grant was the last american president to hold those kind of views. >> sunday night at 8 eastern on c-span's q and a. this weekend, the c-span city tour, along with cox communication partner explores the history of tempe, arizona. wildfire, efforts to change the narrative of fire and its role in the environment, with steven fine "between two fires." >> for 50 years, this country, after the great fires of 1910, which traumatized the u.s. war service, tried to take fire out of the landscape. the problem was that we took good fires as well as bad fires out. the last 50 years, which is rather a long time, half the history of our engagement, we've tried to put good fire back in. and that has been very difficult. >> hear from brook simpson about

the challenges of writing history. >> i'm the person that tells that story. i'm going to try do it as best i can, as honestly as i can, as balanced as i can. but i get to do something fundamentally creative and say this is what i think happened. >> then on american history tv on c-span 3, hear about the lives of barry goldwater and carl hayden. arizona state university. >> when you look at carl hayden's krcareer, he was responsible for co spon toring and writing a huge amount of legislation that benefited the citizens of arizona and the citizens of the united states. and his legacy was very much a life legislative legacy. barry goldwater was really a person who is an icon for the

western united states. he was a person who represented the interests of the west. >> jared smith, cur rate toator history museum shows us the history of charles hayden. >> charles hayden is, he is originally born in connecticut. he comes out west during the course of his life, travels over the santa fe trail. he runs freight. eventually makes it to arizona in the 1850s. >> saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2, book tv. sunday afternoon on american history on c-span 3, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. the u.s. house is finally taking up the 2017 authorization bill, been in a house senate conference since july, and we're joined by jacqueline climas with the washington examiner with that organization.

this bill authorizes $619 billion in programs and policy for the pentagon. what are some of the issues, key issues authorized by the bill? >> so one of the biggest issues is pay raise for the troops, the compromise bill that will be on the floor is 2.1%, and president's request was only at 1.6%. also the acquisition shop is organized, it splits it into two different positions, focused on innovation and on risk taking and the other more focused on the business and on not taking risks, which was a big priority for senator john mccain in the senate version of the bill. >> you mentioned it has been in a conference committee since july. differing of how to help fund the wars in afghanistan, the military spending in iraq. the headline on your washington examiner piece, $3.2 billion boost in the overall authorization. how did they resolve the

differences in particular on that issue on funding for iraq and afghanistan? >> when you look at the funding, the house increased their funding in the overseas contingency, but used it for base priority, $18 billion difference between the house and senate bills. so looking at it, they essentially split the difference, but that takes into account the president's about 5 million supplemental request. when they took about the midway point between the house and senate bills, and then when you take into account the president's request, it gives them about $3.2 billion more than what the president asked for, which could be contributing factor to democrats not supporting the bill. >> one of the key issues forearmed services committee chair, mark thornberry has been the acquisition process for the military, how the military buys things. what did they decide on this bill? >> major reshuffling of how the acquisition department is going to be organized and really this

focus on innovation, conference report says negotiators believe that acquisition and innovation, the culture of the two different aspects are just totally different. so to separate that out will help buy things quicker, get new technology quicker, and get things actually fielded out to the war fighter faster, hopefully with fewer costover runs. >> this is an authorization bill, so a chance to layout policy priorities. what about the issues like the drafting, potential drafting of women and discrimination in hiring practices at the pentagon and in the military. >> those things are both left out of the final bill. the bill will not require women to sign up for the selective service. it does not include the russell amendment, but a capitol hill aid tells me part of the reason the republicans were willing to leave out the russell amendment, because now with trump's election, they see new avenues early next year to be able to

come back at some of the religious liberty issues. >> this is an authorization bill, authorization of more spending on military projects and programs coming at a time when the house and senate are figuring out the continuing resolution, the overall federal spending. i wanted to ask you about how the two tie-in. with this tweet of yours, commenting about joe wilson and mike turner, asking for a pentagon bill, not a cr. explain that? >> the funding level in the cr is different obviously since it is the last fiscal year funding level. it is different from what is going to be included in the ndaa. so these two lawmakers essentially wrote a letter to speaker paul ryan saying that because the ndaa was expected to pass overwhelmingly, the vast majority of congress clearly agrees on the funding level, why can't we just fund the pentagon instead of doing a cr, which is going to secretary carter sent a letter to this week to the hill saying the detrimental impact

that the cr will have on a lot of their programs, and it preventing any new starts and could them behind in key issues like the f-35 and other procurement priorities. >> now that it is coming to the house floor, the white house had initially issued veto threats against the sen nates and house version. what are they saying about the final version? >> they haven't spoken definitive leon it yet. a lot of the issues in the bill that they were threatening to veto are no longer in there. it is unclear if they'll sign it. the white house press secretary said that one of the biggest issues will be this funding, the fact that there is an additional $3.2 billion for defense that is not matched in defense spending. >> the days are dwindling down. they'll get to the passage on friday. what about the senate? what is the timetable. >> they're expect today take it up next week, also be considering the cr before they leave and then they're trying to get out of town.

>> jacqueline climus, washington examin examiner, she is on twitter on jacqclimas. world aids day, next, dr. deborah burkes, on funding hiv/aides. at our table this morning, ambassador and doctor deborah burkes, special executive for u diplomacy. why is it important to have this day. >> it allows all of us a moment in time to reflect on the epidemic, where we are, where we've been, who we've served, who we haven't served. really look at our progress. also, real time to remember those who we've lost, because that's what motivates us

everyday. we know many of the people we've lasted. we have to prevent losing them. >> let's talk about we're at with combating hiv/aids. nearly 2 million people are living with aids infection. 39,000 were diagnosed with the infection, from 2005 to 2014, it declined 14%. gay and by sexual men accounted for 82% of diagnoses. heterosexual accounted for 24%. talk about where we are, where we began and where we are with this fight against hiv and aids. >> that's a really critical question. epidemics continue to evolve. they change their dynamics of who is infecting who, and unless you're on top of that, every minute of everyday, and following the data, you get behind the epidemic. once you get behind the

epidemic, new infections expand. so i think this real focus since 2010 on a national strategy and really ensuring that we're putting resources where the epidemic needs to be controlled. when you look at the history of two cities, you look at the history of san francisco, and oakland, you can see amazing progress in san francisco, where they're talking about and counting new infections being less than 100, less than 90, less than 75, with the intent to get to 0. you look across the bay, oakland, you see an expanding network. do your programs, reach them. are you effective. do you have the right messages. it causes us to constantly reevaluate what we're doing and how we reach everyone. >> what's the difference between those two city as soon as. >> i think the difference is very stark when you look at everyone has focussed. the mayor of oakland is very dedicated. congressman lee is very dedicated.

the epidemic started to expand in a group where we didn't have focused activities. i think watching that, finding that and now a huge impact and will continue to have a great impact. san francisco, new york, ground zero 30 years. getting the information has been key. many people have participated. now they're matching programs. when you look at washington, d.c., ten years ago, some of the incidents here and prevalence was higher than many countries where i worked in africa but the community, the government, the mayor, nih came together with georgetown university and said where are infections occurring, how do we get people diagnosed, on treatment, change the entire program in the incidents have plummeted in the city. so there are effective programs. it is taking them from paper to action. >> what are the federal

programs? how much do they cost? is this a federal initiative? or is it -- is most of this done on the state level. >> both. it is done at the community level. so we have to remember how important the local community groups that continue to work tirelessly against this epidemic, ensuring that people in their community are served with health services that meet their needs, in a way that is receptive to them, non-stigma advertising. i think it helps that the churches are taking this on, ensuring everybody in the pughs is aware that everybody is at risk. community plays a critical role. yes, there are state and federal dollars. yes, we had ryan white re-authorized. yes, we have programs for the poorest of the poor and safety nets. but it takes everybody together. i think we never want to lose track that no federal program or state program going to be impactful without community

engagement. >> how much are we talking about? >> billions in the u.s. somewhere between 15 and $20 billion a year of really investments, both in prevention as well as treatment programs to ensure we're decreasing the epidemic. that number continues to change, depending on the cost of medication and access. but it is really been from the beginning a comprehensive response that really had said you need to have prevention, you need to have treatment. you need to have the community, the state, the federal government, and science. and what nih has done to provide us the tools over the last 30 years is extraordinary. >> where are you seeing increases in infections in the united states? >> when you look across the entire united states and across the south, that's where you see many what we call hot spots. we look for hot spots domestically and we look for hot spots globally. it is areas where there is more

