i know he is looking forward to adding that time away. going to bek we are showing the film here anytime soon, but i would not rule it out necessarily in the future. >> i missed your briefing yesterday, so if this is well how will we know in six months, in a year, at 18 months, whether the president's overtures to cuba have worked based on your own internal guidelines and criteria? are there concrete deliverables? can i look out of -- can i look at the news out of cuba and say they let those prisoners stay and continue their activities? the resortreed up workers in results that cater to western tourist? are there things i can look at in here and have to make that judgment? >> the first thing i will point the president acknowledged pretty directly we are not going to see changes overnight in cuba. socialypes of water changes take time. we certainly should have seen a lot more progress over the last 53 or 54 years since the embargo was put in place. that is a reflection of the fact that policy failed. that is why the president is advocating a different approach that focuses on empowering the cuban people to take more control of their daily lives and that kinds ofct political and social and economic changes they would like to see in their own country. ultimately, it should be their own decision. i think it would be appropriate progress of the castro regime when it comes to respecting basic human rights by watching how they treat political prisoners, particularly those who have recently been granted their release. that the talk president mentioned yesterday of the cuban government taking steps that would allow their citizens greater access to the internet and greater access to that hasof information succeeded in empowering citizens and individuals to take greater control of their own lives. we saw specific commitments from the castro regime to engage in the international community and with red cross, engagement and cooperation with those institutions that champion human rights would be another legitimate way to evaluate their progress. the other thing i'm confident to president would be quick point out and maybe you will have the opportunity to pro him on this tomorrow -- when we see this kind of change that does not occur in a straight line, we could see two steps forward and another step back. what we are looking at is over the longer term and we certainly anticipate that because of the strategy change how will see the cuban people become more empowered and we will see u.s. policy toward cuba will no longer be a distraction and our partners and allies in the western hemisphere who have previously come to us complaining about our policy mored cuba can now spend time talking to us about the cuban government's policy toward its own evil. that would shine a light of the situation of the pressure on the castro regime to protect and advance the basic human values we have long championed in this country. >> would you argue the same thing happened in china and vietnam? think there is a clearer story to be told about vietnam, that the progress they have made has been important. certainly not complete and certainly not along a straight line, but we continue to believe the economic progress we have seen in vietnam will lead to the kind of medical and social progress that we have seen. this should be about the people of an individual country realizing their aspirations and having some way over how their country and society is run. it is the philosophy of this administration as it has been, greater engagement and deeper economic ties facilitate the kinds of economic changes that often lead to the political and social changes we believe are important. >> i know you think they will do it, but i'm wondering has that happened? there are people who are probably better equipped to evaluate this than i am. i will let someone else pass judgment on that will stop i believe the president's strategy is clearly in our national security interest. i do think it serves to put more pressure on the chinese leadership to respect those basic universal human rights. there was extensive coverage and debate -- >> we will leave this briefing here. president obama will hold his year and news reefing and we will have coverage of that tomorrow on the c-span networks. iswill -- on your screen secretary ernest moniz, the director of the energy agency will join him to talk to energy policy. this is hosted by the bipartisan policy center and is just getting underway. >> i will say a few words to maybe open this up in terms of a few things we are doing and look forward to hearing maria's reservation. the iea -- i think you are all familiar with, and organization the time ofrn in energy security concerns around oil. inremains extremely engaged the energy security discussion but now is a much broader discussion than it was for decades ago. i will say a few words about that and i'm sure maria will touch on that theme as well. all know about the enormous changes we have had not only in the for decades but in the six years the last in-depth review was carried out. i'm not going to try to review al of those but let me say few words about what are clearly some of the priorities of the administration and the department of energy. first, let me say a few words on climate policy. of the president's and in a we talk often quite committed way about pursuing and all of the above approach which means making the investments to enable all fuels, all pathways to be part of a low carbon future. that is certainly what we are doing and most recently, the big ins was a joint announcement china which you are all aware of, the united states committing to a pretty ambitious target of 26% to 28% reduction by 2025 and jungle -- and china putting forward what is also an ambitious plan. i want to emphasize one major abouts their statement peaking co2 in the 2030 timeframe. that is extremely significant in terms of the commitment of the chinese government to pursuing a carbon strategy to clearly take responsibility to be part of the solution. i want to call attention to the other part of the initial commitment they made, the one about 20% nonfossil energy. you start working the numbers on that and it is very ambitious. year or yearawatt of energy production equivalently. a gigawatt a week to 2030. if you put in reasonable capacity factors, that is every nuclear, towatt of get lots of hydro, two and half gigawatts of wind, five gigawatts of solar every month to 2030. i think this really was ambitious and then when you add the eu's commitment and their think wet to 2030, i have an optimism in terms of what we can move the bar forward. -- move the ball forward. -- weook some steps always want some more, but i think we have a good foundation and one ofd to paris the things maria and i have discussed is the critical role of continued technology evolution, specifically continued cost reduction of toan energy alternatives address the issues and frankly encourage policymakers to be aggressive in the path forward. we will continue to keep that focus on technology, on cost reduction, and we will do so in looking across the board in terms of fuels and technologies. let me say a few words about energy security. i mentioned that earlier. i will talk about one of the specific initiatives we are engaged in with the iaea and european commission. clearly stimulated by the ukraine -- russia situation, the , with directu support and collaboration from the iaea started a process energy security and coming pretty rapidly to the don'tsion -- perhaps we say it enough, that energy security is a collective responsibility among allies and friends as opposed to a purely national activity. with our dramatically increased oil and gas production -- a 26% increase in oil, we are talking pretty big numbers. with our enormous gas supplies, we should not be complacent and thinking somehow energy security is not something in which we have a stake. we remain coupled to the global oil price, but secondly, the energy insecurity of any of our allies and friends is an issue for us. and ofthought was in itself an important focal point of a new discussion around energy security. , none of this is perhaps new but putting it notther, energy security is the discussion of the time when iaea was founded with the first oil embargo. , it involves diversification of supplies and supply routes. europe, the discussion is principally focused around natural gas as opposed to oil, but it is a broader statement. development of competitive transparent markets is an important part of energy security. addressing climate change because of what it inherently involves is a part of energy security. enhancing energy security is a part of energy security by working on the demand side. improving infrastructure resilience is an important part of energy security and i will come back to that. emergency place response systems, including one of the main functions of the iaea, taking account of the importance of fuel substitution, all of these are elements of energy security. what we are doing our case is a charge coming from the g7 viewed in a much more expensive context with europe, with partners and other parts of the world like japan, for example. eu in someof the cases. we need to take an integrated view and that is what we are doing as we are putting together a roadmap for what would be the medium to long-term directions that we need to plan toward as secure for a clean and energy future. we've already discussed with majorspecifically a effort around the gas markets and that is something we will be integrating in to our energy security work. a third element i would like to -- this monday, we have of theteral meeting ministers of canada, the united states, and mexico. it was the first time such a trilateral meeting had taken place in seven years. said about the six years since last in-depth review, these seven years have changed the energy world completely and it was certainly passed time for our three countries to get together. first of all, it was an extremely positive meeting. among the specific initiatives youed to enshrined in an mo is that we will have an effort on our side led by the eia to data integration for north america. have a, we just don't very good handle a lot of the eta. good maps that look at the energy infrastructure and with the very impressive energy reform going we expect not only on our northern border but our southern border to see more of that. redford fromr. canada and i were very impressed by the description -- i would even use the word is taking scope and ambition of their reform plan. this is going to be very exciting and one of the first is to get a common integrated data approach that would be complemented by looking more specifically at the issues of resilient infrastructure across our country's. be any, my last word will update. some of you have heard this on the quadrennial energy review. this was charged by the president in january but mentioned in the climate action plan of june 2013. essence, the goal is to integrate the equities and concerns and capabilities of agencies across the entire government with equities and our energy policy. that list of those with equities in energy is practically the entire administration. chairmanship,use the department of energy functions as the executive secretariat. it's a major effort to integrate all of these threads. this year, to get going, we have no problem saying a four-year process could be a series of one year processes. for the first year, we are focusing on energy infrastructure, transmission, storage and distribution of energy. will be coming out at the end of january, but just to give a little flavor, we are optimistic it will be consequential as to how we pursue and integrated energy approach and how we perceive a coherent discussion between the administration and congress in terms of the energy future. while we have a focus specifically on energy infrastructure, the fact is what we have found our in our miss issues to do with associated infrastructures like rail, waterways, big challenges. certainly, the waterway challenges and getting stuff into the water has a challenge and dimension i personally have until we wentd through this data exercise and analysis. we will be posting some of these papers very soon. looking at the natural gas atrastructure, we have found the macro scale, the challenge is not as great as we had and this will give you a tiny flavor of what will be a our currentaround infrastructure and what we need 21st century a infrastructure going forward. that gives you a little flavor. over to to turn it maria to give us our report card. [applause] >> thank you very much. you andlike to thank the assistant secretary. you and i would like to thank the bipartisan committee for hosting us. just today, we are here to present the findings of our energy policy in the united states. it is true that development in the united states energy sector in recent years have sustainability and economic competitiveness. other challenges remain and there is much to be discussed from the renaissance of the oil and gas industry to research and development and the main focus of our work, the long-term sustainability of the electricity sector. we all know and it's good you mentioned a number of things that are already looking forward , long-term sustainability requires clarity and this means effective national policies to encourage investment, create renewables and a common understanding of the future of nuclear power. this is something i will return to when i present our recommendations. but first let's have a look at what has changed. six years ago, when the last review was published, we said the united states needed a more consistent national level energy policy. was ane days, there absence on the federal level and as such, we recommended the united states pursue close coordination between congress, he, and government. to a large consent, these concerns are being addressed not only by the introduction of the quadrennial energy review that by the climate action plan. the united states has undergone other significant changes since that time. the most obvious thing is the surge in oil and gas production. gas production has just a game changer for the north american market. both within and outside the energy industry, energy security has been strengthened over the past six years. as already mentioned, we were the 1974n response to oil crisis and our initial role was to help countries coordinate supply for oilil stocks to the market. maintaining stocks equal to 247 days of net imports. as well as product service and the northeast home heating oil service. has enjoyed ary renaissance over the past six years as a result in production and that was a boom that was expected to continue if prices remained at levels since seen earlier this year. but you have seen oil prices continue to plunge into november and december. oil production remains unchanged at current prices. price drops continue, there will be an impact on production as marginal products could become economical. pullback ins a drilling that might be required, most notably as a backup formation. feature of theg energy landscape has been the unexpected rise in shale gas production. impact gasues will shale production. on average, higher prices will be required to offset for the loss of revenues in many formations. accordingly, we expect lower oil prices to feed into higher gas prices. this scale and size of the adjustment is dependent on the actual level of oil prices and the consistency of the lower price. the united states has moved gas to from oil and being a possible energy exporter. the countries on the path to becoming one of the world's largest energy suppliers. this can only be a good thing. hire u.s. natural gas prices prices mighter gas reduce lower projects and cost control will prove critical for the lng sector. despite this boom and gas reduction, it is cold that remains the largest source of energy. thisheless, we have seen decline as the sector switches to cleaner natural gas and climate plans and environmental recommendations will give way to the core capacity. bia he foresees more than 250 gigawatts of core capacity remaining at the end of the decade. let's have a look at the power sector. i know there has been increased coordination between congress and the ministration, and state governments, but there are still bridges to be built. china's policy remains unsettled, a disputed energy of energy policy between the executive and legislative ranches of government. last weekend i was encouraged by the level of engagement, but we all know words are worth nothing without action. in this regard, there's a great opportunity for the united states along with china and other emerging economies to take a leadership role and drive for real action when the world meets in paris. the recent u.s. and china joint announcement on cooperation would together account for one third of global greenhouse emissions. we need real policies that build on such pronouncements. the climate action plan released in june 2013 proposes the use of executive powers on existing laws to take on harmful admissions. the epa has also proposed a clean power plan to cut emissions from the power plant and has proposed goals and guidelines for states to follow developing plans to achieve state specific goals. these are exactly the kinds of plans that will see political commitments effectively realized. you mentioned energy efficiency and renewables. of steak has made progress reducing energy consumption. the united states has achieved a large improvement in recent decades. albeit from relatively high levels for appliances, equipment and new buildings. since 2008, over one million low income homes have improved the efficiency for less well off emily's. the recovery act of 2009 provided more than 12 million -- 12 billion u.s. dollars in energy efficiency for low income homes, public buildings and research and along with more than 20 billion u.s. dollars in modernizing buildings, green jobs and electric technology. energy efficiency codes are projected to produce more than 30% improvement in the energy efficiency of new homes and buildings when compared to the 2006 building codes and standards. progress has also been seen on renewables. the united states has set a goal to double renewable energy production by 2020 compared to 2012. explicitthere is no policy mechanism to make sure the country reaches this start. , the federal government has imported fiscal mechanisms and mandates among other tools to support renewable deployments. yes, the durability of some incentives such as the tax credit remains a persistent uncertainty. and yet another extension undermines investor confidence and follows the path -- and a lack of timely clarity under renewable fuel standards has created difficulty with renewable transport fuels. this lack of long-term policy durability creates a challenge for investment in new projects that has to be addressed. a more balanced approach would extend a fixed time of five years while gradually reducing the level 20 on a permanent basis. this would provide greater investor certainty and spur cost reductions. let me have a look at the transport sector. the largest oil consumer, new regulations have been introduced to reduce energy consumption. federal agents finalize the program to improve the fuel economy of cars and trucks sold in the united states. more fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles model years 2012 and 2017 have been established alongside standards for heavy duty vehicles manufactured during 2014 at 2018. these have been significant accomplishments. fact, these vehicle fuel economy standards are projected 3.6 billion barrels of oil on light duty vehicles and heavy duty vehicles built between 2014 and 2018. all is equivalent to almost equivalents of 2012. put it another way, these policies result in a fuel economy trajectory from 2014 roughly parallel to the improvements in the eu, japan and china, albeit from a much lower starting point will stop and the drop in oil prices -- it will inevitably lead to more driving. these serve to significantly lessen the impact of that. in addition, the united states is the largest electric vehicle market in the world and home to approximately 43% of all electric vehicle sold worldwide today. vehicle deployment is supported by the federal government through consumer incentives ranging up to 7500 u.s. dollars per vehicle as well research andl's development spent between 2008 in 2012 alone. states have taken the lead on deploying infrastructure from to re-base in maryland and the federal government sports programs such as the workplace charging employersand never of and we see here there is good cooperation. but despite this progress, electric vehicles have not broken through 1% of sales. fiscal incentives should be maintained to support this nation's market and infrastructure needs to be expanded and easier to find and use. all levels of government will need to build upon the successes to ensure the potential of electric vehicles can be met. i mention research, development and demonstration. the federal government remains one of the largest funding entities for energy technology this has played a critical role in achieving advances in all fields of energy strategic plan provides a path to achieving national energy goals and demonstrates the government's firm commitment to basic research, development demonstration and clean energy technologies. the quadrennial technology review is providing a platform to help align energy and priorities to achieve national energy goals over a five-year horizon. the government should continue to develop approaches to ensure a long-term environment which would help meet energy technology goals and avoid negative impacts on program stability. we all know the united states is rich in co2 storage and gas reservoirs. the united states is among the global leaders in research and development and demonstration. there were 19 large-scale projects in operation or in various stages of development, including eight major demonstration projects. kemper county project is an example of the scale of the challenges as well as rising capital cost facing the technology. landscape does remain unsettled. scheme is in place. in long-terms liability, some of which are being addressed by individual things like leadership. to the electricity market and resilience. that is the focus of this review. today, 10 regional transmission organizations work across a large proportion of the united states and canada. this structure has delivered many benefits such as efficient use of existing assets and electricity costs. the electricity system remains fragmented. markets,he success of electricity across the board remains difficult. the balance between consolidation of system operators and coordinators between systems as needed. this need will become more it continues to grow and greater access to balancing is required. electricity is no longer about load-balancing. and extremege weather are fundamental he the way we view energy systems. system resiliency has become a greater rarity than ever before. the combined efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience. thankfully, regulators have begun to respond to this and are providing guidance to network asset owners to enhance the resilience of the bulk power system. you can imagine that these efforts must continue. only threat to the energy system of the last two decades. threats have expanded as a result of years of alternation, i.t., telecommunication and other electronic medication devices. department of energy in collaboration with industry and other partners with the federal government has released a roadmap to achieve energy systems which features a strategy and related milestones for addressing cyber security in the energy sector. it is an example of strong leadership replicated elsewhere. of course, you need to have a look at investment. energy independence and security act of 2007 made it the policy of the united states to support the modernization of the electrical grid. , the energy outlook requirecy scenario will $2.1 million investment of 235. in addition to investing in steel, there needs to be a greater coordination between the gas line system and the extra high voltage power systems. again is the need to better cooperate -- better coordinate operations as well as market and planning rules. the policies for planning and citing, cap -- cost allocation recovery are required in order to achieve the level of transmission and fired -- required. renewablesloyment of will require access over wider geographic areas that need more interconnections. despite the advantages offered markets have grid, been slow. the market framework and regulations should encourage private sector investments in these advanced technologies and practice. we expect almost 600 gigawatts of new generation capacity will be needed for 2040. while it is up to the market to attract investment, regulation has a role. they should consider a policy .ecommendation to ensure supply this is particularly relevant in the case of nuclear power. now, to our key recommendations. the previous idr highlighted the absence of a link in policy level for security policies and recommended the united states andue closer coordination such policies. the quadrennial process is a tool that can address this. we recommend the united states complete a process leading to the quadrennial and utilizes outcomes to establish coordinated outlooks for the energy sector. the united states has within its grasp an opportunity to set itself firmly on the path of secure and sustainable energy systems and we recommend the united states trust this opportunity and address some of the weaknesses we have highlighted. to do so, we recommend supporting the development and implementation of demand-side measures and efficiency policies with an emphasis on transportation and building safety. andring greater her ability physical resent it -- fiscal incentives to maintain investor confidence and continuing to enable common gaps and storage through predictable regulatory framework. third and this concerns much of our -- the sustainability of the electricity sector. coordinate national polity -- national policies to reduce the uncertainties that beat investment in secure electricity infrastructure including transmission, distribution, smart grids, renewable energy integration and climate resilience. greater coordination between different grid operators in order to facilitate integration of greater shares of renewables and optimize regional transmission investments. including a statement of how the federal government will provide long-term support for nuclear power. thanks to, a sincere everyone who contributed and as i noted earlier, there has been great progress in the six years since our last review and i look forward to seeing greater progress after another six years. inc. you for your attention. -- thank you for your attention. [applause] >> i am the executive director of the energy project here at the bipartisan policy center. i want to recognize senator byron dorgan and b domenici have been instrumental for many decades. without their leadership, we probably would not have any number of the successes we have had over the last few decades. we appreciate you being here and love working with you. while you get your questions ready, we have a roving microphone. ,f you will tell us who you are that will help without a great deal. what a difference less than a decade makes. i only think about where we will be seven or eight years from now. we have come out of one of the worst recessions ever. this has major implications not only for what the federal government did to help out, but on the production side. other end of pennsylvania avenue, it has caused us to look at what we have done and that's a huge part that will be in the mix over the next seven or eight years. have heard the secretary say we are looking for a grade, so what do we get? a b minus? [laughter] >> i have been involved in teaching. you tell us and we do something more. we have a question right here. >> i question is for both of you -- how do you move toward new sources of energy and away from traditional sources when we have $60 oil and quite low gas prices? >> prices are a given at the moment. when you are an oil-producing country, you're quite happy about the price. that is a positive point. on the other hand, let's use this opportunity. it is an opportunity for a number of countries putting a lot of subsidies to face these fuel subsidies. we are talking about 550 billion u.s. dollars a year. this affects countries like mexico, thailand and malaysia who want to use this opportunity to at least get rid of part of their fuel subsidies will stop another thing is why not use his price --ty to put a tax --t the same as a you could make use of this situation and put a price on something. now we have an opportunity to do something like that. the third thing i would like to mention is we've done quite a lot. done a lot in energy efficiency, in fuel efficiency. in renewables. these rss that are more important. let's not forget about that. >> first of all, make it very that relatively low prices for gas in the united states are a real boon for consumers. we already see some of that affect coming in certainly -- i'm not going to attributed entirely to that but we saw a big jump up in term of job creation to well over 300,000. we start with that. it's clearly very important. obviously, with a relatively soft economy in europe, china, anything that helps to get that going would be good for the world economy. having said that, we are committed to going to a low carbon future. if you points there -- even as we practically celebrate our increased oil production and dramatically reduced oil imports, we still have a major oil importer, number one. number two, we don't take our eyes off the ball of continuing to reduce oil dependence in three ways. efficient vehicles, campaign -- cafe standards and the technology that will allow us to do that will stop next generation biofuels, for example and electrification of the eccles. it's nottually seeing a huge number but we see substantial and increasing penetration there. renewables and efficiency, we do have a large number of states that remain with strong renewable portfolio standards. that is one way of continuing the deployment. we do have and it was alluded to policies which are not economy solution area advocated for, but in different sectors like cafe standards and the proposed rules and power plants. we have a variety of mechanisms to keep pushing toward a low carbon future. finally, going back to the technology future which is absolutely central and i want to about thoset's not oil and gas prices being low, it is about driving down the cost of the alternatives. we are making tremendous progress on that across the board. but i will go to our technology focus -- maria showed the research development and demonstration for olio or at least the budget for that portfolio. that goes to addressing the challenge in one year, 20 years, 30 years to keep trying toward lower and lower and i also don't want to forget deployment. that's for addressing me much more immediate term. notloan program, you may even familiar with its scale but we have $34 billion of commitment out there. of remainingillion of atments and the chatter few years ago, we keep forgetting this is a highly successful portfolio that is getting clean energy out there big-time and we will continue that over these next year's. in deploymentt and further cost reduction even in this decade. >> thank you. i'm margaret ryan. i was very interested in integrating the electricity market. have what could be called a rather fractured electricity system with state-by-state control of the market. what you're actually recommending -- are you recommending some kind of federal, for lack of a better word, takeover or are you talking about integrating on some other level? >> i think you answered the question by yourself. it's not about taking over. that's not going to help. when i compare the united states there is a similarity. if you are not capable of having betweeninterconnection the state, three difficult to balance the grid and see to it that you can help each other when it is needed. it is difficult when you are rich in renewables to sell the board across the state will stop it's not about taking over. it's about what regulators can do and what the federal government can do. maybe it's time to have something that in core urges these corporations. meaning regional asus, a number of things. it is exactly the same. it is what europe is doing with countries having hydropower and ask boarding it to northern europe. these kinds of mechanisms are very important to solve those problems. statesrly in the united -- various boundaries that don't match physical realities, however, that is the system that we have. it's also not only the question of state regulatory authorities that need to be addressed. but they need to be addressed and that the system. also have another challenge, utilities for example -- we have so many business structures of utilities that even things like how would you structure incentives? welle tax incentives work for a class of utilities that are relevant to another class of utilities. very strong focus on state in the reason -- in the region and that's one reason we carried out 14 regional meetings going across the country on that. we firmly believe regional solutions are important. we can do some things to enable that through technology, for example through the recovery act , there was a massive push on phasers. the other thing is we need to have flexibility. the 111 d rule, flexibility to states and regions to work together is absolutely central to the construct. in the draft rule, what is opposed ultimately are sets of targets appropriate to different states realities. now you figure out a way to meet those targets and you may want to find it is more efficient to work regionally. sometimes through our convening power to enhance those solutions. 3:00 and i know the secretary has to go. let's go right here. >> mr. secretary, you mentioned your talks with your two counterparts in canada and mexico were encouraging in terms of integrating energy data. are there other energy integration projects like financing, creating a better investment clients, particularly in mexico? the moderators rule, the answer is yes. [laughter] i will add a couple of more words. the reform they are carrying out in and of themselves are critical for the investment environment. example of integration that were raised by the integrationne was in terms of emergency preparedness and response, which could be a very valuable for example, even with superstorm sandy, the canadians absolutely step forward to provide foreign assets. there were a few problems at the border. the issue for how you prepare for that, pre-position waivers. is one. another one raised by the mexican colleagues was a strong interest in working together on human capacity development. that we all need and the workforce around what would probably be much more integrated energy sector worst. >> on that note, let -- let's thank the panel. this was great. thank you for coming. >> you can see this event again including the remarks of the energy secretary on our website anytime. evening, jen -- journalist bob fee for reads -- leave the relation -- discussion on china relations. the two will offer their views about further u.s. engagement with the chinese leadership. live coverage starting at 5:30 eastern. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend. saturday night, after seth rogen discussing politics and humor with liz winstead of the harvard institute of politics. 8:00, authorg at and town hall editor katie papp what she receives as the hypocrisy of liberals. c-span2 on book tv afterwards. the top universities are missing the mark in education and students should learn lessons in how to think rid of way, be creative and have a goal beyond the material and sunday morning, book tv visits lafayette indiana to interview several of the city's authors and to her literary sites. literary sites. saturday at 6:00 eastern on the civil war, damien shields about -- talks about patrick clay burned and life in the confederate army during the battle of franklin, tennessee. sunday afternoon at 4:00, a 1974 -- on theed these by history of police brutality in neighboring oakland. find the complete schedule online and let us know we think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> under-secretary of state arms control and international security rose scott moeller says ukraine,ensions over russia continues to implement the new stark treaty. she spoke yesterday at the brookings institution about the nuclear arms control effort. >> good morning. welcome to the brookings institution. i am a senior fellow here where initiative.ms it is my pleasure today to introduce under secretary of state who will talk to us about american arms control policy. before continuing with my introduction, i would like to to thece the gratitude carnegie corporation of new york whose generous support makes programs like today's possible. when president obama took office in 2009. he set out of area just -- aggressive agenda for arms control. the course of the first year the administration recorded significant achievements. april 2010 at have find a new strategic arms introduction treaty. a nuclear posture review which role and launch nuclear security promise -- process. the president almost immediately laid out almost wore a aggressive roles. he talked about negotiations to further reduce russian and strategic forces and also to expand those to include tactical directions and also reserve strategic weapons in a way for the first time we have had the united states and russia negotiating on their entire nuclear arsenals. there was a brief time when nato and russia discuss the pop the rarity of missile tests missile defense. things have slowed since then. certainly over the past year of the crisis over ukraine but even before, it was clear on major questions of arms control, the russians had still made process on strategic forces, tack to cool nuclear weapons and missile defense. the obama administration has two years left to go and delighted to have the undersecretary to talk about what to expect. she has a long and distinguished career with u.s. government. 1990 and we were at the soviet desk of the state department. she has also served at the national security council, senior position to the department of energy him and into thousand nine, the assistant secretary for arms control verification and compliance or she let the negotiation of the new start treaty and now holds the position of under secretary of state for arms control and are international security. i should say in addition to being the government topics on arms control and security questions, the organizer of most excellent adventures. in 1994 the national security council staff and working with her on russia and ukraine questions in the state department. one day she calls to tell me, strategic demand has offered to take me to georgia to visit the submarine base in and then go down to poor canaveral. would you like to come along? is this a trick question? he then had a 2.5 days seeing preparing toay was conduct the inspections it was going to require -- required to accommodate under the new treaty , and spent eight hours on the uss maryland where we visited every compartment, drove the submarine and at one point got to look at a cited missile. this was the dream died. look forward to your conversation, and after opening remarks, we will be happy to open up the questions to audience and have a discussion. >> what steve did not mention about the day is the fondest memory i have is actually getting a drivers license for driving to maryland. that was totally addicted list, but nevertheless, something i treasure. >> this time of year is a special time of year and and delighted to see so many friends and -- in the audience. it is actually a very good moment to come to you and speak about the plans for arms arms-control agenda over the coming years. first of all, this holiday time is a very special time for the administration because so much in the disarmament arena was accomplished of this time. i remember in 2009 read after the copenhagen summit where president obama, and then president the dead dead -- mededev had very important meetings which resulted in another important meeting in january when they went to moscow with a team from across the inner agency to again press forward the progress in the negotiations. this period was very, very important. and on december 22, 2010, the new start treaty was ratified, the senate gave its advice and consent to the new start treaty. i always feel free special about this time of year for a number of reasons in our arena, in addition to the normal good fun that ensues. as all of you might know, i have been traveling quite a bit lately. i just got back from a trip to the hague to visit the opcw, continue our work on weapons issues. prague, to do a speech on our disarmament agenda going forward, and i will replay some of those points today, but also expand on them. this laid the groundwork for the following two days at the vienna conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use. all of that will be woven into what i have to say today. the third stop on his most recent trip of mine was in ukraine. i had the opportunity to go to kiev. the anniversary was the anniversary of the budapest memorandum entering into force on december 4, 1994. i had an opportunity to speak to a ukrainian audience. as you can imagine, there were sharp questions about the import of the budapest memorandum for ukraine. i will be glad to talk about that during the question and answers. it is another reason why the season of the year is a very important one. what i would like to say about ukraine in my beginning remarks is, first of all, we see a government that is focused on problem-solving and intent on moving strongly forward with the reform agenda that they have, i think, failed to fufill over so many years now. i am very hopeful after this trip to ukraine and hopeful for -- not only hopeful, but convinced of their continuing partnership in the nonproliferation treaty regime with strong commitments voiced to their non-nuclear weapons status under the npt. a very good visit in many ways. i come back here with many recent and important impressions and look forward to sharing them with you, in addition to hearing your thoughts and your questions this morning. i will say to begin with, what i said in prague. first of all, there should be no doubt the u.s. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unfailable. we will keep faith with our nonproliferation treaty article six commitments. our responsible approach to disarmament has borne fruit in the form of major reductions in nuclear weapons and nuclear infrastructure. these efforts have led us to reduce our nuclear arsenal by approximately 85% from its cold war era highs. in real numbers, that means we have gone from 31,255 nuclear weapons interactive stockpile in 1967 to 4804 in 2013. we know however, we still have work to do. 4804 nuclear weapons is still a lot of weapons. as we can consider future reductions, our focus must be on verifiable measures that all interested parties can nuclear states and on a clear states alike, can trust. our past experience, successes into supplements, will inform how we proceed each step we proceed each step building upon the last. when we take stock in the last 30 years, it is clear our path has been the right one. we have accomplished so much. if we had all been gathered together in this room for nuclear host the event at brookings in 1985, i don't think anyone in the room could have imagined or predicted how much we were able to accomplish. i was right down the road in 1985 at 21st and m street at the rand corporation and i know i would not have protected how much we have accomplished. by the way, my next-door neighbor at rand corporation was ted warner, a very good expert in our field who has passed on recently. and i know there are others among this group who miss him as much as i do, but his legacy is truly a great one and i did want to say a word in tribute to ted warner this morning because he was a great colleague and a great friend. within that decade of 1985, washington and moscow would conclude the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, the strategic arms reduction treaty start, the presidential nuclear initiative, and the purchase agreement. these various bilateral and parallel, unilateral initiatives led to an array of impressive and long reaching efforts, banning an entire class of missiles during the other weapons -- nuclear weapons, by over 11,000 weapons, drastically reducing and eliminating whole categories of tactical nuclear weapons on removing others from routine deployment and converting russian nuclear material equivalent to an astounding 20,000 nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear power plants. these efforts were followed by the strategic offensive reductions treaty, sometimes called the moscow treaty, which further reduced u.s. and russian deployed strategic forces. in 2010, the united states and russia signed the new start treaty. when it is fully implemented, new start will limit the warheads to the lowest levels since the 1950's. new start is enhancing strategic and security stabilities between the u.s. and russia. both are faithfully implementing the treaties inspection regime. even during a severe crisis with the russian federation, the russians are continuing in a businesslike way to implement the new start treaty. current tensions with the russian federation highlights durability of the verification regime and the important confidence that is provided by data exchanges and notifications, onsite inspections under the treaty, as well as security predictability provided by mutual limits off central sources that are verifiable in nature. none of these achievements good have been predicted back in 1985, nor laid out in the long term time bound process. on the contrary, it was the faithful implementation of each individual initiative that provided trust and confidence and the strategic opportunity to move ahead to the next phase. underpinning all of our efforts, stretching back decades, it has been our clear understanding of recognition of humanitarian consequences of the use of these weapons. that is the message that the united states delivered in vienna last week at the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. we appreciated hearing the testimonies and statements of the participants, including many victims of nuclear radiation contamination. while we acknowledge the views of those who call for the negotiation of a nuclear weapons ban treaty, the united states cannot and will not support efforts to pursue such a ban. we believe the practical path that we have so successfully followed in the past remains the only realistic route to our shared goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. again, it should be remembered that we share the same goal, we just have different ideas about how to process to that goal. the international community cannot ignore or wish away the obstacles confronting us that slowed the pace of progress on arms control and nonproliferation efforts. we must all acknowledge not every nation is ready or willing to pursue serious arms control and nonproliferation efforts. we are seeing new and enduring pressures on the nonproliferation treaty, pressures that threaten global stability. we're seeing nations turn away from cooperation and the common good of nonproliferation efforts, and clinging more tightly to their nuclear arsenals. as we push those nations to accept their global and ethical responsibilities, the united states will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal for the defense of our nation and our allies. this is not a stance mutually exclusive of disarming goals. it simply means it recognizes the international security environment in which we find ourselves is one which we must take account of and pursue further progress in a very difficult overarching situation. we are concious of our current obligations and responsibilities, and we are meeting them. the united states knows it has a responsibility to lead efforts toward disarmament, and i can affirm to you we will never, never relent in this pursuit. there are people here in washington and people around the world who see the landscape and say that we cannot control the spread of weapons of mass destruction or further limit nuclear stockpiles. they are wrong. it was in prague that president obama reminded us such fatalism is a deadly adversary. for if we believe that the spread of weapons is inevitable, then in some ways, we are admitting to ourselves the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. the united states cannot and will not accept this. when we failed to pursue peace, the president also said wednesday's be on forever beyond our grasp. the united states will press ahead even in the face many obstacles. while we have accomplished much over the past five years, we will continue to push forward. we have no intention of diverting from our active efforts to reduce the role in numbers of nuclear weapons, increase confidence and transparency, shrink the nonproliferation, and address complaints challenges. we will do so pursuing all of the available and practical avenues. the united states earlier this month contributed resources and experts to the successful on-site inspection exercise held by the comprehensive test ban treaty organization in jordan. the so-called ife14 field integrated exercise. such practical efforts help to ensure the international community will have an effective verification regime in place for the day when the ctbt enters into force. the united states has made clear clear we are prepared to engage with russia on the full range of issues affecting strategic stability and there are real and meaningful steps we should be taking that can contribute to a more predictable, safer, secure environment. given the u.s. and russia continue to possess over 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world, this is an important and worthy goal. in june of 2013 in berlin, president obama stated he willingness to negotiate a reduction of up to one third of our deployed strategic warheads on the level established in the new start treaty. progress requires a willing partner and conducive strategic environment, but this offer is still on the table. on the broader world stage, progress toward disarmament requires the states take greater responsibility to resolve the conflicts that give rise to proliferation dangers. it requires ending the nuclear buildup in asia that iran, join an agreement for restoring full, it is in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, and that north korea returned to compliance with its international obligations. and requires a make progress elsewhere when we can. this includes in the middle east where we will spare no effort to convene an historic conference on a zone-free of weapons of mass destruction and systems of the delivery. and thomas countryman is fully engaged in this progress -- project. as the u.s. considers arms control and nonproliferation priorities, we will continue to consult closely with our allies and partners every step of the way. our security and defense and there's is simply nonnegotiable. we are in a difficult crisis period with the russian federation. i began with that. matters include that only ukraine, but also russia's violations of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. addressing both situations is an ongoing process. with the violation, we will continue engaging the russian government to resolve u.s. concerns. our objective is for russia to return to verifiable compliance with its treaty obligations as the treaty is in our mutual security interest, and that of all countries around the globe. indeed, we need cooperation with russia and other nations to address new threats. first and foremost, the threat of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon or nuclear material. they need his cooperation for their own security as well as for the security of other countries around the globe. as i've outlined, there's no way to skip to the end of four go the hard work of solving the truly daunting technical and political nonproliferation and disarmament challenges that lie ahead. it is not enough to have a political will to pursue this agenda, we have to have a practical way to pursue this agenda. we can all acknowledge verification will becoming increasingly complex as lower numbers of nuclear weapons while -- as we lower the numbers of nuclear weapons, while requirements for accurately determining compliance will dramatically increase. everyone who shares the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons should be devoted a lot of time and energy nowadays to address this challenge. with that idea in mind, i announced in prague a new initiative, the international partnership for new greatest moment verification. the u.s. proposes to work with both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapons states to better understand the technical problems of verifying nuclear disarmament and develop solutions. the united kingdom and norway have high near this type of work. this new initiative will build on the spirit of that experiment to create a nontraditional partnership that draws on the expertise of talented individuals around the world, both in government and out of government. and in that regard, and sibley delighted the nuclear threat initiative will be a prime partner inviting intellectual energy and resources to this project. we are excited to be working with them on it, and hope to work with more of you on this initiative as well. i do hope we will have opportunities to develop an ongoing discourse as we rolled out the agenda for the initiative further and hope to hear good ideas from you, whether it is on the process side, procedural side, or on the technology side as well. we truly do want a wide range of partnership with the nongovernmental community. beyond this effort, we will continue to work with the p5 on transparency and verification. the united kingdom will hold a conference in early february in london. the regular interactions cooperation and trust building the happening now in the p5 forum is the future for negotiations. in closing, i would like to make it clear the united states has plans and we intend to see them through. at the core of our efforts is our deep understanding of the human impacts of nuclear weapons. that is why i traveled this year to the marshall islands, to hiroshima, and two times two utah to talk with those who have suffered at the use of nuclear weapons, radiation contamination, and economic problems as well. that is why the united states sent a delegation last week to the vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use. the united states understands that nuclear weapons are not a theoretical tool, they are real and any use of nuclear weapons would exact a terrible toll. no one in this country, or any country, should ever forget that. thank you very much for your attention. i look forward to our discussion period. thank you. [applause] >> first of all, thank you for the overview. let me take the moderator's approach with a couple of questions and open it to the audience. we have about an hour to grill you. the first question would be general. when you're looking at the overall u.s.-russia relationship, there has been this crisis over ukraine that has been a big shadow. you did mention despite that, the russians have worked in a corporate away in terms of implementation of new start, but you have also had a series of other exchanges. you have been to moscow. you have met with the deputy minister. how has that affected those changes? do you see an impact? >> i think, quite honestly, and there are a lot of speculations out there that things have gone severely worse since the crisis in ukraine. i would say some of the hesitation we saw from the russian federation about the disarmament agenda had merged well before the crisis over ukraine. there were concerns about -- and many of you remember there were a series of issues they said were of concern to them before they wanted to engage in further strategic arms reduction negotiations, including missile defenses come in the presence of nuclear weapons in europe, including conventional global strike -- a number of issues were out there. which i saw, essentially, a serving a blocking function to any further discussion of nuclear disarmament measures in the period immediately after new start entered into force. oh, by the way, another key russian talking point throughout that period in the run-up to the ukraine crisis was that, essentially, new start would have to be fully implemented before they would agree to proceed with any further negotiations. new start will be fully implement it on february 5, 2018. we don't have that far to go. nevertheless, i've been arguing regularly to my russian colleagues that not only is the berlin proposal and their security interest as well as ours and no country enters into an arms control treaty, including our own, unless it is international security interest. furthermore, it is the further proposal that could be implemented -- that we could implement new start and build out from that in implementing the berlin proposal. i just want to make people aware we had, i would say, hesitations and barriers in the way even before the ukraine crisis emerged. since the crane crisis emerged, the situation has been complicated by the severity of that terrible crisis. however, i would also say i think there are some interesting continuing signs out there of pragmatism and a businesslike attitude. in addition to the new start treaty, we had tremendous success with implementation of the chemical weapons project, getting 1300 tons of chemical weapons out of syria in the time between september 2013 at september 2014. at the very height of this ukraine crisis, we continue to work very successfully with moscow as well as with the u.n. task force that was assigned with an cementing this project to get those chemical weapons out of the country. there is still more work to do. we're dealing with our concerns about the capabilities that syrians and not have declared to the opcw, but nevertheless, that is a good sign. i think of a continuing business-like attitude in moscow. the third area has been one for my colleague wendy sherman, and that is the so-called p5+1 talks. they continue to help to move that agenda forward. it is an interesting mixed picture, i would say, people of asked me why i continue to be optimistic despite the negative trend lines. part of it is associated with this businesslike attitude that i have seen when the russians have clearly decided it is international security interest to continue to cooperate. >> let me ask a second question. you mentioned the russian violation of the inf treaty. shortly after the formal judgment was announced publicly, the russian said, well, we have three concerns in terms of the use of drones, targeted missiles. a question about the vertical lunchbox plan for the deployments in romania and poland. how do respond to those charges? >> first and foremost, with a clear statement that the united states remains fully in compliance with the inf treaty and furthermore, i talked about the very careful compliance assessment process we carry out, the defense department has the lead for those assessments, but nevertheless, it is with close consultation with other agencies of our government and so we say that we have a process in place and we come to careful determination and we say to the russians, don't you have such a process as well? essentially, that is part of my discourse with them, to talk about the necessity of compliance, being considered as a whole of government type of issue. i'll put it that way. i will say, also for this group, i know there's been a lot of interest in this and taking from the interest we've heard from the nongovernmental community, we're putting together a fact sheet that will provide you some unclassified information about why we clearly believe these three systems are in compliance with the inf treaty. i wish i had it to hand out today. it is still being worked. it will be available on our website, so we will make sure that is available for everybody. i am completely confident we are in compliance with our inf treaty obligations based on a very solid interagency process. >> let me open up the floor to the questions from the audience. keep it short and it should be something resembling a question mark at the end. >> good morning, madam secretary. since you are speaking about the dangers of nuclear weapons, wanted to ask you about the u.s. modernization. specifically, i want you to comment on the news article by a professor, which is about to be published in the latest issue of "the nation" magazine. so i don't distort his views, i wanted to read a few brief passages with your permission. close analysis reveals technical sophisticated effort to use nuclear forces for direct confrontation with russia. and point number two, the modernization draft is a disturbing indication the u.s. military believes a nuclear war against russia can be fought and won. >> i disagree profoundly with both of those points. and one point i have made repeatedly to my interlocutors in moscow is that we have been down this road before of an action/reaction cycle. the last thing we need now is to repeat the mistakes of the cold war. of course, if necessary, they would be in our national security interests, but we don't see them as necessary at this time. what is necessary is some judicious modernization of our nuclear forces. it is interesting, i would say the moment, there is it disconnect russia after the period of the 1990's were a lot of the russian strategic nuclear arsenal was essentially going out of its guaranteed period of service. they passed out of their service life so russians had a mass to deal with. in this first decade of the century, russia has been focusing on modernization of strategic forces and putting resources into that. the second decade of the 20th century, now underway, the united states is putting some resources into judicious modernization of our strategic forces. there is a bit of a lag time here, but i would say both moscow and washington have in making some decisions about what i consider to be judicious modernization following cold war era systems going out of their service life. >> thank you. rose, thank you for wide-ranging brief. one of the challenges out there that you mentioned is the growth of nuclear arsenals in asia. i was wondering if you could expand a little bit on that particular problem, and how your part of the administration is thinking about dealing with that long-term problem. more specifically, if you can give a sense of the quality of our discussions with the chinese on these particular issues? not just in the p5 context, but bilaterally on the question of should you took stability. >> i will say word in support of the p5 process. i remember the first meeting in london in september 2009, which i considered a proto-meeting. it was one of those meetings if you have been in government, you recognize that people exchange their talking point scripts. it is still -- stilted, to be honest. in the five years since, there has been a steady increase in the amount of true direction in these meetings and a maturation a new sophistication, i would say, in the interactions among all of the p5. i welcome -- the u.k. hosted the first proto-meeting and now returning at the end of the first cycle, to a meeting in london. i know the discussion will be very rich and interactive and actually we are, i think, putting a lot of issues on the table with regard to strategic stability. and having a chance to air them in exchange views on them at p5, which has not happened historically. i very much welcome. in terms of bilateral interaction with the chinese, i want to talk about several levels. first of all, i want to give due credit to the non-governmental community for the track one and track two discussions that have been going on with regard to china and a lot of the organizations around through have been carrying them out in one way or another. there is a lot of interesting new developments, i would say, no settings with the chinese being willing to talk about the details -- in those settings with the chinese being able to talk about verification regimes in that type of thing where they have not been willing historically to touch on those topics or simply have been in a listening mode and not willing to really come out and discuss her participate in projects. these kinds of second track activities are reflected also on the government side in particular, practical, i would say developments. a couple of weeks ago, i was there for the vip day. one of the most impressive sensors was a noble gas detector that the chinese technical teams had worked on and brought and they had a dare and were showing how it would operate for us the vip's, many of us not knowing anything technically, but it was good to see entire chinese technical team there and the respect and the regard for the technology that they had brought by the rest of the team. that was good to see on an international basis. it was also good for those of you who know of professor, they're as their vip, and one of the negotiators. to see him there, he was interacting with all of us, of course, but interacting with the technical team that was there and it was very fun and gratifying, actually. i am seeing, with china, a kind of willingness to engage that i did not see before i given to government this time in the last five years, i think, there's been a real intensification in their effort to engage both unofficially and officially with some true practical results. >> good morning. i was a little curious about the international partnership. is that something that needs funding? would that go in the fy16 budget? i was wondering when we might see results from the partnership and what kind of reception you have heard from our international partners on the partnership? >> are you talking about the global partnership? >> the international partnership for nuclear disarmament. >> verification partnership, i figure pardon. we are starting small with this. we have some particular early projects that we are engaging. we're working very, very closely with the u.k. and norway, who has the early project, as i mentioned, on war had verification. we want to emphasize and focus on warhead verification because it is something we've never tackled as a true international matter. part of the rationale is to convey to non-nuclear weapons states the complexity of this upcoming stage of the nuclear disarmament agenda. that is, monitoring and verifying reduction and elimination of warheads. and monitoring holding the warheads. it is -- has to be handled in a way that doesn't allow sensitive information to get out and continue to any proliferation threat. as a first-order business, we will be concentrating on building on the u.k.-norway experience and building out from that. i should give full credit, by the way, to some bilateral work that was done under the 1990's under the so-called warhead safety and security exchange agreement between the u.s. and russia. at that time, there were some really decent work that was done on information barriers and that type of thing. and there are other foundations that we can build on. but i don't want to limit it to this because it is a set of projects that were successful at the time, but are now over a decade old. i think we want to also look at more recent experience, such as the u.k.-norway project. >> good morning. i was wondering if there has been a date set for the next discussion with russia about inf and what that engagement would entail on the u.s. side? >> i would never, ever talk about our quite diplomatic scheduling in any detail, but i can assure you the interactions are ongoing. >> i have two questions on korea. do you see -- the prospect on the korean nuclear issue for 2015? in the region and globally? do you see the will be in a developing on the progress in that direction next year? the second question, in south korea, [indiscernible] how do see the prospect? >> first of all, with regard to north korea, we are very interested, of course, and returning -- in returning to the process of denuclearization of the korean peninsula. but that process can only take place if north korea reestablishes before the international community we need to really see some concrete indicators that they are serious about negotiations, serious about the process of de nuclearization. we will continue to press them on that matter. our ambassador is still the full-time envoy focused on that matter and serious about -- we are serious about trying to continue to make progress in that area. but pyongyang is going to have to take some steps to convey they are serious about moving forward. the other comment i would like to make about that is that i think that if we have a successful negotiation in the p5+1 context, and we're all hopeful that negotiation will produce good results in the next coming months, innocently hope we'll see some good results for the time of the review conference in april and may, that i hope it will have the effect on the north korea situation and that it will be a kind of signal that it is time to move forward with some problem solving also on the korean peninsula with regard to north korea's nuclear weapons. so we will see how that works, but i hope the will be some momentum that results, perhaps from a number of different directions in the coming months, but that is one i think is worth watching. on your second question, i'm referring to the -- yes, the 123 agreement. agreement for nuclear cooperation with the rok. i don't to comment on confidential diplomacy that is going on right now, but i will say we had made excellent progress, in my view, and the negotiations. i don't see any reason why we should not be able to complete it in short order. i don't want to talk about any details of meetings and so forth. >> thank you. thank you for your overview. thank you for pressing ahead on the tough issues and challenges. a question about the upcoming review conference and the manager in impacts dialogue. we are pleased to see the united states for participating in that meeting. as you know, one of the motivations for that meeting and that gathering has been a disappointment about the progress on the disarmament action steps agreed to in 2010. one of the issues that was raised at the meeting was concerned about the incompatibility of potential use of nuclear weapons with international humaitarian law and the laws of war. are you thinking about or planning on engaging with some of the nonnuclear states through the p5 process to discuss how the united states and other nuclear armed states have reduced the role of nuclear weapons and is the united states willing, thinking about providing its rationale for how the u.s. nuclear war plans are compatible with the laws of war as the 2010 russians say the 2012 nuclear posture review reports suggests? >> first of all, the guiding principle here is a policy that i have often repeated but has often been repeated by our president all the way down to my level and on. and that is that the legacy of the practically over -- nearly 70 year nonuse of nuclear weapons must be extended forever. that we must continue to do everything we can to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again. and that is at the heart of the u.s. policy in this regard, and certainly, is at the heart of the de-emphasis on nuclear weapons in our own national arsenals and her own national doctrine that was put forward in the nuclear posture review and the implementation study that ensued from the nuclear posture review. we will continue to be definitely willing to broach the points that were made in the npr and the follow on to it, the implementation study and a talk about it not only in official circles such as the p5, but also talk about it publicly as well. that is actually a good reminder to continue to remind the international community of the very significant, in my view, policy steps and initiatives that the administration has undertaken since it came and office, to really put in place -- came into office, to really put in place the doctrine of policy and our overarching military arsenals. good reminder and i think definitely that will be something we're ready to do. >> thank you. specifically on the inf treating. in a hearing with congress last week, you were pressed to make the statement, yes, the united states stands at russia that russia is not compliant in the treaty. so specifically, what exactly -- what exactly is the reasoning for its noncompliance? is it the cruise missiles? where exactly, location wise, is a noncompliant? is it crimea? is it kaliningrad or some other place? >> i was impressed in the hearing on that matter. so specifically, what exactly -- what exactly is the reasoning for its noncompliance? is it the cruise missiles? where exactly, location wise, is a noncompliant? is it crimea? is it kaliningrad or some other place? >> i was impressed in the hearing on that matter. we've been very open in public since july when we published our complaints report that russia, in our view, is not an complaints with the inf treaty. and the reason is aground launched cruise missile that has been tested, and development in the russian federation. i should be clear for this audience, if you're not familiar with inf, it is a total ban on intermediate range nuclear and the reason is aground launched cruise missile that has been tested, and development in the russian federation. i should be clear for this audience, if you're not familiar with inf, it is a total ban on intermediate range nuclear missiles and not a good missiles, for that matter. a total ban on missiles between the ranges of 500 and 5500 kilometers. it doesn't matter if they're deployed or not. just that there seen being tested, if they're in development, then they are not compliant with the inf treaty. is that concern we raised any complaints report in july of 2014 and have been continuing to raise with the russian federation. it is aground launched cruise missile. -- it is a brown launched cruise missile. it is not the condor or the other one. i think it is really, really important to focus down on a good discussion of this matter. that is my basic point. the russians have made certain allegations against the united states. we have already raised that this morning. we believe we are in complete compliance with the inf treaty and are willing to talk about that with the russian federation, but we need to hear from the russian side as well that is the most important thing from our perspective. this cannot be a one-sided conversation. >> thank you. madame under-secretary, one point i want to totally emphasize is that we have asked you to send a delegation to the vienna conference. inf treaty and are willing to talk about that with the russian federation, but we need to hear from the russian side as well that is the most important thing from our perspective. this cannot be a one-sided conversation. >> thank you. madame under-secretary, one point i want to totally emphasize is that we have asked you to send a delegation to the vienna conference. thank you on behalf of our members all over the country, our allied organizations are also asking you to do so, thanks to you and secretary kerry and president obama for making the decision. i know it wasn't easy. another thing is about the nonproliferation treaty. i think the united states policy may be out of step with the urgency of the situation, which was expressed at the vienna conference, especially by people like eric schlosser, author of "command and control," who essentially is telling us we are living on borrowed time, therefore, since it has been 44 years since the u.s. promised to pursue disarmament, there are some impatience in a sense we're not moving fast enough. i know you feel we are engaging and judicious modernization, but i think at the npt, you may find other nations and people here in the u.s. also since three of $55 billion in venture over the next 10 years, $1 trillion over the next 30 years, is not judicious and not indicative of a nation that is moving to live up to its article six. what is my question? it is a favor. would you ask the president to put the brakes on the modernization program in order to improve the optics as we go into the review? >> them he said a few things. first of all, about our decision to attend the vienna conference. we really saw it as an excellent opportunity to make the case i made to you this morning, and have a really good discourse and debate with the entire community, with a broad spectrum of views. i welcome the opportunity to hear other views in this room this morning, but these will be a continuing source of discussion and debate. no question about it. our core rationale for going to be and it was to make sure our story was out there ,too. i want to make sure from our perspective, 85% reduction in u.s. arsenal of strategic -- of nuclear weapons full stop since 1967 is a significant step on the road to disarmament, and we're continuing further elimination in the settlement efforts every single day. i just don't accept the notion that things have stalled. i want that message to be very clear for this audience. we will continue to press that message forward them and we can debate it. and this matter of whether our modernization is judicious or not, i'm sure will also be shortly debated. i welcome the debate. it are reason for going to the conference was a practical one, and that is, we felt a very important to get our side of the story out there. and i hope we will have an opportunity to continue with open-mindedness among the community to hear what we have to say as well. and so i think that is how i will answer your question. so thank you. >> my name is rebecca gibbons. i wanted to ask you about the partnership for verification and if it is been determined what other states are going to be involved in that effort and if it is when to be an interagency effort? >> is surely will be an interagency effort. and it has been a good to this point. we cannot make an announcement of this kind unless we have broached it and discussed it thoroughly, aired it among the interagencies -- for those who have served in government, you know how delicious that activity is. it is very necessary. it has been an interagency effort to get to this point. i said in my remarks that we wanted to work with non-nuclear weapons states as well as nuclear weapons states. and so at this point, we're open-minded about who will be dissipating. i also want to say, however, we hope to invigorate the work on verification matters among the p5, because we also think it is very important and nuclear weapons states develop some sophisticated understanding of these matters. in the last year, we've had success in establishing a p5 working group that meets in vienna at the same time that working group b meets. that is the verification working group that deals with comprehensive test ban treaty. it looks a technical verification issues in the context. i think is fine for the p5 to begin work on the other verification because that provide a lot of very good technical information that can then -- in the future, the broadened out in other directions as well. the verification initiative is a great new approach, i think, but i don't want you to say -- or anybody to say -- that we are abandoning our effort to discuss these matters among the p5 as well. it is one of the most important rationales for the p5 process as we see it. >> that's the first time i've ever seen it described as delicious. >> just a hint of irony. >> hi, rose. two questions on strategic. is there anything you can share about efforts in southeast asia to share best practices with countries outside the p5? second, types matter. do you have any thoughts on prospects for constraining or discouraging land-based on longer-term? >> that is one point i wanted to make a better own stabilizing activity over the last generation has been our move to demerv the icbm force. we see that as one of the core steps in the direction of a more stabilized strategic relationship among countries. so, yes, as a general matter, we constantly focus on the necessity of avoiding multiple missiles, and they create multiple target your -- targets. our is a target on discourse on these matters internationally. and they will continue to be so. greatk we had some really track to and track one activities in pakistan.
