this congressional directive. specifically, the commission hasn't released its 2010 order, and it's arguably behind on its 2014 review. when congress extended the media ownership review from a two-year to a four-year requirement, the intention was to insure a thoughtful, competitive analysis of the space. instead, what has resulted is regulatory paralysis. i'm aware of the difficulties in completing this task and the corresponding legal challenges including the third circuit's ruling. ..

i have seen throughout my professional career that the robust exchange of ideas and bipartisan compromises can produce the best policy result. already i have found my colleagues to be incredibly thoughtful and dedicated public servants. everyone has a different back browned and perspective that can help balance decision making. the same goes for career staff. i've been most impressed by the depth of knowledge, expertise and work ethic they demonstrate on a daily basis. finally i think input from thinkers inside and outside the communications industry is essential. i want to hear from everyone on issues currently facing the commission and those issues that will confront us in the future. please know my door is always

open. my contact information and contact information of my staff is publicly available on the twitter website. i stand ready and willing as time permits to participate in public forums and policy discussions such as this. thank you so very much for your time. it has been such an honor to speak before you today and i look forward to answering your questions. [applause] >> thank you for those very thoughtful comments, commissioner. very powerful ideas about freedom. core principles for regulation and, and i just want to review with you the authority to regulate, verifiable evidence of market failure. carefully-tailored rules.

benefits outweigh costs. i would like to ask you just a few questions along those lines. one, a little over a week ago the d.c. circuit issued its opinion on the network neutrality order. what do you think of the d.c. circuit's opinion and how do you think the rules that were -- by the d.c. circuit line up with your concepts of deregulation? >> as harold mentioned, he and i had a chance to work together on the telecommunications act of 1996 and we had an opportunity to work specifically on section 706. so we're quite familiar with the provision, how it was drafted, what it was crafted what it was meant to do, what it was not meant to do. i articulated a couple times i think last week what happened in the court case. i have deep reservations. i adisagree with the court's

decision because i believe the commission did not have authority to issue rules. i think 706 has been abused and it should be returned to its original intent that we helped frame years ago. so i have difficulty with that part of the equation. it makes it harder to get to the second part of the equation that the sec rules were thrown out and -- fcc rules were thrown out and a question we've proposed many times and i think the commission as a whole what to digest going forward with. >> what do you think chairman wheeler will do about the chairman neutrality rules? >> i learned long ago not to try to guess what other people do in d.c. in this environment that we live in. i have, i do not have an insight on what the chairman may or may not do in the space. he has articulate ad couple of times in the last couple weeks what the authority that he would like to, that he believes he has. the commission has and what they would like to do so i take him at his word and we'll have to see what comes from that but i

hate to guess more than that. >> the house energy and commerce committee is beginning to hold hearings about a possible rewrite of the communications act. i'm sure you've been following this closely. what advice would you give to the house energy and commerce committee as they look at rewriting the communications act? >> well i would say first and foremost that i defer to my friends and former colleagues on the house and senate on the timing and the structure and the format of any type of consideration of a rewrite of the communications act but i'm also made myself available in any way i can to help them as they proceed on the process going forward. so in terms of advice i think it's, unfortunate for me to give advice. the advice should come from congress to me. i look forward to working with

them in any way i can but i hope they take a very thoughtful approach to this it looks like it may take a little bit of time and that is probably a good thing. >> well i have to say it is very refreshing to hear a fcc commissioner say they want to learn by congress rather than the other way around. speaking of which, senator rockefeller is, his proposal to substantially expand the schools and libraries program. there has been some discussion i understand at the fcc about that. is this an area where the fcc is actively working and how do you see, how do you see a possible expansion of schools and libraries program fitting within the overall universal services framework of 254? >> so as i have previously articulated i'm supportive of chairman rockefeller's effort to

modernize the universal service program, specifically the e-rate part of it. i am open to figure out how best to do that. the commission has an nprm in this space and is examining how best to do that i favor moving to a less complicated system. i'd like for one that also addresses the total costs going forward. so how if we increase speeds how can we function within budgets that previously talked about. so there are, there is common ground in terms moved earnizing the program. it will come down to specifics going forward. in terms how it fits within all the different pieces as you know very well universal service for e-rate is capped unlike the one piece, there is one remaining piece that is not capped. so that piece is something we'll have to look at and how it relates to the other three pieces. >> in your talk, commissioner, you mentioned about the

importance of periodic reviews of regulations to see whether they're working or not. the commission has, in fact, communications act, requires these periodic reviews in addition to a series of other administrative laws and the commission is bound by. i'm not entirely sure. where do you see, for example, the schools and libraries program or other programs such as network neutrality fitting into periodic reviews of commission rules? >> so i would, i would take, my principle and apply it across the board. so i don't think there is anything that should be excluded from that universe. we should look at every rule to make sure it consistently goes forward and is still relative in the modern communications marketplace. i think every aspect, i think that is what we talk about

considering the moderation of e-rate program and how does it look boeing forward and how does it look into the other universal service programs. i think every program should be looked at periodically. >> there are government programs have caught both the attention and imagination and perhaps even some of the fears of american consumers in recent weeks and that has to do with nsa collection of information and new proposed rules from the administration requiring telecommunications and other companies to maintain information about customers for many years. is this an issue in which the fcc is actively engaged and what role if any do you see the fcc playing with collection of information and requirements on

telecommunications carriers? >> well i should start by saying i, at this point, i do not have security clearance in any fashion so i don't know anything of anyone's information. is this something i think that the commission will weigh in? i think we stand ready to provide advice to other agencies and other government department that is may be involved in the space but i'm not sure it is something that the commission should spend a considerable amount of time going forward. >> i was amused by your description of the blockbuster hollywood merger that was turned down. there have been others over the years. worldcom-sprint in 2000 got blocked because of mow no poeization of something called the called the long distance telecommunications market. what you do see the role of the fcc in merchant reviews and how

do you see that playing out and coordinating with the antitrust agency? >> first i would suggest, and this is something we spent a considerable amount of time when i was in, as a congressional staffer, we tried to figure out how to simply fly the process to make sure it is completely thorough and simplified. you don't have duplicative agencies reviewing the same information. they have different statutes depending on the agency there isn't overaggressive effort to gather information that is duplicative of work from other agencies. there is probably a way to simplify the review process. but beyond that i think the commission has an obligation under the statute, under the public interest to ensure that mergers are in the best interests of consumers but there is a level of review that sometimes gets exceeded here and i would like to see our process be simplified as well as still providing thorough review.

