last year. marci and ryan, here is a key number, 37% of americans say they don't have confidence that the president will make the right decisions for the nation. if you look at what the president laid out last night, he didn't put out a billing agenda. didn't put out any major legislation. nothing in there that it will take american people so say, okay i, i get it, 's got it under control. especially during mid term election year. he will have a hard time working with congress over the next 11 months. >> very interesting. thinking about what you just said, i remember the president said earlier, and this is a quote, if i want something done, i'll do it myself. kind of a maverick attitude there. what's the reaction from congress and especially house republicans? >> republicans aren't thrilled with his game plan, which is kind of ironic. at the same time, they don't want to work with the president on some of his big ticket items. they are now saying, if he is going around us, we will look into this. we all took an oath to the constitution and he needs to do the same. house speaker john boehner told reporters yesterday, if the president does take this go-it-alone approach, he will run into a brick wall. house republicans will make it difficult for the president. but last night, he said he doesn't need them. but he doesn't need them on small items. if he want to get anything big accomplished, you can't ignore congress. you have to work with capitol hill. >> karen travers, live on capitol hill. thanks so much. >> now the facebook question of the day. what do you think is the highlight of the president's state of the union address? log on to wnnfans.com. we look forward to reading your responses. >> gabby giffords spoke in favor after bill for background checks for gun buyers in washington state. the nation is counting on you,ant quote. and these are tense days for amanda knox as she awaits another verdict from an italian court. knox is at home in seattle. but an italian appeals court is nearing a decision about whether she is guilty or innocent of killing her roommate seven years ago. she was convicted in 2009 and spent four years in prison before that verdict was overturned. knox always maintained her innocence in the case. a new verdict is expected sometime tomorrow. >> and there will be some angry tourists getting off a royal caribbean cruise ship today. at least 600 people were sickened by a noro-virus outbreak. all of the illness caused royal caribbean to cut the cruise short. it is offering 50% refund and 50% credit toward another cruise. >> people are much more pissed off today than they were yesterday. we are realizing that our compensation is only $400. for our state room. >> the company is also reimbursing passengers for airline change fees and accommodations for guests whose travel home was inconvenienced by the change of fans. >> olympic authorities are increasing security there as the trickle of olympic participants ramps up ahead of the games. meantime, the olympic flame continues its long journey to the games. it went through chechnya yesterday under tight security. rebels fought two vicious wars in chechnya in the '90s. it passed through the area without incident. speaking of security, tighter than normal today in han mattian as what is called super bowl boulevard opens up. a stretch of broadway is now closed to traffic and open to fans. at the stadium where seahawks and broncos will play, security is just as tight. agents are screening everything that goes inside, including the hot dogs, and souvenirs. >> and a toboggan there. martin says the vulgar language in his team's locker room made him feel trapped. he admitted he wished he could have solved the situation but that he didn't know how to. so martin said he thought it was just best to remove himself from all of it. an nfl investigation of the case will be released after the super bowl. >> all eyes on wall street will be on facebook today as it releases its report. mark zuckerberg took to the stage in san jose pitching his latest idea. the open compute project that has more than 100 companies cooperate awning reducing costs and energy conception. he also spotlighted facebook's latest mission to bring affordable or free internet service to everyone on the planet. >> by the way, speaking of facebook, time to give a shout out to our facebook page. can you find it at wnnfans.com. >> we should say thank you to all of our fans on facebook. now more than a quarter million of you liking us. and the page started way back in september of 2008. and it has gone strong. so check it out. >> got to love it. thumb's up. >> joining thousands of new fan says pope francis. >> that right. he was named "time" magazine's person of the year. then confronting rolling stone. now his own graffiti. there he is. super pope. graffiti is all around the vatican. including this mall near st. peter's square. >> the designer is only known as mall pal. the stamp of approval was put on the image. even tweeting it. so cool, active on twitter. >> so 2014. >> i know. people just love him. he is still living in a modest apartment originally built for visiting cardinals, rather than the papal suites. just this down to earth cool guy. >> they love his humility. they focus on his simplicity and also a message focused on the poor that inspires a lot of people as does this superman graffiti. >> i think that is so cool. coming up, the thrill anything up for a texas girl after her skydiving parachute got tangled. >> also, ahead, the heroic instincts of a 10-year-old boy who pestered his parents until they checked on an elderly neighbor. what tipped him off to a life-saving move. >> we will tell you why some couples prefer extra space when it is time to get some rest. oh, you're watching "world news now." >> "world news now" weather, brought to you by no-no hair removal. [ female announcer ] worried shampooing might damage your hair? don't be. ♪ [ female announcer ] new pantene brings new repair & protect. first ever pro-v antioxidant systems. clinically proven to make hair healthier. healthier with every wash. healthier looking hair every day? i want that. ♪ [ female announcer ] new hair, new you. new repair & protect from new pantene. hair so healthy you shine. ♪ have you ever been skydiving? >> i have not. >> neither have i. but i've heard it can be a huge rush and the temptation to do it even just once can be powerful for people. >> a young texas girl felt that way. when she turned 16, her dad agreed to let her jump. as they say, something went wrong. this morning she is very lucky to be alive. here is abc's molly hunter. >> reporter: sweet 16 turned nightmare for mckenzie. >> it was her dream. her dream. and my dad said okay on your 16th birthday i will take you skydiving. >> >> reporter: but the jump went tragically wrong. >> we've add first time jumper get hurt out here peg sass airstrip. >> she did not open the second chute. her father told reporters the trouble started immediately. >> she was rocking this way, then fwheent a spiral. >> reporter: the 3500 foot drop and her father, who jumped first, watched the whole thing from the ground. she is now in the hospital with a broken vertebra and shattered pelvis. her injuries consisted with being struck by a car going 60 miles an hour. >> if she truly fell 3,000 feet, i have no idea how she survived. >> reporter: u.s. parachute association does allow 16-year-olds to jump provided they have parental consent. joe weddington said she expected a tandem jump with an experienced driver but the company only offered single jumps. >> all she went through, she hasn't shed a tear. >> reporter: an investigation should tell us exactly what happened when she jumped out of that plane. molly hunter, abc news, new york. >> it is shocking that he let her go without doing a tandem jump. her sister set up a facebook page to monitor her recovery. >> investigation ongoing. >> tough story. coming up, some couples say sleeping apart actually makes them closer. >> okay. we will introduce you it a husband and wife who say separate bedrooms can lead to true intimacy. you're watching "world news now." >> ♪ ♪ got to love that song. if you're up with us at this hour, you know sleep is just precious. and sometimes, sleeping with someone who's tossing and turning in your bed can rob you of that shut-eye that you need. >> for some couples that is why they preiffer to sleep apart. for others, it is that alone time that they crave. >> i could sleep in here tonight. >> in here, why? something wrong with your room? >> reporter: in the movie "hope floats", meryl streep and tommy lee jones sleep in separate rooms. this couple say their separate rooms brought them closer to together. she calls her brightly painted room her happy place. nate, a floor away, says his room is his own private sanctuary. >> i love that we love each other so much that we protect each other's solitude. >> they say they are apart half the week so they can have time apart and indulge in things that might annoy each other. >> she likes it read. which is fine when i want it sleep or i am asleep. >> what do you think of his guitar playing? >> early in our marriage i was down with that. but as time has passed -- >> reporter: dr. wendy o'connor, marriage and family therapist, says surprisingly half of married couples sleep separately. >> you want it check in and say, how is this for you? hope communication, that is the same goal. >> reporter: mary anna and nate have date nights in each other's rooms. >> what do you guys do? >> this is a morning show. >> reporter: the couple doesn't man on making any changes to their routine. they say as long as they sleep apart, they will remain happy together. abc news, los angeles. >> you know what i love about him? she likes it read and then talk about it. which is great -- that can be great, you know. that is a great way to handle it. >> go stay in your room. if you're going to play your guitar, don't mess with me when i'm sleeping. coming up, a young hero. we will tell but him when we come right back. i wake up in the morning with no back pain. i can just it if i need to...if my back's a little more sore. and by the time i get up in the morning, i feel great! if you toss and turn at night, have back pain ... ... or wake up tired with no energy, the sleep number bed could be your solution. the secret to the sleep number bed is the air chambers and its exclusive dual air technology. the only bed that puts you in control of firmness and lets you adjust to your ideal comfort and support: your sleep number setting. and this bed is perfect for couples because each side adjusts independently to each person's unique sleep number setting. here's what clinical research has found. 93% of participants experienced back pain relief. 90% reported reduced aches and pains. 87% fell asleep faster and enjoyed more deep sleep. for study summaries, call this number now. we'll include a free catalog about the sleep number bed, including a product guide and prices-plus a free $50 savings card. on an ordinary mattress, steel springs can cause uncomfortable pressure points. but the sleep number bed contours to your body. imagine how good you'll feel when your muscles relax and you fall into a deep sleep. i'm not just a back surgeon, i'm also a back patient. i sleep on the sleep number bed myself and i highly recommend it for all of my patients. need another reason to call? the sleep number bed costs about the same as an innerspring, yet lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep sounder and deeper, find relief from back pain ... call now. call the number on you screen for your free information kit with catalog and price list. call now and you'll receive a free $50 savings card just for inquiring about the sleep number bed. ask about our risk-free 100-night in-home trial. call this number now for your free information kit and a free $50 savings card. call now. you need a bunch of those to clean this mess. then i'll use a bunch of them. then how is that a bargain? [ sighs ] no, that's too many -- it's not gonna fit! whoa! cascade kitchen and math counselor. here's a solution. one pac of cascade complete cleans tough food better than six pacs of the bargain brand combined. so you can tackle tough messes the first time. that is more like it. how are you with taxes? [ laughs ] [ counselor ] and for even more cleaning power, try cascade platinum. ♪ ♪ finally, this half hour, the story of a young man with a big heart. >> the 10-year-old boy's perceptiveness and sensitivity saved and elderly woman's wife. and that is why there is our favorite story of the day. kimberly from our station in detroit has the story. >> it was awesome. >> reporter: 10-year-old danny has a lot to feel good about because his instincts saved 80-year-old. danny spotted out of the >> i was so scared. i was glad she was alive. i ran back, got my husband. he ran up there with a blanket and i got my neighbor and called 911. >> reporter: she slipped on ice that had fallen off her car. despite her attempts to get up but couldn't. because of did notty, sdanny, s recovering in the hospital. >> sandy says doctors came by and said, if danny had not spotted her mom, in another hour she could have been dead. >> she is very emotional when she talks about danny. she said, that little boy saved my life. thank goodness for his hunch and persistence. and she knows as well as everybody else that she is alive because of him. >> reporter: in howl, kimberly craig, 7 "action news." >> how about that. he could have just pushed his parents and then when they didn't really believe him necessarily, could have just walked away. >> that's awesome. love that story. that's the news for this half hour. >> that's right. remember to follow us on facebook at wnnfans.com. >> see you later. this morning on "world news now," financial focus. the president's theme during the state of the union address and what it means for americans and their pocket books. >> let's make this a year of action. >> as political insiders ask, what can the president accomplish during his second term? >> and weather emergency. the southeast gets blasted with unusually severe weather storm. forcing children to spend the night at school because it is so dangerous. >> if you trust your teacher, to take care of your child, during the day, they will be taken care of tonight. >> deadly storm and why conditions may get worse before they get better. >> and super bowl fever. the nfl's finest put on a preview show while ticket and hotel prices before sun dasunda game take a dramatic turn. it is wednesday, january 29th. >> from abc news, this is "world news now." >> good morning, i'm ryan smith in for john muller. >> i'm marci gonzalez in for diana perez. welcome to the party. >> thank you so much. >> how you holding up? >> doing great. usually this is just the beginning of the night for me. just kidding. >> party animal. you'll fit right in. >> all right. >> president obama hits the road this morning to sell the ideas he offered in the state of the union speech. >> that right, mr. obama put forward a modest call for action, to increase the minimum wage to immigration reform. karen traverss joins us with the details. good morning, karen. >> good morning ryan, good morning, marci. this was a very modest speech from president obama. declaring the state of the union is strong but last night a very realistic speech. the president is politically weak since he took office. his remarks and goals reflected that. president obama trying to convince a skeptical nation that he still has the political power to get something done. >> let's make this a year of action. >> reporter: a modest agenda, no major legislation, no sweeping change. but it centered on one key theme. >> opportunity is who we are. and the defining project of our generation must be to resteer that promise. >> reporter: 2013 was a bruising year here in washington. capped by the 16-day government shutdown. approval ratings for the president and congress hover near record lows. the president said he'll take action, even if it means doing it withoutut congress. >> wherever and whenever i can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more american families, that's what i'm going to do. >> reporter: the president announced an executive order to raise the minimum wage for new federal contract workers which the white house hopes will push raising the minimum wage for all workers. restoring benefits for long-term unemployed. expanding training programs and treasury to help workers create retirement savings accounts. the highest ranking republican woman gave her party's response. >> tonight the president made more promises that sound good. but won't actually solve the problems facing americans. >> reporter: president obama said last night he is committed to making washington work better but his approach, which basically cuts congress out of his game plan, may actually increase the mistrust among republicans and ryan and marci, may also deepen that already very bitter divide. >> and karen, the speech was largely focused on the economy and domestic policy. but there was a moment at the end on foreign policy that may be what sticks in american's minds. tell us about that there. >> reporter: what a moment that was. towards the president's speech he singled out one of the guests in the first lady's box. cory remsburg, an army ranger, who served ten deployments. he was nearly killed by a roadside bomb. he is blind in one eye. still recovering the use of his left side. the president pointed to him as a symbol of inspiration. he said, cory doesn't quit, america doesn't quit. and coincidentally, president obama met cory before that injury and then met him at a hospital outside of washington. this is someone he has known and built a relationship with and it seems he was proud to highlight him last night in the house gallery. >> wonderful story there indeed. he was there with his father. the president said would he go it alone. what does he do next? >> the president will take last night's message on the road today. he will make a stop in maryland and later stop in pennsylvania where he will talk about raising the minimum wage as well as retirement accounts. two key themes we heard from the president last night. over the next couple of weeks, the president is expected to roll out some of the executive actions but ryan and marci, congress is already not happy. john boehner said yesterday that the president, if he leaves congress out of this will run into a brick wall. >> all right, abc's karen travers reporting live from capitol hill this morning. thank you. >> let's take a look at our facebook question of the day. what do you think was the highlight of the president's state of the union address? join the political discussion at wnnfans.com. a lot to talk about there. >> now to our other top story. rare storm triggering states of emergency across five southern states. two to three inches of snow fell in atlanta triggering a mad rush as offices and schools let out after lunch. throwing the city's entire freeway system into gridlock. 20-minute commutes turned into six hours. as many stranded motorist just ditched their cars and walked home. further north, carolinas are getting socked with snow. most areas are getting at least six inches. others up to two feet. under it all, a layer of ice that not even the road salt will met as temperatures drop into the teens as abc reports, this is an unusual storm that is catching southerners completely off guard. >> reporter: first a blizzard and now brutal cold for parts of the midwest. wind chills as low as 40 below. first time in years the south is really feeling it too. governors sending in the national guard to deal with a rare snow and ice storm. as soon as the first snowflakes fell, nine southern states started canceling classes. the icy roads here, no place for a school bus. outside north carolina, six teeth agers on the bus ride home when they flipped on the ice and one of them had to be hospitalized. >> just coming around the curve and just slid off in the ditch. >> reporter: school children in alabama are stuck at school. roads too dangerous for parents to come get them. >> if you trust your teacher to take care of your child during the day, they will be taken care of tonight. >> reporter: this was a freeway in austin, texas. police reporting more than 214 accidents and counting. >> passed about ten wrecks on the way here. >> reporter: in new orleans where the city doesn't own a single salt truck or snow plow call this the worst storm in ten years. around atlanta, the highways were a mess. >> i haven't seen it like this in years. >> reporter: families empties grocery stores spent hours trying to get home on the icy roads. >> i advise, if you don't have to be out, stay home. >> reporter: myrtle beach, some expecting six to ten inches. and they don't have snow plows. trying to get resources like these to the places they are most needed. greeneville, north carolina. >> those plows will be busy right through this morning's rush hour. >> our coverage continues at accu weather. jim dickey has the latest. good morning, jim. >> good morning, marci and ryan. high impact storm still happening here. ice and snow thankfully winding down across portions of mississippi, alabama, into georgia. snow heavy through early morning hours, eastern north caroline grab with eastern virginia. as the storm departs out north and east, cold air continuing to sweep in. so not much chance for this to melt, six to ten inches here. eastern north carolina through the morn ppg marci and ryan, back to you. >> thank, jim. our thanks to jim dickey at accu weather. california, their drought showing no signs of ending. homeowners with pools are having them filled in. pros say that leaks in water lines or concrete can waste up to 10,000 gallons of water over the course of a year. california's famous vineyards are really struggling. napa valley usually receives about ten inches of rain from july through january. over the current span, less than three inches. grape growers say that if no significant rain falls, they will have to reduce their yield and that, wine lovers, could lead it higher prices. >> so you're new around here. one thing you have to know about "world news now," is this is a show that really, really loves food. i'm telling you, any kind of food, any kind of food story, we have it here. >> and you bring it here as a lavish spread. >> usually. >> this morning no different. i have the pleasure of reporting that the annual tamale festival is under way in new york city. that right, folks. it celebrates the most traditional of mexican food, the tamale. >> attracting cooks from across mexico and several other latin americanco limit. the camera ticketed him for 10 miles over. school teacher erica grounden got five tickets leaving her school. >> way is clocked at 50 miles an hour. which is math teacher figured out was impossible for me to go that fast. >> her 10-year-old honda couldn't reach that speed from the school parking lot to the ticket spot. >> if you give companies incentive to ticket more, lo and behold, they will ticket more. >> california banned from ticket fees but cameras slow people down. some people use them in new and different ways p. this is set up to monitor stop signs, not stop lights. if you roll through the stop, it'll click. costing you cash in a flash. even when the picture doesn't tell the story. jim avila, abc news, washington. >> i have gotten a ticket from one of those cameras where i swear i didn't run a red light. >> really? >> yeah. >> you could welcome back. time now for "the mix." we are telling you we love stories about food. i love this story. and i think i found my future career. >> really? >> if the broadcasting thing doesn't work out. so this woman in south korea makes $9,000 a month eating. people pay to go on-line and watch her eat. >> she is just eating food? >> just eating. a big spread. pretty impressive. but that's what she does. just sits there and eats her food. people pay a subscription to sign in and see her. they say because a quart he of households there are occupied by just one individual so it brings the idea of eating with someone. so you're not eating alone. this used to be a an to raise yr employee's wages. it's good for the economy, good for america. >> the president also gave a tip of the hat to speaker of the house, john boehner. talking about the american dream, and the great opportunity in the united states he referred to boehner's own story. >> how the son of a bar keep is speaker of the hoe.e. now the president will take his state of the union address message on the road. first stop tomorrow will be in maryland where he will visit a costco. costco, a company that has voluntarily increased minimum wage it pays its own employees. jonathan karl, abc news. capitol hill. >> thanks to abc's jonathan karl. >> now to abc's thing, it gets a little risky. >> and if you can read lion speak, he was saying that, hey, you're not supposed to have the camera outside the car. >> he was walking into the bush to show the rules. saying, they are posted back here. >> and saying he loves the show. how about that. >> coming up, celebrating the big 6-0, oprah winfrey style. >> and big trouble for the royal family. and their elaborate lifestyle. who is cracking down on all of the queen's spending. you're watching "world news now." ♪ ♪ >> "world news now" weather brought to you by rosetta stone. weather brought to you by rosetta stone. >> you get a car. you get a car. >> i didn't get a car. i was at home. >> you weren't there that day. man, you missed out. >> i love that voice. >> diamond rings. >> all right, moving on to motle crue. that's right, what a segue. they are calling it quits. that's right. they were formed in 1981. quickly became known for hard rocking songs, not to mention rock and roll lifestyle. "wild side" is one of their better videos from their hay days on mtv. that's them, but check it out, that them last night on the gym jimmy kimmel show. before the show they announced their final tour. starts in grand rapid, michigan. after 72 shows, that is it. the crue will be no more. let's listen in real quick. ♪ ♪ >> why split up? >> ryan is head banging over stitches. >> take jerry seinfeld and tina fey and put them together in a car and anything could happen. it is for seinfeld's web series called comedians in cars getting coffee. that's exactly what they do. along the way, tina comes clean about a topic, well, that isn't, well, so much. >> you walk around the upper west side, you will never ever see a truly good looking person. >> i'm in charge of the feces. all the household feces are my purview. >> oh, my goodness. >> great coffee talk. >> i love that. i have month-old twins and i think that will be my job. >> feces. >> pooping. >> not going to call it feces. >> what a job. how about this. from the stars just like us file, vin diesel did something. >> i don't want to say that he is just like us. what do you do when you're happy?
the russian city of all the bread is one killing at least fourteen people it's the second such attack in twenty four hours. no one has claimed responsibility but attention is turning toward the islamist insurgents that are put in one security tightened across the country that rate him a deal to boost the lebanese army might react provides the cash to the tune of three billion dollars parents provided the new trick with its announcement made this french president swollen visit saudi arabia for the second time his presence. michael schumacher is still in critical condition after a ski accident in france. when chicken is being treated for severe brain trauma. it was said to be in a coma brought to us. a watching world news on for the cast was first go to this rapidly developing story in kinshasa the capital of the democratic republic of congo gunfire is broken into several parts of the city the airport has been attacked shots of the attack shots were heard that an army camp and armed assailants stormed state television headquarters where they're currently holding journalists hostage soldiers are deployed around the area that television and radio went off the air. we'll bring you regular updates on this rapidly developing story as soon as we get information a few hours ago bomb exploded on a trolley bus in the russian city of baltimore at possibly a suicide bomber according to russian authorities. the current death toll stands at fourteen people killed the bus was packed to the early morning commute is that it comes less than twenty four hours after the explosion in the city's main train station killed seventeen people investigators say the attacks may be linked to raising concerns over security in the country ahead of the sochi olympics games scheduled start and federer who spoke to jessica dollar in moscow with the latest on the investigations. federal investigators he get to know that they email me if you attack yesterday treated at the ball around three a day to catch. like we are. every entertaining viewing. last night to day yesterday confusion over yesterday. we are one entity. yesterday we heard other media. the couple working again today to get a bite to eat a huge painting of the korean market with andy and forty eight trolley bus that morning. a bearded baby control are being decimated. at the tweed river our pick up the trolley back when kennedy at buildings in the area. last day. born in sin chew in the restive province of change in the people were killed on monday authorities say they were attacking a police station and were armed with knives and explosives. muslim weavers in the province frequently clashed with security forces. the week the group in describes the events as a massacre of the family preparing for a wedding. anti government protests in kiev appeared to be losing steam to two hundred thousand people gathered on independence square on sunday. a lower turnout than previous weeks demonstrators to the streets more than a month ago after president leonid covert refused to sign a trade deal that would have clicked and links with the european union can't go to prac reports this is what is it a nice demonstration from week to week it didn't seem to be falling slightly to the protest is the easy to me that's just because it's holiday season and people will be back up to the orthodox christmas on the seventh of january and that he said there was still tens of thousands of people yesterday on independence reminiscent of gym class. but still all kitties. the whole area and says no signs of needing a win for the senses than that just got upgraded it wasn't loud enough already the president introduced doesn't seem to be willing to make any concessions and he knows that he's sitting on the few times that he obtained from russia in this month's latino this will improve economic conditions in ukraine at least in the short time. even the most expats that they seem to agree that this one so the trends. and on to something even among the candidates isn't. as the people who see that it's going to be tougher than seek to fight this battle right now because the candidate is to know this because in his hands. two days after the assassination of a prominent anti syrian figure eleven on its natural allies are looking for ways to boost the lebanese military saudi arabia has pledged three billion dollars the money will likely serve to buy a french meal or treat equipment. the announcements came to a state visit saudi arabia by french president also today soul stirred to sunday or a gifted still numb precedents and financial assistance package to lebanon also the region has decided to walk the streets the installers and eight. on the image you can go to strengthen it. and acquire more than what marie sauce up and it is a student lending that saves it to the senior is for them in a tree which is struggling to contain the rising tide in finance and to the civil war in neighboring syria. inflame sectarian tensions across lebanon and treats and the country's stability. on the ground from sound you've read here is far from being in one tank from should be supplying lebanon with them in a tree equipment they need to. the french president was in riyadh on something that made comment on the try and get their agreements. still it was short lived opposite the relationship between saudi arabia are not on his bones of two sovereign states and people call it the fault of the year. the lebanese army for a while. this demo up until recently the many requests interest to us. gao we will be a good business district in the school to visit. sunday review has once again confirmed its position as france's number one commercial partner in the middle east. trade between three and in paris is doubled in the last ten years now reaching billion here a cd. israel is set to release twenty six palestinians late today the third act released as part of the deal between israel and palestinian leadership for the peace process previous groups were released in august and october each time the israeli government also provoked palestinian anger by nancy new settlements in the occupied west bank. syria is unlikely to meet the deadline to get rid of its most critical chemical weapons damascus by the end of the year to check them out to the country that target will not be built according to the un which calls on the serene regime to intensify its efforts deal backed by russia in the us aims to destroy serious chemical stockpile by the middle of next. and if those homeless targeted by recruiters to go and clean up near new clear the toothbrush and people living rough in focus the night train stations say they have been offered up to windows update to help clear debris around the damage. no michael short fur is currently in critical condition was good the latest updates on his health or the former formula one champion suffered a ski accident yesterday. in the upscale resorts ski resort of marrickville confirms he's being treated in some piece of prose in grenoble and a religious word we have on his health is the press conference that is being held by his doctors they said it's too early to say what will become of michael schumacher. this exact words used by the doctors we cannot predict the future for michael schumacher suffered an eight inch the steam mill keystone sunday morning. formula one legend michael schumacher the island has his hands dismissal in the french alps the forty four year old german was airlifted to a local hospital before being transferred to another facility without examination mr schumacher was admitted to the kala not going to steal schools and turned twelve forty pm and seven prince of the cree neutral arm was in a claim when he arrived which was near a surgical intervention remains in a critical condition. it was just too picky the former mitchell racing world champion was with his teenage son explained that the accident. specialists you're a surgeon professor jim hahn cyclists union from congress to assess the treatment. he previously operated on schumacher following a serious accident at the preschool pre nineteen ninety million the colts into his hometown where she will confess developed a passion for racing. nicholas was switched to react to the news it has turned russell korea which is higher risk everything went well the mountain skiing accident fortune the lightly regarded as one of the gracious for me to want only to support our aim. she and uncle one record ninety one victories before retiring from the school in twenty twelve. then just before iraq at this edition of world news pictures of the annual elephants of connection that said that if one national park. that's in nepal. openness to the soccer field on sunday and showed off their skills so sure they missed some of their intense that they didn't score several posts. the delights of locals and tourists. we're becoming more and more numerous to attend this annual soccer elephant soccer match. mr throws with nineteen fifteen minutes more useful. welcome back to this special edition of europe now what we say the fruit of press reports and interviews to deal not to be in the eu that's the question all day become one's mind the british prime minister has bouts to renegotiate britain's eu membership. he says and put the final results to an in out referendum in two thousand and seventeen. what would happen if the majority of british voters chose to leave the european union. all reports is bring you a fictional scenario when british politicians and business leaders. imagine wall that country would look like the dl for it said goodbye to europe the door scenes of euphoria in the euro skeptic town the majority of british birds and outs of the european union. this is the last time in history among the state's use of school safety in the lisbon treaty to call it quits. six years off to david cameron announced person would get to put some ski jump. nigel for rush. the firebrand anti brussels mep savor the victory of a lifetime ask the european parliament's moby of all the merriment. and from excitement and box numbers of young people because what we're winning. is it that a democracy the ability to govern ourselves to the milestones of our own destiny with kissing goodbye to form a coma this bureaucrats in brussels to be running our country with a fall too long said with a sense of what was the sense of national real weight when it suddenly. we are who we are. we haven't gone out with two kiddos tossed by an obama loss in the further you count many of mourning the end of the common european history among some students and young graduates like joan. he believes people will soon become disillusioned. is it a tragedy and sense of national identity with the boss of the financial services industry may be to dump an affront bucks. the loss of the myth that manufactures or maybe it's the consonants is well on the cots in the manufacture and supply chains to get him into the straight. um it's not such a bright future. and yes as early as may twenty thirteen us president's birthday ball a couple of words in it that is as much influence. if it's left the eu. the index had its a strikingly quite as convinced the cake will be cut said it's fine. sometimes it's to political power. uk derives the power that it has in part from its history and from what it is so forth. but it also drives a great deal of power from two special relationships one with the united states which it recognizes and exaggerates and secondly its special relationship with the continent which of course it sometimes doesn't recognize and likes to pretend doesn't exist. in front of westminster. many precious gem. he's dependable sleeping isn't achievements wilcox was the one who convinced mum is off the conservative party to run it together and support of the welts from the eu. he says britain is call from isolates it. we are trading off the bench for the world we have go next and business regulation which is destroying all small and medium size businesses. we are rules that must fail in terms of our government the purchase will lose access to the single european markets and its flight hundred million consumers. as a result the states will need to re negotiate trade agreements with its former european partners from scratch and it would be for free. business leaders like hadn't alexandre of concerns about the future the estimates that single roughly between two and six percent of each household income is related to the eu i think the whole notion of being an active next door to the largest market in the wild. i'm not joining it to his madness. diana outlets agrees. they then he campaigns for them and applied it cites enough coffee to stay within the eu she plays the british media this is what leads to the european union is of muscle bomb making use of the groups i'm too less than that as i steered him. i forgot to put the k it's my message to british people is lost in going to regret this quilt good to see it please call me grateful because it is awesome. but probably jealous stunned by the black they campaigned against brussels for years and contains the british people made the right choice some go as far as saying of the eu member states of saint paul and his footsteps. it was raised on snow. other european countries. many of whom were given a reason to invade the dawn of the country had to have an image is taken away by both countries have been so willing to sacrifice the palm to rule themselves. today we note with interest from european countries. see how much longer they'll have to put up with his far away from the city of business is the one time a historic johnson dockyard was the largest in the wells in two thousand won the european union finance its rehabilitation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of your a's without european funds which it holds with praise for the survival of the cultural sector in this country. he has a role to play in and co present the bill for governments to its very easy for uncle which is to be one of the first things that gets caught in times of economic hardship it's twenty eighteen as the united kingdom has an eye on deposit the eu. a dream to some lights mess for others the donor this was a fictional story of course i'm back to reality back to two thousand the team to meet else that might be the mum of the european palm and from london. it all seemed to see not report on the fictional is all still reads you believe that by two thousand eighteen your country will have left european union identity dustin indeed the case but it could happen there's been a referendum by definition we cannot know the outcome of a referendum until the results is published. i'm icing the day of exam will be successful in achieving a package of re negotiated cost of a new relationship with the owner of a reformed relationship i'm bring powers back them with dots of the british people and seventy if we have that kind of crocodile be campaign say. what you links the welts post you can all make how small and medium size companies as he hits every hearts by the economic crisis. for those lucky ones who continue to make profits restricted access to credit is undermining growth. but as we found out there's no shortage of successful stories across europe has had two more cia in the south east of spain way you're addicted to christine edwards dennis took this to one of europe's largest. i'm back and. we are. this is yet while the other. what we are finding that the effect not to judge the water. the body the best we can feast on its part. of course. the forty mark prices. the company was that he floated in on the minds and twenty. and if you look at the name hot people. it's that it missed its real power the huns need it so that the student is his first name last name on high heat and the ball in her name for this one and on comes from creditors with them and can sometimes be the one in front on these tests are on to the corner the factory as well and he can go and see it it was a very concrete example of germany's strong that it was good as sydney's that is to win he says small and medium size companies are leading to the back going off for the german economy this is where most of the people and some new look this is the most of the people of trains and businessmen many of our exports come from he's the machines machine tools specialty chemicals costume a product so that you know even fun stuff like like like a humble gold bears and people around the boat buying these products and that creates a cause an enormous wealth during summer. with its silence a proper cup but not so bad that the small traditional fall to spot them and that's what the producers who sell their produce directly to consumers. and you like it. yes i do like it oh and don't these products are not simply fight this meal difficulties that the ibo in the sense of power will be our cookie baking and i made a much read somewhere that to conceal my skin on convening can see how the farmers in fact speaks instead that the products the edict of contact between the consumers and the farmers which i think is very good because we import a lot the few who came to our kids or my kid to not give a good seat. a lot of wonderful products but then question how can he do yet. two thousand and thirteen was a good year for europe's bees as of december posts fathers in the eu are no longer allowed to use pesticides suspected of dancing eighteen beat colonies. the ban was approved by the eu commission in a totally targets. three chemicals believed to be disrupting the sense of orientation and immune system the next story will take this to slovenia. a country with a long tradition in beekeeping. as you will see slovenian follows that all spent time in saving the bees actually a sign that despite the crisis some green priorities are not being neglected. these days when mary anna comes up behind in the morning in days to find happy healthy bees and trends in evidence that the neocon three types of pesticides that are widely believed to be harmful to bees. if obama was asked in iran's production in it by force he said the protective effect in two thousand and six forty five percent of all articles or have been destroyed. you're almost half of them. he started the more we are voting for someone to gather pollen in the fields it never came by today. we sat down at the fashion one day i found a whole pile of dead bees on the ground. when hinds with beets lettuce the site in jail is with three types of incense the signs containing unique to know it's a highly poisonous substance of these slitting is the best country in the european union to ban its use on all types of vegetation. now from a slight bend your knees or thrice week of the songs for the whole scottish school photo to prove that the program has included we noticed a downturn in production of one pope of office with the ones they found these past two stories especially the one that reads her stories. to make them all i can feel but why don't we have a way of living all these insects are known as the fifth set. but this wedding. when you grow so why read to daniel but he knows that without the bees agricultural output would not be viable as they fly from one house the next incentives meant to appease transferred grains of pollen and allowing for the first was a chinook second thoughts. it's a fine cooper's sense without the honey bees that wouldn't be any malice nor fruit bearing trees there even some vegetables that would be able to cry when she is the nature of everything in fact been using pesticides has been swimming around but this does have the will may have been the european commission has decided to confront the problem head on. from december this year the use of the specific test sites will be suspended for four major crops corn rolls and some prawns and cook. the city the national insult the commission of an environment system i stood above the nave. there were no dead. what a nation of that this is something for which we have a major economic advantage. tempted to give you clues as to make it with you over the forty nation and a daughter to bed for the nation needs to be sporting nation. yet to sign says this measure is not enough minister and professor those agencies other issues come into play. these may not be going in each of the history section is the best that endangered even buy or thrice substances. a lot of recent publications from all around the war showed that this open at the fx study. you see the lifespan of the beast and you seem to be morning tea honey bee pollination is responsible for seventy percent of global agricultural output. if these insects were to disappear and tidy bacon also went on human beings as an expense but he would anyone else find is on the planet without them saying goodbye is always in motion. this year on gas surprises with that farewell let's take a look. buy. he said. they were going the ballot themselves portuguese cops. it took us all of which he said that this time of crisis. people need things at that. and we read and they can disappear for a get rid of the emotions and are overcome. we had. we handled the seventh but you know. although the lack of it it all up been busy. most deadly these troubled times was to maxis field. my message is that money is not routine it and it's not enough for what we need to use a bit of atmosphere. i'm trying to improve we live by playing two pm on the old overjoyed. the in it. it is read time to say adios. hope he does it all. why do these songs show in january will be heading to latvia. meanwhile you can find all the programs allow what scientists call the cast of calm. bye for now and when. it is. is this. it is. it is. the steelers usual spot in the system claiming its inspections of registration of private businesses since jamie moyer first of two thousand fourteen the program will completely eliminate the possibility of illegal inspections developers are confident that the son of supervisors will fail to find a new poll. this is the airline's request that on the subject from the supervisory authorities and apparently if the system finds a violation he will refuse to authorize inspection domestic prosecutors havlr
die campaigning to end. which is what fall is less twenty five celsius below freezing in certain parts of the midwest today. this is the color of what to expect the nicest. headlines this morning thanks for being with us your husband can be trying minister of iraq has called for the residents all furniture to expel the terrorists holding the acc. on a speech made on iraqi television or ala maliki told the people efficient to act said the area's would not be subjected to the dangers of arms caches. iran has offered its help to rock him back a gala night that feist is who i have been in charge of two western anbar province species since last week and say this is your thing you just kinda heavy artillery bombardment as government forces sought to re gain control. many residents have been fleeing to nearby cities and it is nonsense guy before a chase scene of chaos in iran as companies keen to see the grounds. why don't the rays the weapons checked by security forces. the body of the newly generated kerala to get three. but i'll be on display these residents have fled their hands in and aunt amy and strikes by the iraqi army. but trying to dislodge on trade in attendance and the rest of the province. off that night so tonight as having been in the new spring in the area around the room now they control for you jen the knee to his paws on the edge of the sun's heat and non residents ninety the current twenty nine minutes. he loved the way down. the duty on monday he shiite government. in case any of payments. nineteen erupted in the ramadi area and a son. when security forces e g zero sunday to protest camp that what the outcome of. to syria now as a rebel fighters loyal to al qaeda ceded ground to other forces that has to be shot on the second year the turkish border that's according to x this was his fifth tactical was told that passes between syrian foreign editor as the charlotte sun then the last few moments paper and used that it's scary and the rebels had laying siege to the its stronghold in iraq and the deliberate speed and fifty prisoners that had been being held by the is this phone is healed. mason has issued by the islamic state in rock and avant other rebel factions. a couple of days ago they threaten to leave the leper to government forces massed attacks against them by the rebels. i've stopped increasing attention and then between the east and other troubles is to continue to fall though. this difference of course the course of the day. this band makes changing the condition although ariel sharon. according to a doctor's degree in just a short while ago. this has led to a device like a true sign of things tonight. for a crime has been in a coma since two thousand sticks to contend for the worst last week when he suffered a threatening to collapse. all is not a fight so what has been out there in a change in that it can do it now. it was a result that was never in doubt amid the shoes of mommy he disliked the picture yet saying the country's general election off to an opposition boycott elected to their market power. ten today kenny vs twenty percent the level that critics say denies the ipkat and eight. he won the b qaeda says it will not hold true for the opposition has vowed to eliminate minutes into the trading day itself was marked by unprecedented bloodshed the death toll has now risen to twenty four the dozens more are killed in the run up to go . nice face off with opposition activists the name climate news he told police stations. he has been paid to click on the country's general election. elsewhere a contest to spiteri a complete looking streets. confronting authorities still used in the states. since then several teams and schools more read it. mace was support his on field position we'll see in the news lately that there was my chief role to the polling stations and the many people were killed to me this is not an acceptable election and the sun these points but finance forced many polling stations to kearns they seem resigned to spend it. we didn't take places too the opposition nationalist cause he called the election qantas boss in the absence of the new total to nine patients with the cd rates it is the absolute is on death without the blood. it's the opposite of the political pot. so the big top is totally not acceptable in terms of service because he dismissed the patience to work. prime minister should casino has refused amounts to step down. the boycott has led to believe that won the heat on the news. twenty three victory. the present all the sudan is in south sudan omar of the cac meeting with the south sudanese counterpart solve it. karen and tim to help discuss the efforts to end the fighting it's true that africa's new estate to the brink of civil war or should you told to have a son of an ear on the repeat of the canadian state. as the fighting on the ground continued to own up to three weeks of driving. an estimated two hundred thousand people and displaced more than a thousand killed in history. it's on the crammed into that international peacekeepers have stepped up security in south sudanese capital. after the gunfire was reported this weekend. thousands more people have slammed joining his heated two hundred thousand already displaced by the conflict. what happened the last two weeks with several other traumatized and soak it for shaking the un is not going anywhere. we are here to make sure that this event as the protector wherever they are the cease fire between the two meet in the european court of the weekend the government and local representatives for the talks. liberals have demanded the release of the left in the lions were on her breast. this is posted to the un ceasefire. that's why we give them a priority together with the use of the city's government insists it more concrete to any preconditions. there is no way we ended up with these people were arrested and two nudity is in progress with the loss of the government of the vehicles tested. celtic's year has accused his former vice president rica shower of trying to oust him in it too teams now opposition leader nights fighting has taken on racial overtones is right across the country. increased fears the world's newest nation is on the verge of all out civil war. united states our polar boy six is bringing more freezing when it was two years of record breaking low temperatures set for many parts of the country already when she starts playing the parts of canada and the northeastern us sixteen ppg and eight and died as result of the last few days given the weekend to more than three thousand seven hundred flights but can still teach me. travel chaos across the us. he did snow and layers of ice caused happen jfk airport on sunday a plane skidded off the runway and slid it into a snow bank just a day earlier a small plane made an emergency landing traffic in the prompts. the cold nights can be tricky clique churches conditions on the roads. at least a dozen cars involved in a pile up on a highway in new york who very nicely out there the show i spend doing slip and slide meteorologists say the american midwest and northeast are being gripped by a color for text. the cold arctic air and comfort yourself than usual temperatures could feel it slows minus sixty degrees fahrenheit minus fifty celsius and effective wind chill. these conditions frostbite can sit in on and its game in a matter of minutes. this was a combination that we're seeing right now with all the snow and cold is unlike anything we've seen in decades. in this area we were hot temperatures that are potentially deadly force our little white ball temperatures. the national weather service has warned it could just let the news and advised people to stay indoors. trees didn't sports fans home. his constant supporters turned out went the coldest and for football games on sunday. bundled up to cheer on the green bay packers. not enough to scare away in the lead in the player is to keep going what a share in europe as well you can frost to take it in its grips in a minute miles. the t4 flood warnings have been put in place with the two hundred and twenty areas hundred and ninety three people died and the teacher is missing. here in the fronds much of the atlantic coast is on the merits for high waves that number all problems breathing counted among the french kiss quickly to the flooding and more storms threatening to bring more trouble to this coastal regions. demi moore news in just under three minutes trying to say this. i know watch this special edition of europe. now let's say the fruit of press reports and interviews to deal not to be in the eu. that's the question all day become one's mind. the british prime minister has bouts to renegotiate britain's eu membership. he says and put the final results to an in out referendum in two thousand and seventeen. what would happen if the majority of british voters chose to leave the european union. our report does bring you a fictional scenario when british politicians and business leaders. imagine wall that country would look like the dl for it said goodbye to europe the door scenes of euphoria in the euro skeptic come the majority of british birds and outs of the european union. this is the first time in history among the state's use of school safety in the lisbon treaty to call it quits. six years up to david cameron announced person would get the plates on its future nigel for rush the firebrand anti brussels mep savor the victory of a lifetime to ask the european parliament's moby idol merriment. and from the excitement and box numbers of young people because what we're winning is it that a democracy the ability to govern ourselves to the milestones of our own destiny with kissing goodbye to form a coma this bureaucrats in brussels to be running our country with a fall too long said. but the sense of what was the sense of national re awakening. it suddenly. we are who we are. we haven't gone that route to cuba style spa and obama. lawson for each count. many of mourning the end of a common european history. among some students and young graduates like jaunt. he believes people will soon become disillusioned. is it a tragedy in terms of national identity with the boss of the financial services industry may be the dominant trend but it's the loss of the big manufacturers or maybe it's the continent is well on the cots in the manufacture and supply chains to get him into the straight. um it's not that such a bright future and yes as early as may twenty thirteen us president's birthday ball a couple of words and it could use its national conference if it's left the eu the index had its a strikingly why is convinced the cake will be cut said it's fine. sometimes it's to political power. uk derives the power that it has in part from its history and from what it is so forth. but it also drives a great deal of power from two special relationships one with the united states which it recognizes and exaggerates and secondly its special relationship with the continent which of course it sometimes doesn't recognize and likes to pretend doesn't exist. in front of westminster. many of which empties defend what they think is an achievement wilcox was the one who convinced members all the conservative party to run it together and support of the welts from the eu. he says britain is all from isolates it. we are trading off the bench for the wold we have go to mass and business regulation which is destroying all small and medium size businesses. we are all soo much prayer in terms of our government the purchase will lose access to the single european market and its flight hundred million consumers. as a result the states will need to re negotiate trade agreements with its former european partners from scratch and it would be for free. business leaders like head and the legs on to the concerns about the future the estimates that single roughly between two when six percent of each household income is related to the eu i think the whole notion of being in the next door to the largest market in the well. i'm not joining it to his madness. diane outlets agrees. they then he campaigns for them and applied science enough coffee to stay within the eu. she plays the purchase through the air. this is what leads to the european union is of muscle bomb making use of the groups i'm too i was the one that lets its new game. i forgot to duck a smart message that the people is close to going to regret this quilt good to see it please call me grateful. it's a disaster. but probably just stunned by the black. they campaigned against brussels for years and contains the british people made the right choice. some go as far as saying of the eu member states of saint paul and his footsteps. it was raised on snow. other european countries. many of whom were given the limited been invaded by another country it had to have an image is taken away a bottle of country have been so willing to sacrifice the power to rule themselves today we note with interest out of the european countries and see how much longer they'll have to put up with his far away from the city of business is the one time the historic johnson dockyard was the largest in the wealth in two thousand won the european union finance its rehabilitation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of your eyes without european funds which it holds with praise for this the bible of the cultural sector in this country. he has a role to play him in and co present the bill for governments to very easy for uncle which is to be one of the first things that gets caught in times of economic hardship. it's twenty eighteen as the united kingdom has an eye on deposit the eu. i drink some light smack for others. the goal of this was a fictional story of course i'm back to reality back to two thousand the team to meet jobs that would feed them and all the european common problems and it all seemed to see not report on the fictional is all still reads you believe that by two thousand eighteen your country will have left to european union identity dustin indeed the case but it could happen has been a referendum by definition we cannot know the outcome of referendum until the results is published. i'm icing that david hamill be successful in achieving a package of re negotiated cost of a new relationship with europe are folded relationship. i'm bring powers back and put that to the british people and seventy if we come back from the practice i'll be thing to say. what you links the world's first you can all make how small and medium size companies is in his study hearts by the economic crisis. for those lucky ones who continue to make profits restricted access to credit is undermining growth. but as we found out there's no shortage of successful stories across europe has had two more cia in the south east of spain way you're addicted to christine edwards dennis took us to one of europe's largest. i'm back we are. this is yet. while the other. what we are finding that the effect not to judge. i've gotten smarter about. the best we can feast on its part the forty five license. he was the chief told that a bomb and minds and twenty. and if you look at the name of the pool. it's that it missed its reading of the fall of the huns bigger so the first to notice his first name last name on high heat. the bowl in her name for this one in the gospel that is with them and can sometimes be the one from pumpkins just around the corner the factory is well and he can go and see it it was a very concrete example of germany's strong that it was good as sydney's that is to win he says small and medium size companies are leading to the back going off for the german economy this is where most of the people and some you won't spend most of the people of trains and businessmen many of all exports come from. he's the machines machine tools specialty chemicals consumer products so that you know even fun stuff like like like a humble gold bears and people around the book buying these products and that creates a cause an enormous wealth you into. with its silence and pop it up but not so bad that the small traditional fall to spot them and that's what the producers who sell their produce directly to consumers and you like it. yes i do like it. oh and don't these products and not takebo in the sense of power will be our cookie baking and i made a much read somewhere that to conceal my skin on convening can see how the farmers in fact speaks instead that the products. the edict of contact between the consumers and the farmers which i think is very good because we import a lot the few who can do. i like it or my kid to not give a good seat. a lot of wonderful products but then question how can feed the air. two thousand and thirteen was a good year for europe's bees as of december posts fall is in the eu are no longer allowed to use pesticides suspected of this inmate in the colonies the ban was approved by the eu commission in april the targets. three chemicals believed to be disrupting the sense of orientation and immune system. the next story will take this to slovenia country with a long tradition in beekeeping. as you will see slovenian follows that all spent time in saving the bees a clear sign that despite the crisis some green priorities are not being neglected. these days when mary anna comes up behind in the morning in days to find happy healthy bees. in twenty eleven spending it on three types of pesticides that are widely believed to be harmful to bees. if obama was pasta iran's production in the spine forty percent the protective effect. in two thousand and six forty five percent of all articles or have been destroyed. you're almost half of them. he started the mausoleum noted that most of them went to gather pollen in the fields of endeavor came by today. we sat down at the fashion one day i found a whole pile of dead bees on the ground. when heinz with beets lettuce deciding to lose with three types of incense the signs containing unique to know it's a honey poisonous substance of these sitting is the best country in the european union to ban its use on all types of vegetation. now from a slight bend your knees or thrice week it is on its port of call from patients for photo proof of that. the program has included it we noticed a downturn in production of one group of local schools the ones they found these past two stories especially the one that reads her stories. it bit them on a corn field. why don't we have a way of living all these insects are known as the fifth set. but this footage. when you grow so why read to daniel but he knows that without the bees agricultural output would not be viable as they fly from one house the next incentives meant to appease transferred grains of pollen and allowing for the fed position of second thoughts. it's a fine cooper's sense without the honey bees they wouldn't be any malice nor fruit bearing trees there even some vegetables that would be able to correct what issues to make sure everything in fact been using pesticides has been seen in the focus to soothe away and. european commission has decided to confront the problem head on from december this year the use of the specific pesticides will be suspended for four major crops corn rolls and some prawns and cook. splitting the national insult the commission of an empowerment system i stood above the nave. there were no dead. what a nation of that this is something for which we have a major economic advantage. tempted to give you clues as to make its value over the ordination and productive definition needs to be sporting nation. yet to sign says this measure is not enough news on the festival's agencies of the issues come into play. these may not be going in each of the history such as the best and endangered even buy wool price substances. there are a lot of recent publications from all around the war showed that this open at the fx study. you've seen the lifespan of the beast and you seem to be morning tea honey bee pollination is responsible for seventy percent of global agricultural output. if these insects were to disappear and tidy bacon also one time human beings as an expense but he would anyone else find is on the planet without them saying goodbye is always in motion. this year on gas surprises with that farewell let's take a look. he said they were going. the ballad of the cell. portuguese cops the bit to the soul of the portuguese and at this time of crisis. people need things that that and we read there they can disappear for a get rid of the emotions and are overcome. we had. we handled the thumb button although the lack of it. it all up. been there. most deadly these troubled times what's your message field my message is that money is not routine it and it's not enough for what we need to use a bit of atmosphere. i'm trying to control we've slid by playing two pm on the old overjoyed. the d i hear it read time to say adios. hope he does it all was dubious of show in january will be heading to latvia. meanwhile you can find all the programs allow website as follows the task of calm. bye for now the region the us. and. you try to pick st kitts was an everyday. cos breaking news talk points. so much theodore six plates. stocks good news you. the it changed it to open in kazakhstan soon it will conduct research on the properties of humans and the methods of course processing the german businessmen and comic scientists agreed to establish an institute note german businessman has had a drink of the copics as it was announced before he has registered his own german trade mark on this. according to the experts both countries lack of research studies a larger market and international registration of the brain coolness for mass production and trade around
feet. a florida airport there had a sudden encounters with a bird shattering the wind screen. the pilot in the cockpit didn't know what hit him. but he did land. those are our top stories monday, february 24th. >> this is abc "world news now." >> good monday morning, everybody. we have new details about the capture of one of the most wanted drug lord in the world. joaquinn guzman. this shows the tunnels which guzman used to escape mexican arrest. >> authority eventually caught up with him. prosecutors in the u.s. want to put him on trial. abc's larry jacobs reports. >> immediately after mexican authorities announced the arrest of drug lord joaquinn guzman calls for his extradition to the u.s. went out. >> i would ask that mexicans consider extraditing him to the united states where he will be put in a super max prison under tight security where he cannot escape. >> vicious and evasive powerful leader nst drug cartel is being held in this maximum security prison. the concern is that guzman escaped mexican custody before and went on the run for 13 years until his capture saturday. a week ago, el chappo, as he is known, narrowly alluding authorities while slipping out of the residents where he was hiding through an underground hiding. >> he does not play by the rules. he has unlimited resources. >> there are pictures of this messy hotel room where he was caught. breakfast still on the stove. armed with a military assault rifle. but an single shot was fired. >> this is a super important symbolic capture. >> guzman has been indicted and faces federal prosecution in at least seven u.s. cities, including brooklyn and chicago where he is public enemy number one. guzman wants him here in the states during the legal process to see who tries him first. larry jacobs, abc news, new york. ukraine's president assumed power for the time being. voting overwhelmingly to turn leadership over. the president left kiev for his political base in eastern ukraine. he maintains that parliament's decisions in the past days is illegal. >> one of the most outspoken critics engaged with forces in crosswalkus last night after tweeting that cute ven day is len henchman were coming for him. he this is the latest example of the chaos raining right now in venezuela. mary anna atenso has more. >>. >> reporter: it's been days of violent clashes here in venezuela. on one side, students and middle class. on the other, police and pro government rups. followers of the party of anti-american president chavez who died last year of cancer. why are venezuelans so fed up? in a word, the economy. most citizens want to go to the store and buy basic goods. but some necessities are so rare that it started to resemble cuba. just got word there is flour in one of the local super markets. so people started flocking toward there. we will go with this woman to see how we can find flour and how long it takes us. so this is the line starting to form to buy flour at the supermarket. no flour. they ran out quickly. >> but not just food. >> this is a popular pharmacy here. as you can see, there are bars for security reasons and pharmacist have to dispatch from behind the bars because of the scarcity of medicine. >> lucy desperately need medicine for her mom's medicine. she has been to three pharmacies and this is her last resource. this is the sad reality in venezuela. neither side is backing down. abc news -- >> the oldest known survivor of the holocaust has passed away in london. alice her summer was 110 years old. her death comes a week before a film about her life comes up for an oscar. startry details how she survived two years in nazi camp through devotion to her son and her music. >> my world is music. >> as you can hear, she was very accomplished on the piano. she said music saved her life because she played in concerts that entertained the nazis. >> something else to tell you about, the last member of the von trapp member died, she passed away at 99. she was the second oldest daughter. mar maria's name was changed to louisa in the movie. her family moved there in 1942. >> the taliban said it called off talks over a prisoner exchange which would have freed u.s. soldierburgdal. he was last seen on videotape in december. the taliban blamed the complex political situation in afghanistan for halting the talks. >> dui trial of robert kennedy's daughter begins in new york today. carry kennedy, also ex-wife of andrew cuomo, got behind the wheel after taking the sleep drug ambien. she said she thought it was her thyroid medication. her attorney said she will not plead guilty as part of a deal. >> a scary incident for a utah officer who was about five feet in the lane when his cruiser was side swiped by a truck. the same cruiser who was hit also was hit a couple months ago. take a look at this amazing shot of what is believed to be a meteor speaking across the heavens. residents in new york, new hampshire, vermont and southern quebec reported seeing the blue/green fire ball. >> dozens of ice fishermen have been rescued after being stranded in minnesota. piles of 4 to 7 feet high up against that ice house they were in. at one point the snow was so heavy, it pushed again the ice and flooded the ice houses. everyone did make it out safely. >> in pittsburgh, the problem is potholes. they went through 362 tons of asphalt patch since last wednesday. i'm sure every city is dealing with the same thing. new york is for sure. >> good news, pittsburgh willing be clear today. so the pothole filling brit can continue. a few flurries on tap for the upper northeast. >> temperature wise, expect a lot of teens in upper midwest. otherwise, upper 30s and 40s. even a few 80s across the south. >> now, games in sochi, thousands of fans making their way home from russia. they were sent off last night with a massive fireworks sis play. matt gutman was at the games the whole time for the u.s. and he said the closing ceremony had a bit of humor as well. >> thousands of performers celebrated russian culture, gravity defying style of mark shegal, angels and acrobats floating six stories above the floor. and performers poking fun themselves in making four circles and a know flake. before making the fifth ring. the balmy weather, would quickly became about the athletes. the who rowics of the usa hockey team last week. shootout. tj oshie scoring four goals for the win. then sage pull ofg a jump in the finals he never even tried before. >> when i landed, i was like, what just happened. i can't believe i just did that. >> americans dominating the x style game events, even sweeping slopestyle skiing np mikaela shiffrin dominating slalom, youngest ever in the event. some argue vladimir putin is the biggest winner, with a public relations extravaganza that cost his country $50 billion. matt gutman, abc news, sochi. >> with all of the competition in the books, here is a look at final medal count. russia, the host, finishing on top with 33. they also had the most gold, with 13. >> the usual suspect we told you about last week. norway, canada, netherlands and germany. hats off to the russians. all the talk about security concerns, all the talk about sochi not being ready, they were definitely glitches. >> sure. but they pulled it off. >> a heck of an olympics, wasn't it? >> yeah. last winter games, u.s. came out on top. the most medals at 37. this year only 28. came in second. >> same x factor in that one was the speedskating. we just didn't do what we did in the last olympics with the speedskating. >> all right, well -- >> we'll get them next time. and we got second place. >> yeah. can't complain about that. not too shabby. we heard about stray dogs in sochi but here is one making friend among big league ball players. this is hank, hanging out in arizona. >> hank wandered into the brewers facility last week and basically hasn't left except for the trip to the vet. the team named him hank after hank aaron who began his career if milwaukee. >> and brewers are looking for someone to adopt hank. either there in arizona or milwaukee. why don't they adopt lihim? >> they just might. hank must love it. a big field. he get to run around. play ball. all the buffets in the locker room, he is probably making out like a bandit. >> yeah. cute and very smart. he found the perfect place to wander into it. what superstar bradley cooper told his "american hustle" star long before nominations. >> and what is ahead for a little boy who loves police sirens. find out how a hint on facebook turned into an awesome, awesome surprise. >> first, the threat of space junk falling from the sky posing a threat. what the air force is doing to keep you safe. you're watching "world news now." >> word news now weather brought to you by airborne. [ female announcer ] the secret to luminous, shiny color? innovative cc cream from nice 'n easy. our advanced treatment helps keep highlights and lowlights shiny and luminous. cc cream, find it in every box of nice 'n easy. the most natural shade of you. in every box of nice 'n easy. she loves to shop online with her debit card. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts, and stole her hard-earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft. and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified before it was too late. lifelock's credit notification service is on the job 24/7. as soon as they detect a threat to your identity within their network, they will alert you, protecting you before the damage is done. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. my years as a prosecutor taught me that we all need to protect ourselves from crime. in today's world, that includes identity theft. it's a serious problem. we all have to protect ourselves. [ male announcer ] while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. that's right. 60 days risk free. use promo code notme. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. don't wait until you become the next victim. ♪ ♪ that music brings back memories. we take it for granted, there are spy forces in space. >> sending up two new eyes in the sky keeping a look out for millions of tiny threats, too. abc's clayton san dell has the story. >> reporter: you can't see it from ground but earth's orbit is a messy graveyard of space junk. the giant field of rubble crowded with more than 22,000 piece efss larger than four inches across. exploded rockets. even in 200 the it destroyed another satellite. this year, the air force will launch two new tracking satellites to help keep an eye on the growing constellation of space junction. but the satellites will also keep an eye on spacecraft from other nationes. what general in charge calls a sort of neighborhood watch in space. all that space junk is also a danger to astronauts living on the space station. throw times a day, u.s. military update mission control on possible threats. hoping to ensure hollywood disasters like this one in "gravity" stay science fiction. also on the table, cutting enl missions designed to clean up orbit al clutter. this would trap debris in a net. but this is very expensive. for now, explorers will simile keep dodging the danger. abc news, denver. >> creepy. >> it is. last weekend fragment after soviet mission military satellite fell from the air but burned up in the atmosphere. is that it now? nice. with an assist off camera. >> i know, right? i'm losing this battle. in an act of launching a major project to attract -- i'm still going here. doing work. >> are we done yet? more space junk. all right. coming up, best birthday party ever. we'll be right back. here is a birthday party that will melt your heart. this is why it's our favorite story of day. logan peerson is turning 12 today. >> he was diagnosed with youaut, he can't speak, but he absolutely loves police cars. can you i math unhimagine how e it was when police cares from ten different precincts showed up. >> i just can't believe they did this for us. >> he really likes the flashing lights and noise and everything. i think that's a real fun thing for him. >> what an entrance. >> we couldn't let his birthday go by without doing something special for him. >> logan's mother, katherine, had no idea a simple facebook post would ill list think the kind of response. >> i just had no idea it would spread that far. i just thought, maybe, you know, 20 people and that would be a lot of birthday cards. but we're close to 3,000 now. >> 12-year-old logan is severely autistic. his mom says most of his birthdays haven't been too special until now. >> as a mom it just makes me so happy for him. >> cambridge police officer learned of logan's story and rallied the troops. >> this is something i will remember forever and hopefully other officers and family will remember. we've made a friend for life. >> one of those rewarding experiences you get as a police officer. just giving back to somebody. >> presidents, cake, cards and bat badge. >> the best birthday ever for all of puss. rs. >> happy birthday dear logan, happy birthday to you ♪ >> julie launch check, wucb, news center 5. >> that is so special. >> happy birthday, logan. people are good. they really are. >> logan's mom pasted on facebook, just to please send logan a card. he got cards from all over the world. he even got gift card. so many people went so out of their way to make him feel special. >> totally inspiring. oscars go behind the scenes with bradley cooper. rocky had no idea why dawn was gone for so long...cer] ...but he'd wait for her forever, and would always be there with the biggest welcome home. for a love this strong, dawn only feeds him iams. with 2x the meat of other leading brands... ...to help keep rocky's body as strong as a love that never fades. iams. keep love strong. with 2x the meat. love the iams difference or your money back. with 2x the meat. ♪ see what's new at projectluna.com i prefer today. [ female announcer ] new clairol age defy color collection. with our best breakthrough gray coverage. lustrous, radiant color that looks 10 years younger. today. [ female announcer ] new age defy color from clairol. ♪ ♪ it is oscar week. for the second year in a row, actor bradley cooper is nominated. >> and for the second year in a row, a movie which he stares with jennifer lawrence. we report on bradley's journey and days before jennifer got skarted. >> reporter: balancing mega comedies like the hangover series. >> we're getting married in five hours. >> yeah, that's not going to happen. >> reporter: with high-wire character work that brought him character aclimbs. "american hustle" fbi man richie demosso earned the 39-year-old a second oscar nomination. in 2011 it was russ whole cast cooper for the lead role in ""silver linings playbook"" with days to go before shooting began. >> i thought, i'm not right for this. >> i think it was fear. >> everything good? >> mm-hm. >> he never really cried on film. i never today do that. >> reporter: but cooper did do it, and well. russell was eager to reteam with actress who made his film fly. and no one in movies fascinates audiences quite like jennifer lawrence. >> i don't like change. >> hung are games haven't come out yet. we were eating in prague. someone came up and wanted an autograph and she said, how is -- and i thought oh, that's nothing compared to what will happen to you. >> >> a great actor. >> yes. academy awards are less than a week away. tune in here on abc starting at 7:00 eastern. >> so many good movies this year. >> so many. >> and bradley cooper is just awesome. an his hair, in "american hustle" was awesome. and that was his idea. he came up with the idea his character should have curly hair. he didn't realize what he was getting himself into. he had to spend three hours in hair and make-up, everyday. 110 rollers to get that styling look. >> next time he's going to keep his mouth shut. look at us, hosting the oscars. get some sleep. we have a busy night. >> a long one. >> that's the news for this half hour. >> follow us on facebook, wnn fans.com. going to l.a. >> all right. wnnfans.com. going to l.a. >> all right. this morning on "world news now," drug lord take down. how agents captured a notorious narcotics kingpin known as el chappo guzman. >> chappo does not play by the rules, he has unlimited resources. >> the push to charge guzman in the united states. >> cockpit chaos. pilot of a private plane gets the scare of his life when a bird crashes through the windshield. >> two seconds later, all of a sudden, the windshield just exploded and stuff was fly willing everywhere. >> the pilot's split-second life or death decisions. >> and what a blast russia's unforgettable grand finale. sochi puts on a world class show as the wethe winter games come a close. >> from abc news, this is "world news now." >> good morning, i'm marci gonzalez in for diana perez. >> i'm john muller. good monday morning, everyone. we are learning now details about the capture of joaquinn el chappo guzman. one of the world's most wanted drug lord. this is a look inside some of the tunnels that guzman initially used to evade arrest. >> guzman then fled south where he was arrested saturday morning. abc's pierre thomas picks up the story from there. >> it all ended here in room 401 of the miramar hotel. another shot fired. this grainy video released by mexican authorities showing that messy room where guzman was finally caught. he was snatched. breakfast still on the stove. indication of his abrupt departure. with that, leader after cartel responsible for 25% of drugs entering the u.s. and 80% of drugs in chicago was in custody after 13 years on the run. >> this is a super important symbolic capture. >> but look closely at his face at capture compared to an earlier photo. according to ap analysis of this photo, el chappo may have had a hair transplant and possible plastic surgery to his jaw line and neck. he is legendary for his viciousness and evasiveness. escaping a week ago, hiding in a residence, slipping out in an underground trail. his location was pint pointed 6 pinpointed 600 miles away. he is wanted in a number of cities including chicago. in chicago he is public enemy number one. >> i would ask them to extradite him to the united states. where he will be put in super max prison under tight security where he cannot escape. >> u.s. got intelligence that el chappo's family members were making decisions about business. they were monitoring phone calls and travel. so technology and good old police work caught el chappo. abc news, washington. >> chaos rules in venezuela after nearly two weeks of violent street clashes p. this week end as many as a million antigovernment protesters were out in force. one of the president's outspoken critics, engaged in standoff until crowds forced them away. the president is calling for a national peace conference slated to start today. >> now this comes after the president fled the capital for his political base in eastern ukraine. >> reporter: the president has been impeached. top adviser tells abc news she has no idea where he is. this video shows the presidential helicopters being packed up to flee the capitol. the lavish mansion, now a tourist attraction. his luxury boat, without a captain. >> president of ukraine disappeared. that's why we have to elect a new one. >> reporter: ukraine's opposition tried to fill the power vacuum taking over parliament. ukraine is a country more divided than ever. risking being torn apart. capitol and western part of the country eager to follow europe and eastern u.s. mostly pro russia, pro putin. >> we are very angry about what happened in kiev. we want a legit government. >> out here, the battle may be just beginning. secretary of state john kerry spoke with his russian counterpart saying that despite the turmoil, he hopes territory in ukraine will be respected. in other word, russia, keep out. >> national security adviser susan rice says the u.s. remains focused on finding those responsible for the attack in benghazi, libya that killed ambassador christopher stevens and three other americans. rice said the u.s. made progress in search for perpetrators. rice came under heavy criticism for her initial comment about the attack. taliban in afghanistan says it called off talks over a prisoner exchange that would have freed u.s. soldier. sergeant was captured in 2009. he was last seen on videotape in december. taliban plamed the complex political situation in afghanistan for halting talks. >> for the most part, george w. bush avoided the spotlight since leaving the wlous. now he is going public with his project, helping veterans. an emotional mr. bush sat down to express his concerns that too many u.s. vets are unemployed. >> for you, mr. president, it has to help you cope with what happened in those wars. >> no question, it helps. yeah. i have a duty. obviously i get emotional talking about our vets, because i'm in there with him. but my spirit is always uplifted when i visit vets. there is no self pity. we have a society that is too comfortable, and many say, whoa is me. not our veteran community. they say, what can i do to continue to serve. >> former president bush is encouraging employers to get past when a calls the civilian military divide and start hiring veterans. he says their war experience makes them qualified for all kind of jobs. >> despite what they think about obama care, america's got says they agree on one thing, it is here to stay. governors joined the president and mrs. obama at the white house. they will ask for ways to simplify the process. >> 21 people were sickened at hotel in maine when they were exposed to the colorless, odorless gas. seven of them had to be hospitalized. readings were ten times more than the normal levels. the hotel was evacuated and shut down pending further investigation and repairs. aep a carbon monoxide leak turning deadly at a major restaurant. the manager of seafood restaurant died. restaurant workers and first responders were also sent to the hospital. neither the restaurant nor the who tell in maine had carbon monoxide detectors. a section of the mississippi river was closed over the weekend. an oil barge hit a toll boat on the river between new orleans and baton rouge. investigators don't know how much oil was spilled. public water intakes were closed. >> a heartless thief found an easy target, ripping off two girl scouts. they were collecting money to send cookies to troops overseas. the man snatched the donation jar and sped off in the car. the troop leader and girls tried to stop him, but he got away. >> it wasn't so much about the money, it was 45 or 50 bucks. it was the principle. he stole from the girl scouts and soldiers and the people who donated their cash. how low can you go. >> the girls ended up making up the money and more. in all making $300. so that part ends pretty well. can you imagine. >> i can't. you have to wonder about what kind of person would could do this. the girls said the robber was laughing as he ran away with the money. >> you would have to think there is surveillance tape they are looking for right now. >> a petty crime, but the -- >> petty but -- it strikes a nerve, doesn't it? >> absolutely. girls went ahead with plans. set up another location to collect money and they called it operation thin mint. >> i hope they get that. >> i hope so, too. >> he will be on the front cover of newspapers soon. >> whatsapp is up again. the free messaging service was down for about three hours saturday. due to server problems. an great kick off after $19 billion spent on whatsapp. facebook says the problem has been solved. >> a new smart phone that would cost just 25 bucks, not as powerful as more expensive models but would provide internet access and run apps and be marketed mostly to the developing world. >> all right. ready for this? we have some adorable photos to share with you this morning. courtesy of our own diana perez. oh, my goodness, look at him. she is still on maternity leave, bonding with baby number two. >> look at those eyes. how beautiful. >> he is adorable. >> here is what little dill yn looks like now, at almost seven weeks old. how cute is he he. handsome little fella. he hope diane is catching up on sleep as well. with under kid under age two, maybe not so much. >> not so much. and big brother devon is absent from pictures. he is still sizing up the new baby but does offer up an occasional hug. >> look at this. >> so -- >> diana, if you're listening, next picture, i want to see devon and dylan at the same exact age. >> they do look so much alike. >> oh, what a kouty pie. >> so cute. >> coming up, 2-year-old's trip down memory lane that is sure to capture your heart in the mix. >> but first, a bird strike caught on camera. small plane's windshield shatters moments from landing. very lucky pilot. next on "world news now." >> "world news now" weather brought to you by lysol. are hospitalized every year with flu complications. it's important to follow cdc guidelines to help protect your family. wash your hands often. and clean your surfaces using a disinfectant to prevent the spread of cold and flu viruses. you can trust lysol because lysol disinfectant spray is approved to kill twice as many germs than any other disinfectant spray. and with lysol no-touch hand soap, you have 10 times more protection with each wash. help protect your family with lysol. ♪ see what's new at projectluna.com [ laughs ] i travel a lot for business, but i have two little girls at home, gemma and abby. mom! my llama smells like you. oh, kiss llama for mommy! i use tide plus febreze in the wash. it keeps their clothes and stuffed animals smelling fresher for longer. plus the smell reminds them of me. how many more sleeps until you're back? [ chuckles ] just one more! aw, that many? [ female announcer ] tide plus febreze. that's my tide plus. ♪ ♪ ♪ imagine you're all alone, piloting a small airplane, thinking you're almost home, then suddenly your windshield explodes. >> that's what happened to a pilot, the windshield imploded. abc has the story. >> reporter: never did see anything. all of a sudden, the windshield explodes. >> heart-stopping moments for robert weber. something he's never seen in a decade of flying planes. >> i'm not sure if the bird was with me or what was happening. >> reporter: weber radioed into to the tower when he was a few second from touching down. >> all of a sudden, the windshield exploded and tough was flying everywhere. >> reporter: watch again in slow motion. bird slams into weber's windshield. glass flies an heavy wind whip the plane flying a the 170 miles an hour. sends it no a quick shake. but weber's steady hands take over along with his pilot training. >> just fly the freakin' plane. that's a phrase that everybody tells you. >> reporter: a few moments later, watch as web are checks himself, realizing he was cut on the head. >> head cuts are bad. i looked at my hand and i was covered in blood. oh, boy. i told tower, i just have to get landed. playing with it, trying to get used to it. >> reporter: he would never predict he would he get this once in a lifetime footage. lucky to be alive after what was more than a close call. >> if the bird would have continued and hit me, who knows, if it would have knocked me unconscious. >> reporter: luckily that didn't happen. as he lands the plane, he is congratulated by radio tower. >> so calm. >> did fine. >> reporter: and met by fire engines as his plane comes to a stop. abc news, ft. myers, florida. >> that guy is cool as a cucumber. >> unbelievable he only had one cut to his head. did you see the shards? >> the shock must have been incredible. >> things like this happen often enough. the faa says that 9,000 birds are reported struck annually by planes in the u.s. that number keeps going up everyier. they believe the number is higher. it is just that pilots don't report some of the less serious incident. >> and deadly. since 1988, 250 people have died with accident with planes involving birds. and you remember sully bringing down the plane on the hudson. that brought down a jet. and the games coming to a spectacular ceremony. >> and in the next half hour, don't tell it mellow yellow. why objects made with the sunshine may have a darker side. you're watching "world news now." >> ♪ ♪ >> welcome back. fair to say that party is over in sochi with fireworks and the last blast of pageantry. yesterday's closing ceremony put an end to the 22nd edition of the winter olympics. >> sochi's airport is probably a busy place as athletes and fans begin the long journey home. abc's jim ryan wraps things up for us. >> ceremonies were the grand finale of the 17-day extravaganza. sports ands russia's ring of steel security everyone. pilot of the u.s. bobsled took a third place finish. vladimir putin had reason to smile. russia led the world with 1 gold medals and with 33 overall. united states was second with 28 total. team canada won hockey gold medal with 3-0 victory over sweden. last of 98 gold medal events. >> a humbling honor. that's exactly how it is. and it is really a testament, i think, to my teammates. >> the most expensive olympics ever, at $51 billion, paid off in gold for the host nation. final hours were devoted to a pageant depicting scenes from russian history. olympic flame extinguished and olympic flag passed on to south korea where it will fly over the 2018 games. with that, athletes said good-bye to one another, to sochi and to this olympic season. abc news, sochi russia. >> you have to hand it to the russians. there were fears about security, of course. and fears about things not being ready. there were some bumps in the road, but tle did a great job. >> overall, it went smoothly. now if you are into the speedskating and ice skating, wait until february 9, 2018, that's when the winter games in south korea begin. >> should be exciting. coming up, nail-biter of a competition. this is a spelling bee, and it was amazing. [ male announcer ] they say he was born to help people clean. but there are some places even mr. clean doesn't want to lug a whole bunch of cleaning supplies. that's why he created the magic eraser extra power. just one eraser's versatile enough to clean all kinds of different surfaces and three times more grime per swipe. so instead of fussing with rags and buckets, you can get back to the great outdoors, which can be pretty great. that's why when it comes to clean, there's only one mr. [ bird screeches ] time now for "the mix." do you get emotional at weddings. you cry when you see your friends or loved ones getting married? >> now that i have a daughter and i'm getting older, i'm more emotional than i've ever been. how's that? >> you have to check this out. a mother videotaped her daughter as she watched -- her parents wedding video. they were dancing to a song called "feels like home." and you just got to watch her face. oh. ♪ something in your voice >> just incredible that she understands the emotion behind it. and the love that her parents are sharing. >> unless she just thinks they are horrible dancers but i'm guessing she's touched. >> so cute. what a cutie pie. spellings bees, you know how intense they get. we are going to kansas for a spelling bee that is not over yet. started on saturday at jackson county library. 60 rounds later, they are still going. punch for punch. they had to suspend it until march 88th. 25 student started. or two standing. sophia hoffman, fifth grader. and cush sharma, seventh grader. last year went 21 round. they are at 66 now. they ran out of words. it will resume march 8. this is important because it decides who goes to d.c. for the national final. >> how do you run out of words? they're that good. they just nailed them all. >> they are that good. it is a shame they both can't go. it is a shame they both can't go after 60 rounds. >> so you told me when you went to bali, you were told to watch out for the monkeys. >> yes. >> someone should have told this guy. he sets down a camera to get video of him feeting the monkeys and one of the monkeys gets off with the go pro and gets interesting video. >> i wonder how they got back. >> they had to bribe it. one of the volunteers there had to bribe the monkey with fruit. to do a trade. >> offer fruit and then grab the camera -- >> exactly. the monkey is smart. it took the battery out, so there is a delay in -- >> by the way, scott in our production booth right now, went to this very spot and had his shirt ripped by these very monkeys. >> watch out for them. >> should we quickly get to this last one? take a look. a stunt man do wlag you might see on motorcycle or bicycle. he will run a loop diloop. >> not on a motorcycle. >> just with he is not trip cal force. pretty impressive stuff. >> unbelievable. i want to see this morning on "world news now," facing justice. a member of the kennedy family accused driving under the influence of sleeping pills has her day in court. >> hidden dangers. toxic scene at a new york restaurant after a manager disappeared and was found dead. what investigators are uncovering after a carbon monoxide tragedy. >> basketball first. jason collins plays his way into the nba history books. what he did last night, no other athlete has done before. >> and keep out. justin bieber's plan to move out of his california mansion to another upscale community. today's protest against biebs in "the skinny." it is monday, february 24th. >> from abc news, this is "world news now." >> good morning. i'm john muller. >> i'm marci gonzalez in for diana perez. a bieber protest, can you imagine? >> i would say they are just being haters, but seeing how he completely turned his california neighborhood upside down. >> right. can't blame the people. >> sounds like when bieber moves in, there's drama. >> yes. we will have more on that in a bit. but we begin with another high profile >> on the eve oher trial for drugged driving, there is denial the daughter of robert kennedy is ready no accept a plea deal. she is sticking to her not guilty plea of driving under the generic version of the sleep aid, ambien. the 54-year-old human rights activist was arrested in july 2012 after police say she side swiped a tractor-trailer with her lexus on a new york highway then kept driving. she was later found slumped over the wheel of her suv. >> and then i have no memory until i was stopped at a traffic light and a police officer was at my car door. >> kennedy told police she may have mistakenly taken an ambien that morning instead of her thyroid medication. the powerful sleep drug carries a warning against taking it, then driving. but new york prosecutors are going after her, saying that even if she accidentally drugs herself, she broke the law if she kept driving after the feeling the pills affects. >> ambien is known for knocking you out. she is responsible for taking the medication that's in her house and making sure that she is taking the right medication. >> her case is raising concerns about people taking ambien incorrectly. the warning label on the drug clearly states it should be taken before bed and only when you will be getting a full night's sleep. lindsay janice, abc news, new york. >> bernard madoff's former secretary may take the stand in her own defense today. four other employees there are accused of fraud for their role in the ponzi scheme. she said fictitious accounts were made up with dejorna. she was a supervisor of madoff's private investment business. >> carbon monoxide business claimed one life over the weekend and sickened dozens of people in two states. 21 people were overcome by fumes at a hotel in maine. seven of them had to be hospitalized. carbon monoxide readings were ten times higher levels. the there the hotel was shut down pending evacuation and repairs. more tragic in suburban new york where a carbon monoxide leaning killed a restaurant manager. nearly 30 others got sick, including emergency crews got help. abc has the details. >> reporter: responding to a 911 call of a woman fainting saturday evening, first responders immediately suspect a carbon monoxide leak. police and ambulance workers becoming ill themselves when they entered the legal seafood's restaurant at this upscale shopping mall on long island. >> they were trying to get everybody out as fast as they could. >> while evacuating that restaurant and two others, officials made a grim discovery in the basement. manager steven nelson, unconscious. 55-year-old father of two, later pronounced dead at the hospital. >> always helping everybody. >> 2. 7 /*>> all restaurant employee first responders. fire officials say a faulty water heater flew pipe caused that deadly heat. >> there was a carbon monoxide issue. >> carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless. and very dangerous. each year, an average of 430 people i do from carbon monoxide poisoning and more than 15,000 are hospitalized. symptoms of exposure include headache, nausea and dizziness. the best treatment is fresh air immediately. an effective alarm can be a live saver. legal sea foods was not required to have a carbon monoxide detector. all those sick here have been treated at area hospitals and released. abc news, new york. >> apparently that ventilation system in the basement there helps circulate all of that carbon monoxide. >> the restaurant was inspected nearly a year ago. there were no problems found. it was scheduled for another inspection next month. >> years ago, i did a story on a guy that was sick on a business trip and he kept going back to the same room that was poisoning him because he kept going back to lay down. you start to get that nauseous headache feeling and it happens a lot. you have to think, is there any carbon monoxide exposure causing this. >> scary. >> yeah. after a weekend collision resulted in an oil spill, investigators don't know how much oil leaked after the accident. the river is closed between new orleans and baton rouge. public drinking water intakes are closed as precaution. >> taste of spring, many of us enjoy the last few days, is about to come to an end. cold temperatures along with snow and freezing rain will hammer the midwest and east ward. in colorado, skiers and snowboarders taking advantage of that fresh powder. heavy traffic jams trying to get home from the high country. in pennsylvania, all this sunshine didn't do much to break up huge ice boulders near pittsburgh. they jammed up waterways after a giant ice dam broke apart. they may look pretty now but there is concern about the possibility of widespread flooding when they do break up. >> let's's look at the weather. another dry day with a couple of exceptions. and mostly rainstorm. moving into the northwest. light snow expected from dakotas and southern area of minnesota and a few flurries on tap for the upper northeast. >> upper midwest, we will see temperatures in the teens. otherwise mostly 30s and 40s in upper two third. 60s, 70s. even a few 80s across the south. now some sports. a bit of history. from the nba. jason collins became the first openly gay player to see action in any of the four major sports. collins signed a ten-day contract with the brooklyn nets yesterday. a few hours later he was on the floor facing the l.a. lakers. before the game, collins said he was too busy learning plays to think about making history. afterward, he said getting back on the court was fun. >> i'm usually like, you know, one of the background players. and it is weird, obviously, this. but at the same time, it is what it is, and it's part of life. >> collins played for 10:00 last night. he didn't score but he did grab a couple of rebounds in the nets' 108-102 victory. a halt to 6:22 there. when drivers were back and 500 miles were done, dale earnhardt, jr. takes the win. his second victory. ending a streak of 55 races for him without a win. >> pretty rough crashes there, too. i saw part of it. seeing hometown action. >> there is really nothing quite like a partial demolition to brighten up a monday morning. >> queue the dynamite. let's do it. wow. there it goes. another big section of what was left there of the hubert h. humphrey metrodome in men app list. the demolition work was halted last week when part of the stadium came down out of sequence. >> experts decided best way to remedy the situation is to bring in more than 80 charges of dynamite and destroy the upper concourse all in one shot. looks like it worked. >> a lot of history in that dome. minnesota vikings played there. minnesota twins played there. even super bowl xxvi where the redskins beat buffalo, all played in that building. no more. >> no more. always just so cool to see. >> it is neat hearing a woman say that. boys just love demolitions. you love them too? >> absolutely. i think everybody does. we can agree on that. >> we can agree on that one, then. what alec baldwin is promising to do in his latest public outcry. >> we will have that in "the skinny" and the bonus round as well. >> and bright yellow in products, we will tell you what you need to do to protect your family. you're watching "world news now." ♪ ♪ >> word news now weather brought to you by colonial penn life insurance. to you by colonial life insurance.plife insurance.elife insurance.nlife insurance.nlife insurance. life insurance. over 200,000 people are hospitalized every year with flu complications. it's important to follow cdc guidelines to help protect your family. wash your hands often. and clean your surfaces using a disinfectant to prevent the spread of cold and flu viruses. you can trust lysol because lysol disinfectant spray is approved to kill twice as many germs than any other disinfectant spray. and with lysol no-touch hand soap, you have 10 times more protection with each wash. help protect your family with lysol. paws off pal. [ female announcer ] new charmin ultra soft is so soft you can actually see the softness with our new comfort cushions. plus you can use up to 4 times less. enjoy the go with new charmin ultra soft. plus you can use up to 4 times less. ♪ see what's new at projectluna.com snoelts ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all right. if we had to choose the most cheerful color, it might be yellow. you think sunshine, bananas, bathroom duckies, things that mike you smile. >> i love yellow. i used to drive a yellow volkswagen beetle. so you're talking to the right person. gio benitez find maybe you shouldn't be color blind. >> reporter: take a look around your house. yellow turns up all over the place. brightening up bath time. >> rubber ducky, you're the one. >> cheering us up like forest gump's iconic t-shirt and even helping us brain storm with that bright golden tint might be dangerous. new study from rutgers university showing the chemical used to color our yellow-hued belongs may not be sunshine. >> they are everywhere. getting into our product and coming into our homes. we know it is part of this class of compounds causing problems. >> reporter: it is called pcb-11, form of a chemical banned in 1979 and found in yellow dyes commonly used in certain paint, paper and clothing. and the woman behind the study says it is leaking out potentially harmful toxins. while there's not enough science showing the effects of pcb-11 on humans. some studies say pcbs in general may lead to cancer, irritation of nose and lungs, even birth defects. >> i don't think people should be terrified of this, but it is important to be aware of what is going on. >> reporter: while not every yellow product has the chemical, the study makes you think of all of the household items that come in sunshiny shade. almost unavoidable. towels, bottles, note pads, you name it. and most concerning, toys. the color has some parent, like michelle noran, popular mommy blogger, thinking twice. >> we're talking about the color yellow, which is in so many things. you can't really shop your way out of that. >> reporter: gio benitez, abc news, new york. >> i just bought a yellow binder. better watch out. pcb-11 was exempted from the regulations that ban pcbs because it is an unintentional byproduct of the process. bpa is reviewing the product for pb-11. >> people want to be concerned about the clothing, that's on you all day long. so check your clothing label. if it says it is dyed, it probably does not contain pcb-11. but if it is printed, then it may. not definitely, but a chance. so to avoid exposure, wash it several times with hot water before wearing it. >> all right. coming up, loud and clear message sent to justin bieber, keep out. >> paula deen, her return is not just a half-baked promise. "the skinny" is next. >> "world news now" continues skinny time. again with the biebs. justin bieber, may be eyeing a mansion in atlanta. but his perspective neighbors aren't having any part of it. >> oh, no, angry residents in skinny time. again with the biebs. justin bieber, may be eyeing a mansion in atlanta. but his perspective neighbors back.t having any part of it. >> why was she on his back? i still don't get it. >> i say there is no such thing as bad publicity. whatever it was -- >> yeah, got us talking about it. >> see you in a bit. -- >> yeah, got us talking about it. >> see you in a bit. with non-insulin victoza. for a while, i took a pill to lower my blood sugar, but it didn't get me to my goal. so i asked my doctor about victoza. he said victoza works differently than pills, and comes in a pen. and the needle is thin. victoza is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and should not be used in people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. victoza has not been studied with mealtime insulin. victoza is not insulin. do not take victoza if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine uh oh. [ female announcer ] tide, downy, and bounce free & gentle. welcome back. topping the skinny bonus round, miley cyrus pushing the limits, so to speak, again, in the middle of her performance in los angeles this weekend. she goes and gives a good friend a kiss. a real good smooch. that friend -- katy perry. kiss, straight on the lips. >> a fan posted the moment on instagram. >> is this shocking any more in i'm not sure. isn't this a five years ago shocking moment? >> just another thing to get attention. afterwards, katy tweeted out a photo that even miley was surprised at what she had done. katy
