is it is easy to take retirement money and use it for other purposes today. without penalty. having different incentives. retirement.nt is have outlive their ever -- all of a sudden that 90 they are still active and do not have income. this should have been greater concentration on lifetime income rather than allowing them to take out the money due to economic recession, they wanted to buy a home, or grandchild needed money for school, there were other ways to deal with that. >> it look like you were agreeing with me. -- we have taxto

incentives in place to encourage retirement saving. i tend to think that they are pretty weak in the terms of tax deferrals on tax deductions, in theory you could wind up paying more taxes either virtue of savings. making that more robust might make sense. a gooding credit is idea, but i also think that more incentives to encourage motivation makes sense. i think there is probably never an area where economists are more divided from up the public than annuities. you should essentially make annuities from all your wealth, almost no individual in the general public will do this willingly. very few people want to annuitize their 401(k)s. if you give them the option of a lump sum, they will take it and walk away. it is just the human nature kind

of thing. an annuity turn to from a millionaire and to someone getting $50,000 per year and no one likes it. but something along those lines to encourage default could make sense. once people have them, they will be happy with them, but the initial decision to do it is such a high hurdle to get over. >> i came back to listen to the chairman's closing comments. >> yes, you did. thank you. >> few in the senate no return -- no retirement issues like ben cardin does. thank you for testifying, members of the subcommittee or full committee may have more questions for you. if you could get written answers to us -- the hearing was a success in many ways, because the debate should be about the issue of how to achieve retirement security. think that is particularly important. these are not budget issues the way that they are issues of how to debate how we actually do

this, especially for low income anders, and when mr. big mr. big agree, that is consensus . so, all kinds of things could happen. thank you so much. special thanks to all four of wyden, cardin, nelson, and to jennifer and elaine on my staff, i am appreciative. thank you. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] http://twitter.com/cspanw [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> just a reminder if you missed any of this hearing, we will have it later for you on a -- on our program schedule. more live coverage coming up later on today. here on c-span this afternoon, a senate panel investigating ways to better inform consumers about how their personal information is handled, collected, and sold for marketing purposes. we will have that live. over on c-span three, the spend it -- senate special aging committee will look at the affordability of long-term care. witnesses this afternoon include the vice chairman of the federal commission for long-term care policy. over on c-span three. c-span2 at this hour, the senate continuing debate on a number of issues. senator mccain in arizona is talking about the federal budget agreement. before a vote on that at around

4:30 this afternoon. of course, you can follow the senate on c-span two. they are also dealing with a number of executive nominations and next will be the defense authorization bill for 2014. cq writes that the approval of the agreement will start a new clock running for appropriators to reconcile differences between the chambers on the spending bills that they will use to craft an omnibus used to fund the government through the last eight months of the fiscal year, calling it a green light to formally begin negotiations by dividing up some 498 billion dollars in domestic discretionary spending. that is from cq. back to the senate for a moment on those nominations, janet yellen's nomination to the federal reserve is one that the current federal reserve chairman will dear with. ben bernanke holds a news conference this afternoon after what should be the last federal open market committee of the year. we will have that news conference live for you this

afternoon beginning at 2:30 eastern. "the wall street journal," writing today that the meeting will deal on a number of issues, sinceing improvements october, setting the stage for fed officials to contemplate making the first reduction to their 85 billion dollar per month bond buying program. a preview of the open market meeting from this morning's "washington journal." host: what happened yesterday with the federal reserve? guest: we are going to find out later today at around 2:00 the fate of the fed's stimulus program. they have been very aggressive for the past five years. a lot of economists who follow the fed think they are going to

finally start pulling back. kind of as a vote of confidence in the economy. they think the economy is strong enough to stand. ben bernanke is going to give his final press conference this afternoon. it is going to be an interesting day. host: the press conference at 2:30 this afternoon, we will have coverage of the final press conference from the federal reserve chairman. josh, what would be the rationale for stopping the bond buying program? guest: they have said they want to wait and see a substantial improvement in the labor market. that has been their goal all along that they have talked about. well we finally saw with unemployment report for november was that the nation's jobless rate has fallen to 7%. the lowest in five years, since early in the recession. it is kind of a marker that suggests to a lot of people that