courts and the states, and i think congress has been disabled by the fact that the senate was democratic. it's still going to be somewhat disabled because it's -- a change is going to require the president's signature. but we have these other two backstops and i think whatever congress may do -- if it can do anything effective, the administration first needs to need its help and a sequence of state decisions or court decisions could be the ant seedent to that. >> part of this is because the legislative process wasn't followed. this is the biggest change frankly in entitlements since the creation of medicare and social security. and yet the senate, world's most deliberative body, they did have some votes on it in the finance committee, but they didn't have votes on it in the senate. never had a vote, up and down vote, on the bill, on medical device tax, on individual mandate, on employer mandate, you can keep your health care plan if you like it, grandfathering in all the health care plans, which president obama campaigned on, president obama said he wasn't for an individual mandate, that he insist of the -- that he insists is now part of the bill. never had a vote in the u.s. senate. think of that. never had a vote in the last six years. never had a vote. and that's i think really the reason why senator reid kind of blocked this whole senate. because he knew, hey, if i open up the amendment process, we're going to get all these tough votes and i'm not sure, you know, obamacare passed by one vote and now you see senator harkin has come out and said, oh, yeah, we've made some mistakes and others. so there's going to be lots of votes. there's going to be lots of votes and i think voting is a healthy process. i always told my colleagues, if you're afreud to vote, don't -- why are you in the senate? don't run for the house and senate if you can't take tough votes. but they were able to pass it by one volt. late at night, right before christmas. a lot of it's been very indefensible. chris is exactly right. this court decision is kind of the lever. this is well over i think half the individuals in the country as far as will they be entitled to subsidies? that has to come from state exchanges, not from the federal exchange. but i don't know what's going to happen because justice roberts was pretty creative in his original ruling, which kind of surprised me because i worked hard to get him confirmed before he was confirmed. and -- but anyway. i think this is a big deal. and if the obama administration loses, they will have to come to congress and say, help. and so there will be a major rewrite if that happens. if not, you may see congress pick off pieces of it, you know, medical device tax, you might have a grandfather, you might -- the administration said, oh, we can just defer the mandates. we'll defer them until past the next election. well, congress could pass a deferring of the mandates. the mandates are going to hit individuals this next couple of months. and most people -- oh, that's just a couple hundred dollars. it's 2% of your payroll. so if you're making $100,000, that's $2,000 penalty. t's not insignificant. but the president by executive action suspended that part of the law. until after the election. well, congress can pass a law to indefinitely suspend it or to suspend it or to repeal it. congress is going to have that chance. the president can veto it. takes 2/3 to override the veto. so you're going to have a lot of that going on and my guess is congress will make an effort to totally repeal it, i don't know if that can get through the senate or not. the president will veto it. then they'll probably come back nd make some more discrete pieces of it. probably starting with medical device tax, because it does appear the votes might be there to actually pass that. but i would expect you'll see -- a lot of votes on obamacare, because they've never voted on the senate. also interesting, as the senate did pass and had 60 votes, only 30 members of the senate who voted for it originally are in the senate. it's been a big turnover and a whole lot of those have been elected in the meantime have not become the biggest proponents. >> it's not their legacy. >> it's not their legacy. they don't have to defend it. those that did defend it became former senators. >> my question now for senator nickles, this is kind of a crystal ball question. on two issues that are dear to me. one is how the new congress, the new senate, will act on keystone pipeline. and the other one is how they will handle the issue about lifting the oil export ban and what the repercussions there will be. >> on keystone, leader mcconnell's already announced that that's going to be top of the list. you may remember that harry reid wouldn't allow the senate to vote on it for years. in a way that might have a chance to get to the president's desk. he did, after the election, before the special election, i say special election, the runoff election in louisiana, just last december the 5 or 6, and so they did have it and so he was able to give her vote. i'm sure senator mcconnell will get a similar vote up probably arly next year. opec had us kind of by the throat at that time. we end up importing more and more and more. now we're importing less and less and less. we're going to be totally independent of imports, certainly if you include canada and mexico and so that to me is very exciting. the leverage that opec has had over us is disappearing. d also russia's currency opportunities -- he's being crushed right now. so this is going to have significant -- and frankly it's because the u.s. exploration that really began by independent oil companies and it's just remarkable. it also gives us economic advantages for manufacturing natural gas. we're going to have lower natural gas prices than the rest of the world for some ime. that oil shock of 19734 a huge economy. mpact on the it also had a huge damaging impact on the american psychee. i think we're on the verge now of really wiping away that legacy. should we owe up debate for questions? >> please. >> when the microphone comes to you to speak, if you could just whatever urself and affiliation you care to disclose. blue shirt first. >> thank you. it wasn't that long ago that the big complaints in d.c. was about congressional earmarks and congress trying to micromanage spending. and now the current continuing resolution that was just passed is well over 1,000 pages and has a whole bunch of provisions that has absolutely nothing to do with spending. most of which we haven't even learned about yet. it seems to me that congress hasn't given up its powers and it seems to me that when people are unhappy with what's being done, they find some part of the process to claim about, rather than complaining about what's being done. >> i would say you make several valid points. the good news is it's going to change. instead of having one bill that didn't ever go through the senate, so you never had one senator able to offer any amendments on that bill, you're now going to have 12 appropriation bills. i remember the old days when we passed them, we would pass them -- i said it's not pretty -- you'd probably work on the bill all week and do a handful of amendments monday and tuesday, maybe more on wednesday. a lot on thursday. and usually we'd say, all right, we're going to go home when we pass the bill. and so everybody's got the amendments. this will shock you but harry reid and i did this, i was way up and -- i was whip and he was whip and we passed most of the appropriation bills and this is frankly from 2004 back for several years. of -- who has a list amendments? thursday night those amendments start falling off. at about 1:00, everybody said, that's enough. let's go home. but people had a chance to offer their amendments and they had a chance to have exposure and frankly if you didn't like it, you'd try and find a weak part in the bill. you'd expose them if you found something that's really -- really doesn't make sense. so the amendment process is a healthy process and it is an educational process and it's time consuming. so it gives people, ok, here's the bill. here's the bill for the interior department. it funds every little park and everything in the country. they manage millions of acres. so there will be amendments on, can you have oil and gas drilling here, can you do this, can you mine this? all of those things -- to me, that's part of governing. and having that bill on the floor for a few days is a healthy process. so instead of, you know, at midnight or something passing a bill that's this deep that no one can be totally aware of, you'll have 12 -- i say you, the committees and members of the senate and the house and frankly the american people, because it's going to be debated and they'll have it and it's going to be available, you'll have it on the floor, people now can go online and get a copy of it, they can email their member, what in the world is this, it's going to be a much more open process. >> continuing resolution is not legislative process. and this is not complaining about process, because you don't like the result. continuing resolution simply continues what was done the last year. but then it has lots of things that are thrown in. the appropriating committees, the budget committee, if you went back to last, i guess it was september, they passed a continuing resolution through december, the appropriators have no idea what was in it. they hadn't seen the bill. people voted for it without knowing anything that was in it. the only thing that is known is that it has to pass. that's the one thing that is known. it must pass. and the result is that the leadership is highly amenable to particular earmarks. so a lot of things do get thrown in it. a lot of things get thrown into appropriations. but the appropriation is actually a deliberative process , collective choice. as don says, you take lots of votes. continuing resolution, there's just one vote. i'm exaggerating a little bit, but just so you understand, it's done in the majority leader's office. it's tightly controlled. it's a game -- usually there's a game of chicken going on with the executive branch. it's the whole government of the united states, absent all of these independently financed agencies, it has to pass and a lot of things get thrown in. so it's very different from traditional legislation. traditional legislation, sometimes it's not that pretty and you need to have a little vigorous to pass an appropriations bill. but it's done at a smaller scale. there's more voting, there's more participation. and the people that are -- have worked their way up the committee structure, they're actually participating rather than just, you're a republican, you're a democrat, you're going to vote for it, you're going to vote against it, unless we can make a few little tweaks by helping with a couple things you care about. so i think it's fundamentally different. >> the difference too, if you're doing a continuing resolution, one, it's admitting you failed. you didn't pass all your appropriation bills. you're supposed to pass all the appropriation bills by the rules by the end of september. and also because it's 12, there are a lot -- they're a lot more digestible. you can handle 12 individual bills neds of $1.1 trillion. that's a lot to swallow. that's hard to get your hands on it. even if you've been doing it for a while. so a whole lot of the solution to the problem, legislative problems, in my opinion can be summed up as return to regular order. regular order basically means following the law, it means doing a budget, interesting, the administration is part of this. they are supposed to introduce their budget in i think middle of january, no later than february 1. they've been late every year, usually by a month or so. congress is supposed to pass it by april 15. i actually passed one on time, that's the last time that happened. that was in 2003 or 2004. that's not easy. >> that budget by the way is in the museum of congressional history. on display there. >> it's not easy. but that sets the parameters, both houses pass it, then that tells the house appropriators, ok, here's how much money you have. they allocate amongst their committees. and then they're ready to start marking up their bill. that is regular order and i know that all the principle players are saying, we're going to do that. interesting, i've had a lot of democrats, new democrats, in the senate, come up to me and say, we want the senate to work. what can we do? i tell them, regular order. and a lot of them are very frustrated. some of them feel like even that costs them control of the senate. because they weren't able to separate themselves from the president. because they never voted, they're voting record was 98% in line with president obama. who's not very popular. so if they would have had appropriations and lots of votes, they could have said, hey, wait a minute, on that health care bill, i didn't support that individual mandate or i didn't support that medical device tax or i didn't support -- i wanted to make sure you could keep your health care plan. if you liked it, you could keep. it we were promised that. well, that disappeared when the bill was enacted. if they would have had a chance to vote on it, they might have been able to give themselves some protection and maybe passed a better bill and maybe not be so beat up during an election time. because the president wasn't out campaigning in louisiana and colorado and so on for a lot of the close senate races. more votes, i always tell people, don't be afraid to vote. it's a healthy process. and your opponents are always going to have plenty of ammo. i mean, you're going to cast lots of votes and most votes, you could run a good ad against anybody on almost any issue and if they're any good they're going to have able to -- but that should be ok. >> next? >> i'm sorry. gentleman with the sunglasses. then we'll come down front. >> that's you. >> senator, you hit on two things. >> i'm sorry, we didn't catch the name. >> i'm dino rudy. i'm on the board of the advisors of the federation for american immigration reform. so i'm going to get to an immigration question. i'm not speaking for the organization. you hit on two things, senator. one, you mentioned robert byrd. and the other thing that you mentioned is how the process works through regular order. robert byrd was a great defender of the senate as an institution. and was not afraid to stand up to the executive, even the executive of his own party. as if there was nobody left in the senate who was able or willing to do that. senator levin stood up to harry reid on getting rid of the filibuster, but he was the only one. only democrat. why do you believe that solely a return to regular order will undo the damage that it appears that the senate has done to itself and the congress has itself itself to weaken via -- advicea i have the president? do you -- vis-a-vis the president? do you believe it's even possible for the congress to store the historic balance given the way that the senate as caved into the president, harry reid almost himself protecting the president at the expense of the power of the senate? >> two or three things. excellent question. i think it can be restored. and i think return to regular order is 90% of it. i think senate rules are very important. i hope they go back to a 60-vote majority on confirmations. just give you an example. that is a humongous transfer of power to the executive branch. 51.o from 60 to humongous. harry reid ended up getting all those nominations -- nlrb or e.p.a. or any of those, if you are president and you are ultraliberal left and so you want to appoint somebody at nlrb that happens to be on the organized labor's payroll for the last 20 years and so on, you probably couldn't get him through a republican senate or even, even if the democrats controlled with 55 or something, probably couldn't. so you're going to have to get something a little bit more mainstream. but, hey, if you've got 51, full speed ahead, so you can put in somebody really radical on the e.p.a. or nlrb or so on because you can get your people in. and i always kind of figured that whoever won the election should be given great latitude on putting in their people and so on. but in some cases, where you have this administration putting in activists and people who are really far to the left, a 60-vote threshold would have stopped that and stopped a bunch of nominees in the last couple of days. interesting, you mentioned robert byrd. he and i both testified before the rules committee against changing the threshold from 60 to a majority. a whole bunch of new democrat senators who have been in the senate for a year or two or three, oh, we have to change these rules. and i thought, you don't understand the institution. and frankly having 60 makes the senate be more bipartisan. if you have 51, you have majority, you can railroad anybody you want. you have to have 60, very seldom does either side have 60. democrats had it for about a year. that's all. and that's about it for -- you'd have to go way back. l.b.j. time before anybody had over 60. if you have to have 60 that means you have to reach out to the other party. so it makes you be more bipartisan. and it makes your nominees be maybe not quite so much on the fringe. and so i think that restoration of the rule of 60 not just for -- on nominations as well -- would be a good thing and regular order would do most all of the difference. and i will tell you, this is interesting, people haven't picked this up. this election's going to do that. and it's going to be -- you're going to see the senate functional. and part of your question, you said, well, congress hasn't. i always take -- and love the senate, i never served in the house. plus, they ouse's have done regular order and he has allowed committee chairmen basically to mark up their bills. he hasn't tried to impose. the senate just the other -- we haven't had regular order and in many cases on really big bills, harry reid or democratic leadership took the bill away from the finance committee and said, we're going to rewrite it. that's what they did on obamacare. there was a bipartisan vote coming out of the committee. olympia snowe voted for it. and had a lot of input. anyway, lots of amendments. took that bill, said, we don't need -- we've got 60. we don't need any republicans. and basically rewrote the bill in the leader's office and then didn't allow any amendments on it. so no republican voted for it. house or senate. none of them had any input on it. didn't get -- you know, if you get to amend it and you win, hey, you have a little ownership. you're kind of invested in it. you helped shape. it you don't get to have any input. you're ticked. i wouldn't want to be in the senate if i couldn't offer amendments. and in the last five years, they haven't -- people haven't been able -- there were people that ran for election, for re-election this year, been in office, in the senate for six years, never offered an amendment on the floor of the senate. wow. i don't know how many hundreds of amendments i was involved in. it was in the hundreds. hundreds. and so i just -- i can't imagine being in the senate and not having an opportunity to do amendments. it's surreal. and so abnormal. so out of normal. but that's going to change. and i will tell you right now, the democrats are going to like it. because they're going to have more votes that they get to offer than they ever had in the last six years. so it's going to be a big change and i'll bet you you'll see some real positive things come out of it. i think you'll see a return to the camaraderie. the senate has always had a special camaraderie, a special admiration and work that goes well beyond partisanship. and a lot of that was -- hasn't happened. i think it's going to restore. and i hope and pray it does. because it's a great place to serve and to work and maybe some of you worked in the senate. it hopefully will have a real return to i think its better days. i'm excited about that. >> we're only going to have time for one more question. that will be the one up. >> thank you very much. michael, department of agriculture. i'm listening to what you're saying and you began with the comments that in 1932, franklin roosevelt came to power and since then the executive has usurped the power of the congressional. and yet you spent the last hour attacking obama, attacking obama, attacking obama. is he the guilty party? what happened to the other 75 rulers when he was not in office? is that -- years when he was not in office? i find this a one-sided argument over here against the obama administration, granted, he's taken some of the powers, but he can't be the only one who's changed things so radically in that period. the second one, if i may ask the senator, we saw franklin roosevelt elected four times and we put term limits on it. why aren't there term limits on enators? one served six terms in the senate. you served four terms. why aren't there term limits on the senate, perhaps two terms on the house and five terms and change the whole culture? >> i could answer either of those. i'll answer the second one since it was directed at me. i personally would -- you have three branches of government. only the executive branch has limitation and that was after f.d.r. was elected four times. so so we limited president to two terms. it would be fine with me if we limited the other two branches. and i say two, not just the legislative branch, but also the judicial branch, with some limitation. i'm not sure dish don't think eight eight years may be limitation on the executive branch. maybe 12 or so for the legislative and judicial branch. if you do it the, it has to be constitutional. and some people do it unilaterally. i encourage colleagues or future colleagues or something not to do it unilaterally because basically that's ceding the field to some people who are just there forever and sually the ones who take the out in two years, some of them are very good members and maybe the more conservative, free enterprise ilk. and some people go to congress to redistribute your wealth. they can stay there for a long, long time. so i want it to be -- if it's constitutional it will fly to everybody. then i think you can have a limit on the other two branches to be healthy. >> do you have a response? >> yeah. on the first, actually, the emphasis of my talk is not -- it was very much on congressional delegation as opposed to presidential usurpation. i would say that over the years presidents have been more or less aggressive about doing things where they didn't have statutory power. franklin roosevelt, i think, i don't know if it was right before or right after pearl harbor but it was clear war was coming and he wanted to have some national industrial controls, just war related price wage controls. he gave one of his talks and he said, i want congress to pass authority for national national production wage price controls and if they don't, i'm going to do it all by myself. nd i'm going to do it out of my prerogative as the confidence of the american people. i will be doing it on behalf of the people and when we no longer need these powers i will give it back to the people. he was amazing, you know, beyond anything president obama said. so you can find examples of this. in generally would say in the past 30 years the major impetus has been congressional delegation. if you look at the creation of one after another agency with immense disregularsary power it's far beyond anything that happened during the new deal. things have changed recently. i would mark the change actually to the end of the bush administration during the financial crisis of 2008 the administration did things that were far beyond any -- anything in precedent plus the administration formed an alliance with the federal reserve board and made unilateral, defacto appropriations of hundreds of billions of dollars. everybody in congress said i didn't know they could do that. so that was a pretty big deal. and then president obama, i believe, has been much more exorbitant in his unilateral claims on things that he has really cared about especially in obamacare and several of the appointments in the immigration matter though i think the obamacare decisions are the most amazing and some examples i gave, managing the bankruptcy just kind of stepping in and saying here's how we'll allocate the assets in bankruptcy, these tax inversions, never seen anything like that before. so i don't know what -- just beyond, you know, i've got my political views on these matters but looking at it institutionally i think it's too soon to say whether the obama administration is a blip or a trend. i really don't know. in my heart of hearts i think it's a blip but i'm sort of impressed by the continuum from essentially 2007 to today. >> i would break it up into a couple pieces. obviously f.d.r., you had world war ii, the war time scenario. i would think if you go back, i started when reagan started, say you had reagan and bush and clinton and bush, i think the republicans in that group were pretty assertive of presidential authority when it came to international but not so on domestic. i also think all, including president clinton, had a much greater respect for congress. i went to the white house when bill clinton was president a lot. i went to the white house a lot when both bushes were president. a lot. i mean a lot. i went to the white house more often in any of those terms as part of the leadership than mitch mcconnell has been in the last six years. i probably went to the white house more in one year than he went to the white house in the last six years. he's only been invited to the white house three or four times. in six years. i used to go like every week. i mean, so there was much greater dialogue, much greater respect for the institution from president clinton and both president bush's and ronald reagan. reagan and bush were -- and cheney, they were very assertive on international authority. so a little different. and then the one thing that chris mentioned and that was the financial bailout that was right at the very end of president bush's term. that was also kind of the war crisis. there was, i mean, i remember being there, and i was never one that wanted to have the government or the fed or the treasury secretary to have such unlimited powers. i was also worried whether or not the bank would be able to cash checks. the bank across the street. the bank that, you know, it was a scary time. so anyway, i make, actually that was 2009. that was after i already retired. i do remember being kind of frightened about that. i know secretary paulson went up and said here's a white piece of paper. i want this authority. and congress did rewrite it. but he still ended up getting a hell of a lot of authority. but that was the scary time. that was, hum, are we going to have a -- we had already seen the stock market. nasdaq went from 5,000 to 1000. you had a crash. oil actually went from 130 to 40. you know, you had a lot of things happening in a very short period of time. people were worried, are we going to have a financial collapse that we have never seen in most of our lifetimes? it's kind of a scary time. at 'll have to wrap it up this point. i want to thank both of our panelists for an absolutely fascinating discussion. applause] the coming of the new congress in january offers an opportunity not just to pass new legislation but also to restore some of the powers of a constitutional congress. i hope that in this discussion people have a chance to review it, see it on c-span, that some of our legislators will have a chance to realize they've got a road map and a way to go forward with it. thanks very much. thanks for coming. >> thank you >> good job. > thank you very much. >> next, c-span's interviews with michigan congressman dave camp and california congressman buck mckeon, both retiring at the end of the term. after that, president obama talking about cuba and the recent sony cyber attack in his end of the year news onference. on newsmakers georgia congressman tom price, the incoming chair of the budget committee talks about the budget process, the spending bill congress passed, and a look ahead at a congress with both chambers led by republicans. newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on -span. >> this month is the tenth anniversary of our sunday primetime program "q & a" and we are featuring an encore presentation of one "q & a" from each year. from 2005, kenneth feinberg's interview on the september 11 victim compensation fund. from 2006, lonnie bunch on the importance of the african-american experience to u.s. history. from 2007, robert novak on his 50 years of reporting in washington. from 2008, the value of higher education in america. from 2009, conservative commentator essie cup. a decade of compelling conversations december 22 through december 26 at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the chair of the ways and means committee congressman dave camp is retiring. he's represented michigan's fourth district for 12 terms, 24 years. he recently talked with c-span to reflect on his time in congress, his efforts to change the tax code, and how a former president helped him get on the ways and means committee. he also talks about his cancer diagnosis two years ago. his is about 30 minutes. >> the house ways and means committee chairman dave camp talking on closing hours of congress. in your time here you've had something of a singular focus for tax reform, tax overhaul. you're leaving congress without achieving that. why not? >> well, when i became chairman four years ago i knew we had to do something about this policy that expired and then we'd retro act ively put it in place. we're the only nation in the world that left its tax policy expire. my first hearing was on tax reform. you're right. it was my focus. since really three years i put out a discussion draft on the international taxes in october, 2011 and then obviously created bipartisan working groups, more than 35 hearings. really to get the right input from families, businesses, stakeholders. but these are big things to move. i had a good partner in the senate with senator baucus. he did white papers. we traveled the country together to highlight different parts of the tax code. it's been a great experience and a lot of members have gotten involved. unless you have a president who is involved in something this big, it's not really going to move too far. but i thought it was very important to push. it's a debate this country needs to have. we don't have the kind of growth in our economy, we don't have the kind of job creation the kind of growth in incomes we absolutely need to have so it's a debate we need to have in america. i think the step now is that the treasury department and administration need to come up with their detailed plan. they were part of the process. they've seen everything we've done. they now need to come forward. if the president does actually want to grow the economy, bring more revenue to the government and higher incomes to people, this is one way to do it. so i think it will happen. it just didn't happen on my watch. >> and how does that make you feel that since it was so important to you? > i would do it again. i mean, i think it is so important to try to push this issue forward. somebody had to start. people said to me, it's too complicated. it can't be done. i showed them it can be done. that is really the most important thing. the second most important thing that came out of this is we got dynamic scoring of a tax bill for the first time. dynamic scoring is a much more real world evaluation of what we're trying to do. typically, tax bills have been scored by what they call static scoring, which is it just -- they assumed the economy would never grow even though -- the tax policy changed and they assumed people wouldn't change their behavior as a result of tax policy. we know that isn't true. in high school physics where they tell you assume there is no gravity and you go outside and there is. this dynamic scoring will be absolutely critical moving forward on any debate involving economic or tax policy because we'll actually know, does it create jobs? does more revenue come into the government? can labor -- can employment and investment grow at the same time? so not only did the joint committee on taxation evaluate this and say the economy under my bill which is now h.r. 1 would grow by 20%, other outside entities were able to score this detailed draft and now h.r. 1 and say, yes. it would grow. so the outside group and think tanks and we had a university study, they confirmed with the nonpartisan committee on taxation. so some very good things were accomplished by this though it didn't get all the way over the goal line. the is the -- this is chassis. it might change the tail lights and grille but the car is going to have a chassis and this chassis is what will be used going ahead. >> would you explain a little bit of the symbolism of hr-1 and the fact that you formally introduced it just as congress is about to go away? >> well, i always said it was a discussion draft. we wanted to get input and that's what we did. i also thought it was important to use that hr-1 designation which the speaker gave me at the beginning of this congress which really says this is a priority bill. i thought it was very important moving forward that it wasn't just a discussion draft. in future congresses in future years it was referred to as hr-1. it actually is a bill not just a draft. too much work went into it i think to let it sort of just fade as a draft. it needed to get that introduction and now that we're getting to the end of this congress i thought the timing was right to do that. >> not much time left. >> got to make the most of what you have. >> right. >> having worked on it so long even though you knew it was a symbolic measure what was it like standing there and introducing it today? >> it was very exciting. i did it yesterday. and really sort of the culmination of the effort. not just me but the entire committee was involved. and many members on the committee from both sides said they very much really found the process -- it's what we came here to do. we came here to legislate and do things. i think my party needed to be the party of opportunity. we were in the majority in the house. we needed to be the party of ideas. i'm not afraid of a debate on ideas. i think those are what we were sent here to do. not just sort of sit there and hope you'll win. >> the process you just described that you worked through with your own members, on both sides of the aisle and also with senator baucus a democrat and the other body runs counter to the popular image of washington today. >> right. >> so were you an anomaly in this effort? or is there more of this bipartisan cooperation than the public seems to know about? >> i think i'm something -- on something major it was a bit of an anomaly. senator baucus, then chairman of the senate finance committee, my counterpart in the senate, he and i had the first joint hearing with house and senate ways and means and senate finance members together world war ii.er it's been a long time since we ot together on issues. i knew whatever i did wouldn't pass unless the senate was involved, too. >> did you feigned people that really weren't happy you were working with the other side? >> some people were afraid it was too controversial, that you'd make some people mad. clearly, there are tradeoffs. we simplified the tax code. 95% of americans would not have to itemize. they would file the two-page 1040. they would not have to keep records because they're getting a standard deduction. on the business side we modernized international tax laws, allowed the 2 trillion that was overseas to come back without the double penalty that they pay now. took the dollars that were raised from the repatriation and used it to fund infrastructure for eight years, the highway trust fund. so there are a lot of things happening. clearly, to bring the six individual rates to two and bring the corporate rate down to two there had to be tradeoffs, certain provisions that weren't there anymore. some thought that would be too controversial. i don't think that's really something that should have driven the whole debate. so they were afraid to get involved. what i found is people were just so grateful that we were trying to make things better. they know the code is complicated and out of date in terms of our competitors. they know we need to make changes there. so what was important and the discussion really actually did sort of evolve there is not just what the provision is that might not be there anymore or might be changed or altered but what does it mean in the context of the 25% rate with the growing economy? that's why it's so important to get the dynamic score. it was no longer just about the narrow provision. but it was about the narrow provision in the context of the entire bill and the economy. that was a very different prospect. for example, to an employer or businessman that came in and said we don't like what you're doing to our stuff you could say but more jobs are going to be created and more people are going to have higher incomes and our bill said about $1500 a year in median income would increase. it had been declining so big turn around on that. more people could buy cars, houses, give to charity. our bill actually showed charitable contributions would go up 2 billion because people were working. when they're working they're earning money. if the economy is growing their wages are going up. it was important not just the issue but to put it in context as a bigger picture. without dynamic scoring, putting things in that bigger context just doesn't happen. that's what was divent about this debate and will be different going forward. >> speaking of going forward, if i understood the quote correctly, your successor paul ryan has said that your legislation will not be the blueprint but it will be a marker. >> yes. >> you've chosen to leave. >> yes. >> and your chairmanship was up for term limits. but how does that make you feel? do you expect your plan to be the blueprint for the new congressman? >> first of all, paul ryan is on the ways and means committee. he is the incoming chairman so he'll be succeeding me. he was part of putting that plan together. he knows it very well. and, look. a new committee, new congress, they're going to look at things in a different way. we did learn things through that process that you might adjust. because revenue to the government went up 700 billion under this bill, you could make some different trade-offs. you could lower rates more. you could use it to pay down debt. you could adjust some of the provisions i make. what he is saying there is we're going to take a look at this. we're a new committee. some of the same people but a new congress. a new chairman. and i am convinced that he is going to draw very heavily on the work that had been done because he did some of it. >> how does chairmanship term limits look to you now that you're coming to them in this process? >> i wouldn't change anything. the wrinkle this time was that the time as ranking member counted in the six-year term limit. i was actually chairman four years. ranking member two. when term limits for chairman went in in e95, when speaker newt gingrich came in, it was six years in the majority. so it's changed a bit. i think it should still be six years in the majority. i think counting time as ranking member when you aren't setting the agenda of the committee is a very different prospect. but it is what it is. i was very glad i had two years as ranking member because it actually helped me develop the staff, policy position, to be ready for the majority. i never knew i'd get in the majority. you never know when that is going to happen. i consider myself fortunate to have had the four years i've had. and really honored to have been able to serve in that position. >> chairman mckeon suggested that he'd like to see that role change as well. do you think that's possible? >> i don't see it changing. >> why not? >> i think, well, first of all, whenever somebody leaves, somebody else moves up. more people move up than leave. i think it's very unlikely it would change. you might see a change that it counts for the majority. that you could see. it was kind of an informal change the speaker made to have it include ranking members. there really hasn't been i think a debate in the conference on that. fewer members are chairman than our rank and file members and everybody that's rank and file wants to be a chairman. >> sure. so test issues in ways and means was a focus of your entire tenure in congress. this is a committee you wanted to be on. >> yes. >> i wonder if you would tell s for our cameras about your getting the feed on the committee that even involved president ford. >> it did. i knew i wanted to get on the ways and means committee and worked hard on welfare reform and adoption issues and trade issues. but at that time the steering committee was called committee on committees. you knew you were kind of in a government process. it really is a campaign. it's about the votes on that committee who determines who gets a seat on a committee like ways and means. so you're talking to every member on that committee. there is a particular member that really wasn't for me. i just didn't know what to do and out of the blue i dialed president ford's office in california. >> did you know him? >> i met him several times. i wasn't certain he knew mae. i certainly knew him. his secretary answered the phone and said oh, congressman camp hold. he got on the phone and said, dave, how are you? then he said, you know, i used to be leader. he goes, somebody owes me a favor and i'll make a call. and he did. that person came to me on the floor and said, anybody who can get the former president of the united states to call me i'm for so he changed his vote and i did get on ways and means. i told susan ford that story also once. i'm not sure she cared. but it was really a changing moment for me. he was very gracious. the fact he was in his office and took the call when i had not scheduled the call. i literally called him out of the blue. very much a hail mary pass. >> probably helped you were a michigan congressman >> oh, yes. that always helps. >> from the time you've arrived you have experienced life in the minority and the majority. >> twice. >> and i'm wondering if you can contrast and compare the two for people and what the experience is when you have the power to lose it and want to get it back again. >> yes. in the minority, majority, minority, majority, you know, i grew up in a small town in a big family. we were always taught the golden rule which is treat others the way you want to be treated. so i always tried to act that way. i know when we took the majority the first time it had been such a permanent minority and there is a sense we would never get there. i'd only been in congress two terms but some of the longer serving republicans it was really pay back time. i think that was a huge mistake. some did that. when we lost it, i don't think there was as much of that because we had been in the majority not nearly as long. but there was still some of that. i was very convinced that when we took the majority this time that that was not going to be part of my agenda at all. i think you really want to be the same in the majority as you are in the minority and treat your colleagues the same way. now, in the majority you get a lot more responsibility. you get to help set the agenda. you have a lot more people come see you when you're in the majority than when in the minority. it's a different prospect. but i'm just very grateful to have had the opportunity to serve in the majority because there were some people including our leader bob michael who never had an opportunity to serve in the majority. >> i remember as he was leambing the symbolic handing him the gavel which was the first time he held it after all those years. >> yes. >> you've also had the opportunity to serve under and work with a number of speakers since you arrived. what makes a successful speaker? >> i've served with five speakers and obviously three majority speakers for republicans. you know, everyone has their own style. the institution changes. i think particularly speaker gingrich was very interested in how everything was operating app running. i think his -- i remember sitting in his conference room with big stacks of papers debating the words in a bill. that was just very much his style. to some extent speaker hastert did that as well. our majority was so narrow in the time of speaker hastert. much more so than now. it really affected the way he was able to lead. speaker hastert often was seeing members all the time. he would say because speaker boehner has been a committee chairman he really has what the committees do their work. i would say in drafting tax reform he was not looking over may shoulder and intervening on this paragraph and that paragraph. he really did let the committee do its work. that process had integrity. so that really has changed a lot. obviously committee chairman term limits came in in 1995. when i came in speaker foley, the chairmen were much more powerful. you had dan, no term limits, ways and means committee for a long time. it was a different role for the speaker than he has now. think speaker pelosi was very powerful as well as a speaker. and is a very powerful leader. so that sort of changed over time, sort of moving to some leadership -- speaker boehner has certainly let us do our work. i obviously try to work with leadership because you need their help passing the bill. i'm not the whip. i'm not the floor leader. i don't schedule bills. clearly i think in today's environment you want to make sure you're in close touch with your leadership. i feel very fortunate they have not really directed me in great detail what to do. >> if you were i'll use the phrase king of the hill for a short period of time and could change anything about the way this place functions, to make it work better than it has, what would it be? >> that's a >> boy, that's a tall order. i think we really do need to make sure that the members are involved in issues, you know. i think that's one thing that i really took out of the experience i had on tax reform, is there's this thirst for members, and it's in both bodies, because i met with a number of senators, senator baucus. we did these informal lunches, senators and house members, just sort of talking about issues. there's just not enough of that. i do think the committee process works if it's done the right way, where there's actually real debate and you try to move a bill through it. i just think more of that. i think the other thing i'd change is let's not be afraid of issues. we got sent here to do things. let's have the public debates and let's try to move them forward. >> what's changed that? the money? the polling? cable television? what has changed the fear of debating issues? >> i think sort of the way media has changed. one misstatement now can be so dispositive of an election or an issue. there was less of that when i first got started 24 years ago. it didn't mean if you didn't make a mistake it wasn't awful, but now, i think sort of the short video piece that can be all over the world in a few seconds, i think that does inhibit the ability to sort of engage in public debate sometimes. i think town meetings have changed dramatically. they're not as sort of open and generally sort of activists that come to those now. i think that's why a lot of members, like the telephone town hall meetings, those truly are people that happen to get on the phone, it's very much more a real cross-section of what people are thinking. so there's been a lot of changes. i think probably, you know, make sure that -- the other change is really not about the committees, but i think congress needs to assert its role more. i think sometimes, particularly in later years, we tend to see ourselves as advocate for the party that's in the administration, much less so of, you know, where are the congressional prerogatives and what's correct? i think that has evolved really in sort of the last couple of presidents much more than it was before. you had much more -- this was sort of the right thing to do, and you had a group of people in the congress that would come together on that. that has changed. if i could change one thing, it would be that. >> some of the older, longer tenured members we've talked to lament the schedule which has sent people home most weekends, missing the days of really being here with families and doing things outside. is that a factor, do you think? you've not really experienced the other. >> i've always lived in michigan. i always went home every weekend. it does. i mean, the schedule -- i don't know that it was as much togetherness as people sort of reflect back on it. >> a little sentimentality? >> yes. we were in such a deep minority, that we didn't really count in those years. i was on staff in the 80's and i think it seemed like it was much friendier than it was. because the house has changed, it really is a contentious -- you know, there is a vying for an agenda. and there are different views of how america should move forward and the parties have very different perspectives on that. and so it is -- you know, it is a competitive and tense environment. it's not all bad. but i do think that voters do expect you to be around and be home. and many members do what i have done for 24 years, which is fly back and forth. >> and what will you be doing when you leave? >> i don't know. well, my children are in high school, so obviously i'm not going to move them, so i'll be living in michigan. i don't know what i'll be doing. i have not pursued that. i'm still involved in legislation and i'm going to wait till i get done voting before i work on that. >> over the past couple of years, you went through a pretty serious health scare. >> i did. >> how are you feeling now? >> feel great. obviously it's been two years. one of the things that -- one of the most touching things was my chief of staff, his mother died from cancer. he has been very involved in the leukemia and lymphoma society. he raises money for that group by triathlons and iron man contests. he raised enough to name a research grant in my name. he did a research grant in his mother's name last year. when i was diagnosed, he said, we have a miracle drug and you're going to be better. that drug wasn't available five years ago. so this research piece of that is so important. so there's a lot of hope that people have. but it clearly is -- when you get that diagnosis, sort of the floor falls out. but then when you hear, gee, we have something that's going to make you better, that gives a lot of hope to people. i had so much support here. i never expected to have to do a press release on a health issue, but it really allowed so many people to pray for me, send me positive thoughts, encourage me. and i think that does make a big difference on getting well. so i was very grateful for that. and i was very grateful for the speaker. he never said you have to step aside as chairman of the committee. i never missed a vote during all of my treatment. and so i'm very grateful for him, for not really trying to say, well, you can't do the job. he always just thought i could do the job. so i kind of did. >> give you something else to focus on, i would imagine. >> sure did. >> going through such an intensive need of the health care system, did it change your perspectives on this, sort of seeing the end result of policy decisions? >> it really made me appreciate how dynamic the research is, particularly in this area. and the doctors were telling me that if i had been diagnosed like right now, instead of two years before, that the treatment would even be improved in that short period of time, so there's some really dramatic changes being made in terms of the medical area and research. and i just don't want to see us adopt policies that will inhibit that. and i know it's very easy to sort of criticize the large companies that are involved in medicine, but that research is absolutely critical. and it really does save lives. the u.s. is on the forefront of all of that. and i think that's, you know, really important to do. we had an author who was here, david mccullough. there was a dinner. and i was at it, and he was speaking. one of the members said -- he was speaking about john adams and history. he said, what's our era going to be known for? without missing a beat, he said advances in medicine. i just -- it just struck me as somebody as knowledgeable as he is about our history saw also how important that is and how cutting edge we've been as a vote on that. we need to keep that, whether it's n.i.h. or whether it's done in the private sector, at research universities, that's going to be a very important part. >> we have only about five minutes left. you spent a lot of this year on the i.r.s. >> yes. >> it's an institution that affects everybody's lives. what's the state of it today, based on what you've learned? >> if you told me that we wouldn't be able to resolve the questions on this in a few months, i would have said that's not true. this will be very quick. but it's been very difficult to get the right information. what's clear is this did not originate in cincinnati. what's also clear is the i.r.s. delayed both conservative and progressive groups, about 80% conservative, 20% progressive. but only audited conservative groups. so only conservative groups were targeted. just a completely improper role for the i.r.s. many of the e-mails that we need to see were from lois lerner, a high-ranking official there. her hard drives were destroyed. but in the last few weeks, they've actually found 30,000 additional e-mails. now, we don't know if those are part of the e-mails we've already gotten or those are all new. we received about 24,000 of her e-mails to date. so we're in the process -- the treasury inspector general is in the process of decoding those. they will get those to us. i think once we get through that, we can hopefully move beyond this. but it's so important that this be exposed. and this be fixed, because if this is allowed to continue, any administration will further politicize the i.r.s. and we absolutely need them to be nonpartisan, nonpolitical, nonagenda beyond the good government. it's an agency that hasn't been managed very well. i'd say that's an understatement. it's very poorly managed. they need to improve. the other -- you know, in terms of the substance, this is an agency that has more than $80 billion in improper payments. that means checks go to people who don't deserve them. they need to really get at some of these technological issues and reform them. so it's really unfortunate that the i.r.s. sort of saw its role going this way. what's more unfortunate is management at the i.r.s. seemed to be unaware. now, she was in pretty high-level management but we don't have an indication that the commissioner of the i.r.s. was directly involved in this. but, again, we don't have all the information. i wouldn't have thought it would have taken us a year and a half to get it, but we will eventually get as much as we can. then we'll make a determination from there. i did make a referral to the justice department, that the committee voted to refer the information that we had, to have them investigate this, because look, we're not prosecutors. we can highlight issues, bring them to the public attention. but i can't really command information like a justice department attorney can. we've asked them to really get involved. so far, they've not done anything. >> as we close here, michigan is losing a lot of firepower in congress with senator levin and yourself all leaving. what does that mean for the state, particularly for the city of detroit, which has been struggling for such a long time? >> it has. clearly detroit exiting bankruptcy is going to be a big improvement. they really now are getting a second chance. it does take time here to learn the job and to sort of make the contacts, and build the relationships to move things forward. so it's going to take time. but we have really good people coming to take our places. our founders really envisioned that in the congress. that you wouldn't come here and stay forever but you'd come and make your contribution and then others would come, and they'll bring different perspectives and look at things in new ways. so i think ultimately it will all be good. short-term, they will lose some of the seniority and the ability to call a bill up, but they'll be contributing in ways that i think will still benefit the state. >> 26 years is a long time. >> yeah. >> what will you miss the most? >> well, i think just the dynamicness of all these issues rushing at you. you can never watch a clock in this job. you wake up and it's 7 p.m. at night. but more important, i've worked with really quality people, really smart people in terms of the staff and the ways and means committee and my personal staff. really decent people that i've gotten to know that are interested in agricultural issues or small business issues. i think really the people that have just stepped forward and tried to help me understand things or help me move something forward, that part is going to be the part i'm going to miss, because there's nothing like it. and it's been very gratifying. i'm incredibly grateful for 12 elections without ever missing a beat, 13 if you count my legislative experience. you don't do that alone. so i'll miss all the help i've had. >> chairman camp, thank you for spending time with c-span. >> thanks, susan. >> california congressman buck mckeon is also retiring. he's currently the chair of the armed services committee. first elected in 1993, he served 11 terms. in a recent conversation with c-span, he talked about partisanship, sequestration and the medical advances that have helped troops who served in iraq and afghanistan. he's known for showing emotion at times, and he talked about why certain things bring him to tears. this is 35 minutes. >> at times you have been emotional about your impending departure. tell me about how you're feeling now. >> i don't feel emotional now. i have a couple of problems where i've been talking and a word or a thought, and that quick, things, you know -- i've always had that problem. i've done better here. but i have had callings in church where i've had to speak a lot, you know. and i'd get emotional. i have a son that we really kid him about being emotional. and we used to make fun of him. this is not a nice thing to even talk about. but we liked to kid him. and one time, around the dinner table, we said, you know, you're adopted. ha ha! he's our number two. and just a wonderful young man. he has four children. they're doing a fantastic job with their family. but -- but so it's kind of a family joke, if we can get howard to cry. of course now i've got -- you know, they come back at me with the same thing. but it's not a -- i don't feel -- people said, did you make the right decision? do you feel bad? do you think you shouldn't have left? and i say, no, no. i am totally comfortable with the decision. and it isn't the thought of leaving so much that i've had problems with. in fact, both times, i was talking about my wife. and, you know, when you think of -- we've been married now 52 years. we have six children. we have 30 grandchildren and a great-grandchild now. and i think of all the times over our lives where i've had to leave to go to meetings or something, or you go to an event, and she says, you know, i'm just there. i just have to hang around. and all the times that she's done that. never, never complained. it just -- and so that, when you think about that, i think about how selfless really she's been. and i think about my mom, and i had asthma from a very young age. i'm the first of five boys. i heard my mom say once, from the time i was born -- she was 19 -- she never had a full night's sleep for the rest of her life. and she was up working. we had built homes. we were all in business together. and we built homes. our kids all grew up with their cousins like brothers and sisters. it was a great deal. so mom's home was just three doors down from mine. and she had a heart attack in the middle of the night when she was in her sewing room working like at 1:00 in the morning, probably making christmas gifts. that was her life. she worked like crazy. and i had a great mom and dad, great family. i had a great life before i ever came here. this was a real departure. but it's been great too. i've had great experiences. you meet a lot of really good people and some jerks, you know. i mean, they probably think i'm one of the jerks that they met. but we call it the people's house. and we have representatives that represent every segment of the nation. it's been a real, real interesting time. educational. great experiences. you know, i had only met two congressmen before i became one. i had no clue what they did, how they lived. it was just all new to me. and every day i've learned. interesting. >> so what are the things that you think you'll miss most about this institution? >> oh, the people. i think -- while you don't have friends -- i don't do a lot of socializing or go hunting or fishing with people. i play golf with friends. i'll continue to do that. but you get to really see people at their best and at their worst, you know, at different times. this job as chairman of the armed services committee, you get to work with really good, really good people. our staff, tremendous people. and then i've worked with three secretaries of defense that i've had a lot of respect for. really enjoyed working with them. and all of the chairmen, the commanders. i just had a call from the general from germany, thanking me for what i've done. they're just, you know, people that give their life to service. i'm sure it's the same with policemen, firemen. but i've gotten to work closely with the military. and the dedication, it's just a marvel to be with them. >> while we're on this big themes, let me ask the opposite question. what is it about this institution you will miss the least? >> the flights. you know, back and forth to california almost on a weekly basis now for 22 years. i will not miss that. i figured out one year kind of what it was, because it's about a 9-hour trip, portal to portal, and going and coming. and i figured out how much of my time i spent doing that, and it was like two weeks, 24 hours a day, out of my life, each year. and that's -- i won't miss that. >> now, you've talked to a few reporters about your departure. it seems two major themes played into your decision. one is the fact that you would have to turn over the gavel of this committee, because of term limits. do you think now in retrospect that the chairman term limits were a good idea? >> yes. >> why? >> we can't one ranking year as chairman, and it's not -- i go on the elevator, and people say, "hi, chairman." i've never had someone say, "hi, ranking member." i've been both. i think that's something that should be corrected. i don't expect it ever will be. but, for instance, we could have -- when we lost the majority in 2006, there were four years there that somebody could have been ranking member. then we win the majority and they become chairman, and they only have one term. on this committee, we work so closely, majority, minority, that it's really -- we try to make it a partnership, but it's still not the same. being the ranking member is not the same as being the chairman. so i think in six years, you should be able to achieve some things and make a mark, and i think that's probably enough. when i came here, that wasn't the case. and in fact, democrats had controlled things for 38 straight years. and we had two years and then another 30. so there were rooms that republicans had never been in, not a single republican had ever held a gavel in the house of representatives at the time. and that's probably unhealthy. and chairmen had gotten very powerful, to the point where probably you just get a little bit arrogant. it just kind of -- at least that's the way i saw it when i came in as a freshman. so i think term limits is here and is good. we have term limits in the house of representatives. every two years, we have to stand for election. so i have no qualms with that one exception. i think that the ranking member would be a good change that i don't expect to see. >> the other reason that you've talked about is, in a broad sense, gridlock, the budget battles. and i took that to mean the fights with the tea party particularly over a compromise on the budget area. will you talk a little bit about that, how that stands right now, and what good has come out of it, and where it hurts the process? >> well, that hasn't been so much a problem for me. that's more a problem for leadership. but it's a problem for the nation, i think. if you take the whole congress, where we have 380 bills or so that we pass that sit in the senate, and they don't take action on them. i think that's not the way our forefathers expected us to act. and i think that has been bad. so the idea of getting something done, it gets frustrating. then within our own conference, we have had times when i really think that -- i'll give you an example. my next-door neighbor, up until i left my office, frank lucas, is in my class. he was elected in a special election and he was in our class 21 years ago. i thought he and colin peterson did a fantastic job on getting a farm bill done, a bipartisan farm bill. he brought it to our conference and it wasn't good enough. it saved $40 billion in food stamps. we had never done anything like that in my 22 years. i thought that was phenomenal. but we couldn't pass it out of the house the way it was. so we had to go back and change it and go through a lot of process and everything. and it turned out, i think, the final finished product that came through after everything, we saved $20 billion. and that was just because there are some members of our conference that probably nothing seems to be good enough. and that, to me, if i were in leadership, that would be a very frustrating thing. i think it was not good for our nation, you know. sometimes -- i don't ever question people's motives. in fact, the older i get, the more forgiving i get of people. but i think that when you come to a body like this, and i never had -- i didn't serve in the state legislature, so i didn't have that kind of experience. but i think when you come here and you join a team, which the republican conference is a team. the democratic caucus is a team. you're trying to accomplish something more than just yourself. and when you come to the realization that you know more than the other 220 or 225 or ten of you know more than the other 230, i think, why? what do you know that the rest of us don't know? and that's caused some problems. some people, after they're here for a while, say maybe it's better to just try to get something done. maybe i can't get all of what i want. there isn't a bill that i've had anything to do with that had everything in it i wanted, or there's not a bill that i didn't find something in it i didn't like. but you have to -- the way this process works, each of the members of the house are elected to represent their district. and i think each of them should have a say. and the way i always tried to work with my ranking members, the members of the other party on the committees i was in, i'd tell the ranking member, look, we're in the majority. we will set the agenda. and when we bring bills up, i want to know, what do you think about them? i want to know what the members of the committee all think, because i think if everybody works together on it, you get a better product. if they had done that with obamacare instead of just doing it with one party, basically they disenfranchised almost half the country. and it's caused a lot of upheaval, a lot of problems. and you're much better off, i think, at the end of the day, if you don't like the some of the ideas, you can vote them down. but generally, you know, you're going to come up with some good ideas. and they're going to make it better. then you work together to get it across the finish line. so i think that's the way to go. and i think people that think that they know more than anybody else or people that think that just one party should do things, it's not the way that the constitution was set up. it's not the way that democracy is supposed to be. and i've always tried -- i was the subcommittee chair from my second term on, and i always tried to lead that way, to be inclusive, because i think you come up with a much better product. >> one other thing that came out of all of the budget battles, of course sequestration, something that you have been fighting to rescind, lessen the effects of before you leave. i'm wondering your philosophy overall about defense spending. there are people who worry about the size of our budget and also the likelihood of waste, fraud and abuse within it because of the sizes of the programs. how do you find the sweet spot, in your mind, between the appropriate level of spending and those concerns that people voice? >> you know, the last several years, we've really dug a big hole. i mean, you know, with president obama, when he came in, i think we had a debt of about $10 trillion. and now it's up over $18 trillion. and just going up, which is what caused sequestration. people were frustrated. they said, we've got to do something to get a handle on this. i think sequestration was the wrong way to do it. to bring in a principal that was so bad that it was supposed to be a motivator to never need it, to force people to really give and take and come up with a better solution. but it was put in place. it just cuts everything the same so that mowing the lawn at a fort here has the same weight as buying ammunition for somebody on the front line. it just doesn't make sense. so i'm hopeful that they'll get that taken care of. we do have to get our financial house in order. there is no, no question, because if you get yourself so far in debt, you are not able to have the money to do what you need to do to carry out all of the responsibilities that you have, starting with defense. and what i have seen in the last several years and my time here as chairman, the budgets have come from the administration, the requests that they have are -- you know, they talk about strategy, but it seems to me that they say, okay, we've got this much money. this is how much defense we can afford. i think it should be, what are the threats? how much will it take to meet that? and then come up with the money some way. you know, make it happen. we cannot cut our way out of this totally. we have to grow the top line. we have to get more people to work, more people to broaden the tax base, and that's how we're going to work our way out of this. and this recession or slowdown in the economy that seems like it's almost interminable now. it's gone on and on. even says, well, the economy is picking up, doing better. then i go home and see so many people out of work. i'm not sure we've rounded that corner yet. i'm hopeful that we can -- i know the deficit has come down, but it's still way, way too high. if we totally eliminated all of the budget spending that we get to vote on each year, totally eliminated it so we have no discretionary budget and are just down to the mandatory items, we'd still be running a deficit of about a half trillion a year. and that's totally unacceptable. and yet all of the cutting has come out of the discretionary side. we have not faced up to the fact that we need to fix the mandatory spending. that's where the real problem is. so i can think of a lot of things that we need to do, but i'm not in a position -- last year i wasn't in a position. i'm obviously not going to be in a position in a week or two from now. but say i could just be king for a week or so. i'd be very benevolent and nice. i'd be a nice king. if we could get people back to work, if we could free them from a lot of the bureaucracy and the red tape in getting things done, it would be the way to get this thing back in order. you know, during world war ii, we built a pentagon in one year. if we tried to do that now, first of all, we probably couldn't do it because it's in a swamp and there are probably endangered species. but if we got through all of the different court cases and everything and finally turned the shovel and started building, world war ii would be over. probably korea and vietnam would be over before we could do it. in world war ii, we built 86,000 planes in one year. this year, we might build a few hundred. i mean, you know, we've made everything so complicated. and it's not just defense i'm talking about. it's everything. look at our education system. do you have children? >> huh-uh. >> like i said, we have six. when our oldest got into school, we learned very quickly, you know, you go to kindergarten and you go to first grade. then you go to second grade. usually in elementary school, they'll have two or three first grade teachers, two or three second grade teachers. you learn quickly that one is usually better than the others. so my wife became pta president so she could be involved at the school and help get our kids into the classes with the better teachers. but, you know, in every other business i've ever seen, you don't have a situation. say you've got three third grade teachers. and say one is better. that one might be paid the least. might be the newest, might be the oldest. it doesn't really matter. but it could be that they are paid the least. and yet we put up with that kind of thing, you know. we can't do vouchers until you're 18. and then you can get a pell grant. all of a sudden it's different. you can go wherever you want. we'll just give you the money. charter schools are a help. i was on a school board for nine years. i saw these kind of problems up close. and then with our own children, and now grandchildren. i see what my children are doing to help their children get a proper education. it's hard. we've got certain things that just -- this is the way we do it and the unions are pretty strong. and it's tough. i talked to a deputy -- when i was running the very first time, we had a deputy killed in our area, in a drug raid. and i was going to the funeral with three 20-year veterans, sergeants. and they were explaining to me what it was like now, 20 years ago, compared to when they started 20 years before that. and how much more difficult it had gotten for them to do their job. all the different regulations, things that happened over the years that make it tougher and tougher for them. you know, in some ways, we need to go back and make things a little simpler. when my dad first went into business, he had been working for a company selling off of a truck, meat. and finally he saved enough money and he bought a used fish truck. and he and my mom worked all weekend to try to get the smell out of that truck. and early monday morning -- the war had already started. meat was being rationed. he went down. he had some friends. he was able to buy enough meat to fill up his truck. then he started going around to try to sell it. one weekend, and he was in business. one day he could have been out of business. but the end of the day, he found somebody that bought everything he had. and that got him started. now to go into business, you've got to go get different licenses and permits and, you know, hit this organization, that organization. everything is tougher. the taxes that come with all these things. so while this is the greatest country in the world, we've got lots of challenges. >> i want to get back to your role here. the week that we're talking is also the week that the u.s. and nato have ended combat missions in afghanistan. i'm wondering what you think that this country and its allies got from that almost decade and a half investment in blood and treasure. >> somebody asked me the other day what we've gotten out of ten, twelve years of war. and the money that was spent. >> and a lot. and the lives. >> and one thing, we've made tremendous advancement in medical care. we have saved lives that in other wars would have been lost. we've come up with these prosthetics and different things that help make their lives better, not as good as they would have been but better than in the past. i think that's been a great advancement and a great thing. unfortunately, we've had to do any of that, but at least people have made some real improvement. and i think the way people treat the military, we learned a tough lesson in vietnam, the way they were treated. they really treat the military well now. you hear about all these perhaps, wounded warriors, and housing for wounded warriors and people that have been in the service. a lot of really good things. advancement in the ability to fight wars and these kind of wars, unmanned aircraft and unmanned systems, drones on the ground that find i.e.d.'s and dismantle them, those kind of things. we've made real advancement there. when we started out, people were being killed because we didn't have armor on the vehicles. we've learned a lot about that and our ability to fight this kind of a war versus, you know, big tank battles. it has changed a lot. and we've been able to, with the special forces and their ability to do different things, we've made a lot of advancement there. is it good to be a fighting war? no, but we didn't ask for it. we didn't fly those planes into the tower. they did. and i think the further we get away from that, people forget that. you know, sunday was pearl harbor day. and i was born in 1938. i remember what world war ii was like. i remember just as a little boy, my dad going off to fight. his best friend getting killed. i remember after the war, my dad talking to his friends, you know, that had been in the war, when they'd talk a little bit about some of their experiences to each other. they didn't talk to us, but i was a little kid, so i could listen. and we were all in, you know. i remember the meat rationing. i remember my mom couldn't have hose. we didn't have rubber. they had artificial rubber. we saved our grease on this oh because they took that and used it and were able to turn it and use it for the war effort. all of those things we don't do now -- we have been at war for 100 years, 12 years. it's the 1%. those out fighting. the rest of us are kind of in the mall or whatever. it's just that life has changed a lot. i don't think anybody likes war. it's not like we are the aggressors and we are doing it when you see these people the beheading our -- people or killing innocent people because they have a different belief in religion or something. pretty tough. >> i'm told our time with you is running out. we haven't even gotten to education. what are you most proud of? >> proud. i was able to get a bill passed early on my second term that said we were going to build a big landfill. i was able to get a bill passed to make that go away. that was a good thing for our area. some able to work on it wilderness legislation to make a wilderness study area back for people to use. those were really good things. we did good things on education. we got the workforce investment act passed, reauthorization's done, things that had not been done for a long time. the opportunity of serving as chairman of this committee. i think i have created a good environment within the committee. a lot of democrats have thanked me for the job that i did. fairlyrybody was treated and honestly. that has been a great experience. i think of henry hyde. when i came here, he was kind of like -- i used to love go hear him speak on the floor. , i had when i came here these great ambitions of wanting to change the world. and now i hope i can just meant out of town with a little dignity. he had to go through and leave the impeachment process. he was chairman of the judiciary committee. it was tough and they made his life miserable. i had the opportunity to go around and see how wonderful our country is. and you see how these people look to us. a lot of them are scared to death. they are worrying about the fact that we will not be there when they'd need us or he may not keep some of the treaties we have made over the years, things like that. it's a great nation. but we still have some problems we need to deal with. i think we have a system set up to do that and we are working on it. i told the speaker a few years ago, there's a lot of great young people coming in the congress. when i say young, i mean young in years and young in here. inexperience. i think the country is in good hands and in the future, they will do some great things. i look forward to what they can do next year with the senate and the house. i think bills will get debated, addressed, and we will get work done. >> thank you for spending some of your last hours in congress with c-span. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> next, president obama talking about cuba and the sony cyber attack. after that, a discussion about the role of the legislative branch. and then a forum about how to new technology is affecting the internet. >> on the next washington journal, usa today white house reporter gregory korte discusses the use of president obama's use of residential memoranda. we will talk about how long it has been used by the obama administration. michael calhoun will talk about payday lending and regulation of the industry. some of theook at changes that are expected to occur at the u.s. postal service. presidentl workers joins us. we will also take your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. here are some of the programs you will find on the c-span network. saturday night at 9:30 on c-span, actor seth rogen to tell -- discussing politics and humor with liz winstead. sunday evening on c-span's q and which.e path on c-span two saturday night at afterwards,ok tv's an argument that top universities are missing the mark in education and students are missing the mark in learning to think creatively and have a goal in life beyond the material. visitsmorning, book tv west lafayette, indiana, to tour its literary sites. on american history tv on c-span eastern,y at 6:00 p.m. damien shields talks about the cleburne.trick 4:00, a 1974 investigative piece by a a san on policenews report brutality in oakland. five let us know what you know about the programs we are showing. here's a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on c-span. holiday festivities start at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span with the lighting of the national christmas tree, followed by the white house christmas decorations with michelle obama and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. 12:30, celebrity activists talk about their causes. at 8:00, supreme court justice samuel alito and former governor jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. venture into the art of good writing. see the feminine side of a superhero as jill laporte searches the secret history of wonder woman. on american history tv on c-span 3 at 8:00 a.m. eastern, the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage of president george bush and bob dole, with speeches from president john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on first ladies' fashion choices and how they represented the styles in which they lived. than 50 yearsmore of reporting on world events. that is christmas day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. at his year and news conference, president obama discussed his policy, the cyber attack on sony pictures, and using presidential executive orders. this is just under an hour. hello, everybody. we have a full house today, huh? is towant for christmas get on a plane. but first let me say a little bit about this. unless your's final press conference, i said 2014 would be a year of action and a great year for america and a has-been. yes, there were crises that we had to tackle around the world. many of them were not anticipated. to makemore work to do sure our government work not just for the few, but for the many. there is no doubt that we can enter into the new year with a new's that america is making strides were counts. the steps we took early on to rebuild the economy makes it the strongest year for job growth since the 1990's. all told, over a 57-month streak of businesses have created nearly 11 million new jobs. almost all the job growth that we have seen have been in full-time positions. pickup goesrecent in higher-paying industries. any hopeful sign for middle-class families, wages are on the rise again. our investments in american manufacturing helps fuel job growth also. america is now the number one producer of oil, the number one producer of natural gas, we are saving drivers about $.70 a gallon at the pump or less christmas. today, our rescue of the auto industry is officially over. we have now repaid taxpayers every dime and more of what my administrative -- administration committed and the american auto the track for the strongest year in history. the affordable care act, 10 million americans have gained health insurance this past year. enrollment is beginning to pick up again. the uninsured rate is at a near-record low. of health care has risen in its slowest rate at 50 years. we cut our deficits by about 67% since i took office, bringing them to below the 40 your outlook. america is leading. are leading the coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. we are leading the international community to check russian aggression in ukraine. we are leading the global fight to end ebola and west africa and we are preventing an outbreak from taking place at home. toare leading efforts address climate change, including an announcement with china that is jumpstarting progress with other countries. are turning a new page on a relationship with the cuban people. in less than two weeks, after more than 13 years our comrade mission in afghanistan will be over. more of our troops are home from the holidays in any time over a decade. many of airmen and uniform will spend christmas in harms way and they should know the country is in united in support of you. in the six years since the crisis, it has them added hard work and sacrifice on everyone's part. as a country, we have every right to be proud of what we have accomplished. in short. more people shrinking deficits. energy. pick any metric that you want. america's resurgence is real. we are better off. i have already said that recovering from the crisis of 2000 it was our first order of business. on that business, america has outperformed all for other competitors. over the past four years, we have put more people to work than all other advanced economies combined. we have now come to a point where we have the chance to problem,n even deeper the decades-long erosion of middle-class jobs and income, and to make sure that the middle class is the engine that powers our prosperity for decades to come. to do that, we have got to make some smart choices read of we have to make the right choices. we have to invest in the things that secure even faster growth, and higher-paying jobs for more americans. i'm being absolutely sincere when i say i want to work with this new congress to get these new things done. to make those investments. to make sure the government is working better and smarter. we are going to disagree on some things, but there are going to be areas of agreement and we have got to be able to make that happen. that will involve a compromise every once in a while. perhaps that spirit of compromise may be coming to the fore. in terms of my own job, i'm energized. i'm excited. about the prospects for the next couple of years. i'm certainly not going to be stopping for a minute in the effort to make life better for ordinary americans. efforts,hanks to their we really do have a new foundation. we are better positioned than we have been in a very long time. a new future is ready to be written and we have set the stage for this american moment. i'm going to spend every minute of my last two years making sure that we seize it. my presidency is entering the fourth quarter. interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter. i'm looking forward to it. ,oing into the fourth quarter you usually get a timeout. i am now looking forward to a quiet timeout. christmas with my family. i want to wish everyone a merry christmas, happy hanukkah, happy new year. i hope all of you get time to spend some time with their families because we spend too much time away from them. and now, josh has given me a list of who has been naughty and who has been nice, and we are going to start with some questions. >> north korea seems to be the biggest topic today. what does a proportional response look like and did sony make the right decision in pulling the movie or does that set a dangerous precedent? >> let me address the second question first. sony is a corporation. it suffered significant damage. there were threats against its employees. i am sympathetic to the concerns they faced. having said all that, yes, i think they made a mistake. in this interconnected, digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber attacks in the public sector am the private sector. our first order of business is to prevent these attacks from taking place. when i first came into office, i set up a cyber security team to do what we could at the government level. but a lot more needs to be done. one of the things that i hope congress will work on in the new year is stronger cyber security laws that allow for information sharing across private vector platforms as well as the public sector so that we are incorporating best practices and preventing these attacks from happening in the first place. but even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better to. some are going to be state actors. some are going to be nonstate actors. all are going to be sophisticated and many will do some damage. we cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace starts imposing censorship here in the united states. because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don't like or news reports they don't like. or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and start engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensibilities of somebody who sensibilities probably need to be offended. that's not who we are. that's not what america is about. again, i am sympathetic that sony has worries about liability. i wish they had spoken to me first. i would've told them do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks. imagine if instead of it being a cyber threat somebody had broken into their offices and destroyed a bunch of computers and stolen discs. is that what it takes for suddenly for you to pull the plug on something? so, we will engage not just with the film industry but with the news industry around these issues. i think all of us have to anticipate that occasionally there are going to be breaches like this. they're going to be costly. they are going to be serious. we take them with the utmost seriousness. but we can't start changing our patterns of behavior any more than we might stop going to football games because there is the possibility of a terrorist attack, anymore than boston did not run a marathon this year because there was a possibility somebody might try to cause harm. let's not get into that way of doing business. >> have you considered taking a symbolic step like watching the movie yourself? >> i have a long list of movies i am going to be watching. [laughter]
