tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 1, 2015 8:00pm-10:01pm EDT
current speaker john boehner. you can watch the house live, as always, here on c-span. tonight on c-span, president obama's reaction to the school shooting today in roseburg, oregon. then, highlights from the washington ideas forum with senator elizabeth warren, representative cathy mcmorris rodgers, and former vice president al gore on climate change. oday, a gunman opened fire at a community college in roseburg, oregon, killing several people and injuring at least 20. the president spoke to the press about the shooting earlier this evening. his comments are about 10 minutes. president obama: there has been another mass shooting in america. this time, in a community college in oregon.
that means there are more american families, moms, dads, children, whose lives have been changed forever. that means there's another community stunned with grief, and communities across the country forced to relieve their own anguish, and parents across the country who are scared because they know it might have been their families or their children. i have been to roseburg, oregon. they are really good people there. i want to thank all the first responders whose bravery likely saved some lives today. federal law enforcement has been on the scene in supporting role, and we have offered to stay and help as much as roseburg needs for as long as they need. in the coming days, we will then about the victims, young men and women who were studying and learning and working hard, their
eyes set on the future, their dreams on what they could make of their lives. america will wrap everyone who is grieving with our prayers and our love. just a fewaid, months ago, and a few months before that, and each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. it's not enough. capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel, and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in america. next week. or a couple of months from now. why thisyet know
individual did what he did. and, it's fair to say that anybody who does this has a sic kness in their minds. regardless of what they think their motivations may be. but we are not the only country on earth that has people with who want to dos harm to other people. we are the only advanced country on earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months. earlier this year, i answer the question in an interview by saying, "the united states of america is the one advanced
nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient commonsense gun safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings. " and later that day, there was a mass shooting at a movie theater in lafayette, louisiana. that day. somehow, this has become routine. the reporting is routine. podiumonse here at this ends up being routine. the conversation in the aftermath of it. we have become numb to this. we talked about this after columbine, after blacksburg, after tucson, after newtown, after aurora, after charleston. ofrannot be this easy somebody who -- for somebody who
wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun. and what's become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common sense gun legislation. right now, i can imagine the press releases being cranked out. they'llmore guns, argue, fewer gun safety laws. does anybody really believe that? there are scores of responsible gun owners in this country. they know that's not true. we know because of the polling that says the majority of americans understand we should be changing these laws, including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. there is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in
america. you with a straight face make the argument that more guns will make us safer? we know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun dearths. so the notion that gun laws don't work, or will just make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns -- it is not borne out by the evidence. we know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. friends of ours. allises of ours. great britain, australia. countries like ours. so, we know there are ways to prevent it. and of course, was also routine
is that somebody, somewhere where comment -- will say and comment, obama politicized this issue. but this is something we should politicized. it is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. organizations,s because i will not these facts forward, have news organizations tally up the number of americans who have been killed to terrorist attacks over the last decade, and the number of americans who have been killed by gun violence. and post those side by side on your news reports. this won't be information coming from me. it'll be coming from you. we spend over $1 trillion and pass countless laws, and devote
entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. and yet we have a congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. how can that be? this is a political choice that we make. happen every to few months in america. we collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones, because of our inaction. when americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. when americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make
communities safer. unsafe, we fix them, to reduce auto fatalities. laws, becauselt we know it saves lives. violencetion that gun ouromehow different, that freedom and our constitution regulationny modest weapon,e use a deadly when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations, d oesn't make sense.
tonight, as those of us who are lucky enough to hug our kids are thinkinger about the families who are not so fortunate, i would ask the american people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws and to save lives. up.to let young people grow that will require a change of politics on this issue, and it will require that the american people individually, whether you are a democrat or a republican or an independent, when you decide to vote for somebody, are making a determination as to whether this cause of continuing
death for innocent people should be a relevant factor in your decision. if you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views. and i would particularly ask areica's gunowners, who using those guns properly, sport, to hunt, for for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it is speaking for you.
and each time this happens, i'm going to bring this up. each time this happens, i'm going to say that we can actually do something about it, but we are going to have to change our laws. and this is not something that i can do by myself. i have got to have a congress and state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this. i hope and pray that i don't during myme out again tenure as president to offer my condolences to families in the circumstances. but based on my experience as president, i can't guarantee that. and that's terrible to say. and it can change.
may god bless the memories of those who were killed today. may he bring comfort to their families, and courage to the injured as they fight their way back. and may he give us the strength to come together and find the courage to change. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on the next "washington journal, we look at the tax policy
proposals of the republican candidates. then, the findings of a study on immigration trends. we will talk to the author of that report. and, a discussion about american household finances and health insurance coverage with washington post correspondent jim kingersley. comments,your facebook posts, and tweets at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> sunday on "q&a." >> the supreme court is about more than its opinions. to understand it fully, you need to know about the justices' backgrounds, personalities, personal dynamics with each other and with their clerks. >> national law journal supreme court correspondent and author of the companion book to c-span's upcoming series "landmark cases," on the cases
featured in the series and the supreme court's new term, sunday night on c-span's "q&a." on monday, as the supreme court starts the new term, c-span did use "landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions." we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury versus madison case, delving into the heated political battle between outgoing president john adams, new president thomas jefferson, and newly appointed chief justice john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution, in the famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison. >> marbury versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, yale law school professor and author akhil reed amar, and cliff sloan. exploring that mark spring court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers, and
justices. premiering live this monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order the " landmark cases" companion book at www.c-span.org/landmarkcases. year'ss washington ideas for them, sender elizabeth lauren sat down for an interview -- center elizabeth warren sat down for an interview with jake kaffir. -- jake tapper. this is 20 minutes. [applause] jake: good to see you. i know she needs no introduction, but i have been told i have to give her one anyway. [laughter] let me just say, elizabeth warren is a first-term democratic senator from
massachusetts. the consumer financial protection bureau was her idea. she chaired the congressional oversight panel of tarp, was a professor at harvard, author of the new york times bestseller "a fighting chance." anything i'm missing? thanks so much for joining us. really appreciate it. senator warren: thank you. jake: to start out with an idea, you and former speaker newt gingrich have joined to take on the issue -- senator warren: think about that. [laughter] jake: to take on the charge of increasing funding for the national institutes of health. how will this odd couple, if you permit me saying so, how did this odd couple coming to fruition? how did you meet him? senator warren: what started the idea behind it, what is one of the principal functions of government? to think about our future over a long arc. not just until next week or even
the next funding cycle, but what does it look like overall? i will give you bad news. the fastest-growing age group in america is people over 100. then over 90, then over 80. ucs pattern. we are getting older. not you and me, but in general as a country. here's another one. alzheimer's, one of the pencil age-related -- principal age-related diseases. $225year, we will spend billion just in care for people with all summers. that is care. without the ability to delay onset by even one day. without the ability to promise the hope that we can get any kind of amelioration of what is happening in this terrible disease as it moves forward. -- jake: your earpiece is off your ear. senator warren: right in the middle of this. so, how much are we spending on
