or no broadcaster has disputed the facts, and the facts are consumer decides what to record, consumer presses the record button. consumer makes all those decisions much like on their home dvr and records it for themselves and decides when or not to view it. so i don't understand where the parallel comes in, with the comparison that you are saying. obviously, there's somebody who doesn't want to believe facts or hasn't read the facts, and it's dangerous to speculate on these things without having a factual basis. we don't sell shows or content. whether you use aereo once or you use it 60 hours a day, it doesn't matter to us. we charge you a fee for providing the equipment. much hike tivo -- much like tivo. have you ever bought a city slow retail? >> no. >> guest: okay. if you buy without the cable packaging, you actually do pay

them a monthly fee. they maintain the software. this is very common in software businesses. there used to be something called 15% annual maintenance. software companies and cloud companies that has migrated toward an annualized fee model or monthly fee model because we constantly update, create, maintain your equipment, your software on an ongoing basis which requires an ongoing commitment and relationship. we don't ask you to sign a contract. you're free to come and go as you l. none of those things are prohibitedded in any way, shape or form. furthermore, you can walk into radio shack or walmart and, in fact, they do have a layaway program, or you can make installment payments. in fact, every time you purchase an antenna on your credit card, you are leasing it. you're in an ongoing relationship. if you don't pay your bill in advance. you know, where do you draw the line on these things?

it's impossible -- there's no basis in law or good policy to say how you charge somebody somehow makes a difference. the question is, what are you selling and has it been established what you're selling is technology or content, and i think it's been very clearly established that we sell technology because we don't charge you if you only watch two channels, four channels, ten channels, fifty channels. we're no different than any other technology in that sense. >> host: supreme court, april 22nd, american broadcasting companies v. aereo. chet kanojia is the ceo and founder, gautham nagesh is with "the wall street journal." >> guest: thank you. >> thank you. >> c-span. created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> up next, the oral argument before the d.c. court of appeals

earlier this year involving common causes challenge to senate filibuster rules that preceded last week's ruling on the case. after that, live coverage from the national press club as outgoing national transportation safety board chair deborah hersman gives a farewell address and talks about some of the issues she focused on during her tenure. all this week you can see booktv in prime time with a focus tonight on slavery and emancipation. at 8:30 p.m. eastern, author greg grandin in "the empire of necessity." he's followed at 9:35 by sylviane diouf about the history of those who escaped slavery and created self-sufficient communities in the south. and at 10:30, pulitzer prize-winning historian david brian davis with his third installment on the history of

slavery in the west. booktv in prime time all this week here on c-span c-span2. the d.c. circuit court of appeals ruled last week that the advocacy group common cause lacked standing to challenge the senate's filibuster rules. the court affirmed a lower court's decision but cited different reasons. the opinion called vice president biden an improper defendant even though he may preside over senate proceedings and that the injury was caused by an absent third party. common cause sought to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster thrown out and replace with the a is simple majority rule. here's the argument as heard by the court last january. >> good morning. >> thank you, your honor. may it please the court, i'm 'em melt bondurant, with me is steve spaulding who is staff counsel to common cause. the district court in this case in ruling on the standing issue

erring in three very fundamental respects that prejudiced the court's entire view of the issue of standing which was really outcome-determined. first, the district court did not presume as required by the decisions of this court that the plaintiffs are entitled to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claims. he ruled precisely the opposite. though siting laroche or muir that that is the rule, he ruled that he was not convinced that the plaintiffs had any procedural rights on the constitution to majority of consideration of bills in the house. >> let's do that, your constitutional theory, the plaintiffs did have a right, a procedural right. now, as far as i can see our cases that say strict causation and regress about need not be --

[inaudible] with respect to a procedural right which all stem from the footnote in louhan talk only about procedures that have been designed to protect the interests of the plaintiff that is affected. so what exactly is your theory as to what the constitution, what concept in the -- there's a portion of the constitution that's literally stated, what is it designed to achieve? >> your honor, i believe, first, that the question of whether the provisionings in the -- provisions in the presentment clause were designed to protect the interests of house members on the one and who pass legislation and send it to the senate or beneficiaries of legislation is itself a merits issue. secondly, if you look -- >> that seems to do something

very strange with our cases about the extent to which we give the plaintiffs a pass on causation when it's a procedural claim. >> to the contrary, i think the supreme court has ruled precisely on that. let me give you several examples. munoz/flores is a case in which the clause was allegedly violated. the government's argument was it is irrelevant, the effect this has on individuals, because the purpose of that clause was merely to protect one house from invasion by the other of its exclusive turf to originate registration. revenue-raising legislation. the supreme court said quite to the contemporary the government's claim, the compliance with origination clause is irrelevant in insuring individual rights is an error.

the court is specific, has repeatedly emphasized the constitution refuses power better to secure liberty. in recognizing this, the court has repeatedly adjudicated separations of powers claims by people acting in their individual capacities. and then specifically with respect to -- >> this is not a separation of powers case, is it? >> it is a separation of power between one house -- >> that's not what we usually view separation -- >> specifically -- >> i just ask you, on a -- [inaudible] why isn't this case moot with respect to at least the non-house members? these two statute or bills that were in the 111th congress when the democrats controlled the house, nancy pelosi was the speaker. we're now in the 113th congress, we have a different composition in the house and a different party in power. so why hasn't the case moved with respect -- [inaudible]

>> if you argue, you're accessibly saying that this is -- essentially saying this is not an injury that is capable of repetition, but evading review. the cases in election cases especially, and this is just another election case in many respects, because the mootness arises out of a shortness of terms of congress. >> it has to be the same. are you suggesting that the dream act and the disclose act will come up again, be passed by the house in the 113th congress? how the heck does anybody know that? >> i am suggesting that they have a right to majority consideration without the obstacle of an unconstitutional procedure in the senate. they have, in fact, been reintroduced in successive congresses, and they will be reintroduced. >> [inaudible] >> they have not been passed by the house yet. if introduced in the senate, they may face exactly the same

obstacle which is exactly the same issue. what has the court said about procedural rights cases, number one, that the standards on redressability are relaxed. number two, a plaintiff does not have to show a certainty that if the procedural obstacle is removed, that he would receive the benefit that he seeks. that is your ruling in wild earth only a month ago. that is the ruling of this court in city of peña. >> [inaudible] lead cases, right? >> excuse me? >> talking about environmental impact statement cases? >> in that case, that was true. but in chata and in clinton v. city of new york, those were statutory cases. >> let me ask you this question. your position that the house members vote in majority vote in favor of a particular statute, the dream act and disclose act,

is nullified because of the 60-vote cloture requirement, right? >> that is correct. >> well, you know, the house -- or the senate majority leader under the rules and by custom can refuse to even bring up the statute for a vote in the senate. so does that make the majority leader in the senate unconstitutional because he's nullifying the statute passed by the house? that's happened with some degree of frequency in the last several years. >> if the majority of the senate -- [inaudible] could bring something up over the objection of the majority leader, then you might well be right. that, essentially, was skaggs v. carl. but -- >> but the majority leader every time he refuses to bring up a bill as passed by the house is acting unconstitutionally, is that your submission? >> we do not have to reach that question concern. >> no, no, no, i'm asking you if that is what follows from your

argument on the merits. >> that is not a rule of the senate. as rule 22 is. rule 22 is a rule of the senate that specifically says -- >> but your remedy against rule 22 is available, why don't you have an equivalent remedy against the majority leader? what difference does rule versus mar order make in this context? >> if the rule were declared invalid, then cloture on any motion would be by majority vote under the principle of all majority bodies. that would also mean that other matters -- >> actually, there is a rule. it's rule 19 of the senate that's been interpreted to give the majority complete control over what bills get voted on in the senate that pass the house.

