about what happened to his democracy? mr. larson: i think you would be appalled. because he didn't believe in partisan politics. he had a vision that people would run hard-fought campaigns. he was in hard-fought campaigns with madison and others, hard-fought. once you got there, you were nuts must be part of a party caucus. you were supposed to call each one as you saw them, and if you look at the way he led, not just as president but at the constitutional convention, and when he was a general, he tried to lead by conciliation, by listening and cooperation. for every battle, he would listen to all his lieutenants before he talked. at the constitutional convention, he met with everyone , he worked out compromises by working together. brokewere some people he with, like george mason, but he brought enough together to work across lines. it was shifting alliances as president. this is not the sort of dream he had. >> how much time have you spent at mount vernon to do your books over the last few years? am fortunate to be the first library fellow. i live in residence. it is great to be able to live in a residence and go in before the tour's kong, and go out before the tour's leave. tours come and go out for the tours leave. i can just do my research. for aort of experience historian, it does not get better than that. -- it is about 15 miles from here. if you are in residence, you stay on the property? mr. larson: yes. ,t first we were in the porters but now i am in the demoss how house, right next to the presidential library. it is very modern and the fellas s geto stay there -- fellow to stay there. >> you discuss in your introduction the two lip-poplar tree. -poplar tree.ulip what was the significance of that? mr. larson: i used to be a botnets, -- botanist, and i love that tree. so did washington. if you look, that tree was planted during the same year i was writing about. if you wrote a letter that year to one of his dear friends in france and wrote one of the people who would help with the revolution, and he wrote him that year. he wrote "it's great to be back home, and i am now getting shade from the trees are planted as a youth." poplar, the tulip- tree he planted then, but we are thegetting shade from foundations he planted, including the constitution. that provides the shade. that is what makes the country work. we had a solid foundation. ison your website there video of you talking about this, and we will watch this before you get into more detail. [video clip:] >> welcome, this is mount vernon, where i have spent the last year as a library fellow. this is the view he saw as he wrote, this is what he dreamed about. relevantn remains as to politics today as he was in 1790, when he took over as president. he was then and remains today the symbol of the united states, of a united country. in my new book about george washington, i focus on the. between 1783, when he stepped down as general during the revolution, and 1789, when he takes up the reins of the presidency. that middle. middleotal and made -- stretch was pivotal and made the present it -- presidency work. >> when did you do that? mr. larson: when the book came out, i think it was 2014? >> what about the other one? mr. larson: the other one came out because the university publishes the papers of george washington, all about washington. they had heard some of the lectures and wanted a small book that could reach, they thought, a broader and different audience. people can use it as a supplementary course book in college. butl enough for classes, also something you can take on an airplane and read. it captures the essence of the thesis that washington was a nationalist who brought the whole thing together. i make a solution at one point. they often say that james madison was the architect of the constitution. i reply, after doing all this vernon, that if james madison is the architect of the constitution, and he might be, then washington is the general contractor. if you are building a house are knowng in addition on, you you might like with the contractor has in mind and what the architect has in mind. washington had full support, and the funny thing is some of these great books on washington. like the four-part book by douglas friedman. skip this.em , they don't go into the nuts and bolts of what he did before the convention and leading up to it. >> let's go to the dates. you start with what year? mr. larson: i start with 1781 with the commander at yorktown. that is when the critical. begins. you know, it is two more years to the peace treaty, but we have important evidence that i cover in the new book, in "george washington, nationalist," such as the new burks -- newburgh conspiracy. that is featured in the new book. i cover growth in that. from the time to he was sworn in, which was april/may of 1789. the other book goes a little further and carries it into the presidency. newburgh -- e mr. larson: the newburgh conspiracy? >> yeah. mr. larson: it is when the soldiers, a year and a half after yorktown before the peace treaty has been signed. the army has moved up north. york,re occupying new also charleston, but there may basis new york. york.ir main base is new was paying their payments, the requisitions and requests to congress. the troops had not been paid for a few years. there was a growing sense that the union was collapsing. they could not even get a form of the federation