next, officials testifying on the use of biometrics and its impact on privacy they are asked about the use of facial recognition technology and privacy risks. the hearing before house subcommittee on investigations and oversight is just under an hour and a half today our focus will be on how technological solutions can secure our privacy while allowing us to enjoy the benefits of biometric tools. biometric privacy enhancing technologies can and should be implemented, along with biometric technologies, so called beach pads, the so-called beat pads could be implemented at the point of capture, improving the precision of collection tools to ensure they are not picking up features that are not necessary for use. they can insert, for example, obfuscation's on the data collected, degrading the quality of the information, or introducing statistical noise so the biometric data is less usable for unintended uses. the technique called a template protection can ensure that one systems biometric information is encrypted so that it cannot be read by another system, for example, someone's image obtained from the security systems that our doctors or psychiatrists office cannot be linked to the workplaces, to the work place identity verification system. federal agencies, including -- represented at this hearing today, as well as dhs and science acknowledges director, are already working to develop and improve our technology for biometric technologies. the american competes act, which i'm in conference with, and with the senate contains a number of provisions that will future proof the government's demolition standards for biometric application systems, and invest in privacy enhancing technologies. i look forward to hearing from our panel how we can further impress in these protections, as biometric technologies become more and more prevalent in our daily lives. and the timing of our discussion today is in notable. the supreme court has recently substantially weakened the constitutional right to privacy in their recent decision, overturning roe v. wade. states attempting to criminalize access to medical care they try to use biometric data to prove where someone has been, what they did when they were there. third parties may also try to access biometric information to collect the bounties now being offered by some states to enforce new laws. this makes protecting americans will metric data more important than ever. finally, i just want to observe that some of our witnesses testimony came a little bit late for this hearing. i apologize to the other members of the subcommittee, that we didn't have the usual amount of time as we would normally like to have had to prepare. the chair will now recognize ranking member of the subcommittee investigations and oversight, mr. obernolte, for an opening statement. >> thank you very much, chairman foster. good morning everyone. i'm really excited about our hearing this morning. the benefits and risks of biometric technologies and exploring research opportunities in these technologies. i'm really hoping that this hearing turns into a productive discussion that helps us learn about ways to improve biometric technologies in the future, at the same time protecting people's privacy. i was reflecting this moment -- this morning on the fact that biometric technologies really changed the way we lived our lives. this morning, i use facial recognition to open my phone, used the fingerprint reader on my computer to open my macbook. when i got to my car this morning, to go to my district office, the car recognized my face to set the seat settings. as i was arriving, used facial recognition to make sure i was paying attention to the road and that's just in the first couple of hours of today and it's definitely changed our lives and it's amazing to think that this was once the world of science fiction and now we just take it completely for granted. obviously, biometric spurring a lot of benefits to our daily lives. we want to make sure that we are able to continue to allow those benefits while protecting the privacy of the people that rely on biometrics. for that reason, i am particularly glad that dr. romine, from the national institute of standards and technology, is with us here today to talk about the work that -- nist is doing in space. nist has been working in research research for over 60 years. they have had incredible role to play in developing standards for biometrics. i'm hoping that in the same way they helped the fbi establish standards for fingerprint technologies in the 1960s, that they are going to be able to take a leadership role in establishing standards at the national, international level for biometrics today. and the standards are gonna be critical to enable the exchange of biometric data between agencies and their systems, as well as providing guidance for how those biometric systems are tested, how performances measured, and how assurances are made that data is shared securely and that privacy is protected. that's important because, as we all know, biometrics are really no different than any other advanced technology and that they have beneficial uses, but they are also misused can harm individual and harm our society. in this case, by compromising the privacy of individuals or the security of their information. as policy makers, we need to be acutely aware of not only the benefits these biometrics have to our society, but also of the risks associated with the technology, especially in my opinion when it comes to the covert collection and the issue of individual consent to have ones information stored and used. i think as policy makers we have to paul -- vallance that awareness objects the potential benefits biometric spring to society. you could easily imagine as taking a draconian approach to regulating biometrics that effectively prevents the development and use of biometrics that would lose all the benefits that we enjoy from biometrics. i'm not just talking about unlocking our phones or setting the seas on our cars. biometric technologies really have extraordinarily helpful applications. to give you a couple examples, and ukraine, the defense ministry is using clear view ai facial recognition technology to recognize russian assailants and identify combatants. we -- analytics tool traffic jam uses facial recognition ai to detect patterns -- to help law enforcement identify victims of sex trafficking. if we were to take an overly heavy hitter approach to regulating biometrics, we would lose out on those lifesaving applications as well. that is something i actually have firsthand experience with before serving in congress, i was member of the california state legislature. i served on the committee for privacy and consumer protection in the early days of facial recognition before the risks and benefits of the technology were well understood. i could tell you, we saw a lot of bills that were misguided proposals. they could effectively banned the use of facial recognition technology altogether. it's clear that it's a lot easier for us to push for legislation to outlaw technology entirely, then it is to conduct due diligence and try to intelligently balance the benefits against the risks of technology. that's actually why the work of nist is so valuable. here veteran are standing of the technology and carefully understanding cave safeguards and standards will help us develop biometrics in a way that provides safety for people's privacy without stifling and the innovation that's gonna lead to future breakthroughs and benefit society. before turning about their work today and from hearing from our witnesses. i'm very much looking forward to the discussion and i yield back. >> thank you. i have to say i am very much of the power that you might be driving. with all those features, it must be -- i wager you are probably are not driving in a ten year old ford focus. >> actually, that technology is coming to date expensive cars as well. it's amazing. >> anyway, if there are other members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point it at this time, i'd like to introduce our witnesses. our first witness is miss candice wright, miss wright is a director of science technology assessment and analytics. she oversees the work, federally funded research on electoral property protection and federal efforts to help commercialize innovative technologies and enhance u.s. economic competitiveness. since joining jao in 2004, miss wright lead on a wide variety of policy issues involving federal contracting, wrist to the defense supplier base, foreign military sales, and homeland security. after miss wright, is doctor romine. doctor romine is a director of information technology, laboratory itl. itl it's one of six laboratory institutes in technology. doctor romine oversees a research program the cultivates information technology by developing at standards and testing, security, usability and reliability of information systems. our final witness, dr. ross. doctor ross is a professor in computer science and engineering at michigan state university. he also serves as a side director of the identification technology and research. his experience is in biometrics, computer vision and machine learning. doctor ross has implicated for the responsible use biometrics in mobile phones, including the nato advance workshop on identity and security. as our witnesses should know, each of you will have five minutes for your spoken testimony, your written testimony will be included in the record of the hearing. when you have completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. each member will have five minutes to question the panel and if time permits, we may have two rounds of questions for our panel. we will start with miss wright. you will have to unmute, i am afraid. >> thank you. chairman foster, ranking member obernolte and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss jao's work on federal agencies use on biometric technologies particularly for facial recognition. the technology, which read measures and rent characteristics, is used to compare facial images from a photo or video for identification and verification. as the technology has continued to rapidly advance, its use has expanded in both commercial and government sector. today, i will share highlights from our work on how agencies are using face show recognition and federal efforts to assess and mitigate privacy risks. last, year we reported on the results of our survey of the 24 largest agencies and the use of facial recognition technology. 18 agencies reported using the technology, the most common use was unlocking smartphones provided by agencies. there were other uses that included domestic law enforcement to generate leads for criminal investigations. as well as monitoring our controlling accessibility or facility to, for example, identify someone on the watchlist is attempting to access. such use can greatly reduce the burden on security personnel to memorize faces. federal agencies may own their own systems or access to systems in state and local governments or probe commercial providers to conduct research to facial images. agencies noted that some systems can include hundreds of millions or even billions of photos. multiple agencies reported accessing systems owned by a commercial vendor. for example, they reported it using ai tried and five victims and perpetrators and child exploitation cases. agencies are investing in research and development to further their understanding and application of the technology. some examples include dhs's science and technology directorate who sponsors technology challenges for industries to develop systems. one recent challenge was to collect and match images of individuals wearing masks. in addition, they have awarded grants to research methods to prevent identifying an individual from facial images used in research. the expanded use in the federal government, there are concerns about the accuracy of the technology, a data security risk, transparency and its usage, and the protection of privacy and civil liberties. in our survey of law enforcement agencies, some agencies did not have completed information on what non federal systems are being used by their employees. in fact, during the course of our work, multiple agencies had to pull their employees and discover they were using non federal systems even though the agency initially told them otherwise. using facial recognition systems without force assessing the privacy of implications and applicable privacy requirements can put agencies at risk of running afoul of privacy related loss regulations and guidance. they are also risks that data sets with personal information can be compromised with unauthorized individuals. unlike a password which can be changed or breached, a breach involving data derived from a face may have more serious consequences as a facial image is more permanent. we recommend that agencies improve the process to track the facial recognition systems used by their employees and assess the risks of such systems. agencies are in varying stages of implementing the recommendations. in our work examining biometric privacy practices at tsa and cbp, we found that tsa had incorporated privacy protections for its pilot private program to test the use of a technology for traveler identity verification at airport security checkpoints. however, cbp's privacy notices to inform the public a facial recognition being used and its exit program we're not always -- or complete. cbp had not conducted audits of its commercial airlines and airport partners to ensure compliance with the requirements and retaining the use of traveler photos. fully implementing our recommendations will be an important step to protect travelers information. in closing facial recognition technology is not going away the men for will likely continue to grow. as agencies continue to find utility in the technology to make their mission, balancing the benefits of the technology the, data security requirements, and privacy protections, will continue to be important. chairman foster, ranking member obernolte, and members of the subcommittee, this completes my remarks. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. and next is doctor romine. >> german, foster ranking member obernolte, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i am charles romine, director of the information technology lab and national institute of standards and technology, known as nist, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of nist, on our efforts to evaluate the privacy implications of biometrics technologies. this is home to five nobel prize winners, with programs focused on national priorities, such as artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, the digital economy, precision mythology, quantum information science, bio sciences, and cybersecurity. the mission of nist is to promote u.s. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in a way that enhanced economic security and improve our quality of life. in the newest information technology laboratory, we work to cultivate trust in information technology and meteorology. trust in the digital economy is built upon key principles, like cybersecurity, privacy, interoperability, equity, and avoiding bias in the deployment of technology. nist conducts fundamental and applied research, advances standards to understand and measure technology, and develops tools to evaluate such measures. technology standards and the foundational research that enables their development and use, are critical to advancing trust in, and promoting interoperability between digital products and services. critically, they can provide increased assurance, thus enabling more secure, private, and writes preserving technology with robust collaboration with stakeholders across government, industry, international bodies, in academia. this aims to cultivate trust and foster an environment that enables innovation on a global scale. since its establishment nearly a decade ago, nist privacy engineering programs mission has been to support the -- by playing measurements to the measurement science and system engineering principles to the creation of frameworks, risk models -- tools, and standards, that protect privacy. by extension, civil liberties. the ability to conduct thorough privacy risk assessments is essential for organizations to select effective mitigation measures including appropriate privacy enhancing technologies. modeled after nist's highly successful cybersecurity framework, the nist privacy framework is another voluntary tool developed in collaboration with stakeholders through a public and transparent process. it is intended to support organizations decision-making in product and service design or deployment to optimize unofficial uses of data, while minimizing adverse congress -- for society as a hold. since the 19 80s, nist has coordinated of the -- standard data format for the interchange of fingerprint, facial, and other biometric information. four interchange of biometric data and a lot forsman applications, extending the modality of fingerprint to include face, voice, and dna. the standard is used globally by law enforcement, homeland security, defense, intelligence agencies, and other identity management systems and developers to ensure biometric information interchanges i were in operable, and maintain system integrity and efficiency. since 2002, nist has also supported development of international standards -- primarily civil applications including i.d. cards, including e passports. protect it's authenticator's protect access to sensitive data or computer entry solutions and fraud prevention. give rights to different degrees of privacy risk, organizations need to have the means to be able to distinguish between the different degrees of privacy risk and implement appropriate mitigation measures. the mist privacy prey framework provides a structure for organizations to consider which privacy protected outcomes are suitable to their uses. the research on that privacy enhancing technologies that misconduct and the guidelines and standards that missed publishes, helps organizations and implement mitigations appropriately tailored to identified risks. privacy plays a critical role in safeguarding fundamental values such as human autonomy and dignity as well as civil rights and civil liberties. they have prioritized measurement site research and the creation of frameworks, guidance, tools, and standards that protect privacy. in addition to maintaining the mist privacy framework, it considers privacy in cybersecurity guidelines as long -- thank you for the opportunity to present on missed activities on privacy enhancing technology and i look forward to hearing your questions. >> thank you. after doctor romine, there is doctor ross. >> think you mister foster, ranking member obernolte and seen members of the subcommittee, i am grateful for the invitation to testify today. i consider this to be a great privilege, an honor to engage with the power that graciously serves our nation. biometrics is available technology that has brought applications in a number of different domains. however, it is necessary to ensure that the privacy of individuals is not unduly compromised with the biometric data is used in a certain application. the purpose of my testimony is to communicate some of the ways in which the privacy of the biometric data of individuals can be enhanced, they are by, facilitating the responsible use of this powerful technology. firstly then, the benefits of biometrics, the need for determining the identity of the person is critical in a vast number of applications. ranging from personal smartphones, modern security, from self driving vehicles to evolving, checking child vaccinations and preventing human track, personalization of customer service. biometrics is increasingly being used in several such applications. for instance, many smartphones employ automated facer fingerprint recognition for unlocking payment authentication purposes. this increase use of biometric technology is being driven by significant improvement in recognition accuracy of these systems over the past decade. indeed, the phenomenal paradigm of deep learning based on networks has fundamentally changed the landscape of face recognition and biometrics. this brings me to my second point, the privacy concerns associated with the technology. for example, face images of an individual can be linked across different applications using biometric technology thereby creating a comprehensive profile of the individual or in some cases, unintentionally divulging the persons identity that privacy was expected. another example, rapid advances in the feet of machine learning and i will -- say i have led to the development of classifiers that can automatically instruct information pertaining to age, sex, from images. this can potentially breach the privacy of individuals. one more example, a number of face data sets have been curated for research purposes by scraping publicly available face images on the web. legitimate concerns have been expressed about using these images for research purposes without use of consent. in principle, therefore, an anonymous face image can be linked to one or more face images in a curated data set, thereby potentially revealing the identity of the anonymous face. now to my final point. how can biometric technology be responsibly developed and deployed while keeping privacy in mind? firstly, by utilizing encryption, which not only ensured that the original biometric data is never revealed but that all computations take place in the encrypted domain. secondly, by engaging a paradigm for biometrics but the biometric data of an individual is distorted using a mathematical function. the distorted data can still be consistently used for biometric recognition purposes, but within a certain application. this prompts the possibility of linking the biometric data of an individual across applications. thirdly, we -- a face of age in such a way that it's biometric utilities but the ability to extract additional attributes pertaining to age, sex, race or health is obscure. websitesfourthly, by making it e difficult for face images to be scraped from public websites and social media profiles. fifth lee, by deploying privacy preserving cameras without required images are not credible by a human but can only be used in a specific application. such cameras can ensure that the images are not viable for previously unspecified purposes. in addition, i must note, that academic researchers and biometrics are becoming increasingly aware of the privacy and ethical implications of the technology they are developing. this means the recognition accuracy is not the only metric being used to evaluate the overall performance of a biometric system, rather, metrics to security and privacy are also being increasingly considered. this shift in the research culture is remarkable and bodes well for the future of the technology. thank you and i welcome any questions. >> thank you. at this point, we will begin our first round of questions. the chair will recognize himself for five minutes. first on the prospects for secure and privacy preserving digital i.d.. we are all aware of some concerning aspects of biometric technologies, it is important to recognize that there are valuable uses for these technologies that can improve our license and security. the privacy protections must be valuable along with biometric capability so that we can reap the benefits safely. with our improving digital identity act of 2021, i am a bipartisan group of colleagues, have called upon the federal agencies to modernize and harmonize our nation's digital identity infrastructure in large part by leveraging the existing biometric databases that individual states already have been placed. as part of the program to support the real i.d., but additional using the standard to make sure these identity tools are interoperable and can be used for presenting that identity both online and offline in the privacy preserving way. first, doctor romine, how can biometric technologies increase our privacy by making our identities more secure against theft and fraud? >> thank you, mister chairman. i certainly appreciate the concern that you and ranking member have on this issue. i am delighted to be here talking about this today. the guidelines that we have put in place for privacy enhancing technologies, broadly speaking, we have investments in our privacy engineering program related to understanding how we can develop new technologies that can enhance privacy protections in many different aspects of technologies. that coupled with the guidance that we are updating today on identity management and appropriate protections for identity management technologies, i think they are going to be certainly opportunities to improve, as you point out, the protections of biometrics information across the board through some of these updated guidelines. i look forward to discussing that with you on your staff further. >> thank you. obviously any broad implementation of biometric identification techniques would require implementation of privacy, protective measures. the so-called bpad methods, how can they be strengthened, are they really ready for primetime? i've been told that there is still a privacy budget that you still have to enforce and that you cannot sit there and interrogate using houma fake description. you cannot just do it repeatedly without, at some point, revealing the underlining database. there must be limits to these. we pretty much understood and hit the limits of these or are there a lot of work that has to be done to understand how effective it can be to exchange information between trusted entities without revealing everything? >> thank, you sir. a very short time ago encryption was a theoretic idea whose performance was so unbelievably slow that it was not trackable. since then, enormous tribes have been made in improving the performance. i will say that these privacy enhancing technologies particularly using cryptography as a protection mechanism have enormous potential but there is still a lot more work to be done in enhancing those to make them significantly practical. as you point out, there are situations in which even with an obscured database through encryption that is queer-able, if you provide enough queries and have a machine learning a back and to take a look at the response, as you can begin to infer some information. we are still in the process of understanding the the specific capabilities that encryption technology such as homomorphic encryption can provide in support. >> dr. ross, do you have any comments on this? particularly the idea that you can cancel your fingerprints in some sense. how does that work and does it really work yet? >> yes, thank you for your question, chairman foster. cancel biometrics has been proposed as one way to both preserve the security and privacy of the biometric data but also the ability to cancel a once a biometric template. the way it works is as follows: that say you have a fingerprint image, now you subjected to some distortions using a mathematical function and the distorted image is then used for matching purposes. in other words, if the particular image is compromised, then you would just change the mathematical function. therefore you cancel your original template, if you will, and now you generate a new fingerprint template based on this revised mathematical function. in principle, this can allow us to not store the person's original fingerprint but only the distorted version or the other version of the fingerprint. that is why the accountable property, which is really important by changing the transformation function. now to your question about evaluation -- >> i am afraid i do not want to abuse my time, which has expired. we should be able to get to a second round. we may return. at this point, i will now recognize congresses other ai programmer, a ranking member representative obernolte for five minutes. >> thank, you chairman foster. thanks to our witnesses. it has been really interesting and i'm looking for to the questions. i have been reflecting on the fact that when we talk about privacy, it really is a nonbinary ethical problems, right? you cannot say that data is completely private or data is not. we are dealing with a strange kind of continuum where we have to weigh the amount of privacy we are willing to give up against a potential benefit that we expect by giving up that privacy. it is a complicated thing. that is -- i'd like to kind of organize my questions around that because i think solving that problem is going to be key to establishing a regulatory framework of what is expected when we ask companies to protect privacy. miss wright, i think i will start with you with a question. i am really, really happy to hear that jao is participating in this hearing. i think this is really -- it sends a powerful message to those we tend to regulate when we start with ourselves and government because obviously we interact with a lot of data from a lot of different users and we ought to be experimenting on ourselves on solving this problem before we expect others to solve it. i found your testimony really compelling. i have to admit, i was very alarmed when i read that 13 out of the 14 agencies you survey, did not have complete information about their own use of facial recognition technology. i realize most of those were people using facial recognition technology to unlock their own smartphones, things like that. it made me think about the fact that maybe there's a difference between privacy when it comes to our own data. i am using my face to unlock my phone. in the privacy when we are using other people data, especially when we have a large amount of data. do you think we need to -- when we do these surveys in the future, that we need to make a distinguish meant between those different kinds of uses? >> i certainly think that that is important. the case of where we found agencies did not know with their own employees was using, it was actually the use of non federal systems to conduct facial image searches such as for law enforcement purposes. in those scenarios, what was happening is perhaps the headquarters did not have a good stance of what was happening in the regional and local offices. that is where we think it's really important for agencies to have a good understanding of what are the systems that are being used and for what purposes and then to also make sure that by accounting that inventory, that there may be necessary tools to make sure they are balancing the potential privacy risk associated with using those systems. >> all of these things -- if you are using commercial source for this kind of technology, it has to go through procurement, right? would procurement maybe be a fruitful avenue to look at in terms of informing this flow of information? >> certainly. there are a couple of different scenarios. one in which agencies might have been accessing state and local systems or commercial systems through a test or trial period and then there also might be instances where they actually have an acquisition of procurement in place. we actually have some ongoing work right now that is looking at law enforcement use and the kind of mechanisms that they are using in acquiring systems from commercial vendors. i think that information is going to be really telling for us to understand what sorts of privacy requirements are being put in place when agencies are required services from these commercial vendors. >> that makes sense. >> doctor romine, i found a really interesting thing in your written testimony when you were talking about the privacy framework and the fact that it's not a static thing, it's not by an airy, which is very much in keeping with the way i look at it as well. could you talk a little bit about how you would evaluate to be dynamic. i think part of it has to be based on use. if you you use facial recognition for verification, that is a different use case that identified it. i think users, expectations on privacy is going to be different. how do you approach that kind of ethical for? >> that is exactly right. i think you have hit it on the head in the sense of the context of use is critical to understanding the level of risk associated with the privacy considerations. one of the things that our guidance intended to do and the privacy framework intended to do is give organizations the ability to establish privacy risk management principles as part of their overall risk management for the enterprise. you talk about reputational risk and financial risk for and human capital risk. privacy risk has not been included typically in that. we are giving organizations the tool now to understand that data gathered for one purpose, when it's translated to a different purpose in the case of biometrics, can have a completely different risk profile associated with it. it is not inherent in the data. it's the context in which that data is being used. our tools allow for a deeper understanding on our parties organization on that issue. >> i see the amount of time. if i get another round here, but i'm going to ask about scope creek. thank you, mister chair. i yield back. >> we will now recognize representative carey for five minutes. next represented for five minutes. >> you are passing? okay, we will recognize representative bice for five minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman and ranking member obernolte. i have a couple of questions that i just want to touch on. this is a topic of conversation that has come up in oklahoma a couple of times on the states side. miss wright, you testified that most agencies accessing non-facial federal recognition technology do not track use or access related to privacy risk. as far as you are aware, is there any federal law that requires agencies to track this information? >> there is a broad privacy framework, i guess i will say, where you have the privacy act that does call for agencies to limit their collection as well as disclosure and use and personal information in a government system. a photo would be considered an example of a personal information. you also have the government act as well, which does include provision for agencies to conduct privacy and passed assessments when they're using systems. again, to be able to use those privacy impact assessments to analyze how the information is collected, how it is stored and shared and managed in the federal system. lastly, i will just note that when we spoke with them, they had noted that agencies must ensure that privacy requirements apply to any systems that are being operated by contractors on behalf of federal agencies. >> actually we have not talked about the contractor piece which is sort of an interesting toggle. but i want to circle back around your comments about these assessments. do you think these agencies are doing the assessments? if so, are those outcomes sort of publish that other agencies can understand maybe risks or the breadth of what they are utilizing within the agencies? >> we have seen a mix of how agencies are approaching the privacy assessment. in my statement earlier, one of the things that i mention is when you have agencies that are using systems and their agencies -- excuse me employees who are using systems and their agencies are not even aware, then then there is a likelihood that these privacy assessments have not been assessed. it's a really important thing for agencies to keep in mind as they are continuing to use facial recognition systems. >> do you think it would be helpful for congress to look at requiring these assessments to be done maybe on a periodic basis for agencies utilizing these types of biometrics? >> again, the government calls for agencies to do that but the extent to which they are doing that really varies. perhaps that is work that we can talk about if there is oversight opportunities there to look at in the extent in which they are using privacies especially in the realm of biometrics. >> perfect. when you think some of the potential adverse consequences might be of agencies of failing to track information either themselves or through third-party systems? >> a couple of things come to mind. are they using systems that have reliable data? that have quality images that will then affect the sort of matching results that will come back and the extent to which those can be trusted? you can see where there is a potential for mismatch, which then might me in a long enforcement example where you might be chasing down a league that is not going to be fruitful or you might be missing an opportunity to chase down a lead. i think that is one thing -- one piece of it. the other piece is when we think about this from a privacy perspective, is how are the images being collected and how are they being use and does the individual have any say? did they provide any consent, for example, to their photo being captured and used in this way? there are certainly a number of different risks associated. there is still the issue of data security, are these systems being used secure? we have had cyber security as a high risk area on the jao risk list for many years within the federal government and you can imagine this only opens up the door to the potential for even greater security breaches. >> i would say sitting on the cyber subcommittee under services, i think you are exactly right. we talk about this from sort of a data privacy perspective but we also need to recognize that there are certainly huge potential for cybersecurity challenges when you are collecting these types of biometrics and storing them either through a third party, which i think in some cases can be maybe more of an issue but certainly if agencies are actually storing that information themselves. my time is almost expired. i yield back. >> thank you. i believe we will have time for a second set of questions here. i will now recognize myself for five minutes. ms. wright, i guess it's abundantly clear that the u.s. taxpayer has suffered greatly from identity fraud and everything from irs refund fraud, to unemployment benefit fraud during covid. you name it. has anyone, to your knowledge, well inside jao or elsewhere, netted out the total laws from federal government from identity fraud that might be prevented with using sort of state of the art identity proofing mechanisms? >> that is certainly not something that came up in the course of the recent work that we have done. i am not aware but certainly happy to take that back and follow up with you on that. >> i think we will be asking for the record sort of what is the coat scope of such a survey would be? there appears to be just little bits and pieces of documentation of the enormous losses that the taxpayer suffer from this fall. trying to get that balance right could be an important outcome here. waterton >> the. i am happy to do that. >> secondly, one of the tough things that we are going to face as a government is sharing a data with other governments. if you talk about biometric databases or the difficulty of regulating crypto where you will ultimately need to have uniquely identified biometric lee d. duped crypto drivable licenses if you are going to prevent it from being around somewhere or all these sorts of things. this involves setting up very much a passport system. something where you have to identify that someone is operating multiple identities in multiple jurisdictions. what doctor ross, are you familiar with the sort of state-of-the-art and what might be useful there? are there investments that we can make towards more research that would allow you to ask very sensitive questions of big databases that are owned by other states or other governments? >> certainly. i think one way thing that can be harnessed, which has to be further researched, is the notion of differential privacy which would indicate that within a certain jurisdiction, you are able to do certain identity assessments using biometrics and you have specific use cases, specific purposes in which identity can be matched but in other cases the identity cannot be matched. by defining the policies, one could then use these principles that you alluded to earlier including homomorphic encryption and including differential privacy in order to ensure that that kind of functionality can be performed. however, i must note that research is still in its infancy in the context of biometrics and certainly more investment is definitely needed in order to assess the suitability of this and operational environments. for their collaboration and investment is definitely needed to implement these techniques and operational environments. >> thank you. but doctor romine, when you are involved in international standards which is part of this mission, do you get the feeling that the united states is leading the way or are their peers around the world that are a sophisticated technologically in biometrics and in privacy preserving methods? >> in the work that we are doing in the international standards arena surrounding identity management, we certainly believe we are leading in that space. there are certainly other like-minded countries that our partners are with us that value democratic ideals. it's something we strive to work closely with and they do have a very strong technical capabilities as well. >> i have been instructed that at least some european nations, you have a right to know when any government official access is your data, at least outside a criminal investigation. are these things that can be cryptographic lee guaranteed or is that really an unsolvable problem too -- if you understand my question? i dream of some technology that would allow you with cryptographic certainty that someone has touched her data. >> it's certainly theoretically possible to use cryptography to address the concern there. i would not call it foolproof necessarily. the history of advancing technologies is colored with a many different sort of advances and risks and advances and risks. risks are addressed by new technologies which creates additional risks. the goal for us is to just ensure the trustworthiness of the underlying systems and certainly cryptography can be important. >> doctor ross, you have any thoughts on the feasibility of that? >> i think it's an excellent question because one thing this entails is keeping a ledger of entrapment between humans and the data that is being stored. for example, a block chain principle has been used to keep track of certain transactions that have occurred and these are immutable. i believe that some of these principles can be a leveraged into the field of biometrics but i must maintain that more research is needed, more investment is needed, but certainly the technologies available but then it has to be incorporated into the context of biometrics. pired. thank you. my time for this round is expired. i now recognize representative obernolte for five minutes. >> thank you, dr. foster. and doctor romine, we were having that discussion about, you know, the continuum of privacy and how that works ethically with our efforts to regulate it. in a written testimony, you talked about this idea that privacy can be violated when the scope of biometric data is used differs from the expectation of the person who provided it. that's ethically -- to, right? sometimes there are suicidally beneficial uses we put that to. a good example is when we've been talking about with using clear view ai to halt sex trafficking. if you asked the people that are saved from sex trafficking, they certainly didn't get permission for the use of their data in that context. if you asked them if it's a k without, they say yes, please. right? how do you navigate that minefield? >> that's a terrific question. one of the things to keep in mind is that you, know, when you have acquired biometrics data for whatever purpose, any organization that has acquired such data, these are now assets in their control. sometimes the pressure to use those assets in ways that haven't been -- orange originally intended, is pretty enormous. the idea that, hey, we could do this into thinking we should do this with those data. that's one of the reasons we always have to stress the importance of context of use in these areas. you are absolutely right. in some cases, a new context of use may be enormously beneficial and perhaps not even controversial. another cases, could be extremely, potentially, damaging. by the way, this is the difference between cybersecurity and privacy, in the sense that as a cyber security event does not have to take place for privacy harms to occur. simply using, in this case, by metrics data in ways that were not intended and perhaps violate the expectations of those who provided the data, can create privacy events. >> sure. yeah. i completely agree. in fact, i want to ask a question about that to dr. ross. in your written testimony, you are talking about privacy violations that can occur with using facial recognition to infer racial, sexual, or health care characteristics not intended by the person providing the data. which i thought was very interesting. how do you navigate that in an ethical sense? because when i post a picture of myself on facebook, and one of my friends looks at that and says, boy, he really looks unwell, right? i can't pinpoint my finger at them and say, hey, that's a privacy violation. i did not intend for you to infer anything about my health. they would just roll their eyes because it's understood, my pictures out there. those inferences can be made by anyone who sees it. why do we make a distinction between that when, that use when a human does it, and a machine does it? >> thank you. again, an excellent question. we are really distinguishing between human-based analytics versus machine based analytics. and when you employ a machine to do this, and then you can do this and must. you can have billions of letters, you can run the software over these billions of images, make some assessments in the aggregate, without user consent. and so, it is the ability to do this repeatedly over massive amounts of data and then use that aggregate in order to, say, perform additional activities that were not indicated to the user. that is where the problem lies. if the user were to give consent saying that, yes, these images can be used for further analytics, then i believe using the machine will be productive in some cases, but in other cases, as you point out, there might be a violation of privacy. i think it all boils down to use of consent, and the fact that you can do this and must. how do we do this in a manner that the person is aware of on how their data is being used? and in a matter that is not unwittingly leave additional pieces of information that might violate their privacy. >> right. i somewhat agree. i think the distinction is not the amount of data that is processed, but the inferences that can be made that might be an intuitive to the person providing the data. quickly here, another question for you doctor ross, before we run out of time. you talk a lot in your testimony about privacy by design, which i think is a really elegant concept. consider me a skeptic because, for example, if you're using an algorithm that distorts images in a way that sex or ethnicity can't be red, we are gonna run into exactly the same problem, aren't we? that we did with cryptography, where crypto algorithms developed ten years ago don't work anymore because computers are so much more powerful. is recognition technology gets better, are those algorithms not gonna work anymore out either? >> a great point. very insightful comment. i think this is where more mathematics is needed as we start developing biometric technology and developing -- theoretical guarantees. understanding with the privacy leakages are, information leakage. and what is lacking here is privacy metrics, really. privacy metrics in some sense is a moving target because if technology cannot deduce some attribute from a face image today, it might be able to do it tomorrow. and what is deemed to be private now, today, may no longer be deemed private tomorrow. that is where the concern is. this is why we are not -- the technology evolves, these collaboration's that establish, it must be re-visited. it's not static in time. it is dynamic in time. because as technology advances, these policies must evolve and also the metrics used to evaluate must evolve. in short, i completely agree with your statement. some of the problems in cryptography can potentially manifest itself in these other techniques. but it's not unsolvable. >> right. >> i think with adequate technology development, especially employing mathematical transformations, i believe a solution can be found. >> fascinating discussion. thank you for that. i yield back, mister chair. >> thank. you i think there may be time for an additional round. we will see how things go. we will now recognize representative perlmutter for five minutes. >> i was hoping miss weiss might go first. i'll never be able to catch up to jay erbil on this subject. stephanie, i can at least talk to her about it at softball. anyway, i want to thank the panel. there was a word you used, dr. ross, and then you got into this conversation with mr. obernolte about the fact that, you know, technology may make some of what we are trying to do today, in terms of privacy and cybersecurity, outdated tomorrow. it reminded me of a great oklahoma, will rogers, it was about certainty, but i will use it with immutability. the only thing that's immutable are death in texas. my question is, i'm just a science fiction person when it comes to this, is thinking of minority report with tom cruise. you may have all kind of addressed that. every place he goes they know him already. eventually, he has to have his eye taken out because of this. i went and bought an ipad holder from a company called whether deck the other day. we were in there for something else. i saw it, it looked good, so i bought the thing. all of a sudden, i'm getting ipad holder ads like crazy. i didn't even look for it online. i just bought the darn thing. i feel like i've got either big business looking over my shoulder, or big government looking over my shoulder. i'm making more of a statement and then asking a question. but i guess miss wright, i will start with you. doctor romine was talking about privacy versus cybersecurity. what can we do in the congress to ensure ourselves a little bit more privacy? >> i think a really key, important factor is how we hold -- i will start a federal government -- that we hold agencies accountable for the information they are collecting. the for purpose for which the information is being used, how it's being stored, shared, and sorted. those are fundamental things to start with as we think by this issue of privacy. to really think about what's applications or use cases we think should be permitted or restricted. because i think you will see a handle on where the concerns are with respect to privacy. again, at the end of the day, this is all about trade-offs. while there might be some convenience factors, there might be some security benefits as well. there's also the issue of privacy and being able to protect your personal information. i think that's where the tension lies. >> well, there is a tension as well between the kind of privacy we might want from state or federal, local governments, versus the privacy we may want from private enterprise, you know? the thing i ran into, it was a spontaneous purchase of this ipad holder. all of a sudden, i'm getting ads about it. you have got to really sizeable entities out there looking over your shoulder. i think we, in the congress, need to think about both of those, when we are thinking about, particularly about privacy and cybersecurity. gentlemen, anybody have a comment to my sort of general proposition? here it's not science based, personal based. >> i would be happy to share some comments. i think the issue you are describing is actually very important. namely, exchange of biometric data. it is collected for one purpose and then it can be transmitted to another agency which might use it for a different purpose. i think that is a legitimate concern. one way, in order to kind of prevent this, even before it happens, is by ensuring that when we store the biometric data in one entity, that it is suitably encrypted, suitably transformed. when it is used in a different entity, or by a different entity, it is encrypted differently, or transferred along differently. what happens here is then, now these two sets of data cannot be linked. they have been transformed differently. that becomes very important. on the flip side, it might actually prevent, say, one agency from communicating with another agency because the biometric data cannot be accessed. this is where you ask a specific specific -- there are certain situations when it is acceptable. in other situations, like the one you described, it is not acceptable. this is where technology developments must be augmented with legislative instruments to engage the data in a manner that is appropriate in different uses. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you. i will now recognize representative bice for five minutes. >> thank you. and for representative perlmutter, my friend and coach, i think, part of that i recognize the connections there, it is re-marketing your email is likely tied to your credit card in some way, or you may have entered your email address when you checked out. your email is tied to social media, then when they realize that you purchased that, they started marketing to you all sorts of things. that's been going on for quite some time. for a lot of folks, it is concerning. we begin to wonder, how did they know, how did they get this information? that's big data at its finest. i want to talk, here in oklahoma, this last session we passed house bill 29 68, the computer data privacy act. the bill allows for the option for personal rights to be returned to the individual, along with the option for cancellation of the information in a private companies database. to me, this seems like it could be a solution for privately collected biometrics data. this is to any of the witnesses here. what do you think are the most concerning aspects of developing biometric technology? >> i would be happy to offer some comments, if you don't mind. >> sure. >> to both parts of your excellent question, i think one of the most obvious concerns about biometrics is the ability to link different data sets. i think that clearly constitutes a problem in some cases. in other cases, it is an advantage. once again, as the technology improved, as the recognition accuracy numbers improve, this kind of linking can be done with more certainty. because the numbers are decreasing. i think this is where policies for regulating the use of the technology become important. and some use cases, it is absolutely essential to have the functionality. in other cases, it may not be required. secondly, in fact, in response to your first comment, again an excellent comment, is one a user in a private enterprise offers their face image, or fingerprint image, it would be nice if they can say, for what purposes it can be used. for example, if it's a face image, they might say, well, you can use this for biometric recognition, but it should not be used for assessing, say, age or health cues. the moment they specify that, their data should be transformed in a manner that would facilitate the functionality prior to storing it in a database. this gives some degree of control to the user, because the user is now able to specify what kind of information can be gleaned, and what kind of information should not be gleaned that. technology is then being harmless to impart this kind of functionality. i think that is one important -- where more investment is needed. many techniques have been proposed in the literature. these have not been evaluated. the scale of these things has to be assessed. there is tremendous opportunity if we were to invest in this front. excellent question. thank you for hearing me. >> anyone else care to comment on that particular aspect? >> i'd be happy to weigh in. some of the challenges involved via bought ability as my colleagues said, doctor ross said, to glee certain kinds of information and some of the potential societal harms or equities that might occur. i will go back to the ranking member's question about his facebook image and having a friend of his seat and say wow, you do not look very good. imagine instead of his friend, it was an insurance company deciding, allow, you do not look very good. and taking steps as a result of that assessment. those are the kinds of societal harms that i think we need to be wary of. >> perfect. i think this is a really great point and that use of those biometrics is incredibly important and we need to be able to develop systems and control to be able to allow for individuals to have some sort of say and how their information is utilized. thank you for your time. mister chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. i think we will now embark on an actual final round of questions. i will recognize myself for five minutes here. doctor ross, you seem to be coming close to describing something that is like a license regime for collecting biometrics data. let's say someone wanted to put a camera, facial recognition camera in front of their nightclub to find people that have repeatedly shown up in the nightclub and caused violence. it sounds like a legitimate thing. if they start transferring that information around, then there are a bunch of issues. are there a standards? there might also be a question for doctor romine. are there are standards being utilized for how you would license the collecting of the data and also licensing the transfer of data? so that you would actually -- if you were holding biometric data on someone, you would have to also be able to demonstrate a chain of custody that shows that you had achieved this -- you would have obtained this only through a set of license distributors of data with customer consent at each point. have people gone that far or any country gone in that direction? >> thank you for your question, chairman foster. i will address the first question. i am sure my colleague will answer the other. the first part, there is research that is being conducted in which privacy is being moved closer to the sensor then to the data because once the data is acquired, it is available. yes, you can encrypted, you can transform it, but someone has access to the data. what if we move the privacy aspect to the camera itself in such a way that the camera is designed in a manner that it can only extract or require other specific aspects of the scene? that becomes very important because the digital version will be available. even prior to storing them at the level, might be one way in which the scenario described can be handled because the data will no longer lend itself to be processed by a different organization or entity because the data has already been put up at the time it was acquired by the camera. that would be one technology solution but as i mentioned earlier, these things have to be evaluated. much more research, much more investment, much more evaluation. these are needed in order to substantiate these principles. >> will this ultimately require, for some purposes, basically a government back door? for example, if you have cameras looking at elevators, just to make sure you are opening and closing the elevators as fast as possible where you only really have to detect the presence of a human. all of a sudden you find some massive crimes have been committed. the government might want to go to a trusted court system and say, okay, bypass the observation, i want to see that person's face who's in the elevator. are these necessary things or are these policy options that we are going to have to face? i >> think it will be a good mix of technology built innovation and policy that are based in which the same data can be stored in different formats, different transformations so that it can be used for some purposes and not for other purposes. i think technology can be applied in order to transform the data in different formats but then individual formats should be guided by the policy as to who can access it and who cannot access it. i think it would require a good coupling between the technology innovations and some very nice policies to make it happen. >> dr. romine, do you have any comments about when you engage in some of your foreign colleagues in this, they face a very different set of attitudes as in the united states? >> certainly that is true. for example, as you know, the gdp are in europe envisions a very different way of approaching protection for privacy than we currently have here in the united states. that said, one of the reasons that the privacy framework that we have developed is regulation diagnostic and technology agnostic is that we wanted to be adaptable, usable around the globe and to be able to provide assurance that if you follow these guidelines, you have evidence to support your compliance with whatever regulatory regime you happen to be in at any given time. >> thank you. i will now recognize representative obernolte for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman foster. i would like to continue our discussion about the kind of ethical philosophy around privacy. a couple of interesting things have come up in this last round of questioning like how do we safeguard this privacy? from a 30,000 foot level. i think there is some things that can work and some things that probably will not work. i think doctor ross, you eventually had a disclosure which i used to think that that was a great idea and i started looking at and use your license agreement for software. there are pages and pages, people scroll through, they click agree, no one ever really read that. what's good is it possibly going to do for us to add another paragraph and say, here is how you are going to use your facial data that you give us? there was an episode of south park a couple of years ago when it was a parody of one of the characters that inadvertently gave apple the right to do medical experimentation on him. his friends were, like what, you just click that and signed without reading it? who does that? the answers, everybody does that, right? i do not think disclosure is the answer. i think maybe control over who has access to the data. if i give my data to apple for certain purpose, the fact that apple should not give that data to someone else to use for a different purpose, i think that is closer to the mark. i think ultimately we are not going to find a real regulatory solution to this problem without looking at the things we are trying to prevent. that's what attorneys call the parade. when asked about that. doctor for romine, i will ask you about this. we are entering in an era when anonymity is a lot less than it used to be. that is going to be true regardless of what approach, we as a government, take towards privacy. can you walk us through like the worst things we have failed to act, like the worst things that can happen? i think those are the ones that we have to be trying to prevent. >> fair enough. i will say figuring out what the work things are my taking some time. some of the things that i have already alluded to is this idea of organizations in making decisions based on influences from biometric data that disadvantages certain groups over others. >> let me stop you there though because we have had that problem where there are ethics around ai algorithms that we are dealing with that issue. i think -- i mean the solution to that is you focus on the fact that that behavior is already illegal. if i'm going to kill somebody, it's equally illegal for me to kill somebody with a knife or a gun. the tool does not matter, the act is what matters so why is that different in the case of privacy? as it is a >> i do not think it's so much different as it is -- it's a consequence of the lack of privacy or privacy compromise. privacy in this case. or compromising a privacy event would lead to that activity. there are a very things that i can imagine. there are aggregates societal decisions that are made that may be predicated on aggregate data that violates privacy considerations and those kinds of things, policies may be instituted that our enamel to certain populations as a result of issues related to privacy or biometrics. in all of these cases, what we have discerned is that there is no technological solution to solve the privacy problem and there is no purely -- i think there is no purely policy solution that is going to solve that problem. it is an ongoing joint efforts of providing appropriate technologies for improving privacy protections and matching those with appropriate policy decisions that can prevent some of these. >> i agree with you. i definitely think in crafting policy, we need to be looking at -- ask yourselves the question, what problems are we trying to solve? what are we trying to avoid? merely focusing on anonymity, i think it's a fools era because we have a lot less anonymity now than we are used to, and we will. there is nothing we can do about that. i think there's a big difference between when we talk about the parade of corals. whether or not it is government using and violating peoples policy -- privacy or other entities. government has, of course, a power that other entities do not. if you want me -- look at what china does with some of the personal data. that is the top of my list. i really do not think we are going to get there without -- from a policy framework standpoint without thinking about the problem we are trying to solve. it's a fascinating discussion. i'm sure we are going to continue to have it over the next couple of years. thank you very much, chairman foster, i really enjoyed it. i yield back. >> we will now recognize our lawyer and residence for five minutes. representative perlmutter. my >> thing mister obernolte is really focusing on the question of the day. i remember me a sermon in state senate about 20 plus years ago and we were just trying to have an internet with in the colorado legislator and something came up and we were talking about social security numbers and should we release them and all that stuff. for privacy purposes i said, well, i was sort of being cavalier and i said, there is no such thing as privacy. to your point, there is no such thing as anonymity. it is only grown since the last 30 years. the question is, i think from a policy perspective, technologically, we can address things and as miss wright for said, you give up things to get something. you can make it tougher for cybercriminal or for somebody to use your data but you are giving some efficiency or some ease of use in the process. the supreme court for in several decisions, none of which i liked. the one i liked the lease is the reversal of roe v. wade but they basically say that under the united states constitution, there is no such thing as a right to privacy. i want to feel secure that when i go i don't know -- i mean, i want to feel secure that when i buy something spontaneously, that that doesn't alert everybody under the sun to something. or when i walk by, that doesn't send out all kinds of -- sleds cell max, or get him. i guess this is for everybody, including my two colleagues. i don't know. to jay's question, what is it we are trying to solve? what do we want here? do we want to create a right to privacy, now that the supreme court says there isn't such a thing? we certainly, legislatively you can say something like that. and then how far we want to take it. those are the questions. and then for the technology, help us put that into place, knowing that technology is going to evolve and change and things we thought were in place will be replaced. that's just the perlmutter thinking on jay obernolte's line of questioning. if anybody's got a thought, it's the responsibility of the technologies. and you, miss wright, the director of the agency that thinks about this stuff, to think, to say okay, from a technology standpoint, we can do some things if you guys give us a clear direction. i think bill is trying to do that on some of his digital legislation. i think jay had some stuff to. i don't know. doctor foster, i'm gonna turn it back to you. you can do with my two minutes whatever you wish. >> all right. that's an interesting -- you know, i will ask you a question. so much of this is gonna have to do with our cell phones. doctor, romine, is there good coordination with the manufacturers of the cell phones? there's incredible ai being built into the next generation of smartphones but all of it is inside the secure enclave where you will have some idea that it is trusted from a computer. are you having thoughtful interactions or do you get the opinion that they are just trying to set up a walled garden for people who want privacy information under their control? >> we work with a very large and broad cross section of technology, including cell phone manufacturers and providers. an interesting, having further reflection on the ranking member obernolte's question about significant harm's, one of them that i can imagine is either through cell phone tracking or face recognition, you know, cameras, street cameras, so on. someone trying to access safe and reliable medical services, whether it is psychiatric services or something else. suddenly, that becomes a matter of public record. someone has now sort of been outed because of biometrics information, privacy information, trying to obtain services. this is another one of these very serious potential issues. but, yes, we are working in discussion with cell phone manufacturers and other advanced technology firms all the time. >> right. okay. thank you. we could go on all afternoon on this. i just really -- i suppose i have to close the hearing out. before we bring the hearing to close, i want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the committee. it is really valuable for us in congress, as we struggle with all of the policy issues here on biometrics and policy, that we have access to real quality experts, so we can understand the technological reality of the feasibility of things, and don't generate legislation based on wishful thinking instead of technical reality. the record here will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from the members, and for additional questions the committee may ask the witnesses. the witnesses are now excuse. and the hearing is now adjourned. next, a review of the most watched and controversial decisions of the u.s. supreme court's recent term. from the new york guns case to the overturning of roe v. wade, which eliminated abortion as a constitutional right. lawyers and law for pressers examined those decisions and other cases decided this term, in this discussion hosted by the american constitution society. >> good afternoon everyone. welcome to the american constitution society's annual supreme court review for the 2021, 2022 terms. my name is christopher -- the country's foremost progressive legal network with more than 200 student and lawyer chapters across the season -- then acs mission is to shape debate and nurture the face and -- sure the law is -- if you aren't already, i encourage you to become a member of acs. go to acs law dot org where you can join and find more information about events like this one. before we get started, a few housekeeping notes. one and a half hours of california -- is available for today's discussion. additional information and cle materials can be found on the acs website and will be shared with all participants in a follow-up email. there will be time at the end of today's discussion for obvious conscience, to submit a question please use the q&a box at the bottom of the zoom screen. do not use the chat to ask your question as we will not be monitoring it. your question will not be put in the queue. if you are a member of the press asking a question, please identify the outlet for which you are reporting at the top of your question. now let's turn to today's discussion. each year, as a supreme court term draws to a close, and a summer begins, acs host a discussion with academics, practitioners, and advocates, about some of the most consequential and talked about cases of the past term. in that sense, this year is no different. in just a minute, you will hear from this year's distinguish panel who will explain and provide context for some of the most watched and anticipated cases of the term. in other ways, the chair is very different. it was the first full term that justice amy coney barrett served on the court, therefore the first full term for the court's conservative supermajority. it was a term that second half was conducted across the street from where the confirmation took place for now justice ketanji brown jackson, the first black woman nominated and confirmed to the u.s. supreme court. it was a term conducted amidst growing calls for court reform, that ranged from moisture engine ethics rules, to term limits for justices. adding seats to the courts. it was a term in which the full draft opinion of one of the most consequential decisions in the past half century was leaked to the public, months before the decision was released, giving us advanced warning about how this court would handle the latest chapter in the fight over reproductive rights. and perhaps offering a glimpse into how this conservative supermajority might handle other cases looking to abandon long-standing precedent. it was a term in which many court watchers have faith especially close attention to all of the court heard cases. to give an idea of what these decisions say about today, and where it might be headed tomorrow. to delve more into these cases and issues it's my pleasure to introduce our moderator for today's discussion, tom goldstein. he is best known as one of the nation's most experienced supreme court practitioners. he has served as counsel to a party in roughly 130 marriage cases at the court, and recently argued his 45th. in addition to practicing law, tom has taught supreme court litigation at harvard law school since 2004. he is also the cofounder and publisher of scotus law, a website devoted to comprehensive coverage of the court, which is the only -- to receive the p body award. he has received recognition of his practice on the supreme court and for his appellate advocacy generally. in 2010, the national law journal knowing to him one of the 40 most influential lawyers of the decade. we are delighted and lucky to have him again as the moderator for this annual event. welcome, tom. >> thanks so much, christopher. wow. a lot of peoples worst, in terms of what would happen in a supreme court term, came to pass. at the same time, this is a day of celebration for many because of the justice jackson taking her seat on the court today. we have an incredibly accomplished panel of academics and practitioners who are specialists in the fields of the courts major decisions from the term. they are able to talk to us about what the court has held and what it means for later cases, later controversies, that are sure to come up as follow-up decisions and new issues come to the court. with this, as christopher says, conservative majority. we are going to walk through the major decisions of the term, including, of course, with respect to abortion and with respect to gun rights. immigration, citizenship, and viral mental law, including major decisions that were just issued a couple hours ago. and we will try and put those in the context of what this court is doing, and where it is going. that final ruling it is making, it's implications for any attempt at progressive legal development. and related controversies, including, of course, the question of the leak of the opinion, why it happened, what's it will mean for the court going forward. we are going to start with the reproductive rights, and we have an incredible specialist in the field but caroline corbin is at miami law school -- an attorney with the aclu's reproductive rights project. maybe you can start us off with some of those decisions. >> okay. so the first thing i want to say about dobbs is that it is a devastating decision that will ruin live. even though we will be conducting a more home blooded constitutional analysis, i'm well aware that losing the right against forced birth, has truly dreadful, real world consequences. here's what i will do in my ten minutes. first, i will summarize the majority opinion, next i will consider possible consequences for other fundamental rights, and finally, i will offer some critiques. we all know that mississippi banned abortion at 15 weeks, which is way before viability. previous supreme court decisions, including roe v. wade -- not only established the right to abortion but how that bans the form of viability violated that. right -- the constitution does not protect the right to abortion. according to the court, the constitution only protects fundamental rights that are either explicitly listed in the constitution, or that are deeply rooted in our nation's history. the text of the constitution is not mentioned. according to the court, the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in our nation's history or tradition. nothing in state constitutions, state statutes, judicial opinions, treatise is, the history of the court declared that women have a right to end a pregnancy. on the contrary, the court writes, most states have banned abortion but at the time the 14th amendment was adopted. it is the 14th amendment that provides protection for fundamental rights. the right didn't exist when the 14th amendment was ratified. the right does not exist today. what about -- the principle that courts should follow precedent? the supreme court five reasons why over -- overruling woe -- these reasons do not match the -- whether or not to follow precedent. in other words, in overruling precedent on abortion, the supreme court ignored precedent on -- what are these reasons? most significantly for the court, roe was egregiously wrong the day it was decided. just as brown versus board of education was right to overrule the indefensible -- dobbs's right to overrule roe v. wade. one reason row is shameful is because it was an exercise of raw judicial power in making up a new right. okay. i know i'm in the summary stage. i just want to pause there. because i have to underscore the chutzpah of complaining about the exercise of broad judicial power in row, given that dobbs is the poster child for the exercise of raw judicial power. to compare roe to plessy? plus he is the case that constitutional segregation, a case that ensured black americans were second class. -- roe didn't do that. just the opposite. it helped women move away from second classes. back to the reasons why it was right for them to overrule it. another reason was that existing abortion doctrine was un-workable. this is one of the factors that is often considered. courts can actually apply precedent to make sense -- about how the court applies it is just rubbish. so much of the opinion. the rule that all pre-viability bands an unconstitutional, the rule that could easily have decided this case, that's about as simple a rule as you will ever find in constitutional law. all right. to symbolize the majority opinion, which is the controlling opinion, because it has five votes, the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and judicial. to conclude otherwise is so egregious, we have to overall the cases that recognize the right to abortion. justice kavanaugh's concurrence adds nothing but if a claim of neutrality. he argues the court is simply -- with regard to abortion. true. the majority holds the constitution doesn't protect it. but it didn't hold the constitution prohibits it either. we should be thankful for this neutrality. chief justice roberts, who would prefer to eliminate women's rights incrementally, laments the fact that the court did not simply -- without complete eradicating the right to abortion. justice thomas would burn it all down. as far as justice thomas is concerned, substantive due process is an oxymoron. he would eliminate all fundamental rights that depend on it, including the right to contraception, the right to sexual intimacy, the right to same sex marriage. it does not mention the right to -- notably, the court doesn't need to adopt thomas's approach to eliminate other fundamental rights. that majorities new test is enough to put them at risk. remember, if the right is not deeply rooted in this supreme court version of history, then it is not protected by the constitution. i think we can all be fairly confident the supreme court can readily construct a history where neither contraception, nor sexual intimacy, nor same-sex marriage -- there are obviously a lot's worth of criticism. let me highlight three. first, it is ludicrous to make in 19th century history a touchstone for our fundamental rights today. as the dissent pointed out, this approach means women in the 21st century do not have a right to abortion because the same white men in the 19th century that did not let women vote also did not declare a woman had a right to abortion. that is no way to do fundamental rights. we should not be relying on a history filled with racism and sexism and homophobia to determine our fundamental rights today. second. even if history were -- the courts conclusion that abortion was not deeply rooted is contestable. this is setting aside all the issues the supreme court -- even if the court were to look at history and frame the right for the most narrow way possible. for example, when the supreme court was deciding that a marriage equality was protected by the constitution, it didn't ask whether same-sex marriage was deeply rooted in our nation institution. it asked whether marriage was deeply rooted. here, the court did not have to ask -- it could ask, is the right to bodily autonomy deeply rooted, or the right controlling your own medical treatment, or the right to make decisions about procreation, or your family, or as the dissent but it, the right to own your own body? dobbs majority intentionally did not. in other words, the fix was in from the start. third. one of the majority's motives is that abortion is different from any other right because abortion is murder. okay. it didn't use such blunt language, but that is the gist. it is a major reason why roe is so much more egregious than other substantive due process decisions. of course, this idea that a fertilized egg is a person from the moment of conception, who deserves the same consideration as an actual woman, is ultimately a religious point of view and not the universal. in the u.s., it's the view of a powerful subset. other religions don't share that view. in fact, one synagogue is actually challenging and abortion ban on the grounds that abortion -- what's my final point? my final point is that the supreme court is imposing one religious viewpoint on all of us. or, to put in a way for you law geeks, right into the constitution one particular view of economics that dobbs -- a particular religious view of pregnancy. there is tons more to be said about equality, callousness, but i'm on a strict time limit. i will stop there. >> thanks so much, caroline. sorry. thanks so much, caroline. very impressed that you able to stick to the timeline in such a momentous decision. let me pause and see if anybody else from the panel wants to raise an issue or ask a question. i'm particularly interested in what the next generation of controversies is going to be. both of respect to reproductive rights, -- more generally. where do they go next? is there functionally a sixth justice majority, and it's just a chief justice holding back on the question of timing, where does a supermajority that really is convinced that prior doctrine was grossly wrongly decided and that the constitution has nothing protective to say about any of this, what comes next? caroline or anybody? >> as i said, what comes next is the elimination of any other right that they feel hostile toward. because again, the new text for determining whether there is a substantive due process right is whether it's deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. i think that leaves many of the right to now enjoy the vulnerable. certainly, i think the right to contraception could very well be in its sights next. because, again, they can look to history, cherry pick what they want to see, and conclude that this was not a right that was recognized by the men who made the laws and wrote the tree's, and decided court cases. and therefore, it is not protected by the constitution. >> what about with respect to reproductive rights, specifically? what are we looking at? are we looking at, you know, different forms of contraception that conservatives use for if asians? what's next? >> i think if you are setting aside one else is gonna get restricted -- here is how i see it unfolding. first, they have already eliminated abortions from unwanted pregnancies. that's -- the next one to go will be abortions even if they are medically necessary, because doctors will air on the side of caution. they are worried about losing their license. they don't know if some judge is going to second guess their decision about why their abortion is necessary. the next thing that will be attacked will be contraception. it will be deemed completely inaccurately -- so plan be will no longer become available. next will be medicines that might cause miscarriages, because, again, doctors are worried. they don't want to be accused of inducing and abortion. and so, they will air on the side of abortion caution, and stopped prescribing. that also, but if life truly begins at abortion, medical research might be in trouble. ivf might be in trouble. the states will be coming after the women as well. especially if they can't target the providers anymore, as might be the case if medication abortion becomes more widespread. they are going to start imposing criminal penalties on women as well as abortion providers. because maybe the women are the only ones they can get their hands on. but then, states will try and prevent women from trying to go to other states to get abortions. we already see states drafting law to try and do that. next? mix carriages will be investigated as abortions. miscarriages are insanely common. everyone knows someone who has miscarriages. just ask the women in your lives. but because you can't necessarily tell the difference between a miscarriage or an abortion. the term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. anytime a woman seeks medical care for her miscarriage, she may be investigated as possibly violating a law inducing and abortion. they'veagain, women's behavior g pregnancy will be monitored. after all, we've already established the precedent the fetus has more rights than the woman. let's do you think i'm just being hysterical, all these things have already happened -- it's a dystopian nightmare come true. i haven't even gotten to the idea that embryos are people. and who knows what might flow from that. you asked me what might unfold next in terms of women's access to control their bodies. i think those are some of the things that come next. >> and what do you think can be done if the constitution doesn't provide any of this protection? do you think there is a realistic prospect of federal legislation? the president saying he would support ending the filibuster, with respect to making roe v. wade a statutory right, state constitutional right? are they are just gonna be battles everywhere? is this gonna be a ground war that goes on for decades? >> yes. it. will there are so many questions that have been raised by this. everything from, how do you stop someone from traveling to another state? the free speech implications. you talked about abortion in a state that doesn't allow it? you advertise for another state? will there be endless litigation, yes. there will be endless litigation. -- what can be done? people asking me this? possibly, we will have a federal law. maybe the federal government will establish clinics on federal property. perhaps it will make medication abortion, the abortion pill, easier to obtain. i don't know, i really don't know with the odds are of that happening. the next focus is what happens in the states. it's all about with the states do or do not align. we already know half of them are poised to eliminate the right to abortion. there are some states that have a firm -- affirmatively gone out of their way to protect abortion. there are some states, like florida, for example, that has constitutional prop protection for abortion in their own state constitution. and so they will be litigation in florida about what happens there when the republican controlled legislature tries to take away right, that a more liberal judiciary had held was protected by the florida constitution explicit right to privacy. >> daryl, do you want to raise this question of state constitutional protections and litigation? >> yeah. i think the point is -- nothing to -- excellent presentation about the problems about the protection not being nationwide. what's the legislative fix is. one thing that's apparent to me is that one thing we might see is a whole new round of abortion rights politics playing out in state judicial races. why? because state judicial races, in most states, are statewide races. you can't gerrymander, you know, an outcome with respect to the elected judiciary in some of the states in a way that the state legislature might be gerrymandered to insulate it from unpopular abortion restricting kind of legislation, as we have seen already. i'm kind of wondering what you think the future is when we talk about state constitutional rights to abortion, which, as people on the panel know, would not be subject to federal judicial review, right? the state supreme court is the last word on what the state constitution rights guarantee. >> caroline? >> again, i think it will be -- the battle will be fought at the state level for wet it is allowed or not allowed in a state. i don't know how that will shape out. we will get a better sense as time goes on. >> darrell, why don't we stick with you? -- among his many specialties is the second amendment. obviously, this term we have an absolutely momentous second amendment decision which takes us beyond just the threshold question of whether there is an individual right untethered from a militia in the second amendment. the follow-up question -- now the rubber hits the road. we have a majority disagreement willing to take up guns rights cases and put meat on the bones of the question of what it means. so, darrell, can you take us through that? >> sure, absolutely. thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. the case i'm going to talk about is called new york state rifle and pistol association versus bruen. or a nicer path versus bruen. it would billed as the second amendment case of the last decade. there is no doubt it delivered. they're gun right forces put all their ships on this case. it came up with a trifecta. what did they want? they wanted the supreme court to say that the second amendment right to wear arms extends beyond the home. it did. they wanted the supreme court to say that the licensing rules that require some showing of proper cause we -- sometimes known as may issue loss -- required probable cause, or good cause to obtain a license to carry a gun in public was unconstitutional. the court said that as well. and then the big issue that i think most people that were sort of casually watching it, but which i was deeply interested in, and in fact wrote an amicus, filed an amicus on behalf of either party, was this methodological issue. the gun rights people wanted the court to say that the method of figuring out whether some things are regulation, violates a second amendment or not, is via text history and tradition only approached. and they got that as well. they really did hit the jackpot with this super majority of his core on these issues that have been close to the heart of their rights advocates for the past 20 years. just briefly, before i recap the case, what does this mean? well, in a narrow way, it means that some of these states that have these may issue rules will have to go back and revise them. the court was fairly clear that the states -- whether it's more objective metrics for issuing licenses, that's constitutional. the states that have the issue licenses, like new york, california, new jersey, so forth, will go back and revise their law. the big issue is this -- because why it is such a big issue is because it affects not just this narrow issue about licensing, it affects how the courts are supposed to approach every regulation, whether we're talking about regulations on the hands of -- guns in the hands of 18 year olds. when we're talking about regulations on magazines or ar-15s. when we are talking about the so-called sensitive places doctrine where schools and government buildings can presumably borrow guns from the property. all these things are now up for grabs, that the court has endorsed this condition, only approach. there's no other way to say. we are in a brain new world, with respect to them second amendment and its effect on our lives. let me recap the case very briefly. my surface, versus bruen, involve the challenge by two plaintiffs to the new york licensing law. this licensing law had been in place for over 100 years, known as the sullivan law. this required to have an unrestricted license to carry a gun in the state of new york. you had to submit an application to the -- the local law enforcement officials or a judge and show proper cause. was proper cause? according to new york, proper cause was some kind of need that is different than just the general need of having a gun for self defense shared by everybody. you carry a lot of money, you are a government official, like a judge in peril because of the nature of your job. that was the kind of proper cause this licensing law required. this was challenged as, i said, as a violation of the second amendment. a six justice conservative super majority delivered for the plaintiffs and for gun rights advocates. the first thing thomas wrote, justice clarence thomas, wrote for the majority. he's said that bear means it just a carry. just to be able to carry that gun outside the home. he said that history is the metric by which you decide whether you can carry guns are not. he says the history showed a fairly robust tradition of allowing people to carry guns outside their homes for purposes of self-defense. that there was unequivocal tradition that-limited that to a good cause showing. he also rejected what was the predominant form of a review of second amendment cases that ever since the supreme court's big decision essentially holding there is an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes like self-defense, inhaler, that's 2008, rejected the kind of approach the lower courts had developed for over a decade. that approach was a two-step framework. the first step of this framework was a categorical or historical approach, where the court would look at categories of history and try to make a determination about whether the kind of issue that the party had brought up even raised a second amendment claim at all. so a person saying i want to be able to keep this shoulder fired missile, for example. that doesn't present a second amendment question at all. it is categorically outside the second amendment. why? because there are long-standing relations on -- having a shoulder fired missile is obviously a dangerous and unusual weapon. the second prong of this two part framework in the lower courts was wet went -- i think it was a conventional tailoring or scrutiny analysis that has allowed governments to proffer some kind of information or evidence about why they are regulating, what's legitimate purpose they are trying to achieve through the regulation. and how much it actually impacts otherwise constitutionally protected activity. this tended a rise in the -- so familiar in many areas of constitutional law. justice thomas writing for the majority opinion, for the majority says this is one step too many. only the traditional approach is the way to figure out whether something is a second amendment violation or not. he was quick to add in the opinion that, clearly, we live in a different era than in 1791, when the second amendment was ratified. and what he assumed is that lower courts will take modern regulations from the 21st century, or the 20th century, and look at them if they are in some sense analogous to a historical regulation. he says you don't need an exact twin, but you have to have some kind of analog and that determines whether or not a regulation is constitutional. justice alito wrote a concurrence, mostly taking on justice breyer's defense. he stipulated that the only issue being decided in the case was about the licensing rules that nothing about who can possess guns, who can buy guns, the kinds of weapons available, was being decided that day. justice kavanaugh, with a chief for us to roberts, also reiterated that the holding with-limited about this question about licensing, this is about may or shall, discretion versus lack of discretion of issuing these licenses. he reiterated that it's not absolute, even sided prior supreme court decisions in heller and mcdonald versus city of chicago, which is the incorporation case. that properly interpreted a variety of gun regulations available, and met nothing in the opinion should cast doubt on long holding prohibitions of guns in the hands of felons or the mentally ill, guns in places like schools and -- even again quoting a prior decision that says, neither just examples there might be either -- others. bear rhoda concurrence questioning the length of time to determine the history is. just as breyer's dissent, which essentially said, look at the real cost of gun violence in america. you are shackling legislators and people representatives in being able to address it with this hide bound history only approach that, a, is a rejection of what was settled in president in the lower courts. and to, it is a type of approach that justices are not able to handle. they may not know with the historical materials they are looking at actually say i mean. it's incredibly judge empowering to do this all by analogy, which just depends on levels of generality. so it's a new world. why do i think for the future? i'll summit very quickly. certainly, i think that the future is about figuring out, you know what kind of regulations can survive this kind of -- i think a lot of what we had assumed about data on gun violence or chronological data is gonna have to be re-packaged and explained to courts about how it relates to this and a logical work the courts are supposed to employ. dangerousness, for example, how i'm going to do something with a historical regulation. i certainly think issues like training and this issue about where guns can be prohibited, because they are sensitive, will be the new front of both litigation and legislation in the future. >> thank you so much, darrell. does anybody on the panel want to raise something before -- >> >> i would be curious to talk about, you mentioned, darrell, justice kavanaugh's concurring, which i thought was really interesting. he and the chief justice have his concurrence. they judge joined the majority opinion. it's really hard to reconcile what the concurrence is saying with the majority opinion. the concurrence seems to limit the rationale for striking down this new york law to the standard of discussion in the new york regime. as you mentioned, it has this long block quote from the heller opinion that lists the kind of regulations that were considered presumptively lawful, whatever that means. some of those regulations don't seem to have nearly the kind of historical pedigree that this new york statute had. and so if the new york statute could not cut it how do things like, you know, prohibitions on the mentally ill or sensitive places, the kinds of laws that are described here, like schools, government buildings, how do those get of health? and so -- just wondering how you see the litigation playing out on this? i suppose these two justices did join that majority opinion. they also seem to be sending a strong signal to the lower courts that a lot of these kind of regulations should be upheld. >> right it's an excellent question, and so i can imagine a couple of directions. one might be that regulators who are trying to defend laws, essentially say that the justice majority where the assistant judgment majority for the court really is -- you have to incorporate these caveats from the leader and from kavanaugh, and from the chief justice. now the most aggressive version of that would be some say something like the methodology, was only cloyed as to the specific issue about licensing. that we should take heart in the fact that all these other regulations may be subject to more conventional present evidence about their effectiveness, and that is what we are doing. i mean, that's an aggressive way of reading it, but it's a plausible way of reading it. a more likely outcome is that imagine justice alito and certainly justice kavanaugh and the chief, might be actually thinking about levels of generality. they might be imagining a world in which there is plenty of room for regulation because levels of [inaudible] are so high. there are tons of regulations in history, somewhat actually noxious pedigrees that are about disarming or keeping guns out of the hands of quote, unquote, dangerous people, and if it's at that level of generality, that is, these are historical regulations keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, then it regulation on keeping hands out of -- guns out of hands of people with mental health crises or the mentally ill, are just part dangerous people. but these are one of the things that my colleagues also work on in the second amendment, and that i'm concerned about, it's the modification and the justification of these is completely obscure, follow this kind of weird and a logical dance that we are going to do as opposed to, this is the reason, right? the reason why we are doing it is because it is -- it has an effect on people carrying guns, which was much more transparent when the two part framework was still in place. >> thank you so much. my one confident prediction is the supreme court will uphold restrictions on bringing guns into the supreme court, just as it upheld a massive mass requirements to bring in -- those didn't fly in a lot of contacts. >> what would be -- would be very interesting is, again, in a world in which sensitive places, it becomes important -- how can -- what sensitive places will float? right? it's one thing to have people on the doorstep of the supreme court building with an air of 15 protesting, it's quite another having them outside their home. in front of your house, where there are protesting. so there is this floating idea of sensitive places is an interesting dynamic. >> thanks so much. let's turn to ediberto roman who's a professor at fiu law and expert on citizenship law, immigration, territorial related issues, and we had not just a major immigration decision today but also major ruling perspective the rights of indigenous peoples and people in territories. so ediberto roman. >> thanks, tom, i appreciated. it's wonderful to be here. i have to say how much i appreciate the previous two presentations. unlike those, i don't have one case to review. and in those instances, those two cases, we are looking at scenarios in which we're likely gonna be discussing these cases for months on and, if not years, if not decades. examining five cases that all -- will not capturing the media tension. although today, we did see a lot of discussion concerning the binding texas case, considering policy -- which i will talk about briefly. but the point i want to make is these cases are somewhat of a harbinger for things to come in line of this court. and, tom, i think you raised a question of what we're likely to see in the future with respect to the top decision. and i think the presentation related to that was fantastic. i would just add, not only did justice thomas provide us an agenda, or some of us, for future issues on attack, but in the next term, i think under the courts framework in dame's, we will see the end of affirmative action as the first hour, so to speak, with the new philosophy with the text tense point, or the notion of a right leaning -- historically. at the time of the framers. as you might suspect, that is a position that causes me great pause given that somewhat sacrosanct view of the constitution that the court seems to have, notwithstanding the excellent points that we caroline raised with respect to the nature of the constitution. and it's limiting view of so many of us within the society. but getting into the issue at hand with respect to these five cases, there is a host of ways to examine them. we can look at them from a standpoint of separation of powers, we can look at it from a standpoint of administrative procedure act, we can -- at least four of them, we can look at them in terms of administrative law. in terms of those standpoints, it would be hard to reconcile these cases. the way we can reconcile the immigration cases is to look at it in the general philosophical standpoint in terms of judicial philosophy of deference. of deference to the executive. and i think it's the best way to examine these cases, and it's consistent with a somewhat conservative view of the role of the court versus the role of the executive. and that's the best way to examining these cases. but i will take a slightly broader look at these cases to incorporate the territorial case in terms of these issues. and i'm going to examine it in the light of how famous historian henry fawn are examine these sorts of issues, deciding who are the weekend we the people in our constitution. and that's how i like to examine immigration cases and territorial cases, to look at them as membership cases and when we decide from them. let's examine these cases briefly, i won't go into great detail, but i will examine them very briefly and try to reconcile, and perhaps raise a couple of questions concerning notes, for example the q&a, the very first question raised, how do we view these decisions to affect future administrative law and determinations, and i'll be happy to address that in a q&a asked afterwards. it's going to be challenging because i think i have an answer to that up until this morning's decision. but we will talk about it shortly. so first cases, i want to mention, ever so briefly, is garland v. gonzalez. and basically examine the question of whether the government can detain immigrants for months or even years during the immigration proceedings without providing them due process of a bond hearing. this case does away with any of you that pro immigration advocates have raised in the recent past possibility of procedural or subsequent due process coming into play or being a vehicle to provide rights for immigrants. in the garland for gonzalez decision, the court held that the inf, the immigration and nationality act, bazaars federal courts from detaining immigrants request for classified injunctive relief. and the court went to great pains to come to that conclusion because, frankly, the language of the inf could be reasonably read to the law such challenges. so much so that the court in a somewhat ironic