>> you were a staffer, very highest levels of congress for many years. what sorts of issues do you think capture the imagination of members of congress and the senate the most, when someone tell as senator something is going on at the fcc. what are the issues that immediately jump to mind for senators and congressman? >> welcome pleat fairness to my former employers they do have a lot of issues going on and a lost committees they spend their time on and a lot of things happening on the floor. they have a lot of responsibilities, specifically, and in my last closing days of my time on capitol hill i was working on most pressing matters before congress. communications issues are very important. i acknowledge that i'm happy to be at the position i'm at. i suggest members have to balance this with all other items they have to work on and

some so be more timely depending on the subject matter. it is tough to balance requirements for a member of congress. so working through those type of things i think when people approach members of the congress about the fcc they certainly take interest in the matter because they know how significant it is to the economic growth of the united states and they certainly do, and i have been tasked with many to farther, further inquire about the issue that was raised by whomever may have spoke to an actual member. so i have done a ton of legwork after the fact of whatever question was posed to a member of congress because there is interest. it may just not be immediate timely to their schedule. >> i was, i was both pleased and amused to hear your list of the pressing issues thaw analyzed. there were four issues. one of which, if i had been

giving this speech as a new commissioner 16 years ago would have been on my list as well which was media ownership. and if someone had asked me 16 years ago with the media ownership rules be around two years later, i would have said no, there is no chance they're boeing to be gone. and yet they seem more entrenched than ever. tell us where you see media ownership headed at the fcc. i sensed a little bit of frustration in your comments where they are in court but how do you see that playing out? >> well in fairness it is frustration on my part because i believe the commission has an obligation under the statute that helped work on behalf of a member congress. so we, i worked on extending the time frame from two years to four years. so i'm very familiar with what we expected out of the commission. the fact that we haven't seen a number of activities recently is

extremely disturbing. we're obligated, obligated to comply with the statute. so i'm disappointed we haven't so far. in terms of what may happen in the future i'm hopeful that the new chairman and my fellow colleagues will tackle this issue in short order. in terms of what may happen i am open to, you know, listening to all of the dialogue and all of the, reading all of the record and having as much information as possible in deciding going forward. >> section 11 requires the commission to review its act, its rules every, usually every two years. it has been revised to every four years. you mentioned the media ownership provision, again revised every four years. there are other administrative law requirements. and yet it seems like rules never really are repealed.

in fact really doesn't even seem like there is an awful lot of serious review of existing rules. what can be done to change that? >> well, in fairness to the commission i think they have reviewed some rules recently in the last chairman's tenure and repealed a number of rules. the question is are they the significant rules that probably have outlived their usefulness? that is probably where we have not spent enough time or enough work on to deal with those situations. i mentioned two going forward depending on how these ip trials go forward. i'm interested in looking at accounting and jurisdictional separations, two universe that is were designed long ago and probably due of a great inspection going forward. so hopefully the commission will do that. you're right, the big issues have not, you know, been reviewed significantly by the commission and we should spend some time doing it. that is part of our obligation under the act and our obligation as booed stewards of the

american taxpayers. >> well, i have probably overextended the prerogative of the moderator here. i should open it up to the floor for questions and to our viewing audience, again, we're at hudson institute on twitter. please send your questions in on c-span and our direct video feed. question up here in the front. please identify yourself in the microphone so the viewing audience knows where the question is coming from. and wait for the microphone. >> good afternoon, commissioner. my name is dean divis with inside gnfs. give us your perspective on receiver standards and how legacy receivers would play into your perspective? >> okay. happy to do so. i am open to hearing from all parts of the industry and users in this space but i will suggest

in the many days of the closing days of my time on capitol hill receiver standards actually did come up. it was something we talked about at length and there is probably an opportunity to improve receiver standards but i want to have more information from the record to exactly determine what that should be but there is some room to move forward on this item. >> and, please, clearly you've been talking about it. i understand there are no receiver standards. are you thinking of improving the rules or what were you -- >> well the rules do govern receiver standards in some regards so we do have, and you know we've had a number of fights recently whether devices are meeting certain obligations and whether they should be improved to help prevent harmful interference from neighboring spectrum use. there have been conversations along those lines. i'm hope open to review record and having full dialogue on this

conversation. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> question? >> commissioner, scott cleland, precursor and net competition. you talked about the public interest test and that is one where it is originally a concept that came from railroad regulation back in the 180s that was put forward and appropriate in the '30s when it was monopoly and airwaves were reviewed -- viewed as government property. since then we no longer have monopolies and wireless can be, spectrum can be private property. what thoughts do you have on applying the public interest test now that the underlying facts of, it is not a monopoly and it is property, how should that now be applied, you know, doesn't seem appropriate to apply it from 1887 mind set. >> i would say that i spent considerable amount of time reviewing the public over my time in congress working for a number of members.

we went through a number of efforts whether it should be continued, whether it should be modified or whether it should be eliminated. it is in the statute so i'm obligated to comply with the statute. in terms of how it applies going forward we have to be careful how imposing abstract viewpoints on the public interest. trying, i articulate a number of things i would like to see when i talk about my vision and what i would like to see happen going forward. we have to be careful what we mean by public interest going forward but it is part of the statute so i'm complied, i'm required to comply with that obligation but you know, there have been a lot of conversations in my past life and i'm sure thrill will be ones going forward on whether to change or modify or eliminate as people talk, as former commissioner fourth got roth talked about. the as part of the communications act. i'm sure that is part of the dialogue i would imagine. >> next question.

well, let me, see if i can, i can follow up on scott's question just briefly. the public interest is part of the communications act. in times it seems like in some fcc orders it has become a substitute for other parts of the language. how do you see, how do you see the public interest standard fitting in as sort of a final check on the other factor that the commission must consider? or do you think the public interest outweighs everything else? >> well, i mean this, in an all due respect, i'm obligated to comply with the statute. i do not believe that the public interest should be a grab bag for any type of additional views

that people would like to add whether it is a merger or whether it is additional obligations or on any particular provider. i don't think it is something that should be just a grab bag. however i think it is something that provides some manueverrability for the commission depending on how it fits with the other conditions. i'm not sure one outweighs the other depending. >> we have -- >> -- from d.c. the question is section 706 even still needed? >> i have answered this recently. i think consistently my views haven't changed. i do not believe that those entity that is were intended to be regulated by section 706 and the commission's act, the commission's rules are going to change their behavior going

forward. that is good for consumers. it is good for the companies. i think we'll see a pretty fairly stable marketplace going forward. so that is in my conversation with providers and in my conversation internally. we're not expecting a dramatic shift in the paradigm given that the court struck down the fcc's rules in 706. so, the second part is whether the authority of section 706, and i, whether it exists for the commission to do other things and whether i believe it should still be in place. again i have to defer to my colleagues, my former colleagues in the house and senate but if there was an avenue of area where, you know, if someone was advocating it be completely repealed i don't think in my view of how 706 is supposed to be operating would cause that much heartburn. >> yes in the back. hold on. just wait for the microphone.