as slow as the progress has been, progress has been made. we are on the road back to a normal looking economy. such that the fed -- these are very unusual programs, the fed never had to do these before. it is a signal that things are getting more normal. host: if the fed decided not to taper, as it is called, their bond buying program, what would be the rationale? guest: that would be the signal they still do not have the economy where they want it yet. unemployment has fallen to 7%. by a lot of other measures, the labor market is not doing as well. the percentage of working age people who have jobs, the labor force participation rate, has been depressed. one reason for that might be

that the economy has been so bad that a lot of people have given up on the job market altogether. they are not working or trying to find work. to the extent that that is happening, that is a very bad thing. that is one reason the fed would say we are not back to normal. host: josh zumbrun, no matter what the fed decides, will move the markets? guest: that is safe to say. the market is very divided. we do a survey of economists before these meetings, about 1/3 think the fed is going to taper today. about 40% think they will wait until march. whichever group is wrong is going to have to make some big adjustments after this meeting. it is guaranteed to be a substantial group of people that is wrong. host: what do you expect president obama's pick, janet yellen, what do you expect she will say today? guest: unfortunately, bernanke is the only one we get to hear from. the part of the meeting they all participate is not open to the public.

we do not even get transcripts for more than 5 years. we will not see what she said until 2019. we can guess that throughout the recovery of the past five years, she has been very -- some would say pessimistic. you can also say realistic about the struggles ahead for the economy. she has said it will be difficult for the economy to grow and the labor market will make slow progress. she has been right. she is probably going to continue making that case today. there is a lot of labor market damage. she is thought to be in the camp that says now is not the right time to taper. host: where it is janet yellen's nomination stand in the senate? guest: she has been approved by

the senate banking committee and has to have a vote before the full senate. thanks to a recent rule change, she only needs 51 votes to get past. she is all but certain to get that. only one democrat has signal any opposition, they are 55 democrats. she will get at least 50 something votes, even into the 60's. it is not expected to be a close call. she will get confirmed. host: do you expect -- if she is confirmed -- it sounds like she will be. will she change? going -- will she change course genetically from bernanke? guest: she has been vice- chairmansince 2010, she has been bernanke's top deputy and has helped devise these strategies. it is probably going to stick with that in her first months as she becomes fed chairman. host: we will have coverage of the news conference today at 2:30 p.m. eastern time on c- span.org.

go to our website for when that will air. 2:30 p.m., we hear from ben bernanke at his last news conference. josh zumbrun, thank you. guest: thank you for having me. >> a reminder, that ben bernanke news conference is expected this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. eastern. we will have that live on c- span.org. tuesday, a comment, supreme court justices should not plan therement based on president in office, just as they were discussing the former

u.s. solicitor general, ted olson. this is 45 minutes. [applause] [laughter] [inaudible] >> audio? >> someone else will have to do is also a great privilege for me to have the opportunity

to ask questions of justice ginsburg -- justice ginsburg instead of the other way around. i want to thank all of you out who planted questions with me in the hopes that i would ask those questions, but i probably will not ask those questions, but let's start, justice ginsburg, with the supreme court of the united states. you and your court handled the most difficult and controversial questions about day and of our society involving life, and death, voting, property, race, , campaign contributions, all of those things. what is so special about this court? despite the fact that you decide controversial questions, the supreme court of the united states is one of the most respected institutions in our government and has been for a

long time. tell us about why that is. >> it is probably the most respected high court in the world. one reason is that we have been involved in passing on laws and executive options of constitutionality. in other countries in the world, parliamentary supremacy -- it wasn't until world war ii that courts abroad began to engage in judicial review for constitutionality. just to take a few notable cases, when president truman decided that the country was at war in korea i could not risk a

strike at a steel plant, he took over the steel mills. that was challenged. the courthouse, mr. president, you do not have that authority alone. what did truman do? that is remarkable to many courts in the world. we have an excellent police staff that the court. we have no guns. we do not have our own purse. when the supreme court makes a decision like that, probably the most are medical and was nixon. the court said, turn over the tapes.