twist said that these classified claims aren't available, yet individual claims are available. i think, again, a deference point to the executive and their stance with respect to the agency -- the agency stands to respect that, and from statutory interpretation, arguably, even a plain meaning of interpretation of the ina, very specific reference to section 2:52 subsection one, but we won't go into that level of detail given that i have so many cases, but i'm happy to discuss it a little further in the q&a if the question arises. and then we go to the next case, johnson versus martinez. and basically, in this case, we are looking at a question raised that, after being detained for several months, the petition of file for rid of habeas corpus to the district court challenging on both statutory and constitutional ground hands continue detention, once again, without a bond hearing. implicit in this is the question of due process rights, does the constitution provide some basic rights. and here, the court, once again, came to the conclusion, again, with respect to deference, to the agency, that the ina does not require the government to provide non-citizens detained for six months or even more with a bond hearing. notwithstanding the language of the statutes that suggests that these -- state, frankly, these matters have to be addressed within this timeframe. but the court basically provided waiver rule, inconsistent with the strict reading of the statute. now, we move on to yet another case dealing with deference, again, to the executive in the immigration context. and in this one it's patel versus garland, and we are basically look at a question of the court's or jurisdiction, like the two other cases examine the courts jurisdiction to review a claim that, in this context we, this is a scenario where an individual basically made a misrepresentation with respect to a drivers license education and by virtue of that became disqualified from subsequently applying for citizenship. the petition challenged that administrative determination, arguing that basically it was a discretionary determination and the court should look at the entire facts with respects with -- respect to that argument, as you might suspect, the federal court here, much like in the prior cases concluded federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts part of the discretionary relief proceedings under the ina. so with the three cases are entirely consistent with respect to difference, with respect to, arguably, and almost overreaching to support the administrative decision and limiting the rights of the courts. now, we get to today's decision that many of us just heard about in the news a couple of hours ago. it's a decision i'll have to study quite a bit, i've written about it, but i haven't completed my analysis of it, in part because it seems quite inconsistent. the only way i can find consistency with this case is, once again, the deference to the executive. and biden versus texas, the supreme court addressed the bidens administration attempt to reason the migrant protection protocols, better known as the remaining mexico policy. the supreme court this morning ruled that the biden administration on, basically what was viewed by most to be a controversial immigration policy, had the authority to reverse the trump era policy that requires asylum seekers to remain in mexico while their cases are reviewed in the courts. now this case, while consistent with respect to deference to the executive, causes me some calls, and i have to examine closely because this reversal of a rule set forth by prior administrations seems to run in the face of the administrative procedure act that normally would require a notice and comment period opportunity as well as a full administrative procedure rules associated with creating this new rule, in terms of revoking the pie rule. again, it's a matter will be happy to address further in the future, we other than looking at the issue of difference, this decision that was held by immigrant advocates as a windfall in terms of the opportunity to change a harsh policy in the past, is at the very least questionable with respect to the administrative procedure act. the only way i would be able to reconcile on it is to look at the prior decision, the protocols to remain in mexico as not a rule, but as a policy. and then it would withstand at these apa -- i will switch gears a little bit, still being in the framework of who are we and we the people. and look at a decision that, on that capturing the headlines, individuals like myself being puerto rican as well as close to 4 million others in the territory, as well as the over 2 million in the states, affects them directly. that is the u.s. versus we filed a muddle case, in which the case essentially, a way to sum it up, i basically have one minute to go, said that congress has broad oversight over the u.s. territories, under the territorial laws of the constitution. and by virtue of that, procedures, war rights such as the due process clause in the fifth amendment do not apply to the citizens of puerto rico, and in essence, they can be discriminated against, it supplemental security income program. notwithstanding the fact that they are u.s. citizens. and ironically, here we have a rift because between kavanaugh and horses. to put it bluntly, kavanaugh used the stated or long-lasting language of frankly the racist decisions of the insular cases around the 19 hundreds and [inaudible] and basically attacked cabinet and called for the overturning of the answer the cases because of the unequal treatment of u.s. citizens and the territory. and i will sum it up by justice gorsuch aptly -- apt observation of the flaws of the insular cases are as fundamental as they are shameful. so we have, in essence, a set of decisions that gave us a very narrow view of who are the we in the constitution, with great deference to the executive. >>nm thanks so much. let's turn to the environment and potentially a couple other very significant decisions, depending on time. -- is the director of strategic reactions for earth justice. today we got a major ruling with respect to climate change. >> i think this presentation will echo two themes of the presenters. this is a case where the method of how the court decided the case is quite important, along with the bottom line impacts it will have a climate. this decision came out four hours ago. we are digesting -- before anyone wraps their arms around it. i will do my best. i think with this case, it has a complicated procedural history. but knowing at least a little bit of it, it is helpful to understand the case. just very briefly, the case is west virginia versus epa. my case is about -- under one specific provision of -- which is section 1:11 d of the cleaner act. that's a provision that applies when two other major programs of the clean air act aren't being used to regulate a specific kind of source. in 2015, the epa decided to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. the way the statute works is once epa made that decision to regulate new power plants, this provision, 1:11 d was triggered, and epa was required to regulate existing power plants as well. the way he paid as that is the statue tells apa to identify the best system of emissions reduction out in the universe to consider things like caused, energy consequences, all of that. and then to set a top line member to reduce emissions. epa hands the baton over to states, which develop plans to implement that standard and meet that standard. with the obama administration did in 2015 is they issued its regulation and side, the best and most efficient reduction is looking out over what the industry is actually doing, it involves both improvements that plan to make -- tacking something on to the plant, tweaking a plants efficiency but also the way plants were producing their emissions, by shifting away from coal, for example, the most greenhouse gas intensive, form to renewable sources of energy. epa issue that regulation, which basically, like i mentioned told states the cutback plans by 2018 to meet those standards, the supreme court stepped in 2016 and stated the regulation. this is the fourth time -- any court have ruled on the merits of that regulation. the clean power plant never took effect. the trump administration came into office and repealed it a clean power plan, saying the epa had interpreted the statute to broadly under the prior administration, put in place its own rule, which was incredibly narrow, and basically only took into account the kind of minor efficiency improvements you could make, and then issued its regulation, which was immediately challenged. and states like west virginia, the coal companies that are in the name of the case, came into defend, either they were going too far, or defend the rule. the d.c. circuit struck down the trump administration's act to ban. at that point with that decision meant was that clean power plant had been brought into existence. because that was 2021, the states could not meet the deadlines of submitting plans by 2018. all the guidelines, the standard epa was asking states to figure out how to meet had been met by the industry on its own, without any regulation at all. at the time of that decision, there was no regulatory action that had any impact on anyone in place. and yet, that the supreme court decided to agree to west virginia's request to take the case and the coal companies on their side, and to hear the case. the reason why the court was being asked to dove decide the case, to apply something -- and what that is is -- when any court is interpreting a statute, it usually starts with a text in the statute and tries to figure out with the words mean. under the major questions act, the court starts with a different question. it starts by asking whether the agency's action is major, which is to find a sort of a hazy way, but perhaps the agencies trying to do something new, trying to address a big problem in a way it hasn't done before. basically anything that raises the hairs on the neck of a judge, asking if the agencies going too far will trigger the major questions doctrine. under that doctrine triggered, the result is there will be skepticism on anything the agency does. it will demand an incredible level of clarity from the statute. instead of asking does the statute authorize the agency to do this, it's going to ask, is there any reason for me to believe -- for me to dislodge my belief that congress it didn't mean to give the agency this kind of power? basically, it's on the scale against the agency, it can be very hard to overcome. you can see how groups that are skeptical of agency regulation or don't like it, or are actively hostile towards federal agency regulations options, might like this nostrum. it acts as a -- where it only applies if the agency tries to do something. it doesn't help anybody who might want the agency to try to do something to protect the environment or protect the public. like i said, that's why people wanted the court to take the case, the real motivation. that's what they got. the decision the supreme court issued this morning ruled against epa. it said the clean power plan, which again, never went into effect, has no effect now. it said with the epa try to do in that regulation went too far. it triggered the major questions doctrine. the court wasn't convinced by any of the reasons why the statute was in fact clear. as the dissent points out, but i think, what is so notable about this ruling is that the majority opinion spent just a couple pages talking about the text of the statute. it really is not the same kind of discussion as statutory text that is in all the other statutory opinions of the court issued this term. it's not what's the word system means. it's the word system is broad, and therefore, it cannot possibly be clear enough to authorize what the agency does, even if it might literally encompass what's the course -- but because it is so expensive, it doesn't authorize it with the clarity we would require. that is just not the kind of textural assignment the court has proclaimed as the right way to approach statutes. it's not the kind of textural -- textualism taught in law schools. the dissent has pointed out to that this is a way for the court to look at a regulation, this court or any court, to look at a regulation that does not like, where thing is go too far, make a policy adjustment, and to say we are gonna make it very hard for the agency to win when it's authorities challenged. in this particular case, if you take the words of the court, if you take the court at its work, all i did was say a specific approach in the clean power plan went too far. it is sort of ironic or an odd result of the fact that it doesn't have any need to engage with the text of the statute, means it otherwise doesn't limit with the epa can do, because it doesn't have any reason to get into the weeds of the system it means. the bottom line climate impact of the decision is that the court has taken what's is the most effective way to reduce emissions from the largest source of energy related greenhouse gas emissions on the table it. has narrowed the scope of what the epa can do, and it has given people that will bring the inevitable challenge of whatever the biden administration does a pretty heavy tool to use when they bring that inevitable challenge. we will see what epa does and how it grapples with this decision. i don't mean to downplay the impacts of this decision. both as a matter of climate policy, and as a matter of how to interpret statutes that protect the public. try to do something big to address big problems. this is a bad decision. it's also a decision that doesn't go as far as people were concerned it might. for now, that is at least some comfort. i'm also going to cover very briefly two cases dealing with religious rights. very briefly, the first case is called carson. this is a case about how maine funds its public schools. because of its geography, maine and localities could have a public school next to every student. it just didn't have the resources to accomplish that. and the way the main statute works is that locality can't create a public school that is owned and can never pay for students to attend nearby public or private schools, or can pay for students to attend a school of the parents choice, so long as that school is nonreligious. parents challenged that as a violation of their free exercise rights. the court agreed with that claim. with that means is that public funds will go directly to religious schools that teach children religion. as justice breyer points out in the dissent, this is a sea change from the world in which states could use to find these kinds of school choice programs but were not required by the constitution to do so. now it seems like they might be. the senate decision on that religious rights here is called kennedy. this is the cause of the case about the football coach you might have heard of. the football coach is telling he wanted to engage in quiet, private prayer on school property in school hours, in a way that wouldn't interfere with his job performance. on his telling, he was fired, or at least not rehired, because he refused to stop doing that. on that version of the facts, the majority says there is a free exercise violation and also violation of his free speech rights. if you read the majority of the dissent, i think one thing that's incredibly striking about that decision is that they have incompatible versions of the record, the dissent points out that the football coach had a multi year practice of kneeling at the 50 yard line, as eventually surrounded by his students, reporters, politicians but. leading that group in prayer. that is what he was asked to stop doing. and not to pray in a more private not just rep to buck -- and on that basis, the school had done nothing wrong. here to there is another methodology point where the court also refers to invoke these cases to the history as well. with that i will stop. >> thanks so much. arbitration is an area obviously in which the court has been active in recent years. kirti datla deepak gupta is a partner in his own from, and is probably the most successful consumer advocate at the supreme court, at least of his generation. deepak gupta, do you want to talk about -- >> thanks, tom, and thanks to the other panelists, i'm glad to be here with you. i wish we were in person. so yeah, the cases i will talk about, these are not the big blockbusters of the term, these were probably not the cases that are going to make the headlines like abortion, guns, religion, and the administrative state, but i do think -- i'm glad tom took some time out in the panel for us to talk about these because these cases do concern the ability of ordinary consumers, workers, civil rights plaintiffs and -- to get in the courthouse door. these are cases, as tom mentioned, under the federal arbitration act where the court is deciding whether companies can use clauses in the fine print of their contracts where consumers and workers to block access to the civil justice system. and the court has a steady diet of these cases almost every term going back about a decade the. and those cases have tended to break down along the five lines, they've tended to be quite controversial, there is a case i argued over a decade ago called the atp versus concepts yang where the court decided 5 to 4 to allow companies to use the fine print of their contracts to prevent consumers and employees from banding together to go into class actions and to enforce arbitration court clauses instead. so, it used to be that these cases where principally 5 to 4, and the rule was kind of that the plaintiff would you lose every single case. and i think there is a shift at the court -- that is underway at the court, where that is no longer the case. the three cases that i i'm going to talk about briefly, sexton versus southwest, morgan versus sundance, and biking river versus marina, none of these were five for cases. there was far more agreement across the whole court we. two of them were completely unanimous, and one of them garnered broad agreement. and the other thing that is notable is, in two of these three cases, the plaintiffs won, and they won in ways that i think will matter quite a bit going forward. all three of these cases involve plaintiffs who were workers, who were bringing wage and our claims. sort of garden-variety claims, one of them was a sales rep for cruise line, one of those a cargo loader for an airline, and one of them was involved in a taco bell worker. and the one i will mention is this case called southwest airlines versus accident, and full disclosure, our firm represented the plaintiffs in this case. my colleague, jennifer bennett, argued the case. and our client in the case was less ramped supervisor for southwest airlines. someone who loads and unloads cargo onto the airplane. and the question is whether the federal arbitration act applies at all to the client. miss sexton. if you look at the text of the federal arbitration act which was enacted in 1925, it seems to exempt workers, congress broadly exempted semen railroad workers, and any other class of workers. if you look at that language, you might see that it exams -- circuit city, had interpreted that language much more narrowly to apply only to transportation workers. so the question here was whether airline worker would be a transportation worker, whatever they were sufficiently like seamen and railroad workers. so it might seem like a narrow question, it's about transportation workers, but i think, as was the case with some of the cases discussed earlier, the methodological questions, they are at least interesting here. the court departed in how they decided to do -- was instead very interested in, and this bizarre's tragedy in the case, of what the words meant in 1925. and it was abundantly clear from the historical evidence that people who loaded and unloaded cargo's would be considered workers engaged in interstate commerce. it wasn't about abundant amount of cases from that period. so this is an example i think of a kind of progressive, original meaning kind of approach that advocates in this cases have been trying and has been working. and this has implications for workers in the gig economy, uber drivers, people who are employed through apps where this will decide whether they can bring class actions, whether wage and our claims will be brought, and it's the subject of meant a lot of litigation. the second case, i will briefly mention, is a case called morgan versus sundance. and again, the question, here, might seem narrow, but the methodology is quite important and could have big implications. the narrow question presented in the case was whether -- was basically, what happens when somebody seems to have waived the right to enforce arbitration. do you require that the plaintiffs show prejudice? and lots of lower courts have required that. the supreme court said, unanimously, in a decision led by justice kagan, we are not going to adopt that kind of rule that requires prejudice, the special arbitration rule. but the methodology that justice kagan managed to get all of the justices to sign on to was much more significant. it rejects the idea that this special policy favoring arbitration, that animated so many of the courts cases in this area, that that policy is any kind of basis to allow what you call special rules favoring arbitration. instead, arbitration agreements are supposed to be treated just like any other contract. and are enforceable to the same extent, but not more so. this decision is going to be, i, think deployed in lots of litigation because that is quite -- it represents quite a shift to say that the court, although it had adopted so many special rules favoring arbitration, is no longer going to tolerate the kind of policy based justification. and then the final case, i will just briefly mention, was brooklyn refer versus mary anna, the court seemed to stick to the more typical pattern for past cases. justice alito rhoden appeared in concluding that california's private attorney general act was preempted to the extent that it had special joined our rules that were inconsistent with the way the court understands bilateral arbitration. but the case was quite limited. it didn't go as far as employers might have wanted and justice barrett wrote separately to say that the only reason this was preempted is because the public attorney general act procedure that california had with similar to other aggregation devices that can't be imposed on parties through an agreement. so the court is sticking to the idea that arbitration can be used as a way of getting around -- it can be used to allow basically what looks like a class action. but i i think the court is cleaning up its jurisprudence and is not going to allow broad policy based appeals to arbitration going forward. surprisingly, the little guy notched some's in the court this term in ways that may matter going forward. >> thanks so much, deepak gupta. let's use the remaining time to cover some of the questions that have come in from the audience and i think some of the most interesting ones involved stepping back from individual decisions and thinking about the court institutionally and the public's perception that the justices and alike. one of them is when we think about confirmation hearings now? i think the general impression of them was pretty terrible going in. there has been enormous criticism of some of the members of the coup about what they said, what's the settled nature of roe in light of the dobbs decision. does this change anything about confirmation? when we think? how we go about it? whether we pay and it's attention to it, whether there be any bother with it? did anything go wrong here? unexpected here? what lessons have we learned, if any? >> justices are proposed justices are savvy. they have a good set of advisers. they will continue to take similar stances and congressional leaders will continue to try to pry. but i am not an optimist. i am a critical race scholar. you wouldn't expect anything else from me. >> -- with that a grain of salt. i think we're gonna be taking them with a barrel. >> i think if you go back and look at -- probably everyone's gonna hate to hear this -- but if you go back at what the justices said in their confirmation hearings, those were very carefully worded statements. they were about and the value of precedent. and there was no commitment not to take a certain action. of course, they were designed to provide some comfort to people. i don't think it's possible to say any of the statements that were made were inaccurate. i think that kind of thing will continue to happen. it's very difficult for somebody as well prepared in a hearing to get any kind of commitment out of them. in fact, it would be inappropriate for people to make commitments about what they may or may not decide. >> the hearings are gonna go forward because there is a chance for the senators who loves the camera. that's not a thing of the past, where you just put the name on a piece of paper and get the person confirmed. i think in line with this is just whole concept of -- if the court is willing to jettison a 50-year settled precedent this salient, that is this popular, then what about all the other decisions that we haven't heard of, that lawyers really care about, but no one else is paying attention to? if they are willing to torch -- then i don't know if they're -- i don't know what kind of horizontal, what's kind of control it has any more at all. maybe we are in the world where would justice thomas suggested in gamble, where he essentially said everything is up for a reevaluation under originalist principles is the new order. >> can we talk about the leak for a second? what do you all make of it? what do you think it means for the institution? are we going to see more of that? how does the court address it? the status, the justices, the justices families. what does it do to the perception of the court? do you think it was justified? this is a wild development in the history of the court that is antithetical to at least its own very, very settled practices and procedures. >> there have been leaks before. the brother in has a whole book with lots of sourcing from clerks. >> let's be clear about -- we can stop using the word generically leak. >> this is a draft opinion overruling roe v. wade if you want to compared to something that has happened, give me an example. >> there is nothing that compares, this is a monster lead. all i mean to say is there have been leaks before. so the idea that the confidentiality of the court was ironclad is not true. but it -- fundamentally changes what happens in the building, there's some evidence trickling out and it reads a lot of distrust. and if it's true that nobody knows who did this, people have to suspect anyone and i think that makes it difficult for the justices to work with each other and their clerks. so there is no question that it kind of casts a pall over not just this term but the courts operations going forward. and i think there is evidence just in the way the opinions weren't coming out quite as quickly. there was a strange little towards the end of the term that seems like maybe there were some practical effects. i'm curious, kirti datla, someone who is under those obligations in the building not long ago, can you imagine what that would've been like if you had been there. >> i -- >> sorry, go ahead. >> i was going to say, when you work at the court, you get a speech from the chief that's really the stern askew can ever imagine him to be about confidentiality and it is an incredibly strong norm at the court, it's fraught enough without having to worry about these kinds of things. we and the thing i will say is that, i guess two things. one, i clerked when most people worked from offices and had -- weren't necessarily working from home, so there is a greater possibility that this leak was maybe not intentional, or at
point, yes, we have class warfare. those who are poor are completely left out of the national dialogue on poverty and hunger. that is a bipartisan effort, to keep people who are poor out of the national dialogue. that is why i work with low income women to be able to take photographs and provide direct testimony on their experiences with raising children in poverty, how to break cycles with poverty, and there are so many conversations happening. this concept of violence and the trail. people have been silenced for so many years. -- betrayal. people have been silenced for so many years. poverty is solvable. they and expect nothing less. they are raising their children and they expect their child to be the president of the united states, a lawyer, a doctor, and they want the best education, the best type of food, a safe and affordable home to live. the women we work with are investing so much into their children. they are having to trade off paying for rent and paying for food, and trade off for whether they keep the lights on and pay for food. that is unconscionable. [applause] thank you. all of us can expect more. low income women should be included in the national dialogue. the women i have spoken with our genius. they are brilliant to survive in the united states today. they are so fantastic entrepreneurs. they are wise. they have a lot of grit. they are stronger than any of us on stage. it is a brain trust in america we are not utilizing. they should be part of the national dialogue and -- at a part of the stage and being listened to in congress. not just the special income -- special interest lobbyists. [applause] >> we are going into the last hour of the program. we want to highlight the fight back. there are people in this country who are succeeding against the odds every day as they struggle with poverty. there are persons who will join us on the front row. they are already here. i will get off the stage and talk to them so we can hear from everyday people, fellow citizens, who are in this fight every day. we want eighth -- we want to put a face on poverty. while you are talking, talk to me about what you make of the fact that the new poor are in fact the former middle-class. they make up every race, every ethnicity. when we talk about poverty, people think as the poor as those people. they are increasingly becoming us. people are losing their jobs, their 401k. >> we are in the middle of an economic disaster. it is crushing people. it is very dangerous. their capacity. this is a big threat to the country. we underestimate the danger. jeffrey knows the story dramatically better than i do. moaning small amounts of money only to women in order to create micro on super norris -- on chopin norris -- entrepreneurs. there are ways in which we say to people, the passive. we ought to be saying, if we could wave a magic wand and tomorrow have 6 million small businesses, one of the things we should seriously look at with tax reform is how do you replace the anti-poor, anti-small business tax. it is the first big hurdle to create a job. how could you design the equivalent for starting your own business? trying to reach out here and realize, every american could be premiership -- of .ntrepreneurshi passing so many laws and regulations and taxes that they kill the start up businesses in ways that are crazy. >> i have to jump in. thank you so much for talking about entrepreneurship. you were there, you were a part of that. there has been so much destruction to the assistance program. talk about rules and regulations. those are things your administration, when you were the speaker of the house, so many of those types of rules and regulations were built into the program, so much that they have not responded to the recession. it is only able to reach about 30% of the children who are poor in this country. an incredible increase in child poverty been. micro finance would may be a great way to insert into the system. if a woman is receiving cash assistance or food stamps and she happens to, may be working on the side doing hair and nails, housekeeping, child care. fair -- fantastic things. that $50 or $100 she makes on the weekend, god forbid she reported to the case manager because she would be criminalized for something that would be celebrated in this country. [applause] >> i agree with you. >> i want to tell you that would have been lovely if you could have thought of that 17 years ago. [applause] >> i wish i had. >> think of the damage done. >> he said i wish i had. he did say that. i have got you on the microphone. what you have just said now is wonderful. the fact she is agreeing with you is amazing to me. >> shocking. >> you were in the media almost immediately when this fiscal cliff deal was reached. you were in the media almost immediately, you were very disappointed, very upset at this deal that was struck. i got the sense you were spanking your fellow republicans for getting their clocks cleaned by mr. obama in that debate. tell me what you are upset about and is there some revenge exacted? >> we have very severe long-term fiscal problems. i think there is a lot more that is at the big banks door and the federal reserve's door. it is amazing neither party has been willing to look at the problems. we are faced with enormous long- term challenges on the fiscal side. i thought the whole process was wrong. i have a bias. i was speaker of the house. the idea that the senate at the last minute would write an entire bill, put whatever they wanted into it, send it over, and say, pass it as we wrote it. we will not touch it again. and the house said, ok. the that was institutionally crazy. nobody read that bill. it violated everything republicans complained about with the stimulus. the minimum they could have done was brought it up, actually read it, maybe had a hearing to find out what was in it and what did it mean. there were millions of dollars for the motion picture industry. i understand why the president wants to take care of its friends. what did that have to do with the bill? a good the here and a few other goodies there. republican senators wrote what they wanted. it is a bad way to run free society. >> we just passed a farm bill. my colleagues -- and i will call them that because i am in public -- voted to cut $16.50 billion over the next years. i voted against it because i thought it was outrageous. they voted against it because they did not think it was enough. we have people who literally work in the house of representatives who do not believe they are in poverty in this country. any of them, i want you to go to the other side of town to wherever it is you live. people believe if you do not lazy.you are laid t these are the craziest people i have ever seen in my life. absolutely not. -- nuts. [applause] [applause] if we continue to send people to congress who do not understand what their job is, then we are never going anywhere as a country. these people are evil and mean. they cared nothing about anybody but themselves. [applause] >> let me ask you, though. i am really feeling sorry for you. i will push to hire up on my purpose tonight is a prayer list tonight. -- the my prayeron list tonight. there are people who are entrenched in congress, they come from districts where this is not their priority, not their issue, so congress is polarized around the issue of poverty. there is a consensus poverty does not matter. congress is polarized on this issue. how do we ever imagine that the plot of the poor will get addressed. class getting these little blurbs. make them sit down, convene a group of people to address the issues of poverty. people out there have to stop being silent. anytime i get a phone call in my office, i believe at least 50 of my constituents believe the exact same thing. if you start calling your congress people and your senators and say to them, you want them to address poverty, trust that they listened very do not assume or be angry when you turn on the news at night and turn -- and tourism at your television. it cannot talk was. you have to do it yourself. if you don't, once again, every year, once of -- one of us takes the food stamp talent. people get -- challenge. people get the news. until we get more voices, until more people understand how important and significant it is for us, they are going to continue to pat us on the head and say, your food stamp challenge week. until they see hungry people, until they see babies who do not eat every day, until they realize the fastest-growing group of children in schools today is hungry and homeless children, until we can make them see it, they will not believe it. >> that is a perfect segue. -- segway for those who just tuned in, this is our hastag. #povertymustend. our website is a future with poverty.com. you will find a letter. it is already litten for you -- written for you. encouraging the president to do things quickly. deliver a major public policy address on the eradication of poverty. we have been told over and over he is an organizer. it is time for the community to get organized and led the president know we want to hear from him, we want him to deliver a major public policy address on poverty. we can do this every day. this is no comparison. between what we are doing and what would happen if the president of the united states gave a major policy speech on what he will do to eradicate poverty. and then he gave us an assignment to do to help him get it done. he ought to give a major public policy address. bring the experts together. i will not be in that meeting. i am not an expert. i am just a broadcaster to open up a whole for the exports to run through -- experts to run through. a plan to cut poverty in half in the short run, eradicate it in the long run. if the president wants a legacy in which he and we can be proud, he will have to make poverty a priority in the second term. signed that letter and let him know about it. >> i do not want to be in that meeting, either. i would not go. at least a crack addict is honest about their addiction. the white house is addicted to power. they are addicted to power. it is not just about power. it has to do with love and justice. love and justice is always week. that is precisely why tradition in this history of this nation has been the democratic loaf. we recognize we have to have a suspicion of government. this is why i resonate with my conservative brothers. martin luther king jr. was under fbi surveillance until the day he died. government can be oppressive, vicious, ugly, violate your rights, generate propaganda. we need that, too. government can be affirmative, if they are helping poor and working people. government can help use its power for elites. when they come together with no accountability whatsoever, not just politically, but economically. let me say this. martin luther king jr. today could be taken to jail without due process or judicial process under the national defense authorization act because he had a connection with a freedom fighter, nelson mandela. he just got off the terrorist list in 2008. he had a relation to a terrorist. under the present administration, and you can take americans to jail without due process. the black freedom movement has always been suspicious of it. we have black prisoners in their precisely because they were willing to tell the truth that was a threat and we do not talk about them. that is why the culture of fear is not just violence. people are afraid. they are afraid to lose their jobs. they are afraid to lose their status. not going to be nice tea parties, the white house. you cannot have a culture of fear and generate a movement. it is not just about justice. we have got to talk about love. martin was a titan of love. if you are not talking about love and willingness of sacrifice, we are not going nowhere. you have to be willing to hit the streets, go to jail, to die. that is what it is about. if you are not willing to do that, keep your job and drink your tea. we are in the state of emergency. [laughter] [applause] people are dying out here. >> since you went there, this is foreign to a lot of people. he hasn't -- martin has been gone for so long now. the nation knows the president will be sworn in for a second term on monday, on the martin luther king jr. holiday. just blocks down the street, the monument. the president will put the hand on the bible of martin luther king jr. as he is inaugurated. king is always present in our conversations. he is present tonight. if you raise this notion of love, since martin, the notion of love, and our public policy have been absent, you talk about and try to put love -- we heard about compassion and conservatives, i want to ask you what ever happened to compassionate conservatism -- but love, at the center of our public policy, it is a foreign concept. that is exactly what martin did. he put love at the center of the public square. why have we abandoned that notion? >> the rule of money. everybody and everything is up for sale. you cannot have integrity, love, you cannot have trust if everything and everybody is up for sale. if you're leaders are up for sale, they will talk one way, get inside, and do something else. it is big money. for black people who have been hated for 400 years, hatred comingized a stric after us, and we dish out martin king, that love in the face of the hatred, that is a spiritual and moral high ground. the whole country has to take note of it with martin. the whole world has to take note of it. that is what is weak and feeble. it is not a question of speed -- skin pigmentation. it is a question of equality and morality of your speech rowdy. all of us fall short. [applause] >> now it is competition. the president takes no child left behind, which is the worst education law in my lifetime -- [applause] straight out of charles dickens. train them for exams, do not let them -- they might start asking why politicians do not keep their promises. no talk of love. the president takes no child left behind and he softens it. a race for the top. there will be told winners and -- 12 winners. the word enterprise, i am a very patriotic american. i like capitalism. it is good to me. the word enterprise is sickening. it has had a pathological affect on our attitudes -- effect on our attitudes., these wall street guys who want to privatize our schools are setting up academies. dart -- dr. martin luther king academy of leadership and enterprise. or they will name them for langston hughes, frederick douglass. -- frederick douglass. i do not think a lot people should let the name the schools. [laughter] [applause] they should name it for people they do not like. [laughter] here are a few points. i will be unfashionable tonight. everyone in washington seems to think the way to solve the problems in our schools is to not give them another cent, another penny, to improve and make the schools look like places that are inviting and respect the value of children. aesthetics count. do not do that, but beat up on their teachers. that is the trend today. [applause] attack the unions. i heard about the teachers union from teachers in l.a. last fall. i flew to chicago to stand with them the day they went on strike. they were right to go on strike. [applause] i will tell you something. i am in schools all the time. when i was a young teacher, i remember this. schools are overwhelmingly -- the teachers are women. you go to a convention, if you are a guide, there are like 50 women for every guy. it is wonderful. i love it. [laughter] when they scapegoat teacher unions, the ruthless way they do, they are attacking some of the largest unions in this country of devoted, unselfish, inspired, loving, tender, good, female human beings. they are women. it is an attack on female women. [applause] i remember dr. king's last words when he said i have been to the mountain. that mountaintop is something that is a symbol of hope. it is biblical. it is something we would like to get back to. we wish we could get there again. but the dialogue of school reform is just like the dialogue of health care. there is nothing transcendental in it. there is nothing courageous in it. they are tinkering around the edges of an equity. that is what president obama is doing. fix the schools, they say. fix the schools. a very suggested word. it is a mechanistic terms. as though our schools were out, and our kids were commercial commodities. i hate that word. here is what i believe. i think that is emblematic of the low level of dialogue. my favorite american poet happens to be langston hughes. i read his poetry to my fourth graders. it was considered dangerous. curriculum deviation, i was fired. i was hired shortly after by the johnson administration. [laughter] my favorite worldwide poet happens to be the irish poet. there are lines many of us learn in school and forget. he said, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. we need that passionate intensity on our side, on the side of the poor children in this earth. i beg the president to summon up the courage to give us that voice. if he does not, it would be a terrible betrayal of his role and he will miss an opportunity to leave behind a beautiful legacy in history. it will be his tragedy as well as ours. [applause] >> we are clearly headed to a real debate about austerity. i do not believe austerity is the answer. some people do. there is a big debate in the coming weeks as we get to this debt ceiling debate. talk to me, from your perspective, about this notion of compassionate conservatism. there was a movement 12 years ago to present that as an alternative. what happened to that? >> i would be glad to go down that road but i do not think it is useful. in the 1970's, jack was trying to gently develop a real understanding of how to break through at every level, housing, learning, jobs. and who i always told people, as a football quarterback, had showered with more african- americans than most republicans knew, had a deep, passionate commitment with every american he met. his heart was big. he did love everybody, to a point where it drives you crazy. you think, slightly less love, jack, it is ok. the use of it by the bush people was a political slogan to show they are softer than the gingrich republicans. they did not think through any serious, systematic program. i want to commend you. sitting here, i had two ideas, sufficiently radical, that would never have occurred without this conversation -- [applause] i did not say right or left. i just said radical. [laughter] one is talk about schools and talk about saving the children. then figure out what saving children leads you to, which involve nutrition, prenatal care, a lot of things. if you start with saving children, you somehow skip the bureaucracy and start back wi. want to say to the congressional head of the black caucus, i want to step away out here. >> i cannot imagine you doing that. [laughter] >> i was impressed with the intensity of your comments. [laughter] i think part of the challenge we have in america is the real dialogue that takes more than 90 minutes, or more than two and a half hours. here is my proposal, which i will carry to the republican side, if the congressional black caucus wants to do this. i believe the congressional black caucus members should offer to match up with a republican member, each going to gather to spend three days in your district, for example, and you spend three days in the republican district, and those days will lead to a conversation that will help us move back to help the by partisanship and help each side had a slightly different understanding, and maybe start to create french ships from which we could actually begin to rebuild the ability to govern. [applause] >> if you could make it work, i am in. if you could get your side to do it, i am in. that is a very good proposal. >> check it out and tell me how many of your folks are willing to visit. i will find republicans to make sure that happens. >> i love it. [applause] >> when you are all reflecting together, try to come up with strategies of how you can sever the link with those who control both of your party. [applause] >> i will let rose and say what she wants to say. my warning to the camera operators, i will walk in front of her to get out to the audience to talk to our special guests. every day american people -- they are everyday american people. the truth is americans, our fellow citizens, are doing the best they can with what they have and where they are. every single day, for the fight back without government coming through on the evil austerity -- every single day. the fight back without government help coming through, on the evil of stability -- austerity israel. >> i was glad i was here. one of the things that is usually absent, there is an effort with the hon neal liberal agenda, everything should be for sale, to vilify teachers, to vilify anything public. the corporations have been in control and this country is in disaster. i want to talk about the american labor movement, who is behind social security, one of the greatest anti-poverty programs. we have to have -- the president cannot cut care for the most vulnerable people in our society. medicare is such a critical program. also pushed by the american labor movement. the other thing it does is to set a new high for wages, living wages for people. benefits, pensions. if you can find a job in america, get past the terrorism corporations do. if everything were unionized, we would have wall street on the run. [applause] >> stand up, all three of you. turn that way. we will have a conversation for a couple seconds. i said to my staff that i wanted to make sure i talked to everyday people who can tell their own stories and own words trying to navigate their way through poverty. let me ask you to thank them in advance for their courage for what they are about to share to come on national television to share their story. [applause] i want to start with mary ann, who is willing to come on national tv to share her story. some of us make bad choices in life. men.body say, a m those choices put us in situations where you have to wrestle with poverty. there is no with -- there is always a better way. there is a way out. there is an end to poverty. some people to call and find the situationsof eigh they put themselves and. mary ann is an authentic american hero. let me give her a couple seconds to tell her own story about being a substance abuser. as a result of those bad choices, finding herself deep in poverty. i want you to hear where she started and what she is doing now. take a minute and tell your story in your own words. >> first, i do not necessary believed it was a bad choice, as it was a symptom of deprivation. it came to me and we talked about love. i grew up in a middle-class family. it was not about money so much about love and deprivation. i ended up using heroin for 23 years of my life. at the end of my addiction, i was introduced to crack. i thank god for it. it hit me so fast so hard i hit rock bottom so they could treat me again. for the third or fourth time. i ended up getting myself together and going to a french culinary arts schools and vocational rehab. i landed in a place where i had an opportunity to work with men and women just like me. i worked every day. [applause] i had the opportunity to work every day with men and women also suffering from deprivation. they are not just homeless and hungry. they need healing. the approach is that holistic week, we try to empower our students, of which 90% are either coming back from prison and/or are substance abuse folks. there are an increasing number of people who come to us with mental health issues. we try to shorten the line. we prepare 5000 meals a day that goes to social service agencies that give the folks we were with the support they need. it is not just about jobs and education and housing, but feeling as well. -- healing as well. [applause] >> how about that? thank you. this is a conversation about self-sufficiency. your thoughts, a quick word about the choices or the lack thereof so many brothers and sisters have when they paid their debts to society. they come out and have that record and draw their efforts. they cannot get an opportunity. they cannot get a second chance. they cannot get their lives on track. >> that is what greatness is all about. some sense of service and love and self confidence and self- respect. i see it in you and feel it in your spirit. we have to allow that to spill over so it has to do with public policy. not just personal. i want to keep the focus on you right now. i salute you. [applause] >> this is tammy, a 20 year-old mother of one son. 21 now, excuse me. you are grown. [laughter] she found herself at 1.18 teen . she is not the only one in this country and mary ann was talking earlier about the difficulty many young women have trying to navigate through poverty when you are a mother of a young child. she is a student at northeastern university and studying political science. this is the fight back we are talking about. please say a quick word about what it is like trying to navigate through poverty when you are a single mom and what you say to all of those single moms watching right now trying to navigate the same journey. >> thank you for having me. it is not easy to be able to come and leave my baby back. i was feeling sad. i did not want to leave him. this is a fight for plenty of women, and not only single mothers. single fathers out there as well that struggle just as much as i do. [applause] i know plenty of them and they struggle. picture this. you are a single parent, but you have to come up with a way how to feed your family, work at the same time to pay bills, and go to school to get an education to better your life. last year, i only made $8,000 the whole year. my food stamps were cut. that was the only way i was able to feed my son, $85 a month. the average spent -- average family spends close to $500 or more. you expect me to spend $85 and live with that for my son. we had to be sent to a shelter because my mother no longer wanted us living with her. i had to pay rent at that shelter, get food stamps, have my own food in that shelter, and yet i was also a freshman at northeastern university. how was i going to do all of this at once? people ask me how i was doing this. you are an incredible woman. i am not. i am a normal person trying to fight for my son to have a better life than i did. [applause] i may seem extraordinary because of all of the things i have been able to do, but i am not. i am a mother trying to fight for my child. [applause] i am studying political science because i want to be up there in the future to show that they are the experts. [applause] most are through research. the true experts, counting myself, are out there. i want to be able to, in the future, show everyone else, counting the president, that statistic, that is not my name. i am not a statistic. i am an individual tried to make my life better -- trying to make my life better. when you ask me how i am able to be a student, pay my bills, get food stamps, but you are cutting my food stamps, so i am not able to pay for food for my son, so, technically, you are taking the ability to feed my son, and then you ask me, how are you able to accomplish all of this? i say, thank god for someone like mary anna who is able to come and say, take pictures of what you experience, show other individuals what you faced a today, and i am able to tell other people they are not alone in this struggle. i am afraid every day what i am going to do every 24 hours and how i will be able to pay my bills. if i make 1 cent more, my food stamps will be cut more. and i will not be able to pay it all at the same time. i am on a scholarship but that can get cut, too. but you expect me to hold up a 3.0 for a 4.0 gpa on my own, trying to work, be a mom, and a student at the same time. but i am a statistic. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. say a quick word. tell me more about this program. >> it is to break this silence. there is so much in the national rhetoric, so much shame and stereotypes about people who are poor. witnesses to ponder is about making sure women who are strong have an opportunity to speak back and participate. tammy is a great example. there are many people among us and all across the country who are witnesses to ponder. they need to speak up to break the shame. courage.s thank you. they are amazing. >> that person is my mother. she is here tonight. there are two sponsors that made this possible tonight. there are a lot of resources to make this possible. thank you, c-span, for carrying this conversation around the world. i also want you to thank the foundation for being our title sponsor to cnidaria [applause] daw -- two nights. onight.nig she is organizing young people to express themselves and raise their own voices about the conditions they find themselves in. you heard me offer those statistics earlier tonight about what is happening, poverty, in the state of mississippi. this is what we are talking about. this young woman is organizing a people and getting women together again to fight back and let their leaders here about the conditions that young people in poverty today are having to endure. tell me a bit about your work in mississippi. >> thank you for this opportunity. before i start to talk about my work, i would just like to say, bring a prison like my grandmother to the table, who was working at the hotel for 335 b 3:35 in the morning and at night time for the car factory on an acre and a half of land and a three-bedroom house, one bath and, and 20 of us in it. there is the true face of poverty. bring an expert like her to the table. her thing was to make sure we get educated. even as a young child, my escape from poverty was to get a good education. i knew once i got a good education, or at least tried to get a quality education, that would be my way out of poverty. that is what i continue to fight for. to build young people like me to lift our voices and fight for quality education that puts us on top, not because of our situation aor circumstances. it will lift us up out of poverty if we receive a quality education. that is why i push so hard along with the organization i work with. people inside are going inside of the schools and saying to the principals and superintendents, we have a voice. so many times, they do not see young people as equals. us -- until we start to work intergenerational lee and learn to value each other's voices and be in the same spaces, because we have solutions to these problems we are facing right now. that is what i am trying to do. bring our voices to the table with organizations behind us to strengthen our voices. that is my fight and it will continue to be. >> you are a student where? [applause] >> mais cool. -- my high school. [applause] >> thank you. .onathan perr say a word to me about the agency young people have all across the country that they do not engage to speak up for themselves. she startedtamis star . her grandmother is an expert. we are taking this conversation to colleges and university campuses all across america. you can sign that letter to the president and you can see the rundown for the next couple of weeks on college campuses, at taking this message to young people and asking them to engage the president in a conversation about what he will do to eradicate poverty. we will start that worked on right. all of the details and a future without poverty.com. our young people who can be empowered about this story. >> there are a lot of good and charitable groups in this country who will give young people an opportunity for their voices to be heard and widely. i support those groups. with a passion. the trouble is there are too few and too selective and precarious in nature. charity is a blessed thing. i never turn it down. but it is not a substitute for justice. [applause] only government can give us systematic justice in the sense of empowering all of our young people or the wealthiest of the privileged to stand up and speak out, ask discerning questions. in most schools, there is no time to ask questions. you have got to get those students prepped for the exam. do not let yourself get interrupted by asking a question. that will ruin the school day. you will be penalized. one of the most divisive and invidious schemes i have ever heard for improving schools. teacher against teacher. let me quickly surprise you by ending quickly by saying, i want to hear the voices of young people. i have a selfish reason. that is how i write my book. they are filled with the voices of young children. whenever somebody says, that is eloquent, i say, there is no eloquence like the eloquence of the witnesses themselves. god bless the young women who just stood up. [applause] thank you. >> thank you all. i will start to my left. the clock says we have less than seven minutes to finish this conversation. have you learned a lot tonight? have you enjoy yourselves? [applause] again, #povertymustend. our website, afuturewithoutpo verty.com. signed that letter. ask the president to give a speech about how he will address poverty. the time right now could not be better. then we could start a conversation. the rest of us will be forced to have a conversation about poverty and then we can get traction on this issue. we can bring these experts together and start to figure out a way to cut poverty in half. i will start on this end. 30 seconds a peace. i have to be off the air at 9:00. whatever you're closing thoughts are about the issue. >> i want to be on that task force. i thank you for asking that to be done. [applause] >> the safety net is maligned and criticized, but unemployment insurance have worked very well in the severe downturn. the problem is the program has not worked well. it is not tied to the condition of the economy. it needs to be fixed. roseanne. -- >> roseanne. >> i am inspired. i want folks to understand they have to engage. they cannot trust those in washington d.c.. we have got to take control in our democracy. i want to talk about the fact this goes back to unemployment. it is a very easy read. it cuts to the chase in terms of facts that there are programs to get through and get 100% employment. do not discount america. take control of america. [applause] >> i forgot to mention, the book is called america's poor and the great recession. ideas about what democrats and republicans can agree on. speaker gingrich. >> thank you for assembling an amazing group and a fascinating evening. i hope everybody found it as intriguing as i did. it is clear our institutions and poverty -- institutions are not working. there is a need to rethink from the ground up and use all of the various technologies. then have a conference at the end and then give a major speak. i think we do not have the solutions in this city today for an effective speech that really breaks through. he can draw our attention. >> the forthcoming book is called, "a better american future." please thank him for joining us. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you for bringing us together. what an amazing group of people with great solutions. the solutions are there. they are clear. the politics are broken right now. we have two parties that represent. we need a third party to represent the rest of america. [applause] >> "the price of civilization." a great read. [applause] >> remember martin luther king jr. it means much. we live in a culture where honesty is much more of a liability. truth telling can get you in trouble. we can cut against the culture if you get on the love trained. -- train. fight for everybody. >> "the rich and the rest of u s." thank you. last comment. >> we have way too many children who are hungry and poor. if we will solve polity, we will all do it together. you'll have to have a national plan. let's make sure low income americans are on that love train with the rest of us. [applause] >> in seconds. -- 15 seconds. >> a wonderful preschool, fun, joy, love. do it because we are decent people. [applause] >> "fire in the ashes." please thank the foundation, please thank them. [applause] please thank the network. please give a round of applause to c-span for carrying this conversation live. [applause] thank you very much for joining us. a future without poverty.com. god bless you and good night from washington. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> why did you write a book about your experience? it was an important part of history. i thought the perspective should be brought to bear. there were other accounts of the crisis that i thought were not completely accurate, especially in terms of what we did and what i did. i thought it was important to report our perspective. i think currently for people to understand there were different policy choices, different policy options, disagreements. if we want to prevent another crisis i thought the public itself should engage more, take bager interest in it, educate themselves better. it is easy to make a book accessible. >> the former head of the policy negotiations. her book is "bull by the horns" sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." two former chairman of the budget committee talked about the deet keeg ceiling and the changes to entitlemented to balance the budget. they spoke just under an hour. [applause] >> first senator gregg. >> thank you, marc. i appreciate that. that was quite an introduction. it is free to be here -- great to be here. they have been a wonderful firm to have represent me. it's also a wonderful to be here with kent conrad, who was a close friend, and i am glad his dog made it through so he could be here. he is a deficit hawk. more important than that he is a thoughtful and conscious -- voice of a conscious for the senate throughout his term on fiscal responsibility. we worked together in a very effective way to try to bring some sort of bipartisan effort into the requirement that we do something about the debt. it was really, as was mentioned, an idea that we came up with on a long plane ride i think to central america to put together a commission that then threw into the simpson bowls proposal that has become the defining memo for the effort to try to get that is under control. bob zoellick is fond of quoting a friend of his, the foreign minister of australia. we met a few months ago who said to him the united states is one debt deal away from leading the world out of fiscal chaos and disruption. we are. we truly are. we are a nation on the brink of massive economic expansion. from the place that can't is from, north dakota, you see the change in the paradigm on energy. we will go from importing country to an exporting country. our cost of energy for as far as i can see will be the lowest in the world and will change the whole dynamic of our markets and how we produce and how productive we are and how we grow as a society, but that is only part of it. we're still the place for all the great ideas come from. whether it is apple, facebook, for my part of the country for we are producing breakthroughs in medical technology. and we are pleased of massive liquidity. -- we are a place of massive liquidity. america is still inherently entrepreneurial. we still have people willing to take risks for the opportunity for themselves and the people they employ. the one thing that makes people concerned is our fiscal house, and the fact that we are on a totally unsustainable path, and that if we stay of this path we will essentially bankrupt our future and our children's future and reduce our standard of living. how do we resolve this? how do we get the one deal, as the foreign minister of australia said? it appears the big bang approach, which was a comprehensive agreement that we put together by the congress, and then was picked up, will not be the way it happens. there will be a trend here, chunk there. we have seen this happening as we have gone over the past two years where we had the events of august 2011 with the budget control act, which produced a very substantial deficit reduction effort in the area of discretionary spending. it was $900 billion. it also produced the super committee, which did not get results, but it did move the ball the putting some ideas on the table. -- have the biden group and the group of six. then we had the fiscal cliff event here. it was awful. an opportunity was missed in my opinion, especially by the house republicans to take up what had been a fairly legitimate savings, and what we ended up with was a tax bill. we now have 900 billion in discretionary spending. 600 billion in revenue. the next exercise, in my opinion, has to be about spending restraints, specifically entitlements. that is where the big enchilada is an issue that has not been taken up yet. how do we get to that? there are three pressure points. you have the sequestered, the debt ceiling, and you have the continuing resolution. the sequestered and debt ceiling fall on top of each other towards the end of february. these to say and republican leadership and the senate, which is served in for 12 years, you never take a hostage you cannot shoot. the problem with the house was they took hostage the cannot shoot when they took the fiscal cliff. if the republican members of congress take the debt ceiling as a hostage, it is a hostage you cannot shoot. as a very practical matter, if we go over the debt ceiling, we do not increase the debt ceiling, republicans will not win the debate. they will argue they are not increasing it because they do not want to control spending but they will not win the debate. what will happen is the white house will pay with cash flow of the interest on the debt. the debt will not be called. what they might not pay our social security checks. the moment the american citizen figures out they may not go out, the game is over. tenfold. because believe me, though congress can stand up to the senior lobby. so that is not a legitimate process to take the debt ceiling as the hostage. the appropriate goal, whether the debate should occur. the president gets to talk about the faults. he gets to talk about social security. we should be talking about spending. spending restraints. where is the logical place to do this? the logical place is on the sequestered. that is where the next pressure point should be. we should have the debate over how much spending should be restrained and how it should be restrained. the sequester is a 1.2 trillion dollar event. that is a number that fits neatly into the debate structure. the president got 600 billion in revenue. 1.2 trillion in spending restraint makes sense. the to match up rather equally. people say we already did 900 billion in spending restraint, so that is not fair. i am speaking the partisan position here. but the point is, the debate over the sequestered is the debate over how you control spending. the sequester is discretionary spending event primarily, but the debate on how you put off the sequestered should be a debate about how you dress -- you address entitlements spending. i happen to think there is a pathway for agreement that is logical and a win for both sides. the only way you get agreement is when both sides win. it is something like this, there are series of entitlement changes that do not impact immediately and leapfrog the president's term in office so the price he will pay will not be significant in the area of political capital, with -- but drew very significant steps. most of the entitlement concern is down the road driven event and the things that basically involve changing the ways we reimburse and tadema's and give people enough time to anticipate the change so they can build a life structure is the go into retirement to handle it. i happen to think what was already put on the table by the president, and that is changing from a regular cola to a chain: calculation. it only saves -- only 250-$300 billion. only in washington. it is a multiplier event. it compounds aggressively in the second 10 years. big, huge event. because inflation is so low, it really will not be fell dramatically by anybody in the near term. also, changing the age. phasing it in over 60 years so that no one under the age of 20 would be impacted by the change we make. nobody. you would have thought we would do it tomorrow. if the president is carrying the bully pulpit on that issue, you can do that. then of course there is a whole issue of changing medicare reimbursement from being utilization and cost plus system to be and out comes about your system. that will take time, but there is a lot we can do in that area that would produce massive savings. so there are things that can be done that would leapfrog the president's term but he scored a huge savings. if you want more revenue you have tax reform. they create more revenue. it is more complicated issue. clearly, there is a pathway to get this done. it needs to be done. and we have an opportunity to do it if the republicans take the right hostage in the next round. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have just heard the answer. so we can all leave here feeling very good. i recommend you immediately call your broker and invest any funds you have in cash into the market and tell them judd gregg sent you. i think judd is right about this in terms of our overall economic condition, but we do face this extraordinary challenge in the near term. before i get into that and let me thank leading authorities for organizing this. i have so enjoyed joining your team. i get to be the same -- i get to be on the same team as judd greg and that is something that delights me. in the united states senate, he and i were chairman and ranking member of the committee. we were on a trip to central america and south america. during that trip, we came up with the concept of a commission to deal with our runaway deficits and debt. and during those long plane rides, while our wives sat patiently listening to us, we went over how it commission may be fashion, what the goals might be, how it might operate in order to achieve a result. we came back with the idea of the statutory commission. a commission set in law. when we took that i get to our college for a vote in the united states senate, we got 53 votes for that proposition. unfortunately, in the senate, you need 60 votes. so we were seven votes short. interestingly enough, seven of our original cosponsor of voted no on the day of the vote. if we would have had those seven original co-sponsors -- co-sponsors, we would've had a commission that is in law and that may have made a profound difference. because we did not, we had to go to an executive order commission, at a commission ordered by the president of the united states, which became the -- which became the bowles-simpson or the simpson-bowles commission on which we both serve. you may be wondering how is it that come if you had 11 of 18 votes that it did not go to a vote in the congress? normally, 60% of the vote carries the united states senate. but on the commission, the requirement was to have to have 14 of the 18 agreed. so we were three short. but we did put together a plan that serves a very -- serves as a very good blueprint going forward. and it is a blueprint that i still think has relevance today. i thought, since we're now on the brink of another debt limit fight, that it might be useful to kind of review where we are. as judd knows so well, i am not comfortable unless i have slides and charts. so let's go to the chart. when we look at where we are, if it can start with the first slide, we are borrowing 31 cents of every dollar that's was spent. that is an improvement because we were borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. so we have some improvement. but that is an unsustainable circumstance. you cannot be borrowing 31 cents of every dollar that you spend. when we look back at how we got in this situation, obviously, deficits are a function of the relationship between spending and revenue. the red line on this chart is the spending going back to 1950 as a share of our gross domestic product. the green line is the revenue line. what you can see is the gap between those two. we were spending a 22.8% of gdp in 2012. that difference represents a deficit of $1.10 trillion. you can see that we are very close to being at a 60-year high in spending and very close to being at a 60-year low in revenue. so i would say to those who say that we just have a spending problem, i think you have that half right. we have a spending problem. we also have a revenue problem that needs to be addressed. let's go to the next slide if we can. the result of these deficits and debt is that we now have a gross debt that is more than 100% of our gross domestic product. you can see right in the middle, in 2012, the gross debt of united states has now reached 104%. why does that matter? the best academic research, a book by rogoff of harvard reinhardt, it looked at 200 years of economic history and concluded, once you get a gross debt of more than 90% of your gross domestic product, your future economic prospects are dramatically reduced. future economic growth is reduced anywhere from 25 to 33%. so these are not just numbers on a page. this is a question of future economic opportunity. how will the economy grow? what kind of life will people leave? -- lead? when you get to a gross debt of gdp, your future economic prospects are reduced. we have talked about the revenue side of the equation, the spending side of the equation. looking at the revenue -- i showed a slide earlier this showed revenue at 15.8% of gdp. typically, if you look at the economic history of the country in the last 30 years, average revenue has been about 18.6% of gdp. but the last five times we balanced the budget, revenue was not at 18.6% of gdp. it was close to 20%. revenue and the times would balance was close to 20% of gdp. that kind of sets up the question of what the president proposed. because he was calling for $1.60 trillion of additional revenue. remember that that -- he was calling for $1.60 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. to put that in context, how much revenue are reprogrammed to raise over the next 10 years? that number is $37 trillion. so $1.60 trillion increase in revenue is 4% increase. we cannot have an increase of 4% in revenue? of course we can. i think part of the problem we have in washington is that no one knows what these numbers mean. if we put this in context, 4% additional revenue over the next 10 years, certainly, we can do that. let's go to the next slide. the same is true on the sending spending on the spending side of the equation. let me just say that i use these slides on the floor of the senate to persuade my colleagues to negotiate up. when the president laid down his plan and the speaker laid down his plan, i went to the floor of the senate and said, him, let's take the presence revenue number and let's take the speaker's spending proposal, let's take them both. but the them together and let's have a package that actually gets the job done. because together, their proposals would have met $4 trillion of the deficit and debt reduction, which virtually every economist says is necessary to sterilize the date -- to stabilize the debt and really bring the number down and put us on this drought -- put us on a sound fiscal course. so take the president's revenue proposal, will put $6 trillion, which is less revenue than we had in the simpson bowles proposal -- if you take the same base line, simpson bowles has more revenue than the president was proposing. let's take the savings that the speaker was proposing on health care. he said $500 billion over 10 years. again, if we put that in context, we will spend over 11 trillion dollars on health care. so the spending proposal that the speaker meat represents 4.5% of the health care spending over the next 10 years. we can't save 4%? really? what company in america face with a circumstance that we have would say, oh, no, that is too tough. we cannot save 4%. yes, we can. let's go to the next slide. especially if you put in context where we are in health care expenditures in the world, the most recent years that we have comparisons with other countries was 2010. we know that we are now at over 18% of g.d.p. many this country. nobody else is more than 11.5%. the idea that we cannot have additional savings on health care and not hurt anybody is preposterous. we absolutely can have savings in health care. and when you have savings in health care, 40% of that savings flows to the federal government and federal programs because federal government is funding 40% of the health care in this country. so we have big savings in health care. we have big savings in federal government. discretionary savings, the speaker proposed $300 billion over 10 years. again, if we put that in context, we will spend $11.60 trillion over the next 10 years. that would represent a savings of 2.6%. as judd indicated, we are have $900 billion in savings in the budget control act. so there are substantial savings that have already accrued in this area. but we can do another $300 billion. we can save another 2.6%. other mandatory, that is the other major canned -- major category. the speaker proposed $200 billion. we will spend $5.10 trillion in this category. over the next 10 years. so that represents again a savings of 4%. what have we begun -- what have we become as a country if we cannot make a 4% change? really. that is something we should be able to do. so, under the compromise that i propose, taking the speakers numbers, taking the president's revenue, you can see how it wraps up to a total of over $4 trillion of savings over 10 years, which is, as i indicated what virtually every economist says is necessary to get us back on track. we are borrowing 31 cents of every dollar we spend, but we're also on a long-term trend. according to the congressional budget office, if we fail to act, we are failed to a debt that is not 100% of their gdp. it will be 200% of our g.d.p. the budget control act has already dropped discretionary spending to historic lows. you can see and the budget control act, we will go down to 5.3% of gdp going to discretionary spending, down from 8.3% last year. and 13.6% back in 1968. so you can see we are already making substantial changes on the discretionary side now. where we really need to focus -- judd made this point. medicaid, medicare and other federal health benefits going into dp, looking for two 2050, you can see -- in 1972, we were spending 9% on health care cuts. we are headed for spending 12% of gdp. this is the 800-pound gorilla. this is the problem we have to confront. by the way, social security is pretty stable as a share of gdp. it has gone up a little bit and it will go below more with the baby boom generation. that is not the problem. here's the problem. if you look at the fiscal commission plan, it had -- if you look at current comparisons -- over $5 trillion of deficit reduction. it lowered the deficit to 1.4% of gdp in 2022. it stabilizes the debt by 2015. it even further reduced discretionary spending. it built on health reform savings, called for social security reform and provided specific things to do to get social security solvent for the next 75 years. and it also included fundamental tax reform that raised revenue. and raised quite a bit of revenue, $2.40 trillion, would have been revenue. revenue not required through raising rates, but revenue that would come through reforming the tax code, reducing preferences, exclusions that are shot through the tax code to actually be able to reduce rates and raise additional revenue. for anybody that wonders, can you really do that? remember that tax expenditures are running $1.20 trillion a year. we are spending more through the tax code than we are through all of the appropriated accounts of the federal government. this is what happens to the deficit as a share gdp under the fiscal commission plan. you can see dramatic improvement. the fiscal cliff plan, what was just adopted, you'll know the elements here. we turned off the sequestered for two months the unemployment extension was included for a year and the farm bill was extended for a year. but don't let anybody tell you that that had anything to do with deficit reduction. because here is what the congressional budget office says. the total revenue loss from the proposal is $3.60 trillion. that is from extending all the bush era tax cuts, except for the top 1%, and the permanent fix to the alternative minimum tax -- those two things lose $3.60 trillion of revenue. additional spending, three and a $32 billion. so the deficit was increased by $4 trillion. and that does not count debt service. so we just dug the hole deeper. and anybody that tells you this thing raised net revenue over 10 years, no, it did not. it absolutely did not. because, when you fix the alternative minimum tax for 10 years, that cost you $1.80 trillion. so you picked of $650 billion by raising the rate on the top 1%, but you have permanently fix the alternative minimum tax, which come in below, would generate 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. what is bigger? i will tell you that republicans should have been celebrating this as a massive victory, a massive tax cut because, in fact, that is what has occurred here. this is a big tax cut. so i say to you, in terms of what has to happen next, i think it will require the revenue side of the equation and the spending side of the equation to be addressed. let me conclude by saying this. how do we get out of this in the current circumstance? the president says he will not negotiate on the debt limit. republicans say they will not vote for excess and on the debt limit unless they get substantial additional cuts in spending. i think judd is absolutely right. we have another dynamic at work here. and that is the sequester. $1.20 trillion of across-the-board spending cuts, half in defense and half in non-defense. republicans don't like it. democrats don't like it. that creates an opportunity. there's also the question of how long do you extend the debt limit. i think it would be incredibly foolish to renamed on the debt of the united states. -- to renig on the debt of united states. but how long we extend the debt limit, that is open to negotiation. and between the two of how long you extend the debt limit and how you deal with the sequestered gives you an opportunity for another attempt at a grand bargain. revenue and spending restraint, especially on mandatory programs to get america back on track. we can do it. we have done much tougher things before. this is an next opportunity to put america in a premium position in the world. if we solve this problem, there's nothing that can stop the united states from continuing to be the most important and dominant country in the world. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will open it up to questions. i would like to start with one. we know what the problem is. and we sort of know how to solve it. but we are confronted by the reality of the political dynamics on the hill. a republican house that was elected within their districts by large margins and president who won an election. how do we bridge the gap? how do we actually get the deal done. >> we have a system that is incremental in nature. we're not a parliamentary system where, if you control the government, you can move very quickly and aggressively. i have always said that the american politics is played on the 40-yard line. and both sides feel very strongly about their philosophical position. but there is a deep identity of interest that i think needs -- leads to premature should lead to agreement. if you're the president of united states, there are two events that you know may occur in the next four years, which could totally derail your capacity to do the of the things you want to do about the nation, your positive agenda. the first is the terrorist and weapons of mass destruction. i think this president has been dedicated to intelligence gathering and his use of various capabilities to reduce that threat. and secondly, the issue of the financial crisis driven by the market's losing confidence in our currency because of the fact that they take a look at the charts that he put up thereand say these folks can figure it out. and that will happen. it is not a question of whether it will happen. that will happen. at some point, somebody will wake up in the financial markets someday and say, the dollar is not paid what they claim is worth because they cannot pay it back without deflating the dollar. you don't want that to happen on your watch because it will sidetrack the economy. so the president has an incentive to come to the table and get this issue under control. can you have the republican position -- and you have the republican position. the dna is that you have to get the spending under control. the question really becomes the politics of getting people to go across the aisle to reach agreement. i don't think the house can do it, to be honest with you. so many seats in the house now are gerrymandered by party. the one thing that happens in those districts, about 65% of the house is now gerrymandered by party. your elected by your base -- you are elected by your base. the one thing you're based won't tolerate -- governing in our system means compromise. you cannot go across the aisle because your threatened immediately on reelection. -- -- because you are threatened immediately on reelection. i think the leadership has to come from is the president. the president has to be interested in to this issue and lead. he has allies in the senate who are willing and capable of going across the aisle. the senate has a very strong working senator. it is almost half of the senate that is willing to move on very big and aggressive package if they get leadership. and then you take the package it comes out of the senate any good to the presidential leadership and speaker boehner would be supported as long as it came in a way that was structured and you get something done. >> i really agree with that. in a curious way, both sides need each other. why do i say that? a debt limit has to be extended. it has to be. this is not our future spending. this is about spending has already been done. will we pay the bills that we have already racked up? clearly, we have to do that. the consequences of a failure to extend the debt limit would be extraordinary. to do that, you have to get votes of people in the house of representatives. and they are insisting on additional spending restraint. in fact, we need additional spending restraint. if anything is clear from the charts i have put up your is that we have to get some additional restraint on the entitlement side of our budget. so it does lend itself to a compromise, one in which there is additional revenue, not from raising rates, but through tax reform, which happily something the country needs anyway. does anybody believe this tax code that we have makes any sense at all? i don't know of a single democrat or a single republican that would sit here and say this tax code can possibly be supported on any grounds. it is not fair. is not rational. it is not easy to abide by. and it is hurting our competitive position world. it just seems to me that we have a continuing opportunity to have a compromise. and one that will get us back on track. it does require leadership. i have always believed it had a start in the senate because that is where there's still a broad middle to really lead to have action. >> we would like to open it up to questions from you all. if you could raise your hand -- i think we have one over here. and if you could please state your name and organization please. >> tony cosell with bloomberg government. you both seem to indicate that there is positive momentum behind tax reform. is that on the individual side? is that on the corporate side? is it on both? how do you handicapped the prospects for that say in the next one year or two years to get something done? >> i think it is on both sides. as you know, and a statutory rate is now the highest rate in the world, in the industrialized world come in terms of corporate tax. our effective rate is substantially lower than that. unfortunately, some companies pay for a close to the statutory rate. clearly, we need to change the corporate tax. that cries out for reform. the individual -- you know, i just find it grossly unfair that some people who are making staggering amounts of money to pay much less of a tax rate and the -- then the people were working for them. -- than the people who are working for them. so i think in the next year you've got an opportunity for tax reform on both sides. >> i think they have made it clear that they're interested in moving this way. i don't see how you get this deficit under control unless you change the tax laws because the template of simpson bowles has two extremely event -- extremely aggressive models. we eliminated $1.10 trillion of deductions. we took a trillion dollars of debt and reduced rates. i think the rates were 9%, 15% and 23%. that's order template makes a lot of sense. republicans want to see rates down. on the democratic side they want to see it done because they see these tax deductions at special interest. there is an interest here. plus, both sides want more fairness. on the corporate side, i think it is critical that we have tax reform. one of the keys to has to be addressed is the issue of some territorial system. we have trillions of dollars sitting overseas incorporations the cannot give back to tinian and states without paying a 35% tax to get it back. and you have a scoring mechanism that says, if you bring a dollar back and you don't pay the tax on it, the government does not get the 35 cents. so we never get the money back. there needs to be some sort of territorial system and understand the labor force -- labor opposes this because they think that companies may move more money offshore because they will see a lower tax. to bring the money back care means you will get better investment here, more expansion of capital and equipment here and more jobs here. so we have to go to some sort of territorial system. >> over here. >> thank you to both of you for coming this morning and for your service. i have two questions. the first one is can you talk about your sense about the potential for interest deduction. the bowles simpson would have modified the mortgage interest deduction. and why is vote -- why is social security technically part of the discussion? >> raising the cap on social security was part of bowles simpson. on mortgage interest, i think, ultimately, there will be a chance that -- but perhaps -- the plan talk about the credit, doing it as a deduction, not allowing it to go to second homes. i don't think that 500,000 would be adopted. currently, it is a million. i think second homes can be excluded at some point. as part of an overall package. that is if an overall package it's done. as i have indicated. i still remain hopeful that one will be done. it is so needed. and it is hard for me to see this doing -- this done if both sides don't work together. i really believe there is the possibility of getting this done. >> i served on the ways and means committee. one thing that was necessary -- first, you had to have the president. secondly, you cannot pick up one group. you never win. you have to do everybody. i don't think there's any question. the four major sources of revenue -- the four major sources of deductions that create revenue will have to be impacted. that includes real estate, charitable, state and local, and health insurance. because that is where all the deductions occur in the individual side. >> as congress looks at cutting expenditures, rates and revenue, how will it value things that he people today, such as health care expenses, versus retirement savings, which arguably are more of a long-term it to the economy and to people who saved to fund their retirement? >> >> let me just say that my own belief is that we have to be smart about this. i don't think we should do things that would disincentivize savings. if you don't have savings, you don't have investment. if you don't have investment, you don't grow. but our current incentives with this tax code are all upside down. so we disincentivize savings because we tax it. we shouldn't do that in terms of helping people build for their own retirement. that means they need to be in savings vehicles. social security is one, but they also need to be in other tax preference savings vehicles. i don't think it would be smart to hurt those. >> i certainly agree with that. but i think there's a bigger matter at play, which is the policy of the fed, which is basically creating a situation because of the low-interest policies. where seniors savings are being dis popincentivized in a very aggressive way -- being disincentivized in a very aggressive way. >> we have time for one more question. >> good morning. thank you both for your remarks today. very interesting. another discussion that has occurred among some economists is that is not questioning the fundamental assumptions of what you have brought here, but the timing, that the focus should be more about stimulating the economy coming folks up and working and then have a discussion of the deficit. because, in fact, the credit is relatively easy. the dollar is still in effect the currency standard. if i could just have your thoughts on that and, just quickly, reducing corporate tax reform discussion will occur in the next six months. >> there is always an excuse for not doing things in washington. and the excuse today is, well, you don't want to retard the economy. the simple fact is that the best thing you can do for this economy is to resolve our fiscal problems because it will give people confidence in our future. it will cause people to go on and be willing to invest. and it would say to our kids you have a prosperous life style has opposed to having to pay for our generation. i just don't accept this argument. surely, there are some short-term things you don't want to do that will contract spending. that will not happen anyway. i just don't see that happening. i think the sooner we get on this issue of resolving our long-term fiscal problems, the more dynamic our economy will be because we have done that. >> let me say that i am in the pack -- in the camp that believes that the major problem in the economy is facing is weak demand. that is not the time to impose fiscal austerity. but it is the time to put in place a plan that gets us back on fiscal track over the longer term. that is precisely what bowles-simpson attempted to do. because we did not impose austerity immediately. we had a several-year gap. but it put in place the long-term changes that gave you an assurance that you were going to get back on track for the 10-year budget period. after all, we have just had the toughest economic downturn since the great depression. i think we have to be sensitive to what you do in the short term. but that is no excuse for taking action that gets us back on track long term. the happy part about this is the the tax changes and the spending changes that you need to make have enormous benefit, not only in the 10-year budget window -- even if you give several years delay to allow the economy to recover -- but the real big bonus is what great was talking about earlier. the second 10 years and the third 10 years. if you make these fundamental changes now, they pay massive dividends into the future. >> i'm sorry, but we are out of time. you're welcome to come up. i want to thank both senator conrad and senator gregg. in a town where we're used to shouting at each other, when ashley had a pretty intelligent and smart discourse this morning. i would like to remind the audience that both senator conrad and senator gregg art available for speaking. we hope you will look to them for meetings that are coming up. there is a saying that there is no free breakfast. but this is almost free. the only thing we would like to ask of you is, before you leave today, there is a short questionnaire if you do -- a short questionnaire. if you do it, we will be grateful. i want to thank our sponsors and our partners at the u.s. chamber of commerce. thank you so much. have a great day. [applause] >> tonight on c-span the international monetary fund. later a for yum on poverty in america. >> the greatest honor that history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. this honor now beckons america. the chance to help lead the world at last out of of the valley of turmoil and on to that high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization. >> this weekend on american history tv, the back story with the american history experts. they explore the history of presidential inaugurations. part of three days of american history tv right through inauguration day on c-span 3. international monetary fund held a press conference to talk about the global economy. what she is the economy is improving. a $4 billion bailout package for greece was announced. this is 40 minutes. thank you for being here. a few comments to begin with. there are varies comments about what it seems to be like and i'm trying to think of how wei think it encapsulates what we're trying to say. clearly, the collapse has been avoided in many corners of the world due to policies quite often put through by central bankers and eventually by government authorities, particular the advanced economies. whether you look at the you -- the eurozone or the united states of america -- although often at the last hour -- the right decisions have been made. and as a result, the collapse has been avoided. there's still a lot of work to be done. that is why we should avoid the relapse and make sure that none of the decision makers and none of the authorities actually relax. assuming there is a little bit of recovery in sight and because the markets in particular have clearly anticipated good news that it is time to slow down, slow the pace, and go back to business as usual. what does this mean in terms of policy? i will mention three key areas. first of all, it is important to pull through policies and put uncertainty to rest. for those of you who followed carefully, we're trying to associate uncertainty and confidence. this is not clearly definite yet in terms of investment, but it is in terms of consumption. removing uncertainty plays a key role in rejuvenating confidence. so putting away uncertainty by following through on policies is important from our perspective. what does that mean? key common challenges along the advanced economies will be about restoring fiscal sustainability. i'm sure you have questions about this issue and i will be happy to take them. in terms of fiscal sustainability, we are particularly concerned about the medium-term plans. there are clearly some short-term policies that need to be adjusted country by country and with the right chemistry. we're concerned about the medium-term in order to bring public debt down at the pace that is for each country. that is a common feature for all economies, particularly the advanced economies. as far as the euro area is concerned, we feel that a lot has been achieved in terms of policies, in terms of new tools in the tool box that europeans have available to fight crisis. yet fire walls have not yet proven operational. progress needs to be made on banking union and clearly continued, if not further monetary easing will be approved in order to sustain demand. for the united states, we think that all sides should pull together in the national interest, avoid further avoidable policy mistakes that is threatening -- that is continuing to agree on the debt ceiling and reaching agreement on the medium term debt reduction that i mentioned earlier. for the non-events economies, i am putting together the emerging markets as well as the low income countries, clearly, those countries are fearing a much better case in terms of growth. but everywhere i have travelled in the last few months, in africa, in latin america, and in asia, there has always been a concern about the lack of decisive action to address the advanced economies crises. so those spillover effects coming colluding busy so those spillover effects, including -- so those spillover effects, of.including uncertainty, are clear. reducing uncerainty will be key to the healthy of the global economy and allow them to grow at a pace for their population. this is excessively too general. when you go down the list of the emerging market economies, some of them are much more vulnerable and open to the risks of contagion or spillover effects of the advanced economies. some of them are more interconnected regionally and less prone to those risks. but overall, in the main, there is that clear risk, which leads us to recommend to them that they actually improve and increase the buffers that they have already used and which they need to replenish. that is the first imperative that dimension, which is to follow through in policies to eliminate uncertainty. the second point is in our critical of you because it is at the heart of the latest development of the crisis -- which is to finish the reform of the financial sector. we recognize that there has been progress. but the process has been very time consuming and continues to contribute to uncertainty. we sense a sign of waning commitment. there's still a momentum, but it is probably not as crucial as it was and we really regret it. you can see that when we examine the reforms were some of them are slightly diluted, softened at the margin, where implementation is the late that is clearly the case with bas 03, for instance. there are inconsistencies of approaches, which have laid the ground for possible arbitration. and we believe that it is important for the regulators, for the supervisors, for the authorities to actually resist aggressive industry pushed back. further weakening of capital lending standards, there have been discussions on the liquidity coverage ratio, which has been concluded and it could have been better. we did not see enough progress on the cross border resolution, which has been recommended by your know by the fsb, but has not resulted in regional and country levels. and we certainly see delays in regulation concerning both shuttle banking and derivatives. the ultimate goal of the finance regulation massive work in is to be completed, the needs to be done on an accelerated rather than a slowdown basis clearly has to do with the growth of the real economy and that is my third key point. clearly, authorities come up policy decision makers have to focus on the real economy. what we mean by that? i mean clearly focused on growth and not just any growth, but growth that develops jobs. what we're seeing is improvement on certain fronts, but deterioration and certainly no improvement on the employment front, which we recognize as critical from both an economy point of view, but also from a social point of view. they're more than 200 billion -- 200 million people out of a job and two in five of those unemployed people are under 24. there's a clear concentration in some areas, including in the events economies. so we need growth for jobs and jobs for growth. we encourage policymakers to try to engage. we need inclusive growth and won the chairs appropriately the -- one the shares appropriately the benefits with the population. that applies across the world, both in events economies as well as the emerging markets and low-income countries. i have traveled to quite a few income country lately where we have a partnership where we have technical assistance with programs. it means transforming the energy, subsidies program into cash transfers come into social state units that are properly targeted to the people that actually need the support and not across the board and generally benefiting anybody, especially those that don't need it at all. finally, we need balanced growth. we need to continue the shift and demand from the advanced economies to the new engines in the emerging market economies. that is one aspect of the balancing that is needed, a rebalancing. we also mean by a more balanced growth, growth that is more compatible with the sustainability of our environment and the fight against climate change. what does the need for us? i remind you that, in 2013, the imf is stronger, better equipped financially. it has certainly refined some of its tools. we'll continue to strengthen our surveillance, especially on spillover effects and on the financial sector. we will continue to strengthen our support for the entire spectrum of members through lending, capacity building, training and technical assistance. in other words, we're not only serving the needs of a selected group of companies -- a group of countries, but the entire membership. when you look at the world and see where our teams are, where there is building and technical assistance in programs, we are all over the map. and we will continue to push ahead with the important and not complete reform of " and governance. we are in three stages, two are completed. we are certainly short of a few members, one of which is obviously a key member. that is all everyone into open bar conference with. i will welcome your questions and be address each and every one of them -- and address each and every one of them. i hope i will have the right answer for you. i will not pretend that i know it all. i try to learn a lot in the process. >> thank you, managing director. let's begin down in front. right here. >> thank you. thank you for this opportunity and for this press conference and for talking with us. i am with the russian news agency. you will be meeting the russian prime minister in a few days. i wonder how you view the russian agenda in the context of the aims to have just described. and if you could maybe change something in that agenda, what would it be? thank you. >> i would not change the venue because i am very glad to go to moscow and st. petersburg at the end of the year. i am happy about the timing. i think st. petersburg will be a little bit warmer, i think. as far as the russian agenda for the g-20 is right because it is focused. to have as priorities the ways and means to restore and maintain growth and create jobs, number one, number two, the continuation and completion of the financial sector reform. number three, using the mutual process to guide countries' economies, i think those are important agenda items. there might be more, but those are the ones we are really concerned about. and where the imf connection help them provide advice and support. we will be very happy to support the russian presidency on these three agenda items. >> thank you. >> right here in the center. >> thank you for this opportunity. i wonder about your assessment. we saw very frustrating growth last year. and there's no greater expectation that there will be a better result this year. we also have the inflation raising, a very concerned situation in our physical sector. despite this, brazil is actually one country where we don't have very good economic growth, but we still have job creation. so it is one of those very unusual situations. i wonder your assessment on that. >> in a way, i share your concern about the brazilian economy. it has grown and certainly less than initially expected. but having said that, the real question is to really end stand whether it is growing at capacity or whether there is an output gap that could be filled in by appropriate macroeconomic policy measures. >> ok. >> i will leave it like that. >> gentleman with his hand up. >> elaborating on the financial reform, you seem to be attributing some of the recent events to push back from industry. i wonder if you feel the process has reached the limits of what it can do at this point and whether we will be left with an incomplete response because of the concerns about credit provision. >> two points on that. i am always concerned about the push back of the banking industry. it is the nature of the game and it is the constant approach to push back. i might be a little bit -- having observed the profession. equally, i do not think appetite for growth, the need for jobs, and the necessary level of investments is not consistent with having the financial regulations in place with the right level of certainty with appropriate supervision. what the financial regulation reform aims at is to make sure there is security, protection, credit available for investors to develop activity, invest in the economy, and create jobs. i do not see that as being mutually exclusive. the concern we have about the growth of jobs and investment is supported by the need to have a financial sector that is vibrant, focused on the right priorities, that is appropriately supervised, and that is regulated. regulated with certainty. >> the lady way over here on the right. >> thank you. i am with the portuguese public television. what to expect from portugal this year. what do you expect the portugal authorities to do in the short term? >> thank you very much. portugal has done an extremely good job of reducing the fiscal deficit two-thirds of the way has already been completed. we have just approved yesterday the review and dispersed close to a billion dollars, which was the next tranche of the portuguese program. there is still work to do. we stopped the collapsed. let's avoid the relapse. we know that more fiscal contraction and consolidation is needed going forward. we have made a range of proposals. they are just proposals for the moment. the portuguese authorities have to decide what is most appropriate in the context of portugal and if they have other options that are best accomplished in order to accomplish the fiscal consolidation and preserve the chemistry of portuguese society, that is perfectly legitimate. there is a bit more time to go, a bit more work to do. the end of the program and we hope growth and jobs of the end of the day, which is really what matters. 