any naoveti. we are not naove. sooner or later we will have to -- expecting a definition of this relationship which is now the measure of relationship between china and the us. there was a sentiment, it was a moment that speech. the trains were there. on our side of course we do
hope that after this crystallization there will be between the china in the u.s. there will be a dialogue really leading to partial deals or ingredient -- agreements. i think it is in the interest of everybody to which agreements are comp demised between -- compromise between china in the u.s. we have told the us that on the trade issues we are ready to work with the us because it is true, there are questions which are raised by the chinese behavior. the question of intellectual property, market access, public procurement, and there was also other questions about cyber security. we consider that we should set the standards
together. if we don't do it with the us the risk is that china will set its own standards. which would not be very friendly toward the democratic values and toward our national interests. we also have ideas about reforming because we consider again -- this administration and this president are raising a lot of legitimate questions. the behavior of china in the trade field for instance, we have been whispering about it for the last 20 years. it is a good question. the wto, and the previous administration was already unhappy about the wto. it was not appointing judges to the court on the wto.
why not reform the wto? we are ready to work with the us to reform the wto. again, there is this very special unique relationship between the two powers but on the other side we are already as i said on -- on some's issues -- issues to work on the west. >> thank you, and lightning as always. i try to call in as many people as i can. let me remind you though that you need to ask questions. the questions are short statements that would be punctuated by a question mark. please note -- no statements or long comments. identify yourself briefly. we have microphones. wait for the microphone. this young man -- i'm sorry probably you will look young to
be -- me. >> i was wondering what is your take on [ indiscernible ]. >> on the deal we have a fundamental political disagreement with the united states. it's fundamental. it is not a question of business , it's a question of we have to agree. we consider that the decision of the us to get out of the iran deal was a major mistake. period. this means that we do believe that the iran deal was not perfect but it was -- and gave us a lot of limiting the air
and nuclear program -- the iran nuclear program. we have told the americans and the previous a ministration that beyond iran the nuclear issue there were a lot of other issues that we had to face as far as foreign policy. this administration, about -- about an agreement about how to handle the terrorists. there was a negation -- negotiation going on. we considered we were at 90% of an agreement. so our position was clear, we keep and actually implemented very robustly the iran deal. at the same time we work together the europeans, and the european union, we address the other issues which are real issues.
in a sense, real issues for europeans. we were there. this administration has decided overnight to denounce the iran deal and basically to sweep away the negotiation that we had been conducting. >> okay, so here we are. what we are trying to do and what we are repeating today ministration is are the iranians leaving the iran deal, what are we going to do x? basically when we signed the iran deal it was basically to say, really to avoid facing the alternative between bombing iran and iran bomb. that was what we were trying to avoid and we believed disagreement was a way of
avoiding -- disagreement was a way of avoiding an alternative. they are trying to convince the iranians to stay in the deal. so far they have accepted it. when the new american sanctions and apparently they will eat the iranians on november 4, i don't know what the iranians will do. again, if the iranians decide suddenly to go back to massive iranian or rich -- enrichment what are you going to do? it is really -- that is the real issue. from the moment we have convinced iranians we have a very intense dialogue with iranians. of course it's really politics. it's also domestic politics. the fact that the americans are sanctioning oil corporations where they are engaging to make
a trade with iran, no setting costs are really the normal trade, as of course political consequences. our public opinion -- that the us will punish foreign companies doing legitimate business in a foreign country. it's more and more difficult to accept and we have also to take into account. what we have been telling the americans was okay on one side the nuclear deal, this agreement. we disagree so let's see if whether we can work together on the other issues. but it is also difficult in our side because of the public opinion and also that we are expecting our american friends to make
some gestures. for instance the humanitarian roots, those are not sanctioned. the fact is that the banks are so terrified by the sanctions that they don't want to do anything with the rent -- iran. it means that there is a strong risk that there will be shortage of -- in iran. if we don't do something positive to solve this problem. if the difference difficult -- it's a difficult -- we have the same diagnostic of the iranian behavior. as you know we have expelled iranians because they were trying to organize a terrorist act on the french territory. the french we have been always very tough with the rent -- iran but we consider that this
way of what has been decided by the united states makes our action against financing iran more complicated. >> more questions. let's see, in the back there. yes. we will get a microphone too. introduce yourself. >> thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today. i was wondering if you have any insight on the french russian relationship and more specifically if france have any hopes for the upcoming jump putin summit and the ins treaty in general. thank you. >> i start with the remark, i don't know if it is indicative of people of the united states. on friday you had a summit in
istanbul between the french president the german chancellor the turkish president and the russian president. this is to talk about syria. france germany turkey russia. don't you think that somebody is missing there? it's very true -- it's very strange because for us it was a major event. it was hardly covered by the american press. i want only really two emphasize this point because in our embassy we had to send a report about the reaction of the american press. frankly it was not -- the relationship is in the sense for europeans as you may know it's platitude but russia is an important country. at the time we don't want to --
we don't see russia as the ussr revisited. the only reason that the russian power is not a global threat. basically if you had the budget of germany france and the uk, it's more than twice the russian military budget. russia is a partner. russia is also raising some political problems in crimea and ukraine and what was georgia. we have problems with russia but russia is not a major you reunifying threat the way the ussr was. second point, our trade with russia is 10 times the american trade with russia. it means also for us we have legitimate business interests in russia.
