works. it takes a while, but we feel confident as they roll in we will be able to turn them around in the kinds of time periods we've laid out for the railroads. as of now it just received one. >> are you satisfied with the progress the railroads have made thus far? >> i would not be satisfied unless the deadline were going to be met. >> you know my dad told me years ago and i don't remember what he was talking about at the time, but everything looks easy from the distance. i was reading over mr. lonegro's testimony for csx. it's says that tasks are still monumental and csx has to do a complete air board survey of art tired 21000-mile network to make all i said map within

seven feet of the 5202 wayside unit signals along 7500 miles of tracks in 1285 stations. equipping 3900 locomotives training 16,000 employees. i mean, these tasks are monumentally conservative when you say that. mr. lonegro, tell me about the safety record of csx. so far. >> we been an industry leader for the last two or three years and safety and the whole industry if you go back and look at the train accident statistics has seen significant 40% to 50% reduction in accidents since the 2000 time. safety is a core value in a way of life is the first core value

we have and it's very similar to every other brown wrote. every day with that increase safety others to improve conditions in the track infrastructure, equipment side of the house, cars, locomotives and the human during training efforts we do. we have the technology that looks exactly how it was handled to figure out whether there's any anomalies and a coaching session if they were overs beat we have the conversation if they happen to richard that signaled they are taken out of service and is certified. we are starting down the path to understand the behaviors that contribute. >> to committee staff gave me the statistic that the freight rail system has 99.995% safe based on the number through trips that are taken.

that seems to me to be a phenomenal safety record. a short time ago the 2014 was the safest year ever. now, everybody has to mend this and the hunt amtrak accident and now there will be sending billions and will be sending billions more that is already one of the safest things in the entire world. i am thinking we would be far better off to spend those billions in many other ways. cancer research and everything else. my time is up. thank you mr. chairman.

>> you've been so gracious with your time. >> gracious. get that? gracious. i want to thank the panel. ms. seidenberg, we are here today because we think ptc can save lives. if you are a weaker or a monthly but the report, does anybody die? are there any major property losses? if one of the railroads came inside or not would make december 31st but we will make january 15th, are you likely to be imposing big signs and someone who is a few weeks or months late? >> highly unlikely. >> i didn't think so. >> mr. kerwin, it costs over $200 million into the ptc system. is that right? how much did the accident caused >> in excess of that amount they

would say. >> in heinz might come in knowing what the accident cost versus what the system caused the system has 30 paid for health. >> yes, sir. >> is has paid for itself underline, it is it reasonable to say it would in any other line and avoided accidents? >> i would agree with that. >> i think so too. nobody here wants any fines. we all understand not mr. orseno. we get that. at the same time we said here seven years later with the major love is having done virtually nothing. how would you suggest -- let's assume we could come together -- by the way who set this deadline? >> the congress. >> are you empowered to ignore that? are you empowered to change the deadline?

>> no. >> is only us? >> yes. >> the deadline is not met. the deadline has to be extended. we are not looking to do fines. but we don't know enough not -- not ask ms. feinberg or anyone else. at the same time once we do it how do we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again for any reasonable for a time. two years come in three years five years 10 years without a stick. mr. orseno. i don't want the fines, but how do i do it any other way? >> as his brother. many occasions i believe that beyond that for me 2000 safety act that was a date agreed upon. once we got into the significant challenges -- >> i understand how we are today. today right now if i say to you

write a law that says in some. of time to three five years we will have this done. how do i enforce it if i don't have lines? >> i think we need to look at it at that time. the key issue is right now we are going to meet the deadline. it is not for lack of buffer. >> the bottom line is i don't know any other way. this is why fines are in place. you have contracts with suppliers to with suppliers that gave been fines if they don't meet their requirements. we have to have the same thing if we think the ptc is important. i fully agree the federal government should participate in paying for this you know the arguments we have here. i am with you but i need 217 other members to agree with that. in the meantime we can't do anything. it is clear to me we have to do some thing but to pretend we do nothing or pretend somehow

goodness will simply overcome the lack of goodness is ridiculous and unenforceable. when they become up with the timeframe and allowed ms. fine work to enforce the law. i don't expect you to break the law. it also don't want to find anybody. we can do it all day long. we can look five years ago, seven years ago. according to the ntsb their own figures, preventable accident have killed 246 people in adventure 4263. i don't know how much money has been lost because no one has put that number together. if it is the $200 million cap which would have cost metrolink more it is hard to tell but it seems rough numbers it looks like the cab would have caused

caused -- even with the cap would've been $20 billion. that's what these accidents would've caused. this is a doable action and it is an action that pays for itself is proof positive by metrolink. help us work with you to get it done. by the way, mr. mathias, earlier you said that 8500 polls agree to. that doesn't count the 11,000 previously across the country that have been approved. so with far to cut two thirds the locations approved and ready to go. thank you for your indulgence. >> mr. barletta. >> thank you, mr. chairman. safety is my first priority. train controls are a necessary tool to improve safety but the

fact of the matter is most railroads will not have technology called by december 31st 2015 deadline. i am wondering what is happening on january 1st 2016 if the deadline remains. mr. lonegro, today ms. feinberg holds the bag is accountable for not meeting the ptc deadline fines and restrictions of service. if the deadline is not extended, what actions will the road goes likely take? what is going to happen on january 1st? >> there is one way to be compliant and that is not to move the commodities or passengers which is an untenable situation with your agency. so the rabbits right now are in a very difficult place with a deadline that can only be congressionally moved.

we again have a lot of folks evaluating how we look at the common carrier obligation. i would look at the ptc mandate to figure out a way to navigate through breaking the law on one hand and we have a similar situation with amtrak and commuter agencies required to move the passengers over our lines and again we have a passenger requirement and i hate to say we are being backed in a corner of which laws to violate it and maybe the passover does involve cessation of service. we are all looking not that in evaluating increased tort liability. we worry about that as well. an untenable situation as i mentioned in my opening statement. >> mr. orseno, you mentioned concerns in the tpa rail conference about the ability to

operate past the ptc deadline as it relates to reliability and coverage. can you describe of ivillage and coverage issues would prevent commuter will the dozen keep the ptc will from operating. >> the question was raised on whether we can operate past the deadline because you can operate outside the confines of the law and coverage is another commuter railroads now go back with their risk and legal teams to take a look and see if that case. >> you've already said metro won't take the december 31, 2015 deadline. pennsylvania will not meet the deadline if they are. if the worst-case scenario occurs to me a rabbit does receive any flexibility, how would commuters who relied on metro or rather well be impacted

by operation changes? >> that would depend on the degree of what happens if railroads are forced to close down because of reliability reason and insurance reasons for us to love up to 300,000 passengers on the rose already congested and that would be a good solution. >> in pennsylvania the furthest in the onboard vehicle locomotive system installations you also cited in your testimony one of the biggest challenges onboard software and the final production release date is not yet known. can you tell us why this has been such a challenge? >> i don't have the technical knowledge by mr. lonegro does. >> ttc in the very beginning was somewhat the radical in the way the regulation was published in terms of what it had to

accomplish and how it had to accomplish that. so we took a system that was much smaller much less complicated and much less mature entries appeared at the last the last seven years working to the point where it can comply with all of the regulations on the functionality that has been required. i will tally from a software perspective we are getting closer being arguably the end of the year we could have a piece of software that is close. at the same time, we've committed to not implement software within a critical defects or severe defects, but yet we are willing to deploy software with medium or minor defects. we are not trying to get to perfect but we are making sure it can provide functionality and doesn't create a situation in a safety problem is introduced. in the last month or so with

sound software which has to be corrected retested and taken back to the field of the same holds true for the software. these are people of the supplier community. this is their business. this is what they do for a living as they are unable to tackle the technical challenge in front of all of us that gives you some understanding of the complexity of the challenge we have because that is one piece of the puzzle. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i would like to recognize, if you'll indulge me for a second, i will turn it over to mr. mr. rokita. i want to enter one piece of information for the record without objection. this is from california high-speed rail.