transmission. often, those are areas where people don't know their status. so no one is intentionally transmitting the virus, but when you first get infected, you're healthy. you stay healthy for a long period of time. when you talk about motivating a 16 or 17-year-old to interact with the health system, that's not one of their top three things to do in their daily life. so really finding a message that resonates with them. and personally with them. that motivates them to want to know their status and want to know what it takes to protect them against hiv. that's really key. but those messages have to evolve from talking to a 30-year-old to talking to a 60-year-old and they're different messages. >> what is the president's emergency plan for aids relief, prep. >> it is an amazing program that grew out of the durbin conference in 2000, where

pressm president mendela got up and talked, killing their mothers, teachers, doctors, nurses, and saying something needs to be done globally. the congress really took this up between barbara lee, senator kerry, and president bush historically, for the first time ever in the history of the world, stood up to say we're going to invest to save people's lives around the globe. we're going translate compassion and empathy of the american people and their tax dollars into a program that prevents, cares and treats those who have less. and that has now fast forward 13 years, we're so excited on this world aids day, because for the first time, we have data to show that we're beginning to control the epidemic and three of the high burdened countries. when you say in 13 years, and we continue to save lives and prevent new infections, but now we have the impact data that

said those investments brought us to a place are we're actually changing the very trajectory of this pandemic and dramatically decreasing incidents. if you look at how much incidents decrease since pepfar has started, over 50% is where we've invested. >> what countries? >> we're talking about africa, highly invested in sub sahara, caribbean, southeast asia, central asia, the ukraine. and programs on a few programs of support in south america. >> we're showing our viewers a 2015 map of those so-called hot spots in africa there is a goal of an aids free generation by 2030. i want to show the viewers what the map looks like in 2020, compared to what they're seeing

in 2015, where those red spots become more orange. is it realistic? is it possible to have an aids free generation by 2030? >> that's what these three surveys in the field were about. these were three comprehensive, done at the community level, so everybody at the community not biased in any way. going door-to-door, 25,000 people, each of these three countries, zambia, are they having an impact. the fact that we have community viral load suppression of over 60%, that means you're disrupting the sexual networks. so now we do have the evidence base. we had the scientific evidence base. we had all of the clinical trials that nih had supported that said if you do this, you can have an aids regeneration. going from there to implementing these programs in a full community country county way, it

is quite extraordinary. but we have amazing government, and implementing partners on the ground, who have taken that science and they've taken that science to the people we serve. in their communities where they lived, and now we're showing for the first time that that's changing the course of the pandemic. so yes, we can. we need to continue to focus our resources every single day we get up and say are we spending the dollars we need to and save more lives. you have to be attentive to the money and people, the locations, everybody single day. you can get behind the epidemic. it doesn't respect borders or gender or race or any kind of sexual orientation. this is a virus that spreads quietly, and that really takes programs that are comprehensive. >> well, if our viewers have questions about the virus, about the science, and about this effort to combat it across the

world, we invite you to call in, republicans 202-748-8000, 202-748- -- dr. burkes has been working on this a long time. we'll begin with dennis, hi, there. >> caller: i think we ought to send something to aid to indiana, since mike pence defunded planned parenthood, since they take care of the aids medicine and everything. he cut that off. so. >> well, yeah, dennis, let's talk about what happened in indiana, and the role that planned parenthood place. >> there are clinics everywhere in these states and in counties. i think altogether communities are being served in different ways. i think we don't prescribe or

tell how states should actually implement these programs, because they're more effective, the local they are to the communities. and so i don't know of the specific case, so i can't really comment. but we know through our advocacy and community that if people weren't being served, we would know it immediately. >> do you see then infections go up? >> people don't stop their medication. i think that's the other piece that these impact surveys show. when you have 86 to 91% viral suppression, that means that that patient is everyday staying on his medication and he sore she is staying on their medication. that's extraordinary that people have that level of dedication. both so they can thrive, but also so they don't transmit the virus. >> what is the medication in. >> it is a combination of different drugs that work at different sites of action to inhibit the virus and keep the

virus were replicating new cells. or keep the virus from binding to your sells and integrate, what we call going inside your sells. they all work in a complimentary way. we have a combination of three drugs that we've been using in subsahara and africa, and they've been very durable and extraordinary accepted by the individuals that are hiv positive. in the u.s., because we started with what we call one drug, and then two drugs, an then three drugs, because every time we had a new drug, we wanted to make sure that everyone of our clients had access. because it was such -- it was such a devastating time to have people in their 20s and 30s dying of this plague and not having the medication. so in the u.s., we've had to use more sophisticated drugs, more technically difficult to make drugs, because we have more resistance in the united states. because of that, people being on one drug, then two drug and

three drugs, which in africa, clients, because they couldn't access any drugs until pepfar. less than 50 people. now we have 11.5 million people. that's in 12 years. so they have much more durability to what we call the first line drugs than in many developed world who had access to the drugs. >> let's go to york grand junction colorado. york, you're next. >> caller: hello, dr. burkes. i've been in the hiv/std prevention business now for 30 years. i manufacture condom vending machines in over 80 countries in the world. i ship 600 just to moscow. but we have inoticed, we have noticed a decline in condom machines for around the u.s. and i've noticed a definite

decline in the offshore. i haven't heard from the u.n. or planned parenthood for quite a while. but any way, i'm on the web, if you would like to, i sure would like to work with you. and i'm on the web. and can go there to condom machines.com. >> let's have dr. burkes respond. >> thank you for talking about condoms. they are a critical component. but we match that with other issues. we launched two years ago what we called dreams, that's really providing a program of prevention that's meeting the needs of the young woman, where the young woman is. and responding to her specific issues. condoms are part of that. and pepfar continues to procure, probably more condoms than any other program in the world. and we continue to do that at a very high level. we've not decreased, in fact, we've increased the number of condoms we continue to procure. condoms are part of that.

but we have to make sure that we just talked about, we have to know that people understand that they have a risk of hiv, and sometimes, particularly 15 to 24-year-olds don't believe that they have a risk. so as the epidemic, and i think you raise an important point with your knowledge about condom availability, when a disease moves into 15 to 24-year-olds and not aware that hiv is a risk, they wouldn't be particularly motivated to utilize a condom machine. because they wouldn't think that they are exposed or others that they're with are exposed to hiv. so that's our job, to make sure that people understand how this epidemic is moving, and how in the united states, it has moved very much into young men of color, at 15, 16, 17, 18-year-olds becoming infected, and throughout the world, particularly africa, it has moved into 15 to 24-year-old young women who didn't perceive themselves at risk. these are the things we're talking about, you have to

constantly pay attention to. >> ambassador burkes is responsible for implementing the emergency relief pepfar started under george w. bush. you told our viewers the results you've seen in the last 13 years that has reduced infection across the world. but the goal is an aids free generation by 2030. >> that's not just the united states goal. that's the goal of the world. because when the world signed on to what we call the sustainable development goals, they said that we will absolutely end hiv, tb and malaria as pandemics and be controlled by 2030. that's observatiextraordinarily ambitious goal, and what we've shown is it is achievable. >> why do you think it has been successful so far? i mean, what has led to the reduction in numbers? >> i think there is three components to that. one of them is really utilizing

data and information at the very most granular level. so in pepfar, if your viewers go to pepfar.gov today, we have results down to the site level. we have all of the results, age and sex aggregated. why is that important? why are not young men being tested. are there certain areas where they're successfully being test tested. we find innovative solutions, but this is amazing what you're doing. they say doesn't everyone do it this way. people in general are so humble in their new ideas. but what we've been able to do by utilizing data is to find the areas of success, and then find the areas that are lacking in success, and improve those.