nominations, nlrb or of those, if you're president and you are liberal left, so you want the nlrbt somebody in that happens to be on the payroll forbor's the last 20 years, you know, you probably couldn't bet him senate orrepublican even if the democrats controlled with 55 or something, probably couldn't. so you're going to have to get somebody more mainstream. got 51, full speed ahead. so you can put in somebody the e.p.a. or so on, because you can get your people in. figured that who ever won the election should be given great latitude on putting and so on.ople but in some cases where you have this administration put aretivists and people who really far to the left, you a 60 vote threshold would have stopped that and it would stopped a bunch of nominees in the past couple days. mentioned robert byrd, he and i both testified before the against changing the threshold from 60 to a majority. of newhole bunch democrat senators who have been in the smalt for a year or two oh, we got to change these rules. and i thought you don't understand the institution, and having 60 makes the senate be more bipartisan. if you have 51, you have the can railroad anybody you want. you have to have 60, very seldom have 60.er side democrats had it for about a year, that's all, and that's about it. have to go way back l.b.j. over 60.re anybody had so if you have to have 60, that means you are to reach out to the other party. you be more bipartisan. and it makes your nominees be thee not quite aso much on fringe. so i think that restoration of rule of 60 not just for a goodions would be thing, and regular order would difference.the and i will tell you, this election is going to do that. to be, you're going to see the senate functional. said, well congress hasn't, and i love the senate, i house, but in the the house's plus, john boehner, they have done regular order, committee allowed chairman to mark up their bills. hadsenate, we haven't regular order and in many cases on rae big bills harry reid or leadership took the bill away from the finance committee and see we're going to rewrite it. that's what they did on obamacare. they had a bipartisan vote coming out of the committee, olympia snow voted for and it input, lots of amendments, took that bill said we've bot 60, we don't need any republicans, and basically rewrote the bill in the leader's didn't allow any amendments on it. so no republican voted for it, house senate, none of them had any input on it. didn't get that, if you get to and you win, you have a little ownership. it,re kind of invested in you've helped shape it. you don't get to have any input, ticked. i wouldn't want nobody the senate if i couldn't offer amendments, and in the last five years people, you know, there was people that ran for election for re-election this year. been in office in the senate for an years, never offered amendment on the floor of the senate. wow. hundredsnow how many of amendments i was involved in, hundreds.the and so i just, i can't imagine and not the senate having the opportunity to do amendments. it's surreal. and so abnormal, so out of normal. but that's going to change. i will tell you right now the democrats might like it, havese they're going to more votes that they get to ther than they ever had in last six years. so it's going to be a big change, and i'll bet you you'll some real positive things come out of it. i think you'll see a return to camaraderie. the senate has always had a specialcamaraderie, a admiration and work that goes well beyond partisanship and a lot of that was just hasn't happened. think it's going to restore, and i hope and pray it does. great place to serve and to work and maybe some theou have worked in senate. it hopefully will have a real i think its better days and i'm excited about that. time for one more question. >> thank you very much. listening to what you're saying and you began the comment roosevelt32 franklin came to power, and since then the executive has usurped the congressional. yet you spent the last hour attackingobama, obama, attacking obama. is he the gilly party? what happened to the other 75 that he was not in office? is that when the senate gave up and congress gave up its power? i fine this such a one-sided the obamagainst administration. he's taken -- he can't be tobl one who changed so radically in that period. and the second one, let me ask we sawator, of course, franklin roosevelt elected four times and we put term limits on it. why aren't there term limits on max bacchus ihim had lunch with in beijing served i think six terms. served four terms. why aren't there term limits on the senate? terms on the house, maybe five terms, and change the culture. >> i could answer either of those. i'll answer the second one since it's directed to me. be, we have would three branches of government. only the executive branch has aftertion and that was f.d.r. was elected four times, so we limit the president to two terms. would be fine with me if we limited the other two branches, just the two, not legislative branch, but also the judicial brand, with some limitation. not sure, i don't think eight years, which is the limitation on the executive be 12 or something for the legislative branch and the judicial branch. you do it though you have to do it the way the executive branch was limited, has to be constitutional. and some people do it unilaterally. futurerage colleagues or colleagues not to do it basicallyly because that's ceding the field to some people who are just there forever. and usually the ones who take out in two years, some of them are very good members and free more conservative enterprise tilt and some people to redistribute your wealth and they can stay there for a long, long time. wanted to be, if it's tostitutional it will apply everybody and then i think you could have a limit on the other to be healthy. >> on the first, actually, the my talk was very much on congressional delegation opposed to presidential usurpation. say that over the years presidents have been more or aggressive about doing things where they didn't have power.ry thislin roosevelt, i think was i don't know if it was right before or right after pearl was clear war was coming and he wanted to have some national industrial war related price wage controls. and in one of his talks he said i want congress to pass authority for a national production wage price controls, and if they don't i'm going to by myself. and i'm going to do it out of my prerogative as the repository of the confidence of the american people. on behalf be doing it of the people and when we no longer need these powers i will it back to the people. he was amazing, you know, beyond that president obama said. so you can find examples of this. in general i would say in the past 30 years the major impetus has been congressional delegation, if you look at the creation of one after another, immenseith discretionary power, that's really new, far beyond anything the newpened during deal. things have changed recently. the change actually to the end of the bush administration during the crisis of 2008. the administration did things far beyond anything in a president. formede administration an alliance with the federal reserve board, and made defact to appropriationings, hundreds of billions of dollars and congress said i didn't know they could do that. big deal.s a pretty and then president obama, i moreve, has been much o --h i tant in his union exorbitant. obamacare and several of the appointments in immigration. obamacare think the decisions are the most amazing, and some examples i gave, managing the bankruptcy, just stepping in and saying here's to allocate the assets in bankruptcy. inversions. never seen anything like that before. so i just beyond, you know, i've got my political views on these at its, but looking institutionally, i think it's too soon to say whether the is a blipnistration or a trend. i really don't know. heart of hearts i think it's a blip, but i'm sort of continuum frome 2007 to today. >> i would break it up into a pieces.f i think obviously f.d.r., of had world war ii, i would think if you go back, i sorted when reagan started you had reagan and bush and clinton and bush. the republicans in that group were pretty assertive of presidential authority when it international. but not so on domestic. think all, including president clinton, had a much greater respect for congress. to the white house when was president a lot. i went to the white house a lot when both bushes were president, i mean a lot. i went to the white house more those terms than mr. mcconnell has been in the last six years, i probably torment the white house more in one year than he went the last six years much he's only been invited to the white house three or four times in six years. week. to go like every so there was much greater dialogue, there was much greater institution from president clinton and both president bushes and ronald reagan. and bush and cheney, they were very assertive on international authority. so, and then the one thing that chris mentioned and that was the bailout that was right presidenty end of bush's term, and that was also crisis.the war there was, i remember being was never one that wanted to have the government or fed or the treasury secretary to such unlimited powers. but i was also worried whether able tohe bank would be cash checks. the bank across the street. that, you know, it was and, actually that was 09, that was after i had retired. but i do remember, i know son said here's a blank piece of paper, i want this authority, and congress did rewrite it. he still ended up getting a lot of authority. scary time. was a that was, we had already seen stock market, nasdaq went from 5,000 to 1,000. crash, you you had a things happening in a short period of time and people were worried, are we going to thata financial collapse we have never seen in most of lifetimes. >> we're going to have to wrap it up at this point. ournt to thank both of panelists for an absolutely fascinating discussion. [applause] s sum it up by saying the new congress in offers an opportunity not just to pass legislation but also to restore some of the a constitutional congress. i hope that in this discussion people had a chance to review it on c-span, and some of our legislators will have a realize they've got a road map and a way to go forward with it. thanks very much and thanks for coming. >> good job. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, a forum on how new affecting the internet. after that c-span's interviews with michigan congressman dave congressmanifornia buck mckeon, who are both retiring. >> on the next "washington u.s.a. today white house reporter gregory korte obama's useesident of presidential memoranda, he'll talk about the legal power it it's beenhow often used by the obama administration. michael calhoun of the center lending willle talk about pay day lending and regulation of the industry. some of theook at changes that are expected to occur at the u.s. postal american postal workers us.n president joins we'll also take your phone calms and look for your comments on facebook and twitter, beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this week on q and a, author editor katie.com perceives asat she on hi pockry ski of liberals the -- >> it goes back to like i said for this book came from 2012d. n. c. convention when they were showing that and portraying him as a women's rights champion when he left a young woman to drown in car. and if he had not gone back for nine hours and tried to save his behind, she would have probably survived. entire video do an at a convention claiming to be preaching and fighting about the women, and dplor file someone like that while not including that part of his life video about his women's rights record. at 8:00 eastern and pacific, and to mark 10 and a we're airing one program from each year december 22 at 7:00 p.m. eastern. actort at 9:30 on c-span, se rogen discussing politics and liz winstead. sunday evening, author and town pavlich.editor katie at 10:00,2, tonight words, he tv's after argues that the top universitieses are missing the mark in education and that learn how told think critically, be creative and have a goal in life beyond the material. morning just before 11:00, book tv visit lafayette, lafayette, indiana. to interview civil of the city's literary site.r american history tv today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, a historian talks about the irish american soldier role inclayburn and his the battle of franklin. a 1974 investigative piece by san francisco's kron tv on brutalityy of police in neighboring oakland. find our complete schedule at know what, and let us you think about the programs you're watching. us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. the center for strategic and international studies recently held a discussion on the intersection of smart technology and the internet. hearing from speakers from amazon, toyota, and the national institute of standards and technology. they outlined where the is going. the opportunities, and the security risks. this is about an hour and 35 minutes. >> my name is jim lewis, i'll be moderating this event, which is entitlessed enable l the interest of things. so we have a strong panel. the reasons we're doing this project here at csis is in thinking about what should we be looking at. and we realized probably last year that the internet is radically, as new technologist and new software change how people will interact with it, and how machines will interagent with each other, how machines.eract with so the internet is going to be very different in a few years. it's already on the path to that. the internet of things is part of that. you always get some number when go to these events, there's or 50 billion or something. there are already more devices than people on the internet, it about twice as many devices as of theire population world. so there will be profound social, political and economic effects, and with a we've been thinking about, the panel will know, a sets, you of problems. first problem for us is how do we extract the full economic from this change. this is something that i've been about since i first learned to unwillingly to program a computer, which is wow, this software stuff, it could really make things easier. we get the full economic benefit. second, how do we not get in the and that'svation always a big temptation. if you think back to the start of the internet we didn't it, we didn't have a lot of rules, we kind of let things happen in large part where the didn't know market was going to take us. it gives a little more credit to did it in having foresight than is really fair, but you don want to make assumptions about what are the things people and companies will to use and then regulate based on that. that would be call the european error. another problem is what do we do data.ll the we already know that there's dealdata than people can with, there are technologies to deal with that data to make use aggregation is an important part of the internet business model. how the internet things and the it generate fits into that is something we'll have to think about, right. things my initial thinking on this is all data sos not have the same value, sometimes you see privacy schemes that say anything anerated by a machine that personowns is also a of -- i don't really care if you know pressures aretire or something, and you can really get yourself into some fun knots. i've been asking european officials if my refridge later uses cookies, will it have to notify me. and their answer has been yes. think careful my about how we treat data. one size does not fit all. of scienceit fiction, the panel doesn't have to talk about this but in weking down the road how are going to interface with things. likes it that we will, i to see where you have the jack the back of your head, that's probably not going to happen. probably be will somewhere powerful something like siri, a vocal command, but may not be, we don't know. so looking down the road, we have a lot of issues before us, even more issues we have a lot of opportunity. so that's kind of why we're this. let me introduce the panel in them.der i have matt shoal is in the computer science division, he promotes security practices. we're very grateful that he's speak. to hillary kane, at toyota, has how for about two years. before that was on the hill, did a lot with the committee on science, space and technology for the staff director committee on technology. really some interesting things to say about what toyota is doing. smar cars are one of the things. iterations of i'm looking forward to your remarks. solutioningshief architect, worldwide public sector amazon web services, it's title. he's the, he lead the people who atnk about the solutions amazon we use, he's an evangelist, he does architecture. for both government and private sector customers. so mark, thank you for coming. jeff green, the director of government affairs seniorth america, and policy counsel? thought my title was bad. but jeff, many of us know jeff his time on the hill, but todid escape and go sponsor, which is the of this project, so we're brettful to them. backgroundout of a with security and cyber security. i think some of our panelists able to speak a little bit, i don't know if it matt or stack hashat the end been doing recently. so i've talked about as much as should. why don't we just go down the row and have each of the panelists talk, and then we'll open it up for questions. matt, do you want to start? >> thanks, jim. so my name is matt shoal, i'm from the national institute of standards and technology, a technology agency under the u.s. commerce. of we are one of the many both u.s. government organizations and organizations kind of worldwide that are conducting research development and looking at technological needs that need to be developed, standardized in order to fully realize some of the points that jim talked about the internet of things, the economic benefits, fostering innovation and an understanding the knowledge that we need from these large data sets that will be generated from things.rnet of as a technology organization, the united states focused on standards, measures, metrics and the technologies that are needed allow for this to occur. agency under the u.s. department of commerce, so we thereally focused on economics and the innovation and assists can be used to and spurn new growth and u.s. industries. in thevery interested standardization requirements as well as the underlying measures, needs that are needed mere. so when we hook at the internet things from our at itctive, we look wholisticly through the entire architecture of it. now there's a lot of work and we're in this standard now. going on right where we've got both laser vhs, blue rays, dvd's being develop at the same time. going to take some while before this standardization ofnd allowing full scope interopera billity and interface settles out. meantime our role is to work with u.s. industry in those standards bodies and advance those interests where we can in --er to act sell accelerate the use. we look from the low level all top end.o the these are devices at their heart sensors. usually system on chip size sensors, very small, light weight, very inexpensive. usually hardware based. and the interfaces and the ownership, as jim mentioned, will probably come at the virtualization stack or the application interface where the data can be gathered from. from those small sensors, what the calibration requirements needed for these censors, and that can vary wildly. your nest thermostat probably need a different error rate than going to anthat are aluminum manufacturing for temperature control. then what are the calibration need on these systems on chips, bethat good decisions with made on the data that's rearrived from them. data standardhe to transmit those, as well as fromata being generated the physical environments. then from the system on the from the sensor, that's generating data off the physical world, there's a need to transmit that data so these sensors will most likely be wireless in some aspect. the data neat to get off the to an an littic --ine analytic engine. that will drive knowledge and us to make policy from the data that's beg generated. very fancy way of saying my fridge will tell me peanutbutter, if i told it i care about peanutbutter. beanse i have a peanutbutter policy. 'based on that policy i will be sensor, which derives data from that physical infrastructure, and that will derive an action, which will be me buying more peanutbutter. very simplistic example. but this can explode out into scalether use cases which for efficiencies, economies, understanding, conservation of resources, there's many different areas where this is being used to great advantage, of the areas under preventive maintenance. i was on an airplane this from huntville, alabama. my aircraft and my air frame has multiple sensors on it. deriving physical data off that frame, everything from oil pressure, oil temperature, all beingration, pumped into a back end cloud so that rather than waiting for scheduled quarterly meetings on the aircraft, if something start place, the of airplane manufacturers can ground it and conduct effective maintenance and do it with the that --e base all the way to smart agriculture. where we can apply water or to thede or fertilizer spot plant, rather than applying overall. reduces pollution, much cheaper overall and yields greater yield. so those are some examples of how we look at it. we have concerns about system on chip design, how do these things fail. data, what thehe and standards. what are the security requirements that are needed stack, what are the machine to machine identity needed,ents that are how do you control them. do we have enough pipe to move around? data and then how do we apply errortanding of the conditions when you do those analytics. awe things that we're interested in as a science and technology agency, looking standards,ures, the hopefully to apply to allow for application in many areas and quite frankly in we haven't even imagined yet. so that's my five minutes. matt.nk you, one of the things we're hoping to come back to is what but were the industrial internet things which will be an productivity. of probably don't need this microphone because i have a very loud voice, so i'll try to not it, and if i'm making anyone deaf raise your note of it.l make so there is no question that going to be part of this internet things as we move forward. the thing i struggle with and wanted to start right now formlking about what that's going to take. because this internet of things there, and as out it applies in the vehicle space there's questions of what that means. i'll give you some examples. internet ofve things in the vehicle and the context of the multimedia are now becoming common in vehicles. have that scream so you can access the -- the screen so you can abscess from it.net you can make a dinner an internet that's interface in your vehicle. i personally don't think of that as the internet of things. that as a new mobile platform, same thing as your smart phone, it's just nowle in your vehicle. but some people think of that as the internet things because it a thing,ternet in right. then you can have, and i'm being serious here. because we talk about the policy locations, they're very different for that versus some forms of internet for things. an airplanext of and vehicle, sensors that are monitoring what's going on on to detecte, troying issues that need to be addressed information being transferred to somebody who can do something about something that's happening in the vehicle. that's your industrial internet type idea. you've got internet of things in the context of vehicle to vehicle communication, and infrastructure communication, which we are just now on the cusp of seeing. is technology that's her been deployed elsewhere in the beingbut is now close to in the united states. and and primarily going to be avoidance, the ability of vehicles to be able to detect a possible collision to avoidd take action it. the idea here is more than people a year in the united states alone lose their lives in car accidents, which is humungous amount of people. it's equivalent to two jumbo jets went falling out of the sky, every week, right. dyingof people that are every year in car accidents. not we're finding is we're able to make the sort of gains we want to milk in that area by addressing what happens to a vehicle when a crash occurs. going to make gains is preventing that crash altogether. so this vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication is going to enable that. toyota's vision is that eventually that sort of communication capability will be augmented or supplemented with auto makes in a vehicle so that will not on sense that a collision threat is occurring but actually the car itself will action to avoid it. so it's a combination of the based collision avoidance technologies you're seeing now with increased auto with this --d a 360-degree on the vehicle and prevent those altogether. i wanted to draw this distinction because for that see thategory i don't as internet of things. for the second category, the detecting problems in the system i do see as the things. and there are a variety, i know this going to get into later, a variety of policy issues that are implicated. i'm not going to talk so much that first category which i'm saying is not internet of things in terms of the policy issues. we see a lot more concerns about privacy in that space than we ten to see in the other areas. do have growing questions and concerns about privacy, of drivers and thinkers, people seem to greatery have a entitlement to privacy in their do when itan they comes to their smart phone. ofs sort of an extension their home. it's very weird. but it's there, it's real. it, we feel it, consumers tell us the car is a special place. growinge obviously cyber security concerns. those tend to be with that communicatione mation.e auto so there's the ability for car andto hack boo the overtake the operation of your vehicle to tell it to brek or ton, youdden left could have bad things happen. also i unique -- a unique issue now with liability. uniqueseem to think it's to the concept of smar cars, but i would argue it unique to automation in general, when you have systems making decisions rather than a person, who is responsible if something goes wrong. so in the context of a self car, if the car brakes when it's not supposed to or accelerates when it's not supposed to act sell expert something bad happens, who responsible for that. so there are questions around that. of concernsot a lot space.regulatory slow, but the is department of transportation is generally slow on where the headed there. are some who would argue that there regulation. i think everyone would think that was great at toyota or any company, but the reality is the auto industry is never going to be unregulated. so that same ten day send will environment this and if that's the case we need the department of transportation to be moving quicker. havell stop there, i latest more to say, but i can say it answering questions later. >> i'm mark ryland, i work for amazon. you have on the one hand, generating devices tons of data that people have not managed before. these other hand you have powerful new platforms where you rent stonl by the hour or giga bite. so not surprisingly when you startups like nest doing them, people sensor type applicationings on what you'llices, often see accompanying that is the use of cloud computing, so raises some issues around alittics.an a couple trend that we see. first i'm going to challenge a assumption that mobile platforms are not the same. i think there's a continuum there. i think all of you right now are essentially sensors for some if you useor example are for your mapping, you in their network which is feeding back into their environment. there's interesting government and policy implicationings of oft, foashes in the city proposed an people which --on it happens that thousands of in one placestled in the road all the time, every time you pass over that place, there. a giant pothole so not only do they know exactly how many citizens are affected theyt moles and how bad are, now they can prioritize street repair, and those of you boston know this is very important. it a citizen sensor model. becomes an extension of what the government need to accomplish its task. the -- way from itre's a company called move which is a private vendor that's working with city governments to create theld sort of model around public transportation. they have hundreds, dozennings large cities and other community have integrated their bus and train platforms with the it application, so not only can the user get a better service from the public transit the public transit officials can get constant feedback about what's going on system. own so there's an interesting transition now from the mobile these internet of things scenarios. all thisre acquiring data one of the things that's going on at the same time, about bigays talk data. but one of the characteristics that's fair to say that's new in data is that people are storing things when they don't know whether it's useful or not to store them. could be one property of big data if you will. we didn'tt we never, want to waste the money on data that we didn't see any immediate use for. don't have that at tie. commerciale of concerns any more is storage is so darn cheap, let's just store everything. it may turn out that the data we're storing has really powerful properties and capabilities, but then what we turn ourselves into is data scientists, we explore data, we look for core rests, we hope there's causation behind those and we very much changes how you think about data and how you approach data. and internet things is very much playing into that, allowing you store this data for three months, then let's run a two-week project to see if val new the data and if there is we'll augment our use if there isn't we'll throw it away. and we're not going to buy a ton do this dataent to exploration model. so that's another correlation seeing. and the fining them i want to the security theme. first of all i like the old, actually two more things, security and standards. together. or can go together. front, the theme that i want to bring up there is to rethinkhaving about how they conceive of the old modelsse just don't work. you can't think of the network inside my fire wall, there everything is good and safe. you can't think that way. this network, everything is connected to everything, so how we think inut secure will have to be terms of protocols, application security, all the kind of thin that traditionally we cannot think about so much now that will be pushed into the is a theme that has already ariz then the mobile world and will become more important in the internet things world. finally on the standards front, for been in this industry 20 some years and i've been through the various standards, i used to work for microsoft, so through some standards wars. the whole tenor of the industry is very different right now. will be some disagreement about should we do one.protocol or that littics -- data an alittics. very different model than the traditional years ago when have to choose like that was notecture interoperable with others. systems more powerful had use tls for secure transactions. of out there and the differences between the different approaches will take -- i don't think we're going to have a big standard war like we might have seen 15 or 20 years ago. so i'll pause there and look forward to the conversation. >> this is a crucial point in some ways, then we'll go to jeff. be when you wanted to deal with a massive amount of big you needed a really powerful computer and it was rae expensive. then along came interest companies who said we have thousands of little computers, stitch them together and make them jointly run very fast operations. of it as ak computing framework which horizontally distribute work across commodity computers in a network and enables you to do that would cost millions of dollars to buy a computer now of can do for hundred dollars. >> i will confess i do miss my dec10. >> thanks to everyone for coming today. jeff green with symantec, although today i will be speaking for at least my initial comment about some work that i as part of the n stack which is the president's national telecommunicationings advisory committee. ofa presidential committee presidential appointees, been '82.d since typically senior execs of information technology companies. then they have their designees on thea lot of the work day-to-day. this is run out in out much nstac and the way the operates is by doing studies and the president.to this past november it approved two reports, one of which was an of things report, and i cochaired the staff working developed that. so that was about a year's worth of work, began in october of '13 a scoping effort, followed up by an eight-month study and period. throughout that process we met with dozens of subject matter some field had trips, a lot of interesting debates. so it was a long process leading up to the report. what i'm going to do today is give a summary what was we found and what some of our were.endationings i'm not going to read from the report with one exception, i there's one passage that summarizes, and this is only 50 pains which for a government effort is pretty good, but there's one summary reallythink captures where the report came out. and i'll read that piece. small and rapidly closing window to ensure that way thatopted in a maximizes cuter and minimizes risk. the country fails to do so it the be coping with consequences for generations. there's a lot going on in the and one of the key points i think it tries to drive in if you go into the report, is that there's a lot of opportunity, and the report as a sky ise read falling this is a bad thing there. are a lot of good things that are going to come out of this. but beyond that if you look at the word choice, it makes clear that there is no perfect security. so it talks about maximizing security and minimizing risk and wet should be our goal, can't set unreasonable targets. then there's the short time ofme, we're in the mid i.o.t. adoption, it's not something that's coming other the horizon. the report puts the window of that time frame between two to influences i.o.t. adoption processes significantly. getting quentses of it -- the consequences of getting it wrong will be with us for decade. significant, are some are not. if your wi-fi tooth brush is not a big deal. if the water system is penetrated or compromised, or system, that's a bigger problem. findings,s of our key these are all in the doc, it by no means everything that the in it.had but the first finding is that i.o.t. is here now, it is here and citizens use to government use in defense. and disaster response, in management.on it is being used today. it is in the industry, in faultcturing, in detection, in ordering processes. i.o.t. devices, sensors, they've been around for a long time and they weren't always called i.o.t., so one thing to is not a flipthis a switch, you know, the internet. live for the public on a certain date. been a gradual evolution and its name is being applied to things that have been while.for a next the cyber security newicationings, bombings of end points, some of -- points. of new end i've read about future happy that have wi-fi and sensors in them. we have things that move in the real world and you have devices, whether old that cannot host security on board or new ones that aren't being built and aren't going to have the compute power or the processing or battery power to run it. you're going to have unseen and unknown connections and devices talkave tok devices, making connections without any human impact and have devices taking action. so if you go to matt's peanutbutter policy, he talk his fridge telling him he should go buy peanutbutter much alert theidge may local supermarket that he need peanut butt irand then a machine put it on a truck and he won't be involved in that decision. the amazon drone will deliver it. >> all these things are happening without human interaction. faster thanase much a human could act. another finding was the line between consumer and industrial is disappearing. a the past you, no one had home powered generation system. but now you can buy an in aweial control system literally ao, it's soup to nuts industrial control system. can you take it home and play very very cool. but you're seeing industrial printing,her ways, 3d autonomous system. but we're going to see the reverse and that's where you get risk.y hobbyists will start building things, they're going to find interest systems, some intentional, some not, that are empoweringo or even critical systems and if that happens all the vulnerabilities were inherent in this device are going to be imported critical systems of the country. i.o. tment is also a con verge of information and operational technology, it was oren described as a conflict collision between the two. you have very different approaches to sign are security those two disciplines. in the operational technology world you're talking about life machinery that lasts decade, you're not swapping out power generation plants or water systems. at years.e looking o.t. worries about physical security guards. and in terms of reliability, the holy grail much i.t. used to be nines which still allows you time to update your can't take down a party pump to update or patch the latest, you know, patch tuesday, you can't take down the party pump that's feeding the washington area, so makes it hard to align the needs of i.t. and o. dispvment that craps that potential at verdict --ys or people arersaries that people looking to use. structuresernment are inadequate. fasterogy always moves than policy, but the report concluded that in this case the than itidening more normally does. it reflected by the fact that reason national documents the.ecurity don't mention recommendations, we broke them into two groups, or the report broke it into two groups. there are some immediate recommendationings, and some near term. was perceived to be long-term because this is happening so far s fast in which the immediate term, the first is that, i think matt with ao come up definition -- in a good way. to come up the definition for the u.s. government, and i should say something about these recommendationings. the reports go to the president and the recommendations have to presidential at a level and number two actionable for the president. direct not going to be -- so the government can determine how it's going to use i.o.t. that look, start coming up with contingency plans for managing the inevitable threats that will be spread around through them. short-term recommendation is a government wide task force to plan u.s. government strategy for dealing with i.o.t., identify gap in andtices and technologies update awareness and training both internal to the government and any public efforts that we there.ing out someone who buys a fit bit doesn't think about the has,ctions that devoice it's probably not -- i got one in my pocket, i see here. there is some security connecting to my phone, there's want. much as some would but people need to be aware of the data that's being passed around. and also send and encourage i.o.t.a to development specific programs. in the near term, convene a public-private partnership to on i.o.t. deployment guidelines, manage related cyber implicationings, the two structures that were mentioned in the report are first the process used to development this arms security csiswork and second is the cyber to the president on security. but those two were called out as processes that they thought worked well. develop updates. what do we do with national security da taxer we need to prioritize that so it doesn't get lost. finally nstac recommends that that --ident ensure trainingbout constantly because it important. the problem is greater in the i.o.t. because there aren't really programs or many programs dedicated at that aspect of it. that is emphasized. with that, i'll be happy to take questions on that. >> thank you, jeff. i have a lot of questions, so i'll start. and i'm going to start with one that comes from a story hillary telling me a while ago. which is that there are cars, if story correctly, in japan where they have the ability to see around the and i misstated that intentionally. because that's how i heard it think ofsn't true. so a blind conner and the car will know in advance what is on the side of that blind corner. i thought that's really cool. turns out it's not an on board sensor on the car. the sensors built into infrastructure on the other side that are communicating with the down,d saying hey slow there's something. so let me start with that you, andfor all of hillary maybe you want to go first. what are the essential infrastructures we're going to me to invest in as we move ahead and people talk about smart smart airplanes. par. do withly has to respect strum management -- spectrum management. to start.py what you said is correct. so at toyota we have a really interesting vantage point are headquartered, our global headquarters are in toan, so we've been able experience what's been happening in japan versus what's been happening here in the united states. which is nothing, basically. but japan, the japanese government years ago decided that they were going to commit to thees and support buildout of intelligent in 2009 is when companies like toyota began to deploy these vehicle infrastructures detecting those sorts of things. challenging merges, when you know you're driving down the highway and there's a merge and then everyone is braking, being able to communicate to your car there's cars there it's going to be challenging so slow down or speed up. another example. you know how you drive into a tunnel and you're cruising along and then you turn a bend and cars are stopped. and brake lights everywhere. you're slamming on the brakes. these technologies would tell you there's stopped traffic 100 feet ahead. those are sorts of examples. from a marketing standpoint and commercialization it makes a lot more sense to start with vehicle to infrastructure than vehicle to vehicle communication. i'm an early adopter of the technology. i drive my car off the lot. it can talk to other cars, infrastructure, i drive off the lot and there's maybe two cars that my car can talk to. not very valuable. but if there's infrastructure out there i get an immediate benefit. i drive off and i'm getting information that nobody else on the road is getting. but so we started with this in japan. we are going to start with v to v in the united states most likely. as a result my thought pick up will be slightly slower because you're not getting much when you drive off the lot. all this is to say that the united states needs to get its use in order on this nrnlt infrastructure piece. we're seeing some collaborative work in michigan between the federal government and state department of transportation and the university of michigan and we need to start replicating that and other parts of the country so we can realize the benefits of this technology here. >> so i would start with we need to think about the security of it from multiple angles not just on the device itself but you need some type of system that is looking at that data and doing a common sense check. because if it tells me that there is stop traffic but i have other sensors telling me cars are moving something doesn't add up. as we are designing we need to think about not just how they can be used or we expect them to be used. we need to think about any way they could be used. the example somewhat analogous i was at a conference and the gentleman was showing how he had spoofed the system for ships. ships tell each other where they are and they're equipped with it. and this guy bought about 3,000 worth of equipment and he didn't go fully live but if he had gone live every ship in the region would have thought that there was a large ship sitting in the middle of manhattan. a neat example. but if someone gets out in the open water you can create a lot of havoc so we need to understand that once we build something like this we may have certain intent but in the end it's a dumb box with sensors and act waitors and people with use it any way they want. i think history tells us that when -- a lot of these problems can be addressed with the government eep couragement of open technology and of course industry buy-in. nist has done a very good job with smart grid work that they've done enabling a lot of vendors and power companies and all the stake holders to get together sort of jointly defined road map and so forth. those are very worth while. but in the meantime there was a lot of infrastructure now for example city of houston is one of our customers they have more than 400,000 power sensors taking 32 measures a day billions of records accumulating the power useage. and they didn't have to build new infrastructure to deploy that. they had to deploy new meters but not fundamental new connectivity and so forth. there's a lot of opportunity with the infrastructure that exists in an open market of good government guidance and input to solve a lot of these problems. smart infrastructure is one of these cases that we think holds a lot of promise. and one of the ones we've been working on for quite some time which initially the government got in which asked nist to perform a convening role in industry working with people at the department of energy to incentivize the use of a smart electric grid. it really was talking about the same concept of sensors, machine to machine communication, dynamic allocation based on policy in order to allow for a more efficient, more effective, more resilient electric grid for the nation. that's one example of an infrastructure. but a lot of this needs to be looked at in context of the entire system in itself. nsf in the last couple of weeks released the smart city's challenge where they are looking at cities to participate with nsf, to look at this entire kind of environmental look at instrumentation and sensors within a city. so that we don't run across if we are doing point infrastructure deployments spectrum management issues, for example. or data collision issues. not only that, but as mark mentioned what are the sensors that are currently deployed that are potentially doing other things for other use cases that could be repurposed into new knowledge sets and bases? so the look around the corner sensors could potentially also be traffic congestion sensors that could tell you when traffic is lightest. and that goes back into the smart city design saying when do i bring in my big trucks to resupply? i could have data to see when that affects it the most. and make decisions under resources, energy, goods and services to the greatest effect and efficiencies that are possible. this needs to be looked at in a large mechanism to avoid potential conflicts and leverage existing systems. >> i mentioned the ways. it's a mobile ap that you run and use as mapping software but the unique capability is that it's uploading your speed and distance as your vehicle moves to the system and thrsh creating crowd source but very accurate data. so there's another bottom up solution which is if you get enough people essentially on a voluntary basis willing to contribute into these systems now i do have realtime data about traffic jams. maybe not to the granularity of slow down roont this corner but eevep there driving to d.c. all the time i know for sure whether there's a quarter mile ahead whether it's going to be that bottleneck between i-66 and 267. it's right there. i feel very confident when i see all the little red lights and the slow crawling icons on my screeb that something is going on. i guess that's not a good example since it's always there. anyway, so it may be that the creativity of people working in open markets and the fact that consumers can benefit from these technologies will enable scenarios that don't require a heavy weight approach. >> one distinction i want to make. i want to note that in terms of what i was talking about the infrastructure piece of this that's less stopped traffic in the tunnel, less to know that there's congestion. we can know that from wayings or navigation system that can tell us. from a collision mitigation standpoint though we need to know exactly where that car is stopped. in order for your vehicle to -- i want to make sure that we're t going to be using this for collision avoidance any time soon. >> no. >> i don't anticipate that. >> i'm going to cheat and ask a second question. guest: jeff said this and it's something i've been thinking about because it comes up in the larger issue of critical infrastructure protection. and that is how do you manage what we would call the refresh cycle? so critical infrastructure, the refresh cycle is about 20 years. so there's still a few places that are using windows wr89. as a hacker you want to thank them for that. how do you deal with the refresh cycle? cars. the average car is about 10 or 11 years. 12 yeerings. so if we had the perfect smart car today it would not be fully deployed until really about 2027. how do we deal with the refresh cycle? do we just let the nation ral cycle take its path? how do we deal with patching, updates? this will be an incremental process at best. do we want to try to accelerate it? >> so if we look at this granularly where these are chip based very light weight sensors, very inexpensive, very low power, low band withwidth, low cpu, you just look at it from the sensor aspect, the refresh occurs above at the virtualization stack and at the api stack and then the sensor itself is as much as possible just a hardware based sensing device. the other mechanism is rather than refresh or redeploy it's just ignore. is where if you do -- if you have a decent eye denty management system to identify the sensor and the data coming from the sensor instead of refreshing or pulling it, you just turn off that data or you don't allow that data into your analytic stack and then if you eed to you redeploy. >> the tech nolingses have learned i think over the last few years certainly when you're building new systems making updates frequent easy painless is in critical part of building a highly reliable robust system. the idea of agility and infrastructure is a key part of what's going on. again, use the mobile phone example. the aps are completely containerized. that's the problem with your pc. try moving it to another pc. it's absolutely impossible. you have to move everything. mobile phone people have learned by then. it literally deleets every single element of that ap because it's containerized. the operating system knows how to get rid of it. it's a hot topic for those following the it industry. ubiquitous refresh and deployment. so amazon.com does more than 100 million software deployments every year. thousands and thousands of deployment as day in realtime. the system never goes down. one user may hit refresh if they happen to hit a low balance or a server that's being rebooted they get refreshed and functioning ap. that's the way modern software is developed. if we're smart and the industry building new things, the legacy infrastructure is a different question. but if i'm building even a very lightweight piece of hardware with minimal piece of software i'm going to have the main system application and i'm going to have the updator and the two are completely independent. the updator ig sick nal to reload the device and the device does its normal function. but the two will be there so i can remotely upgrade the devices. i can going forward we have -- i think going forward, legacy is going to be an issue but i think it's a very good point that we can ignore data from sensors we know are not up to date or have been hacked or something like that so that's there are sluthses even to that problem. -- solutions to that problem. >> i would say in terms of how are we going to roll things out quickly if we have this refresh cycle the thing that is are going to come out quickly is whether aps or devices that can jump on to an existing platform which is taking advantage of sensors that are deployed were never intended to be used for hat purpose. from a security standpoint, the back end anlithics are going to be essential definitely for the legacy but also for the future. you're going to need some type of system that is watching to see does this data make sense? is this device acting in a way that i expect it to or should it be communicating right now? it's going to have to talk to the older systems and find a way to machine learning and also provide feedback. on the new devices we need to find a way to, definitely get the authentication in there as matt was talking about to find out what's the old new yorker cartoon on the internet? no one knows you're a dog. on the internet you can claim to be a sensor but we have to make sure they are what they claim to be. and then multiple other ways you need to secure them but that's going to depend pont the use. the wifi tooth brush -- i'm not making that up. i thought about buying it. my wife wouldn't let me. but probably not a lot of security there but other devices it's going to have to be situational. >> so all in all do you think we have a particular challenge in the vehicle space youse mentioned people tend to hang on to their cars obaverage 12 years which is a very long time. so it will undoubtedly take a fair amount of time for us to realize sort of the full potential of this vehicle network. there are ways to accelerate that. there are conversations going on about after market devices that can be plugged on to a vehicle to make it part of the network before while it's still on the road. one of the things i think is interesting that i want to throw out it's resulting -- i'm not going to get into details we're sort of embroiled in a spectrum battle in this space. one of the argument that is we've heard from the other side the folks who are interested in accessing the spectrum that's been set aside for the vehicle system is that it's going to take a long time for this network to come to be and there are ways that this spectrum can be used right now in a more tangible way. and i find that argument always to be a little bit funny because if everything we did was about the potential today and not about the potential of ten years from now, we would be sort of stagnant. so anyway, it's a recognition that is going to take a long time in the vehicle space. there's no doubt about it but it does not mean that it's not worth doing. >> for a while the working title was on the internet no one knows you're a refrigerator but nobody seemed to like that. do we have -- go ahead. can we get a microphone up to some of the questions? thank you. >> excellent panel. thanks again for these excellent programs. esterday at breakfast a nerc official basically capitulated when dealing with the security issues saying there's very little that we can do in our space if we don't have a revolutionary technological solution. and that really juxtaposes security against application efficiency and what have you. it was mirrored in a comment by the second largest world supplier of generators who basically said that securities on the risk side of our ledger and it's really not going to do much unless it's on our income side. so could i get comments from the panel with regard to those wo perspectives? >> matt seems ready to roll. >> pardon me. i'm leaping out of my seat. so i think we're seeing a business shift occurring mostly because of recent events where there's becoming a stark realization that security is a business issue. and that businesses who function looking at business risks that they do be it coupler risk, supplier risk, financial risk, also need to integrate cyber security risk into that business risk stack as they look across this whole issue of risk holes scli rather than dealing with cyber security off to the side. that way cyber security risk for businesses will be looked at in the context of the business and in the economics of it. we don't do security for security's sake unless you're a company and security is your business. you do security to support your business. and i believe that is becoming more and more realized where people are understanding that security and business are not in conflict but rather that security supports business. revolutionary technologies for security would be wonderful. but more often than not it's the sit down thoughtful risk management decisions and sound standardized application the hard gruntwork of the guys that used to be in the back server room that are now more out trolling with your customers that really provide you with some of the best bang for your buck on security. so we can all sit around and wait for that revolutionary silver bullet or we can sit down think about our assets, our threats, conduct integrated risk management and make some good sound risk decisions that support our businesses. so that's kind of my soap box that i will get off now. >> when i first started working on this issue back on the hill in 2009 time frame the mantra we heard was we have to pay attention. c suite doesn't care about cyber security and irk that is an old talking point now for the reasons mapt talked about. to some degree it's still going to be on the expense side but there is a lot more attention at the high level of corporations that is enabling. we're not there yet but there's been a significant shift. so i think you are seeing companies view it as in the same way that you lock the door on your ware house so no one walks in and steals your goods. you need to lock the virtual door too and we're getting more to a world where those things are equated as opposed to cyber security and being something. yeah we'll deal if we have a few extra dollars. so i think we're getting there slowly. >> let me ask kind of a mean question but i will ask it any how. where do we need to regulate first? what's number one on the hit parade for regulation? is it privacy? is it something else? where do we need to regulate first? >> stump them with this one. back. >> i don't think it's privacy. i don't know some folks may be aware of this but just a couple of weeks ago in recognition of sort of where the automobile is headed and growing concerns about privacy, the auto industry got together over the last year and two weeks ago we unveiled some -- a self-regulatory code of conduct to try to calm some of the growing i would characaterize it as his tearia around what may happen in the vehicle space and put some restrictions pretty meaningful restrictions i would argue on our use of vehicle data, things like we will not use it to market to you. we will not share it with third parties without your consent. things like that in an effort to address some of the concerns. so i think a self-regulatory approach is probably more appropriate there. the problem i was mentioning earlier for the vehicle space is cars are so heavily regulated we can't do anything without getting nhtsa to bless it. and it's certainly going to be the case with the new vehicles and so we've got a couple of rule makings that are pending or not even yet started at nhtsa one around autonomous vehicles, self-driving cars. i don't think nhtsa has much of a clue where to begin. these are hard issues and hard questions but the time is now to start that process. and also there's a pending rule making that's just started on mandating this vehicle to vehicle communication capability and all future vehicles. and that is wrathor slow going -- rather slow going as well. a lot of folks are interested in those being done more quickly. >> ok. >> jeff do you want to say anything about where the report came out on this? >> the report did not come out at all in favor or discuss really regulations. it was talks in terms of voluntary effort within the government and then the public private effort to come up with deployment guidelines. i think the biggest reason and it's written in the report is that we are so early in iot that we can't yet define it. and if we come up with too strict a structure around it we're going to limit the innovation of it and potentially the security of it, too. that's why this idea of getting the public private together and trying to drive the awareness of it, in general i think we need to look at existing regulators rather than new ones and make sure they get what they're doing in the cyber rem, smart it's nist or be about it and make sure we're not limiting deployment of new technologies. i think you have to look to what's going on currently before looking at the outside. >> thank you. there seems to be more emphasis that maybe next year the federal government will start to invest more in infrastructure. do you think it's possible that they could be convinced to devote a good bit of that infrastructure spending on iot related things which my judgment would be much more efficient both from a capital deployment energy deployment and environment impacts than building more roads, more airports, more harbors, more rail roads just use the ones we have more efficiently which the iot allows you to do? could you comment on that? >> so i mean, i'm going to kind of take it down a stack to where i operate in the technology space. it might not be an either/or but rather if we are going to invest in new infrastructure, the new infrastructure should look at how it can use iot for smart sustainable infrastructure that then can allow for a longer life cycle on the infrastructure, allow for more economic use of the nfrastructure and to allow for easier and more economic maintenance of the infrastructure. so rather than pouring concrete or putting up a bridge let's instrument it at the same time so that the new highway is already set up for that infrastructure to vehicle communication. it's already put in a band withconversations are already looked at those types of things. so you don't necessarily have to send out the bridge inspector every year but rather the bridge will tell you send me an inspector type of thing. so i think we will have a spectrum of deploys iot into existing infrastructure to understand it better and deploying iot into new so we will understand it better as we go foreflt >> an easy way to accelerate that is for congress to think about building it into any legislation or funding for infrastructure. and so that -- if you're trying to think how you would jump start the process it would be to make this a requirement for infrastructure spending. i don't know if that's going to happen. i wouldn't take any bets. we had a question there in the middle. o ahead. >> i know that the technology -- that they're using international standards. overseas innovation than i see here. >> one thing -- i don't have a direct answer. i would say that one of the findings that i didn't discuss whether port is that standards regulations that are going to make any devices we have in the u.s. not function with the rest of the world. we need to thing about this as a global. thags one of the findings that where current governance structures are inadequate because they are too vull canized. >> toyota being a global company we always have an interest in anything that we're doing. we don't want to have to modify a cash for sale in the u.s. different than a car we would sell in japan. so international standards are paramount. s in nist stands for standards. so the international standards are essential and extraordinarily helpful for both innovation and global competitiveness in open markets. so i would concur with that. >> did you want to touch on this at all? i'm not going to let you off the hook. it might be data localization is the standard. >> yes it's a great thing. i would say that the internet the itf standards have been a really good example of how -- quick running code the way to approach standards often is through proof of concept implementation. and i think we've seen that over the years that that is the case. and now that's more ofing into the open source world where people will provide not only the standards but implementation and people have business models that allow them to give it away so you can see quickly developing very useful new technologies that come about through the agreements essentially to not only write down protocols and data specks but distribute code that people can reuse. so i'm very optimistic. and very international we have regions deployed all over the lobe and keep our statuses identical and use the same standards for everything from things like multifact ral authentication standards, rc 6238. we use these things and they're global in nature and that's the big part of the success of these fast developing markets. >> we'll work our way through. >> something you said excited people. >> this question may be a little bit out of the scope but i'm thinking, i'm wondering particularly in some of your companies or in your report if these sensors include mikes and web cams or something similar to that or even if it's data to date for the national security stuff we see going on most of the commercial targets have been telecome companies or social networks, the googles the facebooks. have you been talking or on the regulatory side talking about when you're going to get subpoenaed or government hacking? i want to ask about consumer choice and control but let's keep it to government right now because now the internet of things is going to have all this data the government might want not just telecom and googles and facebooks. >> so this is something that the industry auto industries were working on those self-regulatory privacy principles one of the things that we grappled with where we came out is we have all committed not to share information with law enforcement in the absence of a warrent. so we tried to be as aggressive and we felt we could be and needed to be for our consumers on that front. but in the vehicle space it's particularly we're finding growing interest from law enforcement in location information type, wadgetting to know where somebody is. -- wanting to know where somebody is. >> from a technology perspective i will agree with you, microphones, web cams, speakers, cameras, g.p.s. sensors are all sensors that are taking the physical world and generating data from it and then potentially from that sensor putting it back into a back-end cloud. by the way just described your phone if you think about it which is a sensor platform. so kind of what you high lighted is at a large level is what are the security requirements that we should think about in order to not just assure the integrity and the authenticity of the data that's being generated but to work on the confidentiality of that data as well? what are those requirements? what are the standards that are needed to ensure that? an encryption that can be used in these devices, low power low band withlow cpu through the security protocols and the ecurity and analytics as well. >> we have plenty of questions. o ahead, please. >> as you start looking machine to machine systems where you don't have humans in the loop and we have such wonderful threats of cyber and time denials and everything that goes on, can we look at standards or mechanisms and processes that allow us to continue to operate? i envision a stage where my toyota won't go in the tunnel because it doesn't know. all right? so what i don't want to do is have the same circumstance i have when i go to the grocery store and the power goes out and i can't buy anything because nobody knows how to use a calculator. how do you keep from overautomatic iot to the point where it becomes our enemy? >> this is something i think the auto industry is struggling with right now and where at least toyota has landed on this issue is for the foreseeable future we are going to adopt an airplane model. and by that i mean we all get on airplanes and we probably are all aware maybe we're not that those things are generally taking off flying and landing. but you still have to two pilots in that cockpit just in case. right? and for us for the foreseeable future we're envisioning that kind of model in the vehicle that there will always be an operator in the operator seat or the driver's seat who can take over manual operation of the vehicle should a -- car encounter a situation that it doesn't know how to handle or whether any sort of those environments. so we get dinged a lot about that from an innovation standpoint this doesn't sound innovative that you can't sleep in the back seeth or drop your kids off at day care while you finish your morning cup of coffee and i get that but from a reality standpoint this is unchartered territory and we want to make sure we get it right and there will be growing pains. this doesn't happen, not perfection overnight. and to address those growing pains we're going with the airplane pilot mode for a while. >> jeff kind of talked about this is kind of a merger between it and ot systems something they do better is ot systems look at users as part of the system design whereas it we're very good at trying to isolate or get rid of users. so when we look at these type of iot systems that are having these kinetic physical feedback loops so it's not just generating data but it's going to then use that in a policy to make a decision sent back to some act waitor to change the physical environment, the concept now is what is the failure settings of these devices? how do they fail? how do they fail safe? what is the esillyensy model? i think mark was talking about the old security concept of the perimeter. we could spend a whole session on whether or not it was even valid to begin with. but instead, how do these things operate under compromise or operate in degraded mode safely and with a manner that does not have a negative kinetic impact? >> the resilience point i was going to make is in the report speaking as shep green i would say we need to start having our developers asking the right question. and the first question is can we connect it? the question is should we connect it? and if yes then we need to look at does it need security? if yes what level of security? and then how do we put it in? but i think we need to start with the should we connect it? it's a little bit of the wild wild west right now. i was at a conference last spring and had a show floor and some of the stuff lilingtly cardboard boxes and duct tape it was very cool but it felt like early 90's internet web pages which was really neat but i don't think we're asking all the right questions right now. >> i'll just chime in and say good engineering discipline should always require about how things operate in degraded mode and i lose that connection to my home server what do i do now and so certainly that's got to be a key part of the design principles for these systems. what occasional connection disconnected operations all these have got to be key to designing reliable and robust systems. >> i think the handoff from the machine to the human operator will be one of the biggest challenges for a lot of the devices and also the fail safe when the machine fails and when the operator fails which we can almost always comment what do you do? so those will be sort of the unchartered problems for this. > thank you. you were addressing a bit some of the hardware and software reliability issues. there are also user education example cars. i have a new car, not a toyota but it's still a good car. with a company that says innovate genetic sites i would say that also puzzles sometimes because there are so many complexities. i finally figured out how to use voice recognition and it was not coming up with the right stuff. you also have a problem with drivers distracted drivers distracted walkers. so how do we educate drivers on what have become much more complex vehicles? how do we educate the mechanics quho are fixing them? and how do we keep drivers engaged so that if the machine runs into a situation where it can prevent the accident we still have a safe car to drive and hopefully avoid or minimize the accident? >> so yes to all of that. i can tell you that i don't think there is an auto company out there and toyota include whod is not spending a lot of money trying to get those answers correct. there are challenges with how you're sharing this information, how the vehicle is communicating information to drivers and you don't want to do that in a way that is distracting. there are issues about the handoff between the machine and the vehicle when the car encounters something that it needs the driver to step in and help with. these are not easy answers to come up with. i can tell you though ultimately with the driver distraction thing a lot of the technology will probably help counter distraction. you know, for example, so i've got a new lexus with all the bells and whistles for all the advanced collision systems on it. and i've noticed how much that car saved my rear end when -- i try not to be a distracted driver but i have kids and kids are like really distracting when they're in the back seat. and that car has saved me multiple times when i'm dealing with kids in the back seat and i take my eye off the road for a second and then the car beeps at me and starts braking because i'm about to rear ebbed somebody. so we think of this in some ways as a way to address driver distraction or overcome driver distraction. one element of it. >> do you want to tell people your license plate number? >> but i'm ok because i have the precollision all the mate system so i won't crash into you. >> a lot of these problems are problems we've lived through before the dawn of the cigarette. we don't want to be too car correct rick but in the early 90's there's an issue called busy cockpit for military aircraft you had too many screens and too many little numbers so how do you simplify the cockpit so the pilot could do what he was supposed to do and not manage the aircraft? we had one more. >> quick interdiction my daughter lives in new york and she says a popular ap in manhattan that uses the video camera of your phone to show you the sidewalk just ahead of you so as you walk down the road -- the street -- >> i couldn't believe it but he's completely serious. >> good afternoon. question for the panel the entire panel. in terms of the slow adoption of technology, that's going to be a concern we're developing a program in fact we'll be working with nist in part of the global challenge. but the slow adoption of technology you're talking about the refresh rate of vehicles, that's getting to be a longer period. you're talking about the policy issues relative to citizens and their concern about privacy. that then also falls over to communities that are concerned about the cloud and the security of the cloud. what's the answer or is there an easy answer to the question how do they become -- it's a long complex project? >> i think that's one of the challenges that the smart cities challenge. is trying to look at what are the barriers that currently exist? what are the economics? what are the instrumentation and deployment issues? what are the life cycle issues that need to be addressed to fully realize the potential. what are the needed future skill sets and jobs and education types that need to be set up for this? i'm looking for a crypt ogfer, psychologist, data scientists. you know there's not a lot of them out there. but these are the type of future skill sets that we need. what is the future iot repairman look like? you no -- know. so there's potential for a large infrastructure shift to occur at a much larger level than just deploying a set of sensors and then looking at the data topographies. >> i've got to say something since you brought up the security of the cloud. like any system you can misuse a cloud form but i will argue and many of my customers will come in here and tell you they can move systems in a large scale highly automated platform than they could ever build for themselves when they were doing 100 or 1,000 setters. we're operating an internet scale. we reach out to customers and tell them there's something going on. when we hire a security expert the amount of servers who their skills impact is way larger factor of scale than when you hire that same security expert. so the use of these very large scale systems -- so this isn't so much a commercial plug as industry plug. i'm plugging the idea of utility computing as a new way of doing computing. we really believe that security experts within the go main or application or organization or agency can focus on a much smaller set of the problem and they can write completely automated tools because everything is an ati. this is programmable infrastructure. so there's no more people racking and stacking and where someone comes in and cross connects the eithernet jack just to see if something -- that can't happen in highly scaled automated systems. so in general i think we're going to get more secure systems when you use large scale computing platforms. again you can misconfigure and misuse them so there's still responsibility on the users to not configure them improperly but the actual base infrastructure itself this is a big win and the analytics that you get from that data. so we're seeing patterns and doing analytics on very large scale patterns not visible to individual users. and that goes to the safety of the entire community. so i think cloud is not the security issue that software perceived it's going to be in fact it's going to bl a win. >> we'll start with the questions in the back and move up front. raise your hand please. we have two there one in the front and then we're through. >> josh with the center for data innovation. i think you described it as a his tearia the recent concern about people worried about their data being shared or collected and misused or abused. so with the internet being ubiquitous everything from your car to a bridge to a street corner how do you address the concern from a regulatory perspective or public image perspective of all the data being collected and shared and used to end up returning value to the consumer to the citizen but with a lot of devices they don't have a touch screen like your smart phone and you can't really collect, consent or deliver notification about the data being shared. how do you work around that? >> that's a good question for all the panel. >> i don't know that i have a unique answer on it. it's interesting. one of the things i've been grappling with, i don't know if it's useful but it's a distinction and to me this element of choice and consent nd that sort of thing may have morrell vance in those things of which you have no choice. right? or those things where you have a choice versus those things where you do not have a choice. but even then you know there's this element of sort of is it anonymous data, aggregated data or identifiable data? for us we were grappling with as an auto industry we focused on data that is identifiable. if it's agzpwated or deidentified it was not part of the calculus. and then there are pieces of vehicle data collection that are going to be optional to you like if you want to be a probe on the wave system you can choose to be or if i want to wear a fit bit i can choose versus some systems where there's not a choice. i don't know if it's a useful distinction but it's one i've een focusing on. >> i think piggy backing that a little bit. a lot of it starts with the education that we talked a bit earlier that is in the report. people need to start understanding the amount of data they're generating. when i bought a fit bit i didn't think about all the different places that data would be. i don't really care who has the data on how many steps i take. but we did a report last year that looked at all of the data and all the different places and the different vulnerabilities that it goes through. again, if i'm talking about step count not such a big deal. but when you start getting into other health characteristics, who knows how they're going to be used. until you have people being aware and raising concerns it's going to be hard to get traction to come up with solutions because there's not going to be that outside force driving it. people need to understand even what they're giving off with their phone. who here has read an entire ulo when they click accept on an ap? i'm not banging them but we need to think about that. they actually are collecting data and it's going out there. >> my question is about the connections between the devices. so it's two fold. the first is does the f.c.c. have the capacity to manage the prioritization and distribution of that spectrum? are they thinking about this issue? and then the other thing is to what degree will the internet go nance debate with i can play into the global nature of iot? >> i'll take a stab at the first question at least. you know, shared spectrum use has been technically feasible for a long time. some futurists have argued the f.c.c. shouldn't exist at all because everybody can share all the spectrum and i think that's technically true although there's the issues of enforcement and improper use. but there are these fair amount of capacity set aside for shared use and the technology knows how to hop around when it detects interference and finds unused portions and any pact based systems also have a certain inherent resilience. so i don't personally think that's going to be a big bottleneck in terms of solving problems. >> the issue of prioritization is being looked at. there's a couple of programs around the federal partnership for interoperable communications as well as the first net program looking at when we instrument these up how do we understand and provide appropriate allocations for example the first responders. so everyone is at the scene of the fire streaming that video back up to you tube whereas the fire department would really like to stream it back to the in bound truck and so how do we ensure that there's proper allocation to places where potentially it could provide the most good or should there just be a separate set for them altogether? so this is still in a research/development phase of discussion and deployment right now. >> we've talked a lot about capability but i'm wondering who is leading on the issues of data ownership to the life cycle of the data and liability. who are the star lawyers who are hemming you along the way to build that in just like you need to build security in? >> so i'm not a lawyer. i'm an engineer. but this kind of dove tails with the question earlier. from an engineering perspective we're very interested in can we provide specific tangible privacy requirements that then can be used as with enough level of specificity so that rivacy capabilities around redress confidentiality transparency ownership effective understanding of privacy risk maybe with the ula maybe not can all be actually built or designed into the system, the concept of privacy by design as we start to deploy these things out. so then whoever is making those decisions at the policy stack can actually have that capability built in and designed with these systems going forward. so we're looking at it more at the capability and having providing what references that we can to allow for the systems to at least have the capabilities to enforce or implement whatever the privacy policy happens to be. we'll do a poll how many are lawyers. >> i have never practice add day in my life. do i get credit for that? >> yes. >> ok. >> i can't say that. >> i would say that right now from what i've seen the iot privacy legal work is really coextensive with internet privacy generally. i may have missed it but i haven't seen a breakout into let's look at iot, the ownership of stick with my data as it moves around the world. i think that's coming. but all of this is i feel we're at the leading edge of a wave of both technology and policy on this. >> anything about personal data? commercially for companies along the way through the life cycle. >> well, in the early 90's there was debate among economists and one famous onomist said that we saw information technology everywhere but in the productivity statistics and the good news about that is he was wrong. and people buy things for a while. you don't see a benefit because they have to figure out how to use them, they have to innovate. and then you got a burst of economic growth that drove the u.s. economy for about a decade. so i'm hopeful we can get this right it may not be as distinguishable as the it revolution but we can see a similar burst in economic growth. and this was an appreciable increase to income so with that please -- that's a goal here for us. thinking about the issues we've talked about security privacy standards international cooperation but i think we're on the path to maybe do this. i found this to be a really excellent panel. i really appreciate them. please give them a hand. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> the chair of the ways and means committee congressman dave camp is retiring. he's represented michigan's fourth district for 12 terms, 24 years. he recently talked with c-span to reflect on his time in congress, his efforts to change the tax code, and how a former president helped him get on the ways and means committee. he also talks about his cancer diagnosis two years ago. his is about 30 minutes. >> house ways and means committee dave camp, we're talking on the closing hours of congress. in your time here you've had something of a singular focus for tax reform, tax overhaul. you're leaving congress without achieving that. >> when i became chairman four years ago i knew that we had to do something about this policy that expired and then we've retro actively put nit place. and we're the only nation in the world that lets its tax policy expire. so my first hearing was on tax reform, you're right it was my focus, and spent really three years put out a discussion draft on the international taxes in october 2011 and then obviously created bipartisan working groups more than 35 hearings really to get the right input from families, businesses, stake holders. but these are big things to move. i had a good partner in the senate with senator baucus and he did white papers. we traveled the country together to highlight the problems with the tax code and it's been an experience. a lot of members have gotten involved. but unless you have a but unless you have a president who is involved in something this big, it's not really going to move too far. but i thought it was very important to push. it's a debate this country needs to have. we don't have the kind of growth in our economy, we don't have the kind of job creation or the kind of growth in incomes that we absolutely need to have. so it's a debate we need to have in america. i think the step now is the treasury department and administration need to come up with their detailed plan. they were part of the process. they've seen everything we've done. they now need to come forward. if the president does want to actually grow the economy, bring more revenue to the government and higher incomes to people, this is one way to do it. so i think it will happen.