16% unemployment rate, over 30% with the young people, that is the key priority. >> gentlemen in the front. >> [inaudible] >> can you wait for the microphone? >> parts of austerity may have been underestimated. i wanted to know if you shared that opinion. >> i we share the opinion of my chief economist. i will challenge him eventually. at the end of the day, i do not challenge the findings because they have been solidly worked out. clearly, research was done and research is constantly done. the imf does not operate on the basis of principles that are set in stone and forever. the pride of this institution is to constantly questioned, challenge, revisits, reexamined, test the findings and the assumptions in order to be as up-to-date as possible. the numbers that have been used five or six years ago where numbers that had been examined, reviewed, explored, and were common to all of the professionals in the field. you were talking about fiscal multipliers. the crisis that we have come through is unparalleled, has no historical precedent and has reshuffled the assumptions fiscal multipliers. it is a work that was put back under review, and for which the teams here have concluded that the fiscal multipliers were higher in the context of the unbelievable international crisis. that is the reason why the research departments decided to come out, publish, explain what our new findings were that were clearly informed and transformed by the context of the international crisis. >> gentleman in the second row. >> the fund has now gone into a new program with greece. it seems to have stretched the parameters in terms of debt reduction. how long this can go on without getting a true debt reduction for a country like greece? do you think there is some specific time periods where you need to see that before people will lose faith yet again? >> i am pleased that you see people have regained faith in greece and that confidence has been restored and this time, it is different. we have yesterday approved to reviews and disbursement of two of charges under the existing programs. it is not really an existing program -- revisited in the sense that we had asked and the partners have eventually agreed that an additional two years were needed for greece to accomplish the fiscal contraction that is still needed. we thought it would be better for the country to have more time. equally, the clear variation from the set of principles applying to the programs, which has changed, is the renewed financing support and general support on the part of the european partners. the commitment they have made to not only to extend the maturity of their loan, not only reduce the interest rates, but also provide what ever is necessary going forward in terms of additional support to alleviate the burden of the debt and greece. provided that the country delivers on its commitments. you cannot judge a commitment and the delivery against the commitment in a matter of a couple of months. my sense is that it is a matter of a year before the commitment can be measured against delivery. that is very important, of course, and it changes the face of the greek landscape. >> the lady right here. >> russia's central bank has said the world's leading economy are on the brink of a currency war to keep up with japan and japan's use of the devaluation to boost their competitiveness. germany's finance ministers also said he was concerned about the impact on global liquidity of japanese policy. what are your thoughts of the possibility of a currency war and on japan's monetary policies that seem to be aimed at weakening the yen? >> i do not like any war, the currency or otherwise. he was the first one, at the finance minister of brazil. i strongly objected to the idea. at the time i was the minister of finance. i am even more determined to argue against currency wars. it is against the principle of the imf. that caused the creation of the institution. we're not supporting in any shape or form of any such attempt to create devaluation into open currency wars. there are multiple ways to improve competitiveness other than to use currencies as a tool. that really summarizes the position of the institution. >> let me come back down to the front. >> i wanted to ask if you can tell us if there are mistakes happening over the last two years on behalf of the imf on the greek program. >> given where we are, in partnership with the authorities of greece, i am not interested in trying to rewrite history or blame anybody or point the finger. ok? my keen interest in my very strong hope is that we can continue to work together and that the greek people will supports the greek authorities in order to deliver the program, to make sure the country can come back to the growth, so that the people who have sacrificed can reap the benefits of their sacrifices. the structural reform will be conducted. it is necessary to collect on the sacrifices that have been made. the fiscal consolidation program that has been decided continues at the right pace with the additional two years we have suggested. extremely important, there is appropriate efforts to overhaul the tax administration of greece, to collect tax revenue, and to fight tax evasion. i forgot to mention the privatization program, which is also necessary. >> gentleman here in the third row. >> thank you. what is your insight on the chinese economy in terms of opportunities and challenges? what goals are on top of your agenda that you want to achieve in the new year it? thank you. >> global growth is not just the top of my agenda, it is on the top of the agenda of anyone who cares about the economy and jobs. growth is a very conducive factor. turning to china, i would certainly observe that there is continued significant and substantial growth expected out of china. i would observe there has been a rebalancing within the china economy with a focused on consumption rather than exports. i would observe that the currency of china has adjusted. my hope is that these trends we have observed continue into 2013 s and the new chinese leadership. >> thank you. >> how do you see the impact of what is happening in the arab countries on the economy is in the arab world? do you have any particular concerns about it? >> the imf is very engaged to support and help the arab countries that went through significant changes in the last couple of years. we have programs in place with the authorities in yemen, morocco, jordan. we are in negotiations with egypt and we will be starting negotiations with tunisia. that gives you an idea of the scope of our involvement. we believe an economic set of reforms and focus on growth must be applied to those economies that have gone through political transformations and that there has to be an economic response to the social restoration. that is what we did those economies have gone through the stress of the amounts of transformation and they now have to be settled in a more inclusive way. we would have to take each and every country to go into the economies. we want to partner, we want to give the signal to other contributors that the governments in place are serious about restoring the economic situation. we hope this will be the case. >> thank you. >> the gentleman to the left has been very persistent. >> good morning. associated press. i would like to ask you about argentina. i would like to know when the meeting will take place. whether recent contacts have provided any movement toward a solution. what is your main recommendation in your december report? >> my december report went to the board and not to you. he will bear with me if i do not disclose the contents of the report. the board meeting is currently scheduled for february 1. i can also tell you that we have had a mission on the ground with a view to putting in place a financial sector assessment program. that was a scoping mission, the preliminary mission where we discuss with the authorities would aspects of the financial sector we will review how. there should be a second visit in march that is separate from the issue. >> let's take the lady. that is you. >> my question is regarding the debt and spending issues of the united states. do you think how the united states can do the spending cuts properly can minimize the effect on economic growth at the same time? thank you. >> the obvious response to that is timing. spending cuts are necessary. they should be anchored in the medium term. they should be sufficient solid as to remove the uncertainty around them. they should clearly touch on entitlements. >> perhaps we can take two more questions. let's go to the front. >> hello. we are hearing the europeans do not want the imf to participate. can you tell us why two months after the statement that even should the november what you have no deal yet? >> the imf has been engaged with partners in relation to cyprus. we have had a dialogue with the cyprus authorities. the building blocks with a program have been put together. it has not yet been concluded because there are financing issues that need to be resolved in order for a program to be accepted. and for the debt to be sustainable. >> the lady here, thank you. >> if i can take you back to the arab world for a moment and ask you about the palestinian authority. do you have a plan to avoid the collapse of the palestinian authority? >> as far as the west bank and gaza are concerned, they are not members. it is not a member of the imf. we do not to lending for nonmembers. having said that, we do a lot of capacity building, a technical assistance. that is our other way of helping. as far as nigeria is concerned, we do not have any particular program, plans, technical assistance at the moment with that country. which i was planning to visit in march. >> last question, gentlemen way at the back. >> thank you. happy new year. dow jones. i am wondering if you have any concern that in europe the political system has been pushed to an extent that mort structural reforms to bring about the jobs and growth necessary will not be able to come about. >> the structural reforms could not come about? >> because of the political tensions have been pushed too far. but that is too much of a challenge for the structural reforms necessary. is their defense of the yen and the desire to continue to depreciate its supported by the imf? >> the attempt to reinvigorate growth and create jobs, that there are two sets the parameters. they have to be satisfied at the national level. whether you look at italy, spain, germany, netherlands, france, some of the central and eastern european countries, the requirements will be different. what we see in many of those countries is a determination to actually implement reforms. certainly, when you look at the recent agreement that was reached among social partners in france to reform the labor market, that is a good step in the right direction. when you look at the reform of the competition, that is a step in the right direction. when you looked at the labor reform of the spanish market, it is a step in the right direction. you have a whole layer of national steps that are in the making to improve the situation, at the responsiveness to economic factors. then you have another layer, which is the region. clearly, there are reforms that had taken place already that are significant in terms of fiscal discipline. in terms of the banking units is concerned. i would certainly be impatient to see what the banking union plan will be and what the common supervision system will be and deliver. i observe a lot of progress on that front. there is more to be done, but i do not think we can anymore accuse the europeans of kicking the can down the road because they are producing results. it should help them recover. the same principle applies. stop the collapse, avoid the relapse, they should not relax. on japan, clearly, the recently announced a fiscal and monetary package is intended to create growth in the short term. we do not think - it is not associated with a midterm solid anchoring that would indicate the determination to change the debt trajectory, reduce the deficit. we see any such measure as being part of an overall package. there is one part of the package that is missing. monetary policy with a different inflation targets is a good and interesting targets. >> thank you very much, managing director. thank you for coming today. we look forward to working with you in the year ahead. >> happy new year to you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the u.s. conference of mayors is meeting tomorrow. we will talk with two bears, scott smith and stephen benjamin. also bill adair and how president obama is delivering on campaign promises. and jack buckley and tom loveless of the brookings institution. like every day at 7:00 eastern on c-span. -- live every day at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> it was an important period of history. i felt their perspective should be brought to bear. there has been some other points of the crisis that was not entirely accurate. i thought it was an important for the historical record to present our perspective. i think currently for people to understand there were different policy options, disagreements. if we want to prevent another crisis from happening again, i felt the public needed to engage more on financial reform and educate themselves better and make it an issue with their elected officials. i tried hard to make the book accessible. >> the former head of the fdic, sheila bair on the worst financial crisis since the great depression. &a."y night on c-span's "q the american bankers association predicts weak growth and the prospect of a prolonged fight over raising the debt ceiling. the economic advisory committee chairman discuss their predictions at this news meeting. >> thank you, jim. good morning and thank you for coming. we had some interesting discussions over the last two days. i think the major take away from those discussions is that it is the view of the committee that the fiscal cliff agreement has created new headwinds for the u.s. economy in 2013. real gdp growth in the nine states in the first half of 2013 will be below 2% before accelerating to 2.6% in the fourth quarter. the committee believes that the combination of tax hikes, a prolonged fight over the debt ceiling, and the possibility of severe spending cuts in 2013 have the potential to really stop this recovery in its tracks. one thing you will notice from our forecast table is that the recession probabilities from the committee are higher than normal. we still have the probability of a recession at 23% and for 2014, 20%. that is a little bit higher than what we typically see. we think the private sector is poised for sustainable growth. i think the housing numbers point to one area of strength, the housing market. the tax hikes at the start of 2013 will create a drag on gdp of at least 1.25%. the potential for additional budget and spending cuts from sequestration could add to the downside risks. we think resolving the debt ceiling in a timely manner and providing more clarity on policies could actually generate a boost in confidence and open the door for faster growth in the second half of 2013. looking at the labor market, we see lackluster growth in 2013 wing on job creation. we actually see gains of slowing in the first half of 2013 before picking up. that is the slower than the fourth quarter. slower gdp growth is going to be driven, we think, by a consumer that is going to be hobbled by tax increases. we will remain positive in 2013, but not appositive in consumer spending over the fourth quarter the second half will be particularly weighed down by less money in their paychecks. and we think as the year progresses, the strength of the housing market, the while the effects of the home price gains and perhaps to improvement in housing could lead to somewhat stronger consumer spending. we did see a 12% gain in housing starts this morning month over month. 37% year over year. these are strong numbers. we did see improvement in home construction, home sales, and home prices this year. housing starts, we forecast, will be up 17.8% this year. residential construction of 15%. and we will see sales gains of existing homes up 7% and new home sales up 17% some strong numbers there. rising construction, we think it will be adding to gdp growth in 2013 of about two tenths of 1%. that will be a switch from what we have seen in the last several years of the housing downturn. rising home prices are also creating an important wealth effect and is creating strength among consumers. on the external front, the committee believes export growth loraine week in 2013, rising just 2.2% year over year. recessions in europe and japan will be holding back exports here in the united states. this will be another headwind to the u.s. economy in 2013. the u.s. dollar does not appear to be much of a factor. the dollar will likely end the year about where it began. on the inflation front, a another year of a lower trend. our forecast in west texas on crude oil should average about $90 per barrel in 2013, little bit less than what it averaged last year. some of the committee members have varying opinions on inflation. some of the members did feel that the accelerating growth in china and other emerging markets could put a bit of pressure on commodity growth and lead to inflation and the next 12 months or so. when we look at the continued treasury forecasts, the first quarter starting about 1.8%. and we will end the year a little over 2% by the fourth quarter of 2013. conventional mortgage rates to start the year about 3.5% and will end the year of about 3.7%. when you look at short-term interest rates, they will remain exceptionally low, as they are strongly anchored by fed monetary policy. when it comes to fed policy, the majority of the committee members saw qe3 as continuing at the continuing rate of asset purchases of about 85 billion per month and saw the majority of those increasing the fed's balance sheet by about $1 trillion this year. but there were varying opinions on the committee that the purchases may be scaled back before the end of the year. the federal reserve, certainly recently, adopted new threshold targets for the fed funds rate and the possibility of raising the fed funds rate. those targets threshold are set at 2.5% on the inflation forecast and 6.5% on the employment rate. and the committee does not see the economy hitting those inflation target any time soon. the content of the committee was that in some time in may, 2015 would be the most likely timeframe. there were various opinions on this as well. some thought it might not be in 2016 and others thought it would be in the middle of 2014. in terms of bank credit, we saw that the banking industry is starting to support the u.s. economy through financing of growth. we have a bank credit growth over the past year and we expect that credit growth to continue this year. landing, we think, will be up 6.5% in 2013. loans to consumers and individuals up 5% for the year. finally, on the federal budget deficit and debt, the committee sees that the budget deficit will continue to decline over the next two years. but we do not characterize the debt and deficit at unsustainably high levels. we do think the deficit is reduced to $925 billion in 2013 and narrowed further, to $728 billion in 2014. that is down from $1.1 trillion last year. that gives you an overview of the committee consensus opinion and i would be happy to answer any additional questions you might how about the committee's outlook. i will be happy to entertain other questions as well. yes? >> just to clarify a little bit on the gdp dragon on the tax hike, was that on the payroll and income tax increases? >> that is correct. >> the 1.25% drag, was that for the whole year? >> we think it will be for the whole year of fiscal 2013. >> with the labour market and some improvement on as quick as it was, there was some sentiment that it might be slowing down. >> we are seeing drags on consumer spending, but also from the ongoing recession in europe and japan. it will hold back export growth and be a head wind for u.s. manufacturing. we do think the monthly job gains could slow down a bit from the pace we saw in the fourth quarter. we might see a little bit of recovery has europe and japan start to grow. >> looking a the table where you alking about real gdp, there seems to be a wide divergence with what your panel saw before. what are you seeing that the fed is not? >> that is a good point. the question was, our four consensus forecast is quite a bit lower than the fed central tendency is for economic growth in economic 2013. i get a sense from our discussions that we see the fiscal drag as may be a bigger factor than maybe the fed did the last time they did their projections. particularly, the potential for a prolonged debt ceiling fight and the sequestration spending cuts that are still enacted to take place, unless legislation changes in march of this year. how democrat to slow growth is pretty large on the sequestration spending -- and the potential to slow growth is pretty large on the sequestration spending cuts. we see a multiplier from those cuts. the drag from that could be a bit stronger. one thing we did note in our discussions was that a lot of these in from the policy changes are static analyses. we know that confidence effects and multiplier effects could have a bigger impact than some of the policy centers here. >> is it true that the fed has a tendency to overestimate growth? >> i think it is true if you look at the last couple of years that they have overestimated growth in the year ahead. i will not say that is their pattern, but if you look at the record, in the past couple of years they have been a little too optimistic. >> as you know, japan has a new prime minister and he is pushing more monetary easing for the bank of japan. many private economists are focused on some upside division of the japanese economy this year. did you consider that in his focus? the global economy, how do you look at china or other emerging economies? >> we did not spend our time discussing japan. we spent most of our time discussing the fiscal risks here the u.s. because we see that as the number one concern for the outlook this year. the second is concerned is the eurozone crisis. while the financial pressures eased there, the fundamentals are still pretty weak and there is still concern about the financial crisis in europe coming back to haunt us sometime down the road. but yes, obviously, more policy in japan is something that would be helpful. we certainly want stronger growth abroad to help our exports and our economy. we talked about where growth might come from a globally and we certainly did see growth in south america and the emerging asia. that will help the global outlook to some extent. a lot of that growth is going to happen in the second half of the year rather than the first half. it will be a momentum thing that is going to change. even as a policy response in japan, which seems to be very forceful, there will be a delay before it starts to affect the japanese economy. >> how confident are you in your housing forecast? so much of what we saw last year was institutional investors. are you confident that this recovery is real? >> the consensus of the committee is, yeah, we think the recovery is real this time. it is not being supported by policy measures like the first time home buyer tax credit. and when you look at policy measures and household formation rates, we are hitting a bottom. and the fundamental root of piercing in housing starts and home sales is consistent with what we've seen in the house with housing recovery. we're coming from such low levels of activity that the committee believes this sort of activity at the current pace could continue for some time. we could correct double-digit rates and housing starts for the next five years and still not get back to where we were. like i said, there have been a lot of people at the lane buying in-house. and some of the people on the events seen the home prices rising may be entering the market. we still see investor demand as strong. there are not as many investors out there. a lot of economists have been looking for the shadow inventory of housing to hit the marketplace. but we have not releasing that. we are slowly working off the excesses'. we are seeing some green shoots there that we think will continue. >> and you see any impact at all for potential qe on the housing market? >> de see any impact at all for potential quantitative easing in the housing market? >> of the majority of the community thinks that it will continue at the current pace. so we don't really see much of an impact because we think long- term rates are going to be relatively low. should interest rates spike, that will change some of the committee members' views. for the most part, with inflation low, continued slack in the economy and elevated unemployment rates, it will remain an attractive area for the housing community. >> these projections are premised on what kind of resolution? >> it is a good question. everyone has factored into their forecasts at the beginning of the year. i think there are varying opinions on sequestration spending cuts kicking and or not. some on the committee believe we will see full sequestration spending cuts for the entire year. it that happens, it will be higher than a quarter of a percentage point. we will see a couple months of sequestration or not though. a wide opinion year -- in the consensus forecast. >> [inaudible] what does that say about the unconventional method for trying to boost the economy? >> what is fundamentally holding back job creation is the lack of demand. we are not seen the growth rates we need to see. i also think there is a lot of discussion around policy uncertainty. the uncertain environment that was prevalent here, it is adding to some of those concerns. what their tax rates are going to be. what areas the government will get back on spending, the default position is for people to wait. they tried to commit with investment project. >> [inaudible] we have seen a stabilization. as it hit the bottom? deal have thoughts on that? >> we talked about that and everything that surprised everybody, we have not seen a lot of people re-enter the labour force and wait for participation rates to trend down. there is stabilization we are starting to see, we might see a little more reentry in the labour force and job creation. but there are varying opinions on that. maybe they have taken earlier. the unemployment rate could be pushed higher. >> [inaudible] >> next on c-span, a former law eliminating poverty. the former senator's home discuss the federal budget and the debt. economic forecasts from the american bankers association. eric holder will be speaking at the u.s. conference of mayors tomorrow about gun violence. this will be cahow a new agenda. it will be 11:30 eastern speakin c-span and c-span.org call. >> the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. this honor now beckons america. the chance to leave the world out of the valley of turmoil and to the high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization. >> making the benefits of our scientific advances and progress available for the underdeveloped areas. >> public radio's story. right through inauguration day on c-span 3. >> tavis smiley discussed eliminating poverty in the u.s.. it included former house speaker newt gingrich and the coast of the radio program. it happened this evening at george washington university in washington, d.c.. [applause] >> we are delighted to be here in the nation's capital on the campus of george washington university. we have been here now three years always trying to bring the nation to come to terms -- help the nation come to terms with an issue of national importance. for the last few years, we have been talking ad nauseum about the issue of poverty and how it is we get serious about making poverty a priority in this country. we will mix this up tonight. it seems to me that teetering on cliffs and bumping up against ceilings is not a good economic policy for a nation. we are going to talk tonight about what each and every one of us can do as americans, what agency we have to push our leaders to make the reduction and eradication of poverty a priority in this nation, and there is something specific that we want your help tonight to do to help push president obama as we sit here tonight on the campus of gw. the president will be inaugurated for a second term in just a few days, on a holiday honoring the person i regard as the greatest american this country has ever produced -- that is my own assessment -- martin luther king, jr. [applause] so the president will clearly be in the foreground, but dr. king looms large as the backdrop. now, word comes from the white house that they will use his bible for this historic and iconic celebration, so we will talk tonight about how we honor the legacy of dr. king by focusing more attention on the issue that he gave his life for -- the poor. king once said we have to civilize ourselves by the immediate abolition of poverty. obviously, we are not quite there yet, but we of tonight's conversation will aid us and of that as in trying to make sure that we look out for the least among us. i am pleased tonight to be joined by an all-star panel. i want to introduce them one by one and jumped right into the conversation. i want to start by thanking c- span for carrying this program live around the world tonight. [applause] thank you, c-span. as the conversation gets under way, we will tell you more about what you can do at home or wherever you might be watching tonight to join in the conversation, but for now, let me introduce the novice panel of persons who are going to mix it up tonight on this issue of poverty. i am pleased to be joined by the author of "fire in the ashes: 25 years among the poorest children in america." no one has written more about the link between education and poverty then my friend jonathan cole. she is the director of the center for hundred-free communities, and the associate prof. at augusta university's school of health. please welcome marian chilton. he has taught at harvard and princeton and is now teaching as professor of philosophy and christian practice at union theological seminary. i am honored to be co-host of a radio program with him. please welcome dr. cornel west. [applause] to my right, just off a plane literally a couple of hours ago from ethiopia, doing his work on poverty and as special adviser to the united nations, but when he is here in the states, as i'm glad he is tonight, he is director of the earth institute and professor of health policy and management at columbia, please welcome our friend jeffrey sachs. [applause] to my left, he was gracious to accept my invitation to be here tonight. if we're going to do something tonight about poverty in america, we have to mix it up. we will talk later in this program about what we want you to help us help the president to do. it will require both parties in this town come together, i am pleased to have tonight former speaker of the house and candidate for the white house himself, newt gingrich. she is executive director of the national nurses united and california nurses association, the national nurses organizing committee, and they are pushing an issue in this country that is starting to gain more and more steam called the robin hood tax. you are going to learn about it tonight. please welcome roseanne demoro. he is now the dean of university of indiana school of public affairs out with a new book just now, the first i know of that gives suggestions and ideas -- specific public policy ideas he believed both the left and right can agree on. please welcome my friend john gramm. and she has a new assignment, just elected the congressional chair of the black caucus out of ohio. please welcome congresswoman marcia fudge. [applause] jeffrey, i want to start with you, in part because you have come the farthest, i guess you get to go first. i will keep you awake. i want to start, though -- i'm not the one that likes to use a bunch of statistics because they can be hard to follow. because this program right now is being seen live across the nation, i want to make sure that those watching can get a chance to contextualize what happened with the issue of poverty across the nation. these are issues that come from 1989. here's what we know since 1989. i want to start in washington, the nation's capital, because this is where the last time we took poverty seriously -- to my mind -- the war on poverty, and we will debate that tonight, i'm sure, but the last time we took it seriously during the johnson years. that program started in washington. give me two minutes to give you some sense and this audience some sense of what has happened to poverty since 1989. talking specifically about income inequality -- the top 5% of washington, d.c., household -- in the nation's capital in the origination of the world -- the top 5% of households made more than $500,000 on average last year. top 5%. $500,000 on average last year. the bottom 20% made less than $9,500 last year. i'm no economist, but that is a ratio of 54 to one. the district of columbia, the nation's capital, is the worst of all the 50 states in the union. that is what income inequality looks like in the nation's capital. income inequality has increased in 49 of 50 states since 1989. the poverty rate increase in 43 states. most sharply in nevada. ravage of course by the housing bust, and in my home state of indiana, which sought a rise in low-paying jobs. in all 50 states, the richest 20% of households made far greater income gains than any other quintile, up 12% nationally. income for the median household fell with michigan and connecticut leading the way. the five largest increases in inequality -- get this -- the five largest increases in inequality in this country since 1989, all in new england. connecticut, massachusetts, new hampshire, rhode island, and vermont. a decline in manufacturing jobs, and in case you are wondering, hit new england's poor and middle pretty hard, while the highly educated benefited from the expansion of biotech, and you will not be surprised by this, finance. the only state that did not see the rise in inequality was the state i was born in. i grew up in indiana, but i was born in mississippi. the only state that did not see a rise in inequality, but get this -- it had an insignificant dip. the magnolia state was one of the few to post a small drop in poverty and a rise in income, but it still ranks as the worst in the nation on both counts. i want to give you some sense of what is happening with income inequality in this country since the year 1989. having said that, i want to start with you and just ask a question that is important as we sit here tonight on the eve of the inauguration on monday, on -- just days ahead of debt ceiling conversations, days after fiscal cliff negotiations. was that deal good for poor people? >> for 30 years, we have not addressed this issue, except for the wonderful work that you and cornel are doing in these wonderful people on the panel. politics has neglected the poor. one could say that there was a war on the poor rather than a war on poverty for much of this period. the united states has by far the most poverty of any of the high-income countries as a share of the population. we have the highest in quality. we have the most entrenched underclass. we have had the biggest increases of any quality by leastnd we've had the political response of any high- income countries, so we are standing out on our own. this has been a 30-year trend of soaring in comes at the top, stagnation in the middle, and falling through the floor on the bottom, and the political system has refused to address this for 30 years. so we have reached a calamitous situation in this country, but the fact of the matter is nothing that was done at the fiscal cliff and what lies ahead most likely will not in any deeper way address this crisis. >> how frightened, then, are you about poor people being stuck, i guess, between a rock and a hard place? how concerned are you about what is going to happen? we all know -- this is the big elephant in the room, these entitlement cuts. i sense and we all sense they will be on the table. we do not know what the president really is going to do. we know that we will not know until march how good this deal is until we get to those cuts, but how frightened are you? >> i think there is nothing we could predict that will make a decisive change in the issues we will be talking about right now because we have been squeezing government -- the so- called discretionary part of our budget. that is, the park for education, job training, labor markets, also for infrastructure, for the environment, climate change, for other issues -- that part of our budget is just continuing to shrink, and i think we will, unfortunately, look back after whatever deal is done in february, march, and so forth and see a near-disappearance of this part of our government. we are abdicating the most fundamental responsibility to take care of the people who are most in need and also to take care of our own future. i would say it goes beyond the question of poverty and goes to the question of a broken infrastructure, which we absolutely refused to address. when i come back from a trip abroad, i'm coming back to a rickety infrastructure in this country where you look at our airports and roads. the highways you travel are 50 years old because we are not reinvesting in this country right now. our problem is that we are not taking seriously any of our problems. of course, the poor are the most urgent. they are the ones clinging to hang on. when we had a disaster like hurricane sandy that hit the whole east coast -- people have been warning for years with the rising sea levels, the more intense storms, the climate change that we have to get our infrastructure right. we thought we found that out from hurricane katrina. of course, we did nothing because our government is not responding to any of the major challenges we have in this country. the idea, starting around 1981, was to starve the beast, so- called, to just get the size of the government down. one of the problems we have is an underclass that cannot find its way out and no longer has any kind of helping hand. >> i think jeffrey sachs just shanked you. and being funny. i thought i heard him say that one of the mistakes we made was back in the 1980's when you were around and running things. one of the mistakes was making our priority all about shrinking government. >> jeffrey sachs and i have a fundamental disagreement, and i suspect most of this panel will have a fundamental disagreement about a couple of facts. it is a fact that this coming march is the 49th anniversary of lyndon johnson declaring war on poverty. it is a fact we have spent over $16 trillion in those 49 years, and it has failed. i like your hashtag -- poverty must end. i agree entirely. but let me give you two dissenting views. the welfare reform program work. the greatest decrease in child poverty in america came under bill clinton with a republican congress in the late 1990's. that is just a fact. jeffrey is shaking his head. no, it is a fact. the lowest level of black children in poverty in history was 1997. you could make an argument that having a welfare system shift toward opportunity would work. >> i'm going to give you all the time you need. before that, what would you say then to those who read the "new york times" stories when they did to review 15 years after bill clinton's welfare to work program, that women and children were falling faster into poverty than anybody else? [applause] it was that program that helped push them in there? were they wrong? >> yes, but let me carry you two steps further. i have been working with a former california assembly leader on a project state-by- state to get people out of prison if they are there for non-violent crimes, to get them brought back into society. you cannot discuss how we will solve some of these problems without rethinking prison in america. [applause] ok? now that is a very difficult challenge for both parties. one last example, just to show you how we ought to be thinking differently -- unemployment compensation -- i just last week was with sebastian, who is at google, who taught a course with 151,000 people registered. 140,000 actually completed the course. the top 440 graduates were students who were not at stanford. they had taken the course and learned so much they'd be the highest-ranking stanford students -- date the highest- ranking stanford students -- they beat the highest-ranking stanford students. if you give people 99 weeks of unemployment, that should be an associate's degree. we have no provision today to say if you sign up for unemployment, here are courses you could take to help you get the skills so you could get a job. [applause] it is a fundamentally different approach. the key to poverty is productivity. the key to productivity is being honest about an underclass, in itself a very dangerous phrase. we do not have people who lack culture. we have people whose cultures are very destructive of their capacity to enter prosperity. [applause] >> let me ask just one question, and i want to get it out of the way so you can explain what you meant when you set it so that we can all hear it. i'm going to talk to mariana later in this conversation, and i know she wants to get into it. when you referred to barack obama as a food stamp president, tell me what you meant. that a vast majority who get food stamps are white. that could not possibly have been a reference to race. it takes the media to determine what i meant. he has followed policies which have limited job growth for the last four years. this is the weakest recovery of any period since the great depression, and if you do not get a recovery, you do not have jobs. if you do not have jobs, you are not in a position to help people get out of poverty because there's no place for them to go. we have had policies which make it relatively easy to extend unemployment, relatively easier to have food stamps, but we are not helping people get back to a level of investment and productivity that creates the kind of jobs we need to get out of here. you look at japan, which has been in recession since 1989. look at greece, which has over 25% unemployment. spain, over 25% unemployment. i worry about a recovery that is not creating jobs and not pulling people into a better future. >> i'm going to get everybody involved in this conversation. let me continue what i do of getting everybody at least initially involved. dr. west, let me come to you because i was running around doing some media today, and i understand you were as well. i actually was in the card today in the nation's capital when you were on a local radio program talking about this conversation tonight, so thank you for promoting that. i heard you start to sound off with regard to your thoughts about what it means for barack hussain obama to be sworn in to a second term as president on the king holiday. you heard the applause in this auditorium when i suggested that in my view, and i think in your view, that dr. king is the greatest american we have ever produced. we know he looms large. we know the inauguration is happening on the holiday. we know this is the first time a president will be inaugurated with the king memorial just down the street. his bible has been brought into the equation. help me, which you do so well given what you teach -- help me properly situate what is about to happen on monday vis-a-vis poverty in america. >> first, i want to salute you, my brother. we have been in the trenches now 20 years, sometimes misunderstood, sometimes divinize, sometimes ostracize, but we are stronger than ever, and we are still going. it is a blessing. but no one i got the news that my dear brother barack obama, president obama, was going to put his precious hand on martin luther king jr.'s bible, i got upset -- no -- know that when i got the news. you do not play with him or his people, people committed to peace and justice, and especially the black tradition that produced it. all the blood, sweat, and tears that went into producing a martin luther king jr. generated a brother of such high decency and dignity that you do not use his prophetic fire as just a moment in presidential pageantry without understanding the challenge that he presents to all of those in power, no matter what color they are. no matter what color they are. so the righteous indignation of martin luther king, jr., becomes a moment in political calculation, and that makes my blood boil. why? because martin luther king jr. died owing to three crimes against humanity he was wrestling with -- jim crow traumatizing, terrorizing, stigmatizing black people. lynching, not just segregation the way the press likes to talk about. second, bombs killing innocent people, especially innocent children. terribly, with poverty of all my blood boil. colors. he said it is a crime against humanity for the richest nation in the history of the world to have so many of his precious children of all colors living in poverty, and especially on the chocolate side of the nation, on indian reservations and brown arias and yellow slices and black ghettos. so i said to myself -- ok, there's nothing wrong with putting your hand on the bible, even though the bible is talking about justice, and jesus is talking about the least of these, but when it is martin's bible, i said this is personal for me because this is a tradition that i come out of. this is a tradition that is connected to my grandmother's prayers and my grandfathers sermons and my mother's tears and my father's smile, and it is against all of those in power who refuse to follow decent policy. so i say to myself, "brother martin luther king, jr., what would you say about the new jim crow? what would you say about the invisibility of our new prisoners?" especially when 50% of them are there for soft drugs but not one executive of the wall street banks has gone to jail. [applause] not one. martin does not like that. not one wiretapper. not one torturer under the bush administration. and what do you say about the drug is being dropped on the brothers and sisters in pakistan and somalia and yemen -- the drones being dropped? my voice hollers out, and do not take it with your hand on his bible. what would you say about the poverty in america now beginning with the children and the elderly and our working folks in all colors? not just here, around the world. do not hide and conceal his challenge. as much as i'm glad that barack obama won -- i think that brother mitt romney would have been a catastrophe -- brother newt told the truth about vampire capitalism, but that is the system as a whole. but when barack obama attempts to use that rich tradition of so many struggling to produce that voice that pushed martin in the direction that it did, i get upset. people say we are hating obama. no, we are living the tradition that produced martin luther king jr., and we will not allow it to be sanitized, deodorize, sterilized. we want the subversive power to be heard. that is what we think when he said he is going to put his hand on that bible. [applause] and i'm praying for him. i'm praying for him. as is newt. both of us christians. we are praying for him. putting pressure on him. >> dr. west mentioned the children. that is a perfect segue to go straight to jonathan and mariana. i mentioned earlier jonathan has done the best work, to my reading, of many years now and certainly has spent the most time with children in poor communities, and no one has done anything better than he has done, making, establishing, and helping us better understand the link between education and poverty. i think we all know there is a link between education and poverty, but jonathan has done the work on it. just give me a top line of this new book, "fire in the ashes," and the 25 years you spend with children and the links to poverty. >> cornel always gets my blood boiling because i agree with him so deeply. i'm old now, so i remember dr. king. i was a young teacher in boston and a white guy living in the black community, and the black ministers did me an honor of letting me stand by his side the first time he came to preach in boston common, and his words changed my life forever. that is when i turned my back on an academic life and decided to teach fourth graders in our poorest neighborhoods. i get so angry on his birthday or on martin luther king day -- i heard politicians who turned their back totally on every single thing he lived and died for, never lifted a finger to bring an end to apartheid in schooling, which is now at a higher rate than it was the year he died, and they say, "i, too, had a dream." you cannot play games with the dreams of our prophets. dr. king did not say he had a dream that someday in the canyons of our cities, north and south, we will have tests and anxiety-ridden schools. that was not his dream. legacy,pped apart his and then we use his name in vain. my thing, as you know, is children. children in their schools. i'm not an economist. i was scared of numbers, but my world is children. the only tried and proven avenue of exit for the children -- the poorest children in this country from the destitution of their parents is to give them an absolutely terrific, exciting, beautiful, spectacular, and expensive public education. [applause] and to fund it not simply at the same high level as the richest suburbs, but at a higher level because those children need it more. to say one more thing about that -- in the past few years, class size has been soaring in our schools because they have been laying off teachers and. i walked into public schools in new york where i find 36 children in a fourth grade class like back in the 1960's. i walked into a high school in los angeles -- 40 kids in a 10th grade social studies class. i made the mistake of asking the teacher right in front of the kids how she teaches 40 kids in a classroom. she said, "do not ever ask that question. find out." and then she left the room. there are a lot of factors that go into terrific education, but one thing i know for sure is that the size of the class a teacher teaches is one of the most important factors in the entire pedagogic world. [applause] i have heard plenty of old time conservatives -- pat buchanan once yelled at me -- remember him? he once yelled at me on tv and said that was nonsense. "i have 50 in my class and it did not hurt me." i said, "well, i'm not sure." the fact of the matter is, i have rich friends that are so much like me. they will say to me, jonathan -- these are people who read my books and say they care about these poor kids in the bronx. they will say to me, jonathan, does class size really matter for the children? i always ask them where their kids go to school. how many children are in their class is. typically they are in a lovely suburb -- 16, 18, parents panic when it gets to 21. if they go to lovely private schools like sidwell friends here in washington, it is more like 15. then i see these kids packed into classrooms where there are more children than shares. i do not know how everybody else on this panel feels, but here's what i believe -- a very small class size and the intimate, affectionate attention enables a good teacher to get to every little girl and boy -- if that is good for the son of a prosperous position or a successful lawyer -- physician or a successful lawyer or a daughter of a senator or congressman or the president himself -- then it is good for the poorest child of the poorest woman in america. [applause] >> getting everybody involved here to have some fun -- let me come to you. jonathan talks so brilliantly -- i am thinking of the chicago teachers strike just months ago. the former chief of staff, he just announced -- now the mayor of chicago -- he demonized those teachers. most of the so-called liberal newspapers demonized the teachers, including "the new york times." one thing that hit me so viscerally -- the one decision that both of the teachers and the mayor got right was to leave the schools open during the strike so in the kids would have something to eat. remember this? but for those schools remain open, those kids in chicago would not -- 98% that qualify for the free lunch program, they would have nothing to eat daily while the teachers were on strike. your work is trying to establish an america, under free communities -- what does that say to us that in the city of chicago, this grand city of chicago, where the president is from -- i am not trying to demonize him -- schools have to be left open for the kids of that city to have something to eat? >> what does it say about america that we cannot decide on how to educate our children but all of a sudden we can think about what they are eating and make sure they get a meal? at the same time, think about, ok, let's make sure the kids are getting an education and school lunch, but forget about school breakfast. i think about the legacy of martin luther king -- if i can dip into that strong tradition and think about what he said, let us be dissatisfied. divine dissatisfaction with what is going on with this country in terms of our education system, but definitely with hunger. the fact that we have 50 million americans who live in food in secure homes, hungry holmes, last year. the majority were homes that had young children. if you think about it, one in four young children with an america under the age of six is suffering from food insecurity. we know that affects their childhood development. we know increases hospitalization rates. it costs us an enormous amount, not only socially, and human suffering, but economic suffering in terms of the health-care consequences and costs. long before a child even crosses the threshold of kindergarten, that child is potentially truncated because they are food insecure, they are hungry, their families to not have enough money for food. i went to pick back up on you, congressman gingrich -- when you say our programs do not work, you are absolutely wrong. i come from a tradition of science, a scientific background. i do scientific research on hunger and have been doing that for 15 years. i want to tell you, the food stamp program is one of the single most important programs that we have in this country. [applause] thank you. we know that food stamps prevent hospitalization for children. it is a good investment. think about pediatric hospitalization, it costs $24,000 for three days. that same amount of money could feed a family of four for one year. that is a great investment because it prevents hospitalization. it promotes job development, cognitive, social, emotional development, so by the time children are in school they can learn well. let's hope they can have breakfast and can get lunch as well so they can learn and listen to this teachers. learn about those traditions. the other program that worked beautifully is the wic program, women, infants, and children. i know you want to bring in the other people -- i have to speak to this. it brings the comments so far together. if we think about the program, 50% of the newborns in our country are poor enough to participate. one in two newborns. that is awesome effectiveness, awesome reach -- the rest of the world looks to us as a leader in making sure that we are preventing malnutrition and low birth weight. we know that is effective. but if you look at on the other side, think about the magnitude of child the poverty -- childhood poverty, that one in two eligible -- we have a major problem on our hands. when you think about what will happen, if sequestration happens, the discretionary budget -- how is it possible that the wic program is in the discretionary budget along with whether we build bombs? [applause] the wic program is potentially at risk if we are not careful. we must make sure that that program and the other programs such as early childhood education are protected, because for every $1 we spend on wic, over $3 is saved in medicare expenditures. we know that if wic actually works -- you are wrong in terms of whether our federal programs work. the two programs are phenomenal. they are fabulous. they work and they promote child health and well-being and make us a better country. [applause] >> one of the reasons why we are here for this conversation is to talk about what works, to debate what does not. we are going to get into that, i promise. the speaker will get a chance to respond and all of you will get a chance to respond. i want to -- i promise you we can mix things up. i'm glad we have almost three hours for this conversation. that is why i'm rushing through the first part. i will pick up the pace. i want to give everybody a chance. this is an issue that does not get talked about -- i want to take some time. maybe take some time and unpacked this. i want to say quickly we will come back to this -- our hashtag for those watching is #povertymustend. if you want to share this message around the world. our website is called afuturewithoutpoverty.com. when you go there, you'll see a letter that you can sign electronically that asks the president -- we will push this out by the thousands to the white house, asking the president to do two things. one, it is time for a president, in his second term, to give a major public policy address on the eradication of poverty in america. it is time for a major public policy address on eradicating poverty. after he gives that address, we are asking him to convene a white house congress on the eradication of poverty, to bring the experts together through the white house, from the left and the right, to have a conversation about treating the national plan that over a certain periodicals can cut poverty in half and over a greater time period move closer to eradicating poverty in the richest nation in the world. mr. president, it is time for a major policy address to eradicate poverty -- we want to know what you believe must be done to end poverty. will you consider convening a conference -- we're doing it right now on gun control. but look what it took for us to get to that point of doing it on gun control. what more has to happen? how many more people have to die or fall through the cracks before a leader decides it is important enough to convene the experts to create a national plan? so go to the website. you can assign the letter. we will push these letters out to the white house. i want to go to one of the great union leaders in this country -- we're going to hear from the speaker and everybody else, but there is something they have been advancing called the robin hood tax. it is gaining steam -- all kinds of influential americans are buying into this. i want you to hear about it from her as another solution to the poverty problem with america. [applause] >> on the robin hood tax -- is simply a tax on wall street. as we know, wall street does not pay its fair share. the minimum amount when stocks or bonds or derivatives or currencies are bought and sold, there is a minimum amount, 50 cents in the case of stocks, on a $100 trade. we all pay sales tax on everything that we buy. we sell something, we pay tax. this is paying to wall street -- you have gotten a pass. when you talk about jobs and education, i want to ask you, where are the jobs? they are not just trickling down or bubbling up -- there are no jobs in this country. i work for the labor movement -- it is being decimated by the right wing. i will talk about the financial transaction tax -- this is a part of the solution. i want to tell you, i represent registered nurses in the unions across this country. they are of the finest tradition of martin luther king -- they are about humanity. they do not make distinctions among patients. they do not care if you are rich or if you are poor, if you are black or if you are white, if you are a man or if you are a woman -- you are their patient. they protect you, the fight for you. becausey're finding is of profits in the health-care industry, the most inept system in the industrial world, the american medical system -- patients are being pushed out, children are coming with malnutrition. sometimes the only lunches they get are when they go into the emergency room. this -- the shame that basically our decision makers in wall street have brought to our country is presented to nurses on every shift at every hour in the hospitals in this country. you know what i love about nurses? they do not stop in terms of fighting. they fight like hell with their hospitals in terms of taking care of their patients. they see people when it is very late -- people who have not had cancer screenings. people who basically cannot afford their medication as the drug companies make $60 billion in profits. billions of dollars and trillions sitting in the reserves of the wealthy, and children are starving. people are at almost near-death. what the nurses have done is to say i will fight for them with in my hospital, but i will also fight for them in the streets. we've started a robin hood campaign that says, wall street, you are going to pay your fair share. i know jeffrey sacks is with us on this. we have been working with people all around the world. there are people on this board who have said, austerity is not the answer, we should tax wall street trades. [applause] basically, it is time to give something back. i actually wonder, i really wonder, do they care about what the nurses see? do they care about the vulnerability of america right now? one illness away from bankruptcy -- that is where everyone is. most people are underinsured. there will be 30 million people uninsured, even with obamacare, and even the people who have insurance cannot figure their insurance out. ultimately, the insurance companies are just robbing the country, along with the financial sector. people of being left out of jobs being created. [applause] their lousy jobs -- some of the jobs being created are hardly what you would consider jobs. i work for as a member of the labor movement. i represent nurses and fight like hell to make sure they can fight for their patience and themselves. but their retirement is under attack -- why should their retirement be under attack? the entitlement -- that is an entitlement? that is our money that paid for those entitlements that is being recycled back to us. we are pretty angry. we are organizing a movement -- it is in the streets and in congress and across the world. when are not going to stop. four nurses, they are not policy-makers. they do not have the comfort of being able to step back and say, that is not my problem. it is their problem every second of every day with hospitals. would you like me to talk about that robin hood tax? >> i will come back to you, i promise. you mentioned congress -- please welcome congresswoman marcia fudge. [applause] i'm trying to imagine -- we talked earlier about the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling. it is clear there is legislative gridlock in this town. what happens in the months to come with this kind of gridlock -- we already see the battle lines being drawn about what is to happen when these entitlements did on the table with in march. what happens to the poor as you see it in the coming months? >> let me first say, thank you so much for allow me to be part of this conversation. i am happy that you have been carrying on this kind of conversation over the last few years. let me try and see if i can put something in context for you -- i think that is something we never really talk about. a lot of this fiscal cliff stuff is really smoke and mirrors -- when you sit back and realize the largest portion of the debt of this country is really three things -- one is two wars we never paid for, what is a medicare part that we never paid for, and the other part is the bush tax cuts. those of the largest portions of the debt of this nation. what they're trying to do now by cutting what you call entitlements and i call and benefits -- entitlements did on the[applaus] is to protect the cuts they have already made. if you look at where we are, earned benefits, and there is really only one entitlement, which is medicaid -- if we do not have enough of a moral imperative to take care of the poorest people in this country, i do not know what we are all doing here. we have to stop and think about how we can, in a congress that is supposed to represent the will of the people, we ignore 46 million people. it did not just art under this president -- when george bush became president of the united states, 17 million people were in poverty. when he left, 30 million people were in poverty. that does not include them going into the ditch that we went into as he was leaving office. this has been a problem for a very long time. i think what we have to understand is you cannot just cut and constrict government. when you do, it goes all the way down the pipeline. it is not a cut -- is a shift. when you start cutting at the local, state, and county levels, you create a bigger problem than you think you have solved. it is all a game -- >> i have one more person to get involved -- let me ask for a follow-up. you accurately laid out what happened to poverty and the bush and ministration, and then stopped, as if we stopped than. when barack obama was elected -- poverty numbers continue to get worse. on barack obama -- put the facts on the table. they kept getting worse under barack obama -- sachs writes about this. i'm not doing this to demonize, but i'm wondering how is your mind that poverty gets made a priority, whether the president is a republican or a democrat? >> i think i did say that when we went into the ditch as bush came out of office, poverty continue to increase. there is no question about that. it has increased significantly. i do not believe that as a nation, not just the white house but the bottom up, any of us have done enough to address the issues of poverty in this country. we talk about dr. king. one of the things he said was there comes a time when silence is betrayal. [applause] any president is going to address issues we may can address. whoever the president is -- republican or democrat, no matter what. i can say in all fairness that even though i do not believe any of us have done enough, if you look at the two major pieces of legislation that were passed by this white house, obamacare, which everybody has been yelling and screaming about, significantly help poor people, significantly. [applause] if you look at the stimulus, in the stimulus there was $2 billion for food stamps. there was more money for head start and has ever been put into a bill for head start. there was more money put into poor schools. pell grants were increased. unemployment was extended. i am not saying it was enough, but i am saying, put the facts on the table and go from there. if we had not done that, it would be worse. >> fair enough. let's get more facts on the table. we are not even an hour in. i still have a lot of time to work this. let me go to john graham, the dean of environmental affairs at indiana university. a new book out called "america's poor" and the great recession. i want to read a small piece in this book, a paragraph, to give you a sense of what the book is. "i am conscious of the limitations born of legislative gridlock between liberals and conservatives. we put together a set of proposals for reducing poverty while still protecting the budget and enhancing long-term financial security. these recommendations include -- here is the list -- include indexing the federal minimum wage to inflation, restructuring medicaid reimbursement, targeting program recipients more precisely, allocating funds in concert with the business cycle, creating a systematic effort to provide subsidized employment and job training, and putting in place party impact analysis to identify new and low-cost avenues for poverty reduction. they will not only succeed in they will not only succeed in reducing poverty, but also succeed in congress." a list of things you detailed that you believe can succeed in congress -- both the left and the right can actually agree on some of these ideas that you laid out in this book. tell me why you are hopeful that any of these ideas could be agreed on by the left and the right. >> thank you for allowing me to be here today and offering a midwest perspective on these issues. i would like to give the two good pieces of news from the midwest. both president bush and president obama realized that having a government that is at war on the auto industry is not good for america. the result is we have lots of new people being hired in the midwest, not only at gm and chrysler but also honda and toyota. it is not as benefiting the executives -- there are $5,000 bonus is going to workers at gm and ford this year. another example is natural gas -- both president bush and president obama recognized having a regulatory system that smothers innovation in the natural gas industry is not help the economy. both have allowed an explosion in the natural gas production. one of the cleanest fuels -- this is causing jobs in manufacturing it used to be gone to china to come back to the united states. that has been a positive development for our economy. the first point i want to make, when the two parties can get together on some of these issues this and that things can happen. with respect to poverty specifically, i think it is a well-kept secret of mitt romney and barack obama advocated indexing the minimum wage to the rate of inflation. it does not matter now, because we have no inflation, but if the economy gets better and we do not index the minimum wage to inflation people at the bottom of the income spectrum are going to lose ground rather than gain ground in the recovery that is a modest sensible thing we should all agree on. >> that is pretty good for a dean. i'll give you all the leeway you need to do that. i wonder if you can help me imagine what a white house conference to eradicate poverty with the left and right present to talk about ideas that could work if they could agree on -- give me a sense of at this moment what some of the ideas on the table might be that could get this moving, and you can respond to what you wanted to earlier. >> part of the challenges that most of the experts who supposedly would come to a conference like that are already experts of ideas that did not work. i think it is important to understand that. the example i gave about sebastian -- if he succeeds and can produce a undergraduate education with a 90% reduction in tuition, he does change, additional opportunity with in america in a way that is staggering and will help. i guarantee it will be hard to talk about a world in which tuition drops 90%, because you challenge all their incomes. education -- i agree almost entirely with what we talked about earlier with education. i spent a year with the secretary of education in this administration and reverend al sharpton going around the country. it was an enormous privilege. i guarantee you, as a white republican walking into an inner-city baltimore school, my standing was zero. none of the kids had a clue who i was. they all knew who al sharpton was. i was allowed to be part of the conversation as his sidekick. let me give you to ban things that will be interesting to pick up on a little bit. the fact is, for 60% of most public schools, catholic schools graduate an extraordinarily high percent of kids who go to college. a thought experiment -- what if we said to catholic schools, we will let you enroll as many poor children, and we will fund it? overnight, you have an explosion of highly disciplined schools with passionate teachers that costs 60% as much and can get to 15 students per class. i give you that as an example. or take a variety of other things, where you have certain kinds of charter schools that have extraordinary graduation rates. i was in a school in philadelphia, a public charter school -- i had a junior in the school, and the same building, the same neighborhood, the same students, but in three years' time fundamentally changed culturally. they said, but in the old school they expected us to fight, so we thought. in the school, they said the first time the fight will be kicked out. and i wanted to go to college. every teacher's colleagues -- every teacher was engaged. the question of day was not a going to cut, but what college you going to? there was a fundamental change, in a very poor neighborhood. i would be for whatever level of funding it up. i think he pointed 15 students is right. poor children need more schooling and better schooling the middle-class and upper- middle-class kids. that is a fact. last point -- i never said we should abolish the food stamp program, which i have voted for. i never said abolish wic, which i voted for. i will suggest to you, after 49 years of in johnson's war on poverty, if you tell us there are 50 million kids who are in insecure food environments, i would have to ask you, what is wrong with the food stamp program that as kids do not have adequate nutrition, and what do we need to do to change the system, because there is something profoundly wrong when we spend this much money and have that big of a gap. [applause] >> thank you. let's deal with this now -- my friend newt gingrich and a lot of my other republican friends, when they want to make a point about what is not working, what my friend danny davis would say -- when they want to make a point of what is not the answer to the prayer where poverty is concerned, they go right at johnson's war on poverty. was the war on poverty a failure, did it had its successes, did we see the number of poor start to go down? contextualize for me the way you see the war on poverty. let me hear your point of view. >> first of all, the kennedy- johnson years had the biggest decline of poverty in the history of this country. it has been at conservative propaganda to repeat this was a failure over and over again. it is nonsense. if you look of the poverty rate of 1959 and compared to the end of the decade, that was the biggest single drop we ever had. that was pure propaganda. the fact of the matter is, when you say we need to carve out protection of wic education, it is all going down. we should understand, there is no carving out now. it is under assault. we just passed what was called the victory -- we just made permanent the bush era tax cuts for 99% of the households in this country. that was the so-called victory -- what we are doing is breaking the base to stand on any of these programs. newt says he will support it if he works -- but we do not have money on that because taxes on wall street disappeared. taxes on the corporate sector disappeared. look at where the corporate sector keeps its money -- cayman islands. that is next due mitt's money. we have constructed this -- i have to say, sad to say, there is a deeper, lurking truth -- this is not paralysis in washington. this is a bipartisan approach, unfortunately. [applause] both parties, both parties have been on this. the only difference is the republicans do it gleefully, the democrats do it wringing their hands. they are both with the corporate sector. they have both decided with cutting the taxes on the top. they are both party to the disappearance of the civilian programs of our national government, which work, and if you look at the budget, unfortunately which president obama has put on the table, the civilian discretionary budget, the discretionary budget under this president has declined from 4% of national income in 2010 down to below 2% by the end of this decade, 1.7% of national income. for what -- for jobs? for training? for education? for all the infrastructure? for the environment? for climate? for science? for technology? we are getting the government. this is the hard truth. what is going to happen in two months is to solidify this. nobody is speaking out for the government. we're talking of protecting the few entitlements -- that is the rearguard action. do not kill everything. but we'll squeeze into nothing. you are absolutely right -- the top cannot pay. they have been given every way to get their money out tax-free. it is trillions of dollars that have been lost, in addition to what has been wasted. [applause] >> it is about to get fun. if i can get some quick responses -- i want to come to you. jeffrey sachs said a moment ago -- there is a bipartisan consensus that the poor just do not matter. they end up being more and more invisible. talk about a guy like in johnson who in doing what he did make it clear that he knew he was writing off the south for the next 30 years of pushing the programs he pushed, the war on poverty, the civil rights act. let me ask you a question -- i think i can predict your answer. let me ask you, have the democrats abandoned poor people? have they abandoned the issue of poverty? [applause] have the democrats abandoned the poor? >> i'm going to come down hard. >> thank you so much. >> you go first. >> let me say two things. i'm not owned by anybody. no corporations or anybody else. secondly, let me say that democrats have in a lot of ways written off poverty -- i would disagree with that. it is no different than guns. if they cannot figure out what to do about it, they do not do anything. but let me also say the congressional black caucus has taken this issue up year after year after year. nobody fights for poor people more. it was the congressional black caucus that basically was willing to hold off on the last but we took because of the pay- fors. people said, how did you pay for the doc fix ? they pay for it by cutting things like dialysis and renal failure treatment and diabetes -- who does that affect? we understand clearly that our caucus is not always on outside. they get so caught up in all of the middle class of this and that -- let me say that the congressional black caucus just had its retreat today. we said, we are not going to go for raising the age of medicare. puttingt going for social security on the table. we know that just increases the poverty in this country. >> since you went there, and i want to be transparent and always authentic in these conversations to make progress -- you are the new chair of the congressional black caucus, stuff that you now and saying stuff -- you have seen it reported everywhere. the first black president, barack obama, and the congressional black caucus had an interesting dance you or were doing in the first term. you can read about it at a variety of sources -- there was some tension between the white house and the congressional black caucus. you all decided you were going to go out anyway and create your own jobs. he went around the country and set up these jobs fairs. the tension between the white house -- at one point you could not get a meeting. at one point you could not get a meeting with the vice president inside the white house. i am raising them because i am wondering what that relationship is going to be like now that you are the new chair. in the second term -- what happens to the black poor? i was stunned by this. when you did raise your voices, often in tension with the white house. the district would go off on you for giving the black president a hard time. >> that is true. >> i am just asking how this relationship is going to work in the second term given that the black poor are hurting the most. >> let me say, my perspective on this -- i can only speak for myself being the new chair. i certainly anticipate having a good relationship with the white house, but i would say what i say to everyone -- the president's job is different from my job. i come from one of the poorest cities in america. i believe that with any president, you have to say what you believe. if that means pushing, then we have to push. i do not believe that any president wants to ignore the pressing issues of our day, whether it be poverty or any other, but they have so much underplayed that if we do not do what we need to do, then it is our fault. [applause] >> and now for the hammer. >> i think that is fair. what i was one to say is that i think there has been a shameful silence, not just in the black community, but in the progressive community, of talking about the white house which talks one way but often moves with in another direction. is time to be open about that. the black caucus, i can understand -- you have a black constituency who themselves have a protective disposition for a black president who has been viciously and unfairly attacked from the right. by fox news and other places -- i do not mind the critique, but when they start lying, i have got to defend the president. you have a president dealing with a right wing, a backlash with a black man in the white house. but often he is not defensible when it comes to issues of the poor, prison industrial complex, and so forth. you just cannot defendant. that is the simple silence that brother tavis is talking about -- one that needs to be highlighted precisely because the legacy of harold washington -- those politicians on the inside is still tried to move in certain directions and got a lot of trouble. i want to get to a point about fundamental change -- we do need fundamental change. but part of it has to do with the point about jobs. you can have all the magnificent education in the world like they do in greece, but if you of their jobs they of nowhere to go. why is it that we do not have high-quality jobs? one reason is because in the last 30 years you have had the financial sector and wall street moved to the center -- 41% of profits going to the big banks to do not generate jobs or generate any well connected to productive value. it is well in private pockets. they're sitting on $3.4 trillion right now. they have $700 billion worth of bailouts -- that homeowners did not get but the banks got. they also got nearly interest free loans of $7.7 trillion. can not some of that money be used for decent housing? quality education? jobs with a living wage? [applause] our priority is are so warped because we're living in a culture that is shot through with corrupt self-interest and greed. nobody cares about the notions of solidarity. that is why i oppose them talking about education -- not because i do not trust these human beings, but eradicating poverty. public education is predicated on the notion you are focused on other kids -- you have to be concerned about all children. not any longer -- all this privatizing profit obsession, this preoccupation with this short-term gain as opposed to long-term integrity, is being pushed to the side. i do not care what color you are, what class you are -- we ought to be honest about it. we ought to tell the truth about it. the only way we're going to turn it around. >> i want to ask a quick follow-up -- we will bounce around. we can start to mix this up. it point by question -- all the times we have talked on tv and radio, private conversations, i have never asked to this. let me ask you on national television. >> i was going to say, after the brilliant oratory you are going to ask questions? >> as you will see, it is simple but complex -- do you believe that there is class warfare in this country? >> i believe there is a fix between the big boys in the federal reserve, the new york banks, and those who wrote dodd- frank. i believe that bill is a disaster because it shifts power right to the 10 biggest banks. it basically creates a government-bank coalition. i think it is amazing we went to the last five years and there have been no shifts, unlike the 1930's, no serious investigations of what happened to all the money. [applause] i find myself thinking, i am about to agree with dr. west on a topic -- dissertations could be written about this particular thing. the only place you puzzle me is when secretary duncan and reverend sharpton and i went around -- we were going around with the precise goal of helping all the children. we wanted everybody -- public education can also be publicly funded education as long as it is open to everyone. it cannot have any restrictions. i want to find a way to get to schools -- i would say, in terms of public education in the current structure -- if you could tie the money to performance and ensure that there was a rapid change in any building where the children are not being served well, then i would be much more comfortable, and i'm willing to go to 15 children per classroom. i think that point is exactly right. >> jonathan, is the speaker right or wrong? >> i do not want to waste too much time tonight on rehashing the voucher argument, the right wing and voucher argument. now the conservatives do not call it voucher's anymore, they have other sweeter terms for it. >> are charter terms the answers? >> no. there are a few good charter schools to get the lion's share of attention because they are clever and selective in who they admit and selective about who cares about them in the first place. charter schools, especially the ones that again private corporate money from right-wing foundations, what they represent is a narrowing of the civic virtue to the smallest possible parameters. i will fight for my kids in this little boutique school of 200 children. i will not raise my voice for all the millions left behind. more importantly, a follow-up on cornel's point -- you talk about the trillions of dollars sitting there on wall street. i want to make a concrete, specific useful suggestion for president obama -- get a hold of that kind of money. the best preventive medicine that i know of -- rescue children from hereditary poverty. that is, give them absolutely rich, full, exciting, enticing, not drilling, but developmental preschool, starting when they're two years old. [applause] i am sick of people, and i was not a new, but one member of congress who is with us here tonight -- and i will not say who, but one member of congress who is with us here tonight, that there is no proof this works. ask any teacher in america if kids in her class -- you will find out whether it works. every kindergartner, every first grade teacher, knows right away. the crime is that even with modest increases that the congressman referred to, very modest increases, more than half of the poor eligible children in this country do not even get a single year of anything at all resembling real preschool education. i happen to know that the rich get it for their children, because i grew up in privilege. they tell me, they do not think i will tell you, but i will. in new york city, the top preschools, that guarantee success in life, not just academic but social -- a number that can be plastered on your forehead and a standardized exam. the top preschools, they call them baby ivies. no pretense of a meritocracy. they cost $26,000. here's what i'm saying right now -- if i were the president, i would take all those billions of dollars being wasted right now on at the corporations, and i would put that money into three full years of the best preschool education in the entire world. if they cannot afford to do that, talk about $30 billion -- if we cannot afford to do that, i do not see what help we have upholding any sense of dignity, pretense of democracy, in the eyes of people in the rest of the world. [applause] >> i just have to add one thing to that -- one point i will add, to deny this to children is an act of thievery, but it is worse than stealing a car. this is an irreversible theft. you never get to live the second year of your life again. this is it -- you get it once. then it is gone forever. i think the president fails to act on this aggressively, dramatically, prophetically, to get this for us quickly -- i think is not just a budgetary issue. i think it is a theological abomination, a crime against the innocent. >> i agree. [applause] i say all the time, quoting -- the conversation could not be more timely. i sell the time, quoting dr. king, that budgets are moral documents. you can say what you say, but you are what you are. we know who you are when you put your budget on the table. we can see what your budget priorities are. that is why this conversation could not be more timely. we are days away -- it will be a big party on monday, but after monday as we move toward the debt ceiling conversations and the spending cuts get placed on the table, the poor are likely to take it on the chin. that is why we are here with in washington tonight having this conversation. our hashtag is #povertymustend. our website is afuturewithoutpoverty.com. you'll find a letter on that website -- you can electronically sign it asking the president to give a major public policy address on poverty sooner than later, and second to convene a white house conference on the eradication of poverty to bring experts to get into crafting national plan to cut poverty in half and eradicate it in the richest nation in the world. it is not a skill problem, it is it will problem. we have the will to the poverty a priority with in this country? >> you have to have the real economy. but we have now? i am amazed -- you could talk about public education, we could talk about health care. everyone knows that a single payer health care system would -- insurance would cover everyone. insurance companies would be gone. cost, quality, access would be at a premium in terms of our ability to be a civil society if we had a single payer health care system. we could generate almost 3 million jobs, which would serve to stimulate the rest of the economy when you are building -- and actually taking care of the people. they know that in washington. they know public education is viable. they just want to privatize it. i think you all doing a beautiful job -- the nurses appreciate you so deeply. honestly, the progressive caucus, the black caucus -- but one of the things that you said, and i completely agree, is that you have got to push. we have got to treat a movement in this country -- occupy was a moment. it needs to start up and keep going -- it needs to bring millions of people with it. the robin hood tax, the campaign the nurses have -- $350 billion a year from wall street for a minimum tax. you know what one of the legislator said to one of our nurses going to the capitol and talking about the wall street tax? she said, you nurses need to lower your expectations. the nurse looked at her and said, would you like for me to say that to you when i am prepare you for surgery? the true story. i mean, honestly, literally, it is a disgrace -- lower your expectations? i see what is happening out here every day. we're not going to lower our expectations. we're going to fight for a real economy. our economy has been hijacked -- we can talk about all the problems, talk endlessly about what i heard yesterday -- i heard about a woman yesterday. we heard about a real woman yesterday from michigan who actually chose to have her leg amputated because she could not afford the antibiotics in terms of taking care of her leg. she had her leg amputated because of money, because of money, because we do not have health care system. it is a disgrace. the robin hood tax can generate $350 billion -- they have bipartisanship. they're keeping everything off the agenda that is important to us. they have bipartisanship on that. we cannot compromise our principles. we can compromise on taxes, the people have to say, line in the sand. learn that from the labor movement. say, this is a line that you do not cross. we want their jobs back. we want our pensions. we want to raise standards for everyone in america. nurses do not want to discriminate. we want a civil society. we want a society -- where is our country? [applause] >> let me ask you -- roseanne said something that got my attention a few seconds ago. it is the notion of whether or not as a society -- has the demos, have we lowered our expectations? police say to the citizens who in fact have lowered -- what we say to the citizens who have lowered their expectations -- there's always debate about what the proper role of government ought to be. i suspect it will have more of that in the coming days about what the proper role government should be -- what are our expectations? are they too low? some of my friends on the right will see the opposite -- the expectations of government are too high. talk to me about expectations -- what do we have a right to expect in the richest nation in the world? >> i think it is important what they were saying about what should be done -- it is not theory, it is actually being done in countries around the world with demonstrated, proven results. every child in many countries in europe start out with that preschool. the results are that unlike this country, there is not hereditary poverty. it is proven -- this is not a theory. what you are saying about the health system is completely proven. our health system costs an extra $750 billion a year for exactly the same services that you would get in other countries. at the institute of medicine issued a report that the waste and fraud that comes from this for-profit system is 5% of national income, wasted. that sector owns washington. it is not clear -- that is what other countries do. we are just not normal. our politics got hijacked. >> but we are the greatest nation in the world -- is that notion of american exceptionalism. how can this be happening elsewhere and not be happening in the greatest nation in the world? >> one of the things the greatest nation in the world refuses to do is look at any other nation. >> exactly. i [applause] >> and to see what it is doing. you know, the turning point of this country was 32 years ago, almost to the day, when ronald reagan made a statement in his inaugural address that the solution to the government -- the government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. if you believe that, do not the president, for heaven's sake. you had a president who was inveighing against government. presidents of both parties have basically continued this policy. we have no active programs to solve any of these problems. we know what the solutions are -- we're not going to pay for any of them. i'm telling you, sadly, it is getting worse. no matter what the agreement is in two months. we are squeezing -- the rich have gotten their way. the corporate sector has gotten their way. they do not pay. there is no money for this preschool. all the sectors alone and operate the congress, so we have overpriced systems, exactly what you say, schools that do not work. we have the least social mobility of any high-income country in the world now. we have kids locked into poverty like no other high- income countries in the whole world. because you cannot get out of it for exactly the reason jonathan said. by the time they're six years old -- is so stark in the evidence. >> as jeffrey's talking now -- you recall last year when we had a wonderful panel about poverty. a wonderful panel last year. a great line last year -- there is a highway into poverty but not even a sidewalk out. there is a highway into poverty but not even a sidewalk out. that is the point -- it is so hard to get out. poverty is no longer color- coded -- this is not a black thing, not a brown thing -- this is an american catastrophe that is about -- dr. west and i, said the new poor in this country are the former middle- class. that is what is happening in our society. >> thank you very much. it is such a rich conversation. i am glad to be a part of it. where to begin? no matter what your leanings are and whether you know about education or not, let's turn to some of the language you are talking about. investing in very young children is the best investment you can make. it has the greatest return on investment. we know that because the first years of life are the most important for cognitive, social, and emotional development. you are only two years old ones. that is the most significant window of time. which brings me to the next point, yes, we have class warfare. those who are poor are completely left out of the national dialogue on poverty and hunger. that is a bipartisan effort, to keep people who are poor out of the national dialogue. that is why i work with low income women to be able to take photographs and provide direct testimony on their experiences with raising children in poverty, how to break cycles with poverty, and there are so many conversations happening. this concept of violence and betrayal. people have been silenced for so many years. poverty is solvable. they and expect nothing less. they are raising their children and they expect their child to be the president of the united states, a lawyer, a doctor, and they want the best education, the best type of food, a safe and affordable home to live. the women we work with are investing so much into their children. they are having to trade off paying for rent and paying for food, and trade off for whether they keep the lights on and pay for food. that is unconscionable. [applause] thank you. all of us can expect more. low income women should be included in the national dialogue. the women i have spoken with our genius. they are brilliant to survive in the united states today. they are so fantastic entrepreneurs. they are wise. they have a lot of grit. they are stronger than any of us on stage. it is a brain trust in america we are not utilizing. they should be part of the national dialogue at a part of the stage and being listened to in congress. not just the special interest lobbyists. [applause] >> we are going into the last hour of the program. we want to highlight the fight back. there are people in this country who are succeeding against the odds every day as they struggle with poverty. there are persons who will join us on the front row. they are already here. i will get off the stage and talk to them so we can hear from everyday people, fellow citizens, who are in this fight every day. we want to put a face on poverty. while you are talking, talk to me about what you make of the fact that the new poor are in fact the former middle-class. they make up every race, every ethnicity. when we talk about poverty, people think as the poor as those people. they are increasingly becoming us. people are losing their jobs, their 401k. >> we are in the middle of an economic disaster. it is crushing people. it is very dangerous. it can zap their capacity. this is a big threat to the country. we underestimate the danger. jeffrey knows the story dramatically better than i do. loaning small amounts of money only to women in order to create micro entrepreneurs. there are ways in which we say to people, the passive. we ought to be saying, if we could wave a magic wand and tomorrow have 6 million small businesses, one of the things we should seriously look at with tax reform is how do you replace the anti-poor, anti-small business tax. it is the first big hurdle to create a job. how could you design the equivalent for starting your own business? trying to reach out here and realize, every american could be an entrepreneur. passing so many laws and regulations and taxes that they kill the start up businesses in ways that are crazy. >> i have to jump in. thank you so much for talking about entrepreneurship. you were there, you were a part of that. there has been so much destruction to the assistance program. talk about rules and regulations. those are things your administration, when you were the speaker of the house, so many of those types of rules and regulations were built into the program, so much that they have not responded to the recession. it is only able to reach about 30% of the children who are poor in this country. an incredible increase in child poverty been. micro finance would may be a great way to insert into the system. if a woman is receiving cash assistance or food stamps and she happens to, may be working on the side doing hair and nails, housekeeping, child care. fantastic things. that $50 or $100 she makes on the weekend, god forbid she reported to the case manager because she would be criminalized for something that would be celebrated in this country. [applause] >> i agree with you. >> i want to tell you that would have been lovely if you could have thought of that 17 years ago. [applause] >> i wish i had. >> think of the damage done. >> he said i wish i had. he did say that. i have got you on the microphone. what you have just said now is wonderful. the fact she is agreeing with you is amazing to me. >> shocking. >> you were in the media almost immediately when this fiscal cliff deal was reached. you were in the media almost immediately, you were very disappointed, very upset at this deal that was struck. i got the sense you were spanking your fellow republicans for getting their clocks cleaned by mr. obama in that debate. tell me what you are upset about and is there some revenge exacted? >> we have very severe long-term fiscal problems. i think there is a lot more that is at the big banks door and the federal reserve's door. it is amazing neither party has been willing to look at the problems. we are faced with enormous long-term challenges on the fiscal side. i thought the whole process was wrong. i have a bias. i was speaker of the house. the idea that the senate at the last minute would write an entire bill, put whatever they wanted into it, send it over, and say, pass it as we wrote it. we will not touch it again. and the house said, ok. the that was institutionally crazy. nobody read that bill. it violated everything republicans complained about with the stimulus. the minimum they could have done was brought it up, actually read it, maybe had a hearing to find out what was in it and what did it mean. there were millions of dollars for the motion picture industry. i understand why the president wants to take care of its friends. what did that have to do with the bill? a goody here and a few other goodies there. republican senators wrote what they wanted. it is a bad way to run free society. >> we just passed a farm bill. my colleagues -- and i will call them that because i am in public -- voted to cut $16.50 billion over the next years. i voted against it because i thought it was outrageous. they voted against it because they did not think it was enough. we have people who literally work in the house of representatives who do not believe they are in poverty in this country. any of them, i want you to go to the other side of town to wherever it is you live. people believe if you do not work, you are lazy. these are the craziest people i have ever seen in my life. absolutely nuts. [applause] if we continue to send people to congress who do not understand what their job is, then we are never going anywhere as a country. these people are evil and mean. they cared nothing about anybody but themselves. [applause] >> let me ask you, though. i am really feeling sorry for you. i will push you higher up on my prayer list tonight. there are people who are entrenched in congress, they come from districts where this is not their priority, not their issue, so congress is polarized around the issue of poverty. there is a consensus poverty does not matter. congress is polarized on this issue. how do we ever imagine that the plot of the poor will get addressed. class getting these little blurbs. make them sit down, convene a group of people to address the issues of poverty. people out there have to stop being silent. anytime i get a phone call in my office, i believe at least 50 of my constituents believe the exact same thing. if you start calling your congress people and your senators and say to them, you want them to address poverty, trust that they listened very do not assume or be angry when you turn on the news at night and tourism at your television. it cannot talk to us. you have to do it yourself. if you don't, once again, every year, one of us takes the food stamp challenge. people get the news. until we get more voices, until more people understand how important and significant it is for us, they are going to continue to pat us on the head and say, your food stamp challenge week. until they see hungry people, until they see babies who do not eat every day, until they realize the fastest-growing group of children in schools today is hungry and homeless children, until we can make them see it, they will not believe it. >> that is a perfect segway. for those who just tuned in, this is our hastag. #povertymustend. our website is afuturewithoutpoverty.com. you will find a letter. it is already written for you. encouraging the president to do things quickly. deliver a major public policy address on the eradication of poverty. we have been told over and over he is an organizer. it is time for the community to get organized and let the president know we want to hear from him, we want him to deliver a major public policy address on poverty. we can do this every day. this is no comparison between what we are doing and what would happen if the president of the united states gave a major policy speech on what he will do to eradicate poverty. and then he gave us an assignment to do to help him get it done. he ought to give a major public policy address. bring the experts together. i will not be in that meeting. i am not an expert. i am just a broadcaster to open up a whole for the experts to run through. a plan to cut poverty in half in the short run, eradicate it in the long run. if the president wants a legacy in which he and we can be proud, he will have to make poverty a priority in the second term. sign that letter and let him know about it. >> i do not want to be in that meeting, either. i would not go. at least a crack addict is honest about their addiction. the white house is addicted to power. they are addicted to power. it is not just about power. it has to do with love and justice. love and justice is always weak. that is precisely why tradition in this history of this nation has been the democratic loaf. we recognize we have to have a suspicion of government. this is why i resonate with my conservative brothers. martin luther king jr. was under fbi surveillance until the day he died. government can be oppressive, vicious, ugly, violate your rights, generate propaganda. we need that, too. government can be affirmative, if they are helping poor and working people. government can help use its power for elites. when they come together with no accountability whatsoever, not just politically, but economically. let me say this. martin luther king jr. today could be taken to jail without due process or judicial process under the national defense authorization act because he had a connection with a freedom fighter, nelson mandela. he just got off the terrorist list in 2008. he had a relation to a terrorist. under the present administration, and you can take americans to jail without due process. the black freedom movement has always been suspicious of it. we have black prisoners in their precisely because they were willing to tell the truth that was a threat and we do not talk about them. that is why the culture of fear is not just violence. people are afraid. they are afraid to lose their jobs. they are afraid to lose their status. not going to be nice tea parties, the white house. you cannot have a culture of fear and generate a movement. it is not just about justice. we have got to talk about love. martin was a titan of love. if you are not talking about love and willingness of sacrifice, we are not going nowhere. you have to be willing to hit the streets, go to jail, to die. that is what it is about. if you are not willing to do that, keep your job and drink your tea. we are in the state of emergency. [laughter] [applause] people are dying out here. >> since you went there, this is foreign to a lot of people. martin has been gone for so long now. the nation knows the president will be sworn in for a second term on monday, on the martin luther king jr. holiday. just blocks down the street, the monument. the president will put the hand on the bible of martin luther king jr. as he is inaugurated. king is always present in our conversations. he is present tonight. if you raise this notion of love, since martin, the notion of love, and our public policy have been absent, you talk about and try to put love -- we heard about compassionate conservatives, i want to ask you whatever happened to compassionate conservatism -- but love, at the center of our public policy, it is a foreign concept. that is exactly what martin did. he put love at the center of the public square. why have we abandoned that notion? >> the rule of money. everybody and everything is up for sale. you cannot have integrity, love, you cannot have trust if everything and everybody is up for sale. if your leaders are up for sale, they will talk one way, get inside, and do something else. it is big money. for black people who have been hated for 400 years, institutionalized hatred coming after us, and we dish out martin king, that love in the face of the hatred, that is a spiritual and moral high ground. the whole country has to take note of it with martin. the whole world has to take note of it. that is what is weak and feeble. it is not a question of skin pigmentation. it is a question of equality and morality of your spirituality. all of us fall short. [applause] >> now it is competition. the president takes no child the president takes no child left behind, which is the worst
