are contacting you in their exploration of this? we saw the map and there was a bunch of states that have not yet considered this. are you hearing from states that are looking into this? and speaking to michelle's point about vermont, if we did see other states pursue this, with -- would that cut down on fraud? ms. albertson: in the case of nevada, whenever -- when california implemented their law they reached out to us. they were five or six of us is unhappy with the director in her administrators and deputies to share the lessons learned. it is invaluable what you can learn from the other states. i know scott has alluded to the american association of motor vehicle administrators organization that both my state

and his belong to. a very valuable networking resources. i would be happy to share lessons learned with any jurisdiction that would be interested. mr. vien: where the seat reaching out to everybody, nobody is asking us. ms. contreras: for california, it's interesting you bring up the point, as a legislative staff and from my senator we've been very engaged in -- specifically, my boss is on the immigration task force. it really gives conversations through the task forces he gives legislators and their staffs the ability to talk off the record really about lessons learned. about things you might want to admit you don't want to admit. and build relationships. then you can pick up the phone and call the number yourself. say hey, i thinking about these things and who can you connect me to in california? absolutely, states are reaching out.

specifically in our experience to ncsl and the immigration task force. it is been wonderful. mr. hunter: we talked about implementation and challenges of your experience. i'm curious about outreach. we talked a little bit off-line about this conversation. in the case of california with the high estimate of 1.4 million people that would be served down to vermont's 1500. these are all estimates and new populations and nobody can put their finger on how they need to be served, whether nationalities are, what languages they speak. your outreach approach and what lessons you learned? do you feel you have found the sweet spot in reaching in serving this population where if they don't know if they can apply for these licenses the program will not be successful? mr. vien: one area we are focusing on is our hispanic population.

simply due to the statistics that make up about 10% of our population in delaware. that will be our largest area affected by the legislation. i've mentioned i serve in the hispanic commission which gives the dmv access and outreach in the community. speaking on spanish radio. later this month is when people start publicizing this. these are the requirements when you come and these are the things you should expect. the hispanic population is not the only population we need to serve. we are reaching out to as many community centers as we can possibly think of to start having those conversations with other nationalities and other communities. we are doing things, simple things like making sure our translate button on the website is very visible and easy to use so somebody can see that right now. i did not even know it was there. our print material will be in

english and spanish. as we start seeing a need for other languages to be in print or for us to do more and other areas we will continue to adjust. ms. albertson: a similar extremes for nevada. i will piggyback on erica's comment, you don't know what you don't know. until they come forward with a request for information or services that is when you find out. although we have in excess of 700 translators on the list, we did have a request for an individual of a unique language. i don't recall specifically which one it was. what we did to help the consumer is we reached out to the local university he was able to revive it with a translation service they need. we had to make an exception to our rule because we only allowed an actual person to be an approved translator. but we were able to authorize the universities provide that service.

ms. contreras: for california and mentioned the dmv did a phenomenal job of beginning their work for the limitation through the workshops. they were soliciting information from the community about what type of documents would you suggest we use in verifying the identity if you can't use traditional document. they had over 200 workshops. legislators had a lot of interest in doing outreach and educate the community about it. the media played a key role. spanish media played a key role. at the staff level i have been very impressed with the amount of outreach that the of the has done and we are very pleased.

>> i am austin from georgetown university. we are doing a research project on the rollout in d.c. we are interviewing individuals who are looking to apply for the license or who are in the process. we are asking them about some of the reasons you might be held back from doing it. what are some of the difficulties or why you are not applying? we are finding some people, whether or not it is rational, are afraid of coming out of the shadows to apply for this license. my question is for anybody on the panel. has there been any reports or evidence, i know it's hard to find, of police discriminating on the basis of seeing the mark of a license? i know you spoke to how state can't control everything as far as immigration and customs enforcement. has there been any reports of that mark on the license resulted in any discrimination for people who are pulled over on the road? ms. contreras: to date we have

not heard those stories. we do require in statute and the legislation that there be a report indicating any cases of discrimination that you reported to the state. in california it is a crime to discriminate based on that marked card. is in violation of the civil rights act. in the coming years as we get reports coming from parts of the community we may have data at that point. i have not heard anecdotally if it's been a problem. for us, isn't helpful that during the presentations of the workshops there was law enforcement sitting next to the of the representative saying don't be afraid, come out, they wanted to get licenses and insurance. everything will be safer.