congress. states were going their own way and planning for peace, and whenever you compete you compete whoever is closest to you. new york and massachusetts are competing, and the states are pulling apart. carolina is competing with virginia. the lack of support of troops frustrated washington greatly. but the troops, and this was the scary part, probably were working with the letters, certainly with the knowledge of hamilton and others. they thought they were going to mutiny, some of them, the lieutenants and majors. anderson and a few others, armstrong and a few others. goingaid, we are either to revolt or we are going to pay. once the peace treaty is signed no one is ever going to pay us. we're going to force congress to pay us. they wanted to recruit washington as part of the coup d'etat. washington to be the king, but he was a true republican. he believed in a small republican government. it was a new experience, a continental republic. that's what they were playing with. he believed in those enlightenment virtues, that that could be the future of mankind and that could be a model for america. to deal with these troops, who were either threatening to rise up and have congress pay them or go home. >> they weren't paid for two years, how do they live? mr. larson: not very well. they take loans from their friends, right home for money to be sent to them. they had their basic rations, so they could eat, but all the extra stuff they didn't have. in many cases they were losing their farms back home and could not send money back to the families to keep their farms. you can read accounts of them. they were in a very embarrassed position. if they left, they knew they were never going to get the money. you're torn between believing in the cause and believing in washington. -- from 81 -53, -- 83, what was going on their? mr. larson: well, these got one vote. they can send as many delegates as they wanted and every delegate voted how they wanted to. except, the state could instruct them how to vote. they were sort of like ambassadors to the u.n., they did what they were told if they got paid. that is the only sense of a central government, a league of friendship among sovereignty. >> did they call in states of the time? mr. larson: yes. the state was sovereign, states could rates taxes but congress couldn't tell the states to do anything. they couldn't raise taxes at all, and they couldn't put a protective tariff. when we became independent we were not under the protection of britain, so all the foreign againsts raise tariffs our goods. we cannot export our goods there. -- well,d a tariff each individual state could impose a tariff. towe couldn't force them lower their tariffs. the result was that was causing a recession, probably even worse, a depression. all of our goals and currency was flowing overseas. we couldn't export anything. to thelped contribute real chaos in the country. these lower-level majors and captains were going to rise up, awesomely -- possibly in accord with the second ranking general who had won the battle of saratoga. he was also in newburgh. they call for a meeting. we know they were in some sort of allegiance with hamilton and the two more misses -- morris is ises.rr they wanted to raise money to rise up against the central government. >> was there a judiciary of any kind? mr. larson: no. it was like the u.n., one house. how long -- >> how long had that government been together? mr. larson: the government came together in 1781, but it was similar to the second continental congress, which had drafted the articles and was simply waiting for the last state, maryland, to approve. basicallysaid it was 1781 and 1783's were you start getting into george washington. mr. larson: especially in this new book, and 81 -- to 1787ty talks from 81 in may. and let's catch everybody up on your background. where are you full-time now? mr. larson: i had a pepperdine university -- am at pepperdine university. it's a tough duty. >> somebody has to do it. where did you go to college? williamsn: i went to >> college. >> masters, phd? larson: i have my phd and masters from williams. did you expect to win a pulitzer? no, it was a surprise. one of my colleagues said larson, you may not be shocked, but you will be dumbfounded. i want to go back to this one quote from washington that seems relevant today. he said, "my fear is that if the people -- the people are not yet sufficiently misled to retract from error." it was a populist division. many people got advantages under the articles of the confederation and as theyngton repeatedly said, had popular democracy and that had no checks and balances. they had a one half legislator that ruled everything -- legislature that ruled everything, like rhode island. for short-term gain or their own overshadow liberty. he always believed that revolution was not fought for democracy, but for liberty. it was fought for individual part of individual liberty as property rights. things likee saw people taking away freedom of religion and wiping out personal property. that is what spawned majoritarian democracy, without checks and balances. not small republican rule, but a n rule, can- jacoba they were making analogies to go along with what was happening in france. that is what he was hoping the constitution could revert. he would be using that allusion by the time the process was over. >> what about a