tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 18, 2016 3:00am-7:01am EST
we thought we were like at 20 and trying to go for more. hillary was like this in those districts. she went like that in those districts. i'm talking from the stand point of what the numbers i have seen in our races. in terms of hillary's race, i think the minute he came without -- he came out with that letter, that was totally wrong. that's a two-part -- i think everybody has to be vetted in terms of giuliani. hopefully they'll have a vetting. as you may know, yesterday, in our previous question on the floor, we were saying, don't vote for this, let us bring up a bill that says, no lobbyist should be on the transition team. no funds in this act following the legislation that's already there, but codifying that they shouldn't be on the transition team. certainly the vetting process that everybody goes through, no matter who wins the election, will reveal what his exposure
is. [inaudible] reporter: is that against nepotism rules? that is a third question. you're next. reporter: congressman tim ryan, considering a challenge against you, we talked to him on the way into the caucus meeting. he said that we have the lowest number of -- in our caucus, since 1929, and we lost over 60 seats since 2010. he said that, speaking about you, he said, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and keep getting the same results. i wonder if you could respond to that. ms. pelosi: i don't want to respond to that. i will say the following. and that is, in 2005 and 2006, i orchestrated the takeback of the house of representatives. i'm very, very proud of that. and as i said, we see that as an opportunity now. president bush was president, the democrats took the house. when president obama was president, the republicans took
the house. so we have an opportunity. doesn't mean any guarantees but means we will do hard work. i am very proud to have the opportunity and i know how to do it to get it done, but i'm not responding. reporter: jesse jackson asking for president obama to pardon hillary clinton. what are your thoughts on that. ms. pelosi: i don't know i have the faintest idea what you are talking about. i just don't know. pardon her for what? i'm sorry. that doesn't make any sense to me. reporter: on appropriations what's your reaction to chairman rogers to have a c.r. through the end of march? and supplementals will house democrats be pushing for in terms of judgmental funding? ms. pelosi: a supplemental bill?
he just said that about the c.r. reporter: are you going to attach supplemental appropriations? i know there is a war supplemental. ms. pelosi: a supplemental bill is a separate bill. the c.r. is how we go forward. i would have hoped woe would have achieved an omnibus. democrats and republicans on the appropriations committee and i'm from that culture and we were able to try to work together and they had been making good progress until this morning on finishing up the appropriations bill. now this freezes it because they are talking about until march. i think it would be to give the american people certainty and whether it's a person getting a
social security check or all the way across the board, you want some certainty. and to go to march is really not certain. but i would say this, i think they are making a big mistake for themselves. they are going to have a kettle of fish in march that they can't even imagine and too bad we couldn't have gone to next september. reporter: do you think that democrats have forgotten white working class voters? ms. pelosi: no. reporter: what do you say to critics that you may not be the right person to able to speak to the voters? ms. pelosi: i take great pride in the city i represent of san francisco and i take great pride in the fact that the whole state of california has been the source of so many ideas,
intellectual resources, political resources, financial resources that helped us win the congress in 2006. when people bring up numbers saying we have fewer democrats than before. the fact is we got our high numbers. when we had a higher number, in terms of a functioning majority, if you want to talk numbers, you have to talk reality of that. to answer your question, the encouragement that i have from my colleagues is that i enabled them to do what they do. it's not about me, it's about them. and they have an opportunity to make this contrast between soon-to-be president trump and what we stand for. look, as far as we are concerned, the problem is more
with the communication than it was with our policy. facing republican resistance bailed out the auto industry. congressional democrats and president obama at the time when mitt romney is in an op ed but when he wrote an op ed that we were interfering with the free market by bailing out the auto industry. and we did that. what does that affect? millions of jobs in ohio, michigan and pennsylvania, indiana, iowa. we didn't message it. i would say to people, you may think you are messaging, but if your spouse doesn't think you
are messaging, we aren't communicating. we had to get that message out there. our work here for our friends in labor and collective bargaining and nlrb and osha is a fight we fight for them, a fight to increase the minimum wage. the whole country should be behind increasing the minimum wage after they heard the cry for help from this campaign to increase paychecks. our lives are dedicated to those people who didn't communicate it on the successes we had and quite frankly. the election of the republican congress interfered with the next steps in what we were doing to increase the paycheck to stop every job initiative that president obama put forth. reporter: this is an intel question.
not heavily noticed, but the head of the n.s.a., michael rogers said in public that a foreign entity had specifically intervened in order to change the outcome of the election and he wants people to understand that. the community had already -- homeland security made that assessment. ms. pelosi: that's the one that director comey talked about. reporter: a lot of people heard that from rogers. and from where you sit, the head of the n.s.a. speak publicly in that way, how do you interpret the intelligence community's to -- communities desire now to have congress amp up this issue and take it seriously? whether to hold hearings or empower them. when you heard hear messages like that? ms. pelosi: i said it the first day of the convention that the russians were hacking our
system. i didn't know it from official stats. i knew it because we had to spend money to figure out who was hacking our system and it was the russians. it took a while for the intelligence community to make that statement. i don't know why -- you tell me, why the media didn't say, isn't there something wrong with this picture when somebody hacked our system and releasing emails that are only on the democratic side? wasn't that a clue they wanted us to look bad? we know it's the russians and they are leaking it and only democratic leaks. so, ok, that's one thing, but for comey then to go to the place where he went with not signing it, because the
consensus because it was too close to the election, he then is notd this other thing too close to the election. reporter: i'm interested in going forward. ms. pelosi: the american people need to know that a foreign power interfered in our election. and not to be sour grapes. we all take responsibility for our role and how we got to where we are in the election, but the fact is no matter how the election turned out, even if hillary clinton had won, the fact is the american people have to believe in the integrity of the system and it has been a custom and practice of the russians to disrupt elections, not just in the united states, but in other countries for their own purpose. and in the u.s., the main purpose is to undermine democracy and to have people who is skeptical about the
sacredness of the vote. i thinwe should have -- and know that there is a request for an inspector general report by elijah cummings on what happened at the f.b.i., who, what, when and why -- you have to talk to him about the particulars of it. and i'm saying there has to be something biggerhan that even. i have to go now. reporter: on earmarks, has something changed and whether they should be in the legislative process? legislative process. -- legislative process? ms. pelosi: i've never been an opponent of legislatively directed resources and don't give it to the administration to make those decisions. there has been talk about relaxing that for state and local government, earmarks and i hope they go down that path that
they would include native american sovereignty as well as one of those categories that would be part of any change in gislatively-directed sources. thk you all very much. >> at his weekly briefing, pa ryan said he is ready to move forward on donald trump's agenda . he also took questions from reporters about minorities for his party. this is 10 minutes. >> good morning. week congress gave final approval to legislation that will help terans. hr 5392 requires the v8 respond
to calls to its crisis hotlines in a timely manner. this is one of those bills that should not becessary but sadly its. rlier weearned that more than one out of three calls to the mvarisisutne- the the a crisis hotneas going unanswered. this bill authored byur coeae ruis to be a mak improvements to -- apart of our better waygenda we e rking toward a truly 21st century v.a. , is initiative is good news time to be grateful foall of the men and women who have fought. second, rlr this week, house republican senats sent a letter to the am ministration asking if thedo no advance any new regulations before leaving office. rember, this is not unusual.
incoming administration made a similar request. -- there is a traditioof bipartisan opposition to gulations imposed at the end of aoutgoing administration. we have en just how the impact of just one rule can hurt entire industries and livelihoods. the last thing we need tsee today and -- or in the next week are unelected bureaucrats pushing to regulations at the 11th hour. we look forward to tackle--to tackling reform. house republicans met with me pence. sounds good. he gave our members and update on the transition and priorities for this new administration. one thing that is visit phasized is that if we are committed to hing a unified we brokenovnment -- unie republican goveren -- if we
are going to go b, we he t to hit the ground running. the american people voted for chan, and a rdy to get to work. i willeeng with thvice president later to discusmo thin. your understanding, do you believe that kushner shld be able to take aob at the white house? : he was an ryan tegral part of the campaign. hes brilliant part of the campaign that donald trump trts. he played a very important role in this campaign. that shod respected. i don't have a deep undetanding of how they work. --i know there's a lot [inaudible] care? areor health
you concerned there are two rces the public is like why haven' you passed all of the stuff? you want to do it rht so it is going to take someim. how do youalce tho two things. senar paul: that is what we are doing with the team right w. -- wmoved fairly qck here in a house buthe senate is a another story. we will delir on ts agenda. that takes time becae at is how the legislature works. we will be making sure that he will understand how the progress of legislation works because we tend on delivering. this is the most productive congress we have seen in a long time.
i am confident the way the leslative process, they are gointoee we're hitting the ground running. we are going to fix these prlems for the arican people. that, whatg up on are the spific legislations in the first 100 days. rep. ryan: where in the beginning of a transition eo -- transition period. where planning that transiti. that is the kind of conversations are having to make sure we plan, not just here in the house, but with our friends in the senate and the new incoming administration. will plenty of time to talk about th later ,> you talked about taxuts obamacare. rep. ryan: we'll have plenty of time to lk about later. th iwhat our transition is about. none of theseecio have
been made. when we haveaddecisions about the timing of legislation, you will be first to know. >> one thing tt na trump has talked about, the drain the swamp agenda. term limits on members of congress. what is your view? rep. ryan: i have been aan of term limits. i will lvet up to others to decide that. judiciary committee. i ve been in favor of term limits since i have been here. does trump seem to be asking y guys to do that echo rep. ryan: the new incoming government would like to have a say so on how spending is to be allocated in 2017. where working wi the new trump .dministration on the timing i think they would like to have
a say so on how money is going to be spent going into the rest of the fiscal year. >> [inaudible] rep. rn: what they have asked us is to work with them on a continued resolution. we are going to do just that, because i think we have a lot of priorities that we will to see changed relative to the obama funding porities. >> how would your desires for unified republican government and the desire to go big be helped by a possible return of the earmark? rep. ryan: he's what our members are concerned about. we are worried that we have seen the dilution of the separation of powers. these it if branch has been giving farc in its power and we have seen violence done to the separation of powers. restoring the power of the purse to the leglative branch so unelected official and hold the unelected officials accountable.