>> i am with the center for copyright integrity. i have two questions. the first is something i already addressed with julie brill there are a plethora of sites popping up stealing people's identities and it is like a whac-a-mole hunt trying to get them individually. will you develop a set of rules to stop the practice. the ones i've been tracking down, are foreign countries, are from foreign countries taking identities of americans and bundling and checking them. second question addresses the effectiveness of the fcc in relationship to the youtube and online channels. i am reading more and more arguments and articles that you may not have an effectiveness in the online world. >> so let me tackle your first question first. i would need more information on this, i would suggest that we have a very active an aggressive

trade commission and that may be who best focuses on this issue but i am open from hearing more from you going forward. this is like i said, i spend a lot of time on capitol hill we tried to make sure agencies didn't duplicate activity in terms of consumers identity being stolen and they spend more time on the fcc i don't want to foreclose on potential involved and i need more information. on the second question whether the commission has authority in online universe and whether it can be helpful in an online universe if i understood your question correctly, there are, and i want to be cautious in my wording here and i don't want to mislead. there has been a lot of time helping members write the statute going forward in the last 20 years and there was a conscious thought over the time that many instances we did not include online activity for jurisdiction for the fcc that

was intentional. the members at the time did not support additional involvement of the fcc into online activities. so there have been a number of things that come up that other agencies looked at and we mentioned one where online identity theft. so there are not a ton of provision notice communications act that provide authority. we talked about 706 and i tried to and how far they take that authority to be determined. but the commissions authority in an online universe is intended by congress to be rather narrow. and so that is something that congress always has the right to extend or increase or decrease. that is their obligation to that on their behalf as a representative of the american people. >> question here.

>> bryce with bloomberg. thanks for your comments, commissioner. i want to follow up on harold's question about net neutrality. what do you believe is the best way forward in terms of regulating broadband internet access? >> i indicated i believe having numerous conversations externally with the providers, with consumer groups and a number of different folks and i think that is a live conversation. that is still happening as we go but initially i'm not expecting the marketplace to change all that much boeing forward. i -- going forward. i do not see companies significantly interested in disrupting the current marketplace. it is in their best interest to serve consumers and best interests in consumers as well. i don't see the marketplace dramatically changing going forward. i would be reluctant to have new

obligations in this space going forward. >> commissioner, you mentioned the importance of having factual information. the commission has requirements for annual reports and competition in various industries. it used to be that for many years the commission consistently found that there was competition in these industries. in recent years the commission has refrained from making that, taking that conclusion. how do you, and, i was just curious how you see the value of these annual reports and the type of competition analyses that go on at the commission? >> i would say first and foremost, i do know that the congress is looking whether to combine a up in per of existing report obligations and to change

that the current structure. so i would have to defer on that the past equation but in terms of whether i think that the commission has done a factual basis in a number of their reports i think in some instances they have and others they haven't. what i would be worried about and have been worried about in my many years past that the reports would be used to manipulate data. we should tell a very factual story and let the chips fall where they may. so i worry that the data can be, and i'm not suggesting it has been but i'm saying it can be, going forward, that it be as factual as possible and that we, that the information speak for itself. so i worry that we would, we would change that equation and in some instances in the past it may have been more concerned than, you know, than maybe currently. >> we have time for one, maybe two more questions.

. . gll i would just suggest and hopefully my former colleague will concur with me, the provision itself is, you know, generally -- as i've seen recently written and i think it's a fair analysis -- similar

to what people would refer to as congressional findings and, therefore, its weight should be similar. but the commission, obviously, has a different opinion, and the majority has a different opinion. hopefully, we can get back to the original meaning of the statute. i have difficulty with what the court has viewed because -- and, quite frankly, it's somewhat a perspective of to envision how 706 was written, you also have to to put it in perspective of when it was written and who was writing it. so we're talking about a republican house and a republican senate working on a provision that right after the '94 elections, a very, you know, led by newt gingrich in the height of his power, that we would write something that secretly gave the commission authority over the internet, and yet we never told anybody. we secretly -- and we never wrote about it in any of our analysis, we never wrote it in any of our summaries. but secretly, we gave this authority -- >> shh, don't tell anybody.

[laughter] >> and then we turned around and started fcc reform hearings. so we were concerned about the power of the fcc. so somehow we gave them authority, and then we, you know, secretly, and then we turned around and decided we had to review the authority that we already had given the commission, because we were worried it was extending too far. so it's a real difficult extension on the process part of the equation to -- and, now, i recognize courts have their obligations under what is actually written versus, you know, and i know there are different judges that look at different pieces. i'm very aware of that universe and what they're tasked with. but it is very difficult for me as someone who was there to see a provision be interpreted based on now what the complete declining of what the circumstances were. >> we'll take the last question right here, and then we'll close the program out. >> thank you very much.

deanna guinn with inside nss. i was wondering if you could give us the perspective on the process for the frum that is currently -- however it works out, that spectrum is out there and available for use by someone. could you offer your outlook on that and what maybe the long-term perspectives might be? >> so let me answer it this way. first, i'm supportive of spectrum being used efficiently, and the spectrum as well being used to provide services to consumers. i will, if i've learned anything over the last many years, it is this is a particularly heated discussion specifically as it relates to lightsquared, and, obviously, there's a court case going on, so best to refrain from commenting too much in that space. but i would suggest spectrum one way or the other should be used

and, hopefully, we'll get to that place where, you know, it is used for the benefit of consumers. beyond that i should probably keep quiet. >> and with that, please join me in thanking commissioner o'reilly for -- [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> congress is back in session today. on the agenda in the house week, a bill to ban all federal funding for abortions. live coverage from the house floor on our companion network, c-span. and here on c-span2, the u.s. senate -- which meets at 2 p.m. eastern time -- senators are considering legislation that would delay scheduled rate insurance increases for flood insurance programs. the senate takes a procedural vote at 5:30 eastern, you can

watch that live here on c-span2. >> bill and hillary began their teaching careers at the universityover arkansas. bill came right after graduating from yale in 1973, and hillary came a year later. hillary clinton's career began right inside this build, the leffler law school at the university of arkansas, where she was a professor and she taught classes such as criminal law, criminal procedure, trial procedure and the prison project. hillary was, you know, wellesley-educated, ivy league law school grad that had worked in d.c. as part of the nixon impeachment campaign because he had been impeached about two weeks before hillary taught her first class. >> first lady hillary clinton tonight at 9 eastern live on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> and on facebook we're asking should hillary clinton run for president in 2016. let us know what you think at facebook.com/c-span.