and he did and he resigned from office. part of it is the court has been at this for a very long time. it is excepted -- accepted. the court made its decision. i dissented, as you know. >> i do know that. [laughter] >> the country accepted it. no one was rioting in the street. the election was settled. all of the members had one thing in common we wanted to keep it that way. we wanted to make sure when we left the court, it would be in a secure position as it was in

when we became a member. >> that leads me to a question you do decide very controversial cases. sometimes the dissenting opinions clash with the majority opinions with quite a high level of intensity. yet the court comes back together every year in october after the final decisions are rendered in june. you all seem to get along personally with one another, notwithstanding the difficult and intense decisions that are made. is that true? what are your relationships? >> it is the most collegiate place i have ever worked. part of it is that we know we have to work together to keep the court in the position that it holds. to take an example, that was a marathon. we have the argument on monday. decision on tuesday. very soon after, we had our regular january sitting.

we all came together. it was almost as though nothing had happened. it was the same. we were going on to the new sitting. >> there was a book written about the court called "nine scorpions in a bottle." [laughter] i know that does not reflect the relationships that exist today. some people felt that in past years, the justices on the court developed animosity towards one another. if that is true, what do you attribute the relationships that you have now? >> different periods of the

court were collegial. perhaps most striking example of an on collegial court -- uncollegial court was when president -- a president appointed -- to the court. wilson had appointed one before. that person did not like jews. so much so that he would leave the room. every time there is any justice, we would take a photograph. there is no photograph because that justice refused to stand next to another justice. there were animosities in the court. from time to time. in the current court, it is most collegial. >> it is well-known that you and justice scalia are very good friends and have a wonderful relationship with one another, notwithstanding the fact that

his judicial philosophy inured judicial philosophy cannot be -- can be quite distant and you have dissented from his opinions and vice versa. is that true about your relationship with justice scalia? what causes that to be true? >> i met justice scalia for the first time when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago. i was teaching at columbia. he gave a talk that was about a famous case at the d.c. cursus circuits. he was severely critical about that. i disagree with the most everything he said, but he said it in such a captivating way. [laughter]

even now, you have been a consumer of our products -- [laughter] it is attention grabbing. mine is moderate and restrained in comparison. [laughter] >> i find it attention grabbing when you ask me a question in the court. it gets my attention. [laughter] both you and justice scalia are opera buffs. you go to the opera together. now i read in the paper that someone has written an opera about justice ginsburg and justice scalia. did you know that? is this true? [laughter] >> everything in the court is

done by seniority. even though i'm older by justice scalia, he was appointed before i was. popper is called scalia- ginsburg. -- the opera is called scalia- ginsburg. [laughter] >> how can you write an opera about the two of you? i think there are a lot of people out there who would like to take a hand at that. will it happen? >> this is a random page from the court. it does exist. an opera composed by a young man who advertises himself as a, lyricist, and pianist, but he also has a law degree. in his constitutional law class, he was reading these opinions -- justice scalia's opinions, my

opinions, he decided this would make a great opera. [laughter] i will give you a sample. this is justice scalia's opening aria. it is labeled "rage aria." [laughter] the main frame goes this way -- the justices are blind. how could they possibly office the constitution says, absolutely nothing about this. that is his opening. [laughter] my response aria is in the style of verdi. it goes -- you are fighting in

vain for a solution to a problem that isn't so easy to solve. but the beautiful thing about our constitution is that like our society it can evolve. [laughter] [applause] >> i'm sure that everyone of us here are going to be wanting to stand in line to see the opera. [laughter] is it within a year? what is the plan? >> is it a reading or a singing in february somewhere around baltimore. that will be the first time that

the entire score will be played. >> justice ginsberg, in 1981, ronald reagan appointed justice sandra day o'connor to the court. she was the first woman to serve on the united states supreme court. there have been 112 appointments to the supreme court. you were 108. is that correct? when you replace justice white? >> 107 or 108. >> you are the second woman up proved -- appointed to the supreme court. what did it mean to the court when it finally had a woman justice and when you came onto the court, two women justices? you can say what it is like now with three justices being female. >> when santa was asked that question to have a second woman,

she said, you think i am glad that justice ginsberg is on board, you can imagine the joy of john o'connor to be no longer the lone male spouse. [laughter] she was there all alone for 12 years. a sign that women were there to stay came when i was appointed. they did a renovation in our robing rooms. up until then, there was a bathroom and it was labeled "men." when xander was at conference, when leaders were at conference, she had to go to her office. things were changing. for every year that we sat together, and there only one

lawyer or another would calmly justice o'connor. they would hear a woman's voice and they knew that there was a woman and although we do not speak alike and we do not look alike, but now with three of us, no one calls me justice sotomayor or justice kagan. it is an exhilarating change. after sandra left and i was all alone in my corner of the bench, and i did feel lonely, now we are all over. i sit toward the middle. elena is on my left and sony on my right.