philosophical statement? you have people who say that today, if it is not broken it won't fix -- why fix it? this is washington back in 1785. "my fear is that the people are not sufficiently misled yet to retract from error." that was when he was debating to go to the second continental congress. dr. larson: he was debating on whether or not where to go, and he said i'm not going into we have something like this. , and james new york madison. he said what can we do? i will not go there if i have a limited political capital. if i go off to philadelphia, this constitutional convention, which has been called to only write the articles of confederation and that is not good enough. the problem is that all 13 states need to ratify an amendment. and he knew that that would not happen. he couldn't get rhode island and probably not new york. because of the limitations, he said we have to do in an not do what we are told -- go in and not do what we are told, take over the convention. people aren't going to buy it yet, most of them state leaders, and most of them are at home because he was still in virginia. he felt that patrick henry was the most dangerous person in the country. he said that for their own personal gain, to gain power. patrick henry was willing to split up the south into a separate confederation as their leader. careid, these people don't as much. they are not committed in the same way to our small, republican rule. liberty, protecting private property. we need to come down with a plan. jay, andto knox, it -- madison. and he executed and delivered things, was not an idea person. they asked -- he asked what they could draft, and this is what they sent back. we need three houses, separation of powers -- they didn't call it that. aght to house legislature -- two house legislator, separation of government. said i these over, and now have a plan. he was a general, he's not going into war without a plan that would work. in his own hand, he rewrote those plans. he rewrote them and puts them together into a single plan that became his working draft of what the constitution would be. what he wanted was a central government that needed to have power over congress, a one so we can grow for all of us and are not tried to cut each other's throat. we need to have individuals who can raise revenue and tax for , andeneral welfare national power over the military. back then you had a central army, and the constitution ends of giving the president power over all the state militias but also allows for a national military. he had written his earlier in the police time -- peace time war establishment. the native americans were moving back in. they had conquered half of georgia by this time. the indians were pushing back in. back becauseget the native americans stopped him. he thought the future of america becausehe last -- west of property, expansion, and opportunity for a common people, and investments. so those powers and powers over international powers. power over commerce, power over military, power over the ability to command individuals directly when it is a matter of general concern, and the power to take taxes to spend for the general welfare. that is the simple definitions of the following. >> what about the nationalist? dr. larson: the nationalist is the one who wanted to create a nation out of 13 states. he was also a federalist, and came to appreciate things that could be less in a state. >> what does it mean to be a federalist? dr. larson: what he meant by nationalist, in the virginia plan we saw the first signs of him saying we are creating a national government. we are creating ties in the nation. that's how he understood it. as a federalist, you can say there is some sort of script to script for sovereignty, but as a nationalist he wanted ultimate sovereignty. that ultimate sovereignty rests at the national level. >> so, would you have called him a federalist? dr. larson: he would have called himself a nationalist, he did, until after the constitution was drafted. they adopted the word for themselves, federalist. politically more effective term. it was also justifiable because the changes they made, instead of being the original virginia plan, which gave power to the national government, constitution is drafted and limits the national government. it only has enumerated powers. >> what does that mean? dr. larson: they only had power over the things that were listed. war power, power over interstate commerce and international commerce, all the things washington wanted that were ,umeral rated -- enumerated wanted.hat he federalist power is limitless. hamilton wanted. >> did anyone walk around in those days saying, what if i'm not a federalist? dr. larson: oh yes. >> did they call themselves anti-federalist? yes.arson: it was immediately excepted. by the later ratification debates when virginia was , they weretification calling themselves anti-federalist at that time. 72you write that there were -- 73 delegates to the constitutional convention. 