this is their june 2009 request for funding. on their request, 230 million from the investment strategy from those funds in california. here is a map where it shows the improvements would be. can you soon dotted? clearly move it up. positive train control $230 million. they think they can do it. they want to have the improvements there. >> my staff pastor here in that state for high-speed rail.

we will follow-up good look look at those two numbers together. >> all bring that down for the record is the record is a continuing this ongoing exchange. without either to recognize ms. brown for a second round of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. would you indulge me for a moment. the positive train control from new haven to boston. not only did they implement, it was the first in the country and i want to submit that for the record. metrolink who i visited there several times in california and i just want to mention that you had the support of the state the local recovery money and funding is an issue for all of commuter lines. let's don't sit here and act like it's not in a lot of the local resources not available for the other line. was that i want to go word

because i want to say all those great things but they are representing the class one railroad and they said there is some positive players and some that's not. would you give us up to date because we need an extension to the idea will start finding people and then where is the money going? i want the money to go into the system. would you tell us who are these negative players they are talking about? >> there are no bad actors here. this technology is difficult to implement. scale proposition we each have is very challenging as one of the members discussed earlier for the major u.s. cost one skills about the same. we all have the major challenge. canadian rebels have a smaller footprint because they don't run as much in the united state and there is no man date in canada

so the footprint is slightly smaller. at least on the cost oneworld there are no bad at yours. >> that's not what i heard. are you while working with the commuter lines also? >> each of us has commuters we work with so on the footprint we have commuters in and around d.c. certainly in chicago and a full spectrum of commuters in amtrak that run from baltimore to boston. we are in active discussions with them all the time. we hosted a summit in chicago where we broaden the class ones in the committee i chair. we broaden the commuters in short lines and did our best to educate folks on the state of the technology they wouldn't have to face the same challenges as they deployed on the river is. we addicted dialogue and

certainly chime in. we have another meeting planned for later this year where we can reengage and reassess we are. >> is the amount of time? >> is an industry, one of the things to come forward with is the ability to be hardware complete and completely ruled out by 2020. a month to make sure everybody understands that the end of 2018, we will have as an industry 87% of the pdc footprint installed and implemented meaning we are operational based on plans in place before the amtrak tragedy and the remaining or 2% comes in the last two years. literally we are starting to deploy ptc in operational mode right now and it ramps up front here fairly linearly through the end of 2020.

>> ms. feinberg, how long will it take you out to inspect if they completed 2018, you have work to do how long will it take you to verify the system? >> they submit a plan and would complete implementation and things would move quite quickly. via she would be three years past the deadline at that point. >> everybody understand that. we understand the deadline is not realistic and we have some concerns. mr. mathias we talked a lot about it. even when implemented we need to be able to talk to each other if 9/11 we discovered we couldn't talk to each other. and then katrina still not talking to each other. even though they are implementing something in amtrak is implementing something and you have the local respondents.

how come we don't have a dedicated emergency. >> thank you for that question. congress has worked hard and diligently to create an infrastructure for a national interoperable public safety communications has done and i think that it's been addressed in that way and been handled in a separate process. but that is on the way. >> mr. mathias it is not an option. we really need to get it done. thank you. >> i think the gentlelady. i recognize myself for five minutes. appreciate everyone's testimony. mr. lonegro a couple questions about the two people in the cap situation. in our last hearing chairman hart testified having to do necessarily improve safety and he was on a panel with several

union members than others. wondered what your thoughts are on that statement. >> we have two people on our mainline trains. we certainly over the period of years if not decades in the future will look for the opportunity to reduce from two to one of the technology he supports that and were able to negotiate an agreement with labor unions. there's a path forward when the technology gets to the plan to the point where having two people in the cat really is no longer necessary. >> the last hearing is the fra is looking at having a two-person situation as an interim solution with some additional backstops as well until ptc is implemented before a deadline after deadline. would you be supportive of that? >> of the phrase that it's not necessary. we are to have it.

she was referring to the commuter side of the house with generally operates one person although cert and crewmembers and the train itself. we are to have two -- >> same question as a last question you mr. orseno. >> we operate with one person in the cabin to people in the body of the train. two members in the cab doesn't necessarily mean a safer situation. many instances where there's been accidents were to be loved husband in the cab. we don't support that initiative. >> thank you, sir. mr. kerwin, same to you. >> will continue to monitor the recommendations from the fra and ntsb on the issue. >> back to you. he said you require ptc by 2016? >> correct. >> csx having a two-person crew is an interim solution until ptc is fully implemented and

required rises logistically doable. >> they have two-person crews as an interim solution until ptc is fully implemented and theoretically complied with requirements of ptc if you had two people in a cab. >> there is no requirement today. >> we are to have a demented time ago from two to one we have to work with fra to get approval to do that. it is not necessary given where we are the steps we would have to go through to remove one member of the crew. >> okay, thank you. the only other thing for the record in addition to any other things ms. feinberg may or may not have been blamed for they apparently sent mr. mica to the hospital which obligates me to go visit to him.

with that my questions are done and i don't see any more questions from members. on behalf of chairman denham let me thank you each for coming today. we thank members of the audit further attention today. we move forward. with backup maker in no other business before the committee, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span, oral arguments in the final three cases handed down from the supreme court starting at 6:25.

>> i am hopeful at some point congress will take on high skill immigration because it is still very important. frankly i don't know the exact number, but when we have some of the innovators here, researchers here we have the best models of the road to make scientists and engineers. as for other companies as well. it is still a need for the job respect this. >> the application is actually

to collect askew does that have bitten people to determine what kind of viruses might year-round what kind of diseases made year-round through taking the blood samples that the mosquitoes than figuring out the genetic code of some of the constituents of their blood. ..

at various altitudes above the earth. >> a visit to microsoft washington, d.c. office tonight on the communicators on c-span2. inroads to the white house of ohio governor is set to announce his bid for the presidency next month. mike allen writing he will jump into the crowded republican presidential field on july 21 at the student union at his alma mater in the ohio state university in columbus. you can read more about governor kasich online in politicos today. last week c-span sat down with presidential candidate and vermont senator bernie sanders

who discussed his life and family and first major bill in the senate and why people should vote for him. the interview is part of a series of conversations declared a 2016 presidential candidates part of c-span road to the white house coverage. we spoke with the senator in his office on capitol hill. it's about 50 minutes. >> senator bernie sanders independent from vermont i want to talk about the issues that motivate the senate and campaign but i want to begin by talking about you. you ran for the senate a couple of times and are one point you got to hand than 4% of the vote. but you kept coming back. why? >> guest: i couldn't quite figure it out but here's what it was. in those days essentially we were running educational campaigns and frankly i enjoyed them very much but when i ran for the first time in a special election in 1971 i got 2% of the

vote and came back and got 1% or 4% i have a 6% of the vote. i've always enjoyed the opportunity of getting out and talking to people, going to meetings and adjust talking about the most important issues facing working people and then what happened in 1981 someone suggested if you run as an independent to become the mayor in the city of burlington which is the larger city we put together an incredible coalition of groups and activists and organizations in the unions and the patrol association. it was an incredible coalition and we ended up winning and we were off and running. >> host: then you ran for the house and lost and came back and ran again. >> it's an interesting point. i ran for the house and 86 got

