the vote and close the winner for president and vice president. noon on january 20 the inauguration of the 46th president of the united states. our live coverage begins 70 and eastern from the statehouse to congress to the white house, watch it all live on c-span, on the go with c-span.org or listen using the free c-span radio app. >> well, as far as i i can tele probably have i know leonard has a readers from all over the world. in fact, he has a readers frome united states and canada and mexico come and a become haiti, peru, cuba, greenland, el salvador. puerto rico, venezuela, guatemala, bolivia, argentina, ecuador, and probably even

pasadena. [laughing] >> thank you, rob. >> my pleasure. >> thank you. thank you everyone for joining us for this evenings event. my name is kim sutton and and a host of tonight season. before we begin i i want to encourage you all to check out online at upcoming virtual events i visiting powells.com. one of our many upcoming events we're looking forward to is tiffany cross in conversation with -- about her new book say it louder, black voters, white narratives and saving our democracy. that's next friday the 18th. as will please your member to follow us on twitter, facebook and instagram tonight we are honored to welcome leonard mlodinow and rob paulsen. leonard received his phd in theoretical physics from university of california at berkeley and was in alexander fellow at the max planck

institute and was on the faculty of california institute of technology. his previous books include the bestsellers the grand design, and a briefer history of time both with stephen hawking subliminal which was the winner of a literary science writing award and what of the worldviews with deepak chopra as well as elastic and upright thinkers. .. nearly two decades after talking's collaborator and friend, bring this complicated to focus in a unique and deeply

personal portrayal as he engages his passion for wine and curry, shares his feeling of love, death and disability and grapples with the deep questions of philosophy and physics. leonard mlodinow's deeply affecting account of friendship teaches us not just about the nature and practice of physics but about life and the human capacity to overcome daunting obstacles. leonard mlodinow is joined by voice actor rob paulsen who has been a voice actor for nearly three decades and is the voice of pinky from pinky and the brain, rafael and donatello from teenage mutant ninja turtles and carl from jimmy neutron. he won an emmy award and peabody award and three emmy awards for his voice acting. his memoir last year, a man who uses his voice for work found himself with throat cancer but he has thankfully recovered and is now the spokesman for the

oral head and neck cancer awareness program. this event will include a q and a. please use the q and a button if you want to ask a question. if someone has a question you want to know the answer to please upload the question by clicking the thumbs-up button. most importantly please support leonard and powell's by purchasing a copy of his new book. it will be shared in a chat in a couple minutes. it is such a pleasure to welcome you both. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. well said. as an armchair physicist who somehow makes his living doing what got me in trouble in high school i can tell you this is a marvelous book. thank you very much for lowering your standards and

letting me on board. >> guest: thanks for doing this. a good framework to discuss it. not the usual dry physics. >> host: your fabulous, really handsome, genius child nikolai helps me with my own social media marketing and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. he is a delightful, smart, bright young man and i'm grateful to have him in my life so well done. just in case there are folks watching who are transfixed by all the stuff surrounding us but may not be aware of stephen hawking as others briefly explain to us what stephen hawking's place is in the history of physics. >> guest: stephen went to school in the 60s and then

graduate school at cambridge and that is where he fell ill, the beginning of graduate school and he had a revelation after that that all this hoopla, since his illness he found a purpose in life, meaning in his life and he decided to dedicate his last years to answering fundamental questions, why are we here, how do we get here? how did the universe get here and those are not questions people were asking in the 1960s. >> host: an inducement. >> guest: the areas here chose to study, the first one is very

obvious, the beginning of the work -- the universe and the other was black holes, less obvious. not many were interested in those areas, because people felt you couldn't observe them. people thought you can't think back to the beginning of the universe and never going to find a black hole, why study them theoretically? turned out as a footnote, as technology advanced we can study those things, pictures from a few years ago of a black hole. some people are working on it. richard feynman's descriptions said there are a bunch of things that going to a conference made his blood boil, so frustrated with the quality of the research.

