tv Heather Nauert Briefs Reporters at the State Department CSPAN July 2, 2017 2:34am-3:23am EDT
modern-day slavery. in her remarks, ms. mosby noted we are all confronted with a choice -- do nothing or do something. everyone in this room and those around the world who are fighting trafficking are doing something, but to the rest of the world, i echo ms. mosby's call to action. when it comes to human trafficking, everyone has a role to play and an obligation to act. we must choose to do something to end modern slavery. thank you also much for coming today. [applause] -- thank you all so much for coming today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on monday, the state
department briefed reporters on the 2017 trafficking in persons report and on other u.s. diplomatic efforts around the world. this is 45 minutes. >> hi, everyone. welcome to the state department. junior reporters in the back -- those are my kids. hi, boys. welcome to mommy's new job. that means i will try to be a little bit nice today or at least keep it clean. good afternoon, everybody. i know we have a lot to get to today. this morning, secretary tillerson released the 17th installment of the trafficking in persons report, also known as the tip report. we go into greater detail about that report, we have with us edge, who will join
us in a second. she will deliver remarks and take a few of your questions. if you would like to ask a question, just raise your hand, let her know which outlet you are with. if you have any questions about the report, please do ask those questions of her now so she can best address them. when she is finished, i will take over and answer questions about other matters at that time. with that, i will hand it over to ambassador coppedge. ambassador coppedge: good afternoon, although i have lost all track of time today. thank you very much. this morning, secretary tillerson released the 2017 trafficking in persons report, a reflection of global leadership on this key human rights issue, and our principal diagnostic tool to assess government efforts across prosecution,
protection, and prevention. the report is a symbol of our moral and legal obligation to combat human trafficking and is in keeping with our country historical commitment to advance human dignity and rate them around the world. this year's report -- i brought a copy. i'm sure you will all want 1 -- emphasizes that governments must do everything in their powers to hold traffickers accountable, from passing in enforcing tough antitrafficking laws to prosecuting officials who betray the public trust and profit from the suffering of others. the complicity and corruption that facilitate human trafficking must and. justice must be served both to deter potential traffickers but also to restore the dignity of survivors. to accomplish this, government needs to speed up the delivery of justice while respecting the process, impose adequate terms of imprisonment commensurate
with the heinous nature of the crimes and prosecute all criminally culpable parties and intermediaries. trafficking in persons is a hidden crime, rooted in deception. victims are coerced or intimidated into silence, and they often fear that if they do come forward, they will be punished. when governments enact and enforce strong, comprehensive anti-trafficking laws, they sent an unmistakable message to criminals -- we will not traffickers. these and other governments that take up difficult cases and prosecute them to the end, but with more than 20 million estimated trafficking victims globally, prosecutions are still in adequate given the scale of the have morend we all work to do. here are a few statistics from this year's report -- of the 100
87 countries assessed under the minimum standard, 36 were placed on tier one. 80 on tier two. 45 were placed on the tier two watch list, and 23 countries were on tier three. in all, there were 21 downgrades and 27 upgrades. but no matter the tier, every country, even those on tier one, should do more to prevent trafficking. tier one countries only meet the minimum standards to address trafficking, which is why the report offers recommendations for tier one countries as well as others. a key concern for many countries is a failure to impose sentences for traffickers that are sufficient to deter the criminal activity or reflect the nature of the crime. we still see instances of government officials protecting fromels, taking bribes traffickers and obstructing investigations for profit. while we still see governments criminalized and penalize
for crimes they traffickers forced them to commit, this is why we continue to use the trafficking of persons report as an instrument of diplomacy, a means to affect global change and motivate tangible progress around the world. we hope it will continue to prompt the government to establish national action plans and implement meaningful antitrafficking policies. i am very proud of this report, and i'm happy to take any questions you might have. >> wanted to ask about the child soldiers prevention ask -- act list. human rights watch put out a statement about an hour ago even as of last week, there were children that were part of irma's armed forces, and in iraq, children have died writing islamic state -- there were children that were part of burma's armed forces.
and just wondering, what is the reasoning for taking those countries off the list? the state coppedge: department will continue to monitor the use of child soldiers and continue to engage with iraq and burma on this issue. we recognize children remain highly vulnerable to forcible recruitment and use by armed groups, including isis, the popular mobilization forces, tribal forces, and the kurdistan party. where also concerned about what happens to this children with a recovered and make sure governments continue to provide services for those individuals when they are relieved from military forces. similarly with respect to burma, we continue to remain concerned that the government response to past instances of child soldiering -- the government has punished military officers who engage in the unlawful recruitment of child soldiers, but these punishments were not particularly stringent. they were more administrative.