>> homeland security secretary jeh johnson on friday made his first major speech since taking office at the u.s. conference of mayors meeting in washington. he called for passage of comprehensive immigration reform. he says it's a matter of homeland security. before the secretary's remarks, we'll hear from the mayors of sacramento and compton, california. [applause] >> all right. we are, as we've done throughout these winter meetings, we've brought new mayors up and allow them to tell a little bit about their story ask their city, so i'm very pleased to call a fellow californian up to the pose yul. she's a bright young mayor to watch. the youngest mayor ever to be elected in the city of compton. she beat out 12 other candidates in her 2013 election, and we are

proud to welcome aja brown. [applause] to the podium. [applause] >> thanks. good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> i'd like to take an opportunity to thank ceo tom cochran and the entire u.s. conference of mayors team for making this winter session an amazing experience. let's give tom and the dream team known as the u.s. conference of mayors staff a big hand. [applause] e mean, what -- i mean, what organization provides q&a with the president of the united states, president obama? let's give 'em another hand, right? [applause] and the president is just as cool in person as he is on tv, by the way. [laughter] i'd like the give a big thanks to our president mayor scott smith, vp mayor kevin johnson,

vp rawlings blake and also the entire executive board. we thank you for your leadershipment i'm honored to bring you greetings from the great city of compton. compton is a special place. we're a city of just 10 square miles and 100,000 residents. most people in the united states of america have heard of the city of compton. for those of you that have had the opportunity to visit, you are well aware that our community is much more than gangs, hip-hop and drugs. we are home to thousands of hard working families who want the same thing that all people want; or equal access to the american dream, safe neighborhoods, great schools, clean and paved streets or, access to fresh food, affordable health care, employment opportunities and transit that works. our city definitely has its challenges, but don't worry, this is not the part of the presentation where i give you a dozen stats. however, i will tell you this, my administration is tasked with

rebuilding the city from the ground up. over the past six months, we've been able to build coalitions and partnerships with the university of southern california, fight on for all my trojans out there, fight on, and also cal state do min gus hill and the institute of policy to begin strategying on how do we create specific industry programs and employment programs that target high growth industry clusters and identify regional identity for the is city of compton and also to provide technical assistance to small businesses and nonprofits. although i don't directly control the school districts, i have garnered influence through sharing my vision for the city of compton. our district will be implementing industry-specific academies and i'll be coordinating partnerships to prepare our kids for college and a great career path. i've decided to tackle tough issues first in order to build a strong foundation for growth. my major initiatives are focused on public safety, economic development, coalition building

and public health. internally, we have implement several new policies focused on city reform, aka housekeeping. also economic development policies and programs to make doing business in compton work and reduce our unemployment rate that's more than double the state and national average. to tacking crime and improve relations with law enforcement, i've started a new community policing task force that focuses on gang prevention, intervention and combating child and human trafficking in the city of compton and beyond and educating our parents on the dangers that our kids face today. it's much different growing up in america than it was ten years ago. for the first time in compton, all law enforcement agencies, school district officials, county services, agencies and federal county and local are working together on common efforts in combining resources and getting big results. from new policies enabling us to shut down a hub for illegal activity, implementing a new ordnance to prevent hourly motel

rentals and to to combat human trafficking. i'm excited to say that in 2013 we have had one of the safest years in the city of compton in the last decade. in closing, we're definitely on the move, and my mission is to be able to rebrand the city's image and also to share the fact that compton is home to fortune 500 companies, two light rail stations, the blue line -- which is the nation's heaviest-used light rail station -- transit development and over one dozen fortune 500 companies that are thriving in the city of compton. we have our own airport, golf course, community college and strong historic equestrian community, beautiful neighborhoods and high performing elementary schools. plus we have great neighbors located just 10 miles south of los angeles, 10 miles north of l.a. and long beach port, and my

mission is to combat compton's negative perception and illuminate the fact that, excuse me, educational giants, civic leaders, cultural pioneers and world champions have hailed and still come straight out of cornton. thank you all and god bless. [applause] >> she's already rebranded compton. thank you so much. we now have another special opportunity. we have another cabinet secretary who's come to be with us. yesterday we were at the white house, and we were with the labor secretary and secretary of education and secretary of transportation and secretary of health and human services and hud, and now we have somebody that's making his first public appearance -- i shouldn't say first public appearance -- one of his first speeches since he's taken his new position here with

us today. so we are honored to have jeh johnson, the secretary of home lambed security, here with us -- homeland security here with us today. so let's just give him hand before we bring him up. [applause] we want you to feel the love even before you get up here. [laughter] what's incredible is we see this as a recognition of the critical roles mayors are playing and first responders. the vast majority of whom work for local government. we play roles in insuring the safety and security in our cities and nations. secretary johnson came to homeland security from the defense department where he was most recently general counsel. in that capacity, he oversaw the development of many aspects of our nation's anti-terrorism policies, spearheaded reforms at guantanamo bay and co-authored the report that paved the way for repeel of don't ask, don't tell. the secretary also has

background in service to america's largest city having served as an assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. secretary, we look forward to hearing your remarks. please come on up and get a love welcome from your mayors. [applause] >> thank you very much, mayor johnson. you are correct, that this is one of my first public speeches. i've been in office a month. it is nice to be among friends, among mayors. i know already about my job that i will not go many places where i can feel the love, as you put it. this is a terrific organization

because you represent america's cities, large and small. and i'm here to tell you that you are vital arter ins -- partners to the department, with the department of homeland security and with me as long as i'm secretary. i thought i would use the time to share with you some of hi priorities -- my priorities, some of the priorities of the department of homeland security, but also spend a few minutes talking about who i am to introduce myself to you. as you heard from the the mayor, first of all, by the way, i went to morehouse college -- [applause] and it's always amazing to me wherever i go i run into people who either are morehouse men or who are married to morehouse men -- [laughter] and morehouse college is everywhere. every time i come to a place

like this, though, it does make me feel old because i ask what class are you, 2009, 1992, and i'm class of '79. the mayor pointed out i was a federal prosecutor for three years in the southern district of new york in new york city. i did that relatively early in my career. it was a terrific job. how many of you in this room have been prosecutors at some point or other in your public service? i see a couple of hands go up. when i became an assistant united states attorney, it was my opportunity to learn how to be a trial lawyer, and i looked forward to my first trial, and i had written this really fantastic, what i thought was a fantastic opening statement. it was a small drug case, but when it's your first trial, it is, of course, the trial of the century. and i was looking forward to getting into the courtroom, august to the jury for the first -- talking to the jury for

the first time, getting out there and finally trying my first case. and i had developed this really colorful opening statement. and my supervises tamped me down. and they said when you are representing the government, when you're the prosecutor, we always give the same standard opening statement. which i thought was very interesting. first thing you do when you give an opening statement is you say to the -- you leave the lectern, you go over to the defendant at the defense table, and you point at the defendant. and you say that man there sold drugs on the corner of ninth avenue and 28th street in may 1989, and i'm going to show you how he did it. and then you walk back to the lectern, then you introduce yourself. my name is jeh johnson, and i represent the government. and for the next couple of minutes, i'm going the tell you what the evidence in this trial will show. and supposedly every single assertion of fact that you give in an opening statement has to begin with the words "the

evidence will show," "the evidence will show." and so then you get to the end of your opening statement -- this was beat into me -- you get to the end of your opening statement, and you say, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion i want you to do three things. i want you to listen to the evidence in this trial, i want you to listen to the law as judge so and so instructs you, and i want you to use your common sense. and if you use your common sense, i am confident that you will find the defendant guilty as charged. i did that 12 times in three years. it was beat into me. i never varied. i left the u.s. attorney's office, i went into private law practice. and part of my private practice was to be a criminal defense lawyer. and so that was my opportunity to finally be unshackled, to be colorful and follow all my instincts to be a trial lahr. lawyer. so i said to the client, and this was a pro bono case. it was a drug case.