to privatize our schools are setting up academies. dr. martin luther king academy of leadership and enterprise. or they will name them for langston hughes, frederick douglass. i do not think a lot people should let them name the schools. [laughter] [applause] they should name it for people they do not like. [laughter] here are a few points. i will be unfashionable tonight. everyone in washington seems to think the way to solve the problems in our schools is to not give them another cent, another penny, to improve and make the schools look like places that are inviting and respect the value of children. aesthetics count. do not do that, but beat up on their teachers. that is the trend today. [applause] attack the unions. i heard about the teachers union from teachers in l.a. last fall. i flew to chicago to stand with them the day they went on strike. they were right to go on strike. [applause] i will tell you something. i am in schools all the time. when i was a young teacher, i remember this. schools are overwhelmingly -- the teachers are women. you go to a convention, if you are a guide, there are like 50 women for every guy. it is wonderful. i love it. [laughter] when they scapegoat teacher unions, the ruthless way they do, they are attacking some of the largest unions in this country of devoted, unselfish, inspired, loving, tender, good, female human beings. they are women. it is an attack on female women. [applause] i remember dr. king's last words when he said i have been to the mountain. that mountaintop is something that is a symbol of hope. it is biblical. it is something we would like to get back to. we wish we could get there again. but the dialogue of school reform is just like the dialogue of health care. there is nothing transcendental in it. there is nothing courageous in it. they are tinkering around the edges of an equity. that is what president obama is doing. fix the schools, they say. fix the schools. a very suggested word. it is a mechanistic terms. as though our schools were out, and our kids were commercial commodities. i hate that word. here is what i believe. i think that is emblematic of the low level of dialogue. my favorite american poet happens to be langston hughes. i read his poetry to my fourth graders. it was considered dangerous. curriculum deviation, i was fired. i was hired shortly after by the johnson administration. [laughter] my favorite worldwide poet happens to be the irish poet. ts.lilliam butler yea there are lines many of us learn in school and forget. he said, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. we need that passionate intensity on our side, on the side of the poor children in this earth. i beg the president to summon up the courage to give us that voice. if he does not, it would be a terrible betrayal of his role and he will miss an opportunity to leave behind a beautiful legacy in history. it will be his tragedy as well as ours. [applause] >> we are clearly headed to a real debate about austerity. i do not believe austerity is the answer. some people do. there is a big debate in the coming weeks as we get to this debt ceiling debate. talk to me, from your perspective, about this notion of compassionate conservatism. there was a movement 12 years ago to present that as an alternative. what happened to that? >> i would be glad to go down that road but i do not think it is useful. in the 1970's, jack was trying to gently develop a real understanding of how to break through at every level, housing, learning, jobs. and who i always told people, as a football quarterback, had showered with more african- americans than most republicans knew, had a deep, passionate commitment with every american he met. his heart was big. he did love everybody, to a point where it drives you crazy. you think, slightly less love, jack, it is ok. the use of it by the bush people was a political slogan to show they are softer than the gingrich republicans. they did not think through any serious, systematic program. i want to commend you. sitting here, i had two ideas, sufficiently radical, that would never have occurred without this conversation -- [applause] i did not say right or left. i just said radical. [laughter] one is talk about schools and talk about saving the children. then figure out what saving children leads you to, which involve nutrition, prenatal care, a lot of things. if you start with saving children, you somehow skip the bureaucracy and start back. want to say to the congressional head of the black caucus, i want to step away out here. >> i cannot imagine you doing that. [laughter] >> i was impressed with the intensity of your comments. [laughter] i think part of the challenge we have in america is the real dialogue that takes more than 90 minutes, or more than two and a half hours. here is my proposal, which i will carry to the republican side, if the congressional black caucus wants to do this. i believe the congressional black caucus members should offer to match up with a republican member, each going together to spend three days in your district, for example, and you spend three days in the republican district, and those days will lead to a conversation that will help us move back to help the by partisanship and help each side had a slightly different understanding, and maybe start to create french-- friendships from which we could actually begin to rebuild the ability to govern. [applause] >> if you could make it work, i am in. if you could get your side to do it, i am in. that is a very good proposal. >> check it out and tell me how many of your folks are willing to visit. i will find republicans to make sure that happens. >> i love it. [applause] >> when you are all reflecting together, try to come up with strategies of how you can sever the link with those who control both of your party. [applause] >> i will let rose and say what she wants to say. my warning to the camera operators, i will walk in front of her to get out to the audience to talk to our special guests. they are everyday american people. the truth is americans, our fellow citizens, are doing the best they can with what they have and where they are. every single day. the fight back without government help coming through, on the evil of austerity is real. >> i was glad i was here. one of the things that is usually absent, there is an effort with the hon neo-liberal agenda, everything should be for sale, to vilify teachers, to vilify anything public. the corporations have been in control and this country is in disaster. i want to talk about the american labor movement, who is behind social security, one of the greatest anti-poverty programs. we have to have -- the president cannot cut care for the most vulnerable people in our society. medicare is such a critical program. also pushed by the american labor movement. the other thing it does is to set a new high for wages, living wages for people. benefits, pensions. if you can find a job in america, get past the terrorism corporations do. if everything were unionized, we would have wall street on the run. [applause] >> stand up, all three of you. turn that way. we will have a conversation for a couple seconds. i said to my staff that i wanted to make sure i talked to everyday people who can tell their own stories and own words trying to navigate their way through poverty. let me ask you to thank them in advance for their courage for what they are about to share to come on national television to share their story. [applause] i want to start with mary ann, who is willing to come on national tv to share her story. some of us make bad choices in life. somebody say, amen. those choices put us in situations where you have to wrestle with poverty. there is always a better way. there is a way out. there is an end to poverty. some people to call and find their way out of the situations they put themselves and. mary ann is an authentic american hero. let me give her a couple seconds to tell her own story about being a substance abuser. as a result of those bad choices, finding herself deep in poverty. i want you to hear where she started and what she is doing now. take a minute and tell your story in your own words. >> first, i do not necessary believed it was a bad choice, as it was a symptom of deprivation. it came to me and we talked about love. i grew up in a middle-class family. it was not about money so much about love and deprivation. i ended up using heroin for 23 years of my life. at the end of my addiction, i was introduced to crack. i thank god for it. it hit me so fast so hard i hit rock bottom so they could treat me again. for the third or fourth time. i ended up getting myself together and going to a french culinary arts schools and vocational rehab. i landed in a place where i had an opportunity to work with men and women just like me. i worked every day. [applause] i had the opportunity to work every day with men and women also suffering from deprivation. they are not just homeless and hungry. they need healing. the approach is that holistic week, we try to empower our students, of which 90% are either coming back from prison and/or are substance abuse folks. there are an increasing number of people who come to us with mental health issues. we try to shorten the line. we prepare 5000 meals a day that goes to social service agencies that give the folks we were with the support they need. it is not just about jobs and education and housing, but healing as well. [applause] >> how about that? thank you. this is a conversation about self-sufficiency. your thoughts, a quick word about the choices or the lack thereof so many brothers and sisters have when they paid their debts to society. they come out and have that record and draw their efforts. they cannot get an opportunity. they cannot get a second chance. they cannot get their lives on track. >> that is what greatness is all about. some sense of service and love and self confidence and self- respect. i see it in you and feel it in your spirit. we have to allow that to spill over so it has to do with public policy. not just personal. i want to keep the focus on you right now. i salute you. [applause] >> this is tammy, a 20 year-old mother of one son. 21 now, excuse me. you are grown. [laughter] she found herself a teen mom. she is not the only one in this country and mary ann was talking earlier about the difficulty many young women have trying to navigate through poverty when you are a mother of a young child. she is a student at northeastern university and studying political science. this is the fight back we are talking about. please say a quick word about what it is like trying to navigate through poverty when you are a single mom and what you say to all of those single moms watching right now trying to navigate the same journey. >> thank you for having me. it is not easy to be able to come and leave my baby back. i was feeling sad. i did not want to leave him. this is a fight for plenty of women, and not only single mothers. single fathers out there as well that struggle just as much as i do. [applause] i know plenty of them and they struggle. picture this. you are a single parent, but you have to come up with a way how to feed your family, work at the same time to pay bills, and go to school to get an education to better your life. last year, i only made $8,000 the whole year. my food stamps were cut. that was the only way i was able to feed my son, $85 a month. the average family spends close to $500 or more. you expect me to spend $85 and live with that for my son. we had to be sent to a shelter because my mother no longer wanted us living with her. i had to pay rent at that shelter, get food stamps, have my own food in that shelter, and yet i was also a freshman at northeastern university. how was i going to do all of this at once? people ask me how i was doing this. you are an incredible woman. i am not. i am a normal person trying to fight for my son to have a better life than i did. [applause] i may seem extraordinary because of all of the things i have been able to do, but i am not. i am a mother trying to fight for my child. [applause] i am studying political science because i want to be up there in the future to show that they are the experts. [applause] most are through research. the true experts, counting myself, are out there. i want to be able to, in the future, show everyone else, counting the president, that statistic, that is not my name. i am not a statistic. i am an individual trying to make my life better. when you ask me how i am able to be a student, pay my bills, get food stamps, but you are cutting my food stamps, so i am not able to pay for food for my son, so, technically, you are taking the ability to feed my son, and then you ask me, how are you able to accomplish all of this? i say, thank god for someone like mary anna who is able to come and say, take pictures of what you experience, show other individuals what you face day- to-day, and i am able to tell other people they are not alone in this struggle. i am afraid every day what i am going to do every 24 hours and how i will be able to pay my bills. if i make 1 cent more, my food stamps will be cut more. and i will not be able to pay it all at the same time. i am on a scholarship but that can get cut, too. but you expect me to hold up a 3.0 for a 4.0 gpa on my own, trying to work, be a mom, and a student at the same time. but i am a statistic. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. say a quick word. tell me more about this program. >> it is to break this silence. there is so much in the national rhetoric, so much shame and stereotypes about people who are poor. witnesses to hunger is about making sure women who are strong have an opportunity to speak back and participate. tammy is a great example. there are many people among us and all across the country who are witnesses to hunger. they need to speak up to break the shame. there is courage. thank you. they are amazing. >> that person is my mother. she is here tonight. there are two sponsors that made this possible tonight. there are a lot of resources to make this possible. thank you, c-span, for carrying this conversation around the world. [applause] i also want you to thank the foundation for being our title sponsor tonight. [applause] she is organizing young people to express themselves and raise their own voices about the conditions they find themselves in. you heard me offer those statistics earlier tonight about what is happening, poverty, in the state of mississippi. this is what we are talking about. this young woman is organizing a people and getting women together again to fight back and let their leaders here about the conditions that young people in poverty today are having to endure. tell me a bit about your work in mississippi. >> thank you for this opportunity. before i start to talk about my work, i would just like to say, bring a prison like my grandmother to the table, who was working at the hotel for 335 b 3:35 in the morning and at night time for the car factory on an acre and a half of land and a three-bedroom house, one bath and, and 20 of us in it. there is the true face of poverty. bring an expert like her to the table. her thing was to make sure we get educated. even as a young child, my escape from poverty was to get a good education. i knew once i got a good education, or at least tried to get a quality education, that would be my way out of poverty. that is what i continue to fight for. to build young people like me to lift our voices and fight for quality education that puts us on top, not because of our situation or circumstances. it will lift us up out of poverty if we receive a quality education. that is why i push so hard along with the organization i work with. people inside are going inside of the schools and saying to the principals and superintendents, we have a voice. so many times, they do not see young people as equals. until we start to work intergenerationally and learn to value each other's voices and be in the same spaces, because we have solutions to these problems we are facing right now. that is what i am trying to do. bring our voices to the table with organizations behind us to strengthen our voices. that is my fight and it will continue to be. >> you are a student where? [applause] >> my high school. [applause] >> thank you. jonathan. say a word to me about the agency young people have all across the country that they do not engage to speak up for themselves. i love how she started. her grandmother is an expert. we are taking this conversation to colleges and university campuses all across america. you can sign that letter to the president and you can see the rundown for the next couple of weeks on college campuses, at taking this message to young people and asking them to engage the president in a conversation about what he will do to eradicate poverty. we will start that worked on right. all of the details and afuturewithoutpoverty.com. our young people who can be empowered about this story. >> there are a lot of good and charitable groups in this country who will give young people an opportunity for their voices to be heard and widely. i support those groups. with a passion. the trouble is there are too few and too selective and precarious in nature. charity is a blessed thing. i never turn it down. but it is not a substitute for justice. [applause] only government can give us systematic justice in the sense of empowering all of our young people or the wealthiest of the privileged to stand up and speak out, ask discerning questions. in most schools, there is no time to ask questions. you have got to get those students prepped for the exam. do not let yourself get interrupted by asking a question. that will ruin the school day. you will be penalized. one of the most divisive and invidious schemes i have ever heard for improving schools. teacher against teacher. let me quickly surprise you by ending quickly by saying, i want to hear the voices of young people. i have a selfish reason. that is how i write my book. they are filled with the voices of young children. whenever somebody says, that is eloquent, i say, there is no eloquence like the eloquence of the witnesses themselves. god bless the young women who just stood up. [applause] thank you. >> thank you all. i will start to my left. the clock says we have less than seven minutes to finish this conversation. have you learned a lot tonight? have you enjoy yourselves? [applause] again, #povertymustend. our website, afuturewithoutpoverty.com. sign that letter. ask the president to give a speech about how he will address poverty. the time right now could not be better. then we could start a conversation. the rest of us will be forced to have a conversation about poverty and then we can get traction on this issue. we can bring these experts together and start to figure out a way to cut poverty in half. i will start on this end. 30 seconds apiece. i have to be off the air at 9:00. whatever your closing thoughts are about the issue. >> i want to be on that task force. i thank you for asking that to be done. [applause] >> please thank her for being here. >> the safety net is maligned and criticized, but unemployment insurance have worked very well in the severe downturn. the problem is the program has not worked well. it is not tied to the condition of the economy. it needs to be fixed. >> roseann. >> i am inspired. i want folks to understand they have to engage. they cannot trust those in washington d.c.. we have got to take control in our democracy. i want to talk about the fact this goes back to unemployment. it is a very easy read. it cuts to the chase in terms of facts that there are programs to get through and get 100% employment. do not discount america. take control of america. [applause] >> i forgot to mention, the book is called america's poor and the great recession. ideas about what democrats and republicans can agree on. speaker gingrich. >> thank you for assembling an amazing group and a fascinating evening. i hope everybody found it as intriguing as i did. it is clear our institutions are not working. there is a need to rethink from the ground up and use all of the various technologies. then have a conference at the end and then give a major speech. i think we do not have the solutions in this city today for an effective speech that really breaks through. he can draw our attention. >> the forthcoming book is called, "a better american future." please thank him for joining us. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you for bringing us together. what an amazing group of people with great solutions. the solutions are there. they are clear. the politics are broken right now. we have two parties that represent. we need a third party to represent the rest of america. [applause] >> "the price of civilization." a great read. [applause] >> remember martin luther king jr. it means much. we live in a culture where honesty is much more of a liability. truth telling can get you in trouble. we can cut against the culture if you get on the love train. fight for everybody. >> "the rich and the rest of us." thank you. last comment. >> we have way too many children who are hungry and poor. if we will solve polity, we will all do it together. you'll have to have a national plan. let's make sure low income americans are on that love train with the rest of us. [applause] >> 15 seconds. >> a wonderful preschool, fun, joy, love. do it because we are decent people. [applause] >> "fire in the ashes." please thank the foundation, please thank them. [applause] please thank the network. please give a round of applause to c-span for carrying this conversation live. [applause] thank you very much for joining us. afuturewithoutpoverty.com. god bless you and good night from washington. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up on c-span, former senators kent conrad and judd gregg discuss the federal budget and get. and the forecast from the international monetary fund and the american bankers association. >> the u.s. hopkins of mayors is meeting this week in washington. on "washington journal" we will speak with two mayors, mayor scott smith and mayor stephen benjamin. also, how president obama is delivering upon a campaign promises. our guests are jeff buckley -- jack buckley and tom loveless. >> friday night on c-span, we will show you inaugural speeches. at 8 p.m., ronald reagan from 1981. bill clinton from 1993. dwight eisenhower from 1957. harry truman from 1949. john f. kennedy from 1961. george h. w. bush from 1989. lyndon johnson from 1965. jimmy carter from 1977. george w. bush from 2001. starting at 8 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> why did you write a book about your experience? >> i felt that the perspective should be brought to bear. there were some things that i felt were not completely accurate. i thought it was important for the story will -- but historical record. people need to understand their different policy options and disagreements. if you want to prevent this crisis from happening again, the public itself needs to engage more on financial reform and educate themselves. i tried to make the book accessible. i hope people will look into it. >> sheila bair on the government's role in that worst financial crisis. sunday night at 8 p.m. on c- span's "q&a." >> kent conrad and judd gregg talked about ways to balance the federal budget. they spoke for just under an hour at this event hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce. [applause] >> first senator gregg. >> thank you, marc. i appreciate that. that was quite an introduction. it is free to be here -- great to be here. they have been a wonderful firm to have represent me. it's also a wonderful to be here with kent conrad, who was a close friend, and i am glad his dog made it through so he could be here. he is a deficit hawk. more important than that he is a thoughtful and conscious -- voice of a conscious for the senate throughout his term on fiscal responsibility. we worked together in a very effective way to try to bring some sort of bipartisan effort into the requirement that we do something about the debt. it was really, as was mentioned, an idea that we came up with on a long plane ride i think to central america to put together a commission that then threw into the simpson bowls proposal that has become the defining memo for the effort to try to get that is under control. bob zoellick is fond of quoting a friend of his, the foreign minister of australia. we met a few months ago who said to him the united states is one debt deal away from leading the world out of fiscal chaos and disruption. we are. we truly are. we are a nation on the brink of massive economic expansion. from the place that can't is from, north dakota, you see the change in the paradigm on energy. we will go from an important country to exporting. our cost of energy for as far as i can see will be the lowest in the world and will change the whole dynamic of our markets and how we produce and how productive we are and how we grow as a society, but that is only part of it. we're still the place for all the great ideas come from. whether it is apple, facebook, for my part of the country for we are producing breakthroughs in medical technology. we are a place of massive liquidity. america is still inherently entrepreneurial. we still have people willing to take risks for the opportunity for themselves and the people they employ. the one thing that makes people concerned is our fiscal house, and the fact that we are on a totally unsustainable path, and that if we stay of this path we will essentially bankrupt our future and our children's future and reduce our standard of living. how do we resolve this? how do we get the one deal, as the foreign minister of australia said? it appears the big bang approach, which was a comprehensive agreement that we put together by the congress, and then was picked up, will not be the way it happens. there will be a trend here, chunk there. we have seen this happening as we have gone over the past two years where we had the events of august 2011 with the budget control act, which produced a very substantial deficit reduction effort in the area of discretionary spending. it was $900 billion. it also produced the super committee, which did not get results, but it did move the ball the putting some ideas on the table. then you have divided group and a group of six. -- have the biden group and the group of six. it was awful. an opportunity was missed in my opinion, especially by the house republicans to take up what had been a fairly legitimate savings, and what we ended up with was a tax bill. we now have 900 billion in discretionary spending. 600 billion in revenue. the next exercise, in my opinion, has to be about spending restraints, specifically entitlements. that is where the big enchilada is an issue that has not been taken up yet. how do we get to that? there are three pressure points. you have the sequestered, the debt ceiling, and you have the continuing resolution. the sequestered and debt ceiling fall on top of each other towards the end of february. these to say and republican leadership and the senate, which is served in for 12 years, you never take a hostage you cannot shoot. the problem with the house was they took hostage the cannot shoot when they took the fiscal cliff. if the republican members of congress take the debt ceiling as a hostage, it is a hostage you cannot shoot. as a very practical matter, if we go over the debt ceiling, we do not increase the debt ceiling, republicans will not win the debate. they will argue they are not increasing it because they do not want to control spending but they will not win the debate. what will happen is the white house will pay with cash flow of the interest on the debt. the debt will not be called. what they might not pay our social security checks. the moment the american citizen figures out they may not go out, the game is over. tenfold. because believe me, though congress can stand up to the senior lobby. so that is not a legitimate process to take the debt ceiling as the hostage. the appropriate goal, whether the debate should occur. the president gets to talk about the faults. -- defaults. he gets to talk about social security. we should be talking about spending. spending restraints. where is the logical place to do this? the logical place is on the sequestered. that is where the next pressure point should be. we should have the debate over how much spending should be restrained and how it should be restrained. the sequester is a 1.2 trillion dollar event. that is a number that fits neatly into the debate structure. the president got 600 billion in revenue. 1.2 trillion in spending restraint makes sense. the two match up rather equally. people say we already did 900 billion in spending restraint, so that is not fair. i am speaking the partisan position here. but the point is, the debate over the sequestered is the debate over how you control spending. the sequester is discretionary spending event primarily, but the debate on how you put off the sequestered should be a debate about how you dress -- you address entitlements spending. i happen to think there is a pathway for agreement that is logical and a win for both sides. the only way you get agreement is when both sides win. it is something like this, there are series of entitlement changes that do not impact immediately and leapfrog the president's term in office so the price he will pay will not be significant in the area of political capital, with -- but drew very significant steps. most of the entitlement concern is down the road driven event and the things that basically involve changing the ways we reimburse and tadema's and give people enough time to anticipate the change so they can build a life structure is the go into retirement to handle it. i happen to think what was already put on the table by the president, and that is changing from a regular cola to a chain calculation. it only saves -- only 250-$300 billion. only in washington. it is a multiplier event. it compounds aggressively in the second 10 years. big, huge event. because inflation is so low, it really will not be fell dramatically by anybody in the near term. also, changing the age. phasing it in over 60 years so that no one under the age of 20 would be impacted by the change we make. nobody. you would have thought we would do it tomorrow. if the president is carrying the bully pulpit on that issue, you can do that. then of course there is a whole issue of changing medicare reimbursement from being utilization and cost plus system to be and out comes about your system. that will take time, but there is a lot we can do in that area that would produce massive savings. so there are things that can be done that would leapfrog the president's term but he scored a huge savings. they are structural. how do did the revenue side? if you want more revenue, the way you do that is by having tax reform. change the tax laws so they create more revenue. i would be happy to get in more depth about it. clearly there is a path to get this done. i believe we have an opportunity to do it and republicans take the right hostage in the next round. thank you. [applause] >> we have just heard the answer. so we can all leave here feeling very good. i recommend you immediately call your broker and invest any funds you have in cash into the market and tell them judge greg sent you. -- judd gregg sent you. i think judd is right about this in terms of our overall economic condition, but we do face this extraordinary challenge in the near term. before i get into that and let me thank leading authorities for organizing this. i have so enjoyed joining your team. i get to be the same -- i get to be on the same team as judd gregg acrobat delights me. in the united states senate, he and i were chairman and ranking member of the committee. we were on a trip to central america and south america. during that trip, we came up with the concept of a commission to deal with our runaway deficits and debt. and during those long plane rides, while our wives sat patiently listening to us, we went over how it commission may be fashion, what the goals might be, how it might operate in order to achieve a result. we came back with the idea of the statutory commission. a commission set in law. when we took that i get to our college for a vote in the united states senate, we got 53 votes for that proposition. unfortunately, in the senate, you need 60 votes. so we were seven votes short. interestingly enough, seven of our original cosponsor of voted no on the day of the vote. if we would have had those seven original co-sponsors, we would've had a commission that is in law and that may have made a profound difference. because we did not, we had to go to an executive order commission, at a commission ordered by the president of the united states, which became the bowles-simpson or the simpson- bowles commission on which we both serve. you may be wondering how is it that come if you had 11 of 18 votes that it did not go to a vote in the congress? normally, 60% of the vote carries the united states senate. but on the commission, the requirement was to have to have 14 of the 18 agreed. so we were three short. but we did put together a plan that serves a very -- serves as a very good blueprint going forward. and it is a blueprint that i still think has relevance today. i thought, since we're now on the brink of another debt limit fight, that it might be useful to kind of review where we are. as judd knows so well, i am not comfortable unless i have slides and charts. so let's go to the charge. -- charts. when we look at where we are, if it can start with the first slide, we are borrowing 31 cents of every dollar that's was spent. that is an improvement because we were borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. so we have some improvement. but that is an unsustainable circumstance. you cannot be borrowing 31 cents of every dollar that you spend. when we look back at how we got in this situation, obviously, deficits are a function of the relationship between spending and revenue. the red line on this chart is the spending going back to 1950 as a share of our gross domestic product. the green line is the revenue line. what you can see is the gap between those two. we were spending a 22.8% of gdp in 2012. that difference represents a deficit of $1.10 trillion. you can see that we are very close to being at a 60-year high in spending and very close to being at a 60-year low in revenue. so i would say to those who say that we just have a spending problem, i think you have that half right. we have a spending problem. we also have a revenue problem that needs to be addressed. let's go to the next slide if we can. the result of these deficits and debt is that we now have a gross debt that is more than 100% of our gross domestic product. you can see right in the middle, in 2012, the gross debt of united states has now reached 104%. why does that matter? the best academic research, a book by rogoff of harvard reinhardt, it looked at 200 years of economic history and concluded, once you get a gross debt of more than 90% of your gross domestic product, your future economic prospects are dramatically reduced. future economic growth is reduced anywhere from 25 to 33%. so these are not just numbers on a page. this is a question of future economic opportunity. how will the economy grow? what kind of life will people leave? when you get to a gross debt of gdp, your future economic prospects are reduced. we have talked about the revenue side of the equation, the spending side of the equation. looking at the revenue -- i showed a slide earlier this showed revenue at 15.8% of gdp. typically, if you look at the economic history of the country in the last 30 years, average revenue has been about 18.6% of gdp. but the last five times we balanced the budget, revenue was not at 18.6% of gdp. it was close to 20%. revenue and the times would balance was close to 20% of gdp. that kind of sets up the question of what the president proposed. because he was calling for $1.60 trillion of additional revenue. remember that that -- he was calling for $1.60 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. to put that in context, how much revenue are reprogrammed to raise over the next 10 years? that number is $37 trillion. so $1.60 trillion increase in revenue is 4% increase. we cannot have an increase of 4% in revenue? of course we can. if we put this in context, 4% additional revenue over the next 10 years, certainly, we can do that. let's go to the next slide. the same is true on the sending spending on the spending side of the equation. let me just say that i use these slides on the floor of the senate to persuade my colleagues to negotiate up. when the president laid down his plan and the speaker laid down his plan, i went to the floor of the senate and said, him, let's take the presence revenue number and let's take the speaker's spending proposal, let's take them both. but the them together and let's have a package that actually gets the job done. because together, their proposals would have met $4 trillion of the deficit and debt reduction, which virtually every economist says is necessary to sterilize the date -- to stabilize the debt and really stabilize the debt and really bring the number down and put us on this drought -- put us on a sound fiscal course. so take the president's revenue proposal, will put $6 trillion, which is less revenue than we had in the simpson bowles proposal -- if you take the same base line, simpson bowles has more revenue than the president was proposing. let's take the savings that the speaker was proposing on health care. he said $500 billion over 10 years. again, if we put that in context, we will spend over 11 trillion dollars on health care. so the spending proposal that the speaker meat represents 4.5% of the health care spending over the next 10 years. we can't save 4%? really? what company in america face with a circumstance that we have would say, oh, no, that is too tough. we cannot save 4%. yes, we can. let's go to the next slide. especially if you put in context where we are in health care expenditures in the world, the most recent years that we have comparisons with other countries was 2010. we know that we are now at over 80% of gdp on health care in this country. nobody else is more than 11.5%. the idea that we cannot have additional savings on health care and not hurt anybody is preposterous. we absolutely can have savings in health care. and when you have savings in health care, 40% of that savings flows to the federal government and federal programs because federal government is funding 40% of the health care in this country. so we have big savings in health care. we have big savings in federal government. discretionary savings, the speaker proposed $300 billion over 10 years. again, if we put that in context, we will spend $11.60 trillion over the next 10 years. that would represent a savings of two 0.6%. as judd indicated, we are have $900 billion in savings in the budget control act. so there are substantial savings that have already accrued in this area. but we can do another $300 billion. we can save another 2.6%. other mandatory, that is the other major canned -- major category. the speaker proposed $200 billion. we will spend $5.10 trillion in this category. over the next 10 years. so that represents again a savings of 4%. what have we begun -- what have we become as a country if we cannot make a 4% change? really. that is something we should be able to do. so, under the compromise that i propose, taking the speakers numbers, taking the president's revenue, you can see how it wraps up to a total of over $4 trillion of savings over 10 years, which is, as i indicated what virtually every economist says is necessary to get us back on track. we are borrowing 31 cents of every dollar we spend, but we're also on a long-term trend. according to the congressional budget office, if we fail to act, we are failed to a debt that is not 100% of their gdp. it will be two hundred% of their gdp. -- it will be 200% of our gdp. the budget control act has already dropped discretionary spending to historic lows. you can see and the budget control act, we will go down to 5.3% of gdp going to discretionary spending, down from 8.3% last year. and 13.6% back in 1968. so you can see we are already making substantial changes on the discretionary side now. where we really need to focus -- the judge made this point. medicaid, medicare and other federal health benefits going into dp, looking for two 2050, you can see -- in 1972, we were spending 9% on health care cuts. we are headed for spending 12% of gdp. this is the 800-pound gorilla. this is the problem we have to confront. by the way, social security is pretty stable as a share of gdp. it has gone up a little bit and it will go below more with the baby boom generation. that is not the problem. here's the problem. if you look at the fiscal commission plan, it had -- if you look at current comparisons -- over $5 trillion of deficit reduction. it lowered the deficit to 1.4% of gdp in 2022. it stabilizes the debt by 2015. it even further reduced discretionary spending. it built on health reform savings, called for social security reform and provided specific things to do to get social security solvent for the next 75 years. and it also included fundamental tax reform that raised revenue. and raised quite a bit of revenue, $2.40 trillion, would have been revenue. revenue not required through raising rates, but revenue that would come through reforming the tax code, reducing preferences, exclusions that are shot through the tax code to actually be able to reduce rates and raise additional revenue. for anybody that wonders, can you really do that? remember that tax expenditures are running $1.20 trillion a year. we are spending more through the tax code than we are through all of the appropriated accounts of the federal government. this is what happens to the deficit as a share gdp under the fiscal commission plan. you can see dramatic improvement. the fiscal cliff plan, what was just adopted, you'll know the elements here. we turned off the sequestered for two months the unemployment extension was included for a year and the farm bill was extended for a year. but don't let anybody tell you that that had anything to do with deficit reduction. because here is what the congressional budget office says. the total revenue loss from the proposal is $3.60 trillion. that is from extending all the bush era tax cuts, except for the top 1%, and the permanent fix to the alternative minimum tax -- those two things lose $3.60 trillion of revenue. additional spending, three and a $32 billion. so the deficit was increased by $4 trillion. and that does not count debt service. so we just dug the hole deeper. and anybody that tells you this thing raised net revenue over 10 years, no, it did not. it absolutely did not. because, when you fix the alternative minimum tax for 10 years, that cost you $1.80 trillion. so you picked of $650 billion by raising the rate on the top 1%, but you have permanently fix the alternative minimum tax, which come in below, would generate 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. what is bigger? i will tell you that republicans should have been celebrating this as a massive victory, a massive tax cut because, in fact, that is what has occurred here. this is a big tax cut. so i say to you, in terms of what has to happen next, i think it will require the revenue side of the equation and the spending side of the equation to be addressed. let me conclude by saying this. how do we get out of this in the current circumstance? the president says he will not negotiate on the debt limit. republicans say they will not vote for excess and on the debt limit unless they get substantial additional cuts in spending. i think judd is absolutely right. we have another dynamic at work here. and that is the sequester. $1.20 trillion of across-the- board spending cuts, half in defense and half in non-defense. republicans delight it. democrats don't like it. that creates an opportunity. there's also the question of how long do you extend the debt limit. i think it would be incredibly foolish to renamed on the debt of the united states. -- to renig on the debt of united states. but how long we extend the debt limit, that is open to negotiation. and between the two of how long you extend the debt limit and how you deal with the sequestered gives you an opportunity for another attempt at a grand bargain. revenue and spending restraint, especially on mandatory programs to get america back on track. we can do it. we have done much tougher things before. this is an next opportunity to put america in a premium position in the world. if we solve this problem, there's nothing that can stop the united states from continuing to be the most important and dominant country in the world. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will open it up to questions. i would like to start with one. we know what the problem is. and we sort of know how to solve it. but we are confronted by the reality of the political dynamics on the hill. a republican house that was elected within their districts by large margins and president who won an election. how do we bridge the gap? how do we actually get the deal done. >> we have a system that is incremental in nature. we're not a parliamentary system where, if you control the government, you can move very quickly and aggressively. i have always said that the american politics is played on the 40-yard line. and both sides feel very strongly about their philosophical position. but there is a deep identity of interest that i think needs -- leads to premature should lead to agreement. if you're the president of united states, there are two events that you know may occur in the next four years, which could totally derail your capacity to do the of the things you want to do about the nation, your positive agenda. the first is the terrorist and weapons of mass destruction. i think this president has been dedicated to intelligence gathering and his use of various capabilities to reduce that threat. and secondly, the issue of the financial crisis driven by the market's losing confidence in our currency because of the fact that they take a look at the church that he has put up there and say these folks can figure it out. and that will happen. it is not a question of whether it will happen. that will happen. at some point, somebody will wake up in the financial markets someday and say, the dollar is not paid what they claim is worth because they cannot pay it back without deflating the dollar. you don't want that to happen on your watch because it will sidetrack the economy. so the president has an incentive to come to the table and get this issue under control. can you have the republican position -- and you have the republican position. the dna is that you have to get the spending under control. the question really becomes the politics of getting people to go across the aisle to reach agreement. i don't think the house can do it, to be honest with you. so many seats in the house now are gerrymandered by party. the one thing that happens in those districts, about 65% of the house is now gerrymandered by party. your elected by your base -- you are elected by your base. the one thing you're based won't tolerate -- governing in our system means compromise. you cannot go across the aisle because your threatened immediately on reelection. -- -- because you are threatened immediately on reelection. i think the leadership has to come from is the president. the president has to be interested in to this issue and lead. he has allies in the senate who are willing and capable of going across the aisle. the senate has a very strong working senator. it is almost half of the senate that is willing to move on very big and aggressive package if they get leadership. and then you take the package it comes out of the senate any good to the presidential leadership and speaker boehner would be supported as long as it came in a way that was structured and you get something done. >> i really agree with that. in a curious way, both sides need each other. hawley debt limit has to be extended. this is not our future spending. this is about spending has already been done. will we pay the bills that we have already racked up? clearly, we have to do that. the consequences of a failure to extend the debt limit would be extraordinary. to do that, you have to get votes of people in the house of representatives. and they are insisting on additional spending restraint. in fact, we need additional spending restraint. if anything is clear from the charts i have put up your is that we have to get some additional restraint on the entitlement side of our budget. so it does lend itself to a compromise, one in which there is additional revenue, not from reading rates, but through tax reform, which happily something the country needs anyway. does anybody believe this tax code that we have makes any sense at all? i don't know of a single democrat or a single republican that would sit here and say this tax code can possibly be supported on any grounds. it is not fair. is not rational. it is not easy to abide by. and it is hurting our competitive position world. it just seems to me that we have a continuing opportunity to have a compromise. and one that will get us back on track. it does require leadership. i have always believed it had a start in the senate because that is where there's still a broad middle to really lead to have action. >> we would like to open it up to questions from you all. if you could raise your hand -- i think we have one over here. and if you could please state your name and organization please. >> tony cosell with bloomberg government. you both seem to indicate that there is positive momentum behind tax reform. is that on the individual side? is that on the corporate side? is it on both? how do you handicapped the prospects for that say in the next one year or two years to get something done? >> i think it is on both sides. as you know, and a statutory rate is now the highest rate in the world, in the industrialized world come in terms of corporate tax. our effective rate is substantially lower than that. unfortunately, some companies pay for a close to the statutory rate. clearly, we need to change the corporate tax. that cries out for reform. the individual -- you know, i just find it grossly unfair that some people who are making staggering amounts of money to pay much less of a tax rate and the -- then the people were working for them. -- than the people who are working for them. >> i think they have made it clear that they're interested in moving this way. i don't see how you get this deficit under control unless you change the tax laws because the template of simpson bowles has two extremely event -- extremely aggressive models. we eliminated $1.10 trillion of deductions. we took a trillion dollars of debt and reduced rates. i think the rates were 9%, 15% and 23%. that's order template makes a lot of sense. there is great senate for this because the public wants to see rates down to the people invest for the -- rates down so that people will invest. there is identity of interest here + both sides want more simplification and fairness. on the corporate side, i think it is critical that we have tax reform. one of the keys to has to be addressed is the issue of some territorial system. we have trillions of dollars sitting overseas incorporations the cannot give back to tinian and states without paying a 35% tax to get it back. and you have a scoring mechanism that says, if you bring a dollar back and you don't pay the tax on it, the government does not get the 35 cents. so we never get the money back. there needs to be some sort of territorial system and understand the labor force -- labor opposes this because they think that companies may move more money offshore because they will see a large texas -- i think that is just foolish. to bring the money back care means you will get better investment here, more expansion of capital and equipment here and more jobs here. so we have to go to some sort of territorial system. >> over here. >> thank you to both of you for coming this morning and for your service. i have to questions. the first one is can you talk about your sense about the potential for interest deduction. the bowles simpson would have modified the mortgage interest deduction. and why is vote -- why is social security technically part of the discussion? >> raising the cap on social security was part of bowles simpson. on mortgage interest, i think, ultimately, there will be a chance that -- but perhaps -- the plan talk about the credit, doing it as a deduction, not allowing it to go to second homes. i don't think that 500,000 would be adopted. currently, it is a million. i think second homes can be excluded at some point. as part of an overall package. that is if an overall package it's done. as i have indicated. i still remain hopeful that one will be done. it is so needed. and it is hard for me to see this doing -- this done if both sides don't work together. i really believe there is the possibility of getting this done. if it starts, the president will sign a and it will move to the house. >> i served on the ways and means committee. one thing that was necessary -- first, you had to have the president. secondly, you cannot pick up one group. you never win. you have to do everybody. i don't think there's any question. the four major sources of revenue -- the four major sources of deductions that create revenue will have to be impacted. that includes real estate, charitable, state and local, and health insurance. because that is where all the deductions occur in the individual side. >> as congress looks at cutting expenditures, rates and revenue, how will it value things that he people today, such as health care expenses, versus retirement savings, which arguably are more of a long-term it to the economy and to people who saved to fund their retirement? >> >> let me just say that my own belief is that we have to be smart about this. i don't think we should do things that would disincentivize savings. if you don't have savings, you don't have investment. if you don't have investment, you don't grow. but our current incentives with this tax code are all upside down. so we disincentivize savings because we tax it. we shouldn't do that in terms of helping people build for their own retirement. that means they need to be in savings vehicles. social security is one, but they also need to be in other tax preference savings vehicles. i don't think it would be smart to hurt those. >> i certainly agree with that. but i think there's a bigger matter at play, which is the policy of the fed, which is basically creating a situation because of the low-interest policies. where seniors savings are being dis popincentivized in a very aggressive way -- being disincentivized in a very aggressive way. >> we have time for one more question. >> good morning. thank you both for your remarks today. very interesting. another discussion that has occurred among some economists is that is not questioning the fundamental assumptions of what you have brought here, but the timing, that the focus should be more about stimulating the economy coming folks up and working and then have a discussion of the deficit. because, in fact, the credit is relatively easy. the dollar is still in effect the currency standard. if i could just have your thoughts on that and, just quickly, reducing corporate tax reform discussion will occur in the next six months. [laughter] >> there is always an excuse for not doing things in washington. and the excuse today is, well, you don't want to retard the economy. the simple fact is that the best thing you can do for this economy is to resolve our fiscal problems because it will give people confidence in our future. it will cause people to go on and be willing to invest. and it would say to our kids you have a prosperous life style has opposed to having to pay for our generation. i just don't accept this argument. surely, there are some short- term things you don't want to do that will contract spending. that will not happen anyway. i just don't see that happening. i think the sooner we get on this issue of resolving our long-term fiscal problems, the more dynamic our economy will be because we have done that. >> let me say that i am in the pack -- in the camp that believes that the major problem in the economy is facing is weak demand. that is not the time to impose fiscal austerity. but it is the time to put in place a plan that gets us back on fiscal track over the longer term. that is precisely what bowles- simpson attempted to do. because we did not impose austerity immediately. we had a several-year gap. but it put in place the long- term changes that gave you an assurance that you were going to get back on track for the 10-year budget period. after all, we have just had the toughest economic downturn since the great depression. i think we have to be sensitive to what you do in the short term. but that is no excuse for taking action that gets us back on track long term. the happy part about this is the the tax changes and the spending changes that you need to make have enormous benefit, not only in the 10-year budget window -- even if you give several years delay to allow the economy to recover -- but the real big bonus is what great was talking about earlier. the second 10 years and the third 10 years. if you make these fundamental changes now, they pay massive dividends into the future. >> i'm sorry, but we are out of time. you're welcome to come up. i want to thank both senator conrad and senator gregg. in a town where we're used to shouting at each other, when ashley had a pretty intelligent and smart discourse this morning. i would like to remind the audience that both senator conrad and senator gregg art available for speaking. we hope you will look to them for meetings that are coming up. there is a saying that there is no free breakfast. but this is almost free. the only thing we would like to ask of you is, before you leave today, there is a short questionnaire if you do -- a short questionnaire. if you do it, we will be grateful. i want to thank our sponsors and our partners at the u.s. chamber of commerce. thank you so much. have a great day. [applause] ♪ >> attorney general eric holder will be speaking tomorrow about gun violence. this will be his first public statement since the president announced the new agenda on gun regulation. you can watch it live on c-span and c-span.org. >> friday night, we will see -- we will show you inaugural speeches from the last 60 years. ronald reagan, bill clinton, the eisenhower, and harry truman, and richard nixon. then, president john f. kennedy. george h. w. bush, lyndon johnson, jimmy carter, and we will wrap up the night at 11:00 eastern with george w. bush's speech from 2001. speeches from 10 past presidents. >> the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. this honor now beckons america. the chance to help lead the world at last out of the valley of turmoil and on to that high ground of peace man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization. >> a new program. the benefits of our masses and industrial progress available for the improvement of underdeveloped areas. >> this weekend, public radio's back story. the history and traditions of presidential inaugurations, live, saturday morning, at 11:00 ..m. eastern are lagarde held a press conference. this week, the imf announced a bailout for greece. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning. happy new year. welcome to the fund. a few comments to begin with. i was trying to think of a way to encapsulate the way we perceive 2013. my sense is that we stop the collapse. we should avoid relaxed. and it is not time to relax. i think it encapsulates what we're trying to say. clearly, the collapse has been avoided in many corners of the world due to policies quite often put through by central bankers and eventually by government authorities, particularly the dance economies. whether you look at the you -- the eurozone or the united states of america -- although often at the last hour -- the right decisions have been made. and as a result, the collapse has been avoided. there's still a lot of work to be done. that is why we should avoid the relapse and make sure that none of the decision makers and none of the authorities actually relax. assuming there is a little bit of recovery in sight and because the markets in particular have clearly anticipated good news that it is time to slow down, slow the pace, and go back to business as usual. what does this mean in terms of [indiscernible] i will mention three key areas. first of all, it is important to pull through policies and put uncertainty to rest. for those of you who followed carefully, we're trying to associate uncertainty and confidence. this is not clearly definite yet in terms of investment, but it is in terms of consumption. removing uncertainty plays a key role in rejuvenating confidence. so putting away uncertainty by following through on policies is important from our perspective. what does that mean? key common challenges along the advanced economies will be about restoring fiscal sustainability. i'm sure you have questions about this issue and i will be happy to take them. in terms of fiscal sustainability, we are particularly concerned about the medium-term plans. there are clearly some short- term policies that need to be adjusted country by country and with the right chemistry. we're concerned about the medium-term in order to bring public debt down at the pace that is for each country. that is a common feature for all economies, particularly the advanced economies. as far as the euro area is concerned, we feel that a lot has been achieved in terms of policies, in terms of new tools in the tool box that europeans have available to fight crisis. yet fire walls have not yet proven operational. progress needs to be made on banking union and clearly continued, if not further monetary easing will be approved in order to sustain demand. for the united states, we think that all sides should pull together in the national interest, avoid further avoidable policy mistakes that is threatening -- that is continuing to agree on the debt ceiling and reaching agreement on the medium term debt reduction that i mentioned earlier. for the non-events economies, i am putting together the emerging markets as well as the [indiscernible] countries. clearly, those countries are fearing a much better case in terms of growth. but everywhere i have travelled in the last few months, in africa, in latin america, and in asia, there has always been a concern about the lack of decisive action to address the advanced economies crises. so those spillover effects coming colluding busy so those spillover effects, including -- so those spillover effects, of.including uncertainty, are clear. this is excessively too general. when you go down the list of the emerging market economies, some of them are much more vulnerable and open to the risks of contagion or spillover effects of the advanced economies. some of them are more interconnected regionally and less prone to those risks. but overall, in the main, there is that clear risk, which leads us to recommend to them that they actually improve and increase the buffers that they have already used and which they need to replenish. that is the first imperative that dimension, which is to follow through in policies to eliminate uncertainty. the second point is in our critical of you because it is at the heart of the latest development of the crisis -- which is to finish the reform of the financial sector. we recognize that there has been progress. but the process has been very time consuming and continues to contribute to uncertainty. we sense a sign of waning commitment. there's still a momentum, but it is probably not as crucial as it was and we really regret it. you can see that when we examine the reforms were some of them are slightly diluted, softened at the margin, where implementation is the late that is clearly the case with bas 03, for instance. there are inconsistencies of approaches, which have laid the ground for possible arbitration. and we believe that it is important for the regulators, for the supervisors, for the authorities to actually resist aggressive industry pushed back. further weakening of capital lending standards, there have been discussions on the liquidity coverage ratio, which has been concluded and it could have been better. we did not see enough progress on the cross border resolution, which has been recommended by your know by the fsb, but has not resulted in regional and country levels. and we certainly see delays in regulation concerning both shuttle banking and derivatives. the ultimate goal of the finance regulation massive work in is to be completed, the needs to be done on an accelerated rather than a slowdown basis clearly has to do with the growth of the real economy and that is my third key point. clearly, authorities come up policy decision makers have to focus on the real economy. what we mean by that? i mean clearly focused on growth and not just any growth, but growth that develops jobs. what we're seeing is improvement on certain fronts, but deterioration and certainly no improvement on the employment front, which we recognize as critical from both an economy point of view, but also from a social point of view. they're more than 200 billion -- 200 million people out of a job and two in five of those unemployed people are under 24. there's a clear concentration in some areas, including in the events economies. so we need growth for jobs and jobs for growth. we encourage policymakers to try to engage. we need inclusive growth and won the chairs appropriately the -- one the shares appropriately the benefits with the population. that applies across the world, both in events economies as well as the emerging markets and low-income countries. i have traveled to quite a few income country lately where we have a partnership where we have technical assistance with programs. it means transforming the energy, subsidies program into cash transfers come into social state units that are properly targeted to the people that actually need the support and not across the board and generally benefiting anybody, especially those that don't need it at all. finally, we need balanced growth. we need to continue the shift and demand from the advanced economies to the new engines in the emerging market economies. that is one aspect of the balancing that is needed, a rebalancing. we also mean by a more balanced growth, growth that is more compatible with the sustainability of our environment and the fight against climate change. what does the need for us? i remind you that, in 2013, the imf is stronger, better equipped financially. it has certainly refined some of its tools. we'll continue to strengthen our surveillance, especially on spillover effects and on the financial sector. we will continue to strengthen our support for the entire spectrum of members through lending, capacity building, training and technical assistance. in other words, we're not only serving the needs of a selected group of companies -- a group of countries, but the entire membership. when you look at the world and see where our teams are, where there is building and technical assistance in programs, we are all over the map. and we will continue to push ahead with the important and not complete reform of " and governance. we are in three stages, two are completed. we are certainly short of a few members, one of which is obviously a key member. that is all everyone into open bar conference with. i will welcome your questions and be address each and every one of them -- and address each and every one of them. i hope i will have the right answer for you. i will not pretend that i know it all. i try to learn a lot in the process. >> thank you, managing director. let's begin down in front. right here. >> thank you. thank you for this opportunity and for this press conference and for talking with us. i am with the russian news agency. you will be meeting the russian prime minister in a few days. i wonder how you view the russian agenda in the context of the aims to have just described. and if you could maybe change something in that agenda, what would it be? thank you. >> i would not change the venue because i am very glad to go to moscow and st. petersburg at the end of the year. i am happy about the timing. i think st. petersburg will be a little bit warmer, i think. as far as the russian agenda for the g-20 is right because it is focused. to have as priorities the ways and means to restore and maintain growth and create jobs, number one, number two, the continuation and completion of the financial sector reform. number three, using the mutual process to guide countries' economies, i think those are important agenda items. there might be more, but those are the ones we are really concerned about. and where the imf connection help them provide advice and support. we will be very happy to support the russian presidency on these three agenda items. >> thank you. >> right here in the center. >> thank you for this opportunity. i wonder about your assessment. we saw very frustrating growth last year. and there's no greater expectation that there will be a better result this year. we also have the inflation raising, a very concerned situation in our physical sector. despite this, brazil is actually one country where we don't have very good economic growth, but we still have job creation. so it is one of those very unusual situations. i wonder your assessment on that. >> in a way, i share your concern about the brazilian economy. it has grown and certainly less than initially expected. but having said that, the real question is to really end stand whether it is growing at capacity or whether there is an output gap that could be filled in by appropriate macroeconomic policy measures. >> ok. >> i will leave it like that. >> gentleman with his hand up. >> elaborating on the financial reform, you seem to be attributing some of the recent events to push back from industry. i wonder if you feel the process has reached the limits of what it can do at this point and whether we will be left with an incomplete response because of the concerns about credit provision. >> two points on that. i am always concerned about the push back of the banking industry. it is the nature of the game and it is the constant approach to push back. i might be a little bit -- having observed the profession. equally, i do not think appetite for growth, the need for jobs, and the necessary level of investments is not consistent with having the financial regulations in place with the right level of certainty with appropriate supervision. what the financial regulation reform aims at is to make sure there is security, protection, credit available for investors to develop activity, invest in the economy, and create jobs. i do not see that as being mutually exclusive. the concern we have about the growth of jobs and investment is supported by the need to have a financial sector that is vibrant, focused on the right priorities, that is appropriately supervised, and that is regulated. regulated with certainty. >> the lady way over here on the right. >> thank you. i am with the portuguese public television. what to expect from portugal this year. what do you expect the portugal authorities to do in the short term? >> thank you very much. portugal has done an extremely good job of reducing the fiscal deficit two-thirds of the way has already been completed. we have just approved yesterday the review and dispersed close to a billion dollars, which was the next tranche of the portuguese program. there is still work to do. we stopped the collapsed. let's avoid the relapse. we know that more fiscal contraction and consolidation is needed going forward. we have made a range of proposals. they are just proposals for the moment. the portuguese authorities have to decide what is most appropriate in the context of portugal and if they have other options that are best accomplished in order to accomplish the fiscal consolidation and preserve the chemistry of portuguese society, that is perfectly legitimate. there is a bit more time to go, a bit more work to do. the end of the program and we hope growth and jobs of the end of the day, which is really what matters. 16% unemployment rate, over 30% with the young people, that is the key priority. >> gentlemen in the front. >> [inaudible] >> can you wait for the microphone? >> i wanted to know if you shared that opinion. >> i we share the opinion of my chief economist. i will challenge him eventually. at the end of the day, i do not challenge the findings because they have been solidly worked out. clearly, research was done and research is constantly done. the imf does not operate on the basis of principles that are set in stone and forever. the pride of this institution is to constantly questioned, challenge, revisits, reexamined, test the findings and the assumptions in order to be as up-to-date as possible. the numbers that have been used five or six years ago where numbers that had been examined, reviewed, explored, and were common to all of the professionals in the field. you were talking about fiscal multipliers. the crisis that we have come through is unparalleled, has no historical precedent and has reshuffled the assumptions fiscal multipliers. it is a work that was put back under review, and for which the teams here have concluded that the fiscal multipliers were higher in the context of the unbelievable international crisis. that is the reason why the research departments decided to come out, publish, explain what our new findings were that were clearly informed and transformed by the context of the international crisis. >> gentleman in the second row. >> the fund has now gone into a new program with greece. it seems to have stretched the parameters in terms of debt reduction. how long this can go on without getting a true debt reduction for a country like greece? do you think there is some specific time periods where you need to see that before people will lose faith yet again? >> i am pleased that you see people have regained faith in greece and that confidence has been restored and this time, it is different. we have yesterday approved to reviews and disbursement of two of charges under the existing programs. it is not really an existing program -- revisited in the sense that we had asked and the partners have eventually agreed that an additional two years were needed for greece to accomplish the fiscal contraction that is still needed. we thought it would be better for the country to have more time. equally, the clear variation from the set of principles applying to the programs, which has changed, is the renewed financing support and general support on the part of the european partners. the commitment they have made to not only to extend the maturity of their loan, not only reduce the interest rates, but also provide what ever is necessary going forward in terms of additional support to alleviate the burden of the debt and greece. provided that the country delivers on its commitments. you cannot judge a commitment and the delivery against the commitment in a matter of a couple of months. my sense is that it is a matter of a year before the commitment can be measured against delivery. that is very important, of course, and it changes the face of the greek landscape. >> the lady right here. >> russia's central bank has said the world's leading economy are on the brink of a currency war to keep up with japan and japan's use of the devaluation to boost their competitiveness. germany's finance ministers also said he was concerned about the impact on global liquidity of japanese policy. what are your thoughts of the possibility of a currency war and on japan's monetary policies that seem to be aimed at weakening the yen? >> immigration reform advocates called on the white house. they discussed policy changes. we will hear from the head of the us chamber of commerce. we will hear from the indiana attorney general. this is one hour.>> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of the national immigration forum and i want to thank everyone for joining us this afternoon for this press conference on the prospects and the growing momentum for immigration reform. there are many important issues for the 113th congress to address. there are few issues that have a past, present, the future of bipartisan support like immigration reform. today's event is another indicator of a new consensus. to forge this new consensus, conservative leaders who hold the bible, wear a badge, or own a business have worked over the last two years and gathered in the mountain west, the midwest, and the southeast to have rational conversations on how to move on nation forward on immigration. these leaders are activating this consensus. we are joined by the highest echelons of america's business, law enforcement, and faith leadership to call upon congress to work together to pass broad immigration reform that deals with aspiring citizens by creating a road to lawful status and eventually citizenship law respecting those who left in for many years. modernizes the nation's immigration laws legal and orderly, establishing worker programs that serve the needs of our work force and our economy. finally, reform that recognizes the need for safety and security on our border and in our communities. democrats and republicans recognizing the moral, political imperative to create a 21st century immigration process, congress marks the best opportunity for broad immigration reform in nearly a decade. for legislation to pass, it will take leadership. leadership from demonstration, congress, and from faith, law- enforcement, and business leaders. the leadership that is needed must be strategic, disciplined, and unified. our speakers today are exactly that. our unity of purpose comes from a common crisis in our midst. our consensus lies in a common belief that all americans prosper when we welcome immigrants and empower them to participate fully in our society. we have a broad range of speakers today from these constituencies. i want to start with tom donahue, he is president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce. for years, he has been an incredible ally, partner, and champion and has pushed to fix the immigration system. >> thank you very much. i am honored to be here. i am pleased to be joined today by my friends and partners in the business, law enforcement, and religious communities to talk about immigration reform. immigration reform is not just a program to be implemented or a problem to be solved. it is an opportunity to be seized. it is an opportunity to fundamentally improve our global competition, attract and retain the world's best talent, secure our borders and keep faith that americans its legacy as an open and welcoming society. people are entitled to their own opinions on this issue. as we all know, there are many of them. they're not entitled to their own facts. the facts are crystal clear. our current system is broken. everybody knows, everybody recognizes it. it is not serving the interest of our economy or business is or our society. america cannot compete and win without the world's best talent. for example, it makes absolutely no sense to educate foreign students in our universities and then send them home to apply that knowledge and skills to their economy and not to ours. we cannot sustain vital programs for the elderly and needy without more workers, both low- skilled and high skilled, to grow our economy and to provide a larger tax base. common sense immigration reform is an important way to address the changing demographics as an aging society. look at me, you'll understand that. we cannot harvest our food, sustain our military without immigrants and temporary workers. our current work visa laws contained arbitrary caps that have absolutely no connection to what is happening in the real world. there are very serious the immense in scope and difficulty in implementation and in his current rules. surely we can do better. we have to do better if we're going to have the workers we need. what we need is a lawful, rational, and workable immigration system that secures our borders, provides the workers we need at all skill levels, and protect the rights of citizens, businesses, the undocumented, and those legally pursuing citizenship. we believe immigration reform should include the following interrelated components. the most secure our borders and enable people and commerce to flow lawfully in and out of our country. we have made significant progress on this front in recent years and we can build on it by deploying our technology, personnel and programs along the border. a lot of the people that come to this nation do not necessarily come through the border. 40, 50% of them just to stay longer than they intended to. we need to design temporary worker programs that would allow employers to use immigrant labor when the u.s. workers are not available. outdated visa policies are depriving the america of high skilled and low-skilled workers that we need. we need a system tied to market demand and it must go beyond high skilled seasonal and agricultural workers and include other areas, where employers face demonstrated labor shortages. nursing-home workers are prime examples. the caps should go up when the economy is strong and be adjusted down when the economy is not. we need to expand the number of green cards for foreign nationals who graduate from our colleges and universities with advanced degrees. even with high unemployment, we have millions of job openings that go unfilled. either the workers come here to fill those jobs or let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, those jobs go somewhere else and when they do, other jobs go with them. we also need a workable, reliable, at national employee verification program. the e-verify program has been dramatically improved. there is strong pre-emption language for state and local laws, no obligation to read verify the whole team. we need safe harbor for good- faith efforts by employers. finally, we need to provide a path out of the shadows for 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the united states today with the understanding they will meet strict conditions and pay a civil penalty and taxes going forward. and they will learn english, many of them already have. many of them are already paying taxes. we cannot run our economy without them. send those 11 million people home and it would be ugly. i suggest we will not round them up and deport them, nor should we. let's not forget one fundamental issue. that is true we are or what this nation was built upon. the dreams and the hard work of those who came here seeking a better life. the bottom line on immigration is that the status quo on immigration and our country is a fundamental loser. i am optimistic that this time we have an excellent shot at getting immigration reform done. it is essential to our economy, our country, and our way of life. we are very proud to be working with the partners on the stage and we will work with others as well and we will make passage of the immigration reform legislation one of our top priorities this year. at this time, i would like to turn the podium over to the vice president for public policy and research. thank you very much for your attention. >> good afternoon. glad to be here with you today. we're delighted to be your standing with so many folks with the business community, folks representing law-enforcement. what you see up here is representative of a large slice of civil society saying we need to come together to find a way to solve our nation's immigration crisis. each of us has different reasons for why we believe we need to resolve this. for faith communities for southern baptists, immigration reform is a moral issue. it is a basic humanitarian issue. when you think about it as a moral issue, for us, we get our moral guidance from the bible. we turn to the bible. you did not have to read very far into your bible to see how god told his people to deal with the stranger in the midst of the nation that he himself established. the nation of israel was established by god. he said the boundaries on the parameters and laws. he gave very clear directions for his people in that land on how to treat the non-israelites. you can start reading and you come across the passage that you should love the stranger in your midst like yourself. that is pretty strong language. love the stranger in the midst like yourself. you will not do the kinds of things to yourself that some people propose that we do to the person who is here illegally. when we go to our bible and we read that, we understand that god has an expectation for people with power to treat those who are weak and vulnerable. god has a lot of reasons for that. we understand that these folks also are created in the image of god. they are as image bearers of god as we are. we should treat them at that level of respect and dignity as well. you cannot do that with the situation we have in this country today. that brings me to part of the humanitarian side of this. it is not possible to respond to the plight of those who are here living in the shadows compassionately without actually speaking to their circumstances and trying to assess them. i do not know how you can have a clear conscience thinking that we will confine people to perpetual poverty. we've never done that to people. i cannot imagine that we would do today. i cannot imagine that we could do that with a clear conscience. it is not the right thing to do. it is not them humanitarian thing to do. it is not the christian thing to do. we are here in coalition with this broad group of folks because we believe this is a moral and humanitarian issue. we are already engaged. we are busy on the help already. we're also busy in the country helping southern baptist and other evangelicals understand the issues. we just kicked off a campaign. that campaign calls on christians to spend 40 days reading one bible passages debate about immigration reform. something the bible has to say about immigration reform and reflecting on not and letting godspeed to them about what would be the christian response to the needs of the undocumented here. we believe if you got your bible and you open your heart before god, god will lead you to say, and we needed just immigration reform in this country that will make it possible for us to get these folks on a path towards legal status and on the path towards prosperity. i hope you will go to that website. you can go to the evangelicalimmigrationtable.org. find the information, download the bookmark. join us in the bible reading and prayer campaign. i believe that god will speak to you in the same way he has spoken to us. immigration reform is a top priority issue for the southern baptist convention, ethics and liberty commission. we do not intend to let this failed. we will stay on top of this until washington, d.c., and our country filing does what is right by the 12 million who are here looking for us to do something to help to resolve their dilemma. thank you. >> our next speaker is attorney general from the state of indiana. he was elected to the 42nd attorney-general in november of 2008. he has been an incredible allied for the issue in the state. >> thank you. i welcome the opportunity to join with these voices and call upon the federal government to rise above partisanship and rise to the occasion. i only speak as the elected attorney general from indiana, but i can tell you that most of my colleagues, the other attorneys general, all share the sense of frustration that the federal government has failed in its responsibility in the area of immigration reform. we often complain the federal government over reaches into the role of the states. i think it is born of the frustration that a number of states, including indiana, has tried in some way to try to address the issues, that washington has failed to address. we had a bill that was passed that i was required to defend. we followed it all the way to the supreme court when he arizona case was taken up. i do know how to read a supreme court opinion and recognize, like most of the attorneys general, that it is a federal responsibility. he'll have to understand the frustration of our sister states that are trying to make up for the fact that washington has failed us. this inability to act in washington is not something that states are able to do. states have to act. they will likely continue to try to act in a vacuum, even while there are obvious constitutional questions. one of the things i wanted to focus on, i work within the criminal justice system and i want to voice some of the concerns of our law enforcement officials. the requirement that our law enforcement officials at the state level somehow be deputized to be ice officials is not something they're willing to do. it is not something that is within their capacity to do. it takes their eye off the ball of maintaining the safety and security of the people of indiana. they also tell me that when they do have a stop and there are these concerns raised among the undocumented, it can turn what would normally be a simple process of issuing tickets into what could be a troubling situation would somebody who is in fear of being deported. you have people who have a family someplace nearby. the risks that are attendant to this raising the profile of having states involvement is something law enforcement community is very concerned about. finally, as a look at the issue of federalism and we look at what the proper role of the states are and the proper role of the federal government, there's an awful lot of work being done by my colleagues to try to encourage washington to focus more on the role and that they are given within are enumerated powers in the constitution and less on the areas the states are quite capable of doing on their own. immigration is not one of those issues that states can do on their own. it is one of the reasons we have the federal government. this failure of the federal government has jeopardized the role of law and the safety and security of the people of our state. again, i am proud to join in these voices. the states do not all agree on what the proper federal response should be. i can tell you they all share the same frustration that i have and the people of my state. i will be willing to continue unless and continued to bring this issue to washington until they rise above their partisanship and rise to the occasion. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. attorney general. our next speaker is the vice chairman of citigroup. from 2005 until 2009, he was the secretary of the u.s. department of commerce, a former secretary served under president bush. before his public service, he was chairman and ceo of a global company. thank you for joining us. >> good afternoon. 2013 is the first time we're going to take another shot at sensible immigration reform since 2007. there is a lesson that if we do not get this right this time, we will have to wait another five years. it is absolutely essential, it has become a real issue of substance. not an issue of political theater to see who can get the upper hand. since 2007, our economy has not been well served, people cannot find the sciences and mathematicians in the u.s. there are family farms that have shut down. others have moved to mexico because they cannot find the workers. the whole economy is suffering because we cannot grow without immigration. we are steering in the face of a potential great stimulus without it costing a trillion dollars. we have also seen the human complexity of immigration intensified. the kids who have been born here to undocumented parents, the kids who came here when there were four or five years old. parents who have worked in a job for 15 years and are hoping this is their future, that they can be part of the american dream. every single day, it becomes more complicated. until lawmakers act, president, the congress, we are allowing this humanitarian situation to go on. it strikes me as so unamerican that we ignore it. ignoring the problem does not make the problem go away. there has been a consensus, i believe, that two things are not going to happen. on one hand, we are not going to round up 12 million people and kick them out of the country. i would be incredibly embarrassed of that was our country's response to this. i do not think we want that blemish on our history. the way we deal with this becomes a permit a part of our history. we also know that the other extreme -- we will not give free passports to whoever wants them. somewhere in the middle, there is a solution. this is not gone to happen with a tremendous amount of leadership from the president, from congress. from business, law enforcement, from the faith based community. one thing that is different this time for our side of the aisle, the republican side, we have a super pac called republicans for immigration reform. we're going to put money behind the problem. we will support candidates who support immigration reform and give cover to people to come out and admit that that are for immigration reform. if we do not get this right, shame on us because this is about the future of the country, this is about competitiveness, about who is going to be the global economic leader of the 21st century. if we get it right, the 21st century is ours. that is what is at stake in this effort. >> this is the first time this has ever happened at a press conference. mr. secretary, thank you very much. our final speaker is with the u.s. catholic conference of bishops. executive director of migration refugee services for the u.s. catholic conference. a former ambassador to five countries and currently oversees the u.s. bishops outreach and service. he is an expert in foreign policy. ambassador, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for the extra ambassadorship. i only had four. i would like to thank the forum. i would also like to thank all of the other members of the panel for their contributions. i am here to represent the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. it is known sometimes by the usccb. the conference has been engaged in this issue for decades. we look forward to this debate and urge our elected officials not to lose this opportunity to reform a broken system. there are several areas the bishops will focus upon in this debate. first, there must be an automatic path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented. we cannot and must not fall short of citizenship for the undocumented. where they receive legal status but no chance to become americans. we should not sanction a permanent underclass in this society without the full rights that other americans possess. we have been down that road before and with disastrous consequences. should the party of lincoln embrace a path to citizenship so that all persons in our society can earn the right to pursue the american dream? i hope so. should the party of jefferson and our first african american president agreed to a bill that sanctions into law a permit state underclass? i would hope not. there will be a temptation to compromise on this issue and provide the undocumented less than full rights, we must resist this temptation. we will give them a chance to earn the right to become americans. it is the american way. second, the bishops will fight to preserve and enhance family unity as a cornerstone of our national immigration system. this has served to the nation over the past 200 years as immigrant families have helped build our nation. we must not forsake the family in this debate, mothers, fathers, and children, preserving family reunification in and promoting economic growth through our economic system are complementary and not competing goals. finally, we will fight to preserve the right of both u.s. and foreign-born workers in this debate. we would like to join with our labor and business allies in making a worker program that features the appropriate workplace and wage protections so that the rights of all workers and the needs of the business community are served. congress and the administration must seize this moment and reform are broken system. families are being divided and migrants continue to die in the american desert. the suffering must end. we look forward to working with our elected officials and all of good will toward this end. thank you. >> as you can see by this range of perspective, the differences are not great but the unity is clear. the congress must take advantage of the opportunity to pass broad immigration reform. i would like to take questions from the press. please introduce yourself, your name as well as your outlook. >> i would like to hear more about the republican super pac. jeb bush, would they be a part of that? >> at this point -- the, we are getting all the paperwork together and we should be ready to go soon. obviously the role of the super pac is to raise money that we can use to support immigration in districts where a republican is supportive. we cannot give the money to a candid it or say vote for this man or this woman. but we can support the concept in those critical districts. you will have to ask governor bush what his plans are and what he is doing. i would assume that anything related to immigration will catch his interest. but we expect to do this in the right way, a big way, and have an impact. up until now, it has been a lot of working the hill, but we are going to have to put more muscle behind it. >> you have representatives talking about a comprehensive package and talking about several bills related to immigration. what would you say is the right path? >> the answer to that can be found at the hill. at the end of the day they have to make it work. in 2007, we tried a comprehensive approach. while it is not a flawed approach, and you have to watch out for, you hold back easy things until you get the very complicated things worked out. that is part of the problem of a comprehensive approach. senator rubio has come out with a breakup of the bill into manageable pieces. it also becomes more transparent to the public. we had a 750 page bill and it was dismissed by one word, amnesty. that is the trap of these large and complex bills. having said that, i think it is a tactical issue and i hope it is resolved as soon as possible because there are so many other problems that have to be addressed. but i think they can both work with the leadership and the will to get it done. >> excuse me, let me make a comment. i do not think this is a problem. there is an advantage to a comprehensive bill. there is a disadvantage to a piecemeal bill, if you pass, for example, issues for educated people to get a visa, and they're taking care of, you lose a certain amount of support for the other issues. i do not think we should decide that. i think the senator is doing a great service by raising this issue. i think our colleagues at this meeting, i met this morning with the person -- he and i actually talk a lot. i believe we should move forward on all of the arrangements so that the hill will develop an understanding about all of these issues and finally decide whether they will do it in one, too, or three pieces. that is the least of our worry. the fact is they do it. we will continue to talk about a comprehensive bill. >> i am delighted that senator rubio is helping folks take the issue of immigration reform as seriously as he is taking it. he is providing leadership on that and we are appreciative. i think it is great to see movement on both sides of the aisle. whether or not it is comprehensive or individual pieces is to be determined by leadership in the house and senate in consultation with the president. right now they are working in the right direction. >> going back to what you were talking about, one of the sticking points was the guest worker program and future immigration. i am wondering what type of progress you have made and if there has been any medication between business and labor. i want to know your thoughts in terms of what he was saying about a path to citizenship or a permanent status in the u.s. >> first of all, he and i were pleased to report to each other that our staff is working well together on these issues. that is one of the issues that has to be resolved. we are both committed to getting a bill and i think if we can come to a resolution on the subjects, we might see in things move more quickly. the question of citizenship is one that has a passionate response from some people. let's take this in a sequential way. first of all, we have to take these 11 million people, 12 million people out of the shadows. we have to give them a legitimate existence, a way they can pay taxes and drive cars and live as human beings. if you want to talk from there to a path to citizenship, i think we can build a consensus around that by the steps would be required. it would be terrible to say we are going to have made them legal and they would never have an opportunity for citizenship. i think that would say something we would not like. the ambassador and i could probably debate the strategy on how to get from here to there but there is no question what is needed immediately is legalization and a path to get to where we would like to be. >> then you talk about the difference between now and 2007? are you more hopeful this time? >> i believe, there have been more people coming out in favor. there are people who have moderated their stance on this from six years ago and i think part of that is an understanding that no action is very bad for the country. i would also like to say, because i believe you have an asian background, the question about the future flow is excellent. this is not just about hispanic immigration, or undocumented immigration. this is about immigration from the world. the agents are making a great contribution to this country. africans are making a great contribution. let americans. as we think about the future, this was an issue in 2007. it goes to show it is not just one party with a problem. without the future flow, we are in trouble. without a strategic future, we will have another undocumented problem in five years. and less people want to recognize that reality and do what is right for the country, we will continue spinning our wheels. i think a lot has changed. we talk about business, badges, and bibles. i think all three of those groups could have done more in 2007. >> do you agree with mr. donahue having different task force for the visa according to the economy? >> there has to be away -- a lot of our laws date back to the 1950's. some to the 1960's. there has to be a way of bringing it up to date. those are things that will have to be negotiated. i would just say it can't all be managed by a central system in washington where washington decides how many nurses we need, how many farm workers. business will have to play a role and business will have to be the determining factor in order to make this work in a practical way. >> think for a man and that 10,000 people a day retire in the united states, seven days a week. we are a nation with unemployment and with a shortage of people that go to work at specific jobs. the secretary's point is on target. if you try to do this with an overseer of exactly how many left-handed nurses and right- handed carpenters get into the added states, we are doing the wrong thing. we need to do it on demand. if we have an extraordinary need to be competitive, and many, because of the price of energy and the fact the country is probably will have and have access to more energy than anyone else, you will see manufacturing jobs coming back to the united states. i think right now there is a couple of million people we could hire if they have the skills, if they had the education, if they had some of the other requirements to fitting into a high performance economy. it is hard to explain. how can you have that need? you also heard the store the other day, they are drilling for a lot of oil in north dakota. not a lot of people want to move there. it is a complicated issue. >> you also mentioned senator rubio. what about the house? are there any republicans who are champions for this? what kind of indication you get they are willing to pick this up? >> just about every issue that comes to the congress, and it is not going to happen. we have seen a lot of leadership in the house in the last session. we believe there is a growing number of people that would like to resolve this issue. this is a matter of the snowball going downhill. you start rolling and it gets bigger and bigger. i am not worried about whether we can get the votes in the house if we can get an agreement between labor and management and other groups that have the business. if we can get that together, we will get the votes. when you have 14 opinions and everybody disagrees, it is harder to get the votes. >> we are going to be visiting with republican members beginning next week. we will continue to do that on the house side. we have spoken with a number of folks in the house to talk with them about immigration reform. and there is definitely a good development on the republican side. i am not sure they are as far as long as senator rubio is but i think that as they continue to talk with each other and they continue to talks between the house and the senate, we are going to get to that place. i think the determination is there and as has been said, if the people appear continue to press this case, i think we will get to a point where everyone agrees on what the big pieces are. >> i wanted to share with you some of the things we are doing at the conference. one of the things we will be doing, we will have a gathering of something called a catholic social gathering. that will bring the 700 or 800 catholics from all over the united states. while they are here, they will have door knocks. immigration reform is one of the programs of this year's gathering of the catholic social ministry. the second thing is we have something called the justice for immigrants campaign. we have begun a campaign to senators and congressmen, asking for their support and asking them to push on this issue. a lot of activity already. >> president obama of course promised in his first term to take a leadership role on immigration reform. it has been disappointing to many he did not get that moving. he has pledged again to do so. he talked about he wanted to see a bill early on. now he has introduced ideas for gun control. he has another debate over fiscal policy. what does leadership mean in your mind? what to do you want to hear in the state of the union? or is there a better idea something would come from the senate and the president would take a support role? >> it is a good question. part of the problem -- the answer is not another great speech about immigration reform. we need action. this is what happens when immigration reform is important but it is not the number one issue. you can keep on telling it the could you have to take care of the fiscal cliff, which looks like it will go all the way to the end of that term. i do not think it's going to be over soon. guns, i think that has surpassed immigration reform on priorities. i'm not making a judgment. i'm trying to state some facts. you are right, and this has to become the number-one priority for the president and congress, get people together and say we are going to fix this problem. it has to be more than a couple of nice sentences. >> i would only add that i think it is incumbent upon us as citizens and members of groups and advocates, non-governmental organizations to keep the pressure on the president so he remains focused. there will be always issues coming up. no one can predict his calendar for the next x number of months. >> we believe immigration reform is different. it has a past, present, and feature of bipartisan support. congress has many issues to grapple with. this range of speakers today shows that conservatives and liberals across the country want this president and congress to act. that is different than any other issue. >> democrats are talking about a path to citizenship. but senator rubio is talking about a visa and access to the legal system we have now. what would you support? >> from the standpoint of republicans, immigration reform. we support -- we are not going to second-guess people as long as they are making progress. in 2006, one of the guidelines we had was that we did not want the undocumented immigrants to cut in front of the line of people who have been waiting, to do it in a proper way. the result or the solution was a legalization process. they are legal. not everyone wants to be a u.s. citizen. some may want to go home and not go through the process. if they do want citizenship and a green card, then there is a process for that. the important thing is they are legal and they can come out of the shadows. that was the approach then and we will see how the two parties come to an agreement on what they should be. >> two last questions. >> [indiscernible] >> it is natural for the press to look for the differences. that is how you write a story. if everybody agrees, you do not write the story. this issue does not bother me one bit. if we get to the point where we have a program, a program to deal with immigration in this country in a fundamental way, we will resolve that question. if you want to know what the resolution is going to be, it will be a progressive issue. we set a series of steps in place to do this as we go forward. i think everybody has said that. there needs to be a process to citizenship. it is something that takes time but we follow it. that is where we are probably going to go. if those are the issues we have to resolve, we are in great shape. if i might suggest, the lady in the back with a camera, we will put you on tv, trying to ask a question all afternoon. fair deal? >> i'm going to ask if you can come to the microphone. secretary, i will get to later in spanish. so don't go away. >> somebody else stay and do it in spanish. i cannot do it. un poco. >> he said immigration reform is going to be a priority. i was wondering if you can expand on that. what steps besides going on to the hill, what else can you do? we know there is discussion as to move what is going to be in the bill. there is a consensus that there is a discussion as to who is going to present the bill. should it be the white house? or should we wait for a bipartisan bill? what would you prefer to see you presented? >> let me answer the second question first, in my opinion, that discussion, the engagement, the exchange, these kinds of meetings should carry on for a little while because we are building a sense of consensus between people who had more disagreement an agreement. i think that will move ahead quickly. as the secretary indicated, there are a lot of other things going on right now in the administration. we have to get people into critical jobs. we have to finish the reorganization of the house and senate, which happens every change. i would prefer not to have a lot of one of bill's. i would wait a few weeks or months until we come to a closer consensus and i think we would have a better chance of passing something through both houses. i do not care where it starts. i would like all three groups have an understanding of what it is going to be and let them go into a back room and figure out what the sequence will be. on the fact of what the chamber is going to do, we will do it in washington and around the country. we have thousands of the state and local chambers are around the country, we have 900 associations, businesses from different industries that have representatives all around the country. we have the millions and millions of people on our grass- roots network. and we will put it that all to work, when the time is right. right now we are building consensus when there are bills to be advanced. we will do at that. the worst thing to do in this town is to talk when nobody is listening. we need to get people ready to listen and then go out and advocate in a strong way. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we will talk to the editor of political act. a discussion on how american students stack of against students and the rest of the world. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> it was an important. of history. it should be brought to bear. there were accounts that were not accurate. it was important to present our perspective. currently, for people to understand there were different policy options, disagreements. if we want to prevent this from happening again, the public needed to engage more on financial reform, educate themselves better. make it an issue with elected officials. [no audio]>> the former head of the fdic, sheila bair on the government's role of the worst financial crisis since the depression. sunday night at eight on c- span's "q&a. >> yesterday vice president joe biden spoke long gun control on the meeting of mayors.