stephen with his the earning on exit stencil question started studying in the 1960s great progress and understanding the early universe and black holes through weinstein's general theory of relativity. to hear that he did not avoid -- employ quantum theory, and great progress understanding the universe and black holes. 's in the 1970s, some very exciting advances, he realized you can't ignore quantum theory in those areas as people have been doing and he found the results. the sum total in his work was he took this field of cosmology and study of the early universe and black holes and took it from a backwater nothing field

and combining quantum theory, using a pioneer, not looking for what is the holy grail which is uniting the theory of gravity with quantum theory. making great steps, showing how to think about that, we still haven't done it and he lifted the study of black holes and cosmology to make it not only respectful but very popular. that is my answer. >> host: you are right and we know that stephen had a terrific movie made about him, but my suspicion having grown up, the physicist's physicist when i grew up with albert einstein. do you have a feeling what stephen essentially thought of

as the next physicist rock star, was he another einstein? >> guest: he was not another einstein. people said that because he had that bar to live up to, a pretty high bar. even einstein for most of his career wasn't einstein. einstein had most of his major discoveries in the first 15 years of his career. stephen was a leader from the best generation and i don't think we should be trying to quantify that but it is a solid description of him that you would agree with. >> host: if i'm not mistaken einstein came with his energy

times mass times the speed of light squared theory at 25. >> guest: that was a consequence, people misunderstand how physics works, you don't sit there and get a brilliant idea that e is equal to mc squared, he developed this theory called special relativity, based on certain principles that particularly the speed of light is constant, that is something implied by work in the 1860s and investigating that and adjusting newton's laws he developed his theory of special relativity and one of the consequences was one of the things he discovered as he was writing up a series these theories, e equals mc squared. >> it became a metaphor for all the cool stuff.

i remember we are the same age of the opening of the twilight zone had that and -- people don't know this but i was entertainment at the last supper. anyway -- >> guest: that is all i have to say. >> host: you were a busboy. we have to continue. i know this because i read the book, how do you first meet stephen? >> guest: he read my first two books. one was about curved space and what is really means and over the centuries the idea developed, that was an important topic for stephen and my second book, search for

beauty and physics and life, that was a memoir of my relationship with -- and you write those books, was looking for someone to write with, wanted someone with a sense of humor whose writing he writes and most of all someone to decide that i fit that, one day i get a call from my agent, stephen hawking's office called, this might not happen but would you like to rent a book with that? >> host: are you kidding me? i can say again, i make my living in the funny business. you do have an excellent sense of humor, it comes across beautifully. it truly does. you mention the dryness of physics but you found a way,

clearly mister hocking had a wicked sense of humor and you were able to translate that for the reader. you began working with stephen when he was in his full-blown luke wearing -- lou gehrig's's disease, witnessing how stephen worked, was there anything that made you go this was ready remarkable in addition to the fact he was doing what he was doing in his physical state. >> guest: really fascinating. >> host: it is your book. >> guest: physics can be looked at in two ways. one is algebraic, we call our

analysis, the other way is geometric. you have to understand most of the work people do using equations, stephen can't do that, he had amazing memory of doing innovations that way, people were blindfolded and remember each game and what to do but i can't play one - what these guys are doing. put him at a disadvantage, those who could write that way. what he did which really surprised me, he learned a new way, did the geometric

approach, he worked on his own language to treat the problems he was treating to solve problems and get ideas and analyze situations of interest to him. light beams and particle beams and black holes and all of this, how they are interacting using pictures using geometric relationships. kip foreign said -- kip thorne said that was his superpower. not only was he avoiding his handicap writing equations but he actually had a new angle to look at things other physicists didn't have them allowed him to make discoveries that others didn't because they didn't have that approach. he took his disability and turned into an advantage. >> host: that is interesting

because in the book you cite how we hear of people who are sightless who find a way to enhance their sense of hearing or smell, do you feel ultimately, even stephen suggested this, the debilitating illness, helped him in his discipline. >> guest: he told me, as i mentioned, meaning and purpose, about that, but put in long hours all alone. california is burning right now, but at a normal time, you go outside and take a walk, see your family or friends, working

12 hours a day for months, just to finish your work but the first thing it did was from that drive to answer these questions. giving the meaning and focus eliminating distractions, allowing them to focus, the geometric thinking. you wouldn't have done as well, with not that disability. >> host: that is interesting especially you being a celebrated as prolific author. to physicists go through what a layperson would call writers block? that is to say when you are

working on a theory, postulating what your premise that you are working on, are there points at which you say i am stuck? >> guest: i wrote the book not just for physics but i don't like the mythology around stephen, i wrote the book to expose how we do physics and how he lives his life every day. and yes, physicists don't just look into a fireplace and the answer comes. >> host: we would all be physicists. >> guest: coming up with great theories, it is really