>> only about two months ago in a manner in which i would suggest as i did in my response to the senate's submission that raises itself very serious constitutional issues and that the supreme court has ruled in no less than three cases that the houses of congress are bound to follow their own rules. and that when, as justice brandeis held in smith, the interpretation of a rule including rule 19 adversely affects persons outside the senate, the question is jus additional, it's not a political question. it is a question of law, therefore, not a political question -- >> the senate does effect people outside the senate with votes. >> that is correct. and that is precisely what happened here. the exercise of rule 22 affected the house members. it nullified their votes. and the fact the vote was not nullified in the house, nullified in the senate, it was nullification nevertheless, just

as the vote of senator kennedy was nullified by the president's untimely pocket veto was nullified. just as the nebraska house members' votes were nullified. not -- they were towpted in the senate. they were -- touted in the senate. they were nullified when the lieutenant governor cast a deciding vote that had the effect of nullifying them. and the supreme court has said clearly in rains, ruling in rains stands for the proposition that when a legislator's vote that would have been sufficient to pass or defeat legislation is nullified, that legislator has an interest in preserving the effectiveness of his his vote that is sufficient to give him standing. finish. >> the, one of the puzzles for me in your case is that they can

sue the vice president and several other individuals none of whom are senators, none of whom engage in voting for cloture, and the vice president vote for cloture? >> he cannot vote for cloture. >> so none of those individuals that you've sued are in any way, shape or form responsible for the harm you're alleging. >> that was precisely true in powell v. mccormack. the sergeant at arms -- >> the sergeant at arms barred him from coming in. ..

to the contrary. number one, the speech and debate clause does not apply to the vice president. he is the broadside in officer of -- >> he doesn't have a vote anyway. >> he does have the power to rule on points of order. is a role in the senate is unconstitutional he could into the exercise of that power. so declared an enforcer. he is a proper party. number two, and powell against mccormick, the precise argument was made, that is the speech and debate clause protected functionaries of the house who were acting under orders who did not make the decision not to seek power. the supreme court's answer is winninwhen an individual works e

house under direction of the house, is carrying out an unconstitutional order, he is not immune from suit. and that is -- >> immunity when he's acting legally, is that the idea? i think powell has been overtaken by a series of cases, not the least of which is eastland -- other cases. let me back up a minute. you said the vice president doesn't get -- the vice president is presiding over the senate, he has speech and debate clause, doesn't he? where to get that from? >> the vice president is not a member of the senate. the vice president -- >> are there any -- >> there is no case that has ever held that a person who is not a member of the senate, not an employee of the senate, not a delicate carrying out delegated powers of the senate is protected by the speech and debate clause.

in fact judge williams through his written opinion in which he talks about the speech and debate clause, does not protect every functionary. it did not protect senate employees, for example, from discrimination cases when and properly firing a staff member who was not carrying out functions. >> that goes to what's the legislative function. >> this is not the legislative function, as far as the speech and debate clause. you have a far greater -- >> isn't it right at the heart of the legislative function? >> excuse me? >> isn't right at the heart of the legislative function? >> the question is, well, -- >> that's the merits argument. >> that is correct. >> speech and debate. >> a few similar correct on the merits that the senate has violated the presentment clause by imposing a de facto 60-vote

requirement to pass legislation, then you have to, then if you buy the speech and debate clause argument, you essentially say this is the only body in the united states that can with impunity violate the constitution. it has nothing -- there's nothing the courts can do about it because you're immune. there is no such case. [inaudible] >> violate the constitution sometimes without suffering the liability as with sovereign immunity. >> sovereign immunity does not protect the executive branch from violating the constitution. sovereign immunity, separation of powers, did not protect the legislative and executive branches by jointly passing legislation that they thought was constitution but turned out not to be. sovereign immunity did not prevent a person who has affected by the origination clause --

[inaudible] from challenging a bill that originated and was framed in the senate when it should have originated in the house. it ultimately lost on the merits because the cour court held thas not a revenue bill, it was something else. >> the court has never gone so far as to say the speech and debate clause with this completely immunized senate from any sort of action that violates the constitution. if that were true, checks and balances would be badly upset because unlike legislation, that is subject to check, of being passed by the other house, or being vetoed by the president. rulemaking in the same subject to no check filing by the house. >> this gets into the substance but i'm just wondering, was the senate in violation of the

constitution in the period from its creation in 1917, which created the first period to cut off debate at all? >> let me correct you actually. the first rules of the senate had the previous question motion from english parliament to practice which allowed the majority to end debate by simple majority vote. from the period 1916 to 19 -- excuse me, 1806 when the rule was eliminated, to 1834-1840, there were no filibusters in the senate and the senate cut off debate by majority vote. it was only when somebody discovered they had eliminated the only procedural mechanism that allowed the senate to cut off majority vote, that the filibuster begin. the 1917 rule was intended to

providing mechanism when none existed before. but the question is still, can you have a de facto rule that legislation cannot pass in the senate over the objections of the minority without getting 60 votes? and i would respectfully suggest that clinton versus city of new york clearly answered that question, presentment clause provides a single, carefully considered, carefully crafted method of passing legislation and guided by majority of both houses, and that even in that case where the house, the senate and the president were in agreement to give the president a power to line item veto, because the house and senate recognized that they could not restrain their own adverse in appropriating funds are beyond the budget, the court steps in

and says, even though that may be convenient, even though it may make perfect political sense, it violates presentment clause and enforce it at the instant of individuals who were not beneficiaries, other than indirect that were involved. that is, the individuals involved did not have any enforceable legal rights under the to line items that were vetoed. >> any questions? >> mr. caballero. >> may it please the court. i just want to quickly start with the speech and debate clause, make a few clarifying points. the first is that it is certainly the position of the senate the vice president is covered when it is presiding over the debate clause. in addition as the court --

[inaudible] >> but because the vice president in presiding over the senate conducting vice presidential duties, since the supreme court held in another context the county commission i believe that when executive officer do leslie duty are protected by executive privilege, we don't see one could interpret that. i would also like to point out the court correctly noted that the gravelle case held that senate officers and employees are covered by speech and debate clause when acting in the legislative sphere. in rebel, talked about the case and explain why speech and debate did not apply there was because the person failing to pay representative powell was going to do a knowledge sort of fact, pay somebody. that wouldn't be covered by speech and debate. when an officer ask within the legislative sphere, the court noted there's nothing more legislative on the 4000 senate, they would be covered.

[inaudible] >> who were the other individual? >> the secretary of the senate, the sergeant at arms of the senate and the senate parliamentarian. they make no allegations against these people whatsoever. they sue them because of their theory, incorrect, but again that there is a great antidote% any allegations as to what these people did to cause the injury. as we know, the vice president wasn't even presiding over the senate at the time the cloture vote was taken on the bill reached the senate. [inaudible] >> it certainly would be. i'd like to quickly turn to the redressability point. the as this court to line item edit a senate rule, strikeout the 60-vote requirement for cloture on legislative matters in rule 22. this court itself recognized that any such release would be

raising the most astute problems as a set 10 years ago in the judicial watch case which involved with the cloture will e but it said it would be novel judicial interference with the internal rule. relief would be beyond the power of the court. even if the court felt they could get that relief and said okay we were right -- rebuy the cloture vote, that would have no effect whatsoever on the legislation that failed to pass the 111th congress and no effect on the requirement of the senate to take up any piece of legislation now. it's completely within their discretion. as the court recognized in any legislation is considered in a would have to be voted on in the house which is controlled by another party than it was. >> this is really an argument as to how much leeway they footnote and interpreted by the courts since then. i guess the plaintiff on matters of redressability, right? because after all, the premise

of that footnote is that the plaintiff certainly need not be assured that things will come out better once the procedure, he advocates, is installed. >> i think at the point the problem with the whole concept of procedure injury in this case, as the court noted that comes out at the administration law context and by mental cases. and their the court reverses the agency action and sends it back to the agency where the agency reid undertakes the facts. care, the court can't re- send the matter back to the senate. moreover, it can't require the senate to reconsider anything. i think that redressability problems demonstrates why this whole concept of procedure entry at its outset has no applicability to legislative contact whatsoever. in addition to the point the

district court made that there's no express procedure protection in article i for individual plaintiffs with regard to particular pieces of legislation. in addition to the redressability, the court below decide it was a political question and we would seek background on that as well. if the court has no further questions. >> i have one. has the dream act passed the senate have? >> a very key piece of legislation when pass any bill that passed in the last session -- >> this border secure economic opportunity -- >> erect. is not identical to the bill that failed and, obviously, the house has to act on and the house hasn't taken up that legislation, that's right. >> the majority leader of the house has -- >> working with the speed, the majority leader sets the agenda in the house, that's correct. >> i think the court -- >> thank you.