14% of the vote. we were heavily outspent but it showed the people of vermont there was significant support for the message. i ran for the house and i got -- the republican won with 34% and the democrats got 19%. three years later i won by 16-point. you can say i am a fairly persistent guy and keep going forward. >> host: your legacy is mayor. >> guest: most people will tell you that we essentially transformed the city to what is now regarded as one of the most livable and small cities in the united states is extraordinary in downtown burlington in the evening in the summertime there are thousands of people we have a beautiful waterfront now

public park bike path we paid attention, we've led the nation coming up with affordable housing we had a powerful relationship where people could have input into the decisions and i will tell you something i am extremely proud of. at that point became close to doubling the turnout from 81 to 83 almost doubling the turnout. there's a lot of working class people that said the government can actually work for us rather than just for the big business interests and you're standing up for us. the working class areas of the city to-1, three through code

one. >> host: anyone that listens knows you are not a native of vermont so how do you end up there? >> guest: my wife and i had a little bit of money. my father passed away and you could buy land in vermont for what seems to be a ridiculously low amount of money so we bought some land in vermont and came up here for a number a few years later we made it out permanently. >> host: your dad was a painter plex >> guest: no come a paint salesman. i was born in brooklyn new york. my dad came from poland at the age of 17 without any money at all and i often think back on how incredibly brave he was. a 17-year-old comic, came to the country with no money at all and she never made much money in his

life. we were middle class and lived in a small rent controlled apartment and one of the disappointments in my mother's life, she graduated high school and went to college she always wanted a home of her own but that we never had the money to do that. she never achieved the dream. but what ended up happening is both of the sons are able to go to college which was a big deal. >> host: how do you describe your parents? >> guest: wonderful people. my father i think because of his financial background of having come to the country without any money and living through the great depression was worried about not having a job. my mother was more ambitious wanting more and to be honest

with you there was a lot of tension in our household something i've never forgotten. my mother wanted her own home. my father was just nervous about it spending money with happens if you lose your job. so the attention of our money was very significant. so the fear about not having money into seeing other kids with more money my mom what can i say they were good people. my father loved america without ever talking about it all that much but when you come from poland his kids were able to enjoy a quality of life that would have been unthinkable.

just without talking about it he was an extremely proud american. >> host: did you apply those lessons in raising your own family? >> guest: my wife will tell you i'm very tight with money. when i was elected mayor in burlington i was living in a small apartment. she forced me at that point by a home so i think i even inherited some of my parents tightness with money. >> host: how did you meet your wife? >> guest: she was looking straight to the co- youth program in burlington and

obviously very concerned in 1981 about the election coming up so she went to the office with the incumbent and a started telling him why don't you do this and that and he said you sound like this guy bernie sanders. we went out and we were married in 1980. >> host: there is a recording of you. you know what i'm talking about. this land is your land. available online at berniebeat.com. how did that come about? >> guest: there was a guy that had a studio not far away from where jane was living in peace and good to put together a band.

and i remember it was a lot of fun to see how an album was put together but needless to say people shouldn't vote for me for president based on my singing capabilities. not when i'm running for office i'm not going to seem some songs >> host: the role of the federal government is what? >> guest: in a civilized democratic society the role of the federal government in my view is to represent the needs of the vast majority of the people and to do everything that we can to make sure that all people have a decent standard of living in a decent quality of life and i've got to say this one of the points we are making in the campaign is that people are fully appreciative of how far we are behind many other countries and protecting.

for example i don't know how many people know there's one major country on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare as a right and that country is the united states of america. we have 35 million without any health insurance and even more underinsured. that's wrong. healthcare should be a right. they do do it the uk visit, scandinavia does it healthcare should be. and america right now if we don't have a lot of money you have no guarantee that you are going to be paid people to stay home and take care of your baby. that is an outrage. i'm going to fight for that not only moms but dads as well. paid sick leave, and guaranteed vacation time. because of the collapse of the american middle class and wages in america people are working the longest hours. we have no paid vacation time.

i want to see people have paid vacation time and i want to see us make sure colleges affordable for all people to take your family doesn't see your family doesn't have a lot of money you can't afford to go to college or you come out of college you have to spend the rest of your life paying off that debt. that is crazy stuff. >> host: i read you for taking trips of your constituents to canada. why is it so much more expensive here in the u.s. and across the border. >> guest: sometimes events happen and you don't forget and this was one that i was the first member of the house to take people across the canadian border. we took a busload of people they were mostly women, working-class

women and i will ever forget this we went to a pharmacy on montréal. women were buying the drug for 10% of the price that they were paying in the united states of america because the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful lobbying force is, very wealthy and powerful. every major country including canada negotiates the drug prices because they have a national health care systems so they are asking to be top-of-the-line prices and in this country right now because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry you walk into a drugstore tomorrow to get medicine there are no regulations. they can charge you any price they want and it's not only brand-name drugs but generic drugs which will also skyrocket so the bottom line is the

pharmaceutical industry can do anything it wants and it's a horrific situation because i talk to doctors who work in the working-class communities and they say 25% of the patients cannot afford to fill prescriptions doctors are writing. so that is an issue that i've been on for a long time. we've got to regulate the pharmaceutical industry. they can't continue to charge the highest prices in the world. >> host: you are espousing socialism how do you respond? >> guest: the answer is i am a democratic socialist and i think we have a lot to learn from countries like denmark, norway, sweden and many european countries who done a much better job than we have in terms of incoming wealth and equality guaranteeing health-care. do you know how much college costs blacks should buy up all

the joys, we have to make sure that everybody in this country is able to get an education regardless of the encounter incumbent families. our system in this country many families cannot find affordable quality in one of the most important needs of zero to four. i think what we need is a betterment of caps the innovation. we are a very entrepreneurial society. every day somebody comes up with a great product. that's a great thing. but when you have a situation where the top one tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90% 99% of all of the income is going to the top 1%. that is not an economy that works with the people in the country. it's not sustainable. we've got to make some

fundamental changes in the way that we do economics in the country. >> host: how do you do that and have a free enterprise system that does create the jobs and innovation into the entrepreneurship that is known in the country lacks >> guest: is to say innovate. we want you to do that at the same time we can't have all of it. we can't have all of the wealth that is coming into this country. we have to be part of america. it's destroying america. they cannot have it all. so we are not the only one that the tax system is fair. when you have major corporations in the country stashing virtually tens of billions of dollars of profits in the cayman

islands and others that's wrong. warren buffett says the effective tax rate is lower. so we have to say to the wealthiest people in the country if you want to enjoy america you have to accept the results ability and the response responsibly is paying their fair share of taxes that our kids can go to college and so that we can have a strong child care system and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure which is an international embarrassment and cost hundreds of millions of jobs you >> host: advocating the 90% tax rate is that a reality or -- >> that's been around the internet. we are working on a copy of the tax proposal. what we have done is introducing number of pieces of legislation already.

but here's what i want. we are going to eliminate these incredible loopholes that allow the tax agency and we are losing $100 billion a year on that. it. we are going to ask for a transaction tax on wall street speculation with a lot of revenue. in doing that we are going to propose a progressive estate tax at the time when the rich are getting much richer and the republican colleagues have decided we should eliminate the estate tax and get a 200 billion-dollar plus tax break over ten years to the top two tenths of 1%. and what we are going to do is come up with a progressive estate tax for the billionaire class to pay their fair share of taxes. >> host: if elected president he would have at least the republican-controlled house, possibly senate. how would you get things done?