difficult. richard feynman had very long periods of non-productivity, ideas that would get depressed and in those times he still was teaching his courses and that would fulfill them and take up his time because he's waiting for some idea to come. when you are doing a problem and between problems, between problems you are saying a paper or 10 papers, one or 3 topics, a lot of ideas but iran out of ideas, what should i work on now? in the back of your head, sometimes you don't. the writer doesn't know what book to write. when you are doing your problem you have minor crisis like

that, to get from here to there, in this research, this is how you figure it out. you keep bumping your head against the walls for a day or a month and it doesn't work and you get to a point sometimes where you have ideas so you get to a certain point in your research, or have an idea where you want to go with it but the math isn't working out. it is a frustrating and difficult time, stephen drove his wives crazy because when he hit that wall, he would turn wagner up superloud, and the rest of the world for him, he would spend day after day after day, getting past that.

>> host: sounds like that is part of your mission to humanize stephen or make him relatable and you absolutely nailed that. there are things no one would know having not been close to him but utterly the hollywood and made him somebody who became your friend, with the usual frustrations people have with other people. was there a point at which your work with stephen and the fact that he was wheelchair-bound and was not verbal was like not a big deal, basically stephen has a different shirt on today, it was not an issue, you got used to it? >> guest: good question.

there is so much in the development of the book and the answer is yes. when i first got there to work with him, i was -- i felt bad for him to see the discomfort he was in, not that he was in discomfort but should have been. a beautiful sweat rolling down his for head that he had to wipe away. remember that story? >> host: i do. that is one of the seminal moments of the book. it is the sort of thing we can all relate to immediately. you take your hand and go like this but the way in which you describe your empathy, oh my god, that would drive me nuts with my nose was itching, doesn't matter if you're mohammed ali, stephen hawking

or rob paulson or guy on the street, the things we all take for granted that all of a sudden was a central focus of this world-class physicists, it is really remarkable. >> host: i couldn't understand, maybe notice or not. i felt sorry for him a lot. i got to know him better, he was quite inspiring to me, he changed the way he thought, not that he swept every dollar in the ditch or at time, he wants the term but can't turn, and all these other things the rest

of us could experience. learned not to mind, took control and learned not to let them bother him. the philosophy that happiness, true happiness and lasting happiness comes only within you, not the things you accomplish or any other person. all of that can be taken away and subject to many things beyond your control. we have control over satisfaction and how you feel about yourself and your own mind. stephen did that. once i realized that was going on i didn't feel sorry for him anymore. he was a person with a handicap but a person -- another trait

of his. we interacted -- i interacted with him. >> host: that is what i was mentioning earlier. if you describe his utter humanity, you touch on something quite important with respect to stephen and i have experienced in my old life with my throat cancer a few years ago and that is the ability to focus on living in the moment, to really understand this is a pretty tenuous fragile line on which we walk and it doesn't have to be lou gehrig's disease but something to jumpstart your humanity and you think all of a sudden i know what is important and he, according to you in the description, was the embodiment of that. he literally made lemonade every damn day. it was remarkable. >> host: it really was. it was one of the great lessons i tried to impart.

i admired him very much for that. >> host: how would you describe his personality? >> guest: because he could do that, he would not be beaten-down by all these what for most of us would be physical issues, he was an optimistic person, he had a great sense of humor, great energy, were going to -- someone said leonard, some tourist stuff, for those who don't have the count -- >> host: explain what punting on the cam means? >> guest: a recipe for tipping over shallow polls. if someone stand in the back on a platform, getting up on the platform. fishing pole in the bottom of

the river. it tells you and we went to do that and he has to get a package so he shows he wanted to join us and packing it up, getting him into the van in a specially designed van had to be turned in a certain way. his wheelchair had to be bolted down, a rough ride and reverse the other end, 20, 30 uneven stone steps and on the boat just -- communicate from his computer or wheelchair and takes his head and they carry him down the stairs as it is moving.

altogether decades and decades and could easily slip. i lose my balance and almost fall off. it must be scaring him into the boat but he is laughing at me. and then he would go with his eyes left or right depending on what you want to look at. with all those difficulties he loved it and did every day things like that and loved it. >> host: you also actually like everybody else, they want strawberries and champagne.