the defendant, the client was on trial for selling trucks in upper manhattan -- selling drugs in upper manhattan. he spoke spanish, didn't speak a word of english, and through a translator i said to him, now, the prosecutor when he gets up there, he's going to point at you. i just want you to be prepared for that, because i remember when i did that to the defendant, he broke down crying. he just started crying all through my opening statement, he wouldn't stop. so i said to my client, the prosecutor's going the point at you, and a trial is a really emotional experience. sometimes you can't control yourself. so if you feel like you need to let your emotions go, go with it. so right on cue the prosecutor went over, pointed at the defendant. right on cue the defendant started to cry. and the prosecutor did the normal, standard opening statement, the evidence will show, the evidence will show, so forth and so on. then i got up there. and i walked over to the

defendant, and i put my hands on his shoulders, and i said, ladies and gentlemen, this poor man doesn't even understand a single word i'm saying. and this was right around the time of o.j. trial, and i said and i'm not the dream team. i'm just here trying to defend this man. and i went off, i gave this really terrific statement, i could tell i was connecting with the jury. i was no longer looking at my notes, i was talking directly to the jury. and i did a bad thing, i went on autopilot. i was so carried away, i was just connecting with that jury. [laughter] and i didn't know how to end. [laughter] so, and i said, and ladies and gentlemen, i want you to do three things -- [laughter] i want you to listen to the evidence, i want you to listen to the law as judge so and so instructed you, and i want you to use your common sense. and if you do all three things, i am confident that you will find the defendant guilty as charged. [laughter] the court reporter, who was sitting about as far away from me as mayor johnson said, i

think you meant not guilty? yes, not guilty. sure enough, the trial transcript next day said not guilty as charged. [laughter] i served briefly as general counsel of the department of the air force, 1998, '99, 2000, til the end of the clinton administration. i was present in manhattan on september 11th, 2001, which happens to be my birthday. i was an eyewitness to the the collapse of the towers. i was an eyewitness to the impact of the second aircraft. like millions of others that day, i was shocked, i was devastated. i wanted to do something. i determined then that if i had the opportunity, i would return to public service, return to national security. president obama asked me to

return to washington as general counsel of the d. of defense -- department of defense, which i did. i was confirmed, sworn in february 2009. it was a really incredible four-year ride. i was witness to many historic events. the mayor pointed out the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. we made some strides in counterterrorism. i was, i'll never forget the day we found osama bin laden, may 1, 2011 -- [applause] and brought justice to him. [applause] i accompanied the president four days later to manhattan to visit with the families of the victims of 9/11, and what was amazing to me, i encountered many of my neighbors from montclair, new jersey, people that i knew. they needed closure, and the bin laden raid provided closure

for them. and in certain respects, it provided closure for me. i left that job at the end of 2012, went back to private law practice thinking i was done. and i had the opportunity when i was asked to come back to public service as secretary of homeland security, a job i was not anticipating being asked to do. but i believe in the homeland security mission. now, some of you in this room might be thinking, well, he's just a fed, what does he know about local government? what does he know about the challenges of being a mayor of a large city or a small city? i am proud to say that i am a product of the cities and towns of this country. i was born in new york city, lived in manhattan for 18 years. the mayor of compton mentioned the importance of light rail, public transportation. i am a huge, huge fan of public

transportation. i carry one of these around in my wallet from new york city. i have ridden on every single subway line in new york city except the franklin avenue shuttle. ridden on every single subway line. i'm a huge fan of subways. i grew up in the town of poughkeepsie, new york, which contains within it the city of poughkeepsie, new york. my dad was an architect in poughkeepsie, new york. he designed the mall that replaced main street in poughkeepsie, new york. he was part of revitalization of downtown poughkeepsie in the 1970s. he was part of -- he was a member of the planning board, the historic commission. hi permanent home, as i mentioned a moment ago, is montclair, new jersey. they say all politics is local. i know from my own experience

that insofar as the american public is concerned, most of government is local. i recall having a get together at our home in new jersey for a candidate for congress so that my neighbors could come hear the issues that the candidate was running on to be elected to congress. the next night a neighbor of mine had the mayor of montclair over to her house. i had to scratch and scrape to get a handful of people. the mayor, house was packed. because everybody knows the importance that mayors play in their, in their everyday life. more significant than that, the message that i would like to present to you today is that the homeland security mission of the u.s. government is evolving, and this is something i believe. it is evolving to the point where our partnerships with

state and local governments, with mayors, with district attorneys, with police commissioners, with sheriffs is becoming more and more important. in the coming weeks, i will be laying out a vision for homeland security that build bees on the important work of -- builds on the important work of my predecessors and the relationships with state and local government that they have forged. a top priority of mine is to not only sustain those relationships, but to further strengthen our partnerships with the men and women in this room. who are mayors. the five core missions of the department of homeland security are guarding against terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our nation's immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace and critical infrastructure in partnerships with the private sector and supporting emergency preparedness and response efforts at every level.

as part of that, the department of homeland security must have as a top priority, does have and will continue to have strengthening capabilities to enhance our collective ability to keep the homeland, our communities, your cities and the american people safe. i just returned from south texas earlier this week, and the arizona/mexico border. during my visits, i had occasion to not only spend time with border patrol officials, cbp agents, but i encountered four mayors and one city manager from mcallen texas, hill call the go, texas, sierra vista, arizona, and douglas arizona, that is critical to my work that i develop those relationships. one of the most important ways that we work with state and

hoping governments is through stronger information sharing. additionally, through grants we better enable you to be prepared for some of the things that the department of homeland security must move forward on. recent events like the shooting at the washington navy yard and the boston marathon bombing remind us that we continue to confront a dangerous world where information sharing, collaboration, trust and grants have never been more important. we have significantly improved our ability at information sharing with you, and we will continue to move in that direction. i am committed to making this happen. a cornerstone of that effort is support for state and major urban area fusion centers which i'm sure you're familiar with. we have deployed 96 office of

intelligence and analysis personnel to fusion centers throughout the country. we support all of this work, as i mentioned, additionally with grants. i was pleased to learn that the u.s. conference of mayors has as one of its priorities cybersecurity dealing with cyber threats. that is one of my priorities, one of the missions of the department of homeland security, cybersecurity. we are glad to know that this is a priority of yours as well. these are threats to individuals, families and communities across our country, and we must work together to confront the cybersecurity threat. finally, i know that the u.s. conference of mayors has been a strong supporter and voc proponent for the finish vocal proponent for the or need for comprehensive, common sense immigration reform. i'd like to say a few words about that. [applause]

common sense immigration reform is supported by the u.s. conference of mayors, businesses, and if the polls are to be believed, a majority of the american people. border security is inseparable from homeland security, and border security must and should be part of comprehensive immigration reform. protecting our borders, securing our ports, promoting the lawful flow of trade and travel through our ports to cities and other communities. over the past four years, dhs has made historic investments at borders in terms of manpower, comprehensive immigration reform would add even more to that effort. comprehensive immigration reform would also promote a more effective and efficient system for enforcing our immigration

laws. and should include an earned path to citizenship for the approximately 11.5 million undocumented immigrants present in this country. something like 86% of whom have been here almost ten years. an earned path to citizenship for those currently present in this country is a matter of, in my view, homeland security. to encourage people to come out from the shadows, to be accountable, to participate in the american experience, the american society. it is also, frankly in my judgment, a matter of who we are as american to the offer the opportunity to those who want to be citizens, who have earned the right to be citizens, who are present in this country.