we decided we are going to spend a good amount of time deliberating how best to do that . we are goi to be spending the first quarter of 2017 figuring out how we can make sure we can restore the power of the purse to the legislati branch, to the unelected branch of government. we are going to have a debate on how do our job as holding down the executive branch. here's the concern. the one that many members talk about is the army corps of engineers which is run by unelected people that do not reflect the will and sentiment of the elected branch of government. we want to make sure that in this opportunity we have with ,nified republican government we are restoring the constitution, e separation of powers, the accountability to the federal govnment. when we say drain the swamp, that means stop giving power to
unelected people to micromane our lives and restore the constiti. >> can you l out your big picture thinking of the trump house republican agenda. how do you secure the border? increase defense spending? increase infrastructure spending? rep. ryan: you need to hold down spending in the critical areas where it is growing so fast. you need to grow the economy. let's not forget that we have been in a ow growth economy for far too long. we are limping along. not even close to our potential. what we want to do is get this economy growing, releasing the regulatory chokehold that is on the u.s. economy is one of the first things we can do to help this economy. conference of tax reform is one of the things we can do. best economic growth means more
gdp, more wages, more jobs, more revenue. we also have to deal with the drivers of our debt. don't forget that omacare wrote free entitlement programs. the free entitlement programs that are the main drivers of our debt. and we replace obamacare in law, this is a law where people are getting hit consistently with double-digit premium increases. this is a lathat is rising the deductibles so high, families don't feel like to have health insurance because the deductibles are so high. ofording to kaiser, 30% famies have one choice of a plan. this law is failing. forget the fact that this law rewrote medicaid and medicare. .his law has done great damage we have got to replace this law with one that works for the american people, with one that
gives american people more choices. we can lower prices and get better health care value for a dollar. you fix the health care problem. you are dramatically fixing the fiscal problem of this country. if we want to nurse ourselves back to physical health, economic growth and replacehis broken obamacare law. >> [inaudible] rep. ryan: we'll get into all of the stuff down the rd. >> it three years to get from the passage of the report correct -- how early can you for see [indiscernible] rep. ryan: it is a great question. it is one we are going to begin with all year long. it is too early to know the answer to, how fast can obamacare occur? how do we get obamacare repealed and what we replace it with so
we can get that relief to the american families as fast as possible. that's one of the big topics of our transition. reporter: president-elect trump is promising to defund planned parenthood. the rebel can house passed legislation that prohibits [inaudible] rep. ryan: we have shown what we believe. we put a bill on president obama's desk in reconciliation. our position has not changed. reporter: thank you. announcer: a look at events surrounding the transition of president-elect donald trump. kellyanne conway spoke to reporters about mr. -- mr. trump's meeting with the japanese prime minister. that is followed by jeb hensarling and jeff sessions.
reporter: do we expect any announcements today? ms. conway: after thanksgiving is probably more appropriate. we look at past administrations and we're right on target and on time in all of that. in 2000, the country went to thanksgiving without knowing who the president was. we're way ahead of schedule.
[indiscernible] >> we talked about financial reform. >> we talked about financial reform. i wanted to tell the president-elect donald trump i'm on his team, very excited to help a drink this want and get the economy working for working americans again. we were talking policy, dodd frank, trade, a wonderful conversation and i stand ready to help the president in any capacity possible. i have a great division in -- a great position in public policy. regardless, i'm on his team and excited for what he can do for america. it was a real honor to be here. now if you'll forgive me, i have a plane to catch to go back to my family in dallas, texas. thank you all.
>> it's been a very exciting experience. there are a lot of great people making applications to the transition committee. my former chief of staff rick dearborn has done a great job on incredible demand. the whole team is, they're working long, long hours. i mean 20 hours a day. it's remarkable what is happening. i'm one of the co-chairs of five, i believe, co-chairs of the committee of vice president elect pence. donald trump, i have been in a number of meetings with him. he talks to people under consideration. he would like to meet and talk to and just see who they are.
he just does a really good job. he is engaging, right there talking to them. it's a good vibe, good feel, he gets a good feel for people and i think he has a good ability to size up people in an effective way. a big part of his success in business is having good people around him. she asked me to share a few thoughts with you and i have done that. she is a great, positive leader. the whole team is working well together. reince priebus is exceedingly talented in my opinion. he can talk with three people on three phones at the same time which is a good quality for chief of staff. he knows everybody and has good judgment. steve bannon is a powerful intellect and a thoughtful that consistently provides good advice.
i would be honored to be considered and mr. trump will make those decisions. reporter: do you want to be secretary of state? >> if he asks me, i'll chair with him, but i'm not talking about my agenda at this point. i would be pleased to continue to serve in the senate. we got a lot of work to do there, but i do feel for my conversation with others that the house and senate are charged up. they believe we have a new leader, that the president will be the one that sets the agenda on the whole congress will be supported. reporter: will you be with trump in these meetings? >> i planned to go back to d.c. and i may not do that. i don't think so at this point. >> how long do you plan to stay here in new york? >> not much longer. tomorrow is friday, i think. >> have you seen "hamilton"? >> i have not seen "hamilton."
i have not committed to do that so i'm not -- i'm not committed to go to that. reporter: mitt romney meeting with donald trump. what do you think about this idea that rivals in the campaign season and we're past the point where the campaign is over, is there coalescing or how do you see that? >> i think it's the -- i think it is good the president-elect is meeting with people like mr. romneyment he needs lots of talented people to have good relationships with. i think mr. romney will be quite capable of doing a number of things, but he'll be one of those i'm sure that is reviewed. mr. trump will make that decision. reporter: do you think he'll be confirmed in the senate? >> people have to make that
>> follow the transition of government on c-span as donald trump becomes the 45th resident. -- 45th president and the republicans maintain control of the house and senate. we will take you to events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span and on-demand at c-span.org. >> think you all very much. -- thank you all very much. >> coming up, national director james clapper testifying before congress. and then the life and legacy of antonin scalia. bernie sanders on his new leadership role in the next steps for progressives. today a panel on the election of donald trump and the presidential transition process. from our white house officials, from our partners at the event
hosted by the washington center. on march 16, following the death of antonin scalia, president obama nominated merrick garland for a seat on the supreme court. republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings. today's constitution society will discuss the role of the senate. will have that live at noon eastern on c-span two. been a greatays admirer of america and student of american history. particularly the history of its african descended people. >> sunday night on q and a, the author talks about his memoir, never look and american in the eye, flying turtles in the making of a nigerian american. >> might uncle formed this
impression from watching cinema where this cowboy would gather together in a bar in exchange a few words and we never understood what they were saying . at one point they would tear each other down and start shooting. impressionrmed the that is what americans would do, shoot you, if you look them in the eye. >> sunday on q and a. >> james clapper testified on thursday. he announced his resignation at this hearing and answered questions about recent cyber hacks by russia. is an hour and 45 minutes.
e asct of the putin doctrine has been to enhance his own stature at home by provoking confrontation -- provoking confrontation with the west, by trimming for his people at home the united states the russian equivalent to the great satan. with hishe square that comments or overtures to the president-elect? kremlin words, does the needed the american bogeyman to maintain popularity at home and how will they deal with that conflict if there is a different relationship between the president-elect and the kremlin? clearly can say is to this spiritd
of nationalism in russia by , and ing to citizenry think somewhat as a distraction or offer opposition for the economic amortization's that the russian population continues to suffer because of their economic straits they are in and the continued contraction of their economy. he does exhort an appeal to patriotic spirit of the russian people. his standing up to opponents of the west. reaffirming in their minds a russian greatness. >> let me ask one last question,
both director clapper and secretary work about isis and the campaign in syria. there have been a number of statements from the pentagon about the timing of the campaign against raqqa. i have had concerns about whether we have the forces to undertake that. whether it is premature. but there have been public comment about two imperatives accelerating that campaign and one is an intensification of plotting by isis against the united states and the need to move quickly. the need to diminish that threat. and the other is the fear of people, isis figures, leaving mosul and reinforcing efforts in raqqa. how much are those two concerns driving that campaign and how do
you ascribe that threat to the united states from isis at the moment in terms of external operations planning? and the military trade-off of moving more quickly than the forces are prepared but the necessity of cutting off people that are fleeing mosul? >> the campaign design that was settled on a year ago today is generally going on along the lines of which we expected. it always was to isolate mosul and raqqa and then to reduce them. we are far ahead on the mosul campaign because we have reliable partners on the ground. the iraqi security forces, especially their counterterrorism service have really been getting after the bad guys. we have been providing a lot of support in going after the external operations leaders,
both in iraq and syria. that is the president's and that secretary's number one concern going after the external ops guys and we have had a lot of success. the campaign to isolate raqqa was always number two in the queue. the syrian democratic forces are the isolation force and they are in the process of isolating raqqa and the force that will ultimately reduce raqqa is now being determined among all of the actors in the region. meanwhile, we continue to head every single external ops guy, either on the front or al qaeda in syria or isil. we are having a lot of success in doing so. >> i don't think we can make a
direct correlation between as the pressure increases on the caliphate and it shrinks, that we can relate that directly or we don't have evidence to heightens the threat to the homeland. that has been a constant with isil and i don't think there is a direct relationship between the diminishment of their territory and the magnitude of that threat. it is still a concern of ours. we have had a lot of success in taking out both leaders of the external operations and some of their lesser lower-level people. >> i yield back. >> mr. khan awaits is recognized. >> russia today -- the propaganda arm of putin is well-funded.
they have a scheme, a playbook that says, if we can force the americans to question one another, how does the line of questioning relative to trying to create some sort of a sinister link between whatever mr. trump may have done -- how does that play into the playbook? as trained professionals, intelligence professionals, is that in fact exactly what they are trying to get us to do? dir. clapper: they have incurred some budget cuts on their network and have not been all that successful in conveying messages here in the u.s. they do broadcast elsewhere and that is exactly what they tried
to do particularly in europe. having traveled there and watched rt, they are focusing much more on europe then the than the united states. >> it is in their playbook. if you look at what they did in ukraine and elsewhere, they get the citizens to turn on themselves. that line of questioning you will hear all day today will be playing directly into the rt playbook and they are quite successful in europe. turning from that though, we have been fighting in afghanistan and iraq for a long time. can you give us a couple of examples where we are better today than when we first started -- lessons learned that are now part of the norm versus -- dir. clapper: in terms of sharing intelligence with dod?