i was able to directly raise this point with government officials while traveling to burma in the severe. the 2017 report urges the burmese government to cease .fficial involvement to reform the military self-reliance policy and others that drive the demand for forced labor and to look at child soldiers, and again, when children are removed from the military, to work on re-integrating them into society. the narratives for those countries accurately and factually report what happened in those countries during the reporting period, which ended march 30, 2017. quick and you see any improvement? what is the justification for removing them from that list? >> we look at various factors , and the minimum standards that analysis is reflected in the report. certainly for these countries, we talk about areas where
improvements need to be made, but burma has made significant strides in removing children from military service. >> china obviously responded with some displeasure, calling it irresponsible. ambassador coppedge: we hope to continue working with all governments. there are recommendations for china as there are four other ranked countries. all countries have recommendations, including the united states. we certainly look at ourselves as well and talk about areas where progress can be made and hope to continue those good working relationships diplomatically.
the trafficking victims protection act sets of these minimum standards and the analysis that the state department are to use. this is done by people in the field. we do not consider if it will be positive or negative. we want to be truthful and active and hope to continue our diplomatic engagement. we have heard this report does make a difference. when i travel, i meet with senior government officials who want to do more to address the issue and what to do more to address their ranking, so i hope the internal pressure on a country as well as diplomatic pressure from other nations will continue to be pressure for change. >> according to reports, there was some pressure. was it the north korean forced labor?
secretary coppedge: tillerson did highlight concerns with forced labor. ngo reports have indicated there is still government complicity with respect to rehabilitation facilities were individuals continue to be detained without due process. human rights organizations and media continue to report that local officials in western china participate in forced labor outside that province. media and theonal ilo report that children in some work-study programs supported by local governments and schools are forced to work in factories, so forced labor in china is not one-dimensional. barbara'sfollow-up on question, in terms of one thing with destiny the scale, you listed several things, but did one of them tip the scale?
in general, was downgrading china part of a broader strategy? or is it just happening in the context of this relationship? ambassador coppedge: it's hard to say that any one thing or any one country will tip the scale. we look at if any one law is comprehensive. in china, for children under 18, they do not require force, fraud. there is a concern about the law. there's a concern about victim services in china as well. once individuals identified, they are not screened for trafficking indicators. they're not provided services they need and they are not put with reintegration into society. so there are many factors that
go into a society's ultimate tier ranking. the lawmum standards in do not really allow for conservation of strategic relationships or other actors. >> about child rights, , wereally syrian refugees 14 ares young as 13 and married off to middle-age men from the gulf region. i wonder about your thoughts about that. ambassador coppedge: certainly, if there are instances of sex trafficking with respect to forced marriage, that is recounted in the report. it's one of those truly horrible issues. it may not always be trafficking. it may be that you are forced into marriage without the
continued exploitation, but we do look at forced marriage as a component of sex trafficking in cases where it is indicated. >> what would be the real world impact of china being put in this tier? sanctions? there are coppedge: restrictions that can come with a tier three ranking. the white house makes the final determination on those restrictions, but we do not yet know. >> has a president imposed sanctions on a country for being in tier three? ambassador coppedge: i have been in the position for cheat of years and last year, there were partial sanctions imposed. i cannot recall. i can get back to you. >> some of the current policies such as sanctuary cities might make it difficult for the u.s. to remain on tier one next year.