-- sonya on my right. those two women are not shrinking violets. [laughter] they are very active in questioning. it is wonderful for the schoolchildren who parade in and out to see that women are there. they're are part of the court's operation. >> you mentioned the oral argument process. i think most people do not know that the court hears about 75 cases a year in each case, except in unusual situations, is a lot of one hour oral arguments. each side gets half an hour. some people think that lawyers get up and lecture or give a speech as a part of their oral argument. it is not like that at all. can you describe what oral arguments are like? >> yeah. let me say something about the

75 cases that we hear and decide on. that 75 comes from a pile of over 8000 petitions for review. from those, we select a very small number. the reason we do that is we see our job is keeping the law of the united states more or less uniform, whether it is statutory it everybody agrees, there is no need for us to step in. but when three judges are of different minds, that is when we step in. the 75 we get down to that way. the oral argument time as you said is very precious. the justices have come to the bench after having done reading. i think most of my colleagues

start as i do by reading the opinions. i do that before i turn to the lawyers speech. i will know if they are giving an honest account of what the decision is. >> and if they are not, justice ginsberg catches them. >> nowadays, we have many friends. so many that it is not possible for the justices to read all of them.

my law firm has instructions. everything is color coded. there are three piles. one is skipped. that is the largest pile. [laughter] another is to skim or read pages. that is not in the party's briefs. then there's a small pile that says read. those are the really good ones. people are not just saying, me, too. when we come to the bench, where rare well armed and prepared for

the hearing of it -- we are very well armed and prepared for hearing the case. most difficult ones on which the decision may turn, that the kids should have a chance -- advocate should have a chance to address what is on the decision-maker's mind. some lawyers resent our interruptions. they would like us to keep quiet and they would like to present their prepared appeals. for me, in the days that our -- i was arguing cases, a cold bench was the worst possible

because i had no idea what was in the minds of the judges. sometimes a question is asked not so much to elicit a response from the lawyer, but to persuade a colleague. sometimes a justice tries to a sustained lawyer who is on the ropes -- assist a lawyer who is on the ropes by asking a helpful question. many lawyers miss that you because they are so -- miss that cue because they are so suspicious. [laughter] but when i come off of the bench, i have a pretty good idea where my colleagues are on that case. we are sometimes talking to each other and talking through the council not to the council. >> have you found that certain styles of advocacy by the lawyers working better in the courts? justice scalia was here before this group a few months ago and talked about advocacy is written about that. you must have your own views about what works and what doesn't work. could you say a word or two

about that? >> i think they will prepared opening sentence is a good idea. you can get that out. >> sometimes. [laughter] >> and then to ride with the wave and go where the court is taking you. don't try desperately to get back to what you planned. i/o is at about 45 points. -- i always have about 4-5 points. if i'm responding to a question, i would immediately pick up on the plan wanted to get across without leaving a pause that would invite another another question. >> this raises a question that many do not know. you are an advocate yourself before the supreme court. you represented cases and handled pieces involving the rights of women.

>> and then. >> and -- and men. >> and men. >> john roberts are geared -- argued cases before he was appointed to the supreme court. does it make a difference that you were yourself an advocate and you know what it is like out there? or most of your colleagues have not argued? justice kagan was the solicitor general. she argued a number of cases that one year. doesn't it make a difference to have been an advocate? >> to me, it does. in this respect. i try to keep my questions tight.

and not to ask a question as a professor with a question that goes on and on. >> you appreciate what it is like to be in a room and to listen to speeches in the form of questions -- you avoid that yourself? some of your colleagues have a little bit more of a broader latitude forward that. >> yes. i have occasionally commented on that. we appreciate how precious that half-hour is. we try to be more disciplined. observe a preceding in the u.s. supreme court and then do what i am going to do in february and decide. they're the justices sit in magnificent maroon, velvet ropes. they asked no questions at all. they sit through the entire

argument. i think it would be hard for me to stay awake if i operated on that type of court. [laughter] >> could you comment on the confirmation process and then we will have some questions from the audience? when you were confirmed 20 years ago, the vote was 97-3. i did not look up who were the three senators who voted against you. but i bet you could name them. but the process has become very contentious. john roberts had 23 plus votes against -- more than 40 votes against justice alito. and you talk about what the