many of whom who came here as children to have the opportunity that we all have to try to become american citizens. just before i came here, i swore in out in northern virginia at a naturalization ceremony 438 new americans including a member of the armed forces. it was probably the best thing that i do in my job. there's a lot of love in that room as well and not for the secretary of homeland security, but for the families who love and support those who have done what it takes to become americans. that is part of who we are as americans, it's part of who we are in our heritage, and i believe comprehensive immigration reform should include the opportunity for those present in this country who earn it and who are entitled

to it to become is citizens. so we must, in my view, as a matter of homeland security and as a matter of who we are as americans address comprehensive, common sense immigration reform and address it this year. in conclusion, i'd like to point out that the department of homeland security values its relationship with you. as i've tried to say here, as our mission evolves here in washington, we are becoming more and more dependent upon strong working relationships with mayors in this room. i look forward to working with many of you as i am secretary, meeting with a number of you, visiting a number of you in your cities and towns, and i salute you for all the terrific work that you do. thank you very much. [applause] >> that was transportation

committee chair bill shuster also addressed the mayors committee meeting on friday. he spoke about a number of issues including natural gas presumption and efforts to pass a new transportation bill in congress. he spoke for about 15 minutes. >> so we're going the adjust the ram really quickly, because we have a very important dignitary with us. i'm going to introduce him and invite him up, and this person has been a champion for our organization. we are honored to have representative bill shuster, chairman of the house transportation infrastructure committee with us today. [applause] it goes without saying we all think very, very highly of you. he's here to talk a little bit about his efforts to increase federal investment in the nation's infrastructure. the chairman traveled to vegas to be with us at our annual meeting and, again, is with us here today showing his commitment to the nation's mayors.

they're not even in session, and he's still here to be with us to honor that commitment. so, again, we thank you so much for your commitment. his leadership has already produced broad consensus on a major water resources renewal bill, a major awaiting financial congressional action before it is signed into law. the chairman has also started hearings on the renewal of the surface transportation law, invited our very own transportation chair, mayor reeled, to participate in the -- reeled, to participate in the committee's hearings last week. we appreciate that. and what mayor reid did when he was there, he basically brought our pledge and and our commitment to work with the chairman to develop additional resources to invest in our transportation and infrastructure. let's give another round of applause as he comes up. our chairman, come on up and address us, and we're glad to have you. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, mayor johnson.

as i told him, i played high school basketball be, and i wish i had a jump shot like he had. i was just kind of the muscle guy that, you know, bounced around and pushed people around. but that serves me well in congress. being able to, you know, push people around now and then. [laughter] thank you very much for that introduction. thanks for the invitation to come back and to talk to you. and quite frankly, talking to the mayors and getting the mayors on board to help us move significant legislation is extremely important to the effort i'll talk about. so, again, this is a great opportunity for me to be here and to talk to you about transportation and where we're going, because i think all of us in this room know the importance of transportation is essential. i was in a room in louisiana somewhere when a guy was telling me about his business, and he was in the pharmaceutical business. he had 57 trucks. and he's telling me about his business, and all of a sudden he stopped, and you could almost see the lightbulb go on over his head, and he stopped and said,

you know what? i'm really in the transportation business. and i think we all are. every american's in the transportation business because nobody here today was beamed up like in "star trek." i mean, maybe future transportation, but everybody either flew, train, car, however you got here, the transportation system affected you. and it affects all of us every single day. it affects our quality of life. we get to go see our parents, go to work, pick up our kids at school, travel to the olympics. the transportation system is essential. it's critical to the business and to the economy of the united states. it really is the backbone, i believe, of the united states. and i think all of you in here -- especially those of you here that have big cities and deal with the terrible con discretion discretion, -- congestion, and you come to the congestion capital of the world, washington d.c. texas transportation institute if their last report said washington, d.c. is the most congested city in america. so i would encourage you to when

you go travel on the highways here, go between 10 and 2 so you miss some of that. but really it is important to us to be competitive in the world, to make sure that our products manufactured in america going into the world economy as we gain market share will create jobs back in these factories at home here. and it appears that the manufacturerrers are starting to come back to america, because number one, they understand we've got a great work force in america, but now we have inexpensive energy. and i'm proud to say from pennsylvania, the marcellus shale, the gas we found, is going to help draw those companies and manufacturers back to america. but we've got to make sure we can get out into the world economy to make sure we're creating those jobs here in america. so when we talk about the role of government, i believe it's essential. it's an essential service for the federal government, state and local. it's something that we've always done and certainly want to draw in and have the private sector participate with us. but, you know, when you look

back to the founding of this country, it was the tipping point was a transportation issue. and it was right around this area, the potomac river. maryland and virginia couldn't come to terms on an agreement to navigate the potomac river to go into the western part of maryland and up into the allegheny mountains to get to the ohio territory. they just couldn't come together on it. and so those folks from maryland and virginia, washington realized we had to do a constitution. that was under the articles of confederation. we had to have a constitution that helped promote commerce and helped connect the country. and so when they wrote the constitution article i, section 8's clear, it talks about the role of the federal government. number one responsibility is national security, our common defense. then it's commerce and to establish post roads. and commerce and establishing post roads truly, and i think adam smith even agrees, that's an essential role for the government, especially the federal government. not to do it all, but to make sure we're in be partnership with the states and the local governments, to make sure that

we connect this country. and president eisenhower i think said it best, that without the unifying force of transportation, we would be a mere alliance of separate parts. so the transportation is what physically connects this country. it actually is critical to our competitiveness in the world and to keeping america prosperous. as was mentioned, we did pass a water resources development act. we're now in the conference with the senate. it's been slow going, but be i feel confident that we'll move forward and, of course, that deals with the inland waterways, the bolters, the harbors. -- the ports, the harbors. i was able to travel to south carolina when we were going through this, and mayor reilly was very, very instrumental in talk to us about this. in addition, mayor foster from long beach, we talked to him about his port, the long beach and los angeles port. and as we traveled around the country getting input from mayors, it was absolutely critical to helping us develop this bill. and we were fortunate to be able

to talk to enough stakeholders and be able to get the stakeholders to talk the their members of congress. so it passed out of the house with a 417 vote, only 3 opposed. i guess i'm happy to say it was bipartisan approval, but i was not happy with the bipartisan three against us, two republicans, one democrat. but i think we were able to get to the core of the issue, making sure it was fiscally responsible, everybody said we've got to get the corps of engineers moving. taking 15 years is far too long. and finally, it was important to me to make sure that the congress didn't give up its authority to the executive branch. we've done this for far too long, and i'm a republican, i don't care if it's a republican president or a democrat president, the congress needs to maintain its authority to be able to do things. we were able to do that and, as i said, we're working through the water bill in the conference right now with senator boxer and senator vitter.