>> guest: that is a great question. and i'm probably the only president that has ever said this and that is disabled for no person no matter who or she may be as president can address the problems facing the middle-class and working families in this country unless there is a political revolution in the same that we develop a strong grassroots political movement which then not only elect somebody to be president but maintains their energy in demanding the congress represent all of the people in the campaign contributors create one of the interesting points very often people say your way out of touch can get if you look at the issues that i talk about guess what, the majority of the people support the issues that i talk about.

for expanding the social security. i want to expand it. the strong support for strong support for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. that is my view. many republicans want to even eliminate the concept of social security. strong support for the large corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes. they want to lower taxes on the rich so the interesting point is they are way out of touch with where the american people are coming from and my job is to rally the american people, working the people in the country to create a strong political movements of the congress starts listening to them and when that happens we will be able to get a progressive agenda through if it doesn't as the last election 63% of the people don't vote.

>> host: has president obama president obama met your expectations? >> guest: yes and no. i personally like president obama very much. there are a number of issues and i think that history will judge him kinder than his contemporaries. when he came into office we were losing 800,000 jobs a month in the financial system in the world was on the verge of collapse. where i disagree with him on the floor of the senate for hours on the first cluster in history was to say do not continue the tax for the rich. obviously i would strongly disagree on the transpacific partnership which i believe is a continuation of the disastrous trade policies and i disagree on a number of other issues. but do i think that he's working he is working hard to protect families? i do. but here is where i believe she's made a very big mistake

and that is after running a brilliant name nikko campaign in 2008. thank you for electing me that i will take it from here and also down with mitch mcconnell. i knew him but not very well. the views are obviously different from mine on every major issue keeping his.

obviously we would disagree on everything and what i respect about him when he took office in 94 he was a pretty bold guy. he laid out his cell phone contract. i disagreed with every element against it but he laid out a bold right-wing agenda, and i think the agenda that represents the wealthiest people and the most powerful people. i think it is time that we had a bold progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of working families in the country many of whom are working longer hours for low wages. many of whom are falling further and further behind and i think we need an agenda that says you know what we are going to raise the minimum wage, we are going

to make sure kids can afford to go to get decent child care. and by the way, we are going to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision which has done so much harm to the country and allowing billionaires. >> host: not not only a bold and progressive that we covered in denver the huge crowd in the university denver and you said we need to think big and the challenges facing the country are poor profound. can you elaborate on that? >> guest: the middle-class has been disappearing for 40 years and i want you to see that there's an explosion in technology. we have seen a huge increase in worker productivity. if that is the reality, how does that happen if millions of people are working longer hours and somebody that works with the church is telling me that 90% of

the people that walk into the shelters are people whose wages do not allow them. 45 million people live in poverty and we have a level of poverty or stand any time since 1928. so it's failing the middle class and the rich are becoming obscenely richer. we have youth unemployment over 30%. we have a campaign finance system rainout which billionaires are able to buy elections. does anybody believe that's what american democracy should be like and then on top of all of that they've reminded us we have a global crisis in terms of climate change and what the scientists are telling us is if we don't get our act together

into energy efficiency the planet that we are going to leave our children and grandchildren. billionaires are able to buy elections and climate change not being sufficiently dealt with the collapse of the it safe to say it's more than sins. i love this guy. i think that what he has done is so extraordinary. people say read what he says. and what he says is not just that we have to pay attention to dispossessed is what he called them. for the children all over the world we don't have any jobs.

today the youth unemployment 51% than those that graduated high school. this is true all over the world. he says. engine to this and he also says we have made money. we worship money. you become a billionaire you are a big hero. making hundreds of millions of dollars. you are a teacher making 40 were $50,000. you are living alone can't afford to buy the food to eat or medicine. so, i think that he has been just an extraordinary leader, of the great religious leaders speaking out on issues that are not discussed. so, count me in as a very strong supporter. >> host: do you think that he will be a transformational figure in history? >> guest: he came along at exactly the time that we needed.

and not only speaking of incoming votes and inequality. that's huge, but talking about what kind of a coach or where you tell kids it is to make as much money as you possibly can. you don't have to worry about the environment. it's caring about your fellow human beings is good and it is what life is supposed to be about. so, i am just a huge fan and we posted on the website, very often we post the different things he's talking about. >> host: would you consider yourself middle-class? >> guest: today we we started off lower middle class. i would say upper-middle-class. you own stocks or mutual funds? >> guest: wheedled with ibm and i own $500 of ibm stock.

i don't think i am than any then anymore. >> host: campaigns are about choices and differences. so, on the policy issues where do you differ with your opponents o'malley and hillary clinton? >> guest: first of all, i have known hillary clinton for 25 years and served with her for a while in the senate. and i like her and respect her. it's one intelligent woman who has a very strong career public service and there will not be personal attacks about delery clinton but we do have differences of opinion. but they give you a few examples. not only did i vote based on the information that i received not only did i vote against the war in iraq i was one of the leaders in opposition and i just recently saw on youtube a speech that i gave that showed a lot of what i feared would happen. secretary clinton obviously

voted for that. i believe that climate change, as i mentioned a moment ago was one of the great global crisis that we face. it made no sense to me that we should extract and transport some of the dirtiest fuel in this country was from the keystone pipeline, i opposed the keystone pipeline. ..

a i voted against it. secretary clinton when she was in the senate voted for it. the bottom line i think of all of those things is that right now, above and beyond all of that, we need leadership which says to the billionaire class people who not have the wealth and the power that you just cannot have it all. that our country and our government belong to all of the people and not just a few. i have spent my entire political life, the mayor of burlington, a member of the house who united states senator in opposition to every special interest you can imagine. people will have to judge what secretary clinton's position is. >> host: there will be differences in how you fund your camping and she and others fund their campaign. >> guest: one of the residences i have in deciding to run is could we run a campaign

taking on people who have incredible sums of money or setting up super pacs? talking of citizens united these outrageous super pacs by which billionaires can put as much money as they want often without any disclosure would love. in fact, there will be campaigns being run with a super pacs will spend more money than the contributions coming in from the individual contributions. that is awful and undermining american democracy. i don't have a super pac. i'm not going to sport a super super pac and i was just wondering could we raise enough money through small individual contributions not outspend our opponents and we can't do that, but to write a strong and credible campaign? turns out we've got roughly about 200,000 americans going to bernie sanders.com who are prepared to make modest occupations. our contributions average less than $40. it's really incredible.

i'm going to be heavily outspent but the good news at least for me is where going a bit of money to run a credible campaign and a winning campaign. >> host: are you taking lessons from their campaign for burlington mayor across the country? >> guest: absolutely. a lesson i learned as mayor of burlington, the way you win elections is you bring people together. so you bring people in the union movement together with people in the environmental movement. will they have differences of opinion? yes. but most of the big issues they will be in agreement. they're fighting for middle-class and for working families. you bring people in the women's movement, the gay movement the african wiccan community, the hispanic community come in the asian community. you bring people together around a common agenda that says okay we may disagree on this or that issue, but let's not get divided up. that's what republicans like to do. i like to bring people together.

that's what i did as mayor. we called it coalition politics. we are going to stand together to fight for a growing middle class rather than a shrinking middle class. and fight for a government which is not beholden to large and wealthy campaign contributors but to the needs of ordinary americans. we are also going to focus a lot on young people. because i think they're so much idealism and energy among young people of this country. and especially around issues of women's rights and climate change. we're going to try to tap into that as much as we can. >> host: this is a "national journal." one of your supporters in iowa john murphy said bernie sanders going to bring up some the issues that hillary clinton may not want to talk about. >> guest: absolutely. just wanted to talk in generalities we have been as specific as we can.