encounteredrs characters in a very clever and effective way. we are adapting a book right now for classroom use with a series of cgi short films. all these things. we love passion stuff. we love great ideas for passion projects. >> this question wants to do role-playing. she says i am talking to my neighbor but even go immigration and he tells me a story about a 22-year-old quietly living her life, working at a grocery store, and this person is illegal. now what? what story are you going to tell him? not one of theis issues that gets me as fired up as other ones. i would not be the best person to convey a response on that. could pull up the negative ramifications of immigration. the most immigration we get his cubans turning a roof into a boat and floating over. i would use whatever characters or personal stories you could that illegal immigration has had negative ramifications on your life. that is something closer to home for you guys. book?e you written a if not, why not? >> illiteracy. with some tutoring -- i am not a creative type. i do development work, outreach work, media stuff. the only thing i have ever been -- we have ar is big event in manhattan, and every time our fermenters come up to me they want me to work with them. the same thing every time. you would be great for voiceover work. [laughter] that is the greatest backhanded compliment you could get. i did some voiceover work for an animated short. they called me. now i'm getting typecast. st i havehe close got to anything creative. i did a radio pilot. do yourkind of budget projects typically have? >> all over the place. we have videos the causes little as $6,000. obviously, narrative films are more expensive than documentaries. feature-length is more expensive than short films. lost will probably cost for production somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million. your marketing budget has to be as big if not bigger than the production budget. the marketing is key. as crazy as that sounds. if somebody sees an ad for justca lost, it could be as effective as a political ad. but it's not just something that is forgotten as soon as the election is over. i view the advertising as a much more worthwhile investment when it's done for social action campaigns. >> speaking of candidates, can you think of any good examples of candidates or political figures or leaders using humor and storytelling effectively? youalifornians, can any of point to a great politician? >> ronald reagan. that's the best example. ronald reagan. that is the best example. governor reagan, you are accusing mr. carter of those mistakes. mistake?ever made a yes, i was once a democrat. [laughter] moral outrage is the most powerful political tool. reagan also employed -- there you go. mostolled anger is the powerful political tool, but humor is the second most powerful political tool. breakdown of black families is the results of government policies. any thoughts on how you might change that? in stockton, california -- when all government institutions disappeared. it can wreck families lives. it is crazy. the troy today, they don't even offer police services in some areas. just like you see in other countries when they enact socials health care systems, initially it starts out as the greatest health care ever. then they can afford it. it's incredible. you will see that in virginia. >> is anyone else making films that celebrate freedom? >> a lot of individual filmmakers out there do great films. not everybody works with us on every project. our goal is to build a movement, not an empire. we partner with an organization called free to choose. a district a lot of our content and classrooms. there is another organization in california that do a lot of free workshops for filmmakers. we are the only organization doing what we do. creating content online, theatrically release content -- of we partner with a lot institutes as well. we have been fortunate enough to partner with a lot of great organizations out there. >> did i you have anything to do with the film the last man standing? >> no. what was that? >> [indiscernible] >> should i be watching it? ok. i'll put it my netflix or tivo queue. we celebrate films that promote liberty. year, we also did the liberty tv wards. we could not do it every year because there is not that many tv shows. how many times can you talk about shark tank? last man standing, tim allen -- is that on abc? >> i haven't heard of it either. i will look for it. we talked about children's books -- this is a question about a specific book. any interest in working with rush limbaugh? >> no. that i wouldnd old record and listen to rush limbaugh when i came home from school. young people here today, they would be really confused because they don't know what tape-recording is. people always ask us, why don't you work with glenn beck. that would lower cover. he is selling red meat to tea party members. >> you said you had one more clip. let me do one more question. then we will wrap it up. with the movie, unfair, exposing the irs? >> i have never heard of it. similarly, if anybody knows of great filmmakers or people who share our beliefs and want to be more active in filmmaking, i would love to talk to you. this last clip is not one of the ones we did. ede guy i mentioned to work mtv didlodeon and this one. wanted to make it so funny that the liberals could not ignore it. salon said that they hate every bit of this video. 1980's parody of action figures called cronies. clip] ♪ new kroeady for the all nies. >> they are stealing our customers with superior products. >> meet the extreme shape shifter. >> you can't stop me. come parts and labor. >> we are under competitive attack. >> raise the trade barriers. >> this wall street are stacks the deck and rigs the game. >> take to the skies. >> she's awful. she is wasteful. >> every team needs a leader. the ultimate source of kronie power. >> get connected to the geforce. >> we are connected. >> find out more. collect them all. do not attempt to be a real kro nie without political influence. [applause] thank you so much for having me. i love coming to a place where against all odds, against all adversity, there are still people who are passionate about liberty. it is a true thrill and inspiration to come out here to meet people fighting for our belief against such incredible odds. thank you for having me. i appreciate it. [applause] congressman tom price talks about the budget process, the spending bill, and a look ahead at a congress with both chambers led by republicans. newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. >> here's a look at some programs on christmas day. festivities start with the lighting of the national christmas tree, followed by the white house christmas decorations with michelle obama, and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. p.m., celebrity activists talk about the causes. 8:00, supreme court justice and a former governor on the founding fathers. venture into the art of good writing. see the feminist side of a superhero. p.m., authors talk about the reading habits. on american history tv on c-span3, the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage of george bush and bob dole, with speeches from john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on fashion choices and how they represented this thousand the time. 10:00, former nbc news anchor tom brokaw on his more than 50 years of reporting on world events. that is christmas day on the c-span network. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> among the senators retiring at the end of the session, mike johanns. mitch mcconnell recently made these remarks in tribute to the one term senator. it is 10 minutes. >> i'd like to pay tribute today to a truly outstanding senator, who will soon retire after more than 30 years of public service. i am speaking of senator mike johanns. he is the only current member of this body besides senator alexander to have served as governor, and cabinet secretary. accomplished,e is mike is not the flashes senator. he does not hold the most press conferences. he does not yell the loudest. you don't have to worry about him knocking your over to get to a tv camera. mike has proven himself a remarkable, remarkably successful member of this body. that was true in his battles to defend nebraska's rule communities against government overreach. it was true when he worked to sink a national energy tax that threaten his constituents. it was true when he led the first successful legislative effort to revisit obamacare, working with many democrats to repeal the 1099 provision. mike is never looking for drama. he is always aiming for results. for peopletake long around here to recognize that mike was more than just another freshman in the minority. he became the guy you turn to if you wanted to get an amendment up to 60 votes. that is truly remarkable for a first-term senator. it is especially remarkable when you consider that mike came to the senate at a time when republicans were deep in the minority. mike is a pretty remarkable guy. county commissioner, city ,ouncilman, mayor, governor secretary of agriculture. you name it, mike has done it. that was before he even set foot in the senate. some think mike must have a secret that allows him to assemble bipartisan coalitions on conservative issues. i don't think it's much of a secret at all. mike works across the aisle, works in good faith, and he works hard. he does not care what party you are from. absolutely no one can outwork him. mike make sure of that by getting up earlier than anyone else. it's a habit he learned growing farm.a for he would get up at 5:00 a.m. every day. from age four, he would work. he would shovel mock. he'd fill the hall tanks. he'd even deliver piglets. the point is, mike developed an appreciation for hard work and responsibility at an early age. along with his strong catholic faith, these are the traits that still define him today. they don't paint the whole picture. mike johanns may be in a congressman, he may be one of the smartest and most capable public servants you are ever meet, but he is absolute poverty in the wife of his hands. they complement each other perfectly. their idea of a perfect night out is a night in together. fans.re both husker as my clinic, steph has almost mike put it, she is almost never in a bad mood. them have logged tens of thousands of miles together campaigning across nebraska, usually in matching t-shirts. sometimes in a beat up old corsica. they have plenty of storage from the trail, too. but one for mike's run for governor stands out in particular. here's what happened. one are driving home evening after a long day of marching in parades in the hot sun. way,passed a barn on the assuming it was a cattle sale. they figure they were drop-in and press a few palms. stephanie parker car. mike open the door. dozens of well-dressed nebraskans eyes fell on them. t-shirtsheir sweaty had not drop a cattle sale, they had crossed the wedding. i will give them this, they made the best of it. mike ended up dancing with the he wentnd of course on to win the election. one month later -- here's the ,equel -- at an inaugural ball too uninvited guest showed up. it was the bride and her husband. they had a civil message, you crashed our wedding governor and now we are crashing your inaugural. senator may like to brag, but our colleagues know the truth. mike is the original wedding crasher. certainlytephanie have traveled a long and interesting road from when they first met while serving on the lancaster county board in the , when mike would draft up list on an old typewriter and they would go out and campaign door-to-door. a lot has changed. thing -- mike is not a democrat anymore. but much of the same two. he still cares deeply about mental health issues. considers his crowning achievement as governor. he still has loyal fans on staff who remember all of his efforts on the issue. -- theruly a rare thing loyalty mike inspires and people. this is a senator with staffers who have been with him for many years. some since his days in local politics. abouts what they all say mike johanns. senator johanns is a man who cares. he cares about his family. he cares about the people who work for him. and he cares about his constituents. given hisy he has cell phone number out to half of nebraska. he has made his mistakes. as mayor, he had to cancel halloween one year. that is old news. -- he isnebraskans simply mike. they respect him, and i know they will miss him. and so are we. at least retirement will give mike more time with his hobbies. watche washer.us window know thate does, we this is a retirement well-earned. flu, madalt with bird cow disease, a farm bill, deficit reduction, and just about any other issue you can think of over a long and distinct career in public service. -- we all want to thank senator johansson are his loyal dedication to the senate and the people of nebraska. we wish mike and stephanie the best as they look forward to their adventure together. >> the majority leader perry >> i would join in the remarks. i would add to that. . >> i would add to that. stephanie is one of the funniest people. a sense of humor that is remarkable. >> [indiscernible] >> yes. >> the senator from nebraska. >> thank you. mr. president just a word to both leaders. thank you so very much for your kind words. i also want to say thank you for mentioning my wife, stephanie. this is been a remarkable partnership for a lot of years. i could not do what i did without her. mcconnell.o senator thank you. it has been an honor to serve in this body. i will have more to say next week and my farewell speech, but i do not want this day to go by without expressing my appreciation. thank you. >> seth rogen talks about political humor in move maze. movies. followed by retiring senator harkin's farewell speech on the floor. >> on the next washington tankersley examines what has gone wrong with the middle class and what the country must do to get the economy working for everyone. aaron david miller talks about his book, the end of greatness, why a america cannot have and not want another great president. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this week on q&a, katy perry much on what she perceives as the hypocrisy of liberals on their war on women rhetoric. what is republic ted kennedy? is your problem with ted kennedy? >> they were showing this tribute video. him as theretraining women's rights champion when he left the young woman to drown in his car. if he had not gone back to save his own behind, she would've probably survived. you can't do an entire video at a convention or about the war on women and glorify someone like that by not including that part of his life in the video. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. to mark 10 years, we are airing one program from each year starting december 22 at 7:00 p.m. eastern. rogen and liz winstead on politics and humor. this event took place before mr. rogan ended his public appearances and before sony pictures canceled his release of the film, the interview. mr. rogan briefly discusses why he made the movie. it is part of a broader discussion on how comedians and filmmakers use comedy to address political issues. the harvard institute of politics posted this event. a note to our viewers, this program contains language that some may find offensive. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> hello, everyone. i am maggie williams. welcome to the john f. kennedy junior forum in the institute of politics. our mission is to inspire students towards careers in politics and public service, but we have some laughs along the way. over the years, this form has hosted chevy chase, john stewart, stephen colbert, al franken, and i hope you will as much asdiscussion you have enjoyed the others. leading our conversation tonight is a young woman who knows a , namedr two about humor this past january as the first african-american woman president of our 138-year-old harvard lampoon. [applause] she started her writing career at age seven when she began her i am the onlyd, one who knows about anything. [laughter] senior and studies economics, which is a writing comedy. turn ina directors in the state of wisconsin. please welcome alexis wilkinson. [applause] >> thank you so much, maggie. i can die now. tonight toe are here discuss the role of politics and humor, and i think what is becoming increasingly apparent about the role of humor and politics. -- some people would argue that influence the entire country -- to the daily report. the colbert r with that in mind, our guest tonight our liz winstead, the cocreator of the daily show. she has campaigned tirelessly and hilariously for contraceptive access and abortion rights. she has appeared on comedy central, hbo, cnn, msnbc. welcome liz winstead. [applause] rogen as an actor, him he nominated writer, comedian, filmmaker. appeared in a number of block busters. he is also a canadian. seth has been an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization, gay rights, and alzheimer's awareness, testifying to congress about the importance of research. please give it up for seth rogen. [applause] ok, i'm going to ask them a couple of open-ended questions and we will watch a couple of video clips and then we will move on to q&a. i will start with list. liz. you started as a standup comedian and then went on to write. some 80% of millennial's watch the daily show. that is a crazy percentage. can you describe how you came to create the show and what your original vision was for the show? >> oh, boy. i thought i it was would be a standup forever. i was on the road and making a living doing standup. i was fine about it. i was kind of a hack. like great dane should have to wear underwear in public. really, it is so embarrassing to say, but it is true. this up tiffany, and what moment --i was set up on this date. it was before tender. i went on a date and the guy shows up and he is wearing a yankees hat and a yankees jacket becausealready doubting i'm from minnesota, i'm a twins fan, and i have a theory about who went double sports gear that they won't go down on you. isn't dolcee -- vita in black and white? that's a negative. i thought i should and do the date. but i continued. we went to the movie. he fell asleep in the movie. i hated him so much for falling that i smeared my greasy popcorn hand on his yankees jacket. i felt horrible guilt. i said let's go have a drink. we get to the bar and it's the night of the first gulf war. the tv is on. born,of you weren't even but it was when there was just cnn. all of a sudden, cnn had graphics and a theme song and hot people talking about war. , are theyto myself reporting on a war are trying to sell me a war? it felt really weird. , -- i thought,e we're screwed as a nation. i started looking at the world through a different lens. i started reading more stuff in talking about the media. one-womanuple of shows an comedy central said you want to create a show that's on everyday about the news? i said, i do, but the one thing that is key is that we make fun of the newsmakers, we actually use the news of the character. we look at the way they do the news and make fun of that. the manipulation is part of it. >> ok. awesome. thank you. work, a lot of your involves merging politics and humor. let's go to a clip from your organization. clip] >> oh, there's a screen. ♪ fallopian tube. end uninvited guests. the state of our uterus is strong. the end of last year left is unstable. when the government shutdown, there was panic. with no politician in place telling me what to do, our vaginas ran amok. that was then. that thei assure you government is back to work and that republicans and republicans alike are tirelessly fighting so have the samewill rights as those of saudi arabia. [laughter] [applause] lady parts justice is dealing with a contentious and divisive issue. legislation is now closing family planning clinics, leaving women without options, so what made you want to be in this fight? think leaving women without options is bad. also, i realize people were not aware of what was happening. planned parenthood is a strong brand. busy, you don't understand what the assault is. -- when i hear people talk about this issue they talk about circumstances that are not true. some age ofere is abstinence we have to get back to. people have sex. they dupe mistakes happen. whatever. why not make sure all access is given and talk about it in ways that are fun and interesting and also get men involved, because out that women cannot get pregnant by themselves. >> what? >> yes. it is true. can't like if women control everything about their , they will never be a part of the power structure. i would like to be more a part of the decision-making process. [applause] >> thank you. let's move on to seth. >> oh, man. forou are most known outrageous blockbuster comedies and smoking cannabis. deeply aboutre alzheimer's research. how you came to be involved in that conversation and what it was like to testify to congress about it? mother-in-law was diagnosed with early alzheimer's when she was in her 50's. i had just started dating my wife around that time. i really knew nothing about it. i knew how was for trade in movies. i very quickly got a crash course in all things alzheimer's. one of the most interesting things and startling things was that there is literally no treatment at all. there is nothing you can do. then you start to look into how and it isng it gets, ridiculously overfunded in comparison the things that kill much less people and have many forms of treatment. so, no one is doing anything, and as far as diseases that are ,ool to talk about, it's polio just not hip in any capacity. there is a lot of shame associated with it. there is aware of microphone thing happening. the whole thing is flocked. is --. there was no competition. it was mine to take. [applause] older, you realize -- not everyone -- i'm a famous person in people pay attention to what i say, and i generally say stupid shit. maybe i can deflect that onto something they could use some elimination. i wonder how to do that. i'm not very educated. it was a struggle for a long time. very organically this thing came into my life where i could talk about it on a very personal way. i did not have to memorize facts or statistics or anything like that. i can speak from my own experiences. all of a sudden, i was raising awareness. they invited me to go to congress and talk about it. way, i discerning in a guess. they have these panel set up so they can hear people's personal please on issues and no one shows up to them. that is like the norm. there are 17 people on this panel and two people were there. wonder whyted to there were only two people that's whatone was happens. people do not show up to these things. what a great job. you're defended in your choice to not show up to it. in a way, that was disconcerting. at the same time, people hate the government, and that is why. it seems inefficient and people are getting paid to do ship they are not doing. moment, alzheimer's went viral, i guess. the speech got a lot of views on second, on c-span, the most-watched video after obama's inauguration. not a lot of competition. [applause] that i can, showed even if for a brief moment, shed some light on something, and that's a microscopic step towards relevant change. >> ok. also. thank you. the next thing i want to ask you about is your new movie, the interview. you and james franco are hired by the cia to kill north korea's leader. let's watch the trailer for that. [laughter] clip] >> who is this? >> our leader is interested in doing an interview with james schuyler. >> did you do say china? >> i will be traveling to north korea to interview north korea's president. ♪ am agent lazy with central intelligence. in awo are going to be room alone with north korea's president. we would love it if you could take them out. take them out. >> for coffee or dinner? >> take him out. >> you want us to kill the leader of north korea. ? >> what? >> hello, north korea. ofi watched every episode your show. i especially enjoyed the miley cyrus camel to know episode. >> you are entering the most dangerous company on earth. >> i have a gift for you. this dog is killing me with his cuteness. ♪ >> i wish we had an escape plan. >> i'm a good swimmer. >> it is really far. >> people have done it. >> that is not true. ♪ >> nice tank. is that real? >> it was a gift to my grandfather from stalin. >> in my country it is pronounced stallone. ♪ >> i never heard this before in my life. >> i love katy perry. >> i spend a lot of time with cam, and i think he's not a bad guy. >> all right. [applause] ok. the actual north korea has flipped. they called it merciless retaliation. i don't think they have nukes. idea for the movie come about? how did you think north korea would respond? from --dea came about we -- it was anecdotal conversation. we were talking about mike wallace interviews of osama bin laden. if you're in a position to be in a room with dangerous people, and i'm not saying they should kill them, but were they so inclined, they would be in a good position to do that. that became -- we would just talk about, you know, and then meanwhile we were fascinated with the north korea, as a lot of people are. it is a bizarre place. the more you read about it, the more bizarre it is. the more mysterious it is. the deeper you dig, the deeper the mystery goes. eventually, we combine the ideas. we would make a movie about a journalistic is an interview with a leader and disaster kill him. more lookinge and into north korea, learning more about it, we started to see the crazy rhetoric is the name of the game. the opening scene of the movie makes fun of that idea. when they ultimately came out rhetoric, it was not that surprising. it confirmed the theory of the movie to some degree. yeah. fearful that they will actually do something? >> not really. no. i would hope they have better things to do. don't take that as a challenge. again, i would hope they have better things to do. >> i don't think the movies being released there. i suspect low box office revenue there. [applause] >> ok. both is topic with you that there has been a lot of talk about gender dynamics and comedy, feminism, and that is people are looking at andculture and humor holding people accountable for things being said. -- question i have for you you obviously have worked and comedy for a long time, late-night tv, political satire, and for that genre there is a real thirst for women. when stephen colbert is leaving -- the black part of me was happy, but the woman part of me was not happy. what you think can be done to correct that? >> well, since i have so much power. we have made great strides from where we were and where we are going. i think there was an old guard for a long time. the old guard is retiring. when you look at young show runners taking over, they have come up the ranks with women and with people of color and those people are now along for the ride. i think the predisposition that women are not funny is not there. i feel good about that. you will now see tons of women and people of color. it is really cool. -- it's always amazing to me. i look at late-night into different ways. i look at stephen colbert and john stuart and belmar as different animals. generally, when i watch the many writing get submissions from women. they did not have the chops to do that show at the time. that has changed. you know what kind of packet to write for it. if you think about it, if you're going into the world of tv writing or film writing or whatever >> there are few jobs for big, nerdy, funny political junkies who also have historical ,orking knowledge of life politics, and who can say that nixon said that, reagan said that, this is weird, fdr radio clip. those people existing work on the shows. you have to be a combination person. on top of having all that you are examining the landscape of the media and politics. a lot of people just go, there's more sitcoms than shows like that. hard -- ift it is you look at the ratings of the daily show, they are different than modern families. i think that people interested in doing those things are not as great. women doing those things are not as great. people doing them well is not as great as that. it gets hard. the pool gets smaller when you assess what you need to make your show great every single night. theas to just to do with cool people. you are known for these romantic comedies with a bunch of dudes. they get out of it by being pretty stupid. you took to twitter to defend the movie neighbors. the washington post link movies barbarat to the santa murders. you tweeted, how dare you and --impolite many people pointed out that she isaracters wife -- actually in on all the action that is crucial to the plot. all that is just to say, do you think about the gender dynamics until making? how much of that should go into what stories you want to tell? >> as we got an older, we have thought about it more. when we were in our early 20's making super bad, it was so -- -- it was perspective removed from that perspective. the rules of the women in that movie was very clear what they should be. yes, withen older, neighbor specifically, we put a lot of thought into how do we the character to be as important to the comedy, the story, and how to we not make the story about a couple who is in conflict, but make a comedy team out of a husband and wife who really get along with each other and like each other. the article she wrote had some good points, and i probably overshadow that with my rage because on that movie specifically, i was hurt that movie specifically is one that we put a lot of thought into not doing that. i think a lot of people responded very well to that and understood that was a key element of that movie. you know, being told that you responsibley way for a mass murder socks. that is also where i is coming from from some degree. older and smarter, i guess, we realized that -- it is the nature of how movies are that lens themselves itself towards sexism, honestly. the traditional structure of a movie that is romantic -- the structure that works for 100 years, which is why people keep doing it, is very much the structure that a lot of movies follow the do not paint women in plot drivenependent light. were like, not do that, it is interesting how many conventions we had to unravel. a lot of the standard movie mechanics are trying to put this a bad rule, and we had to fight against that. we do it more and more. it is something that we are trying to be more aware of. >> the more you get women in writers rooms and women as creators and in life in general where they're making decisions, then the roles of those women will also be reflected in film. i think that is the problem. if you have a life where you don't have women all over it, then you don't create movies from the perspective of a woman. how many women are running studios? it's a fallacy that perpetuates still. people say, there are women comedies and there are men's comedies and movies like bridesmaids and stuff. they have started to break the mold. unless we stop having women in these positions where we can write about experiential things, we will be stuck in that same formula. >> do you feel comedians should have license to push the boundaries? when it comes to joke time? >> i think -- i mean, i think you have to know what you're talking about. i think you have to be able to defend your own material on an intellectual and moral level. i don't think -- i would never make a joke that i think would get a laugh that has a political view that i don't personally believe in, because i might get asked about that one day and i don't want to look stumed. it's like -- i do think that a lot of people who try to be edgy r political who feel they're unfairly targeted by the political correctness crowd or forget that they have to be funny as well as edgy and political, and i think that if you really look at the people who complain about that and the people who don't, their view of the people who are complaining about it are hilarious and motives the people who are truly hilarious and incredibly edgy never complain about it at all. i think every time you make a joke that you know in your head is slightly controversial -- there's almost like a group of people that have to react negatively to the jokes in order for that joke to be valid. you know the group of people think this thing that you think is not necessarily what they should be thinking, you know. and they will say their thing and sometimes they'll say something, though, that offenses more than just those people by accident. i do see comedians apologizing sometimes. i've never done something that i felt like i had to apologize for. but i've seen people makes zwhreeks i think, yeah, they should apologize. it's some admission maybe they went too far. we screen our movies a lot. there are jokes that go too far and that are probably in bad taste. by the time they reach mass consumption we filter those out. we may realize -- we didn't even realize it and somebody will say something and just the way it will play in the room, we're like, oh, and we try to be sensitive to that personally. but i personally don't feel like, you know, i -- that -- like there's some political correct squad that is trying to prevent me from doing my job in the best way that i can. if anything, what i'm able to get away with, generally speaking. >> and i always adhere to it's -- you i would never tell anybody not to say anything. what i -- we were talk about this earlier and i say it often -- is you must understand, though, that when you say something, the second a second it passes your lips, everybody else gets to intercept it the way they intercept it. so with that, it's always mindful and not a bad idea to think about what your intention is, be able to defend it, know that there's going to be haters no matter what, know there's going to be people who are going to misconstrue. i put a tweet out there about a year and a half ago that was like a horror show for me. and what it was was i -- it was during the time when the republicans were having those hearings about the i.r.s. and saying that obama had only targeted republicans in the i.r.s. scandal. right. it was also a time when the religious right had the habit of blaming storms on gays and lesbians' bhaven action right. so -- >> there's no proof it doesn't. >> right. we can neither confirm or deny. >> san francisco's really rainy. [laughter] having that knowledge in my purview, the oak tornado was coming down the pike. it hadn't landed yet but i said i wonder if the tornado is only going to target republicans. i go have a drink. i come back to my twitter feed and it is hit. there are children who have died that's out tweet there. people are -- you're a tornado person, we wish people are -- i got it. people don't know how many people actually do that storm comparison. it wasn't worth me to defend it, because it was just too much of a thing, so i took it down and i said "i tweeted this, let me have it, like i get where this thing exploded into another thing" and i moved on with my life and of course people don't let it go. i went and looked like it and i said hotel -- and i was like that is just -- up. so i took it out. there have been tweets where i've gotten an amount of anger that i was totally, i will double down on that. i'm like, i'm sorry. every time someone's offend doesn't mean that i'm, a, thoroughly thrilled to offense them because i think they're weaners, or i just think it's right and made a larger point or whatever. so you just have to take it all in because you're putting it all out there and sometimes you never know where you're at unless you do hit a barrier and say, wow, that was we're. >> that was too much. >> yeah. i say you got to own it when people come down under a take lumps like everybody else and -- >> yay. >> feel good about knowing you can defend it and take the hits if you can take the hits, i guess. >> all right. thank you. ok. so before we go to audience questions, i have a few like nonserious rapid fire questions, so, you know, lightning rounds. whatever comes first to mind. so liz, do you think hill hill is a -- more of a -- hillary clinton is more of a samantha or a charlotte? >> i can't decide. they're opposite characters. >> i think she's -- do i have to pick one of those? >> do you think of miranda? >> what? >> i mean, please, please. >> what if i said i didn't want "sex in the city," so i'm stumped by your question. big.think she's of mr. >> good answer. >> i'm going with that. >> tearing down gender walls. >> oh, my god. i'm wrecking your game. all right. that's ok. i know the viewers want to hear and -- yeah, yeah. things that i wish my life was. >> so, seth, do you know public relations? >> no. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god. that's the controversial part, nd then i don't know the rest. that's only for movies and -- >> awesome. [applause] >> ok. liz. >> i'll do better. >> you got this. obama, worse good president or est bad president? >> you know who he is. >> all the hair and the drinking was -- >> that's not a crack. >> worth best president, best orst snpt i would say best black president. >> oh. >> with that logic, he's also the worst black president. >> i take that back. you know what? you know, i always feel like he's a president who has given us as much humor as he gave us -- he gave us health care, so he passes for me. >> yeah. >> great. so seth, is -- if marijuana were legal in all 50 states, which do you -- which state do you think would have the best weed? >> that's a good question. >> fraking helps. i don't know. probably i would imagine where there's like a strong farming, botany community, like vermont or something like that. . yeah. pastures, green pastures and stuff like that. vermont. yeah. >> ok. awesome. >> ben and jerry ice cream. >> all about the food. ok. liz, this is a two-part question. is it better to have loved and lost than to never loved at all and which state do you think has the worst abortion laws? >> is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? yes. because vibrators are ex pensive. >> true. > and the worst abortion laws? believe it or not, it's hard. oregon is the only state that has not curbed any abortion wade. since row v. so i guess -- you'd think it might be texas. >> but you'd be long. >> curve ball. >> because it might be louisiana and it might be north carolina. because just -- or it might be mississippi. i think any place with one click in which there are five states, there's only one clinic to have access, so i would say the southeast region and ohio could be thrown in there. i don't know. i'm confused. i'd like to stay right here. you have good ones here. > you can't even read "dirty dancing" in texas. >> you can't sell sex toys in texas. >> what? >> i know, we wanted to go down there and do a vibrator buy-back program, and we said no questions asked, just put it in the bucket. >> ok. awesome. >> thank you. >> so seth, this is the last question. >> did you just thank me for that? >> i did, i did. good information from you. texas, who knew? so seth. >> yes. >> pick options here. james franco still hits on underage girls on facebook or franco has now gone on to tumbler. >> i'll say tumbler. any evolution is a good one. >> all right, all right. ok. so now we're going to start the audience q-and-a. there are mike, one, two, three, and four. there are three rules to this q and a. one you need to introduce yourself. evan is going to join us. >> a partner, wow! >> he co-wrote "the interview" together. rules are, you have to introduce yourself if you want to say your affiliation with a college or otherwise, go ahead. you need to keep it short and it needs to end in a question mark. so no semi colon -- just keep it here.let's start over >> hi. my name is alex. i'm the co-president of the business school of republicans. my question tonight is are there any candidates that you ever want to win even if you disagree with them just because they'll provide you with good material? >> no. always put - i'll social issues above my own personal comedic well-being, personally. >> i know. >> i do wins a little bit when they lose. >> i might have voted for arnold schwarzenegger just for a laugh. > i've voted against people or when michelle backman decided she was resigning. i'm from minnesota, and i was like, oh, i can't use this accent anymore. so i don't -- no. >> it's temperaturing, though. >> probably like rob ford's moving on. >> true. >> that was a wild thing to watch. >> it helped us get a movie made. we had a movie about a politician who's a crazy drug adict who went off the rails and en rob ford went/nuts -- and then all of a sudden there was a movie about a politician that went off the rail. >> my name's ben. i'm harvard law. i was wondering what your thoughts were on dennis rodman on a diplomat for the united states. secondly, most importantly, if the leader of noirk were to give you an invitation to screen your movie there with the agreement that you'd come back alive, would you go? >> there was some type of tend magic et's pre exists? if there was some kind of magical spell they could put on us and say you'll be ok, yes, i would do that. i'm always curious to see how the movie plays. >> we did all that research and we'll never get to go. >> yeah, so it would be -- yeah. i would -- i would do that. again, if magic existed. and what was the first part? we wrote did movie before that happened. kim jong un was actually the -- kim jung il was actually the star of the movie and we recast him. in the movie, as you see from the trailer, it's about an idiot who goes to north korea and is seduced by their leader and they grow to like him. we thought, is that really far-fetched? and then it -- happens. in a way we were like -- at first it was a little irksome. it adds credibility to the whole thing. its could be a -- made a far-fetched story actually seem very plausible. it kind of validated the whole thing and grounded it in reality even more than it was, yeah. > all right. >> hi. >> hey. >> hi. i'm jacob, a sophomore at the college. i think satire tends to be critical as opposed to constructive and also sometimes silly. i don't think it's sat tire's role to be constructive nor is it suited to play that role. but i wonder how in sat tire we learn to be the jerk in the project and shoots people down and shows how they won't work. how do we avow that? >> i got to disagree with you on that. >> ok. i think satire is constructive. if it doesn't, that person will not be seen adds satiric. if you're not going doing something, it's just cruel. you're trying to make -- "the daily show"," every joke is a limb different. >> although they're attacking things that are stupid, by doing that they're either directly or indirectly bolstering things that are not stupid and there is like -- it's an action-reaction reality. comedically it's a lot harder -- it's easier to be critical of something. like if you see comedy, comediennes complain about stuff. >> tights negative. the essence is negative. >> it's 100% rooted in negativity. that just is what comedy is. i think what you're saying is right, ultimately by rejecting a negative, you are, you know, bolstering a positive. with dr. strangelove, yes, there's not a bloment they say nuclear bombs are bad or no, nuclear bombs are good. >> like that guy is saying a lot of valuable stuff. i think my life is better for me listening to his comedy. he's complaining a lot about stuff in life but he's teaching me about what it's like to be a dad raising children. i like seeing the things he thinks are funny or wrong or right. i think i learn a lot from satire. >> i do, too i feel like also being able to observe what you want to expose means that you do a lot of research on it and you get to a lot of nuance. the colbert character is a nuance. it's a thought process and i think that it gives people a little bit of insight into things. so, yeah, i'm sorry. we all disagree with you. >> but good question. >> that was my plan all along. >> may i say one thing? often when people ask a question like that, they have something specific they're thinking about. is there something specific you're thinking about when you ask that? a specific piece of comedy or satire when you asked that? >> not necessarily. i was especially thinking about "the dately show." there's satire when you're pointing out -- when john makes fun of a pet on the giant screen. i think sometimes there's not an obvious alternative, when we're saying like that's a stupid idea and i don't have any specific example. >> i think, i think -- ok. so i'll close this out really quick. part of the reason that i have started this new medium and gone into this new medium is i agree with you. it is not satire's role to solve problems. it's the role to make fun of it. if you love satire and then you say, you know what? i want to be able to slow that -- out into the world and have some ways and places where people can quo and try to fix it themselves, that's what i want to do but that's not -- that wasn't the role of having a tv show and that. i'm happy that exists because it's like you can do it that way. so i guess i'm actually -- >> you can't go any further. >> i'll talk to you after. i'll talk to you after. >> ok. >> hi. my name is tess. i'm currently a freshman here at the college. i'm both a staff writer for the u.s. section of the harvard political review and i'm also a correspondent for harvard internet comedy group on harvard time. now, my question is, since now i'm going to be figuring out what my future career plans are, what do you recommend i go into, demeeping mind that my parents will be watching this online. >> comedy or politics? >> or a combination of the two. >> i mean, do you want to laugh or be serious all the time? >> it's really fun to work in comedy and you can do both. >> and also politics. >> and you can inject a lot of your political beliefs in that. >> or you can become the funniest politician ever. >> yeah. ject think it's easier to in comedy into politics. i would suggest you become a comedian who is politically oriented rather than a politician who is comedically oriented. >> because often times, they don't go there. >> you'll never compete with some of those guys. >> my name is william, mr. rogan mentioned that a lot of people aren't very foifpblet i've established funny people, even many of you have pointed out that you attract jokes because you think they've gone too far. my question is, how do you know when a joke's gone too far. >> when we're on set we always say that we have to go too far on set in order to make sure that we went far enough and we can always tone it back. everyone on the set has to be mature about that we've had jokes that we set on said and -- said on set and we turn around and look at the crew and they're like nooo. but we also test the movies a lot with test audiences and we really listen. like the truth is, people won't laugh a lot if a joke is mean spirited or they feel morally wrong. it just -- you can just feel it in the room. you say something -- up, people will like, aargh. >> we videotape the audience so we can play it back and see that. >> we sit in the theater and you can feel the energy sucked out of the room the seconds it happens. it's almost a physical sensation. there's been times we love the joke and we think it's hilarious and the audience doesn't -- we don't want to offense most people. some people no matter what are going to be offend. we have to be able to defend it. sometimes it takes testing of jokes to realize, oh, we might have done something that would be hard to defend because people are saying in the focus group afterwards, that joke was -- up so don't do that. >> the line is changing. >> yeah. >> it depends who you're developing your material for, what that means, what does offense mean? do you know what i mean? so when we talk about something that's offensive, should we not talk about religion? should we not talk about abortion, should we not talk about executing a world leader. should we not be talking about whatever. there's going to be people that say that should be off limits for comedy. should you not ever talk about rape. so i think that everybody -- there is no line. there is only what you feel in your gut perfectlyly that you canned defend. >> yeah. >> and you see -- and you don't want to put it out there in the universe, really. >> that's exactly right. we have to talk about our work a lot, so -- i guess i'm an --, oh, yeah. and, yeah, so we put a lot of thought into what can you defend, what can't you defend. but we make movies general speaking that are designed to play in a theater full of people. and that is our litmus test is how does the theater full of people respond to it. and basically do they all laugh at it and afterwards in the focus group does anyone point out anything being to them something that's like specifically offensive. and obviously, like we made a -- this is the end of essentially, making fun of christian itself. and some people -- christianity. people are like, yeah, this whole movie is offensive. those people aren't who the movie's for. you're listening to the people who the movie is for, which is people who would go see that movie and pay. and if they are put off by something, then they're right. if it doesn't get a laugh, how do you defend that? it means it's not funny. >> i would just also add that how you feel you want to defend something and how you write things is also super crucial to who is in that room with you. do you have a diverse writing staff. >> yeah. >> what does that mean? all of a sudden if you actually have a writing staff that is reflective of the world you live in, then everybody does a different kind of check. that's why i think it's really important to have diverse writing staffs with women and people of color, because then you really do look at what does thall mean. you may all vote and say, you know what, we're all willing to take that same place, but what is your check-in at that point? of brave to be in a full white people and you say all this stuff and you're like really? i think that's the important thing to talk about when talking about the creative process. >> for sure. >> thank you. >> hi there. my name is branson. i'm studying film and video production. my question is, haven't you worked on some pretty small to large projects, series, films, i'm curious how have you been able to preserve what you find to be your own creative and comedic voice in the production of this pleath of media and where are you -- plethora of media and where are you willing to compromise? >> for us, with movies, i think there's a temptation to as you get more successful to try to acquire as much money for your budget as humanly possible. that's kind of like, it's a sign of success on the surface, at least, in hollywood, if you make big expensive movies, that's kind of the upper echelon. the kind of unspoken implication is like you want to make bigger, more expensive movies, we were able to make a $150 million movie and so we did it what we very quickly found was that budget robbed us of everything that made us creatively valuable basically, and everything we enjoyed the most about the process itself, which is if we think of it, an idea, we can do it. if someone pitches a joke, they can just do it what we learned is that money actually robs you of something very large, which is creative control and freedom. and so in the pars -- >> you kind of said mo money, mo problems. >> mo money, mo problems. that's the short of it. we make movies that are half the price of the movies we could be making and we're getting paid half the amount that we could be getting paid. but what we are getting in exchange for that is pretty much do whatever the -- we want, which is much more valuable than money on a day-to-day basis. >> and we'll cut our own budget down. >> yeah. >> we'll sea say to them. at 40 you're going to tell us a lot of stuff and 30 you're not. we'll do it at 30. >> yeah. we do the numbers that will allow us not to listen that much. >> i've been in the situation in "the daily started show"," cable was still really cheap. i've never worked on anything that i had a budgets. what that means is, a small staff also means lot of ownership, and that's what's really fun is that when the graphic person is the president and you have six writers and you're working your balls off or whatever. i don't have in anymore. you work so hard that everybody cease their joke on the air and sees that they're part of the process, it's really rewarding. the bottom line in this business is that there's no making it. there's only the path which you make your worth. that path isn't fun and rewarding and full of cool people, you are going to wake up one day and be a rich person who doesn't have a lot of hang-on to cool experiences. i can't stress it enough. >> i think as we get older we realize our lives are spent actually making the movies, and that is the process that is like occupying our day-to-day existence, and so that has to be fun. like it can't all be like, well, it's -- miserable but at least it's good in the end. it has to be a process that we enjoy and is inspiring to us creatively and makes us feel like we can think of new ideas and get excited about them and put them in the movie without having to call and check a million things. and that was like a >> i am a physician from canada. livesquestion is for the --liz. how successful has her comedy been in disarming and influencing policy with regards to the lunatics that hate human sexuality? >> we launched in july. what had been a great part of the disarming thing, in an issue that is as controversial as abortion rights and reproductive rights, someone has to be evoke i and i decided that i will default i. when someone says, how do you left at killing babies? medical science does not say this is what this is. it is against the law, that is terrible. through the language that has been co-opted by really radical people who don't listen to science and don't listen to the medicine of this, they don't know what to do with me because i am relentless when they come at me and say, how do you ,dvocate birth-control pills women are pushing themselves with chemicals. i say well, i can't wait to help you. when do we work together on this? or they will say why can't women just shut their legs, and i will save why should they? somebody needs to stop saying those kinds of things because otherwise we just go with their narrative. they say sometimes people take birth control pills. it is mostly because they don't want to get pregnant, so can we please just talk about that in a real way? other people are tactful and awesome and say super appropriate things, i am not one of them. it gives people a sigh of relief to go -- i have been through this experience, one of three women have had an abortion in the lifetime, that means one of three women are holding onto information that is personal, and they felt relief and guilt about that. comedy, sarah silverman has been a great champion with me, amy schumer, have come together and put it out there to say nothing should do you, especially in medical choices that you made. that is where we are going, to bring it to a level where you go to the doctor and be the best person you can be. that is what we are striving for. [applause] can we get one more question so we don't end on abortion? >> please. in "knocked up" you talk about abortion. can you give some background about that joke, to leave the portion of and liz what do you think about it? >> i think that was an improv that came up and each of itself people'sting on discomfort with it and how silly does. in that movieter is an idiot and so he is acting in a way an idiot would act which is thinking that abortion is something that they're not be named. people forget that in our movies we are pretraining morons. we are ourselves not that moronic, and i always think it is so funny how we are ascribed the personality trait of the people we are essentially mocking in our work. no one has this problem more than jenny mcbride, she made up the character of a redneck idiots because he takes in the idiots i know people think he is a redneck idiot. i think that happens a lot. askundred people think -- anthony hopkins it is ok to eat people's faces. i think that joke more than anything was making one of the type of people that it was making fun of. >> in somebody's comedy and art, they do what they need to do. it is morek important that the people who are actually aching policies and aroundng the services this issue are saying the word abortion. they are not legislating pro-choice, they are legislating abortion. it is whatever somebody chooses to do, but in the practical sense saying it is something we need to start doing. abortion! >> i am excited for the holidays. anybody? i have a great ginger recipe. >> that is only time we have. i would like to thank evan goldberg, seth rogen. i would like to thank all of you guys were coming out. it was awesome and a pleasure. have a good night. >> next, i was senators talk about i will -- i what partnership. followed by senator perkins speech on the senate floor. after that, we will have tributes for outgoing senator mike johanns. condimenters, georgia tom price, incoming chair of the budget committee, talks about the budget process, the spending bill congress has passed, and what will happen when both chambers of congress are led by republicans. here is a portion of his remarks. >> the american people made a decision in november and what they said was that the government was too large and too expensive, that it was too prescriptive in all sorts of areas of our society. senate made it so the was now 54% republican, they made it so the house of representatives has the largest republican majority since 1928, republicans now control 62% of the governors in this country. if you draw even further at the state is late of level, almost 70% of state legislators are now controlled by republicans. that is a message we lost to be listening to as a nation. we hope it can bring some of our current callings along and say this is an imperative time for this country to solve the challenges that we face.