and my friend from west virginia,ing q who's the ranking member on the committee, we've been happened in hand, locked arms working this thing together. so it's been a good partnership. and when we talk about, as i said earlier, getting to and from our ports, it's a competitive issue. it's a jobs issue. and it's not just about the jobs that are created to construction jobs. the jobs i'm talking about as i mentioned earlier, there's jobs in manufacturing facilities, those jobs that when americans go to the grocery store and are able to pay less, that's money in the they're pocket, that's money they're going to invest in other places. so when i talk about the jobs, it's the long-term jobs that i think are soimportant to america, making us competitive. another issue that we're dealing with is passenger rail. i know of you here are -- many of you here are connected by rail. it's a process that's taking longer to do, but we're trying

to figure out, they're looking at rail transportation in a new way. and we have a national system right now, but there are places in the country that it really makes a lot more sense for us to be really focused on. and i'm from pennsylvania, but i'm from western pennsylvania, so what i'm about to say you might say, okay, he lives in the northeast corridor. i don't. i live in western pennsylvania, it's not really the northeast corridor. but amtrak in the northeast corridor is the most heavily traveled we have in this country, and we own it. the rest of the country, we've got to deal with the freight rails and negotiate how we improve passenger rail in their system. but we own the northeast corridor. i think we need to take a close look at it, figure out how to do it right and then be able to take it out to these oh corridor -- other corridors. i know california, san diego/los angeles. about 11 million people, i think, a year are on that rail. that's another place we should be looking closely at, how do we

improve it? and, again, trying to streamline this process, trying to get the private sector involved i think are all absolutely critical to improving passenger rail service in this country. in addition to that, i gave a speech in december about the aviation, the airline industry in america. because we in 2015 we have to do a reauthorization of the faa. the central aviation administration. finish federal aviation administration and all that they do. and as we're looking and i've been looking at the aviation, the airline industry over past couple years, we are under attack from foreign competitors. our manufacturing, our air carriers are all under attack. and so i gave this speech to say we've got to start to think outside the box. we've got to look around the world and see what other countries are doing to improve our entire system. for instance, canada, nav air which is their air traffic control organization. it was, it was a lick/private partnership -- public/private partnership now, it's run by the

air traffic controllers. they've got better equipment than we have, their training is outstanding. the people that work there love going to work every day, and that's something we need to take a look at. how did today do it? can that work in america? looking at europe what they're doing with their airports, again, public/private partnerships, is that something we could be doing here in america. our manufacturers, again, the brazilians, the canadians, the chinese are all building small passenger jets, and the chinese are looking at building a larger jet. our faa takes so long to approve, to certify our planes even if it's small jets, small aircraft. so we've got to make sure we're streamlining this to make sure we stay competitive. when you look at the aviation, you look at aviation in the world, we invented it. it's an american product. we leave the world today, but if we don't do something to make sure we're not nickel and diming our airlines and overregulating the manufacturers, the foreign competitors are going to take away our lead in this industry.

and all you have to do is the lessons of history. look at the textile industry, the steel industry, the auto industry. you know, we used to lead the world, and today i don't know if we even produce a textile in america anymore, very little. steel industry's spread out all over the world and, of course, the auto industry is certainly not what it was 20, 30 years ago in america. so, again, this is our industry. it contributes a rl dollars to the economy -- a trillion dollars to the economy which is, obviously, significant. so, again, we're going to go through this process over the next year led by the subcommittee chairman, myself and sam graves who, a congressman from missouri, who's really the voice of general aviation in the congress. we're going to be bringing in stakeholders just like we did, and you folks cities with airports, i know it's very important to you, a huge economic generator, we want to make sure we're talking to the mayors as to what are your ideas, what do you think we can do to help create more opportunity at your airports, streamline things? so as we go through this process over the next year and a half,

again, we'll be reaching out to the mayors. you'll play a critical role in doing what we need to do, how we need to make these reforms and changes. and finally, we've started officially we had our first hearing on the surface transportation bill, but we started a few months ago on bringing in the stakeholders, anybody that's important, that has a stake in improving the surface transportation, the highways, the byways, the transit systems in this country. we're starting to bring those stakeholders in to help educate us as to, you know, what they see as some reforms that need to take place. and we do -- we did this, again, just like we did on the werda bill. and we had that hearing, and mayor reid was there, and i want to tell you -- is he here today? he did a fantastic job. and i can tell you on both sides of the aisle, i had members coming up to me so impressed with the mayor and what he said up there and the importance of transportation. so as i said, with the werda

bill, with aviation, with passenger rail, this surface transportation bill, it's going to be critical to have the mayors involved in this, to help us sell this. first, to sell it to your constituents. and i think in many cases it's probably in big cities it's an easier sell to say to people we want to reduce congestion, we have to do things differently. but we need your help also in educating members of congress. was there are some members out there and on both sides of the aisle there's education needed. on my side of the aisle, there's a reluctance to think the federal government has a role or we shouldn't be spending money or we shouldn't be spending more money. on the other side of the aisle, there's a reluctance to streamline things, to make sure we can get these projects out there in the field and get 'em tone quicker. time is money. and i think as mayorings you live out -- mayors you live out there where the rubber meets the road. you understand how expensive it is when you put a federal dollar into a project, it takes a lot longer, and it costs you a lot

more money. so i'm going to need you on both sides of aisle helping me to drive those reforms so we can to more with the dollars we have and also make sure we're educating those on my side that there's a fundamental role in the federal government being involved with the tate and the locals out there -- with the state and the locals out there. again, as we move forward, i can't do this without your help. and so, again, that's one of the reasons, big reason i'm here today, is to enlist your help as we move forward. again, reforms are needed, and, of course, we've got to deal with the funding issue. and, what i've been saying to people is let's start first with what the problem is out there, and let's make sure people understand what the problem is out there before we start talking about dollars and credibilities. -- cents. there's a lot of folks that they'll recoil immediately. you've got to convince them. you've got to make the sale first and make them understand, educate them that there's a need out there. and i think the funding becomes a by-product.