research? we are on the edge of being able to do more in brain science and brain research. billionmuch of the $226 are we spending on research? less than 0.2%. thehe last, since 2003, national institutes of health have had their effective budget, their purchasing power, cut by 25%. when you think about how we build a future, research is a big part of how we build a future. right now, the united states congress is cutting back on nih, as if it is a step child to our budget and our future. speaker gingrich, i think i lost this. jake: you lost it again. senator warren: that was fun. speaker gingrich is someone who
gets it. he wrote a piece in the "wall street journal," about how we should be thinking of investing in brain science research, medical research. it should not even be part, it's an investment in the future. so i read this and think of the phone and said, hi, this is bigger, this is a live -- mr. speaker, this is elizabeth warren, want to work together? he said, absolutely. we are going to keep working on this, because this is about building a sustainable future for all of america, and research is one of the pieces right at the heart of that. jake: obviously we are in the throes of a presidential campaign. i would be remiss if i didn't mention that. i don't know if you picked that up in the newspapers. you said you will endorse a democratic candidate in the primaries. senator warren: i am pretty sure it's not going to be one of the republicans. [laughter] i have seen enough. jake: you are one of many female
democratic senators to sign a letter a few years ago urging secretary clinton to run. should that be seen as an endorsement in itself? senator warren: she's running, along with other people, and they are getting their ideas out there, and that's what should happen during this part of the season. jake: so you just wanted her to run? senator warren: i want everyone who wants to run for president to get out there, put their ideas out there, talk about their ideas with the american people. that's how it should be. that's how democracy is supposed to work. jake: when i spoke with senator bernie sanders recently, i asked him where he and senator clinton differed. he mentioned a number of areas, including reestablishing glass-steagall, extending social security by lifting the cap on taxable income, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. i think you and bernie sanders align fairly closely on all the major issues. you decidecide, when
who to endorse, is it just going to be about who you agree with the most, or do you take into consideration other things, such as who has the better chance of being the nominee or winning in november? senator warren: at this moment, i don't know because i am not there. what i do know is that people are out talking about these key ideas, and that's exactly the right thing to do. we should be talking about glass-steagall. we should be talking about the role the major financial institutions play, not just in this economy, but in the political sphere here in washington. we should be talking about minimum wage. we should be talking about college debt. youhe way, i know where want to put the focus. but i also want to put the focus on, this is a time where you can
see a sharper difference between the democrats and the republicans. the republicans have gone in such a different direction on what they think are the issues we should be talking about, and where they come out on but i think our critical issues, particularly economic issues. the idea that we need to get a budget together, that there's a lot to negotiate around that budget, and what's the first thing the republicans say they have to do? defund planned parenthood. it seems to me, that is so out of touch with reality, so out of touch with what it means to govern this country, that they that they need to do something so they can move women back to 1955, that that is first on their agenda. [applause] they are just wrong on that. jake: i want to talk about planned parenthood in his second. -- in a second. senator warren: good. jake: before i entirely drop the subject, do you disagree with
the idea that you and bernie sanders seem to be more closely aligned on issues than with other democrats running for president? senator warren: you want to ask that he different way? jake: that's kind of my job. [laughter] senator warren: and kind of my job is to get out there and keep pushing these issues. i will say this. bernie goes out and fight for what he believes in. he fights on the heart on these issues, and i think he has done an enormous service by pushing them forward into the agenda. i think that secretary clinton has also been pushing forward issues into the agenda that are really important. for example, she just endorsed senator baldwin's bill to try to slow down the revolving door here in washington. that is really important. bless. at least we have some democrats out there talking about the things that matter to the
american people. talking about how we build a real future, and it makes me proud to be a democrat. jake: do you see the democratic party moving in a more progressive direction than in the 1990's? senator warren: you would probably need a pundit to wind all that up. but i have to say, i think we are. we're getting in touch with what really matters. part of the reason is the urgency. watch was happening to america's middle class, america's working families, america's poor. let me do one quick fact on this. from 1935 to 1980 -- dang it. [laughter] one more try. from 1935 to 1980, coming out of the great depression, what do we do? we put restraints on wall street and start investing on things, infrastructure, research. we build america's great middle class. everybody outside the top 10%,
90%, gets 70% of all wage growth in this country. gdp is going up. and families across the spectrum are doing better. trickle-down economics hits in the 1980's, and you just watch this reverse. to 2012, the latest time for which we have data, the 90%, everyone outside the 10%, you know how much they got? they got 0% of income growth. growth, as gdp was going up, 100% of income growth went to the top 10% in america. and that has become clear now to us, that has become clear, even in the bubble of washington. and that's what democrats are talking about. they are talking about, what are the things we need to do to build a future, not just for a thin slice of the top, but to
build a future for all americans. that's what it is supposed to be about. jake: what do you make of the fact that two of the leading republican presidential candidates, donald trump and jeb bush, both indoors closing the loophole when it comes to -- endorse closing the loophole when it comes to hedge fund managers, the carried interest loophole iago senator warren: it means even when your ears are stuffed with money, a little sound comes through. that's what is happening here. yeah, billionaires should not be paying taxes at a lower rate than teachers and firefighters. ped that has even see through. stunner. [laughter] let's talk about planned parenthood, because you brought
it up. senator warren: is that human reason you want to talk about it? jake: no, obviously it is in the news. there was a hearing earlier this week. obviously your position is supporting planned parenthood, well-established. the reason planned parenthood was purportedly in front of the congressional hearing was because of these videotapes of planned parenthood officials saying and doing things that even planned parenthood questions in terms of the glibness. is there nothing on the videotape you saw that bothers you at all? senator warren: remember what we were debating on the floor of the united states senate. that was defunding planned parenthood. it is not, let's do a review of videotapes. it was defunding planned parenthood. we have to start by remembering what that means. 2.7 million people get their health care from planned parenthood every year. one in every five women in america sometime in her life will get health care from
planned parenthood. planned parenthood, what does it mostly due? 97% of what planned parenthood does it cancer screenings, screenings for std's, birth control. , all of thenthood planned parenthood clinics are in places where there is limited access to health care. ,or many people, for many women it is their only health care provider, sometimes their principal health care provider. and the republicans say the first issue that we have got to discuss, the number one thing, everything else can go forward or not go forward on the budget, the first thing we have got to do is defund planned parenthood. that means defunding health care for women. and make no mistake, what this is really about is about women's access to abortion. and even though not one federal dollar goes to pay for abortions
through planned parenthood, the republicans want to find one more way to make it harder, to make it impossible for a woman who is facing one of the most difficult decisions of her life, they want to find a way to make it harder on her to get the health care he needs. all i can say is, we have been in that world before. when i talk about 1955, i'm talking about a world where women died, a world where women committed suicide rather than go forward with a pregnancy they could not handle. and what the republicans are saying is that they want to go back. i want to make it clear, we are not going back. not now, not ever. [applause] jake: two that they are not loing a strong -- straw pol
here. senator warren: we are doing a straw poll. difficult the 2016 elections. the republicans want to run on shutting down women's access to cancer screening and shutting down women's access to birth control, and shutting down toen's access non-government-paid for abortions. they will have a real fight on their hands. let them do it. [applause] you have been a longtime advocate for financial reform. , therepast, you have have been words between you and then-senator joe biden. you pointed out that his home state of delaware is one where a lot of banks are headquartered. you recently met with him. what can you tell us about that meeting. what can you tell us about where he is on these issues that matter a great deal to you? senator warren: well, we had a long lunch, and talked about a
whole range of policy issues. but principally, about how we will rebuild america's middle class. about how we create opportunities for working families. how we create opportunities for poor families. is aoth of us see this principal role of government. it's about the investments we need to make, and the investments we need to make together. we also talked about the need for a cop on the beat on wall street. we talked about support for the consumer financial protection bureau, and it was a good conversation. who caresis somebody about america and cares about america's families, and i think that has been true for a long time. that's what the conversation was about. jake: you have disagreed very sharply. senator warren: you bet.