55 attended, 30 nine signed, and only two, washington and madison, attended every session. dr. larson: that's correct. >> your state was only representative you had a majority of appointed delegates. that's true. new york was accepted for a while but the two anti-federalists left. this isted out, saying gone haywire. they only left hamilton, who couldn't vote anymore. he lost representation. thehad states, and go, so way it works of the rules is if you had any resolution in the , the provision would pass if you had a majority of the states interest. pass 5-4,- some would or 6-5 just due to the lack of a position between states. patrick henry had been elected, but thought it would be a disaster. he was saying, they can't do anything anyway. he didn't even go even though he had been elected. he was a leading anti-federalist. the other one would be a longtime governor of new york. longtime friend of george washington, long term, powerful governor. he ends up being one of the candidates for vice president against john adams, and becomes vice president under jefferson and madison. the leadprobably be anti-federalist and patrick henry would be a close second. at the convention, the ones that ended up -- yates was for new york, or luther martin from maryland? people left in frustration, they would be anti-federalist. george mason because something of an anti-federalist by the end. you have some people there. anderry and george mason, evan roanoke did not sign? dr. larson: that's right. >> what was the main reason they didn't sign? dr. larson: they all had their own reasons. the one thing they had in common was there was no bill of rights. they thought the state's government, the constitution should have a bill of rights. there were also concerned the presidency was too powerful. george mason would be strong on that view. he said he wanted a committee of ehree, like republican roma had to represent different regions of the country. you had that problem, there were a variety of other problems. they didn't like how the senate was organized. , i forgotl of them a necessaryg one, and proper clause. when the enumerated powers of the central government, like inner-city colors and war power, -- commerce and war power, there were a few of them. this was not even the original list randolph proposed. wilson snuck in the added one. they said, that's everything. included in what is necessary and improper. they anticipated a major problem, so if you went to the ratifying convention that had major opposition, such as massachusetts, new hampshire, north carolina, virginia, and new york, where it flew apart. they would have ousted it if it had not passed in many other states. the two big issues were the lack of a bill of rights and the necessary and proper clause. >> what is that mean? dr. larson: washington through people together. he was not a great public order, but he was a great writer -- or , but he was orator a writer. he was always meeting people, having dinner, making compromises. teeth, these terrible ivory, human teeth, different dentures. none of them quite work. he could not annunciator speak loudly, or give a good speech. he would also sit back and listen, and find out how these pieces worked together. he knew some people were more clever than he was. hamilton, madison, many others. he would listen to their ideas but his wisdom is in the sense of what would work. he would put the pieces together and meet with them separately. one thing i found interestingly was that there were a few key moments when a major compromise was offered. one, like were the states would agree -- the original plan had the senate elected by the house. to pick theet senate. compromise.5 whenever a major compromise breaks a deadlock, washington is presiding officer. he calls on that person first and invariably, was with them the night before. he knows what is happening. he knows what copper rise he had either helped to work out -- compromise he had helped work out or knew was there, then he would give them a call to get the convention going again. several times, it was on the verge of collapse. >> at philadelphia for the constitutional convention, where did he live? dr. larson: he lived at robert morris's house. he had been the financier of the revolution. he would be elected as senator from pennsylvania. here's repeatedly the richest person in the colonies -- he was reputedly the richest person in the colonies, the richest merson -- merchant. there were landowners and plantation owners. but he was a very wealthy merchant, and had what was considered the finest mansion in the whole state. washington came up thinking he was going to stay in a boarding house for the night, but morris said, no, you're staying with me. live in thisould magnificent house with carriages, servants, and slaves with him. he stayed in the house, but what he didn't do, and he could have dined there all the time. most of the delegates were crowded into boarding houses. they would be two to a room, three to a room. it would eat and a common dining hall -- they would eat in a common dining hall for the boarding houses. and washington, most of the time, would go out and have supper with them, the group of delegates so he could talk with them. a typical afternoon was, they met six days a week, and they would go off to a t at some and some high society thing. andington loved tea dancing, and being with the ladies. the delegates had a chance to calm and talk. come and talk. for dinners he would eat with the delegates of the boarding house and talk. and in the evening there was some kind of play, and he would never miss it. >> where? what did he wear? mostlyson: he dressed formally. he workloads that were formally made out of english -- more coal lothes that were formally made out of english linens, and cared