it is something we talk about the starbucks model. it is like a starbucks store, being opened and never selling a cappucci cappuccino. is that because the community doesn't like cappuccino. what we do is look at data to really see why aren't young men accessing treatment, why aren't they being tested. what age groups and genders are we missing. that's how you stay ahead of an ep epidemic. >> what are your questions about the epidemic, start calling in now. republicans 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000, and independents, 202-748-8002. >> caller: i would like to give

a big shout ja-out to c-span an dr. burkes. i am a 54-year-old white male, modest income. what would be the best way for somebody like me to give to this foundation, and to get involved in it, because i have kids and grand kids coming up, and i'm going to try to really educate them on it, but i would really like to help, you know, support the cause. what's the best way in doing that. thanks for your work. >> david, thank you. because that is what pepfar really is. it is a translation. you're doing something everyday. you're paying taxes that make this program successful. we are deeply grateful to you, to the american congress, and we're deeply grateful to two administrations, a republican and democratic administration that continue to support this

program. that represents the best of all of us. the best thing that you can do is what you talked about. educating your grandchildren and children about hiv/aids. and look anything your community. i'm sure there a community service organization within your community that is doing outreach into the communities that really are most affected by hiv/aids. thank you for your compassion, and thank you for being an american, that has made this program successful. >> here is a tweet from a viewer, urban dweller. the difference is color of -- color of one's skin. nonwhites were marginalized during the early days of the hiv/aids epidemic. >> that's an interesting perception. i think that the fact that someone feels that way means that we have to look at how we're working. we hear this all the time from young women who said i went to a clinic to try to find out how

protect myself, and they turned me away. and said you don't belong here. because you should not be thinking about having sex. this is a 17-year-old. so until we really look at ourselves, and we look at ourselves at the communities we're providing services, and saying are our services opened to everyone. the other piece behind that tweet that has worried me both here and around the world is are the churches helping and are they part of the solution now? are the black churches talking about hiv/aids. i think they are. i think they're part of the critical community that can outreach. we talk about the churches in africa, are they reaching out to individuals in the churches every morning, every sunday morning. really ensuring they have awareness of hiv/aids, how protect themselves. how to keep from getting infected. how to get tested to find out if they are infected. >> stan in broadbrook,

connecticut. independent, thanks for holding. your turn. >> caller: debra, i would like to know why you and the government help spread the aids by allowing men to have sex with each other by having this -- making it legal for same sex marriage and all this stuff, spread it across, you know, you give aids a chance to spread across the country doing that? >> let's get a response, stan. dr. burkes. >> we have to be aware of the data. that's why data is so important. so when you start to look at the data and as we opened segment, gretta talked about how 25% is heterosexually spread. we know hiv/aids is spread among people who inject drugs. we know hiv/aids is spread in prison. you look around the globe, the primary, the absolute primary mode of risk of spreading hiv/aids is in heterosexual couples. so that's what is putting young women at risk, that's what

putting people at risk around the world. so we have to be very careful that we don't use language that further drives people away from services, and keeps them out of the health care system, when we need them to access services and become tested. >> here is a question from jim buck on twitter. given the difficulty creating a vaccine to a retro virus, what is the current status of an hiv vaccine? >> well, thank you for mentioning vaccines. there is two things that nih and the scientific community are working on right now. one of them is a cure. and that's extraordinarily exciting, and they're making progress everyday. the other one is hiv vaccines. i think hiv -- that was the world i came out of. about 10, 15 years ago. there is a really critical trial that just opened in south africa, and really shows how vaccine development can work with partnership between the south african government, nih

and the community. that's just being launched. that will be a critical trial. i believe that we will have a vaccine. i hope we have a vaccine in the mid 20s, hopefully, critically by 2030. because we will be able to control this epidemic with the tools that we have now. but we will not be able to end it. i want to make that clear. we're talking about 37 million people thriving and living with hiv/aids because they're on medication. they stop that medication, they once again can transmit the virus. so we have to ensure that those individuals stay on treatment, and we have to ensure that we have a vaccine that is protective of all the rest of the individuals, while we work on prevention activities. so we're excited about the progress that nih is making and very excited about the trial results. >> let me give our viewers your

background. immunology at the department of defense in 1985, assistant chief at waller read from 1985 to 1989. director of the u.s. military at walter read to 2005. rose to rank of colonel and led the most influential hiv/aids vaccine in history. director of cdc, led the implementation of pepfar programs around the world and managed the annual budget of $1.5 billion. why did you start this work? >> i went into medicine, and thank you for going through that because now you know i'm very old. >> experience is what i was trying to get at. >> so i think, you know, when i started in medicine, i was trying to decide what i wanted to do. i was so intrigued by the immune

system. it seemed like everything came to that. whether the inflammation that can lead to cardiovascular disease, the auto immunities, and that immunology, so i studied that, and in the middle of that, i got a call, when i was working on primary in the military. young children born without antibodies, and needing support. the boy in the bubble. that didn't have t cell function. working on primary immune know deficiencies, and got a call about patients coming to walter read, young men, young vibrant, amazing soldiers in their late 20s, coming in dying from a mystery illness, their immune system has collapsed. in talking to those patients, they knew they were dying. yet they stood up to say fight for the ones behind us.

because although there might not be anything for us. please ensure there is something for those who come behind us. i've never seen that in medicine. i felt so dis empowered, and they were so empowering, because they believed if we worked hard and we got the scientific breakthroughs, that we could make a difference in the future. i think that level unbelievable selflessness, when you are dying yourself, to be concerned about the others, was so inspiring to me that everyday, i remember their faces, and i remember the sacrifice that they made and their only request to me was help those who are behind me. >> let's go to jason in san diego, a democratic. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. i have a question and a comment. first of all, i would like to say that the affordable care act

that no one can be turned away for a preexisting conditions, i would like to know if aids and cancer as being colored by the affordable care act. also, there was a guy dealing with junk bonds who got control of the aids pill that cost about $15 and changed the price to like $12,000 a pill. how come we combat that, and i would like to know if the affordable care act, giving assistance to aids. >> okay, jason. >> great question, jason. so the united states, before pepfar was created, very seriously responded to the epidemic in the united states. and ensure that everyone had access. the ryan white act, and i'm so pleased ha we stithat we call in white act, because he

represented what some of our problems were. they represented, ryan white was discriminated. he was discriminated against everyday. he wasn't allowed to go to school. his mother, wasn't allowed to go into grocery stores. people shunned him because he was a hemopheliac from a blood transfusion. he asked while he was dying himself that we have a service for others, we don't discriminate against each other. he really called for us to have access to the lifesaving treatment for everyone. that's what ryan white is about. that's what our -- a lot of acronyms in this, but those are all safety nets to ensure that everyone who has hiv/aids in the united states has access to the lifesaving drugs that they need, and it is also available under aca. so there are safety nets below safety nets for hiv/aids in the united states. and it always has been that way from the moment we had available

drugs. and we had a really effective drug combination in 1996. >> what are the cost of drugs for somebody who is using them to prevent aids? >> you know, that's a difficult question. because in the united states, where we've had to go to stronger and stronger and more different and different combinations to really combat resistance, the drugs in the united states do cost much more. but we're using drugs in africa that we used in 19 -- basically that were the concept of them was available in 1996. as i said at the beginning, those drugs have been 96 -- 86-91% effective, no matter how long people have been on treatment, because they're virally suppressed. still in most countries, 95% of the countries. so the cost in the united states is different, because they've had to go on newer and newer therapies. we've not seen the same thing in

subsahara. >> rock fall, illinois. >> caller: different country over the holidays, and you go to, most of the countries can you get to take with you, blood testing for hiv? >> yeah, great question. so we are so privileged, and i didn't really get to talk about how much technology has improved, and how much that technology has been made affordable to us. to utilize around the globe. so for the last almost decade, we've had what we call rapid test. so we can diagnose someone within less than five minutes. no matter where they are in the world. and now we're working on a new concept of self-testing. where we can actually give a patient or give a community a series of tests, where people can test in their households. and then come to the clinic to receive lifesaving treatment.

so all of those options are available, and i think really, the hiv/aids field has benefited from sciencetists and pharmaceuticals and generic companies working together to really bring to the field really new technology that really hems us test individuals so they know their status. last year, helpfar tested almost 75 million individuals. so all with the rapid test. that really shows you not only have people brought new technology tous, but they've brought new technology at scale. because to do 75 million tests, that is an enormous amount of kmom commodi commodities and supplies. >> tony, independent, hi, tony. >> caller: good morning. >> your question or comment this morning? >> caller: yes, i just think it is -- this is rational to take a -- rational approach to

solving the aids virus problem is to -- origins came from. any time you want to solve a problem, especially -- you have to get to the origins. i notice that the history of aids hasn't been discussed so far. and it only took me one minute to pull up aids timeline by this doctor named dr. raves. one thing i noticed in the timeline is that in 1974, henry kissinger released his mss-200, world population in romania to speak as a program to secretly call or to reduce the african population. then in 1975, president ford signed the national security defense memorandum, 314, united

states implementing henry kissinger as -- >> okay, tony. let's have dr. birx tell us about the history. >> thank you for bringing up the history of aids. the one thing that hiv has been enormously studied. we have blood samples going back decades in different repositories that have really pointed out, and i'm glad you talked about the history of aids and where the virus came from. because like ebola, hiv virus is a virus that came from animals, and adapted to humans. that's what ebola does. that's what hiv does. that's why we have programs now in global health security to really look for viruses that are making that jump from animals to humans. hiv is one of those viruses that jumped from primemates to humans, humans involved in bush meat harvesting in the rain