it was over bankruptcy laws that the credit card companies wanted to tighten so they could squeeze more profits out of working families, and senator biden was on one side in the fight, and i was on the other. you better believe, i did not fight back. jake: are you still on opposite sides of the issues? senator warren: of that issue? yeah. jake: speaking of the consumer financial protection bureau, there is a moving congress to replace the director with a five-person bipartisan panel. some of the democrats in the house that have expressed support for it a it will be protection for if a republican is ever in the white house. senator warren: that's what the president of the american bankers association came out with yesterday. he said he is so worried about this consumer agency that forced the largest financial institutions in the country to return more than $10 billion to families they cheated. he is so worried about keeping
cy up and strong, that he wants to make sure there is a five person commission like on the sec, because -- fcc, because that will really keep the cfpb strong. jake: you don't buy it. senator warren: do i look d umb? jake: no. [laughter] just in case you were wondering what my answer was. on the record, you don't look dumb. you have also been accused this week of leading ideological purges. that's from the conservative wall street journal editorial page. obviously you were not the biggest fan of the idea of larry summers becoming fed chair. you blocked antonio weiss from becoming undersecretary for domestic finance, and recently you objected to a nonresident
scholar from brookings presenting a paper in which he did not fully disclose, according to brookings rules, where the money came from. are you leaving an ideological purge? senator warren: let's talk about the situation at brookings. this is personal. wasublished a study that way out of line with the findings from other independently funded research. jake: about a specific rule. senator warren: the rule is whether or not there ought to be what's called a conflict of interest rule. so that investment companies cannot recommend products to consumers that are really great for the agent recommending them but really lousy for the consumers. the department of labor put out a rule. the research generally shows loseamerican families
about $17 billion a year to the industry and certain players in the industry who favor themselves, the broker over the customer. there's a lot of other research about this. then he puts out a study that totally goes the other way. then it gets criticism in academic circles for the methodology. so he came in front of a committee that i am on to testify, and there's just a line in the testimony about research supported by, and it identifies one of the companies that stands potentially to lose money if the department of labor rule goes through, and very much like the outcome that he addressed. so i just followed up. i did questions for the record to ask for more information about where the money had come from, and we found out a couple of things. he personally got $38,000 for this. the company he works for got more than $70,000 for this.
it,the company that funded they were the sole funder, and they got to look at, advise, review the work as it was a work in progress. so, that raises some real questions about the independence of the research. [laughter] so, i wrote a letter to the department of labor, because this research has been cited a lot by the industry. the industry has really been counting on this piece of research. so i wrote a letter to the department of labor asking brookings about it. and that's where it went from there. jake: that's all the time we have. senator elizabeth warren, everybody. [laughter] [applause] representative cathy
mcmorris rodgers, who talked about john boehner's retirement, upcoming leadership elections, and the effort to defund planned parenthood. this is 15 minutes. congresswoman cathy mcmorris rodgers. i like the walkout music. you are the chair of the house republican conference. just to be clear, so everybody understands what that means, you are the one who is supposed to bring all the house republicans together. you convene the meetings. you actually -- rep. mcmorris-rodgers: the 247 -- >> how's that going? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: republicans from every corner of the country. bringing us together. speaker boehner's announcement on friday has sent shockwaves throughout capitol hill and
throughout the country. >> let's be clear. the announcement came at your meeting. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: it was not :00 a.m., friday morning, a regular gathering of the house republicans. week, this meeting each and i had just invited speaker boehner to come to the podium and give remarks when i was slipped a note that said, the speaker is going to be announcing his retirement. [laughter] >> so you had no indication? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: no. what does this mean? i listened to him announce his move -- news. it was unexpected. i really thought we were in a better place. the pope had just been to capitol hill. the first time for the pope to visit and address a joint session of congress. such a positive day for
congress, and then, then obviously the speaker decided later on that evening, on thursday evening, that, you know what, it might be time for me to go. >> it was striking. the news broke. there was the family values for him that was going -- forum going on with the presidential candidates, including marco rubio, ted cruz. they were celebrating this news, as if this was some great victory. in the case of ted cruz, like john boehner had been vanquished. and he is the republican speaker of the house. how do you assess his legacy? so many other republicans have been so critical, and frankly ungracious since he left. you worked closely with him. what is his legacy? what kind of speaker was he? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: in my role, i have had the opportunity to work very closely with speaker boehner, and through the
years, i really believed he was the right man at the right time to be leading us. it didn't mean, obviously, that every member agreed with every decision. there was a lot of people suggesting speaker boehner should have made different decisions, could have gotten something done, gotten more than what he did. what i saw in speaker boehner was someone who was trustworthy. i think, day in and day out, that is why he remained speaker as long as he did. the members really did trust him when he told them something. they knew that he was not playing games. the second part was that he made decisions based upon what he thought was good and right for america, at the end of the day. always it i may not agree with every decision, but you have to respect someone who is willing to make the tough decisions at times. maybe not something that even went all that well with the republican party as such.
someone who was really trying to do, day in and day out, what was best for the country and what was going to improve people's lives all across this country. >> he is not stepping down until the end of the month. one of his last acts here was to bring up a bill yesterday to fund the government, just through december 11. i was amazed to watch that vote yesterday. you voted yes, against the government shutdown. 151 house republicans voted yesterday to shut down the government. conference when you have that many were willing to say, just because we are not getting everything we want, we are not willing to pass a bill that would keep the lights on? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: for those republicans who voted against the continuing resolution to keep the government open, i really believe it was more a message to the senate and a message to the president. there's a lot of frustration, that we have not been doing our basic job, our responsibility of
getting a budget in place. that is pretty fundamental. when every year the federal government needs to get a budget in place, that's how you keep the government running an operating, and there were high hopes, high expectations that in january of this year the republicans, especially having a republican partner in the senate. >> republican senate, republican house. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: we got the budget resolution passed earlier than ever and went to work on the appropriations bill. the house, we really were, this was a high priority for us to get these appropriations bills done, because that is the way we assert the power of the purse. that's the way that we as legislators really make clear when we do not agree with what the executive branch may be doing. if we want to address funding levels. if we want to not fund certain programs. that's where we get to really
assert our power. there was a very disappointing -- it was very frustrating, that not one of those bills passed the senate. >> this was a striking boat. again -- this was a striking vote. again, it's only to keep the government temporarily running so you can negotiate a longer-term deal. continuingwould have government funding as it has been for ages, including funding for planned parenthood -- rep. mcmorris-rodgers: it did not include any funding for planned parenthood. >> it did not cut off any funding, right? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: the money has already been spent. >> because it did not affirmatively cut off planned parenthood, you had a large majority of republicans saying that we would rather see the government shut down? yes.oted leadership voted yes. but most of your fellow republicans voted no. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: there is
a big frustration with status quo on capitol hill. just think that this vote underscores the frustration with the status quo. and it is across the board. i think we are seeing that in the presidential -- from both republicans and democrats. this country wants to see congress function. they want us to make decisions on what they think is best for the people we represent. a whole bunch of people just see the arguing of the dysfunction, and they are just sick of it. it is reflected in the members, to find. >> now it becomes kevin mccarthy's problem. you assume, like i do, he will be the next speaker. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: yes. >> good luck, kevin mccarthy. i understood it was john boehner who was singing after he made the decision, not kevin mccarthy. mccarthy is under intense
criticism because of what he said about the benghazi committee. he suggested the benghazi committee has been responsible for bringing down hillary clinton's poll numbers, that people see her as "untrustable," was his word. [laughter] first of all, what do you make of what he said about that? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i believe hillary' is poll numbers really reflect people who do not view her as being trustworthy. i think there's a lot of questions related to whether or not she has been forthright, whether she has cooperated. obviously, we, it has been difficult to get the e-mails, etc., but i do believe that the work we are doing in the benghazi committee is very important. it's important that we know what happened that evening in benghazi. we have a responsibility to do that. you know, we do not, we have not yet had important questions answered.