we have mapped out a specific legislation as how we're going to make every college and university in this country tuition free. we are going to do it by a tax on wall street, very specific. i introduced legislation that would call for a fee on carbon so that we can transform our energy system and deal with climate change. we have introduced legislation to guarantee health care to all of our people as a right. i think on issue i have introduced legislation to overturn citizens united, a supreme court decision. i don't talk about vague or general ideas. we have been specific on some of the most important issues facing the american people and that's what this campaign is going to be about speed you've had huge crowd numbers. poll numbers look promising in iowa and new hampshire. has it surprised you? >> guest: yet. i thought from day one that the inside the beltway mentality

that you see so much in media and in congress is way, way removed from the realities of people. people out there are hurting. they don't understand why 99% of all income is going to the top 1%. i bought a government that bought a government they can respect, they are part of a government that represents their interests. that's what i knew from day one. what i did not know that the campaign would be catching on as fast as it has. >> host: you get to pick a running mate or cabinet what -- >> guest: are you looking for another job? post a what type of people which surround yourself with? >> guest: let me say this. and all due respect to recent president, from president obama for president bush, to president clinton, to president bush won.

i will not surround myself with people who come from wall street and corporate america. there are and million people out there of all walks of life was spent a lot of their life fighting for the needs of working families fighting for minority rights. and those are the people i will return to. i think it's premature to be talking about that. i think we are doing well. i'm not a great fan of polls and we'll see what happens, but i'm feeling good about the election. and little bit premature to be talking about running mates. >> host: your 73. how is your health? >> guest: this is what. thank god i've been blessed. i feel very fortunate about that. i can't remember the last time i took the day off for being sick. i get nervous about saying it because probably tomorrow i will come down with something awful but thank god my health has been very, very strong. when i was a kid i was a long distance runner. i used to run cross-country and

was a pretty good miler. i had a lot of interest. if you follow my schedule i worked pretty hard and i have a lot of energy. >> host: where did you go to college? >> guest: public at brooklyn college for one and then the university of chicago. >> host: one of the first pieces of legislation was a national cancer registry. like that become your first major deal with what has been over the last 20 plus years traffic it's a very significant piece of legislation. i am a great believer in epidemiology and that is what we want to ascertain is what are the factors that will get people in one country which will result in one people -- which will result in people in one country coming down with one type of disease and other people in another country. why do farmers who may be handling chemicals and fertilizers come down with cancer as opposed to some working in an office with 20 people in the northeast perhaps

come down with problems that people in the southwest will not have? there's a lot to be learned about environmental factors and other factors in terms of the causation, not just forget about the disease into. if you look at the international information, you find rates of breast cancer fluctuate significant all over the world. why is that? what can we learn? that's why did god. >> host: what did you learn? >> guest: i learned that our reasons, we are still studying it. i'm not a scientist, but there are reasons why certain people in certain parts of the world come down with illness rather than for the people. and i think that chemicals and our mental exposures have an impact hosting you've been part of the debate in congress. do you think it made a difference? >> guest: idea. all to you how i think we've made a difference. i've been so pleased to see, you know come at a time when republican presidential candidates are

talking about cutting social security, when george bush want to privatize social security now the debate and what the american people strongly support is a significant expansion of social security benefits at a time when the discussion was well, how much more in tax breaks to make it to the rich. now the discussion is in what way do we demand that the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of college? the idea of now making college public colleges and universities for he is an idea that is catching on. the idea of putting come investing in primary health care so people can get a doctor people can get a doctor when they needed to something i've been pushing for many years. raising consciousness on the crisis of dental care taking care for veterans. i'm chairman of the veterans cynically for two years. proud of what we accomplished but congress is on service problems that continue to plague how better to gain from iraq and afghanistan i think there's

going conscious on that as well spend other people along the way to shape their views or form your opinions? if so, who? >> guest: i worked very closely come and this is unusual for a look at the people who are around me on my campaign we are pretty tight group of people who worked together for 20 or 30 years. with one exception ted devine, who was a media consultant who is hoping to committed a great job with enough. my group of my think tank, so to speak, these progressive people who know me very well and who i've worked with for many years. >> host: if voters are you voting for the have decide between you and someone else make your pitch. why should they elect bernie sanders? >> guest: i think the answer is is very, very tough times, unusual times for this country. we have a handful of people, a

billionaire class, and i use that word -- which is unbelievable wealth and unbelievable power. and unless we have the courage come and understand this is not easy and frankly, i understand people are even uncomfortable talking about it. but unless we have the courage to take them on and create a government which works for the middle-class and working families not just wealthy campaign contributors, the future for our kids and grandchildren is likely to be a good one. i know this is a tough fight and to talk about the need for a little revolution to get people involved in politics in the wake they never have before. in less we do that i worry about not only climate change, i worry about elections in which politicians can be sought and so by billionaires, and we buts middle-class will ever grow whether we will continue to shrink as it has for 40 years. >> host: they would say the u.s. is not the market where a different country. how do you respond?

>> guest: we are not denmark. this is a small homogenous country. when i was a mayor, what we established was asked practices policy. in other words, you look at this is all of the country you stupid i just imported them from virginia. anyone who has good idea you still do. we should be prepared to be as open-minded as we can and say hey, in germany they provide free college they provide college to the kids with free tuition to is that a good you are not what i think is a great idea. and denmark they have a very good health care system which is much more cost effective than ours providing healthy as right to other people. is that a good idea? i think it is. in cuba they have a very strong educational system and a very good chunk assist. what have we learned from that? i think we do some things very, very well in our country that we should be proud of people steal our ideas, but we should be open-minded and take the best ideas that are working in

countries around the world to protect the middle-class and working families of those countries. >> host: i want to go back infrastructure. roads, bridges, rail air force. why have they become complicated in such disrepair? >> guest: a very simple answer. because we don't invest into. this is one of the saddest things i can imagine. is about what was historically a bipartisan no-brainer, you have to invest in the roads, bridges water system rail levees and dams. republicans don't want to spend money. they want to protect the wealthy. not ask the wealthy to do anything more in taxes. if you are not raising money you can spend money. that's the simple truth. hopefully by the way santa monica me, we passed a highway bill where jim inhofe, one of the most conservative members of the second work with barbara boxer to come up with a step for. doesn't go anywhere as far as we should go. in my view, we should invest one

thing dollars in rebuilding our infrastructure. in the next five years and when we do that we make huge progress but we also create up to 30 million jobs, something we desperately need house that is to say standards doctrine with regards to foreign policy, what would it be? >> guest: the world is a crazy place today, a dangerous place a very complicated place and i think it's impossible to give you a 30-second answer. this is what i do think. i voted against the war in iraq. i think history will show the right vote. what we've got to understand is that when you go to war very often europe and attended consequences. uart, i heard people like vice president cheney, don rumsfeld, resident bush they will go in overthrow saddam hussein, our troops will be back six months later, we will establish democracy in the middle east. isn't that a wonderful thing?

it's a wonderful thing but many of us understood that the real world that would not happen. they were unintended consequences to we have suffered those today. i think, number one, we got to understand that will have these consequences to be very, very careful before you commit our troops into harm's way. number two you can't do it alone. you need an international coalition. the united states, i do not want to see the united states in perpetual warfare in the middle east. went to work with a will to take of isis. the countries in the region themselves the muslim countries have got to lead that effort with our support. >> host: could you think has been america's most consequential president translate? >> guest: i would say franklin delano roosevelt, for a couple of reasons. obviously, he came to office in 32 in the midst of the worst economic collapse in american history, the great depression.