forests of cameroon. that, we're constantly exposed to blood from primemates and using machetes, you get cuts on your hands and arms, and the virus was transmitted from animals to humans. and it has adopted to humans with each cycle of replication and each transmission. so both ebola and hiv are viruses that we call zoo-ronotic viruses, infectious disease, looking for those viruses to prevent that jump or when it does happen, find it quickly, and prevent an epidemic. now, ebola kills patients very rapidly, so it can't cause the same level of epidemics that hiv was able to do, because it was si silently spreading for decades before we recognized it, because people's life-span without treatment is nine to 11 years. they were healthy for the first

eight or nine years. so this virus spread without anyone knowing about it, for decades. that's why we're much more focused on global health security and identifying those issues. >> let's get in shirley in south boston, virginia, democratic. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm calling because the caller previously touched on my question of origin. back in the '70s, when i was in the health care profession, i noticed the gay pride parades in new york city and absent a lot of people of color in those parades. and she keeps talking about africa. i don't feel that this disease started in africa. it started to me in new york, one protected sex with white gay males. >> okay, shirley, i have to leave it there, because we're running out of time. i want you to respond. >> thank you, shirley. this is why it is important to look across the history of the epidemic, and really understand

the epidemiology. i think you point out a very important concept and perception. because you know, we only see what's around us. when we see what's around us, we make assumptions about how the virus came and how the virus is transmitted. yet that isn't consistent with all of the data we have now on the what we call the epidemiology of this virus and the scientific evidence that we have of where the virus came from and how it spread. i think we always have to go back to the data, because that is where we have to ground ourselves, because that's how we combat diseases. you combat diseases by really understanding as the previous caller talked about, where this disease has come from, where the virus came from, how we ensure that doesn't happen again. and how we ensure that everybody who is hiv positive is getting adequate treatment and how we ensure we prevent new infections. >> quickly, what about scientists vanquishing the zero

patient myth. >> that's really, data continues to evolve. you know, this virus has been sequenced in such great detail. that's allowing us now to really go back and find out, because the virus, each time it spreads, each time it is replicates in your body, it is a little different. can you use that to actually map where the epidemic has been and where it is going. >> if the viewers have any more questions or thoughts, you can go to pepfar.gov. that's the president's emergency plan for aids relief that ambassador dr. debra brix oversees. >> thanks for the calls. they were terrific. c-span washington journal, issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, congressional co-chair, representative tim murphy, will discuss mental health legislation, and the state of mental health care funding. and appropriations committee member, congressman matt

cartwright talks about the democratic's political agenda under president-elect trump. and efforts to increase the party's support among blue collar workers. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern friday at c-span. join the discussion. so i decided to spend much more time on the young grant. i spent a week at west point. trying to understand how this man could finish 21st out of 39 at west point. and therefore, sometimes viewed by these biographers as an historical intellectual lightweight. and yet, he said of himself, i must apologize, i spent all my time reading novels. >> sunday night on q & a, ronald c. white talks about the life and career of the 18th u.s. president. in his latest book "american ulyss ulysses, a life of ulysses s. grant." >> african-american leads in the

white house, he said i look forward to the day when you can right on a railroad car, you can eat in a restaurant, you can do so along with every other person regardless of their race, that day must come. it took 90 years for that day to come. grant was the last american president to hold those kind of views. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. this weekend, the c-span city's tour, along with our cox communication partners explores the life and history of tempe, arizona. book tv on c-span 2, learn about man's relationship with wildfires an efforts to change the narrative of fire and its role in the environment. with steven pine, author of "between two fires, a fire history of contemporary america." >> for 50 years, this country, after the great fires of 1910, traumatized the u.s. forest service, tried to take fire out

of the landscape. and the problem was that we took good fires as well as bad fires out. in the last 50 years, which is rather a long time, half the history of our engagement, to p and that has been very difficult. >> hear from brook simpson about the challenges of writing history. >> i'm the person that tells that story. and i'm going to try to do it as best i can, as honestly as i can, as balanced as i can, but i get to do something fundamentally creative and say this is what i think happened. >> then on american history tv on c-span 3, hear about the lives of barry gold water and carl hagan. from rob spinnedler, arizona state university archivist. >> when you look at carl hagan's career, he was really responsible for and co-sponsoring a huge amount of

legislation that benefitted the citizens of arizona and the citizens of the united states. his legacy was very much a legislative legacy. barry goldwater was really a person who is an icon for the western united states. he was a person who represented the interests of the west. >> and jared smith, curator of history at the tempe history museum, shows us the contributions made to the city's early history by charles hayden who is credited with founding tempe. >> charles hayden is originally born in connecticut. he comes out west during the course of his life, travels over the santa fe trail. he runs and eventually makes it to arizona in the 1850s. >> the c-span city's tour on saturday afternoon and sunday afternoon on c-span 3. working with our cable

affiliates and visiting cities across the country. next, the white house daily briefing with press secretary josh ernest. he took questions from reporters on issues including the ongoing presidential transition process, tax policy, and the policy agenda for the remainder of the president's term. this is an hour. good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. before we go to your questions, i've got a little scheduling update for you. on tuesday, the president of the united states will travel to tampa, florida where he will meet with active duty service members at mcdill air force base, the home of the special operations command and u.s. central command.

the president will meet with some of the men and women stationed there. among those the president will meet with are members of our special operations community who, over the past 8 years, have been a key element of our relentless pursuit of terrorists who threaten the united states of america. the president will offer his personal gratitude and that of the nation for the professionalism, skill and sacrifice of those american patriots. while in tampa, the president will deliver formal remarks on the koupter terrorism strategy he has directed as commander-in-chief, including our strategy and the gains we have made while staying true to the values that have always been at america's core. the president has no higher priority than protecting the american people, and this speech will be a final opportunity for him to discuss at length how he has effectively, durably and successfully implemented reforms to keep us safe. we'll have additional details about the logistics of the tampa

visit next week. with that scheduling announcement out of the way, we can go to your questions. darlene, do you want to start? >> yes. thank you. the sons of ethel rosenberg, the spy who was convicted 50 some odd years ago were outside the white house about an hour ago to exonerate their mother, they have sent paperwork into the white house asking the president to do that. can you say what the status of that request is? is it being considered? >> i only learned of this shortly before coming out here. i'm not aware of any work that has been done thus far in terms of reviewing their request, but it sounds like they may have just submitted it. so i'm sure we'll take a look, but i don't have any announcements or anything to preview on this matter at this point. >> is there enough time left in the administration for that request to get a thorough review, do you think? >> it seems --

>> or would that be something passed onto to the next administration? >> hard to say. i would -- i think it's fair to say that any action on this matter before the end of this presidency is unlikely. >> second, on pakistan, would this white house agree with donald trump's description that pakistan is, quote, amazing and its citizens are, quote, one of the most intelligent people? that's the description the foreign ministry provided on the conversation that donald trump had with their prime minister yesterday. >> darlene, i saw the readout of the telephone call that you're referring to. i can't speak to the accuracy or to the tone of that phone call. i'd refer you to the president-elect's team for a more of a description of what the president-elect may have communicated to the prime minister of pakistan.

obviously president obama's conversations with his counterpart in pakistan had been an important priority. the u.s. relationship with pakistan is one that's quite complicated, particularly when you consider our overlapping national security interests. the relations between our two countries over the last 8 years have not been smooth, consistently smooth, particularly in the aftermath of the raid on pakistani soil that president obama ordered to take osama bin laden off the battlefield. but this obviously is an important relationship. there have been areas where the united states and pakistan have been able to effectively coordinate our efforts, but one of the things that i'm reminded of is that every president, regardless of which party

they're in, benefits enormously from the expertise and service of thousands of patriotic americans at the state department. these are men and women, some of them are career and foreign service officers, some of them are just career civil servants, but these are individuals who are committed and passionate about serving our country and representing our country overseas regardless of who the president is. and president obama benefitted enormously from the advice and expertise that's been shared by those who serve at the state department and i'm confident that as president-elect trump takes office, those same state

department employees will stand ready to offer him advice as he conducts the business of the united states overseas. hopefully he will -- hopefully he'll take it. >> according to their readout, donald trump also said that he would like to visit pakistan, and i know president obama's never been there. >> not as president. >> not as president. is there anything you can say about why he never visited as president? >> yeah. at one point in his presidency i do recall president obama expressing a desire to travel to pakistan. for a variety of reasons, some of them relating to the complicated relationship between our two countries and at certain times over the last 8 years, president obama was not able to realize that ambition.