four americans died. that the appropriate legislation get the answers. i don't care who is in the white house. i don't care who is the secretary of state. on behalf of the american people, this is where representative government, where the legislative branch has a responsibility to hold the administration accountable and to ask the appropriate questions. that is what the benghazi committee is seeking to do. trey gowdy is an honorable man. he is a former prosecutor. who knows how to do about it. he has done it in a way, i would encourage you to look at the way he approached this. he has approached it in a way where he is asking questions, and he has not made a political. >> so were you disappointed when you heard mccarthy say what he
said? why did he say what he said? he seems to be saying, we did this and her poll numbers came down. he seemed to say the committee was designed to bring down hillary clinton. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: from day one, this committee and trey gowdy have made every effort to make this about getting answers, as far as what happened that evening. and we have a responsibility to do that. >> what's going to happen when we get to december, and now it's mccarthy's problem, and you have to come up with a more enduring solution for doing all that congress still has to do, including the basic function of keeping the government-funded -- how are you going to get agreement among this group you have to convene together every week, when they couldn't even agree on a temporary funding measure? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: we need to do our jobs. we need to come to the table. we need to negotiate.
>> compromise? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: yes. we need to figure out how we can reach some common ground and move forward. i think we recognize, i , it isze that we half to in our best interest to keep this government-funded. yes, we will debate funding levels, we will debate priorities, and republicans will bring certain priorities to the table, democrats will bring certain priorities to the table. but this is regular order, right? and there's a lot of calls right now for regular order. regular order is when the house produces a product for the senate, and then you come together and figure out how to agree on something to move forward. >> the way you did that last time is paul ryan got together with patty murray, and you were able to come up with a solution to avoid a crisis for two years. but that is expiring. you have the debt ceiling, where we face the possibility of default, and you have this
question of how to find the government, with the planned parenthood issue hanging on. you have a large portion of your conference, republicans in the house, who say they would rather shove the government down than see planned parenthood continue to get funding. some say they don't want to raise the debt ceiling, no matter what. how do you deal with that? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: what we are proposing as it relates to planned parenthood, and these videos have raised serious concerns, and it is appropriate we do investigation. we are going to be launching an investigation. we have been calling for a one-year old on the funding -- hold that would go on the funding to planned parenthood and transferring it to federally qualified clinics, allowing us time to ask some questions. there should not be taxpayer funding used for abortions, and this --
>> which is the current law. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: which is the current law. that is through our investigation, are going to ask those questions and get some clarity. i think people should recognize, that is an appropriate path for us to take, and thoughtful approach to some really, concerning videos that have been released. >> it will be quite a battle. we don't have much time left. i have to ask you about the presidential campaign. i noticed this morning the current front-runner is still a gentleman from new york named donald trump. what are the chances he is the republican nominee? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i don't see it happening. donald trump is a great entertainer, and his slogan, make america great, has certainly struck a chord. proud of theery fact we have a very diverse field. it'snk that is, that is,
exciting to see the republicans we have. u.s. senators, governors, people from the private sector who have been very successful. i look at where we are as a party, and the republicans, we want to be the party of the future, we want to be the party that is really embracing new ways, challenging the status quo, and addressing outdated models that are not meeting needs. look at these agencies. look at the veterans administration that is failing our veterans. these are outdated models, and i'm excited about a party that is really, not just on the presidential side, in the house right now. we have the next generation of conservative leadership. we have had two thirds of the republicans in the house elected in the last five years or less. there's been a lot of turnover.
there's a lot of new blood. there's people who ran for office because they are really concerned about the direction this country is taking. but it's more fundamental than that. i believe there is a fundamental fear that we are losing our government, that we are losing representative government. when you see so many decisions made outside of congress. being made by the administration, by the executive branch, or by the judicial branch. no matter if you are republican, democrat, independent, you should believe in the power and decision-making that the long in the legislative -- belongs in the legislative branch. that is the number one priority, to restore trust and confidence in the legislative branch on the half of the people of this country, so if we can do our jobs, we can figure out how to be more effective, restore the trust on capitol hill, i believe that's the best thing we could do for people across this
country. >> it will be quite a challenge. thank you very much. cathy mcmorris rodgers. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: thank you. >> in this part of the washington ideas forum, former vice president al gore talked to james fallows about the environment and climate change. this is 25 minutes. [applause] james: thank you all for coming. thanks so much to vice president al gore for joining us. he has done a lot of traveling so thanks for making the effort. as i promised yesterday, the vice president has nothing to talk about you might not be expecting. there are things you probably will expect, given his political expertise, the things you know about what he has been doing in the years since by
presidency. the nobel peace prize, the two oscars, the two number one bestsellers, other things of that sort. blah, blah, blah as they say. [laughter] i got to immerse myself in these things in an article about what vice president gore has been up to, which will be in "the atlantic" in 10 days. that's what i want to ask you about. i have to cue up the question, because you are not supposed to talk about your achievements in the realm yourself. there's a company called generation investment management which vicendon, president gore was a cofounder of, the chairman, and it is now reporting what it achieved over the last 10 years, since it started managing money in the global equities market. in 10 years of tunnel around the world -- tumult around the world, the financial crash, everything in europe, everything in china, you can go on and on,
the average for all msci global equities in that time was 7%. the average for all large managed funds was 7.7% return. which is barely above, once you remove the fees, what an index fund would have been. the average for generation's may find in the last 10 years, versus the 7% baseline, was 12.1%. that is 500 basis points above what the market has done. of the 200 major management firms surveyed, generation was the number two in returns in the last 10 years. based on this track record of succeeding in a way financial markets care about most, vice president gore has been going public on what that means. because there's something unusual in the way you have made as much money.