>> mr. bondurant, you are out of time. why don't you take a minute? >> thank you, your honor. first, the argument that this would be a rewrite of the senate rule is not well taken, unless you're prepared to say to the supreme court we wrote the affordable care act when they suffered some of its provisions. severance and rewrite are two things. severance is a loud. in fact, it's encouraged and lest it is utterly clear that the legislative body would not have chosen a rule without the severance section. secondly, it is not true that the procedural rights do not exist in the legislative context. chopper was the legislative context -- >> it's a case where the court said chopper suffered a result as the statute does not a factor. simply was not a valid statute

there at all. >> it is result of the procedure violation. >> you can call a procedural and i recognize the supreme court used the word procedure at least once in that opinion, basically found there was no valid statute, period. >> because there been a violation procedure clause and that was a violation of chadha's right. a procedure rights case in which yellin refused to testify before a house american activities committee because they have not followed their own procedure in ruling on his request to be allowed to testify in executive session. the supreme court ruled that they violated their own procedures, that he could not be punished in contempt, and that he had a procedure ride under their rules to a decision. and even though that decision was not likely to be in his

favor, he nevertheless had standing. clinton is a procedural rights case. those people had no standing to sue, no cause of action under the statutes or the appropriations that were line item veto. they were indirect beneficiaries, and it was the violation of the procedural right. and northeast florida contractors, to pick up your point, judge randolph, northeast florida contractors. the supreme court held when moving the obstacle to white contractors being considered for the business that they been subject to minority, would not necessary give them any business. there might not be any more contracts even left, just as the dream act may never be reintroduced in the house. but nevertheless, the court ruled that it could remedy it by removing the unconstitutional obstacle. >> what do we do?

do we order the vice president, the parliamentary, the secretary of the senate to remove the senate rule of? >> what you do is be with the supreme court has done in many cases, including affordable care case. you suffer the 60-vote requirement -- >> the people that sue have no authority to do what you are requesting. >> if the court enters a declaratory judgment declaring the 60-vote supermajority provision unconstitutional and severing it from the rule, the remainder of the rule will remain in effect. the senate by majority vote can do whatever it then decides is appropriate. >> you still have to have proper authority. if you are just declaring that, if it's used, will violate the zoning rules. you still have to sue the owners. you don't sue the town manager who's not in charge of it.

>> a declaratory judgment that the power was rendered against the sergeant at arms of the senate who would not make the decision, had no power to do it. and he argued was made by the government essentially the same argument that was made in the nixon tapes case, how would you ever enforce it if the house disregards it? footnote 87, the supreme court says, that is an inadmissible argument, to presume that one of the bodies in separation of powers would disregard a court ruling that their action is unconstitutional is an inadmissible argument. and that is the argument you are making, and that is the argument was rejected in powell and that is the argument that should be rejected. >> let me ask you a question. you need to wrap it up, mr. bondurant. >> excuse me? >> you need to wrap it up. you are way over your time.

>> i was through. i for judge randolph had another question. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the outgoing chair of the national transportation safety board, deborah hersman, is about to give remarks the story of the national press club. she's been introduced to the audience. live coverage on c-span just getting under way. >> how to safely transport oil by rail. become the national safety council in suburban chicago. she says she'll continue her focus on transportation safety -- excuse me. even with the broader focus solely on transportation safety. she leaves behind open investigations including probes into the cost of battery fires in the boeing 787 dreamliner, what happened with the asean airlines crash that killed --

looking at the deadliest accident in the history of new york's metro north railroad. early in her career, west virginia native worked on the staff of the senate commerce committee. here to give her farewell remarks as chairman of the national transportation safety board and please help give me a warm national press club welcome to deborah hersman. [applause] >> thank you, myron, for the gracious introduction. and thank you to all of the very busy people who have made time out of the day to come be with me today. thank you for the introduction and the invitation to come back to the national press club. does anyone remember the reliable source before it was remodeled in the 1990s? there were little brass plates that had quotes on them that

were all over the walls in the reviled -- level source. perhaps some of you might still have some of those brass plates. a lot of those plates had quotes on them about the independent press as a check on government. a government where i've spent most of my working career. but i spent much of it at the national transportation safety board, where independence is critical. do we investigate, report, and go where the facts lead us? yes. is that something similar to what you and the press do? i think it is. but your primary responsible is to inform the public. our primary responsibility is to investigate to reduce future risks. so when do we intersect?

when risk becomes news. so today that's what i'd like to talk about. i'd like to talk about risk, especially unlikely risk, and why we pay attention to them, and when they become news. so let me start with a story about a secluded village that's high on a mountaintop and a prosperous kingdom where life is treasured. the only way to visit this secluded village was to be hoisted up in a roped drawn basket, accompanied by a village elder one day, a visitor notices as he's approaching the basket that the rope is badly frayed. but he rationalizes that surely such a place would never put at risk their own elders and their visitors. but once the basket is off the

ground, the wind starts to pick up, that basket is swaying, and he is sure that the rope is just a little too much give to it. but he rationalizes that they must find extra special rope that has a lot of give because of the windy conditions near the village. finally halfway up the top of the mountain and hundreds of feet from the ground, the rope is squeaking and groaning, and he feels like he just has to say something. and so returns to the village elder who was in the basket next to him and says, so how often do they replace the rope? and the village elder thinks for a moment, and he says, whenever it breaks i guess. so do you think that that is good governance? or perhaps more relevant for the audience here today, when the

rope breaks, would you write a story about it? i can see your headlines now, beware, village of death. [laughter] but let's make the questions a little bit harder. may be rope is very expensive, and 10,000 passengers make the trek up in that basket before the rope breaks. now should you wait until the rope breaks? what if the rope cost as much as solid gold? should you wait until the rope breaks? sure, we could add all sorts of different variables, but what if you, or someone that you love, is the 10,000 visitor? or what if you write the story of the 10,000th visitor?

been that stranger become someone that we all know, and the trouble is by that time the rope has already broken. so let me tell you what happens when the rope breaks in real life. 25 years ago, the ntsb investigated the crash landing in sioux city of united airlines dc-10, flight 232. the crew of this airplane did an amazing job in a no win situation. now, if anyone here in the room is a star trek fan, this is the kobayashi marilla of dc-10 simulators. the flight took off from denver. it was bound for chicago, and on the way, the tail mounted engine exploded, severing all of their hydraulics. although the planes to wayne mounted engines were still operable, the crew had no

control over the very essential control surfaces of the airplane. crewmembers shuttled back to visually inspect the tail and the wing, while others methodically tried to access the control surfaces, to no avail. they kept the plane flying using a different in thrust between the two engines. the captain realized that they would have to perform a crash landing, and he informed the crew. the crew then had the task of preparing the passengers on that flight for that landing. but there was no way to prepare the littlest passengers. there were children under two on board, and they were permitted to sit on their parents laps. so as the passengers and the cabin crew waited for the braces

signal, senior flight attendant picked up the microphone and reminded the parents to bundle their babies by wrapping them in towels and blankets and placing them on the floor, embracing them with her hands and legs. and that's exactly what the mother's day. lauri michelson and sylvia. but the planes final approach speed was over 240 miles per hour. the right wing caught on the runway, the plane cart wheeled, it broke into three pieces. it caught on fire and, indeed, of in a cornfield. that the crew couldn't control the landing. nobody could. those mothers couldn't hold on to their babies. nobody could. amazingly, 185 people survived

that crash, but tragically 111 people lost their lives. in the aftermath of the crash in the burning fuselage, laurie and mark michelson could not find their 11 month old daughter, sabrina. they had to make a choice that no parent should ever have to make. whether to escort therefore and six-year-old son's out of the burning aircraft to safety, or to stay to look for sabrina. in the thick smoke, they made their choice. they gather boys out of that airplane safely. market ran back to search for sabrina. he heard her cry, but only once. sylvia tried to return to the plane to find her son, evan, but that senior flight attendant who have prepared them for the crash landing blocked her path and

told her she could not return to the burning aircraft. she said help person would find the baby. sylvia looked up at the flight attendant and said, you told me to put my baby on the floor, and i did, and now he is gone. ever since then, that senior flight attendant has been on a crusade to ban lap held children on flights. abdicating forcibly on the issue, testifying before congress, and some journalists, maybe some in this room, have drawn attention to the issue, telling stories of flight 232, and others. 10 years earlier, in 1979 the ntsb had recommended that the faa research and issue a rule making on restraint of small children. we recommended restraints for lap held children after the sioux city accident, and we've been recommending it ever since.