we have not seen it. >> thank you. mr. hunter: i heard a couple of times when you are discussing your own outreach plan, reaching up to this community-based ethnic organizations. did you encounter resistance as government officials contacting these partners who serve what would be vulnerable communities to partner with government? was there resistance? ms. albertson: in nevada that responsibility was delegated to our public information officers and they welcomed the opportunity to join with us. the community groups did. we had no resistance. we had law enforcement officials there we had educated on the process and encouraging individuals to not be afraid. come forward and do this because that individual is driving behind their car. there was no marking on their cards that indicates to a law enforcement officer that they have a drivers authorization card inside. it's only when it's been

determined there was a name to pull -- a need to pull that person author -- over, when it pull the license other bullet and shows it to the officer that only them with the officer in the indication that they were a cardholder and not a holder of a standard issued license. mr. vien: same thing on the lines of what terri just said about the marking on the card. same thing with us. it is a class-d license like the one i possess myself. for all purposes in our system is a class-d license. if the visible card that does make the indicator. we have -- the folks we've reached out to so far have been very open and willing and very eager to talk to us, work with us. this will help their communities. there is concern with some of the provisions we have. one of the things we're doing, a sister piece of legislation that little over the bill was to have our task or three can be this may, 2016.

to study the early parts of the of limitation to see if there's anything that was passed in the legislation that is chilling participation. or is there anything we do better. that task force will be coming back in -- together in may. is there concern for law enforcement or government officials or anything of that nature? mr. hunter: for california and nevada, states currently implement thing, i think it is going? how would your own evaluations be in your efforts thus far? ms. contreras: i think our community is happy they have access. in california there were a lot of people losing vehicles, getting impounded. we have laws in place that require impoundment and in the vehicle gets house for 30 days with facing costly for people to

be able to get their property back. our residents generally represent the area that the senator represents, they are happy they have a choice if they want to take advantage of it or not. it depends on the person's level of comfort. overall people have been very, very pleased they have a mechanism. the concern about the marked card for some of them, it's a philosophical. we have no evidence it is being used incorrectly. the idea of having a marked card -- we are working diligently with organizations to make sure that people have all the means to get comfortable or they consult with an attorney accordingly. i think my boss is pleased in

many community members as well. mr. hunter: i'm hearing a plug for more research. these programs are still new. ms. albertson: given the estimates of approximately 60,000 individuals that would apply for this and nevada and we are well over a year to our implementation. we have met barely half of that. i would encourage continued outreach with the community groups. to provide information to these individuals because we can say based on 14 months of experience we have not had any negative activity associated with individuals having a drivers authorization card. i can't think of a better group than those that have the card to speak to others and encourage them to also become compliant by obtaining the drivers authorization card. that's all he matter of resources and the time it takes to do that. i think that would be something that maybe the community group should consider, go out and educating individuals and

getting people to have a car to sit on a panel and talk to others in they you don't have anything to be afraid of. mr. hunter: we are nearing our time so i wanted to get one final call to the room for questions and to the panelists if you have questions for one another. we will start here. >> i know that delaware worked with insurance companies as part of the process. i was wondering if california and nevada did similar work and was it important? ms. albertson: four nevada will be reached out to the insurance agent -- industry and they were part of the hearing process during the legislation. they did not have a position on it one way or another. part of our analysis including the fact there was potential for increased insurance premiums to be sold to these individuals. it is not a requirement in nevada to have insurance to have a license. it's only a requirement if you register a vehicle. depending on where the

individual once to use the drivers authorization card for, it doesn't necessarily equate them directly into the selling of an insurance policy. they were part of the discussions. >> specifically my boss was interested in helping people become -- get the insurance. we knew there were some insurance companies that were already providing insurance to some individuals that do not have a drivers license. usually it was very costly. we work very closely with the insurance commissioner in california. in statute we have a low income, affordable insurance program that is within the department of insurance. the same year we were working to

pass the drivers licenses, we were working to bring clarify and expand its of people have better access to that program in california. we specifically, our office did not work with private companies for during the engagement process for the program, low income, affordable insurance programs, to give us the opportunity to educate people. mr. hunter: i would like to ask each panelist a final question and that is really an hour role at pew as a policy institute. putting this information from a policy makers as you are considering whether and how to approach these laws in your jurisdictions. i would like to start with michelle and go down the line. what is your biggest piece of advice and lessons learned from your experience? what's the most important take away for you from your work in this process? ms. waslin: i've learned so much. i think the biggest take away for me was that the legislatures must speak to the dmv's as they

are writing legislation. not when it's time for apple meditation because there is so much mutual learning and needs to take place. ms. contreras: for california in me i would say absolutely engage early, engaged during the legislative debate. engage the federal government. understand the system, processes, and understand the dmv's engagement with immigration enforcement and homeland security. that process is very important. if your state decides to proceed with a marked card, that is a process of trial and error sometimes where homeland security may approve or reject your card and you have to go back to the drawing board. understand the process within the dmv and the federal government so as legislators you can better navigate the process. mr. vien: early engagement is key.