>> gathering and sharing. are you better now than you were in 2003? dir. clapper: i think so. >> can you give us some examples? dir. clapper: i cannot go into specifics in this setting. i did visit kuwait, the task force command there last week. i was briefed on some examples of the contributions the agencies have made, specifically nsa and dia. general townsend was very high in his praise regarding what the intelligence community is doing on his behalf. i think this is emblematic of the relationship because these are combat support agencies in dod as well as well as being parts of the intelligence
community. i am happy to give you specific examples that would be classified to illustrate that. >> you mentioned joint duty and the successes early on. i had questions regarding the impact it would have on the personnel's career paths, if they left their home agency and went somewhere else. can you talk about the impact that has had on career development? are commanders willing to give up their best and brightest to go to the intel agencies? is the joint duty working the way you intended? >> congressman, i will take a first crack at this. in my experience, the joint duty program for intelligence officers has soft to model the -- has sought to
model the successes of the joint tours of duty on the military side under goldwater nichols which had been successful in driving that integration in the last 30 years for the military. the same is starting to play out in the intelligence joint duty program. my observation is that in almost all cases, individuals who serve a joint duty gain experiences that make them far more valuable and developed as leaders for the intelligence community upon completion of that joint duty tour. that said, one of the things we need to continue to work on in the years ahead is how to make that return back to the home organization even more effective so that in a seamless way, they are able to come back to their home organization, to the right kind of job that fully leverages that kind of assignment. >> we have had to go to school on this a bit on how to manage this arrangement. it is easier and more convenient when you manage a workforce that is self-contained within a particular agency.
in my own headquarters, where we have maintained 40% of our workforce, our detail ease from other components and you do need to pay attention to that and manage their assignments, ensure they get appropriate ratings and bonuses where appropriate. and i think though the enrichment of the force, and the professional capability of the force is far better. there has been a profound sociological change in the intelligence community. thousands of employees have deployed multiple times since 9/11. and that has had i think of profound change in the professionalism and the identification with the mission of our civilian employees. >> your time has expired. >> thank you, chairman.
thank you gentleman for your service. mr. clapper, a word of advice when you talk about retirement. you mentioned your wife. a friend of mine retired and his wife said i married you for better or for worse but i did not marry you for lunch. good luck on that. in the time we have, would you give us a little of your thoughts concerning the homeland and security -- what are your priorities or chief concerns besides cyber attacks? to me, it is a concern that the attacks could be more -- could be generated from the outside but also less sophisticated and harder to stop or even know about. dir. clapper: you have touched on what is of great concern to us -- not so much the massive complex attack that we suffered on 9/11 but rather those caused by individuals or small cells of
people. that is a tremendous challenge for us. one of the things i have tried to work in my time as dni is promoting not only the horizontal integration across our agencies but also vertically with the state, local, and private sector. i think we have made a lot of improvement there. i will for example be meeting with my homeland security and law enforcement advisor group tonight which is an outstanding group of chiefs of police and law enforcement intelligence representatives who do great work. i think the creation and operation of the fusion center network across the country which are increasingly becoming more
internetted is a great bulwark against foreign attacks. but i will leave this job concerned about the impact of so-called lone wolves or homegrown extremism. that is a very complex problem that requires i think first and foremost community involvement. intelligence and law enforcement can do so much to help clarify the picture of what that threat is. >> congressman, may i say that in addition to counterterrorism and cyber threats that the director mentioned, on the military side, we also think about threats to the homeland regarding more traditional military capabilities involving missiles. a one of the main projects we have underway is to look at how to improve our intelligence indications and warning to better be able to respond to
those types of contingencies as well. i think it is important to think about the full spectrum of threats to the homeland that we face. >> i have heard several talk about the affects of sequestration on our protection of the homeland. what concerns me is if you could add a thought and i note this -- and i know it doesn't come out of this committee but homeland security grants to local governments cut by 50% roughly in the last five years -- transportation security grants, 75%. infrastructure was zeroed out. your thoughts? dir. clapper: sequestration -- the specter of sequestration which runs through 2021 continues and potentially has impact across the board.
that is something we struggle with every program year and of course the uncertainty that creates and the painful trades we have to make -- they are a fact of life. programmatically it has become the new norm having lived with it for five years. mr. pompeo: i sit on a joint task force along with others looking into the manipulation of intelligence at central command. have you had a chance to read the interim report filed by the task force? dir. clapper: i have read that. mr. pompeo: there are clear cases of intelligence manipulation. what accountability for any
person associated with that has been held? >> what we have been waiting for is the completion of the ig investigation. mr. pompeo: we have soldiers in the field and we had intelligence not getting to the right place. to tell a soldier that they are waiting for an ig report is unacceptable. tell me who has been held accountable. >> i would have to ask if any particular people have been held accountable. what we have said over and over again is we expect the highest standards in the intelligence community. mr. pompeo: did we get that? >> director clapper spoke to the overall assessment is we are improving. >> congressman, i will add that
we are not able to take authoritative personnel related actions on these instances and allegations until the ig investigation is completed. it has taken quite a while. we are as eager as this committee is to get the result of that ig investigation and be able to take action on those. in the interim, there are some systemic and management actions we have taken on the dod side working closely with director clapper and his team. first and foremost, as director clapper mentioned, in the natural changeover of duties at central command with the commander and the j-2, we both have along with the director of dia strongly emphasized the need for the j-2 to look at the situation. we have also taken a number of initiatives.
we are in the process of ensuring that there is an ombudsman in place. someone analysts can come to anonymously. report concerns that they may have and have an advocate. >> i am glad you are doing those things. they sound great to me. i have to tell you that the american people and our soldiers deserve not to wait to hold accountable those folks who put bad information in the field. there are indications that information was withheld from the presidential daily briefing. is that accurate? dir. clapper: i am aware of the reports and the examination done by our analytic integrity officers found no substantiation of that. >> there are also press reports
that say you had conversations with great frequency circumventing the chain of command. you testified that they come to the national level only through the dia. how do you square conversations you are having with the j-2 add one command with that testimony? dir. clapper: the conversations i had with the j-2 was only for tactical updates. not to discuss a broad assessment. and i would also comment that in every one of these it was a split screen and the j-2 was always represented in these dialogues. the reference to a assessment -- the reference to assessment finding their way into national intelligence estimates or pdb articles is done through the defense intelligence agency, not
direct from centcom or any other command. >> director clapper, president obama removed iran's designation as a proliferator. did iran change its activities in any way to prompt this removal? dir. clapper: i believe, if i am correct, iran is still a state-sponsor of terrorism. i don't think we have reclassified iran. >> the designation was removed as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. can you tell me if iran's behavior has changed to justify such a removal?
dir. clapper: i cannot say that iran's behavior has changed. it has continued its aggressive missile development and missile fielding. in terms of its proliferating to other countries, i cannot -- i would have to research that and provide on a classified basis if we have information on that. >> thank you mr. clapper. thank you mr. chairman. >> i want to devote my five minutes to the topic of cyber security. and in particular let me start with you director clapper and thank you for your service. we really appreciate all you have done over the length of your long career.
i would like to start with you. let me give you the bulk of the time. what i am interested in is not achievements and the progress we have made because clearly we have with integration system but -- integration center and everything else, but as you think about withdrawing on the field, what would you identify as the most specific weaknesses, unaddressed vulnerabilities, areas of focus for both the ic and this committee in terms of our defense against cyber threats? dir. clapper: we need -- i think we make a healthy investment in the national intelligence program on intelligence to support cyber threats. obviously, it is always good to have more money but i think as a proportion of everything else we have to look at, i think we are in reasonably good shape.
but the challenge for us is always going to be the fundamental fact that the internet is insecure and any time you have a dependency on internet, we are going to be playing catch-up in reaction to defending our networks. the other issue i would mention is the creation of both the substance and the psychology of deterrence in the cyber realm. that has been a challenge. the issue there is whether you react on a binary basis or asymmetrical basis via cyber us all and you react in the cyber context or do you retaliate some other way? i think that is going to be a challenge for the country --
>> is the challenge as you identify it one of the development of the doctrine or is it a technical issue? dir. clapper: i think it is more the development of a doctrine and policy. and developing a body of law through experience. it took hundreds of years to develop the law of the state which may be a rough analog to where we are with cyber. and we have not had enough time get to develop that body of law. and until such time as there are some norms developed and we have a firm definition of what deterrence means and that is recognized by both state and nonstate actors, we're going to have a problem with cyber defense. >> one specific question on that topic. the committee has spent a great
deal of time in the cyber security information sharing act. how are we doing with respect to the private sector, working with security agencies to address the cyber threat? is there enough communication, or is there more that can be done? dir. clapper: i think there is. i think this is a shared responsibility a cross the ic. fbi is involved. and very importantly the department of homeland security. this also, when you say engagement with the private sector, that is as big as all outdoors. and finding the right and keeping active the right conduits so that we can share and by the way the sharing needs to be two ways, down to us and from us to them. but i think there is a lot of improvement that have been made. the department of homeland security has made huge strides
there but that is not to say that there is not more to do. >> i yield back. >> in terms of cyber security, the number one thing we are turned to do is secure our networks. we have made progress on this. we are building of our cyber workforce. we should have all of the cyber mission teams in fy 17 and making sure that we have the right people. the other thing we are really worried about and we are looking at heart is the internet of dod things. all of our weapons systems that we generally operate today were designed in an era where cyber security threats were not that stressing. so going through all of the different systems that we have, identifying cyber vulnerabilities and prioritizing them has been a big focus of the department. we have a cyber scorecard
briefed every month to six weeks and we are looking at all of these different factors on trying to improve our cyber security. we have a long way to go but we have made a lot of progress. >> thank you mr. clapper for your service. i would like to get back into this centcom discussion. and the reason why we investigated this and the first -- investigated this in the first place. as you remember, general jim mattis left abruptly in 2013. the director of intelligence remained in place for the first part of 2014. under general austin, and around june, that changed. there was a turnover. people over at centcom. intelligence started coming out regarding mosul which was inaccurate.
i think everyone can look back at that now and say -- mosul did fall. it did not have the capabilities that some people thought. but the intelligence since then has been in dispute. as you know, 40% of the workforce, twice the number of typical commands felt that the final product had been somewhat distorted. and through our review, many of those employees to this day believe that the culture at centcom has been somewhat toxic to use a word that came up time and time again. right now, we are back in mosul again. we have people there. how do we know that the intelligence coming out of centcom today is anymore reliable then it was coming out
two years ago? dir. clapper: we do not depend only on centcom for intelligence reporting. in fact, one of the reasons i do consult with them is to ensure that we are on the same page. so, we have other national assets that tell us whether what we are seeing operationally or what we are hearing reported operationally comports with what we are seeing through intelligence. and my observations through the current campaign are that they do. >> as you know, we have the largest number of folks working in intelligence at centcom than at any of the commands. we spend quite a bit of money to make sure that these folks are well-equipped and well manned to
make sure that they provide the best intelligence to the were -- to the war fighter and the combatant commander as possible. are you confident that is occurring today? that the intelligence coming out of centcom has improved? i think it is beyond dispute that we had a problem to years -- had a problem two years ago. has that been cleared up? dir. clapper: i am somewhat removed from the command but from what i have observed, that is the case. i don't know if you were here earlier when i quoted the latest statistics statistic from our statistics -- latest statistics from our analytic survey which reflects a positive trend. the number of respondents reflecting analytic integrity issues has declined. and importantly, their comments on management response when they did have issues has increased. the behavior -- the reflections of this at centcom are beginning
to level out and comport with all of the other combatant commands. i do think by virtue of the change in commanders and the change in the j-2, that that has been a change in the --. -- a change in me atmosphere -- a change in the atmosphere. i have been encouraged by the trends, particularly this year. >> thank you. >> i am going to tell members that we have three votes now with a motion to recommit. i am going to try and keep this open so members can come back. at the end of the motion to recommit, we will have to end the hearing. mr. murphy is recognized. mr. murphy: how important is it that we have rules of engagement with cyber to let adversaries know, state-sponsored or not,
that they know that there will be a response? dir. clapper: this gets to the point about developing a body of law. and conveying those messages is much easier with nationstates because everyone recognizes that there are mutual vulnerabilities. the greater challenge for my part is the non-nation state entities which over time are going to develop more capabilities in the cyber realm to commit to render a tax. so i think the notion of building a sense of deterrence, the psychology of deterrence is going to be difficult. i think there are is certainly progress with the chinese as a
result of the agreement struck in september of 2015. and we will have to see whether that is continued. but i think the greater challenge is non-nation state entities. >> with things moving as quickly as they do with technology and cyber, how has your experience been for recruiting the best talent in the world to make sure we are a step ahead? dir. clapper: we have sustained a level of recruitment and we continue to be able to bring great, young people into the community. the greater challenge is retention. they will come to us either as young civilians or as military and then they become very attractive and appealing to commercial sector.