what is that? mr. gore: thank you. thanks for inviting me. thanks for the setup. i want to briefly, if i could, thank david bradley and james bennett for guiding this amazing magazine, and walter isaacson, guiding the aspen institute. what you have done is amazing. so, what is unique and different about the news, if you will, that you refer to, is that my partners at generation and i set out 11 years ago, spent the first year setting this up, set out to invest in a completely different way, by fully integrating environmental factors, social factors, ethical writrs, sustainability large into every part of the investment process. our mission has been to prove the business case that, if inv
estors rather than assume that the environment social government factors are more or less extraneous, kind of distractions that will hurt returns if they really pay attention to them, if instead the investment process is designed to fully integrate them into every part of the analysis, and all decision-making, you can enhance returns. we have only had 10 years, and i learned to knock on wood, whatever this is. there's got to be wood in there somewhere. but 10 years is long enough to get some evidence that there really is a basis for believing that the conventional wisdom in markets about sustainability is wrong, and that fully integrating these factors does
not cause a trade of values for value. it does not lead to lesser returns. it can, and if skillfully executed, this process can enhance returns. james: this is a point that really struck me when i was with your colleagues in london. we are used to thinking of socially responsible investing tax, something you do because you can afford to it. you argue it is the right to hire returns. mr. gore: absolutely. in the mainstream investment marketplace, there is a little bit of a cold stove problem. the famous mark twain story. james: perhaps he would explain it to us. [laughter] in my piecee is a riff about how much vice president gore enjoys explaining things. mr. gore: the , "so let me explain." we may share some of that.
a capwain once said that burned by a hot stove won't sit on a hot stove again, but won't sit on a cold one, either. a lot of investors learned from the 1960's and 1970's version of so-called ethical investing in the anti-apartheid years, which they learned that using a negative checklist or a screen hurts returns. when somebody brings of sustainability in the model they recoiled. investors,ation of of which we would like to believe a generation were leading the way toward a new realization that if you fully integrate these factors, you don't lose returns. you increase returns. research that of
tends to support the proposition that we began putting forward. >> i want to ask about the difference your generation can make. a ten-year record. blackrock manages 400 times that much. how do you think a firm like that will make a difference in finance, and the kinds of companies you are investing in, some i have never heard of. others are mainstream companies. how do you think you are going to make a difference in finance? mr. gore: first of all in markets when a new model is proven know very sufficient time results, it better attracts imitators, interest from those who want to do better
, and as you said, it is a darwinian process. ,hen a new model is successful people pay attention to that. we hope that they will. there is some evidence that they are. you manage risk better for one thing. you unlock investment opportunities better. we have use the spectrum analysis. you explain that to a fair the -- you explain that fairly well in the piece. it is a simple way of communicating this. the portion of the spectrum you can see with your eyes is tiny but i spent eight years in the white house starting with a cia briefing that collects information from the full spectrum. the resulting picture was more complete.
in the same way, what comes across the bloomberg screens and the quarterly reports, and the kinds of reporting that has become standard in the industry is a narrow slice. -- headede country nam the company deal with unemployment? those things turn out to be extremely significant. early on we invested in lord brown -- they were doing interesting things. then they expanded into north america. our analyst began to suspect the safety coulter and bar mental culture they had had not been extended into north america. long before deepwater horizon because of these concerns they noticed the refinery fire in texas, and a pipeline accident in alaska.
we said we have got to get out of this. not too long after that the deepwater horizon event took place. it was avoidable. most conventional analyses did their safety culture, their environmental management. that is not just a feel-good add-on. it is central to the success or failure of a business like that. other kinds of businesses, like financial services, human culture is central. if you understand more about how they are managing their people, and spreading their values throughout the workforce you were none more than simply looking at these quarterly reports. >> i make a joke about how you climate,f your time on another half on something else. you --lf of your time do
what do you anticipate doing on the sustainable capital? be an active to public debater? mr. gore: absolutely. by cofounder and i have been writing a lot of op-ed's in the wall street journal, financial times, etc.. to ave 5% of our profits foundation that is completely focused on sustainable capitalism. hegemon,an ideological a compound ideology under siege. democracy has been hacked. capitalism is in need of reform, serious reform. the short term that has been moaned by the leaders of the biggest firms in global markets is really hampering the success of capitalism and building
value, and reaching its goals. crises that now radiate globally, much more frequently because of the emergence of earth inc., internet connected -- interconnected factors like the failure to measure the impact of negative externalities like pollution, and the depletion of natural resources, positive externalities like the investment in public goal. financial reports that say gdp has gone up three-and-a-half percent. median income has gone down. pollution has gone up. depletion of resources has gone. inequality has gotten out of control. investmentdearth of
in public goods like education and health care. this is true everywhere the dominant version of democratic capitalism is being pursued. in the capitalism part of that we adoptortant that the reforms that more and more people are seeing are greatly needed. >> there is a lot more to say about sustainable capitalism. let me -- mr. gore: one other thing. i don't want to flatter you publicly. i have been doing this for 10 years. i learned a lot about what i thought i understood from jim's article and i commend it to you. >> thank you very much. we could spend hours or days with your view of the world's climate situation now. if you're spending 3-4 minutes giving us what we should think
of us the state of events, despair versus progress versus overviews, what is the on al gore since of the climate? if you juror an analogy to a sporting event, we are behind on the scoreboard. the time is running down. the momentum has shifted. everybody can feel it. there is enough time on the clock to score enough points to win. i think we are winning. we have just in the last couple of years begun to cross the tipping point. you see with the pope's visit to the united states, china's announcement of a cap and trade system.
and in paris we are going to get an agreement in december. a global basis putting 110 million tons of heat trapping pollution into the atmosphere every single day. the cumulative amount of pollution is trapping as much extra heat in the atmosphere as would be released by 400,000 hiroshima class bombs exploding every day. that is a conservative estimate. if the denial lists were able to pick apart that statistic they would have. most of it goes into the ocean. when a hurricane like the one off the east coast now picks of energy from the warmer oceans, it enters a new category of threat. that happened with superstorm sandy.
i was in miami the last three days. there were official meaning in the streets. floodinghave sunny day where the salt water comes out off the storm drains. they are spending $400 million to raise the seawall. these are temporary measures. we have to take action. it represents a collision between the way we have organized civilization and the surprisingly fragile ecological system of the earth, which is a very thin atmosphere. population,rupled technologies are more powerful and the short-term thinking that is often reflected in our current capitalism, current politics and culture, it is driving this collision. people are awakening to it. i do think that the most theting source of hope is
engineers and scientists and business investors have come up curve. stunning cost down pe solar is now cheaper than electricity from coal in lots of places. this has shifted investing in a massive way. >> this is oversimplified. if there was a single thing you would like people listening for you to do or change, what is the next at? changes important to more like blogs and so forth. it is more important to change the laws. we have to address the crisis. that is another subject.