obviously we are engaged early but having been engaged early there are still things on the other side during implementation where we should've looked at that little further. one b we should have reached out to the consulates earlier. not really thinking of them as a resource to have their finger on undocumented communities. that would have been something very helpful in our planning because our numbers might be higher. we really don't know. all the different planning and pulling from different resources as possible. having that large stakeholder group early on was very beneficial for us in planning. hopefully we will see that payoff and a couple of months. ms. albertson: i would say based on lessons learned from the vatican weekend over communicate is enough. i think it's very important to identify through your stakeholders are upfront. you have enough states that implanted this now to reach out to them based on research.

it truly is a huge undertaking for a state to implement this. there are so many stakeholders involved from law enforcement to the foreign officials to your legislatures, then down to the dmv staff. i can't emphasize enough the need to communicate that openly and clearly with everybody who needs to be involved in this process. mr. hunter: i like things in threes and i'm hearing communication, constant engagement, and research. thank you all for coming and please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [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. 2015] mr. hunter: i would like to recognize the team efforts. the communications team. our government relations team and my own team and karina who has spearheaded all this for us this afternoon.

thank you and enjoy your afternoon. [applause] >> coming up, a discussion on states issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. webb'snator jim announcement on his presidential campaign. journal," david jolly talks about gop leadership rates. budget committee ranking member chris van hollen on budget negotiations and debt ceiling debate. cheryl at consent on what happened in benghazi-was the --

and ghazi-libya. "washington journal" is live on c-span. you can join the conversation with calls and comments on facebook and twitter. jim webb ended his bid for the democratic presidential nomination. door open forthe a potential independent one. this is 25 minutes.

senator webb: several years, senator moynihan's wife sent me a wooden chink to put together the old schoolhouse on the farm where he wrote his books. we had been talking about the kinship that i felt for senator moynihan to his thoughtful approach to governance and put his country ahead of party and search for solutions. and she sent me this from the old farm house and had a note on it saying, two square petition in two round holes. some people say i'm a republican who became a democrat, but that i often sound like a republican in a roomful of democrats and actually i take that as a compliment. more people in this country call themselves political

independents than either republicans or democrat. i happen to agree with them. our country is more important than a label. democrats in years past understood this. people like sam nunn, scoop jackson, mike mansfield, john kennedy, among others. americans are disgusted by this talk of republicans and democrats calling each other the enemy instead of reaching out across the table and actually finding ways to work together. i know what an enemy really is from hard personal combat. the other party is not the enemy, they are the opposition. in our democracy, we are lucky to have an opposition in order

to have honest debate. it's creative, it's healthy. there's no opposition party in countries like china because there are no elections in china or in other non-democratic authoritarian societies. over the years i have worked with democrats or republicans and my basic beliefs, principles of leadership and love of country have never changed. i proudly served for four years in the reagan administration as a republican. i proudly served in the senate as a democrat. we need to be honest here because the very nature of our democracy is under siege due to the power structure and the money that finances both political parties. our political candidates are being pulled to the extremes. they are increasingly out of step to the people they are supposed to serve. poll after poll shows that a strong plurality of americans is neither democrat or republican.

overwhelmingly they are independents. americans don't like the extremes to which both parties have moved in recent years and neither do i. i know i'm going to hear this so let me be the first to say it. i fully accept my views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure and the nominating base of the democratic party. that party is filled with millions of dedicated, hard-working americans, but it is not comfortable with many of the policies that i have laid forth and frankly i'm not not that comfortable with many of theirs. for this reason, i'm withdrawing from any consideration of being a democratic party's nominee for the presidency.