they expect results. [laughter] great story about entrepreneurship. here is kind of how the host of the show interjects himself in a little bit of that episode and movie. [video clip] >> good evening. listen, we are in a lot of trouble with the epa. if you stick around, we have to fill out a lot of interdimensional commerce forms. if you could relocate to new jersey or maybe canada, you would be doing us a solid. >> thanks. >> are you a god? >> half on my mother's side. we're not very religious about it. go once or twice a year on holidays. >> then -- [screams] >> that is the opening bit they do. they discuss the aims of the show -- themes of the show. it is a great entry-level way without saying i would love to talk to about economic and they are falling asleep. another great humor is satire. we supported a film -- make a film based on the writings of a socialist. kurt donovan wrote a disturbing tale -- or as liberals call it, and magical dream -- it takes place in the year when government has made everyone equal things to the work of a general. beautiful people wear mask. strong people wear weights. smart people were devices in their ears to distract them. it is a wonderful story poking fun at the government egalitarianism. wouldn't you know it, it is in 17,000 classrooms. normally if you told public school teachers, i have got a great start making fun of big government, would you like to show it to your kids? what do they say? call the cops. get this guy out of here. if you do it in storytelling and basin off of a story that they use in classrooms anyway and if you don't make the politics too obvious, you can have a lot of success. you could reach kids from watching the short film in their classrooms. i'll show you the trailer for this one. [video clip] ♪ >> i think that was a pretty dance she just did. that dance, i bet it was nice. you must be tired. why don't you rest your handicaps on the pillows? you are always so worn out. ♪ >> i'm a fugitive. i'm an abomination. i'm an exception. ♪ >> they hope to destroy any trace any extraordinary that is out of their reach. >> what was it this time? >> loud. same as last time. >> that film is being viewed by 17,000 kids -- i'm sorry, classrooms every year. the class size, that is about 17,000 kids with the statistics. no, something like 1.5 million. you may be wondering. all of these online videos -- >> [inaudible] >> good question. >> [inaudible] >> i'm subjecting it to michael moore and then that. i will never be invited back. a film we did called "the cartel" was more for elected officials than a general audience. it was about the waste, fraud, and abuse in the new jersey system. as you saw in that promo video, had a great impact. >> it helps mold for me the final outlines of what i wanted to do if ever lucky enough before i became governor. the movie lays out what is going on in the new jersey education system. it does not only informative and has helped me, but is brilliant entertaining on top of it. >> that is exactly it. we live in a world where elected officials film policy papers. every them after. -- read them after. they have the analyst read it. you could get people with stories. stories dramatically change how we frame the debate. frame the debate, when the battle. if instead as we discussed until the source of poor kid to want a better education come it becomes students versus union thugs. that is a battle we could win, similar with fracking. it is viewed as evil energy companies versus government lists have no political agenda and only care about the plants and the trees and the animals. but if you tell the stories of farmers in new york who are being taxed off the property is a crazy property taxes, but there's a moratorium on fracking versus governmental radicals who do not care about the environment, but want to advance their politics, that is a debate we could win. everyone into great heroes into her talking points. intotegrate heroes talking points. do not just lead with statistics and facts and put people to sleep. tell them about the public policy you know of. mpi, we love to partner with organizations to do q&a and screen films. if are looking for examples of people to use, maybe think tanks, op-ed's. these are the stories that are there. they need to be told. it is up to us to tell them. that is exactly the point i want to make clear. the facts are important. lead with the story. lead with emotion. supplement it with fax. -- facts. thank you for having me. [applause] >> excellent job. i forgot to mention this is being videotaped by c-span. we will give you more information on tv. >> any questions? i have two more fun clips. questions are interesting, i'm sure. >> got a couple of ushers walking around with index cards. right down your questions. the ushers will bring them over. right legibly if you can. that will increase the odds. >> good idea. i have got two other clips. this is a film that is still in production that tells the story of americans have been impacted by bad government policy. america lost the to profiles americans in alligator mississippi that is a real town. it does not just policy wonks. it is what happens to everyday americans. here is the trailer. [video clip] >> i hate to say it. the neighborhood i grew up in which was once readable is a ghetto now. weeds are growing over everything. the house is in decay. businesses are closing all the time. seems like poverty is like a mean disease. it slowly creeps and consumes. it spreads. one of the main stronghold ac is -- we see is finance. drug addictions. there's a strong depression in the city. >> over the course of the last 50 years, we have developed classes that are different from anything we have had before. it is a cultural divide much more important than economic divide. once the tipping point has been passed, all things collapse. >> in every great empire, there is a rise, ap, and a fall -- a peak, and a fall. we are falling because we not taken the necessary steps. >> the cure is not another social program. what our society needs to work is for us to be more human and more deeply engaged with one another. we become the architects of our communities. architects of our future. >> change starts with us. if you could affect a person, the community, the city, the world. ♪ >> that is the first film we are doing a social action campaign for. questions? >> what could we do to support mpi? >> and the vice president. i'm legally required to say we are a nonprofit organization. if you care about advancing your beliefs, i'm -- there's a massive imbalance in this arena related to any other political class. you talk about policy organizations. the left has got think tanks. the right has think tanks. think of michael moore and steven spielberg. then there is us. a big imbalance. if you know talented filmmakers, our goal is to support and cultivate an army of freedom oriented filmmakers at all levels. we take kids in college who share our beliefs and have talent and place them on major production companies to jump start their career. we find people and help them start a production company. they could do this kind of thing for a living. we want to find them and work with them. for your individual selves, using storytelling to advance your beliefs on a personal level is the way to do it. mpi.org. we would love any support. thank you. >> next question -- do you have any projects in the past to counter -- >> we'll have anything immediately in the pipeline. we don't have anything at the moment. one education reform we have got in the pipeline that i'm really excited about is a narrated film called "virginia." a poor african-american woman in d.c. she wanted better schools for her kids. she became political. she became a crusader appears she launched a massive campaign to enact under george w. bush a scholarship program. we're trying to get clean latifah to play it. -- queen latifah to play in. it is not a documentary. they could see what it is like for these kids in inner cities. who is on the right side of helping these kids and who is on the side of making union thugs wealthier. obviously we are against it. just so we're clear on that. [laughter] >> are you working on any projects dealing with islam? >> no pit we stick to fiscal oriented stuff. entrepreneurship -- no. we stick to fiscal oriented stuff. entrepreneurship. nothing on islam currently. >> any thoughts on why so many wealthy entrepreneurs are liberal? >> well, i don't know. in silicon valley, the kind of art. in which places, -- it seems like many businessmen become cronies a government. ec people make the thomas edison turn where they enter as on spinners and become political onto a nurse and close the door -- you see people where they do that thomas edison turn would enter as on spinners and become political on spinners -- entrepreneurs. uber is starting out to cut deals with local government where they will make regulations. uber's main competitors -- lyft and sidecar. they may start with one political belief, but they are in it for their business first and foremost. i don't like the idea of using government for your business. we are building a little advisory panel. these are people we are seeing first hand. lyfts and bnbs -- i think it is an interesting time. we could appeal to these people. they are on the wrong side. you might be scared of x candidate, but if you want to advance your business, we are the once want to create the environment in which your business could be advanced. >> where would i go to find and watch your movies? >> thempi.org. it is so simple. after you click on each film, it says click here to get it on amazon or stream it on netflix or itunes or youtube. very straightforward. thempi.org. if you know some interested in filmmaking, he have all of our programs listed. >> a question related to the business of movies. what does it take to get a movie into multiple theaters? >> this is an involved question. it depends on the film. some good self distributional rights. they will sell it in theaters and get it in certain theaters. other tense you see something where you will make a deal with the theaters individually or on a train where you will pay in rent out the theater to screen your film. that is necessary for one your film to be eligible for an academy award. the guarantees your film gets reviewed. that is great. more people probably read about you and me and saw it was playing in manhattan. the press coverage of your film to be bigger than the film itself. press coverage is a great strategy. if you pay the theater to show it and ran out that theater, a lot of the times if they sell the tickets, the theater will carry it over and keep it without you paying for it. they see there is an audience for it. most of the stuff you do not need to put in theaters. we do some stuff in theaters. if michael isn't to make money, get ideas in front of people, deal got to get out other homes, go to the theaters, part, find a seat -- park, find a seat -- but if you could get the clicks and go viral online -- we are doing more online content. >> how do you go about finding the stories you want to tell and finding the film makers we want to tell those stories? >> sure. it is word of mouth. we are at the point where film makers are inspiring more filmmakers. one of our guys were really talented guy. he is that good and he is working for mtv and nickelodeon. his real passion is to make videos about economics. we helped him out and start his own production company. he makes brilliant videos. one of the viewers of his videos got inspired. she decided she wanted to make -- be a film maker as well. she started making films. she makes pop music video for teenagers about economics. it is a common theme to do these days. [laughter] she'll was reading it so frequent me her friends were teasing her she was in love with him. she goes. that's it. i'm going to make a love song. her follow-up video is a pop music video about the dangers of an inflationary monetary policy. it is called fast cash. we're getting to the point where filmmakers and where word-of-mouth -- >> are you working with any authors who have created children's books? >> sure. we love doing things for classrooms. we have done -- we had these animators who worked for disney and were passionate about the american revolution. we supported them on an animated retelling of the boston tea party. it sounds adorable. she said that if you teach kids characters and themes and relatable ways, it would help them understand it later. with that in mind, these kindergartners encountered characters in a very clever and effective way. we are adapting a book right now for classroom use with a series of cgi short films. all these things. we love passion stuff. we love great ideas for passion projects. >> this question wants to do role-playing. she says i am talking to my neighbor but even go immigration and he tells me a story about a 22-year-old quietly living her life, working at a grocery store, and this person is illegal. now what? what story are you going to tell him? >> immigration is not one of the issues that gets me as fired up as other ones. i would not be the best person to convey a response on that. surely you could pull up the negative ramifications of immigration. the most immigration we get his cubans turning a roof into a boat and floating over. now what? what story are you going to tell him? >> immigration is not one of the issues that gets me as fired up as other ones. i would not be the best person to convey a response on that. surely you could pull up the negative ramifications of immigration. the most immigration we get his cubans turning a roof into a boat and floating over. i would use whatever characters or personal stories you could tell to show that illegal immigration has had negative ramifications on your life. that is something closer to home for you guys. >> have you written a book? if not, why not? >> illiteracy. [laughter] with some tutoring -- i think i could. i am not a creative type. i do development work, outreach work, media stuff. the only thing i have ever been approached for is -- we have a big event in manhattan, and every time our fermenters come up to me they want me to work with them. the same thing every time. you would be great for voiceover work. [laughter] that is the greatest backhanded compliment you could get. i did some voiceover work for an animated short. they called me. now i'm getting typecast. that is the closest i have got to anything creative. i did a radio pilot. >> what kind of budget do your projects typically have? >> all over the place. we have videos the causes little as $6,000. obviously, narrative films are more expensive than documentaries. feature-length is more expensive than short films. america lost will probably cost for production somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million. your marketing budget has to be as big if not bigger than the production budget. the marketing is key. as crazy as that sounds. if somebody sees an ad for america lost, it could be just as effective as a political ad. but it's not just something that is forgotten as soon as the election is over. i view the advertising as a much more worthwhile investment when it's done for social action campaigns. >> speaking of candidates, can you think of any good examples of candidates or political figures or leaders using humor and storytelling effectively? >> californians, can any of you point to a great politician? ronald reagan. that is the best example. governor reagan, you are accusing mr. carter of those mistakes. have you ever made a mistake? yes, i was once a democrat. [laughter] moral outrage is the most powerful political tool. -- humor is the most most powerful political tool. reagan also employed -- there you go. controlled anger is the most powerful political tool, but humor is the second most powerful political tool. >> the breakdown of black families is the results of government policies. any thoughts on how you might change that? >> in stockton, california -- when all government institutions disappeared. it can wreck families lives. it is crazy. the troy today, they don't even offer police services in some areas. just like you see in other countries when they enact socials health care systems, initially it starts out as the greatest health care ever. then they can afford it. it's incredible. you will see that in virginia. >> is anyone else making films that celebrate freedom? >> a lot of individual filmmakers out there do great films. not everybody works with us on every project. our goal is to build a movement, not an empire. we partner with an organization called free to choose. a district a lot of our content and classrooms. there is another organization in california that do a lot of free workshops for filmmakers. we are the only organization doing what we do. creating content online, theatrically release content -- and we partner with a lot of institutes as well. we have been fortunate enough to partner with a lot of great organizations out there. >> did you have anything to do with the film the last man standing? >> no. what was that? remind me. >> [indiscernible] >> should i be watching it? ok. i'll put it my netflix or tivo queue. we celebrate films that promote liberty. one year, we also did the liberty tv wards. -- awards. we could not do it every year because there is not that many tv shows. how many times can you talk about shark tank? last man standing, tim allen -- is that on abc? >> [indiscernible] >> i'll tivo it. i'm there. >> i haven't heard of it either. i will look for it. we talked about children's books -- this is a question about a specific book. any interest in working with rush limbaugh? >> no. i'm so lame and old that i would record and listen to rush limbaugh when i came home from school. nerdy. if there were young people here today, they would be really confused because they don't know what tape-recording is. [laughter] people always ask us, why don't you work with glenn beck. that would lower cover. he is selling red meat to tea party members. >> you said you had one more clip. let me do one more question. then we will wrap it up. are you familiar with the movie, unfair, exposing the irs? any thoughts? >> i have never heard of it. similarly, if anybody knows of great filmmakers or people who share our beliefs and want to be more active in filmmaking, i would love to talk to you. this last clip is not one of the ones we did. the guy i mentioned to worked at nickelodeon and mtv did this one. he wanted to make it so funny that the liberals could not ignore it. salon said that they hate every bit of this video. it is a parody of 1980's action figures called cronies. [video clip] ♪ >> get ready for the all new kronies. >> they are stealing our customers with superior products. >> meet the extreme shape shifter. >> you can't stop me. >> here come parts and labor. >> we are under competitive attack. >> raise the trade barriers. >> this wall street are stacks the deck and rigs the game. >> take to the skies. >> she is wasteful. >> every team needs a leader. the ultimate source of kronie power. >> get connected to the geforce. >> we are connected. >> find out more. collect them all. do not attempt to be a real kronie without political influence. [applause] >> thank you so much for having me. i love coming to a place where against all odds, against all adversity, there are still people who are passionate about liberty. it is a true thrill and inspiration to come out here to meet people fighting for our belief against such incredible odds. thank you for having me. i appreciate it. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this week on q&a, hypocrisy of liberals on the war on women rhetoric. >> what is your problem back to creedon number four? ted kennedy? >> i go back to where the idea for this book came from was a convention when they were showing distribute video. he had passed away. or trying him as a women's rights champion when he left a young woman to drown in his car. for nine gone back hours. type to save his own behind. she probably would have survived. you cannot do an entire video and a convention claiming to be preaching and fighting about the while not including that part of his life in a video about his women's rights record. >> sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern i we are airing one program from each year at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. address, weekly president obama discusses jobs and the economy and his administration's legislative accomplishments. mike kelly of pennsylvania talks about energy policy. >> hi, everybody. as 2014 comes to an end, we can enter the new year with new confidence that america is making significant strides where it counts. the steps we took nearly six years ago to rescue our economy and rebuild it on a new foundation helped make 2014 the strongest year for job growth since the 1990s. over the past 57 months, our businesses have created nearly 11 million new jobs. and in a hopeful sign for middle-class families, wages are on the rise again. our investments in american manufacturing have helped fuel its best stretch of job growth since the '90s. america is now the number one producer of oil and gas, saving drivers about 70 cents a gallon at the pump over last christmas. the auto industry we rescued is on track for its strongest year since 2005. thanks to the affordable care act, about 10 million americans have gained health insurance in the past year alone. and since i took office, we have cut our deficits by about two-thirds. meanwhile, around the world, america is leading. we're leading the coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. we're leading the global fight to combat the ebola outbreak in west africa. we're leading global efforts to address climate change, including last month's joint announcement with china. we're turning a new page in our relationship with the cuban people. and in less than two weeks, after more than 13 years, our combat mission in afghanistan will be over, and our war there will come to a responsible end. today, more of our troops are home for the holidays than at any time in over a decade. still, many of our men and women in uniform will spend this christmas in harm's way. and as commander-in-chief, i want our troops to know -- your country is united in our support and gratitude for you and your families. the six years since the financial crisis have demanded hard work and sacrifice on everyone's part. but as a country, we have every right to be proud of what we've got to show for it. more jobs. more insured. a growing economy. shrinking deficits. bustling industry. booming energy. pick any metric you want -- america's resurgence is real. and we now have the chance to reverse the decades-long erosion of middle-class jobs and incomes. we just have to invest in the things that we know will secure even faster growth in higher-paying jobs for more americans. we have to make sure our economy, our justice system, and our government work not only for a few, but for all of us. and i look forward to working together with the new congress next year on these priorities. sure, we'll disagree on some things. we'll have to compromise on others. i'll act on my own when it's necessary. but i will never stop trying to make life better for people like you. because thanks to your efforts, a new foundation is laid. a new future is ready to be written. we have set the stage for a new american moment, and i'm going to spend every minute of my last two years making sure we seize it. on behalf of the obama family, i wish all of you a very merry christmas. thanks, and have a wonderful holiday season. >> good morning, i'm mike kelly, and i have the tremendous privilege of representing pennsylvania's third congressional district. today i'm offering president obama a lump of coal for christmas. not because he's been bad this year -- though i'll get to that. no, i'm offering the president a lump of coal because this product right here holds the potential for a 21st-century economic revival. you see, coal is our most abundant and valuable resource. it lights our homes, it keeps our electric bills low, and puts food on the table for countless families. more than 40,000 jobs in my state alone are tied to coal. but this isn't just about coal country -- no, it's about our whole country. because no other nation in the world has been blessed with such abundant, affordable, and accessible resources. and with all god has given us, we shouldn't be just trying to keep up with the pack -- my goodness, we should be leading the world. if only we had a president willing to seize this opportunity. he tells us he's for "all of the above" but then he leaves out everything that's below. the president said he would bankrupt the coal industry, and he's spent his presidency trying to do just that. federal regulations have already forced two coal-fired power plants in my district to close over the past two years. and hundreds more are set to shut down around our country. he's put up so many roadblocks to american energy that all our production is coming from state and private lands. even when the president's own party stopped him from imposing his cap-and-trade tax, he said it was "just one way of skinning the cat," and then he directed the epa to do his bidding for him. instead of forcing our workers to live with less, the president should let us use our god-given resources and talents to help americans get back to work and make our nation the energy superpower it can be -- and quite frankly, that it needs to be. so, whether it's stopping these regulations, expediting infrastructure, or expanding production, there's so much more we can do to encourage the development of all forms of american energy. these just aren't republican solutions -- these are common-sense, american ideas that have support in both parties. you're going to see them again in the new congress, starting with a vote to approve the keystone xl pipeline. because manufacturing things, making things -- and doing it better than anyone else in the world -- that's what america has always been about. that's how we've built such a robust and dynamic economy. if we pull together, we can make 2015 the year we restore our nation of builders. but that's next year. right now, we are getting ready to celebrate christmas. as we do, i hope you'll set aside a moment to remember all those who gave their lives this year for the cause of freedom, and pray for those spending this holiday season away from their families and loved ones. merry christmas, everyone, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. rogen talks about political humor in movies. and i will parliament -- politics and bipartisanship. and a speech on the senate floor. >> on the next "washington tankersley examines what has gone wrong with the middle class and what the country must do to get the economy working for everyone. and an author talks about his book "the end of greatness." we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on race book and twitter. "washington journal" at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. was a look at some programs you will find christmas day on the c-span network. holiday festivities at 10 a.m. eastern with the lighting of the white house christmas decorations with first lady shall obama and the lighting of the capital dismissed trip. celebrity activist talk about their -- of the capitol christmas tree. celebrity activists. c-spanan numeral two -- pinker. and searching the secret history of wonder woman. and talking about reading habits. , the falln history tv of the berlin wall with c-span footage of president george bush and bob dole with speeches from president john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on first ladies fashion choices and how they represented the styles of the times in which they lived. histom brokaw are on reporting world events. that is on christmas day. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. and lizz winstead appearedcs in team this is before the canceling of the release "the interview." it's part of a broad discussion on how comedians and filmmakers use comedy to address political issues in the harvard institute of politics hosted this event. this program contains language that some may find offensive. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> hello, everyone. i am maggie williams. welcome to the john f. kennedy junior forum in the institute of politics. our mission is to inspire students towards careers in politics and public service, but we have some laughs along the way. over the years, this form has hosted chevy chase, john stewart, stephen colbert, al franken, and i hope you will enjoy this discussion as much as you have enjoyed the others. leading our conversation tonight is a young woman who knows a thing or two about humor, named this past january as the first african-american woman president of our 138-year-old harvard lampoon. [applause] she started her writing career at age seven when she began her memoir entitled, i am the only one who knows about anything. [laughter] she is a senior and studies economics, which is a writing comedy. she was a directors in turn in -- intern in the state of wisconsin. please welcome alexis wilkinson. [applause] >> thank you so much, maggie. i can die now. [laughter] great job. basically we are here tonight to discuss the role of politics and humor, and i think what is becoming increasingly apparent about the role of humor and politics. from tina fey -- some people would argue that influence the entire country -- to the daily show and the colbert report. politics and humor armor bound together than ever. with that in mind, our guests tonight are liz winstead, the cocreator of the daily show. she has campaigned tirelessly and hilariously for contraceptive access and abortion rights. founding the movement lady parts justice. she has appeared on comedy central, hbo, cnn, msnbc. she also wrote a book on her life and career. please welcome liz winstead. [applause] seth rogen is an actor, emmy nominated writer, comedian, filmmaker. he has appeared in a number of block busters. he is also a canadian. "pineapple express." seth has been an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization, gay rights, and alzheimer's awareness, testifying to congress about the importance of research. please give it up for seth rogen. [applause] ok, i'm going to ask them a couple of open-ended questions and we will watch a couple of video clips and then we will move on to q&a. i will start with liz. you started as a standup comedian and then went on to write. and perform. some 80% of millennials watch the daily show. that is a crazy percentage. can you describe how you came to create the show and what your original vision was for the show? >> oh, boy. the short of it was i thought i would be a standup forever. i was on the road and making a living doing standup. i was fine about it. i was kind of a hack. dopey jokes like great dane should have to wear underwear in public. [laughter] >> great. >> yeah. really, it is so embarrassing to say, but it is true. i had this moment --i was set up on this date. a blind date. it was before tinder. human.ine it was a >> i went on a date and the guy shows up and he is wearing a yankees hat and a yankees jacket and i'm already doubting because i'm from minnesota, i'm a twins fan, and i have a theory about guys who wear double sports gear that they won't go down on you. a theory. born to play out. he said to me -- isn't dolce vita in black and white? that's a negative. i thought i should and do the -- end the date. but i continued. we went to the movie. he fell asleep in the movie. i hated him so much for falling asleep that i smeared my greasy popcorn hand on his yankees jacket. i felt horrible guilt. when he woke up, let's go have a drink. we get to the bar and it's the night of the first gulf war. the tv is on. a lot of you weren't even born, but it was when there was just cnn. tv on. all of a sudden, cnn had graphics and a theme song and hot people talking about war. i thought to myself, are they reporting on a war are trying to war? trying to sell me a it felt really weird. when i felt like, -- i thought, we're screwed as a nation. [laughter] i started looking at the world through a different lens. i started reading more stuff in talking about the media. i did a couple of one-woman shows and comedy central said you want to create a show that's on everyday about the news? i said, i do, but the one thing that is key is that we make fun of the newsmakers, we actually use the news as the character. we look at the way they do the news and make fun of that. the manipulation is part of it. >> ok. awesome. thank you. today, a lot of your work involves merging politics and humor. particularly on autonomy for women. let's go to a clip from your organization. [video clip] >> oh, there's a screen. ♪ >> fallopian tube. rs and all thegue myer uninvited guests in chamber. the state of our uterus is strong. the end of last year left us unstable. when the government shutdown, there was panic. with no politician in place telling me what to do, our vaginas ran amok. that was then. tonight, i assure you that the government is back to work and that republicans and republicans alike are tirelessly fighting so that everyone will have the same rights as those of saudi arabia. [laughter] laws isage of abortion a pretty good start. [applause] >> lady parts justice is dealing with a contentious and divisive issue. legislation is now closing family planning clinics, leaving women without options, so what made you want to be in this fight? why do think humor is the best way to communicate this message? >> i think leaving women without options is bad. also, i realize people were not aware of what was happening. planned parenthood is a strong brand. when you are busy, you don't understand what the assault is. i feel like -- when i hear people talk about this issue that are -- they talk about circumstances that are not true. one, that there is some age of abstinence we have to get back to. people have sex. they do mistakes happen. whatever. why not make sure all access is given and talk about it in ways that are fun and interesting and also get men involved, because it turns out that women cannot get pregnant by themselves. >> what? >> yes. >> yes. it is true. i feel like if women can't control everything about their destiny, they will never be a part of the power structure. i would like to be more a part of the decision-making process. [applause] >> thank you. let's move on to seth. >> oh, man. >> you are most known for outrageous blockbuster comedies and smoking cannabis. i know you care deeply about alzheimer's research. can you explain how you came to be involved in that conversation and what it was like to testify to congress about it? >> my mother-in-law was diagnosed with early alzheimer's when she was in her 50's. i had just started dating my wife around that time. i really knew nothing about it. i knew how was for trade in movies. i very quickly got a crash course in all things alzheimer's. one of the most interesting things and startling things was that there is literally no treatment at all. there is nothing you can do. then you start to look into how much funding it gets, and it is ridiculously overfunded in comparison the things that kill much less people and have many forms of treatment. so no one is doing anything, and as far as diseases that are cool to talk about, it's polio, just not hip in any capacity. there is a lot of shame associated with it. there is aware of microphone thing happening. the whole thing is --. there was no competition. it was mine to take. [applause] as i got older, you realize, not everyone -- i'm a famous person and people pay attention to what i say and i generally say stupid shit. maybe i can deflect that onto something they could use some elimination. -- illumination. i wonder how to do that. i'm not very educated. it was a struggle for a long time. very organically this thing came into my life where i could talk about it on a very personal way. i did not have to memorize facts or statistics or anything like that. i can speak from my own experiences. all of a sudden, i was raising awareness. they invited me to go to congress and talk about it. that is disheartening in a way, i guess. they have these panel set up so they can hear people's personal pleas on issues and no one shows up to them. that is like the norm. there are 17 people on this panel and two people were there. when i started to wonder why there were only two people there, everyone was that's what happens. people do not show up to these things. what a great job. you're defended in your choice to not show up to it. in a way, that was disconcerting. at the same time, people hate the government, and that is why. it seems inefficient and people are getting paid to do shit they are not doing. for a brief moment, alzheimer's went viral, i guess. the speech got a lot of views on youtube, on c-span's second most-watched video after obama's inauguration. again, not a lot of competition. in a way, it showed that i can, even if for a brief moment, shed some light on something, and that's a microscopic step towards relevant change. >> ok. thank you. the next thing i want to ask you about is your new movie, the interview. you and james franco are hired by the cia to kill north korea's leader. let's watch the trailer for that. [laughter] [video clip] >> who is this? >> our leader is interested in doing an interview with dave skylark. >> did you do say china? >> i will be traveling to north korea to interview north korea's president. ♪ >> i am agent lacy with central intelligence. you two are going to be in a room alone with north korea's president. we would love it if you could take him out. take him out. >> for coffee? >> dinner? >> take him out. >> you want us to kill the leader of north korea? >> what? >> hello, north korea! >> i watched every episode of your show. i especially enjoyed the miley cyrus camel toe episode. >> you are entering the most dangerous company on earth. >> i have a gift for you. >> this dog is killing me with his cuteness. ♪ >> i wish we had an escape plan. >> i'm a good swimmer. >> it is really far. >> people have done it. >> that is not true. ♪ >> nice tank. is that real? >> it was a gift to my grandfather from stalin. >> in my country it is pronounced stallone. ♪ >> i never heard this before in my life. >> i love katy perry. >> i spend a lot of time with kim and i think he's not a bad guy. >> you are way too deep to pull it out. >> i'm pulling it out. >> you are way too deep, son. >> all right. [applause] ok. unsurprisingly, the actual north korea has flipped. they called for merciless retaliation. how did this idea for the movie come about? how did you think north korea would respond? >> the idea came about from -- we -- it was anecdotal conversation. we were talking about mike wallace interviews osama bin laden. if you're in a position to be in a room with dangerous people, and i'm not saying they should kill them, but were they so inclined, they would be in a good position to do that. that became -- we would just talk about, you know, and then meanwhile we were fascinated with the north korea, as a lot of people are. it is a bizarre place. the more you read about it, the more bizarre it is. the more mysterious it is. the deeper you dig, the deeper the mystery goes. eventually, we combine the ideas. we would make a movie about a journalistic is an interview with a leader and disaster kill him. as we get more and more looking into north korea, learning more about it, we started to see the crazy rhetoric is the name of the game. the opening scene of the movie makes fun of that idea. when they ultimately came out with this rhetoric, it was not that surprising. it confirmed the theory of the movie to some degree. yeah. >> are you fearful that they will actually do something? >> not really. no. i would hope they have better things to do. don't take that as a challenge. again, i would hope they have better things to do. >> i don't think the movies being released there. i suspect low box office revenue there. >> ok. the next topic with you both is that there has been a lot of talk about gender dynamics and comedy, feminism, and that is people are looking at pop-culture and humor and holding people accountable for things being said. the question i have for you -- you obviously have worked and comedy for a long time, late-night tv, political satire, and for that genre there is a real thirst for women. when stephen colbert is leaving -- the black part of me was happy, but the woman part of me was not happy. what you think can be done to correct that? >> well, since i have so much power. i think we have made great strides from where we were and where we are going. i think there was an old guard for a long time. the old guard is retiring. when you look at young show runners taking over, they have come up the ranks with women and with people of color and those people are now along for the ride. i think the predisposition that women are not funny is not there. i feel good about that. you will now see tons of women and people of color. it is really cool. i think that -- it's always amazing to me. i look at late-night into different ways. i look at stephen colbert and john stewart and bill maher as different animals. generally, when i watch the daily show, i get many writing submissions from women. they did not have the chops to do that show at the time. that has changed. you know what kind of packet to write for it. if you think about it, if you're going into the world of tv writing or film writing or whatever, there are few jobs for big, nerdy, funny political junkies who also have historical working knowledge of life, politics, and who can say that nixon said that, reagan said that, this is weird, fdr radio clip. those people existing work on the shows. you have to be a combination person. on top of having all that knowledge, you are examining the landscape of the media and politics. a lot of people just go, there's more sitcoms than shows like that. i think that it is hard -- if you look at the ratings of the daily show, they are different than modern families. i think that people interested in doing those things are not as great. women doing those things are not as great. people doing them well is not as great as that. it gets hard. the pool gets smaller when you assess what you need to make your show great every single night. it has to just to do with the cool people. >> seth, you are known for these romantic comedies with a bunch of dudes. they get out of it by being pretty stupid. you took to twitter to defend the movie "neighbors." "the washington post" linked movies like that to the santa barbara murders. you tweeted, how dare you and impolite -- many people pointed out that your character's wife -- she is actually in on all the action that is crucial to the plot. all that is just to say, do you think about the gender dynamics of filmmaking? how much of that should go into what stories you want to tell? >> as we got an older, we have thought about it more. when we were in our early 20's making "super bad," it was so -- it was removed from that perspective. the rules of the women in that movie was very clear what they should be. as we gotten older, yes, with neighbor specifically, we put a lot of thought into how do we allow the character to be as important to the comedy, the story, and how to we not make the story about a couple who is in conflict, but make a comedy team out of a husband and wife who really get along with each other and like each other. the article she wrote had some good points, and i probably overshadow that with my rage because on that movie specifically, i was hurt that movie specifically is one that we put a lot of thought into not doing that. i think a lot of people responded very well to that and understood that was a key element of that movie. you know, being told that you are in in any way responsible for a mass murder sucks. that is also where i is coming from from some degree. as we gotten older and smarter, i guess, we realized that -- it is the nature of how movies are structured themselves that lends itself towards sexism, honestly. the traditional structure of a movie that is romantic -- the structure that works for 100 years, which is why people keep doing it, is very much the structure that a lot of movies follow which do not paint women in the most independent plot driven light. once we were like, not do that, it is interesting how many conventions we had to unravel. a lot of the standard movie mechanics are trying to put this into a bad rule, and we had to fight against that. we do it more and more. it is something that we are trying to be more aware of. >> the more you get women in writers rooms and women as creators and in life in general where they're making decisions, then the roles of those women will also be reflected in film. i think that is the problem. if you have a life where you don't have women all over it, then you don't create movies from the perspective of a woman. how many women are running studios? it's a fallacy that perpetuates still. people say, there are women comedies and there are men's comedies and movies like bridesmaids and stuff. they have started to break the mold. unless we stop having women in these positions where we can write about experiential things, we will be stuck in that same formula. >> do you feel comedians should have license to push the boundaries? they have a social responsibility when it comes to joke telling? >> i think -- i mean, i think you have to know what you're talking about. i think you have to be able to defend your own material on an intellectual and moral level. i don't think -- i would never make a joke that i think would get a laugh that has a political view that i don't personally believe in, because i might get asked about that one day and i don't want to look stupid. it's like -- i do think that a lot of people who try to be edgy or political who feel they're unfairly targeted by the political correctness crowd or forget that they have to be funny as well as edgy and political, and i think that if you really look at the people who complain about that and the people who don't, their view of the people who are complaining about it are hilarious and motives the people who are truly hilarious and incredibly edgy never complain about it at all. i think every time you make a joke that you know in your head is slightly controversial -- there's almost like a group of people that have to react negatively to the jokes in order for that joke to be valid. you know the group of people think this thing that you think is not necessarily what they should be thinking, you know. and they will say their thing and sometimes they'll say something, though, that offends more than just those people by accident. i do see comedians apologizing sometimes. i've never done something that i felt like i had to apologize for. but i've seen people make jokes, i think, yeah, they should apologize. it's some admission maybe they went too far. we screen our movies a lot. there are jokes that go too far and that are probably in bad taste. by the time they reach mass consumption we filter those out. we may realize -- we didn't even realize it and somebody will say something and just the way it will play in the room, we're like, oh, and we try to be sensitive to that personally. but i personally don't feel like, you know, i -- that -- like there's some political correct squad that is trying to prevent me from doing my job in the best way that i can. if anything, what i'm able to get away with, generally speaking. >> and i always adhere to it's -- you i would never tell anybody not to say anything. what i -- we were talk about this earlier and i say it often -- is you must understand, though, that when you say something, the second a second it passes your lips, everybody else gets to interpret it the way they interpret it. so with that, it's always mindful and not a bad idea to think about what your intention is, be able to defend it, know that there's going to be haters no matter what, know there's going to be people who are going to misconstrue. i put a tweet out there about a year and a half ago that was like a horror show for me. and what it was during the time when the republicans were having those hearings about the i.r.s. and saying that obama had only targeted republicans in the i.r.s. scandal. right. it was also a time when the religious right had the habit of blaming storms on gays' and lesbians' behavior, right. >> there's no proof it doesn't. >> right. we can neither confirm or deny. >> san francisco's really rainy. [laughter] >> having that knowledge in my purview, the oak tornado was coming down the pike. it hadn't landed yet but i said i wonder if the tornado is only going to target republicans. i go have a drink. i come back to my twitter feed and it is hit. there are children who have died and i have a tweet that's out there. people are -- you're a tornado person, we wish people are -- i got it. people don't know how many people actually do that storm comparison. it wasn't worth me to defend it, because it was just too much of a thing, so i took it down and i said "i tweeted this, let me have it, like i get where this thing exploded into another thing" and i moved on with my life and of course people don't let it go. i went and looked like it and i was like that is just -- up. so i took it out. there have been tweets where i've gotten an amount of anger that i was totally, i will double down on that. i'm like, i'm sorry. every time someone's offended doesn't mean that i'm, a, thoroughly thrilled to offend them because i think they're wieners, or i just think it's right and made a larger point or whatever. so you just have to take it all in because you're putting it all out there and sometimes you never know where you're at unless you do hit a barrier and say, wow, that was we're. >> that was too much. >> yeah. i say you got to own it when people come down under a take lumps like everybody else and -- >> yeah. >> feel good about knowing you can defend it and take the hits if you can take the hits, i guess. >> all right. thank you. so before we go to audience questions, i have a few like non serious rapid fire questions, so, you know, lightning rounds. whatever comes first to mind. so liz, do you think hillary clinton is more of a samantha or a charlotte? i can't decide. they're opposite characters. >> i think she's -- do i have to pick one of those? >> do you think of miranda? >> what? >> i mean, please, please. >> what if i said i didn't watch "sex in the city," so i'm stumped by your question. >> i think she's of mr. big. >> good answer. >> i'm going with that. >> tearing down gender walls. >> oh, my god. i'm wrecking your game. all right. that's ok. i know the viewers want to hear and -- yeah, yeah. things that i wish my life was. >> so, seth, do you know public relations? >> no. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god. that's the controversial part, and then i don't know the rest. that's only for movies and -- >> awesome. [applause] >> ok. liz. >> i'll do better. >> you got this. obama, worse good president or best bad president? >> you know who he is. >> all the hair and the drinking was -- >> that's not a crack. >> worst best president, best worst? i would say best black president. >> oh. >> with that logic, he's also the worst black president. >> i take that back. you know what? you know, i always feel like he's a president who has given us as much humor as he gave us -- he gave us health care, so he gets a pass for me. >> yeah. >> great. so, seth, if marijuana were legal in all 50 states, which do you think would have the best weed? >> that's a good question. fracking helps. i don't know. probably i would imagine where there's like a strong farming, botany community, like vermont or something like that. yeah. pastures, green pastures and stuff like that. vermont. yeah. >> ok. awesome. >> ben and jerry ice cream. >> all about the food. ok. liz, this is a two-part question. is it better to have loved and lost than to never loved at all and which state do you think has the worst abortion laws? >> is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? yes. because vibrators are expensive. [laughter] >> true. >> and the worst abortion laws? believe it or not, it's hard. oregon is the only state that has not curbed any abortion access since row v. wade. so i guess -- you'd think it might be texas. but you'd be wrong. >> curve ball. >> because it might be louisiana and it might be north carolina. because just -- or it might be mississippi. i think any place with one clinic in which there are five states, there's only one clinic to have access, so i would say the southeast region and ohio could be thrown in there. i don't know. i'm confused. i'd like to stay right here. you have good ones here. >> you can't even read "dirty dancing" in texas. >> you can't sell sex toys in texas. >> what? >> i know, we wanted to go down there and do a vibrator buy-back program, and we said no questions asked, just put it in the bucket. >> ok. awesome. >> thank you. >> so, seth, this is the last question. >> did you just thank me for that? >> i did, i did. good information from you. texas, who knew? so, seth. >> yes. >> pick options here. james franco still hits on underage girls on instagram or franco has now gone on to tumbler. >> i'll say tumbler. any evolution is a good one. >> all right, all right. ok. so now we're going to start the audience q & a. there are mikes one, two, three, and four. there are three rules to this. one you need to introduce yourself. evan is going to join us. >> a partner, wow! >> he co-wrote "the interview" together. rules are, you have to introduce yourself if you want to say your affiliation with a college or otherwise, go ahead. you need to keep it short and it needs to end in a question mark. so no semicolon -- just keep it to -- let's start over here. >> hi. my name is alex. i'm the co-president of the business school of republicans. my question tonight is, are there any candidates that you ever want to win even if you disagree with them just because they'll provide you with good material? >> no. i'll always put social issues above my own personal comedic well-being, personally. >> i know. i do wince a little bit when they lose. >> i might have voted for arnold schwarzenegger just for a laugh. >> i've voted against people or when michelle bachman decided she was resigning. i'm from minnesota and i was like, oh, i can't use this accent anymore. so i don't -- no. >> it's tempting, though. >> probably like rob ford's moving on. >> true. >> that was a wild thing to watch. >> it helped us get a movie made. we had a movie about a politician who's a crazy drug addict who went off the rails and then rob ford went nuts -- and then all of a sudden there was a movie about a politician that went off the rail. >> my name's ben. i'm harvard law. i was wondering what your thoughts were on dennis rodman on a diplomat for the united states. secondly, most importantly, if the leader of north korea were to give you an invitation to screen your movie there with the agreement that you'd come back alive, would you go? >> there was some type of magical -- let's pretend magic exists? if there was some kind of magical spell they could put on us and say you'll be ok, yes, i would do that. i'm always curious to see how the movie plays. >> we did all that research and we'll never get to go. >> yeah, so it would be -- yeah. i would -- i would do that. again, if magic existed. and what was the first part? we wrote did movie before that happened. kim jung il was actually the star of the movie and we recast him. in the movie, as you see from the trailer, it's about an idiot who goes to north korea and is seduced by their leader and they grow to like him. we thought, is that really far-fetched? and then it -- happens. in a way we were like -- at first it was a little irksome. it adds credibility to the whole thing. it made a far-fetched story actually seem very plausible. it kind of validated the whole thing and grounded it in reality even more than it was, yeah. >> all right. >> hi. >> hey. >> hi. i'm jacob, a sophomore at the college. i think satire tends to be critical as opposed to constructive and also sometimes silly. i don't think it's satire's role to be constructive nor is it suited to play that role. but i wonder how in satire we learn to be the jerk in the project and shoots people down and shows how they won't work. how do we avoid that? >> i got to disagree with you on that. >> ok. >> i think satire is constructive. if it isn't, that person will not be seen adds satiric. if you're not going doing something, it's just cruel. you're trying to make -- "the daily show," every joke is a little different. >> although they're attacking things that are stupid, by doing that they're either directly or indirectly bolstering things that are not stupid and there is like -- it's an action-reaction reality. comedically, it's a lot harder -- it's easier to be critical of something. like, if you see comedy, comedians complain about stuff. >> it's negative. the essence is negative. >> it's 100% rooted in negativity. that just is what comedy is. i think what you're saying is right, ultimately by rejecting a negative, you are, you know, bolstering a positive. with dr. strangelove, yes, there's no moment where they say nuclear bombs are bad or no, nuclear bombs are good. >> like louis c.k. is saying a lot of valuable stuff. i think my life is better for me listening to his comedy. he's complaining a lot about stuff in life but he's teaching me about what it's like to be a dad raising children. i like seeing the things he thinks are funny or wrong or right. i think i learn a lot from satire. >> i do, too i feel like also being able to observe what you want to expose means that you do a lot of research on it and you get to a lot of nuance. the colbert character is a nuance. it's a thought process and i think that it gives people a little bit of insight into things. so, yeah, i'm sorry. we all disagree with you. >> but good question. >> that was my plan all along. >> may i say one thing? often when people ask a question like that, they have something specific they're thinking about. is there something specific you're thinking about when you ask that? a specific piece of comedy or satire when you asked that? >> not necessarily. i was especially thinking about "the daly show." there's satire when you're pointing out -- when john makes fun of a pet on the giant screen. i think sometimes there's not an obvious alternative, when we're saying like that's a stupid idea and i don't have any specific example. >> i think, i think -- ok. so i'll close this out really quick. part of the reason that i have started this new medium and gone into this new medium is i agree with you. it is not satire's role to solve problems. it's the role to make fun of it. if you love satire and then you say, you know what? i want to be able to slow that -- out into the world and have some ways and places where people can quo and try to fix it themselves, that's what i want to do but that's not -- that wasn't the role of having a tv show and that. i'm happy that exists because it's like you can do it that way. so i guess i'm actually -- you can't go any further. i'll talk to you after. i'll talk to you after. >> ok. >> hi. my name is tess. i'm currently a freshman here at the college. i'm both a staff writer for the u.s. section of the harvard political review and i'm also a correspondent for harvard internet comedy group on harvard time. now, my question is, since now i'm going to be figuring out what my future career plans are, what do you recommend i go into, keeping in mind that my parents will be watching this online. >> comedy or politics? >> or a combination of the two. >> i mean, do you want to laugh or be serious all the time? >> it's really fun to work in comedy and you can do both. >> and also politics. >> and you can inject a lot of your political beliefs in that. >> or you can become the funniest politician ever. >> yeah. >> i think it's easier to inject politics into comedy. i would suggest you become a comedian who is politically oriented rather than a politician who is comedically oriented. >> because oftentimes, they don't go there. >> you'll never compete with some of those guys. >> my name is william. mr. rogen mentioned that a lot of people aren't very funny. established funny people, even many of you have pointed out that you attract jokes because you think they've gone too far. my question is, how do you know when a joke's gone too far? >> when we're on set, we always say that we have to go too far on set in order to make sure that we went far enough and we can always tone it back. everyone on the set has to be mature about that. we've had jokes that we set on said on set and we turn around and look at the crew and they're like nooo. >> but we also test the movies a lot with test audiences and we really listen. like the truth is, people won't laugh a lot if a joke is mean spirited or they feel morally wrong. it just -- you can just feel it in the room. you say something -- up, people will like, argh. >> we videotape the audience so we can play it back and see that. >> we sit in the theater and you can feel the energy sucked out of the room the seconds it happens. it's almost a physical sensation. >> there's been times we love the joke and we think it's hilarious, and the audience doesn't. >> we don't want to offend most people. some people no matter what are going to be offended. we have to be able to defend it. sometimes it takes testing of jokes to realize, oh, we might have done something that would be hard to defend because people are saying in the focus group afterwards, that joke was -- up so don't do that. >> the line is changing. >> yeah. >> it depends who you're developing your material for, what that means, what does what that means. what does offend mean? do you know what i mean? so when we talk about something that's offensive, should we not talk about religion? should we not talk about abortion, should we not talk about executing a world leader. should we not be talking about whatever. there's going to be people that say that should be off limits for comedy. should you not ever talk about rape. so i think that everybody -- there is no line. there is only what you feel in your gut personally that you can't defend. >> yeah. >> and you see -- and you don't want to put it out there in the universe, really. >> that's exactly right. we have to talk about our work a lot, so -- yeah, so we put a lot of thought into what can you defend, what can't you defend. but we make movies generally speaking that are designed to play in a theater full of people. and that is our litmus test is how does the theater full of people respond to it. and basically do they all laugh at it and afterwards in the focus group does anyone point out anything being to them something that's like specifically offensive. and obviously, like we made a -- this is the end of essentially, making fun of christianity itself. some people are like, yeah, this whole movie is offensive. those people aren't who the movie's for. you're listening to the people who the movie is for, which is people who would go see that movie and pay. and if they are put off by something, then they're right. if it doesn't get a laugh, how do you defend that? it means it's not funny. >> i would just also add that how you feel you want to defend something and how you write things is also super crucial to who is in that room with you. do you have a diverse writing staff? >> yeah. >> what does that mean? all of a sudden if you actually have a writing staff that is reflective of the world you live in, then everybody does a different kind of check. that's why i think it's really important to have diverse writing staffs with women and people of color, because then you really do look at what does all that mean. you may all vote and say, you know what, we're all willing to take that same place, but what is your check-in at that point? it's brave to be in a full of white people and you say all this stuff and you're like really? i think that's the important thing to talk about when talking about the creative process. >> for sure. >> thank you. >> hi there. my name is branson. i'm studying film and video production. my question is, haven't you worked on some pretty small to large projects, series, films, i'm curious how have you been able to preserve what you find to be your own creative and comedic voice in the production of this plethora of media and where are you willing to compromise? >> for us, with movies, i think there's a temptation to as you get more successful to try to acquire as much money for your budget as humanly possible. that's kind of like, it's a sign of success on the surface, at least, in hollywood, if you make big expensive movies, that's kind of the upper echelon. the kind of unspoken implication is like you want to make bigger, more expensive movies. we were able to make a $150 million movie and so we did it what we very quickly found was that budget robbed us of everything that made us creatively valuable basically, and everything we enjoyed the most about the process itself, which is if we think of it, an idea, we can do it. if someone pitches a joke, they can just do it. what we learned is that money actually robs you of something very large, which is creative control and freedom. and so in the past -- >> you kind of said mo money, mo problems. >> mo money, mo problems. that's the short of it. we make movies that are half the price of the movies we could be making and we're getting paid half the amount that we could be getting paid. but what we are getting in exchange for that is pretty much do whatever the -- we want, which is much more valuable than money on a day-to-day basis. >> and we'll cut our own budget down. >> yeah. >> we'll say to them. at 40 you're going to tell us a lot of stuff and 30 you're not. we'll do it at 30. >> yeah. we do the numbers that will allow us not to listen that much. >> i've been in the situation in that when we started "the daily show," cable was still really cheap. i've never worked on anything that i had a budget. what that means is, a small staff also means lot of ownership, and that's what's really fun is that when the graphic person is the president and you have six writers and you're working your balls off or whatever. i don't have them anymore. you work so hard that everybody sees their joke on the air and sees that they're part of the process, it's really rewarding. the bottom line in this business is that there's no making it. there's only the path which you make your worth. if that path isn't fun and rewarding and full of cool people, you are going to wake up one day and be a rich person who doesn't have a lot of hang-on to cool experiences. i can't stress it enough. >> i think as we get older we realized our lives are spent actually making the movies, and that is the process that is like occupying our day-to-day existence, and so that has to be fun. like it can't all be like, well, it's -- miserable but at least it's good in the end. it has to be a process that we enjoy and is inspiring to us creatively and makes us feel like we can think of new ideas and get excited about them and put them in the movie without having to call and check a million things. and that was like a big revelation where it was for us creatively. >> i am a physician from canada. my question is for liz. how successful has her comedy been in disarming and influencing policy with regards to the lunatics that hate women's sexuality? >> we launched in july. what had been a great part of the disarming thing, in an issue that is as controversial as abortion rights and reproductive rights, someone has to be the fall guy, and i decided that i will do it. when someone says, how do you support killing babies? medical science does not say this is what this is. it is against the law, that is terrible. to break through the language that has been co-opted by really radical people who don't listen to science and don't listen to the medicine of this, they don't know what to do with me because i am relentless when they come at me and say, how do you advocate birth-control pills, women are pushing themselves with chemicals. i say well, i can't wait to help you. when do we work together on this? or they will say why can't women just shut their legs, and i will say why should they? somebody needs to start saying those kinds of things because otherwise we just go with their narrative. they say sometimes people take birth control pills. it is mostly because they don't want to get pregnant, so can we please just talk about that in a real way? other people are tactful and awesome and say super appropriate things, i am not one of them. it gives people a sigh of relief to go -- i have been through this experience, one of three women have had an abortion in their lifetime, that means one of three women are holding onto information that is personal, and they felt relief and guilt about that. to have comedy, sarah silverman has been a great champion with me, amy schumer, have come together and put it out there to say nothing should stop you, especially a medical choice that you made. that is where we are going, to bring it to a level where you go to the doctor and be the best person you can be. that is what we are striving for. [applause] >> can we get one more question so we don't end on abortion? >> please. >> in "knocked up," jonah hill makes a joke about abortion. can you give some background about that joke, to leave the abortion unnamed, and, liz, what do you think about it? >> i think that was an improv that came up and it is commenting on people's discomfort with it and how silly it is. jonah's character in that movie is an idiot and so he is acting in a way an idiot would act, which is thinking that abortion is something that dare not be named. people forget that in our movies we are portraying morons. we are ourselves not that moronic, and i always think it is so funny how we are ascribed the personality trait of the people we are essentially mocking in our work. no one has this problem more than mcbride. he made up the character of redneck idiot but people think he is a redneck idiot. i think that happens a lot. i wonder if people ask anthony hopkins if is ok to eat people's faces. i think that joke more than anything was making one of the type of people that it was making fun of. >> in somebody's comedy and art, they do what they need to do. but i think it is more important that the people who are actually making policies and providing the services around this issue are saying the word abortion. they are not legislating pro-choice, they are legislating abortion. it is whatever somebody chooses to do, but in the practical sense saying it is something we need to start doing. >> oh, no, abortion! >> i am excited for the holidays. anybody? i have a great gingerbread recipe. >> that is all the time we have. i would like to thank evan goldberg, seth rogen. i would like to thank all of you guys for coming out. it was awesome and it was a pleasure. have a good night. [captions copl cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on the c-span networks. start at 10ivities a.m. with the lighting of the national christmas tree, followed by white house christmas decorations, and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. after 12:30 p.m., celebrity activist talk about their causes. at 8:00, supreme court justice samuel alito and former florida governor jeb bush on the founding fathers and the bill of rights. and venture into the art of good writing. and see the feminist side of a superhero, looking at the secret history of wonder woman. and reading habits. theamerican history tv" fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage showed president george bush and bob dole, with speeches from presidents john kennedy and ronald reagan. and how fashion choices first ladies represented the styles of the times. at 10:00, former nbc news anchor tom brokaw on more than 50 years of reporting news events. that is christmas day on the c-span networks. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. iowa democratic senator tom harkin is retiring at the end of his germ. of his term. he has served five terms in the senate. tooktly, charles grassley to the floor to pay tribute to senator harkin, who then joined him for a conversation about iowa politics. this is about 20 minutes. rise today to celebrate the 75th birthday of my friend and longtime colleague f >> i rise today to celebrate the 75th a few weeks. at the end of the 113th congress, senator harkin will then close a chapter on public service that spans more than a half-century, including four decades in congress. he also served 27 years in the united states navy and u.s. naval reserves. ten years in the house of representatives and 30 years here in the united states senate. now, i think anybody looking at that would say that is a remarkable and distinguished record of public service. after 40 years of representing iowans in congress, my friend tom soon will leave behind the halls of the u.s. capitol. he also will leave behind a legacy of fiery floor speeches, passionately delivered on behalf of individuals with disabilities. also for iowa farmers. also for the elderly. also for child laborers, and for many causes that he championed, such as early childhood education, nutrition and wellness, conservation, renewable energy, and