and he develop programs which put people back to work and gave confidence to the american people that the government was listening to their pain. that was almost as important as the program secret in creating millions of jobs. the second thing he did which was extraordinary, in 1956 in his reelection he said what he called the economic loyalists. a term he used in the '30s. i used the term billionaire class today. he said the economic loyalists they think -- they hate my guts and i welcome their hatred. i'm not afraid of them. i welcome their hatred because i'm going to stand with the working people in this country in so much pain today. i'm going to take these guys on. i thought that was act of extraordinary courage, something we've seen very, very rarely in american history. >> host: can we get there again and? >> guest: again? >> guest: yes. i am enormously confident in the future of this country if we have the political will to what i say to people, we are the

wealthiest country in the history of the world. that's where we are. unbelievable technology. i don't accept the fact that all of our kids will have the ability and the qualification, can't go to college. i don't accept the fact that we can get the best chunk assist in the world. i don't accept the fact that we can't have a health care system of high quality, cost-effective that guarantees health care to all people. a funny story. not so funny. 100 years ago, 100 years ago workers took to the streets in large demonstrations. due north he said? they said we are not beasts of burden. we want a 40 hour work week. a 40 hour work week. today, over 80% of male workers are working longer than 40 hours. over 60% of women workers are working more than 40 hours. people are working two or three jobs. can we create an economy that works for the middle-class? i believe we can. i am confident we can.

we can't do it endlessly take on the great of a handful of people who want it all. >> host: and finally your friends ben and jerry of ben & jerry's ice cream creating bernie's 3 billion. if you're going to create this asking what would the ingredients the? >> guest: chocolate chip chocolate chip and some tart cherries and some ingredients which give you a real balance and some real energy because we need that energy to. >> host: senator bernie sanders of vermont, democratic presidential candidate, thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you very much spent we usually a conversation with 2016 presidential candidate and republican senator rand paul of kentucky. he discussed her decision to become a doctor in his i'm innocent wants to become president. this is part of a series of of conversations with declared a potential 2016 presidential candidates as part of the spend road to the white house

coverage. we spoke with senator paul and his then office on capitol hill. >> host: senator rand paul republican from kentucky. i want to begin with you about taking a stand because you say this gets to the essence of the thesis under of the book are just agree to reduce their use of government that are beyond the scope of what was intended by the constitution. specifically what needs to be cut? >> guest: a shorter list would be what doesn't need to be cut. government the constitution was specific to the defense has those powers delegated are for the federal government. does not a left to the states and people. you of article 1 section 8 analysts about 17-19 functions. that's what the federal government should be doing and very little of it would we hate government now that the shifting from cradle to grave. the government should do what the private marketplace can't do. if you buy the marketplace is doing it that government ought

to stay out of the. national defense is something you can have a private workplace do or cities to do. it's accepted are certain and to prevent the government can do roads and bridges and things like that. even things like education we think of as a role in commanding old-fashioned conservatives like myself and should be done by the state and local governments and not by the federal government. i think there's an argument since without more federal government involvement when you compare us international our scores have improved. america's continue to sort of dwindled as for us international rankings. >> host: want a girl models ronald reagan talked about cutting the size of government. it grew into state years in the white house. >> guest: and to talk to getting rid of the department of education. he did what do. you have to do with and contend with the top loop atmosphere as it is. when he wanted it and control congress.

he controlled the senate for a little bit of the time but didn't he had to work with tip o'neill. tip o'neill wasn't going to get rid of the department of education so he wasn't able to do. there was a trade off. one thing you did get to a tax cuts. tax cuts did stimulate and helped get out of a recession and helped create jobs but the deficit grew because spending never was cut. domestic spending never went down under reagan and defense spending went up significantly. they were more deficits under reagan. there were significant deficits under george bush as well. now there's a tripling anti-quadrupling of the rate of the commission of get out of president obama. there's an argument to date that night apart has been good at controlling the deficit posted on taxes you have said she doesn't want to blow up the federal tax code and to propose a flat tax. how to get it done? >> guest: you have to win a national election and the consensus, the american people are tired of our tax code. the american people are made to understand or a loud to understand we are losing jobs

overseas and losing companies overseas because with the highest business tax in the world. our corporate tax is 35% of canada is now 50% to i say jokingly that i'm embarrassed i have to compliment candidate for having a better tax within america. are cooking just left american went to canada. we have companies talk about reincorporating over to talk about reincorporating overdue because the taxes are bad and the regulation of i'm is better overseas. what you do is win a national election but when i get is committed entire entire tax code in one raid, 14.5% for business tax can 14.5% for personal income tax. the interesting thing is were able to get rid of the payroll tax. working-class citizens, if you're at $40000 in income and have a wife and two kids or a spouse and two kids you have $2000 in savings under my plan post but this goes back to the deficit is now $18 trillion expected to reach $22 trillion

the overall debt. how to cut the debt and reduce taxes? >> guest: you would have to be willing to cut spending. i am willing to. i put forward three-five their budgets with significant tax cuts by cutting spending i would cut the federal government in a dramatic fashion. i would probably eliminate four or five departments, department of education to energy commerce, had come into your. i was in a lot of those functions back to the states themselves to take care of it i think the federal government a lot smaller, a the trade off is and this is a debate we have to have come with ask ourselves why baltimore is 37% unemployment young black men between 25 and 25, 37% unemployment. worse than the great depression. our big cities are crumbling, rife with crime and poverty and drug. we have been trying the government solution for 50 years and it hasn't worked. i want to try solution where we don't ever take the money from detroit, baltimore.

we leave it in the inner city with businesses but leavitt enhanced of those who earn it and see if we can create jobs in inner-city but it does work to send to washington as they send back to baltimore after he comes up here because but the tiny switch it around at the piroxicam a lot of it is eaten up by the bureaucracy host but you talk about republicans and democrats in sydney americans are looking for a combination of the two. is that which are basing your candidacy on supremacy that american people are ideologically changing? >> guest: in a way but also a plurality of americans, maybe a third now well a bit more are our of republican and a little bit democratic they don't fit neatly in one box or the other. sometimes find that way. i am fiscally very conservative and side with republicans economic liberty but also more libertarian or more of a simple to begin on privacy issues and having and less interventionist

foreign policy. i have allies such as ron wyden on privacy a progressive democrat. i have allies such as cory booker on criminal justice. i have allies such as kirsten gillibrand on trying to in such also in the military. i think it's interesting that is a different way that isn't entirely partisan. i'm pretty conservative on fiscal policy but there are other issues unable to side with the progressives on us but another part of the book is a of a vision for america beyond partisan politics can beyond petty differences. without the respect bill clinton, george w. bush barack obama also campaign on those same things. >> guest: i think president obama, i like him as an individual in person to i don't think it's gotten beyond sort of the politics the identities come up here in after out of the. >> guest: with congress in a. i do think is trying to work the legislative process because there me thinks it could get done that we agree on. i've only been a few years.

those of my great i spent as a physician but the one thing i discovered is the bills are today. let's take for example immigration. comprehensive immigration cannot pass as is passed in the senate cannot pass in the house. however i think it's art in itunes and competence of immigration i think three items could pass tomorrow. so the question is do we box or systemic ourselves agreeing on every issue that we can't find two out of three of us and we agree on and just pass them? that's the biggest problem with gridlock i see as we insist on remaining in our camps all a bit of petty partisanship but we also are in our camps that we won't accept half of what sometimes. accepting path of which what does it mean you split the difference to you just find two the things you agree with the use example senator wyden and i. is a democrat, i'm a republican but a privacy we just happen to agree on issue. we don't split the difference. our bipartisanship isn't meeting in the middle.