businesses t do pay a lot of attention for those asking. the business community is leading now. it is incredible. we need to restore the vitality of democracy so special interests are not completely in control. so the public interest is lifted up and this is the principal issue where that has to happen. most people who say in this chair over the last day and a half have asked if you're are going to run for president. there have been a number of senators. mr. gore: are you thinking about it? if you are asking everybody. i would support that. -- a draft al be gore article. considering a draft
al gore movement? mr. gore: i have overuse the answer am going to give you. i am a recovering politician. [laughter] the longer i go without he relapsed the less likely one becomes. >> let me ask about the landscape you survey. you had a book called the assault on reason. apply that to the republican field now. you talked about the basement and the democratic discourse. what do you make of the republican spectacle now? [laughter] mr. gore: it is really something, isn't it? it is astonishing to me. all, here is what i think is happening. i think there is a big wheel turning slowly, and we are now in a phase where our politics have been degraded, democracy
has been hacked. that metaphor refers to the operating system being taken over so it no longer works for the owner. the american people are being left out of the equation. why do special interests and the holders of big amounts of money now make all the relevant decisions? here is what i think is the underlying cause. information ecosystem was formed by the printing press. it had certain characteristics where individuals could enter the public square and exchange ideas. a critical mass may emerge. assembly.reedom of they were than not
treated according to a meritocracy of ideas. in the middle of the 20th century, television push the printing press off of center stage. spend 75% oficians money on 32nd tv. is information ecosystem taking crest. individuals can no longer enter easily. there are gatekeepers that charge rent. networks collect tons of money. who gets then? corporate advertising. political candidates have to spend three quarters of their time begging rich people for money to get into the television square. tot that means is they begin
think more about what the big donors want them to do, and less about how they -- the constituents are going to react. this continues to turn. internet-based media are beginning to push television off the center of the stage. recapitulates some of the favorable aspects of the print universe, individuals can get into the conversation more easily. we see everyday bloggers have taken the time to dig deeply and find out the truth of things, getting other people glomming onto their ideas. if it goes on enough they can have enough power to change the course of the debate. i am optimistic. the most urgent task is to accelerate the migration of democratic forms and principles into the internet age so that
individuals can take part again. the wisdom of crowds is a buzz phrase. it is a real saying. it is an important reality in our lives. the reason why the american -- the united states rose to the -- of thethe century country over a century and a half, we make better decisions than any other nation. now we have begun to make stupid decisions. we invaded iraq because three quarters of us thought that saddam hussein was responsible for the world trade center. we sold 7.5 million subprime mortgages to people who thought the risk was not present because even though they couldn't make a down payment monthly payment,
they were locked together and sold into the global market. as soon as people look and see they have no value, we have 21 assets. dollars in we are challenged to make the right decision where that is concerned. mark carney gave an amazing speech which i commend to you about the risk to the global economy inherent in stranded carbon assets. business upon the u.s. community to look at the opportunities inherent in d --decarbonizing. the global economy was lifted not by roosevelt that by the mobilization of the v fashion. the postwar economic boom was
brought about because there was a shared conviction that we needed to do things differently. the entire world moved in the same direction that unlocks that amazing economic dynamism. we are a situation where the conventional tools for lifting ifup, much less recovering we have another downturn in the business cycle, they drop interest rates 54-5%. the traditional tools don't work. we need an inspiring collective mission to create hundreds of new jobs. we have such a mission. we can save the future of human civilization. >> that sounds like a great place to end. [applause] mr. gore: thank you. [applause]
>> next, attorney general loretta lynch. >> good afternoon. we put you on the couch. we always want to put elected officials on the couch. here you are. love this. not that any of you need to -- our newabout attorney general? are you still knew? ms. lynch: no. >> the only lawyer in america representation for being a charming people
person. you guys had a big announcement today. help grant program to communities deal with recidivism rates. yes.ynch: i'm delighted to announce today the department of justice is awarding $53 million and what are called second chance grants. this is an important part of the departments work to make sure people coming out of prisons have an opportunity to rebuild their lives and communities stay safe. they will be aimed at organizations and 45 different jurisdictions focusing on things as varied as father and son interactions, job training, education. many barriers we have seen in the way of people coming out of our prisons to be coming productive citizens again. that is the goal.
we are very involved in fundamental fairness. in making sure that people do in fact served time when they need to. how are we going to integrate those people back into our society? >> it is a grant program. that always have the width of the experimental to me. meaning that not every community who needs it is going to get it. is that fair? unfortunately we have limited dollars. jurisdictions and organizations can apply. we try to look at track records, at their experience where we can find it, actual records of success and reintegrating individuals. the application process is on their website. our office of justice programs is the main body that will be managing these grants.
of one me an example community. when i was the u.s. attorney in brooklyn, we had within our district five counties. we had a lot of tremendous progress in crime reduction and safety. we had entrenched pockets in brooklyn and queens. one neighborhood was brownsville. many residents, young people who never leave the neighborhood. except when young men go to jail. we solve this cycle over and over again. we were involved in reentry programs in that community. it wasn't just the attorney's office, the das office talking to returning offenders about the cost of reoffending. it was providing with educational services, family
management services and information on housing, things that are real barriers. those are the programs we are looking to support. anniversarytrina there were studies released. the prisoners that went back to the ninth ward, if their families were there, recidivism was higher than going back to the old neighborhood versus if their family -- if they had nowhere to go and their family relocated to houston or atlanta, recidivism dropped in half. that to me sounds like the answer, the best evidence i've seen anywhere that the best way to deal with recidivism rates is relocate out of neighborhoods. is that one of the goals? ms. lynch: it is not to remove people from their neighborhoods. there is some interesting research and data coming out of the department of housing.
it talks about exactly what you mentioned in a larger sense, that where you live matters. it matters because of your access to services, to education , because of your access to a certain quality of life. post-katrina the ninth ward suffered so tremendously during the storm, after, and even still today that many residents returning were working so hard to get the basics of life and hold it together people would not have had access to that. individuals who with two different locations or flood into networks of support but were stronger than they would have found in the ninth ward. our goal is to strengthen neighborhoods to support people coming back into them. >> i want to shift gears. criminal justice reform.
this today.on lee, they have, their criminal justice reform legislation they are introducing. life sentences under the three strikes would be dropped to 25 years. reduced to 15. for crimes that require 10 year sentences judges would have more discretion. they will include prison programs for rehabilitation, dealing with juveniles, putting juveniles in solitary confinement. are you supportive of this? or lynch: this legislation an important opportunity for all of us to look at how we administer criminal justice in this country. if the goal is to protect the american people, in a way that is efficient, transparent and fair, sentencing reform has been the topic of great bipartisan discussion.
today's announcement is a great step forward. we commend and thank senators booker and lee. and the other senators who worked on this. they cross the aisle to come together with different ideas on how to improve the system. casesmber prosecuting where we looked at people who were being cycled through a system, nonviolent drug offenders facing severe mandatory minimums being deported or going back home. you could not see the utility in it. we needed to focus resources on the kingpins, the leaders and organizers of the narcotics organization. it is something the department of justice has been focused on. i predecessor introduced a smart on crime initiative which should be correct -- redirect for nonviolent offenders into an area where judges and prosecutors had more discretion.
a lot of that is mirrored in this bill. i'm looking forward to working with the senators. >> what is not inherit you hope some folks get in there? anything you would like to see? ms. lynch: we are still looking at the bill. there are going to be a number of people who will have comments on it. we have a positive working relationship across the aisle with senators from both sides on their thoughts and reforms. we look forward to continuing those discussions. >> the relationship between african-americans and the police. you have been going on a ur.ticity to her --to you went to birmingham, a 15 euro says i was raised to hate the police. how did you react? ms. lynch: it is painful to hear that. i have been on a community policing to her.