this does not reduce in any way my concerns for the challenges facing our country. my belief that i can provide the best leadership in order to meet these challenges are my intentions to remain fully engaged in the debates that are facing us. how i remain as a voice will depend on what kind of support i'm shown in the coming weeks as i meet with people from all sides of america's political landscape, and i intend to do that. i hold strong views about where our country needs to go. i will never change those views in order adopt to some party platform as a way of getting nominated. i feel strongly if i were nominated that we would win. and that if i were president i could assemble an administration filled with great minds, good leaders and capable people from all sectors of our society who share my vision and who could bring this country back to itsry veered position as a beacon of fairness at home and common

sense in our foreign policies abroad. though i'm not going away, i'm thinking about all my options, 240 years ago, the declaration of independence from our status as a colony from great britain was announced. it's time for a a new declaration of independence. not from an outside power, but from the paralysis that no longer serves the vast interests of the american people. the presidency has gained too much power. the congress has grown weak and often irrelevant. the present-day democratic and republican parties are not providing the answers and the guarantees that we can rely on. the financial sector represented by the wall street bankers is caring less and less about the

conditions of the average american worker for the simple reason that their well-being depends more on the global economy than it does on the american economy. our political process is jammed up. it needs an honest broker who respects all sides, who understands the complicated nature of how our federal system works, who will communicate a vision for the country's future here at home and in our foreign policy and who has a proven record of actually getting things done. i have worked with both sides. i have a lot of respect for many people who are members of both political parties. i know how broken our system really is.

this country needs a new dynamic that respects and honors our history, our traditions and is not a slave to the power structure -- are failing us. i love this country and all that it has allowed me to do and my family to do over the course of the last several decades and even generations. i always have and will put country above political party or personal ambition. so here we are. i'm stepping aside from the democratic primary process. but i will never abandon my loyalties to the people who do the hard daily work of keeping this country great at home and secure abroad and we'll have to see what happens next. >> questions, please identify yourself. >> could you talk about what kind of support you are looking for and when you launch and

independent candidacy? senator webb: we will talk people -- to people and a number of people who have reached out and encouraged me to run either as an independent or a lot of people who never voted for a democrat. hundreds and hundreds of people who never voted for a democrat who said i will vote to you and if you run outside the party, i will help you out. there are a lot of people out there from across the political spectrum that i would like to talk to before i would say i am going to do this. i feel much freer now having cleared the air to do that. reporter: are you concerned about helping a republican if you were to run? senator webb: i care about the country and the issues i have been talking about for many years are the issues that i believe needs to be focused on

and that's the most important thing. if i were to run -- i know the history of independent candidate cyst. and i have had a number of discussions with people who have encouraged me to do this before. they topped out at 20%. i have had smart political people saying because of the paralysis in our two parties there is a time when an independent candidacy to win. and those are the questions we are going to be asking. reporter: your campaign has failed to gain traction pretty much anywhere. why as an independent you could gain that traction that you couldn't gain as a democrat? senator webb: it's difficult in the democratic party primary

process with the dominance of one candidate, not only in her candidacy but in the structure of the democratic party, the traditional financing structures. the d.n.c. so it's been a very careful process that i put forward here. and again, as i said, i have issues that i care about that maybe are in line with that particular hierarchy. so we'll see. i'll tell you this, if you look at polls on where the american people are on these issues that i'm talking about, they are more in line with what i have been saying than they are in the democratic party's hierarchy. reporter: do you still consider yourself a democrat? senator webb: we'll think about that. reporter: senator, you entered -- you came out of the debate saying that you felt it was hurting you.

do you feel like the whole process is rigid? do you feel you had a chance to run as a democrat? and if so, why did you choose to run as a democrat? senator webb: i ran as a democrat for the same reason i ran as a democrat when i ran for the senate and that is if you look at the history of the democratic party, it is the party that has given the people who have no voice in the corridors of power, a voice. that is the reason that i ran. i have also said for a number of years that the democratic party needs to get back to its more traditional message and not seeing that in the way that i wish that i could see it. and so -- in terms of it being rigid -- the debate -- the point i made in the debate was, when

you come to a debate, where you are supposed to have an equal opportunity to present your issues and you get 14 minutes when the leading candidate gets 32 minutes and the way the questions were being asked were designed to do that, then i wouldn't say that was a fair process. reporter: over the course -- i want to talk about the idea of the democratic party being too extreme at the high levels. over the course of the campaign you struggled with the democratic party as it embraced the issue of taking down the confederate flag. affirmative action on the debate stage. do you think the democratic party has gone too far in areas like that? senator webb: you can look at a lot of the issues that i have