process has become compared to what it was like when you were confirmed? >> another justice and i were confirmed. there was a failed nomination. justice thomas had a turbulent nomination. there is public reputation that had declined. there was a deliberate effort. there had been no women on the committee. enlarge the committee by two. two were added into the committee. i was nominated in june. any senator could have put a hold on me so that my hearing

wouldn't, until the new term is underway. there were three negative votes, but none of the three try to stop the confirmation process from acquiring speedily. my biggest supporter on the judiciary committee was not vice president joe biden. it was was a committee. it was hatch. not one senator asked me any questions. about that affiliation.

my hope is that we would get back to the way it was. we spoke about justice alito. justice kagan and justice sotomayor had many negative votes. a great man that i knew and loved said the symbol of the u.s. is not the bald eagle. it is the pendulum. i think the pendulum has gone too far in one direction in the handling of judicial nominations and it should go back to the

middle. >> i think we would all hope that. let's get a hand to justice ginsberg. [applause] we have time for questions. there are two microphones. go to one of the microphones and identify who you are. no questions from the media. >> and no questions on cases that are pending decisions or about to be heard. >> thank you. my name is gary. thank you to both of you for your historic leadership in protecting the rights of gay americans to marry. it was a terrific change that is necessary. [applause] thank you, justice ginsberg, for sharing your thoughts with us today. as an american that is part of the business community that is

in trouble, there are lots of laws and ambiguous loss. we have example of how at&t tried to buy a company they thought they could buy, but with great lawyers and yet they were stop by the government because at&t -- business communities think they are following the laws, but they are either ambiguous or unclear. if you had a message to legislators in which you wish they could do something and you had a magic button you could press, what would you like congress to do differently than what they are doing today? >> to the first part of your question, there are many laws that are ambiguous, dense, can

be read in more than one way, sometimes in more than three or four ways. in that respect, our congress does not stand up so well. there seems to be a lack of discipline. we need an expert committee go over the provisions and try to detect ambiguities. sometimes ambiguities are deliberate because the question was a political hot potato. the members of congress are for to punt it to the court. to say what the law meant.

i think people in the business world who care, they let their representatives know if you're having a hard time because the laws are unclear. >> justice ginsberg, my name is josh. my question for you, after same- sex marriage, where do you see the future of equal protection down the road? >> thank you for asking that question. the equal protection clause is my favorite cause in the constitution. [laughter] i think it shows the genius of the system.

go back to where it started. the constitution opens with some physical words, "we, the people, of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union." if you asked the question who are "we, the people" that would include me because we were not part of the political community in till 1920. people were held in human bondage. even white males in many places could not vote unless they were property owners. we went from an idea of we, the people that was rather confined and over the course of more than two centuries, that notion has become ever more expansive. people who were once held in slavery, native americans did not count in the beginning.

women. the equal protection clause has worked to perfect a more perfect union, to perfect we, the people. the founding fathers had an idea from the start. you heard the lyric from my aria that a constitution like our society can evolve. >> comcast, business for business. i'm very struck are your integrity as my perception of

you has evolved over the years. justice ginsberg, you have always been one of my favorites. please do not take this as an endorsement of the policy i will ask about, but term limits that we give each presidential term, two nominations -- thank you. >> it is a good question, but highly hypothetical. article three of the constitution says that the judges shall hold their offices during -- behavior. this has been a well behaved [indiscernible]

[laughter] >> is that because everyone is watching? >> the notion is that the judges would become independent. one gave us life tenure. two provided that our salaries cannot be diminished while we hold office. most places in the world i would have been gone years ago. [laughter] 65, 70. so, it would take a constitutional amendment to change that. our constitution is powerfully hard to amend.

proponents of equal rights amendment know as proponents of to amend article three and put in a fixed term -- some systems say that the constitutional council in france has a nine year nonrenewable term. in systems that have a relatively long term, the notion is make it nonrenewable so that the judges won't court favor from particular constituents. it is a real problem in the u.s. come in state to dictionaries that are elected. federal judges are all appointed and fit during this behavior. >> should a justice plan his are her retirement for -- to coincide with the office of presidents of the same party so

that if it is a republican appointee that justice should wait until there is a republican president and plan his or her retirement at that point? is that the sort of thing entering anyone's mind? >> i think one should stay as long as they can do the job. he. i suppose there were many people who wanted justice brennan and justice marshall to leave when a democrat was president. they didn't. the number one question is, can you do the job? can you think as well? can you write with the same fluency? at my age, you take it year by year.