but one thing we do know is that it sends a powerful message to the people of a country when the president of the united states goes to visit. and that's true whether it's some of our closest allies or that's also true if it's a country like pakistan with whom our relationship is somewhat more complicated. but ultimately when president trump begins planning his overseas travel, he'll have a range of places to consider and pakistan would certainly be one of them. roberta? >> thanks. i wanted to ask about the trip to tampa. you had said that it's a chance for the president to -- a final opportunity to discuss at length his characters and strategy but i'm wondering if it's also an opportunity to sort of talk about anything left on his to-do list as he runs through the tape

as you say. is it an opportunity for him to lay out what he didn't achieve or something that he hopes to still accomplish in his remaining days? >> i don't have too much of the speech to preview at this point. i think the president on a number of occasions, particularly over the last couple of weeks with a variety of news conferences that he's convened has acknowledged that he's proud of the record of success that we've demonstrated during his presidency, particularly in the area of foreign policy. but there are some objectives that we did not complete and i'm confident that in addition to listing off the numerous accomplishments and numerous reforms that we've successfully implemented, the president will certainly spend some time talking about the important work that remains to be done. >> and when it comes to transition issues and the transition for the intelligence

community, how is the white house feeling about how that transition process is going? apparently there's only one member of the transition team named so far to deal with the intelligence community issues, and i just wanted you to give us an assessment of any concerns you might have about the pace of that part of the transition. >> i haven't gotten a detailed update about the status of transition efforts in the intelligence community. what i can tell you is that from the obama administration perspective we've been planning for the better part of a year to organize paperwork, organize briefings, prepare materials for the incoming administration. that ground work has been laid and the president has made clear to his team that ensuring a smooth and effective transition is a top priority and certainly

is a top priority for the 50 days or so that are remaining. but i have not gotten an update on how it's been going with regard to conversations in the intelligence community. i think i would refer you to them for the latest assessment. michelle? >> we're going to see this event today on the carrier jobs announcement and it's going to be this kind of presentation and celebration of that. given the little that we know at this point about what was involved in that deal, do you think that it merits this kind of event, and is it worthy of a celebration at this point? >> listen, i -- as you heard me say yesterday, we obviously welcome the news. once the details are released, but based on what we know now, it appears that several hundred or maybe even 1,000 u.s. jobs

will not be moved overseas and that the plans have changed. that's obviously good news and an announcement that we would welcome. but again, as i mentioned yesterday, mr. trump would have to make 804 more announcements just like that to equal the standard of jobs in the manufacturing sector that were created in this country under president obama's watch. so this is good news, but the incoming president has a high bar to meet when it comes to putting in place the kind of economic policies that are going to benefit american workers. let me give you one example. the overtime rule. it's a poignant example because that was a rule that was scheduled to go into effect today, december 1st. this was a rule that president

obama announced earlier this year, but the bottom line is that every week there are millions of middle class americans who work more than 40 hours a week but don't receive any pay for their extra work. there are 87,000 such workers in indiana. by definition, these are the hardest working people in america. earlier this year, the administration finalized a rule to expand overtime protection to more than 4 million americans, something that would boost wages by $12 billion over the next decade. this is boosting pay for people who are, by definition, middle class americans and americans who are working harder than just about everybody else. so the way that this rule was implemented was that we modernize the way that the government calculates the salary

threshold under which most workers qualify for overtime. that essentially changed the threshold from $23,700 to $47,500, indexed to inflation going forward. this would essentially ensure that people who were intended to be eligible to collect overtime pay could do so. unfortunately, this rule was blocked just a couple of days ago by federal district court judge in texas, and that's unfortunate that you essentially had republican governors kol lewding to prevent the hardest working americans from getting a raise. if anybody deserves a raise it's middle class americans who are working overtime and not getting paid for it. hopefully this is the kind of thing that democrats and republicans would actually be able to work together to

implement, and i haven't heard what the president-elect has had to say about this but the possibility is there may be 87,000 middle class workers in indiana who may be interested in what he has to say about this and another 134,000 workers in ohio who are affected by this rule, who may be interested in what he has to say about it as well. >> what does the administration think of the details that were released so far, that there were millions of dollars in tax incentives to say, and i guess there are other pieces that we don't know of it? >> listen, i think at this point ultimately we would have to rely on the executives at carrier to explain why they made the decision that they did. but again, if we're talking about 1,000 u.s. jobs that have been saved, we would welcome an announcement like that. but again, we need to see another 804 of them to equal the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector that were created in the united states under president obama's watch. >> you're saying it's good but it's not that great?

how would you kind of -- >> look, if you're a worker or you live in one of the 1,000 families where that paycheck is being collected, obviously that's welcome news. i'm not -- i'm not criticizing it at all. i think what i'm trying to highlight is, as you evaluate the strategy that's being put forth by the president-elect, i think it's worthy drawing a comparison to what was done in the last 8 years under president obama. if you're indulge me, we talked a little about the affordable care act earlier this week, some metrics that you could use to judge the wisdom and approach that's put forward by the incoming administration with regard to healthcare reform. we've put together some metrics that you could use to judge the performance of the incoming administration's economic policy and many analyses, analysts who have looked at the data have concluded that some of the

rhetoric from the president-elect was critical to his success and winning the election. so i think people come in with some high expectations so let's look at metrics. the first would be jobs. under president obama and under the strategy that we have implemented, our economy has seen the largest streak of total job growth in our nation's history. over the last 80 months we've created $15.5 million jobs and the unemployment rate has been cut in half from its peek that was reached in 2012. on the jobs front president obama has had quite a high standard and one that will be a high bar for the next administration to live up to. the second metric would be wages. so far in 2016 we've seen wages grow at an annual rate of 3.1%. that's good wage growth. not off the charts, but it's good. and we'll see if that's a rate that the policies of the next administration can continue. the third metric is something that got a lot of attention

during the campaign. inequality. what we know about 2015 is our country made historic progress in reducing inequality under the leadership of president obama. we saw the median household income rise at the fastest rate on record, $2,800 a year or 5.2%. the largest gains were for middle class working families and for low income households who in 2015 saw their income rise almost 8%, while those at the top saw their income rise less than 3%. so we see a growing economy. we see wages and income growing for everybody in the country, but growing faster for those in the middle and at the bottom.

that is important progress in reducing inequality and certainly will be a high standard for the incoming administration to meet. two more. the fourth one is actually something that should be familiar with the president-elect and many of the people that he has nominated to his economic team and that's just the stock market. since president obama took office, let me be precise. since the stock market reached its low in march of 2009, just two months after president obama took office, the s&p 500 has more than tripled. that certainly means money in the pocket for a lot of people who invested in the market and certainly a lot of money in their retirement accounts of a lot of middle class workers who have been saving for their retirement and investing in the stock market. we'll see how the incoming administration performs based on

market reactions to some of the policies they put forth. the last thing i would note is poverty, and in 2015 the number of people in poverty fell by 3.5 million. that is the fastest rate or fastest decline, it's the fastest rate of decline since the 1960s. that is a metric that the president is quite proud of. i haven't heard the incoming administration identify this as a priority but president obama certainly believes that fighting poverty and reducing poverty is a priority. on his watch last year, the poverty rate fell faster than it has in 50 years. so this is an economic track record that president obama is proud of. i think it is a clear illustration of the smart strategy that we have implemented. the president-elect is preparing to take office, vowing to overhaul that strategy. we'll see if the reforms that he's promising work as well as

what the obama administration has been able to achieve. again, i can understand why the stories he may be working on today may not have room for all of this data but at all point in the future -- [ inaudible ] >> i'll let the incoming treasury secretary comment on that. at some point there will be some senior economic official for the trump administration standing up here talking to all of you about the success of their economic strategy and hopefully you'll draw upon some of the notes from this conversation and ask them about it. >> just one more thing. sorry. >> no, i should apologize for the long answer. >> 15 more questions. so pakistan read out this phone call with donald trump and they included direct quotes, saying in part, you have a very good reputation, you're a terrific guy, you're doing amazing work which is visible in every way.