we chose these six cities. birmingham, cincinnati, pittsburgh, east haven. we chose those cities because they have had a challenged relationship between police and law enforcement. shootings, negative interactions. department of justice interaction. lawsuits. the kind of relationships you outlined their residence talk about a deeply ingrained sense of lack of trust. a larger issue is a lack of connection to the forces that should be connecting them. i have been able to speak with young people in every city. birmingham was particularly rewarding. that young person was involved in a program where high school students worked with police. we are looking for cities that have had a challenging relationship with law enforcement but yet have found a
way to rebuild the relationship, to claw themselves back from the brink. not create a perfect situation. that doesn't exist. but to find a way in which problems develop there is a mechanism for discussion, a process for transparency, and where residents and law enforcement have a working relationship. birmingham has been doing that with the program you are referring to, having police officers talked likely to young people. they are involved in these role-playing exercises. it is a way of breaking down the barriers created by a uniform, whether it is dress blues or baggy pants. people will look at you from wherever they stand and make a judgment, often times about what you mean, what you want to do. your views about them. connections,hose that young person came to know
that police officers are just like them. they cared about what was happening. quite frankly the most successful exercise was the one in which they do a rollover verso and the young people play the role of the police officers and the police officers play the role of rowdy teenagers who will get out of a park. watching the young people deal with that, the officers enjoy it. you know what that is like if you are a parent. watching the young people deal with that and having them come to understand how hard the job is to be a police officer, how many things you have to think about and balance, every time you interact with someone, how easy it can be to let a situation escalate. and the importance of working to build those connections. >> we have a trust deficit with statistics.
we keep track of violent crime rates. there doesn't-- seem to be a uniform way to keep track of when a police officer discharges his weapon. we don't feel like there is. that statistic is done by a news organization based in europe. that is atrocious. ms. lynch: i'm not going to comment on news organizations. they do a pretty good job sometimes. you raise an important point about keeping track of what happens. what we have seen with the incidents captured on videotape, people have been able to see what members of minority communities have talked about for decades if not generations about the different types of interactions people can have with law enforcement. and also, whether or not an officer is trained in calming a situation down or less the
situation escalate. they have seen the difference that makes. it is hard for people to understand if they haven't experienced it, if they haven't had that since there is a divide and disconnect there. while we don't have actual numbers -- >> why? why can't this be something? is this something that congress has to pass a law that make it mandatory? what would it take for you to be a will to have these statistics? is lynch: one of the ways through our work with local law enforcement. we do work with local law enforcement in a collaborative manner. they often reach out to the department for training, and sometimes we also have police .urisdictions one of the things we have been -- ferguson issued a report on
ferguson's practices that were not just about policing but about the larger relationship of the municipality with the residence, which i will tell you if you have the opportunity to read -- >> it was stunning. it was sad. ms. lynch: it illustrates the rude causes of the disconnect many feel towards the police. the police are often the only face of government they see. police getthe the brunt of the anger and confusion over municipal policies such as in ferguson. this exacerbates this distrust. when we have a consent decree or collaborative or perform we impose record-keeping on police departments. no one likes extra paperwork. i hear that all the time. they find it extremely helpful
to able to indicate how many times a police officer settler interacts with a member of the community. how many times does it result in a ticket? and the officer having to draw the weapon? in shots being fired? there are some police firemen's there that do a job of recording how many times a shot is fired, if a weapon is discharged. >> some. we don't have a national system on this. ms. lynch: we don't. quite should we? ms. lynch: one of the things we're focusing on is not trying to reach down from washington and dictate to every local department how they should handle the minutia of record-keeping. we are stressing to them these records must be capped. a lot of times it is a resource issue. the average size of a police department in this country is 55 people.
a lot of them are very small. you minister pala these are challenge -- municipalities or challenge. it is a very important tool for tracking interactions. we encourage it. we are looking to encourage consistency of standards. you can get information from one department but if you can't match it up or married to other information it may not give you a true picture. the real issues here, statistics are important but the real issues are what steps are we all taking to connect communities that often feel this in franchise and disaffected with the police and government? >> the rising crime rate. we have seen it here, a select number of cities here. milwaukee, 76%. murder rates. baltimore, 56%. have you found a trend yet? i know you are doing a summit in .week in
is something happening out there? ms. lynch: every loss of life is a tragedy. i don't think we can confine anyone's death to noise. we are looking at this issue. we are looking to see if we identify the root causes of it. crime overall is down. we have persistent pockets where we see at times a resurgence in the violent crime rate. we're having a meeting next week. we're inviting not just the mayors and police choose but the federal prosecutors of the cities affected by this to come to washington and sit down and talk about the trends they have seen. inirected the u.s. attorneys jurisdictions where this was an issue to convene a local gathering and talk with their local law enforcement about what they were seeing on the ground. is it a methamphetamine problem?
-- a heroine problem. candidates are hearing about it front and center. new england and new hampshire has this huge here when issue. ms. lynch: heroine and opioids in general is still with us. u.s. attorneyshe to talk to local law enforcement. is it an issue arising out of gang violence? it's going to be different for every jurisdiction. >> another theory is to do with as police have gotten a bad rap this year, do some criminals feel empowered? ms. lynch: when i have talked to police departments, specifically the six-time permits i have got to, community policing, the steps they are taking for de-escalation, they are cities were crime has gone down. police involvement is a helpful thing overall.
that is what we are seeing. a lot of the focus has been about nonviolent drug offenders. one of the easiest ways you can clean this up is it the government rescheduled marijuana. marijuana is a schedule one drug. the equivalent of heroine. more lethal than vicodin. should -- would it be easier to deal with this sentencing issue of marijuana were reclassified. ms. lynch: if you want to look at the population of people who have been subject to over incarceration at the federal level, we look at the situation from the societal cost in the financial cost. and the cost in human productivity. the majority of those individuals were victims of the cocaine and crack and balance.
for us, at the federal level, we are looking at individuals, nonviolent offenders, not the king pins, not the importers of heroine and cocaine, that is the focus of the federal government. >> but if the reclassification of marijuana, would that make it easy for you to focus on the real offenders? ms. lynch: in terms of a federal prosecutor, we focus on those large-scale importers where the violence occurs. unfortunately there is still a lot of violence associated with large-scale importation of marijuana. there is a lot of firearms involved. there is a lot of money changing hands. you will find that occurring. we focus on the larger scale dealers. in terms of rescheduling marijuana, we are looking at the
nonviolent drug offenders who have been swept up in the crack and cocaine wars. a vital tool -- i remember those days. ira member the violence. ira member the fear in many communities. we're looking at the collateral consequences of those policies and trying to find a way to mitigate those. >> are you comfortable they are allowing the states to some marijuana legally, washington state? ms. lynch: states have to make those decisions on their own. they listen to their citizens and take action. what we have said is states have to also have a system designed to mitigate violence associated with their marijuana industries and most importantly keep young people, children away from the products.
the concern that we have, children gain access to products that look like candy or cookies and cakes. the purity is different and they are becoming very ill. we have concerns where a state that is not legalizing the substance sees people traveling across state lines to obtain it. we will still intervene in those areas. >> does there need to be tougher regulation? you mentioned the candy issue. ms. lynch: we have a strong enforcement policy there. states need to have a regime in place to deal with these issues. the federal government is still intervening and looking at situations in cases where those are the issues. our overall call is the correction -- our overall goal is the protection of the american people. >> i will leave it there.