>> host: that is okay. >> guest: i don't know how relative this theory is but i feel like $100 million. >> host: are you pondering what i am pondering? >> host: i think i am but recently i'm sitting outside and a thought to myself why does neil's for you? not bad. and on secretarial physicists spot. i could say it is a great big universe and we are really puny, we are 20 specs about the size of mickey rooney but i don't know if that is the road you want to go down. you poke me with a stick and you will be sorry. your book is full of just glorious stories about you being with stephen.

are there any particular -- giving too much away -- is there a particular moment or two that you feel were sort of encapsulated the whole experience if that is possible? >> talking about one time i had a near-death experience. i had internal bleeding they couldn't find the source of and when i get back to cambridge next time, he and i were having dinner and i started talking and he knew it happened to me and we started talking about it and talked about his near-death experiences which were at least

one a year. >> host: i was going to say, numerous. >> guest: one of the problems of the disease is difficulty breathing as it picks up your body and because of that, week lungs, he was subject to lung infections. that exacerbated it so he would end up in the hospital with a lung infection and several times his family were thinking he might not pull through. we were commiserating a little bit. he said once, talking about it, he said it is tough but back to physics. my son nikolai used to say in high school, basketball or life. physics is life, isn't it?

he gives me his know and starts typing at what comes out is love is life. i thought that was fitting for the person who's the most famous physicists in the world, trying to get to know, humanity coming out. innocence he's not a physicist, a person who loves other people. >> host: when i was reading your book, we discussed how much that impacted me. the fact that he wrote it's love, the meaning of life. it was profound. there are many instances like that where you stop and reread it. in the context of who leonard is talking about it is impactful. in that light, was stephen an

atheist, an agnostic, sort of semi-deists? >> guest: he was an atheist. he didn't talk about it in public. he very much did not want to insult anybody or argue against god which people sometimes interpret his books, the grand design, as an i commit against god. what we say in that book is god was not necessary to create the universe and argument for god that some supernatural thing that started the universe, but stephen's theory showed the universe can start from nothing and that was the essence of that book the grand design. we are just saying didn't need to have god, we are not arguing against god, and in effect i

think he was a very spiritual person. a lot of episodes in the book illustrate that and also he went to church with elaine. >> host: who was a pretty religious woman. >> host: they were all religious, he would go to church. the music. so yeah. religion and science don't have to be like that. >> host: you cite in the book you touched on it briefly of the heat you talk when the grand design was released and you got a phone call from his secretary who said you got to

help us, folks are freaking out. you have written a book and you disparage god and had to do a little bit of housekeeping. >> guest: the book is coming out that day. it was in england, my daughter was at school, she was -- an assistant calls for me, very graphic, have you read the times? i read the new york times every day even though i am in california. how many people, three of them, why would you think that? google this. there is an explosion. i don't know. emergency, reporters are calling us, go read it and

let's talk. the london times headline - i guess the shorter of the two names, talking:god did not create the universe. it is not what he said, that is what they say he said. a lot of people, england and all different quarters, different countries but on the other hand, people know about the book, it was very provocative and if you read the book, you weren't saying that but it was a compelling, interesting book.

it was a very stiff stressful time, can you call to burbank for 10 minutes, on cnn, was on fox news for an interview and some of them are attacking you and i was saying this is a physics book. what my mother would say, what could be so upsetting in a physics book? >> host: i wake up in the morning and find out i could piss off god. >> guest: on espn talking about the book, someone sent me a copy of men's health magazine. i don't know what that was

about. >> host: you expanded your readership. >> guest: many people heard about the book but it was all based on a misconstrued. >> host: before we move on to the questions, what did stephen teach you about your self, what did you learn about your self? >> guest: gave me perspective. whining about a headache or smashed your car or whatever it is. on a scale from one to i can't even move, this is one. or i used to go this is a 9.

now i go walk away from it. that is what i wrote about myself. this ability to make it not matter to you. taking charge of your own thoughts. it is even more important. >> host: it really truly is a marvelous book. i make my living doing cartoon voices and it was utterly relatable, utterly readable and really a total joy and there are aspects in the book we can all apply to ourselves. you done good, kid. it is a helluva book. it is 5:40 in the pacific as i

want to make sure -- do we have to do that now? is it okay with you? let me go to the q and a thing and make sure i don't pushed the wrong button and set off an international event. let's see. here is a good one from anonymous attendee, one of my favorite people who says were you ever intimidated by mister hocking? right off the bat, did you then go oh my god! and then oh my god. >> guest: when i last met him in the early meetings, you walk in and the icon is so brilliant and i am not.