some people say that the risk is small. i say no. a baby is small. we secure laptops and coffee pots, but we did not secure our most precious cargo, our children. are there other risks that the ntsb should also pay attention to? of course. how many people die in large airplane crashes? just a handful in the last four years in the united states. but 30,000 people have died every year on our nation's highways. do you think that we should back off of aviation safety? most people don't. most people want those frayed ropes replaced before they break, not after, but now.

safety is never just about the numbers. 1500 people died when the titanic sank. there was room in lifeboats, but because of ill defined evacuation procedures, some of those lifeboats left half empty. in response, 100 years ago this year, 13 nations concluded work on the safety of life at seize. then world war i broke out. followed by the spanish flu pandemic where tens of millions died. but did we forget the titanic? no. because the story had been told the newspapers, in art and poetry. people learned what happened to strangers, and they wept.

did we forget about solas? no. today there are 159 countries that have signed on to that agreement. once the rope breaks, you can't let it break again. people expect some things from government, and a good and improving standard of safety is one of those things that they expect from their government. that's because who we are transcends statistics and facts. it has to do with how our brains are wired. so i'd like to ask you to think back for the journalists in the room, i want you to think back to and interaction with your first editor that really stuck with you. and for the rest of us, think about your first boss. i'd like you to think on interaction that you really

remember. okay. you've got the memory. i'd like to see a show of hands, for those not in the audience, how many of those memories were good memories? okay. [laughter] how many of those memories were bad memories? neutral? okay, so i saw a lot of hands go up for bad him and not, only one for good your country and. i think it really helps to prove a point, and that has to do with how we remember things. in layman's terms, bad memories stick. so think about it. the masters won't read their own reviews because it's nine out of

10 things saying good things about them, what i going to remember. they will remember that 10 things that said something bad about the. that's why companies spend an awful lot of money trying to help their employees through change because there's an awful lot of people who say we tried something different 20 years ago and it didn't work. they remember that. we evolved that way to survive. if you're a caveman and a saber tooth tiger eat your friend, a mile east of the cave, it's really important to remember not to go to that place that is a mile east of the cave. we learn by seeing. so when you raised your hand before in response to my question, a set up motor neurons fired. the neurons to your muscles what to do. when you lowered it, another set of motoneurons fired. but something else happened just

now, when you watched me raise my hand. some of your motoneurons fired a cannon, as if you had raised your hand. these are called mirror in her arms, and they are key to learning and teaching. so if you're teaching your child to tie their shoelaces, you do it first. you show them how to do it, and then they copy you. and think how much easier that is bad for a child to have you tried to learn to tie a knot all by themselves in a new way. so this is are helpful in human survivability. if you're teaching someone to throw a sphere -- a spear or build a fire, it's another reason why we have survived. but there's more. when i scratch my hand, sensorineural inspire in your brain. in some damages because you are watching me. the only reason that you don't feel it in your hand is because you have a combination of

sensory and mere bronze. but if you numb your hand so there's no feedback, you would actually feel your hand being scratch. the spanish phrase for i'm sorry is -- it means i feel it. it's not just a colorful phrase. it's about human beings at their core when we see suffering, or hear about suffering, we feel it. at some level we might override it. in fact, we have a mix of near and normal to ron's to do just that. but we are hardwired for empathy. by the way, if you want more on mirror iran's, check out ted talks on a.

i borrowed from him shamelessly. so with the mirror neurons have to do with replacing the rope? we know that bad things stick with people, and we know that we empathize. so we have to replace the rope. and we know that there is some risk that we can't personally control. that means sometimes we have to cooperate to replace the rope, but fortunately we are wired to do just that. we formed societies to teach each other where the predators live. we eventually rid the area of creditors. we band together against enemy tribes. and we teach each other where to find food so we don't starve. this contrasts with the theories of social darwinism. the idea that some people are weeded out and just a few that remain get all of the goodies. nobody wants that rope to break,

so the other safer villages get more visitors. so the visitors to the secluded mountaintop.com and that the village cut off from the kingdom and withers away. because the person in the basket could be you, or someone you love. and, in fact, part of your brain may think it is. so you demand that they replace the rope. 25 years ago, united flight 232 crashed in sioux city. last year, ac on a flight to 14 crashed in san francisco. with more than 300 people aboard that flight, the plane struck a seawall short of the runway. it ended up thousands of feet down the runway. only three people died, not 111.

in part because the crashes were very different, but in part because a lot has improved with safety since 1989. these were the first three fatalities in the united states in more than four years commercial aviation. 99% of the passengers on flight to 14 -- 214 survive. i know you've all seen footage of it. it was a catastrophic crash. but do you think that that statistic comfort the families of the three people who were lost? for them, this crash was the ultimate tragedy. this summer, the ntsb expects to issue its final report on the crash in the hopes of preventing more tragedies, because the next life lost could be yours, it

could be mine, or it could be any of ours. our brains tell us so. i began telling about two mothers, sylvia soule and laurie michelson, who could not hold their babies in place in 1989. another, but there's more to the michelson story because there was another passenger there, his name was jerry. he heard little sabrina's cries, and he felt around in the overhead bin, which at this time was on the floor because the plane was upside down. he felt around in the thick smoke until he grabbed a leg, and he pulled her out into his arms. eventually he got outside of the airplane and handed sabrina to a woman in the cornfield and reunited her with the michelson's. later, the michelson's were able to thank jerry for doing the right thing, for doing what his

human empathy and told him to do. for acting in a selfless way, that so many act when others are in need of assistance. but like so many heroes, when jerry was interviewed, he said, i'm not a hero, because you would have done the same thing. but there was no hero for as an soule. and there's somebody who has never forgotten that. the senior flight attendant that day was jan brown. i'm honored to share the stage with jan today, and that she came from chicago to join us. within a month of arriving at the ntsb is in newport river, i got a call from jan, employ me not to remove the issue of child passenger safety in aviation off of our most wanted list. jam always mentions evan soule

every time she talks about this issue. saying, this year he would've been 16, and maybe getting his driver's license. this year, evan would've been 18 and maybe leaving home for college for the first time. well, jan, this year evan would've been 27 and maybe if circumstances would've been different he would've been a reporter covering some other speaker here today. so that's why we protect against tail events, and why people want to write and read and watch the stories of tail events, because we are wired to do it. because it could have been us, and so to some of our neurons, it was us. because making sure parents, that the rope gets replaced, and we know it's the right thing to do. we wouldn't accept cars, without

seatbelts today. we wouldn't accept airliners without evacuation slides. yesterday's tragic lessons are today's safety wish list. and tomorrow's unacceptable risk. in the 10 years i started working with the ntsb, i've seen more news a segment of the proactive solutions, people replacing the rope before it breaks. to the reporters, reporting on a disaster is covering your beat. but preventing it gets you a pulitzer. we have a whole list of frayed ropes, called our most wanted list. i keep protection is one of the 10 issues on that list. -- occupant protection. you get to decide what is news. because when society is assigned

the job of preventing such tragedies, it is forever judged by its ability to do so, as it should be. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much. how good, as -- how good has international cooperation in? can you update us on that investigation? >> sure. i expected us going to get a lot of questions on flight 370, and so i will start out by letting you know that the ntsb is not leading thi this investigation d we're deferring all release of information to our counterparts in malaysia. but we have been assisting the investigators in malaysia. we provided resources on the

ground to malaysia, also in australia, and we will continue to do that. this has been an incredibly challenging investigation. i know you all in the media know that as well as anyone, and we continue to work very hard. we are hopeful that they will find the aircraft and that we'll be able to get some answers, certainly if we recover those reporters will have a lot better chance of finding out what happened. >> a smaller country like malaysia will never have the resources or the experience of an agency like the ntsb when it comes to handling such questions. that being the case, is there a need for some sort of international protocol that will bring the world's leading experts in to supervise such an investigation whenever an international flight crashes? >> the good news is we do have international protocols. they are governed by the

international civil aviation or session, or icao in specific annex 13 of the icao agreement actually specifies how accident investigations are conducted. the u.s., as the manufacture of the airplane has the right, has the ability to participate in any international aviation accident. and we do regularly. we lend our assistance in addition to the assistance of the federal aviation administration and the manufacturers, whether it's boeing, honeywell, ge. we have a lot of partners who come along with us around the world. the 13 guides who leads the investigation of the country of the occurrence of the accident is the first lead, but if the accident doesn't occur within territorial waters or on land, it's the country of registry of the aircraft, which in this case is malaysia. annex 13 has served us very well over the years.

it's allowed us to participate in a lot of foreign accidents, and it's also about other countries to come to the united states to help us, whether it's bombardier from canada, airbus from france. we have enjoyed the benefits of international cooperation. aviation knows no boundaries. safety issues are international issues, and we all work together to try to find the answers. we have a good framework with icao annex 13. is the room for improvement? there's always room for improvement, and that's what people will work on in the coming years, i am certain, as the genoa summit and the safety weeks in icao to figure out what can be done better. water recoveries are notoriously difficult, and very expensive and time-consuming. so we continue to work on data recorder technology and better information coming from aircra aircraft.