business interests which are quite important. by the way, the sanctions that we have -- that have been imposed on russia after the annexation of crimea and the interference into ukraine has been much or -- more -- than the americas. it was a major provider to the russians. we have done the job. what is foreign policy? foreign policy, or your anniversaries. -- anniversaries. we have defined whether president putin could be compromised the way we see our interest. to be frank when president trump was elected, we considered it a very good idea
to have a personal relationship between your resident in the russian president. it is what the president macron has been trying to do. it is exactly what happened in istanbul. because here we are going into the conflict in syria. i saw syria -- and for some legitimate reasons the administrations have limited their intervention to fighting isis basically. the two administrations have not been very active going
further than fighting isis. for us what is happening in sera -- syria has consequences on our national security. either through migration but also because of terrorism. this means our country's going to syria and coming back. for these reasons we could feel much more urgency maybe then the americans in solving this complex. the fact is, whatever we like, the fact is in military terms some people would say that the russian regime has the upper hand and that we are really close to the last stage of the crisis which is the fall of idlib. it's 2 million civilians,
it will be more than 1 million of refugees going to turkey and on top of that thousands of jihadis scattered. you can understand that for europeans it's a totally unacceptable prospect. since the turks and russians have been working on this issue , our german friends, we have seen what we can do on idlib and also on a political transition which could be set and maybe a piece process in syria. we do not have any illusion about russia. we see the military activity in the baltic airspace, the
military activity in the north sea, actually we have our military presence. we are continuing our nato italians in the baltic state. our forces also trained in poland. at the same time we have to talk with the russians. it is what we are trying to do. the idea of having a summit in venice cyrus between the president, it's a good idea. then at -- buenos aires between the president it's a good idea. >> okay, microphone? >> thank you. what has been the response of the administration to your european request on making a bigger effort to exempt
humanitarian goods from the sanctions and how bad or big an impact is november 4 going to have on transatlantic relations is the us pursues extra territorial actions affect -- against european companies? >> is for the humanitarian issues, we have not actually yet received an answer. for instance, the question is, the designation may be off of the bank which will be allowed to make -- to have a relationship. for the moment the administration says, we said publicly that humanitarian, it's possible to send food to the iranians. our question was you need to be more positive to say i want to do it. because if you don't say -- if you say i want to do it then
the banks will not do it. we are waiting for the technical answer. we know that the americans are thinking about it. as for sanctions on november 4 don't know what would be their extent but i should say now that in a sense we have swallowed 95% of the potion. -- bitter potion. if there's something unexpected, i don't think that november 4 will be -- bring more bitterness in this field but americans may surprise us. that is the quality of this country. >> okay one more question. yes. >> thank you my name is michael smith. i am at the washington free
beacon i am a french national but a recent american citizen. the european order of human rights ruled the austrian case about blasphemy, that the woman comments about mohammed, sentenced her to a fine or time in prison. i wonder what your government's response has been in a wonder also with respect to recognizing the genesis of the court and of that routing -- ruling if a french citizen were found to be responsible for that same crime anywhere in the european union, with the french expect incarceration? >> i think it is typically a very political issue. to be frank, i read it in the press but i did not read the decision of the court. as you know, it may make a real difference. i don't know what is the exact text of the decision so i really
cannot answer to your question. as representative to the united nations, i have spent 5 years defending the rights of the french men to insult jesus christ which is -- charlie had insulted in a very crude manner mohammed the prophet. he insulted much more really, the poor pope that he submitted to a lot of indignities. i could not describe here. there is a big tradition of the french in france as you know to be anti-
religious to be frank. people don't understand it. it's one of our major differences. your secularism is to protect the region from the state. it was really your founding fathers. really your secularism was to prevent the state to impose an established church while our secularism was to protect the state from the church. in one century of fighting between the front revolution -- the french revolution and the catholic church enough state. there is a sort of twist in our secularism that we have to recognize. you will never see a french president swearing on the bible. that will be the end of his political career. it's very different. again, i have to look at this.