>> host: we will be the judge of that. >> guest: that is what he does. i must be doing that too. we he did not suffer fools well. >> host: were you concerned in that vein, when you started working with him that you were going to say something he would perceive as stupid or silly, or were you going don't screw this up? >> guest: not that i had that worry before i asked anything. or something he might find stupid.

looking at this current work, i am reading his papers. i ask him a question. and we would split up and at the end of working together in cambridge, we would assign each other things and write this section or this section, email each other, when we next meet, in cambridge, we spent a year at caltech so went back and forth with each other, i don't get his research or this particular point, in santa barbara, spent the whole day and jim explained to me what they were doing, this element

of it. i go back and write it all up, go back to cambridge to see him and he is reviewing the part that i had written, this is wrong and i am going what? i'm sure i understood it and i don't know what to say, looking at my old notes and look, my notes from talking to jim and he goes to me, that is what he used to think that we changed our mind. >> host: we changed our mind. >> guest: the research was a work in progress. an email would have been nice. i know you're working on explaining this but it is

upside down. >> guest: in the book what i love about your relationship is you were unafraid to discuss in the book your frustration with certainly the most famous physicist of my time as a layperson, you talked about your frustration about if you are going to do this, i am paraphrasing, he essentially dropped the ball and you called it. that is pretty ballsy, man. >> guest: i was pretty frustrated. i was pretty frustrated at that point, and in the middle of

something, this will just take a minute in cambridge for an hour. it won't take just a minute. come on in for a minute, do you mind? just ignore that. stephen was fine. sometimes didn't want to talk, and do you mind - i don't know, we are kind of busy, they are coming and stand in front, asking the question, would ignore that, talking to me and

look at me, without going from the person -- stays something and he would be standing there, you get tired and walk away. >> host: that -- works for that guy and this is a great question. my friend who is a chemistry student, she said did you ever collaborate on any physics problems together to learn about certain areas of physics? >> guest: there was one i was interested in, why will remain member -- let me give you a little preamble. the places of physics are reversible. you could take data in the

current state of the system where everything is and how it is moving, a snapshot and the laws of physics tell you how that develops and you go forward or backward. and so now obviously if you see a film you can tell the difference. not talking about someone walking backwards and going out the door. i mean things like smoke dissipates, but someone walking backwards, someone could do that if they wanted to, but the smoke spreads, you will never see in nature a cloud of smoke it concentrates, okay, that is a statistical -- that is entropy and is a physical explanation for that.

that is where the arrow of time comes from. even though the laws are reversible, the state something is in is very special like let's say a very ordered state, a bunch of dominoes they might fall, this way or that way but only one way they can stand up just right. you can jiggle the table and they won't pop up in their initial configuration because that was special but any of a zillion other configurations. that is what the arrow of time is but i was wondering psychologically how does that work? -- why is it we remember the laws are reversible, why is it

we remember the past and we don't remember the future? somehow you inc. that might be connected to smoke spreading but how does that work? i asked stephen about that. he told me, we had a couple interactions, he says i wrote a paper on that in 1985 or something. i dig up that paper, but in typical stephen fashion he was confusing having said something with having proved it. i went back to look at the picture and he indeed says something about that but doesn't give details or show how it works so i'm back to square one. a friend of mine, i wrote a paper on that, published a paper explaining that. it is called why we remember the past and not the future.

that is a time i talked to stephen about that problem but didn't work on it directly. >> host: remember the future. it sounds like a led zeppelin album, here's an interesting question. what you just said, quote, we changed our mind comment is why physics feels out of reach for so many. how difficult is it to take what may be a developing fighting from scientific research and translate into something for interested nonexperts. >> guest: people can read about it and it is exciting but --

reading about what people were working on at the time. i would say most popular science books are about relativity, aspects of the theories, evolution of the universe, pretty well agreed upon not necessarily cutting edge. there are books on the cutting edge. to explain those to general audiences isn't that much different than explaining something that is already settled as long as what you are writing about isn't changing when you are writing it. when that happens it gets difficult and you have to do your best to keep up with where it is changing as make clear where the speculation is is the settled physics. most books don't do but we do

it the end of the book talk about how this might be confirmed or verified and what part of it is stephen's latest theory versus settled theory. >> host: that was one of the things that was helpful as a layperson apart from being eminently readable and human, you have very appropriate and nicely placed footnotes that explain just what you read in a way that is very understandable for someone like myself and helpful which you guys asking questions, are you sure you didn't see this up in advance? katherine comes up a follow-up question. i just finished the book and enjoyed the physics as well as

the human story, i rest my case. i graduated physics at cornell in 1965 and spent mike working career at jpl. you indicated not everything you wrote was completely verified. here we go. have there been any major changes since it was published in 2010? i presume you're talking about the grand design. >> guest: some people have been carrying the theory out further but the difficulty with finding support for that theory or differentiating other ideas is we need better technology to study the cosmic microwave background radiation. the afterglow of the big bang. the idea is studying the details of that, supporting evidence for stephen's ideas hasn't gotten there yet.