sharyl attkisson, i think you are wonderful. i do not know if she saw the press conference held by the president before he left for hawaii, and he began to address the news people this way. he said "i have a list of nice," and he said he would call on this person and then said you are naughty, i am not going to call on you. to me, this is the meaning to the press -- demeaning to the press and i would take that and run with it because it not only shows is the integration of the press, but the arrogance he has adopted in the presidency. -- nancy nancy poulos pelosi said let's pass this bill , then read it, but i have not seen nsa or statement in "the wall street journal" or anything essay oren an statement in "the wall street journal" or anything that said let's look at nancy pelosi. she stood up in front of immigrants and said do not listen to them, you are welcome into this country. bring more. thing -- congress has criticized obama because he has not sat down with congressman and did what president johnson did, have a meeting, may be have age rink together, and really understand -- drink together, and really understand where these people are coming from. he has not put himself in the place where he can get give and take. he is an arrogant man. i also want to say something about the two black men that served in congress. the gentleman that said the policeman that shot brown, more or less he should not be innocent-- hitting people. brown was not innocent. we have tapes of him running into a store and assaulting the owner. i would not call that a person who was not a criminal. host: a lot there. she did not mean to do men that served in congress. -- thank you for your opinions. i do not have comments on two of your three points. i am not a political reporter. as far as the press conference, it is interesting as what i'm sure the president intended as a lighthearted exchange in a way revealed that illustrated how they view things and how they administer favors and information at the white house, probably not just this administration, but handing out goodies, as i have said in the past, to those that are nice, and retaliating against those who are naughty. and compton said the president had called reporters in, including her on two occasions, and used obscene language to discuss his displeasure with things the press was doing, and i feel that was inappropriate, not the language, per se, because i'm not naive enough to think that talk does not go on all the time, but to act in a way where the reporters are subordinate to the whims and wishes of the administration, when in fact, my view is we are watchdogs of the federal government and administration and we are on equal footing in some respects. not in terms of stature, of course, we're not elected officials, but in terms of our goal to protect the public's interest, and watch out for that sort of thing. it strikes me when we have written letters to the white house in the past couple of years and pointed out that they have made things that raise constitutional concerns in their behavior toward the press. we have rejected many things i have done, but it is almost as though we the press are asking for a favor by the administration -- please abide by the constitution, do not treat us this way, but instead we should be treating ourselves as if we are on equal footing and demanding we reserve our rights and be treated the way the constitution intends. we have made ourselves somewhat subordinate unnecessarily to the administration. host: you write about having a back-and-forth with one administration official where "he replied to me he has no intention of giving the answers you want guest: he was basically saying ati believe that was tommy the white house. i was insisting on answers to questions about public information, and i was continually stonewalled, so at some point when i rewrote the questions and sent them, and reminded him they were outstanding, he said he would not answer them unless i took certain actions and i said i'm not required to take actions, you are required to give us information and i said we pay your salary. he wrote back and said "thank you for my paycheck." i said that is not the point. we expect information that is public to be turned over on request. in the past, officials have tried to control information -- in other words, we do not want to give this to you because we do not like how you will use it. they do not have that power and control. the law says so. that is what some freedom of information laws and state laws specifically say. it is not up to the entity to ask how it will be used. public information is public information and we should resist all the attempts to try to control how we are going to use it or whether it is released based on what we plan to report. sarah in host: sterling, virginia. democratic calling. her on i wanted to ask if she has done investigative reporting on congress withholding funds for the upgrade of embassies around the world. this has been going on for the past 20, 30 years. we only have marine security guards inside of the embassy to protect it. rent-a-cop on the outside and that is something the state department has to deal with with the host country. every time people have gone from the state department, they have to go down to -- begging, and it started with helms asking for money to upgrade the security and that was a big story nobody bothered to investigate and thus you have something like benghazi. on embassy in tel aviv sits a main street. it has no protection whatsoever, but they do not have the funds to move the embassy or upgrade anything at all. host: ok, sarah. we will have sharyl attkisson jump in. guest: i have seen reporting on that. it has been well-covered by some outlets. she is right about that as far as i can tell, but in benghazi it has been well established and administration officials have acknowledged it was not a matter of funding. in fact, some of the measures rejected by headquarters would not have caused the government anything, such as retaining the special military team, the security team that was offered at no expense to the state department for as long as they needed it. specialists, basically swat team terrorists specialist would have been there had they been allowed to stay. it was no cost to the state department. they rejected that. in the case of benghazi, while she is correct that there have been shortfalls and our embassies that are not well protected and there have been complaints, i am not sure that was a key factor in benghazi. interestingly, it was a similar situation years ago in bombing that occurred in west africa, and some of the same people were in charge of the state department. patrick kennedy, others that were there at the time. some of the same mistakes were made about financial problems, and yet again, some offers of help had come from the military but were rejected at the time when one of the ambassadors said we are not well-protected. we need a new building. there are always funding questions and there will probably never be enough money to suit and satisfy every single diplomatic post around the world, so decisions have to be made and resources have to be meted out. there were so many red flags about terrorism, including rights that occurred before the u.s. attack with specific warnings that the benghazi compound would be attacked and al qaeda was in town. it was common knowledge. the idea was not more money needed to be spent, but how did we miss warning signals? host: arizona. andy is watching. republican. caller: good morning. sharyl attkisson, i just finished your book. i think it is outstanding. everything you have done -- i think it is a shame what this administration has done to suffocate you. other point, the book out, hasdead in benghazi," why n't anyone asked who this gentleman was that told him to stand down? we love you. keep up the great work. guest: i do not know about the bob person. do you? host: i do not. i do not know the reference either. you know the book? host: --guest: i may have, but i have not read that one. host: you write in your book the questions that you had. do many of those questions still remain and when the special committee finishes the work, it what questions do you hope they -- what questions do you hope they answer? guest: some of the questions remain, but new questions have arisen as more information comes out that conflicts previous information. i still would like to know what president obama did that night. we do not need to know every step he took and every little word he uttered, but the lack of to tell us of them anything that happened overnight, the decisions the commander-in-chief made while americans were under attack on foreign soil -- there can be nothing i can think of that is more in the public interest, yet it has been shrouded in secrecy. it is an important request to answer. you made a request to white house photography to get pictures of where he was that night. was that granted? guest: no. we requested white house photos taken that night because if you know how the white house works, a photographer is omnipresent. he would have been there taking photographs of the president that night, so we asked for the pictures, and they are paid for with tax dollars, and they release them when they want the middle east. when theyoffice -- want them released. the photo office suddenly started referring us to a deputy press secretary, josh earnest, who is now press secretary, and they said he would have to approve it, and he would never return a call or e-mail. we would try to maintain communication with him or try to make munication with him over a long period of time, and you would not answer. we would go to the press office and say you have given us an impossible task, talking to someone who will not talk to us. you need to give us another route, and they would say you have to talk to josh earnest. that was a dead-end road. it is unacceptable. press officers work for the public. they are publicly paid to be responsive. those white house photos belong to the public in my view to the extent that they would not reveal national secrets. to this day, they remain secret. i will be just insane whatever they shall. host: any other answers? guest: we still do not know they answers to the question about who decided to put out the anecdote about the youtube video knowing that they had concluded it was an act of terrorism and the video was not to blame. at one meeting was the idea distributed? whose brainchild was it? we know jay carney, the white house secretary, hillary clinton, president obama, they were all on the same page. there had to be some meeting where this idea was disseminated, and we still have little information about that. matt in michigan. independent color. caller: thank you for taking my call. a brief follow-up on the benghazi investigation you did. there isn't a point once you discovered that your communications and computer had been monitored and hacked, that you thought seriously about dropping your investigation, and to this day do you ever fear what may happen to you in the future based on uncovering very sensitive information? thanks for taking my call. guest: no. i never thought about changing course. in fact, if anything, it makes me more determined, and i do not worry about my future or fate based on what i am doing. host: do you know if the hacking of your computers and tapping of your phone continues? guest: i have not had analysis done. i have not bothered to do it because what my forensics experts taught me was if people that are the sophisticated who did what they already did, if they want to get into your computer system, there's nothing you can do to get them out. in the end, it is pointless, so i do not waste my time trying to figure all of that out. i just assume, kind of as i always did, that someone could get into your computer. i think most of us know that, whether it is your corporate bosses who have the right to get into your computer, or hackers -- you have to operate as if it is being watched. nevada.no, republican caller. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. -- her views on the lack of vetting obama when he first ran for president. the mainstream media, when sarah palin was announced as a vice president nominee, they dug in her trash, but when obama was announced, they did no vetting. he had no experience in management. he never had a job. why didn't the american -- mainstream media that into some him inble degree -- vet some reasonable degree? guest: i am not challenging what you are saying, but i do not personally know there was no vetting. if we look, i'm sure there are some stories that might have looked into controversies in depth, but i think what he means is there were not as widespread of media coverage of the controversies like there might have been if a republican had the same controversies in his past, and he is probably right about that. i call that substitution gain in my book, and i cannot explain why that is the case, but many times when you look at how a topic or politician is treated by the media, and you substitute that person with someone from the opposing party, and you say to yourself would that have been treated the same way if this person had done the same thing, i think you will have to conclude the answer is the treatment is sometimes disparate, and there was a sense of the media in general, certainly not everyone, but rooting for this president. a lot of people were excited, including journalists, about having an african-american president, someone that promised more transparency than ever. the idea that a president will issue a directive that gives you more tools to do your job and try to reverse something that had been going wrong in recent years -- that is very exciting. healthcare.gov, we were a little bit asleep at the switch in some respects, we in the media, perhaps we wanted to see something succeed and we saw a need for it and we did not dig with full vigor into some of the controversies that probably where there. roger in sanford, florida. you're on the air with sharyl attkisson. go ahead. caller: thank you for nonpartisan c-span and the work that you do. thank you, sharyl attkisson, for your courage and braves -- bravery. have you thought about collaborating with jayna davis, an investigative journalist to uncover the cover of by the clinton administration in oklahoma city on april 19, 1995? of that anniversary attack on our homeland will be next april. it will be of great value to the public interest for you to collaborate with geena davis to bring that truth out in which the clinton administration covered up the involvement of al qaeda terrorists that collaborated with timothy mcveigh, and had the american and itknown that truth had not been covered up by the clinton administration, then the entire war on terror would have been recognized much earlier by the american people and 9/11 might not have happened, and the steps would have been taken to prevent future al qaeda attacks and 5000 soldiers dying in the iraq war. host: all right, roger. sharyl attkisson? guest: i am not familiar with that, but i will look it up and do some reading on it. host: oklahoma. democratic caller. ms. sharyld morning, attkisson. i love you on cbs. i want to know on these network shows, when they have exclusive interviews -- does the network pay these people for it, and one more question, you would have been perfect on "60 minutes." guest: thank you. [laughter] what types of explosives. cbs had a policy, as far as i knew to not pay for interviews and exclusives, but that does not mean other favors might not take place. pay to flyight someone somewhere, of course, might pay to have their family fly in, have their hair and makeup done -- things like that, but generally paying for an interview or exclusive is heavily frowned upon in the news industry. there has been a blurring of lines. i talked about this in the book. now, notsee interviews necessarily exclusive, on the so-called news, that look nothing more like nothing more more-- that look nothing than advertisements, like the ceo of taco bell getting an interview to talk about the new cool ranch doritos flavors. i think there might be some financial interest at play to explain why that apparent newstisement appears as a segment. there are many examples. soap had a news story at a time when i was seeing -- when nbc was seeking sponsorship. there are things taking place on the news that are not really direct payments. host: here is a question from twitter --viewers on why was our ambassador in benghazi, or was he arranging with cia for weapons to transfer to syrian rebels, now known as issiis? guest: i do not know exactly what he was doing. there was a gap between principal officers serving in benghazi so you intended to be there for a couple of days during the gap. the state department knew about this despite the fact they implied they almost said they are not even sure they knew he was down there. that was part of communications. could find for sure was that he was there dealing with feed a principal officer at an important post between other principal officers serving their. host: one last phone call. leo from jacksonville, florida. an independent. forer: hello, and thank you taking my call. from the broader perspective of what you have been discussing -- we, the public, we do not need, nor do we want, nor should the media be attempting to shape or direct public opinion. my question that i will to know your thoughts on, what can we do to bolster objectivity and transparency in what gets reported in the media? i believe in being informed and coming to my own conclusions. guest: good for you. i believe in that, too. even when i think i might have facts of a story, able to prove a corporation has provided false information, it is still up to you after that truth or those facts are reported as to how much you want to believe and what conclusions you draw from it. i agree that to often it seems -- and i did run into this at cbs, often, they want to shape whatever the public's conclusion is going to be, and i found myself saying a couple of times it does not matter what the public concludes. we have to put the facts out there. wem not trying to tell them have to find the same conclusions i may have drawn based on evidence and documents. i wholeheartedly agree with him and i would just say i do not have the answer, but keep drawing attention when you see journalism that you think is unfair or trying to point you falsely in a direction that is overstepping its bounds. point it out and draw attention to it. host: where can people find your reporting now? guest: i try to cross-post anything i write on a website. host: also active on twitter. the book is "stonewalled -- my fight for truth against the forces of obstruction, >> on the next "washington journal,," peter whener discusses whether 2015 will be a better year. after that, shane harris. exploring the military path use of cyberspace. plus, we will take your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweak. -- tweets. health and human services secretary sylvia burwell says 1.9 million new people have enrolled in the health insurance marketplace, with a total of 6.4 million consumers today. december 15 was the deadline. >> good morning. when it comes to the affordable care act, my focus is on access, affordability and quality. today, i want to speak with you most about the substance on access and affordability, with an update for you on open enrollment in the federal marketplace: through december 15, approximately 3.4 million americans had selected plans. about 1.8 million renewed their coverage and about 1.6 million signed up for the first time. last tuesday, we began the process of automatically renewing the vast majority of consumers who chose to not come back to the marketplace by december 15. i'm pleased to announce that we completed re-enrolling nearly all of these individuals by december 18th. approximately 2% of people were unable to automatically re-enroll because they had discontinued plans or who otherwise could not go through reenrollment. it's important to note that if a consumer who was re-enrolled automatically decides in the coming weeks that a better plan exists for their family, they can make that change at any time before the end of open enrollment on february 15. through friday december 19th, nearly 6.4 million consumers selected a plan or were automatically reenrolled into their current plan or one with similar benefits. more than 1.9 million signed up for the first time. we still have a ways to go and a lot of work to do before february 15, but this is an encouraging start. now, each of these numbers tells a story. i recently met a woman in arizona named donna gratehouse. for seven years, she couldn't get insurance because she has a pre-existing condition. she looked into signing up through a state high risk pool, but couldn't afford the $1,100 monthly premium. but when the marketplace opened last year, she found coverage for $155 a month. that is after tax credit. after reviewing her options this year, she chose to stay in the same plan. i want to share with you some of donna's own words -- "literally i'd be walking around outside and think that if i fell and tripped on a curb i'd be in big trouble financially. i have the peace of mind now knowing that if i fall down and break my leg i'll be taken care of and won't go bankrupt. that was a constant fear i had before." when i first joined the department, many of the questions i received reflected a skepticism about how the marketplace would perform. today we have more clarity -- consumers are interested. issuers have invested. a month ago, people were raising questions about whether consumers would actually want marketplace insurance. today, after doing things like reading the news, working out their family budgets at the kitchen table and talking to friends, 1.9 million americans chose to come to the marketplace and obtain marketplace coverage for the first time. there were also questions about whether insurers would decide the marketplace is a good place to do business. there are 25% more issuers offering marketplace plans to consumers, who can now choose from an average of 40 health plans, which is up from 30 in 2014. there were also concerns about whether these plans would be affordable -- and they are. while some predicted that premiums would skyrocket, in fact, while not all, most premium growth has been relatively modest. and nearly 8 in 10 returning consumers can get covered for $100 a month or less. there were also questions about the technology. and today, while our work is not done and we must continue to be vigilant, the consumer experience on healthcare.gov is considerably better thanks in large part to our team which is working very hard to restore trust in a product folks had questions about. again, we still have a ways to go - but we're headed in the right direction. the marketplace is stable. people have chosen to shop. insurers have chosen to invest. there is choice. there is competition. people are shopping for coverage and people are signing up. i maintain that the reduction in the uninsured is the metric that matters most. last week, we released the cdc's latest national center for health statistics report. it found that as of this past spring, roughly 10 million americans gained health coverage since last year the largest increase in four decades. as part of that number, millions of americans have access to medicaid because 27 states plus dc have expanded. pennsylvania has joined the fold, and the governors of wyoming, tennessee, and utah have expressed an interest in expanding. as i close, i want to say a word about the kitchen table. because i like to think of our progress in terms of what this means to moms and dads as they sit down at the kitchen table and plan for tomorrow. thanks to the affordable care act, working families have come to count on the financial security that comes with having quality, affordable health coverage that's there when they need it - whether they're able to get covered because of the marketplace or whether they have better coverage than before because of the affordable care act. they're working out their family budgets with affordable health coverage built in. they're able to look across the table during this holiday season, knowing that their 25-year-old son or daughter has the security of being able to stay on their family's insurance plan. they have the security of knowing that if they lose their job, they won't necessarily have to lose their health coverage with it because of a preexisting condition. and they don't have to worry about losing their home or going bankrupt just because they get sick. some are finding they no longer have to choose between saving for a medical emergency and saving for college. all of these benefits are welcome changes for working class families. thanks to the affordable care act, finding quality, affordable health insurance is one worry they can cross off the list and this can be a great thing for a family's piece of mind, in addition to their financial security. while we have more work to do, we're moving in the right direction. working together, we're expanding access. we're delivering affordable choices to consumers. and, in terms of health care quality, we're moving forward toward our goals for better care, smarter spending, and healthier people. the numbers and the stories show that this law is working, and families, businesses, and taxpayers are better off as a result. and really that's what this is all about. with that, happy holidays, and i am happy to take your questions. yes. >> can you tell us of the reenrolled, how many people came to the exchanges and reenrolled themselves and how many people auto reenrolled? >> i didn't include that number in my initial comments because we are still in a preliminary phase with that number. preliminarily, we think we are in the mid to high 30% of folks who came back in, but that is still unclear. we do want to give you a indication of where we think that will end up but we are checking and double checking. that is the percentage that came back. 30%, if we work off the 15 number or it's probably better to work off actually the 19 number which is 1.9 of the 64 signed up for the first time, so it is the remaining portion approximately in the mid to high 30's of that will be what came in, and then the rest were auto enrolled. >> so 30% of 4.5 million, or what? >> yes. >> so the 30% that came back was of the 4.5? >> i want to be clear. preliminarily it is in the mid to high 30's. we have not settled on that number, so i just want to be clear. >> i know earlier there was a few issues in terms of some people who were stuck in waiting rooms and had to provide information to get a call back. can you explain how large a number that was and what you learned from that before the crunch you expect around february 15? >> one of the things we expect at crunch time, the number of people one would need to hire to not have a waiting room is something that any business would not analyze that you would want to do. the numbers are in the tens of thousands. the number is approximately 500,000 people. all those people have now been reached out to. in other words, you are given a message that said you're going to reach out to you. so you know, you now will have coverage january 1. so all those folks will have coverage as of january 1. we reached out to all of them and were in the process of working through with each of those people. some have already come back in using the technology. everyone has been reached out to. the other thing that is important about those folks is that they will all have their coverage start january 1. if you got in that queue, you are covered for that period. >> one point of clarification, i think that you set of the auto renewals, something like 2% were not able -- can you just clarify that? it's a little difficult to fully tell what is going on without some baseline data. can you tell us how many of the 6.7 enrolled as of october 15 were ffm customers versus states? >> can you clarify the second part? the first part is the 2%. around the 2%, that's the number of people that went through but were not auto reenrolled. a number of those people, like in oregon, that didn't happen because you know they came in. those are the kind of categories that are in the 2%. which number are you looking for? >> on october 15, you said there were 6.7 million people enrolled nationwide. so far we only have data on current enrollment for january 1 from the ffm. >> a 6.7 includes the state-based marketplace. today our conversation is on the federal marketplace. until we get the state-based marketplace numbers, we will be able to build up to those numbers. >> i'm just asking how much of the 6.7 million was only ffm. >> we will have to get back on what part of the number the 6.7 was based. >> you referred to the three governors who are talking about expanding medicaid with certain conditions and thresholds. what is your timeframe as you can best tell us for when you might have a decision, and what are the absolute thresholds? >> with regard to the timetable, it is dependent on each state, and each state in their interaction and engagement. the timetable is in the hands -- there's a set of processes but right now in terms of the timetable, that sits with the state. with regard to medicaid and how we think about it, the thresholds really come to implementation of the statute that we were given with regard to how and the conditions of expansion. different states are doing things differently, as we see in terms of whether it's arkansas or pennsylvania or even the conversation and was a governor of tennessee has expressed. so providing flexibility but making sure within the statute in terms of the types of coverage, essential health benefits and the things that were in the statute. >> how concerned are you about arkansas and it possibly unraveling their? >> we will continue to have conversations and be in touch and want to work with every state. for those states that are are ready and, we want to make sure they stay in. for other states such as the three we mentioned, we want to have a conversations when the states are moving. for other new states, we will continue to try and open conversations. are going to continue having the conversations to make sure we are doing two things, predicting and trying to find a way we could have as many of these uninsured get access to affordable coverage and do it in a way that works with each state. >> thanks for doing this. i'm wondering as you look ahead at 2015, you have a republican congress that has been for more enrollment at the end of 2015. what are you looking at as the biggest challenges ahead? >> we tend to try to think about in terms of the key goal. access to affordability and quality, and the key things one is working on in that space. in terms of medicaid, continuing on a path of medicaid expansion and a successful marketplace. we focus deeply obviously on both of those right now. i'm speaking to the issues of offense because that is how one needs to think about focus and objectives. the second is delivery system reform and the concept of making coverage and care more affordable and of a higher quality, and taking the steps needed to do that. so there are two buckets, wallet he and affordability, and the last element is making sure that the access we are creating actually translates to care and wellness. so there are many elements, and it's one of the things that you see, even for people who have the employee based care, many people don't know or take advantage of some of the prevention efforts that you can do, or they discovered when they take their child in for a wellness visit and you don't have to do the co-pay for the annual visit. the last categories making sure that the access translates. with regard to the others and the defensive part which is part of your question in terms of the things that will be incoming over the next year, think about it in terms of keeping the eyes on the ball of offense in keeping the conversation focused on the substance. at is the place where one can have the policy conversations and debates to make progress. i keep repeating myself, but it is affordability, access, and quality. if we keep focused on those issues, that is how we can continue to improve the results we have now and improve the affordable care act. >> thanks for doing this. yesterday the supreme court -- i'm wondering if you're thinking about contingency plans ahead of the changes in case it goes against you guys. are you talking with states on this? >> where in a position where nothing has changed in our open enrollment. is important to reflect that nothing has changed in terms of the subsidies and assistance people can get to have oracle care. the second thing is, we believe our position is the position that is correct and accurate. when i travel to states, one is in new york and one is in florida, the idea that the congress intended for the people of new york to receive these benefits for affordable care, but not necessarily the people of florida, i think we believe we have the right position, and that is what we're doing. with regarding to our planning and focus, it is as i described previously with a special focus right now on open enrollment and making sure as many folks as we can have that access and enrollment in affordable coverage. >> considering the preliminary estimate you mentioned a few minutes ago, about 30 some odd percent of current customers taking some active steps to reenroll, does that conform to your expectations, or was it higher or lower? did you have any notion of how many would automatically enroll and how many would take steps? >> because we are all experiencing the market lace for the first time, the question of having an analytic -- analytical basis and knowing how people are going to behave is something we are all learning as we go through process. the second thing i will say is just in looking at what happens with people and employer-based plans and other things, would probably would not have expected a number that high in terms of people's behavior, in terms of most people just let what happens go. we will see where it is. one thing that is important, and i think you all know this, we emphasize very strongly and try to communicate with people in a very strong way about coming in. most people receive anywhere from 3-10 touches, depending on where you were or what you were doing, what access we had. so we were deeply focused on that, in our communication is directly as possible and in our broader communication. we wanted to maximize on as many people as possible because we believe it is important to shop and compare, to come in and make sure many people like the plan. as the example i gave from arizona last week, she liked her plan. i met a gentleman in philadelphia who went in, compared, same thing. the idea that people actually take the initiative to make sure that they are getting that they need and deserve -- we want to make sure everybody does that. and second they make choices and come in and find the best plan for them in benefits and affordability. >> i appreciate your statement about king and your belief that the law is on your side. but given the inherent unpredictability of a supreme court challenge, it seems somewhat even irresponsible not to do some contingency planning or to discuss with states what they could or should do in the event that potentially hundreds of thousands or millions of people could lose access to subsidies if the court rules a certain way. are you not having any of her stations are doing any contingency planning in the event the court rules not in your favor? >> what we are doing is focus deeply on what is in front of us right now. that is the open enrollment period, and focusing on that as well as the medicaid expansion and other issues. we believe we are in a place where our position will prevail. i'm going to stick with where i am. we are focused on open enrollment and we are focused on the issue that we have a position that we believe is the position that will prevail. >> a bit of a follow-up question to that. one issue republicans have raised as a concern is that if the court rules against the affordable care act that the subsidies people are depending on the we yanked from them. is there a possible world in the future where people lose subsidies, assuming -- i know this is not what you are expecting, but if the supreme court rules against the affordable care act, is there a place where people could lose their subsidies midyear? >> with regard to hypotheticals, i think anyone can create any kind of hypothetical in life and in policy and anything. what we're doing now is focusing on where we are right now, which is the law of the land is, that is where we are right now. the subsidies are available, people are shopping, they are coming in and getting their we know that last year, 85% of the people in the system received the subsidies and were able to benefit from those to get the care that they need and make it affordable. that is what we are focused on right now. one can create any kind of hypothetical for about anything, but i think what we are focused on is where we are right now and the reality that we are working on. >> thank you for doing this. i wanted to follow-up, what is your reading of what the law requires in terms of states being designated as a state-based marketplace? though are concerns about the renewal process of medicare. there are concerns that hundreds of thousands maybe dropped from medicaid because of not return paperwork and things of that nature. i'm wondering what you're hearing about the renewal process on medicaid. >> that something where focused on on a state-by-state basis. we been working with the states throughout the year to reduce in some cases what were the blogs that resulted from last year, working to do two things. one, reduction of the backlogs that existed in a number of states, and each state has that blogs for different reasons, generally speaking. some different reasons. our focus has been to make sure that were getting rid of that back wall, and to improve the process of communication between and the system between. we have made progress. it is a place where we need to continue to focus and it's something we do continue to focus on a state-by-state basis am including conversations at all levels of the state to make sure that we are communicating clearly and listening well, because we want to help states get through these backlogs. often these are issues that are state eighth in terms of their systems, they are not our systems, but because we have the opportunity to work with a number of systems, we tried to use the best case practices. were going to continue to focus on it. when i'm out visiting stakeholders, and in the business i've done, that's one of the more important things. i always try to meet with stakeholders because that's how we hear what people are actually experiencing on the ground. >> what would be required in terms of designating a state-based marketplace? would there be some way to simplify that process? >> that is a hypothetical. again, right now we have a system, we have the federal marketplace, and that's the system that we are working in. >> many of the state exchanges are reporting numbers, so why doesn't washington have those numbers? when will you be releasing a report for the whole country? >> it's our expectation that next week we will have the monthly report. >> why don't you have them now? >> we continue to work -- i think what you hear is when we get the numbers, we continue to work. many states extended their timetable, so part of it is making sure we get the right numbers from the states and the numbers that they have. we are working with the states and plan to add that next week. >> i believe it was last month the administrator said numbers would be coming out breaking down honey people that are newly eligible for medicaid had enrolled as part of the whole number. i believe she said they would be coming out soon, within a month. i'm wondering if you have any sort of timeline. >> i will have to go back and see what the director was referring to in terms of that. in terms of the medicaid numbers and determining who is newly eligible, that is something i will have to understand what she was referring to. what we had focused on was the percentage increase as of october last year in terms of knowing who was eligible or not, based on the expansion. we talked about expansion as terms of when they do it at a point in time. pennsylvania had between 400,000 and 500,000 that would be eligible but because the population moves their income basis, you have to go at a particular point in time. i will look to see what the director was referring to in that specific comment. thank you, and happy holidays. >> michael grimm pleads guilty to tax evasion today. joining us to talk more about we have details on the guilty plea and felony charges. he represents staten island and brooklyn. what are these charges. what is he pleading guilty to? >> in late april, it was revealed that congressman graham from staten island and brookland was being handed a 20 count federal indictment involving his ownership and operation of a health food store prior to his election to congress. he has been accused of withholding more than $1 million from the government and tax evasion, tax fraud, wire fraud, hiring undocumented immigrants, paying employees of the book, lying under oath, a whole host of allegedly in conduct. he had been maintaining his innocence. he was able to survive reelection in november. he was set to go to trial in february. today, he went to court in brooklyn and decided to plead guilty to one of the 20 counts of misconduct lodged against him and he chose to plead guilty to tax evasion. >> he pleads guilty to one count what happens next in this case? >> it is unclear why he chose that over others. he may be alleging that he only did one thing wrong. he is only speaking to that particular count. he says this is something that many people do and it wasn't done out of malicious intent. it wasn't done to hurt anybody or try to skirt the law. he acknowledges that it was a mistake. he did it. he is sorry. he tried to downplay the fairies and as it in court today to the judge and in speaking to reporters outside the courthouse. what comes next is that he will be sentenced in early june. he could face prison time. in the meantime, he still plans to serve in congress. so, we will see if he is able to survive this. it is not clear if he is going to be censured by his colleagues or if the leadership will ask him to resign. >> this is a million dollar mistake that we are talking about here. one of your colleagues tweeted that he is not going to be resigning, or at least he says he will not. let's take a look at that tweet saying, resigning, absolutely not. happen before i was in congress and for the past four years of and a strong effective member of congress. what is their reaction? what are their options? >> they have a few options. the bottom line here is that a member of congress can continue to serve while under a conviction. certainly not when they are in prison, but he -- these new developments in his case don't preclude him continuing to serve. there are options that leadership can do. they can strip him of his leadership. he is not serving on another committee. they can strip him his vote on the house floor. that is another way they can render him irrelevant. leadership can tell him that he does not have any other options and step aside. they can continue to alienate and marginalize them -- isolate him, rather, intel he has no choice but to leave. if people do not want to make deals with him. we saw that with another congressman, a republican from florida last year who was arrested for cocaine possession. he tried to survive it. he took a leave of absence to go to rehab. he thought he could weather the storm. it was not viable for him in that situation. >> he was just reelected. who is waiting in the wings in case he either does not go up for another election or if he is forced out of office? >> both congressional fund-raising arms, the national republican campaign committee, they are being quiet. certainly, they are working behind the scenes to prepare the strongest candidate possible in the event he has to step aside and a special election is triggered. the democrats have a lot of stake in this. they feel a democratic challenger from brooklyn could challenge him in this last cycle. he ended up not being as strong he ended up not being as strong as a candidate. it couldn't have found a candidate strong enough to be a congressman. seems like he would have been a shoe in. it was not. michael mcmahon is staten island born and bred. important to the district. he served from 2008-2010 in office and respect out of office by michael grimm. -- spoke to roll call today. he is being recruited. he declined to say whether he would accept the challenge should opportunity arise. dumain'suld find emma a ro khanna. thank you. >> thank you. -- at rollcall. thank you. >> thank you. humor.ext, politics and then a look at the death penalty in the u.s. criminal justice system. later, a conversation with cheryl atkinson. >> here's a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day. the stupid a star at 10 a.m. eastern with the lighting of the programs-- all of our begin at 10 a.m. eastern with the lighting of the national christmas tree. just after 12:30 p.m., celebrity activists talk about their causes. the bill of rights and the founding fathers. on c-span 2, venture into the art of good writing with stephen pinker. and searching the history of wonder woman. and reading habits. on american history tv, the fall of the berlin wall. speeches from president john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on first ladies fashion choices and how they represented the styles of the times. and tom brokaw on his years of reporting on world events. christmas day on the c-span networks. go to c-span.org. >> less than a week after sony will "the interview" from movie company hase reversed itself and has allowed a limited release in the u.s. ogen talked about politics and humor at an event at harvard university. he is joined by lizz winstead. [applause] >> hello, everyone. i am maggie williams. welcome to the john f. kennedy junior forum in the institute of politics. our mission is to inspire students towards careers in politics and public service, but we have some laughs along the way. over the years, this form has hosted chevy chase, john stewart, stephen colbert, al franken, and i hope you will enjoy this discussion as much as you have enjoyed the others. leading our conversation tonight is a young woman who knows a thing or two about humor, named this past january as the first african-american woman president of our 138-year-old harvard lampoon. [applause] she started her writing career at age seven when she began her memoir entitled, i am the only one who knows about anything. [laughter] she is a senior and studies economics, which is a writing comedy. she was a directors in turn in the state of wisconsin. please welcome alexis wilkinson. [applause] >> thank you so much, maggie. i can die now. basically we are here tonight to discuss the role of politics and humor, and i think what is becoming increasingly apparent about the role of humor and politics. from tina fey -- some people would argue that influence the entire country -- to the daily show and the colbert report. with that in mind, our guest tonight our liz winstead, the cocreator of the daily show. she has campaigned tirelessly and hilariously for contraceptive access and abortion rights. she has appeared on comedy central, hbo, cnn, msnbc. please welcome liz winstead. [applause] seth rogen as an actor, him he nominated writer, comedian, filmmaker. he has appeared in a number of block busters. he is also a canadian. seth has been an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization, gay rights, and alzheimer's awareness, testifying to congress about the importance of research. please give it up for seth rogen. [applause] ok, i'm going to ask them a couple of open-ended questions and we will watch a couple of video clips and then we will move on to q&a. i will start with liz. you started as a standup comedian and then went on to write. some 80% of millennial's watch the daily show. that is a crazy percentage. can you describe how you came to create the show and what your original vision was for the show? >> oh, boy. the short of it was i thought i would be a standup forever. i was on the road and making a living doing standup. i was fine about it. i was kind of a hack. dopey jokes like great dane should have to wear underwear in public. really, it is so embarrassing to say, but it is true. i had this moment --i was set up on this date. it was before tender. i went on a date and the guy shows up and he is wearing a yankees hat and a yankees jacket and i'm already doubting because i'm from minnesota, i'm a twins fan, and i have a theory about guys who went double sports gear that they won't go down on you. he said to me -- isn't dolce vita in black and white? that's a negative. i thought i should and do the date. but i continued. we went to the movie. he fell asleep in the movie. he said to me -- isn't dolce vita in black and white? that's a negative. i thought i should and do the -- end the date. minnesota, so i thought i would go on. we went to the movie. he fell asleep in the movie. i hated him so much for falling asleep that i smeared my greasy popcorn hand on his yankees jacket. i felt horrible guilt. i said let's go have a drink. we get to the bar and it's the night of the first gulf war. the tv is on. a lot of you weren't even born, but it was when there was just cnn. all of a sudden, cnn had graphics and a theme song and hot people talking about war. i thought to myself, are they reporting on a war are trying to sell me a war? it felt really weird. when i felt like, -- i thought, we're screwed as a nation. i started looking at the world through a different lens. i started reading more stuff in talking about the media. i did a couple of one-woman shows an comedy central said you want to create a show that's on everyday about the news? i said, i do, but the one thing that is key is that we make fun of the newsmakers, we actually use the news of the character. we look at the way they do the news and make fun of that. the manipulation is part of it. >> ok. awesome. thank you. today, a lot of your work involves merging politics and humor. let's go to a clip from your organization. lady parts justice. [video clip] >> oh, there's a screen. ♪ [laughter] >> madame fallopian tube. all the other uninvited guests in my chamber. the state of our uterus is strong. the end of last year left is unstable. when the government shutdown, there was panic. with no politician in place telling me what to do, our vaginas ran amok. that was then. tonight, i assure you that the government is back to work and that republicans and republicans alike are tirelessly fighting so that everyone will have the same rights as those of saudi arabia. [laughter] [applause] >> lady parts justice is dealing with a contentious and divisive issue. legislation is now closing family planning clinics, leaving women without options, so what made you want to be in this fight? >> i think leaving women without options is bad. also, i realize people were not aware of what was happening. planned parenthood is a strong brand. when you are busy, you don't understand what the assault is. i feel like -- when i hear people talk about this issue that are -- they talk about circumstances that are not true. one, that there is some age of abstinence we have to get back to. people have sex. they dupe mistakes happen. -- they do. happen. whatever. why not make sure all access is given and talk about it in ways that are fun and interesting and also get men involved, because it turns out that women cannot get pregnant by themselves. >> what? >> yes. it is true. i feel like if women can't control everything about their destiny, they will never be a part of the power structure. i would like to be more a part of the decision-making process. [applause] >> thank you. let's move on to seth. [applause] >> oh, man. >> you are most known for outrageous blockbuster comedies and smoking cannabis. i know you care deeply about alzheimer's research. can you explain how you came to be involved in that conversation and what it was like to testify to congress about it? >> my mother-in-law was diagnosed with early alzheimer's when she was in her 50's. i had just started dating my wife around that time. i really knew nothing about it. i knew how was for trade in movies. -- portrayed in movies. i very quickly got a crash course in all things alzheimer's. one of the most interesting things and startling things was that there is literally no treatment at all. there is nothing you can do. then you start to look into how much funding it gets, and it is ridiculously overfunded in comparison the things that kill much less people and have many forms of treatment. so, no one is doing anything, and as far as diseases that are cool to talk about, it's polio, just not hip in any capacity. there is a lot of shame associated with it. there is aware of microphone thing happening. the whole thing is --. there was no competition. it was mine to take. [applause] as i got older, you realize -- not everyone -- i'm a famous person in people pay attention to what i say, and i generally say stupid shit. maybe i can deflect that onto something they could use some elimination. i wonder how to do that. i'm not very educated. it was a struggle for a long time. very organically this thing came into my life where i could talk about it on a very personal way. i did not have to memorize facts or statistics or anything like that. i can speak from my own experiences. all of a sudden, i was raising awareness. they invited me to go to congress and talk about it. that is discerning in a way, i guess. they have these panel set up so they can hear people's personal please on issues and no one shows up to them. that is like the norm. there are 17 people on this panel and two people were there. when i started to wonder why there were only two people there, everyone was that's what happens. people do not show up to these things. what a great job. you're defended in your choice to not show up to it. in a way, that was disconcerting. at the same time, people hate the government, and that is why. it seems inefficient and people are getting paid to do ship they are not doing. for a brief moment, alzheimer's went viral, i guess. the speech got a lot of views on youtube, on c-span, the second most-watched video after obama's inauguration. not a lot of competition. [laughter] in a way, it showed that i can, even if for a brief moment, shed some light on something, and that's a microscopic step towards relevant change. >> ok. also. thank you. the next thing i want to ask you about is your new movie, the interview. you and james franco are hired by the cia to kill north korea's leader. let's watch the trailer for that. [laughter] [video clip] >> who is this? >> the secretary for communication and north korea. our leader is interested in doing an interview. >> did you do say china? >> i will be traveling to north korea to interview north korea's president. ♪ >> i am agent lacey with central intelligence. you two are going to be in a room alone with north korea's president. we would love it if you could take them out. take them out. >> for coffee or dinner? >> take him out. >> you want us to kill the leader of north korea? >> yes. >> what? >> hello, north korea. >> i watched every episode of your show. i especially enjoyed the miley cyrus camel toe episode. >> you are entering the most dangerous company on earth. -- country on earth. >> i have a gift for you. >> this dog is killing me with his cuteness. cute.is crazy >> i wish we had an escape plan. don't we go to japan? i'm a good swimmer. >> it is really far. >> people have done it. michael phelps. >> that is not true. >> nice tank. is that real? >> it was a gift to my grandfather from stalin. >> in my country it is pronounced stallone. >> i never heard this before in my life. >> i love katy perry. >> really? ♪ ♪ baby you're a firework ♪ >> i spend a lot of time with kim, and i think he's not a bad guy. >> you're not pulling out. >> i've been pulling out for years, son. >> all right. [applause] ok. unsurprisingly, the actual north korea has flipped. [laughter] they called it merciless retaliation. something like that. borat and kazakhstan -- they weren't happy with it. i don't think they have nukes. how did this idea for the movie come about? how did you think north korea would respond? >> the idea came about from -- we -- it was anecdotal conversation. we were talking about mike wallace interviews of osama bin laden. journalists are in a position to be in a room with elusive, dangerous people. nothing they should. i'm not saying they should kill them, but were they so inclined, they would be in a good position to do that. that became -- we would just talk about, you know, and then meanwhile we were fascinated with the north korea, as a lot of people are. it is a bizarre place. the more you read about it, the more bizarre it is. the more mysterious it is. the deeper you dig, the deeper the mystery goes. what is going on over there? eventually, we combine the ideas. we would make a movie about a journalistic who gets an interview with a leader and is asked to kill him. as we get more and more looking into north korea, learning more about it, we started to see the crazy rhetoric is the name of the game. the opening scene of the movie makes fun of that idea. when they ultimately came out with this rhetoric, it was not that surprising. it confirmed the theory of the movie to some degree. yeah. [laughter] >> are you fearful that they will actually do something? >> not really. no. i would hope they have better things to do. don't take that as a challenge. [laughter] again, i would hope they have better things to do. >> is this streaming in north korea? >> i don't think the movies being released there. i suspect low box office revenue there. [laughter] >> ok. the next topic with you both is that there has been a lot of talk about gender dynamics and comedy, feminism, and that is people are looking at pop-culture and humor and holding people accountable for things being said. the question i have for you -- you obviously have worked and comedy for a long time, late-night tv, political satire, and for that genre there is a real thirst for women. when stephen colbert is leaving -- the black self in me was happy, but the woman part of me was not happy. what you think can be done to correct that? >> well, since i have so much power. [laughter] i think we have made great strides from where we were and where we are going. i think there was an old guard for a long time. the old guard is retiring. when you look at young show runners taking over, they have come up the ranks with women and with people of color and those people are now along for the ride. i think the predisposition that women are not funny is not there. i feel good about that. you will now see tons of women and people of color. it is really cool. i think that -- it's always amazing to me. i look at late-night into different ways. i look at stephen colbert and john stuart and belmar as different animals. generally, when i watch the daily show, i get many writing submissions from women. they did not have the chops to do that show at the time. that has changed. you know what kind of packet to write for it. if you think about it, if you're going into the world of tv writing or film writing or whatever >> there are few jobs for big, nerdy, funny political junkies who also have historical working knowledge of life, politics, and who can say that nixon said that, reagan said that, this is weird, fdr radio clip. those people existing work on the shows. you have to be a combination person. on top of having all that knowledge, you are examining the landscape of the media and politics. a lot of people just go, there's more sitcoms than shows like that. i think that it is hard -- if you look at the ratings of the daily show, they are different than modern families. i think that people interested in doing those things are not as great. women doing those things are not as great. people doing them well is not as great as that. it gets hard. the pool gets smaller when you assess what you need to make your show great every single night. it has to just to do with the cool people. >> seth, you are known for these romantic comedies with a bunch of dudes. they get out of it by being pretty stupid. you took to twitter to defend the movie neighbors. the washington post link movies like that to the santa barbara murders. you tweeted, how dare you and -- you imply that. many people pointed out that your character's wife -- she is actually in on all the action that is crucial to the plot. all that is just to say, do you think about the gender dynamics until making? -- of film making? how much of that should go into what stories you want to tell? >> as we got an older, we have thought about it more. when we were in our early 20's making super bad, it was so -- pharmacist perspective -- it was removed from that perspective. the rules of the women in that movie was very clear what they should be. as we gotten older, yes, with neighbor specifically, we put a lot of thought into how do we allow the character to be as important to the comedy, the story, and how to we not make the story about a couple who is in conflict, but make a comedy team out of a husband and wife who really get along with each other and like each other. the article she wrote had some good points, and i probably overshadow that with my rage because on that movie specifically, i was hurt that movie specifically is one that we put a lot of thought into not doing that. i think a lot of people responded very well to that and understood that was a key element of that movie. you know, being told that you are in in any way responsible for a mass murder socks. -- sucks. that is also where i is coming from from some degree. as we gotten older and smarter, i guess, we realized that -- it is the nature of how movies are structured themselves that lens itself towards sexism, honestly. the traditional structure of a movie that is romantic -- the structure that works for 100 years, which is why people keep doing it, is very much the structure that a lot of movies follow the do not paint women in the most independent plot driven light. once we were like, not do that, it is interesting how many conventions we had to unravel. a lot of the standard movie mechanics are trying to put this into a bad rule, and we had to fight against that. we do it more and more. it is something that we are trying to be more aware of. >> the more you get women in writers rooms and women as creators and in life in general where they're making decisions, then the roles of those women will also be reflected in film. i think that is the problem. if you have a life where you don't have women all over it, then you don't create movies from the perspective of a woman. how many women are running studios? it's a fallacy that perpetuates still. people say, there are women comedies and there are men's comedies and movies like bridesmaids and stuff. they have started to break the mold. unless we stop having women in these positions where we can write about experiential things, we will be stuck in that same formula. >> do you feel comedians should have license to push the boundaries? they have a social responsibility when it comes to joke telling? >> i think -- i mean, i think you have to know what you're talking about. i think you have to be able to defend your own material on an intellectual and moral level. i don't think -- i would never make a joke that i think would get a laugh that has a political view that i don't personally believe in, because i might get asked about that one day and i don't want to look stupid. it's like -- i do think that a lot of people who try to be edgy or political who feel they're unfairly targeted by the political correctness crowd or forget that they have to be funny as well as edgy and political, and i think that if you really look at the people who complain about that and the people who don't, their view of the people who are complaining about it are hilarious and motives the people who are truly hilarious and incredibly edgy never complain about it at all. i think every time you make a joke that you know in your head is slightly controversial -- there's almost like a group of people that have to react negatively to the jokes in order for that joke to be valid. you know the group of people think this thing that you think is not necessarily what they should be thinking, you know. and they will say their thing and sometimes they'll say something, though, that offends more than just those people by accident. i do see comedians apologizing sometimes. i've never done something that i felt like i had to apologize for. but i've seen people make jokes, i think, yeah, they should apologize. it's some admission maybe they went too far. we screen our movies a lot. there are jokes that go too far and that are probably in bad taste. by the time they reach mass consumption we filter those out. we may realize -- we didn't even realize it and somebody will say something and just the way it will play in the room, we're like, oh, and we try to be sensitive to that personally. but i personally don't feel like, you know, i -- that -- like there's some political correct squad that is trying to prevent me from doing my job in the best way that i can. if anything, what i'm able to get away with, generally speaking. >> and i always adhere to it's -- you i would never tell anybody not to say anything. what i -- we were talk about this earlier and i say it often -- is you must understand, though, that when you say something, the second a second it passes your lips, everybody else gets to intercept it the way they intercept it. so with that, it's always mindful and not a bad idea to think about what your intention is, be able to defend it, know that there's going to be haters no matter what, know there's going to be people who are going to misconstrue. i put a tweet out there about a year and a half ago that was like a horror show for me. and what it was during the time when the republicans were having those hearings about the i.r.s. and saying that obama had only targeted republicans in the i.r.s. scandal. right. it was also a time when the religious right had the habit of blaming storms on gays' and lesbians' behavior, right. so -- >> there's no proof it doesn't. [laughter] >> right. we can neither confirm or deny. >> san francisco's really rainy. [laughter] >> having that knowledge in my purview, the oak tornado was coming down the pike. it hadn't landed yet but i said i wonder if the tornado is only going to target republicans. i go have a drink. i come back to my twitter feed and it is hit. there are children who have died and i have a tweet that's out there. people are -- you're a tornado person, we wish people are -- i got it. people don't know how many people actually do that storm comparison. it wasn't worth me to defend it, because it was just too much of a thing, so i took it down and i said "i tweeted this, let me have it, like i get where this thing exploded into another thing" and i moved on with my life and of course people don't let it go. i went and looked like it and i said hotel -- and i was like that is just -- up. so i took it out. there have been tweets where i've gotten an amount of anger that i was totally, i will double down on that. i'm like, i'm sorry. every time someone's offended doesn't mean that i'm, thoroughly thrilled to offend them because i think they're wieners, or i just think it's right and made a larger point or whatever. so you just have to take it all in because you're putting it all out there and sometimes you never know where you're at unless you do hit a barrier and say, wow, that was we're. -- was weird. >> that was too much. >> yeah. i say you got to own it when people come down under a take lumps like everybody else and -- >> yeah. >> feel good about knowing you can defend it and take the hits if you can take the hits, i guess. >> all right. thank you. ok. so before we go to audience questions, i have a few like non serious rapid fire questions, so, you know, lightning rounds. whatever comes first to mind. so lizz, do you think hillary clinton is more of a samantha or a charlotte? [laughter] i can't decide. they're opposite characters. >> i think she's -- do i have to pick one of those? >> do you think of miranda? >> what? [laughter] >> i mean, please, please. >> what if i said i didn't watch "sex in the city," so i'm stumped by your question. [laughter] >> i think she's a mr. big. >> good answer. >> i'm going with that. >> tearing down gender walls. >> oh, my god. i'm wrecking your game. all right. that's ok. i know the viewers want to hear and -- yeah, yeah. things that i wish my life was. >> so, seth, do you know public relations? -- the pledge of allegiance? >> no. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god. that's the controversial part, and then i don't know the rest. that's only for movies and -- >> awesome. >> ok. lizz. >> i'll do better. >> you got this. obama, worse good president or best bad president? >> you know who he is. [laughter] >> all the hair and the drinking was -- >> that's not a crack. >> worst best president, best worst president? i would say best black president. >> oh. >> with that logic, he's also the worst black president. >> i take that back. you know what? you know, i always feel like he's a president who has given us as much humor as he gave us -- he gave us health care, so he passes for me. >> yeah. >> great. so seth, is -- if marijuana were legal in all 50 states, which do you -- which state do you think would have the best weed? >> that's a good question. >> fracking helps. i don't know. probably i would imagine where there's like a strong farming, botany community, like vermont or something like that. yeah. pastures, green pastures and stuff like that. vermont. yeah. >> ok. awesome. >> ben and jerry ice cream. >> all about the food. ok. liz, this is a two-part question. is it better to have loved and lost than to never loved at all and which state do you think has the worst abortion laws? >> is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? yes. because vibrators are expensive. >> true. >> and the worst abortion laws? believe it or not, it's hard. oregon is the only state that has not curbed any abortion access since row v. wade. so i guess -- you'd think it might be texas. >> but you'd be long. -- wrong. >> curve ball. >> because it might be louisiana and it might be north carolina. because just -- or it might be mississippi. i think any place with one click -- one clini -- clinic in which there are five states, there's only one clinic to have access, so i would say the southeast region and ohio could be thrown in there. i don't know. i'm confused. i'd like to stay right here. you have good ones here. >> you can't even read "dirty dancing" in texas. i've heard. >> you can't sell sex toys in texas. >> what? >> i know, we wanted to go down there and do a vibrator buy-back program, and we said no questions asked, just put it in the bucket. >> ok. awesome. >> thank you. >> so seth, this is the last question. >> did you just thank me for that? [laughter] >> i did, i did. good information from you. texas, who knew? so seth. >> yes. >> pick options here. james franco still hits on underage girls on instagram or franco has now gone on to tumbler. >> i'll say tumbler. any evolution is a good one. [laughter] >> all right, all right. ok. so now we're going to start the audience q-and-a. there are mike, one, two, three, and four. there are three rules to this q and a. one you need to introduce yourself. keep it short. n. semicolo elipsis. >> my question tonight are there any candidate you ever want to win even if you disagree the cut as they provide you with good material? >> no. [laughter] put social issues above comedy. it is hard sometimes. i might have voted for honorable horton eger -- of voted for arnold schwarzenegger for a laugh. >> i'm from minnesota. i can't do this accent anymore. i don't. >> it is tempting. >> it helps us get a movie made. we have a movie about politician who goes off the rails i went nuts -- and went nuts. got one. aughn --e v >> hello. i'm wondering what your thoughts were. dennis rodman as a diplomat for the u.s. second, if the leader of north korea were to give you an invitation to screen your movie and north korea with the assurance you would return back alive and in one piece, would you go to north korea? -- let'ss some magical pretend magic exists for a second. it might. if there was a magical spell they could put on us and 100% will be ok, i would do it. the sisi the reaction in person. -- just to see the the reaction in person. >> we did all the research. we would never really know. >> i would do that if magic existed. [laughter] what was the first part? >> dennis rodman. >> we wrote the movie before it happened. originally was casted, but he died, so we recasted. [laughter] north korea is seduced by its leader and eventually like some. it happens. like, at first it was irksome. it adds credibility to the whole thing. it makes for a far stretch story to plausible. kind of validated the whole thing and grounded it in reality. >> all right. >> hi. i'm a sophomore at the college. i think satire tends to be critical as opposed to constructive and sometimes just silly. satire'shink it is rolled to be constructive or suited to that role. i wonder how we avoid being the jerk in the group project who only shoots people's ideas down and tells them how it won't work? how to avoid that? >> i agree with you on this one. satire is constructive. if it isn't, people will not enjoy it. it will go away. that person will no longer be viewed as some you want to receive a satire from. they are preaching to you. they're not saying anything. it is just mean-spirited. if you're trying to make -- the daily show -- every little joke is a little different. >> we are talking things by directly or either indirectly, bolstering things that are not stupid. there is -- action reaction reality. comedically, it is a lot easier .o be critical of something you see comedy. that is what comedians do you they complain about stuff. negative's hasn't is -- comedy's essence is negative. >> it is rooted in negativity. by rejecting a negative, you are bolstering -- bad.ar bombs are that is kind of the implication i would imagine. i think that is more of what we tried. >> louis ck is saying a lot of valuable stuff. i think my life is better for me listening to his comedy. he is complaining about stuff in life. he is teaching me about what it is to raise a dad -- to be a daddy raised to kids. i feel i learned a lot from satire. >> i did, too. what youe to observe want to expose means that you do a lot of research on it. you get a lot of new wants. -- nuance. it is the thought process. it gives people insight into things. >> good question. often when people ask a question like that, they have something specific they are thinking about tiered is there something specific? specific use of comedy or satire? >> not necessarily. just thinking of the daily show in stock. -- and stuff. it is obvious with alternative says. sometimes there isn't an obvious alternative when we are saying, that is a stupid idea. >> ok. i'll close this out quickly. part of the reason i have started this movie and gone into this medium is it is not a satire role to solve problems. but if you are someone who loves knowe and then says, you what? i want to throw that out into the world and have some way where people could go and try to fix it themselves. that is what i want to do. it wasn't the role of a tv show. i knew that. i'm happy that exists. you could do it that way. we can't go further. we had to let other people talk. we could talk afterwards. >> hi. my name is tess. for the harvard review and the correspondent for the harvard internet comedy group. i will be figuring out what my future career plans are. do -- what do recommend i go into keeping and might my parents will be watching this online? >> comedy our politics? -- or politics? >> i mean, do what to laugh or be serious all day? >> you could do both. inject a lot of your political beliefs into that. >> or be the funniest politician there ever was. know it is electing anyone because they are hilarious. one is electing anyone because they are hilarious. >> often times they do not know they are. >> hi. i'm a student representative on campus. mentioned folks who are unfairly targeted are not very funny. as established funny people, even many of you pointed out you -- how do you know when a joke is gone too far? we havewe are on set, to go too far onset in order to make sure we went far enough. we could tone it back. everyone has to be mature about that we have said jokes onset and we look at them. no. [laughter] our bad. new thing. with test test it audiences. we listen. they won't laugh a lot if the joke is mean-spirited or they feel morally wrong. you could feel it in the room. if you think something is messed up -- >> we videotape the audience and we watch it and see it. >> we sit in the theater. you could feel the energy gets sucked out of the room the second it happens. it is a physical sensation. boringif you pick it is -- >> we don't want to offend most people. some people no matter what will be offended. sometimes it takes testing of jokes to realize we might have done something that would be hard to defend. people in the focus group after were saying it is messed up. ok. we hear that. who you ares on developing material for. mean?oes "offend" she would not talk about religion? -- should we not talk about religion? abortion? executing world leaders? there will some -- there will be some people who will say there has to be some limits. she'd you never talk about -- should you never talk about rape? there is only what you feel in your gut that you cannot defend and don't want to put it out there. >> that is exactly right. we have to talk about our work a lot. an asshole. [laughter] we put a lot of thought into what you could defend and can't. we make movies generally speaking that are designed to play in a theater full of people. that is our litmus test. how is the theater full of people responding to it? basically do they all laugh at it? afterwards do they point anything as being something that is specifically offensive? -- some people would be like, this whole movie is offensive. they are not who the movie is for. you look at who the movie is for. people who would go to pay see that movie. they are put off by something. they are right. if it doesn't get a laugh, how do you defend that? it means it is not funny. how you feel you want to defend something and how you write something is also super crucial to who is in the room with you. do you have a diverse audience test? what does that mean? if you have a writing staff that is reflective of the world you live in, everybody does a different kind of check. it is important to have a that's why i think it's important to have a diverse writing staff because you look at what this all means. you say, we are willing to take that same place, but what is your check in at that point? a very brave to be in a room full of white people and say, satirical, but a lot of people are marginalized. i think it's important when you talk about the creative process. >> my name is branson. i'm a sophomore at the college.