so then, we have a challenge with retaining people in the face of some pretty appealing compensation packages that a lot of our people have had experience in the intelligence community get and that makes them very attractive. >> i think we would be remiss if we did not pick your brain briefly in what you think and based on your experience over the next 5-10 years, the greatest threats we face as a nation. what we are doing to address that and what we should be doing especially with a new administration coming in. dir. clapper: are you speaking only of cyber? >> in general. dir. clapper: that is a hard question to answer because from an intelligence perspective, we have to be a alert to all of these threats. i wish i could rank them and pick and choose which ones to worry about but unfortunately,
they are all a problem for us. so whether it is the nationstate challenges posed by the likes of russia, china, north korea, and iran or transnational concerns like counterterrorism, like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is personally a growing concern for me. the challenges posed in the cyber dimension. we have to, and our approach has been to try to maintain a balance so that we can protect and to address the full range of threats. so i am hesitant to try to pick one and say -- this is the one that is going to confront us or say this will be the worst in the next 5-10 years. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i am pleased to hear that things are better at centcom. i served on that investigation and clearly we have concerns about what went on in 2050. -- born in 2015. i know that has been addressed to some degree. what are the root causes in your opinion of the unacceptable command climate that was existing at centcom at the time? >> this is something that secretary carter and i have discussed. we want to know what happened and why it happened. we have been looking to director clapper and the undersecretary of defense to say -- this is what we think the problems were. we have tried to get after it. the thing that the secretary and i, trying to stay above the ig investigation is simply to say, we expect, we expect all of our
intelligence analysts to have full freedom to say what they need to say, to speak truth to power, we expect the chain of command to pass that information up the chain. every decision we make on the campaign is based on the assumption of good intelligence. so, it is very important to us and we are waiting the judgments of the intelligence professionals on how we can improve. >> when do you expect that we will get that? we have gotten a lot of information on our committee and our investigation. open source news has provided much information. when do you expect we will get something back? it is hard to " right or wrong" if you keep playing with that. how do you avoid it happening again when we are taking far too long to figure out what happened and why it happened. we have honed it down to the j.
-- it to the section in the chain where things seem to change. why is it taking so long and we have gathered so much information? >> one of the largest jobs is to -- one of the hardest jobs is to be patient when these type of investigations are ongoing. i cannot tell you when it will be finished. >> i don't know that you should be patient actually. i think it is time we come forward and let the american people know what was taking place. at least let this committee know what had been taking place. hopefully, it is corrected. frankly, i am surprised you are content with 25% in this survey as being an acceptable number. i would be shooting for a lot less than that. and you are free to comment, director clapper if you would like to. dir. clapper: i think it is important to bear in mind that we are having -- this is a debate about subjective
subjects. where there can be room for honest analytic disagreements because we are always operating from incomplete or less-than-perfect facts. and so, people who are experts in this can have and do have honest disagreements. so i do not find the figure, again given the subjectivity of the subject matter, i do not find that alarming and that is pretty much on a par with the behavior. i would be more concerned if it were zero. if there were no disagreements -- no dissent anywhere at anytime. that would be disturbing to me. i would want to know why that is so. >> i can understand that
argument for the 25%, but i sure cannot for the 40%. that does not fly in the face of what is going on at the other commands and that is unacceptable. the fact that we have had so many whistleblowers come forward speaks volumes. we have an obligation here to have oversight. lives depend on this as you well know. lives depend on the type of reporting that is going up. so, we have had plenty of testimony on our side. there should be something that the ig should come forward with and very soon. not just try to run out the clock. i would think that before you go, this would be something you would want to have resolved and taking care of. dir. clapper: yes it is. your report took me and the rest of the intelligence community to task for seemingly sitting on our hands and not doing anything and not taking corrective action about this which we were enjoined not to. i would like to get this resolved.
in the interest of general grove who hasral moved onto another assignment, exactly what the ig finds will be important and it would be great if it happened before i leave. and if i may, i do need to clarify my statement about resignation. it is not effective until noon on january 20. not immediately. >> i appreciate your time and service to the country and i hope this is wrapped up and rectified so that we can move forward in a positive way before you leave. thank you. >> mr. castro is recognized. mr. castro: director clapper, thank you for your service to the nation in this role and so many others before it. we appreciate it very much. we have just, off of unprecedented intrusion from a foreign government in our
democratic process in an election that just finished last week and also unprecedented intrusion in a director of our intelligence community. based on those two things, i have a few questions. the first is, do we know whether the russian government or those responsible for the hacking of the democratic committee, share any information with americans during the last year or year and a half? dir. clapper: i would rather not respond off the top of my head. in any event, this would probably be best left to a classified session. >> ok. i will be sure to follow up with you on that. a second question is as head of the u.s. intelligence community, do you believe that the fbi director comey breached any protocol in his actions during
the last month? dir. clapper: i have no reason to question the director. i have -- i think extremely highly of him. so whatever actions he took, and he did so with what he thought was best. i have no basis to question him. >> thank you, mr. castro. i am going to get back to the remaining questions that i have. so i will try to get through them quickly. secretary work, are you familiar with the decision by eucom in 2011? where the requirement for the new center was to be an hour outside of london? >> i do know that an aoa suggested that we should consolidate at raf crown.
>> but the requirement was specifically to be an hour outside of london. are you aware of this requirement? >> i am not aware of a specific requirement. i am aware ofaoa the analysis that was done to support the move. >> director clapper are you aware of this? dir. clapper: no, i am not. >> this committee has learned that the decision was made before an aoa was ever completed. -- they claimnd that despite dod's claims that they looked at 16 locations, 15 of the 16 alternatives -- there is no documentation on 15 of the 16 other alternatives.
do you know what happened to this documentation? dir. clapper: no sir. i do know that the investigation occurred approximately six years after that was done. one of the things they did say that we were lacking documentation that the most important conclusion that they made was that our actions were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing the ods -- describing dod's rationale for choosing raf. that to me is a slamdunk. >> except for the fact that this committee cannot find any documentation of any work done on 15 of the 16 sites that you supposedly looked at. >> all i can say is that three different secretaries of defense, two undersecretaries of defense for intelligence, we
have had three successive aoa's. they were looked at in an audit by the gao and they said our conclusions were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of making our decision. in my view, we have looked at this three different times. congress itself has agreed with our finding by funding phase one of the project. and they also approved phase two , subject to my determination and certification that we spoke to earlier. >> so, you think it is ok that there is no evidence that shows you ever looked at 15 of the 16 sites? >> i will have to go back and look -- it was described by gao as the dod body of evidence. another finding. straight out of the report was that dod provided the required
information in response to committee direction and statutory provision. >> we have evidence that a commander's decision brief was done in 2011 where the requirement was an hour outside of london and we have had people testify to that fact. after the fact, it appears that there is no information. you can do all the studies you want, but if you have people come to this committee and say -- we are not going to give congress the answers because we do not like the tone of the letter. you delay those answers. i am sorry, there is no evidence here that shows essentially someone just wanted to go there in 2011 and that was the decision made then and everything since then -- there is no documentation to document why that decision was made. let me go back to the director -- on july 27, 2015, i visited you in your office and informed you that a whistleblower had
approached the committee and indicated false information had been provided to the committee regarding the intelligence center. do you remember that meeting? dir. clapper: yes. >> on march 21 this year, you told the chairman and myself that if we moved to the intelligence center outside of the london suburbs, that civilians and contractors would not move to the new location. can you explain why that is the case? dir. clapper: i don't think i said that. i think i said that based on briefings i had received at jac molesworth that the civilians probably would not move. that was the specific reference. what a general statement that they would not go anywhere else -- i do not believe i said that. >> they would go other places. dir. clapper: i don't know. the specific issue that i was
briefed on was reaction to the possibility of a move to the air base in the azores. >> this was a briefing by -- >> no, this was a briefing from the commander when i visited there -- i am not sure when. the commander of the jac. >> he said that the civilians would not move there. dir. clapper: yes, these are older people that have children in schools, particularly of high school age. i do not think that the general reaction to that, to move to an island in the middle of the atlantic ocean was not very positive. that has been compounded by the section 414 of the intelligence authorization act, taking away their housing allowance which is discriminatory and has had a
negative impact, not only on dia civilians but ic employees in general. >> itself like we are making decisions based on where people want to live. dir. clapper: this whole moving was a wash to me. i did not get involved until there was the potential of expense. when i got into this, and discovered that it would have potential morale impacts and people would probably not take their families to that airbase. in light of the facilities that they knew were not there. >> are you aware that the azores islands are a popular vacation spot and have daily flights? dir. clapper: no, i am not. >> do we have trouble getting people to move to hawaii?
dir. clapper: actually, we do because there are issues there with compensation for the very high cost of living. that is problematic as well. >> with the cost of the living in the azores is low. dir. clapper: you are talking about hawaii? >> last i checked, it was a popular vacation spot. dir. clapper: it is. you can spend a lot of money for a couple of weeks but living there and supporting a family, it is quite expensive. >> the azores is also a popular vacation spot and has a cheaper cost of living. dir. clapper: in hawaii, there are high schools and medical facilities and commissaries. and that is lacking right now at that airbase.
>> last i checked, i do not think anything was lacking there. in i don't know if mr. schiff is going to be back. have we heard? i want to thank you for appearing today. the committee remains deeply concerned about these issues. we look forward to the ig centcom report and the ig's report on false information and misleading information provided to congress. hopefully, the ig can get to the bottom of these problems and help the committee uncover what exactly has happened here. our robust oversight will continue for the remainder of this year and into the next congress, but i want to thank all of you for your service and your attendance here today. the meeting is adjourned.
>> this weekend, c-span's cities tour will explore the literally life and history of pittsburgh, pennsylvania. hear about industrialist andrew carnegie on how his innovative pirit transformed to the steel city of the world. >> he talked about the he started to understand things from an engineering point of view.
where other people were still going on the seat of the pants operations. >> we'll go behind the scenes. >> i think by looking at some of the materials we selected here, that carnegie really had love for learning and through this wonderful institution felt that this would be a way for he public to escape into another world. >> then author joe trotter explains the lives and contributions of pittsburgh african americans since world war ii. >> that in a real way the long haul of that story is that black people in pittsburgh and this ohio river valley became part of a new industrial environment that really took off in the period after the
civil war. >> aaron burn talks about andy war hal and shows the artives' collection. >> those are really great insight into just how self-conscious andy war hal actually was. i think a lot of people have a vision of him being really cool and aloof. he was definitely cool and aloof but it came with a lot of ork.