i'm looking forward to seeing you soon. so does this -- given the meetings that we've seen and the ways that they were conducted, as well as the phone calls and the contacts that have been made with foreign leaders, do you think that this signals a different kind of engagement around the world, and does the administration have concerns so far? >> listen, what you have read from is a readout that was put out by the pakistani government reflecting a conversation and reflecting the words chosen by the president-elect. so i just don't have a lot of insight into either of those things. what i can say is that president obama benefitted from the professionalism and expertise of career diplomats at the state department who were able to offer him good advice about engaging with world leaders. every president has benefitted from that advice, and i think that president trump would certainly benefit from it in the same way that president obama

did when he took office. go ahead, julianna. >> to develop on michelle's question about the tax incentives offered to carrier as part of this deal, does that raise any concerns in the white house that it sets a standard that other companies can say we're going to shift jobs overseas to mexico and think that they can extract economic incentives? >> listen, i think it's hard to tell at this point exactly what was driving carrier's decision. i've seen a lot of speculation. some people have speculate that it was the promise of improved -- improved is probably not the right word. the promise of federal taxation policies that would benefit carrier. i know there's been some speculation that carrier was threatened based on the defense contracting business they have with the u.s. government. there's also been some reporting to indicate that the carrier decision was driven not by

federal level decisions but by decisions that were made at the state level, potentially by the lame duck governor of indiana who happens to be the vice-president elect of the united states. there's a lot to unpack here. ultimately i think the executives at carrier if they choose to do so will have to explain the decision that they made. i think the point that you are raising though, julianna, is a legitimate one, which is what is the most effective strategy for ensuring that the united states continues to be viewed by countries and companies around the world as an attractive destination for investment. and we have seen foreign direct investment in the united states increase under president obama because a lot of companies and countries recognize all of the advantages that are present or that exist in the united states, from our work force, from our infrastructure, to our education system, to an environment that makes innovation possible. all of that has been part of our

strategy and the strategy under the obama administration as i just laid out i think has served the american people, the american workers in the broader u.s. economy quite well. we'll have an opportunity to measure whether or not the results stack up for the kinds of reforms that president trump is promising. >> are there concerns that they've set up a moral hazard? >> listen, the strategy that the incoming administration is promising to use is very different than the strategy that we have pursued, and i think there's ample evidence to indicate that the strategy pursued by the obama administration is one that yielded great economic benefits for the country. but president trump won an election, vowing to do it differently and we'll have an opportunity to evaluate his approach based on the facts. they've got a lot to measure up to, and it looks like we'll have an opportunity to do that. hans? >> to go back to the wage growth issue, do you expect based on

what we're learning about the potential new treasury secretary, do you expect that wealthy americans will pay higher or less overall tax burden? >> even some of the rhetoric that we're hearing from the incoming administration is difficult to discern. during the campaign i know that the president-elect vowed to raise taxes on people like him. just yesterday his incoming -- the individual that he intends to nominate to be sectary of the treasury indicated that there would actually be no change in the net tax that's paid by higher income americans. so i think the fact is they're still formulating exactly what their policy is going to be, and when it comes to tax reform we know that ends up being complicated business because it has to move through the united states congress too. again, one of the things that i did not include on here was tax policy but you can certainly

include in here the wisdom of the approach that president obama has pursued in terms of locking in, making permanent tax cuts for middle class families while asking those at the top to pay a little bit more. that's had a positive impact on our economy, a positive impact on job growth, a positive impact on reducing the deficit, and had the benefit of making our country just a little bit more fair. so the kind of approach that president obama has pursued i think has been a good one and the facts bear that out. but it sounds like we'll have an opportunity for another president to come in and suggest a different approach, but we'll have a chance to see how it stacks up with the approach put forward by the obama administration. >> can you have jason or someone in your staff send out those notes that you rattled off. >> yes. >> on the carrier thing, i know you probably were just making the point that you all had a great deal of success in your approach economically but i think some people wondered if

you were kind of taking a shot when you said, well, he's going to have to do it 800 more times to get to where we are. given the sensitivity of the people on the ground who are very worried, very concerned about losing their jobs, did you want to walk that back a little bit? >> no. because again, i certainly am not doing anything other than welcoming the announcement from carrier that stands to benefit potentially 1,000 workers and 1,000 families in indiana. that's good news. i don't have anything bad to say about it. i think the observation is just a coherent strategy will be required to ensure that people all across the country can enjoy the benefits of a particular economic strategy and the economic strategy that we have put forward is one that saved actually more than 1 million jobs in the manufacturing sector and created another 805,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector.

so again, i think if anything i'm suggesting that the success of the incoming administration in protecting those manufacturing jobs is something that they're going to have to aggressively ramp up if they want to meet the standard set by the obama administration. just a little rough math would indicate that if president trump is fortunate enough to serve two terms in office for 8 years, he's probably going to have to average about two of these announcements a week every week of his 8-year presidency in order to meet the same standard. so the bar is high. he'll have an opportunity to try it his way and we'll see if it works. >> i want to ask you about the rolling stone interview. i don't want to make more of this perhaps than some people might. the president was talking about the untenable nature of this

sort of patch work of having marijuana laws, colorado, washington, a new one in california and massachusetts and other states have medical marijuana provisions. he's not suggesting or i'm going to ask you, is he suggesting that there needs to be a federal standard when it comes to the management of marijuana laws? >> i think what the president is suggesting is that it's increasingly difficult for federal law enforcement officials to be enforcing the law differently in a variety of states. as we see more states change their laws with regard to marijuana, it makes it more challenging for federal law enforcement officials to enforce the law.

so that's something that i think that the next administration is going to have to grapple with and certainly law enforcement officers and some policy makers are going to have to consider what's the most effective way to move forward here. i don't think the president at this point was trying to signal any specific policy change, but rather just indicating that this is an increasingly complicated situation that is facing federal law enforcement officers. >> i want to ask you also about something the incoming president-elect has said about regulation. he's actually -- two parts. first of all, is the president engaging in any sort of midnight regulations push between now and when he leaves office, and i guess the second part of the question would be, given that the president-elect has suggested that for every new regulation maybe we ought to take away two others.

i've heard the president himself suggest that this regulatory environment is cumbersome to say the least. does he agree that this might be a useful way to go about cleaning up regulatory policy? >> kevin, i can tell you that regulatory work that's being done in this administration is not going to be characterized by a last-minute rush on the way out the door. i think what it will be characterized by is a continuous and persistent effort to complete the work that's already been started, and that is to say that there are a number of rule-making actions that were commenced earlier this year that haven't yet been completed and we'll be working to complete them on schedule before president obama leaves office, but these are, in every case that i'm aware of, rule-making actions that began before the outcome of the election was known. the president's view is that that's actually a smart way to

make rules and regulations. it also is a smart way to effectively implement them and ensure that they have the maximum intended benefit. with regard to this idea of taking away two for every rule -- taking away two rules for every new rule that's initiated, that's the kind of thing i think that probably sounds good on the campaign trail but may be a little more complicated when you implement it. and the reason i say that is not because the president's against eliminating regulations. in fact, president obama has actually presided over a regulatory lookback proposal that has resulted in the elimination of a substantial number of regulations with a substantial economic benefit. we can get you the particular

ubs numbers. we've been enaged to take away rules that don't make sense and that are outdated and unnecessarily cumbersome because i think people have an expectation that to the extent that government is involved in some aspects of the economy, they shouldn't be posing an unnecessarily high burden to companies or to private individuals. and that's certainly something that has been an important part of the regulatory lookback process. but i think the point is that each of those rules that are considered for repeal should be evaluated on the merits and shouldn't just be evaluated because somebody decided to create another rule in another place. >> josh, a couple times you've been asked about the call between the president-elect and the leader of pakistan. you've mentioned that there are career diplomats at the state department who are able and willing to help the president

get ready for those types of discussions. is that to be read as some kind of tacit criticism of trump for not taking advantage and talking to the state department before making several calls to world leaders? >> i can't speak to any conversations that the president-elect may have had with the state department. it's possible that he was briefed by the state department before that call. i don't know. you have to ask them. i think i'm just making the observation that there are dedicated experts, public servants at the state department that have years of experience that they have amassed and that they're prepared to use to advise incoming presidents and president obama benefitted from that expertise and i'm sure that president trump will as well. >> also wanted to ask you about -- there's been a letter sent by seven democratic senators on the intelligence committee basically saying that the president should declassify

some of the intelligence regarding russian interference with the election. has the president received that letter? is that something that you're considering here? >> i've been briefed on the letter. i don't have a sense of what the status is of responding to that letter. obviously in advance of the election the intelligence community released a letter to the public presenting their own analysis and some of the conclusions that they had reached about the efforts of the russians to use some of their tools and cyber space nefariously to try to undermine our political system and that's something we talked about quite a bit in advance of the election. if there are additional details they want to have declassified i'm confident we'll take a look at it but i wouldn't hazard a

guess about what kind of response they would receive. >> just one more on the legislation against state sponsored terrorism. >> oh, yeah, i remember that. >> seems to be coming back in the news. >> it does, doesn't it? >> senator mccain is offering an amendment or a change to that legislation. >> offering a change to a piece of legislation that they passed. then when the president expressed some concerns about it, they passed it anyway over his objection. then the president recognizing that this was going to be a problem vetoed the bill, and these same members knowing that these problems existed still overrode his veto. now two months later they're trying to figure out how they can clean up the mess they created. that's the bill, right? i'm sorry to do that to you. i couldn't resist. >> yeah, so -- >> this is jeopardy. >> i know. it's good. this is really good. >> has the white house refused the changes that are being offered up, and are they

sufficient to basically get the president's support? >> we've obviously been in regular communication with members of congress for months, first warning about the flaws in that bill and then after the president's veto was overridden despite their full knowledge of the flaws in the bill, we've been working with them to try to put together some changes to the bill that would address the significant concerns that we've raised. i don't have an update for you on those conversations but i can confirm for you that they've been ongoing since shortly after the veto override vote. i guess you can tell from my tone that we obviously would welcome congressional action to clean up the rather significant mess that they've made.