i was also struck by this decision but when you are struck by such a decision saying basically you can punish somebody because he has insulted someone, you say no it's not that simple. it's not possible that the european court of justice has taken this position. i want to have a look at it and answered your question after that. you are french. i saw your writing i should -- was sure you are french. >> twitter is an interesting medium and i think the ambassador and i have both found that twitter is sometimes best avoided.
>> yes exactly. >> all right, will listen i think we are all grateful to the ambassador for really generous and open conversation, diplomacy at its best. i hope to see you here again soon for another conversation with another one of our washington-based diplomats. thank you so much. congress returns a week after the midterm elections on tuesday, november 13. the house is back to work on legislation funding the federal government passed the december 7 deadline. the senate returns for votes on coast guard programs and a nomination to the federal reserve board. watch the house live on c-span and the senate live on c-span 2.
a quarter of a century ago c-span launched our most -- the c-span bus program has paved the way for our grassroots community outreach by engaging students teachers and citizens in all 50 states. since 1993 the state-of-the-art mobile classroom and production studio has reached into communities demoting our conference of television programming. c-span educational researchers such as speed -- c- span.org and the c-span digital library and to highlight cable sub -- offering. we are grateful to the cable industry for making c-span possible and for allowing us to open our doors to visitors all across the country. >> we have been very fortunate at jenna adams the c-span bus visits us on multiple occasions and have been able to bring a variety of classes down there. they have gotten to experience all the great things that the c-
span bus has to offer. >> the kids they loved it. i almost could not get them off the bus. it was a really great experience. they got so much out of it. speed -- >> cable -- c-span works with your community. >> the c-span bus tour enables us to solidify our position as a true community partner and advocate for education and technology. >> over the last 25 years the buses have hosted close to 8000 events and connected with nearly 30,000 teachers and hundreds of thousands of students. all in all we welcome over 1.5 million visitors. today our admission -- our mission continues. providing a hands-on interactive experience on the latest public affairs and resources. watch for us in your community.
which party will control the house and senate? watched beast -- watch c-span coverage as a result come in from house senate and governor races around the country. here victory and concession speeches from the candidates and wednesday morning at 7 am eastern we will get your reaction to the election taking your phone calls live during washington journal. c-span, your primary source for campaign 2018. this weekend c-span cities tour takes you to lake have a sioux city arizona with the help of our link by cable partners we will explore the literary life and history of lake have assumed. saturday at noon eastern netbook tv. sure from author and life long resident what kingsbury f -- as he shares the story of lake have assumed history. lake have assumed before the bridge.
>> we moved here luck secondary -- barrel in 1965. there were 600 people and there might have been 20 homes. for our family there were 3 years -- oh i am sorry three months before we finally got running water. it was another i think five months when we finally got electricity. it was then one year before we got a telephone finally. >> on sunday at 2 pm eastern on american history tv, a visit to the potter dam which plays a vital role in supplying water to millions of people in arizona and southern california. >> we have about 1 million acres of water going to la. if you don't know what an acre foot is it's about 326,000 gallons, enough to feed to families of three or four for a year.
another one and a half million acre-feet goes to phoenix and tucson. >> watches seasons 82 -- city tour of the campus you in arizona. on sunday at 2 pm on american history tv on c-span three. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. discussion on the state of the syrian civil war in an effort to bring peace to the country. this is an hour and a half . good afternoon and welcom