ï»¿>> next, supreme court justice clarence thomas on the life and legacy of justice antonin scalia appeared his remarks were part of an event hosted by the federalist society national lawyers convention. [applause] justice thomas: thank you all. thank you all. thank you for that amazing introduction it makes me want o quit while i am ahead. it may take a moment -- i may take a moment of personal liberty and recognize my dear friend maureen scalia and the ntire scalia family.
[applause] justice thomas: i'd also like to point out that my bride is here, virginia. justice thomas: we seem to travel like nuns. we travel in pairs here. justice thomas: i have been very, very fortunate, i've seen many of my friends here. quite a few of my former law clerks and my adopted law clerks are here.
i have no idea how many. would you please stand so i can at least see who you are. justice thomas: well, that's pretty humbling. thank you all. this is an unbelievable crowd. this is an amazing conference or convention and an amazing dinner. that was a very touching video. it certainly got to me. i'm wondering, i'm sitting here pondering, why is this spoon and this fork up here? justice thomas: it's amazing the things that distract you, ou know?
justice thomas: before i go on, i'd like to just also say good evening to martha alito and my olleague sam alito here. justice thomas: i'm not running for office. these are important people in my life. justice thomas: and that -- starting with that beautiful film and so much of what is going on here, much has been said about my friend, justice scalia. since his untimely and very sad passing this february. and much more will be said during this convention. the convention appropriately dedicated to his legacy. though much may be said about him, little needs to be said for him. his opinions, books, articles, speeches, lectures, and
countless other exchanges of ideas leave his voice forever with us. many of you may recall but not so fondly, the heady days of the 1970's when the emphasis in constitutional law was on rights. there was also a focus on the use of judicial power. in those days, we began the study of law with marbury vs. madison. the constitution, though, it was set out at the beginning of our case books, was but an afterthought. rarely to be consulted or disturbed. this state of affairs did not sit well with justice scalia. he traveled far and wide, challenging students and all who would listen, i can hear
his voice, what do you think is the reason that america is such a free country? if you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you're crazy. every banana republic in the world, every president for life, has a bill of rights. the bill of rights for the former evil empire, the union of soviet socialist republics, was much better than ours. he would then make his point. without the structural constraints that the constitution places on government power, the bill of rights is just words on paper. or in a more originalist vein, merely a parchment guarantee. limits on judicial power were of special concern to justice scalia. this concern informed his approach to statutory construction and constitutional nterpretation.
our role as judges was to be confined to the words of those who drafted the constitution or enacted the law in question and what those words meant to the people when they were drafted. in short, the original meaning. we as judges do not get to freelance or put our personal gloss on these laws. even in areas in which others might just tune out from boredom, such as jurisdiction, standing, or ripeness, justice scalia was ever vigilant, guarding against judicial power being exercised where judges had no authority. thus encroaching on the authority of other branches or the states. once this abiding concern in justice scalia's commitment to he canons of statutory
construction, who else would labor so diligently and exhaustively on a book on the 57 canons of construction? justice thomas: as an aside, i watched on a number of occasions as he dragged himself out of his office after laboring over his court work only to work endless hours on his book, "reading law." as complicated and intricate as these canons may sound, they all serve a single purpose, uphold the structural constraints of the constitution in order to protect our liberties. we as judges employ the canons to discern the commonly understood meaning of the words chosen by congress. we do not resort to our own predilections to divine what congress might have
intended. as hard as he worked, he seemed to savor every chance he had to argue for an approach that enhances liberty and restrains the exercise of government power. along the way, he seemed to relish doing his work, sprinkling it with humor and his wonderful flair for prose. though the work was monumentally serious, he just seemed to have fun doing it. and how well he did it. i can't resist citing a few of his memorable quips. when he drafted a particularly good one, he loved to give me a dramatic reading. justice thomas: brother clarence, you have to hear this one. then, a not so quick computer search took place until the handiwork appeared.
while a judge on the d.c. circuit and the statutory interpretation case about labeling requirements for meat products, of all things, he quoted bismarck to warn us that, "no man should see how aws or sausages are made." justice thomas: later in lamb's chapel, he famously described the court's lemon test for the constitutions of establishment clause as, and i quote, "some ghoul in a night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad about -- after being repeatedly killed and buried." he always did that when he read it. justice thomas: it talks about our establishment clause,
jurisprudence once again frightening the little children and the school attorneys of center marichi's union free school district. i don't know where that came from, but he always did it. to register his disagreement about the constitutionality of abortion buffer zones in hill v colorado, justice scalia said if forbidding peaceful, nonthreatening but uninvited speech from a distance closer than eight feet is a narrowly tailored means of preventing the obstruction of entrance to medical facilities, the governmental interest, the state asserts, narrow tailoring must refer not to the standards of versace but to those of omar he tent maker. justice thomas: i have no idea here he gets these things.
justice thomas: likewise, in maryland v. king, he rejected the court's decision that swabbing the cheeks of arrestees was a constitutional search. in his words, and i quote, "i doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection." justice thomas: and in lee vs. weisman, justice scalia lamented, "i find it as efficient embarrassment that our establishment clause, jurisprudence, regarding holiday displays has come to require scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary." but at least he went on, "interior decorating is a rock hard science compared to the psychology practiced by amateurs to decide whether a prayer during a graduation ceremony was too coercive for
high school students." to be sure, he would be biting at times. of the court's opinion, in national endowment for the arts versus finley, he said, the operation was a success. ut the patient died. justice thomas: what such a procedure is to medicine, the court's opinion in this case is o law. justice thomas: and scalia the critic did not discriminate. f my majority opinion in navarrete -- by the way, i did not get a dramatic reading of this one. justice thomas: of my majority opinion in navarrete vs. california, a case involving the constitutionality of a search of a suspected drunk
driver, based on an anonymous tip, he wrote, and i quote, "the court's opinion serves us freedom destroying cocktail." i have no idea where he got that. justice thomas: he blamed his law clerks, but i have better ideas. justice scalia also asked the big questions that have long perplexed philosophers and judges alike. questions like, what is olf? justice thomas: in pga tour vs. martin, he wrote "i am sure that the framers of the constitution aware of the 1457 dict of king james ii of scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and
government, the law and the links, would once again cross and that the judges of this august court would someday have to wrestle with the age-old jurisprudential question for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them." justice thomas: is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a olfer? justice thomas: in one campaign finance case, he reminded us of the timeless truism that campaign promises are, by long democratic tradition, the least binding form of human ommitment. justice thomas: and in another, that we american people are neither sheep nor fools when it
comes to campaign speech. and we will not soon forget justice scalia's rebuke of legislative history in chisholm vs. roemer. there the court reasoned that the absence of legislative history could be likened to the dog that did not bark. justice scalia responded, and i quote, "apart from the questionable wisdom of assuming that dogs will bark when something important is happening, we have forcefully and explicitly rejected the conan doyle approach to statutory construction in the past. in ascertaining the meaning of a statute, a court cannot in the manner of sherlock holmes pursue the theory of the dog that did not bark. we are here to apply the statute, not the legislative history. and certainly not the absence
of legislative history. statutes are the law. though sleeping dogs lie." for decades in cases big and small, justice scalia delighted us with his command of the english language, his rapier-like prose and often side-splitting humor. but tonight, i charge us with the following responsibility -- that these words spoken and written by justice scalia not be the final words in support of originalism and constitutionalism. rather, they ought to be a prologue. 153 years ago, almost to the day, president lincoln said at gettysburg, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here. it is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. that we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. justice scalia has done his part to preserve our liberties and to properly interpret our laws and our constitution so that this government of the people shall not perish. his life's work is now ours to finish. at the risk of being repetitive, but with the hope of clearly establishing a point, justice scalia's project was simple. if we adhere to the structure of government, prescribed by our constitution, we protect liberty and freedom. the limitations on legislative
power in article one, the limitations on executive power in article two, and the limitations on the judicial power in article three, those are our constitutional safeguards. those protect our liberty and our freedom. madison put it best in federalist 51. "if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. you must first enable the government to control the governed. and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." justice scalia's daily task as he saw it was to oblige the
government to control itself and to convince americans to implore their government to do the same. only with limited government is our liberty secure. for justice scalia, the constitution is a prescribed structure, a framework for the conduct of government. in designing that structure, the framers themselves considered how much commingling of the branches was acceptable and set forth their conclusions in the document. the constitution answers this most important question. who will decide? the congress, the president, the courts, the states, the people? and when the branches of government dare to tinker with the constitution's answer, to that most important question, the question of who will decide, justice scalia's wrath
was sure to come down upon them. perhaps justice scalia's project requiring more than mere parchment barriers between the branches of government seems academic to some, but it is anything but academic. as justice scalia in his issent, "the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty." without this separation of powers, the picture alexander hamilton painted of an all-powerful congress, "the hideous monster whose devouring jaws spare neither sex nor age nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane becomes a reality, that hideous monster the
reserve power of the states, it devours our freedom and our most innate desire to be left alone." with unchecked congressional power, congress can commandeer the states to do the work of the federal government that it cannot do, as justice scalia wrote for the court in prince vs. united states. with unchecked congressional power, congress can shirk its legislative duties and avoid political accountability by delegating legislative power to a group of outsiders. as justice scalia humorously stated in mastretta vs. united tates, "what results is a sort of junior varsity congress, incompatible with our constitutional structure. without the separation of powers, the branches take it upon themselves to determine
just how much of the purely executive powers of government must be within the full control of the president." in morrison vs. olson, the wolf came as a wolf according to justice scalia. when congress appropriated executive power for itself, and created the office of independent counsel. without the separation of powers, the executive branch no less co-opts the legislative power for itself. with unchecked executive power, federal agencies are emboldened to legislate without limitations in the nearly 180,000 pages of the coat of federal regulations. judicial deference to agency decision making becomes a rubber stamp for agencies to do as they please, and they can freely pretend that congress hides elephants in mouse holes,
in a justice scalia's words, when congress instructs them to act. inally, as the political branches of power so too do the ourts. today it is the view of many that the supreme court is the giver of liberties. what an odd conception of government that we the people are dependent upon the third branch of government to grant s our freedom. it is this last point for which we remember justice scalia so well. as he said, at times seems incapable of admitting that some matters, any matters are none of its business, and from a dissent, "today's decision
says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million americans coast to coast is the majority of the nine lawyers on the supreme court. the opinion in these cases is the furthest extension and fact and the furthest extension one can even imagine of the court's claim to power to create liberties that the constitution and its amendments neglect to mention. this practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine always accompanied as it is today by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the people of the most important liberty they asserted in the declaration of independence and won in the revolution of 1776.