sometimes you have to wait a long time. studying black holes in the 60s, people thought we were never going to see one. then there was the candidate they were studying. not until the early 90s did we have an image of a black hole until a few years ago. sometimes it takes a long time. >> host: if i am not mistaken, i don't know the specifics but einstein's theory of general relativity was essentially proven only a few years ago. >> guest: it is not proven, you know that. since we are talking about specific context i will say, the first evidence for that theory that it is correct for the first observation that confirmed a provision of the theory that was different from newton's theory was four years after the theory was completed.

the theory was completed in 1950 and it was 1919 observation that showed, that confirmed, but there are those who question the statistics on the observation. that is what happened. there have been other tests, the gps system everybody uses is really interesting. when you think of general relativity which is a theory that applies generally to very -- a theory you need to use as opposed to newton's laws, you need to use general relativity and extreme situations of concentrated mass or the early universe that actually it affects our lives because you actually -- two jet systems

would be wildly inaccurate, general relativity is very important, the gps systems that got us all around our maps to navigate. just the fact that when you type in i want to go to starbucks, if you are driving, the fact that you get there is thanks to einstein. >> host: that is the sort of stuff i love about what you guys and girls do in your discipline. my grandfather was a physicist and an electrical engineer. speaking of jpl i remember standing with my first generation ipad a few years ago watching the mars rover landed, they dropped the camera to watch the landing and if my genius grandfather came back and saw me standing there with a device this thick that didn't heat up, with no cords, no

cathode ray tube, no plug, i am watching the surface of mars, this is a really authentically learned man would say that is witchcraft. so i love being aware i am holding this device in my hands, starbucks in mongolia, i love that you hunted that out. we are almost done. thank you for this opportunity. something you wrote in the book that i love so much and obviously i presume based on other writings but isaac newton was an ass. i love that. how do we know that? >> guest: we know a lot about newton. a lot of people even at the time have written about his papers, his books. he was a quarter. he could have been on one of these reality shows.

he kept grocery lists every grocery list he ever wrote. boxes and boxes and boxes of his work, his writing, we know a lot about. >> host: that is one of the things that made me laugh out loud. you wrote newton is an ass. i loved that. people come back, whatever, isaac, shut your mouth, people have opposite reactions, but anyway, i know -- i think -- >> guest: you should take sauerkraut. >> host: here we go. these other countries that have come up since the first song was it. not in a growing body of, the soviet union is gone ♪ south georgia ♪ is pakistan hey ♪ has extent hey ♪ turkmenistan ♪ curtis stan ♪ serbia

♪ kosovo ♪ samoa ♪ crimea ♪ eritrea ♪ ukraine and estonia won't here's macedonia ♪ ivory coast ♪ and dubai ♪ goodbye ♪ >> host: goodbye, everybody. >> thank you all for joining us tonight. please pick up a copy of leonard's book and we hope to see you again very soon. >> weeknights this month we are featuring booktv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on c-span2. tonight as part of our 2020 year in review, focus on books about courts and the constitution. jeffrey sutton discusses his book the central scalia. you are watching booktv on

c-span2. booktv on c-span2, created by america's cable television companies, brought you by these television companies who provide booktv to viewers as a public service. on tuesday january 5th the balance of power in the senate will be decided by the winners of the two georgia runoffs is david purdue and kelly leffler are defending their seats and the gop control of the chamber. the democratic challengers are john ossof and rafael warnock. follow these races, live coverage on c-span2, c-span.org and the free c-span radio apps. >> the senate is about the gavel in. lawmakers will begin work on an override of donald trump's veto of the defense program and

policy. the house approved the override, 322-87. two thirds of the house and senate must degree to the override. senator bernie sanders said he would block the attempt until the senate is allowed to vote on increasing stimulus checks to $2,000. live to the senate floor on c-span2. officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. prince of peace, give us today your pardon and peace. pardon the sins of our lips, the untrue and unkind words we have spoken. pardon the sins of our minds, the ignoring of trh