talked about over the years. i have been consistent on them. with respect to the issue of the confederate flag, what i said was, yes, the confederate flag should come down. but i'm a historian and we need to be careful in examining the fairness of our history. there are people who do not -- have not viewed the confederate battle flag as a symbol of racism. let's take them down from public places, but let's not get carried away here in terms of our own history laid out during the period. i have talked about the need -- by the way, i'm not trying to stand here and attack the democratic party. these are areas where i think there were strong differences of feeling between the hierarchy and myself. the democratic party is heavily invested in the notion of interest group politics and interest group politics, if you are not careful, can exclude

people who also need a voice in the corridors of power. and i have spoken about this a lot. the question i was asked, by the way, with respect to affirmative action, i gave a very careful answer to and i don't believe that it should be misunderstood when i said affirmative action was an african-american program because of the unique history of african-americans with slavery and the jim crow laws that came after that. but once you expand that into what we call diversity programs for anyone who happens to be a person of color, by definition and what you are actually doing in the long run is you are hurting poor blacks and poor whites.

take a look at west baltimore and take a look at the appalachian mountains in kentucky and you will see two different cultures that are not being helped in terms of poverty and educational opportunities and these sorts of things. that's where the democratic party -- that's where the country should be whatever party rment. we should be making sure we are serious having a level playing field. and i think still giving special consideration to the journey of african-americans. but for everybody else, welcome to america. you have the best shot in the world here at having a great future. and my wife standing next to me is a perfect example of that. her family escaped from vietnam when the communists took over. her parents never spoke english and she came here, studied, learned the language and ended up graduating from cornell law school. that's what this country can do and that has been my frustration on those sorts of issues. we can do that. we should be looking at that. reporter: on the debates, do you plan on attending the next

democratic debate? senator webb: no, i do not. as of today i'm not involved in the democratic party's process. reporter: in addition to the platform and your goals and the democratic party, you have also suffered from poor fundraising and lack of infrastructure. if you were to do an independent bid, what would you be prepared to do to bolster fundraising, to go against that machine to build an organization, to hone a message to be disciplined? senator webb: i can't tell you how many people have written to me over the last year and offered to help if i would run as a democrat or as a republican. it is very difficult to fund raise inside the democratic party structure now for reasons that i had mentioned. i have no doubt if i ran as an independent, we would

significant financial help. senator webb: from people who want me to run as something other than a democrat. we'll see over the next few weeks. but i have had so many people asking me to stay in this and to keep the voice out there. i think if we ran, we would not have the same difficulty that we had with the democrats, quite frankly. reporter: senator webb, i'm a professional firefighter and i want to say thank you for what you have done for the firefighters. my question would be in terms of organized labor. it seems like it really has not been that big of an issue in this race and i also have something for you in the spirit of military, i brought you a coin -- how do you think we need to bring that back into the forefront. i have been working on the 9/11 health care bill and it seems like there is not the support

and seems like people have forgotten the events of 9/11. how do we keep that in this presidential race? senator webb: that's a good point. if i'm in a roomful of democrats, i think i'm a republican. but don't get into either party structure. one of them for the different positions that were just raised by the gentleman over here, there are issues that i care deeply about that don't align with the republican party either and one of them is organized labor. i think i was only one with a union card, a purple heart and i believe in collective bargaining in order to help recollect the working people. thank you very much.

reporter: senator webb. should the polls hold up and hillary clinton becomes the nominee of the democratic party and donald trump is the nominee of the republican party, could you see yourself supporting one of these two candidates? senator webb: if we ran an independent race and got traction, i could see us beating both of them. reporter: it's been difficult for reporters to obtain information about the day-to-day of your campaign. how often were you out campaigning and meeting voters? senator webb: every day. cam papering, there were times we did and did not. reporter: where were you campaigning?