the freedom to govern themselves. with such unchecked judicial power, we americans leave it for the least accountable branch to decide how existing rights should expand our -- or ontract. a decision that so often hinges upon which particular rights are judicially favored at the time and which are not. with such unchecked judicial power, we leave it for the least accountable branch to decide what newly discovered fundamental rights should be appended to our constitution. -- to our constitution." of course, as justice scalia remarked, "these newly discovered fundamental rights are neither set forth in the constitution nor known to the nine justices of our court any
better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the kansas city telephone directory. and i add, i had rather bet on the folks in kansas city." justice thomas: or perhaps nine truckers at a flying j truck stop. with such unchecked judicial power, the court day by day, case by case, is busy designing a constitution, as justice scalia once quipped, instead of interpreting it. n any ordinary year, justice scalia would have spent the summer teaching these lessons about the separation of powers to a group of students studying abroad. and by this time, he would be back hard at work on a biting but always insightful and
entertaining opinion imploring the branches of government to respect their constitutional roles and their limits. but alas, this has been no ordinary year. this summer, i had the distinct but sad pleasure of filling in for my dear friend in a separation of powers course in nice, france, and my colleagues nd i very sadly have begun this term without him. when i joined the court in 1991, scalia and i would have seemed an unusual pair. an odd couple. he, raised in queens and the son of an italian immigrant and a first generation american, one a professor of romance languages and the other a schoolteacher, and i, raised a
decade later by my barely literate grandparents in savannah, georgia. but together, we soon became our own band of brothers. by 1991, justice scalia's role on the court was well established. i merely joined the fray, or more accurately, was thrown into it. it was my great honor that we spent almost 25 years together in pursuit of this common oal. to preserve the structure of government crafted by our framers. what i will treasure most, though, is much simpler. the chance to spend so many years down the hall from my friend nino, whether he was with me or against me in a particular case, we did what we thought the constitution obliged us to do. we honored our oaths and we
trusted each other. onight, i charge each of you to join this band of brothers, as shakespeare's king henry implored, preparing his own troops for a seemingly hopeless battle against french, "the good man shall teach his son the story of our fight and in it shall be remembered, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers. for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my rother, and gentlemen in england now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks that fought with us upon st. crispin's day.
each of us here, men and women, young and older, need not think ourselves accursed for our st. crispins' day lies before us." and whether we in this room here tonight ultimately win or lose the effort to reclaim the forms of government that our framers intended, it is our duty to stand firm in the defense of the constitutional principles and structure that secure our liberty. like justice scalia, we must do what the constitution obliges us to do. it is now for us, the living, to be dedicated to the unfinished business for which justice scalia gave his last full measure of devotion. thank you. [applause]
>> thank you. thank you, justice thomas. i have two things. first, let me apologize for the silverware. >> i'll find a better implement to quiet the crowd. but second and more important, we at the federalist society want to -- there is not much you can give a justice of the supreme court, but we wanted to give you a small token of how much we appreciate you and how much we will honor your call tonight to once more into the breach. it is a photo of you and ustice scalia.
[applause] >> a panel on the election of donald trump and the presidential transition process. former white house officials and scholars take part in an event hosted by the washington center. on march 16 following the death of justice antonin scalia, president obama dominated merrick garland for a seat on the supreme court. senate republicans refused to hold rut hearings. eastern on c-span2.
washington journal live every day. this morning, democracy for america executive director charles tamerlan will look at the direction of the democratic party after upsets during the election. appropriations and budget committee member congressman tom colts will discuss the election of donald trump and what it means for the republican party. he issues in the lame-duck session, gop house agenda. dimon will talk about the debate on the restoration of your marks, their history, and a congressional leaders use and negotiate the federal funding for pet projects. be sure to watch "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. this morning. join the discussion. cork's weekend, c-span cities
tour willits or the literary life and history of pittsburgh, pennsylvania. on c-span2, hear about andrew carnegie on his innovative spirit transformed pittsburgh into the steel capital of the world. about theie talked burning sun of chemical knowledge and so he started to understand things from a scientific point of view, an engineering point of view, whereas other people were still going on the seat-of-the-pants operation. >> behind the scenes at the carnegie library of pittsburgh. >> i think by looking at some of the materials we selected here that he really had a love for learning and through this wonderful institution felt this would be a way for the public to world.into another
cox the lives and contributions of pittsburgh african-american since world war ii, including the significance of the second great migration, civil rights, and black power movements. >> in a real way, the long haul of that story is that black people in pittsburgh and the our -- ohiolley became river valley became part of an industrial environment that really took on in the period after the civil war. tv, wemerican history will see the personal artifacts that once belonged to antiwar whole. -- andy warhol. collection of wigs and corsets. >> these are really great insight into just how --f-conscious indie warhol andy warhol actually was. i think people have a vision of him being really cool and aloof.
he definitely was, but it came with a lot of work. >> watch cities tour of pittsburgh, pennsylvania saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 book tv. on american history tv on c-span , visiting cities across the country. presidential candidate senator bernie sanders was a guest at the christian science monitor breakfast. in his remarks, he spoke about his new role in the democratic leadership and what the party needs to do after the 2016 elections. this is 50 minutes.
>> thanks for coming. our guest today is bernie sanders, senator from vermont, and his last visit with our group was in june 2015 and we appreciate him coming back. we are pleased that jane sanders is joining us for our locale breakfast. our speaker was born in brooklyn, graduated from the university of chicago in 1968 and moved to vermont, worked as a carpenter and later a writer and was elected mayor of burlington. served four terms. was elected a member of the u.s. house and then the u.s. senate and was overwhelmingly reelected
in 2012. as this morning's crowd around the breakfast table underscores, senator sanders made a spirited run for the 2016 democratic presidential nomination. the subject of his new book, "our revolution" a biographical portion of the program. now the compelling ground rules. as always, we are on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting. the breakfastile is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. there is no embargo when the session ends. to help you curb that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as .he breakfast will end if you want to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i will happily call on this minute reporters as i can get to in the time we have with the senate this morning. i'm going to limit myself to one question and ask you to try to
do so. i realize that is probably hope on my part. we will have opening comments and questions. sanders: thank you for inviting me to be with you. i want to thank everybody for being here. to say the least, these are interesting times for our country. let me begin by telling you that just yesterday, my office from for montt, a small state, received many, many hundreds of telephone calls urging president-elect trump to withdraw his appointment of mr. bannon to be a major advisor to him. and i think what we're seeing all over this country is extraordinary fear about the
president who in his career before he ran for president led the so-called birther movement, which was a racist effort to undermine legitimacy of our first african-american president. there is great fear among the immigrant community that their families may be broken up and driven out of this country. there is fear of people of the muslim faith about what might happen to them. as i think everybody here knows, this country for hundreds of years has struggled with the issues of discrimination starting with our attitudes of the native american people. we have struggled with racism. we have struggled with sexism and homophobia. we have struggled with discrimination against italians andirish and jews everybody else. we have a right to be very proud
that overcoming a lot of bigotry, we have moved forward to create a more less discriminatory society. i will tell you having been around this country over the last year, there is no generation in american history that is less discriminatory than is the young generation today. thatld hope are a much president-elect trump understands the fear and anxiety of his attitudes on race, on his attitude toward women, and would try to make the american people feel comfortable, more comfortable, and i hope he would do it by rescinding the nomination of mr. bannon. the second point i want to make is that mr. trump -- i would like to get into this during the course of our discussion, campaigned as a populist.
campaigned as somebody who was antiestablishment. i have zero doubt he received the support of many working-class people across this country because some of the positions that he took -- he said he is not going to cut social security. he is not going to cut medicare. he is not going to cut medicaid. well, i was glad to hear that. we look forward to working with him to make sure that he does not cut social security, medicare, and medicaid. he talked about raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour. that is not high enough for me, but it is better than $7.25 an hour, and we look forward to working with them to raise the minimum wage. during the campaign, he said a lot. we will find out soon enough whether what he said was sincere, whether in fact he is prepared to take on the drug
companies who charge us the highest prices in the world and moved to allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. he said a lot. our job is to hold him accountable. and we intend to do that. an issue that gets little discussion, but it happens to be one of the great planetary crises that we face. mr. trump campaigned a summit who believes that climate change is a "hope -- "hoax." mr. trump is wrong. a hoax.change is not according to the scientific timidity, it is one of the great threat to this planet. i would hope very much donald trump's nobody's fool. he is a smart guy. i would hope very much that he recognizes that that point of view that he has is way out of touch with what the scientific
community believes will stop i would hope he would bring scientists into his administration, into his office and discuss with them the threat of climate change and the need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. the future of the planet would rest on that. the united states turns away from combating climate change, there is no reason to believe that china, russia, india, other large countries will not do the same. i would hope that mr. trump takes the time to listen to the scientific community. >> let me tell you who signed up so far.
that should hold as for the morning. >> thank you very much. welcome. you said last night in answer to a question that maybe you could have one against donald trump given his populist message, given your populist message. do you think you could have one? could you have one as a general election candidate and done well? let me just follow by what do what you think democrats need to do as a party sen. sanders: at the end of the book, there's a chapter on corporate media. is that we of it spend too much time on political gossip, too little time discussing the real issues facing the american people. so i'm not going -- it doesn't
matter. i do not know if i could have won. who knows. it does not make much sense to me to be looking backward. right now this country faces enormous crises. we have a middle-class which is in decline. massive levels of inequality and a president-elect trump who concerns many, many people -- have lostu know, will the popular vote to hillary clinton by as much as 2 million votes. i will answer the second question. forink it is time soul-searching within the democratic party. the evidence is pretty clear that when you lose the white house in a campaign against a gentleman who i believe will interest the white house as the least popular candidate in the history of this country, when you lose the senate, when you
lose the house, when you lose two thirds of state governments -- governor's chairs in this country, when you have lost the 900 seats of legislatures around the country in the last eight years, i think it is time for the democratic party to reassess what it stands for and where it wants to go. i think at the end of the day, the democratic party has got to make a fundamental decision and it goes back to an old song of woody guthrie. some of you may have heard of woody guthrie. the song is "which side are you ?" in my view, it is not possible to be a candidate of corporate america, of the insurance companies or wall street, not take huge amounts of money from inerful special interests and say, well, i'm going to champion the needs of a declining middle class.
i'm going to fight for the needs of working-class people and low income people. i do not think you can do that. and i think you have got to make a decision as to which side you are on. i think at a time when the middle class is shrinking, your 43 million people living in poverty, when you mothers out there who cannot afford childcare, when you have millions of people getting ripped off by the form suitable industry, the only major country under not to guarantee health care to all people as a right -- he only major country not to -- paidfamily medical family medical leave. the time is for the democratic party to say, we're going to stem with the working families to take on the billionaire class , taking on wall street, taking on the insurance companies. that is my view. >> we're going to go to kevin hall, who i that has a budget question. an organization tries to not
to the gossip, let's talk about the budget and you will be the ranking member. what is your expectation and what can you do to slow down a process -- is your expectation that we're going to blow holes in deficits? if you parse the words, it notds like we're talking trickle down, but somewhere what kansas with tax cuts -- what you can do and what you're going to have to do. sen. sanders: if i indicated, and i think we can all agree, donald trump ran one of the most unusual campaigns and it turned out to be a very successful campaign. he said many things to many people. one of the things i think you momente, just to divert from the question, when he talked about ideas that will improve life for working people
like taking on the pharmaceutical industry or not cutting social security. you will see some of us working with him. but you are quite right. on the other hand, when he also campaigned on, and i will call it trickle-down economics theory, giving huge -- if i may use that word -- [laughter] to the very, very wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations, and then, you know, just magically, which is the essence of trickle-down economic theories, all of these folks are going to reinvest in our economy, create jobs, see an increase in tax revenue and everybody lives happily ever after. it's a wonderful idea except it has never worked and i think it is an unfortunate idea. if the question is, will many of us vigorously combat the idea of trickle-down economic theory in giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and large profitable corporations, absolutely.
i know we talked about tax reform. well, it is a funny thing. as you know, i've been running around this country for last year and a half talking about the grossly unfair taxes which benefit the wealthy and large corporations. then in one day during the campaign, donald trump did more to educate the american people about the unfairness of our his than i did in the year and a half. he went before the american people and said, i'm a multimillionaire. i have mentions all over the world. i live in the lap of luxury and i don't have to pay any federal income tax. and he told the american people just how unfair and how stupid our current tax system is. if i have anything to say about it, donald trump and is billionaire friends will start paying their fair share of taxes. we have to move to prevent operations not only in our country, but from all over the world, costing governments all over this world trillions of dollars in needed tax revenue. >> chuck?
>> i would like to take your into ate media chapter postscript this morning. the last time i checked, yet 7 million followers are so on twitter. there has been a discussion about fake news on social media. buzz feed is out this morning with the store this has the final three months of the u.s. presidential election, the top-performing fake election news sites on facebook outperformed the 19 legitimate website, "new york times" and the like. facebook is a billion dollar company. it is larger than gen wal-mart and larger than a lot of corporations. are you concerned about that phenomenon on the election? secondly, do put facebook the spirit of corporate media influence?
the figures: you gave should concern all of us. i cannot give you a definitive answer. my concern? absolutely. i don't have to tell people in this room, you know better than i do, the changing face of the media in america. is point you are raising another whole area. there are millions and millions of people who are getting their information from fake news from people who have a very prejudice , non-fact based reality point of view. it is frightening. i can't give you a magical answer to how we deal with it, but it is very hard to be running a democracy or living in a democracy where you have a set of ideas that you just read on the internet which have nothing to do with reality.
in general. i did not need to make it personal. andwe can argue tax policy you disagreeably go from there. that is democracy. it is a good thing. if you start off with a set of "facts" that have no basis in reality, we got trouble. very, very important question. i wish i could give you a better answer. it is something we have got to think about hard. are you exacerbating it? sanders: no. do we use it? absolutely. is it fake news? no. we take seriously what we put out. do we use it as an organizing tool? of course. if i was going to speak in california, we have a list of many thousands of californians in the area, will we alert them
to the fact i am speaking? will we tell people some of the things i'm talking about? of course. that is a positive step. >> there is a lot of talk right now about who is the leader of the democratic party. do you consider your self to fill that role? if so, or if not, who is? also, are you planning to join the democratic party in your next election? sen. sanders: i will let others determine the leader. chuck schumer is -- i voted for chuck. i think chuck schumer is going inbe doing an excellent job a very, very difficult environment. and his job is to bring together the diverse points of view within the democratic focus. nancy pelosi, if she is reluctant to that position or whoever is elected, will have an
equally difficult job. those are the leaders of the congressional democratic party. we do not over the leader of the dnc will be. i'm supporting keith ellison because, as i mentioned a moment ago, i think it is time for the democratic already to root -- party to reform itself, to become a grassroots party prepared to take on big money interests. the last election as an independent and i will finish this term as an independent. >> francine kiefer. >> more on chuck schumer, the new leader of the democrats in the senate. a very open question and then a more focused one. just what are your hopes and concerns about chuck schumer as the leader of democrats and more pointedly, he has obviously deep ties to wall street and banking, antithetical to one of your points of view. if you could address that as well. sen. sanders: chuck can more
than ably speak for himself, so i'm not going to speak -- i'm sure you will have the opportunity to be chatting with chuck schumer and his views on all cans of subjects. andve known chuck -- chuck i were in the house together. i knew him a long time ago. we were both on the banking committee, financial services committee. presence ofn the the word, is a good politician. he knows how to bring people together, how to seize the moment. this support, i believe, was unanimous. for any leader, whether you are a republican leader or democratic leader, yet the same problem. how do you bring your diverse voices together? i think chuck is probably the best qualified person we have to do just that. >> can you do a sentence or two on your new role as outreach chair? what does the outreach chair do? sen. sanders: if anyone has any
ideas, let me know. [laughter] i mean, i just got this title yesterday. but -- but, it is actually something that i look forward to. and here is, without offending anyone in the room -- i know i never offend anyone -- the real action to transform america is not going to take place on capitol hill. it is going to take place at grassroots america. it is going to take place among millions of people who are struggling economically right now, young people, people concerned about the environment. and i initially understand my role to be to bring those people , to the political process demand that the united states congress, the united states government, the new president represent the needs of all of the people and not just the people on top. i am really excited.
how we go about doing it, i don't know. was, 53%, 54%?ut which is low. it is low for us in recent years a much lower than other countries. why is it that tens of millions of or people, working people, young people do not get involved in the political process? certainly, one of the goals of that position to me is to bring people into politics and make people aware that politics is not just election day. election days are very, very important, but the other three and 64 days of the year are also important. if you're concerned about racism or homophobia or climate change or income and wealth inequality, how do you get involved in the political process other than voting once every watch a years for president? there are ways and that is one of the challenges that i will be looking to tackle.
senator, i know you're very fond of what you call political gossip. give me a little at a to donna says a fellow for monther. burlington and race in middlebury. sen. sanders: you're ok. [laughter] you talk at the outset about the appointed of mr. bannon at the white house. i'm wondering how you think democrats should handle cabinet -- theions and the very supreme court nomination that they will probably oppose on balance, the filibuster? sen. sanders: a great question and i cannot give you -- having been in leadership are all of one day -- [laughter] i cannot give you a definitive answer, but i think here are some of the areas that have to be taken into consideration. clear.be very i happen to think that donald trump is a very smart person.
have been elected president if he was not a very smart person. much -- also,ery i have no doubt in his way, he loves this country. and i would hope very much that given his background and given some of what i consider to be terrible, terrible things he has said on the campaign trail to minorities, i would hope that he understands he has an extraordinary opportunity, and unbelievable opportunity to say, you know what? i said things -- again, i do not say this as a criticism. mr. trump changes his views very often. that's fine. you all know that. the american people would be very anxious to air in say, look, i said terrible things, i apologize. i'm not going to be a president leading a racist or a sexist or homophobic or in islamaphobic administration.
i want to focus on the real issues facing the american people, many of which he touched upon during his campaign. he talked about a collapsing working class in america. he is right. we're going to have to work together to address those issues. how do you create the millions of jobs that mr. trump correctly said we needed to correct? we're going to have to create. we're going to have to work together. how do you raise wages? he doesn't like obama care. presumably, he is not when you go to a single-payer program. i think that is the way we should be going. what is his idea? it is not enough to say i have a great idea or and at the live program. you have to go into the details a little bit more than saying you have an excellent idea. what is it? shall we join the rest of the world in guaranteed health care for all? he said in the campaign he was going to take on the pharmaceutical industry, which is a group ripping off the
american people, charging is behind prices in the world. i look forward to working with them. if he is serious about addressing those issues, it will be absolutely the right thing for him to do for so many reasons. to forget about the racism, forget about the islamophobia, forget about throwing millions of people out -- trying to throw millions of people out of this country. let's focus on the real issues we face. >> joblessness key announced he was running for governor -- don't was disc he announced to his running for governor. are you going to support him? >> i know john a little bit. i the opportunity to meet john and i have a call that will be made to john. i much appreciate the efforts he has made in new jersey. i have to talk to him and i have not. >> back in the cheap seats, cnn. >> i want to ask about one
specific hard about trump's trade agenda. in his contract with the american voter, he called for establishing tariffs to impose them on companies to discourage them from laying off workers. do support imposing tariffs? sen. sanders: he said, among other things, when i was indiana a number of months ago during my campaign talking to the workers at united technologies, a home carrier, and mr. trump said he was going to make sure that those jobs stay in the united states -- if my memory is correct. he said that i think with nabisco as well. i think it is high time that corporate america understands that they cannot get the benefits of being american corporations while at the same time they are turning their backs on america's working class . in the case of carrier, my recollection -- and i may not have it 100% right -- but i
believe some years ago, not too many years ago, united technologies had the resources to provide $71 million severance package to its former ceo. $71 million. a golden parachute. and yet they think they can save some money by shutting down plants in indiana, moving to mexico and hiring people there for three dollars an hour. toill do everything i can fight to stop those types of transactions. in that area, i look forward to working with mr. trump to tell corporate america, you know what? you cannot keep running all over the world whether it is china or vietnam or god knows where searching for the cheapest possible labor while you destroy the middle-class class and working class of this country. i do look forward to coming up with ideas that tell corporate america -- tariffs may well be one of them, may well be one of
those options. but i think corporate america, which is doing phenomenally well large corporations making huge profits, stashing their profits in the cayman islands. in a given year, corporations like generally and others will not pay a nickel in federal corporate taxes. that is absurd. if mr. trump has the guts to stand up to those corporations, demand they start paying their fair share of taxes, demand that they create jobs and protect jobs in america, he will have an ally with me. thank you, senator, for being here this morning. yes, i do have a two-parter question about mr. trump's promises. one, what would you think of him or do you think of his vow to prosecute secretary clinton after the election? which heone issue in is a soulmate with you, and fact, the republican platform is a soulmate is the revival of the
glass-steagall act. i cover the platform committee when it was put in there, and i called it the sanders amendment. is that something you want to work with him and other republicans on? sen. sanders: absolutely. you are right. he has talked about reestablishing glass-steagall. -- without that is going into great discourse here, i am one of those who does believe that financial deregulation brought about during the clinton a administration which allowed commercial banks and investment banks and large insurance created the merge pathway forward to the collapse of 2008. i strongly believe we should reestablish what we call a 21st century glass-steagall .egislation
if mr. trump was sincere -- we're going to learn this pretty quickly, he said a whole lot of things. was he serious or were these just campaign slogans out there to gain some votes? >> [inaudible] sen. sanders: well, yes. the point i want to make is that we will hold him accountable. that is a very important issue. reestablishment of the 21st century glass-steagall is something i believe in. i think millions of americans believe in it. i would look forward to working with him. we will see whether he will keep his word and take on wall street in doing that will step in terms of your other question, it would be a most beyond comprehension to think that a new president would be involved in the prosecution of his opponent who ended up getting some 2 million more votes than he did. we read about these things and
we see these things and nondemocratic countries all over the world. i mean, every year you all report on how some country around the world, wins an election and his opponent ends up in jail. this is the united states of america. we do not prosecute our political opponents and try to throw them in jail. that would completely, i think, -- completely divide this country. it would be an outrage. and i would hope very, very, very much that mr. trump understands that that is not something that he should do. >> josh from bloomberg. >> does the democratic already have a message that can reach working-class voters? in particular, the what working-class voters who have abandoned the party en masse? sen. sanders: that is exactly -- it seems to me the democratic already has got to do are
several things. first of all, we have got to base.on the current we have got to be extraordinarily supportive of women who are fighting, among other things, for their right to control their own health needs, who are fighting for equal pay for equal work. we have got to be closely aligned and continue to work as part of a coalition with the african-american community who have their very, very serious concerns about high unemployment rates and african-american communities. we have to continue working with the latino community who are now under the gun in terms of some of the ideas that mr. trump brought forth during his campaign. that theuld point out african-american communities, the latino communities, largely working-class community.