i just want to be straightforward about it. is that a realistic possibility that something like sanctuary cities could cause the u.s. ranking to take a hit? ambassador coppedge: one of the vulnerabilities the report addresses worldwide is individuals who are in a country unlawfully and may not have access to documentation or lawful work. that could make them more vulnerable to traffickers who could impose upon the work requirements that could lead to war's labor and labor trafficking. it certainly is a concern globally, how to address, how to screen for indicators among those who might not be in a country lawfully. here in the u.s., it is bound to be the case that someone is here unlawfully but is a victim of trafficking. they are allowed to apply for a tv set, which allows them to stay and work for the prosecution in their case and to move forward. messages has been that we really need to focus on
not criminalizing victims who are committing crimes due to the situation of being trafficked. with the trafficker puts them into prostitution. these are crimes in the country, but the victim is not the one perpetrating the crime. it is the trafficker. >> this might be a question for dhs, but if you have been deported, how do you apply for a visa? ambassador coppedge: you can still apply for a tv set with the department of homeland withity -- for a t visa the department of homeland security. to testify for a case and she was able to obtain a visa. death you speak to china's placement on the watchlist was considered this
year? ambassador coppedge: a country can be on the watchlist for tate of years without a wiper does without a waiver and for tate of years, the waiver is required. must submit the national action plan. that decision is made every year the country needs that waiver. we analyze minimum standards and made a determination that china was not making significant efforts. >> did they issue an action plan or send you an action plan? ambassador coppedge: i don't recall. thank y'all. if anyone has any additional follow-up questions, to youtry to get back
with more information. good afternoon again. start with a little bit about the indian prime minister and the visit yesterday. indian prime minister departed washington last night after a successful trip to washington. he was at the white house, as you all know, at the invitation of president trump. the president said the elation ship it to india and the united states has never been stronger and never been at her. the secretary or statement the prime minister yesterday morning to they talked about ways strengthen our relationship, particularly in the areas of terrorism and trade. that he looked forward to working even more closely on shared priorities. we thank the prime minister for coming to washington. with that, i will take your questions.
>> thank you. let's start with the supreme court order yesterday. i realize you have 72 hours to implement, and we're only just over 24 hours into it, so i presume people are still working on implementation. i don't know how many hours are left. understanding? criteriae be a list of for what constitutes a bona fide relationship with an american? ms. nauert: a lot of talking a lot of questions about this term bona fide. that was something that came from the supreme court. we have a couple days still to work this out and get more information, so we will be looking to the department of justice to get more clarification on what a bona fide relationship will be. yourght, but do you expect
guidance to visa issuing post like, alaying out, second cousin twice removed is not bona fide or is bona fide, or a hotel reservation is -- ms. nauert: i would anticipate we would have to give some degree of explanation and a to our folks handling this overseas. exactly what that terminology will look like we do not know yet, but that's why we continue to chat the department of justice and our folks over there. we will get that information out to our folks across the world. >> do you have any idea the timing? i realize you have until thursday. is nauert: you know, this obviously an important matter and a big matter, and everybody wants to get this right. they want to see this implemented in an orderly
fashion. in doing that, i think they will probably take their time, as much time as they have, to make sure they get that right. we know our people at the state department have a lot of questions about it as well, legitimate questions. >> at the point of entry, how is enforced? the it be left to discretion of the customs officers, the immigration officers at the point of entry at the justauert: some of that we do not know yet. we need additional guidance on the department of justice. some of the questions you all caps i'm just not ready to answer today. lawyers get involved and they like to go through all the language and all the words, so we will have to wait until they can give greater guidance on that. let's stay on the executive order before we go on to other things.
in terms of refugees coming in and this relationship, if they have had contact with a resettlement agency or a church are you something, prepared to treat that as a bona fide relationship, or is that one of the things you have not punched out? ms. nauert: we do not have a definition at the state department for bona fide relationship. none of the agencies has that just yet. we will be working to get that. it will take a couple of days to get that. however, i can tell you in terms of refugees already slated to becoming here, we are in touch with them. by that, i mean we have advised our refugee resettlement partners overseas, that they should currently proceed with the resettlement of refugees who are scheduled to travel to the united states through july 6. beyond july 6, we're not totally certain how that will work as again, this is in flux. this is in progress. this is a new development as the
supreme court just spoke to this yesterday. there is a number, 50,000. we expect to reach that cap within the next week or so. we are somewhere in the neighborhood of 12,000 to 49,000. >> for certain people with that relationship, it would go beyond -- ms. nauert: correct. refugees with bona fide ties, which we're still working on a definition, will not be subject to that cap. >> i think you have hit 49,000, just in the last two hours. ms. nauert: ok then. >> when you do define what a bona fide relationship is -- ms. nauert: we will be working with the department of justice. they will make that designation and determination and we will follow through.
>> in terms of publicizing to immigrants, people applying for visas, is that something you plan to make public so they do not spend the money or whatever it might be? ms. nauert: one thing the state department is good at doing is putting out lots of stuff on websites, but also just getting information out to the general public. travelers toective know exactly what they may or may not be in for. department share the concerns of three justices that this could be a burden and problem for the state department? not aware of'm that. anything else? e.o. done with io -- with let's move on to syria.