>> here in america and we're hearing a lot these days about a supposedly hot shortage stemming from the faa rules on pilot experience and fatigue. do you think these new safety rules are causing problems? and if so, are the problems with the gain in safety? >> -- worth the gain. i'll leave the economics of to others, but there was a very good reason why rules were passed, and why regulations have changed. we had accidents. we learned lessons from them. we made recommendations, many of those recommendations have been implemented. that is a good thing. that raises the level of safety for all of us. if there are issues that need to be addressed, i am absolutely confident in a society like ours with it means that we have as the world's largest economy that we can figure them out. safety has to come first year

under an. -- come first. what is the biggest remain safety challenge in the aviation arena, particularly part 121 commercial operations? >> migrant come you're asking me to pick amongst my children but we have a lot of issues that we care about at the ntsb and we, in fact, have a most wanted list of top 10 issues that we care about. there's a number of issues in commercial aviation in part 121 that need to be addressed. fire safety is one of those issues. we have certainly seen that. there are some issues that are not on a most wanted list that have been long top of the line favors on a most wanted list. surface operation safety, fatigue. we still have a cargo operator carveout into fatigue rules. it isn't something we wanted to see at the board.

we have a lot of issues in aviation that we need to be paying attention to, and i think we'll be talking about some of them coming up this summer with the asiana and ubs accidents that took place last summer. we identified a number of issues and i think you heard about them in our hearings, issues with respect to automation and training and preparedness for flight. so we need to make sure that we continue to stay on top of all of those. so yes, i did dodge that question. there's not just one issue. there are many of we need have a multipronged approach to address them all. >> what is your thought on the ferry accident in south korea? how do you believe the south korean authorities are handling the investigation? >> our hearts go out to the tragic loss that occurred in south korea, particularly in this case with so many students.

we always investigate accidents to try to find out what happened, and there's not one cause of any accident. there's always multiple issues that need to be addressed. i have reached out to my counterpart in south korea offering my condolences and our assistance, if needed, and we will continue to support them if we are called upon, but we are deferring to the koreans and their leadership on this investigation. this is their vessel and it occurred within their purview. >> from watching general motors unfolding recall crisis, do you think that america's legal and regulatory framework for auto safety is strong enough to protect the public? >> i would start out at the high level and say we still leaves -- we still lose 30,000 people every year on our nation's highways. there is certainly room to do

better. we must continue to work to do that every day. i think what we've seen in the recent recall is that the system is not perfect, and it can be improved. if there is information out there, it needs to be shared and it needs to be acted on. we need to figure out how to do that in a better way. obviously, this is not the role of the ntsb. we didn't investigate or have information about these accidents, but we will be looking in many of our ongoing investigations at some issues associated with recalls. and that has been going on for some time, and so if we have comments or inside that we can provide to improve the process, we will do that. >> with the ntsb put out its most wanted list in 2012, it called upon the government to mandate technologies that can intervene in motor vehicles to prevent collisions.

no mandate was issued but this recommendation dropped from the most wanted list in 2013. are you satisfied that the government and the industry are moving quickly enough to? >> no. [laughter] the government and industry need to move quicker. we mentioned the 30,000 fatalities that occur every year, and those occur for different reasons. many of them have their roots in human failure. distraction, fatigue, impairment. but at the end of the day, what is it going to take to reduce the crashes? what we've seen in aviation is that technology holds the key to reducing many of the accidents that have occurred. when we had made air collisions, and even without air traffic controllers, pilots, everyone worked very hard to prevent those. we still have problems. it wasn't until the advent of

key gas, traffic collision avoidance systems, that we actually saw the elimination of made air collisions involving commercial aircraft that both had tcas installed, it is operating and working and the pilots follow the direction. same thing with enhanced proximity warning system for enhanced chips. we saw perfectly good airplanes being flown into terrain. we tried to train. we tried to make improvements. we worked long and hard, but it wasn't until enhanced ground proximity warning system that would really begin to reduce those accidents. technology has the ability to intervene when humans fail. if we could take the technology that is all ready in vehicles, adaptive cruise control, preemptive breaking, and we can work on that technology to the point that it can eliminate or

reduce or mitigate crashes, we will save a lot more lives. so no, it's not being done fast enough. yes, there's a lot of people working on it. but the challenge is most of this technology is only available in the highest and cars. there is collusion technology. in fact, i got to ride in a car to test it out at rfk stadium. i got to do that when i was pregnant with my son, jackson, who is now eight. there is the ability to prevent collisions. it shouldn't be just and the most expensive cars. safety shouldn't just be for people who can afford it. >> as a staffer on the senate commerce committee, you helped shape legislation that overhauled how the department of transport overseas the trucking and bus industries. what is your assessment about

the federal motor carrier safety administration you helped create is doing? what surprises you about the agency as it is today versus the one you envisioned? >> well, i think all of us have best hopes for things in the future, whether it's our children or our work, the things that we do or that we create and i think that back in the 1990s, in the late 1990s, jackie and joan and many of the people who might be in this room, when we worked on that legislation to create the motor carrier safety administration, the clinic administration axa had a goal of reducing motor carrier crashes by 50% in a decade. that didn't happen. we haven't really driven down the accident numbers, the fatality numbers. and, in fact, in the last couple of years, those accounting

numbers have been rising, the overall fatality numbers have gone up. that's are disappointed. we created an administration really to be able to crack down on this. last year the ntsb issued a report where we investigated for accidents, to motorcoach accidents and to truck accidents. where we found that the motor carrier safety administration or their surrogates in the state have actually visited carriers in the months before an accident, but yet that carrier had a fatal accident. they were visited within the week and they were put out of service. one of those trucking companies have been visited the week before the crash and had been given a satisfactory rating, but the week after the crash they were given an unsatisfactory, and put out of service. we have got to get the poor operators off the road before the crashes, and not after. they are doing a better job collecting the data that gives them that information, but they

have to act on that data and they've got to put people out of service, off the road and out of business permanently. >> the united states is experiencing a significant bus boom. at the ntsb you documented cases in which bus companies have engaged in woefully inadequate seize safety practices that led to fatal crashes in instances in which the federal motor carrier safety administration either didn't catch the violations or looked the other way. how scared should u.s. bus riders be, and how can the best avoid a company with a shoddy safety record? >> well, thanks for asking that question about writers. i think we always after member, at the ntsb we investigate the bad things. we investigate the worst companies, and when you think about it and to talk about the

safety, the unprecedented safety we're seeing in aviation, and to talk about bus operations, there are more people who ride buses and fly on airplanes every year. almost everyon every one of theo the destination safely. so by and large, our transportation industries are doing a very good job. but it's about the rover breaking. it's about what i talked about in my remarks. it's about the worst of the worst. it's about the weakest links but it's about the areas where we need to make improvements, that we know we need to make improvements and that we are not making them. that's wha where the problems a. it's that bad companies that are not following the rules, that are not honoring our service. ..

>> and understood how to go look up a bus company's or a bus carrier's safety record, and would it mean anything to you if you saw that they were satisfactory, conditional or unsatisfactory? wouldn't you think that the government was taking care of it and overseeing those operators to make sure that the bad ones couldn't hold themselves out for service? i think that is our challenge. we don't have a system that's transparent that people can understand readily, and it doesn't reward or incentivize people who invest in safety.