>> more video from the washington ideas forum on our romney, who intt , bobo -- julian castro corker, and ed markey, as well as many others. utah governor gary harbour is the new chair of the national governors association. he will talk about policy ideas coming from the governors and state governments at the national press club. live coverage here on c-span. >> the c-span network features nonfiction books and american history. morning, with nasa's announcement of liquid water on mars, the committee talked to
the experts about the announcement and the possibility of life in space. ,unday evening policymakers business leaders, media personalities discussed the issues driving the national conversation at the washington ideas forum. on book tv, saturday night at 10:00 eastern, martha kumar discusses american presidential transitions. sunday at noon, live with tom hartman, who has authored several books. join our conversation as we take your phone calls for tom hartman.
steve own he explores the events of the april 26 1913 murder of mary fagan in georgia and the arrest and lynching of a jewish factory owner. sunday, the 1975 federal administration on the supply and demand of fossil fuels in the u.s. and alternative energy sources. get our schedule at c-span.org. >> this week, world leaders are in new york to speak at the united nations general assembly. president benjamin netanyahu argued against lifting sanctions against iran. his remarks or 40 minutes.
> ladies an prime minister netanyahu: ladies and gentlemen, i bring you greetings from jerusalem. the city in which the jewish people's hopes and prayers for peace for all of humanity have echoed throughout the ages. thirty-one years ago, as israel's ambassador to the united nations, i stood at this podium for the first time.
i spoke that day against a resolution sponsored by iran to expel israel from the united nations. then as now, the un was obsessively hostile towards israel, the one true democracy in the middle east. then as now, some sought to deny the one and only jewish state a place among the nations. i ended that first speech by saying, gentlemen, check your fanaticism at the door. more than 3 decades later, as the prime minister of israel, i am again privileged to speak from this podium. and for me, that privilege has always come with a moral responsibility to speak the
truth. so after three days of listening to world leaders praise the nuclear deal with iran, i begin my speech today by saying, ladies and gentlemen, check your enthusiasm at the door. you see, this deal doesn't make peace more likely. by fueling iran's aggressions with billions of dollars in sanctions relief, it makes war more likely. just look at what iran has done in the last six months alone, since the framework agreement was announced in lausanne. iran boosted its supply of devastating weapons to syria. iran sent more soldiers of its revolutionary guard into syria. iran sent thousands of afghani
and pakistani shi'ite fighters to syria. iran did all this to prop up assad's brutal regime. iran also shipped tons of weapons and ammunitions to the houthi rebels in yemen, including another shipment just two days ago. iran threatened to topple jordan. iran's proxy hezbollah smuggled into lebanon sa-22 missiles to down our planes, and yakhont cruise missiles to sink our ships. iran supplied hezbollah with precision-guided surface-surface missiles and attack drones so it can accurately hit any target in israel. iran aided hamas and islamic jihad in building armed drones in gaza. iran also made clear its plans to open two new terror fronts against israel, promising to arm
palestinians in the west bank and sending its revolutionary guard generals to the golan heights, from which its operatives recently fired rockets on northern israel. israel will continue to respond forcefully to any attacks against it from syria. israel will continue to act to prevent the transfer of strategic weapons to hezbollah from and through syrian territory. every few weeks, iran and hezbollah set up new terror cells in cities throughout the world. three such cells were recently uncovered in kuwait, jordan and cyprus. in may, security forces in
cyprus raided a hezbollah agent's apartment in the city of larnaca. there they found 5 tons of ammonium nitrate, that's roughly the same amount of ammonium nitrate that was used to blow up the federal building in oklahoma city. and that's just in one apartment, in one city, in one country. but iran is setting up dozens of terror cells like this around the world, ladies and gentlemen, they're setting up those terror cells in this hemisphere, too. i repeat, iran's been doing all of this, everything that i've just described, just in the last six months, when it was trying to convince the world to remove the sanctions. now just imagine what iran will do after those sanctions are
lifted. unleashed and unmuzzled, iran will go on the prowl, devouring more and more prey. in the wake of the nuclear deal, iran is spending billions of dollars on weapons and satellites. you think iran is doing that to advance peace? you think hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and fat contracts will turn this rapacious tiger into a kitten? if you do, you should think again. in 2013 president rouhani began his so-called charm offensive here at the un. two years later, iran is executing more political
prisoners, escalating its regional aggression, and rapidly expanding its global terror network. you know they say, actions speak louder than words. but in iran's case, the words speak as loud as the actions. just listen to the deputy commander of iran's revolutionary guard quds force. here's what he said in february, the islamic revolution is not limited by geographic borders. he boasted that afghanistan, iraq, lebanon, syria, palestine and yemen are among the countries being conquered by the islamic republic of iran. conquered. and for those of you who believe that the deal in vienna will
bring a change in iran's policy, just listen to what iran's supreme leader ayatollah khamenei said 5 days after the nuclear deal was reached, our policies towards the arrogant government of the united states will not change. the united states, he vowed, will continue to be iran's enemy. while giving the mullahs more money is likely to fuel more repression inside iran, it will definitely fuel more aggression outside iran. as the leader of a country defending itself every day against iran's growing aggression, i wish i could take
comfort in the claim that this deal blocks iran's path to nuclear weapons. but i can't, because it doesn't. this deal does place several constraints on iran's nuclear program. and rightly so, because the international community recognizes that iran is so dangerous. but you see here's the catch, under this deal, if iran doesn't change its behavior, in fact, if it becomes even more dangerous in the years to come, the most important constraints will still be automatically lifted by year 10 and by year 15. that would place a militant islamic terror regime weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.
that just doesn't make any sense. i've said that if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. but this deal, this deal will treat iran like a normal country even if it remains a dark theocracy that conquers its neighbors, sponsors terrorism worldwide and chants death to israel, death to america. does anyone seriously believe that flooding a radical theocracy with weapons and cash will curb its appetite for aggression? do any of you really believe that a theocratic iran with sharper claws and sharper fangs will be more likely to change its stripes? so here's a general rule that i've learned and you must have
learned in your life time, when bad behavior is rewarded, it only gets worse. ladies and gentlemen, i have long said that the greatest danger facing our world is the coupling of militant islam with nuclear weapons. and i'm gravely concerned that the nuclear deal with iran will prove to be the marriage certificate of that unholy union.
i know that some well-intentioned people sincerely believe that this deal is the best way to block iran's path to the bomb. but one of history's most important yet least learned lessons is this, the best intentions don't prevent the worst outcomes. the vast majority of israelis believe that this nuclear deal with iran is a very bad deal. and what makes matters even worse is that we see a world celebrating this bad deal, rushing to embrace and do business with a regime openly committed to our destruction. last week, maj.gen. salehi, the commander of iran's army, proclaimed this, we will annihilate israel for sure. we are glad that we are in the forefront of executing the
supreme leader's order to destroy israel. and as for the supreme leader himself, a few days after the nuclear deal was announced, he released his latest book. here it is. it's a 400-page screed detailing his plan to destroy the state of israel. last month, khamenei once again made his genocidal intentions clear before iran's top clerical body, the assembly of experts. he spoke about israel, home to
over six million jews. he pledged, quote, there will be no israel in 25 years, end quote. 70 years after the murder of six million jews, iran's rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing.