tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 26, 2016 4:00pm-7:51pm EST
popular as time has gone by. hisink history has proven focus and his strong stance on post-9/11 foreign policy was world andood for the good for america. is tremendously popular in his own backyard. i'm honored to serve with him what are your aspirations in washington? rep.-elect arrington: make the country safer, stronger, more prosperous so my children have an opportunity. people asked me during the campaign, would you take the pledge to do this? my pledge is to uphold the constitution. my pledge is to live the best i can to my christian principles
and my pledge is to make decisions that will make this country better and stronger for my children. that is my pledge. >> will your family be joining you out here in washington dc? rep.-elect arrington: they will. i live a long way from here and it takes half a day to get back. while i am going to spend a lot of time in my district, i want to be unencumbered by family responsibilities and i also do not want to be here all week without my family. when i can go home, talk to midback, lee -- read them a story, pray with them, each with them. going to make sacrifices, but as i told my wife, i am willing to make sacrifices to do this job. i am not willing to sacrifice my family for this job so we are going to find the balance. it will take time to learn
the rhythm of this new job. since i was 16 and wanted to change the world, the i did this was be the arena i would do it in. here i am 28 leader -- 28 years later with the opportunity. people say they are tired of business as usual and want to change the course and culture of washington. i want to do that. that is why i'm here. >> thank you very much for talking to c-span. announcer: representative gonzales representing the 15th district in texas, democrat. tell us what you are doing before you won this house sees -- house seat. rep.-elect gonzalez: i practiced law for two decades in texas. i am also licensed in new york. i have been a lawyer for pretty much 20 years. >> why did you decide to leave that profession and run for the house? rep.-elect fernandez: we have had a lot of successes and i
intend to bring that same fight to washington to bring the necessary resources to our areas. south texas is one of the poorest areas in the country and in the state and it needs good representation. we are ready to go to work. >> who or what from your past influenced you to take up the fights that you're talking about as a lawyer and now here in washington? rep.-elect fernandez: i was influenced by my family, my father. a korean war veteran. a self-made businessman. when i was in law school, i spent time here as an intern with congressman ortiz from a south texas district, the 27th at the time. these were all positive influences in my life that make -- made me take this plunge. >> what about that internship? rep.-elect fernandez: i was young and i had a lot of fun.
i think that is one of the things and turns should keep in mind and try to enjoy themselves while they learn the legislative process. i was in law school at the time so it was a great complement to my legal education at the time. it was my first time in washington actually. kind of odd, i was 27 years old. that was a long time ago. it was a great experience. i always recommend that to young folks that want to learn about government. it is a great opportunity that is available. >> you were a high school dropout. how come? rep.-elect fernandez: i was not the perfect kid, that is for sure. otherwise, that would not have normally happened. i went through tough times as a young man and learned a lot growing up. sometimes, making wrong decisions. but education was always very important part, the education that came within my household. i went back to school and earned my ged and went to a community college and worked very hard.
i caught up and went into university and on to law school. it has been quite a trek. i was on my own practicing for 20 years and built a successful law practice. i think it is something to be said that you can always turn your life around when you would like and if you try and work hard at it. >> what were those lessons from the choices you made as a young man? rep.-elect fernandez: the most important lesson is that opportunity is always there if you want and if you try and you work hard. no matter what mistakes you have made in life, you can always turn your life around by making the right decisions and making change. >> why law school? rep.-elect fernandez: it is a way to be about to help people, especially in my community. it gives you a voice. and it gives a voice to people
that are not heard. to me, i just always wanted to be a lawyer. when i went back to school even as a dropout, i always thought that if i can make it through, i want to be a lawyer, work hard and here we are today. >> how were you able to pay for law school? rep.-elect fernandez: that is a great question. i worked. i had a lot of part-time jobs. i indebted myself through student loans, grants and opportunities that were available at the time that i hope will be available for future generations. when i graduated from law school, i was deeply in debt. >> how much? rep.-elect fernandez: 110 thousand dollars 20 years ago and that is still a lot of debt today. it was quite stressful at the time. i can always sympathize with young folks that are going through the same thing. i hope that those opportunities
continue because it certainly opens doors and education i think is society's great equalizer. it was for me and i hope it continues to be for future generations. >> you said you wanted to be a lawyer because it was a way to help your community. what is it about your community that being a lawyer, you are able to help them? rep.-elect fernandez: it is one of the poorest areas in the country. folks that do not have a voice cannot afford a lawyer. i have done a lot of pro bono work in my career. even though we were successful, we always had a part of our large firm catering to folks, taking a lot of veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan. we did that on a pro bono basis. folks would come in pleading for help that had no money. sometimes even legal resources and legal aid was overloaded. they could not take care of everyone. >> did you have a person in your
life that influenced you -- that person impacted you into rescission to run, to serve in the house? rep.-elect fernandez: i was impacted by a a lot of different people. i cannot say one person made it all happened, but i had a lot of influential professors in college and law school. at the time i serve here congressman ortiz for a little while and friends and relatives that positively influenced my life. >> tell us about your family back in texas. rep.-elect fernandez: i lost my dad 11 years ago. my mother still lives in south texas and i have a sister. my mother is from monterrey, mexico, so she immigrated to the united states 50 years ago. she is a great person. she will be here for my swearing-in. emotional times. >> how are you going to balance your work out here with your life back home?
do you plan to live here in washington and if so, where? rep.-elect fernandez: we have an apartment nearby, my wife and i. we will be traveling back and forth and try to spend as much time in the district as possible to keep hearing people's problems and knowing what we need to work for. we don't want to lose touch of our community and their needs. school districts, municipalities, a lot of folks affected that could use the help at the federal level. >> tell us about your wife and her influence on you. rep.-elect fernandez: well, she is a school teacher and a principal. she is my rock. she has been a great asset during my campaign and even here, she is sitting right back there. she is a very positive influence. >> representative elect gonzales, we appreciate your time. thank you for talking to c-span. announcer: shortness on tuesday,
january 3 for live coverage of the opening day of the new congress. watch the official swearing-in and newly elected members. our all-day live coverage begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and a c-span.org, or you could listen to it on the free c-span radio app. ♪ announcer: this week on "q&a," journalist and professor mark danner who talks about his latest book on u.s. terrorism. brian: your book "spiral" means what? figure that is a talks about emotion, beginning
at the center, going around and around and getting ever farther away from the original center and from the direction you're trying to go. so to me it was this image of spiral, circling, circling, never getting closer to the point, characterized very well our war on terror, that it started and was intended to, like all wars, end itself, somehow finish the job at hand and the violence and its act that continued on and on and that figure occur to me and i thought it was a rather vivid representation for what we have been doing the last now 50 years. brian: how many wars have you actually seen up close? mark: that's a good question. i wrote about central american wars but i was there afterwards. i covered the bosnian war the
, balkan wars which were several wars and the political violence in haiti though it never was a war, but it was fascinating, a series of coup d'etats and revolutions and so on. and then the iraq war which itself was kind of several different wars, so i don't know what that number would be, three, four. depending what you consider wars and whatnot. brian: and another question, what is your attitude about war? mark: well, from my last book which was called "stripping bear the body," i based that title on a quotation by a haitian politician, fascinating man, who said political violence is like stripping bear the body, the better to remove the clothing to place the stethoscope directly on the skin. in other words, political violence including war is a way, it seems to me to see a society with clarity, to strip away the outside layers and see the
various constituents of a society struggling with one another. so i've always found it a fascinating phenomenon. i mean, on the one hand, there's the sheer excitement of it, the adrenaline pumping excitement of following a violent series of events, the end of which you simply don't know. and then there's what it shows about the society you're trying to understand. it shows people and extremists, it shows institutions and extremists and shows in general people and other phenomenon under stress and that's i think true in the u.s. on the war on terror as well, that a lot has been exposed about this country that we perhaps would not have thought before was true, and it happens during wartime. so i think apart from the visceral excitement itself, it lets you see inside of things in
a way that a crisis can. brian: let me ask you a series of questions about war. if you were an aid to woodrow wilson before world war i and he said, mark, what should i do? what would you have told him? mark: that's a wonderful question. i would like to say, i would like to think i would have said, mr. president, even though it does not seem so at the moment, our interest in the interest of the american people are directly involved in what happens in europe and the united states will have the greater degree of leverage at the beginning before things get very bad and we should intervene, very much against our interest to have a grinding, terrible war on the continent. and the best way to stay out is to prevent this conflict. to do everything we can to prevent it. i fear that i would not have had that kind of perceptiveness.
i like to thought i would thought the same thing at the beginning of the balkan wars in the 1990's, but at the beginning of those wars i was firmly against the united states intervening. i did i think it was our war or engaged our national interests which is what woodrow thought when he became president. the great challenge of a statesman is to be far seeing enough to see the country's interest at a time when he can be responsibly supportive with a minimum amount of expenditure, blood and treasure. wilson was not in that position. aides did not tell them that clearly at the beginning of the first world war. f.d.r. saw it clearly but mainly because of his experience at assistant secretary of the navy and secretary of the navy under wilson.
so how do you get to the point of being far seeing enough? similarly with syria, the present conflict in syria, i think perhaps possibly president obama might have made different decisions if he'd seen how it , however has evolved. he would not enough that, i think but it is possible. brian: if you had been an aide to f.d.r. in 1940, what would you have told him when winston 's churchill kept saying we need you in this, we need you in this? mark: i think f.d.r. essentially had it right. his perception was churchill was right, that the united states was inevitably going to be drawn into this conflict but that the american public, politically speaking, wasn't ready for it to happen yet so he had to take interim measures, some of which may well have been unconstitutional, to keep the united states, to reinstitute
the draft, to do various things with the destroyers, the other things that he did to keep the united states in a position of influence, and so it would be ready when the time came. of course then the japanese -- not only the japanese in their attack but hitler in declaring war which was a remarkable thing, he didn't need to declare war on the united states but he did, took the matter out of his hands. but i think he actually -- within the bounds of the politics of his time carried things off pretty well. and i think he knew -- he very much knew what he was doing, that the american public wasn't ready for another overseas engagement, and the only thing that made them ready was this clear and present danger that the japanese attack represented. brian: if you were an aide to lyndon johnson, i know we skipped over korea, but if you're an aide to lyndon johnson, you ran in 1964,
implied we weren't going to send american boys to fight in vietnam even though we had some there, what would you have told him? mark: i would have told him, mr. president, if you don't believe you can win, if you don't believe this is a winning prospect, you shouldn't do it. you shouldn't fear the political repercussions of not getting more deeply involved and of withdrawing. this is not the loss of china which is what really haunted johnson. he said to richard russell in a phone call tape recorded they would impeach a president that ran out of there, wouldn't they? this was 1965, he was pessimistic of what the results would be in vietnam. he never thought the u.s. would win, nor did his aides. he still got involved. i think that's the first i think i would have said, you don't have to do this, the political withdraw, the handful of advisors won't be as great as you think, it's not the loss in china, but if you do it if you
do get involved, the key thing is a political task which you know better than anyone which is to get the american people involved, get them onboard to persuade them of the importance of this issue, the reason why it's so important to send american young men to fight, and of course johnson did not do that. he announced the escalation in mid-1965 at the end of a press conference. he never gave a sober speech talking about the importance of vietnam until we were very much involved. think of would have said, do not do it if you do not want to do it. if you are going for it, you better build the political support because it is going to be a long struggle. and you know, the amazing thing, there's a great book by cly bird called "the color of truth" about the bundy brothers and one of the remarkable facts that
emerges from it is really that nobody was an optimist about the war at the top of the administration. they were not dyed in the wool pessimists but nobody thought it would be a quicken engagement, would be easy to win. they couldn't conceive of defeat. but that the united states would be defeated but they weren't optimists. and i think the reasons johnson got involved at the end of the day had to do with the difficulty of withdrawal, that is that it was easier to go forward than it was to go back. and i think that's part of the tragedy. brian: did you ever face the draft? mark: i didn't. i was born in 1958. brian: what would you have done if drafted, do you think? mark: i honestly don't know. you know, when i think about the sort of role i played in college and where i was in the spectrum, i probably would have been involved in the anti-war movement, depending what year it was and so on. so i think it's likely i would
have either gone to jail or i'd like to think i wouldn't have gone abroad or anything but i think i might have gone to jail or maybe i would have gone and fought. i honestly don't know. when i was in college the war going on was the salvador war and i was very interested in that. i did a paper for stanley hoffman about, you know, the roots of the war and so on. i thought the u.s. shouldn't be involved in that, that was the after anyway. that is a good question. i honestly don't know. i remember as a child as i then was, my father saying we shouldn't be there but if we're going to be there we ought to win and get out. a lot of people thought that. what are we doing there? but there wasn't -- military force is one of the things i think the american public very often gets impatient about it because they really believe they have this trump card, this great
military that can defeat anyone. it is not true. it is an extraordinary military and very powerful but can only win in certain situations. and it can only really destroy things. it can't build a new order in its place. i think we demand of our military a lot of things the military cannot really accomplish. we get frustrated. a nasty thing from time to time, showing video from years ago. your first appearance on c-span was in 1985 on the call in show and i want to show you the mark danner 31 years ago. mark: what i'm worried about right now is other countries coming of age in the nuclear weapon area that aren't negotiating with one another and could possibly, terrorism, for instance, is as great today and
what about them guys? we have done a lot better than anyone could have thought in limiting the number of nations that have nuclear weapons. i think it was president kennedy who said in 1963 that by this time, there would be 20 nations that have nuclear arsenals. there are now seven or eight. but there are bound to be more. and we just have to do our best to limit them. [laughter] mark: thank you for that. brian: what's the update 31 years now on nuclear weaponry. how has it changed? mark: that was during the mid 1980's when there was an enormous amount of attention to the nuclear issue in part because ronald reagan had gotten into office and given the speeches about the evil empire and so on.
there was a nuclear freeze movement and so it was popular, a strong popular fear and interest in the nuclear issue. and it's remarkable now to me, having grown up with this prospect of nuclear weapons and nuclear tact as very real during the cold war how they've receded as an issue. i think president obama, to go back to your question, has done pretty well on his beginning at least when he got in office and signed two agreements which pretty dramatically limited nuclear weapons. he made the speech in prague in which he suggested the goal was elimination. he hasn't made much progress along that line. i would have hoped there would have been another treaty by now and he hasn't and in fact they're embarking on a extremely expensive path to modernize nuclear weapons which i think frankly is a the wrong way to go and they should be limiting them
more and should be eliminating the -- one leg of the triad, the land-based part of the triad which is the most destabilizing should go and should just get rid of them and have just submarines and bombers, i think, and the numbers should continue to go down until you reach a stability in the mid hundreds or so. but the interesting thing is it's not a vivid issue and you can have a presidential candidate who doesn't know what the triad is and to think this would have been impossible 15 years ago or certainly 30 years ago, so we continue to live with them as if the threat is gone. the other thing i wish obama had accomplished was a policy of no first use which george bundy and robert mcnamara and other writers, george kennan called for in the mid 1980's and would
have said we'll only use nuclear weapons if they're first used against us and that is not the u.s. policy now. the u.s. policy remains that in certain situations after conventional attack, the u.s. would respond with nuclear weapons which i think is the wrong policy. brian: where did you grow up? mark: in utica, new york, northern new york state. brian: your parents did what? mark: my father was a general practitioner dentist. my mother is still with us, thank goodness, and was a school teacher. she taught spanish and both parents were huge readers. we went to the library most evening to take out books and was a very happy, happy time in my life, happy upbringing. brian: what was their politics? mark: i'd say they were both democrats. my father was more of an f.d.r. democrat. his favorite president, though,
was truman. and i'd say he got considerably more conservative as he got older. he was a big hunter and the first amendment issue i think tended to make him more conservative. my mother remains kind of an f.d.r. democrat, i would say. brian: brothers and sisters? mark: grew up with three sisters. i now have a sister who is a court reporter in santa fe, new mexico. second sister was the news director of a radio station for a long time in jackson, wyoming. so the family has kind of moved to the west. i probably live in california now, too. brian: how much of a pacifist are you? mark: i think i call myself more of a realist, meaning i think
that u.s. power should be used fairly abstemiously and when i say u.s. power commodity military power to protect the country. very often we get our motives crossed and we attempt, as i said a few minutes ago, to use military power in ways that it isn't effective. so i wouldn't call myself a pacifist. in covering the balkan wars i certainly was an interventionist when it came to bosnia. i thought that siege of sarajevo should be lifted and america had the air power to do it and this was a critical moment in american history after the cold war when the question was, what do you do with this -- what are u.s. responsibilities around the world, if a genocide is going on, does the united states have a responsibility to do something about it or does the u.s. simply act when its vital interests are somehow affected? i guess when it comes to that
question, a realist would say only vital interests and when it came to the question of involvement in bosnia, i really believe we had to do something because of the mass killing going on. brian: if you were with jerry ford -- no, you would be working for -- yeah, jerry ford and maybe jimmy carter and the pol pot -- two million people slaughtered in cambodia was an issue and we finished the war in 1975 and jimmy carter said to you, what should i do? mark: that's a really hard question. there are practical matters you have to look at first. when you look at that particular genocide, that's really what it was, the fact is the u.s. had reports of a lot of killing but the country itself was isolated. you only had a few people getting out, very few. we knew horrible things were going on.
i don't think we knew about the scale of the destruction by any means. i think i would have probably told the president we should be denouncing what's going on, we should not recognize then at the u.n.. onquestion should -- we should not recognize them at the u.n. we should direct the moral opprobrium of the globe against this particular regime. i don't know that regime -- the problem could have been solved with military force at the time. certainly there was no domestic support to do that. eventually the vietnamese invaded and they ended it and it's a shame of the united states when the vietnamese did that we continued to recognize diplomatically the pol pot government which is completely vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti vanzetti horrible. i think that's one of the
situations where there wasn't a good option. i think politically speaking there was no military option. militarily apart from bomb which we had done a great deal already which helped cause the installation -- the victory of the kamaruge. that's a very hard question. brian: if you worked for george herbert walker bush and the original desert shield and all that business and kuwait was invaded by saddam hussein and he said mark danner, what should i , do? mark: i'm actually on record about that. i was writing as a writer at "the new yorker" a staff writer and did their comments, a series of comments at the front of the magazine which is their editorials and they were unsigned at the time -- i think most of them were unsigned anyway. and my view was that bush's initial instinct which was to levy very heavy sanctions, and in effect a boycott which is, by the way, wilson's original idea, woodrow wilson's who we started
with. that was the way to go. i thought here we are in the , post cold war world, this is the first major conflict, we have this first major conflict with a country that relies for its entire life on one export, oil. if we can stop that oil we can nonviolently strangle the country and force them if we have a little bit of patience, to withdraw from kuwait. that really was my position that they went, they used military force much earlier than they needed to. now, in the event, of course, you know, as always it depends on how long your view is but in the immediate term it was a highly successful war and in the longer term, it left saddam in power and led to the second iraq war. imagine if six or eight months later, they actually withdrew without a war.
i think it would have been a victory for the international system and for what george h.w. bush had called the new world order. that was wilson's vision. his vision was a boycott. you don't always need to fight. we can get this international organization and can boycott an evildoer and boycott an aggressor and choke off the lifeblood and cause the end of the regime or whatever without necessarily resorting to warfare. i think that would have been a remarkable opportunity to do that. he did not take it. brian: had you worked for bill clinton when he was president and said rwanda looks bad right now and they're going to slaughter each other, what would we have done there? mark: again, there are a few practical concerns that were difficult at the time which
samantha powers describes in her book, which happened very quickly, 75 days, very quickly in fact did the u.s. not only intervene, we prevented the canadians from intervening and anyone else from intervening and i would have acted differently. i think i would have intervened. probably with special forces for relatively small number of troops taking control of the capital. again, it's only a superpower that doesn't do something like that because of somalia. somalia has nothing to do with rwanda but because the united states had the blackhawk down incident no one wanted to get involved in rwanda. i would have intervened in that instance. and you would have saved hundreds of thousands of people. 750,000 is the conventional number now that are thought to have died. and even though it happened very quickly, i think if you had gotten in with special forces or
82nd airborne, you know, you wouldn't have had to occupy the entire country. the military would have hated it. the military hates missions like this because what's the exit strategy? what are we doing? but i think that's a good example of a situation where the united states was bound to act or prevent huge loss of life. brian: when is it worth losing american lives? mark: a very difficult question. i think, you know, if you are using the military at all in a situation of violence like that, like rwanda, the president has to be in the position to say, this is worth losing american lives because american lives are certainly going to be lost. i don't think very many. i think the u.s. probably would have been able to get control of that situation quite quickly. but i think you have to be willing to say that this is worth the expenditure of american lives. i think in general, you want the
answer to that question to be in the great majority of cases, only when u.s. vital interests are at stake. but the problem with that is, and that's the realist kind of litany catechism. but the problem with that is you can have disagreements about vital interests and vital interests are very often tied up with other things. even george h.w. bush is our great realist president before obama. when he intervened in iraq, he didn't say oil, even though secretary of state james baker said jobs, jobs, jobs, george h.w. bush said this man is worse than hitler. this aggression will not stand. he stood on international principle. so i think that was a good example of a case that had both realist side which is oil and stability of the middle east, stopping of aggression, and to
some degree an idealistic side as well, although as i said, i think it would have been better to wait a while to see if we can accomplish it without going to war which i think was possible. brian: you were at harper's for a while and still write for the new york review of books from time to time and worked at "the new york times" magazine. when did you decide to start teaching and where do you teach and what do you teach? mark: you know, i was involved actually in writing pieces about the bosnian war, the balkan war and had just gotten back from bosnia. i was at fort wayne, indiana, where my girlfriend then lived. she'd grown up in fort wayne and i was writing pieces there and one day the phone rang and it was orville shell the china specialist and new yorker writer, who had been named the dean of the graduate school of journalism at berkeley and he called me out of the blue and said, i'd like you to come teach here. and i essentially said, well,
i'm not that interested in that, i don't want to teach, i'm in the middle of this book writing on bosnia. and i put the phone down and katherine, my then girlfriend, was walking by the room at the time and she just happened to be walking by and said who's that? and i explained the phone call and she said are you crazy, you would be a great teacher. why don't you just try? you will go out to berkeley. it will be wonderful. that is really why i ended up going and i taught -- my first class was a seminar called wars, coups, and revolutions. and it was really about writing about violent political change. and you know, it's an amazing thing. you sit down, you spent the last 20 odd years writing about various things, traveling around and you do not really think you know much, frankly. it is not as if you've got an law degree or something, you've just been traveling around writing and then you sit down, you've got a table of these very smart berkeley students around and you start to talk and you suddenly realize, actually, i know a lot about the subject,
i've been covering it a long time. and i was amazed, really, about how much i enjoyed teaching, that there's really nothing -- and a lot of writers teach to earn a living and for other reasons but there is really nothing about -- nothing like a seminar that really starts to hum in which people are arguing, people are taking issue, for example, this issue of idealism and realism and why we intervene, you get 12 smart berkeley undergraduates or berkeley graduate students sitting around a table who have read eight of the same books, so for the last eight weeks about intervention, you can really learn something. so i think the thing i like most about teaching is i find myself learning immense amounts all the time. and i teach both at university of berkeley and at bart college where i am this fall and in both places i usually give one course on politics, this semester the
course on politics is called war" about twilight the ongoing war of terror. that is one senator. the other is called writing darkness, narratives of captivity, which is about the writing that's come out of prison camps, concentration camps, the logger, narratives of slave, of frederick douglass narrative, for example, d'este asking shallamoff and , survival in auschwitz, and we will go through huckerbeao timmermon and prisoner without a name in argentina. it is about the kind of literature that has come out of prisons and that sells and what -- cells and what's been produced in those kinds of conditions in captivity. and the reason i'm giving that course is just because i've been interested in it and what a wonderful thing to be paid
to gather with a dozen smart 20-year-olds around all reading the same thing and debate it. i've given classes at berkeley with my friend the poet bob hass. stoy, oneseminar on tol on chekov. bart is where? mark: annandale and hudson, near wine cliff, where washington irving stories take place. brian: you're now an aide to george w. bush and it's in 2001. mark: i knew we were getting to this place. brian: 9/11. he says, mark danner, what should i do? september 11, 2001 happens. mark: i would have said, mr. president, this has been a huge shock. everybody who works for you, everybody supports you, understands what a shock this
has been, 3,000 americans have never been killed in an attack on our soil before. we all feel great pain and feel guilt we let it happen but the important thing now is to respond intelligently, to respond in a way that is going to limit the chance of us being attacked again and is secondarily, but very importantly, is going to limit the number of jihadist there are in the world. but we do not want to do is respond in such a way that will produce more of these militants more of these militant , organizations. they want us to overreact. they want us to occupy muslim countries so they can build their recruitment. they want us to torture people. they want us to do things that's going to allow them to make their case against us. what we have to do is treat them like they are. there are a thousand ragged militants in the mountains of
afghanistan. we have to go in and get them we have to destroy their organization. we can do it with our special forces and highly trained troops and do it with a limited use of airpower but we have to discrete -- have to be discrete, directive, go against our enemies in such a way that we killed the minimum number of civilians, that we give them the minimum case to make it against us. what they want to do, and it has on record, mr. president, is they want to get us to occupy afghanistan and have that the connect like meyer where they can destroy us -- quagmire where they can destroy us as they destroyed the soviet union before us. so we need a discrete lethal response and we need at the same time to strengthen their relationships with moderate muslim countries and have to realize our enemy is extremism, is extreme jihadism and make sure it isn't perceived we're
attacking the muslim world, that we're attacking everyday arabs and have to do everything we can to destroy our enemy and prevent it from growing because the wrong response will help them and they have attacked us to illicit precisely that wrong response. they have it in their minds that they are provoking us. this is the strategy of provocation. and we have to keep in our mind what they want us to do and not do it. that's what i would say. brian: did you write that before the war started? mark: no, i didn't but did do a piece for "the time's" op-ed page that said a little of that, that our response had to be discrete and wasn't quite as fully formed, and certainly some of what i said is enriched by monday morning quarterbacking , there is no doubt about it. i said a little of it in "the
times." brian: there's a lot to talk about there but i want to move to president obama whose time is almost up in the white house. this is from january 22, two days after he was inaugurated, 2009. i want your reaction. it's only 30 second. [video clip] president obama: we are not, as i said, in the inauguration. continue with a false choice between our safety and ideals. we think that it is precisely our ideal that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world. we intend to win this fight. we're going to win it on our terms. brian: that is very eloquent. second full day in
office for he signed a number of presidential orders, including prohibiting torture, ordering guantanamo would be closed within a year and ordering the study of interrogation techniques among other things. that was a single moment. i remember vividly watching that lies, probably on c-span, actually, and thinking my god, , he's really doing this. and he's giving it the kind of prominence it deserves. i think that was an extremely important moment. but it's important for what it does, what it did at the time. it's also important to look back on it and realize that a lot of the things he was pointing to he didn't really achieve in the event. guantanamo is one example, at least the difficulties of guantanamo, put it that way, that congress has reacted against him, to react against them when it came to closing guantanamo and would not give him a free hand in the opening
days and years of his administration. there is also the fact that he prohibited torture, which as i describe in "spiral." it's a very strange word. could the president, one should think for a minute, prohibit murder? the president couldn't prohibit murder. why? because murders against the law, congress has prohibited murder. similarly, torture is against the law. congress has prohibited torture, title 18. it is against the law already. and when the president prohibits torture, it tells you something. it tells you that it's gone from an issue of law to an issue of policy. when mitt romney was running in 2012, it was leaked in october of 2012 that he, if inaugurated, would reinstitute enhanced interrogation techniques. in the 2016 campaign, there was
a lot of talk of torture, of course, and reinstituting torture. so i think one of the changes that's happened in our country since 9/11 is the torture went from being an inasma, something that was cursed and illegal, to being a policy choice. and he was not able to change that. you could ask how he could have changed it. establishing a truth commission, perhaps, having some kind of an official condemnation of what had happened. he could have gone a different route. but i think during the war on terror, as we still was and as we still are, that was politically extremely difficult and perhaps impossible. so that clip i think is -- boy, i feel moved watching it because it was a critical moment in american history. that moment george w. bush , moment in 2006 when he gave a speech from the white house
about torture, critical moment in american history. and i look at that and i think , he wanted to do much of what i wrote about in that book, i think. there is a significant part of president obama that wanted to end the war on terror. he said it several times. this war must end. this war, like all wars, must come to an end. but he found himself unable to do it. not only because of the actions of our enemies but because of the actions of our government itself and the policy that had preceded him. brian: why did you use this quote on the front page of part two of your book, obama normalizing the exception. turns out i'm really good at killing people. didn't know that was going to be a strong suit of mine, september 30, 2011, barack obama. mark: yes. president obama said that during a meeting. it is quoted in dan cledman's book, i believe. and he was talking about the drone program.
the drone program in which people mostly on the other side of the world in afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, somalia are killed remotely using these unmanned vehicles, has been the signal expansion of his presidency. it was used under george w. bush but not extensively. under obama's presidency, the united states is probably -- the numbers certainly are in the thousands. he has probably killed 4,000 people, something like that using drones. and i think he was -- the question is why he used that as becauseion, and i think his own position with respect to the war and the policies he has implemented when it comes to the war is a somewhat ironic one. he thinks he gave a speech at the national defense university in which he essentially said we have to -- we cannot be in a state of perpetual war, we have
to end this war. and you watched us anything, well, you were the president. why can't you end it? i think he -- there is a certain irony, a certain set already in what he says about some of his policies. i think there is some irony in leaving that he is office with troops in iraq and afghanistan. excuse me. think that statement, it turns out i was pretty good at killing people, is part of the irony. who would've thought this? he feels himself -- i think he .elt himself forced into it he got into office, 122 into -- wanted to end debate wars, but his office -- goals were to end the big shooting wars and develop what we now can call and what i call in the book the light footprint which is the use of drones, the use of special
forces, operatives, on raids and this kind of steady low level war that's going on in a half dozen countries around the world that the united states is prosecuting and doesn't get a lot of headlines, it's not a big political issue, you know, it's not something you campaign on but it is going on and it is very relevant, seems to me, to our national discussion and it is relevant when you talk about him because i do not think he would be in this position at the end of his presidency. brian: a footnote suggests osama bin laden wanted to bring this country to bankruptcy. mark: yes. brian: first of all, should we have killed osama bin laden as a country and that was president obama, and if you were osama bin laden, would you feel you had accomplished what you wanted? mark: the answer to the first question is yes.
i don't particularly like the phrase "we brought to justice." i think when you bring someone to justice in the american system is you try them and so on. i don't particularly like hearing it described that way. but i think under the circumstances the raid which , killed him was justified. , i think there would have been advantages to capturing him but don't think it was possible and i don't think the seals were -- that was part of their mission. i think they were going there to kill him. so yeah, i think that was justified. the second part of the question? brian: well, i'm going to ask you another one similar to that. mark: the one you just asked was interesting. i kind of lost it. brian: in the interim, let me ask you this. i will try to think of it. mark: i think they will both try. brian: what grade does president obama deserve based on what he promised he would do when it came to wars and all that, what kind after grade would you give him after eight years? from your perspective? c+ maybe.uld say
i would say things developed in a way he did not expect. i think, my view is it what is been an american interest to limit this war and there is a self perpetuating quality to it. we have essentially adopted tactics in place of a strategy, a tactic is a drone attack. you say, here is this organization in afghanistan. if i kill the head of this organization, this is called the strategy of decapitation. if i killed the head of this organization, they will be wrongfooted, backwards, and will fight about leadership so they cannot plan an attack against us. so let's kill them. and then two months later you say the same thing and you kill them again. the head of it. well, what you're constantly doing, you're doing a couple things.
one, you're bringing up younger members who are often more militant and angrier. number two, you're killing civilians which means , politically speaking you're helping them. but number three, you're not adopting a strategy that will reduce the numbers in these groups. you're in effect helping them politically. so, you know, the israelis have a name for this kind of strategy which they use in gaza called mowing the grass. grass grows up, you mow the grass. grass grows up, you mow the grass. the problem is you're not uprooting the grass. the grass is still there and always going to be there. so, i think we have adopted this kind of tactic in lieu of having a broader strategy to try to lessen the flow of young men into these jihaddist organizations. brian: that second question was whether or not if you were osama bin laden and still alive, would you feel like you accomplished what you set out to do? mark: that's a very good question. imagine osama bin laden on the
day after 9/11, right, on september 12, 2001. and you were sitting there having tea with him and said, you know, i have a vision 15 years from now. and 15 years from now, the situation will be the following, al qaeda will still exist and be a little larger. it will be this worldwide terrorist network with an internet presence and still recruiting, all the rest of it. but there will be a second worldwide terrorist network in 30 countries which will have been the spawn, you know, the product of al qaeda called the islamic state which will actually control a territory the size of great britain, govern a population the size of new zealand and will call itself the new kalifate. largell have these two organizations around the world. you have many other jihaddist organizations and the islamic
state will be 30,000 men under arms and then you have four countries in the middle east in chaos, that are targets of opportunity, of our opportunity. yemen, syria, iraq, think of that, somalia will be going to hell. we'll have all these targets of opportunity in which the united states will be trying to hold its own as a status quo power but we will be on the attack. what do you think of that vision, osama, after 15 years from now? i think he would be happy with that because i think it represents from their point of view, a great deal of progress. you know, they've had a lot of setbacks as well, but the fact is if you would describe that point of view to an american official, the day after september 11, i think there would be an acknowledgment, this is not what we went to achieve. of course that american official might describe the situation now quite differently and would say
what if in 15 years there had , been no major attacks on american soil, no mass casualty attacks at all and had been some smaller lone wolfe attacks and were tragic and terrible and one of which killed 50 people but in general the country was much more secure and though terrorism had increased dramatically around the globe, which it has, in fact in the united states, we are relatively safe after 15 years. would you take it? and it's probably true that many officials after september 11 would have taken that because they thought this was the beginning of an age of terrorism in which a lot of people would be killed. brian: in this year and it couldn't vary by one or two, when we're talking, there have been about 11 people killed, americans, in afghanistan and about 11 killed in iraq. you were the parent of one of those 11, would it be worth of
-- worth us being in either one of those places now? mark: that is, i think, and agonizing question an agonizing , question. brian: and we're frankly not paying a whole lot of attention to either situation. mark: though. i was actually going to say that. it is amazing the way the attack on mosul is -- has been covered as if the united states isn't directly involved. in fact, there are american forces. there are 5,000 americans in iraq right now. i think it is 11,000 afghanistan's. i'm not sure of the number. i have young children and the notion of losing a child in a conflict itself is agonizing to me. but to lose someone in a conflict like this when people aren't even paying attention and when it seems like something very far from american concerns, i think would be very, very, very painful.
i think it probably wouldn't seem worth it. i think one has to tell one's self that, you know, my son or daughter was there fighting for something they believed in and that loss was meaningful. but it just strikes me as extremely, extremely painful. brian: we this time period calls you into the oval office and says mark danner, what should i do about drones? mark: i would say, mr. president, use them less, realize that the decapitation strategy has its own downsides. they should be used ideally in situations in which there really is -- we really do know about an
imminent attack being planned. theoretically that's when they're used but they're now using a concept called elongated eminence and would seem to contridict eminence and they shouldn't be the basis of our strategy in yemen and pakistan and afghanistan. when we killed the leader of the taliban, did we know who was going to replace him? the answer to that is no, we didn't. we simply felt this would wrong-foot them for a certain amount of time and in fact that death may have been against american interests rather than for it. i would say long term, mr. president, we want to develop a strategy of deterrence when it comes to these groups. i know very well you think these groups are simply suicide bombers and have no vision of their own self-interest necessary to have deterrence but in fact you can develop a strategy of deterrence. the basis of the strategy must be if you're not attacking our
interests or even our homeland directly, we will not attack you directly. that is not the whole policy. needless to say. but you have to start giving jihaddist groups an interest in not attacking the united states and to realize that you can have jihaddist groups that aren't necessarily have as a policy direct attacks on the united states rather than the near enemy which is their immediate muslim enemies in cairo or rihad, so on. brian: what's your attitude about classes? you have 20-year-olds at berkeley, do you have a requirement to give them both sides of an argument? mark: i certainly have a personal requirement. and to me, you know, i often will have debates in the class, should we have tortured, for example?
and i'm always delighted by the fact that very often the people on the pro torture side tend to seem to win in the class, which i actually had a debate like that once -- teaching at bard has a program in jerusalem, east jerusalem, and i once had a debate like that with palestinian students when the pro torture side was -- even though the class unanimously rejected torture, the pro's torture side in the debate was judged by the rest of the class to have won the debate. i try to emphasize that when it comes to policies i disagree with, these policies were -- one of the bewildering things and interesting things about these policies is they were almost universally put in place by very smart people who had the best interests of their country at heart. this is certainly true of policy after 9/11. and the question i like to ask
is well, why did they choose to do this, particularly with some things that seem to be misconceived. the iraq war is a good example of that. that there was a certain vision. as you know, i was opposed to the iraq war before it. and then i covered it. but there was a certain vision about reordering the middle east that was thought to be an answer to the political roots of terrorism. of jihaddist. that is we can reorder the middle east and produce representative governments, destroy these old autocracies. so for everything we say about it, i was against it and it was a catastrophe, for what you can say, it did attempt to confront the political roots of jihadism. i try to get my students to understand this. if they come in hating american militarism or whatever, i like them to go out never using a
term like that in understanding why certain american policies have come to be. we had a discussion the other day about the carter doctrine which is really the beginning of american military policy in the middle east which was instituted in 1980. and you know they hadn't heard of this and hadn't heard of a central command where this all came from. so i generally find when you get into these issues that are matters of debate among themselves and show how complicated they are and this higher level of complexity that they respond very positively to that. but you have to try to show both sides, i think. brian: of all the people we talked about and the leaders and presidents and someone we haven't talked about, if you had to put somebody at the top of list who dealt from your perspective in a way that came to war which you thought was the
right way to go, who would you name? mark: the people we've talked about -- brian: doesn't have to be just that but in your studying of this country and you will that stuff, who would you put at the top and has done the best under the circumstances? mark: god bless my father, may he rest in peace. i'm going to say truman because truman, given the situation he was faced with, at the beginning of the cold war, he put in place institutions that were lasting and that were designed to safeguard american interests in the broadest sense which is to say bring in american allies, to create and solidify alliances, to try to ensure that hostility or aggressive tendencies wouldn't necessarily lead to war. he was a great institution builder. his administration was.
having said that, there was a lot -- he promulgated the truman doctrine which essentially was an ideological clarion call. george kennin, the great diplomat and father of containment hated the truman doctrine because he thought it would put politicians -- would limit their flexibility. and this is what happened, we talked about the fall of china and how it haunted lyndon johnson and he thought the fall of saigon would destroy him and that was partly the truman doctrine. we're called on to defend freedom wherever it is threatened and that was certainly much more broadly ideological and capacious than it should have been and should have been tailored to american interests and i think he in building institutions he was an admirable figure. again, having said that, you know, he began the cold war and there are many downsides to his policy as well. i think f.d.r. was a very
effective president as well, obviously, in fighting the second world war. i'm cognizant of the fact i'm talking about people who we're talking about 60 or 70 years ago and i wish i could come up with somebody more recent, a statesman of more recent vintage. i think james baker is a very able statesman, actually. sort of smart and very keen to protect american interests. and i think george h.w. bush will probably be more highly respected as the gears go on. you know in basketball how sometimes the commentator will say good, no foul. good no foul on the initial part, that it was smart that the
official didn't call that foul. there's a sense in which george h.w. bush did a lot of things that prevented catastrophes that might have happened at the end of the cold war. so in a sense these were negative achievements. these were dogs that didn't bark. and i think he will go down as better than we now think of him. brian: our guest has been mark danner, professor at u.c. berkeley and also at bard, written all of his life, grew up in utica, new york, harvard graduate. and we thank you. your book is called "spiral, trapped in the forever war." thank you very much for joining us. mark: my pleasure. it's good to be here. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> for free transcripts or to
give us your opinion about this program, visit us at q-and -a.org. week, on c-span in primetime, tonight at 8:00 eastern, hear from some of the democrats vying to be the party including ray buckley, jamie and representative keith ellison from minnesota. ellison: do you know we hit a low in voter turnout, 36%. the democratic caucus is lower than any time since truman? we have a lot of rebuilding to do. >> tuesday night at 8:00, president barack obama and japanese prime minister chin so of a visit pearl harbor.
mr. of a -- japanese prime visit pearlnzo abe harbor. is the first sitting japanese prime minister to visit the site. then wednesday, house and senate hearings. senator warren: seriously, you found that one of your divisions fakereated 2 million accounts, had fired thousands of employees, and had cheated customers and you did not even once consider firing her ahead of her retirement? remember some political figures who passed away in 2016, including former first lady nancy reagan and supreme court justice antonin scalia, and friday night at eight :00, our in memoriam program continues with shimon peres, mom at ali, and formerat ali,
senator and astronaut john glenn. friday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. host: on this holiday weekend, our guest is lee saunders since 2012, he is been the president of the largest public employee union with 1.6 million members across the nation. thank you for being here. lots of talk about with the trump administration coming in. let me introduce our two reporters. christopher is from the associated press and economy reporter. ted hessen from politico. before we start with our two gentlemen, i wanted to ask you, mr. saunders, we learned out of the trump corporation is that they have agreed to allow union organizing at the brand-new trump hotel in washington and las vegas. and do you have any reaction to that question mark is there any tea leaf reading to be done? mr. saunders: first of all, the first contract for quite a -- i want to congratulate the workers who have been fighting
for a first contract for quite a while, and donald trump and his managers in las vegas have been blocking them from even sitting at the table. but they won a major victory. they stood strong and we hope that spreads. clearly, i think it was because of the will of the employees. they were vigilant about and standing up and making their in -- making their voices heard. we had our convention in las vegas in july of 2016. a we were at the convention -- we were at the convention center which was not too far from the site of the hotel where the workers were trying to get a first contract. we had approximately 5500 delegates and guests at the convention. we broke off the convention one afternoon and had a march and a rally at the trump hotel showing support and solidarity for those workers. it is a big deal for them and a big deal because they stuck it
through. they made their voices heard. they fought for that contract. it is a good sign for them. that is what it is going to take. it is going to take across the country working people and families standing together and making their voices heard so there is a level playing field. they have the ability to achieve the american dream. susan: let me turn it over to ted. ted: i would like to ask you about president-elect trump's pick for labor secretary, andrew. he is the ceo of ckc restaurants, the parent company of carl's jr. and hardee's. he talked about the fact that the minimum wage could limit job growth or hurt job growth. he talked about automating his restaurants and the idea of your replacing workers altogether. -- replacing workers altogether. i know when his pick was announced, you said he would be an insult to the fight for 15 movement, the fight for $15 minimum wage. i am wondering, is there any place for you can see working together with a labor secretary like this?
mr. saunders: we will see. his past record as far as we are concerned is not a good record for working families. the department of labor should be standing up not only for union members but working families across the country. he does not support the increase in the minimum wage. he did not support the overtime rule. he has had numerous violations, labor law violations. he has made the statement that he would prefer having robots because of a not to take sick leave and vacation time. that is not have you grow the
american dream among working families. workers are suffering in this country. clearly the economy is improved under president obama. but there is still a large section of this country, especially in certain pockets across this country where people in communities are suffering. and because of that i believe that's why trump is the president-elect. people were so angry and so frustrated and with a considered to be business as usual. they wanted to make a statement. they wanted to try something new and try something different because of that anger and frustration. but talking about not supporting the minimum wage for the overtime provision or having a questionable record as far as labor law violations, that concerns all of us. we are going to have to hold
them accountable. we will have to hold the president-elect accountable. all of you will recall he talked about supporting working families. he talked about bringing jobs back to this country and helping folks who are struggling every single day. that was his message, especially in the rust belt. especially in local communities where the manufacturing jobs have almost disappeared or plants have closed. he said he would help working families. i believe we have to hold him accountable to that. i am not optimistic based on the selections he has made so far in his cabinet, but i think we will have to hold his seat to the fire. if he does things in a positive way to help working families through -- to move forward and have that level playing field, then we will be supportive. we will also be vocal if he does not do that. we will be very vocal with the people he is selecting delete government if in fact they don't carry the same message he was carrying when he was campaigning for president. ted: that raises interesting questions. the follow-up on anthony, what kind of traction do you think you can get in the incoming
congress, which is majority republican who don't necessarily support a higher minimum wage or support the overtime rule. are there any other issues or footholds you can find to affect his nomination? mr. sauders: we have got to get back to the basics. i think the unions in this country have got to get back to the basics. what do i mean by that? i think we have got to start organizing again one-on-one. talking with not only our members but nonmembers. talking with our community partners. listening to them, hearing what they have to say. i do believe there is a major disconnect. you can see it as a result of this election we had. the people said we are tired of this. we are willing to make change. what i think we have got to do is organize our communities and educate and mobilize individuals within our unions about basic economic interests. this is what this is all about. it's about economic status and economic justice for everyone, not just the 1%. but for everyone, and so, if, in fact, the new administration
will stand up and support those issues that impact working families, that is a good thing and we will want to work with them. but if they don't, we will organize like never before and make our voices heard to the fight the policies they put in place. ted: you mentioned the rust belt and the support for donald trump. why didn't some of the thing hillary clinton talked about in your union talked about, higher minimum wage and the overtime rule which would've made millions of more people eligible for time and a half when they were working more than 40 hours a week, why didn't those resonate more in areas like the rust belt and win more support for hillary clinton rather than donald trump? mr. sauders: she did talk about that. -- mr. saunders: she did talk
about that. donald trump was very basic and to the point about what his position was or is or should be. i don't know what his position is sometimes. it is all over the map. i think one of the mistakes that was made, and this is my personal opinion, especially in the last couple of weeks of the campaign was that hillary clinton is a good friend and i think she would've been a great president. we supported her 100% within my union. i believe she should have stayed on the economic message rather than the personal message against trump. that is what people wanted to hear. they wanted to know how they would be helped and supported in achieving the american dream. she kind of lost track of that the last couple of weeks by attacking him. and not sticking to the strong economic message she had. i believe she lost voters during that period, along with other factors that came to play. people want to hear about how their lives are going to be improved, how their family's lives are going to be improved and what kind of programs will
be put in place to help them. that is what we have got to continue to do in mobilizing and educating our communities. talk about economic fairness, talk about economic justice so people believe they have a chance and a shot. ted: you mentioned your union was 100% behind hillary clinton. in states like michigan she did not turn up the supported union households that barack obama turned out or any democratic candidate has turned out for decades. in one report i read in politico it says they did not make any get out the vote commitments in the weeks leading up to the election and michigan. within your union, if there was an undercurrent of discontent with clinton as a candidate. mr. sauders: that is erroneous. -- mr. saunders: that is erroneous. because we were on the ground in michigan, just as we were on the ground in every battleground state. i traveled to almost every one of those states and spent a lot of time as far as not only talking with members and mobilizing them, but watching
volunteers in action, watching our community partners in action. we were on the ground and we were very supportive. but, clearly, we are a microcosm -- our union is a microcosm -- of the overall society. we had members who believed they needed a change. even though, and i have seen the statistics and data shows that 62% supported hillary clinton, that was lower than the percentage who supported barack obama. number one, i think we lost the vote in the rust belt. the vote was not as high as it should have been in some of the urban centers across the country. it was not as high as it was when barack obama was running for president.
but we can't write off any segment of the population. we believe the argument we have got to make is a very strong economic argument. if we do that, and if we do not write off anyone, and we knock on those doors and have this one-on-one conversations, we can bring this back. we can turn this country around where people are concerned about not only having the top 1% being very successful, but the 99% having the ability to achieve that dream. >> your group is dealt with some of the governors in places like wisconsin, scott walker and others who try to weaken government union protections, eliminating collective bargaining in wisconsin. there was talk about people
around donald trump he should try things like that for the federal employees, making it easier to fire them and so forth. are they likely to become a target in your view? mr. saunders: i think there is a possibility. there are a number of people he has appointed or wants to appoint a high positions that want to take on the federal unions. that is something we are going to have to develop a plan, a smart plan and strategy around. the action not only is an washington, d.c. the action is at the state level. that is really our neighborhoods. that is where our members live and work. we have got to make some drastic changes in what is happening at the state and local level. if you look at the number of state legislatures and governors who got the trifecta, 75% -- 25 states not have a trifecta where
you have a conservative republican governor and a conservative legislature. they can attack our members and the rights we have enjoyed for many years. wisconsin is just an example of that where collective-bargaining was essentially taken away from us by the legislature, by the governor. we lost our voices. leave it up bargain or represent workers. we literally lost 70% of our membership in the state of wisconsin because of the actions of that legislature and the governor. we face those kinds of problems in other states across the country. missouri, in kentucky, possibly new hampshire, iowa where they have the trifecta. again i think it is about us getting back to basics of organizing and making our forces heard and talking about the importance of the union movement. there are studies, and no one can argue this, that when you have a stronger labor movement in this country you have a healthier and stronger middle-class. when workers have the ability to sit at the table and bargain over wages and working conditions, it is beneficial for the economy in this country. you have those that believe we
have too much power. we would say they have too much power. they have too much wealth and are trying to gain more at the expense of the average workers across the country. collective bargaining is the way in which workers can achieve a sense of dignity, respect, and put food on the table. susan: we have 10 minutes left. >> the democratic national committee. there are several candidates that have come out and declare they are going to run for it. you have already endorsed representative keith ellison and labor secretary tom perez recently threw his hat in as well. do you see this race as answering the question of the bigger existential direction of the democratic party? which way would you like see it go? mr. sauders: i believe we have to get back to basics. the democratic party has got to get back to basics. i have known all the candidates
running. tom perez was one of the best secretaries of labor this country has ever had. he is a friend and he supported programs that helped working families and help union members. and working families. keith ellison has been a congressman out of minnesota. he is originally from detroit. he talks the talk and walks the walk. he understands economic fairness for all working families. he understands that you have got to have a 50-state strategy. he understands we have to have a strong economic message. he has walked picket lines. he has supported working families, sometimes even taking on the president to support working families. i made the choice because i'm a member of the democratic national committee that keith ellison was a breath of fresh air. we needed that. he has the ability to bring in large segments of our population, not forgetting anyone, whether it is the millennials, whether it is
working families or people in rural areas. he has the ability to speak to those kinds of economic issues, and that is why i believe he deserves our support and we are going to be working towards getting him elected to be the next chair of the democratic national committee. this is going to be an extremely important position, simply because we are out of power right now. we are not in the white house. we don't have the majority in either the senate or the congress. whoever assumes that position really is going to be the spokesperson and the strategist for the democratic party. and i think keith has what it takes to get the job done. >> can i ask a quick follow up? is this ever jackson of the obama administration policies and trying to take the party in a new direction? mr. sauders: if you look at the president's record and what he has done, i think he will be viewed in the future as a
president able to do some unbelievable kinds of things under very difficult circumstances. when you had people that were concerned about moving progressive legislation but stopping him anywhere he wanted to go. he was still able to bring us out of the great recession. he bailed out the auto industry. when he did not pass legislation, he thought creatively about helping workers as far as the overtime rule. as far as other rules, he supports the minimum wage. we have got the gold upon the legacy he has. i do think we have got to take a fresh look at who we are and where we are going. if we don't do that, we will continue to make may be the same
kinds of mistakes we made in the last election. we have got to be smart, strategic about developing a plan and program that in my mind is about economic fairness for working families. >> you talked about working more in the states as well and getting outside of washington. are you concerned from the government employees being an easy target for folks like scott walker or donald trump? they can be perhaps stereotyped as not working hard or they have more benefits than the average private-sector worker now does. some of that has been taken advantage of by people like chris christie or other governors. are you worried getting the grassroots support you might need should donald trump also put a target on you? mr. sauders: it is up to the unions that represent public service workers across the country to promote the work they do. the very essential and critical work they do every single day. we are at union of 1.6 million members. we represent every occupation
you can imagine and public service ranging from sanitation workers to folks that make sure your water is clean, to law enforcement, the health care, the child care, home care, corrections officers. we are the everyday heroes and our members are everyday heroes in our society. it is up to us to talk about the important work they do and share those stories and share those experiences in community after community across the country. if we do that, there will be a level of satisfaction and the public will understand the important work our members perform every single day. i was in new york running our counsel, our affiliate in new york city when we had the disaster of 9/11. as a matter of fact, our building was two blocks away from the world trade center. i saw in action what public service members do.
they didn't run from the problem, they ran into it, risking their lives. that is what public-service workers do every single day. we have just got to tell that story and talk about the importance of public services and not let people batter us and bang and rail against the importance of public services. if we do that, we will have allies, and we will have support. susan: four minutes left. >> a follow-up on the dnc race. if i heard you right, you talked about going in a new direction, yet you also praised many of president obama's policies and talked about thomas perez and what a good job he said he did. where -- i mean, can you be more precise about what this new direction is? mr. sauders: it is getting back to basics. keith is an organizer. keith grew up being an organizer.
he understands how congress works but he also understands the problems that exist in our neighborhoods and communities across the country. they have to get back to basics as far as communicating and talking with people. not only talking with people, but listening to what they have to say. we cannot ignore any state. i think we have got to develop another 50-state strategy where we are talking to people in our you communities. i think economic justice, the economic fairness argument, i believe we can pull people in and folks are willing to listen and participate in a movement that will guarantee there is fairness for all. >> it was clear to have high him -- from your statement that you have high regard for labor secretary tom perez. i am wondering that he has supported the trans-pacific partnership and free trade deals. i'm wondering if his support for that and free trade makes him an untenable candidate for the dnc right now. mr. sauders: i think it is an -- mr. saunders: i think it is
an issue. i mean, i think it is an issue, and everybody understands and knows we have major disagreements with the administration on fast track and on tpp. tom was a part of that administration. we were very vocal with the administration on disagreeing with the track they were walking down. that they were going down. if you look at the elections that occurred in november, one of the things that really sparked interest was the fact that donald trump talked about how he would not support tpp. he does not support nafta. he would renegotiate nafta. and he was to bring jobs back to this country. -- and he wants to bring jobs back to this country. that caught on with a lot of people who have been hurt by bad trade policies. and so i think we have got to be very careful in going back in that direction, when so many people objected to that kind of movement. keith was against that, he was against tpp. he wants to empower workers. i think we have got to hold the
president-elect accountable for the things he said regarding his objections to nafta and objections to tpp, objections to fast-track. we will have to hold him accountable because i'm not convinced people within his own party believe the rhetoric he is espousing. people ended up saying, hey, we are going to support him. with all the flaws that exist and the kinds of negative things he says and the divisiveness of the campaign, we will support him because he says he will change something that affects our lives directly. susan: we have just one minute left. let me ask you a final question about health care.
the affordable care act. mr. trump campaigned about resending the affordable care -- rescinding the affordable care act. we've republicans who have been trying to do that for a while. what do you see happening? mr. saunders: i think the affordable care act should stay. i think should be changed in some ways. the cadillac tax, as an example. but i don't think you throw out the baby with the bathwater. the question i have to those who want to dump it, what is your plan? what are you going to put in its place? how are you going to guarantee millions of americans will not be hurt and not having a plan in its place? is a bigger picture than that. we supported aca. we believe there should be changes to aca to make it stronger and we would support that but it is a bigger picture than just aca. if you look at what has been
said by many of his advisors and many of the people he is nominating for very important they are not only attacking aca, but they are attacking medicare. they want to privatize medicare. they are attacking medicaid. those are health programs of the majority of americans in this country support. especially medicare. i think it will be a huge, huge mistake for them to try to privatize medicare because we will fight that tooth and nail. similar to the way we fought social security, when they were talking about cutting benefits of privatizing social security. we can and will put a coalition together across this country to fight that and we will win. susan: thank you for being with us on this holiday weekend and happy holidays to you. mr. saunders: happy holidays to you. thank you. susan: "newsmakers" is back after our conversation with lee saunders. gentlemen, let's start with the coming confirmation hearings of president-elect trump's labor
secretary. patty murray is the democratic lead on the senate health committee, which will be having a confirmation hearing. she put out a statement critical of his choice. you all will be on a conference call with her later this afternoon. i want to read for the audience some of the members of that committee, including elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, al franken and tammy baldwin. what does the labor secretary -- designate for that panel? >> clearly a tough audience and a lot of grilling on these issues like his opposition to the minimum wage increases and overtime rule.
i don't know. one thing interesting is how the democrats, what targets they pick overall is still relatively unusual for the senate to reject a presidential nominee for and a position. there are plenty other targets in the incoming trump administration. his treasury nominee and others that have targets on their backs. so we will see, but he is certainly a high, high-value target or high priority. >> i think another point to make is in some ways he's an easier target than other folks who have been picture cabinet positions. i mean, his comments about the minimum wage directly fly in the face of democrats support for raising minimum wage. he said it will lead to job losses and more automation in stores like his own fast food restaurants. even the suggesting he would automate his facet restaurants could get under the skin of democrats and some of their supporters, and then, on the flipside are some of the personal comments he has made. carl's jr. has some commercials that have kind of explicit sexual content. he has spoken out and said they might even reflect his own mindset at times. so i think not only is he saying these are ok, but that he kind
of personally endorses them. i think all the things give fodder to making of the sort of character that democrats can take on during the confirmation. susan: we asked questions about the campaign and how mr. trump's message resonated. as lee saunders said with a lot of his membership, working-class americans. how are labor union members, not just the leadership, feeling about the science coming out of the trump administration as he gets organized. >> everyone is looking for the buyer's remorse or the questions about what side mr. trump is on. that is something to look for. i don't think there is widespread sense yet from any of those folks. certainly they are making noise about trade and immigration and so forth which were some of the things the rank-and-file members liked. i think this labor secretary
nomination hearing will be probably one of the first times you may see whether or not any grassroots or opposition comes up and whether or not there is a sense that not every think mr. trump said is reflected in some of his nominations. susan: one final question. we have a minute left. you both are interested in the direction of the democratic national committee. lee saunders is a member. the question you used was, is this an existential decision about the direction of the democratic party after the election? what are you thinking about, or what are you learning when you talk to people? >> when he talked about his support for representative ellison, and the other hand tom perez who he sung the praises of for his time in office was a big supporter of. i think one essential thing is the free trade issue. you had tom perez standing in as a representative of the obama administration. they supported tpp. i think that is a major issue
for a union members and for folks in the rust belt who we were talking about earlier, who might be effected this time around. they need someone who is going to take a boulder stand. that is why you see he is out supporting ellison. that said, from what i am hearing, it will be a competitive race between the two. susan: we have got 10 days'break, and then, washington will be back out with these confirmation hearings. thanks so much for being with us this week on "newsmakers." >> thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight, the race for the leadership of the their credit
national committee. >> my district was the lowest turnout district in the state. today it is the highest turnout district in the state because we have invested in turnout triggered 65 days a year, all over, everybody, young people, new americans, we are doing the deal. is aectoral success qualification for this job, i fulfill that criteria. i hope you will take that into consideration. who has actually produced a electoral success and helped other democrats win? the democratic governor mark $100,000 by more than -- 100,000 votes in 2013 because we turned out to vote. a democratic candidate al franken one by 20000 and 314. we turned out the vote. i want to tell you, i am an
organizer at heart. i have walked picket lines with my brothers and sisters in labor. postal workers, or verizon workers. i open arrested for standing up for immigration reform. and i have traveled to nearly 30 states in the last two years alone fighting for candidates at all levels. fromu will hear representative ellison as well as jamie allison and the new hampshire party chair ray buckley at 8 p.m. eastern. then a special look at the bombing of pearl harbor 75 years later. this year for the first time, the sitting japanese prime minister will visit the memorial in hawaii. join us tuesday at 8 p.m. eastern. for the next 45 minutes, and exclusive.story tv
our cities tour visits tempe, arizona. we have traveled across the u.s. to explore literary and historic sites. to earn more go cspan.org/citiestour. >> this really takes us from the end of world war ii and the population explosion that rocked so many people to the valley including tempe. some a people to the valley, including tempe. you had people looking for a new way of life. so, really what was a game changer in terms of the population was that post world -- postwar boom. people were taking advantage of
cheap housing. you had planned communities where you had multiple houses being built on what was farmland and then converted to a planned community. so, people could move here and buy a house less cheaper than they could elsewhere. an ad that benefit of being a brand-new house you had custom-built for you with all of the tweaks and the charges that you wanted in your house and it really put you in a position to control your life in a much different way, in a much more suburban way. where the interesting things is a lot of the valley is suburbia. you have little bits of downtown , but everything else was suburbs. one of the other factors in that postwar boom was the economic growth that was happening. were the five
to of arizona -- you had know from those towards manufacturing, tourism, as well as construction was a huge economic boom. as we go from agricultural to suburbia, one of the big impacts of that, these machines right here. air would blow through it. the air would be so dry, the addition of humidity would cool the air down. but it didn't do as good a job, and then you had this which was brought to arizona via motorola, but then it make it -- made its way not just from industrial use, but every home started to have its own air-conditioning as well, and that really caused, was one of the major factors in folks now moving to arizona. before that, it was the weather that prevented folks from being
here your round. but now you had the ability to control your own climate in your house. arizona is a state that is very much finding itself. it's a new state. just celebrated our centennial, and with that, we're still trying to grow. you've got the postwar boom. we are actually going through a renaissance right now. >> the arizona collection here makes accessible the papers of 14 members of congress from arizona. the goldwater papers and the hayden papers are the two largest archival collections that document the work of the arizona congressional delegation.
hayden is an interesting individual because his father, builts trumbull hayden his adobe home along the then raging salt river in a place that is now called mill avenue after the mill he had artie built. herles trumbull hayden -- had already built. charles trumbull hayden's's son was born in tempe. went to attend the arizona territorial school, and then became our first u.s. 1912 and then later the senator from arizona until 1969. truly acarl hayden is son of the city of tempe.
in scottsdale. he always had a strong relationship with the university , and ultimately he brought his papers here. resourcese these available for inspection available for research and interpretation. hayden, through his 57-year-old was known as these silent senator and he had the reputation of teeing the -- of being the workhorse. barry galled -- airy goldwater was a one-time senator from arizona and many describe him as in show horse for his work the united states senate. what that really means is, when you look at carl hayden's
career, he was really responsible for cosponsoring and righting a huge amounts of legislation that benefited the citizens of arizona and citizens of the united states. and his legacy was very much a legislative legacy, passing things like arranging for the passage of legislation like the hayden cartwright act, which changed a formula for federal highway construction funding population-based to square mileage-based funding. that ultimately really benefited the states in the west were the rural large expanses of land yet to be settled, and highway construction could proceed with that type of funding. goldwatered -- barry was a person who is an icon for the western united states.
he is an individual clearly remembered for his presidential , in which he presented a new vision for conservative republican politics. show horse.much the he was a person that represented west, them of the rugged individualism of the west. he had a strong jaw and bright eyes that reminded people of what it was like what people believed it was like to live in the western united states. through his presidential campaign and his work in the united states senate, he was a person who represented the interests of the west to the general population and presented a new idea of what the west could be. the first material we will look at today is this lovely
handwritten ledger that presents the first minutes of the arizona territorial normal school. senator hayden's father was the first president of the territorial normal school and you can see his signature at the bottom of the first minutes of the normal school on july 1885. and so, being the leading he saw of the town, and the opportunity to bring a great educational institution to tempe. carl then attended the normal stanfordent on to university. our firsted he became at u.s. representative from arizona in 1912, and then became an important member of the united states senate. i selected some materials from the hayden papers -- this particular file has to do with
highway construction and planning. you can see it is a fairly typical file containing publications about the time he is working in. we have draft legislation. this letter actually going back to the secretary-treasurer of the hotel association in 1956, talking about the implications for route selection as they build freeways and highways using the federal highway funds that resulted from the hayden cartwright act. so, this is a fairly typical file. we see actual letters written by him in response to the inquiry from the arizona motor hotel association, and it's representative of the kind of work that senators and congressmen do every day on behalf of citizens in their
state and their district. senator hayden served in congress at a time when political figures were larger-than-life heroes. in certainly the senator's longevity made him known. there were lots of people in arizona. everybody knew everyone and everybody knew about carl hayden. service, many years of when he was 80 years old, the citizens of arizona were given the opportunity to nine this wonderful book offering the congratulations to senator hayden on the occasion of his 80th birthday. we have about eight of them. very large, heavy books of
address, contact information for individuals who loved carl hayden and wanted to wish him a happy birthday. symbolizesok really the value of his public service arizona'sy that citizens really honored and loved carl hayden for what he did for them representing our interests in the united states congress. was961, senator hayden preparing for his last campaign for the senate, which really occurred in fall 1962. so, supporters of the senator who were concerned about his electiono win the given the increasing dominance of republican politics in arizona created an event called the carl hayden anniversary dinner in which 1000 democratic supporters from around arizona
were invited to the westward ho senator hayden. the key guest was president john was accompanied by vice president johnson and members of congress. we are very fortunate to have received a video of that event and what we have here is the , where carleo hayden was being honored by --sident kidney -- press president kennedy in 1961. there are very few surviving machines that can play this type of videotape, and the work to digitize and conserve this kind of video is very skilled and
professional work. we are very fortunate to be able this video. anyone globally can now see president kennedy talking about carl hayden and carl hayden talking about meeting williams -- william jennings bryan on the train to washington, d.c. in 1912 rid it's a wonderful time ,apsule of carl hayden's career i've vice president johnson and president kennedy's remarks about carl hayden's career, and to have that in video for all to the is a wonderful treasure and the great object of study for political scientists sent historians. >> i had won the nomination, but had to wait until december 12, 1911. >> in 1964, barry goldwater was nominated and won the nomination
for -- republican nomination for election to the office of the president of the united states. and that set off many months of campaigning across the united states, in addition to the the united states. in addition to the senator's senatorial materials, we have his campaign materials. i selected a couple of items related to his campaign. we have classic photographs from the campaign. we can see barry doing the hard work of trying to become president in 1964. one of the interesting things about the senator was his interest in using media to assist his campaign for president. there were many, many television appearances and films that were theally made to support campaign. this motion picture film, in
fact, is a very important film in the campaign that was known, that had the title "choice." fact, has been digitized and is available for viewing here in the goldwater archives. we have hundreds of motion picture we have hundreds of audio recordings of senator goldwater's run for president of the united states and also appearances before and after the presidential campaign. as a result of the popularity senator goldwater demonstrated through his campaign for the he was able 1964, to meet with a number of distinguished individuals and other public servants and met ith many presidents.
here we have him speaking briefly with president ford right outside the oval office. the photo is mounted and there is president ford's signature with a nice greeting for senator goldwater. here we have a meeting of senator goldwater and president eisenhower. a little known fact about goldwater's presidential campaign was that he actually met with president eisenhower at eisenhower's farm in gettysburg, pennsylvania. and so the two of them were lose allies in that 1964 presidential campaign. the two are shaking hands here. we also have a nice photograph of barry goldewater with president nixon in the white house. they were rivals, political
rivals in some ways, but later as richard nixon became president they became important allies in efforts to move forward republican legislation. we collect these materials because they support the instructional research needs of our faculty and our students. they also demonstrate the important role that senators and congressmen play in representing our interests in washington. much of the environment in arizona occurred because of projects like the central arizona project, the canal system that brings water from the colorado river to phoenix and tucson. that water supply enables development and growth in the state of arizona. so having the materials here importance. the
they tell us stories about our families, neighborhoods, cities, and governments that work for us. when charles hayden and some of the other folks came to this area one of the most prominent features was this view. it would have been something that really got people's attention but when you think about these pioneers going up here, they didn't have these nicely groomed paths. they had to pick their way among the rocks and make their way up that trail. it's hard to say at times exactly what people were thinking but the earliest folks that climbed up here certainly were kind of getting an eye toward what they might do with he area. charles hayden is originally born in connecticut and comes out west during the course of
his life, travels the santa fe trail. he runs freight. he eventually makes it to arizona in the 1850's. where he to tucson had a freight business, a mercantile business, and also a judge position. many people around this area knew him as judge hayden. but he is essentially what you would refer to as a connecticut yankee in arizona. who was now a man with a big freight business, a big mercantile or sales business and so he very much is a frontier businessman here in arizona. this was a known crossing, a good crossing for the salt river. and the salt river that people knew as very erratic but they also knew it was a river that had a lot of potential for irrigation. and so when he came up here, i think he certainly saw the
crossing. obviously now he was -- he established what was known as hayden's ferry shortly thereafter. the one thing to keep in mind, urfery business is seasonal because it's during high water times for the river because much of the rest of the year you'll have all these freight wagons crossing, not waiting for a ferry boat to cross but simply going across. because there are basically trains of freight wagons crossing here, you know, two and three wagons hitched to 18 or 20 mules or horses crossing at one time. if you have to wait for your whole team to cross with a ferry boat, people often find alternative ways. hayden recognized that was an ideal thing because it was a good, suitable crossing ocation.
he also saw good possibilities. freight wagons always need work, they could use things like services for wagons to fix to carry extra freight as they were heading to places like the town of prescott or going to fort mcdowell north of here or any number of mining or ranches. north of the river. so he recognized the possibilities of that without a doubt. and also as things were starting, people were starting to think about agriculture in the area, he began to think about things like, you know, somebody who's going to be needed to process all the wheat that people will grow in this area, so he actually conceived of as far as we know, he conceived of the mill in 1870 when he got the rights to the
land that -- where the mill would then be built. in addition you have the blacksmith shop. you have carpenter's work. you have wagons, wagon making facilities. he's raising stock. he's also at the same time promoting the growth of the area in terms of he's pushing for the railroad. the railroad won't get to arizona or actually into yuma until the late 1870's. doesn't get to the town of mirra copa down here until the -- until 1880. doesn't get up here till 1887 but hayden was pushing for that the whole time. even before that, or during the midst of that he's also pushing for the creation of, for tempe to get the territorial teachers college, which will be known as the normal school, eventually which will become a.s.u. in fact shall the year before the railroad arrived, the teachers college is built, the
first normal school building is built. and so he was active in a lot of facets of the community. certainly in promoting a sense of community, because he worked with everybody. when, certainly, the mexican frontiersmen, the mexican pioneers who came up here, many of them worked with him and for him. these mexican workers did a whole lot of things with mr. hayden in addition to having their own farms and things like that. and he also worked with the native american communities around here. they would often, many of them brought their wheat up here for them to process into flour. he worked with the mormon communities. a number of which would settle, some of whom settled right here in tempe. and so he was really a community builder in a wider sense. he was always thinking about what could he do to help the community get bigger. and i think that's in a lot of ways why his figure has become
bigger historically. and as a man who knew it wasn't -- he couldn't do this by himself. it took the whole community to ork together to do this. >> this is one of the largest collections. we have 7,000 works on paper. and they are cared for and stored and made available for close study and viewing here in the prince study room. one of the areas of concentration within the print collection is artists dealing with social and political content. a lot of these artists throughout history have recognized the art form's ability to really bring about social change. they are just like us living in their own time frame and they want to reflect upon what's going on around them. and, potentially, influence society with their work. and the amazing thing about
prints, it allows them to be really powerful social tools really, is that they're relatively inexpensive to produce. they are multiples. they are less expensive to acquire. so they really penetrate all aspects of society. and they are excellent platforms with which to convey information, both image and text. so a lot of artists have used prints specifically for this reason. we selected today from the collection a range of prints from the 18th century of artists dealing with social and political content. what's really amazing is that while a lot of the specifics change, so the settings, the costumes, the specific details of the current event, the broader issues remain the same. these artists are dealing with things like political
corruption, like the difference between the rich and the poor, war and the impact of war. throughout these prints, throughout history you'll see the artists dealing with these same issues. so the first print that i pulled were prints by a british, english artist who lived in london named william hogarth who set up his own engraving studio in 1720. these prints i'll show you today are from the 1740's and 1750's. he was best known as a satirist and he produced these large editions of engravings in series almost like a graphic ovel and often in very witty and biting looks at what was going on around him. for instance, this is marriage ala mode and taking a look at the habits of the very wealthy. and so it's the story of a
couple who are married off by their parents for gain. so here you have on the left lord squander, who is showing his family tree and is marrying off his son, who is over here on the right in very fashionable dress but already receives dispatience because he has a black spot on his neck which means he has syphilis. he is back from his tour of the kotb nent. and the son's name is lord squander field. then this is a rich merchant, who is interested in marrying off his daughter to gain entry into the aristocracy. in the background you see a new mansion that lord squander is building and so he needs to gain resources to sell off his son for that reason and here he has a crutch and his foot is bound because he has gout from his extreme living, eating, and drinking. here you have the daughter
looking very depressed about this situation, but being talked into the marriage by a lawyer, who is called silver tongue. and here in the right you always have to look for the details in hogarth's prints, are a pair of dogs chained together just like the couple is going to be chained together in life. so this series runs through several pieces and ends with the son dying in a duel and the daughter committing suicide. so in complete dispatience, having spent all of their money. so now we'll jump to the late 19th century early 20th century and look at two german artists who are both -- who both concentrated on the impact of war, world war i and world war ii in germany. but also the plight of the poor. and the impact on -- of war on
women and children and others nvolved. as i was talking about earlier, she is an artist who very consciously chose print making as her medium in order to get the work out there, in order to talk about her concerns with society. so her husband was actually a doctor in berlin and she came into contact with a lot of his working class patients. and a lot of her work is dealing with the plight of the poor. and particularly mothers and children. and so this is a really powerful piece called bread. she has actually written it here at the bottom. hungry with two children she is trying to pacify. the next piece is a piece called "revolution" where she
shows the downtroden, the poor, trying to break out the restrictions. and then this piece here is a piece by an artist named george gross. gross was actually active between the wars ks between world war i and world war ii. he actually fought briefly in world war i. a lot of his work from between the wars is looking at the complete breakdown in german society between the wars. which brought about nazism. so a lot of his work shows the veterans who have become ggers, who are starving, who were injured in the war and now have no recourse, no profession. so, again, showing the impact of the war. interestingly, kathy callwitz also had personal impact from the war. a son died in world war i and a grandson in world war ii.
her work was banned by the nantzies during world war ii and she lost her position at the german university. now we'll move to a selection of works by contemporary artists who are using the print medium in order to talk about social and political issues. these are all works by an artist named sukow. here you see the ability of our visitors to take a close look at our prints. none of these are behind glass. so they can really see the quality of the paper, the quality of the print, itself, the contrast between light and ark and the use of the grays to create these powerful images using a variety of print techniques. this is a very powerful piece about the anita hill hearings when she made very specific claims of sexual harassment against clarence thomas. and here you can see her interpretation of the hearings where she felt anita hill was
demonized. and here she is almost like a witch with her hands tied, flames coming up from below, the sort of halloween witch with the cat and the broom stick up above. and then the new york post with d here on the left i'd like to thank america with a "kkk" in the america. so very clear interpretation by sukeo on what happened during those hearings and the very specific senators who were in those hearings as well. the ceramic collection is our second largest collection and we have some powerful works in particular from the 1930's by an american artist that we would like to share with you today. >> we'll take a look at one of the hidden gems of the ceramic research center collection.
that is three sculptors by russell barnett atkin who was a well known socialite philanthropist, artist, and oddly, big game hunter who lived in new york city and hung out with a lot of the other wealthy types in new york city. and these pieces were created in 1938 just before the united states entered world war ii. so what we're looking at are the three pieces and you can ee on the left we start with a sculptor of franklin delano roosevelt riding a democratic donkey, holding up a microphone. tucked under his right arm is a battle ship, a war ship. ust to his right we have a sculpture about 10 or 11 inches tall of mussolini. you can see the roman column.
sort of his -- his bust is resting on. you can also see an ethiopian figure thumbing their nose at mussolini as they look up. just remember also this is preworld war ii so russell barnett is looking at these figures through the lens of the united states, which has not yet gone to war against these countries. nd finally, we see an image of adolph hitler. "mein kompf" is tucked into left hand. his right hand is giving a salute. there is a bare breasted mermaid with a little baby actually tucked into her arms. maybe he's talking a little bit wanting t of hittler the aryans to propagate. on the other side there is "new ly a sign that says,
order" with an arrow pointing forward. so i think that we could view these sculptures through a couple different lenses. one is preworld war ii and definitely during world war ii this sort of populace lens we could look at these through. so i think people in the united states were engaged with art in a direct way and used to seeing art that made statements and through the works progress administration, through artists like diego rivera people in the united states were used to seeing murals that made direct statements. i think we can definitely relate these sculptures with some of the political lens at the time. but i think the other lens that you can look at this through is through the lens of socialites and wealthy people in new york city. so in 1938 before the united states entered world war ii you were already seeing the nazis
driving out the jews, collectors, wealthy, some of the wealthy, jewish residents in germany. but, also, many artists. many creatives were migrating. so this is the collection in new york city that russell barnett atkin would have been commenting on at the time. i think he was never somebody who hit his own -- hid his own beliefs and his own opinions. and that's what you see in all of these little details perculating up in these culptures. this is the historic peterson house in tempe, arizona. it was built in the year 1892. it's a queen anne victorian style house. it was a farm house when it was first built.
it was built by an immigrant farmer, dale peterson, and at that time it was considered one of the most elegant homes in the salt river valley. dale peterson who the house is named after was born in 1845 in denmark. and he was the youngest of about six siblings, which means he wasn't able to inherit any of his family's land. so he had to go off on his own to establish life for himself. he had opportunities here in the united states, particularly in the west. at that time there was the homestead act, which was a law that allowed people to come out west and they could acquire 160 acres and start their own farms. if you were a u.s. citizen. so that was a big impetus for him to come west, become a u.s. citizen, and start a farming operation here which he wasn't able to do back in his native denmark. he came out to the arizona territory very early on.
here in tempe, a small number of farmers were starting to show interest in this area. right around the year 1870. so he was among that group that came here and started to figure out how to farm productively here in the salt river valley. over the years, he was able to grow his farming empire, acquire more land, acquire more business opportunities, and by the year 1892 he was a very prominent businessman, entrepreneur here in tempe. that of the year he built this house. this is not a typical farm house for a territorial arizona. this is the type of house that you would build if you had really made it. it was a show piece. when this house was built people took notice. there were articles in the paper calling it the most elegant home in the salt river valley, saying this was really special. the house gave a lot of hope to local farmers because if somebody can farm here in the
desert and through a lot of hard work acquire the wealth to build a house like this, then that's something maybe they could aspire to as well. early on, you know, the town was just getting started. and so really needed to establish its institutions and so a lot of the early settlers especially those that became more well off stepped up to help establish the local banks, establish the local churches, establish the local mercantile businesses downtown. peterson was very instrumental in supporting education in town. he gave money to the local schools. he was on the board of at least one of the banks in town. and he had his own business. there was a peterson building in downtown tempe. he paved the way for a number of other young danish farmers to come here to the arizona territory and what they would do is they would work on this farm to pay him back.
to pay back the passage to get here. and then once those debts were paid they were able to go off and often establish their own farms or establish their own businesses here. and so if you look at the early census records of tempe you go through and there's lots of danish names listed. a lot of that is because of peterson, who was really a hub and an anchor for these other immigrants who came over and tempe in the early days anyway was really in part a danish town. he is a very important figure in early tempe but having the house here makes it really special because people can really come in and walk through the rooms where he lived and go on to the porch and visualize what early tempe would have been like, off into the distance picturing rural fields of alfalfa and cattle grazing. so different than it is today. it is so very lucky that we still have this home as a really tangible tie, a direct tie to tempe's early days and
agricultural roots and a reminder of where we came from both as an agricultural town and then also with peterson being a danish immigrant this house is a great symbol of tempe's early diversity showing people came from lots of different places because they were offered opportunities and were able to establish themselves here. they never had any children of their own to inherit the house. and so when they passed away in the 1920's the closest relative to inherit the house was a man named edwin decker. he was a methodist minister who traveled around the west. spent some time here while he was young going to school. but ended up inheriting the house and he lived here with his wife. the two of them remodeled the house pretty dramatically. they updated it. they changed it to a 1930's style and also kept the farm going as well. the last crop here at the peterson farm was harvested in the mid 1960's. the house was surrounded by a
housing subdivision starting the mid 1960's. the streets were paved. and very, very rapidly this house transformed from a rural farm house to a house that was in the middle of the city. the house is unique i think because when this farm was finally sub divided in the 1960's, they left the house. so the hundreds of acres of alfalfa fields that were here, they were sub divided. houses were built. industrial complexes were built. but the house remained. and so today we have this victorian farm house that stands in the middle of all of this modern development and it's, you know, out of context in some ways but in other ways it really shows how the town grew. you know, it's as simple as how tempe had agricultural roots but as people started moving here and the population started exploding, particularly up from world war ii, those farms really all filled in and were really -- we're really a very
urban place now. when visitors come to the peterson house my hope is they'll enjoy this beautiful house, enjoy the architecture, be able to imagine what it would have been like living in territorial arizona and really understand what it takes to found a town, to come out into the middle of the desert and start from scratch and be able to create a good life and to prosper here. i hope this is a tangible link to the past. i hope that it's a symbol of tempe's diversity. and i hope that it remains in the future and that tempens will continue to be proud this of big red house here on the corner. >> our visit to tempe, arizona is an american history tv exclusive. we showed it today to introduce you to c-span's cities tour. for five years now we have traveled to cities across the u.s. to explore their literary and historic sites.
you can watch more of our visits at c-span.org/cities tour. >> sunday, "in depth" will feature a live discussion on the presidency of barack obama. we're taking your phone calls, tweets, e-mails, and facebook questions during the program. our panel includes april bryant white house correspondent for american urban radio network and author of the presidency in black and white. my up close view of three presidents and race in america. princeton university, author of "democracy in black" how race still enslaves the american soul. and associate editor of "the washington post," author of "barack obama the story." watch "in depth" live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on sunday on book tv on c-spanit. on c-span2. >> british prime minister theresa may updated the house of commons liaison committee on the u.k.'s pending exit from
the european union. his was the first of three ex- petked appearances in her first year as prime minister. it runs about an hour and 15 minutes. xxx >> we'll begin. prime minister, thank you very much for coming today. we're very grateful. i think parliament is also very grateful that you're agreeing to december these sessions. could we just have confirmation that you'll continue the practice of your predecessor of three a year? prime minister may: yes, indeed, gentlemen. >> bearing in mind the very big event likely to take place at the end of march it might be of ble to push scrutiny
article 50 and any accompanying government documents after the spring recess so that we will have two meetings, one right at the beginning and one toward the end of the summer session. prime minister may: that may very well be sensible, chairman. i suggest that perhaps we'll be able to talk about possible dates and the committee will ave a view as to when. chairman: i don't think it will be realistic or practical for either of us and there could be a more sensible arrangement. you indicated before hand that you had one or two remarks you wanted to make. why don't you make those now, prime minister? prime minister may: thank you very much, chairman. i just wanted to make a few remarks i hope will be helpful to the committee. before i do that i would just like to take a moment to reflect on the news that came in to berlin and ankara
yesterday. we've seen photo images in our newspapers and on television and i think they shocked us all. i just wanted to express our condolences. i'm sure the condolences of all of us with those who mourn and all who have been affected and we hold them in our thoughts today. i just thought it would be helpful to set o you the a little bit of what we've been doing since the referendum preparing for the negotiations on brexit. one of my first acts was to establish the departments, the department of international trade. this puts in place the mechanisms necessary to marshal the important work that needs to be done to make sure our departure is as smooth and orderly as possible but we are taking hold of government approach to the issue and have experts in all departments working on policies that will be affected by withdrawal and the machinery is working well and i thank everyone involved for stepping up so quickly which they had to do once the result was announced. we've also been engaged with
other interested parties including business and representatives from the administrations. ministers have met more than 130 companies from every sector of the colony since july and have hosted 10 round tables with representatives from different sectors and joined 12 more around the country. met all the major business organizations in all parts of the u.k. to hear about particular concerns. i've also personally met with business leaders from a broad range of sectors. as we approach the negotiations to come with the united kingdom we want to have a joined up approach. i've also been able to meet or speak with a majority of european leaders on a bilateral basis and those discussions have been positive and constructive. throughout this process as you know, chairman, i've been clear i will not give a running commentary on our approach to the negotiations. chairman: except perhaps before the liaison committee. except perhaps before us. prime minister may: i think,
chairman, negotiations are negotiations and if one wants to get the right deal one can't give a running commentary to everybody. though i expect some searching questions from the liaison committee. seriously, the negotiations will be challenging and with any international negotiations they require some give and take. but where possible i have thought to give reassurance to those who have legitimate concerns about the process ahead. as i said we'll get the best deal for those who want to trade goods and services while guaranteeing we'll make our own decisions on how we control immigration, over our laws, and the jurisdiction, the way we spend taxpayers' money. and although we're not leaving europe and i wanted to have the kind of mature, cooperative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy and i fully expect us to continue to work alongside each other on issues such as crime and security where cooperation helps keep us safe. as you alluded to in your opening remarks, the government
will meet the timetable before the end of march next year and don't intend to extend the article 50 process. we've also said we'll publish more information about our approach before article 50 is triggered. i'll make a speech early in the new year setting out more about our approach and the opportunity we have as a country to use this process, to be a global britain that embraces trade with countries across the world. one last word i want to say, it is important we understand the wider meaning of the referendum result and respond accordingly. it wasn't just a vote to leave the e.u. but change the way the country works and the people for whom it works forever. and that's why my government is also involved in an ambitious program of economic and social reform to ensure wealth and opportunities spread across the country and everyone is able to share in the success we will make of leaving the e.u. i think these reforms are an essential part of our plans for post brexit britain. i look forward to going into
more detail about this in the new year. chairman: thank you. we'll begin perhaps just on one point you made. you said you don't intend to extend the article 50 process. do i take it from that that it's the government's firm intention to have left the eu by april, 2019? and by that we should take that to mean the great repeal beal or -- bill or repeal act will have then come into effect and direct in april the applicability of law and ecj rulings will no longer pertain in u.k. courts? prime minister may: well, chairman, as you know, the timetable i've set out is we will article 50 by the end of march next year. the treaty gives under article 50 a two-year process for that
discussion about withdrawal and the framework of the future relationship to be undertaken. and that will take us through as you've indicated to march, 2019. i fully expect us to be able to operate on the timetable that's been set out in the treaty. that's a matter for the negotiations. but i fully expect us to be able to operate -- chairman: in all that, prime minister, i heard a no. it may be the case that e.u. law continues in the u.k. or have i misunderstood? prime minister may: no. sorry. if i may answer that specific point. the intention is to introduce the great repeal bill to parliament in the next year, in the next session. so that it will be in place at the point of which we leave the e.u. it will come into operation at the point we leave the e.u. chairman: it will definitely do that. prime minister may: but of
course. the nature of legislation is a matter for parliamentary debate but the intention will be a repeal bill that will come into effect at the point of which we leave the european union. but at that point, e.u. law will be brought into domestic law in the u.k. i think that's important because it gives people a certainty at that point in which we're leaving the e.u. as to how e.u. law is operating. the workers' rights are being protected and so forth. chairman: i understand. i am just trying to clarify one very straight forward point. by leaving do you mean what is commonly understood to mean, that is, the e.u. law will no longer apply directly in u.k. courts? prime minister may: we -- when we were outside the european union we will be determining our laws under the british courts. chairman: will that be completed by 2019?
in april, 2019? prime minister may: i fully expect to be able to meet the timetable that has been set out in terms of termination -- chairman: one further point for clarification. article 50 provides for a country to leave more than two years after it's triggered as part of the withdrawal agreement. do i take it from the answers i just had that you are not seeking a withdrawal agreement? that will lead you beyond the two-year period? prime minister may: we are not seeking to extend the article 50 period beyond the two years. in fact, the european commission has indicated that they consider that it may be that the negotiations would be completed before two years. but we're not seeking to start and say we want this to be extended beyond two years.
i fully expect to be able to undertake a deal within that time. chairman: that deal will not contain anything that could lead to e.u. law being directly applicable in the u.k.? prime minister may: the intention is, when people voted they wanted us to be able to take control of our laws. when we are no longer a member here european union, nor in the united kingdom will be subject to british court. chairman: i'm trying to get clarity. the back part of article 50 which provides for the scope of negotiations, of flexibility, of e operative part leaving is not going to be exercised, it is not the intention of the government to make use of that flexibility? prime minister may: what the article 50 allows for is if
there is an agreement that the period for negotiation of the withdrawal of the relationship with european union is extended, an agreement among the 27 but agreed with the member state concerned i.e. in this case u.k., then the treaty allows for that period to be extended. we are not setting out to extend that period. we are setting out to negotiate this within the two-year time frame. chairman: okay. >> good afternoon, prime minister. this week marks six months since the referendum. just over three months to go to article 50. can you tell us when the government's plan is going to be published? when will we see that? prime minister may: as i indicated, i'll make a speech earlier in the new year which will set out more of our approach. we will before we trigger article 50 be setting out as
i've indicated more details of our approach. i haven't set a date when the plan is going to be published. but you will hear more about our approach when i speak in the new year. >> can you give the committee an assurance that the plan when it does appear will be published for the parliament to scrutinize it before article 50 is triggered? and that there will be sufficient time for us to do our job looking at it? prime minister may: the -- i -- as i said on many occasions, parliament need have no concern about its ability to have an opportunity to comment on all of these matters. and by -- i fully expect parliament will have proper opportunity to be able to look at these matters before we trigger this. >> what would be your view of a reasonable period of time for parliament to see the plan in advance of the triggering of article 50? which is another way of asking when are you going to publish? prime minister may: i've told you i don't have a date. it is not for me to set out a
period of time when i think it's appropriate for parliament. we will ensure the parliament has an opportunity to look at these issues. we have of course to factor into this timetable the question of the supreme court judgment. we don't yet know what that judgment will be. if they find in favor of the government that leads us to one course of action. if they find against the government obviously there will be a need to respond to the supreme court judgment. >> is it your intention to ensure the parliament has a vote on the final deal when it's been negotiated? prime minister may: the parliament is going to have every opportunity to vote through the great repeal bill on the various aspects of the relationship that we will be having with the european union. >> that wasn't quite the question. the question is, when the final deal is negotiated with the 27 is it your intention to ensure that parliament has a chance to vote on that deal, yes or no? prime minister may: it is my intention to ensure parliament has ample opportunity to comment on and discuss the aspects of the arrangements we are putting in place.
we will be going through the negotiations. it is not clear at this point in time what the, i've indicated that my expectation of the timetable for negotiating the deal is, it's not clear obviously, this is going to take two parties, the european union and u.k., to go through that process of negotiation, and so we will be ensuring that as we go through that as i said before where we're able to give clarity then we will do so. >> i'm not quite sure i understand why it is so difficult to answer a question as to whether parliament will have a vote or not given that we know the european parliament will have a vote on the deal. why can't you say that the british parliament will also? prime minister may: what i'm saying is that there will be an opportunity for parliament of course to consider all the details when they do become available as to how this is going to operate. there is a question about the timetable in relation to the agreement of the deal and the necessity, how that timetable will operate in relation to the
european parliament as well. and what i'm also clear about is ensuring that when we come to the point we're actually delivering a version to the british people which is that we will be leaving the european union. >> talking about the timetable as you know, he said he expects the negotiations to be completed by october, 2018. indeed, to provide scrutiny of what has been agreed. do you expect complex negotiations about the divorce arrangements and the negotiation of the new agreement about market access and trade, do you expect those to be done as sequentially or in parallel? prime minister may: i would -- i am working on the basis that we will look to negotiate those in parallel. i think that is what makes sense. it is actually also what is implied by article 50 and the treaty itself which makes clear you have to know the framework
of the future relationship before you can finalize the deal for withdrawal. and of course at the point whiff we exit the european union we will need to know what our new relationship with the european union is. >> do i take it fra that you are wholly confident it will be possible to negotiate both parts within the time that is available that could be as little as 18 months? prime minister may: it could be. you indicated a reference to that and you referred to it as being in relation to the need for the european parliament to have a process of ratification and there is also a concern that the european parliamentary actions taking place in 2019 and the concern from their point of view to ensure the arrangements about the u.k.'s relationship is clear. >> are you confident the 27 member states think it is possible to negotiate a new trade and market access deal in of onths given the report
advising ministers of his view from the view he picks up from the 27 that it could take up to 10 years to agree to a new trade deal? prime minister may: i noted when i've been talking to individual leaders the willingness from everybody to ensure that we can undertake this as smoothly and orderly a fashion as possible and a recognition from everybody that actually we do want to make this arrangement, get this arrangement in place so people can move on to the new relationships that they will have with the united kingdom. and i think there as willingness there to undertake this on that basis. >> can you confirm it is the government's intention to seek transitional arrangements of some sort to cover the period from the negotiation of the finer deal to its full implementation in order to give certainty to business and to avoid --. prime minister may: if i may answer in this way. i think when people talk about
transition, often different people mean different things. there are some people who talk about transition as a deliberate way of putting off actually leaving the european union. but others, transition is an expectation that you can't get the deal in two years and therefore you have to have a further period to do it. but if you think about what the process that we're going to go through, once we've got the deal, once we've got the new arrangements, there will of course be necessity for adjustment to those new arrangements, for implementation and practical changes that may need to take place, that's what business has been commenting on and arguing for. when, as you say, they use the phrase about not having a cliff edge, wake up one morning, having a deal agreed the night before and suddenly discovering they have to do everything in a different way. so there is a practical aspect of how you ensure people are able to adjust to the new relationship, which is not about trying to delay the point at which we leave and is not about trying to extend the
period of negotiation. >> can you confirm the decision has not yet been taken by the government about whether we'll remain in or leave the customs union? and if that is the case, don't we have to stay in the customs union in order to honor the commitments given about seeking a situation in which they can continue to trade without tariffs and bureaucratic impediments? prime minister may: first of all on the customs union itself as i've said in the chamber at the house, this is not a binary decision. there are a number of different aspects, a number of different relationships that already exist in relation to the customs union. and so this is more complex than simply saying are you in or are you out of the customs union. what i -- the way approach this and the way the government is approaching this and other issues is to say what are the outcomes we want to achieve? and therefore how do you reach those outcomes? rather than assuming only one
means to an end or only one process to an end. now, as regards the issue with the investment, the very welcome decision to further invest by nissan, we've been very clear we want to get the best possible deal for trading with and operating within the single european market. that is what i have been saying publicly, what we've been saying to companies, and also that we want to ensure the competitiveness of the british economy. i think nissan's decision to vest and bring the new model to be manufactured in sunderlin is a huge vote of confidence in the work force. it is the most productive car plant in europe. >> can i just take you back to one -- it was settled quite favorable to the proposals put forth by business and particularly by the financial ommunity, for some kind of stance to the full application
of departure in april, 2019, on the grounds that they don't want to be faced as you put it yourself with a cliff edge. do i take it that the government is going to try and negotiation a stand still or transitional arrangement of that type to give time for business and the financial community to adjust? prime minister may: the -- i wouldn't use the word stand still. chairman: that is the word that's been used. prime minister may: at the point of which we leave the european union, the point at which the relationship is going to exist is clear. there may well be practical issues that have to be addressed. chairman: i have that as your last answer but i'm asking something different which is are you going to try to negotiate it? prime minister may: i'm about to come to that, if you just allow me to explain. i want to make sure there is a full understanding of what i was saying in terms of the
practicalities of this issue that people may need to adjust i.t. systems and other simple, practical matters like that. of course, that won't just be here in the u.k. it would also be for businesses and other operations within the european union. so as part of the negotiations we will be entering i think there would need to be a discussion about how those practicalities can be dealt with. chairman: okay. is that a priority for your negotiation to try and seek an adjustment period after the date of application of brexit? prime minister may: i think it's a matter of practicality that we need to discuss with the european union. chairman: let's have another go. is it a priority for you? prime minister may: well, i set out one priority that i think we should be making early decisions on in the negotiations and that is in relation to e.u. citizens living here in the u.k.
as part of the negotiations we will have to address this question of the practicalities of adjustment to the new relationship once that has been agreed. when that takes place, of course will depend on when the deal is agreed. that's why you can't say immediately now there is going to be a period of -- chairman: is it a priority? i mean, you are going to sit down and start negotiating. prime minister may: when we start negotiating we'll be considering what the issues are, how those negotiations will be taking place, this will be one of the issues that will be on the table. i'm well aware, chairman, of the views and concerns businesses have to make sure to have that ability a period of practical djustment.
>> our committee has called on the ambassador to the e.u. to see us shortly. he made some controversial remark the other day. complementary to these , ivities across the board the united kingdom representatives, there is also this question of the combination with the cabinet office which also has to deal with my committee as well. do you have a fully specialized the dealing equally with negotiating instruments regarding political as well as economic and trade policies, do they meet with you personally, do they do so on regular footing and if they don't do you think it ought to
happen? rime minister may: well, i have sat in number 10 with people with expertise in european matters who are working on issues both related to brexit but also issues as we have to look at particular decisions as a member of the e.u. as we go forward. they do see me and i do meet with them regularly. >> and what assessment have you made with regard to the tradeoff between your red lines , no e.u., no e.c.j. adjudication and control of borders, and those aspects of our relationship with the european union that you want to maintain? prime minister may: well, i don't look at these things in terms of tradeoffs between different issues in quite the way that it is sometimes portrayed. i think what's important is
that when we look at this negotiation we take a view not that we are currently members of the eu, we're going to leave, how can we keep the membership, actually what we need to say is we are currently members of the e.u. we're going to leave the european union. we need to negotiate a new relationship with the european union. the question is what do we wish that relationship with the e.u. to be? and i think this is a very important thing in terms of how we approach. it's about saying what is our new relationship. >> you are entirely satisfied that at the end of this process when we have repealed the european legislation but in addition it will be absolutely clear and all legislation from that moment on ward will be within the jurisdiction of western and not the e.u.?
prime minister may: we will repeal the act. that's what the great repeal bill, part of what it will be about. and from the point of which we have left the european union it will be the british parliament that decides in british court that decides our legislation. >> and finally, as you will appreciate, there are many people who want us to move quickly in relation to all of these matters. i appreciate there is a timing issue. but do you not want to get on with this as quickly as possible because it is a certainty that comes from that which is what a great deal of the business community and other people in our civil society want to reflect the outcome of the referendum as soon as possible. prime minister may: i think it's right people want to reflect the outcome of the referendum as soon as possible and also right the government needs to ensure we take the time to prepare properly for negotiations. that's why i said at a very
early stage actually before i became prime minister that i thought we shouldn't trigger article 50 until the end of this year. , then looked to the timetable as a government we looked at the timetable and the triggering was a balance between giving us sufficient time to make the preparations, actually giving the 27 time to prepare for their side. also recognizing the british government wanted to get on for it. >> thank you very much. i'm sure you've been paying attention to the view about what scotland's wishes should look like. now you said you listened very carefully to any differential gent for scotland. do you believe scotland should have its views respected? prime minister may: first of
all, i had a call yesterday to tell me about the paper coming out. and obviously i've not had an opportunity to look at the paper in detail yet. but i welcome the contribution to the debate. we've been encouraging to both administrations to identify their particular concerns and priorities so that we can take that forward as part of the discussions we're having to ensure we have a full u.k. view as we go into the negotiations. i would expect obviously the welsh government and the assembly to come forward with their particular concerns that they have and we'll be able to discuss these within the j.f.c. structures that we have. >> do you believe that deferential arrangements will probably be necessary to talk and the deal with nissan northern ireland, do you think that will be a picture for the
u.k. brexit, will it be differential across the business sector -- prime minister may: what we will be negotiating is the united kingdom approach and the united kingdom relationship with the european union. think you assumed a deferential relationship which i don't think it is right to accept. i said when i first met, became prime minister when i first met the first minister we will look very seriously at the proposals that come forward but there may be proposals that are impractical. in terms of northern ireland one of the key issues obviously is the question of border because it will be the one part of the u.k. with a land border >> one of the key issues will be one part of the you can walk a country er with the remaining in the e.u. and a lot of work is being done as to how that the nsure arrangements for goods an people a oss that border is not
borders of the past. >> does this look another the scotland? in >> we will be discussing and obviously have discussions on the jmc environment about how the arrangements will work where we have to take what a framework currently set out united els into the kingdom. the different deals that are place.ly in >> do you think if the overnment refuses to accommodate the arrangement for scotland, that would seem to be scotland's e.u. interest? >> first, i don't think there is
the d or reason for scottish government to hold 9:00 referendum the scottish people gave their view in the referendum in 2014. scotland, and i understand it's one of the points in the paper that the scottish produced on s were to f scotland become independent, it would no longer be a member of the single market and it would no longer be maybe of the single market of the uk and the single market of united kingdom is worth 4 as much. is the whole idea, the thing most informing is immigration, that does that precedence things, and if it's not immigration, does it
fit into the hierarchy of the government considers to be important about leaving the e.u.? >> as i indicated in response to question, i don't see these things as tradeoffs between these issues. i think there was this very message in the vote on june 23. the people wanted us to take of of our borders, control grargz from the e.u., as well as outside the e.u. but what we also want to ensure that we get the best possible we also want to ensure that we're able to on matters cooperate that are relevant to our security and on crime issues, so issues will be part negotiation that will take place. >> very briefly, you touched on
take northern ireland. there is a special relationship northern ireland and the republic. position government's that that special relationship should continue? >> we don't want to see a return borders of the past. the area that covers the movement of people, the common area, has been in place since 1923 and continues to be in place. working very hard with the government of the republic of that we can sure find a solution moving forward. as i say that doesn't recover a borders of the past. irish eems the government -- it seems in northern ireland, pretty well takes thetician there view that that should be the case. is another here ating body involved called the e.u.,
>> i want to see a solution that of the both sides border g. so they will probably of repared to vary the sort rules they set about a hard border at the edge of the e.u., same way they vary the rules -- not all countries in -- there is a degree of flexibility. do you expect that will continue? >> both. i mean, the question is to the xtent to which there needs to be a differential arrangement in relation to the border between northern ireland and the repluck whether it's possible to come to an arrangement which is not a return to the borders of the past but reflects the wider relationship that the uk will have. but i think everybody, obviously, there are a number of discussions taking place in the e.u. about the external border arrangements they will have on that external border hich will involve countries in depending mations -- or not.n whether
>> with regards to the uk, changed , rights have over the years, but do you nvision after brexit that the citizens of the republic of ireland, if they want to come to uk, remain in the uk, at the moment, as you know, they have same opportunities as members of the commonwealth. do you think that arrangement continue? >> well, the issue of the citizens, viously, of from the republic of ireland, as you say, this is different -- basis, long fferent standing, historical basis, from e.u.r members of the obviously, i've been clear that i want to, at an early stage, we deal with these issues, within other countries of the e.u. that are living uk, in order to give people reassurance.
>> it should be up to us, the dn't it, once we left e.u., how we treat the citizens of the irish republic. well, it's a matter for, i've to clear, that i want ensure that we also see uk beingns living elsewhere, basis.d on a reciprocal >> as we move forward, you've ndicated it's a deal for the united kingdom, presumably means accept any sorts of passports checks between great n ireland and britain as some suggest would be necessary? > we want to make sure we have the right border between northern ireland and the united kingdom. have you o forward, seen the relationship between ireland -- gdom and trade, think geography, towards might go more
the uk than the e.u.? >> that's not for me to say. i would help that everybody and agree with, that i think it's been very good relationship wing between the uk and the republic of ireland in recent years, an i sow that continuing. discuss the development of administrations. they have the ability to make laws themselves. how would the great reform bill affect them in that discuss the? would they be required to adopt legislation themselves or would it all be done on automatic you can basis? are matters of detail that need to be looked into. the ted, obviously, by arrangements that pertain in each of the divulged there are ions, so aspects of e.u. law, which, as i be brought into domestic law in the uk. specifically in a divulged government or simply
as an overall in the uk it will matter of detail for the legislation. >> presumably when we fast great reform bill, it will take into regulation directives such as free ives movements. it will give people the confidence and the clarity of knowing where they stand in to e.u. legislation. we'll bring it into the uk. it will then be an opportunity parliament to determine which of those pieces of law they wish to continue with they wish to change in but we'll be coming out of the treatise. you very much. >> thank you. > can i ask prime minister, will you intend to publish proposals on immigration control februaryf your plan in or whenever it is? >> we're working on our immigration.r there are a number of ways in
hich we can address the issue, when we feel it's appropriate to give any indications of those so.ils, then we will do >> does it mean it may not be part of the february plan? >> when we feel it is cases iate to give those we'll do so. >> so i assume it may not be part of the february plan. meeting the net immigration target going to be one of the bjectives of the brexit negotiations? >> the net migration target is for a very good reason. on people in this country. retain that net migration target. the objective of our brexit negotiations will be to ensure bet the best possible deal for the united kingdom in our future relationship with the e.u. times.ch you've said many if there is a tension between what you conclude is in the best interest of britain as part of immigration controls it trade and so on, makes impossible to meet the net
igration target will you ditch the net migration target? an assumption g from ou can extrapolate brexit to ions, from the net migration negotiations. know, looking at mmigration numbers it not an exact science in that sense. sometimes not under the control of the government. so i would say you can't look at it in the way that you're suggesting that we look at it be very clear about is two things. as i've said. we want to get the best possible terms of the relationship that the uk has with the e.u., for trading with nd operating within the single e.u. market, we also want to ensure that we'll be the british government that will be making decisions about the immigration arrangements for people coming from the e.u. but clearly there is a link between the kind of controls
ou're able to have and the numbers because you have yourself said on many occasions that the reason you weren't able migration r net target was because of the arrangements with the e.u. current migration is currently 189,000. stand any you're to chance of meeting your net migration target you would have down e.u. net migration to, what, 50,000? putting into place the immigration arrangements for people coming within the e.u., that we believe are in the of the united kingdom. >> so does that mean that if you that it is not in the interest of the united kingdom migration from the e.u. down to 50,000 you will ditch the net migration target give the net migration target priority over what is in britain's best negotiations?e >> this government will retain ts intention of bringing net migration down. >> to the tens of thousands? >> we aim that, set out very
now that r some time we believe it's sustainable levels and sustainable levels are in the tens of thousands. that for very good reasons because of the impact that we elieve immigration does have, and research has shown does have n people particularly at the loernd of the income scale on keeping -- >> i understand the reasons behind it. the reasons. the question is, what is your objective going forward? ou've got a net migration target to get below tens of thousands. i'm simply asking you, whether to moat that net migration target through the brexit negotiations? and if so, what are you aiming for on net e.u. migration? to get it down from 189,000 to at least below a who do you sand, want not to come? about the've asked me brexit negotiations and i've een clear about the brexit
goergss. the vote was that they wanted to us have control of immigration. put into place controls for immigration coming into at the time. u. we also want to ensure we get possible trade deal for operating within the e.u. be looking forll in relation to the brexit negotiations. the government does have its target. it does have its ambition. it does have its intention of migration down. it's absolutely right that one part of migration that we haven't been able to put so far is migration from the e.u. we will be doing that in the i'm not setting a figure in the way that you suggest. precisely because, as i have said, there are many factors hat come into the whole question of immigration. there are many factors that of peoplethe movement across the world and movement of people trying to come to the united kingdom. i've been very clear with my european colleagues and they are one of the ar that things we all collectively need
to do is actually to work in ountries like those in africa where people are coming from, to try to ensure that there is greater stability, greater there, sopportunities that fewer people are trying to come to the united kingdom. >> none of this answers my question. has nothing to do with the brexit negotiations but you're trying -- you're trying to -- you're trying to focus, what we do on immigration on one activity, namely brexit negotiations. what i'm saying to you is how we eal with immigration is a much wider issue. >> indeed. you're refusing to answer my uestions, and you seem to have a certain tone of contempt towards having a figure as a target. you've chosen to have a igure, a net migration target for the whole of immigration and you've chosen to stick with it rather than to change it when you became prime minister. so let me ask you again, just in terms of meeting the net given that rget, none.u. net migration is 196,000, , what, actually at the same level as it
was when you became home that ary in 2010, so hasn't changed, after six years, how are you expecting to meet migration target if you have no way to reduce the one.u. migration and you're refusing to say what your plans are for e.u. migration? is, that we said will, of course in due course, have set out, have made decisions, about the arrangements that we wish to have in place for the controls so that people coming within -- from the not possible to say that only one aspect of of ing at the issue migration is the one, the only one that you need to focus on. that you need to think about, from looking at the broader aspect of the net and that's thees whole point. this is a very wide issue that simply in capsulated terms of what the brexit negotiations are. >> one more question. chancellor, your foreign secretary, and your home
ecretary and the previous chancellor have all said that, they actually have refused to your target. referred to it as your target on net migration. endorse having a net migration target with students in it. think it's now time to remove students from your net target?n >> students are in our migration figures because -- target, the figures are different from the target. do you choose the target. are e target figures calculated from the overall migration figures, and students are in the overall migration because it's an international definition of migration. it's used by -- countries around the world. in that overall migration figure actually showed us, when we first came into government, that what we had seen in the previous 13 years of labor government was significant visa system student into the united kingdom.
that's why something like over are able es no longer to bring students in because they were not offering an individuals coming into this country. what they were doing was effectively, it was a backdoor in the uk.working e've been able to reduce abuse of the student visa system by looking at those figures, focusing on those figures. you don't have a way to neat target. it's a bit of a mess? prime to be clear, minister that abuse has largely been sorted out. agree that students are a huge success story for the uk. they are major british export. quite unlike the concerns that expressed during the debate, during the referendum migration generally. don't you think it might be a good idea to reconsider that decision? use, chairman, international definition of migration. simple.fectly it's used by countries around
the world when they are looking t their immigration systems, and we use it as the united states does and as other countries do. no?so was that >> we use the international definition, students are in the international definition. choose what to target. hashat contingency planning your government done in case the uk and the e.u. fail to agree on deal at the end of the two-year negotiation period? > we're looking at, obviously, all the scenario that is might pertain in relation to this. the usly, as we get into negotiations, we're going to be much better understand of where the e.u. is coming from terms of their expectations. they have set out their expectations and that they will to do this within an 18-month period. >> i take that as a yes, there going ingency planning on. who is responsible for it? and on what expertise are you relying? is it the cabinet office, are
ou seeking the advice of outside experts, trade implications and the rest? a as i said, we're looking at variety of scenario that is could pertain in relation. > and you expect one of the scenarios -- > we look at a variety of scenarios. the department that has lead esponsibility for this is the -- department, but they bring in expertise as necessary. bviously they have within the department experts from other government departments but they also work with other government so there is no duplication between the two. and where it's necessary to particular legal expertise they will do that. >> will you publish this bit publishedould alongside the statement that's going to be made in before the ch notification? see at we'll -- you will what we publish when we publish like that.y put it but you would expect the government to be thinking around
what the various scenarios are pertain.d >> and you said one of the the veto by e.u. parliament, there is no agreement -- >> it seems to me -- >> you're asking me to accept we're going to fail, which i don't accept. shouldbelieve is that we go into this, what i've seen from everybody else, sitting around the table, is a real ensure that we do and orderly othly process, as much as possible, and we do meet the timetable set.'s been that's what the commissioner has indicated. good mietenen with -- been allocated, asked in egotiate the e.u. role parliament last week and the parliament is also keen to that's his is a process smooth and orderly.
actually,en reported, complaining to the european commission, the council, about inadequacy of the arrangements for involving the european parliament in the process and pointing out that approve this to so it's simply a statement of logic that it's entirely ossible for the european parliament to veto the agreement at the end of this two-year process. i'm assuming that your contingency planning therefore takes aaccount of that parliament to veto the of course, though you're not aiming for it, that's clea clear. working toward it. i understand last week there will be involvement of the parliament in the of course, you're not process. >> i just want your assurance, not going down the route last government which was grossly negligent in instructing all around the
country ty that the myself the temerity to vote to leave the e.u. presumably the possibility that the parliament veto an agreement or, even despite your best efforts, no reached between yourself and your council and the commission and this planning is taking place. looking at a 're ariety of scenarios that could come forward in relation to the timing, ion, the deal, and what other opportunities would be there. >> i'm hoping that's a yes, but -- we're looking at a variety of scenarios. which one? >> we're looking -- >> all the scenarios. thank you very much. that's fine. crucially -- >> that's fine, all the optiones is fine. >> crucially, what we're doing that we're working
with others to set up the i have every so expectation that if we get that then it will be possible to see that positive outcome that i'm ambitious for. >> have you determined what the s will fall under 50?eement of article >> when you say what issues will fall under the agreement of article 50 -- it's entirely possible that our partners could find themselves in the same trap the found itself in, action being taken. conclude an ity to agreement under article 50, a actually majority, is an agreement which would require domestic ratification and in the council, in other words, the extent of the article 50 agreement could be so extensive that it would be outside of the scope of article within domestic law and order
in other countries and we could find ourselves with 27 and the position thee same government is in now. has there been any examination that possibility? the question tand correctly, i mean, you're saying maybe at the end of this process, there may be some matters of mixed confidence that need to be ratified by individual national parmts as well as by the rest of the process? >> yes. >> that's something that we're well aware the question of and that those who will be negotiating are aware of. >> are you confident that you those issues are or do you have a date of when you xpect to have completed that analysis? >> i think the work is still -- work is still ongoing in terms on this but i that one of the questions is a matter of legal discussion s the question of any trade arrangement that's negotiated ith the european union and the
extent to which that's a matter for the european union or farm. example of an issue. >> would your analysis be ublished as part of the formal negotiation -- notification letter to the european council as o what might be seen mixed confidence? >> i don't think that's appropriate for the triggering article 50. this is a matter -- i hesitate fact y this, on the very that i suggested there will be legal discusses on this, this which the atter on lawyers will be discussing at that point. it will be for us to assert. >> the laws have already had a along with habit the judges of upsetting the timetable of your own government in the move to notification with the action of the supreme court. judgments will you be aking about what's achievable under the article negotiations reviewing those through the process?
set out was able i by the end of march of next year. yes, supreme court has to come orward on its judgment on the case that was taken before it, on the government's appeal, but i expect to be able to trigger the end of march hasn't in anyo it sense blown the timetable off course. -- confirm ll be that it is your intention to cover as many aspects of our uture relationship with the european union as possible within the article 50 negotiations? >> within the negotiations that be having with the european union it will be my ntention to cover not just the process of withdrawal but also relationship. >> what would be the major immediate consequences of deal, in agree on a your view? failure to agree on a deal and the european union having agreed --
thef we find ourselves with european parliament vetoing any you that's agreed between and the 27 commission? >> i would imagine the process 27 would determine whether or not they wish to continue negotiations. -- we would have to agree to that but that would be, i would imagine, the next take.hat they would >> thank you very much. looking at tee is issues across the whole board. you say that the machinery of working well and specialists, own number 10, advise you personally also set up these separate departments alongside treasury. their own concerns and
priorities. all with these governments synthesize all of this into a central negotiating policy? -- responsible for looking at the all withe.u. exit the e.u. exit -- i have cabinet you number of subcommittees, and, of course, debates are taking place that committee , trade ssues relationship aspects of the article 50 and so forth. >> what kind of capacity does the relevant subcommittee have in order inet office to synthesize all these different approaches coming in from these different departments there is a coherent brief put in front of the entire
committee? submitted the re ajority of those papers will come from the -- where it's relevant for other departments forward papers the so.retary of state will do >> inevitably, it's a separate department. it will be seen as something as rival to other departments. holding the rein between these departments and what capacity do you or does the cabinet office have in order to csure that all of these different approaches are drawn into one approach? i'm afraid i'll challenge the concept. dexu is the focus of the work done in relation to direction it. but it does call on the other departments. we don't get that rival. we don't get that duplication de xu and other
departments. the cabinet office department that's coordinating the other departments on your behalf is that correct. dex zoo the government department responsible for working with the other departments? >> with your authority. >> yes. who will actually negotiate the agreement? >> the negotiation will be at a number of levels. obviously, i'll have some role with other elation e.u. leader. obviously, there will be a lot negotiations and discussions that will take place at an official level. negotiate the uk's new trade relationship with e.u.? >> that will be part -- that it's part so far as of the negotiations, then it will be those who are will be part of
that but they will bring in the in relation to the trade aspects. actually have er special role in that? >> as we unfold the way in which that trade negotiation will take place, obviously, we'll bring in xpertise, both official expertise and ministers as appropriate, from the department of international trade. many governments have a single trade negotiator. the u.s. government, for has a single trade negotiator that deals across departmentally. do you envision that we have such -- someone playing such a should we have? >> we're currently building up negotiation trade expertise within the department trade.ternational we'll be making in due course, more be setting out
clearly how that -- >> should it be applied to the negotiations with the e.u.? appropriate.s >> also looking at civil service capacity issues, department by department. the foreign commonwealth office. the institute for government has produced a paper that suggests that departments are having to hoose between meeting the preexisting commitments and demands that were placed on them brexit arose and the brexit priorities. therenfident are you that is sufficient capacity across departments to deal with all of these priorities? answer empted to say in to your question, i'm not urprised when former civil servants suggest we need to employ more civil servants. >> right. okay. and the chancellor suggested in he was t office, when foreign secretary, that, with
the foreign office taking over a of foreign aspects affairs that are currently handle by the e.u., that that -- need to change the layout and capacity of the foreign office. ow lieutenant government reinforce its diplomatic network n the e.u. capitals of the brexit? >> well, let's us see what the relationship that we have with at the time. u. is. we, of course, will look to see. there will be a number of areas here the e.u. union has been negotiating and undertaking activity on behalf of the member states. notably in trade. that's where we do know we need negotiation trade expertise because we haven't needed to do 4 for a significant beend of time because it's done under the european union. we've been obviously debate and to that discussion on foreign affairs. taking place within the european union but when we
look at what the role will be e.u. it's not just what we do in relation to the e.u. and member states. how we build up our presence globally, so it's not just about looking at europe. it's about looking at the rest of the world. >> thank you very much. back to oneust come or two points that were touched on earlier. all, david davis made a firm commitment on a number of occasions that parliament quoting, at least as well-informed as democratic nstitutions on the continent including the e.u. parliament, about brexit negotiations. in the course of those negotiations, are you as your brexit that as minister? > we're committed to ensuring that parliament does have an opportunity to look at these issues to be discussing these to be putting its views forward. clear vis and i are very as i indicated earlier, we're
not going to give a running aspect of on every the negotiations, but we will that parliament has he opportunity to -- to be informed. when we're able to make the information available we will. supporting davis in that objective? >> we're very clear that we want have ment to be able to the opportunity to debate and discuss these issues. the european parliament has a the fic role within negotiations, which is different uk he role that the parliament has. [inaudible] to be this idea that should you we aren't letting parliament do anything. e've made statements to parliament. had debates. great repeal bill. a whole variety of commitments parliament. to parliament ure that has the opportunity to discuss these matters as we go through
the negotiations but what we is setting doing out, as i've said in detail, on basis of running commentary of which aspects of the negotiations we're or what the particular discussions are that are taking place. >> we need to have that government to a be able to enter those negotiations on that basis. to draw their own conclusions from the response, my part, to say, for hear yet to the question. >> i want some clarity on a points.of other is it your intention that parliament should vote on a inal deal once it's been negotiated? this was a question -- >> it was a question put to me said is nd what i've it's my intention that parliament should have every opportunity to consider these and, what i'm also clear about is to ensure that we actually deliver on the vote of a british people which was vote to leave the e.u.
>> okay. a no?at a yes or >> i gave the answer i gave, chairman. people to decide on that one as well. >> in the extent, that we had at the beginning, did you give a very clear answer to one question, which is you ruled out seeking an extension of the negotiating period beyond two years. of your negotiating objectives. > i said, as we go into the negotiations, it is not our intention to extend that period of negotiation. you didn't completely rule out, completing the egotiations within the negotiating period. implementation date at some point after 2019. --yet, what i said >> specifically provided for in the treaty, that's article 50 clause three, and that's of. i'm seeking clarity
>> article 50 sub clause three -- like.d it if you would >> it's not about an phase.entation it's about the extension of the period of negotiation. >> well, i think that's a matter of interpretation. let's just read it out. the treaty shall cease to apply question from the date of entry and force the withdrawal agreement so that entry and force of the withdrawal agreement can be after 2019. indeed, it's generally understood to be capable of that interpretation by most people who have looked at it and that's been asking you this question. about st want clarity that question. >> sorry, chairman in which case i had misunderstood the question asking earlier, because i thought you were asking me about the reference at councilfor the european to agree with the member state that the period be extended. >> that's the negotiating period. that's negotiating period. yes. >> did you give a very clear answer to that question. asking you a different question, prime minister. >> i would expect -- well, if i
i hoped i tried to answer in the first place, i ould expect us to be able to negotiate a deal within the two-year period that's set out. >> we're all agreed on that. but it may be the case that some practical aspects hich require a 3rd of implementation thereafter. >> that's what we'll need, not us, but that has to be part of the negotiation. that'site understand and to you said earlier, just clarify, you therefore may seek the discretion provided by article 50 sub clause three inme mentation date after the end of the completion of the negotiations negotiating period is within the two-year framework. >> we will need to --- -- we
ill discuss whether we need an implementation phase. whether the point at which the may be a ses to apply different issue from whether or not you've got an implementation phase. raising ason i keep this question is because, what i get, privately, from mainly institutions and major businesses, is that we're at towardswalking straight this cliff -- what they want, is some kind of assurance. otherwise they will take measures now. if i could just read you what one large financial institution given me, that does not want to be named but gave me read out and i have quoted this with the chancellor as well, on the basis this, that he replied that he thought -- all thoughtful politicians would want a arrangement. he said, this institution said, unlikely to be sufficient to complete the are needed.
this same document says severe isruption to client services may occur, causing, that is, without this period, causing instability and significant costs to the wider in europe as well as lobely and they need to activate contingency plans rather than waiting, leading to financial inability discussed earlier in this document. me, s what is being put to and to the treasury committee, and i think to a wide number of mps, and it's that that's leading us today, in various for a commitment early u for an negotiation of some kind of transitional arrangement, and that there will be one --prevent [inaudible] >> that's what i hope to get a commitment on? >> it's precisely because we businesses, at financial services, and other
usinesses, may need an implement -- implementation phase that we're talking about, may be the government actually needs a period of time for sure that its systems, example, adjust to whatever the new arrangements are going to be. fully, the difficult here, the uncertainty here, and i accept that thencertainty, is extent to which that's required actually depends on the nature agreed.deal that's and the extent of change that is deal.ed by that >> thank you very much, prime minister. we've had just over an hour on sure we'll be coming back to it on many more occasions. e're just going to manufacture on now to health and healthcare for half an hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016][captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its
caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the 115th congress gets next week and we spent some time getting to know the new members. >> representative vicente tell us what you were doing before you won this house seat? >> i've been practicing law for decades in texas and i'm also licensed in new york we handle some cases, i've for pretty much 20 years. >> why did you decide to leave that profession and run for the house? rep.-elect fernandez: we have had a lot of successes and i intend to bring that same fight to washington to bring the necessary resources to our areas.
south texas is one of the poorest areas in the country and in the state and it needs good representation. we are ready to go to work. >> who or what from your past influenced you to take up the fights that you're talking about as a lawyer and now here in washington? rep.-elect fernandez: i was influenced by my family, my father. a korean war veteran. a self-made businessman. when i was in law school, i spent time here as an intern with congressman ortiz from a south texas district, the 27th at the time. these were all positive influences in my life. >> what about that internship? rep.-elect fernandez: i was young and i had a lot of fun. i think that is what interns should keep in mind, enjoy themselves while they learn the legislative process. i was in law school at the time so it was a great complement to my legal education at the time. it was my first time in washington actually.
27 years old -- that was a long time ago. it was a great experience. i always recommend that to young folks that want to learn about government. it is a great opportunity that is available. >> you were a high school dropout. how come? rep.-elect fernandez: i was not the perfect kid, that is for sure. otherwise, that would not have normally happened. i went through tough times as a young man and learned a lot growing up. sometimes, making wrong decisions. but education is always a very important part of the education that came from within my household. i went back to school and earned my ged and went to a community college and worked very hard. i caught up and went into university and on to law school. it has been quite a trek. i was on my own practicing for 20 years and built a successful law practice. i think it is something to be said that you can always turn your life around when you would
like if you try and work hard at it. >> what were those lessons from the choices you made as a young man? rep.-elect fernandez: the most important lesson is that opportunity is always there if you want to, you try, and you work hard. no matter what mistakes you have made in life, you can always turn your life around by making the right decisions and making change. >> why law school? rep.-elect fernandez: it is a way to help people in your community. it gives you a voice. and it gives a voice to people that are not heard. to me, i just always wanted to be a lawyer. when i went back to school even as a dropout, i always thought that if i can make it through, i want to be a lawyer, worked hard and here we are today. >> how were you able to pay for
law school? rep.-elect fernandez: that is a great question. i worked. i had a lot of part-time jobs. i indebted myself through student loans, grants and opportunities that were available at the time that i hope will be available for future generations. when i graduated from law school, i was deeply in debt. >> how much? rep.-elect fernandez: 110 thousand dollars 20 years ago and that is still a lot of debt today. it was quite stressful at the time. i can always sympathize with young folks that are going through the same thing. i hope that those opportunities continue because it certainly opens doors and education i think is society's greatest equalizer. >> you said you wanted to be a lawyer because it was a way to help your community. what is it about your community that being a lawyer, you are able to help them?
rep.-elect fernandez: it is one of the poorest areas in the country. folks that do not have a voice cannot afford a lawyer. i have done a lot of pro bono work in my career. even though we were successful, there was always a part of our law firm that took care of veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan. folks would come in pleading for help that had no money. sometimes even legal resources and legal aid was overloaded. they could not take care of everyone. >> did you have a person in your life that influenced you -- that impacted your decision to run for the house? rep.-elect fernandez: i was impacted by a lot of different people. i had many influential
professors in college and law school and the time that i served here with congressman ortiz and friends and relatives that positively influenced my life. >> tell us about your family back in texas. rep.-elect fernandez: i lost my dad 11 years ago. my mother still lives in south texas and i have a sister. my mother is from monterrey, mexico so she emigrated to the united states 50 years ago. she is a great person. she will be here for my swearing-in. emotional times. >> how will you balance your work here with your life back home?