i would take all those billions of dollars being wasted right now on at the corporations, and i would put that money into three full years of the best preschool education in the entire world. if they cannot afford to do that, talk about $30 billion -- if we cannot afford to do that, i do not see what help we have upholding any sense of dignity, pretense of democracy, in the eyes of people in the rest of the world. [applause] >> i just have to add one thing to that -- one point i will add, to deny this to children is an act of thievery, but it is worse than stealing a car. this is an irreversible theft. you never get to live the second year of your life again. thatthis is it -- you get it once. then it is gone forever. i think the president fails to act on this aggressively, that dramatically, prophetically, to get this for us quickly -- i think is not just a budgetary issue. i think it is a theological abomination, a crime against the innocent. >> i agree. [applause] i say all the time, quoting -- the conversation could not be more timely. i sell the time, quoting dr. king, that budgets are moral documents. you can say what you say, but you are what you are. we know who you are when you put your budget on the table. we can see what your budget priorities are. could not be more timely. we are days away -- it will be a big party on monday, but after monday as we move toward the debt ceiling conversations and the spending cuts get placed on the table, the poor are likely to take it on the chin. that is why we are here with in washington tonight having this conversation. our hashtag is #povertymustend. our website is afuturewithoutpoverty.com. you'll find a letter on that website -- you can electronically sign it asking the president to give a major public policy address on poverty sooner than later, and second to convene a white house conference on the eradication of poverty to bring experts to get into crafting national plan to cut poverty in half and eradicate it in the richest nation in the world. it is not a skill problem, it is via upawe have the will to the poverty a priority with in this country? >> you have to have the real economy. but we have now? i am amazed -- you could talk about public education, we could talk about health care. everyone knows that a single payer health care system would -- insurance would cover everyone. insurance companies would be gone. cost, quality, access would be at a premium in terms of our ability to be a civil society if we had a single payer health care system. we could generate almost 3 million jobs, which would serve to stimulate the rest of the economy when you are building -- and actually taking care of the people. they know that in washington. viable. -- valuable. they just want to privatize it. i think you all doing a beautiful job -- the nurses appreciate you so deeply. honestly, the progressive caucus, the black caucus -- but one of the things that you said, and i completely agree, is that you have got to push. we have got to treat a movement in this country -- occupy was a moment. it needs to start up and keep going -- it needs to bring millions of people with it. the robin hood tax, the campaign the nurses have -- $350 billion a year from wall street for a minimum tax. you know what one of the legislator said to one of our nurses going to the capitol and talking about the wall street tax? she said, you nurses need to lower your expectations. the nurse looked at her and said, would you like for me to say that to you when i am prepare you for surgery? the true story. i mean, honestly, literally, it is a disgrace -- lower your expectations? i see what is happening out here every day. we're not going to lower our expectations. we're going to fight for a real economy. our economy has been hijacked -- we can talk about all the problems, talk endlessly about what i heard yesterday -- i heard about a woman yesterday. we heard about a real woman yesterday from michigan who actually chose to have her leg amputated because she could not afford the antibiotics in terms of taking care of her leg. she had her leg amputated because of money, because of money, because we do not have a health care system. it is a disgrace. the robin hood tax can generate $350 billion -- they have bipartisanship. they're keeping everything off the agenda that is important to us. they have bipartisanship on that. we cannot compromise our principles. we can compromise on taxes, the people have to say, line in the sand. learn that from the labor movement. say, this is a line that you do not cross. we want their jobs back. we want our pensions. we want to raise standards for everyone in america. nurses do not want to discriminate. we want a civil society. we want a society -- where is win in[applause] >> let me ask you -- roseann said something that got my attention a few seconds ago. it is the notion of whether or not as a society -- has the demos, have we lowered our expectations? police say to the citizens who in fact have lowered -- what we say to the citizens who have lowered their expectations -- there's always debate about what the proper role of government ought to be. i suspect it will have more of that in the coming days about what the proper role government should be -- what are our expectations? are they too low? some of my friends on the right will see the opposite -- the expectations of government are too high. talk to me about expectations -- what do we have a right to the world? >> i think it is important what they were saying about what should be done -- it is not theory, it is actually being done in countries around the world with demonstrated, proven results. every child in many countries in europe start out with that preschool. the results are that unlike this country, there is not hereditary poverty. it is proven -- this is not a theory. what you are saying about the health system is completely proven. our health system costs an extra $750 billion a year for exactly the same services that you would get in other countries. at the institute of medicine issued a report that the waste and fraud that comes from this for-profit system is 5% of national income, wasted. that sector owns washington. it is not clear -- that is what other countries do. we are just not normal. our politics got hijacked. >> but we are the greatest nation in the world -- is that notion of american exceptionalism. how can this be happening elsewhere and not be happening in the greatest nation in the world? >> one of the things the greatest nation in the world refuses to do is look at any other nation. >> exactly. i [applause] >> and to see what it is doing. you know, the turning point of this country was 32 years ago, almost to the day, when ronald reagan made a statement in his inaugural address that the solution to the government -- the government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. if you believe that, do not the president, for heaven's sake. you had a president who was inveighing against government. presidents of both parties have basically continued this policy. we have no active programs to solve any of these problems. we know what the solutions are -- we're not going to pay for any of them. i'm telling you, sadly, it is getting worse. no matter what the agreement is in two months. we are squeezing -- the rich have gotten their way. the corporate sector has gotten their way. they do not pay. there is no money for this preschool. all the sectors alone and -- own and operate the congress, so we have overpriced systems, exactly what you say, schools that do not work. we have the least social mobility of any high-income country in the world now. we havewe have kids locked into poverty like no other high- income countries in the whole world. because you cannot get out of it for exactly the reason jonathan said. by the time they're six years old -- is so stark in the evidence. >> as jeffrey's talking now -- you recall last year when we had a wonderful panel about poverty. a wonderful panel last year. a great line last year -- there is a highway into poverty but not even a sidewalk out. there is a highway into poverty but not even a sidewalk out. that is the point -- it is so did, hard to get out. poverty is no longer color- coded -- this is not a black thing, not a brown thing -- this is an american catastrophe that is about -- dr. west and i, said the new poor in this country are the former middle- class. and that ofthat is what is happening in our society. >> thank you very much. it is such a rich conversation. i am glad to be a part of it. where to begin? no matter what your leanings are and whether you know about education or not, let's turn to some of the language you are talking about. ebb that theinvesting in very young children is the best investment you can make. it has the greatest return on that and the investment. we know that because the first years of life are the most important for cognitive, social, it and emotional development. you are only two years old ones. -- once. that is the most significant window of time. which brings me to the next point, yes, we have class warfare. those who are poor are completely left out of the national dialogue on poverty and take it hunger. that is a bipartisan effort, to keep people who are poor out of the national dialogue. that is why i work with low income women to be able to take photographs and provide direct testimony on their experiences with raising children in poverty, how to break cycles with poverty, and there are so many conversations happening. this concept of violence and betrayal. people have been silenced for so many years. poverty is solvable. they and expect nothing less. they are raising their children and they expect their child to in a be the president of the united states, a lawyer, a doctor, and they want the best education, the best type of food, a safe and affordable home to live. the women we work with are investing so much into their children. they are having to trade off paying for rent and paying for food, and trade off for whether they keep the lights on and pay for food. that is unconscionable. [applause] thank you. all of us can expect more. low income women should be included in the national dialogue. the women i have spoken with our genius. -- are genius. they are brilliant to survive in the united states today. they are so fantastic entrepreneurs. they are wise. they have a lot of grit. they are stronger than any of us on stage. it is a brain trust in america we are not utilizing. they should be part of the national dialogue at a part of the stage and being listened to in congress. not just the special interest lobbyists. [applause] >> we are going into the last hour of the program. we want to highlight the fight back. there are people in this country who are succeeding against the odds every day as they struggle with poverty. there are persons who will join us on the front row. they are already here. i will get off the stage and talk to them so we can hear from citizens, who are in this fight every day. we want to put a face on poverty. while you are talking, talk to me about what you make of the fact that the new poor are in fact the former middle-class. they make up every race, every ethnicity. when we talk about poverty, people think as the poor as those people. they are increasingly becoming us. people are losing their jobs, their 401k. >> we are in the middle of an economic disaster. andit is crushing people. it is very dangerous. it can zap their capacity. this is a big threat to the country. we underestimate the danger. jeffrey knows the story dramatically better than i do. loaning small amounts of money only to women in order to create who micro entrepreneurs. there are ways in which we say to people, the passive. -- be passive. we ought to be saying, if we could wave a magic wand and tomorrow have 6 million small businesses, one of the things we should seriously look at with tax reform is how do you replace the anti-poor, anti- small business tax. it is the first big hurdle to create a job. how could you design the equivalent for starting your own business? trying to reach out here and realize, every american could be an entrepreneur. passing so many laws and regulations and taxes that they kill the start up businesses in ways that are crazy. >> i have to jump in. thank you so much for talking about entrepreneurship. you were there, you were a part of that. there has been so much destruction to the assistance program. talk about rules and regulations. those are things your administration, when you were the speaker of the house, so many of those types of rules and regulations were built into the program, so much that they have not responded to the recession. it is only able to reach about 30% of the children who are poor in this country. an incredible increase in child poverty been. micro finance would may be a great way to insert into the system. if a woman is receiving cash assistance or food stamps and she happens to, may be working on the side doing hair and nails, housekeeping, child care. fantastic things. that $50 or $100 she makes on the weekend, god forbid she reported to the case manager because she would be criminalized for something that would be celebrated in this country. [applause] >> i agree with you. >> i want to tell you that would have been lovely if you could have thought of that 17 years ago. [applause] >> i wish i had. >> think of the damage done. >> he said i wish i had. he did say that. i have got you on the microphone. what you have just said now is wonderful. the fact she is agreeing with you is amazing to me. but hip-hop>> shocking. >> you were in the media almost immediately when this fiscal cliff deal was reached. you were in the media almost immediately, you were very disappointed, very upset at this deal that was struck. i got the sense you were spanking your fellow republicans for getting their clocks cleaned by mr. obama in that debate. tell me what you are upset about and is there some revenge exacted? >> we have very severe long- term fiscal problems. i think there is a lot more that is at the big banks door and the federal reserve's door. it is amazing neither party has been willing to look at the problems. we are faced with enormous long-term challenges on the fiscal side. i thought the whole process was wrong. i have a bias. i was speaker of the house. the idea that the senate at the last minute would write an entire bill, put whatever they wanted into it, send it over, and say, pass it as we wrote it. we will not touch it again. and the house said, ok. crazy. nobody read that bill. it violated everything republicans complained about with the stimulus. the minimum they could have done was brought it up, actually read it, maybe had a hearing to find out what was in it and what did it mean. there were millions of dollars willi understand why the president wants to take care of its friends. what did that have to do with the bill? a goody here and a few other goodies there. notrepublican senators wrote what they wanted. it is a bad way to run free society. >> we just passed a farm bill. my colleagues -- and i will call them that because i am in public -- voted to cut $16.50 billion over the next years. i voted against it because i thought it was outrageous. they voted against it because they did not think it was enough. we have people who literally work in the house of representatives who do not believe they are in poverty in this country. any of them, i want you to go to the other side of town to wherever it is you live. people believe if you do not work, you are lazy. these are the craziest people i have ever seen in my life. absolutely nuts. [applause] if we continue to send people to congress who do not understand what their job is, then we are never going anywhere as a country. these people are evil and mean. they cared nothing about anybody but themselves. [applause] >> let me ask you, though. i am really feeling sorry for you. i will push you higher up on my prayer list tonight. there are people who are entrenched in congress, they come from districts where this is not their priority, not their issue, so congress is polarized around the issue of poverty. there is a consensus poverty does not matter. congress is polarized on this issue. how do we ever imagine that the plot of the poor will get addressed. class getting these little blurbs. make them sit down, convene a group of people to address the issues of poverty. people out there have to stop being silent. anytime i get a phone call in my office, i believe at least 50 of my constituents believe the exact same thing. if you start calling your congress people and your senators and say to them, you want them to address poverty, trust that they listened very do not assume or be angry when you turn on the news at night and tourism at your television. it cannot talk to us. you have to do it yourself. if you don't, once again, every year, one of us takes the food stamp challenge. people get the news. until we get more voices, until more people understand how important and significant it is for us, they are going to continue to pat us on the head and say, your food stamp challenge week. until they see hungry people, until they see babies who do not eat every day, until they realize the fastest-growing group of children in schools today is hungry and homeless children, until we can make them see it, they will not believe it. >> that is a perfect segway. -- segue. for those who just tuned in, this is our hastag. #povertymustend. our website is afuturewithoutpoverty.com. you will find a letter. it is already written for you. encouraging the president to do things quickly. deliver a major public policy address on the eradication of poverty. we have been told over and over he is an organizer. it is time for the community to get organized and let the president know we want to hear we will from him, we want him to deliver a major public policy address on poverty. we can do this every day. this is no comparison between what we are doing and what would happen if the president of the united states gave a major policy speech on what he will do to eradicate poverty. and then he gave us an assignment to do to help him get it done. he ought to give a major public policy address. bring the experts together. i will not be in that meeting. i am not an expert. i am just a broadcaster to open up a whole for the experts to run through. a plan to cut poverty in half in the short run, eradicate it in the long run. if the president wants a legacy in which he and we can be proud, he will have to make poverty a priority in the second term. sign that letter and let him know about it. >> i do not want to be in that meeting, either. i would not go. at least a crack addict is honest about their addiction. the white house is addicted to power. they are addicted to power. it is not just about power. it has to do with love and justice. love and justice is always weak. that is precisely why tradition in this history of this nation has been the democratic loaf. we recognize we have to have a this is why i resonate with my conservative brothers. martin luther king jr. was under fbi surveillance until the day he died. government can be oppressive, vicious, ugly, violate your rights, generate propaganda. we need that, too. government can be affirmative, if they are helping poor and working people. government can help use its power for elites. when they come together with no accountability whatsoever, not just politically, but economically. let me say this. martin luther king jr. today could be taken to jail without due process or judicial process under the national defense authorization act because he had a connection with a freedom fighter, nelson mandela. he just got off the terrorist list in 2008. he had a relation to a terrorist. under the present administration, and you can take americans to jail without due process. the black freedom movement has always been suspicious of it. headwe have black prisoners in their precisely because they were willing to tell the truth that was a threat and we do not talk about them. that is why the culture of fear is not just violence. people are afraid. they are afraid to lose their jobs. they are afraid to lose their status. not going to be nice tea parties, the white house. you cannot have a culture of fear and generate a movement. it is not just about justice. we have got to talk about love. martin was a titan of love. if you are not talking about love and willingness of sacrifice, we are not going nowhere. you have to be willing to hit the streets, go to jail, to die. that is what it is about. if you are not willing to do that, keep your job and drink your tea. emergency. [laughter] [applause] people are dying out here. >> since you went there, this is foreign to a lot of people. martin has been gone for so long now. the nation knows the president will be sworn in for a second term on monday, on the martin luther king jr. holiday. just blocks down the street, the monument. the president will put the hand on the bible of martin luther king jr. as he is inaugurated. king is always present in our conversations. he is present tonight. if you raise this notion of love, since martin, the notion of love, and our public policy have been absent, you talk about and try to put love -- we heard about compassionate conservatives, i want to ask you whatever happened to compassionate conservatism -- but love, at the center of our public policy, it is a foreign concept. that is exactly what martin did. he put love at the center of the public square. why have we abandoned that notion? >> the rule of money. everybody and everything is up for sale. you cannot have integrity, love, you cannot have trust if everything and everybody is up for sale. if your leaders are up for sale, they will talk one way, get inside, and do something else. it is big money. for black people who have been hated for 400 years, institutionalized hatred coming after us, and we dish out martin king, that love in the face of the hatred, that is a spiritual and moral high ground. the whole country has to take note of it with martin. the whole world has to take note of it. that is what is weak and feeble. it is not a question of skin pigmentation. it is a question of equality and morality of your spirituality. all of us fall short. [applause] >> now it is competition. the president takes no child left behind, which is the worst education law in my lifetime -- [applause] straight out of charles dickens. train them for exams, do not let them -- they might start asking why politicians do not keep their promises. no talk of love. the president takes no child left behind and he softens it. a race for the top. there will be 12 winners. the word enterprise, i am a very patriotic american. i like capitalism. thatit is good to me. the word enterprise is sickening. it has had a pathological effect on our attitudes. these wall street guys who want to privatize our schools are setting up academies. dr. martin luther king academy of leadership and enterprise. or they will name them for langston hughes, frederick douglass. should let the name the schools. [laughter] [applause] they should name it for people they do not like. [laughter] here are a few points. i will be unfashionable tonight. everyone in washington seems to think the way to solve the problems in our schools is to not give them another cent, another penny, to improve and make the schools look like places that are inviting and respect the value of children. aesthetics count. do not do that, but beat up on their teachers. that is the trend today. [applause] attack the unions. i heard about the teachers union from teachers in l.a. last fall. i flew to chicago to stand with them the day they went on strike. they were right to go on strike. [applause] i will tell you something. i am in schools all the time. when i was a young teacher, i remember this. schools are overwhelmingly -- the teachers are women. you go to a convention, if you are a guide, there are like 50 women for every guy. it is wonderful. i love it. [laughter] when they scapegoat teacher unions, the ruthless way they do, they are attacking some of the largest unions in this country of devoted, unselfish, inspired, loving, tender, good, female human beings. they are women. it is an attack on female women. [applause] i remember dr. king's last words when he said i have been to the mountain. that mountaintop is something that is a symbol of hope. it is biblical. it is something we would like to get back to. we wish we could get there again. but the dialogue of school reform is just like the dialogue of health care. icayune. there is nothing transcendental in it. there is nothing courageous in it. they are tinkering around the edges of an equity. -- inequity. that is what president obama is doing. fix the schools, they say. fix the schools. a very suggested word. it is a mechanistic terms. as though our schools were out, and our kids were commercial commodities. i hate that word. here is what i believe. i think that is emblematic of the low level of dialogue. my favorite american poet happens to be langston hughes. i read his poetry to my fourth graders. it was considered dangerous. curriculum deviation, i was fired. i was hired shortly after by the johnson administration. [laughter] my favorite worldwide poet happens to be the irish poet. william butler yeats. there are lines many of us learn in school and forget. he said, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. we need that passionate intensity on our side, on the side of the poor children in this earth. i beg the president to summon up the courage to give us that voice. if he does not, it would be a terrible betrayal of his role and he will miss an opportunity to leave behind a beautiful legacy in history. it will be his tragedy as well as ours. [applause] >> we are clearly headed to a real debate about austerity. i do not believe austerity is the answer. some people do. there is a big debate in the coming weeks as we get to this debt ceiling debate. talk to me, from your perspective, about this notion of compassionate conservatism. there was a movement 12 years ago to present that as an alternative. what happened to that? >> i would be glad to go down that road but i do not think it is useful. to gently develop a real understanding of how to break through at every level, housing, learning, jobs. and who i always told people, as showered with more african- americans than most republicans knew, had a deep, passionate commitment with every american he met. his heart was big. he did love everybody, to a point where it drives you crazy. you think, slightly less love, jack, it is ok. the use of it by the bush people was a political slogan to show they are softer than the gingrich republicans. they did not think through any serious, systematic program. i want to commend you. sitting here, i had two ideas, sufficiently radical, that would never have occurred without this[applause] i did not say right or left. i just said radical. [laughter] one is talk about schools and talk about saving the children. then figure out what saving children leads you to, which involve nutrition, prenatal care, a lot of things. if you start with saving children, you somehow skip the bureaucracy and start back. want to say to the congressional head of the black caucus, i want to step away out here. >> i cannot imagine you doing that. [laughter] >> i was impressed with the intensity of your comments. [laughter] i think part of the challenge we have in america is the real dialogue that takes more than 90 minutes, or more than two and a here is my proposal, which i will carry to the republican side, if the congressional black caucus wants to do this. i believe the congressional black caucus members should offer to match up with a republican member, each going together to spend three days in your district, for example, and you spend three days in the republican district, and those days will lead to a conversation that will help us move back to help the by partisanship and help each side had a slightly different understanding, and maybe start to create french ships from which we could actually begin to rebuild the ability to govern. [applause] >> if you could make it work, i am in. if you could get your side to do it, i am in. that is a very good proposal. >> check it out and tell me how many of your folks are willing to visit. i will find republicans to make >> i love it. [applause] >> when you are all reflecting together, try to come up with strategies of how you can sever the link with those who control both of your party. [applause] >> i will let rose and say what she wants to say. my warning to the camera operators, i will walk in front of her to get out to the audience to talk to our special guests. they are everyday american people. the truth is americans, our fellow citizens, are doing the best they can with what they have and where they are. every single day. the fight back without government help coming through, on the evil of austerity is real. >> i was glad i was here. one of the things that is usually absent, there is an effort with the hon neo-liberal agenda, everything should be for sale, to vilify teachers, to vilify anything public. the corporations have been in control and this country is in disaster. i want to talk about the american labor movement, who is behind social security, one of the greatest anti-poverty programs. we have to have -- the president cannot cut care for the most vulnerable people in our society. medicare is such a critical program. also pushed by the american labor movement. the other thing it does is to set a new high for wages, living wages for people. benefits, pensions. if you can find a job in america, get past the terrorism corporations do. if everything were unionized, we would have wall street on the run. [applause] >> stand up, all three of you. turn that way. we will have a conversation for a couple seconds. i said to my staff that i wanted to make sure i talked to everyday people who can tell their own stories and own words trying to navigate their way through poverty. let me ask you to thank them in advance for their courage for what they are about to share to come on national television to share their story. [applause] i want to start with mary ann, who is willing to come on long national tv to share her story. some of us make bad choices in life. somebody say, amen. those choices put us in situations where you have to wrestle with poverty. there is always a better way. there is a way out. there is an end to poverty. some people to call and find their way out of the situations they put themselves and. mary ann is an authentic american hero. let me give her a couple seconds to tell her own story about being a substance abuser. as a result of those bad choices, finding herself deep in poverty. i want you to hear where she started and what she is doing now. take a minute and tell your story in your own words. >> first, i do not necessary believed it was a bad choice, as it was a symptom of deprivation. it came to me and we talked about love. i grew up in a middle-class family. it was not about money so much about love and deprivation. i ended up using heroin for 23 years of my life. at the end of my addiction, i was introduced to crack. i thank god for it. it hit me so fast so hard i hit rock bottom so they could treat me again. for the third or fourth time. i ended up getting myself together and going to a french culinary arts schools and vocational rehab. i landed in a place where i had an opportunity to work with men and women just like me. i worked every day. [applause] i had the opportunity to work every day with men and women also suffering from deprivation. they are not just homeless and hungry. they need healing. the approach is that holistic week, we try to empower our students, of which 90% are either coming back from prison and/or are substance abuse folks. there are an increasing number of people who come to us with mental health issues. we try to shorten the line. we prepare 5000 meals a day that goes to social service agencies that give the folks we were with the support they need. it is not just about jobs and education and housing, but healing as well. [applause] >> how about that? thank you. this is a conversation about self-sufficiency. your thoughts, a quick word about the choices or the lack thereof so many brothers and sisters have when they paid their debts to society. they come out and have that record and draw their efforts. they cannot get an opportunity. they cannot get a second chance. they cannot get their lives on track. >> that is what greatness is all about. some sense of service and love and self confidence and self- respect. i see it in you and feel it in your spirit. we have to allow that to spill over so it has to do with public policy. not just personal. i want to keep the focus on you right now. i salute you. [applause] >> this is tammy, a 20 year-old mother of one son. 21 now, excuse me. you are grown. [laughter] she found herself a teen mom. she is not the only one in this country and mary ann was talking earlier about the difficulty many young women have trying to navigate through poverty when you are a mother of a young child. she is a student at northeastern university and studying political science. this is the fight back we are talking about. please say a quick word about what it is like trying to navigate through poverty when you are a single mom and what you say to all of those single moms watching right now trying to navigate the same journey. >> thank you for having me. it is not easy to be able to come and leave my baby back. i was feeling sad. i did not want to leave him. this is a fight for plenty of women, and not only single mothers. single fathers out there as well that struggle just as much as i do. [applause] i know plenty of them and they struggle. picture this. you are a single parent, but you have to come up with a way how to feed your family, work at the same time to pay bills, and go to school to get an education to better your life. last year, i only made $8,000 the whole year. my food stamps were cut. that was the only way i was able to feed my son, $85 a month. the average family spends close to $500 or more. you expect me to spend $85 and live with that for my son. we had to be sent to a shelter because my mother no longer wanted us living with her. i had to pay rent at that shelter, get food stamps, have my own food in that shelter, and yet i was also a freshman at northeastern university. how was i going to do all of this at once? people ask me how i was doing this. you are an incredible woman. i am not. i am a normal person trying to fight for my son to have a better life than i did. [applause] i may seem extraordinary because of all of the things i have been able to do, but i am not. i am a mother trying to fight for my child. [applause] i am studying political science because i want to be up there in the future to show that they are the experts. [applause] most are through research. the true experts, counting myself, are out there. i want to be able to, in the future, show everyone else, counting the president, that statistic, that is not my name. i am not a statistic. i am an individual trying to make my life better. when you ask me how i am able to be a student, pay my bills, get food stamps, but you are cutting my food stamps, so i am not able to pay for food for my son, so, technically, you are taking the ability to feed my son, and then you ask me, how are you able to accomplish all of this? i say, thank god for someone like mary anna who is able to come and say, take pictures of what you experience, show other individuals what you face day- to-day, and i am able to tell other people they are not alone in this struggle. i am afraid every day what i am going to do every 24 hours and how i will be able to pay my bills. if i make 1 cent more, my food stamps will be cut more. and i will not be able to pay it all at the same time. i am on a scholarship but that can get cut, too. but you expect me to hold up a 3.0 for a 4.0 gpa on my own, trying to work, be a mom, and a student at the same time. but i am a statistic. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. say a quick word. tell me more about this program. >> it is to break this silence. there is so much in the national rhetoric, so much shame and stereotypes about people who are poor. witnesses to hunger is about making sure women who are strong have an opportunity to speak back and participate. tammy is a great example. there are many people among us and all across the country who are witnesses to hunger. they need to speak up to break the shame. there is courage. thank you. they are amazing. >> that person is my mother. she is here tonight. there are two sponsors that made this possible tonight. there are a lot of resources to make this possible. thank you, c-span, for carrying this conversation around the world. i also want you to thank the foundation for being our title sponsor tonight. [applause] marguerite casey foundation. she is organizing young people to express themselves and raise their own voices about the conditions they find themselves in. you heard me offer those statistics earlier tonight about what is happening, poverty, in the state of mississippi. about. we are going to leave the session ran now. the house will be back in for legislative business on tuesday, trouble, p.m. eastern. that gives federal employees a pay incress and just some of the news coming out of the republican treat that informs virginia. the house republicans leaders announced a plan to raise the debt limit for three months. the long-term increase would be con ting nt on the senate passing a bill by april 15. 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable louie gohmert to act as speaker pro tempore on this day, signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend andrew walton, capitol hill presbyterian church, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. god of light and life, we give thanks for the gift of the day. a day which stands on the threshold of possibility and potential for the presence and power of love. love ensconced in every human at creation. love, which we are called to share with one another, as well as with creation itself. as we begin a historic weekend of service, celebration, and inauguration, fill us with your creative imagination to find our way to reconciliation where there is separation. to mercy where there is judgment. and to peace where there is violence. hold each of us, our leaders, our nation, and our earth in your eternal care. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of aa-- in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. at this time, without objection, the house will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m., >> when the house returns on tuesday you can watch live coverage on c-span. in washington crews are finishing up work on bleachers lining pennsylvania avenue and the snand front of the white house all for the inaugeral parade and some of the touches here a heated glassed in area where the president obama will is it to watch the parade. >> a look there at some of the preparations for this week end's inauguration. c-span's coverage kicks off as president obama begins his second term. on sunday he will be sworn in officially at the white house shortly before noon eastern and our coverage includes your phone calls and we will look back. on monday the public nauggral ceremonies at the u.s. capitol. we'll have live all day coverage beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time right here on c-span. you can also tune in on c-span radio and cspan.org. join the conversation by phone, on facebook and on twitter. >> friday night on c-span we'll show you inaugural speeches from the last 60 years starting with ronald reagan, bill clinton from 1993, dwilingt eisenhower from 1957, harry truman from 1949, then john f. kennedy in 1961. george h.w. bush, jimmy carter and we'll wrap up the night with george w. bush's speech. see ten inaugural speeches from ten past presidents on c-span. >> up next senate his torn don richy gave a historical perspective on inaugurations describing how various treated the day and how so help me god became part of the ceremony. this is about an hour. >> now there is a phrase that journalists use a lot. it's called a go to guy. and i think you know what that means. it means somebody who knows a lot about something that the journalists can go to and get from that person reliable information. and there are not that many go to guys around. there are a lot of people in this town who have opinions. there are a lot of people in this town who are incredibly glib. but there are not that many people who are so fundamentally immersed in a subject. and an important subject that journalists and others, ack demics are attracted to that person. in my mind, the best example of a go to guy is our next speaker don richy. i've gone to him. and more than that, i've received ideas even a little bit of inspiration in terms of my own work. he is the his torn of the united states senate and as such he is the keeper of the family jewels, of the history of the united states senate. it's glorious, interesting, frackous cooperative history. i've known don for many years as i've known his predecessor and i'm so pleased to have him here to talk about not the senate today so much as about inaugurations which after all is the reason why we're all here. so it's my great pleasure to present historian of the united states senate, don rich chi. >> thanks very much. that was a pretty tough act to follow but i'll try my best. we're about to have an inauguration on monday and the first question that comes to people's mind often in inauguration as they are standing or sitting in the cold waiting on the ceremonies to begin is we have separation of powers in this country. how is it that the president of the united states is being sworn into office on the steps of the capitol t legislative branch of the government. how did this all come about? it's not in the constitution. if you read the constitution it's sparse. it tells you the date and time the president is to be sworn in and the exact words of the oath but it doesn't say anything else. but yet we have this long two centuries of tradition built up around presidential inaugurations. it comes down to which came first, the chicken or the egg. and the fact is in 1979 when this brand new government was getting started the first part of government to meet was the congress. it was supposed to meet on march 4 but congress has a hard time sometimes establishing a quorum so it wasn't then they could do business. the first order of business was to dount electoral ballots. it was relatively easy it was unanimous that george washington had been elected president. the first thing they had to doffs notify washington he needed to come to take his oath of office. it took a little while for presidents of the united states in those days to get to wherever the federal government was so they had a couple of weeks to work things out. well the first thing they did was to write an oath for everybody else to take including the vice president of the united states. congress write it is oath that every other person who works for the government from military to judges to the legitimate tors. that is an oath written by congress and it's changed over the centuries. but the oath the president takes is unique. it's in the constitution and it's never changed. so the question was where are we going to swear in the president of the united states? well congress is meeting in federal hall on wall street. and it was a nice building. the house had the bigger room downstairs and the senate had the smaller room upstairs. and they said the president should be sworn in in our chamber. that was fine except everybody in new york and anybody who could get to new york wanted to see george washington sworn in. they couldn't invite everybody in. but upstairs they had a balcony. you come upstairs and we'll have the ceremony here and washington can take his oath out on the balcony. those decisions happened because they were logical. ever since then presidents of the united states have been taking their oath more often than not outside and the senate has taken the lead in running the inaugural ceremonies. vice president adams was the president of the senate at the time and he was a useful player in all of this because he had been the u.s. minister to england. one of the big questions came up there are no seats up here in the senate chamber. there are no seats downstairs. in parliament they have to stand up because there aren't enough seats and that adds to the drama of the day and the members can stand up for the ceremony. fortunately we have seats for the house and senate on the reviewing board. but when washington arrived there was a lot of co-motion. he was welcomed, his barge came across the hudson river. there were parades and fire works and activities. and since the parades were before and not after, washington came to the senate chamber, the house members came upstairs and then he stepped out on to the platform and there was no supreme court in those days, there was 2340 chief justice of the supreme court but the chancellor of the state of new york then gave the either of office. and so here is president washington just been sworn in. the crowd cheers and then he comes back into the senate chamber and delivers an address. and there is no mention in the constitution of an inaugural address. but presidents of the united states have been giving inaugural addresses ever since president washington led the presession. one of the observers said washington who was the great strong man of american history was trembling while giving the address. he was inside so the people outside didn't hear what was going on. but of course washington's inaugural address was reprinted in newspapers all across the country shortly after that. then in 1793 after washington's first term was over, he was elected to a second term. they were in philadelphia at this point. and so at this point washington gave the shortest inaugural address, relatively brief remarks, but still following on to this tradition. and still the u.s. congress was hosting this institution. now one of the strange things about the inaugurations and one that leads to controversy is that as i mentioned that the constitution writes out the oath of office. and one thing that the constitution does not say is concluding the inaugural oath with so help me god. and yet most presidents say so help me god. and part of that is because there was a tradition, there was sort of a follow k lore that developed that washington said so help me god. and we historians have been looking for whether washington said or didn't say so help me god. we're not sure about this. one of the accounts given by washington irving who was five-year-old at the time of washington inauguration. but years later he gave his remembrance that washington said so help me god. we just don't know. it's up to the president of the united states to say whatever he wants. most presidents in the 19th century did not repeat the oath, they just said i do. starting about the 1880's presidents began to say so help me god. it's interesting to me that the chief justice who swears them in says so help me god. if you're going to be a strict interter of the constitution it's not there. the president can say it. you wonder why the chief justice puts this in. it's become tradition. and tradition is even more important than constitutional structure in this process. but it's become a point of controversy. i should say that chief justices of the united states have been known to fumble the oath of office. it's different than all the others. and one reason why they do fumble is they are used to giving the oath but it's not the same oath. the oath we take as staff of the senate or military offices or the judges take is the oath written by congress. and that oath does end with so help me god. and in fact, the military oath that washington's troops took during the revolution ended with so help me god. so it was natural for washington to have said it t at that occasion although not required. i will say in defense of chief justice roberts he is not the first to get the words a bit confused. william howard taft swore in hoover in 1929 and that ceremony was carried over the radio . and a little girl wrote in to justice taft and said you got the words wrong. and i was listening to it and that's not the order of the words. and he wrote back and said i'm sure i got them right. and of course the news media played the tapes and discovered he reversed some of the words in the order. it does not make a difference if the cheer justice gets a word out of word or skips a word. the presidents in the 19th century and even hoover in 1929 just said i do in this process and that is certainly appropriate as well. we move down to washington, d.c. the first inauguration is taking place and it's the first time there is a change in party from the fed raists to the new republicans or democratic republicans who saw themselves more as the party of the people. and thomas jefferson was going to be naug rated and he did not want a lat of fold all with his inauguration. jefferson stripped away a lot of the formalities of the presidency that built up. he is about where the library of congress stands today. and he just walks across the street. and he's dressed fairly kassly. and he goes to the senate chamber. why? because it happened to be the largest chamber in the capitol at the time. the house was meeting in a room that is occupied by a single senator just to give you some sense of proportions there because the house wing of the capitol hadn't been built yet. and thomas jefferson went to the inauguration. he was sworn in uzz by his cousin john marshall and he was sworn in with byrd, one of his political opponents. it must have been a tense inauguration. then he delivered his inaugural address in a voice that was so low that most people in the room, and the room was absolutely packed, most people couldn't hear what jefferson was saying. thomas jefferson as president for eight years delivered two public speeches in the entire eight years of his presidency. one was his first inaugural address, and the second was his second inaugural address. washington and adams went to give their state of the union addresses in person. but jefferson thought this was too much like the king going to parliament. he was going to strip that away. you set precedent from doing things and from thomas jefferson on presidents did not go to congress to deliver their state of the union address. they sent it up for a clerk to read. they missed an opportunity to take some leadership over the legislative branch. it's not until 1913 that wilson gets elected president and he says there is nothing to prevent me from going up there. this will be a great way for me to present my legitimate program to congress. wilson starts going in person. he is delighted he thought of something roosevelt didn't think of. ever since wilson, almost alm presidents of the united states have taken the opportunity to go to congress in person. jefferson, as i say, was trying to down play a lot of the ceremony but he also understood the need for an inauguration. he understood the purpose of it. after a decisive election, it was one of the most devicive where everyone has to choose sides and the country is split up t inauguration is the moment we come back together again. this is not a presidential candidate in front of us. this is the person who was elected. this is the person who is going to lead this country for the next four years. we need to put aside the election and heal the wounds of this election. and so in his election jefferson says we are all federalist now, we are all republicans. we are all americans coming together and we are going to work together because the hope that every president has in his inaugural address. but that is one of the main reasons for having this great ceremony each time is to put a cap on the end of the election and to bring this nation back together again for the president's -- for the next president's term. well, now you've got the government in washington. they've established a certain amount of precedence. by the times james is naug rated the capitol -- jamings madison was naug rated there, both of his terms of president. james monroe would have been naug rated in the old statutory hall, the house of representatives at the time. he would have been naug rated there except the british burned the building down in 1814. british troops marched across and came down maryland avenue, burned down the capitol and white house and most other public buildings in washington, d.c. so they could not hold an inauguration back in the house chamber. instead they had built a temporary capitol across the street that became known as the old brick capitol and it stood where the supreme court stands today. it wasn't big enough to accommodate the crowds so he is naug rated outside on the steps. it was a good tradition but it didn't immediately catch on because naug races in those days were held on march 4. if you think the weather is bad in january, stay around until march. we had a history of bad weather on march 4 so most presidents preferred to be naug rated indoors. andrew jackson when he becomes president. adams is in the old house chamber. andrew jackson is the man of the people. he's the great hero. he fight that is last battle at new orleans we're about to have the buy centennial of. and he draws a very large crowd to washington, d.c. when he becomes president in 1829. so he stands outside on the steps of the capitol. and that begins a tradition from andrew jackson to jimmy carter of presidents of the united states standing on the east front steps of the capitol. if you've been to the capitol, the capitol's primary entrance, it's major stairs are the east front facing to us the supreme court and the library of congress. people think the other side is the front of the capitol. it has no back. because nobody wants an office on the back of the capitol. looking down the mall when is magnificent didn't look anything like that in the 19th century that whole west front wasn't established. so naug races were done on the east front. but that involved building a platform. because it got bigger and bigger because you were accommodating more and more people. in the 20th century you had to accommodate all the media and everybody else. so they not only built a platform for the president to take his oath on, but they had to build a huge platform across from it for the media. and it got so big in fact that anybody who wanted to see the inauguration couldn't stand behind it because it blocked your view. you had to stand on the side to see. they had to start building this in september before the election and that took up all the parking places. in those days members of congress used to park out there. they didn't like the idea they lost their parking places from september to january. the joint commilt tee on the inauguration which hosts the inauguration decided to move the inauguration in 1981 to the west front of the capitol. and this creates one of the great miths about inaugurations. and i guarantee you will read it in at least one newspaper out leth at some point during this inauguration. and somebody is going to say the inauguration was held on the west front of the capitol because since ronald reagan was president because he was a man of the west he wanted to face to the west as president. and he picked that side. now the problem with this is that the joint committee on the inauguration picked that site in june of 1980 and ronald reagan was nominated by his party until july 1980. the platform was under construction by the time the election was held in november. if jimmy carter had been re-elected he would have been sworn in on the west front. but ronald reagan was ronald reagan was smart enough to realize that he could take possession of this even though he did not order of this or choose this, he put it into his inaugural address. i am the first president to be looking west. i am looking out towards the pacific. he took ownership of that move from the east front to the west front even though he was not the person to choose it. this is an important lesson. ever since george washington came to the capital, congress has won the inaugural -- has run the inaugurations. that part is -- has been done by the congress. they start a year in advance, long before they know who is going to be nominated or elected. they start to make the plans, they pick a theme for the inauguration, they build the platform, they print the tickets, they get everything under way so that when somebody is elected in november, they can get everything done between november and january. for long periods in american history, the inauguration was on march 4. in january -- in 1933, the constitution was amended with the 20th amendment which moved the inauguration of up. now congress begins on january 3. the president is sworn in on january 25. -- 25th. -- 20th. usually, the joint committee is chaired by the chairman of the senate rules committee. it is cochaired by the speaker and it is done jointly between the two houses. traditionally, the senate has taken the lead and is quite a bit of that. they work with the staff of about 14 people. they have been dealing with this over the last year. there is a second inaugural committee and that is when somebody is elected president, the first thing they have to do is appoint their own inaugural committee. after the president leaves the congress, everything is taken over by the president's committee. they're in charge of the parade, they have a staff of 107 people. how come the congress is working with such a small staff and the president is working with such a large staff? everything we do with the capital is paid by the government. once the president leaves, his committee has to pay for everything. they pay for all the things related, -- all the things related to the parade and to the ball. they're raising the funds for private -- to try to underwrite what is going on. i mentioned the ronald reagan gets a lot of credit for moving the inauguration when he did not move the inauguration. but he did move the inauguration four years later. that was in 1985 when the weather was really fall in washington. it was below 7 degrees, it was a bitter cold day. the reagan white house, the night before looking at the forecast, thought it was cruel and unusual punishment to make people sit outside. they called the chairman of the rules committee and chairman of the inaugural committee and they said, we think it should be moved inside to the rotunda. he thought the best thing to do was to call his counterparts and that was tip o'neill and the congressional telephone operator tracked down the speaker in a bar when he was watching a basketball game and he said, the president wants to move his inauguration and the speaker said, it is his inauguration he should have a where he wants it. and they moved it inside. even though there was a desire of people to see this, most people saw on television. in 2009, but we were talking about the inauguration and someone said, if the weather is bad, we will have to move it inside. the architect of the capital asset i would be impeached. -- capital said, i would be impeached. there was a blizzard going on went william howard taft was inaugurated into that -- but they had a completely outside ceremony. it poured rain when herbert hoover wrote down from the white house to the capital, but they rode in an open car. a lot of inauguration's -- john f. kennedy had a blizzard the night before his inauguration. students from local university came down to shovel snow. anytime you talk to anybody who went to kennedy's inauguration, the first thing i talk about is the weather. it is the one thing that we cannot predict. we have this situation with the president being sworn in, but what about the vice president? it used to be there was a tradition that the vice president at his own inauguration. when the congress and the presidency is to begin their terms on march 4, the first thing that happened was that the senate and house would need to swear in their new members. the first thing they had to do was wherein their vice- president, who is the president of the senate. for a long time, a century, presidents of the united states used to go to the senate chamber to watch their vice-president be sworn in. the senate is to give the vice president a chance to deliver his own address. can you a bijan vice president by been given -- can you would imagine vice president died in getting the opportunity -- a vice president biden getting the opportunity to give his own address? his vice president was andrew johnson, who was the only -- who became the war governor of tennessee. poor johnson arrived at the capitol suffering from the flu. a helpful senate clerk poured him a shot of whiskey. and then another. and then another. he gave them a quick -- a completely inebriated inaugural address. lincoln was mortified. i unfortunately for johnson, it sets a public image of the andrew johnson. another burly disastrous vice- presidential inaugural address was calvin coolidge as vice- president. he used his address to tell the senate how they should operate. it set him off on a bad -- starting in 1937, that is when the congress started before the president. now president and vice presidents are sworn outside on the steps. the vice president lost his chance to give an inaugural address. there was one exception in that long tradition of the inauguration speech tell that the capital. that was in 1945 when franklin roosevelt was being sworn in for a fourth time. franklin roosevelt, his third inauguration was done at the capitol, but his fourth one was in the middle of world war ii. he felt this was not the inopportune time to have an elaborate inauguration. he decided on his own to move the inauguration to the south front of the capital. the joint committee was not happy with that decision. the president of the united states can decide above and beyond the date and the time everything else is tradition and can be changed. we reverted back to holding inaugurations at the capitol. we moved them from the east front to the west front and the crowd has been getting bigger and bigger. one reason on the west front is that you can accommodate more people. if you look at the photographs of the last several inauguration's, you can measure the crowd by how far it goes back. when ronald reagan was sworn in, the crowds went back to a block beyond the reflecting pool. with each inauguration, at the crowd gets a little bit further back. until 2009. there were so many people, they went all the way back to the washington monument. there were least 1.5 million people crowded onto the mall. one of the coldest days in washington. yet it was a nice atmosphere on the mall. but the most remarkable things, but there was not a single arrest made that entire day of anybody involved in the inaugural proceedings. they do need to have a lot of medical assistance because people standing outside for that long, there is always somebody was going to collapse. they bring in trailers with doctors and nurses to be able to treat. despite the fact that we have increased security, it was a very peaceful day. not everybody always agrees with an inauguration. there are always dissenters. the secret service and police reserve spaces outside along the parade route for groups that they called the first amendment groups. you have the right to peacefully demonstrate and to -- to speak out and to assemble. i can recall some inaugurations during the vietnam war where there were demonstrations and protests regardless of what the assigned areas were along the way. everybody, from the president to his opponents, everybody sees some importance and the ceremonies involved. the other change that has happened, by the way, is that more people get to see it who are not in washington. in the 19th century, you read about it in the newspaper. starting in the 1920's, you could listen on the radio. starting in the 1940's, you could watch it on television. now it is web cast around the world. the audience for the inauguration is enormous. that is an important moment for the president because it is his moment to speak to the entire country and to the entire world. inaugural addresses tend to be more eloquent and they tend not to be as specific as state of the union message. the state of the union message is a laundry list. i would like this, this, at this from you. lincoln's was carved on the wall of his monument. john f. kennedy's is particularly memorable. another -- other addresses have not risen to that level. and then the question comes about second inaugurations. the big excitement is for the first inauguration. been why should they do it? why do we need all this ceremony? we should go back to thomas jefferson. it is still an important moment. if you looked at recent history, less than half of our presidents have the opportunity to have the second inauguration. the ones who do often have a clearer sense of what it is they want to accomplish. when they're coming into office, they want everybody to love them. after four years, there may -- they have a much better sense of what their administration is about. the link in its first installment -- inauguration, he is begging people not to fight this war. the second inauguration, have begun to heal the nation? -- how are we going to appeal the nation? and other second inauguration that is memorable as franklin roosevelt bird in 1933, franklin roosevelt did not know what the new deal was going to do. by 1937, franklin roosevelt knew what the new deal was about. his second inaugural address was much more specific. one-third of the nation still ill fed and ill closed. the mission needed to be continued. second inaugurations are much more pointed as far as the president is concerned. what should you look for on this inauguration. it is going to be a coming together. it is going to be the legislative branch hosting the executive branch. large numbers of the diplomatic corps will be up on the platform. huge numbers of the public will be there to see what is going on. the fact that congress continues to hold these inaugurations is a sign of this coming back together. national unity, this moment of national unity and we suspend all of the political fight and we swear in this person who is going to lead desk for the next four years. -- lead us for the next four years. i never like to predict the future. the only thing i can say, i will live civilly project that tomorrow -- monday's inaugural address will end the way i will end right now, which is thank you, god bless you, and god bless america. [applause] i have been asked to open the floor up for questions. >> i am a history major. i was wondering as a historian, how do feel when politicians misinterpret the philosophies of the founding fathers? what do think the founding fathers would think of the government today? >> everybody seems to think they know exactly what james madison had in mind. thomas jefferson was not at the constitutional convention. he felt left out of that. we have a lot of people who were convinced. even the founding fathers were not absolutely certain. there are a lot of things in the constitution that came about as compromises. it bothers me a bit when everybody says, this is what the founding fathers meant. we historians are not certain what the founding fathers meant. we have to make a good-faith effort. we go to the federalist papers and their diaries. u.s. about what they would think about the government today -- you ask about what they would think about the government today. they would be surprised at about how much the government still resembles the government drafted. the u.s. senate has every power that was given to a by the constitution in 1789. almost every other government in the world has taken power away from the upper house. the u.s. senate and the u.s. house retain exactly the powers they had. the presidency has grown, but they thought the presidency needed to be a strong institution. that is the reason they rallied behind george washington. what would astonish them is not the functions of the government, it is the size of the government. and the size of the country. i think it would take away their breath. there would be astonished at the salaries. i think they would go back, noting that our constitution's has only been amended 27 times 11 of those amendments for by the very first congress. >> thank you for coming here today. hideous think -- the jcc or the pic? >> i am more loyal to the jcc. we call them the breadth of the in committee. they go away and they reappear every four years. they began a year in advance and then they start working their way through this process. i have been to a lot of the joint meetings. it is like planning the day -- d-day. it is a phenomenal practice and they do really well. to give credit to the president's committee, they do not have anywhere near as much time. they hit the ground running. people who are running the second inauguration are the same people who ran his first. they know the ropes. it will be hard for the next president who comes again. the one thing they all find in the end is that there is an enormous demand for tickets. the matter how many tickets you print, there is greater demand beyond that. trying to satisfy the needs of all the people there. they have tried to accommodate the crowds by putting them very large screens along the mall and sound system so that you can see and hear things. they promise to be a -- an adequate number of porta-potti es. >> my name is tyler from the university of san diego. how was this inauguration going to be different from the first inauguration? what can we expect to hear from you -- hear from him during his address? >> it will not be as dead. they count the number -- it will not be as big. it is not running anywhere near as big as it was four years ago. that is part from -- for the course for second inaugurations. they do expect the crowd will be larger than the average crowd. it will be very hard to me that 1.5 million from before that. for what the president says, my suspicion is that to the second time around, at president has a much better sense of what they can do a much want to do. i suspect this will be much more specific goals as to where he wants to lead us. it will be interesting to see what he has to say. i have not spoken to his speech writers. >> my name is kimberly. i am interested and knowing and hearing about what you think the most significant development is in the history of the inaugurations. >> the media developments, the fact that inaugurations are now so internationally broadcast is really the most important part of how they have changed over time. when you think about -- everybody wanted to see george washington, but there were not that many people who could get to new york. even andrew jackson, by the time you get to railroads, people were shocked by the large number of people who came to see enter jackson. -- to see andrew jackson. you can watch this worldwide, you can sit at your computer. that is the most significant change. >> i had the pleasure of meeting you on the senate floor when i took a trip. ever since that day, i've had the same question going on in my mind. he came out with a book defending the filibuster. we wanted to know how exactly you feel on the filibuster because throughout all of our experiences, we've only heard by the filibuster should no longer be used. >> it is interesting. there is the division between the look -- political scientists and historians. what is wrong with it and how can be fixed? the job of the historian is to let the system and say, how did it this way? we tend to be a little bit more tolerant and less active in suggesting changes. i did an oral history with a former parliamentarian and he said the rules of this and are perfect. if they change every one of them, at the rules of the senate will be perfect. the senators have exclusive control of for writing their own rules. if they want to change them, they will change into effect whenever their circumstances are. the senate is a frustrating and cumbersome organization. it has been that way since 1789. one of the first senators complained that somebody was trying to talk a bill to death. it is a tactic that has developed. the constitution said each house can write their own rules. the house is a very big body and to get any kind of control, they had to write the rules so that the majority can prevail. as long as the majority sticks together, they did not have to talk to the minority, and they usually do not. you come to the senate and the rules of the senate had given much more muscle to the minority. sometimes is the minority party and sometimes it is the minority faction and sometimes it is one single senator. that has created some balance between these two bodies. it is easier if you are a strong majority leader and a strong speaker in the house to ramrod or program. every senator majority leader is under a lot of burden to get this uncooperative organization to work together. take a look at this last congress. because of the -- they have to forge bipartisan compromises. and so they did, the senate was able to pass a farm bill, a highway bill, a post office bill, and fiscal cliff. and the house, which is supposed to be able to operate more efficiently, they did not pass any of those things. only's the fiscal cliff because the speaker said, everybody can vote on it. the reason is because they have majority rule, people look on as a sign of weakness if the speaker of the house has to go to the minorities parties for support. the farm bill did not pass, the housing bill did not pass. even though those are generally supported and people are waiting for the farm bill to pass. this filibuster did not create the budget gridlock. i am not sure. there are a lot of things that the centers are going to try to work out. -- senator is are going to try to work out. they will see some modifications. i do not think they will be hugely drastic. i do not think the filibuster is going to go away. they will try to get over some of the speed bumps in the process. you have a terrific professor. his interview is on the senate website. >> i endangering in politics. my question today is, -- i am majoring in politics. is it reasonable to believe president obama as a second term will be similar to his first even though the same crisis still exists? >> the one thing you can say about a second terms is that they're full of things that are totally unprotected. -- predicted. you would think about point that he was completely in charge. the first thing he did was to ask for increasing the size of the supreme court. that divided the democratic party. he got much less support from congress during his second term. and then the war started. none of that could have been predicted the moment he took the oath of office. richard nixon took the oath of office after winning a huge victory in 1972. in 1973, he was on top of the world. a year and a half later, he was resigning. a lot of things you cannot predict that will happen. it is how will a president can respond. you hope that presidents are much more control of what is going on and they can respond quickly. the circumstances are going to be beyond their knowledge at this stage of the game. i'm afraid i cannot predict. second terms have not been productive as first terms. ever since the 20th amendment, the present cannot run again. he can put his support behind put his support behind somebody, and that will presumably be a strength. but politicians and members of congress are all calculating on that. the president is not going to be on the ballot with than the next time around. it remains to be seen, in other words. >> i study economics and marketing. with the change in time and the change in culture, i feel that we view the inaugural address as a grand media spectacle instead of focusing on the credibility of the oath taken by the president. do you see it as a spectacle out? people coming and having fun there? or is it taken seriously? >> thomas jefferson trying to make it not a spectacle, but it has always been that way from the beginning. there is a point in any civic life where you need have spectacle. the person that understood that was ronald reagan. he spent his career in hollywood and he had a sense of showmanship along the way. the first time i saw him was on the steps of the capital in 1980 when he came to film a television commercials for the republican candidates for congress. and he was the only one that remain in character, paying attention to the speaker troubled bank. everyone else reverted to their normal state. this guy will be tough to beat. as i said, he took possession of his inaugural by being the first one on the west front. it is a huge amount of spectacle in celebration that worked really hard for the president as a candidate. but what did the president actually say during the inauguration? the other thing history remembers is what the weather was like that day. and they are looking for a moment in the weather. i can't imagine how many i have read without dark and gray was, but just as the president began to speak, a ray of light came through indicating there was a vote for the future. we are looking for a hope for the future for the next four years. there is substance to it, but there is a lot of partying that goes a long as well. >> i would like to ask a question regarding legacy. you mentioned and jackson was a man of the people. given the great deal of support that president obama had received in the 2009 inauguration, what will we expect to hear from him that might define or establish his legacy on monday? >> a very good point, residents of the united states can't campaign again, but they campaign for history. they get very conscious of their role in history, what will they be remembered for? it is interesting, the president that either did not get a second term or whose second term was considered disastrous often wind up campaigning even harder. some of our presidents have been great ex-president, working hard to establish that kind of historical legacy. i think president obama will use that opportunity to try to find what it is and how you want people to think of them not just now, but in the future. and king has just had a monument built to him. 50 years ago, 1963, king gave his speech on the steps of the lincoln memorial. there will be some connection to that in the process because this is the fulfillment of what he looked for. but what is left, what needs to be done? it is part of the president goes the thinking. .- the president's thinking we always get king's birthday off and the presidential inaugural off. have bet on they tuesday? the question is, why didn't we have that on sunday? we never have a formal outdoor ceremony on sunday. the sense is that presidents will be sworn in privately on sunday but the ceremony is held on monday. it is a wonderful coincidence that he is being -- it is being held on martin luther king's birthday. >> we have had speakers talk about the current polarization of congress. i am interested to know, what do you think about the polarization of congress? how can we bridge the gap going forward? >> i think one of the reasons it is polarized is that the political parties have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. in 1976, both parties were internally divided. each party had a liberal and conservative wing. you had some republicans that are more liberal than most of the democrats. every vote was bipartisan because they voted to try to get people in the middle to swing their way back and forth. political scientists think it is terrible. it should be more like parliamentary parties. i would say be where what you ask for because you will actually get it. both political parties have become much more internally cohesive and they're much more like parliamentary parties right now. the reason for this is the southern states migrated from the democratic party to the republican party. that made the republican party more conservative than the democratic party more liberal. the party leaders worked very hard to keep their conferences together. that means there is less middle ground to a pullover. in those governments, the parties face each other and they yell at each other. they're quite rude to each other. we don't expect that from the u.s. congress. they have not evolved to meet this sort of situation so we have to face the new reality. much of the polarization is the external because of the people that get elected. >> my question to you, we are a nation separated with church and state. what are your thoughts of the bible and using the word god and history? >> not only did washington have a bible, we still use his bible for some inaugurations. but after his inauguration, the congress voted to have a church service and then went across to the chapel. there was argument because not everybody was episcopalian but they went ahead and went to it. would that be a violation of the first amendment? there wasn't a first amendment until 1889. it was what he and his colleagues felt was appropriate on this occasion. presidents choose what to do in since franklin roosevelt, presidents have usually gone to a church service before their inauguration and it is personal to them. members of congress will choose either a family bible or historical level. -- bible. there was thomas jefferson's copy of the kuran. hindus were sworn in in congress. so help me god is another issue. there is probably no problem with the president saying that, but was the chief justice? i am sure every president would say that regardless of what the chief justice had to say. >> i attended miami dade college. what led you to be head historian and what is your favorite part about being one? >> i became a historian because i like political history. it is something i stumbled into, i was writing a biography of a man and discovered to my surprise that he had done a very long oral history, 700 pages. the person i was writing about had been dead for 10 years and he had been telling me about his childhood, his life, and he left out any mention of his family. either his wife for the messy divorce. he did not mention his children or the income tax cases. i was able to verify pretty much everything he had said, but i needed to know more. they started interviewing his widow, his children, the person that prosecuted him, and i got to interview his psychiatrist. it changed the nature of my research and made my book much more interesting. the senate created the historic office in 1975. i have been doing oral history since the senate staff in 1976. explaining the arcane rules of the senate, sitting down with staff directors. and you can evaluate the various centers, i recently interviewed a man that spent 22 years as a staff member. asking which was harder. been chief of staff was much harder because you wake up worrying about things. i had a chief of staff that was doing that for me. and being able to put it out, which is a throw to me when i see a historian citing. we used a lot of interviews and i get a great sense of pride at any time i come across in ". i am glad it is there for people to use. [applause] >> the word encyclopedic does not do justice to don ritchie's knowledge of the senator or constitutional history in general. we are delighted to have you, we will take a five minute break. really, five minutes. >> i, barack hussein obama do solemnly swear -- >> this weekend, the inauguration as president obama begins his second term. the official swearing-in ceremony before noon on eastern. it begins with a look back on the 2009 inaugural address. and monday, the public inaugural ceremony staring at the u.s. capitol. in live coverage begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. and throughout the day, join the conversation by phone, or facebook or twitter. >> as the inauguration coverage gets ready to kick off, we get a look back at inaugural history and a look at the memorial right off of the national mall near the lincoln memorial where dr. king delivered his i have a dream speech. locals and students and visitors, c-span cameras are at one of the locations. the number of reports an estimated crowd in town of about 600,000. the secene today, dr. king's image carved into teh stone of hope out of the mountain of despair. president obama will be resting his hand on to bibles. the one belonging to president abraham lincoln and one that reverend king used on the road for inspiration and preparing services. earlier this week, representatives from the inaugural committee, the joint congressional committee and the u.s. capitol police held a news conference about the inauguration day preparation. they talked at the national press club for about 50 minutes. >> thank you. thank you very much. and thank you press club, for hosting us today. this is going to be a little bit of a dance. there is a lot of different players that are involved in the events that will be taking place over the next few days. my name is brent colburn. i'm the communications director for the presidential inaugural committee. and we are involved in this weekend, doing a lot of the public events that fall outside the official swearing-in, which matt can talk to. in fact, as i kind of think about this, it may make sense to do this in sections. matt, if you want to walk on this. the three main groups that really put this together is the pick and we represent the president and vice president's equities in there. we are a governmental organization that is set up every four years to represent the president and vice president's views. we worked with the j.t.f. on the parade and the official inaugural ball and some of the other events that you will hear about, the national prayer service and the kids' concerts. and official swearing-in pieces and j.t.f. which does the military piece of this the colonel will talk about from a support stand point. and thank you to our law enforcement partners who are represented by the d.c. police department today. and there is a huge law enforcement presence to keep us safe over the next four, five days. matt, do you want to talk about what you guys will be doing. >> good morning everybody. miami matt house, i'm the press secretary for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies. our purview is primarily everything happening on capitol hill. staff has been involved in planning our activities for a year. the inauguration preparations begin the minute the previous one ends. the rules committee in the senate has been hard at work preparing for monday and i wanted to talk very briefly about our theme for monday and walk through some of the components very briefly and i'm happy to answer additional questions at the end. the theme for this year is faith in america's future. a theme that was selected by chairman schumer and spent a lot of time talking about it. this marks the 150th year since the completion of the capitol dome with the statue of freedom being placed on the top. the project began in the 1850's and stopped midway through when the civil war broke out. and there was a question among congress and the president as to whether we could fight a civil war and finish the dome. president lincoln said if people see the capitol going on, it's a sign that we intend, the union shall go on. congress came together and were able to complete the capitol dome in the midst of the civil war and senator schumer selected this theme knowing that we have challenges that we face as a country now. but if you look back what we accomplished 150 years, we can find faith in america's future and overcome obstacles. these are the remarks throughout the day and in some of the program material to folks who will be seeing the ceremonies and you will see in various elements throughout the program. the day for our committee really begins at 9:00 when the members head to the white house for a coffee and tea with the president. senator mcconnell joins that group. from there, there is coffee with the president, vice president, the first lady and dr. biden as well. everyone begins to make their way back to the capitol at 10, 10:30, depending on how the coffee and tea proceeds. our members come and they are there and get ahead of the president. they'll greet the president and senator schumer as they come in on the senate side of the capitol at 10:40 and everyone goes into the capitol and we start the proceedings out with dignitaries, and it begins at 11:00. it proceeds for 30 minutes when the president is introduced out onto the platform. senator schumer opens the ceremonies with a few remarks and brent will talk about how the program proceeds from there. from folks coming to the mall to watch the ceremony or the ticketted area, we will be opening the doors at 7:00 a.m. and advised everyone to make sure they are there by 9:30 to make sure there is time for screening and everyone can get flew to their ticketed place in time to see the festivities. we have a number of crowd management strategies to improve on of the systems that were in place last time because of the issues people experienced trying to get into the ceremonies. we have planned for many, many months for crowds of all sizes. we think we have a great system in place to make sure everyone who has a ticket or coming to the nonticketed area on the mall can see the ceremonies. i will go into that during the question and answer session. >> thank you, matt. just to complete a little bit what the monday portion will look like at the capitol. senator schumer will welcome us as the chair and we will begin a run of show, if you will, for the inauguration day for the ceremonial swearing-in. vice president biden will administer the oath of office. the first latino justice to do a swearing-in for a president or vice president and fourth woman. and that will be done on the biden family bible, same one used by vice president biden four years ago and used throughout his swearings-in as senator. james taylor will sing "america, the beautiful" and president obama will be administered the oath of office. it is done by supreme court justice john roberts and two bibles used this time. first is the lincoln bible, this was used by the president four years ago and same bible used by president lincoln when he was sworn in for the first time in 1861 and that will be on top of the king family bible which has been provided for this ceremony by the king family. kelly clarkson will sing "my country tis of thee" and there will be a poem read. we are excited that richard bla nmp co will be -- blanco will be joining us. reverend louis leon will be overseeing the traditional st. john's service that kicks off the president's day on mopped and will be offering the prayer and beyonce will be singing the national anthem. these historic bibles, and they are symbolic bibles as we head into the 150th anniversary of the emancipation proclamation and with that, i would like to hand it over to our partners and talk about the inaugural parade, which will take place after the lunch that matt discussed. >> thank you. i'm colonel michelle roberts. and our task force has the responsibility for planning and coordinating all of the military ceremonial support for the inaugural activities. once the luncheon is complete, the president and the first lady, the vice president and the second lady will be escorted out to the east front of the capitol, where they will be greeted by the commander of the task force and he will escort them down the steps to take the review. and the review is presidential escort unit which is comprised of approximately 380 service members. followed by each of the service honor guards and the u.s. army band as well as the marine corps band. and they will go past the president's location on the steps on the east front of the capitol. and once they complete the pass and review. then the presidential escort, they fall into the motorcade and they start the parade route. along the parade route, we have approximately 2,300 military personnel participating in the parade. approximately 10,000 total personnel in the parade. and the way the parade is organized, there are five divisions in this parade. each division is led by a service component. so division one will be led by the army. division two, by the marines. division three by the navy. division four by the air force. and division five by a mixture of the coast guard and merchant marines. and essentially, it's comprised of military bands. service elements that represent the active reserve and national guard components and followed by the civilian groups that have applied to be in the parade. along the entire parade route is the military cordon. that is comprised of 1,500 service members from all services. for the activities at the capitol, we have approximately 800 military service members there performing various functions from the presidential escort to bands, to the herald trumpets, the presidential salute battery, usual shears and military -- ushers and military assistants. >> what branch of the service are you in? >> i'm army. >> colonel roberts did not give the j.t.f. credit for the work they do. it's not just the parade piece. there are people that work on this inaugural weekend for months and some cases up to a year beforehand preparing for whomever is elected in november and someone who participated in the inaugural for president obama four years ago and we had no idea what we were doing, i can tell you the folks, regardless of who the chair is and the folks at j.t.f. are there ready for you when you walk in the door and do the logistical lift. we make sure the president's imprint is put on one of these events. in the parade as the colonel mentioned along with all of these military elements, there are 58 different groups. 