but of course we have to work with the white working class as well. the class that it personally come from and that means that we have got to bring forth an thatmic message which says we're going to raise the minimum wage through a living wage, in my view, $15 an hour, that we say to women whether you are black or white or latino or asian american, that you're going to get equal pay for equal work. that we are going to create millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, that you say to the white working class and the black working-class and the latino working-class that in today's world, in a competitive global economy, your kids have the right if they do well in high school and have the qualifications, to go to a public college or university tuition-free, that we address the crisis of health care in ,hich so many white workers
black workers, latino workers don't have health care coverage and the high cost -- in other words, to into your question, it is not either/or, it is having an economic message that we will not allow the billionaire class and corporate america to get it all. that we're going to rebuild a disappearing middle class. at one of the problems democrats have had, is that they have made the point correctly that any objective assessment of the economy today tells us that we are far, far better than we were years ago when bush left office. no one in this room can deny that unemployment is much lower, that the deficit is much lower. what theher hand, democrats too often have ignored, for 40 years, better off today than eight years ago,
but over 40 years under the democratic and republican administration, the middle class in this country has been shrieking. real wages for american workers, white workers, have gone down. income inequality has gone up. too many people cannot afford health care, cannot afford to send the kids to college, cannot afford childcare. those are real issues in the democratic party has to address them. so to answer your question, absolutely, i think we can create a platform that appeals to white workers, black workers, latino workers, to women, and aat is a platform that brings vast majority of the american people together. a little louder for those like me that needed a little louder. you praisedd about chuck schumer in the senate leadership election. there has been, like, some grumbles about changes in house leadership will sto. do you support shakeup in house
leadership as well? sen. sanders: i served 16 years in the house. i am not there now and i will let the folks in the house make their own best decision. at the dnc -- again, here's the problem. i would hope media would pay more attention to this very serious problem. as a result of citizens united, we have situation, as you all know, billion years like the koch brothers and others, sheldon adelson, can port sums of money into campaigns through independent expenditures. in the first chapter of the book, we do with that. we deal with what i fear is a growing movement, what oligarchy in this country, which nunnally --acts economically, but
which not only impacted economically, but politically. if anyone things that does not have an impact, i think you would be mistaken. your something that worries me very, very much. that for many republican leaders , citizens united did not go far enough. the koch brothers have always believed their goal is to eliminate all campaign finance limitations and restrictions. so right now they can spend unlimited sums of money on expenditures. they want to go further and give a check for $1 billion to their candidate for president or whatever it is, $100 million to the candidate for the u.s. senate directly and control those campaigns. this is something that the dnc and our new leadership are going to have to deal with not only an ,pposing those outrageous undemocratic ideas, but in figuring out how we rally and bring the american people together at the grassroots level
to make sure that money cannot buy elections. >> where going to go until 10:02. we're not going to get to everyone. we will do the best we can. >> [inaudible] sen. sanders: it will not be a good u.s. -- [laughter] >> herb jackson. 22020.ing for can you give us your thoughts on who you might think would be -- cory booker? sen. sanders: review last chapter on corporate media. i think this is incredible. i have to say this in all due respect, are we ready echoe have not inaugurated this president and we're talking about 2020 because it is easy to
write about. what about talking about climate change and whether the planet -- income inequality, youth unemployment and african-american communities, immigration reform, criminal justice reform? those are the issues the american people need to being gauged and. --king about running in 2080 you look like a good candidate. how much money do you have? i don't mean to be rude, but the american people are tired of that. they really are. they would like to hear serious discussion. was running in 2020 or 2090 -- i have to tell you, people are turning off their tvs. they're tired of that. in all do respect, we have serious problems in this country and let talk about the serious issues and not worry who is going to be running and four years when we have not even inaugurated the president that just won.
pressureis increasing among various members of the democratic already for congressman ellison two steps down if he does when the chairmanship. is he able to be both a member of congress and the dnc chairman? and, because i know just a little bit of a presumptive question here, why is there pressure and discussion for him to not serve in those roles? look, it is no great secret i think debbie wasserman schultz was not an outstanding chair for the democratic party. but it wasn't because she is a sitting member of congress. we have a lot of president in the past for dnc leaders to be governors, to be full-time public officials. on the other hand, the argument is a valid argument, but especially now it is a time-consuming job, but the ways
to deal with that i think is to have the kind of staff that you need, the second of director that you need to handle -- the executive director to handle the administrative work that has to be done. to answer your question, do i keith can remain a united states congressman into the job, i do. but it is incumbent upon the new chair, whether it is keith or anybody else, to put together a dynamite staff. now, i think the second part of your western is this issue is subtly being raised. i do not believe it was raised when debbie took the job. i think this is just a way for keith's opponents, the usual, we love keith, he is great, and i think this is a way -- a way for his opponents to try to criticize him and end up supporting somebody else.
i am pleased that keith has won support not just from progressives like myself were elizabeth warren -- i should tell you that getting back to what we do on social media, my recollection is that over 500,000 people have signed a petition supporting keith. that is a lot. he has won support from people like chuck schumer and harry reid. i think he is pretty broad support and i hope he makes it will sto. >> one backward looking question if you don't mind, have you spoken to secretary clinton in the last week? and what role the believe she should play in rebuilding the party? as you said, she did when the most popular votes. do you believe your criticism of her paid speeches played a role in her defeat? sen. sanders: at the end of the day, i think my best to answer your last question, i candidacy
was ending up helpful to her. if we believe candidates should not be anointed, if we understand republicans had, what was it, 17 or 19 candidates for their position. i think it heated issue oriented campaign, one of which i'm happy to say my campaign brought millions of people into the political process, the vast majority of whom ended up voting for hillary clinton. i think it plays a very positive role. the other part of your question? >> have you spoken to her -- sen. sanders: i was in a conference call. clearly, she has an important role of play. she ended up getting more votes than mr. trump. she was the democratic nominee for president of the united states. it goes without saying that she is a very important role to play in the future of the democratic party. it does not mean that she and i are going to agree on every issue. frankly, we are not going to agree on every issue. but her voice is an important voice and certainly needs to be
heard. >> have you spoken to her? sen. sanders: on a conference call, not personally. trump'sw that donald election has essentially killed tpp, which you support. you also support renegotiating nafta and other trade agreements that have already been inked? sen. sanders: i think we have a very large trade deficit. the evidence, to me, is clear. of theot every member chamber of commerce agrees. at the evidence, to me, is that we have lost millions of jobs as result of nafta, trade relations with china. i have been a leader in opposition to the tpp. to see, as i understand it, it is dead. if your question is, do i believe we have to rethink fundamentally our trade policies? i do. i'm not here to say that i think or thought that trait in itself is bad. trade is a good thing.
down and buy something, we are essentially trading. i think trade is a good thing. but we need trade policies that work for the american worker and not just for the ceos of large multinational corporations. to answer your question, yeah, i think we should take a hard look at all of our trade policies and come up with a different set of proposals based on fair trade. trade which is fair to american workers, fair for people in been countries, not just vetted free trade, which has been a disaster for millions of american workers. senator, thank you for coming out. you spoke about the many areas of potential agreements between you and donald trump, that you would be ready to work with him on infrastructure and minimum wage. there's another school of thought that democrats should be more kind of confrontational and kind of flat out oppositional to trump on following from the way mitch mcconnell the republicans dealt with president obama.
could you speak to that thought? sen. sanders: as i have indicated, there are areas where, from my perspective, there can be no compromise. i will not compromise with racism. i will not compromise with sexism. i will not copper mines with homophobia. i will not compromise with islamophobia. in a democracy, what is deeply ingrained, i hope in all of us, the understanding that many of the policy issues we have discussed this morning, honest people have different ones of you. there are different points of view on trade. i do not think the people who are terrible people, terrible human beings because they disagree with me on trade. there are areas that i would have hoped in the year 2016 we would have put behind us. and that is to say that we treat people with equality.
that in the year 2016, we're not going to discriminate against summative because that person is a muslim or that person is a woman or that person is gay. i would have hoped in the year 2016 we have gone beyond -- those are battles that have been won already. i will not retreat on those issues. on the other hand, if donald trump comes up with an idea or program which he campaigned on that says that our infrastructure is crumbling, we can creep millions of jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, that we can put people back to work at decent wages -- yes, i will work with him. if you comes up with -- if you is consistent with his views that our trade policies have failed american workers and that we need to rethink our trade policies, yes, i will work with them. i will fight him tooth and nail. this issue of climate change, which we have got to focus much
more attention on. the future of this planet isn't -- is at stake. we have got to bring together people to demand that mr. trump listen to the scientists, not the fossil fuel industry. >> a quick last question. a lot of talk about the fact one third of the county's vote for president obama went for mr. trump. a lot of people in michigan and voted on down ballot, did not vote for president. you say you want to get more people involved and get them out to vote. four democrats are up for reelection in pennsylvania, michigan, ohio, wisconsin in 2018. do you think they have enough appeal to be able to win the
election and you talk a lot about one of the things they can do to appeal to those white working-class voters that may have voted for obama in 2008 and 2012, but then broke for trump? i am not into speculation. i don't know what is going to happen in two years. but what i believe, and i have believed it from day one, is that the progressive vision of america, which is to say if you work 40 hours a week in this country you have to earn a living wage, i think when you talk about that, when you talk about pay equity for women, when you talk about creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, when you talk about guaranteeing paidh care as a right and family and medical leave, when you talk about demanding that the wealthy and large corporations starting their fair share of taxes, when you talk
>> today, a panel on the election of donald trump and the presidential transition process. former white house officials and scholars take heart in an event hosted by the washington center. live at 10 a clock a.m. on c-spantubing. on march 16 the following the death of justice antonin scalia, president obama nominated merrick garland for a seat on the supreme court. senate republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings. today, the constitution society will host a discussion on the role of the senate and judicial nominations. that will be live at noon eastern on c-spantubing.
c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfold daily. as a79, c-span was created public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. today, "washington journal" is next. 11:15, more from the federalist society 2016 national lawyers conference. speakers include governor nikki haley, texas senator and former presidential candidate ted cruz, and a brassica senator ben sasse -- nebraska senator ben sasse. minutes, and 45 democracy for america executive director charles chamberlin on what is next for the democratic party and the progressive movement. cole --ongressmantome .om cole >
host: good morning on this friday, november 18, 2016. on today's washington journal, the headlines focus on donald trump as he continues to assemble his presidential team. to trump has tapped general michael flynn to be his national security advisor and this weekend, mr. trump will meet reportedly toey discuss a potential appointment as secretary of state. his proposals and headlines as