senator webb: iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. i went to other states. we can get a list. reporter: how many staffers did you have? senator webb: we had a very small staff. we had challenges creating an organization inside a democratic party where the expected nominee had a lot of control, a lot of leeway, that was then. reporter: will you be keeping your staff on payroll? senator webb: we'll get to that later. i am. we do have very dedicated staff some of them on payroll and some of them volunteers. reporter: i'm wondering if you could see yourself endorsing any candidate in the primary or launching a superpac and getting

involved besides running an independent bid. senator webb: i don't see myself endorsing anyone at this point. i don't see that in the future. we want to go out and talk to people and see what -- a lot of people have made suggestions and recommendations and we'll talk in more concrete terms this time around and. i have not been a a fan of superpac's. and i have been approached about them. if you read the citizens' united case, which i have read, it says anyone has the first amendment right to create a superpac and no candidate can stop them. at the same time candidates are not going to be directly cooperating with them. and there is a violation in the decision even as it is written. reporter: democrats in iowa and new hampshire said they haven't

seen you. what sort of campaign are you mounting when they say you haven't showed up. and if you run as an independent, will you actively campaign? senator webb: we made visits and didn't make as many visits as we could have. financial resources to do it or if i made different decisions about traction in any way. what we are looking at now is the reality that i mentioned in my opening statement that there are differences in positions. and i'm not running in the democratic party. reporter: how do you explain, a nondemocrat, a socialist is doing well, if this hierarchy -- senator webb: bernie sanders is a friend of mine and i like him a lot. he is a healthy venting

apparatus for people who are worried in the country. but i said to him on stage, i said your revolution isn't going to happen and not going to pay for it. what i have done during my time in government is actually get things done, actually get programs passed, legislation pass, raise the level of public discussion on things like criminal justice reform. so i'm not -- i'm glad bernie's out there with the voice he has. but the programs i'm he's talking about, they aren't going to happen. reporter: in terms of the financial support that you have talked about, you said you have heard from people. are you speaking about -- on social media, you have been referencing a lot of people that

would cross the aisle who are big fans of yours. are you talking about voters or small-time donors or people who are republicans or democrats who are involved in bundling for you and being large-scale donors? senator webb: i think both. and let me clarify something. and that is political comment ateors view elections -- commentators view thing as an auction. view campaigns purely by how much money was raised. i don't think that is always true. when i ran for the senate, i was outspent in the primary 10-1 and general election 3-1. governor bush has 4%. if you can go out and connect with the right people who will support candidacy, uzbekistan your money wisely, you can still have a chance. reporter: i think so far you've

talked about how your not interested in the extremist rhetoric on both sides and i think you have detailed how different from democrats your are, what ways on different policies are you different from republicans running in the field? on guns, you are closer to republicans. are their specific policies that you don't align in the republican field? senator webb: you saw someone from organized labor stand up and thank me for my support in organized labor. it's from my heart and it's not transactional. i felt that way before i even thought i would run for the senate.

i began a friendship with richard trumka in 1989 when there was a coal strike, piston strike, met with him and talked to him about how the organized labor people could get a better result. the biggest difference i would have is in the area of how the financial sector has so dominated politics. actually in both parties, but it's a very strong issue in the republican party. so this isn't -- as i said, 46% of americans, i don't have a clear exact fit in either political party. i care about the country and care about the future of this country and put my issues on the table without regard to whether i'm being transactional to one party or the other. reporter: are you different on social issues like abortion, et cetera? senator webb: i have my own feelings about those and -- the whole country is evolving on

those issues right now but i'm a supporter of roe v. wade. issues like gay marriage and things like those i have been a , supporter on those and will continue. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] house republican leaders meet to discuss legislative agenda. including elections for speaker of the house. that is live on c-span 3. >> on cue and day, amy cho sick

shares her experiences from hillary clinton's campaign. she compares what it is like now to 2008. >> i was a traveling person. it was not in a senior role. the time, ivel all got to know the people who traveled with her. i felt like i got to know her well. she would come back and talk to us. i did not have the same sort of sources as the campaign. whether that is a function of the times or more a senior role. q&a.nday night on c-span's announced he is willing to run for speaker of the house if all three republican groups give him their endorsement. he spoke to reporters. here is his statement.

mr. ryan: i shared what i think it will take to have a unified conference and for the next speaker to be successful. imade a few requests for what think is necessary and i asked my colleagues to hear back from them by the end of the week. we need to move from an opposition party to a proposition party. nation is think the on the wrong path, we have a duty to show the right one. our next speaker has to be visionary. update houseed to rules so everyone can be a more effective representative. this is the people's house. we need to do this as 18. we need to include fixes that ensure we do not experience

constant leadership challenges in crises. third, we should unify now and not after the election. point, the last point is personal. i cannot and will not give up my family time. road ast be on the often as previous speakers, but withdge to make up with it more time communicating our vision, our message. i told members if you can agree to these requests and i can be a unifying figure, then i will gladly serve. i am not unifying, that will be fine as well. i will be happy to stay where i am at the ways and means committee. it is our duty to serve the they deserve to be served.