>> the senate held a hearing earlier this month on rail safety. given the increasing amount of oil being shipped by rail, how great do you think the concern is about this commodity increasingly moving by rail? what should regulators do to be ahead of the curve? >> what we know is that the regulators are behind the curve. the transport of hazardous liquids whether it's ethanol or crude began ramping up starting in 2005. those shipments have increased by over 440% in the intervening years, but our regulations have not changed. and so now where you might have had a train in the past that had one tanker of ethanol or one tanker of crude oil, you now have an entire train of 100 cars carrying millions of gallons of this hazardous liquid coming

through many communities. we have got to get not ahead of it because we're already behind it, but we've got to get on top of it. the ntsb is going to be holding a two-day forum tomorrow and wednesday where we will be discussing this issue, we'll be bringing in the experts from the petroleum industry, the rail industry and also first responders to talk about what we're dealing with. we've seen a number of catastrophic accidents. we're supporting our colleagues in canada, the tsb. they had a tragic accident last summer in quebec. they lost almost 50 people many that accident, and a -- in that accident, and a whole town was devastated. we've had accidents here on this side of the border in castleton, north dakota. we're losing cars, we're losing millions of gallons of petroleum, and we aren't prepared, our communities aren't prepared to respond to this. this is, or this can be a worst case scenario event, and we don't have provisions in place

of how to deal with it either on the industry side or for the first responders. again, it's going back to when the rope breaks. people may not pay attention until it happens in their backyard or in their community. but these trains are running through a lot of people's back a yards and a lot of people's communities, and we need to be thinking about it now. >> d.o.t. triple one rail tank cars are increasingly being used. do you think these rail cars are unsafe, and if so, should tens of thousands of them that are now in use in part be unsafe at any speed? >> man, myron, this is a long, long session. there's a lot of questions here. [laughter] the ntsb has spoken about the d.o.t. 111 tank cars. we have said they are not safe

enough to be carrying hazardous liquids. we've investigated accidents including in cherry valley, illinois, we issued recommendations several years ago. we said they east need to remove or -- either need to remove or retrofit these cars if they're going to continue to carry hazardous liquids. carrying corn oil is fine. carrying crude oil is not. so let's be very clear that these d.o.t.111s were not designed to carry hazardous liquids. the industry and others agree tear working voluntarily to improve the tank car designs, even have built some improved tank cars, but we think more needs to be done, and that's exactly why we're having our forum this week. >> the department of transports agencies, even those charged with enforcing safety, often try to urge industry groups to make changes that the companies resist over implementation costs. are the agencies too close to the industries they regulate?

>> cost is always going to be an issue. i mean, i think it's just pretty straightforward and pretty simple. it's about the dollars. how many of you all in journalism say follow the money? it is about the money, and people are going to make choices, and they're going to make decisions about whether or not to do things because of how it affects their bottom line. and so we just need to understand that going on. we need to also understand that sometimes it's going to cost them money if today don't make these changes -- if they don't make these changes. and sometimes they can make changes that improve safety and improve efficiency. it's all about having the dialogue and making sure that people understand that. it doesn't have to be an either/or. but people will be driven by money. our own government is driven by cost benefit analysis. there are a lot of recommendations that we have

issued that have not gone anywhere because the cost benefit doesn't support them. and so it does come down to money. with respect to the relationship, we have to have a balance. we have to have a balance of people who understand the industry, who are familiar with it, who know where bodies are buried, who know enough about the industry and their technology to ask the right questions and to challenge them. but we have to have an independent government. we have to have a government who will ask the right questions, who will publish the information even when it's unfavorable to certain interests, domestic interests sometimes. we have to have a government that people can trust and that they can count on. and so it's a fine line. you've got to have the expertise, and sometimes that expertise comes from having worked in the industry. but you've also got to have a

distance, an independence and some isolation from those industries in order to be able to be effective. and so i would say it's a tough issue. it's one that we always pay attention to. and it's one that we look at in our investigations. do you want an inspector, a physical inspector, a safety district inspector for the faa who's been on a company certificate for 13 years, or do you want an inspector that's been on their certificate for three months? you probably don't want either. you want something that's in between with. but in order to get to 13 years, you have to start at three months. so it's always a challenge. we've got to look at all of these issues and understand how to do it better. and that's where our investigations come in, pointing out areas where there's vulnerabilities and asking more change. asking for change. >> what was the high point of

your tenure at the ntsb? >> that's another hard question. [laughter] i would say the high point of my tenure at the ntsb was the people. and many of the people are here in this room; our staff, our board members, our industry partners, the family groups, the safety advocates, the controllers, the pilots, the truckers, the people who do the hard work every day. so it was getting to work with great people and work on a great mission. >> a follow on -- >> no! [laughter] ask me about trucks. [laughter] >> does the ntsp have enough staff to do its job? >> oh, well, that's a softball. i can answer that one. absolutely not. [laughter] our staff so overworked.

our team works really hard, but i will give you an example. we have over 20 rail investigations going on right now, and we have just about ten rail investigators. so what that means is we can't get our work done fast enough, and that means that we're going to have to turn down accidents that occur in the future because we have too much on our plate. we've got to do better with respect to staffing. we have mandates to investigate certain things, and then we have some discretion in other areas. and so i think there is opportunity, certainly opportunity for the board to make greater impact, but we will need to have some specific support and some specific direction about how to do that. particularly when you think about it, those 30,000 fatalities on the highway side. again, we have a very small cadre of highway accident investigators relative to our aviation investigators. how do we make greater impact in

highway? we have to have the resources to be able to do that. we have a great team. they work really hard. they get what they need to get done done, but i think they've been working really hard for quite a few years with pay freezes, sequesters, hiring freezes and, you know, i don't want to lose them. they're, they put in a lot of time, and they need some support. and they need some support from their congress to be able to do the work that they do and the things that are being asked of them. >> what safety recommendation or transportation issue do you wish had been implemented before you left ntsb or that you think the transportation industry should address in the near future? >> well, i'll go back to my speech. jan, nora marshall, many others

before we worked on the last held child issue. and i have to tell you when i came to the board in 2004, it was almost unbelievable that that was still allowed to go on. we have passed laws in all 50 states. and, kate, i see kate back there with safe kids. we've passed laws in all 50 states. how hard is that to require children to be restrained in automobiles? first when they're infants, then as they're toddlers, and now we've even got laws about booster seats for kids as they grow up. but yet we still haven't protected those same kids. they're just as valuable in the airplane as they are in the car. and the tragedy of it is i go to the airport, and i watch people checking their child seats in the cargo hold in the luggage rather than putting their child in them in the airplane. we all hear stories about turbulence, we all hear stories

about other events. i could not have imagined in 2004 that in 2014 we would still be talking about this issue. it's one of my great disappointments. but i have a lot of hope. some have retired and moved on, but we have new people coming up. emily gibson is here, she is one of our investigators. she's a former flight attendant, and she's picked up the torch. and this past year i went up to ikao with an initiative about lap-held children, because if we couldn't get the regulations done in the united states, there might be other ways to skin the cat. we got broad support from other countries to put together a working group on what to do on child restraints, and i'm pleased to say that emily's going to be a part of that effort going forward in the future. and the international airline transport association, iata, representing the carriers,

they're having their very first cabin safety working group meeting, and they're having a conference in madrid next month. they're going to dedicate a whole day on the front end of that conference to child passenger safety. might not get done during my tenure, but i'll be watching and cheering you on, emily, and everyone else to try to get it done. >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i'd like to remind you about our upcoming events and speakers. april 23rd, u.s. air force chief of staff general mark welsh will discuss the future of the air force. may 27th we will have donald trump, chairman and president of the trump organization. and may 28th, ben carson, neurosurgeon and author. next i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug. and in the little more than a minute left, i'd like to the ask

you our final question. the national safety council hasn't always maintained a high profile in major transportation debates like aviation safety. do you expect to bring a broader focus to the group's message? >> i hope and expect the national safety council will have a much higher profile in the coming years, and thanks to you all in the press corps, maybe if you cover some of these important issues, it will. thank you, myron. >> thank you. how about a round of applause for our speaker? [applause] >> thank you for coming today. i'd also like to thank national press club staff including its

journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate

floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> president obama leaves tomorrow for a weeklong trip to asia. he'll visit japan, south korea, malaysia and the philippines, but first he'll make a stop in washington state to survey damage from the mud slide that killed more than 30 people last month. president obama will be the first sitting u.s. president to visit malaysia since lyndon johnson visited there in 1966. , "the washington post" reporting president obama will meet with the leaders of four asian nations, he'll answer questions at a town hall-style event at a university in malaysia and answer u.s. service members in south korea during a weeklong trip that begins on tuesday. the trip comes after the

president missed a scheduled visit to four asian countries in the fall during the partial u.s. government shutdown. >> if you start with the basics which is everybody acknowledges that a consumer has the right to an antenna, everybody acknowledges a consumer has a right to make a recording of free-to-air content for themselves, everybody acknowledges there is nothing wrong with a combination of an antenna and a vcr, now a dvr. so the debate seems to be about where that equipment is located because nobody has appealed the findings of facts which was that each individual consumer controls their own antenna. the antenna, actually, is dead until the consumer logs in and instructs the antenna to tune to a particular frequency. each individual consumer makes their own copy, unique, distinct, never mingled with anybody else's and transmits it to themselves. so is none of those facts have

been appealed or disputed ever. so it comes down to we as a country and as a system, do we permit this idea of private conduct which the courts have consistently found, yes, we do, and congress has been encouraging the idea of consumption of local broadcast television. so the idea that a new way of capturing this signal by an individual should somehow be prohibited is just absolutely incorrect, wrong, incorrect policy and a devastating blow to innovation in the next step of our industry which is movement of all of these technologies away from the consumer's home into the cloud. >> tuesday the supreme court will take up whether aereo is violating copyright law by transmitting broadcast networks over the internet without permission. hear from aereo head chet kanojia tonight on "the communicators" at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> and now it's the annual world affairs conference at the university of colorado. this panel forecasts the political future. you'll hear from democratic and republican strategists about the 2014 and the 2016 elections. from boulder, colorado, this is about an hour, 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> mic on? oh, yes. [laughter] sorry for that. i want to get started because, as you know, we run as tight a ship as we can for world affairs. good morning, everyone, and welcome to session 2164 of the conference of world affairs. this session is entitled "the political crystal ball," how appropriate given what's coming in the next couple years. and just for the recording, i need the say that today -- i

know you know what today is -- today is tuesday, april 8th. it's 9:30, and we are in umc 135. >> [inaudible] >> 235, thank you. [laughter] good, you're checking me. my name is suzy ageton, and i have the pleasure of moderating this panel in morning. -- this morning. we will have each of our panelists give some comments, roughly ten minutes if they so choose, and then i will give them an opportunity if they wish to to comment on each other's comments, and i may throw in a question at that point as i'm inviting you to come up to the two microphones on either side of the dais this morning. we will focus primarily on questions from the audience, and as you know, we will give preference to students. so if i see students in line, please don't feel offended if i call them up to come to mic ahead of you. that is the focus of the conference. so i want to start out this morning by reminding all of you

to turn off your cell phones, any other electric -- electronic devices that you have. we do this out of respect for our panel and out of respect for each other so we don't have these things going off in the middle of our meeting. i'm going to start out then by introducing our four panelists in the order in which they will speak. they have decided on this, so there's no, nothing, no significance to be read into the order in which they'll speak. our first speaker is to my immediate left, david bender. he's well known to many conference attendees for his involvement in public issues and political activities. he also has been a broadcaster and an author. and one of the things that you may not know about david is that his interest in politics goes way, way back -- [laughter] and he in seventh grade took a leave of absence to participate in bob kennedy's, robert

kennedy's presidential campaign. [applause] [laughter] >> it's called truancy is the word you're looking for. >> i was trying to be diplomatic here. [laughter] leave of absence. second is mary hughes. mary is a seasoned political strategist, an author who has focused her efforts on increasing the number of women in congress and state legislatures, especially california. [applause] you should know that from 1984 to 2008 in the nine bay area counties in california they sent six women to the house of representatives, two the u.s. senate -- to the u.s. senate, and as many of us know, they celebrated the selection of nancy pelosi as speaker of the house. [applause] mary had a hand in of those campaigns, and she continues to be involved in working on and

urging women to run and win. third we have daniel odescalchi, again, a known face and voice to many who are attendees at the conference. he is a political consultant and campaign strategist. he has worked in me merging countries -- in many emerging countries and the middle east. he also has worked on many political campaigns in the united states. he, too, has a longtime interest in politics, and when asked what got him into politics, he said i was a somewhat nerdy kid, and i really loved politics. [laughter] so thank you, daniel, for that. >> i'm so glad you said that. i was afraid of what you were going to say. [laughter] >> i'm trying to censor this just slightly here. and last but not least we have ana navarro. ana is a cnn contributor and

political strategist, has expertise on latin america and on hispanic -- >> [inaudible] just so you know. [laughter] >> sure, you do. [laughter] >> she served as -- >> cnn hijacked it. [laughter] >> she served as national co-chair of john mccain's his tan panic -- hispanic advisory council in 2008. she's worked on campaigns as well as serving as ambassador to the u.n.'s human rights commission. you can see we have a very knowledgeable and versatile panel. [applause] and david is going to kick us off. >> well, thank you. thank you very much. thank you for being here. i also want to thank c-span for joining us today, because i think c-span is probably one of the rare things i can say that has been great about television and democracy.

and let's give a hand for c-span. [applause] television in the era of the 30-second spot that is generally funded by independent expenditures, largely undocumented money, has not done democracy a favor in recent years, but c-span since its inception has done something incredibly valuable which is to bring an unfiltered view of our government to the peoplement that was the intention, and a lot of people were terrified what it would do, and to this day since it started, every day -- it may be boring to some, but it is invaluable, and i encourage everyone to make sure that their local cable provider or however you get it includes c-span. because it is important to all of us. having said that, let me say that -- well, this morning's paper asked all of us on in this panel to comment on what we saw

in this political crystal ball. and the quote i gave is what i say to anyone who asks about forecasting the political future. they usually will start off with some polling data which says if the election were held today, then -- [laughter] and i always think this person has never worked in politic. [laughter] because the election is never held today unless you're actually asking that question on the first tuesday after the first monday in november. now, we have early voting, so let's extend that out even in some cases to october. but truly, it is impossible. ask some of the former presidents like former president al gore or former president hillary clinton -- [laughter] who were front runners and who in one case, actually, won the popular vote, and i would argue

won the electoral college as well, but didn't get to serve. the conventional wisdom is never what actually winds up playing out. and we're sitting here in 2014, and we're going to have a discussion -- appropriately, i think -- about what might happen this these midterm elections in october/november of this year. and still a lot of variables. a lot of things are going to happen between now and then that we cannot forecast. but people who tell you that they think they know what's going to happen in 2016 really are smoking something that is now legal here in colorado. [laughter] i will say there are some clues. there are some clues. and we have what i now am going to officially dub the sheldon edelson primary. [laughter] and it was held a few weeks ago in las vegas. [laughter] and you can, you can tell by who

chose to participate in that primary who is looking -- not necessarily who is favored, but who is looking at 2016. because these are people who went to a forum sponsored by the world's eighth richest man, sheldon edelson, whose principal interests are two; israel and the prevention of internet gambling which will, of course, cut into the fact that he is the world's eighth richest man, largely based on casino gambling in las vegas and in macao. so the people who went to las vegas to see sheldon edelson included a man you may have heard of, chris christie. he's the governor of new jersey. anyone here heard of him? [laughter] he's been out of the news a lot lately, so i just wanted to remind you that he is the governor of new jersey which includes part of the george washington bridge. [laughter] only half of the george

washington bridge, as my good friend points out. [laughter] not the new york half which has behaved a little bit better. but a number of other people went to participate in the edelson primary. they included scott walker, the governor of wisconsin, they included john kasich, the governor of ohio. now, they didn't go because they needed a trip to las vegas. and scott walker didn't explain what the hebrew pronunciation of his son's name is because he was uninterested in sheldon edelson's support. that's what we call shameless pandering which is what was going on in las vegas. but they understood that this was, as was the case four years ago when people came to visit donald trump,