>> the russian version of the call between secretary of state tillerson and secretary lavrov, did the secretary share the information that was shared with us last night that the u.s. has detected preparations for use of chemical weapons, and did the secretary warned prime minister lavrov about that? ms. nauert: i can confirm secretary tillerson spoke yesterday with mr. lavrov, the foreign minister there. as you know, they talk about things regularly. they began their dialogue in moscow in i believe it was march. they met here about a month or so ago, and they've had subsequent phone conversations. secretary tillerson is not putting out a full play-by-play of that conversation. we know that the russians have put out what they consider to be their version.
i'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat about what we think they said or what they claim they said, but the secretary has made his concerns clear in the past and continues to do so with regard to russia. in light of the statement the white house put out last night, seems like a fair question to ask. want. >> you are not goingto say anything specifically about chemical weapons. >> are you saying you dispute the russian characterization? ms. nauert: i am not going to get into a tit-for-tat. a back andng into forth and what was said in a conversation. secretary tillerson is always clear what the russians about how we feel about certain things. the secretary refers to do conduct some of -- a lot of his
diplomacy and private because he believes we can be most effective that way. that theare reports white house believes there were chemical attacks -- was the state department fully read in on this? ms. nauert: he met with the president and with the national security team. this conversation was at about the statement. they were all informed about that statement, as to who would be filtered town to that statement, i will not get into that. folks were aware of it and that is what is important and what matters. the tillerson-lavrov call came -- ms. nauert: i believe the call was in the morning. i can double check on that and get back with you. but it was in the morning. >> it must have come as a result of --
ms. nauert: i don't know. i am just getting the nod that it was in the morning. >> there is a difference of opinion. disagreement, whatever you might do call it, between russia and the united states over this matter. the syrians themselves claim that there is no preparation underway for any chemical weapon attack. russia seems to be agreeing with that. ms. nauert: are we supposed to buy what the syrians are saying, that there are no chemical weapons underway? in a pass, we know they have killed their own people, which children.omen and if they say that they are not making any preparations, i'm not sure we are going to buy that. >> there is no agreement on that either. >> what's the question? ms. nauert: go ahead, sir. >> i wanted to ask you something else.
if there is an intent to follow up on that? ms. nauert: i wish. i'm sorry. >> on the plans with syria on the planned chemical attack. ms. nauert: do you mean that, when the statement was put out last evening, that the united states is concerned about syria in preparation that we believe are underway for a chemical weapons attack, your question is will there be additional conversations about that? i don't have any additional calls or information to readout. this is something that the united states government remains about.ed i am not aware of any subsequent conversations scheduled as of yet. >> i know you don't want to get into the details, but is there any plans to get the shannon channel open yet?
ms. nauert: we believe that conversation is an important conversation to be had. our relationship with the at a lowovernment is point. we would like to fix that so we can find areas of common interest, such as the fight against isis, and work on those fully together. i know we would like to resume those conversations with the russians about that. i don't have any meetings or trips to read out about that. the'm just wondering if secretary spoke with lavrov about it? ms. nauert: i know that we talked about a lot of mutual areas of concern regarding rescheduling that meeting. know.than that, i don't syria-russia? >> do you have evidence to share with us about this potential preparation for the use of chemical weapons? that wasn't actually laid out.
nor would that be laid out because that would be considered an intelligence matter. these thingsare, pop up sometimes that we can i get into the details about this. it got the attention of the united states government at the highest level. would it been for some other chemicalher than a weapons attack preparation, something that they do at the base? is that set -- is that a possibility? ms. nauert: that is a hypothetical question. we know the syrian regime has used chemical weapons on its own people. so that obviously remains a very large concern for us in the future. >> i want to make a point of clarification. when you guys believe it is in your interest, you put out what you say is evidence or proof of things that involve intelligence. it happened from this podium not that long ago. "we never blanket
discuss intelligence," right? ms. nauert: i am not going to get into that one with you. this is a very serious and grave matter. when you have the president and involved and the national security team, that is a serious question. anything else on this? >> let him go ahead. >> the preparation -- is it a 24-hour preparation or 48 hours? ms. nauert: i don't have the that. to the white house may be able to give you more on that or the department of defense or another agents -- agency. but i don't have the answer to that question. clarify, mr. psy was also seen photographs with the top generals in syria. ms. nauert: i am not aware of that.