once people understand that there's congestion here, there's bridges there that need to be -- there's transit systems and talking about competitive, making america competitive, talking about creating jobs are all essential to this effort. and when you come up to the hill, i would also encourage you, as i said, don't lead with money. but also if you come to the hill, it would be great if there was a mayor coming to the hill, and he brought a trucking company from the city or a manufacturer from the city so a member's not just coming from a mayor coming to washington saying, hey, you've got to fund this. a lot of people in washington don't want to hear it. but if you come as a united front, the mayor, the trucking company, the manufacturer, the banks in the city saying how important it is to to build infrastructure because they want to make home loans or loans to business, economic development, that's the kind of powerful message you need to bring to a member of congress on both sides of the aisle. the importance of how we have to

fund it, the importance of how we need these reforms to move these forward. so, again, i'm here today to ask for your help. i look forward to working with you and making sure that we continue to have a robust transportation system. because all of us depend on it, and it'll improve all americans' lives and keep america a prosperous place. so, again, thank you. thank you, mayor, for having me here. thank all of you for listening to me, and i look forward to engaging with you on those issues that are so important to all of our constituents. thank you very much. [applause] >> both chambers of congress are in session today. a short week for house lawmakers as republicans will be leaving washington wednesday for their annual party retreat. the house has a round of votes scheduled for 6:30 be eastern on several land bills. on their agenda for the week, a bill that would ban federal funding for abortions. the senate will be gaveling in shortly, at 2 eastern. they'll continue k of flood --

consideration of flood insurance. you can see the house live on c-span and the senate right here on c-span2. until the senate comes in, a look at the prospects for a presidential run by hillary clinton. we spoke with a journalist on morning's "washington journal." >> host: is there a planet hillary? maybe so, according to "the new york times" magazine's cover story out this sunday. this morning we're going to talk to the author, that's amy chozick, she's a pretty call reporter for "the new york times." thanks for being with us this morning. >> guest: hi, thanks for having me. >> host: we'll get back to the coffer in just a second, but, first, if you could just tell us what you found about the so-called clinton universe. >> guest: sure. i wanted to explore sort of beyond her all of the people that the clintons have collected over the years. i've found that they're really unique in that, you know, bill clinton in particular has been collecting people since kindergarten, and they all want to help, and they all want to be

heard, and they all have an interest in getting hillary clinton elected. in 2008 we saw that that led to a lot of voices, a lot of cooks in the kitchen, chaos. so can she sort of align all of these people while bringing in new people, and, you know, making sure chaos doesn't ensue. >> host: amy, you mentioned bill clinton. what's his role here, and are there concerns from bill clinton about his legacy if his wife does, in fact, embark on another presidential bid? >> guest: right. people i spoke to said he's differential, he, you know, defer ors to what she wants to do, but, of course, he knows exactly what a loss would do to not just his wife and his family, but his own legacy. his people around him are very concerned right now with his legacy building. that's part of his philanthropic work, part of him talking about the '90s and his record. and so i think he is very aware of that. at the same time, i think he's also very interested. i think that voting for healthily, a super pac building up grassroots support for

hillary clinton's candidacy was holding an event in new york, and bill clinton called one of the people attending to check in on things, see who was there and how it was going. so he's definitely can feeling things out. >> host: amy, wanted to ask you now about that cover. walk us through that, how did that come about? >> guest: well, i, as you probably know, i write the words. i don't have anything to do with the cover, but, you know, from what i have heard from our art direct director, i've always described the story as hillary clinton's universe. there is a reference one of her inner circle people describe sort of the old-timers that want to help to the movie "space cowboys" when clint eastwood and others go to save the world. so i think that there was always sort of like a space theme when we were talking about this, and that may have been how it came about. but i definitely, i didn't see it until a couple days before the story ran, and i knew it would spark some attention. >> host: yeah, there's certainly been a lot of conversation about that. [laughter]

one of the things that was most interesting to me is this idea who makes up hillary clinton's inner most circle, and are those old guard people that she and her husband have known for years or new faces there? >> guest: yeah, hillaryland is an interesting place in that she really has inspired loyalty. the women around her are largely people that we've heard about since the white house, maggie williams, cheryl mills, huma aberdeen, they're not necessarily on the payroll now. huma is, but the others aren't. they are her friends, people who give her advice. and then she's brought in new people, and i think that might be a promising sign in how a 2016 campaign would function. she's brought in people like tom nides who is at morgan stanley now but was a top aide at state. jake sullivan is a policy guy who works for biden now but who she's close to. and so it's sort of a mix, but i would say it's still made up of those core group of people that we heard about in hillaryland in

the white house. >> host: sure. one of big questions, if hillary clinton does, in fact, run, just how much help can she get from president obama's operation, the one that actually toppled her in 2008? what's your take? >> guest: yeah. priorities usa, this is the pac, has already brought in jim messina and said it's going to work towards getting clinton elected, so i think they are going to bring in some obama people. but people i talked to said, you know, they need the next david plouffe. by 2016, campaigns will be waged in an even different, before data-driven, advanced way and they find that new generation. if you remember, you know, they sort of snapped everyone up in 2008, and axlerod described putting together obama's team as ocean's 11. they kind of picked the star guys that weren't already working on clinton's campaign, so so i think that is the challenge, go find that new generation. >> host: talk to us a little bit

about the reporting process. this was, obviously, a very lengthy story with a lot of sourcing. how much access did you get to do it? >> guest: they gave me pretty much access to her, you know, close advisers to talk about this concept of loyalty and why they had worked for clintons or secretary clinton for so long. i also talked to some of the new people. i think that was something, you know, they wanted me to have that perspective from some people from state. i mean, something that they were happy giving access to because they want this narrative out, is that the state department was run nothing like 2008, you know? 2008 was chaos. there was a lack of management, and the state d. was not like that. so i definitely talked to a lot of people along those lines. and then there was, you know, sort of interesting parts of the reporting process of going to arkansas, and i talked to a lot of their friends who have known them, you know, since the days before they were so rich and famous and powerful. and so that was really interesting as well. >> host: amy, i want to ask you

about something you mentioned earlier, the idea that in 2016 there will be these coders, and i think you called them code-breaking hackers in your piece. do those people exist in the clinton orbit now or are those new faces we're likely to see merge? >> guest: i think those are new faces. chelsea clinton is not, you know, she's been mostly running the foundation now. i won't say she has any kind of political role except she, to me, seems like she could be an interesting merging of old and new guards in that she comes from this mackenzie consulting, analytical background. and so i sort of wondered if she would eventually emerge in some kind of role that could find those people or just know how to find them because she does have that sort of business/hedge fund/consulting background. >> host: sure. the form or secretary has said that she's, you know, months away from deciding about her political future. any idea what that timetable actually looks like?

>> guest: yeah. that's a good question. this is like a science of analyzing everything that she says along those lines. i heard that she had said in a private speech with a hedge fund in new york last year the question was a good one, they said so if there was, if someone was to run for president logistically, how would it work? when would they need to decide? and she had said that person would, hypothetically, need to decide by the middle of 2014. so, you know, we'll be watching that carefully. >> host: we've been talking with amy chozick, the author of the piece on the cover of this week's new york times magazine. thank you so much for being with us this morning. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> and now live to the senate floor where senators are returning from a weeklong break. lawmakers will work today on flood insurance legislation, possibly work on the farm bill. and now live to the senate floor. undertaking to know and do your will.