cheryl? >> thanks, josh. so we're nine days away from a government shutdown, you know, the usual, and wondering if you would support a -- >> where is the optimism in the room today? >> support this in may which is now being discussed. >> what's the question? >> would the president support or sign a c.r. that would go through to may which is something that is being discussed on capitol hill? >> well, there are discussions about a number of different proposals and i think there might be -- this is a situation that we have seen before where there might be some disagreement between republicans in the house and republicans in the senate. they're going to need to do some work to try to resolve those differences and hopefully they'll do that work mindful of a need to work with congressional democrats and mindful of the need for a democrat president to sign it into law. with regard to the specific question about the timing of a

c.r., i would actually refer you to a letter that secretary of defense ash carter has sent to senior members of congress expressing his profound concern about the possibility of a c.r. that extends through may. he's concerned that that would hamstring the ability of the department of defense to initiate a number of programs that are critical to our national security. he continues to be concerned that the kind of funding that would be provided under essentially a long-term c.r. would limit the resources that are available to the department of defense for the important work that they need to do to wage the counter isil campaign, to follow through on some of the promises that we've made to enhance the support that we provide to some of our european

allies and counter russian aggression. i think there's also a concern about the funding stream that would be available to resource the military commitment that we've made to afghanistan. so the concerns that he's raised are quite significant, and the concerns that he's expressed are shared by the commander-in-chief. so this is something that my colleagues at the department of defense have conveyed to members of congress, and i hope that members of congress will take very seriously the responsibility that they have to adequately resource our men and women at the department of defense who are doing work every day putting their lives on the line to keep us safe. it seems like the least that congress could do would be to just pass a budget and make sure that our men and women in uniform have what they need to keep us safe. that's a basic responsibility in congress, one that republicans in congress have shirked far too

often. the election is over. it would be time for -- now would be a good time for republicans to set aside politics and just focus on the best interests of the country and passing a c.r. that extends through may would be inconsistent with that kind of approach. >> does that also apply to other -- the government at large? how bad would it be to have a c.r. through may? >> our most prominent concerns are at the department of defense. there are other concerns other places. there's a reason that congress is tasked with passing a budget every year. passing a budget on time for a year gives the united states government the certainty that it needs to plan effectively and make sure that the interest of the americans people are being well served. passing a budget resolution for

two or three months at a time is not a very good approach, so we're hopeful that if congress does have to pass a c.r. that it's a short one so they can get back to work off the holidays and actually pass one through the remainder of the fiscal year. obviously the ideal would be for them to pass a budget through the remainder of the fiscal year, but given that that budget bill is unlikely to be forthcoming, we're hopeful that they'll be able to come back after the start of the year and do that rather quickly and not wait until may. lana? >> a russian diplomat says that the kremlin is talking to our president-elect's transition team about syria. what does the white house think about that? >> i can't speak to any conversations that may be taking place on that matter. i know that the president-elect's team has given voice to the principle that you've heard me cite on a number of occasions which is the united states of america has one president and one

commander-in-chief at a time, and barack obama will be the president of the united states until january 20th at which point he'll hand off that awesome responsibility to the president-elect and it will be his responsibility to determine an effective path forward. i think it's been widely chronicled that the president-elect has been engaged in some conversations with world leaders, but the descriptions of those calls have primarily been social calls and him returning congratulatory calls that he received in the aftermath of the election. but again, for greater insight into the potential substance of those conversations, i'd refer you to the president-elect's team. >> tell us about the insight because i don't expect you to know what the president-elect is saying with the leaders in the kremlin, but does that concern the white house? does it feel like they're going around diplomatic protocol? >> well again, there's this principle that i think it's

important for everyone to acknowledge and the president-elect's team has acknowledged it. i think it's been reflected in a lot of the statements and actions that they've taken over the last three weeks, which is there's one president of the united states at a time and right now at this point president obama is the president of the united states but on january 20th we'll do the transition and it's important for everybody in the united states to understand that that principle is being observed by both the president and the president-elect. it's also important for people around the world to understand that that principle is operative. again, it's hard for me to render a judgment one way or the other without knowing the content of the conversations, and as we discussed, i just don't. >> bernie sanders called the carrier deal corporate welfare. does the white house disagree with that assessment? >> again, at this point it's hard to tell exactly what kind of deal has been brokered -- >> -- from indiana. >> listen, there's some

indication that it was the promise of a federal benefit that may have changed their mind. it's hard to tell what swayed them or what they were offered. it does appear that they were offered a substantial economic incentive by the lame duck governor of indiana who's also the vice-president elect of the united states. these state-based incentives are often done by states to compete for business, but i would refer you to indiana about the wisdom of the approach that governor pence has elected to pursue. >> we spent a lot of time earlier this week talking about phone calls from the president-elect to the president. have there been anymore? >> if there have been, i will not be the one to announce them. >> what about with former secretary of state hillary clinton, any calls that have occurred beyond the one that we talked about that happened on election night? >> not that i'm aware of, but again, if those kinds of calls

took place, we would likely keep them private. >> yesterday senator chuck schumer invited the defeated democrats in the senate to have lunch with him. would we expect that -- or are there any plans that the president might do the same with his former secretary of state? >> i'm not aware of any social plans that they have at this point but if that changes we'll let you know. okay? francesca? >> earlier you said that this would be a final opportunity for the president to talk about his terrorism strategy. do you also expect this to be his final domestic trip, and could we expect to see another major policy speech for him before he leaves office on january 20th? >> i wouldn't rule out additional domestic travel in january but we'll keep you posted. >> as far as another major speech, i understand that that would fall under that as well but even here at the white house do you have any plans for additional major policy speeches in other areas?

>> nothing to announce right now but stay tuned. dave? >> i wanted to follow up on the question about the intel committee and the russian hacking. the democratic senators said in their letter that they were conveying specifics through classified channels to the white house. and you said you've been briefed on this. can you confirm that the white house has received whatever sensitive information they had? >> i can confirm that we received the letter that they sent over. i can't speak in any detail about the contents of the package that they sent over. we'll do what we always do which is we'll carefully review and consider the request from those senators, but at this point i wouldn't predict what kind of response was sent. >> senator shaheen today renewed her call for congressional hearings into the subject of russian meddling in the u.s. election. does the white house support that and look at whether russia was deeply involved in trying to

meddle with our leelection? >> ultimately this will be a decision for congress to make. i don't think we would weigh in one way or the other. obviously congress has legitimate oversight over these kinds of questions, and i know that the intelligence community in particular takes seriously the responsibility that they have to maintain an open line of communication with relevant congressional committees. i know that's something that director brennan and director clapper and other leaders in the intel community in the obama administration have taken seriously. sometimes there have been disagreements, high profile disagreements between leaders of the intelligence community and some members of congress, but given the nature of that work and given the fact that in most cases significant public transparency is not possible, that kind of congressional

oversight is particularly important when it comes to confidential or even classified matters. so this administration has obviously taken seriously the need to cooperate with legitimate congressional oversight in this area. hopefully the next administration will as well. >> can you say, is it still the white house's view that the integrity of the election was not compromised? >> i think what we have said is that the intelligence community in the department of homeland security did not observe an increase in malicious kicyber activity on election day from the russians that was directed at disrupting the casting or counting of ballots. i think if that is something that had occurred we probably would have spent a lot more time talking about it over the last three weeks. fortunately, it did not. so that's the conclusion that

we've put forward, but what was true before the election is that there was a conclusion that was reached by the intelligence community that there were a variety of malicious efforts undertaken by russia in cyber space that were aimed at trying to disrupt or destabilize or shake the american people's confidence in our political system, and that's not an insignificant matter and it certainly was treated quite seriously and has been treated quite seriously by this administration. >> one more thing. your answer just now sort of implies to me that there was -- that you don't really take the senate democrats' complaints seriously because you've already established that there really wasn't any meddling, and so do you think the senate democrats are just motivated by partisanship here? >> no. and i don't mean to leave you with that impression. we certainly take quite seriously the concerns that they've raised and the requests that they've made and we'll take