it's a really strong, we believe in fashion we don't feel beholden to party so much that we can't represent an idea or thought that we think is good for america's host the into those made your party very critical of barack obama since he didn't have enough experience. you are a one term senator. do you have enough experienced? >> guest: i think what you want in some of them as the president isn't necessarily the office whether the government or center. what you want is wisdom. you want someone who's going to be commander-in-chief who treats it as a solemn task is. so who will be in charge of the nuclear weapons who is not rash or reckless. i think a lot of things you want as far as you want to be making this important moment is the decisions but think whether you are center or not our exact what the background is, i think it's more the wisdom you're looking forward and the exact job that they felt. .. affairs or your phone

number and e-mails and they are not forthright about if they are doing it or not. that is one of the most disturbing revelations of when they were looking at our phone records the head of the intelligence agency said the government wasn't collecting numbers in bulk and it was an outright lie. we perjured himself in front of congress and he is still in charge. that scares me. there have executive orders that

have been issued that i believe, have to do with your text messages and e-mails. that you said they are not reading content however after six months the content of your e-mail is not protected. so any e-mail over six months old is not protected by content. they don't consider the subject to be context or the website you search in google. if you google civil rights or aids or something that can mean a personal thing and indicates an issue you are interested in. i think that is something that ought to be protected by your own privacy. >> host: if you could write the first sentence of what the obama presidency meant for this country what would you write? >> guest: i would say the worst

thing that has happened is the collapse of the separation of powers. i would not blame it just on the president but also a 100 year history of the congress giving up power to the presidency. this president has been frustrated by not getting his way in congress after we took over in 2010 after dodd frank and obamacare was passed he give up on working with congress and went around using the executive branch. but it has been republican and democrat. presidents have consumed more and more power: i would say it is marked by the aggressive a accumulation of power. >> host: what was the best advi advice your dad gave you? >> guest: people used to ask what did you your dad say when

you were running and i would say he said don't. no one thing was he said to have another career. i think it is important to have other life experiences. if you original experience is a legislator i think it will be difficult to connect. hillary clinton hasn't even driven in 17 years and makes $200,000 an hour giving speeches. it will be hard to relate to the middle class. i think we ought to have more turnover in office. and i laughingly say this but i am serious i don't think there is a monopoly of knowledge up here. i met a lot of well-meaning well-read, and bright up here but i don't think they are in

any way uniquely qualified above and beyond what other people could do in office. i would have congress meet half as long and the mount of as much. and i would say everybody needs to go home and have a job at home so you are going to the grocery store at home working at home interacting and you can see the frustrations of those trying to run a profitable business at home. >> host: why did you decide to be an eye doctor? >> guest: i used to help my grandmother sort through coins during childhood and i got to the point where i was the one searching because she could not see anymore. she didn't go totally blind but became legally blind throughout her life and i went with her to the doctor and i went with my dad who was an ob. i was around medicine wanted to

be a doctor, but decided to gravitate toward the surgical session of eyes because of my grandmother going through surgeries and me going with her. >> host: when you travel to haiti or guatemala what is your take away? >> guest: one of things i try to do is separate politics from what i am doing. i tell people the team down there, i know who they are and they know who i am, but they don't ask about my politics and i don't ask about theirs. they do a lot of cataract surgeries. the university of utah, dr. alan crandall has done 70-80 of these. it is different than politics. we have a goal and it is a goal where we can see the result immediately. you take a cataract from someone almost entirely blind and some can see to read almost

immediately. you take their patch off and it is an amazing thing. we had a guy in guatemala why took off the patch, we patch them overnight, and he was weeping and crying and thanking god. he lost his wife his family he was being kept in a shelter at a church and lost his job as a truck driver and was so hopeful to try to get that back. >> host: how did you meet your wife, kelly? >> guest: we met at an oyster roast at a friend of a friend's party. she was interested in books and i was interested in books. she was an english major in nashville and i did a lot of english and was interested in american short story and things like that so we got to talking,

dating and got married as i was starting my residency. i went back to duke from atlanta for three more years of residency. >> host: you went from randal to randy. >> guest: she said your name should be rand and i said okay. when i did, it is hard to believe this is true i never thought about ann rand and i absolutely never crossed my mind. i wasn't involved in politics. but a couple years after that i was starting a taxpayer group and i don't know why it had not crossed my mine but the first person from the durham sun was were you named after ann rand. >> host: the story is you cut your hair the night before your

wedding? >> guest: probably. there is a running battle. it is not i am cheap but i will frugal. it is just time. >> host: how do you cut your own hair? >> guest: it is organized chaos. >> host: three children. what do they think of your candidacy? >> guest: they like going to the big speeches. when i won the general election, we had a big sign behind stage and on stage we had my two younger ones playing acdc and played electric guitar to tnt. that was a good memory. i think they enjoy it. it didn't bother me too much growing up but you seem to be under the spotlight a little and

it isn't always easy being related to someone famous. >> host: why do you want to be president? >> guest: i think because no one who is serious about the debt on each side. you have the democrats spending and you have the republicans with no limit on military spending. you are finding everyone trying to explode the sequester. they got rid of the meet of the sequester last year with republicans and democrats coming together saying we want more for the military and democrats said we will give you more for the military if you give us more for the defense spending. the same argument is going on right now. and my prediction is republicans will trade and give the democrats what they want. more domestic spending if they can get the defense spending. it is not good for the country to $18 trillion debt and we borrow a $1 a minute.

if you cut 1% across the board from everything one penny out of every dollar, the budget balances in five years. every american family has had to do that. almost anybody you meet you will hear there is a year i had to pick a job with less pay and cut back on what we spend. in washington when there is a recession we think we will spend our way out of the recession. we spend more so like in the first four years of the president's term we added over a trillion. in president obama's two terms we will add more in debt than all of the previous presidents combined. and you can either have a gradual demise and you lose your purchasing power. but you could have a rapid unravelling and that is a panic. 2008 was close to a panic.

i don't know if we have fixed all of that. i think there is the potential our enormous debt and there could be an instant recognition that you know what? something was serious wrong here. this country is no longer producing like it did and has this enormous debt. i think in order to try to fend it off we need to bring it to balance. i say you only spend what comes in. and they will say that sounds common sense but if you did that it would be so radical people could say you cannot do that. but if you tell people outside of the beltway in america what i want to do is only spend what comes in they would say that is common sense. >> host: back to the book taking a stand why is it so hard for the government to shrink? >> guest: because the people up here have been here too long. when i offered spending cuts i

went back home but they said that is not enough to budge balance the budget. it is mindset. but it could be done and people hear about austerity and say this is going to be terrible but if the government is spending less there is more out in the community to create jobs. so you can have a lot of prosperity if we sent less to washington. i think it will help poverty. i am on the south side of chicago, baltimore, ferguson saying leave more in your community. it is going back to washington and not helping the people that need it. we have been trying to government way of sending it to washington and trying to get some back and it isn't making poverty less. >> host: and finally, how do you win the nomination? >> guest: i thought you were going to tell me that.

it is going to be a big field. 10-12 credible candidates. you have to carve out our space. i am the only one that fought against the nsa and defends privacy. i am the only one serious about balancing the budget. i am the only one for a flat tax across the board. i think i am the only one that things intervening overseas is not always the answer. we need to look before we leap and first do no harm in our foreign policy and there is going to be many on the stage and i am guessing we will hear from them who want to be involved all of the time. i think that has led to a lot of problems in the middle east and not made things more stable. >> host: do you enjoy campaigning? >> guest: sometimes.

i don't like the airports the long hours on the plane not being able to get out in the sun and exercise but when i am in the element of engaging and having, maybe a dinner party or question and answer thing, i like that. i like talking about the issues of the day. even when i was a little kid i would sit at the table with the adults to have the discussion in politics. but i think a politician would be lying if they said they love sitting in the airports and planes. it is time away from family and home. i will not do it forever. i am doing it now because i am giving it my all and i think we have a real chance but you will not be seeing me do this every four year. >> host: the book is called "taking a stand" senator rand paul republican. chris christie is expected to enter the presidential field

tomorrow at an event in livington. we will bring it to you live. all this week, we are featuring booktv in prime time. tonight is it fighting against terrorism with former acting cia director and his book. that will be followed by a panel discussion on finding terrorism. and later general stanley mccrystal on his book team of team. it is booktv in prime time starting at 8:30 eastern tonight. >> tonight, we visited mikecromicrosoft and will take to mike humphries.