very much about how he looked and dressed very carefully. he did not have a wake, -- wig, whatever people say, but he did powder his hair. he had long hair and wore it powdered. >> what about when people heard him speak? dr. larson dr. larson: you can only speak when you are called on. notesiding officer does matters.substantive it's not that he is not running the show, he just does not speak on these matters. that is what washington did. but he did make some exceptions that were interesting. one exception he made was there was secret see -- secrecy, absolute secrecy of proceedings. they knew if word got out, they had gone beyond the rule. the rule said right the articles the articlesrite of the confederation that all states have to agree to. their that -- there oft it would work if nine the 13 states approved. washington pushed to have seven. and it worked. what's amazing about it is even the minimum, this is even when the anti-federalists such as , went back to new york, he still didn't tell. .he press never knew the press thinks this is the biggest thing happening before this happening. the press was all over this. town, newspapers in every and they all wanted a scoop. and no one had a clue. reports, and everyone was crazily wrong. convention hadhe second to call and the the second son of king george to be the king. wassaid that rhode island thrown out completely. there was an early draft of the constitution, and one of the custodians -- everyone was given a copy. everyone was sworn to secrecy. anteroom it was brought to washington. back, theall came said,nt was taken and this is your documents. left this outside. .ome up and get it he threw down on the floor, and one of the delegates from georgia literally ran back to his room to make sure it was still there. did anyone figure it out? dr. larson: no, no one ever claimed it. the other time was after they had voted to approve the documents. some antifederalists had minor concerns, and he proposed an the document was drafted, saying it would have a bigger house of representatives was the only one. you mention in your book at painting by howard chandler christy, this is from 1940? dr. larson: it was commissioned during the depression, yes. >> i found a variation on this website, teachi ngamericanhistory.org. willan see the site and we show the painting. they go inside, they have background of each individual. what are you talk about this together -- why don't you talk about this particular session? dr. larson: the session was closed. there were no reporters, painters, anyone inside. the shutters you see open in the curtains pulled up were all closed. this is a classic ceremonial painting, commissioned during the depression. it hangs in the house of representatives in washington dc here. he takes all the people and composes it in a glorious, celebratory scene. i have finished talking about what happened. paintingi say, this was painted to capture how people envisioned it, so it makes washington and franklin at center. they choose to make it that way. that's how people thought it was. if you went back and follow it be washingtonuld at the center but then you would see people like hamilton and madison playing major roles. but the way it is presented to the public if you read all the papers afterward, the two national heroes are washington and franklin. and they are presented as the people who produced it. the public thinks, it was written by washington and franklin. -- poetsthat puts franklin right in the center with everyone crowded around him, washington is silent while franklin is talking, always talking. people are coming around him to sign and of course, nobody knows what it looked like. an accurate picture, because first, the windows are open and they are actually said -- shut. has a sort of halo, and he arrested out everyone who didn't sign it. even though mason, randolph, others were there, they are not in the picture. some had gone home because the signing was the following week. celebrate and to capture what people thought happened. just asit is often important of what people thought happened, what the public thinks , then what actually happened, i have used that painting to first describe what actually happened from as best we can tell from the notes and letters we have. there are many people besides madison that took notes. i also wanted to capture with the american people thought happened. to do that, i used newspapers, letters to the outside, because it is what people thought. what is important about the constitution? it was written and ratified by the people. really, legally, is the important part is ratified by the people. >> i want to make sure that those who were interested can get the address of that website. there are 50 documents on their bears --from early years. it is called teach ingamericanhistory.org. and they spoke from a former congressman from ohio? dr. larson: i was born in his district. i would actually sit on his shoulders as a child, watching parades go by. father waswas -- my close to him, we lived in the neighboring county. >> and he died young. dr. larson: he did. he was running for seven. >> -- senate. >> do we know what happened? dr. larson: no. they actually had an autopsy done, since he was running for senate. he had a major following, was a major conservative leader, like paul ryan is today. he was a young conservative leader, wealthy conservative