aggressively to turn them out to vote. romney specifically referenced the african-american community, hispanics and young voters as beneficiaries of obama's large essaying the obama campaign was generous in what they gabe to the groups. according to abc news, romney had this to say about obama's gifts to latino community. what the president did is he gave them two things. one he gave them a big gift on immigration with the dream act and the amnesty program. romney's targeting of the gift takers, african-americans, latinos, young voter is noteworthy giving the gop's problem with african-americans, latinos and young voters. romney said this, quote, with regards to african-american voters, obama care was a huge plus. and was highly motivation toll african-american voters. you can imagine for somebody making $25,000, $30,000 a year being told you're going to get free health care particularly if you don't have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 a family in perpetuity, i mean this is huge. likewise, with hispanic voters, free health care was a huge plus. another word for gifts is handouts. who likes handouts better than african-americans and hispanics? never mind that according to the department of health and human services his span ins make up 32.5, african-americans make up 15.9% and white people 44.6% of the insured. romney campaign official confirmed authenticity of the remarks but noted governor romney was elaborated on what axlerod said about the obama campaign's effort to target key demographics, specifically women. other republicans in a bid to avoid party imlation pushed back including governor bobby jindal. >> absolutely reject that notion that description. i think that's absolutely wrong. i don't think that represents where we are as a part and where we're going as a party. that's got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from the election. >> joining us discuss all of this and more, republican strategic mark mckinnon co-founder of no labels which aims to get political leaders to stop fighting and start fixing. a lot needs to be fixed. i guess i wonder, as someone that has watched this election cycle, what you make of the ashes that have resulted at the end of it, which is to say, how does the republican party go on and what do they need to do from here? you see two various factions of the party, mitt romney on one side, someone like bobby jindal seemingly on the other? >> i come down squarely with governor jindal. the last thing the party needs to do is to be looking backwards, casting blame. there needs to be self-reflection and taking responsibility for the outcome, not blaming others. we need to expand the base. we need to be more diverse, tolerant. you know, romney's remarks show not only tone deafness but a flaw in his character, i think. and he didn't deserve to win if that's his view of the election and we had an outcome justified. the republicans got what they deserved. i like the governor jindal approach. we need to reflect, grow, to go back to some principles but not back to the past. we need to look forward and talk about put compassion back in conservatism. we need to take a no-labels approach and talk about problem solving, not ideology. we need to get to core problems and talk about -- that's what american voters told us they want. they don't want more partisan rhetoric. they want problem solving. >> sam in ploolitico today, mik allen writes republicans tell us the comments made by romney convince them romney doesn't get it and the 47% was no slip of the tongue. >> hard to argue. this is the essence of the 47% comments that he made originally, that he said were just misconstrued, that he was talking about the electoral map. obvious irony here with mitt romney saying this stuff. for starters, the health care law that they calls a gift to all of the minority voters, this was based off of romney care. this is a concept mitt romney put in place as a state. obama would never have gotten this concept if romney didn't do it. in addition, what he's he saying is that obama won because he passed policies that people liked. and you know that's what politics is, sorry. it's just the basic -- basis of politic. romney knows this because he made suggestions that were, quote/unquote, gifts to voters during the campaign. he wanted to restore $716 billion of medicare savings. that was a gift in his concept to older voters. he wanted to restore nasa's brilliance, a gift to florida's voters. eliminate the estate tax and lower tax rates. people can say that's giving taxpayers money back. these are incentives to join your campaign, support your candidacy. if they doesn't understand that he has a weird conception of what politics is about. >> eric, he's factually incorrect of who is getting these programs. health and human services says 44.6% of those without health insurance are white voters who by the way mitt romney, you know, he lost among them, too. he won a great share of the white vote. on the whole, nationally speaking mitt romney lost. >> sure. this was an election over who you were going to give gifts too. it was who was going to receive them. romney wanted to give gifts to the rich. obama wanted to give to the middle class and the poor. that debate was decided. it wasn't an issue of gifts. it was who is going to pay for the gifts. a lot of the gifts that obama gave, like obama care, could have given money back to taxpayers through deficit reduction, three reducing health care expenses, student loans the same thing. took the cost out of student loans to taxpayers. the gifts that romney wanted to give to the rich supposedly would have come back to us expanding the economy though there was no evidence of that. romney's gift would have cost taxpayers money. obama's gift saved taxpayers money. >> talk about the splintering inside the republican party or what seems to be happening, you're a supporter of the jindal position which is more tolerant, less coated in racial rhetoric, do you think there's room in the republican party for both of these kinds of voices which is to say, one group of people which is you know karl rove is doubling down saying conservatives shouldn't abandon principles what they need to work on is messaging and bobby jindal advocating for a wholesale rethinking of what conservatism and what the grand old party means in the 2th century. >> i'm encouraged there are more voices and people in the party advocating i think on the jindal side of the argument. i think that -- i was glad in many respect is it was a definitive outcome, there wasn't a split vote on the electoral college and the popular vote. many republicans have gotten the message. they understand we need to get right on issues like immigration, many others. and to rethink about you know we have to evolve. we can't devolve. we have to move forward, recognize there are flu constituencies and changing demographics and the party needs to change and adapt accordingly. put the compassion back in conservatism and wreck flies this is a new america. >> sam -- >> i think in the immigration policy arena especially a damaging comment from romney. what he's saying is, there's a group of undocumented citizens throughout who are looking for a handout, a citizenship handout and that's all they want. the approach the republican party has taken to, to say listen we understand they have to work towards that end but give them an incentive to work for. with the dream act it's military service achieving some certain amount of education. but these aren't gifts. these are achievements earned. and romney had -- was looking tats through a prism outdated for modern america. there's a huge growth of the minority population. if that's the prevailing mind-set for the republican party that's deeply troubling for their next whatever, any next election specifically the presidential elections. >> let's talk about sort of the current and practical fight that is on the table for democrats and republicans and that is the president and speaker of the house, john boehner and how they are going about this discussion as far as the bush tax cuts and america's sort of fiscal future. now, mark, i'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. first play sound from president obama and john boehner yesterday talking about doing the delicate dance of revenue raraisers. >> i'm not going to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. how you make up the trillion dollars just by closing loopholes and deductions, the math tends not work. >> i've outlined a framework how both parties can work together to avert the fiscal cliff without raising tax rates. ways to put revenue on the table without increasing tax rates. >> mark a baby version of the themes we've talked about before, which is to say you have a hard line part of the republican party then the deal making part of the republican party and the democrats. how do you think this turns out? can john boehner, do you think john boehner can corral or quiet the more radical elements of the republican party to come to the table with the president to make a grand deal in some form or fashion? >> ultimately, yes. i think those are the starting negotiating positions which are understandable. you have obama 250, you have republicans at least admitting there needs to be new revenue and want to go through the loopholes first and see where they can get revenue there. that's obviously not going to be enough. some point they're going to have to give on it. it may be ultimately that we have a situation where they -- the tax cut dozen expire. we go off the cliff for 24 hours but that offers the republicans an opportunity to come back and vote for a tax cut for those under 250 rather than increase through extension. that's an outcome that's possible. >> i'm curious about the notion the republicans can save face if we go over the fiscal cliff although lately people have been calling it the fiscal curb, it's unclear how much of a steep drop it is in the first 24 hours. can republicans, if the president lets the bush tax cuts expire can the republicans come back to the table and pass a tax cut, does that work in their favor? do american people say the republicans got owned and have to come to the table and deal with whatever the president wants to do? >> works in their favor with the base. the problem is the base is a losing proposition as was demonstrated by the election. so, they have to make up their mind who are they playing to here? who is their constituency? is it the far right? is it the tea party in which case going over the cliff might serve some of them and their districts or is it the american people? >> by technically you wouldn't be violating the norquist pledge it would have happened and now you're cutting taxes. this is the idea that democrats in the senate want to do, patty murray's talking about let the bush tax cuts expire, build our own obama tax cut package and be credited for a massive tax cut for middle class and below. everything i'm getting out of the white house is they don't want to do that. i'm not sure why. they feel like they can get resolution before that. history suggests otherwise, i think. >> mark, the president has gone out i would say yosemite sam style $1.6 trillion in revenue double the amount from the previous bargaining sessions. he has learned about playing poker in the modern political landscape. what do you make of what sam just said, he's going to perhaps avoid taking the country over the cliff or the curb, that would be a bid of being reasonable instead of extreme. >> he's in a maximum position of leverage and demonstrating that by taking the most confident position. i think that makes total sense from a negotiating standpoint. if i were the president and his team that's exactly what i'd be doing. >> the question, how do you get the better deal for the american people? do you get it by not going over the cliff or going over the cliff? so far the indications are you go over the cliff. >> mark's point is that you always have that as an option. >> zblfx yof course of course. >> you need a tiny parachute when you go over the cliff or the curb. >> it's not like everything gets cut and everyone's taxes -- it takes a while for these things to process. >> depends how long you're in free-fall. mark mckinnon, thank you, as always, four insight and valuable centrist, calm reasoning as far as american politics. >> we've got more nolabels.org. >> after the break a battle over what happened when in benghazi. somehow, it has become a fight over a rumored cabinet candidate. the blame game surrounding u.n. ambassador susan rice with another u.n. ambassador bill richardson. the boys use capital one venture miles for their annual football trip. that's double miles you can actually use. tragically, their buddy got sacked by blackouts. but it's our tradition! that's roughing the card holder. but with the capital one venture card you get double miles you can actually use. [ cheering ] any flight, anytime. the scoreboard doesn't lie. what's in your wallet? hut! i have me on my fantasy team. what's in your wallet? hut! music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. the house intelligence committee holding its first formal inquiry into the benghazi attack now on capitol hill. and the senate intelligence committee will convene on this matter later this afternoon. general david patreaus expected to appear at both hearings but will testify tomorrow about his knowledge of the indianapolis dent. announced this morning that secretary of state hillary clinton will testify on benghazi before the house and senate committees next month. questions remain about the libyan attack, some top republicans have turned this into a war on the president. >> i know that people don't come to spontaneous demonstrations with rockets and mortars. for the president of the united states, for two weeks afterwards, to deny that was the case, is either a coverup or it is incompetence. >> yesterday, a coalition led by senators john mccain, kelly ayotte and lindsey graham close to target the president's staff, specifically the potential nomination of ambassador susan rice as secretary of state. >> we will do whatever's necessary to block the nomination that's within our power as far as susan rice is concerned. >> you don't end up on every single major sunday show without affirmatively putting yourself out there of wanting to carry forward a message on behalf of the administration. >> i don't trust her. the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better and if she didn't know better she shouldn't be the voice of america. >> president obama is far from conceding defeat. channeling his own inner mama grizzly. he bears his teeth. >> i'm the president. and i'm always responsible. the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether secretary of state, or u.n. ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. >> yesterday, the claws were out. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> the president isn't the only one on defense. susan collins said that mccain did not attend his classified briefing on benghazi yesterday. mccain's office tells nbc news that was the result of a quote, schedule error and that he would have otherwise attended. collins also shot down a call by mccain for watergate style investigations with a select committee. >> i don't see the need for creating a brand-new select committee to take a look at this. >> the house and senate hearings will hopefully clarify what exactly happened in benghazi but to the battle over ambassador rice it's anyone's guess who will wave the white flag first. joining us now, former governor of new mexico and former u.n. ambassador, mr. bill richardson. a pleasure to have you on the program, mr. richardson. >> thank you, alex. >> let's focus first on the mccain, graham, ayotte piece which seems to be political the fact they're calling for watergate style investigations and at the same time, john mccain isn't attending the high-level security briefings relating to the incident. >> well, first, the congress does have a legitimate role in oversight on benghazi, on nominations but, however, this seems to be getting political though senator mccain is an honorable man. i've known him for many year, but so is ambassador rice. i've known her. she's for thorough professiona. the u.n. ambassador is a cabinet member. but the u.n. ambassador's role is in new york dealing with security counsel, sanctions on iran, sanctions on north korea. you're not in the daily ma maelstrom in washington, d.c. the information that the intelligence community provided her at the time, but that intelligence changes. so i think the president is right, to back his people. secondly, to say that ambassador rice was deceptive is wrong. she is reading from pieces of paper that you get every morning from either a briefer or the intelligence community and that's what she had when she went on those news shows. but to suggest that she is trying to be deceptive is just not the case. she is a very good ambassador. >> i think the issue there is that that line of argument almost cuts both ways and lindsey graham brought that up. if she isn't the person to be talking substantive about this, just reading briefings and not the qualified person on benghazi why was she put out there. why was susan rice the person delivering the administration's message when it probably should have been the secretary of state? >> well, i think if it were the secretary of state or whomever, both of them would have been reading from those intelligence assessments that were coming out at that time. so i don't understand the argument though i think lindsey graham is also somebody that i know and is very serious and honorable. but i think it's getting political. i don't know if the issue is going to be -- if the president chooses to nominate her as secretary of state or senator kerry, what has also not been brought up there's a tradition for the u.s. senate to let an american president have who he wants or she wants as secretary of state. you know, now it's they're talking about blocking it and talking about other delaying tactics. i just think things need to cool down. the election's over. let's be bipartisan but especially in foreign policy. >> the governor brings up a good point, this is traditionally not something the president has to fight over. the president yesterday said, look, the election's over. almost as a precursor to, we need to get past this. this seems to be a way for frustrated republicans to wield some power over a choice that should be the president's to make. >> sure. you should be allowed traditionally to appoint your own team, right? there's a sort of conspiracy theory out there that they want to make susan rice unqualifiable or unqualified for the position so they can appoint john kerry which opens up the senate seat to mass, let's deal with that later. the question for the governor. you affirm the intelligence assessments read on the sunday shows were wrong. and i think it's fair and obvious that the intelligence leading up to the attack was wrong and missed the attack. so can you talk about what type of massive or maybe not so massive intelligence failure occurred on the president's watch and what can be done to actually fix that? >> look, what the president has said and what is going on is an investigation. ambassador tom pickering, probably the most senior member conducting that investigation, you to read all of the e-mails, all of the cables, all of the meetings, and you make an assessment of who bears some responsibility in this issue. is it diplomatic security? is intelligence? i think there's another issue here which really concerns me and that at one point the disclosure of some of our libyan assets was made publicly by one of the house committees. i think we have to be very careful about issues like sources and methods to ensure that in this investigation, which should happen, it is the role of the congress, that your responsible, you're not damaging american national security interests. >> but, governor, i also want to ask the other piece of the puzzle is david patreaus. and in the weeks after the incident in benghazi, the vice president laid some blame or some onus on the shoulders of the cia, general patreaus was director at that point, he's volunteered to testify, he will testify friday, amid swirling scandal. but to what degree do you think he needs to play defense on this? >> well, alex, i'm not sheer in washington, i don't have all of beltway information. what i do know and what i did understand was disclosed was, unclassified information from the cia that demonstrated an enormous amount of agents and individuals concerned about what happened in benghazi that were ready to be helpful. and i think in that sense, general patreaus played an important and positive role. >> we will be watching those hearings with bated breath. governor bill richardson thank you for the time and insight? president obama tells the white house press corps and nation he hopes to begin his second term with a national conversation on climate change. as he tours damage from hurricane sandy, should that conversation start before inauguration day? we'll ask new york city deputy mayor howard wolfson, just ahead. time for the "your business" entrepreneurs of the week. kathleen and susan are encouraging cuss plers to shop local. they created the monthly ladies night in the magnolia park area of burbank, california to boost sales by staying open late. support your local retailers november 24th for the third annual small business saturday. watch "your business" sunday at 7:30 on msnbc. ♪ [ male announcer ] you've reached the age where you don't back down from a challenge. this is the age of knowing how to make things happen. so, why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. viagra. social security are just numbers thinkin a budget.d... well, we worked hard for those benefits. we earned them. and if washington tries to cram decisions about the future... of these programs into a last minute budget deal... we'll all pay the price. aarp is fighting to protect seniors with responsible... solutions that strengthen medicare and... social security for generations to come. we can do better than a last minute deal... that would hurt all of us. campbell's has 24 new soups that will make it drop over, and over again. ♪ from jammin' jerk chicken, to creamy gouda bisque. see what's new from campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. the day after hurricane sandy hit the northeast, new york city mayor michael bloomberg was asked whether he was expecting a visit from president obama. >> we'd love to have him but we've got lots of things to do and i'm not trying to dis him but i know he had planned a trip to new jersey and i said that's fine it represents the whole region. >> today the president is touring parts of the storm ravaged new york. we'll discuss the administration's potential role and recovery and the looming issue of climate change when deputy mayor howard wolfson joins us.. to voice recognition. e-trade leads the way in wherever, whenever investing. download the ultimate in mobile investing apps, free, at e-trade. anyone have occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas, bloating? yeah. one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. approved! [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'. it's so great to see you. you, too! oh, cloudy glasses. you didn't have to come over! actually, honey, i think i did... oh? you did? whoa, ladies, easy. hi. cascade kitchen counselor. we can help avoid this with cascade complete pacs. over time, the other premium pac can leave cloudy, hard water deposits, but cascade complete pacs help leave glasses sparkling. shiny! too bad it doesn't work on windows. okay, i'm outta here. more dishwasher brands in north america recommend cascade. right now president obama is in new york city touring damage of the area's hardest hit by hurricane sandy which ravaged the east coast. greeted at airport by andrew cuomo and michael bloomberg in the last hour. he toured new jersey with governor chris christie. at time bloomberg didn't give president obama a photo op but did give him his endorsement. yesterday president obama said he would soon begin conversations with lawmakers and scientists but acknowledged that the main challenge is coming up with a solution that doesn't slow the economy. >> if, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says, we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international lead, that's something the american people would support. >> joining the panel now, deputy mayor of new york city, how arld wolfson and co-create of the daly show, liz winstead. large work at feet of new york city. new york city evacuation shelters as of monday housed nearly 1500 evacuees and nearly 25,000 customers still without power. that said as a resident of new york city i've been pleased how fast much of the faufr infrastructure's up and running. >> there are significant portions of the city and the president will see them today on staten island that have not recovered somewhere people were cleaning out basements and throwing waterlogged furniture to get carted away, people lost home, in some cases friends, relatives, neighbors, their lives. manhattan, things are relatively back to normal. bronx never hard hit. there are certainly parts of brooklyn and queens and staten island still really suffering. and the city's job remains trying to help those folks get back what they've lost. >> internally, as you look at the road, we know eric schneiderman is investigating, issued subpoenas, sorry to the long island power authority and con ed, the notion there's criminal negligence is -- i won't say shocking but unprecedented in terms of storms and how cities weather storms. >> the most important thing in the aftermath of the storm was to get people electricity back. once you have electricity you begin the recovery process. people would say we're ready to begin rebuilding. we'd like to get to work but we can't do anything until we have electricity. getting electricity back to homeowners to buildings, residents was the most important task. most of coned restored power in its area. lipa which handles rockaways and long island is lagging behind. >> let's put this in the larger context. we had an incredibly violent storm, once in 100 year hurricane, superstorm, one predicted to hit last year. that would be two big megastorms only supposed to occur every 100 years happening in two years. we don't know if climate change was behind this. it opened up the national dialogue to the problems we have in terms of energy and our energy sources. the president, yesterday, said he was going to be talking with people but i guess in terms of moving the ball forward on all things green, all things relating to the environment and our energy policy how optimistic are you that we're going to find a solution to this in the coming years, which is to say the next four? >> you know, in hearing the president speak and reading -- it's i guess confused as an observer and i love listening to you but trying to parse out what it means because what it goes back to for me, in the election, when politicians were separating ow the economy from birth control i was like, no, it's the same. when we hear, we have to see what's economically sound, and when we talk about climate change and energy, didn't i just hear, and don't we think the future is green jobs and what that means? so kind of stepping back, makes me feel frustrated because i feel like isn't that the direction we need to be going in and how do we convince americans that, yeah, you know what, prices at pump have to go up if we want to have them not? >> you can ask somebody who has lost a business in coney island or in the rockaways if this is about jobs and growth. >> right. >> there are people who are going to take months to recover their businesses who have lost everything. and you know for them this is an economic issue. climate change is an economic issue if you've lost your business to a flood. you know, those are people who are suffering as a result of inaction at the global level. >> we talk about how the republicans wrap their arms around this, how they can find some cover for moving the ball forward on energy policies that would hurt the oil and gas industry. one of the arguments they need to embrace this as an economic issue. this isn't about being green or endangered species or warming the earth. this is just about jobs. the president seems to be getting to try to conflate those two things. >> climate solution that's on the table, cap and trade is like obama care. it came from republicans. john mccain was the guy who drove cap and trade. now the republicans have turned their back on their own solution which was market-based solution. now they're calling it a carbon tax though what cap and trade would do would create a different set of incentives that everyone in the market would get to participate in. the problem politically politics placed the emphasis on the wrong place. politics isn't set up to deal with long-term problems and we treat climate as if it's a long-term problem, it's not. forget about the fiscal cliff there's a climate cliff and we've already gone over it and that's what's disturbing about the president's remarks. they don't reflect the urgency of the reality. >> we were at a good turning point of al gore's movie, public pressure mounting to do something and over time likely because of the recession we moved away from that conversation. i can't help but think if it was ohio and not new york that was hit by a storm like this that we would have a different conversation going on. and i think you're right. i think, as these things accumulate and events become much more closer in time period, the pressure starts to mount again. and it's ironic that there will be, you know, at some point in time people like you and the mayor have to think what you have to do to prepare for the next one and it's very soon. that will be another debate what role does government have to play in preparedness? >> right. there's the idea of sacrifice, right? someone, in "the new york times" today advocating you can't have beachfront property, it's not feasible, you can't expect the federal to pick up the tab. >> manhattan's an island and betweens and brooklyn is on an island. we can't move these places inward. that's where they are. >> i would say, i'm from minnesota. you can't have prairie front properties? you have drought. it's not about the rising sea levels. it's about the climate changing in all of these different areas. when you hear mayors, like in minneapolis saying it's incredible. >> mayors -- >> a national organization, mayors all around the world getting weather to address climate change at the local level he endorsed president obama because of his position on climate change better than mitt romney's and we're hoping that the president will lead. we were encouraged by his comment. obviously begins with a conversation. and it needs more than a conversation. we need leadership and we need results. >> now. specifically. thank you to our mayor -- not our mayor yet. >> who knows? >> putting it out. new york city deputy mayor, howard wolfson, thank you as always. after the break we've heard a lot about the cons of super pacs but not the pros. did the democrats prove less is more? obama money bunny and frequent nowest bill burton pines for a day without super pacs including the last time on the television program. is there hope that you will -- that your position will one day not exist? >> yes. no, i hope that super pacs don't exist that's the democratic position, that's where the president comes to this. >> that was the day before the election. now with a victory feather in his cap, does bill burton still feel the same way? we'll ask him, next. into their work, their name on the door, and their heart into their community. small business saturday is a day to show our support. a day to shop at stores owned by our friends and neighbors. and do our part for the businesses that do so much for us. on november 24th, let's get out and shop small. americans spent much of the election season worrying about super pacs attacking over our electoral process. crossroads spent over $175 million with little to show for it. on the other side pro-obama super pac priorities usa action saw greater success. credit has been given to the obama team's expanding innovations but the romney campaign outfoxed thanks to a crafty new internet strategy on the super pac front. politico notes success of priorities usa laying dedication to the internet, web videos drew six times amount of eyeballs as crossroads ones. the super pac era is just beginning. according to rove, democratic attacks aren't weakening commitment of conservative super pac benny factors. they're in it for the long hall. their attitude is, fight goes on, beat them next time. rove said obama officials and democratic apparatchiks designs to weaken support for conservative super pacs. priorities usa actions, bill burton, our very own money boo boo. respond to karl rove. is this a for end the era of super pacs on the part of left. >> democrats want to end super pacs. nobody on the democratic side thinks this is where you can run an election. it's just there should be limits, transparency. since there wasn't we got involved to fight karl rove and what we thought was a big nasty strategic machine but turned out to not be exactly that. fairness to them, two quick things on all of the different things you had up on the screen. digital strategy that was out of necessity because we knew we wouldn't have as much as karl rove and the other guys. we needed to spend our money more efficiently. we had great digital strategists and able to get into twitter, facebook, youtube and make a difference with our stuff. second, on their side they had to follow mitt romney's campaign and mitt romney's campaign was all over the map at any given time, advertising on jobs, debt, welfare reform, war on religion. if you're karl rove, where is our lane we're supposed to swim? on the democratic side it was all about the middle class all the time and that's the focus. >> and attacking mitt romney's record at bain all at time. >> if mitt romney wins, the middle class loses, those two things married up well. >> liz, as someone who is -- zb >> not an apparahchic. >> they bought words u including words economy, dressage. while it's funny, shrewd strategic move speaks to the ethos of two campaigns, the notion there was a sense of humor the obama campaign understood, a way of poking fun at mitt romney that was quietly devastating. mitt romney never had that on his side. no way to be funny or clever about president obama. >> the left has the fun. and you guys were awesome. but there was also, i'm going to toot my own horn, because we came up with this actually campaign where we had rosy perez and all of these people having fun. i did crazy videos not safe for work that were like in your face like this is what happens when you have a transvaginal thing if you don't want to get f'd, vote. we got almost 1 million views in two days because people -- i got tons of e-mails of people saying another way of doing it is, to be the person who doesn't coordinate with anybody, not with you guys, not with the administration but with what we're feeling and saying this is a new language that people speak, young people, they swear sometimes and hit it and cost a couple grand and we -- it's like a whole -- they don't have fun over there. >> it's a generational shift, too. >> yes. >> talk about the data crunchers. sasha eisenberg writes about this, the left has a lock on programmers and data crunchers coming out of universities and institution. the right needs to develop those folks and funny people that make better ads and better at language and rhetoric and the internet that surrounds the political campaign, eric. >> the romney campaign made a calculated bet, as discussed before, to go with angry old white people one last time. kind of one last hurrah, that's the demographic, they got just enough turnout to get through, and that didn't work. if you're angry and old, you're not laughing it up, you know, by definition. and you're not a young techny krat by definition. that does create that problem. there's the argument that karl rove did -- all of the money kept things from being worse for republicans. do you think there's some credence? >> no, look at october of last year the president had right track number at 15, unemployment got up to 10.8%. anybody would have thought this election was mitt romney's to lose. and that's not how to turned out. >> what does bill burton do now? >> what do you do now? >> looking in classified ads? >> i am. i heard you might need help sweeping up around here. >> we need interns. i'll have a turkey sandwich. >> thank you, eric, bill, sam, liz. see you tomorrow, noon eastern joined by chris hayes, josh green, karen finney, author jay mcinerny. behind the scenes footage of the money bunny. check out facebook.com/nowwithalex. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. >> good afternoon. hearings begin into benghazi. joining me, new hampshire republican senator kelly ayotte and north dakota democratic senator, kent conrad. intense israeli assault in gaza. we have live reports from the region and from israel's ambassador to the united states, michael oren. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. only on msnbc. ♪ [ male announcer ] why do more emergency workers everywhere trust duracell...?? duralock power preserve. locks in power for up to 10 years in storage. now...guaranteed. duracell with duralock. trusted everywhere.
have to call the shots and end this government shutdown. worse yet, the approaching default on the country's debt. this historic embarrassment to your party, to your beloved house of representatives, this deep injury to your country. here i think it's fair to say are your options, mr. speaker. you can continue down the road, that little band of warriors on your party's right has assigned you. that means sticking with them all the way, following whatever course the fartherest out 30 of your caucus want you to take. going after the affordable care act at every stop, giving up on any bipartisan solution to the debt crisis, then doing the whole thing over again every two months from now until the end of your speakership. causing havoc global economic mayhem at maximum. the value of our currency, our word. you want to get down that road, mr. speaker? how about this? how about you restore democracy to the people's house? how about you set a vote to reopen the government and add it to whatever riders you don't think will bring it down and call the roll. you have reasserted yourself as the leader of the house for as long as you hold the title. what would winston churchill do? what would a gutsy john boehner do? now back to you who are watching this craziness from some distance. the republicans' latest offer would reopen the government but only until december 15th. then would come just before christmas and the holidays another big government shutdown with all the trimmings. just to get that far, the right wing of the republican caucus is filling the president's bags with more lumps of coal. matters so small they don't deserve mention. joining me right now is congresswoman donna edwards of maryland. i want you to try and explain to the people out there who are trying to understand this, what is the republican caucus officially led by john boehner although i don't think he has his heart in it. this attempt you add on more to the load that we have to end up dumping in two days from now. making it harder and harder through all these new additions to the deal if there is one that there won't be a deal. your thoughts. what are they up to? >> i would love to be able to tell you, but what i think of this, it reminds me about a children's verse. second verse same as the first. they want to attach all this policy stuff to paying our bills and opening our government. these are two basic functions that the congress has. and speaker boehner seems more like a marionette led by the tea partiers than a speaker right now. he needs 31 republicans to join 186 democrats who have already declared on the record we would pass a clean debt ceiling and open up government. he needs to gather those 31, be a speaker of the whole house, and bring this to a close. but to set up what happened last year again this year, to say to the american people i want to send this economy in the tank. it's irresponsible and reckless. >> is there -- could he -- i proposed he do it. why doesn't he open it up to the house both parties and say i have things to improve obama care. i want this thing to have a shot at surviving. isn't there some middle where he could say i could get a decent number of republicans and get some democrats? or is there no middle road here? i don't understand this myself. >> the problem for him is that he hasn't been able to pose any kind of middle. their option as i've stated, they just want to see the whole thing done with. they want to sink the american economy. they want not to pay our bills because they want to kill health care for the american people. i mean, it really is outrageous. and so i think the better thing for the speaker would be to say we're going to open for a vote any resolution that's put on the floor by a member of congress. and democrats would put a clean debt ceiling on the floor. we put a clean continuing resolution on the floor and guess what, we fund government and we would pay our bills. >> you say he's a marionette, a puppet of the right wing. how does it work? do they sit in the caucus and 30 of them say no every time he tries something. what do you think happens over there? >> well, it's hard to know. i do think that there's been some threat spoken on the record that perhaps his speakership will be under threat. what kind of speaker are you now if you don't have the ability to do what's right for the american people? and i've met -- >> who has the nerve to vote against him? who has the nerve to run against him? who has the nerve to put in a motion to declare the speakership vacant? these guys are big talkers, but i've seen these so-called rebellions before. it's easy to play fletcher, you have to go face to face. it's tougher to do than to talk. these characters have been on this show and i think they're nuts a lot of them. they think obama is from kenya. they don't have the facts straight. they make terrible charges. they're not credible people, half of them are birthers. why does he listen to this crowd of crazies? >> i don't know. i would love to be able to explain to you. i just want to appeal to the speaker to have the courage to do what's right. we saw the stock market today go down yet again. it is a signal of what's going to happen in 30 hours if the speaker doesn't get this right. and so i'm just appealing to him. i know that we are democrats. it would be the right thing for the american people to do. there's a lot of tough talk on the other side, but who's going to de-throne him? it's time to do the right thing. >> i'm not a financial expert. i think i'm better than stephen king and some of that crowd in the caucus there. but i got the word fitch is looking about a possible degrading. this is on the edge of craziness. if they're doing this over the -- i can't use the word i would use. this mickey mouse stuff they're attaching tonight, my hope is when that passes, my danger is that that's going to be their last word and we're in trouble for thursday night. thank you, u.s. congresswoman. governor ed rendell. i think it's always going to haunt us that they went down over such crap, such nonsense. i can't use the word that we know fits the mold. this is so dispropors gnat. something to do with the rights of the treasury down the road to prioritize. is that a reason to bring down the curtain on the american economic condition? >> no. it's also insane. i think with redistricting the republicans as low as they've sunk have a chance to survive and control the house now. but if there is a default, they're done. they're absolutely done. and by the way, it's not just john boehner that has to step up. my suggestion would be and i'm going to get on the horn calling people. my suggestion would be pass the senate bill. and the senate bill, by the way, does make some modifications to obama care. it tightens the requirements for subsidies, gets rid of the fee on employers. it makes some changes. send it over. then it's time -- forget john boehner. we do a discharge petition. it's time for charlie dent and patrick meehan and fitzpatrick and gurlach and runyon and all these so-called moderates to stand up. will they sign a discharge petition to force a vote to pass it? that's the time. it's not just time for john boehner to stand up. these guys have had it very good, chris. they've written letters saying we're for a clean bill. but they haven't shown their willingness to sign a discharge petition or join the letter that congresswoman edwards was talking about. >> do they know it's summertime in 1964 and they're in san francisco in the cow palace right now nominating gold water. that they're with the crazies booing rockefeller and scranton. they've joined that party all the way out there. do they know that? they're your colleagues up in pennsylvania. do they know it? >>. >> and they're all good guys who've served well. but they think they can get away with playing both sides. they're not. because we will do -- democrats in pennsylvania will do a letter saying patrick meehan is a good guy, but he's got to be defeated. because if he stays in the crazies will control the government. the only way to get the tea party out of governing is for pat meehan to lose. and it's a pervasive argument if the debt ceiling doesn't go up. >> here's the fuse that goes to the debt ceiling blowing up. john boehner will not have out a continuation of the debt extension ceiling. he will not do it unless it includes something that really hurts obama care. not a single democrat will support it. therefore he needs a full house of republicans. he needs 217 out of 232 to back his plan. therefore he will do anything -- he'll throw the kitchen sink at obama care to get the 217 out of 232 because he won't get a single vote from the democrats to do that. they're not going to destroy their major achievement. why doesn't he throw out the crazy 30 and say i'm going with a majority in the house, maybe a majority in my caucus and do little things that will make our point on obama care but won't be mortal wounds to it. we'll make a statement here. why doesn't he do that? because that would pass. >> who knows. the senate bill has two significant changes in obama care. it takes away the fee to companies for giving -- who already give existing health care to their employees. that's a big plus for business. and it tightens the requirements. victory. run up the flag pole and say we won. we modified obama care. it's insane. and john boehner who i have a great deal of respect for and i know you do, it's time for him to step up and do something important for the country. if he loses his speakership, so what? there are some things in this world and for politicians like me, there are things that have to be worth losing for. and saving the american economy, saving our good faith and credit around the world, that's got to be risking losing for. i agree with you. i think if he did it, he doesn't lose. >> i think he's edmond burke and winston churchill. >> he's got to do it. >> you're not all sitting there looking at the polls. thank you former governor of pennsylvania. coming up, the gop kamikaze caucus. those who to bring down obama care and. and simple question, who's your leader. where would they point to? who is running that group now? the elected leaders in congress, maybe. we'll see? the next two days. plus nobody's buying the republican mularkey. this is "hardball," the the place for politics. [ male announcer ] hurry in to red lobster's crabfest, with three entrées under $20. like our new snow crab and crab butter shrimp, just $14.99. only at red lobster where we sea food differently. [ male announcer ] now try 7 lunch choices at $7.99. sandwiches, salads, and more. prefer the taste of gevalia house blend over the taste of starbucks house blend? not that we like tooting our own horn but... ♪ toot toot. [ male announcer ] find gevalia in the coffee aisle or at gevalia.com in congress continues to reach record levels. a new "washington post"/abc news poll finds 3/4 of americans disapprove the way congressional republicans are handling the debt crisis. that's a record. up 11 points since the shutdown began. 54% say they now strongly disapprove of republicans in congress. 53% say they disapprove of the way president obama is handling the crisis. no winners here. we'll be right back. but with a mortgage. and the furniture's a lot nicer. and suddenly, the most important person in my life is someone i haven't even met yet. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. as you plan your next step, we'll help you get there. a lot of what you see in the house, you see some republicans -- not all. i don't want to say this about the entire republican party, but some republicans are, you know, quite honestly they're acting childish about a lot of this. and they almost want a shutdown. they want to see us break the debt ceiling, things like that. very irresponsible. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was senator mark pryor making a key point about a segment of the republican caucus. i call them the farout people. a number of tea party republicans are still holding out, in fact, raising the stakes refusing to sign on any agreement that doesn't gut the affordable care act. congressman tim huelskamp mocked the potential deal in the senate telling "the new york times" quote, we've got a name for it in the house. it's called the senate surrender caucus. anyone who would vote for that in the republican party would guarantee a primary challenger. alex wagner the host of "now with alex wagner" here on msnbc. eugene robinson is a columnist with "the washington post" and msnbc political analyst. eugene, let me ask you about this. clearly, there's a group within the cause kiss that are basically like sampson in the tempt. have them bow down before them. give the baby. here. please don't blow up the temple. that's the choice they'd love to do. give me our baby or we blow up the temple. that's your demand. they've been consistent on this. they went off and talked about stuff for the oil path, something about the federal lands. it all comes back to the thing they want to hurt. that baby. >> and today they're just lashing out at the staff in congress. take away their health insurance. lashing out at just everywhere they possibly can for no reason. there's no -- >> they keep coming up with reasons except their blood lust to kill obama care. >> but they're not a majority. they're not a majority of the republican caucus. >> let's think about that eating at the mexican restaurant next to the house. this is one of the interesting -- in the past the lobby in the house to undermine speaker boehner. last night according to roll call, he met with a group of the most conservative republicans, quote, the group appeared to be talking strategy about how they should respond to a tentative senate deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling without addressing obama care in a substantive, in other words negative way. it was spotted by mccar thi who is dining there. he looked like he was interested in what the group were saying. this has happened. the secret meetings. sometimes held in a basement. they always get out because people talk. why did they have a meeting, the block adjacent to the house office buildings, a mexican restaurant where anybody can walk by? >> because they don't particularly care if kevin mccarthy feels shutout because he is shutout. they're over there having the enchilada and kevin mccarthy is like can i have some guacamole too, guys? it is a testament to how degraded leadership is. that ted cruz from the senate comes in with the members of the congress to plot out. >> what do the do? tell the wait person, send a margarita to that guy, he looks lonely over there. this is about a $17 trillion debt question to deal with. and we're talking about whether we're going to punish the staff on the hill or we're going to have another range war with the unions. this stuff can be dealt with all through the year through legislation. >> and the whip is not included. the house majority whip is not included in the conversation. >> i wonder why the next morning -- because mccarthy went back and told boehner. why did they still have offices the next morning? i would think that your new office is in the basement three levels below the capitol. >> we laugh about this because it's awful. the people out there driving trucks, doing jobs that are really rough, right? they got to wear kidney belts because of these long hauls. people will real hard jobs. got a congressman sitting around doing what? is this street theater? they're playing to the angriest people in the country. they figure as long as they put on a good show, they'll keep their jobs. >> what they're going to do to that person who's working, who's scraped and bought a house -- >> paying his paycheck to washington. >> paying the money to washington and the mortgage. and they're threatening a recession. they're threatening to take the equity out of that house. >> already talked on the edge of making the move. stamping this thing. they don't trust it. "the washington post" reporting today after the house republican congress meeting quote, emerging from e in meeting tuesday morning walter jones of north carolina said many members have sincere deep concerns with the plan. he's willing to reopen the government but has not voted to raise the debt ceiling since 1997 and he says he vowed never to do so again. so that's one less republican. now boehner has to scrounge further to the right. >> can i say something about their motivation here? "a," i don't think they care about the struggling of the poor and working class. "b," there has been this whole vein that has been born out about the debate of climate change, fancts, polls going int the 2012 elections and now being born out here. we don't have to believe what the economists say about the debt ceiling. we're not sure that's reel. a pew poll came out hours ago -- they are entitled to their own facts, they think they are at least. when you have people going by another set of facts, another set of data, it is impossible to compromise with them because there is no common ground anymore. >> people that take their car american or foreign to a dealer to get it fixed know they don't know how to do it themselves. they don't have the tools. people aren't stupid, they just don't have the tools or the technique. these are things you have to have somebody do that's a specialist. why do they not rely that way on the people that understand the complexity of international finance? >> because they don't trust those people. they think they're all socialists. >> oh, they're all socialists. >> yeah. >> because they feel disenfranchised. >> i had a guy steve king on that says he doesn't listen to international economists. i said what about national. he says i don't listen to them either. but i raise a family. there are certain things you learn as raising a family. let kids cry a little bit, don't let them cry too long. but it doesn't help you with finance. >> not the same thing. >> there's one similarity. when you become a dead beat. and if you're going to become a dead beat, i don't see how that fits with republican thinking. one thing they've always said was they were the ones that were saying this is too much. stop here. here's the evil dishonesty here. the same people are saying and somebody said earlier on this network, the same people are saying it doesn't matter if we go over the debt ceiling. if it was a republican president, we would be fighting to protect it. the same people. >> yes. and trying to impeach anybody that was trying to stop it. >> it's dishonest. i know they'll say matthews finally understands the deal here. thank you. up next, jimmy kimmel says what we're all thinking about ted cruz. he can say the worst and maybe it's appropriate. this is "hardball," the place for politics. thrusters at 30%! i can't get her to warp. losing thrusters. i need more power. give me more power! [ mainframe ] located. ge deep-sea fuel technology. a 50,000-pound, ingeniously wired machine that optimizes raw data to help safely discover and maximize resources in extreme conditions. our current situation seems rather extreme. why can't we maximize our... ready. ♪ brilliant. let's get out of here. warp speed. ♪ warp speed. at a ford dealer with a little q and a for fiona. tell me fiona, who's having a big tire event? your ford dealer. who has 11 major brands to choose from? your ford dealer. who's offering a rebate? your ford dealer. who has the low price tire guarantee, affording peace of mind to anyone who might be in the market for a new set of tires? your ford dealer. i'm beginning to sense a pattern. get up to $140 in mail-in rebates when you buy four select tires with the ford service credit card. where'd you get that sweater vest? your ford dealer. help the gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. as your life changes, fidelity is there for your personal economy, helping you readjust along the way, refocus as careers change and kids head off to college, and revisit your investments as retirement gets closer. wherever you are today, fidelity's guidance can help you fine-tune your personal economy. start today with a free one-on-one review of your retirement plan. customer erin swenson ordebut they didn't fit.line customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy. merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy. unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm happy. (both) i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. happy happy. i love logistics. one national monument remains closed. there was a protest at the memorial yesterday. sarah palin was there as was the guy that started this whole lockout, texas senator ted cruz who demanded an answer to this question. >> let me ask a simple question. why is the federal government spending money to erect barricades to keep veterans out of this memorial? >> let's see. i'm not sure, but i think it's because of you, right? we learned it from watching you, okay? >> well said. time for the sideshow. that was jimmy kimmel last night saying what everybody except senator cruz knew already. yesterday was also columbus day, of course. and the kimmel crew went on to find out how much people knew or know now about christopher columbus. here's what they found. ♪ >> he came to america and he ate thanksgiving. he had thanksgiving. >> columbus traveled the world, came to america, and whatever he came on must have been a canoe, kayak, same thing. i don't even know. he came to america and i guess he found it. i guess. >> what year did he sail here? >> 1842. >> 1842, i believe? >> do you know what columbus' last name is? >> no. >> nope. >> you guys don't know columbus' last name? >> no. >> no. >> was something italian because he was an italian fella. >> i think it was something spanish like juan. >> that's always sad. next up, first lady michelle obama set to make a cameo on "the biggest loser" next month. last year she led a workout from the east room of the white house. it's all part of the first lady's let's move campaign which she hopes will reserve the growing obesity epidemic in this country it's not the first time we've seen this come out of the white house. a similar unrelated story today shed new light on william howard taft's own struggle with obesity a hundred years ago. it turns out the portly chief exec who was more famous for his waistline than his presidency followed a diet regimen not different than those used today. a professor dug up correspondence that showed he recently consulted with doctors about his weight and kept notes about it. the result? he lost 59 pounds in less than a year. that's less room in the bathtub of his. up next, who's running the republican party? is it john boehner and the so-called leaders? or the full mooners of the far right? you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. is a daily game of "what if's". what if my abdominal pain and cramps come back? what if the plane gets delayed? what if i can't hide my symptoms? what if? but what if the most important question is the one you're not asking? what if the underlying cause of your symptoms is damaging inflammation? for help getting the answers you need, talk to your doctor and visit crohnsandcolitisinfo.com to get your complimentary q&a book, with information from experts on your condition. i have obligations. cute tobligations, but obligations.g. i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. where their electricity comes from. they flip the switch-- and the light comes on. it's our job to make sure that it does. using natural gas this power plant can produce enough energy for about 600,000 homes. generating electricity that's cleaner and reliable, with fewer emissions-- it matters. ♪ we chip away. making the colors of earth and sunset skies into rich interior accents. or putting the beauty of a forest in the palm of your hands... it will take you to another place... wherever you happen to be. this is the new 2014 jeep grand cherokee. it is the best of what we're made of. well-qualified lessees can lease the 2014 grand cherokee laredo 4x4 for $359 a month. i'm milissa rehberger. abu anas al libi pleaded not guilty in new york. he is charged with planning to embassy bombings in 1998. bob filner pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and battery as part of a plea deal he faces home confinement and three years probation. and president obama awarded the medal of honor to bill swin son for saving troops in afghanistan in 2009. back to "hardball." there are a lot of opinions about what direction to go. there have been no decisions about what exactly we will do. >> mr. speaker, the changes in your bill to the president's health care law are pretty minor. were they worth a two-week government shutdown? >> we're working with our members on a way forward and to make sure we provide fairness to the american people. >> didn't answer the question. is it reasonable to bring down the government and threaten our national credit standing for this stuff? anyway, time's pretty much up. we're now 15 days into the government shutdown. just a day before they say we're going to hit that debt ceiling and as you saw in that clip, boehner is no closer to coming to a deal with his own caucus. we sit on the edge of an economic collapse. that's real. the polls could change, but the facts are real. but still house republicans won't budge off their ideological fixation with the president's health care law even though it's not secret in this town that this is not what boehner wanted. it is however exactly what ted cruz wanted earlier in the year. we showed you this headline. ted cruz and house republicans meet in secret. it's no coincidence after that meeting boehner saw his latest plan soundly rejected by the caucus' far right forcing him to go back to the drawing board. according to gop sources, the reality is gop leadership does not have enough votes to pass their own plan at this time. they're looking for changes that would increase support among republicans. what lies ahead for the republicans including who's in charge of that party on its way to a train wreck? michael steele and joan walsh. both are msnbc analysts. michael, the republican party is now represented by somebody in a mexican restaurant eating in a secret meeting with 30 red hots for the far right. not one for wanting more mexicans in the country. >> but like the food. >> let's go back to the facts tonight. they had a secret meeting in the basement -- not secret because mccarthy spotted them across the room. that wasn't secret. this guy have stirred them up enough that 30 people have once said no deal to john boehner. they want more red hot stuff. more red meat, something to take something away from obama care and hurts the president physically. >> the president's not going to stagger out of this deal. and that's the problem. the president is in the strongest possible position with respect to obama care. because he's got all the weight of evidence on his side. including two elections and the supreme court decision. set that aside. so where does the party need to go now? it is not necessarily to block john boehner. let john boehner cut the deal to get you out from under this. you can fight another day on obama care because it's not going anywhere. and you need more votes to get anything substantively done on it anyway. so the real battle in front of us right now is the nation's debt ceiling. how do we go about making the argument to bring in the level of spending to decrease the size of government consistent with principles but also what the polls are showing the american people want. that's where the fight is. we've gotten so far off on this thing now. >> but tonight, michael, tonight there's going to be another wasted vote for something that's never going to happen. more slices and attacks for obama care by the house. why do they keep going in the direction that doesn't take them anywhere? >> i agree with you on that. i don't know why there is this effort to keep going into the wall and thinking every time you hit it, you've made progress. >> one thought is institutional. that the u.s. senate is made up of people that represent all states. they represent minorities, liberals, big cities as well as small towns, they have to be somewhat representative of the people they represent. now, house members represent for 90% in some cases republican districts where they don't have to listen to anybody. they'll get re-elected just for being angry. all they have to do is prove they're angry, and they're re-elected. this is where we have the stalemate in the house. >> john boehner is a profile. but the house republicans have not impressed me either. they're not really doing anything. they're talking, maybe they come on msnbc, maybe they say something that sounds brave. but at the end of the day, no one's leading any kind of charge. the only way this ends, chris, and michael knows this right now is boehner turns to nancy pelosi and says help the get the votes for something. and that has to be what the senate is going to do. it's been written. it's been preordained if we get out of it. i think there's still a possibility that we don't. it's really waiting for john bain tore wise up, let the babies cry it out and then turn partner with nancy pelosi like he's done before. >> this is the problem for boehner. if he goes with them on this thing, some kind of health care demolition squad, if he sets another debt ceiling or rather continuation of the government, he's basically consigning himself to every two months another government shutdown, every two months something to do with the debt, every two months something else to attack obama care. they're not going to stop until they've won. if they get a piece of obama care, they'll come back for a leg, an arm, the torso, the head. they're not going to stop because if they keep winning. why does he join the group? you say don't do it. but tell me why he's is doing it. there's no future in it. >> i don't know why he's doing it other than to feel in the end he's going to get people to the table. >> when's he going to lead? >> i think we're at a point here where boehner says either yes i'm just going to stand with the caucus and we're going to watch this thing come to its inevitable end which has catastrophic effects, or he says i sacrifice my speakership. in other words, i'm going to have to do what joan said. i'll have to go to nancy pelosi and take 15 or 20 republicans with me who will cast this vote and get this done that way. then it's over. because the base at that point is completely done, and that's a decision he has to ultimately make. whether or not this is worth it. >> you think they would dump him? >> if he cuts the deal and leaves obama care untouched on the table, absolutely. >> but who has the votes to beat him at this point? it's such a fractured caucus at this point. i think he's a danger. i don't want to minimize it, but you count votes and who would get a majority? >> i don't think he's a leader if he keeps going on the route he's on. he's a follower. let's look at the pros and cons of his strategy not to stand up to the tea party. cons, shut down the government get blamed for it. push markets to the edge get blamed for it. distract away from the health care laws rocky rollout. see historic approval lows. unify the opposition. remember when everyone was talking about the fractured state of democrats on sommers. nobody remembers that. the only pro for boehner, he's still speaker. but for how long? now there's cruz. he's become a folk to to the right. he won the values voter summit straw poll. and his influence is growing on house gop. and he knows where to get good mexican food. when you were running the party, it had pride. >> yeah. and a lot of that pride is misplaced right now. i think we are standing in the wilderness going, which direction. and the american people are making it clear where they want us to go on this. this from the beginning from my estimation was not about obama care because obama care was an unappropriated entity you couldn't do anything about. you live to fight another day on that front to reform it and fix it in the normal course. >> do they want to do anything to fix it? >> i think a majority of the members do want to fix it. it's the way they've gone about it. i think the battle is over the spending levels, over the level of the debt, and the mortgage that we're putting on the backs of our kids in the future. that's a conversation americans want to have. we still have job creation issues and so forth. and the party's so far out right now, how do they swing back? >> that's my question to you, joan. you've got to answer there. how does boehner bring his party back to the table where there can be a deal? because without a deal, failure. failure of this whole process. >> i don't think he does. i mean, i think he brings some people who vote with democrats to lift the debt ceiling. this worries me as a democrat. to some extent, you could say this is a victory for republicans. they are getting what they want in terms of a shorter lifting of the debt ceiling. we do come back at least in the senate bill talked about last night. it never took shape, so we don't know really what's in it yet. but they were going to come up with some kind of debt solution and they were going to have a big negotiation on the budget that was going to be done by the middle of december. and liberals often get shafted in that. so -- >> guess what. they've got a deal. they're saying now they want another government shutdown december 15th. the same time they say they want a report on this long-term spending cut and entitlement reform. they want it all done. in other words for the next two months nothing but craziness. >> and government by crazy is no way to govern. >> and some think it's crazy for democrats to even agree to that. but that's sort of where we are. so harry reid went to mitch mcconnell. john boehner did not go to nancy pelosi or any democrat. >> it's terrible. thank you, michael steele and joan. what a prognostication. we're going to look ahead for the next to months in is the. up next, this is the most ludicrous. let's have another demonstration about what we didn't do what everyone us doing. this is "hardball," the place for politics. refer to do on my . but when it comes to investing, i just think it's better to work with someone. someone you feel you can really partner with. unfortunately, i've found that some brokerage firms don't always encourage that kind of relationship. that's why i stopped working at the old brokerage, and started working for charles schwab. avo: what kind of financial consultant are you looking for? talk to us today. we are the thinkers. the job jugglers. the up all-nighters. and the ones who turn ideas into action. we've made our passions our life's work. we strive for the moments where we can say, "i did it!" ♪ we are entrepreneurs who started it all... with a signature. legalzoom has helped start over 1 million businesses, turning dreamers into business owners. and we're here to help start yours. turning dreamers into business owners. there is a pursuit we all share. a better life for your family, a better opportunity for your business, a better legacy to leave the world. we have always believed in this pursuit, striving to bring insight to every investment, and integrity to every plan. we are morgan stanley. and we're ready to work for you. three big races coming up in the next three weeks. let's check the "hardball" score board. first to new jersey in the special election if r the united states senate. cory booker leads republican steve lonegan by 14 points. it's booker 54, lonegan 40. and the new rutgers poll has booker's lead bigger. booker 58, lonegan 36. that's a 22-point spread for mr. booker. that election is tomorrow. now to the flargess. chris christie up by 24. 59-35. the candidates debate tonight. finally to virginia where a new university poll has mccauliffe in the lead by seven points. mccauliffe 46, ken cuccinelli 39. we'll be right back. stick with innovation. stick with power. stick with technology. get the flexcare platinum. new from philips sonicare. maestro of project management. baron of the build-out. you need a permit... to be this awesome. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle... and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. (aaron) purrrfect. (vo) meee-ow, business pro. meee-ow. go national. go like a pro. how do you deny them access? i don't get that. >> it's difficult. >> it should be. >> i'm sorry, sir. >> park service should be ashamed of themselves. >> i'm not ashamed. >> well, you should be. >> wow. not ashamed. good for her. we're back. after shutting down the government, the republicans are going to great lengths to convince it was the democrats that did it all along. republicans knew shutting down cancer research was bad public relations. so they dressed up in lab coats and pretended to be outraged that medical research was being compromised. >> are you saying now you sayin perhaps there's been a change about the thinking of the role of government and how much money should be going to these agencies? >> i have been incentive in making a priority funding for the nih and specifically funding for pediatric research. >> the fine print they didn't want you to see was the 2013 house republican budget -- the designated spokesperson, eric cantor himself proposed a $1.3 billion cut to the nih just a year earlier. sam stein, msnbc contributor and liz winstead the co-creator of today's show. sam, what is the consistency here in their argument that, you know, the park guards and going after the ww 2, they're good pr, but don't they know that that was a measure imposed by ted cruz. >> reporter: the broader point is what you touched on earlier is all these separate things they wanted to fund, whether it was nih, whether it was head start, all these things are limited in funding by the sequestration levels that they adhered to. so there's limitations to their devotion to the nih, you can't say one week put on lab coats and fund scientific researches for cancer and then within days insist that sequestration funding stay in place. >> i think the republicans are trying to do their best at street theater. and they're not the most theatrical of political parties, but they've been doing these show boating things, they have been encouraging those maniacs to go to the white house and throw them at the white house fence. it's just short of violence. that was an odd alliance i saw the other day, the guys with the pony tails and the harleys all seem to be aligned with the republicans. >> this is the party that actually said, there's some parts of obama care that they wanted to keep and it was the whole of obama care. we want to remove access to birth control. the people who say what's good for the government is if we shut it down. i'm more concerned about the people who keep voting for them than almost i am them. >> you know, i wish more people would point out the obvious inconsistency in what they say. they don't like sex education, they don't like the availability of birth control pills or condom ors anything like that. but they see the realities of unplanned for pregnancies which could lead to in many cases abortion and they don't see the connection, but they keep espousing this stuff. sam, this whole thing, though, i think it's all a very purposeful effort to cut their losses. people who read the newspapers know that republicans want to shoot downi the government. >> i think it's more complex than that. i think what ended up happening was they walked themselves into a corner. they wanted to turn around and say we never did this. so the only way out of it was to do these piecemeal fundi ining efforts. this is all part of ted cruz's plans, we'll shut down the government, we'll pass things that are very popular and leave everything shut down. then the republicans shut down the government and then bemoan the fact that the government was shut down. it just didn't make sense. >> how far is he going to go? he's meeting at the restaurant with 20 or 30 -- >> right now what we're hearing in the conservative group is they want to keep the government shut downing, but pass a very short-term debt rate hike. the republican leadership hasn't really indicated where they want to go on this? there's no indication they have the votes to combine the two. we're going to keep the government shut down for now the third week. and whether the president will accept that is anyone's guess. >> and how dumb are you that you want to push it short-term to the point where the next time we're talking about this again is when people are getting ready to spend their money for christmas? you know, it's like what do they understand? >> you mean that might hurt the economy? >> you think? >> perhaps. >> although i'm a jew so it doesn't matter to me. >> in a weird way with all these stakes being historic and yet they play it like a board game. i don't think there's anything worth in what they're doing. thank you sam, liz, for coming here. we'll be right back after this. creamy thai style chicken with rice. mexican-style chicken tortilla. if you think campbell's 26 new soups sound good, imagine how they taste. m'm! m'm! good! imagine how they taste. a playground of innovation,. color, and design. showing up where we least expect it. and taking inspiration from our wildest dreams. because kohler doesn't see the world in fixtures and faucets. it reimagines. coloring our lives in ways only bold could do, it's no wonder the world can't wait to see what kohler does next. prefer the taste of gevalia house blend over the taste of starbucks house blend? not that we like tooting our own horn but... ♪ toot toot. [ male announcer ] find gevalia in the coffee aisle or at gevalia.com so she could take her dream to the next level. so we talked about her options. her valuable assets were staying. and selling her car wouldn't fly. we helped sydney manage her debt and prioritize her goals, so she could really turn up the volume on her dreams today... and tomorrow. so let's see what we can do about that... remodel. motorcycle. [ female announcer ] some questions take more than a bank. they take a banker. make a my financial priorities appointment today. because when people talk, great things happen. let me finish tonight with this. tonight we're having a big get together in washington to mark the publication of my book, "tipping the gipper." people asked me about the arrival of this book. i timed it like so many of my books to the happy season of advent leading to the holidays. we had a president, the people, even his rivals possessed historic staff your. we had a committed democratic opposition that kept reagan has a conservative president and not a radical one. kept our own country together