[laughter] >> that is for sure. [applause] >> good morning, justice ginsberg, and mr. moderator. i'm with the united postel service. we appreciate you being here. my question to you is how do you find peace within yourself if there is a case that has been argued and you don't agree with what the resolution is? how do you find peace when you go home to your family? i know a lot of times in the professional arena, we do not know how to find a personal and work balance. how do you find that? >> you asked two questions. one concerns when i end up on the losing side. there is a famous man who said

it ain't over till it's over. [laughter] think of one case that was 5-4. i was with the four. my bottom line was -- we had the lily ledbetter pay act. the constitutional question takes longer. if you think of all of the great free speech dissents written around the time of world war i, that was a lot of the land today, although when they were written, they only spoke for two justices. i'm always hopeful that is my opinion does not command a court

today, it will in time. did you ask a question about work and life balance? >> yes, ma'am. >> i have two children. they are 10 years apart. when my daughter was in school, it was unusual to have a mother who was a working mom. 10 years later when my son was in school, there was a tremendous transformation in those years because there were many mothers who had paying jobs

as well. that was in the late 60's and 70's. >> the greatest asset is to have a supportive spouse. someone who thinks your work is as important as his. sometimes one accommodates to the other, so my husband graduated from law school before i did. he had a good job in new york. marty has been teaching at columbia and transferred to -- you accomdate to each other at different times in your life. >> thank you. >> last question. >> thank you. my name is scott. i'm with microsoft. i am honored, justice ginsberg, to be in your presence.

you are a vibrant spirit and mind. i appreciate the opportunity to hear you today. my question is a recent presidential aspirant said that corporations are people, my friend. referring to know particular case, i am curious to hear your thoughts on the personhood. we start out with "we, the people" in your earlier statement that corporations are becoming "the people." thank you. >> a corporation counts as a person for some purposes, but not for others. corporations don't march to the polls. my answer to your question is sometimes they are considered a

person. for example, an entity is entitled to due process just as an individual is. the same would be true for equal protection. you can single out one kind of business and say we will tax that this is more heavily than another. we are continuing to have questions about the extent to which a corporation should be treated in the same manner as an individual in cases where it is appropriate to recognize that a corporation is an artificial

entity. it is not a flesh and blood person. >> this is a very busy time of the year for the court. each of the justices spent an enormous time preparing for oral arguments and reading the briefs and writing opinions or dissenting opinions. i know how hard justice ginsberg works. i have every respect that she would take her time to be here with us. it is not her favorite hour of the day. [laughter] we owe her a great deal of thanks for her time and her thoughtful and revealing remarks about the court. thank you, justice ginsberg. [applause] >> thank you. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on c-span two, the senate continues debate on the two-year budget agreement. a republican senator from wyoming is now talking about the budget, yesterday there was a 67 to 33 vote, advancing the bill to a final passage vote expected this afternoon.

again, that isspan2. thenthis afternoon, earning key after this afternoon's several open market committee meeting will hold what is expected to be his final news conference as federal reserve chairman that will be live for you on www.c-span.org. competition video wants to know, what is the most important issue congress should it dress next year? your chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. the deadline is january 20. get more info. >> white house senior advisory valerie jarrett spoke at a breakfast hosted by politico. she answered a question on president obama's future presidential library and what his current priorities were concerning it. here is a look.

>> it is sort of amazing to me we are are ready talking about the presidential library that there was a story in the new york times. we will continue to talk about it. suggested you were trying to take control of the project. it is a key part of the white house. that you would like to be in charge of. interested in your reaction to that. i assume it will be in chicago. where in chicago will it be? >> you cannot believe it. i have a very full plate. busy trying to move the president's agenda for. ken knows where we will be. it will be wherever the president decides it is the best

place to be. >> i know the number they used was 7 million, which seems a lot for a library. bikes he is not raising money for a library whatsoever on the north though he. the economy,o grow create jobs, get people signed up for health care. it folks educated. is in the embryonic stages. i would have to say the new york times piece was not very accurate. >> later, all of the comments from valerie jarrett. you can see the entire comments on mine -- online. hearing held another this morning. we will hear from jake tapper at cnn. little more than an hour. >> this block esther roundtable