from around the country. -- country were very loyal to him and thought very highly of him. they wanted to celebrate him, and his colleges located in the city -- college is located in the university -- city where he lived. >> i want to go back to the beginning and how this all started. how did you become this fellow? what was the full title of your fellowship at mount vernon? dr. larson: i was a library fellow, they created the presidential library and decided locals resident fellows, at the beginning, and i was the first one to move in and be a resident. >> how did you do it? dr. larson: i was selected. there was a committee of scholars, led by glenn meyer from m.i.t.. what i was doing as i had previously written a book about 1800, and that got me into the issue of jefferson and adams. even appears in that because he lived into the early part of that election. i had written that and that captured the establishment of partisanship. notes,have madison's edited, with another professor. they can be used in classrooms and it is widely used. i had done the constitution and the 1800 election, and what i wanted to do was fill out the story of the founding of our government and the constitution. story, bylling this washington at center stage. he is left out of the story, even in that other book. i thought i could tell the story in a different way by bringing washington to the center of the story. we hear these names all the time about people who write these experiences. first off, the man who started fedex, i have him making a speech about washington, and you have any idea how much money he gave to the library? dr. larson: a lot. a lot more than i have. i wish i did, but i don't know. we are told that the president envisioned a structure for his documents here on the grounds of mount vernon. unfortunately, he was unable to complete the project before his death. today, nearly 214 years after his passing, we are able to celebrate the opening of his library. if you are here today, i believe that he would be pleased with the completion of his dream. it is the testament to his legacy, that all this was accomplished without any financial help. have some video talking about pratt smith and the fellowship, do you have day when the library opened? opened when i was moved in, which i think is august of 2013? it is a private enterprise that was started in the 1850's by a plantationdies, the had been owned in the family up until that time. they saw the civil war coming to wanted a symbol of unity, buy mount vernon and make it a public home. they bought it, restored it, restoringrting it -- it. they still operate, the mount vernon ladies association. be up to 50 women, but they are usually in their 30's. regions, theyuple have tried to move beyond just a museum piece and home. they have gone to working farms, rebuilt the distillery, gone through archives, rebuilt the library. it can be more than just a place where a person can go and celebrate washington, but can also go and study. >> there are lots of people who have made lots of money to give a lot of that to history. have you ever talked about why people are interested in doing this? dr. larson: he was interested in washington, because he was a leader in washington was a leader. he admired what he had created and wanted that memory preserved. >> what you have seen on this gaines, a woman, ms. played a large role in this. dr. larson: she served as one of these women who run the place. forceful as any, and more forceful than most. pushing this idea of, let's make this more open. people, let'st to bring washington -- not keep him in mount vernon -- let's bring washington to the people, because he has lessons for all of us. she pushed for having educational programs that go out to the people. >> what about the fellowship program? dr. larson: the fellowship was done with funds raised through the library, the endowment for the library. there are long list of people in addition to fred smith who gave to the library. they raise money to support the fellowship and one .as a series of lectures they have been bringing in lecturers, and after my book came out i was chosen to be one of them. andll give three lectures, this book that just came out, "george washington, nationalist ," is part of the lecturers but includes those three. andhank you all, congratulations to everyone on the remarkable achievement that will enable millions of visitors to discover the real george washington. dr. larson: one thing i would say about gay is that she not only contributed much of her own money, she raised a lot of money. to pick people to be on a board of a great college, or the red cross. you have to raise money from people. the amount of money that is attributable to her, she raise, is really striking. -- whoone of many to raw vision to- bring this out, and now it has national recognition. been supporteds and a gift from mr. and mrs. lewis lehrman. in america, unlike european countries, documents rarely leave the hands of families, but they do not exhibit these. they rarely leave the hands of scholars or students. the point of these collections is to get all of these documents, manuscripts, treaties , things that shaped america from the colonial. to the present. you get them into a place where they can be of service to american students and teachers, americans from all lost of white -- walks of life. did he talk to the governor