have to call the shots and end this government shutdown. worse yet, the approaching default on the country's debt. this historic embarrassment to your party, to your beloved house of representatives, this deep injury to your country. here i think it's fair to say are your options, mr. speaker. you can continue down the road, that little band of warriors on your party's right has assigned you. that means sticking with them all the way, following whatever course the fartherest out 30 of your caucus want you to take. going after the affordable care act at every stop, giving up on any bipartisan solution to the debt crisis, then doing the whole thing over again every two months from now until the end of your speakership. causing havoc global economic mayhem at maximum. the value of our currency, our word. you want to get down that road, mr. speaker? how about this? how about you restore democracy to the people's house? how about you set a vote to reopen the government and add it to whatever riders you don't think will bring it down and call the roll. you have reasserted yourself as the leader of the house for as long as you hold the title. what would winston churchill do? what would a gutsy john boehner do? now back to you who are watching this craziness from some distance. the republicans' latest offer would reopen the government but only until december 15th. then would come just before christmas and the holidays another big government shutdown with all the trimmings. just to get that far, the right wing of the republican caucus is filling the president's bags with more lumps of coal. matters so small they don't deserve mention. joining me right now is congresswoman donna edwards of maryland. i want you to try and explain to the people out there who are trying to understand this, what is the republican caucus officially led by john boehner although i don't think he has his heart in it. this attempt you add on more to the load that we have to end up dumping in two days from now. making it harder and harder through all these new additions to the deal if there is one that there won't be a deal. your thoughts. what are they up to? >> i would love to be able to tell you, but what i think of this, it reminds me about a children's verse. second verse same as the first. they want to attach all this policy stuff to paying our bills and opening our government. these are two basic functions that the congress has. and speaker boehner seems more like a marionette led by the tea partiers than a speaker right now. he needs 31 republicans to join 186 democrats who have already declared on the record we would pass a clean debt ceiling and open up government. he needs to gather those 31, be a speaker of the whole house, and bring this to a close. but to set up what happened last year again this year, to say to the american people i want to send this economy in the tank. it's irresponsible and reckless. >> is there -- could he -- i proposed he do it. why doesn't he open it up to the house both parties and say i have things to improve obama care. i want this thing to have a shot at surviving. isn't there some middle where he could say i could get a decent number of republicans and get some democrats? or is there no middle road here? i don't understand this myself. >> the problem for him is that he hasn't been able to pose any kind of middle. their option as i've stated, they just want to see the whole thing done with. they want to sink the american economy. they want not to pay our bills because they want to kill health care for the american people. i mean, it really is outrageous. and so i think the better thing for the speaker would be to say we're going to open for a vote any resolution that's put on the floor by a member of congress. and democrats would put a clean debt ceiling on the floor. we put a clean continuing resolution on the floor and guess what, we fund government and we would pay our bills. >> you say he's a marionette, a puppet of the right wing. how does it work? do they sit in the caucus and 30 of them say no every time he tries something. what do you think happens over there? >> well, it's hard to know. i do think that there's been some threat spoken on the record that perhaps his speakership will be under threat. what kind of speaker are you now if you don't have the ability to do what's right for the american people? and i've met -- >> who has the nerve to vote against him? who has the nerve to run against him? who has the nerve to put in a motion to declare the speakership vacant? these guys are big talkers, but i've seen these so-called rebellions before. it's easy to play fletcher, you have to go face to face. it's tougher to do than to talk. these characters have been on this show and i think they're nuts a lot of them. they think obama is from kenya. they don't have the facts straight. they make terrible charges. they're not credible people, half of them are birthers. why does he listen to this crowd of crazies? >> i don't know. i would love to be able to explain to you. i just want to appeal to the speaker to have the courage to do what's right. we saw the stock market today go down yet again. it is a signal of what's going to happen in 30 hours if the speaker doesn't get this right. and so i'm just appealing to him. i know that we are democrats. it would be the right thing for the american people to do. there's a lot of tough talk on the other side, but who's going to de-throne him? it's time to do the right thing. >> i'm not a financial expert. i think i'm better than stephen king and some of that crowd in the caucus there. but i got the word fitch is looking about a possible degrading. this is on the edge of craziness. if they're doing this over the -- i can't use the word i would use. this mickey mouse stuff they're attaching tonight, my hope is when that passes, my danger is that that's going to be their last word and we're in trouble for thursday night. thank you, u.s. congresswoman. governor ed rendell. i think it's always going to haunt us that they went down over such crap, such nonsense. i can't use the word that we know fits the mold. this is so disproportionate. something to do with the rights of the treasury down the road to prioritize. is that a reason to bring down the curtain on the american economic condition? >> no. it's also insane. i think with redistricting the republicans as low as they've sunk have a chance to survive and control the house now. but if there is a default, they're done. they're absolutely done. and by the way, it's not just john boehner that has to step up. my suggestion would be and i'm going to get on the horn calling people. my suggestion would be pass the senate bill. and the senate bill, by the way, does make some modifications to obama care. it tightens the requirements for subsidies, gets rid of the fee on employers. it makes some changes. send it over. then it's time -- forget john boehner. we do a discharge petition. it's time for charlie dent and patrick meehan and fitzpatrick and gurlach and runyon and all these so-called moderates to stand up. will they sign a discharge petition to force a vote to pass it? that's the time. it's not just time for john boehner to stand up. these guys have had it very good, chris. they've written letters saying we're for a clean bill. but they haven't shown their willingness to sign a discharge petition or join the letter that congresswoman edwards was talking about. >> do they know it's summertime in 1964 and they're in san francisco in the cow palace right now nominating gold water. that they're with the crazies booing rockefeller and scranton. they've joined that party all the way out there. do they know that? they're your colleagues up in pennsylvania. do they know it? >>. >> and they're all good guys who've served well. but they think they can get away with playing both sides. they're not. because we will do -- democrats in pennsylvania will do a letter saying patrick meehan is a good guy, but he's got to be defeated. because if he stays in the crazies will control the government. the only way to get the tea party out of governing is for pat meehan to lose. and it's a pervasive argument if the debt ceiling doesn't go up. >> here's the fuse that goes to the debt ceiling blowing up. john boehner will not have out a continuation of the debt extension ceiling. he will not do it unless it includes something that really hurts obama care. not a single democrat will support it. therefore he needs a full house of republicans. he needs 217 out of 232 to back his plan. therefore he will do anything -- he'll throw the kitchen sink at obama care to get the 217 out of 232 because he won't get a single vote from the democrats to do that. they're not going to destroy their major achievement. why doesn't he throw out the crazy 30 and say i'm going with a majority in the house, maybe a majority in my caucus and do little things that will make our point on obama care but won't be mortal wounds to it. we'll make a statement here. why doesn't he do that? because that would pass. >> who knows. the senate bill has two significant changes in obama care. it takes away the fee to companies for giving -- who already give existing health care to their employees. that's a big plus for business. and it tightens the requirements. victory. run up the flag pole and say we won. we modified obama care. it's insane. and john boehner who i have a great deal of respect for and i know you do, it's time for him to step up and do something important for the country. if he loses his speakership, so what? there are some things in this world and for politicians like me, there are things that have to be worth losing for. and saving the american economy, saving our good faith and credit around the world, that's got to be risking losing for. i agree with you. i think if he did it, he doesn't lose. >> i think he's edmond burke and winston churchill. >> he's got to do it. >> you're not all sitting there looking at the polls. thank you former governor of pennsylvania. coming up, the gop kamikaze caucus. those who to bring down obama care and. and simple question, who's your leader. where would they point to? who is running that group now? the elected leaders in congress, maybe. we'll see? the next two days. plus nobody's buying the republican malarkey. this is "hardball," the the place for politics. disapproval for republicans in congress continues to reach record levels. a new "washington post"/abc news poll finds 3/4 of americans disapprove the way congressional republicans are handling the debt crisis. that's a record. up 11 points since the shutdown began. 54% say they now strongly disapprove of republicans in congress. 53% say they disapprove of the way president obama is handling the crisis. no winners here. we'll be right back. nnouncer ] e people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. a lot of what you see in the house, you see some republicans -- not all. i don't want to say this about the entire republican party, but some republicans are, you know, quite honestly they're acting childish about a lot of this. and they almost want a shutdown. they want to see us break the debt ceiling, things like that. very irresponsible. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was senator mark pryor making a key point about a segment of the republican caucus. i call them the farout people. a number of tea party republicans are still holding out, in fact, raising the stakes refusing to sign on any agreement that doesn't gut the affordable care act. congressman tim huelskamp mocked the potential deal in the senate telling "the new york times" quote, we've got a name for it in the house. it's called the senate surrender caucus. anyone who would vote for that in the republican party would guarantee a primary challenger. alex wagner the host of "now with alex wagner" here on msnbc. eugene robinson is a columnist with "the washington post" and msnbc political analyst. eugene, let me ask you about this. clearly, there's a group within basically like sampson in the tempt. have them bow down before them. give the baby. here. please don't blow up the temple. that's the choice they'd love to do. give me our baby or we blow up the temple. that's your demand. they've been consistent on this. they went off and talked about stuff for the oil path, something about the federal lands. it all comes back to the thing they want to hurt. that baby. >> and today they're just lashing out at the staff in congress. take away their health insurance. lashing out at just everywhere they possibly can for no reason. there's no -- >> they keep coming up with reasons except their blood lust to kill obama care. >> but they're not a majority. they're not a majority of the republican caucus. >> let's think about that eating at the mexican restaurant next to the house. this is one of the interesting -- in the past the lobby in the house to undermine speaker boehner. last night according to roll call, he met with a group of the most conservative republicans, quote, the group appeared to be talking strategy about how they should respond to a tentative senate deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling without addressing obama care in a substantive, in other words negative way. it was spotted by mccar thi who is dining there. he looked like he was interested in what the group were saying. this has happened. the secret meetings. sometimes held in a basement. they always get out because people talk. why did they have a meeting, the block adjacent to the house office buildings, a mexican restaurant where anybody can walk by? >> because they don't particularly care if kevin mccarthy feels shutout because he is shutout. they're over there having the enchilada and kevin mccarthy is like can i have some guacamole too, guys? it is a testament to how degraded leadership is. that ted cruz from the senate comes in with the members of the congress to plot out. >> what do they do? tell the wait person, send a margarita to that guy, he looks lonely over there. this is about a $17 trillion debt question to deal with. and we're talking about whether we're going to punish the staff on the hill or we're going to have another range war with the unions. this stuff can be dealt with all through the year through legislation. >> and the whip is not included. the house majority whip is not included in the conversation. >> i wonder why the next morning -- because mccarthy went back and told boehner. why did they still have offices the next morning? i would think that your new office is in the basement three levels below the capitol. >> we laugh about this because it's awful. the people out there driving trucks, doing jobs that are really rough, right? they got to wear kidney belts because of these long hauls. people will real hard jobs. got a congressman sitting around doing what? is this street theater? they're playing to the angriest people in the country. they figure as long as they put on a good show, they'll keep their jobs. >> what they're going to do to that person who's working, who's scraped and bought a house -- >> paying his paycheck to washington. >> paying the money to washington and the mortgage. and they're threatening a recession. they're threatening to take the equity out of that house. >> already talked on the edge of making the move. stamping this thing. they don't trust it. "the washington post" reporting today after the house republican congress meeting quote, emerging from e in meeting tuesday morning walter jones of north carolina said many members have sincere deep concerns with the plan. he's willing to reopen the government but has not voted to raise the debt ceiling since 1997 and he says he vowed never to do so again. so that's one less republican. now boehner has to scrounge further to the right. >> can i say something about their motivation here? "a," i don't think they care about the struggling of the poor and working class. "b," there has been this whole vein that has been born out about the debate of climate change, facts, polls going into the 2012 elections and now being born out here. we don't have to believe what the economists say about the debt ceiling. we're not sure that's reel. a pew poll came out hours ago -- they are entitled to their own facts, they think they are at least. when you have people going by another set of facts, another set of data, it is impossible to compromise with them because there is no common ground anymore. >> people that take their car american or foreign to a dealer to get it fixed know they don't know how to do it themselves. they don't have the tools. people aren't stupid, they just don't have the tools or the technique. these are things you have to have somebody do that's a specialist. why do they not rely that way on the people that understand the complexity of international finance? >> because they don't trust those people. they think they're all socialists. >> oh, they're all socialists. >> yeah. >> because they feel disenfranchised. >> i had a guy steve king on that says he doesn't listen to international economists. i said what about national. he says i don't listen to them either. but i raise a family. there are certain things you learn as raising a family. let kids cry a little bit, don't let them cry too long. but it doesn't help you with finance. >> not the same thing. >> there's one similarity. when you become a dead beat. and if you're going to become a dead beat, i don't see how that fits with republican thinking. one thing they've always said was they were the ones that were saying this is too much. stop here. here's the evil dishonesty here. the same people are saying and somebody said earlier on this network, the same people are saying it doesn't matter if we go over the debt ceiling. if it was a republican president, we would be fighting to protect it. the same people. >> yes. and trying to impeach anybody that was trying to stop it. >> it's dishonest. i know they'll say matthews finally understands the deal here. thank you. up next, jimmy kimmel says what we're all thinking about ted cruz. he can say the worst and maybe it's appropriate. this is "hardball," the place for politics. m 6s. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. one national monument remains closed. there was a protest at the memorial yesterday. sarah palin was there as was the guy that started this whole lockout, texas senator ted cruz who demanded an answer to this question. >> let me ask a simple question. why is the federal government spending money to erect barricades to keep veterans out of this memorial? >> let's see. i'm not sure, but i think it's because of you, right? we learned it from watching you, okay? >> well said. time for the sideshow. that was jimmy kimmel last night saying what everybody except senator cruz knew already. yesterday was also columbus day, of course. and the kimmel crew went on to find out how much people knew or know now about christopher columbus. here's what they found. ♪ >> he came to america and he ate thanksgiving. he had thanksgiving. >> columbus traveled the world, came to america, and whatever he came on must have been a canoe, kayak, same thing. i don't even know. he came to america and i guess he found it. i guess. >> what year did he sail here? >> 1842. >> 1842, i believe? >> do you know what columbus' last name is? >> no. >> nope. >> you guys don't know columbus' last name? >> no. >> no. >> was something italian because he was an italian fella. >> i think it was something spanish like juan. >> that's always sad. next up, first lady michelle obama set to make a cameo on "the biggest loser" next month. last year she led a workout from the east room of the white house. it's all part of the first lady's let's move campaign which she hopes will reserve the growing obesity epidemic in this country it's not the first time we've seen this come out of the white house. a similar unrelated story today shed new light on william howard taft's own struggle with obesity a hundred years ago. it turns out the portly chief exec who was more famous for his waistline than his presidency followed a diet regimen not different than those used today. a professor dug up correspondence that showed he recently consulted with doctors about his weight and kept notes about it. the result? he lost 59 pounds in less than a year. that's less room in the bathtub of his. up next, who's running the republican party? is it john boehner and the so-called leaders? or the full mooners of the far right? you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. there are a lot of opinions about what direction to go. there have been no decisions about what exactly we will do. >> mr. speaker, the changes in your bill to the president's health care law are pretty minor. were they worth a two-week government shutdown? >> we're working with our members on a way forward and to make sure we provide fairness to the american people. >> didn't answer the question. is it reasonable to bring down the government and threaten our national credit standing for this stuff? anyway, time's pretty much up. we're now 15 days into the government shutdown. just a day before they say we're going to hit that debt ceiling and as you saw in that clip, boehner is no closer to coming to a deal with his own caucus. we sit on the edge of an economic collapse. that's real. the polls could change, but the facts are real. but still house republicans won't budge off their ideological fixation with the president's health care law even though it's not secret in this town that this is not what boehner wanted. it is however exactly what ted cruz wanted earlier in the year. we showed you this headline. ted cruz and house republicans meet in secret. it's no coincidence after that meeting boehner saw his latest plan soundly rejected by the caucus' far right forcing him to go back to the drawing board. according to gop sources, the reality is gop leadership does not have enough votes to pass their own plan at this time. they're looking for changes that would increase support among republicans. what lies ahead for the republicans including who's in charge of that party on its way to a train wreck? michael steele and joan walsh. both are msnbc analysts. michael, the republican party is now represented by somebody in a mexican restaurant eating in a secret meeting with 30 red hots for the far right. not one for wanting more mexicans in the country. >> but like the food. >> let's go back to the facts tonight. they had a secret meeting in the basement -- not secret because mccarthy spotted them across the room. that wasn't secret. this guy have stirred them up enough that 30 people have once said no deal to john boehner. they want more red hot stuff. more red meat, something to take something away from obama care and hurts the president physically. >> the president's not going to stagger out of this deal. and that's the problem. the president is in the strongest possible position with respect to obama care. because he's got all the weight of evidence on his side. including two elections and the supreme court decision. set that aside. so where does the party need to go now? it is not necessarily to block john boehner. let john boehner cut the deal to get you out from under this. you can fight another day on obama care because it's not going anywhere. and you need more votes to get anything substantively done on it anyway. so the real battle in front of us right now is the nation's debt ceiling. how do we go about making the argument to bring in the level of spending to decrease the size of government consistent with principles but also what the polls are showing the american people want. that's where the fight is. we've gotten so far off on this thing now. >> but tonight, michael, tonight there's going to be another wasted vote for something that's never going to happen. more slices and attacks for obama care by the house. why do they keep going in the direction that doesn't take them anywhere? >> i agree with you on that. i don't know why there is this effort to keep going into the wall and thinking every time you hit it, you've made progress. >> one thought is institutional. that the u.s. senate is made up of people that represent all states. they represent minorities, liberals, big cities as well as small towns, they have to be somewhat representative of the people they represent. now, house members represent for 90% in some cases republican districts where they don't have to listen to anybody. they'll get re-elected just for being angry. all they have to do is prove they're angry, and they're re-elected. this is where we have the stalemate in the house. >> john boehner is a profile. but the house republicans have not impressed me either. they're not really doing anything. they're talking, maybe they come on msnbc, maybe they say something that sounds brave. but at the end of the day, no one's leading any kind of charge. the only way this ends, chris, and michael knows this right now is boehner turns to nancy pelosi and says help the get the votes for something. and that has to be what the senate is going to do. it's been written. it's been preordained if we get out of it. i think there's still a possibility that we don't. it's really waiting for john bain tore wise up, let the babies cry it out and then turn partner with nancy pelosi like he's done before. >> this is the problem for boehner. if he goes with them on this thing, some kind of health care demolition squad, if he sets another debt ceiling or rather continuation of the government, he's basically consigning himself to every two months another government shutdown, every two months something to do with the debt, every two months something else to attack obama care. they're not going to stop until they've won. if they get a piece of obama care, they'll come back for a leg, an arm, the torso, the head. they're not going to stop because if they keep winning. why does he join the group? you say don't do it. but tell me why he's is doing it. there's no future in it. >> i don't know why he's doing it other than to feel in the end he's going to get people to the table. >> when's he going to lead? >> i think we're at a point here where boehner says either yes i'm just going to stand with the caucus and we're going to watch this thing come to its inevitable end which has catastrophic effects, or he says i sacrifice my speakership. in other words, i'm going to have to do what joan said. i'll have to go to nancy pelosi and take 15 or 20 republicans with me who will cast this vote and get this done that way. then it's over. because the base at that point is completely done, and that's a decision he has to ultimately make. whether or not this is worth it. >> you think they would dump him? >> if he cuts the deal and leaves obama care untouched on the table, absolutely. >> but who has the votes to beat him at this point? it's such a fractured caucus at this point. i think he's a danger. i don't want to minimize it, but you count votes and who would get a majority? >> i don't think he's a leader if he keeps going on the route he's on. he's a follower. let's look at the pros and cons of his strategy not to stand up to the tea party. cons, shut down the government get blamed for it. push markets to the edge get blamed for it. distract away from the health care laws rocky rollout. see historic approval lows. unify the opposition. remember when everyone was talking about the fractured state of democrats on sommers. nobody remembers that. the only pro for boehner, he's still speaker. but for how long? now there's cruz. he's become a folk to to the right. he won the values voter summit straw poll. and his influence is growing on house gop. and he knows where to get good mexican food. when you were running the party, it had pride. >> yeah. and a lot of that pride is misplaced right now. i think we are standing in the wilderness going, which direction. and the american people are making it clear where they want us to go on this. this from the beginning from my estimation was not about obama care because obama care was an unappropriated entity you couldn't do anything about. you live to fight another day on that front to reform it and fix it in the normal course. >> do they want to do anything to fix it? >> i think a majority of the members do want to fix it. it's the way they've gone about it. i think the battle is over the spending levels, over the level of the debt, and the mortgage that we're putting on the backs of our kids in the future. that's a conversation americans want to have. we still have job creation issues and so forth. and the party's so far out right now, how do they swing back? >> that's my question to you, joan. you've got to answer there. how does boehner bring his party back to the table where there can be a deal? because without a deal, failure. failure of this whole process. >> i don't think he does. i mean, i think he brings some people who vote with democrats to lift the debt ceiling. this worries me as a democrat. to some extent, you could say this is a victory for republicans. they are getting what they want in terms of a shorter lifting of the debt ceiling. we do come back at least in the senate bill talked about last night. it never took shape, so we don't know really what's in it yet. but they were going to come up with some kind of debt solution and they were going to have a big negotiation on the budget that was going to be done by the middle of december. and liberals often get shafted in that. so -- >> guess what. they've got a deal. they're saying now they want another government shutdown december 15th. the same time they say they want a report on this long-term spending cut and entitlement reform. they want it all done. in other words for the next two months nothing but craziness. >> and government by crazy is no way to govern. >> and some think it's crazy for democrats to even agree to that. but that's sort of where we are. so harry reid went to mitch mcconnell. john boehner did not go to nancy pelosi or any democrat. >> it's terrible. thank you, michael steele and joan. what a prognostication. we're going to look ahead for the next to months in this. up next, this is the most ludicrous. let's have another demonstration about what we didn't do what everyone us doing. this is "hardball," the place for politics. the day we rescued riley was a truly amazing day. he was a matted mess in a small cage. so that was our first task, was getting him to wellness. without angie's list, i don't know if we could have found all the services we needed for our riley. from contractors and doctors to dog sitters and landscapers, you can find it all on angie's list. we found riley at the shelter, and found everything he needed at angie's list. join today at angieslist.com three big races coming up in the next three weeks. let's check the "hardball" score board. first to new jersey in the special election for the united states senate. cory booker leads republican steve lonegan by 14 points. it's booker 54, lonegan 40. and the new rutgers poll has booker's lead bigger. booker 58, lonegan 36. that's a 22-point spread for mr. booker. that election is tomorrow. now to new jersey. chris christie up by 24. 59-35. the candidates debate tonight. finally to virginia where a new university poll has mccauliffe in the lead by seven points. mccauliffe 46, ken cuccinelli 39. we'll be right back. how do you deny them access? i don't get that. >> it's difficult. >> it should be. >> i'm sorry, sir. >> park service should be ashamed of themselves. >> i'm not ashamed. >> well, you should be. >> wow. not ashamed. good for her. we're back. after shutting down the government, the republicans are going to great lengths to convince it was the democrats that did it all along. republicans knew shutting down cancer research was bad public relations. so they dressed up in lab coats and pretended to be outraged that medical research was being compromised. >> are you saying now that perhaps there's been a change of thinking about the role of government and how much money should be going? >> it should be difficult. >> the fine print they didn't want you to see was the 2013 house republican budget -- the designated spokesperson, eric cantor himself proposed a $1.3 billion cut to the nih just a year earlier. sam stein, msnbc contributor and liz winstead the co-creator of today's show. sam, what is the consistency here in their argument that, you know, the park guards and going after the ww 2, they're good pr, but don't they know that that was a measure imposed by ted cruz. >> reporter: the broader point is what you touched on earlier is all these separate things they wanted to fund, whether it was nih, whether it was head start, all these things are limited in funding by the sequestration levels that they adhered to. so there's limitations to their devotion to the nih, you can't say one week put on lab coats and fund scientific researches for cancer and then within days insist that sequestration funding stay in place. >> i think the republicans are trying to do their best at street theater. and they're not the most theatrical of political parties, but they've been doing these show boating things, they have been encouraging those maniacs to go to the white house and throw them at the white house fence. it's just short of violence. that was an odd alliance i saw the other day, the guys with the pony tails and the harleys all seem to be aligned with the republicans. >> this is the party that actually said, there's some parts of obama care that they wanted to keep and it was the whole of obama care. we want to remove access to birth control. the people who say what's good for the government is if we shut it down. i'm more concerned about the people who keep voting for them than almost i am them. >> you know, i wish more people would point out the obvious inconsistency in what they say. they don't like sex education, they don't like the availability of birth control pills or condom ors anything like that. but they see the realities of unplanned for pregnancies which could lead to in many cases abortion and they don't see the connection, but they keep espousing this stuff. sam, this whole thing, though, i think it's all a very purposeful effort to cut their losses. people who read the newspapers know that republicans want to shoot down the government. >> i think it's more complex than that. i think what ended up happening was they walked themselves into a corner. they wanted to turn around and say we never did this. so the only way out of it was to do these piecemeal funding efforts. this is all part of ted cruz's plans, we'll shut down the government, we'll pass things that are very popular and leave everything shut down. then the republicans shut down the government and then bemoan the fact that the government was shut down. it just didn't make sense. >> how far is he going to go? he's meeting at the restaurant with 20 or 30 -- >> right now what we're hearing in the conservative group is they want to keep the government shut downing, but pass a very short-term debt rate hike. the republican leadership hasn't really indicated where they want to go on this? there's no indication they have the votes to combine the two. we're going to keep the government shut down for now the third week. and whether the president will accept that is anyone's guess. >> and how dumb are you that you want to push it short-term to the point where the next time we're talking about this again is when people are getting ready to spend their money for christmas? you know, it's like what do they understand? >> you mean that might hurt the economy? >> you think? >> perhaps. >> although i'm a jew so it doesn't matter to me. >> in a weird way with all these stakes being historic and yet they play it like a board game. i don't think there's anything worth in what they're doing. thank you sam, liz, for coming here. we'll be right back after this. the recent increase in cafeteria prices is not cool. when you vote for flo, we'll have discounts. ice-cream discounts. multi-cookie discounts. pizza loyalty discounts! [ kids chanting "flo!" ] i also have some great ideas on car insurance. [ silence ] finding you discounts since back in the day. call or click today. i like her. let me finish tonight with this. tonight we're having a big get together in washington to mark the publication of my book, "tipping the gipper." people asked me about the arrival of this book. i timed it like so many of my books to the happy season of advent leading to the holidays. we had a president, the people, even his rivals possessed historic staff your. we had a committed democratic opposition that kept reagan has a conservative president and not a radical one. kept our own country together behind reagan when he cut the cold war deals ending with mikhail gorbachev.
i'll give a list of every democratic that demanded to see the birth certificate. >> 48 years ago tonight, the balesles in vented legendary rock at shea stadium. 44 years ago, the woodstock music festival opened and tonight, we present to you the final hour of original programming produced for current t.v. it has been my privilege to host this show. this evening, we say goodbye with roseanne barr, lewis black, heroic activate and new town survivor erika laughty. i am john fugelsang, this is and has been viewpoint. [ cheers and applause ] ♪ theme >> sit down. sit down! good evening, i'm john fugelsang, this is viewpoint. on this show, i get to say what i want to say, and how i want to say it. that is rare in t.v. i thank current and the guys at al jazeera. i can't think of a better guest to start our final broadcast. roseanne barr has said what she wants and how she wants to say it for years. her stand up act led to a self titled sitcom, roseanne challenged preconceived notions about class, blue collar americans, homosexuality, what it means to be a woman in modern america, resisting and accepting restrictions placed upon her. she launched a presidential run with the tweet vote for me, i'll fix this stuff. she ran an the peace and free dom ticket with cindy sheehan as her running mate. you can see, my friends, why it is my distinct honor to welcome to the final hour of current t.v. roseanne barr. thanks for joining us. >> thank you for having me. it's very much an honor to be here with you. you're a great comic and a great mind. you, you know, you'll be missed. i'm sure that you won't be missed for long before something else occurs for you, you're very talented. >> i'm going to audition to be your next middle on the road. [ laughter ] >> i got to say, i've loved you on stage, i've loved you on t.v., as someone who brought a ticket to say she devil, in the movies. i loved you in blue in the face, but i loved you more than r. on twitter. you make that site bearable and you're very active with your handle, the real roseanne. i would like to frame some of this deeply serious interview with a few tweets of years, tarting with april 1 of last year, you tweeted: this is something we covered lot on the show and failed to address the racist war on drugs is one of the big evident problems with the current democratic party. it's one of the reasons you ran for president. what's your biggest problem with the war on drugs? >> well, i have a lot of problems with it. it's really a war for drugs. it's a drug lord's war for turf, as best as i can figure it out, but it's also just a big fat lie and a cover for class war, and to arrest young people brown and black off the streets for a marijuana joint and put them in privatized prisons where they become a labor force for corporations at 16 cents an hour. in fact, 95% of the house paint manufactured in america is manufactured by prison labor, so they're taking these kids at the height of their strength and, you know, it's a labor -- it's like a labor camp or something. nobody was saying it, and, you know, it's just important to say it. now, just a few days ago, i noticed that holdren picked up a lot of what i said about ending the war on drugs in oakster damn when troops were closing the medical dispensaries up there, a clear violation of state's rights right after he said state's rights for gay marriage. it's like the message is so con value looted and crazy, of course it would fall to me to make it sound sane. that's irony at its peak. >> i think that is the most blatant broken promise when he said he wouldn't interfere with the dispensaries. >> we've got to get it legalized, and it's going to get legalized. by 2016, i'm confident that marijuana will be legal in all 50 states. >> well, you've just given more truth in three minutes on this show than i hear in a month on c. span. how crazy was it for you to run for president? >> oh, it was so crazy, but it was crazy in a lot of different ways, but at the same time, so very fulfilling of like, you know, because i had a dream when i was three years old. they were saying things like somebody, maybe even a girl could run for president. i knew i would, i wanted to, and, you know, just to show that it could be done, and the more i learned about our system and how hard it is for, you know, a woman of principle or any person of principle who doesn't have corporate backing to even find their way to the ballot, even if what they -- even if the platform that they he is spouse is 100% in line proven by polls with the american people. i'm like wow, how do you disenfranchise your own tax base? that's crazy. >> and that leads me to my next question. i want to read a tweet you sent out on november 7, 2012: >> you ran as the peace and freedom candidate. how hard was it for you to get on the ballot in all 50 states and what is your take on the mod he were state of the two party system? >> well, i'll say the two party system's just like all the whole ponzi scheme works on a duality. you've got a good cob, bad cop. that's what it is, good cap, bad cop for bankers. i ran because i think the american people deserve the chance, the right to vote for a party that is not owned by bankers, and that is not even possible, because there's not even any ballot access for that kind of a party in any of the states except for three pipped up on california, colorado, and florida, which are like the way i look at it now, i could talk about this forever, but those were, again, once again, the very important states, florida once again, the deciding state. i'm like wow, this is not -- this system is not broken. it's fixed. it's fixed, and it has an intelligence that's almost i am penetratable. >> you can get over 200 different kinds of shampoo in a store, but only two parties to choose from. you know, our first third party president got in with only 30% of the vote and that was a republican, lincoln. it's an honor to have you here. >> he's my idol. >> you ran for president, and damn it, lady, came in sixth. >> and you know what, for free! for free! >> you ran against president obama last year. you didn't beat him and i realize you're not the most objective person in the room to gauge his performance in office, drug war aside, how do you think he's done considering the forces aligned against him? >> they've all taken that grover norquist vow as i said in one of my speeches and that no matter how bad it gets for the parents of the american heroes, who went to fight in iraq, no matter how bad it gets for those parents, if they lose their homes and their jobs, the taxes on the upper 1% will never be raised. they've all signed that. i mean, that's the system they're working under, all of them, and, you know, obama does a lot of, you know, whatever. i know longer believe all that, you know, oh, it's his -- it's their fault, it's our fault. they work together, and it is -- they bring up false ridiculous issues that are a matter of equal rights for all people in our country, period, no more laws, just that. you know, they just bring up all these ridiculous things that are false choices, such as pro choice, and pro life. that's a false choice. >> yep. >> women have far more choice than that little tiny box, that little tiny duality where we get a act out all of our freedoms. we have a lot more freedom than all that. we have the freedom to think clearly, and decipher for ourselves the facts, and for the first time in history, i'm so excited, for the first time in history so far, women have access to facts without the interference of any state or any church. i think that that is like these are times of miracles, i really do believe that. >> i think you're a part of that. i think that your stand up and sitcom are a lot like the big bang. their influence is still expanding to this day. i want to thank you for being here. >> can i speak about that for a minute? >> sure. >> yeah, i think, you know, a lot of people come up to me and they're like hey, you're kind of like my mom, you know, and i never have taken that lightly, i never will take at a lightly, and you know, i just thank them and it's a great relationship to have with people on the other side of the lands. i always intended that and that's why i had my ninth season, which, you know, is daggers through the heart. this isn't funny, oh, this is horrible, all that crap i took for that. that that last episode, and that last season, that's the best work i feel i've ever done. it was really about class. i was really sticking it to the whole class system, this whole system that, you know, that is for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. i mean, how can you not make fun of that? >> honestly, there's so many artists that we could name that we admired in their prime and then got older and sold out, became less interesting, played it safe. >> i'm getting ready to sell out! >> you can buy in at this point, lady. you're one of the people that i think gets better, sharper, more honest and free from worrying about commercial appeal or ratings are doing this some of the best comedy out there. >> thank god for cyber! >> amen. i'll never be able to thank you for coming on our last show and signing off on the first and only independent progressive news channel. it's an honor to have you with us. >> honor to be here. let's get another one going. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you so much. >> somebody in the industry will be smart enough to grab you up. i just want you to know, since i started appearing on your show, i'm recognized on the street by a much better class of people. >> hey, john, mike here, congratulations on a great run, so much fun doing the show with you. i just want you tomorrow with regard to the represent party, and in the end, the hatred and racism and zdeno phobia are equal to that you make. >> hey, govern, thank you for letting us be a part of viewpoint. we've had so much fun with you. you are a fantastic thinker and even funnier guy. good luck to all you do in your next run. we can't wait to hear what it is. bye. >> i'll reveal that later. welcome back. i'm pleads to welcome one of the most uplifting guests we've had on the show. i'm honored she's with us tonight. erika laughty lost her mother, the principle of sandy hook elementary school in new town, connecticut. she risked her life to bring down the killer threat thatting those little six and 7-year-old's in her care. dawn died that day along with five colleagues and 20 students. new town and a stunned nation grieved, but few have done more with that grief than her daughter, erika laugherty. she has emerged as a powerful voice for common sense and popular gun laws. she is a forceful and unflinching reminder of the human cost of gun violence. here she is confronting new hampshire senator on the failure to support background checks, legislation that was backed by 90% of americans who are ignored earlier this spring. >> you had mentioned that owners of gun be subject to background checks. i just wonder why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the hallway of an elementary school isn't that important. >> i can't think of many gifts i would rather have on our final show. she joins us now with that erika, thank you so much for joining us this evening. >> thank you. >> what a pleasure. now, the senator isn't the only politician you confronted. priority the vote on legislation, you called more than a dozen legislators seeking their help. what was the general reaction when they knew you were on the other end of the line? >> there was a lack of reaction. i just didn't get a response from 13 of the 14 that i was trying to contact. i was calling and emailing, trying to reach out to them on twitter and only heard back from one senator. >> who was that? >> senator cruz. >> what was his reaction to you? >> really not giving me an answer, just kind of dancing around the issue, and at the end, i think he made a statement that we agree to disagree, whatever a that means. i definitely wasn't in any kind of agreement with him, but at least he called. >> that's the lack of leadership he's become known for. you don't want to take anyone's gun away, you respect second amendment rights, so what safety measures, erika, are you looking to he and got. >> first and foremost, extended background checks. it's the most common sense thing if you want to buy a weapon that has a potential to kill someone, prove that you can handle that and you're not a violent criminal or that you don't have any kind of violent behaviors in your past or, you know, you're not someone who's going to do harm with the weapon. it's something that 98% of americans agree on. it's a common sense thing. first and foremost would be background checks. >> are you surprised of how many americans aren't aware of the gun show loophole. >> i am astonished that people don't have any idea, like the huge gaps that are in our laws. now, i am. i guess eight months ago, i wouldn't have been, because i was completely naive to anything that was related to a gun eight months ago. i was slammed in the face with it and forced to learn a very, very harsh lesson, and i've definitely done my research, and you know, i'm just really trying to encourage a common sense approach to, you know, help solve a problem. >> that legislation was seen as the most serious effort to overhaul our countries gun laws in 20 years and was, it failed pathetically. mean tile, more than 21,000 americans have been killed in this country by guns since new town. the senator from your home state chris murphy said we've grown so used to gun violence, it's just like rain drops, background noise. what's it going to take to see real action on gun control? >> i don't know. i wish i did, because this is a horrible, horrible thing for anyone to have to go through, and you would think that, you know, a tragedy like this in an elementary school with 20 six and 7-year-old kids would open eyes. it did for a lot of people, just not our senators, i guess. >> we made it a major issue, covered it almost every day during the winter and spring. it's astonishing to see how much money the n.r.a. and gun manufactures have made since then. they're the only ones to have cashed in by doing their old playbook, saying obama's going to come take your guns, so everybody runs out and buy more guns and they profit off of murder. is that fair to say? >> yeah, and divide that by the amount of people that have been killed since then, how many dollars is that per life lost? is it worth it? >> exactly. i know you miss your mom every single day, and that loss must have been especially hard last month on your wedding day, but understand she was very much a part of your celebration. can you tell us how so? >> my morning started off once dressed and got my hair and makeup done, i did go to the cemetery to visit her and give her a kiss before the ceremony, and i had her necklace sown into my wedding dress and wore sneakers i knew she would hate. she's with me everywhere i go. she's tattooed on high hand. >> so many people would be destroyed by the tragedy you have faced, but where do you get the tort attitude to pitch ahead and turn your pain into such positive action? >> i was raised by the most amazing person in the world. >> erika is the daughter of new town hero and an activist for common sense gun control. it's a pleasure to have you here on our last day. you've become a real hero of mine, and i thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back after this. >> hey, john, this is negin. congratulations on such a terrific run. thanks so much for having me on your show and other comedians. you have been very brave. i can't wait to see where you end up next with that you're awesome. >> i really wanted to be there in person, but instead am sending this to my friend and tell low traveler, john fugelsang. seriously, you are one of the smartest and most good-looking and sexiest men on television. media critics worldwide agree that next to not hiring me, bill press, not hiring john fugelsang was the biggest mistake ever made by al jazeera america. hey, congratulations, john, good luck, whatever you do. love you. >> welcome back to the program one of my all time favorite comics, having authored three books and 40 plays, he's received five grammy nominations and appeared on numerous films and t.v. on a little program called the daily show with john stewart with back in black. take a look. >> so they come up with a $350 billion tax cut at a time in which every city and every state that i've been through is broke. is broke. and you're going to cut taxes. they're so broke that they've actually cut essential services. in many places, they've cut policemen, because who the [bleep] needs them? or firemen, it's much more fun watching something burn down. >> his ninth special will be a live pay per view event from atlantic city. you must watch it on august 24. welcome back the great lewis black, welcome back, sir. i'm thrilled that you could be here for our final show. it's a pleasure to have you, and as someone who's been a long time fan, we thought let's have fun and play a little word association game with you. >> sure. >> i'll throw out a name of a political figure, tell me the first thing that pops into your head. president barack obama. >> basically, you know, screwed, because he's going to have to take america suffered a stroke, and then he was the next president after the stroke, and the best that he was going to be able to do was get us to kind of move our right arm, and so i just, i think just, speak up sometime, just do something. just kind of pound your 50. >> exactly. but then they'll call him unpresidential. yell at the clean up crew for the parade. >> first black president is screwed, what are you going to do, we're over racism. >> and then you guys made a mess, blame it on the black guy. hillary rodham clinton. >> should have been president. >> yeah? you think it was the iraq war support that cost her the nomination? >> no, i think it was timing. i think she was like a year away from the memory of the whole thing, and bill, you know, kind of separated enough from bill. >> how good will her presidency be for comedy in 2016? >> i think what really is good for comedy, no matter who's what or where is where does stupidity, like when bush left office, i said what are you going to do now? i said just because he left doesn't mean stupidity fled the country. i mean, it also comes from somewhere. it's like guacamole, you get rid of one, another comes up. look at ted cruz, he's the race horse in front, going to bring the government to a screeching halt. >> it's like the guy singing in journey, it's the same exact music. >> i wish he would do late night. i want him to do late night sales, you know, pitch ads, like the nutriblast stuff. i would buy anything, anything. i would stay up all night watching him sell stuff. >> he could sell it. >> the interesting thing about clinton, he could have sold us anything. we're lucky he kind of sold us the middle. >> i think you're right. >> justin bieber, american icon. >> no. no. no. >> canadian icon. >> no, no, no, no, no, no, no. no, no, no, no, no. >> speaker john boehner. >> i don't know, wow. he's -- that head is really -- he is. >> we call him agent orange around here are. >> it's the weird evident coloring i've ever seen. he's another one, a guy who really is, you know, he's like in a sense, if you go back, it's like a bad greek tragedy. >> exactly. >> you've got the president is kind of like, i don't know what to do and boehner's the same thing, but they're not like, you know, like a greek tragedy. >> he's like a fellow and the fellow is orange and not black. >> erik canter on the list, but he really drivers me around the bend. he is something else. and from virginia. >> from my mama's home state, even has the voice down. what about mitch mcconnell. >> mitch mcconnell, i'm doing the congressional correspondent's dinner and turned to my left, performing this way and turn to my left and there he is looking up at me without never, nothing, no expression, like they brought somebody in. i think he stores nuts in his cheeks. i think that is his purpose on the planet and then he shares them with squirrels in the neighborhood. >> let's talk about the guy who thought arab spring was a saudi deterrent, governor rick perry. >> one of the most profoundly dumb white men in the history of politics. >> he's going to run for president again. >> no, not on my watch. >> all these commercials you were upset about, bring your business to texas. >> a man who believes no the rap at your, but not global warming and yetle final thing are, you know, the thing is the logical conclusion of global warming is the rap at your. >> actually, the logical conclusion of the rap at your is kim kardashian. i mean, really, horsemen, party of four. how do you feel about the kardashian's threat to democracy. >> they're not a threat to democracy, but did take my slot on television. >> did they really? >> this. i didn't know i needed to do a sex tape. >> if o.j. hadn't killed those people, we wouldn't know who they are. if you stop that murder one don't know who kim is. >> i don't know if you can say this, but i would have blown an elephant to get a t.v. show. at one time, not anymore. >> i think kim still might. what about paula deen? >> yeah. just the perfect, you know, just the -- and got off. >> well, yeah. >> from the racial discrimination charge. >> she's just really, i mean, the thing is is not only paula deen, who was the lawyer? how did she walk in and do that deposition? >> amazing, isn't it? i think the difference between bigotry and racism, we call her the inna racist. she can't stop the dumb stuff from flying out of her mouth. >> it's been there, and you kind of, you know, and it's not that long ago. you know, it isn't. i was in school, it was -- when i was in school, there was still, from the first year i was there down at the university of north carolina, they had a parade that would go down the street on confederate's day and come down dressed at confederates. then it was done, no, that's done. >> they still have confederate month in virginia. dr. king's birthday is jackson day, they celebrate the other person. i saved the best for last, apartment knee wiener. >> wiener, wiener, that's all you got to know. if you can't and i will tell you this, if you cannot think of a joke about wiener on your own, if you need to watch us for a joke about wiener, then you need to see somebody. you need to move and find a sense of humor somewhere. >> does he need to go away or is it fun to watch this? >> no, go away. you don't get to do this, you don't. you have to go away. >> and yet you have guys like david vitter still in congress. he didn't have sex with anybody. first sex scandal with no sex. >> it's just called no. that's so stupid. it is. >> i think voters will forgive adultery, but not creepy behavior. >> and the gym thing again! >> i'm telling everybody to watch your live pay per view event. you have to watch it through in demand, august 24, 2013 at 9:00 p.m. you were one of the first comedians to ever be nice to me. it's so wonderful to have you here on our last show. lewis black, everyone, let's hear it. [ cheers and applause ] >> i look forward to the next album, as well. thank you. we'll be right back, after this. >> hey, john, thank you for pretending to care about sports. i did appreciate it all the times you pretended to care about sports. have a good one, buddy. >> hey, john, thanks so much for giving me the chance to be on your panel. thanks for giving everyone smart, funny and original show content. >> john, not only do you have the best green room in the business. i don't know if i'll be able to find a place to get as much good, liberal news with the same type of comedy. congratulations to you. you did a great job and your show's going to be missed. and this is delicious. >> thank you, for sending that all the way from our green room. now to the oh, i'm so scared story, republican national chairman previs threatened if anyone was to show a documentary film about hillary clinton, then his party would not allow those stations, nbc or cnn or their affiliates to host any 2016 gop primary debates. say it ain't so. whatever we do to be forced to watch something as entertaining and informative. since the reports have emerged that a fox company, as in rupert murdoch, emprocedure of the dark side might produce a mini series, he has amended his position to say his boycott would not extend to fox news channel. that's one lucky network. joining me now is previs. i'm joined by my final incredibly witty team of non-experts. this man hosts the palmer curio show and just had paul mccartney on his podcast, mr. paul mercurio. co creator of the daily show, miss liz winstead and writer, actor, star of films, stand up comedian making his debut as our newest regular, the one and only taylor negron. thank you for joining our last hurrah. i said i would get you on the show before we wrapped. >> the last day. >> what better way to kick off our panel than an explosive clash of politics and enter taillight. what do we think of previs threatening the networks that they won't get a gop debate if they show a film about the most popular woman in the world in the last 12 years? >> even my mom knows that there's a difference between entertainment divisions and news divisions. cnn might be weird, but honestly, it's all like oh, my god, thank god, because we have such a clown car full of fools that we can actually say i don't want anyone seeing these morons like they did the last time, because it killed us. >> i think that's his plan. >> the reunion on the bachelor has got more competent candidates. the thing that is shocking about the republicans is they are constantly attacking obama for not adhering to the constitution, but when it's convenient for them, they want to limit free speech. they forget about the entire rest of the constitution, which explains why they don't really care about black voters. >> they pick and choose bible verses, too. >> taylor, do you think that a film about hillary clinton. >> i would watch it, love it, need it, i want to see it. i would like to see, it's like kind of like the waltons meets the butler. what's going to happen is you're going to have bill clinton played by randy quaid running around the white house with people saying i'm sorry, i can't let you in there, sir. >> where are all these love letters that were happening to hillary clinton, they weren't. he is making this assumption that there's going to be this massive love letter to hillary. >>ized say lets remind everybody of the 1990's and why your husband became unpopular in the first place. >> you need to hold something back that somebody wants, right? oh, my god, you're not going to show the gop debates. it's like the olympics saying you're not getting water polo. >> it's this plan, because he wants less debates. it will be higher i.q. clown car this week. we're not going to have her man contain or bachmann. >> steve king said he might run, like there is a different level -- you just don't know the clowns as well yet. >> i think what what he wants is less exposure, less debates. the candidates want them, the republicans want them. >> he's trying to get traction in some way for the republican party right now. i think that this is part of him throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. >> or he wants all the debates to be in fox on the bubble and i think that's better, because there's a much better chance they'll say something stupid if they feel safe. >> so the primary debates are all on fox, that just means what? >> that means a sense of false confidence that would make mitt romney look like an amateur. >> the larger thing that smacks of which annoys me is the republicans are great at being bully and victim at the same time. >> of course. >> they are just brilliant actors. i wish i knew that in high school, i would have kicked my own ass for four years. they're really, really good at it. it's part of what the liberal media needs to be better at. fox news has many more viewers than msnbc or cnn and yet constant able to be the david in this goliath. i don't know how they manage to do that. >> they are very good at it. truth is not measured in mass appeal. they like to say fox news has the most viewers, so must have the most truth, but fox news has half the viewers of sponge bob square pants. >> when they poll, they find out who did the quiz, people who watch pbs, daily show and fox news and fox news comes in last. >> taylor, is there a liberal media? >> i don't think so. i think there is a media, and i think that people are a lot smarter than we think that they are, and i think that they want to know. you have a bio pic of hillary and bill, you're going to say a calculated, smart intelligent couple making a plan, and that's very american. >> bill makes a lot of plans. >> a lot of plans, but she made plans too. if she wins and i think she will be, madam president, because she's older, she will never have that time of the month where she bill have to destroy the plans. >> my panel is sticking around. coming up next is a game you can play with the whole family, it's president roulette. don't go away. >> john, if anything, i have learned that if i disagree with you on the show, you're legions of millions of twitter followers will come to your rescue and attack me on a daily basis. i want to thank you for having me on your show. you've shown that we can have serious disagreements but actually get along. thanks for everything. you have a great future and i can't wait to be on your next show. >> john, john, john, it's elayne boosler. i wish i could close out the show with you and take the fabulous furniture and those wonderful middle eastern paper clips. i want to thank you for having me on. i love you. i'm going to miss the dip in the dressing room and most of all, that makeup woman. >> thank you. joining me now for a new and exciting segment sweeping the nation, i'm joined by fascinating contestants. he hosts the palmer curio show. daily show co creator, and writer actor and stand up comedian who's been in every film ever made, taylor n ex-gron. let's hear it. [ applause ] >> i like this audience. >> it's kind of nice. it would be great to have a live audience for newscasts all the time, i think. >> audience vote, even no the smaller election. the liberal media is telling you to vote in the smallest election you can. >> we're in a period of time when the republican party is dedicated to make it harder for brown folks, old folks, if poor people start voting, you would see change in this country, so thank god that won't happen. the car dariens are on. >> this is the viewpoint mug with eliot spitzer's name still on it and i want to go around and have you give me your first initial thoughts on the candidates. the first candidate is governor of tax, rick perry. liz. >> i would say if you want a vaginal probe in every problem, rick perry is your guy. >> i do. i think rick perry is already running a smarter campaign. that campaign of bring your business to texas might be dishonest, but makes him look like a business leader. i think he's going to run. >> there's three reasons, i can't think of the third reason why, but he's so dopey. the republican's need to have a smart candidate, and he looks so presidential, and they should have him lip civic for four years. >> i this i that was reagan's strategy for the second material. are you a fan? >> i think he's very dangerous and fundamentally a little megachurch for me. >> i would agree. i would describe him as a masterpiece of the pharmacists's art. >> but you know what, god bless him. >> indeed. >> everybody you're going to pull out of that cup is going to say that god chose him and they lose. >> all these people are going to say god made them run and that's proof that god loves us and answer us to laugh. number two, rand paul. >> great candidate for this country if the country is middle earth. 1952, a frightening. >> or star trek, because he has a dead dribble on his head. is he an ophthalmologist? >> yes. >> the new chart would be we need leaner government. is that a great joke one have to look at eye chart. he's an ophthalmologist. >> a guy who does eye surgery without a license. >> you love a guy who's an ophthalmology who is sort-sited. >> chris christie. do we think he's going to run, do we want him to run? >> he's going to run, not going to win, because he's pissed off the republicans approximate. first all, he accepted relief for hurricane sand decide and didn't blame it on the gays. >> the thing about him that people need to do is look, because he is no less of a freak than rick santorum, no less of a crazy -- >> unfortunately, presidential election is less about issues and more about personality. right now, he's super hot. look, i don't know how he plays in the midwest with that beating up unions. >> yelling at people, no. >> best. speaker of all of them. i think he'll be a force to be reckoned with. >> i'd like to see more marathons and less wool. he uses too much wool, but i like him again. he had a very good spot on oprah. oprah gave him a nice hour. >> it's good that the people he's running to impress don't like him. ted cruz, speaking of out patients. anyone think he is going to run, our favorite canadian? i think he'll run, he's so in sane, he believes he can win. these guys become very my on thattic and i think he has got at a shot of getting in there. i would love for him to run, because the debates would be incredibly entertaining. >> i think they will be. >> from a comedy standpoint, yes, absolutely. i like to calendar him carnival cruise. everything about him is he's totally anti choice and wants to repeal obamacare. >> we go back to communities paying for everyone going to emergency rooms. hillary clinton, is there a way she can not become the next president? >> no way. she's a win. >> if she doesn't run, that would be the only way. >> i think the bio pick's going to put her over the top. >> dyan lane. >> you have steve jobs, this incredible genius, the biggest twitter guy in the world playing him. ashton kutcher. >> playing the smartest person. >> the last bio pick awesome was the one the bible, where the devil looked like obama. >> thank you guys very much for being here. paul, liz and stay lower, thank you for making this final show so much fun. it's an honor to have you here. >> you're going to be missed. >> thank you. i'm going to be back and i hope we all get to plating in the future. stick around, we have some very special final thoughts for current t.v. it will be the last block of current, coming right up. >> so john, now that currently's coming to an end and the show going away, which is very sad, i was trying to think of the perfect thing i could do not only for you, but the current audience. i came up with one thing. ç]is is my gift to you. >> hey, john, it's frank conniff. thank you for letting me work on current, it's been one of the best experiences of my life and i know there's going to be many more great things for you coming, and just very happy and grateful to be your friend and to be your colleague, and to know you, and good luck and god bless. >> dearly beloved, we are gathered here tonight to bid fond farewell to the grand noble experiment that was an independent progressive t.v. network. for this, this is the final segment of the final hour of original programming produced for current t.v. and i have become the unlikely candidate to give the send off. it began broadcasting eight years ago. al gore and ben wanted to say good night, but couldn't, because their doorways are blocked by giant stacks of currency. i have been blessed for the live coverage of last year's coverage debates, alongside al gore, chenk uygur, the excellent documentary of the sexy liberal comedy tour. sandy relief, two great pieces of comedy original programming that i thought showed how smart and edgy this network could have become. i'm grateful for the chance to have hosted viewpoint. when frank and i came onboard immediately following the networks sale to al jazeera america and time warner dropping the network, we had no idea how we would if it our sensibilities into a hard news show. i got to work with the same staff that had done one agrees show and then another with governor eliot spitzer. together over the past year, we created a news comedy talk show hybrid that was informative, and inflammatory. i thank my executive producers. the brilliant staff of news professionals who took at a chance with me, i'm indebted to all the great staff here, including the summer staff doing more with less, an art form. i thank all the journalists, authors, comedies, congress members and filmmakers who made viewpoint the best t.v. show half of america could see. consider this, it will air every night at 10:00. current had a lot to be proud of. won an emmy, made great t.v. and made comedy history. back in march, 2007 when two asian american journalists were working for current, they are detained and bill clinton saved the day when he famously traveled to north korea to get them released. a lot of people claim clintons behavior rehabilitated gore's image, because of al gore, bill clinton was cheered across the world for bringing home two asian women. i thank the experiment and most of all, i got to thank you, the viewers of current. i hope we can keep in touch. this fall, i'll write a book, shoot a documentary film for p.b.s., and i'll be performing in a club or theater near you. i hope you'll keep up with me on twitter and facebook. where's henry jack? i believe in what this network was about. i'm proud of the show viewpoint has become. i'm convinced the intelligence, with it will live on through those touched by the programming. i'm grateful to have played a small part that made people feel less alone. helen keller said life is either a daring adventure or nothing, to behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable. give me the baby. making his t.v. debut on our last day. [ cheers and applause ] >> i thank everyone associated with this program, this network. it was a great time. [ laughter ] >> thank you, current. good night. [ applause ] >> tonight, it's our final episode ever, and everything must go, including us. joining me tonight, my good pal mario who was at my final taping of the view on tuesday. can we say ambulance chaser? plus a new reality star, a man with a 132-pound scrotum. this show is over, but the guy with the big ball gets his own series. the circle of life is complete. all that and more tonight on say anything. ♪ theme >>