it is our duty to make the tough decisions the country needs to get our nation back on track. the challenges we face are too difficult and demanding to turn our backs and walk away. global terror, war, a government grown unaccountable, unconstitutional, out of touch, persistent poverty, a sluggish .conomy, flat wages, debt we cannot take on these challenges alone. more than ever, we must work together. we are representatives of the people. all people. we have been entrusted by them to lead. serve, theyple we do not feel we are delivering on the job they hired us to do. we have become the problem. if my colleagues and trust me to be the speaker, i want to become

the solution. learned from my upbringing is that nothing is ever solved by blaming people. we can blame the president, the media, that is kind of fun sometimes. we can point fingers across the aisle, blame each other, dismiss critics and criticism as unfair. people do not care about blame. people do not care about effort. people care about results. results that are measurable, meaningful, that make a difference in their daily lives. i want to be clear. we are still an exceptional country with exceptional people and a republic worth fighting for. the american idea, it is not too late to save, but we are running out of time. make no mistake, i believe the

ideas and principles of results are theonservativism keys to a better tomorrow, in which all of god's children will be better off than they are today. the idea of the role of the federal government is not to facilitate dependency, but to ofate an environment opportunity for everyone, that government should do less and do it that her. serveea that those who should say what they mean and mean what they say. the principle that we should determine the course of our own lives instead of seating that right to those that think they are better than the rest of us. we will stand and fight when we must. surely this presidency will require that. natural rights, common sense, compassion, cooperation, rooted in genuine

conviction and principle. it me close by saying to do this with reluctance, and i mean that in the most personal way. like you and i, i have children in their formidable and foundational years of their lives. i worry about the consequences my agreeing to serve will have on them. they experience the viciousness and instability that we face on a daily basis? thereatest worry -- ,onsequence of not stepping up of having my kids ask me, when the stakes were so high, why didn't you do all you could do? why didn't you fight for my future when you had the chance to? thatof us wants to hear question and no one should have

to. i have shown my colleagues what i think success looks like, what it takes to unify and lead and family commitments come first. i have left the decision in their hands. should they agree with these requests, i am happy and willing to get to work. >> what happened in the past couple of weeks? you said you had concern about consequences of not serving. this is not a job i have ever wanted or sought. i came to the conclusion that this is a dire moment. for our country. i think our country is in need of leadership. do you think you can -- the capabilities of unifying?

they have gone after john boehner, kevin mccarthy. what assurances do you have that you will not be the next one? mr. ryan: i have laid out what i think it takes to unify this con freight -- this conference. i leave it in my colleagues hands. would you want a unanimous vote? mr. ryan: i laid out all of the various groups having their endorsement and being that unified -- i am not going to get into that now. that has to be done as a conference as a whole. thank you very much. thank you. republican leaders meet today to discuss legislative agenda and leadership elections, including the race were speaker of the house, live at 10:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span 3. the homeland security committee holds a hearing on threats. , jeh johnson, and necklace rasmus are expected -- and nicholas rasmussen are expected to testify. an update one gets the joint strike fighter program from the executive director. that is live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. ♪ >> c-span presents landmark cases the book, guide to our landmark series which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions included marbury round versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona, and row versus

wade. landmark cases the book features introductions, backgrounds, highlights and the impact of each case written by veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro and published by c-span and cooperation with cq press. available for is a dollars $.95 plus shipping, get your copy today. live today on c-span, "washington journal" is next and intent :00 eastern the house return for general speeches and a new eastern members take up legislation on the u.s. debt ceiling. coming out in 45 minutes, florida congress -- corpsman david jolly -- david jolly tossed by the highway transportation bill. at a: 30 a.m., chris van hollen

talks about the budget negotiations and debt ceiling to belt and at 9:15 a.m., investigative reporter sheryl atkinson highlights what happens -- happen in benghazi libya in 2012 during and after the attack that killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. ryan: if i can be a unifying figure that i will gladly serve. ♪ host: wisconsin republican paul ryan last night, first telling his colleagues behind closed doors been saying it publicly, he will seek the speakership if republicans unite if i didn't and agree to his conditions for the job. the current ways and means chairman's gets his colleagues a friday deadline. we will begin with your take on the news. conservative republicans tile in , moderate-8000