about why he wanted to underwrite this? dr. larson: the head of the library talked to him, but i know i talk to him before. his commitment is, again, about leadership, democracy, liberty. washington's values are out there, because he is still a model for all of us. there are others like franklin and lincoln, but he is one in a presidential library, and is one of the reasons we have national libraries for recent presidents. misses is from your mentor williams college? dr. larson: he was my mentor, and the might -- he piqued my interest in presidential studies. i came from a small town in ohio. rural ohio, and here i walked into williams college and there was a scholar who created a whole way to study leadership. he was renowned for that. he was a great author, and had a broad sense of what leadership meant. i have the forces -- had the fortune to take classes with him. there was a point in the aboutiew where i asked james macgregor burns, and you being from williams, how did you meet professor burns? >> our mailboxes were next to each other for many years, so we would they hello. jim was freethat and divorced, i pounced. [laughter] why did susan dunn endorse your book, did you know her? kind of.n: she was contacted. we were not in any of the games lectures-- gaines together, but there were several where theyevents call together special sessions for him. susan would be there and i would be there. maybe a few others. i saw her repeatedly, and she had read my 1800 election book. she also had a book on the election, very different, different goal, different object. when mine came out, she loved mine, too. she reconnected then and we talked a little bit. when jim died we had some events together, and after she read my book she loved it. when this shorter virgin came version came down, she said she wanted to endorse it. ask you about you and hazel darling, the underwriter of your chair at pepperdine. 10 seconds on that? dr. larson: they were donors to they areibraries, and now run by rick stack. he has these resources and give them out to support legal education in california. >> you understand george washington would be impressed by the people who spend money on history all these years later. our guest is edward larson, a professor at pepperdine college. his latest book is "george washington, nationalist," thank you very much. dr. larson: thank you. ♪ for free cram strips -- transcripts or to give us your const -- comments about this -span.org.isit us at c [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] q&af you liked this program, there might be more you might enjoy. there is also lewis lehrman, who discusses the collection of historical documents to modern times. and one taking an in-depth look into the men responsible for drafting the u.s. constitution. you can watch these interviews online at www.c-span.org. >> monday night on the communicators. hope it will come with a requirement or framework for putting data into a central repository where people can have access to it and searched not only on an individual item by item basis but scale basis because we run two point 5 million songs through it and we will get more and more everyday. facinge odland issues congress and the music industry over digital music services including copyright lifel -- laws. he is interviewed by the technology reporter for politico. tickets, and keep other fans out of the market for tickets. what we are finding is that some fans really want to see a concert and they can mash the buttons all day long but you cannot beat a bought. bot.at a they are left with only the opportunity of buying those tickets on the secondary market after the bot has bought them and passed them on to promoters. communicators." >> coming up next, prime minister's questions at the british house of commons. a discussion on the traditional libraries and then another chance to see "q&a," with edward larson. time this past week, british prime minister theresa may was asked about the u.k. economy, housing, and funding for transportation projects. she also responded to a series of questions from labor party leader jeremy corbyn about the u.k.'s national health service. this is 35 minutes. >> thank you mr. speaker. enterprise and citizens advice and found that apply.s did not a major barrier to obligation, and the 4% collection fee had a serious impact on family budgets. pm may: the issue is making sure that they pay for children is one that has been a long-standing question which this house has addressed. there have been various ways of dealing with it through the agency that has been responsible. i think it is right the changes introduced are on a more level basis and more people are able to access the support they need as a result. >> daniel. >> the government is rightly focused on economic growth, jobs, and prosperity, something all of us can get behind. backthat in mind, will she our highly competitive bid for the northwest relief road which will not only deal with the congestion, but dovetail into that narrative. can ithink -- pm may: khink you for raising -- than you for raising this? has put in aches bid for visibility funding so they can prepare a business for it. what i can say is the for feasibility funding is expected very shortly indeed. >> jeremy corbyn. >> hear! >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. corbyn: when he calls this process a mess, where is he wrong?