playbook request. appreciate you coming out early. very excited to have some of washington's most fascinating and most respected correspondent here who will talk about what we just saw and will give us a preview of what we are about to see. and we will have them come on. the second reason our best- .elling author we would like to think bank of america for making this possible. we would love to get your questions and rebuttals for the panelists as we go. this will pop up here. we would like to welcome all of you in live stream land and

hoping you will tweak -- tweet along with it. now i would like to welcome the panel. come on up. >> how are you? >> thank you very much. we have jake tapper who started the lead on cnn and author of amazing storynd that is now available in paperback -- dupre back -- paperback and amazon. we have kelly o'donnell, has covered news and l.a. in new york. book thisvitz had a year. andw york times bestseller peter baker, chief white house correspondent, a friend since

the washington post days. i was with the richmond times dispatch. peter's amazing book about the administration, seven years of work went into this book. this weekend it was picked as one of the five best non-fiction books of the year. to kick things off, if you could interview anyone in 2014, who would it be? >> first can i say how i met your? you?et we were at the reform party convention. dearborn, michigan. you were with the new york times. darting around. fight exciting. that is when jesse venture a was talking about taking over the

party. good times. >> i thought he was the pick for her to interview? >> he is not. if it is anyone in the world? i guess edward snowden, i would love to interview him. not just his life, but why he did it. second would be pope francis. i do not know which one is less likely to happen. travel tong to russia, brazil, russia, hong kong, or the vatican for any of the interviews. so edward snowden -->> edward snowden, if you're watching -- >> what would you like to ask him that you do not know now? hei would like to know what

makes of the talk and commentary about how different he is from his predecessors? i wonder how much he feels he is . and how intentional versus how much is media jumping on comments. when you read the comments he has made, it does not seem accidental. does not seem as though the media is jumping on this to drive a wedge between him and predecessors. you would want to do an actual program five program take down on what he objects to and why. i think psychologically you would want to know what made him snap? what made him decide to do this incredibly bold and risky act? what drove it psychologically for him? it is not like you go to the national security agency thinking you are not going to be conducting surveillance and

there are not going to be questionable practices, or at least ones on the edge. ? >> kelly o'donnell, you are on capitol hill for this amazing year. that paulon the day ryan ryan and patty murray made story,l, reuters did a u.s. budget deal could usher in new era of operation. the chances? >> i think there is a moment for modest cooperation, a certain is athat is getting along worthwhile thing. we have seen that before. i think there is a certain premium that is given to encourage them to get along. i think the institutional forces make that difficult, but if they get enough crazy and feel a payoff, i think that can be helpful. that is my optimistic sense.

i think that can go off the rail at any point. >> yesterday we were e-mailing about possible topics. i asked hugh, what mistake d.c. journalists often make. playbook to do the request. in second choice, sinking be elected officials they are , and they said thinking too much about the officials acting so solicited of them and wanting to be their friend. have you ever made that mistake? worried just this follow-up would happen. i thought the first question i would get is why did you agree to do this? i am thrilled to be here. thank you all for coming.

it was not a mistake, it was reality. it happened once. i am friendly with many public officials. that was one public figure i felt like i had a personal relationship that i would not write about. 7.5 years ago i wife had breast cancer. i was writing a profile of elizabeth edwards and john sherds the weekend after announced she had a relapse. that was supposed to be the print interviewer of them in vegas. that day my wife gets a diagnosis. rep that ithen pr cannot make it. then elizabeth edwards called. she was an incredible friend through that.

i recused myself from all edwards-related stories. >> why are journalists to solicitous? of the think one mistakes in journalism and washington generally is people worth toheir own self- the institution they are working for. the function they are trying to play. meaning, people think a politician is being so nice to me and solicitous of me because they really like me and think i am special and we can be friends and it is really cool that senator x and y come to my wedding. look at this and we can show all of this off. be a realt can seduction game. >> you have known some of these members and senators for years

and years. how do you avoid having them think you are their friend? >> i do not think we are personal friends, i think we are professional friends. i think there is value in being friendly and knowing that their interests. i think there is benefit in the simple nicety of life in getting along, but i do not think i am personal friends is anyone that i cover. friendliest?is the who maybe thinks the friend is -- the press is their friend? >> the trap door is right here. often will draw into it. for --who have the need i will not name a name, only because i have to go to work or today. and iare friendly people,

appreciate the friendliness. i find that i have the best relationship with people that i have been to their home state and have been to their district. i think there is a different dimension to knowing them in that way. >> what is the speaker like when reporters are around? >> he is pretty frank and direct. >> i thought i should alert fire officials. he is very warm. i think he is willing to give us i enjoy those moments because it helps you in turn it public activities.