>> i am hopeful congress will take on high scale immigration because h1v is important. and frankly i don't know the exact numbers but when we have innovators here and researchers here that make contributions at microsoft our engineers. there is a need when you look at it from a job perspective. >> this is actually helping collect mosquitos that have bitten people and to determine what kind of viruses might be around, what kind of diseases might be around through taking the blood samples of the mosquitos and figure out the genetic code for some of the

things in their blood. >> the premise was around what we would be able to do it beta that is freely available in the environment today. one of the things we have noticed is there is a lot of aircraft flying around that could be censors. they have data and are providing information. it is relatively available. it is provided by the faa. they use this information to provide what planes are doing. we decided to they can that information and see if we could use it to predict a more accurate wind aloft force so what the wind is doing in terms of speed and direction at various altitudes above the earth. >> a visit to washington, d.c.'s

microsoft office tonight an the "the communicators" on c-span2. last week, the house oversight and government reform committee held a second hearing on the recent data breach. jason chaffetz said it may have compromised the record of 39 million people and called for the director to step down. patrick mcfarland and eric hess told lawmakers there is no evidence his company is responsible for the breach. the first opm data breach was disclosed to the public on june 4th. and affected 4.2 million workers. >> we are hearing about the opm data breach part two. $529 billion dollars. $529 billion dollars is how much the federal government has spent on it since 2008.

roughly $577 million has been spent at the office of personal management 80% of that being spent on legacy systems and we are in a situation where the hurricane has come and gone and just now opm is wanting to board up the windows. this is a major, major security breach. one of the biggest if not the biggest we have seen. this is demanding our attention about what happened how we will prevent it from happening in the future and what will we do with the information now. there is no simple easy solution. but i can tell you often times it feels like one good trip to solve the problem and we would be better than we are today. there are a lot of questions that remain about what happened last month. and the uncertainty is very disconcerting to host of people and it is unacceptable to this

committee and the congress. the most recent public reports indicate many more americans were affected by the breach and federal workers and their families deserve answers on the scope of the breach and the types of personal information compromised. we still don't understand the extent which the breach threatens our national security. only the imagination limits what could be done with a federal employees health education, career, family friends and habits. i will ask consent to enter a letter we received from the federal law enforcement operations. here are the concerns about the data breaches our demand the government list of questions remain unanswered. they represent 28,000 current and retired federal law

enforcement officers and special agents from over 65 different agencies. this is what they wrote: opm turned their back on federal law enforcement officers when they failed to protect workers from the brief. a delay and loof response is mis miscarriage of the obligation to americans. the safety and security of innocent people including families are now in jeopardy because of opm's abysfailure. it includes personal financial and location information of the officers and families leaving them vulnerable to attacks from criminals and terrorist currentally or formally investigated by the united states of america -- currently -- opm is attempting to overhaul the infrastructure but without an understanding of

the cost or the scope of the project. the ig determined the opm chief officer initiated the project without an undering -- understanding of the scope of the cost to mitigate it to the environment. because of these concerns the project is quote possibly making opm environment less secure and increasing cost to taxpayers end quote. the ig raised questions about why opm awarded a sole contract for the project without going through the process of full and complete competition. i would like to enter into the record without objection, an article from the "washington post," this is may 13th defense firm that employed drunk contractors in afghanistan may have wasted $135 million in

taxpayer dollars. they were formally known as the jorge scientific corporation and have a good list of military personal involved and engaged and maybe this is the right decision. but when it is a sole source contract it begs questions. this organization has had a lot of problems in the past and beg as lot of question. in addition to data security problem we have a data management problem. it is unclear why so much background information related to security clearance was available to be hacked. it is unclear why the sf-86, the standard form that employees or perspective employees fill out, why was this background information on the network if the person isn't being investigated? part of the reason we are in

this mess is a lot of information and background checks we are not engageing in were still on the system. if information isn't accessible on the network it will not be hacked. if a security clearance isn't under investigation it is the best practice others use and probably should have been used in this situation as well. we have to do a better job of anticipating advisaries. one of the concerns is the leg legacy system we are using is a cobalt. i would ask consent to enter into the record wall street journal article from april 22nd 1963: cobalt can help users cut cost when changing models.

1963! i wasn't even born yet and that is the system we are operating on when technology is changing moment by moment minute my minute. without objection, i will enter that into the record. yesterday, it was stated that no one is responsible for the opm data breach and instead blamed the hackers. hackers certainly have a lot of cu opportunities. he take hits on a daily bases. i disagree no one is to be held personally responsible. people have roles and are charged with them. as the head of the agency ms. archuleta is responsible for the opm network and managing any

risks. she may have inherited a lot of problems she was called on by the president and confirmed by the senate to protect the information obtained by opm. during her conformation in 2013, she stated it operations would be her main priority but it took a security breach five months after her conformation to begin to think about a start to fix the problem. the shift in blame is unexcusable. i hope we hear solid answers. we will get you that information, it is under investigation is not good enough. we will answer questions. federal workforce, the people affected needed to hear this. we are different because we are self-critical and have hearings

like this. i would like to enter two letters into the record. one is a flash audit from june of this year from the personal management information improvement project, without objection i will enter that into the record and ask consent to enter into the record the june 22nd response by the director of the officer of personal management ms. archuleta, and i consent for that to enter into record without objection so ordered. we also have some contractors here and we appreciate the participation. they have answers or we have questions that need to be answered as well. we need their cooperation to figure it out. a lot of what was done by opm was contracted out. and there are very legit questions that mr. cummings and others have asked and that is

why i am pleased to have them invited and participating as well. so it will be a full and robust committee hearing and we appreciate all of the precipitation. i will say the chair is recognized. without objection so ordered. i am like to recognize the ranking member mr. cummings for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is a very important hearing. we are hear today because foreign cyber spies are targeting millions of our federal workers. opm and has made it clear that every month there are 10 million efforts to pierce our cyber space space. these folks are hacking into

database to get private information from families friends and acquaintances. they may try to use that information in our espin efforts. i want to thank you starting with the chairman. this week we get an opportunity to hear from opm's two contractors that suffered major data breach as well. usis and key point. some people in your shoes might have criticized the agency without looking at the whole picture. but you agreed to my request to bring in the contractors and you deserve credit for that and i thank you. on monday night i received a letter from usis to

representatives providing answers to questions i asked more than seven months ago. seven months ago! the letter disclosed the breach at usis affected not only dhs employees but our immigration agencies, our intelligence community, and even our police officers here on capitol hill. but it took them seven months. the night before the hearing to give me that information. but not only to give me the information but members of congress that information. my immediate concern was for the employees at the agency and i hope they were all alert