i can't get into any intelligence but i am not personally aware of that. anything else on russia-syria? hold on. russia-syria? in the back. >> ambassadors syria -- >> ambassador haley said that iran would be blamed. does the u.s. intent to militarily strike iran or russia? ms. nauert: your third question i can't answer. that is a department of defense matter and a hypothetical. the first question, why would we look to syria? >> what does it mean to blame them? ms. nauert: we have to -- all we have to do is look to the past. we saw the syrian regime in 2015 was on the verge of collapsing. who came in to help the syrian regime? russia came in. that is exactly where we are
today. we, meaning the world, the place that syria is. russia came in and help to bolster syrian forces. we have seen the death, devastation, the destruction that has taken place ever since. when we say russia would be held responsible we believe they, play a role in this as well. they have a lot of influence with the assad regime. they have used their influence with the assad regime to stop this kind of activity. >> her remarks said any attacks on the syrian people will be blamed on a side and the russians. and the russians. this is a war with a number of actors come including eye since. it seems like a rather non-nuanced comment. wouldn't you rather see who else is responsible before blaming?
ms. nauert: i cannot get into what ambassador haley said on the hill today. i have only to refer you to the u.s. u.n. for clarification. >> she actually said that last night in a tweet as well as saying it again. ms. nauert: ok. >> the united states would look to find out make sure it had evidence of who was exactly responsible before issuing a blanket blame for attacks on the syrians? ms. nauert: i think your comments stand for themselves. >> does that mean>> you are not going to answer any questions about what she said on the hill today? ms. nauert: i am going to do my level best. i know what you are getting at. i will let you go ahead and ask. >> ambassador haley said it was a matter of u.s. policy to oppose palestinians for u.n. positions. answeringis in questions for the reason that you guys blocked saul fayed from becoming the representative for
libya. is that correct? if it's true, it sounds discriminatory. ms. nauert: i am working to get ambassador haley's comments in front of me. i just learned of those comments as i walked into the briefing room. i did not have a full amount of time to look into what she said and what was intended by that. some of this is developing. i know you want answers right away. i'm not always going to be able to give you answers. i would rather be right than be fast. we will take a close look at her comments and were to determine exactly what ambassador haley meant. i can tell you that ambassador haley talked about this back in february when the united states expressed its objection to the appointment of mr. fayed as the envoy to libya. she expressed that on her hilltop testimony. she believes the united nations and many believe the united nations needs to be reformed.
that for far too long, the united nations has been unfairly biased in favor of the palestinian authority to the detriment of our allies in israel. i know that is a concern of hers. she talked about reforming the united nations. in terms of her comments, i will have to take time. >> first of all, i don't understand how this is in any way a bias against israel to appoint a well-known, respected financial guy and diplomat to be the envoy to libya. i don't see how that has anything to do with bias against israel at all. she said, until palestine is a state, this is the policy. so if this is a policy, because does it also apply to the vatican? right now, the palestinians have the same status at the u.n. as does.tican if you are going to be consistent, if you would oppose
any representative of the holy see -- ms. nauert: i at i'm not going to get into characterizing that right now. i understand your question in your concerns. let me get additional information. i will do my level best to get you the answers. just a couple more questions. >> very quickly. by the israeli press account, the meeting with mr. kushner and mahmoud abbas did not go very well. administration will fall out of any ongoing process. do you have any comments? ms. nauert: i was on the phone -- i was not there -- but on weekend withr the folks traveling with mr. kushner and mr. greenblatt as well. the president has made israeli-palestinian peace one of his top priorities. we understand and recognize that this is not going to be a one-shot deal.
it will not be handled in one trip.g or one it is no surprise also that some meetings and conversations may be a little more difficult than others. some may be more challenging. the president has said it will not be an easy process, that both sides, the israelis and palestinians, will have to give a bit in order to be able to get to a peaceful arrangement, which we hope to see. but we are not pulling out in any way, shape or form, as this is one of our priorities. >> about a week ago, you said we are left with a simple question. for the actions of the other countries really about their concerns, the qatar support for terrorism, or the long simmering grievances between those two countries? ms. nauert: i can't believe that was only a week ago.if you like a month ago . -- it feels like a month ago. >> now that you have seen a list of demands, do you have any more light on what the answer to that
question is? ms. nauert: the only thing i can say about the exact demand, because i don't want to characterize the demand, but some will be difficult for qatar to incorporate and try to adhere to. that is as far as i'm going to go into that. no, i can't. some of them will be challenging for that country. >> what would you say the goal is of the meeting today? ms. nauert: the secretary will have two meetings today. he will meet with the foreign minister of qatar and the foreign minister of kuwait. go wait has done a lot of hard work in terms of trying to bring the nations together so they can agreement.e sort of we continue to call on those countries to work this out. this process is not over yet. they will be having these conversations for the rest of the week, if not longer than that. and we stand by in order to help facilitate some of these conversations.