a close look at it. we just received the letter today so i can't pinpoint what kind of response we'll provide them. this is a matter that the united states government takes quite seriously. our political system and our democracy is at the foundation of our constitution and is at the foundation of our ability o to -- for the people of the united states to govern themselves, so this is a very serious matter. the opportunities that the president had to discuss this matter publicly, i think he indicated how serious it was. i think i recall him being asked about this when we were in china i believe, and he indicated that he had raised more broadly concerns about russia's activities in cyber space and the way some of that malicious activity had an impact on the

united states. so if these are the kinds of issues that are coming up between the u.s. president and the russian president, i think you can assume that the u.s. president certainly takes them quite seriously. scott? >> on the overtime rule, has the administration decided yet whether you're going to use the remaining 50 days or so to appeal the texas rule? >> i would refer you to my colleagues at the department of justice for more details about our legal strategy but i can tell you that everybody across the administration feels quite strongly not just of the wisdom of this approach but in the legal basis for the decision that was announced earlier this year. >> are you going to rely on the incoming administration to advance that argument in the courts or are you going to make that argument yourselves? >> i guess the observation -- whether or not we'll make that argument in the obama administration is something you can ask the department of justice but you raised exactly the point that i was trying to

make perhaps too subtly in talking to michelle about it. much was made in the aftermath of the election about how middle class workers, blue collar workers supported the republican nominee based on his promise to shake up washington d.c. and ensure that their views are represented. he had a couple of colorful expressions for doing this, draining the swamp, and i assume this is part of what he meant, making sure that the hardest working middle class americans are treated fairly. right now, 4 million of them are not. 4 million of them work overtime but aren't paid for it. that costs their families $12

billion over the next ten years. that's a lot of money for a middle class family. there are, as i mentioned, 87,000 such workers in indiana and another 134,000 such workers in ohio. so presumably -- and the only reason this is not moving forward. it should be moving forward today, december 1st. it's not because of an injuction granted by a federal court judge in texas and that injuction was granted to some large business and republican governors who kol alluded to try to disrupt the implementation of this rule and tried to take advantage of more than 4 million of the hardest working americans. so this seems like the kind of thing that for all of the profound differences between the president and the president-elect on policy, this seems like something they should be able to agree on. but we'll see.

>> the presidential finding today that any relocation of the u.s. embassy in israel should wait another six months. can you talk about the thinking behind that? >> yes. this is -- this presidential determination was issued today consistent with the jerusalem embassy act. this is a piece of legislation that was passed back in 1995. essentially it called on the united states, a mandate that the united states president move the u.s. embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem, but that legislation included waiver authority, essentially giving the u.s. president the opportunity to issue a waiver and delay that move. that waiver has to be invoked every six months and that's something that president obama has invoked every six months over his president of the last 8

years, and the reason for that is simple. it has long been u.s. policy that the final resolution of jerusalem is something that should be determined between the two parties through face-to-face diplomatic negotiations. that's been a policy u.s. presidents in both parties. we'll see what policy the incoming president chooses to pursue. gregory? >> i have another question but i want to follow up on that. what would be the consequences of failing to issue that semiannual waiver and moving the u.s. embassy to jerusalem? >> well, in almost every case and maybe it's true in every case that the u.s. embassy in a foreign country is located in that country's capital.

obviously a formal, concrete action by the united states signaling our determination that jerusalem is the capital of israel would be highly controversial and could be viewed by many not just in the region but around the world of the united states making it harder for the two sides to resolve the status of jerusalem through negotiations. the united states has -- again, this has been the policy not just of the obama administration but in democratic and republican administrations since 1995.

it was a policy before then but it was less relevant because the bill was passed in 1995. so, i wouldn't predict exactly what consequences would be, but that is the concern that we've heard democrats and republicans in the white house express for more than 20 years now. >> the president was at walter reed on tuesday. we're told he met with 13 soldiers and awarded the purple heart to 12 of them. is that something the president does routinely, directly award purple hearts? >> i know it's something that he has done routinely when he's visited walter reed and i know there have been other occasions where he's been able to offer those kinds of military honors to our men and women in uniforms.

>> can you give us any capacity of what role they were serving in and in what theaters? >> i can check. >> last time he was there was in 2014 which he said the american forces that have been deployed to fight isol do not and will not have a combat mission. you've said this a number of times. if we are not engaged in combat operations, how is it that american troops are being injured due to hostile fire? >> greg, this is something that we've discussed a lot. it's important for people to understand exactly what the president's approach is here. and it's -- it's simply this, the men and women in our army that have been sent to iraq in the counter isol are being sent to some of the most dangerous

places in the world. they are being sent to an area where there's a war being fought and these men and women in our military put themselves in great danger to trained and equip and advise and assist those forces that are taking the lead in fighting for their own country. our country has borne a responsibility in pursuing a policy in which the commander in chief pursues a large scale protracted ground combat

presence to go fight a war somewhere else for some other country and to occupy that territory and defend it until that country is prepared to fight for itself. that strategy didn't work. that was basically the strategy that was put forward by the bush administration in 2003 when they invaded iraq and we're still to this day dealing with the consequences of that poor strategy. the strategy president obama has pursued is a different one. it's a strategy that envisions working closely with iraqi security forces to equip them, train them, offer them assistance so they can go fight with other countries. the host government has lost legitimacy to lead the country. we're training, equipping, advising, assisting opposition fighters there all against isol, a terrorist organization that

threatens the united states and our interests. the wisdom of this approach is that it puts fighters at the front of fighting for their own country, but it does not eliminate the risk that is facing our service members. it's a smaller number that are assuming the risk, but they're still assuming the risk. the men and women are training for combat. they are equipped for combat and there are some situations already they've encountered combat situations and some of those situations those service members have given their lives. and some of those situations those service members have been wounded. we owe them a deep debt of gratitude because they are doing

the dangerous work to protect america and to protect our freedom. president obama pays tribute to that na many ways to visit with them at walter reed, visit with them and their families and occasionally to award them military honors, but it's important for people to understand that the mission that president obama has given them is different than the mission that president bush gave many more u.s. service members but the mission that they've been given by president obama is one that's dangerous. and in some cases requires them to pay the ultimate sacrifice and it's why we are deeply indebted to them. thanks for giving me a chance to give a long answer. john, i'll give you the last one. >> the iran sanctions act, is

the president satisfied with what congress has come up with? will he sign that? >> we'll take a look at the bill once it's been passed. you know what i can tell you is that many members of congress have indicated that they strong by support this administration because they believe the administration should have authority to oppose financial authorities against iran. what i can tell you is that the administration retains and has used substantial authority to impose sanctions against iran because of a ballistic missile program that is inconsistent with u.n. security resolutions and because of the willingness of the iranian government to routinely violate human rights. so this administration has repeatedly imposed financial penalties and imposed sanctions against iran because of that behavior. we've got plenty of authority. we're not shy about using it, but we'll take a look at the bill that's been passed by congress and we'll let you know

what the president says. >> senator highcamp is headed to new york to meet with president-elect tomorrow possibly to talk about a cabinet position. in any of president obama's conversations with the president-elect did he recommend senator highcamp or any other democrat for a cabinet position? >> any personnel recommendations that the president may have offered were recommendations that he made confidentially so i'll protect his ability to offer some private advice and counsel to the president-elect. thanks, everybody. have a good rest of the day. see you later.

the sons of convicted spy ethel rosenberg were at the white house to ask president obama to exonerate their mother. she and her husband julius were convicted in 1953. michael and robert muripol were planning to deliver a letter that they say cast doubt on their mother's guilt. the brothers appeared at the white house in 1953 to ask president dwight eisenhower to spare their lives. >> i delivered a letter to president eisenhower. today after over 40 years of research and struggle, we are sharing with president obama the fruits of that struggle and once again asking for presidential action. this time we are not merely advocates for our families but for our countries. it is never too late to learn from the mistakes of the past.

we're giving the united states government the chance to acknowledge the injustice done to our mother. this is a test to see if our government has the courage and commitment to true justice to acknowledge the terrible wrong it did to her and us. my brother with the letter he presented to the white house at this spot in june 1953 gave president eisenhower the chance to pass that test. eisenhower failed it. but we hope president obama will demonstrate his compassion and decency and pass that test now.

>> i don't know if this is the place or another place. >> you can't just drop it off. >> is there a place anywhere to do that. say that again please? we've already done that. i was wondering if there was a way to make sure that this actually got before some staff member's face? >> [ inaudible ]. >> okay. well, we tried. thank you very much anyway. >> no problem. >> bye. yeah. there you go. so they said that there is no way to physically drop it off. they said the only way to do it is to mail it. we did mail it but we would like to have had a way of hand delivering it. we understand, these are different me