58 different groups, floats and vehicles. these are from all 50 states. they are everything from the virginia military institute just across the river in virginia, down in southern virginia, which has marched in a number of inaugural parades through a group of maine of unicyclists, which are called the jim dandies. they will pass review in front of the white house. the president will stand and watch the entire review and enjoy the parade along with thousands of folks who will come down and be watching from along the parade route. once that ends, the president goes inside and the official part of his day is done. and he gets ready for the inaugural balls. as you have seen and reported, there are two inaugural balls this time. the first is the commander in chief's ball. it is a tradition that was started by george bush that we have continued. and chance for us to honor our partners in the military. and i know j.t.f. has been included in the selection process for the individuals that will be attending. mostly enlisted personnel from all the branches. and then second larger inaugural ball. i will be happy to answer questions about that inaugural ball as we get into the question and answer portion. before we go into the saturday events, i want to invite our partners from capitol police, security not just for monday but the entire weekend of activities. >> good morning everyone. my name is officer antrobus. i'm the public information officer for the united states capitol police. i will repeat it. my title is public and information -- public information officer. i am an officer. no worries. the united states capitol police, our responsibility in conjunction with our law enforcement partners is to ensure the safety of those attending the inaugural ceremonies throughout the weekend. we want everyone to enjoy the democratic process and this historic day. with any of that that occurs, safety is our number one priority. safety and security for potus, ists, etc. -- guests, etc., not carried out just by us. the partnership we have established to create a robust, multifaceted security plan has been in the works for many months. while i cannot go into detail security plan, please know we have trained extensively to address any issues during the day. questi>> thank you, officer. i appreciate that. as someone who did securities and communications, i can tell you that, during the q&a, the officer has the easiest job. he gets to say i cannot tell you that. that her day is a big day for us. two traditions were started in 2009 by the first family, the national day of service and the kids' art girl concert. -- inaugural concert. chelsea clinton has joined us this year as the honorary cochair of the day of service. she will be appearing at the mall event. it is in the incredibly large tent. she will be joined by a number of celebrities, including efvva langoria, ben folds, as well as 100 organizations from across the capital region that do service. folks will be able to go down and talk to these people. it is a fair-type atmosphere. we will have events in all 50 states. we are on track for over 2000 events across the country. this is the first inaugural committee that has paid for staff and all 50 states are it this is a priorit. this is a priority for the first family. once we wrap up on the mall come a there is one event on saturday evening, the kids' darker oh children's concert -- inaugural children's concert. it is extension of the work they have done with the armed forces initiative. this will take place at the convention center. we are going to be announcing details on talent in the coming days. we put out an initial list of talent that will be appearing at either both the balls or one or the other. as you can imagine, this is a logistical list. over half of the audience will be made up of military kids. this is a great place to honor the sacrifice of the men and women who serve and the families that support them. on tuesday -- i am jumping ahead of what we just discussed -- will also be the traditional prayer service taking place at the national cathedral. the first and second family will attend. this is a tradition that is part of most inaugurals. we are still working with the cathedral on who will be there. the president will attend. it will be a nice way to off the four days -- to cap off the four days. i am sure you all have a number of questions. i am making sure i did not miss anything. i think that is about it. i am more than happy to open it up to questions. i would be remiss if i did not say thank you to all of our partners, as well as our law enforcement partners who have done a fantastic job. >> one item of housekeeping before we go to q&a. if i recognize you to ask a question, if you could identify your name and news organization. we will try to get to you as many as we can. as >> nbc news. we are a little more concerned with media. can we expect improvement on that front? >> short. -- sure. we will be issuing media guidelines in the next day or so that will make clear the movements that we have been planning for many months to accommodate all of the individuals who are credentialed for the event. everyone should be on the same page as far as where folks can and cannot go. we are also making accommodations to folks who are interested in broadcasting from the capital on sunday. i think we have got a good plan in place. >> if i could add to that, we do have the advantage of having done this metro years ago from the presidential inaugural committee side. a lot of the steps we took were trying to learn from the challenges last time. one of the reasons we consolidated the two balls into the convention center, when archer years ago they were spread out over five locations, is to try to make this a logistically more manageable process. our hope is to flow in and out of the official ceremony and the other events will be smooth. jason put out a great online tool for the public -- i think they announced earlier this week. it is a mobile web app that matter= and speak more to. it is part of our effort to make sure people across the country can be involved in this event. we will have live streaming of the event. we will also have logistical information for people who are attending. we are between those schools and using twitter and real-time social media tools to make this as smooth a process as possible. we also put a plug in for ttjts. i think we have seen a big leap forward in our reader you're using -- and how we are using media. >> i was wondering if any of you can address what the cost is for all of the preparations. in addition to the hispanic people involved, and any other hispanic celebrities or national leaders that will be joining the ?elebration quest to ma >> i will defer on the cost issue. there are a number of groups and entities that go into this, so ascertaining a caustic is tough. a lot of these are moving budgets. i would be able to speak to it more after the event occurs. in terms of the hispanic community involvement, the president is committed to making sure that this is an event that reflects america. you will see in the parade a number of groups among not just from the hispanic community, but from other communities across this country. we can get that full list of participants to you. that really show the diversity of cultures and communities that make up his country. the inaugural poet, for the first time, will be a spanish- american. a cuban-american. you will see a number of leaders attending -- eva lan goria. she was a big support of the president's during the campaign. it really does reflect the country. >> i want to add one thing. as far as latino participation in the official festivities, senator schumer invited the reverend anlouis cortez. he has done a tremendous amount to fight crime and poverty and make sure individuals across the country have access to quality education. he will open the luncheon with a prayer in recognition of his long history of service. >> really quick. this does not speak specifically to the spanish-american community, but in shoveling my notes, i did miss the fact we wanted to make sure everyone knew that the vers -- thiseveredgar e looks forward as well as to where the president wants president wants to take us as a country. >> i want to know how many foreign dignitaries will be coming and if there is a list for where they are sitting. >> we are still finalizing the a list. we will have more information in the coming days. traditionally, the diplomatic corps has been seated on the platform. there are about 15 guest seated on the platform, including the president, the vice president, and his family and guests. governors, the house and senate, the supreme court, joint chiefs, and the diplomatic corps will be there. normally about 150, but we will have more details in the coming days. >> the question is for mr. coburn. there have been questions raised about the transparency of your committee in regards to the donor-related information that has not been released. according totee, according regulations, as to file 90 days after the inauguration. we are providing donors on a weekly basis. the names of those who have given to the committee. we believe this is a step above and beyond the transparency regulations place down. we encourage people to go to our website. >> i said at the beginning that i do not want follow-up questions. we want to give everyone a chance. >> chicago tribune. following up on the donors, where are you at today? >> we have not been discussing the goal publicly, but we are on track to meet it. we have every comfort we will have the resources we need to put on all of the the vents we discussed. i am not going to get into specific numbers. >> you have not told us anything about the president's day on sunday. what will he do for the day of service? >> i can answer "i do not know those quote to a number of " who a number of those. this is a schedule that is more driven by the white house. when inauguration day falls on a sunday -- this is the seventh time it has happened -- traditionally the public or ceremonial piece is on monday. according to the constitution, he has to be sworn in on january 20 by noon. there'll be a small private ceremony of the white house, just immediate family. it will be available for the american people to see. it will be in the blue room. the president will walk in. chief justice roberts will be there to administer the oath. he will be using the robinerts family bible. it will be a quick, official, but important ceremony. the vice president will do the same thing earlier that day. they are doing it that way because of scheduling. that will be at the vice president's residence, again, with the immediate family. he will be sworn in on the biden-family bible. the same one they used four years ago. in between those two, they will be doing a replaying of arlington. as will be different from the replayings they are used to seeing the president and vice president to on veterans day. it is similar to the one we did four years ago. it will be the two of them marking the importance of those who have served this country and given their lives. those are the only thing i know of on schedule for sunday. sorry, i should have mentioned that. both the biden's and obamas wil participate saturday in a service activity. we will be making announcements on that in the coming days. odds are you will know when it happens, but they will be doing something, and that will be the entire family. >> a follow-up on the fundraising question. if you do have less ovftover fu, where do you plan to use those funds question mark >> i do not know. i know there are rules that regulate what we can and cannot do with those funds. in the past, some funds were used to do repairs -- repairs on the national mall. that is a bridge we will cross when we come to it. there are a number of civic-minded things we can do. >> cnn. how many law-enforcement agencies and offices will be involved in security security on the day of the inauguration? and how large of an area will be closed off? >> i want to apologize for saying it was morning when it was actually afternoon. we cannot go into detail as far as how many law enforcement officers will be present for the inauguration. could you repeat your second question question m? >> how large of an area will be closed off question mark >> i can touch base with you afterwards to provide those. >> [indiscernible]>> with all of vents that happen on the capitol complex, we trained constantly to address them. as far as specific threat, i cannot answer that. just know that the united states capital lease, with our law enforcement parsing the -- law enforcement partners, have trained for issue any issues tht might come up. >> two logistical questions. there are credentials for roaming outside of the mall on the capital area. what does nothat get you that te public cannot get question mar? and does everyone have to go around the capital and the lincoln memorial again? >> this will not be a satisfying answer, but we will get back to you want details. we have an entire team that just concentrates on media logistics. i know they have been working on that. that was an issue four years ago. some of my colleagues can follow up afterwards. what is your best guess for the running time of the ceremony, start to finish? and the parade? >> i can handle the ceremony portion. we expect the announcement on the platform from the former presidents will begin around 11:00. this will take about 30 minutes. senator schumer opens the ceremony at 11:30. we expect the president will take the oath around noon. the final musical acts. the procession will head back inside about 12:30. music begins for the pre-program at nine: 30 in the morning. -- 9:30 in the morning. >> [indiscernible]>> of course. after the inaugural speech and the performances, the president would have beckoned. -- will head back in. >> i love the idea of any show that opens or closes with beyoncé. [laughter]the parade -- it is more traditional sized. are prayed four years ago was long -- our parade four years ago was long. these things can change based on whether, other events. this parade is a little different than what you might .ee at an the macy's day parade this is a moving parade that will move through the an old ti. this is important for planning purposes for media who may be covering it. there are escorts that go with the limos down pennsylvania avenue to the white house. there is a short break before the parade begins. it is about 20 minutes. this is so those individuals can go inside quickly and come back out and be positioned before the first elements of the military and civilian units. >> you can probably speak to that best. >> for all the participants in the parade, with approximately 10,000 participants, it is a huge logistical dance that happens. primarily, staging is going to happen at the pentagon parking lot. they will go through secret service screening and security screens, get everybody lined up in the proper formation so that the five divisions are clear, everybody in the correct order. then there are logistical teams assigned to each division that are tasked with making sure they start at the proper time, get on the right route. once they get past the viewing stand, there are areas designated for each of the elements in the parade so they can get past ant and dispersed. >> [indiscernible]and best guess for start of the parade is 2:30 ?uestion ma >> yes. >> i was wondering if you could speak about whether plans, contingency plans, if you wake up and there is snow on the ground in the morning. >> we do have a weather conditions he -- whether contingency land. ceremonies will be moved inside. that is a decision that the joint committee, in consultation with the presidential inaugural committee, would make sunday afternoon so everyone has time to adjust. >> i would add to that that our goal is to have this event go forward. that being said, we are not going to put anyone in harm's way. the real driver in that som decision-making process will be public safety. we will deal with that as it comes up. each element of this outside of the actual swearing in really are just traditions that are important to the president, the first family, the country, to show what our transition of democracy is all about. our hope is to be able to move forward with as many of these events as possible, regardless of the weather. >> on the fund-raising issue, why the reversal from four years ago with more transparency about each donor? george w. bush gave the amount of each donor ahead of time. what decision was made to change that? request?he donors' west >> my understanding is that each one of these is created a new every four years. they are not continuations of the same committee from four years ago. this was just the decision that was made in this instance in terms of disclosure. given the fact that there is the requirement this all the public, it was our attempt to go above and beyond that and at a level of transparency. >> over the weekend and on monday, are their telephone numbers we can call if we need to check up on something, maybe an arrest or something untoward? who will be available for phone calls? >> one more time. >> phone numbers over the weekend if there is something we need to check up on, who can we call? >> you can probably call me. i am the public information officer for capitol police. [laughter]i will talk to you afterwards. get with me afterwards. i will give that to you. -224-1677. >> as you pick up your credentials, there will be a media guide. it is current as of when it went to print last wednesday. we are still slaves to some things in the digital age. there'll also be an online version of that. 2013pic.org. much like the other large national event, like the super bowl or other events the secret service communicates with local and federal police department, there will be a joint information center set up. most of that information should be in that media guide. i have gotten a number of questions about when the media guide will be available. we anticipate the guide will be published later today or first . the timeline for the ceremony itself is always subject to change. we anticipate that and the flow of events and all the details should be public later this afternoon or tomorrow morning. inaugural.senate.gov. >> could it be easier logistically than 2009? >> the short answer is the presidential inaugural committee does not to crowd projections. we do crowd counts after the fact. our expectation is this will be more in line with traditional inaugurals in terms of size of crowd. you tend to get larger crowds when there's changes in power from one party to another. obviously, the president being the first african-american president created a lot of interest. we are very excited about this event. we think there is a lot of enthusiasm. this will be much more along the size and scope of review set inauguration. we hope it will be logistically as smooth as possible. all of the partners oup here at been working very hard to make it as smooth as possible. these are large event. the weather could be cold. i encourage people to dress warm, be prepared to be outside and work with us to make make this as smooth an event as possible. >e> >> in terms of media participation, how many requests for credentials did you receive and how many did you give out? >> i don't have a specific number, but it's thousands. it is one of the most covered events in the world. it has international significance not just national significance. we have thousands of media organizations that apply for credentials. and matt can speak more to the capitol and what they're expecting and we try to accommodate. we want this to be as public an event as possible and an event that people here in the united states and around the world can join as a symbol of what this country is all about. >> "washington post.? there's a lot of interesting tickets made for the parade and the ball. one critic on the hill is saying this can be seen as in-kind work and how many tickets are available for the public. >> i can't give you a specific percentage but can tell you about the universe that make up the ball tickets. certain percentage were given to the general public for purchase. that is unusual and unique to president obama and this inauguration. traditionally there isn't a public sale. we say thank you to folks who have supported the president, that includes staff members, that includes folks that contributed to the president's campaign. but includes volunteers. we worked very hard to make sure that tickets were made available for purchase to thousands of our volunteers to say thank you and have them participate in this event and the commander in chief's ball and i touched on this earlier, this was a tradition started by george w. bush. and president obama thought we should continue and one of his favorite parts of the entire weekend. that will be "travel wise" twice the size last time. and they will be attending free of charge. we wish we had more tickets and would like to include as many people as possible but we have struck a good balance with the size of the event and the size of tickets. >> is there anyone who hasn't asked a question? please. >> i'm wondering about the kids' concerts, half of the awedenens is made up of -- audience is made of up military family. >> some armed forces representatives and i don't have the details handy. make tickets available to d.c. school kids who have worked with the first lady's office. and it is a ticketed event. it will be at the convention center. but it is free of charge to military families and the d.c. school kids. >> on the other ball, the nonmilitary ball, how many people will be attending that and one of your advisers called it open press. what do you mean by open press, because i thought we had to have secret service credentials to cover that. >> our use of open press means that you could have applied for a credential and we give credentials out. and they are given out on a space basis and a full riser just as if the president was giving a speech or campaign event. some of the size, we don't know yet. we will be using as much of the capacity of the convention center as possible. and again, last time we had 10 official balls, this time that is two. we had six that were i believe six that were hosted just at the convention center. so we are doing two in the same space we did six last time. one of the lessons we learned by spreading out our talent, we weren't able to program it in the way we wanted it to. you go to one ball, you see one or two acts. we have a full program throughout the night for all the attendees. both balls, and if you are there, you will get a much richer experience and help us with crowd flow issues. >> these are for credentialed press? >> that's right. everything has to be credentialed for security reasons. >> you made it clear that you need credentials. >> our panel has agreed to stay and answer questions informally after the news conference and on behalf of the national press corps, i want to thank them for coming on a busy week for all these individuals and thank those who joined us at today's press conference. thank you. >> tonight we will show you in not euro speeches from the last six years, starting with ronald reagan's a dress from 1981. though clinton in 1993. white eisenhower in 1957. harry truman, 1940 nine. 1960 nine, richard nixon, then president kennedy in 1961. george w. bush in 19 99. lyndon johnson that from 1965. jimmy carter from 1977. we will wrap up with george w. bush from 2001. starting tonight at 8:00 pm on c-span. >> i barack hussein obama do solemnly swear -- , --[no audio]>> the official swearing ceremony at the white house before noon eastern. our coverage includes your phone calls and a look back at the 2009 presidential inaugural address. the public and inaugural ceremony will be swearing in at noon eastern at the us capitol and other festivities, including the capitol luncheon and parade. live coverage begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. join the conversation by phone, facebook, and on twitter. >> you can see the crews finishing up work between the white house and the capitol getting ready for the inauguration. you can see in front of the white house off of the inaugural parade on monday. some of the finishing touches are going up. there is a presidential seal attached to a heated glassed in area. that is where president obama and michelle obama will watch the parade. the city of washington has spent $6.5 million on inauguration related activities. it is according to the washington business journal and that counts for everything to bottled water to the 2.8 $4 million of the construction of the grandstand we just saw. we will take a look around some of the reparations for the inauguration. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] >> attorney general eric holder talked about the president's plan to reduce gun filings. he was at the us conference of mayors along with the head of tsa and the merits houston texas. -- mayor of houston texas. >> good morning. we will get started. i am the chair of the criminal and social justice committee. i have several -- they may join us in progress. i will allow everyone to introduce yourselves. >> we are on a fairly tight schedule. if you'll give me your name and city and we will go in quickly. >> from davenport, iowa. >> connecticut. >> from university city, missouri. >> hempstead, new york. >> california. >> miami, florida. >> lancaster, pennsylvania. >> mayor of harrisburg, pennsylvania. >> delaware. >> california. >> arlington heights, illinois. >> minnesota. >> south carolina. >> roanoke, virginia. >> seattle, washington. >> we have a co-chaired that is here. thank you for being here. it is an honor to introduce the first speaker, john pistole. he has served in that position when he came to tsa as a veteran of the fbi with extensive counterterrorism experience. he was put in charge of the really expanded counter terrorism program and became the fbi's executive director for counterintelligence. he was named deputy director for the fbi. it is our honor to have you here this morning and we look forward to your comments. please. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to be here today to share a few things with you in terms of what tsa does and how that impacts you as mayors of cities. we have a large work force and worked into 450 airports. some of your constituents may be tsa employees. there's a couple things i would like to touch on and see if we have time for questions and comments. one is the reason we do our work. tsa was created after 9/11. we have been pushing the boundaries to force those who try to causes harm to look at foldable points in the global aviation system. there every attack, it has been from overseas. there are 270 or sell airports that have nonstop service to the we want to make sure the policies and protocols are at least at the point where it meets international standards. we work through the u.n. to raise those standards to a point where we can have some confidence that the security being provided to the u.s. are similar to ours. we believe we have the best security in the world. that is why terrorists have looked elsewhere. to demonstrate the dedication of the terrorists, particularly al qaeda, and the length they will go to to try to block a u.s.- bound airliner. we go back to the young nigerian man who was given a bomb that had no metal in it and never set off alarm. that is the reason we have the advanced imaging technique in the u.s., the body scanners. they let us pick up metallic objects. let's have them as a deterrent to force the terrorists to come up with new and innovative ideas. some technical issues with that device. the young men flew from amsterdam to detroit. fast- forward to two years ago in october of 2010. there were two packages sent from yemen to chicago. because some outstanding cooperation by foreign security service. we were given the tracking numbers for those packages. one was sent on its ups and both had computer printers that had toner cartridges that were actually bombs. we got the tracking numbers. they went and found those packages and opened them up. this was good intelligence. on the second instance, they found it on -- it took them three times to find it. there is a master bond maker in yemen that was training others. made those devices and used a similar device to use his younger brother as a suicide bomber at to kill a saudi official. april of last year there is another updated attempts on a u.s. passenger airliner was the intended goal. this device was given to a terrorist to get on a u.s.-bound aircraft and blow the plane up. this terrorist was a double agent for another foreign security terrorists. that individual was able to extricate himself and the device out of yemen. the device was brought back here. we analyzed the device. this was a new improved underwear device. it was not even that wide. a little bit longer than that and easily concealable. that is the challenge we're dealing with. a terrorist group that is innovative in their concealment of devices. that is why tsa provides security at our airports. how can we use that information in an intelligence-based way. how we have changed our one- size-fits-all approach after 9/11, aware of all of the threats that are out there. the notion that we cannot expect to provide a 100% guaranteed. we screen over two million carry-on bags. 6 million people every year that we screen. try to manage risk just as you do in your job as mayors. a recognition in how we can work in partnership with the traveling partnership. if you're willing to share information, we can do a pre- screen before you get to there. we do this in 35 airports around the country now. if you are a known and trusted traveler, you go to a dedicated lane and keep your shoes and belts on and your laptop in your carry-on bag. we can spend more time on those we know the least about an expedite those that are known and trusted. you would consider yourself to be known and trusted. we would like to work with you in including mayors in terms of the known and trusted population. we have a table where we are working with people to sign up. signing up for global entry which allows expedited re-entry to the country. it also qualifies you for tsa pre-checks. for those who knows somebody 75 or older and 12 or under, they can keep their shoes on. we have about 100,000 passengers each day. we treated them -- recognizing there is no guarantee. there have always been exceptions to the rules. and unpredictable will always be part of the process. 170,000 a week go through a different way of screening instead of jamming up the passenger lines. 16 agencies with top-secret clearances. we know a lot about them. that is part of what this is. the idea is how do we expand the known and trusted population? we are working with you in identifying groups of people that may fit those groups of people. we're looking at some other opportunities. global entry light. global entry is $20 a year but you have to have a passport. those are some of the things we're working on that wanted to make you aware. more precise in our cargo screening and passenger screening. for mayors of cities of size that have airports that are engines for your local or regional communities, you know how important it is to have good safety and security. we want to provide for the best possible security. thank you for your time this morning and i look forward to any questions. [applause] >> we do appreciate your being here. we have three airports in houston. we depend on international traffic. what are we doing to make sure that international visits people can get then but also to protect safety on the international side? >> there are a number of initiatives, trying to be more welcoming for business and tourism. those are things that are taking part in different parts of the government. we have taken a first step with our friends to the north. canada has a program called nexus. we have accepted them as part of tsa -- we tried to recognize the known and trusted population of mexico. u.s. citizens traveling internationally. tsa precheck is just a domestic program. >> we have time for a few questions. mayors? you need you mike on. anyone? >> thank you. >> now we will have a brief report from the seattle mayor who has been spearheading our efforts related to human trafficking. certain publications such as back page.com to implement in person age verification and in the exploitation of children through their services. mayor? >> thank you for inviting me. this is the national human slavery and traffic and prevention month. our city council has passed a resolution and what urge you to do the same. the conference passed a resolution calling on backpage.com to end the sexual exploitation of minors. i want to describe the problem briefly. we know from our police department and human services providers when we took a lock at the seattle region, there were some between 300 or 500 underage young women that were being sold for sex online in the area. that was kind of shocking to us. it's not as well-known a problem as it should be. i don't think this was a seattle problem. the vulnerable young women are preyed upon by pimps. it is a very abusive relationship, similar to the situation of domestic violence in a way. these young women are controlled. we're change our practices in seattle where we changed our vice unit. the point was to view these victims as victims of crime. we have a program to give that a place to stay and try to take them out of this life. it is challenging. the pimp will work to bring this person back if they can. what we know is that the internet has changed how this works. it is advertise online. backpage.com is one of the chief places where captains. we have recovered over 25 young women that were advertised for sale. look up your city on backpage.com. escorts are being advertised in your city. you do not know if they are under or over 18. but neither does backpage. we require them to have in person age verification with identification and they refused. we brought pressure on them. backpage.com is a wholly owned subsidiary which owns print publications in a number of cities. as a result of that pressure, they divested themselves of backpage.com. that was a success story. there is bad news as well. there was legislation to advertise to children for sale on the internet would be criminal, if you facilitated that. that would be an affirmative defense for companies like backpage. backpage went to the courts. there are provisions to prevent internet companies from being held liable for the actions of others. they said we were pre-empted from the field and their freedom of speech rights prevailed. knowing disregard for the effects of their practices to enable this. this is the challenge that we face. we will try to go back and work on this. backpage.com makes millions on this. they refuse to institute practices to stop it. others do not have the same problem. we'll have a conference of mayors up and down the i-5 corridor. these young women are brought from town to town. one phone number was tracked that was being advertised. it was in the big cities like san francisco, seattle, portland. but also in little cities and this person is transported from place to place. the capacity for our police department is challenging. we are working on better solutions so our police department can share information and interdict this. is there a young woman that we should be seeking to recover? we will try to bring more pressure on the men who do this. we need more tools to attempt to combat this. the tsa also plays a role in this. i want to thank you for the work that is done to elevate this issue. it is hard to believe it is as bad as it is. it is happening in your community, too. we need to come together to change the climate where men feel they can go online and buy this. we need better tools to combat this. maybe we should look at our own laws about what is appropriate regulations. thank you for your work. [applause] >> anyone have any questions for the mayor? he is targeting a particular aspect of the traffic of underage women for sexual purposes. many of us have problems in our cities with human trafficking. houston is a major transport point for a human trafficking. i have a task force that deals with domestic and international trade in human beings. we tend to think about it as the sex trade. it is a growing problem in the united states. there is a sex worker or nanny confined to a household or the worker at your favorite nail salon and whether they're able to travel freely in cities. this is something we're beginning to look at. i've been joined by one of my co-chairs -- i'm sorry -- des moines, iowa. glad to have you here. we're expecting the attorney general. if there is no other question -- yes, ma'am? >> i had a chance to meet with the mayor of seattle. [indiscernible] >> a person can make $400,000 a year with just two or three girls. we try to talk about a campaign to talk with the johns. this is a crime with underage girls. i wonder if you have been looking at improving the crimes against those trafficking with the girls but also a campaign of shaming people. we have closed motels down but neighbors are taking down license plate numbers and we're sending letters to owners of these cars. we call them dear john letters. >> that sounds like a good idea. i don't know if you have something you want to add to that. we're trying to draw distinctions. it is and old profession. we're not discussing that within the conference of mayors. we are focusing on the human trafficking aspect, primarily with underage girls. anybody forced into one of these positions. our next speaker is here. americans have been stunned by senseless acts of violence involving guns, from columbine where 13 were killed, virginia tech, 32 murdered, fort hood, 13 murdered, tucson, six murdered. including a congress person who was wounded. aurora, oak creek, then the december 14 tragedy that killed 20 young children and six educators in newtown. that is still incomprehensible to most of us. mayors have expressed shock at a mass shooting. we must cope with gun violence in our own city. equipment: for sensible gun laws to protect the public for more than 40 years. in an open letter to the president and congress sent three days after the newtown tragedy, the conference of mayors sent a statement urging immediate action. more than 200 mayors have signed on to the letter. we're calling on the president to exercise his powers to introduce and pass legislation to make a reasonable changes in our gun laws and regulations. we called on congress to enact legislation to ban high-capacity magazines and assault weapons and to strengthen the background assistance and eliminate loopholes and to strengthen the penalties for purchases of guns. preventing gun violence whether it mass shooting in a school or a murder on a street corner will take much more than strengthening our gun laws. it is a culture of gun violence in our nation. a violent act should not be the first response to saddling or, setting for a wrong. what can we be done about that? identify people and get them help they need. we need to make sure we link the work we need to do in preventing gun violence with access to appropriate mental health. the president heeded our call or agreed with us. i welcome now the attorney general of the united states. i assume he will address that and many other issues. attorney-general holder served as deputy attorney general during the clinton administration. we appreciate the leadership which mr. holder has brought to the department. we have seen a renewed commitment to two justice department programs, one, the hiring grant program and the burnt justice assistance grant,. you have sharpened the national focus on violence prevention, and helped many of our citizens to combat violence. you are an important member of the vice-president's working group, and it is an honor to have you here at the u.s. conference of mayors. [applause] >> thank you. good morning. i guess good afternoon. one of the two. it's a pleasure to be here today, and a privilege to be included, once again, in this annual forum. i'd like to recognize mayor nutter, along with the u.s. conference of mayors' executive committee and staff, for all they've done to make this year's winter meeting such a success. and i'd like to thank every member of the criminal and social justice committee for the opportunity to take part in this important session. for more than eight decades, this organization has brought together dozens of our nation's best and brightest public servants to share ideas and expertise, to discuss mutual concerns, and to formulate the policy solutions that our cities, communities, and citizens deserve. over the years, i've had the chance to work with many of you to address some of the most complex and intractable public safety challenges we face. it's an honor to join vice president biden, administrator pistole, and other leaders from across the administration in continuing our work this week -- and adding my voice to this critical dialogue. and i'm particularly grateful for this opportunity to thank each of you for your service, your leadership, and your partnership -- with one another, with key federal, state, local, and tribal leaders, and -- especially -- with the united states department of justice. every day, america's mayors stand on the front lines of our fight against terrorism, crime, and threats to the most vulnerable members of society. your engagement is essential in protecting our citizens from harm, guarding against civil rights violations, and combating the gun-, gang-, and drug-fueled violence that steals too many promising futures. you understand exactly what we're up against -- not only because you hear the alarming statistics and read the news stories, but because you see it, firsthand, on a daily basis. most importantly, you recognize, as i do, that no public safety challenge can be understood in isolation -- and that none of us can make the progress we need, and secure the results our communities deserve, on our own. this is particularly true when it comes to gun violence -- an issue that, in one way or another, has touched every city and town represented here -- and about which many of you have long been passionate advocates. on a number of occasions, the leaders in this room have joined with the justice department to support law enforcement and strengthen anti-violence initiatives. especially in recent weeks -- as our nation has come together in the wake of last month's horrific events in newtown, connecticut -- you've heard from your citizens and colleagues. you've built a broad, bipartisan consensus on the need to protect the most vulnerable among us -- our children. and many of you are helping to lead efforts to heed, and to honor, the lessons of sandy hook elementary school? and the realization that unacceptable levels of gun violence plague our cities and towns every day. this unspeakable tragedy, and the individual tragedies that take place on your streets all too often and all too often unnoticed, stand as stark reminders of our shared responsibility to address not just the epidemic of gun-related crimes, and the ongoing need for vigorous enforcement of our laws but also the underlying conditions that give rise to gun violence. throughout our history, the overwhelming majority of american gun owners have been responsible, law-abiding citizens. yet we've repeatedly seen -- in the most tragic ways -- how easy it can be for dangerous people to acquire, and wreak havoc with, deadly weapons. although there's no single solution that can bring a decisive end to this senseless violence, it's incumbent upon each of us to try. and it's time to consider what common-sense steps we can take together -- to save lives. this means doing everything we can to secure the tools and resources we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who are not and should not be allowed to possess them. it means taking action to ensure that, while our second amendment rights are upheld, we have the means to prosecute effectively those who use firearms to commit acts of violence. and it means summoning the courage to confront even the most difficult, enduring and pervasive national challenges. i know many of you participated in yesterday's session with vice president biden, in which he discussed the administration's efforts to combat gun violence and the concrete, common-sense recommendations that president obama adopted earlier this week. as you know, i worked closely with the vice president, a number of my fellow cabinet members, and representatives from more than 200 groups -- of experts, advocacy organizations, policymakers, and private citizens -- to help formulate this plan. from law enforcement leaders, to firearm owners and enthusiasts, technology experts, and gun safety advocates, from retailers, to mental health members of the clergy, victims of gun violence, and members of the entertainment industry -- the conversations we had were frank, wide-ranging, and inclusive. and the consensus that emerged was clear -- that, as president obama said, "if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence -- if there is even one life that can be saved then we have an obligation to try." this obligation is what drove the administration to propose a range of legislative remedies -- along with 23 executive actions to end mass shootings and prevent gun violence. on wednesday, president obama signed directives putting a number of these proposals into action. others will require legislation that will soon be introduced in congress -- and which we hope will receive timely consideration. and, at every level of the administration -- and, particularly within the department of justice -- my colleagues and i will continue doing everything in our power to maximize enforcement efforts and implement new recommendations for keeping our people safe, and our cities, neighborhoods, and schools secure. but we won't be able to do this alone. the fact is that our ability to tackle this challenge will depend on the willingness of millions of americans -- and thousands of dedicated public servants like you -- to engage with one another in order to make a positive difference. we can begin by calling for immediate congressional action. as the president indicated, congress should move swiftly to adopt legislation to require "universal" background checks, so that a full background check is conducted every time someone attempts to buy a gun. by taking this relatively simple step, we can significantly strengthen our ability to keep criminals and other dangerous individuals from gaining access to deadly weapons. and we can do so starting today by encouraging private sellers to run their transactions through the nics background system with the help of a licensed gun dealer. many licensed dealers throughout the country already facilitate firearms transfers between private individuals on a regular basis. and we are encouraging more private sellers to work with licensed dealers to ensure that all sales are subject to a comprehensive background check. of course, the effectiveness of these checks depends on the integrity of the national background check system as a whole. to date, this system has proven remarkably effective -- enabling gun dealers to make more than 90 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and roughly 95 percent within three business days. this has helped us keep more than 1.5 million guns from falling into the wrong hands over the last 14 years. but we can, and must, do even better -- by ensuring that the information included in this system is complete, tearing down barriers that prevent federal agencies -- and some states -- from sharing relevant records, and making certain that our laws and regulations are as effective as possible when it comes to identifying those who should not have access to firearms. this week, president obama took executive action in support of these goals -- addressing gaps in the national background check system, bringing accountability to the sources of information it relies upon, and ensuring that federal law enforcement agencies become more uniform in tracing guns recovered during investigations. at the same time, he put an end to the virtual "freeze" on rigorous, non-partisan research into gun violence by the centers for disease control -- and has directed the cdc to resume examining the causes of this violence and evaluating strategies for its prevention. he has taken a variety of steps to reinforce the justice department's efforts to provide law enforcement with the tools, training, and resources they need to prosecute gun-related crime -- and to respond to active shooter situations. in addition, at the president's direction, the administration will issue guidance making clear that, under existing federal laws, doctors are in no way prohibited from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement. we will work with individual communities and school districts to develop plans to make our schools safer. and relevant authorities will finalize regulations under the affordable care act to increase access to mental health services for all who need them. not one of the executive orders contrary to what a few have said impinges upon anyone's second amendment rights or is inconsistent with the historical use of executive power. but all of this is only the beginning. in addition to these actions and proposals, the administration has called upon congress to renew legislation banning high- capacity magazines, including those used in recent high- profile mass shootings, to protect our police by getting rid of armor-piercing bullets, to pass a new assault weapons ban, updated and stronger than the one enacted in 1994, to keep military-style weapons off of our streets, and to consider a series of new federal laws imposing tough penalties on the gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals. these measures represent essential parts of any serious, comprehensive effort to eradicate gun violence -- and today, i join president obama, vice president biden, and countless americans in urging congressional leaders to adopt them without delay. i'd also like to echo the president's call for the senate to confirm todd jones as director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives -- a critical justice department component that's been without a senate-confirmed leader for six years -- and to eliminate misguided restrictions that require the atf to allow the importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age. some have said that these changes will require "tough" votes by members of congress. public service is never easy, and there come times when those of us who are in elected or appointed positions must put the interests of those we are privileged to serve above that which might be politically expedient or professionally safe. this is one of those times. by acting within existing authorities to improve our enforcement capacity for laws that are already on the books, by enacting common-sense legislation to strengthen our ability to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands and to stem the proliferation of military-style weapons and high- capacity magazines, i'm confident that we can -- and will -- make significant strides in reducing the violence that too often fills our headlines and afflicts our communities. as vice president biden said yesterday, the administration is determined to take our gun violence prevention efforts to a new level -- and we're eager to work with leaders like you in advancing the conversation about how we can put an end to these crimes and secure a brighter future for all those we're privileged to serve. to this end, in addition to implementing the orders and advocating for the legislative actions that the president announced on wednesday, my colleagues and i remain committed to standing with america's mayors in strengthening anti-violence initiatives that are already underway. since 2009, this commitment has led the justice department to award more than $3.5 billion to state and local partners through byrne-jag -- a grant program that helps keep officers on the beat, and equips them with the latest tools and technologies. over a similar period, the department's community oriented policing services -- or cops -- hiring program awarded more than $1.5 billion to create or protect over 8,000 jobs in local law enforcement. our officer safety working group has also been forging stronger relationships with officers and law enforcement organizations across the country -- and building a platform for researching the threats they face. under a groundbreaking training and technical assistance program called valor, we're enabling officers to anticipate, prevent, and survive violent encounters. thanks to initiatives like the bulletproof vest partnership program, we're helping to provide law enforcement with equipment that is -- quite simply -- saving lives. and, based on the recommendations of our defending childhood task force, we're bringing a variety of partners together, expanding screening and assessment of at-risk children, and supporting research to help combat unacceptable levels of violence among, and directed towards, our nation's young people. there's no question that we can be proud of these and other current efforts to reduce violence and victimization. but, as you've been discussing this week -- and as the president has made quite clear we cannot yet be satisfied, and this is clearly no time to become complacent. when it comes to combating gun violence, preventing future tragedies, and ensuring the safety of our citizens and first responders, each of the leaders in this room has both the power and the responsibility -- to make a powerful, positive difference. despite the challenges and frustrations we may face -- and the disagreements that may, at times, divide us from one another -- we all have essential roles to play in driving the critical debate that is unfolding across the country. and every one of us has been given a rare chance -- to strengthen this nation and help to determine its future. so, as we conclude today's session, adjourn the 81st winter meeting of the u.s. conference of mayors, and begin planning for the 82nd -- i urge you to seize this moment. i ask that you keep up the conversations we began this week, and pledge to continue working together in pursuit of the goals we share. and i thank you -- as colleagues, as partners, and as indispensible leaders -- for your contributions, your service, and your ongoing dedication to protecting and improving the lives of those around us. thank you very much. [applause] >> i had several mayors who asked me prior, to the attorney general to take questions, and unfortunately, he did not and is on a tight schedule, but i mentioned there is an official letter from the u.s. conference of mayors on the issue of gun violence and safety, and well more than 200 mayors have signed it. i do not know what the current count is. if you're not one of the mayors who has signed on to that statement, you have the opportunity to do so today, and we would be happy to have you as part of that. i am the mayor of houston. texas is a gun-owning state. personally, i am a gun owner, and believe in the right to bear arms, but i have probably said to my fellow mayors there are common-sense regulations that we could put in place that will make us safer. i note that some of the mayors in the room today have thoughts, particularly those in parts of the country that are supportive of personal ownership of weapons, to step up and to make our voices heard. did you wish to address that issue? if you would state your name first, please. just the little button there. ok, you've got a lucky microphone. go ahead. >> we had a conference call on wednesday one day last week, and i spoke with [indiscernible] my observation to general holder was that we could somehow take the washington focus off of it and put the solution and resources down to our citizens. quite frankly, no one mentioned this -- [indiscernible] we are in a better position [indiscernible] that these plans can be implemented without the great fear of a washington force coming in and taking their guns. administration to come up with a package in which a forgiven [indiscernible] does not wish to have, if there are 10 items coming out of washington and my [indiscernible] then they can go and say i will vote for it because i am not taking all of it. if we could push it countable local level i think we could be much more effective in getting a package passed. the fear of taking guns away is largely a fear of the national government taking guns away. they can vote me out of office quickly. if we could get empowered, i think it would be helpful, and that is what i have been urging the administration to do. >> it is a fear of washington more than a fear of their local public officials. do you want to take my chair and use the mike over here, and if there are any others who want to weigh in? >> thank you. i took the liberty to talk to my police chief and asked him to assess this, and he has been a police chief in a prior community. something that i heard the attorney general mentioned, which now extends one of the questions my chief asked, was that he would anticipate that major professional law enforcement organizations would support the report in deregulation, but that it is never mentioned. it has been silent of where the position of the justice department and the bureau of atf. and they have not met for six years? >> they have been working. >> they need something to keep them together, but this is by the comment about do we have to wait for washington to do something -- it seems like it takes way too long. he focused on the three areas that i heard consistently now for the last week, the background checks. they have to be done no matter who you are. it should be done. that would be one way to make certain no one is flipping through. the assault weapons and high- capacity magazines are something that -- what do you need for those? even hunters would agree that those are not necessary. and then why can we actually enforce the gun laws we now have put it seems like so many places in our country, they are ignored or forgotten. depending on the climate of your citizenry, we need to push and work together because we cannot watch our children being mowed down. this is probably the most horrible thing that i have ever, ever heard. all of these catastrophic events like the movie theater, and to walk into a school and shoot first- and second-graders, it is incomprehensible, and has to have a reaction, and u.s. conference of mayors is placed to push it, and we need each and every one of you to let your congress members know that something has to be done or they are to be considered do- nothings, be pushed around, and debate it for weeks and months and then do nothing or do half- baked. address it. >> thank you. is there anyone else who wishes -- [applause] i see someone over here. did you have anything to weigh in on this thing as well? >> the only thing i would add to the discussions, and i have had discussions with our chief of police and we have all gone over a lot issues that we are concerned about. when we talk about assault weapons, having been in the military myself, i am not as concerned, although i know a lot of people are, with how a weapon looks. i am most concerned about how it operates. when i pull the trigger, is the one bullet coming out, three bullets coming out, or are there a whole lot of bullets coming out? to me, that is what makes the difference between a military- style weapon and less concerned about whether it has a hand grip on it or this or that. i want to know if i'm looking at a weapon that's throwing a lot of bullets out and become a totally different piece of equipment. >> i know my own police chiefs are interested in things like armor-piercing bullets and want to all those out. >> i think it is admirable that the mayors signed letters to push out congressional leaders in the forefront. i do not know how many cities have ordinances or have tried to push ordinances that would address high-capacity magazines, that would address background checks. what would help our leaders and our president move forward, if mayors, as i do with my own city attorney, drafting a local ordinance that would make those kinds of things illegal in my own city. more and more mayors, if they pass local ordinances, that would send a message strongly to congressional leaders and they would know they have the support, on the local level. i am asking the question of how many mayors in cities have ordinances that address those kinds of issues. >> i cannot speak for -- >> california. >> [indiscernible] which preempt local governments. this is why we have got to support the administration in setting the efficient and the tone and making the resources available, which will then -- if we had the resources, we would not have to pass -- if i have the resources to enforce the laws and build the jail space is necessary to get the folks off the street, i would not need any more laws passed. it is resources. that is why the schools -- there are very few people opposed to more cops on the street. this is why i want people to come up with an approach -- if you do not want what the feds are offering, that is your business. if we get the resources, even with the laws the way they are, we can make a big dent in this and get around this state pre- emptive laws. >> i do not know if there are other measures that have the ability to do what you are doing. >> have restrictions on ourselves, but there are a lot that are not keeping our hands. we have our gun shops in town, but we have ongoing private sales between individual citizens, and we have no way of looking at that. what we're proposing is if a private sale is made, that individual must report it to the department of public safety or the police department, and when that sale is made, the buyer has to register that the gun. those are things that we can look at and to that are not restricted by state ordinance or federal law that we cannot touch. trying to ban assault weapons, that could go all the way up to supreme court. dealing with high-capacity magazines, dealing with making private owners register with the police departments if they sold the gun, and then put a burden on them and we're looking at this language that if the private sale is not reported and that gun is used in the commission of a crime, that person could be held liable. there is a lot of things we could do to strengthen and making it tougher for these things to happen. we cannot rely on congress, and i give my blessings of the president to see we can get these things through. we're relying on federal laws, and i think local mayors me to start passing ordinances that they will pass that will restrict these things like- capacity magazines. i worry about that my daughter is a police officer. i asked her, what is the amount of rounds you carry as a police officer? it is 15 rounds. taking 15 rounds against an automatic weapon is like taking a knife to a gunfight. it does not work. we have to level the playing field. why not pass local ordinances? i think mayors can do that on a local level. that is my two cents. >> we're running close to the end of our time today. anybody else who needs to weigh in? >> i think it would be unfortunate if there was the impression in the country that local officials are not doing something they can do and as the federal government to do, because in south carolina we could not do that. the states in the country have some level of pre-emption, so in our state, the ability to regulate, that is a state function. we are our only option. i think this is a national matter that requires a uniform approach. >> [indiscernible] >> your name? [indiscernible] >> i agree. we may not be able to have the enforcement power, but we will be showing our congress people that we stand behind them, and in our community, [indiscernible] he is in favor of what we are proposing. one of our young men who grew up in our town was one of the police officers who was shot. [indiscernible] that was the only thing. we have to protect our children absolutely, and that is the most tragic -- we have to protect our police officers as well. >> one of the things we can think about in those states where we do not have the ability to preempt state law on some of these issues is that our police departments are major purchasers of weapons and ammunition. and when gun manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, weigh in on this issue, i think as major customers, we have the opportunity to engage with them, and one of the things that i am going to go do when i go home is sit down with my police chief and my purchasing department and we will figure out what our spending is annually on gun ammunition. as mayors, if we put our dollars out there, we too are a voice that the industry should be engaging with and listening to. i thank you for your time and attention today, and thanks for being a part of this meeting. if you have issues he would like to see the criminal social justice committee address this, please shoot me an e-mail. before we leave, arlene, you have been doing this for 20 years? you're about to be leaving us? we want to thank you for your service. [applause] >> the u.s. conference of mayors has been meeting in washington. yesterday, vice president bided addressed the group. the vice president was introduced by philadelphia mayor michael nutter. >> mayors and ladies and gentlemen. please welcome vice-president joe biden and philadelphia mayor michael nutter. [applause] >> mayors and ladies and gentlemen, it is, of course, my distinct honor and pleasure to have the opportunity to introduce our good friend and my good friend, vice president joe biden. throughout his career as a public servant, vice president biden has championed issues that are critical to the prosperity and growth of america's cities, and he has engaged directly with the u.s. conference of mayors on a regular basis. during our annual meeting this past june in orlando, vice president biden pledged that the obama administration would make sure that future infrastructure investments are more targeted to local areas. in november, last year, the vice president hosted our leadership in the white house to discuss the fiscal cliff and the concerns of mayors regarding both investment programs and tax-exempt financing. issueer there's a major that demands attention, again and again and again, vice president joe biden has shown the leadership and courage needed to help move our nation in the right direction. and that is why i was certainly heartened when president obama asked vice president biden to lead a special task force to develop responses to the tragedy not only at sandy hook elementary school, but the daily tragedies we see all across america. the nation's mayors and vice president biden have stood together for many, many years in support of public safety. after all, it was then-senator joe biden who championed the crime bill, which established the cops program and included the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, which congress unfortunately, allowed to expire. yesterday, i was personally very proud to be in the white house as president obama and vice president biden unveiled a strong, comprehensive package of legislative and regulatory reforms needed to response to the ongoing gun violence in america's cities and suburbs. seey day america's mayors the carnage caused by illegal guns and assault weapons that have no place on our nation's streets. working with president obama, vice president biden and the congress, we will make sure that the changes that are needed to protect our children are made. ladies and gentlemen, u.s. conference of mayors, welcome back our great friend, vice president joe biden. [applause] >> thank you very much. please, please be seated. thank you all very, very much. an honor to be back with you. i would like to begin by acknowledging two folks from delaware who are here who are engaged in this subject as well. one i have known for years and years. he is now our new mayor, dennis williams, i don't know where you are out there, but welcome to the conference, old buddy. great to have you. and dennis and i go back to the days when we were writing the crime bill when dennis was a police officer in the city of wilmington. and also the chief law enforcement of delaware is here that i have known even longer. we share the same last name, the attorney general of the state of delaware, by son beaux and i do whatever he says because he has the power to indict. [laughter] >> all kidding aside, i'm proud of my home state as we used to say in the senate, point of personal privilege, the progress they are making, efforts they are making under the leadership of our governor on the very subject you talked about. and i say to dennis, mayor williams, forgive me, i'm so used to referring to the mayor of philadelphia as my mayor because i spent about half my life in philadelphia and my granddaughter resides in the city limits, i want to be particularly good. my daughter is also a voter there as well. so i have to be particularly on good behavior. ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be back. i look forward to this opportunity every chance i get from the time i was a young fellow and new to the united states senate. it's one of the groups with whom i have had a relationship with for a long, long time and nice to be with a group of people who you agree with on all of the issues 90% of the time. so it's nice to be with you. i know you have come to talk about a broad range of very important, challenging issues that are facing each of your cities and towns, energy, infrastructure, budgets, finances, crime. and i want you to know that we, the president and i, and the important part of that is the president, continues to be absolutely committed to do all we can to help the cities deal with the immense problems that get thrust upon them as a consequence of diminished tax bases, as a consequence of housing, a significant portion of the public and the states that are in the most need. we are committed to having a third phase of the so-called big deal in the budget. we're of the view that just as it took during the clinton administration, it didn't happen in one fell swoop. the economy in great shape and move toward a balanced budget. it started off in three phases. it started off with president bush's actions, the first president bush in terms of taxation before president clinton took office. and then the actions the president took in 1994 and then in 1997. well, we think there is a third phase here that can set our country on a path that will allow us to get our debt to g.d.p., our deficit to g.d.p. down around 3%, which is the basis of all economists left, right and center all agree on the areas we can begin to grow as a country. and as my grandfather used to say with grace of god and goodwill of the neighbors, cooler heads will prevail now between now and the time we deal with the debt ceiling and we may meet the goal which we set out to do, which is to have roughly a $4 trillion cut over 10 years in the long-term deficit and to put us on that path. but i didn't come here to talk about any of those important subjects today, because as important as they all are today we have a more urgent and immediate call and that is how to deal with the epidemic of gun violence in america. you all know the statistics better than anyone so i'm not going to repeat them. on that score, i owe an incredible debt of gratitude to you at the head table and those of you in the room. unanimitydon't have in this ballroom nor do we in any ballroom, but we all acknowledge that we have to do something. we have to act. and i hope we all agree, there is a need to respond to the carnage on our streets and in our schools. i hope we all agree that mass shootings like the one we witnessed in newtown 34 days ago cannot be continued to be tolerated. that tragedy has affected the public psyche in a way i have never seen before. the image of first graders, not only shot, but riddled with bullets. parents in the streets panicking, trying to find out if the child they put on the bus in the morning had any prospect of going back on the bus and going back home that afternoon. for 20 of those parents, the answer is no and i believe as i'm sure you do, we have an obligation to respond intelligently to that crisis. and i know many of you feel the same way. i have had the occasion to talk to a number of you and i wanted to start by thanking all of you, including mayor bloomberg, who is not here today, although i spoke to him on the phone. thank you for your input and incite. -- insight. again, not all agree on what should be done. but you have probably more than any group of elected officials thought about this issue more intently and longer. you have done a great deal of work on this. all of you who deal with the issue every day. i'm not going to ask for a show of hands, but if i did, a lot of people would put their hands up in this room. how many of you mayors attended the funeral of a police officer or an innocent child in a drive-by shooting or shop owner in your city? many of you, many of you have had to attend and many of you, many, many funerals. some of your communities experienced mass shootings, not just in schools, but movie theaters and temples and not unique to big cities. it was -- i happened to be literally, probably turned out to be a quarter of a mile back in 2006 at an outing when i heard gunshots in the woods that we didn't know where we thought there were hunters. i got back to the clubhouse in this outing and saw helicopters. it was a shooting that had just taken place in a small amish school just outside of lancaster, pennsylvania. so it's not just big cities or well-to-do suburbs. it can happen anywhere. but i also know that it's not just about mass shootings. as my friend michael knows, and as my mayor knows, the murder rates in both the our towns are well beyond, well beyond what is remotely tolerable for a civilized circumstance. it is not just about mass shootings, but gun violence of all kinds. over the past several years, 25 people died of gun-related homicides in this country every single day. every day. which is the equivalent of the third most deadly mass shooting in history happening every 24 hours in this country. as much as we intend on making schools the focus, making them more secure. as mayor emanuel of chicago said, the truth is most schools are safe. it is going to and from school when young people are in the greatest danger. we do not see that on the news very much anymore. we hear about mass shootings, but not every day gun violence as ravaging our cities. i remember my friend. i always looked up to him at and consider him a friend, then your patrick predicted a patrick moynihan. when we were trying to get through the bite and crime bills -- biden crime bill, we were all on the floor debating this issue, and patrick told the story of a valentine's day massacre in 1929, and how shocked the world when seven gangsters were gunned down in cold blood. it made the front page of every major paper in the nation and many around the world. but then he said, in 1992 with when a woman saved her baby from execution by hiding that baby under the bed, but she was shot and killed, along with her husband and teenage son, that story, and he took out "the new york times" took up the second section. it was not front-page news. it was barely news at all. i will never forget what he said. he said i call that defining deviancy down. how it was not even news. if that had happened in 1929, it would have been astonishing. well, folks, we can no longer continue to define deviancy down. we cannot wait any longer to take action. the time has come. as you know, this week i delivered a set of recommendations to president obama on how we can better protect americans from gun violence. i have been getting credit and blame for that, as if these were original ideas of mind. -- of mine. i want to make it clear, what the only power influence of vice-president has is reflected power. none of it matters, no matter what someone tries to give you credit for. if it were not for the leadership of the present united states, the president of the united states. i am his agent, but this is the president of the united states. he asked me to go back because of my years of experience in judiciary committee in dealing with these issues, he asked me to go back and do as quick of a survey as i could, as the row as -- as thorough as i could in a short time frame and present him with a set of recommendations. i have the incredible help of some really first-rate cabinet manners -- members, starting with the attorney-general, secretary of education and homeland security, secretary of health and human services. and we met with a range of 229 groups. representing a wide range prospectus. -- range of perspectives. from members of the law enforcement community, including many from your cities and states, to gun safety advocates, victims of the shootings, both down in virginia, as well as in colorado. sportsmen's organizations, hunters, gun owners, the nra. representatives of the video game and movie industries, educators, retailers, and public health officials. and as i said, i spoke to many of you in this room as well, along with the governors and the county executives. no group was more consequential and instrumental in shaping of the document we put together that all of you in this room. those conversations, after literally hundreds of hours of work and research done by experts at the justice department and department of homeland security and elsewhere, after hearing just about every idea that had been written up only to gather dust on the shelf of some agency in government, a set of principles emerge that there was not universal agreement on, but overwhelming consensus on. they were the foundation of the recommendations. if you will permit me another 10-12 minutes, i want to lay out to you what they are from the perspective of the president and me. the first foundational principles is there is a second amendment. it comes with the right of law- abiding responsible citizens who own guns. the second foundational principles, certain people in society should not and can be disqualified from being able to own a gun because they are unstable or they are dangerous. they are not the citizens but the vast majority of gun owners comprise. 3, we should make common sense judgments about keeping dangerous weapons off of our streets. clearly within the purview of the government, at the same time recognizing, honoring, and being compliant with the second amendment. four, this is not just about guns. it is about our culture. the coursing of our culture, whether it is with video games, movies, or behavior. it is about the ability to access mental health services and the safety of our schools. it is a very complex problem, and it requires a complex solution. and based on these principles, and a vast array of groups and experts, we put together a comprehensive plan based on a common-sense approach where i believe, from heading this group, there really is overwhelming consensus. there are disagreements in degree, but the consensus on the principles i have laid out. we asked a number of questions. by the way, we recognize how different oliver states and cities are. -- different all our states and cities are. how different the gun culture is, held the gun culture in rural america than in urban america. how different the gun culture is in states that are overwhelming -- my home state of delaware. most of you probably do not realize, we of the highest per capita cohn -- gun ownership because of the accounting, the amazing tributaries that go from the delaware bay, chesapeake bay, and the various rivers that flow into the bay. it is a paradise for hunters. it is a big business, as well as institutional. it is culture. i remember all woman from delaware, the reason i got elected to the senate. she said now joey, i want to show you something my dad gave me. this was a woman who was 78 years old. she walked out in the backyard and said you know, it is the season now, right now. she said it is goose season. do not get mad. she walks into her den, takes a shot gun all over the fireplace. i walked out and she says my daddy told me how to steady aim, and i want a lot. if you did that in the upper east side of manhattan, you have a problem. but it is really important, because some of you who share very strong feelings about gun control. i think it is important to understand the ethic were a lot of us come from. but it is not this culture, the recognition of the differences in the cultural behavior and attitude. from arizona to new jersey. although south jersey, it is a big deal. my generic point is recognizing those differences does not in any way they get the rational -- negate the rational prospect of being able to come up with common sense approaches or how to do with the myriad of problems that relate to gun ownership. who has that done? -- who has that gun? we asked a number of questions. the purse question we ask is who should be prohibited -- the first question is who should be prohibited from owning a gun? current law has evolved over time, and we have considered the question. my senior year in 1968 graduating was an incredible year. the only political career i ever had, bobby kennedy was her -- assassinated two days before i walked across the stage for graduation. dr. king, the one who got week engaged in politics, was assassinated earlier that year. even assassination attempt at a george wallace. it is no wonder things held together quite frankly. well, the congress passed what was then called the gun control act. among other things it said that felons, fugitives, drug users, those who have been adjudicated and it is not a politically correct phrase, but it is in the law, those that are mentally affected could not own a gun. 1994 as a world change in country changed, along with the thing i am proud is for having written and passed about. we added a new category of people who were prohibited from purchasing a gun. based on facts, not on fiction. that is those who had a restraining order issued against them in a domestic violence incident. that was a fight to get that added. then, two years later we expanded the list again to include anyone convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime, because there was some history that they were the most likely people to do something. time and experience has demonstrated we continue to take a close look at the risk to see if it fits the needs of society at the moment. it is part of our recommendation to the president to suggest the president directing attorney general to study that question. should any other people be added to the prohibited category? certain convicted stalkers can still purchase a gun. people with outstanding warrants, as long as you do not crossed the line into delaware, they can go buy a gun. people have been convicted of misdemeanors for abusing their children have now been added to the list. as all of you know, you deal with it every day. there is parental abuse for elderly parents. should they be prohibited? i am not making a judgment, but i am convinced we have to look at whether or not the prohibited category should be expanded. the most delicate area is the mental health area. this requires a great deal of study. this is where you find the pro- done guys to prohibit more and anti-than to say it is privacy. -- anti-gun guys to say it is privacy. these are the categories the present have the attorney general looked at. there is a second issue involved, and all of you know it. we have a thing called nix. it is a place in washington, d.c. it runs the background checks on people before they can buy guns if they are in the prohibited class. it is a little bit like if you ever have bought a gun, i purchased two shotguns, a 20 gauge and 12 gauge shotgun. just like when you get a credit card, if the bank does not have on record exactly what you have in that account or not have in the account, then you have a problem. it is only as good as the information available. right now the information being put into that system is woefully incomplete. states are supposed to make mental health records available for people who cannot have the guns. today there are 17 states that have made fewer than 10 mental health records available on the background check system. 10. there are tens of thousands of felons the estimate is, who are convicted in your cities and states. that information is never transmitted to the system. so we recommend to the president that he redirect, because no one knows for sure whether or not it is an illogical judgment they are making or an economic issue. so we asked the president to redirect $20 million to the states to help them update the records and make them available. he has decided the justice department should do just that. money only goes so far. a lot has to do with leadership. again, i apologize for being parochial. i will always be a senate tie and a delaware guy, but i am very proud of our home state. delaware has moved from one of the worst-performing states to one of the best performing states as a consequence, at least as rated by the mayor's against gun violence. it is about leadership. it is about making the decision to make this available. i know you folks have a lot of influence in your states. that is not quite true. [laughter] i have a bad habit of being straightforward. the truth is you did not have nearly as much influence and she should have in your state. all kidding aside, i would ask you to continue to push the legislatures, governors to make the record available. i am not suggesting there is any nefarious reason why it is not being done, but it is not done. i would also ask you to think about whether or not we should consider making the record sharing it mandatory. as a matter of law. or do you think the president incentivizing states information is enough. we would like to hear from you on that. one of the things we have learned is the federal government has not been doing a very good job in the past 10 years either about sharing information available. so, the president issued a directive order like everyone got all of an arms about. one of the executive orders was he directed every agency to make sure we live up to our end of the bargain to share relative information within the lawful possession of the government to that system if it contained people who should be disqualified as a matter of law. one to figure out the pieces, there is still another broader point. that is systems identify people who should not, not only cannot but should not possess guns only works if it actually prohibits those people from purchasing guns. that is why we need, and i would recommend to the president, universal background checks. [applause] study showed up to 40 percent of the people -- because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to keep records, we cannot say with absolute certainty what i am about to say is correct. but the consensus is about 40% of the people who buy guns today do so outside the background check system. right now someone purchased a gun from a licensed dealer, he is required to undergo a background system which takes a matter of minutes. he divide that exact same gun from a private seller with no background check at all. that is change. think about it. imagine you get to the airport and there are two lines for security. one of them you have to go through the metal detector, take off your shoes. the other one you could go straight through to the plane. where are you going to go? especially if you are carrying something you're not supposed to? which line the you think the terrorist picks? the same thing about gun sales. why would a criminal by a gun at a store where he is required to do a background check, or at a gun show from a licensed dealer where he is required to go to the background checks when he can buy a gun from the guy the next booth over were has a sign that says no background check required? i will not go into detail for why that is the case because it is the definition of what constitutes a best-seller. -- a gun-seller. so why would we not do everything in our power to stop that? whose rights are being infringed on? the lawful citizen, the guy who has nothing to hide or woman that has nothing to hide goes through the system. virtually no complaints. even with an incomplete system, there are almost 2 million convicted felons, adjudicated, mentally incompetent and the rest of the categories i have just mentioned denied the ability to legally buy a gun. so it makes no sense to me, especially since when i wrote the original assault weapons ban there was a 12-day waiting time and a six-day waiting time, and then the nra said something that i agree with. they said we will not object if you can do this quickly. so we invested a lot of time, money and effort into setting up the system. by the way, i want to sell you might 12-gauge shotgun which has not been used much lately. i want to show you -- seljuk the shotgun in my home. it is not a big deal to take another 20 minutes to go to sporting goods and they will run the check for us. it is the inconvenience. it is not an inconvenience relative to the potential whole it they plug in the system. we can make exceptions if i want to leave my guns to my son who knows how to use them -- a better shot than i am because he is a major in the army. my other son hunter is better, too. we may be able to write exceptions into handing down guns to family members. but there is no reason why we cannot significantly broaden this. to try to pick up the pool of roughly 40% of the people who buy a gun without any background check. the third question we ask is what kinds of guns should be kept off of our streets? some purists say wait a minute, you could take any that you want off the street. not true in my view and the second amendment. others will say you have no right to take any cut off the street. because as jefferson said, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. you hear it all the time. guess what? no one doubts you were able to tell someone you cannot go by an m1 tank. you cannot have a flame thrower. so it has been established, there is the ability to have legitimate limitations on the type of weapons that can be purchased. towards the end we looked at two issues, a definition of assault weapon, anti-capacity magazines. the president believes there should be, new and stronger assault weapons ban. i know the industry will do whatever it can to get around it and they will figure out a way. we can define the stock, scope and a lot of things, but they can get around it. i also know we have to try or believe we have to try. what i also know is assault rifles are not the only kind of gun that can accommodate high- capacity magazines. some of you are big game hunters. i am being literal. most of the weapons used, rifles can take clips that can accommodate 30, 40, 50. you do not, but they can accommodate it. we recognize the weapon of choice in your town also is not a rifle. the weapon of choice in the vast majority of people who were killed with a handgun. you could put a lot of rounds in the glock and the other hand and weapons. we're calling for the prohibition of high-capacity magazines all together. we can argue whether or not we are right at 10, 12, 7, 9, or 15. we know it makes no sense. like we have learned since columbine, newtown, police reached the seen it in incredible *. local officials have done incredible jobs and reducing the response times to crises. but high-capacity magazines leave victims with no chance, and all too often we police outgunned as well. in aurora he had a 100 clipped magazine. had his weapon not jammed, god knows how many more people would have been killed. i met with gabby giffords has been the other day, and he pointed out to me when she was shot, you know this better than i do, when she was shot, but for the death that the assailant had to put in a clip and fumbled and a woman jumped out and grab him, prevented him from putting a new clip in. the new congressman who was injured and shot probably would not have been around to tell the story. so in newtown, some of those children were riddled with 11 bullet holes. high-capacity magazines are not worth the risk. [applause] high-capacity magazines do not have a practical sporting purpose or hunting purposes. as 100 told me, if you have 12 -- as one hunter told me, if you have 12 rounds, it means you have already missed the deer 11 times. you should pack the sucker and go home -- as a hunter told me. think about it, you will hear, for sporting at gun ranges. i do not know why we cannot say those weapons should not be kept at the range if that is what they're for. make that judgment. without any way impacting on your sporting enjoyment. the next question we ask is how we make our streets and schools safer? with regard to our streets, i believe and the president believes that cops make a difference. i remember when i first wrote the cops bill. i was told we tried that before. we never tried that before. [applause] i should be clapping for you all, because of past and you made it work. you may community policing work. crime and violent crime is down because of you, the way you employed those additional police officers. that is why it went down. that is why it happened. we still think, for to relate in these economic difficult times for you all, we want to provide state and local governments with the resources they need to keep cops on the street, even during the hard economic times. [applause] by the way, michael said and joe will make sure these programs go directly to the cities. i went like that. i tried that with the recovery act, but i tried it with cops and it worked. cops it worked. here is the deal, if you do not think you should find yourself in a position for having to cut funding for law enforcement in order to pay for services, we think you would agree with us that we are want to come back at it again and push again for another $4 billion in grants for cops. [applause] it is important. thank you. i do not want anyone confusing that with the argument that every school in america should have armed guards and armed teachers and armed principles and the like. in the original cops' bill as we wrote it there was a provision for school resource officers. i admit to you when i wrote it the first time, i was not thinking of mass shootings, but what i was thinking about was the same principle of community policing. the reason why community policing works is you get your local law-enforcement officers acquainted with and it culminated in the neighborhood where they build trust. so mrs. jones on the corner who was watching the drug deal go down every night and seeing shootings and having her window blown out a couple of times, she is going to pick up the phone -- she is not going to pick up the phone and call city hall. she is afraid. if she has a relationship with the local cop, she will say charlie did not say anything but let me tell you what is happening on my corner. the same thing happened with school resource officers. what happens is they stand in his school armed or unarmed in uniform and the kids get to know him and they think it is cool talking to them, and it is like talking to your coach. what we found out, kids say things like john, when i opened my locker of this morning, three lockers down, 47, there was a handle of a gun sticking out. john, do not say anything, but there is a drug deal going to go down in the back of the gym today. john, there's going to be a rumble. toe is what we're want propose. we believe school resource officers play an important role. but that you should have significantly more flexibility in how to use them. that is why we are proposing a new school safety program that funds officers, but also gives your communities the flexibility to apply for other support. so school resources officer will cost you a certain amount per year with the money the federal government is putting up. you can see we would rather have a school psychologist, or we want a school resource officer who was unarmed. what we do not want, we do not want rent a cops, those who are not trained like police officers. we are not insisting schools use police officers. if they conclude they need a school psychologist, you can apply for the funding that would otherwise, for that purpose. we will also make sure every school has a reliable emergency response plan. i know i am preaching to the choir when i say you have not been the idea how many school districts all across the country have picked up the phone and call my office and said can you tell us what the best plan is it something like this happens? one of the few things the federal government can do well is figure out what best practices are. by going around the country taking the information from you, deciding what best practices are, and then going out to say look, congress has funded the creation of the plans. school districts who want to take advantage of them, here they are. we are asking the congress to fund the, to fund the safety implementation programs. the next question we asked was how can we improve access to mental health services so people get the help they need before it is too late. we look at the circumstances when people age out of medicaid. you got these kids getting mental health services. all of a sudden they age out of there is nothing there. nothing they can do. the social worker or social worker like my daughter where she worked for the state and now she works for a non-profit. all of a sudden, what are we going to do? kids still need help. he has aged out. we're looking for the warning signs to refer them on. less than half the children with diagnosable mental health problems ever receive treatment. we need to change that. i am proud to say we are already positioned better than we ever had in history of the country to make great progress because of the affordable care act. [applause] and because of the leadership of republican senator the medici and ted kennedy on mental health parity. we have to get this nation to the point, and that is where we will speak to this in a second, where in fact a mental health problem receives the same credibility and coverage with a doctor or psychiatrist as when someone breaks their arm. by the way, parenthetically as my son who is an iraq veteran, we have a lot of women and men coming home with an visible injuries. -- in visible injuries. over 19,000 will require help the rest of their lives. i spent all last night at walter reed meeting with the number of entities that are on floor now are down. spending all night with the kids that are double amputees. there is another category of people. we do not know the number, but we know it is significant. traumatic brain injury. the invisible disease. the invisible illness. with post-traumatic stress. a man would be mad at me if i gave an example of a case, but there is a lot of veterans coming home having trouble. the suicide rate is astounding. almost one a day. almost one a day, because there is not sufficient mental health capacity in the system. we're doing everything to go out and hire 78,000 of folks, but the point is we have to go out and deal with this. the question we asked was, how? how to do that? that will take more time. we have concrete answers we will make available to you. what we think on how to begin the process. the next question we asked folks was have you prevent gun trafficking? -- how do you prevent gun trafficking? the bane of the existence of the seven biggest cities in america. -- how do you prevent gun trafficking? it started with creating a federal trafficking statute for guns. we have one for drugs. but there is no federal traffic for guns. [applause] a substantial percentage of the gun crimes committed in your town are committed with weapons purchased outside your state or city. in illinois, 47 percent of the guns recovered at the crime scenes were purchased outside of the state. in new york, 68%. the only way to stop this is a federal trafficking statute. we recommend to the president that he call on congress to pass a statute, and he agreed. some of those guns are bought by people who passed the required background checks to buy weapons for others. maybe they give them to a man- to-man the transports them from florida to new york or one state to another, but there is not an explicit law against purchasing. straw purchasers and others are often out of the prosecuted patchwork and paperwork. the only way you pick them up is to make a paperwork violation. you know as well as i do how many guns are unaccounted for. we need strong federal laws to help us attack this. finally, and i know i've taken a long time, but this is something so many of you spent a lot of time talking to me about and i want to give it straight to you. we asked what can we do better about understanding gun violence? some of you know when the crime bill i authored in 1994 expired, including the assault weapons ban in 2004, one of the things we were able to do back then in 1994 was right legislation that allowed us to gather a considerable amount of information. the cdc was able to conduct research on gun violence. so we can figure out some basic things about the causes and uses. not only did the congress not renew the assault weapons ban, it also put significant impediments on federal agencies who were doing basic research and explicitly prohibited -- cdc is prohibited by federal law from doing any research. there is a whole set of amendments that were added that further constrain the ability to gather data. we need answers to a lot of questions. we need better understanding of the causes, longer-term independent studies to determine not only the impact of guns and how people died and what types of guns and so on and so forth, we need studies, and this is where the entertainment industry does not like me at all, we need studies are what i urge the impact and young minds witnessing repetitive fi acts, either on television, movies, or video games. [applause] that is not an indictment of the industry. it is the recognition we have no expensive modern studies on these things. it is worth pointing out from my conversations with these industries, they seem intent on doing what they can do to help. they have a rating system that the vast majority of americans do not even know. if your child watches the early morning cartoons on saturday that have excessive violence in them, these are cartoons, you can actually program your television to take out extreme violence, moderate violence, violence. you can do it now. 90 percent of the parents have any idea of that. -- do not have any idea of that. quite frankly we do not have sufficient data. it seems to me and informed society needs data. so the president signed a directive that allows the cdc to begin gathering that information again, and i think that is a very important step. let me conclude by saying once again thank you. thank you for not only all you did to contribute to this report, but thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come and be as explicit and long and hopefully not -- possibly boring in laying out to you the elements of what we believe we have to look at. and let me acknowledge the truth, that too many in this country have been silent too long. we cannot -- [applause] we cannot be silent any longer. those 20 beautiful children who lost their lives are no longer able to speak for themselves. we have to speak for them. 900 people who lost their lives in the city streets of your cities to gun violence since newtown are not able to speak for themselves. we have to speak for them. those more than 9000 lives lost to gun violence in our cities each year are no longer able to speak for themselves. someone has to speak for them. some say the most powerful voice in this debate belongs to the gun lobby's and those that demand a stop to these common sense approaches to save lives. i think they're wrong. this time will not be like the times that come before. newtown have shocked the nation. the carnage on our streets is no longer able to be ignored. we are going to take this fight to the halls of congress. we are going to take it beyond that. we are going to take it to the american people. we will go around the country making our case, and we will let the voices, the voice of the american people be heard. we will be criticized, because people say we're spending that much energy, we are not spending enough energy on immigration, not enough energy on the fiscal problem -- look, folks, presidents do not get to choose what they deal, they deal with what is before them and then what it would like to. all of these things in our relate. i once asked the former mayor daley of chicago in the early 1990's. i said if there is anything i can do for you, what would you do? he said get rid of the drug problem. it would transform the economy of my city overnight. gun violence falls into a similar category. if we speak for those we lost, if we speak for our children and families, if we have the courage to new -- to do what we know is the right thing to do, then we will have the most powerful voice, and we, citizens will change the nation. i have been in this fight for a long time. i have no illusions about the fight that is in front of us. i have no illusions about distortion that will come from all sides, but i know full well the political obstacles that will be thrown up against this are not impenetrable. i have no illusions about how hard it will be, but i know this, we have no choice. we will not be able to look our kids and grandkids in i if we do not use every energy, every fiber in our being to try to keep them safer. i will not be worthy of the generation that will grow up now without those 20 kids and the thousands of people already lost. we will not be able to stop every act of senses -- senseless pilots, but that is no excuse to do nothing. that is not an excuse to do nothing. as the president said, if we can save even one life, it is worth it. i believe together we can save a whole lot more lives than that. and i think we can begin again. not because of guns of loans, but i think we can begin an endeavor that stops the coursing of american culture and society. i think we can begin to turn this around. it is not all because of guns. there is a lot of other things. but maybe what happened in newtown is a call to action about more than just gun violence, about civility in our society. i think you all. -- i thank you all. you are on the front lines, and you were on the front line -- and god bless you all and all those that have been evicted as a consequence of this senseless violence. thank you for your time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this weekend is the 57th presidential inauguration. president obama begins his second term. the officials wearing in a ceremony on set a -- on sunday. monday, the public inaugural ceremonies with the swearing in at noon followed by and let the president at capital than the parade down pennsylvania avenue. our live coverage begins on monday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. monday is also martin mr. king day. fifth graders from a washington, d.c. school gathered at the lincoln memorial to read the civil-rights leaders i have a dream speech. >> i have a dream that one day this nation will rise. the whole of these trees to be self-evident that all men are created equal. -- we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. >> the sons of former slaves and former slave owners will sit down together at the table of brotherhood. >> i have a dream that one day even the state of mississippi, sweltering in the heat of a precipice and injustice, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. >> i have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of the skin but the content of their character. >> i have a dream that one day, down in alabama with its her vicious racism, one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers -- as sisters and brothers. >> i have a dream today. i have a dream that one day -- >> and the glory of the lord shall be revealed. this is our hope and the faith that we have. this is the hope and the faith i go back to the south with. >> we will be able to create a stone of hope. we will be able to transform the discourse of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brother and the. -- brother hood. the will be able to work together, and pray together, stand up for freedom together knowing that we will be free one day. and this will be the day when all of god's children will sing with new meaning. >> my country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty. let freedom ring. >> america is to be a great nation, this will come true. >> let freedom ring and the mighty mountains of new york. and the allegheny of pennsylvania. fromthe snopw-capped rockies of colorado. -- from the snow capped rockies of colorado. and the the stone mountains of georgia. let freedom ring from every hill in mississippi. from every mountainside, let freedom ring. and when this happens, freedom will ring from every village, every state and every city. we will be able to speed up that day with all of god singildren join hands and in the words of the old negro spiritual. free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, we're free at last. [applause] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," the surprising truth about violent video games. in a conversation with a gun rights with an author. and the number of americans dipping into their retirement savings before they retire. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> stephen benjamin in his first term as the mayor of columbia, south carolina. good morning. thank you for being with us. and mayor scott smith, a republican now in his second term from mesa, arizona. give us a quick snapshot of your city, where things stand, what you are facing as you embark on your second term. guest: the good news is there is no more really bad news. we sort of hit the bottom of year and a half ago. ever since then, it is been a slow but steady improvement. arizona at the bottom when foreclosures and we got hit in one of the worst ways in the housing boom. but we're coming back. our city revenues have increased year over year after about a three or four year slide. we are still hovering around 8% unemployment because of the decimation of the construction industry. but we are like a lot of the country. we are in that study l -- steady lull looking for that nump. we are very much aerospace tourism. we have a big boeing plant. we have a large airport. but we look at things like sequestration, it has a huge impact on us. >> the tax structure. where does the money come from? guest: we are a self attacked driven budget. we have no primary property tax. we survive on state shared revenue, mainly self taxes also. when consumer confidence goes down, we tend to have the roller-coaster economic effect. host: mayor stephen benjamin, a quick economic overview of your city, away your tax structure comes from and who are your largest employers. guest: colombia as a capital city. we are the home to the university of south carolina and a large hospital system, our largest employer. also home to fort jackson. we have a relatively sensitive tax structure. it sees about two-thirds of our real estate. our primary revenues come from our property taxes and business license fees. the last two years, we have wat ched unemployment decreased to 7.4%. last year, about $1.1 billion in regional economic investment. focusing on investing in the urban core and supporting the suburban and rural areas. host: with so much talk about the debt and deficit, cities often do that by floating bonds. explain how that works in arizona and what that money is used for and how it is paid off. guest: we do not go into debt to cover deficits. most cities have to balance their budgets. we hit our fiscal cliff three or four years ago. we had to figure out on a cash basis to balance our budget. we used large amounts of debt to finance infrastructure. streets, police stations, some were, walker, those kinds of things. one of the great challenges we have is that these are financed with tax-exempt municipal bonds. taxes and financing pays for most of the infrastructure in this country. hundreds of billions of dollars. one of the proposal that does not seem to want to die is to somehow tinker or eliminate the tax status of municipal bonds. this is extremely important to us. it does not selma a sexy issue. you are talking about the basic financing temperature -- of the structure of cities and states. -- it does not sound like a sexy issue. you are talking about the basic financing infrastructure of cities and states. guest: he has been one of the greatest proponents of infrastructure. and making sure that the primary financing mechanism we use, 75% of the nation's infrastructure, is municipal tax and bonds. we are talking about hospitals, school buildings, public power systems. understanding that, of this tool that we are using to finance this infrastructure, is significant as we seek to comply with the epa. the burdens they are placing on local government. this is not some rich man's issue that has emerged over the last years. the exemption of municipal bonds have been as -- around 100 years. local and state governments do not tax interest on federal debt. the federal government does not tax interest on municipal debt. that relationship is so important. it does become a reliable becomeial tool -- it has a reliable financial tool. we have become good stewards using this tool to build and rebuild america. and the structure is going to be a key way to put americans back to work -- infrastructure is going to be a key way to put americans back to work. the discussions around the fiscal cliff and tax reform and the sequester, it is set aside -- sacricite and important to each of us. host: we will hear from vice president biden in a few minutes. we want to hear from you. our phone lines are open. you can also send an e-mail or join us on our twitter page. let me ask you both about what is happening in other cities. scranton, pennsylvania, harrisburg. these are older, aging cities and. -- cities. discussing the possibility of bankruptcy. what do you apply to your respective city? guest: scranton, harrisburg, san bernadino, these are the exceptions. we are at a fairly good financial shape. we have had significant challenges but we have met the challenges. reality, the biggest challenges we have our the same as the lock others. that seems to be the one factor of many of these cities. host: if he were to draw the pie, how much goes to a pension? how much is taken off the top before you can do anything? guest: in most cities, 70% plus goes to public safety or more. 70% or more goes to [indiscernible] in arizona, we are lucky. we did not run our own plant in mesa. we have a state wide pension plan for most of our employees. that seems to be our biggest long term financial crisis for cities. those situations are very rare. the vast majority of the thousands of cities and towns in america are financially solvent and have a great future. from let's go to thomas illinois. an independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is relative to poke to both finances -- guns and finances. -- legalizing marijuana would remove guns from the equation away fromthe gangs the equation. it would also make you guys so happy on what legalizing marijuana would do to your financial income of their municipalities through taxes. people who choose to buy the marijuana instead of growing it. one of the biggest reasons people are afraid of law enforcement or not respect law- enforcement is because law enforcement is the ones that are busting people for smoking their gentle remedy instead of detoxing alcohol and pharmaceuticals. people are very sick of the politicians in bed with the alcohol and pharmaceutical companies. that is why marijuana is illegal. they want people buying booze and pills. host: let me go to the larger issue of guns and gun violence. >> it will not be able to act every senseless gun violence. we know that in the future. that is no excuse to do nothing. that is not an excuse to do nothing. as the president said, if we can save even one life, it is worth it. i believe together we can save a lot more lives than that. i think we can begin again, not because of guns alone but we can begin an endeavor that stops it. we can begin to turn it around. it is not all because of guns. there are a lot of other things. in maybe what happened in newtown is a call to action host: stephen benjamin, the mayor of south carolina your thoughts. guest: i've operated on the motto that silence means sense. host: we did get marion and guns in the same. guest: i will say this and i'm going to speak directly to this issue, i have learned being a good steward of taxpayer dollars they will give you great latitude if you show you count pennies. we finished last year with a budget surplus. we've been upgraded by standard and poor's and moodys. our employs are in the state pension system. we have a separate issue in which we have to make sure we appropriate for our employs and retirees and the medical benefits. we've rebuilt our reserves to almost $50 million. so you handle the money and people will give you a lot of latitude. on the gun issue, we're living in the post newtown reality right now. and there is a mood over the country right now that is just aching for some type of productive dialogue. and that's what we find amiss. i will tell you at the conference you have democrats and republicans who dialogue over even tough issues and work to find consensus. we are required to do that in our cities every day. it doesn't happen in our state capitol but it seems to be sorely lacking in washington, d.c. i'm a gun owner. i understand very much the importance and particularly the city in which i live and the state in which i live, it is deeply ingrained in the culture of south carolina. that being said, i understand having served warrants at my agents at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning worrying what is on the other side of that door and understanding we ought to be able to engage in a thoughtful, realistic dialogue in which democrats aren't worried about being primaried and republicans aren't worried about being primaried. host: i realize this is a complicated issue and we could spend hours on it. three of the principles that were outlined this week on the idea of universal background checks for any gun purchaser. support that or not? guest: if done in the right way. we have background checks. my biggest concern is we are dealing with a constitutional right so i would be very careful as to how those are undertaken. host: the idea of banning the clips that have more than ten bullets. support that or not? guest: i would like to have a larger discussion on how this fits in. you can hear arguments both sides on the magazine clips. there is a good argument for banning and a good argument for saying this sends us down the slippery slope. i'd like to have these conversations in a larger context. guest: i don't know if ten is the magic number or five or twenty. i know that being a concealed weapon permit in the past. the rules are followed by the good guys and not the bad guys. so we have to allow responsible gun owners to have some latitude whatever the government decides to do. host: other than the n.r.a. leadership who is against background checks when buying a gun? guest: background checks already exist. but we're talking about an expansion and i understand why people get a little bit concerned because we are talking about a constitutional right. i think where we are headed is we will have a real discussion. i hope the discussion does not move to the extremes and we can have rational reasonable -- because gun owners in this country, you have millions of gun owners who are law abiding citizens who value the second amendment. arizona is much like south carolina, there is a cultural thing. these are law abiding citizens and they are concerned about one step that takes away rights leads to another leads to another. hopefully we will have a deep discussion on this and see if expanding those background checks can be done in a way that still maintains valued second amendment rights. the host: the issue of mental health and i'm wondering how as a mayor you deal with mental health issues in columbia? guest: we've seen state budgets cut left and right and the cuts to our mental health agencies have been deeper and they go without significant ink in the newspaper. people don't pay as much attention. so the impact it has on homelessness and crime, it's real and it's significant. host: is there still a stigma in dealing with mental health patients? guest: i'm not sure if it's a stigma. i think it's become so much more complex and tougher. but we have some agencies in our city, we have a mental illness recovery center that has been able to really show that given the time and resources and the proper medical benefits, we can take some folks who have wandered the streets for years dealing with some serious mental health issues and turn them into productive citizens. it can be done. it requires us making a focus and proper value system, we have to fund that value. guest: i think one of the biggest problems we have and one of the biggest challenges i'd like to say, even when you look at newtown and aurora, those were driven by mental health issues. these were not normal people that decided to be relevant by picking up a gun. but the focus has been on the gun and the mental health has been a postscript. i hope it rises to the level of significance where we talk about funding those resources. many times the mental health officials are our police officers and firefighters because we do not give these problems the funding they really deserve. and one of the results of that is we end up with some of these tragedies. host: crime rate in mesa, arizona, what was it? guest: i can't remember but we've had a significant drop in our violent crimes. host: and columbia, south carolina? guest: we are down. violent crime is down 23%. and in some hotspots we've been working on, we've rebuilt our police force, fully staffed for the first time in 15 years under a new dynamic chief and we continue to invest in law enforcement. host: why is it so high in chicago? guest: i think mayor emanuel would love to have that answer. we have violence in this country and in most large cities it's a huge problem where you have youth on youth violence. it's not the same as newtown but it's troubling. mesa is a big city. we're the 30th largest city in the country. we still don't experience the day-to-day things they do in chicago but we have those issues. but our cities have a problem with violence and mostly it's youth on youth violence which is really sad. and that doesn't seem to get the headlines that a newtown does but it's a tragedy nonetheless. host: if you're just joining us, we are sitting down with two mares in town for the u.s. conference of mares, the mayor of mesa, arizona scott smith and the mayor of columbia, south carolina, stephen benjamin. caller: good morning. to mayor benjamin, i want to say it's not ever mayor who will give a guy a ride to lunch who is lost in your city. i've learned a lot listening to you both. i have friends in arizona as well as living here in south carolina now and i just wonder you answered a lot of questions i thought i'd ask. but one of the things i wonder about is because this is to mayor benjamin, because you are the mayor of a significant urban municipality in this state, your presence i believe of influence is very significant. so i wonder and i'm just curious, how does that significance play over into the various other demograms of the state? because the state is in three different, you have your highland and midland and lowlands and living in the low land area just below columbia, i notice there are cultural distinctions even regarding gun crime. even though it's a rural area, still significant gun crimes. how does your voice speak to these other municipalities and influence nem adopting some cultural changes which he spoke of earlier about gun violence being a cultural issue. host: we want to hear that story but we'll get to that in a little bit. guest: i take my role as mayor very seriously understanding if we have the benefit of not being a massive city like chicago and new york. if i need to i can touch everybody i need to touch on an issue if i had to. but if we do something, we do it right. we have the ability to affect things what happens. my family is in orange town 45 miles away. we can serve as a leading light. but we are the vibrant urban core, the place we hope to have talent and jobs as serve as a magnet. i see my role not being leader of my city but hopefully serving as a model for the rest of the state to follow. a lot of our more rural communities have faced significant challenges. we are just off i-95 where the ref rand is calling from is half way between miami and new york. so some of the gun challenges have cartel and drug trade is very real in south carolina. that's why we have to do everything we can to don't invest in good strong law enforcement, good have good immigration policy that focuses on our southern and northern border and east and west coast that can be just as porous as the southern border. host: what was the story? guest: the reverend was new to town and just took a new job. he was walking by the post office and we started up a conversation and told me he was walking to a restaurant on that street. it was about a mile away and he didn't know . that i threw him in the car and we road on down to the restaurant and just had a great chance to have a conversation. i didn't tell him who i was until he was about to get out of the car and we were trading information. he's a cool dude. host: scott smith is the mayor of mesa, arizona. he earned his law degree from arizona state university. and stephen benjamin. our next call you are is from california republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i've enjoyed your conversation so far. i haven't seen a republican and democrat is it together and get along this well ever especially on the gun issue. in california we have strict laws. there is no gun show loophole. you can't buy internet purchases but through a licensed holder. there is no private third party transactions that can occur. if you do, you risk state housing at the state for five years. so california does have some very strict laws. i think most people in the nation if you go to some internet site that is you can buy, many of them won't even sell to the state because of the regulations are so onerous besides the price, you can easily just be walking into a gun store. which typically an incentive on a used gun buy is you can often find what you want for a lot less used. host: thanks for the call. i want to go back to his point and the two of you sitting together a democrat and republican. how do we view congress? guest: i tell people the difference in the city level and state and congresses, there is no doubt there is different political philosophies. we won't agree on everything. but what happens when you're in the city council meeting you start talking about a problem and you focus on the problem and the philosophies and ideologies come up during the discussion. when you're in i don't think you start talking about ideology and you might get to the problem. that's a big difference in what we deal with and what congress deals with, it seems to be more of the game of proving who is right and wrong. you don't get that at the city level. we realize we may have a different approach but we focus on the problem. we don't get to kick anything down the road. when the pothole is there, it's got to be filled t garbage has to be picked up. that's why i enjoy being around mayors because we focus on solutions. we are very much solution driven people. we seem to have lost that at the state and national level. that's why we continue to have crisis after crisis. it doesn't seem congress will get to a solution unless they are forced to and even then it's a half solution. where they set up a mechanism to force themselves to make a decision because the consequences were so bad and then they still couldn't make a decision. i think that's unfortunate because we deserve to have solutions. this is not a zero sum game. we need some decision makers. we are not seeing that out of washington and that's frustrating. host: the second point dealing with guns and gun violence. there is a related tweet to that saying -- guest: going back to scott's point again, the focus on problem solving, the reality is that our organization is a bipartisan non-partisan organization. i am a democrat, i want to make it clear that we run non-part san elections in south carolina. that's the way we run our cities, we focus on getting things done. there are some issues that i know that scott and i may be completely ideological but there is a big difference between i'd logic and understanding the importance and the respect that you can give others, understanding that reasonable people can see the very same issue very differently and be able to is it on the balcony and look down and understand you can respect different people's point of view. but you have to achieve some type of consensus in getting things done at the end of the day. people are clamoring for bipartisan solutions and we hope and pray that our congressional leaders can find that. i have a wonder relationship with my delegation on both side of the aisle and we will continue to push the agenda of america's cities. we have some significant cultural problems in america. regrettably cultural violence that i'm not sure anyone can put their finger on what the cause of it is. i will say this, our children are growing up in very perilous times right now. and the change in the nature of the american family and children who are growing up now who for the very first time in american history our children are expected to be less literate than their parents. my parents taught me every generation is supposed to build on the last generation. children are going to jail and dying. children are worrying about issues i didn't have to worry about as a child, shelter and safety and nutrition. if we don't continue to invest in the education and safe and health of our kid, we are going to continue to deal with issues that all the laws in the world won't fix. host: we are with two mares here t mayor of mesa, arizona. mb south carolina home to 130,000 residents. a caller from new jersey is on the phone. caller: i would like these gentlemen comment on dearing to be a national list rather than a globalist. our cities are plagued by unemployment because of the trade treatments that ship our jobs overseas. we have a defense budget not ready to be audited. in cam den we have water running down the walls of our schools and nobody wants to talk about sank wears on our budgets in new jersey there are illegal ail yens. so i would pray that they will dare to bring up nationally the idea that we would protect our borders, have jobs for ourselves here first. host: thanks. mayor benjamin. guest: sure. we don't have some of the major immigration challenges in arizona that texas might have. but i will say this, for 200 years this american ethos, this believe that the american dream is real. people talk about the american dream that if you work hard and do the right things, you have a chance to do anything you want to do here in america. and that is a part of our country's d.n.a. as a result we are and will remain attractive to people from every nation in this world. people want to come from the south, the north and east and the west. that is a good thing. we've got to find a way to develop a national immigration policy that allows our country to be safe. we have to make sure we protect our borders t canadian border and the southern border. we've got to make sure that we allow ourselves to continue to attract talent. every city in the country, every company has significant talent needs that until we develop our talent pipeline here in the united states we need to continue to bring in folks from every country around the world who can meet the needs of the american people. but it's so important that underscoring every debate that we have that we don't have a complete and dedicated focus to the importance of civil rights and the human dignity and that must be the common thread that brings whatever national policy that we come up w. i will say this last thing and i will defer to scott who deals with this issue much more. we cannot allow the federal government to take its responsibility to protect our homeland and push it down to cities. if it's a sequester and all these questions around municipal bond t federal government loves to pass laws and then push the check down to the our local governments which means that our taxpayers have to bear that burden. that's not right. host: are you on the front lines with regard to immigration? guest: absolutely, we are ground zero as far as that goes because half of the immigrants come through arizona, the vast majority of illegal drugs come through arizona because we have become that pipeline. we deal with that issue. we deal with the cartels and so our discussion is very different because it also includes the violence of human traffic along with the discussion on what do we do with those people that do come to america because america is worth coming to. i hope that never changes that we are the place to want to come to. the reality is that for those who would like to just sort of put large laws around the america and say isolation. that doesn't make it in today's world. we are so connected in the world, our economy are so connected and with the internet and that type of thing, we are dealing with something we have never dealt with before. and that is the students who graduated with me said who am i going to compete with. the kits who graduate in mesa, arizona now, their executors are from shanghai and that's not something theoretical. that is real. the connected nature of the economies in the world means we have to look at ways to balance that thing that makes america so great which is the rule of law and having order and creating an environment where people can thrive because there is that order. but also understanding we live in a globe where we should be the leaders and have to interact. that's where our children's future are is being a part of this global economy. that's not something we can easily avoid, it's there. caller: i'm a city worker and right now i see that new york services for the mentally ill are being sabotaged because of the union and pensions. i just want to know why pensions are being blamed for everything. i play -- pay into my own pension. host: do you have a question or is that a statement? caller: why are pensions being blamed for the budget problems. when you pay into your -- host: thanks for the call. guest: it is just a reality. when you look at budgets and obligations there is no doubt there are some areas and some places where we've over extended our obligations. we have promised too much. you have people who have made commitments and cities and companies have made commitments that they cannot meet. that is a mathematical issue. what can we afford? that is what cities have to deal with. everyone wants to have cities that are fairly comp penn stated and that includes retirement benefits. that's how you attract good people and keep good people. that has to be done in a reasonable manner. i think that's where the discussion is. unfortunately, it becomes a political issue. host: what is your solution in regards to the gun cartel, the guns that come from mexico to the u.s.? guest: we were talking about gun from the u.s. that a federal government allowed to be taken into the mexico which was used to kill people. there is no doubt in this world we have an interactive gun trade. we have guns going all over the world and it is difficult to stop. that is one of the things when we realize when we talk about gun control here, the fact is that guns seem to find -- the bad guys find the way to always get guns, we guardless to what the rules. we have to come to the realization that simply creating a ban or eliminating this or that will not solve the entire problem. it is a much, much larger problem that demands real solutions rather than simplistic. >> final question to you, your message to congress as you fulfill your first term in office. what is it? >> guest: my message is over 90% of the america's gross domestic product happens in these cities. if you give us the tools which means don't take tools away from us. if you give us the tools we can do, we can lead this american renaissance. we have a big vision in columbia we have a big vision in columbia that
that's that this is a question of presidential leadership. at the end of the day, it will come down to the president of the united states being willing to lead in a big picture and in a more macro sense, make a decision what he can support and pull the trigger on it. here was lindsey graham in our conversation just a few minutes ago. >> what the house sent over is unacceptable to me. the cres can i the militar chs kill the military. i appreciate house colleagues but we need to get this done. we're inside the 10 yard line. we need a white house that can make a decision and stick to it. and andegreeia, lindsey graham has cultivated his relationship with the president and the attempted skill of talking to the president through the television. and i think there's a lot of message sending going on that look, the way out of this is for the president to live up to what he talks about as the tuesday
version of the president from last week when he seemed to embrace willingness to deal with a bipartisan solution to dealing with this problem, not the thursday version of the meeting so infamous between graham and durbin and other republican senators and lawmakers one of whom lindsey graham kind of threw under the bus talking about tom cotton, his colleague from arkansas ho said has essentially turned into the steve king of the senate. steve king the ultimate immigration hard liner in the u.s. house, not exactly kind words there, but that's the opportunity for a deal here is one that gets led by the white house, not by the operators here on capitol hill. >> thanks to garrett and casey for that. chuck todd, we've seen this movie before. we've been through shutdown traumas for the nation. but we've never seen it with donald trump in the oval office. that's the big differentiator. also we've never seen it with a unified party controlling the house, senate and the white house. you don't usually have these kinds of disagreements.
>> there's actually look, lindsey graham is right on this. not just that it needs presidential leadership, there's a real opportunity for this president. there's always been a chunk of supporters who voted for hip. they didn't like him personally, didn't like his -- but thought maybe his style will shake up this place. will sort of keep washington from being this constant and maybe having somebody who doesn't have any true ideology is the way to make the place work. so there's a part of donald trump who claims he likes to be the negotiator, the art of the deal guy and an opportunity to sort of separate himself from congress. remember, you know, one thing both parties, members of both parties agree, they don't like congress. so these shutdowns are usually opportunities for presidents to lead, to be the adult in the room, to bring everybody together. now, president trump when he's given the opportunity to be the adult in the room usually chooses not to be the adult in
the room. so that's the wildcard today. but i think the only way this gets averted today is if somehow the white house actually tries to play a meaningful and a slightly above it all role here a little bit and try to find some -- and try to find a way to give the democrats an off-ramp here a little bit. but i'll tell you, i still think we're headed to at least a mini shutdown. right now both parties, i'll say this both mcconnell and schumer just specifically but then larger both the democrats and republicans think they can win this argument. republicans believe they can win the argument certainly in the short term, hey, what's another 30 days? we just want to buy more time. democrats think they can win the argument in the long-term. enough is enough. how often are we going to keep kicking the can. when you have two parties both are convinced they can win an argument, then you're not going to have enthusiastic ways to find an off-ramp. >> one quick question. when you talk about presidential
leadership, we saw what happened yesterday when he tweeted incorrectly about the chip, the child's health care program and had to be corrected on twitter by republican senator leadership member john cornyn. so if he's engaged, he has to have the facts. it's not just him deciding what he can live with. he has to know what's in the deal. >> there's no doubt i may be what i'm describing of what this president has an opportunity to do may be fantasy here. this would be maybe it is aaron sorkin's version of what a president could do in a situation like this. i'm telling you what the opportunity is there. obviously his past performance says something else. but there truly is an opportunity here and frankly the only way i think a shutdown is averted today is if the white house attempts to play a meaningful negotiating role. you know, what i don't get is, where is the urgency? and by the way, i think the house -- i want to believe in some green shoots that somehow
the house deciding to stay in means there's something happening. it would have been political malpractice if the house went home without a deal. if they went home before knowing what the senate would do, that that would be malpractice and look like they wanted the shutdown. i think for optics sake, the house has to stick around this week. the government shuts down, no member of congress can leave town, period. >> and certainly no president go to mar-a-lago. you guys hang on a second. we've got one of the big players on the hill, democratic senator chris coons who opposes the republican short term government funding bill and jones me now. what do you think is happening behind the scenes? is chuck schumer trying to negotiate something with the caucus or with the white house? >> none of us want a shutdown. democrats in particular see the ways in which a shutdown government hurts people. but we are out of patience for short-term patches for unmet promises. and i do know that senator chuck
schumer is working hard and diligently. i spoke with, listened to more than a dozen other senators in the gym here this morning, senator schumer was working hard moving back and forth between folks in senior leadership and more junior members. one of the things i was working to do was to help republican colleagues understand how we hear it when mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate takes to the floor last night and says this is all about illegal immigration, something that has no urgency to it and we don't need to fix now. when we saw last week president trump on tuesday choose to convene a bipartisan meeting and welcome legislators to come bring him a daca fix and then on thursday a strong bipartisan group of senators come back and say here it is. we've worked it out. big investment in border security, some of the issues in terms of family migration that the president demanded and daca, and then the president blows it up. it is hard for democrats to
believe that there is seriousness on the part of republicans about addressing it at another time. this also will hurt lots of other things unaddressed. disaster relief, children's health insurance program, community health centers. it's just stacked up to a point where we need a deal. andrea, within the next hour, believe, you will see senator schumer bring to the floor an amendment to the house cr bill, the bill in front of us that would put on the table all the things that we think we can agree on and we should agree on today to avoid a shutdown. >> let's drill down. what will be in that package? you talked about a list of things just now. are we talking about border security? c.h. i of i.p., dreamers, disaster relief for puerto rico? >> yes. a robust disaster relief package that addresses puerto rico and the virgin islands, western wildfires as well as texas and florida and the hurricane recovery funding. there's also a pension issue
that i think is not widely known but is a long-standing unevolved issue that would be addressed in this. it would also ensure in the event of a shutdown, department of defense personnel would be paid. it addresses a wide range of issues from funding for the opioid crisis to disaster relief to our now months overdue budget agreement that would allow us to move forward on appropriations for the fiscal year that started in october. >> is your caucus united behind this? is joe manchin on this. >> it hasn't been put in front of the whole caucus. but what from i can see the basic outline put out this morning, i would expect our whole caucus would support it. >> what does that do in terms of procedural votes in terms of cloture and what the republicans are putting forward? >> that's a great question. at this point, the leadership of both caucuses would need to agree that we're going to take a vote on this. it includes the bill that has been worked on so hard by
about this, what kind of guarantees would senator schumer and the rest of you democrats demand in order to proceed with a cloture vote and do a short-term three or four-day continuing resolution? you have to get it written almost in blood to be sure that the president won't change his mind or mitch mcconnell will go ahead with it. >> that's the challenge. senator mccanal last night said without presidential leadership, without clarity from president trump exactly what he's willing to sign op to, how can we negotiate over daca. that is the unresolved question. i'm encouraged that president trump has apparently chosen to delay his trip to go play golf at his resort in florida and his $100,000 a head fund-raiser tomorrow to celebrate his inauguration. i'm encouraged to hear the house is choosing to stay in. we've got all the players in. we know what the menu of issues is. this is a perfect moment for the president to exceed our expectations and show that he
really is the dealmaker that i think millions of americans who voted for him thought he would be. this is also a moment where we could fail to come together and the result would be an unfortunate and unnecessary shutdown. it is a place where the leadership of the senate it can start by being the folks here who show that we are sincerely committed to moving this forward. that would be a critical first step for the leadership of the republican caucus to say we know this is going on too long, several of our own members, there are republicans you just heard senator graham, senator flake and others who vote against the house passed cr. this is the time for us to be mature bipartisan leaders who will avert a shutdown and move forward on a broad, bold resolution to these challenges. >> thank you so much, senator chris coons. get back with us with any updates please. chuck todd is still with me. you heard the outlines of what the democrats are about to offer. do you think it can fly? >> i think it all depends on the
white house reaction. it all goes -- i think it's -- it certainly sounded like to me dras would like to find a way not to shut down the government but not agree to the cr. right? they're looking for to see if there is any movement there. can they make an offer that will look, will make the republicans look bad if they can't, at least agree to that or something like this. let's see what it looks like. i think ultimately, again, i think the white house has to be the lead player here. and this is the problem. i think the trust issue. it does feel like we're probably going to end up short of because of political paralysis and polarization that led to paralysis that we'll stumble into the shutdown for the weekend. but there's also, it's so obvious how you sort of could break this impasse semi short term. split the difference, go ten days.
i mean, this doesn't seem to be, we're negotiating how much more time we're going to have negotiatiations gauche negotiations on daca. agree how much more time you need to negotiate on daca. >> exactly. chuck todd, of course, you'll be all over this. make sure to watch chuck this afternoon at 5:00 eastern from mtp daily" and on sunday "meet the press." coming up, presidential precedent. donald trump about to become the first sitting president to speak live at the right to life march. had jackie speier joins me with her reaction next. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" here on msnbc.
you're right it is a big deal. this is a renod to the president's base, members of the president's base who elected him because of his stance on obviously being pro-life during the campaign. remember this is not a position that the president has always held. he has talked about how he used to feel differently on this topic and has changed had his mind over the years. remember too the actual event is only happening what, a mile or two away from the white house, not even. yet the president is choosing not to go in person and to do this live via satellite. it is a step further than any president in the past but it is not quite the step of going to the event and being there in person. remember of course, vice president pence last year was involved with the march for life. and so we do expect to see the president any minute. i'm checking the podium, walk out of the west wing of the white house and come and speak via the satellite link in the rose garden in front those gathered here. all of it happening against the backdrop of this potential
government shutdown. i am not expecting the president to mention the shutdown in these remarks. they'll likely focus on the issue he is here to talk about, but it is possible as i look at my fellow white house press corps colleagues lining the roads garden that the president will be asked about it after his remarks. in the audience i see kellyanne conway here who has been one of the president's point people on this issue along with a number of people, including younger kids here. you can see them behind me here, as well. >> and hallie, stand by for a moment. your colleague white house correspondent kristen welker is with the crowd along the march route. kristin, i don't know if you can hear me. it's pretty loud there. we can hear you. >> reporter: i have to tell you a lot of emotion here today. throngs of people energized by the fact that the president is going to speak.
via satellite. the people who are here, they find this significant, a significant moment for their movement. now. >> kristin -- >> reporter: yes? >> it is a little difficult to make you out because of the loud speakers. if you could stand by. we're going to go back to haie and come back to you if there's a way to get farther away from the speakers, those loud speakers on the mall are pretty loud. hallie, let's talk for a moment how presidents reagan and bush telephoned in to the march when they broadcast that but never took the step. they always wanted to kind of mod due late their tone on this. >> have distance. and have a little distance between them and this. of course. that's a good point. yes, it is very loud where kristin is. we can hear the cheers coming through on the live satellite feed here in the rose garden. you're right.
in the past, presidents have wanted to, as you say, moderate or put some distance there. so again this president is doing -- this is a first. this is a first for a president is to beam in live via satellite to address the crowd. you are hearing the organizers of the event too talking about the rose garden event and people are applauding now. this is mentioned over on the national mall. i believe this is a tee up for the president as a hear the speaker on the mall introducing this. andrea, i'm going to toss it back to you. i believe the president is expected to walk out any second here. >> we're expecting him to come out, the vice president mike pence also had another event in the white house complex with his wife, karen pence. i think that is the introduction i believe for the vice president who is a very strong supporter of the anti-abortion movement. and we'll be leaving later today for the middle east and i'll be on that plane for a five-day
trip to egypt, jordan and israel. >> americans young and old on our national mall at this very hour. welcome back to washington, d.c. and welcome back to the largest pro-life gathering in the united states of america. the 45th annual march for life. more than 240 years ago, our founders wrote words that have echoed through the ages. they declared these truths to be self-evident that we are each of us, endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 45 years ago, the supreme court of the united states turned its back on the unalienable right to life. but in that moment, our movement began.
a movement that continues to win hearts and minds, a movement defined by generosity, compassion, and love. and a movement that one year ago tomorrow inaugurated the most pro-life president in american history, president donald trump. from preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortion overseas to empowering states to respect life in title 10 to nominating judges who will uphold our god given liberties enshrined in the constitution of the united states, this president has been a tireless defender of life and conscience in america. and today, president trump will do even more to defend the most vulnerable in our society. my friends, life is winning in america. because love saves lives. and know as you march for life
that your compassion, your persistence, your activism and your prayers are saving lives. and this pro-life generation should never doubt we are with you. this president stands with you. and he who said before i formed you in the womb i knew you is with you, as well. and i believe with all of my heart with your copied dedication and compassion, with pro-life majorities in the congress, with president donald trump in this white house and with god's help, we will restore the sanctity of life to the center of american law. and so with a grateful heart, on this 45th annual march for life, it is now my high honor and zing privilege to introduce to you the 45th president of the united states of america, president donald trump. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. that's so nice. sit, please. we have tens of thousands of people watching us right down the road. tens of thousands. so i congratulate you and at least we picked a beautiful day. you can't get a more beautiful day. i want to thank our vice president, mike pence, for that wonderful introduction. i also want to thank you and karen for being true champions for life. thank you and thank karen. today i'm honored and really
proud to be the first president to stand with you here at the white house to address the 45th march for life. that's very, very special. 45th march for life. and this is a truly remarkable group. today, tens of thousands of families, students and patriots and really just great citizens gather here in our nation's capital. you come from many backgrounds. many places. but you all come for one beautiful cause. to build a society where life is celebrated, protected and cherished. the march for life is a movement borne out of love. you love your families. you love your neighbors. you love our nation. and you love every child born and unborn because you believe that every life is sacred, that
every child is a precious gift from god. we know that life is the greatest miracle of all. we see it in the eyes of every new mother who cradles that wonderful innocent and glorious newborn child in her loving arms. i want to thank every person here today and all across our country who works with such big hearts and tireless devotion to make sure that parents have the care and support they need to choose life. because of you, tens of thousands of americans have been born and reached their full god-given potential, because of you. you're living witnesses of this year's march for life theme and that theme is, love saves lives. as you all know, roe versus wade has resulted in some of the most per missive abortion laws anywhere in the world. for example, in the united states, it's one you have only seven countries to allow elective late term abortions along with china, north korea, and others. right now in a number of states, the laws allow a baby to be born from his or her mother's womb in the ninth month. it is wrong. it has to change. americans are more and more pro-life, you see that all the time. in fact, only 12% of americans support abortion on demand at any time. under my administration, we will always defend the very first
right in the declaration of independence. and that is the right to life. tomorrow will mark exactly one year since i took the oath of office. and i will say our country is doing really well. our economy is perhaps the best it's ever been. you look at the job numbers. you look at the companies pouring back into our country. you look at the stock market at an all-time high. unemployment 17-year low. unemployment for african-american workers at the lowest mark in the history of our country. unemployment for hispanic at a record low in history. unemployment for women, think of this, at at 18-year low.
we're really proud of what we're doing. and during my first week in office, i reenstated a policy first put in place by president ronald reagan, the mexico city policy. i strongly supported the house of representatives pain capable bill which would end painful late term abortions nationwide. and i call upon the senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing. on the national day of prayer, i signed an executive order to protect religious liberty. very proud of that. today i'm announcing that we
have just issued a new proposal to protect conscience rights and religious freedoms of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals. so important. i have also just reversed the previous administration's policy that restricted states' efforts to direct medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violate the law. we are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society. but this movement can only succeed with a heart and soul and the prayer of the people. here with us today is mary anna donadio from greensboro, north carolina. where is mary anna? hello. come on up here.
come. nice to see you. she was 17 when she found out she was pregnant. at first she felt like she had no place to turn. but when she told her parents, they responded with total love, total affection, total support. great parents. great. i thought you were going to say that. i had to be careful. mary anna bravely chose life and soon gave birth to her son. she named him benedict which means blessing. mary anna was so grateful for her parents' love and support that she felt called to serve those who were not as fortunate as her. she joined with others in her community to start a maternity home to care for hopeless women who were pregnant. it's great. they named it room at the inn.
today, mary anna and her husband don are the parents of six beautiful children and her eldest son benedict and her daughter maria join us here today. where are they? come on over. that's great. over the last 15 years, room at the inn has provided housing child care, counseling, education and job training to more than 400 women. even more importantly, it has given them hope. it has shown each woman that she is not forgotten, that she is not alone and that she really now has a whole family of people who will help her succeed. that hope is the true gift of this incredible movement that brings us together today. it is the gift of friendship, the gift of mentorship, and the
gift of encouragement, love, and support. those are beautiful words and those are beautiful gifts. and most importantly of all, it is the gift of life itself. that is why we march. that is why we pray. and that is why we declare that america's future will be filled with goodness, peace, joy, dignity, and life for every child of god. thank you to the march for life special special people. and we are with you all the way. make god bless you and may god bless america. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much. >> let's go to kasie hunt on hadn't hill with breaking news about chuck schumer.
>> hey, yes, we do have breaking news. we are learning here at nbc a source familiar telling us that president trump extended an invitation to chuck schumer to head to the white house to talk about how to avert a government shutdown. i'm told schumer has accepted the invitation and planning to go to the white house imminently to have this conversation. we were talking about this earlier in your broadcast as being probably the only way to break this impasse to have the president get involved because both sides, republican and democrat here on capitol hill, have become so entrenched in their positions refusing to move as we head towards this imminent shutdown at midnight tonight friday. so we will see what comes of this conversation. there had been some reports we had been working to confirm them, we hadn't gotten very far that schum her advised the president that tom cotton, the senator from arkansas, shouldn't be involved in any talks. we were unable to confirm that.
he has been somebody named as a potential sticking point here. so i think democrats are demanding that the president come away from the positions that he took in that very contentious thursday closed door meeting where the president used that languaging about african nations and about haiti. they want to see more of the president that appeared on tuesday in that public meeting. so i think the big question, what is the posture that the president is going to take? what is he going to tell senator schumer is potentially willing to accept and how intensely does the white house feel they need to avoid a government shutdown in one reality here on capitol hill is that both sides had essentially been saying hey, we can win the argument if we shut down. democrats saying look, this is republicans' fault. they're refusing to do a deal that they say they want to do. republicans saying hey, senate democrats could easily give us the votes. you saw mitch mcconnell open the floor this morning with that pretty belligerent statement. so again, some pretty
significant news here, andrea, as we wait to figure out when this key procedural vote might be scheduled. >> thanks >>. just in the last 30 minutes, we were talking to chris coons who laid out what chuck schumer's proposal is. i pointed out chuck schumer had not been seen all day. dick durbin did the opening statement on the floor and chuck schuper was talking to somebody behind the scenes. your reaction to what you're hearing about schumer heading your way. >> reporter: it's significant. the top legislative aide mark short told me the president would be making overtures and phone calls to leaders on the hill. clearly that has happened. as the president wrapped up his speech here in the roads garden, he did not mention the shutdown. i yelled questions. i tried to ask him about the schuper meeting. other reporters also asked about the shutdown. the president did not engage in this which is suppose to be his only public appearance of the
day. now, will that change? might there be one of those surprise movements where all of a sudden a bunch of cameramen rush to the doors of the west wing because we can see this meeting between president trump, chuck schumer and perhaps others? there's always the possibility. that is what we're watching for today. i thought it was notable president trump mentioned the inaugural anniversary. tomorrow one year since he has taken office with the very real possibility there be a shutdown on that anniversary. he did not mention the shutdown part but did mention the anniversary part of it. i will tell you that i have reached out to white house officials on this. it sounds like right now, most of the information they aret letting come from case hunt and garrett haake's side of things. we'll it be judgment dating you. knowing how this president works and how he's worked in the past, i wouldn't be surprised if we see a shot of the oval office meeting. i'm not a betting woman. if i were, i might take that
bet. >> i think you're right. thank you so very much. joining me now democratic congresswoman jackie speier who had a 2011 house spending dependent opened up about her deeply personal experience with abortion. i want to talk to you about this march and the president's involvement, the first sitting president ever to do that. first, what is your sense of this possible deal making, chuck schumer trying to avert a shutdown by getting some agreement for the dreamers? >> i'm very optimistic that we have a path forward conceivably now. it was looking pretty dire here where 45 minutes ago. and the rumors in the house floor were we were just going to shut down. and go home. which would have been just horrific. i would not have supported that at all. there's a lot of rupe mores that there is an interest in at least extending it for five working days because some of these
members really want to go off to davos this weekend. there's always a hidden agenda. and i think that's one of the agendas. i think the president wants to go on down to mar-a-lago to have his big $100,000 per person fund-raiser tomorrow night. there's a lot of other elements playing out. i think what we are most concerned about is governing by what continuing resolutions is not governing. that's why we're seeing the kinds of hits being take in our military where it's just the same budget year after year without the kind of augmentation needed for certain services and certain weapons systems and readiness. >> congresswoman, i wanted to also ask you about this march, the president's involvement, the rose garden appearance, giving a satellite speech to them. your reaction to that given your own experiences. >> well, you know, in 1999, the president was pro-choice. in 2016, he had five different
positions in three days. and at one point, actually thought women should be punished if they had an abortion. most abortions take place in the first trimester, only 1% of abortions take place in the last trimester. it is about choice. he talked about the woman who he brought forward and said she chose life. well, this is a choice between a woman and her physician and let us remind everyone that in this country, it is still the law, abortion is legal. there is something very painful to go through an abortion. and my abortion was late term at 17 weeks. it was not something that i -- it was a very painful experience. and it was a fetus that was not going to survive outside of the womb. and i think that there home run so stories like that. and there's a callousness with which some people, the president included, talk about this
because they don't live it. >> thank you very much for bringing your experience to us and on all of these subjects. thank you, jackie speier. joining me now is pennsylvania republican congressman charlie dent who voted for the short-term government funding bill that passed the house on thursday. first of all, your reaction to the schumer possibility of a longer term agreement which would include the d.r.e.a.m.ers. we understand border security, some of the other immigration proposals that the president wanted, chain migration for instance, those family members. but would be a longer term fix for some of these other problems. >> well, andrea, we do need a long-term budget agreement. we will not get that budget agreement though till we have an agreement on daca plus border security and the other provisions, family migration, that sort of thing. that has to happen. now, in order for that daca bipartisan agreement to occur, the house leadership and the senate leadership have to allow
a bill to come to the floor in the house anyway that will not get the majority to support it. i don't see any way around that. the house right now is talking about daca, but in terms of a bill that's republican only that has no chance of passing the senate. i think it's encouraging we're having this discussion conflating budget agreement with daca border security. it needs to happen. >> if the president and chusupe come to agreement and mish mcconnell would go with anything the president supports, how do you get the house republicans on board? >> we'll have no choice. the senate will end up forcing the hand of the house. then the speaker will have to make a decision. and i know that he's under pressure not to allow a bill to come to the floor that will not receive a majority of house republican votes but that is inevitable. we have seen this time and again and hear the hastert rule, the majority. we're all for that till we're not. this is one of those cases where to get that budget agreement, there are not 218 republican
votes for that or for daca or for the debt ceiling. they'll toll that in there too, my prediction. >> why did you vote for the short term continuing resolution? >> the only thing worse than a cr is a government shutdown. we need this budget agreement. >> thank you very much. thank you. let's go back to garrett haake on capitol hill. this is a breaking news story. garrett? >> reporter: yeah, that's right. we're expecting this meeting between the president and minority leader chuck shumer to happen any minute now. some of our team saw chuck schumer leaving the capitol will ten minutes ago. it doesn't take that long to get across town. the question we're trying to answer now, i'm reporting this in realtime here is whether or not this will be a one-on-one meeting as it appears to be right now. we've reached out to mish mcconnell's office trying to figure out if he or any other top republicans are in the room. it matters because what we've seen time and time again with this president which is often the last person to have his ear on these major issues is the
person who wins the argument. it's the complaints from lindsey graham that somebody got to the president between the time he thought he had a daca dealen at time he arrived later and learned he didn't. if this is one on one meeting between chuck schumer and donald trump who have shown some affinity, it could be a very big deal and something republicans may not be particularly excited about. >> garrett, just a quick question. my understanding from chris koons that the children's health program, c.h.i.p., would be part of this. >> can't confirm that. senator koons may know better than i. c.h.i.p. has been a bargaining chip so many times in all of this because it's such a popular provision. it gets added to almost every big package that gets discussed up here. >> garrett haake, thank you for being on top of it all. if congress does not get a spending bill passed in the next 12 hours, it's not only the
government that shuts down. starting tonight, many of the 9 million children who depend on c.h.i.p., the children's health insurance program, will lose their coverage. joining me is mark shriver, director of save the children usa. i don't have to tell you that we're at the height of flu season. one of the worst flus we've seen. children are dying. people are in ers. and the government could potentially shut down and all of these kids would not be covered. >> it's an amazing program started by senator kennedy and senator hatch. he said we had a moral obligation to our children. we're 21 years later using this as a big bargaining chip. the kids, poor kids, don't have access to the political system and they have been pushed aside. they don't vote or give money. and both republicans and democrats have let this happen. it's the fourth time we've had a cr. it's crazy, right? and the fact we're negotiating
around children's health and pregnant mothers is really outrageous. and i don't think anything is going to change until the people stand up and tell leaders of both parties this has to stop. >> we remember when your uncle teddy kennedy would be negotiate with orrin hatch and coming up with health and edge programs. he'd be negotiating with dan quayle. >> and that sense of bipartisanship seems to have passed by washington. and i think people outside the beltway are just appalled by it. the fact is, it's not only c.h.i.p. but another program called maternal infant, early childhood home visiting program which is $4 million which has bipartisan support which is not being renewed either. that's for young children, 0 to 5, to get home visiting that's been shown through results to have a profound impact on kids and families. but somehow kids and families that don't have money, don't have resources, don't have a voice in washington. it's really a terrible situation. >> they've got money to make the
entire cabinet to davos, switzerland. >> i heard that comment. that unbelievable. they're talking about going to davos and not taking care of our most vulnerable little citizens. it's a bad state of affairs. i think people have to get off their butts and get engaged. that's what the political process is. it's that line from teddy roosevelt about the credit belongs to the person in the arena. we need more people getting fired up, protesting in washington and their state capitols and demanding accident. >> mark shriver, thank you very much. a busy news day here. more ahead. we'll be right back. business is in my blood. i'm the daughter two of entrepreneurs and so i had a front row seat to the excitement, but also the demands that come with running a company. as a business owner myself, i know that the challenges are ever changing. on "your business" we'll learn from decisionmakers whose experience can help your company grow and proster. weekend mornings at 7:30 on msnbc.
thank you so much. thank you! so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go! you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open.
pepsoriasis does that. to get business done. it was tough getting out there on stage. i wanted to be clear. i wanted it to last. so i kept on fighting. i found something that worked. and keeps on working. now? they see me. see me. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. never give up. see me. see me. clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist
if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts.
for the inside scoop, sabrina for the guardian, sam stein and msnbc contributor and david frum, former speech writer for george w. bush. now senior editor for the atlantic. a new book out called "trumpocrasy." schumer is headed to the white house to meet with trump. he doesn't want tom cotton there or anyone else there to ruin a possible deal. david frum, how do they get a commitment they can believe from this president that if they support averting the shutdown, they can then get this deal next week. >> who would be such a dupe as to believe a commitment from donald trump? certainly not chuck schumer who is going to try to dupe the president. it's worth noting here, united republican government for the first time in more than a
decade. everything is working worse. there's no budget. no hearings. the legislative process of the united states, as terrible as it was in the past, has reached a new low of chaos that hinges on the military. it has to embarrass and surprise everyone. >> sam? >> well, exactly. also schumer has been down this road before. remember, the origins of this entire standoff was he and pelosi went to the white house to resolve a daca mess he himself created, trump created, and that deal was broken. that's why we find ourselves in that situation. one deal, one commitment was broken by the president. i can't imagine chuck schumer shows up and gets an assurance from trump that he supports a deal because he's already broken that assurance once. >> there's a new "washington post"/abc news poll out showing the public is more likely to blame trump and republicans by a 20-point margin than they are democrats. obviously, republicans control both chambers of congress and the white house. what they are goerknegotiating
have more time to negotiate. there's the quiwhether he'd keep a commitment to chuck schumer. >> yes or no, shutdown toebnigh david? >> i'm going to guess no. i think they understand what sabrina just says. >> 20-point difiential. sam? >> everything i'm picking up from the hill is trending toward yes. maybe the schumer meeting will avert that but everyone seems to be bracing for a shutdown. >> the first president who somehow argues a shutdown is good politics so we'll see what happens. >> that does it for us. we have no more time. i'm heading out to the middle east traveling with the vice president to egypt, jordan and israel. we'll be reporting from israel on sunday and monday and tuesday. david gur is up next. >> good afternoon. i'm david gura here at nbc
welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. isis extended its bloody reach into libya with the beheadings of 21 egyptian christians. as the obama white house hosted a three day summit on countering what they call violent extremism the president and his staff once again refused to use the term islamic to describe the threat, a distinction they say is necessary in part to deprive terror groups of legitimacy. >> al qaeda and isil and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. they try to portray themselves as religious leaders holy warriors in defense of islam. we must never accept the premise that they put forth. because it is a lie. nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. they are not religious leaders. they are terrorists. >> joining the panel this week "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor, editorial board member and global view columnist brett stevens author of the new book "america in retreat." dorothy the president's summit was supposed to rally support for his strategy to counter isis and violent extremism as they call it. did they accomplish it? >> no. it ran into a wall of skepticism and opposition that you can just feel, you can feel in the commentary and you hear americans listening -- >> what is the nature of that? >> because they recognize at long last these little explanations about islam -- president for example has this opportunity each time to say it is the responsibility of all of us to reject the idea that islam has anything to do with these groups like isil. and americans are sitting there and saying really? it's my responsibility. no, it is not our responsibility, mr. president. the responsibility is to defeat this bloody enemy out to destroy and it is not our responsibility to take on these politically correct be aabstractions which you fed. >> that's a frequently heard point. what about this idea that the president says look we cannot confer on them islamic legitimacy which using the term would do. >> i mean nobody is conferring that sort of legitimacy on them. i think basically paul that this is a thing. it's a cover story to divert attention from what dorothy is talking about. rather than debating the nature of islam we should be debating the operational details of taking them out. but barack obama is making it clear he's not going to do in anyway escalate the operations against islamic state. we got these limited sorties and engaged what he calls a coalition and that's it. the president is falling behind the curve. public opinion at least reflected in the polls seems to be getting greater in terms of going over there. 67% say islamic state is a clear and present danger and something like 57% apartment greater ground game over there. >> brett, let's go to this idea of the use of islamic. some of the president's defenders, say this is a semantic side show. it isn't important. we're focusing on the wrong thing. do you agree with that? >> no, i don't. i think it's very important to recognize that part of the reason that islamic state has been so successful politically and militarily is that it is very much islamic. its vision its aims, its me thotd, its theology is deeply rooted in islam and simply factually in error to superpores that somehow it has nothing to do with islam. nobody argues that it speaks for a majority or even a significant minority of muslims, but you can't confront this kind of enemy and understand why it has been as successful as it is if you don't understand the culture and theology from which it is springing. what the president is doing is engaging in a semantic diversion which takes our eye off the ideological power of this movement. >> what about this idea dorothy, offered by the president and secretary of state that to counter this movement you have to offer more economic opportunities. you have to reduce poverty. go to the root causes argument. >> that was really wonderfully out of this world and everybody recognized that. the only thing that was missing in their recipe was classes in self-esteem for the young muslims. >> you don't think that's the root cause. >> this panacea has been pushed down the throats of americans since terror began in the early 1970s. root causes. >> many of these terrorists aren't coming from poverty background. >> that's exactly right. >> they are middle class, upper middle class. very well-to-do. it's the ideology that animates them religious fervor that animates them not some grievance about their class status. >> that's right. the problem is and you see it exemplified in the answers from the state department. you want these young men to be given jobs. you heard this all the time. okay. why aren't they making businesses? think of a mind that can't conceive of this transcendent ideology that does motivate these. it's beyond people living in the world with facebook and living in the world of america cannot imagine the fiery power of this battle. and this is what the administration -- >> i want to get to you briefly and talk about disintegration has been so notable in the rise of isis. what happened so quickly and to have things go so bad? >> well, very simply after we had defeated gadhafi we essentially abandoned libya. there was no follow up. no post-war operation. no attempt to shore up the transitional government which, in fact at the very beginning was rejected islamism entirely with any kind of meaningful support. so it's once again a case of declaring victory far too soon getting out and seeing things fall to pieces. exactly what happened in iraq. it teams us that we simply can't create power vacuums around the world and expect them to be filled by anything other than the kind of chaos that you find throughout much of the middle east. it's great that the president of egypt is attempting to step in but it should be the president of the united states. >> when we come back pro russian rebels take a key rail town in eastern ukraine leaving last weekend's cease-fire in at that timers. where will vladimir putin head next? your daughter has a brilliant idea for her science project. and you could make it happen. right? wrong. because you're not you you're a cancer hospital and your daughter... she's a team of leading researchers... and that brilliant idea is a breakthrough in patient treatment that could save thousands of lives. which means you need a diverse team advisors helping you. from research data analytics all the way to transformation of clinical care. so you call pwc. the right people to get the extraordinary done. does all greek yogurt have to be thick? does it all have to be the same? not with new light and fluffy yoplait greek 100 whips! let's whip up the rules of greek! [ man ] i remember when i wouldn't give a little cut a second thought. ♪ ♪ when i didn't worry about the hepatitis c in my blood. ♪ ♪ when i didn't think twice about where i left my razor. [ male announcer ] hep c is a serious disease. take action now. go to hepc.com or call 1-844-444-hepc to find out how you and your doctor can take the next step towards a cure. because the answers you need may be closer than they appear. ♪ ♪ (soft, calm music.) hi, you've reached emma. i'm out of the office right now, but will get back to you just as soon as i possibly can. your call is important to me. join princess cruises for exclusive discovery at sea experiences. enjoy cruises from $499 during our 50th anniversary sale. call your travel consultant or 1-800-princess. princess cruises. come back new. russian separatists drove ukraine as army from a key railway hub in the eastern part of the country this week days after the would sides agreed to a cease-fire. thousands of ukrainian troops fled the town of debaltseve. we're back with dan and brett and mary anna. dan is this anything this last week, anything but total victory for vladimir putin? >> you know i think i have to agree with you on this paul. this is no longer a work in progress. this is a victory that putin has consolidated. we had footage in the past week of what was going on in the battle and the russians by now had moved in heavy artillery, tanks, and missile installations. ukrainians are completely over matched. even sending them defensive weapons at this point would be n no appetite to do that and are using the cease-fire as an excuse not to impose new sanctions and president obama has taken weapons off the table at least no longer beingyç discussed. look like he's won on9@mñ=?qr side. >> it's mind-boggling the paralysis the obama administration displays here really when not only is you know putin taking ukraine but, you know, the british defense minister last week said that they had captured an estonan border guard. that requires a na to response. if he doesn't do something like this this is the end of nato. >> the defense minister said the same kind of tactics putin used in ukraine, which is diversionary, he intervened by deny, put troops in on the sly and stirred up ethnic tensions inside a country could be used in places like estonia and the other dal cans. that indicates nato and article 5 which requires us to defend these treaty allies. >> well first of all, let's remember that we guaranteed ukraine's territorial sovereignty. president clinton and john majorer put their signature to it in 1994. we're letting one commitment go by the wayside. latvia, estonia, many other countries, moldo vimpb a are countries with large ethnic russian populations. russian speaking populations. and the possibility for putin for his secret services to create so-called people's militias to stir ethnic grievances where none previously existed to use tools like russia today, other/u propagandaakñwhdo create this kind of these kind of, this ethnic unrest is a very real possibility, and we are imagining that somehow ukraine is separate from the rest of puttin's territorial and the strategic ambitions in europe. that's a big mistake. ukraine is a test case for putin. >> so what about the western leadership here, mary? you have angela merkel of germany, francois hollande of france basically saying even though the cease-fire is being repudiated by putin saying we hold dear to its tenets -- >> paul let's face it. the u.s. has been the leader in nato without u.s. leadership these european leaders are not going to do anything because they are either afraid or they are pressured by economic interests particularly in germany. they need u.s. backing. you know president obama has to show that he will get on their side and stay there and they just don't -- he doesn't have that credibility at this point any more. >> i guess basically saying look angela merkel, they are not going to do anything without american leadership i agree with that. what do you think about gross pebt -- the prospects there might be some awakening in the white house to respond. >> paul the pentagon has been very aggressive in putting out photographs and information about what the russians are doing in ukraine. >> in an interview you suggested which was very forthright and unusual for a military man to say that. >> i think the u.s. military is acutely aware of the issue and they undoubtedly are making plans if they are asked to respond. so it's not to say that the united states is asleep. and i think pressure is being brought to bear on this white house eventually to act. it's hard to imagine they can do nothing indefinitely. >> the key word is eventually. that's a worrisome thing for the ukrainians. >> could be 2017. when we come back a federal judge blocks president obama's attempt to rewrite immigration law. and hands republicans a chance to avoid a homeland security shutdown. so will they take it? if you're suffering from constipation or irregularity powders may take days to work. for gentle overnight relief, try dulcolax laxative tablets. ducolax provides gentle overnight relief, unlike miralax that can take up to 3 days. dulcolax, for relief you can count on. in our house, we do just about everything online. and our old internet just wasn't cutting it. so i switched us from u-verse to xfinity. they have the fastest, most reliable internet. which is perfect for me, because i think everything should just work. works? works. works! works? works. works. a federal judge in texas this week blocked president obama's executive order granting temporary legal status and work permits to some 5 million undocumented immigrants handing a victory to the 26 states. it challenged his authority to unilateral rewrite the law. so joe, first question. how solid is this legal opinion sean it likely to hold up on appeal? >> it's a very narrow opinion and it's very solid on those grounds. what the administration has justified this rewrite by saying this is just routine prosecutorial discretion, it's what we've done in immigration for 50 years and judge hannan look at this and said i'm not going to touch prosecutorial discretion but you're doing affirmtive things. you're giving work permits and travel permission. >> imposing costs on the states. >> there's a due process administrative law that the administration violated and that's a legal question that i think the appeals courts aren't going to say we need to overturn this immediately. i think the stay will be in place for quite a while. >> so good chance that -- the merits of the case will be decided down the road but the important thing may will stay for many months. >> there's only political urgency. no legal urgency to overturn this decision, to rule on the merits. let's let this play out. >> kim, what does that mean for the republican strategy on capitol hill where they have tried to defund this and using the department of homeland security basically as a hostage. they backed themselves, in my view, into a boxed canyon that may end up -- that this may give them, this ruling may give them an opportunity to march out of. what do you think? >> yeah. they are in a huge box canyon because they sent this funding bill for the department of homeland security, the house republicans to the senate. it was a very aggressive bill. it stretched back and tried to roll back all kind of obama immigration actions. as a result they guaranteed they would not get any support from senate democrats. they can't move that bill in the senate. come this next friday the department of homeland security is going to run out of money which is going to put them in a position where they could be accused of messing with national security at a dangerous time. >> what's their strategy now? >> if they had any wit they would use this as an exit ramp and say look thanks to this judge, the obama immigration action is a dead letter, we can now move ahead and fund the department of homeland security. that's the argument that's being made by a lot of republicans now. part of the question is how quickly this moves. what you may see short term extension of the department homeland security funding to give it a little bit more time to see how this lawsuit resolves. but this is a discussion now in d.c. >> they will only march part way out of the boxed canyon. >> yeah. >> why not take the whole thing. why not use this as an opportunity to move on other things because was happening immigration issue is becoming a bottleneck to everything else the republican congress wants to talk about. >> they are doing some amazing things. nobody is hearing anything about them. the problem john boehner has and mitch mcconnell has in the senate is that this more fire and brim stone wing of the republican party especially in the house has a lot of votes and they are demanding that they make some sort of stand against obama on this immigration thing. so that's going to be the trouble getting past that. they ought to just call it quits and move forward and we'll see if they have the ability to do that. >> paul look judge hannan has put the law in motion. these house republicans are going to begin to look like the mirror image of barack obama. it is an irrigation of power unto themselves. let the law take its course. >> what do you think joe, about the prospects for anything else happening on immigration here in this congress? i mean solving specific problems with either more agriculture via saks more hi-tech visas or some guest worker program. >> they are pretty low. they could probably get it through the house i think, if they broke the rule that a majority, the majority has to support it. >> obviously they need democratic votes. >> there's votes there, but i don't think the political will is there to do something like that. definitely not the political shrewdness. >> do you agree. >> when barack obama issued the executive order he made the entire environment toxic. there was a real possibility. right now felgs areelings are so bitter it won't happen. >> one more break and then hits and misses of the week. time now for hits and misses of the week. kim start us off. >> a miss to hillary clinton and the tens much millions of dollars that we are now finding out has been flowing from foreign countries into the clinton family foundation ever since she left the state department. this is a woman, paul who wants to be president. she's suggesting it would be okay for her to sit in the oval office answering those 3:00 a.m. calls from countries that are giving her foundation bucket loads of cash. this is all so very clinton. the ethics the conflicts of interest and a reminder to the country if they sign up for president hillary clinton they will get more stories like this. >> the foundation as political brand extension. okay. mary. >> a hit for governor scott walker for defending his decision to dropout of college. wisconsin governor is not the first successful person to be uninspired by the conventional path. but he is the first wisconsin governor to stand up to public sector unions which is why his college record is a cause for hysteria on the left. >> a lit to cholesterol which has been exonerated after 40 years. this week dietary cholesterol is no long ear nutrient of concern for a link to heart disease. this is a victory for the humility that is supposed to belong to the scientific method and another reminder that government is never -- >> is this a hit. >> a hit for fixing your mistakes. >> and some skepticism about government health advice. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and to all of you watching. hope to see you right here next week. could we soon see a change of course in afghanistan? big news emerging right now as we learn washington is looking into possibly slowing down the removal of the last u.s. troops from the country. welcome to a brand new hour inside news headquarters. hello, everyone i'm julie banderas. >> 10,000 force remain in afghanistan. most are supposed to be gone by the end of next year. the news that they may stay longer comes as newly confirmed secretary of defense ash