>> so there is not specific goals for the meetings, specifically with qatar, to finalize the response? ms. nauert: not that i am aware of. this meeting starts in 20 some minutes. so i will have to go up there. if there is something i certainly well. >> i understand you do not want to characterize the demands, but when you say that you realize that some of them will be difficult for qatar to meet, that implies that you think that they should meet them. ms. nauert: i don't think so. >> so you think there is a way, some kind of middle ground, room for negotiation? not with you guys, but between the parties. so that there may be some or completed andare maybe other parts are not? ms. nauert: these nations will have to work out their disagreements. we talked about how a lot of these are long, simmering
tensions. they will have to work them out. they are best worked out with the countries themselves. we are pleased and happy that kuwait has stepped in to help be a mediator of sorts. we are happy to stand by and assist as we can. but we still feel they can work them out themselves. >> but you don't necessarily feel they all have to be met as was delivered. ms. nauert: that is for the countries to work out. that is not for me to say or for the state department to weigh in a that level. ultimately, these parties have to live with the decisions and the greek -- the agreements they make. last question. saide greek prime minister -- was close at hand. of liberation of muscle -- osul, which is short at hand, what would be your plans for the area? ms. nauert: it is not our plans.
it is the government of iraq. the government of iraq will decide how they want to govern themselves in certain areas. our focus right now is on the liberation of mosul. the iraqi prime minister spoke about how this will be done sooner rather than later. i will not characterize a timeline. u.s. forces and coalition partners and the iraqi government are at heart -- are hard at work to get the remaining parts of mosul. there is a lot of work left to be done. we have also had successes. when i say we, i mean the iraqis , coalition and the united states government, and bringing in theople to mosul safer part. the latest numbers is somewhere around 300,000. matt could probably chime in better on those numbers. the priorities in those areas, working with the government of
iraq, that is one of the major priorities the u.s. government is involved in, without coalition -- with our coalition partners, to bring water, electricity -- some schools are now back in session in eastern mosul. that is a success story, as we it. if you have children who are able to go back to school not long after isis was dug into that area, that is a success and a real testament to the hard work at the iraqis and our coalition partners have done. >> do you have suggestions for political changes? ms. nauert: i don't think we would have any suggestions for that. there is the government of iraq and the government of iraq will just decide. role and is that an important role that needs to be filled in this department? you have 67 odd special envoys and representatives in this administration in particular
said needs to be whittled down if not entirely eliminated. month. a job next if not, will somebody else fill that role? ms. nauert: i don't know about that. we spent time together last weekend today. how focus was solely on the tip report and getting that information out. i did not have a chance to ask her what her career plans are. if i can find out and let you that.i will do but she did a great job. >> does she have a role to fill in this department? beenauert: you have covering the state department for a long time. matter.an important >> senator corker sent a letter yesterday to secretary tillerson, threatening to block future arms sales -- future arms sales to gulf nations. does that help or hurt?
ms. nauert: i would not characterize that either way. we are aware of that letter. the letter came into the department. there is a lot that will happen this week. there are a lot of conversations left to be had. i am about to step into one right now. i do not want to get ahead of those conversations. peter, dave, do you want to ask a question? [laughter] all right, my boys don't have a question. it's the first time they are speechless. we'll see you on thursday. >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day. this morning, jack moline talked about his group's efforts to bring civility back into politics and political dialogue. discusses his book
"foreign service, five decades on the frontlines of american diplomacy and the trump administration's foreign-policy challenges." hbo film "the wars that built america." join the discussion. newsmakers, kevin brady, chair of the ways and means committee, talks about the future of health care legislation in the senate and his efforts to overhaul the u.s. tax system. newsmakers today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday night on "the communicators" -- changed.n't the things that i care about come in terms of consumers being first and foremost in our mind when it comes to policy, when it comes to my interest, when it
comes to serving them, that hasn't changed. >> the longest-serving fcc commissioner and the only democrat on the commission talks about how the fcc is changing under republican leadership and what she sees as the major issues ahead. she is interviewed by lynn stanton. >> when we go into a direction that may be more philosophical than practical, we need to ask ourselves will consumers be protected? and under the current paradigm i have seen teed up, what i am hearing in terms of moving back to the days of old, i really don't see where the consumer benefits will derive. >> watch "the communicators" monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. doran and wendy sherman debate president