. >> in 2016 is jeb bush. >> i bell you not to -- [inaudible] >> it's not an endorsement -- >> ruin any of his chances. >> it's an assessment. [laughter] and if i can ruin his chances, then i have more power than i think i have. [laughter] but i will tell you that out of respect, i do believe he brings the strongest credentials to that field. a fairly weak field, but he would give it great gravitas. whether or not he wants to run, i think the person we should ask is his mother who has said we've had too many bushes already. [laughter] i will tell you, though, i think the fact that he went to las vegas shows that he's at least looking at it. i don't think anyone including hillary clinton has made up their mind as yet. maybe a few have.

maybe rick santorum knows what he's doing. [laughter] again in 2016. but most people really are looking at it, trying to get the lay of the land and figure it out. but it is interesting to me that former governor bush was present, has made some early state trips and, again, if you want to follow this, i'll tell you follow the money as hal holbrook famously said in that garage scene in "all the president's men." see where the early donors are going and see if anyone is locked up for a particular presidential candidate. and follow the travel. ask the people of iowa, new hampshire and south carolina who they've met lately. and that'll give you some idea of how the 2016 field is shaping up at least in the minds of people who think they're

credible candidates. doesn't mean they will be, it means that they're testing the waters. and as my colleague daniel pointed out, if you were doing this same exercise early on when then-former mayor rudy giuliani was considered the front runner for the republican nomination, you would have thought based on press accounts he had it locked up. so, again with, conventional wisdom does not exist in this process, and we will prove that by sharing our unconventional wisdom today. thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] >> mary? go ahead. >> good morning, everybody. wonderful to be with you. my crystal ball's a little bit clearer it reads in headlines. so i'm going to share six of them with you this morning, and that said, i also agree that we'll see how it goes. the funny thing about

predictions is you hope enough time has passed, no one remembers them. [laughter] so we'll see. be i am happy to tell you about these, though, because as you might guess as we go along, there are things that perhaps are things that we might want to see or some of us might. the first is the northeast which led in new england, in new hampshire with a sweep of women in all of its statewide offices last year will lead again the region in the renaissance of women governors. for the last decade, we have gone from nine women governors to the current five, four republican women lead states and one democrat. that would be maggie hasen in new hampshire, and there are three; in pennsylvania, alan schwartz, in rhode island gina -- [inaudible]

and martha coakley in massachusetts taking a second run at it. i think they'll all run strong. i think that we will increase the number of women governors significantly, and that will be a major story in the '14 midterm elections. dynasties will be much in your headlines over the next year and then perhaps for four years. but you are going to watch michelle nunn in georgia in what is emerging as a very interesting race where she has a clear field against an unruly field of republicans who are competing for their nomination. her father, you will remember, sam nunn, served for 24 years in the house with distinction and expert on the armed services committee. that i would keep my eye there. mark udall here you all know him well, and that's another one that people will be watching closely.

then pri your in arkansas. -- pryor in arkansas. and i think this is important for reasons that have been alluded to. i don't know how much tolerance we have to invest in families to lead us. and it's hard to know whether the values that we come to know about them are so clear to us that we have confidence and trust that is earned or whether we are a lazy electorate, and it's just easier to go with the brand you know. but i think this election cycle and the next one will put us to the test. whether we're ready for, call it a generational change, call it a shift in perception, but some different approach to how we evaluate the generations that come after. and i think we're going to have an opportunity to do that. i alluded to new hampshire where we all know all politics in

america is rooted, and there's another contest there you may have noticed in the last 48 hours there i think, scott brown has moved into new hampshire to run against jeanne shaheen. let me just assure you, jeanne shaheen will make short work of that. [laughter] [applause] i can imagine no voters in the country, live free or die. you're going to come into our state, tell us you're going to represent us, and i thought, really interesting. really interesting. so i don't know what it is -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> so i feel like the one thing you want to watch about that move is who's behind it and for what reason related to the presidential election coming up. so i think that that is an important thing to watch for. and my crystal pal stops there.

crystal ball stops there. the d.c. mayor's race where the mayor -- and it's unclear to me from the left coast what exactly was underneath this. it always troubles me when law enforcement officers bring charges so close to an election and, and most wisely don't. but i think a lot of information came out late in that election, and a woman council member beat the sitting mayor running for re-election. there have been in the last months in various pockets of our country prominently in my own unfortunate scandals. and not really scandals, just crimes. just people charged with crimes. i know the mayor of charlotte was indicted, we have a state senator in san francisco be who was indicted following the indictment of two other state senators for unrelated crimes. and i do think that we are reaching a tipping point again

where we ask ourselves what is it that allows for this to go on and on and on? and what is the antidote? now, i can tell you that historically the antidote to this problem has been elect women. and you all may remember back i think it was in the 1990s in arizona when the state of arizona said are you kidding me? they had a governor who i believe; i think he was indicted, and they then swept, women swept all the top offices in arizona. we call that in our work the virtue advantage. i will tell you -- [laughter] it has pretty much as women have become more and more prominent and leaders, that advantage in many ways has fallen away. but in some sense for some voters -- and voters skew older as you know -- there is some vestige of it. so i would say whether that election heralds a trend, it is

not probably beginning of a big trend. but i would ask you to watch how voters react in this next election to the issue of fast and loose. i think to my colleague's point there is a great deal afoot with jeb bush. and i hope ana will illuminate more on this point. but the one i'm interested in and the one i'm really, i hope heralds a good, a good discussion for the country is the acceptance of immigration reform as something that we must do, that we should do for a host of reasons including a compassionate one, to keep families together. and i think republican congressional candidates will be grateful to him over this next

12, 24, 36 months because the language that the debate has devolved into is divisive, and no one can move off their position. and he has come straight at it and said we have to do this, we have to do it better. there are great reasons for doing it. and that gives everyone else cover to find the right place for them to talk about the issue in a constructive way. and that is terrific. so we'll hope that makes a difference. what you don't want to see is a simple shuffling of the lingo so that we end up in a highly partisan place on the issue yet again with no progress. so watch for progress, but a hopeful sign and a crystal ball. and then finally i just want to say i think the mccutcheon decision by the supreme court recently on campaign finance

reform is unfortunate, albeit consistent. and here's what i mean. if you agree with buckley that speech and money are the same, then this was a consistent decision. but those, the unintended consequences of that decision we live with every day in the constant porousness between policy and money. it's unhealthy, it's unwholesome, and it's choking, choking our legislatures and our congress. so i would just say to you while i do not see in my crystal ball a short-term solution for this, it is the one thing that will make a huge difference to the way we do public policy and probably have a big effect on all of the other issues i've

mentioned. so i'll stop there. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. >> morning. >> you know, i had a crystal ball, and i was going to bring it with me this morning. but as i was looking at it this morning, i didn't see a reason to. i saw marion berry and the mayor of toronto smoking crack, and it really got all cloudy. [laughter] and then it started to dissipate a little bit, and i saw a tweet from anthony weiner -- [laughter] who wants to primary de blasio in new york, and i was afraid to read it. so i'm going to abandon that. however, i want to approach this panel a little differently today. i know we have many panelists here who are going to talk about the candidates and, you know, the play-by-play. i'm going to step back for a

moment and talk about something that i feel is going to affect this election, the one, the midterm next as well as the presidential -- election as well as the presidential, and it's going to affect our politics here in this country and abroad pretty significantly. and that issue is the fact that many americans today feel threatened. we feel threatened, our jobs are threatened, our standing in the world is threatened, and this is going to realign not just the electorate, but how politicians react to this electorate. you know, if you think about it, now, i actually worked for doug hoffman when he ran, he was the first tea party candidate. so i saw it starting to foment very early in the tea party was, in a sense, a reaction to this.

there is a fear among the electorate of where america's place is in the world today. and this is going to have very -- it's shifting the politics in this country. but i will also step back even further for just one moment, among western democracies in those countries that associate themselves with it, we're seeing this in those countries as well. you know, hungary just elected a prime minister again and gave him a greater far-right majority. we know what's going on in israel, we see this going on in france and germany, in the netherlands. we see -- because people are feeling threatened. back to america. let's talk about how this is going to affect the politics, the politicians and the policies that they're going to start promoting in elections.