the eight years of the bush administration, but you are also one of the most astute of bert -- observers of the obama administration. yesterday there was a story posted online with the headline, this is the end of the presidency now. that was referring to bush. the point is, there are perils between the 50 year of obama in the fifth year of bush. of obama and the fifth year of bush. like there are parallels. -- >> there are parallels. >> i think it was your newspaper that try to make that case. i think the case we try to case isthe political

similar. the point is president obama one year after reelection has found himself, credibility challenged, the trust that people have in him has diminished. more than 50% do not think he is telling the truth all the time. his reputation is challenged. and you saw the potential ramifications of that. he fell below 50% approval rating and mark show of the fifth year in office. he never got above that again. he went longer than any president before with less than majority support. that has had a substantial impact. he did not immigration a second term. the society that he articulated did not go anywhere. that is a danger for president

obama. the difference is the overarching albatross for president bush was the iraq war. president obama does not have that. in theory he can get past this moment and can recover. you can lose 10 points in a week, but cannot get 10 points back in a week. you tend to get it back one week at a time. >> you have a sentence here that says even to the extent that president bush salvaged a failing more through the surge after years of living is general call the shot, he could not openly salvaged the presidency. at this moment, is it possible the presidency looks better than iraq? >> that is a good question. he is definitely in a better place today than he was when he left office. arenumbers in some ways better than president obama. in the summer he had a 49% neighbor ability rating. that is the first time in eight

years he had a positive net. i think that results from the fact that we tend to be more reflective and ponder about ex presidents than we are in the moment. quiet grace his after leaving office has probably helped him with a lot of people. do that?es he he has this amazing platform. what did they tell you about why he has run so clearly under the radar? like did not much president second-guessing him when he was in office. he reacted badly to that. he does not want to do that to president obama. i think he is tired of politics. i think he is just done. he said when he saw obama's hand go up on a nokia duration day, he thought to himself on the

free at last, free at last. only would happen in this town. that when he is leaving office. he recalls morgan freeman had been president himself. lannett --re the that a comet hits the planet and destroys all civilization. i think he was exhausted. did not want to be part of the whole environment anymore. >> president of bush flew with president obama. hitched a ride on air force one to the nelson mandela funeral. during the flight he came back, longer with a reporter

than on air force one probably on the air force -- probably than the whole presidency combined. what have you heard about what he said? >> i am under no obligation. the reports i have heard is he came back for 90 minutes. he left at one point and came back with laura a second time. without giving anything away, i think in general he was very relaxed. .hatting about painting has obviously picked up a hobby. he was chatting about his life today, about his presidency. he was reflecting on world leaders, things like that. he was asked about the book. he did not participate in the book. he says he has not read it.

generally, what does he think about it? >> i think i imagined he would be upset about is for nothing else that equal billing with cheney. i think the reason we framed the book that way he cuts if you are going to write about the bush presidency, you had to address that question anyway. was more interesting than we quite new at the time. why not use it as a structure for the eight-year story. while the book punctures the myth that he was somehow the secret master running everything , i think president bush is probably annoyed he is on the cover with him. >> jake tapper, this year you launched the lead on cnn after being chief white house correspondent for abc news. what was it like to adapt to the

role from correspondence to anchor? >> a completely different job. i imagine going from reporter to editor. you are responsible for an entire hour. i do not have to beg to be on air. ultimately also, i am responsible. if there is a mess up, i am responsible. if there is a story selection that is not the best, i am responsible. so there is a greater freedom editorially to assert what i think is important. to report on things i had trouble getting on air as a , specifically related to the white house. that is freeing, but also comes with the burden of being in charge with -- in charge of something and being responsible for something, which criticism comes a lot more than compromise. >> there is a lot of cable news out there. how do you try to make your lead

the signature? -- tore trying to do is do a fun, smart news program. if you pick up a copy of the new york times and there are five stories, one is money, world, politics and what is pop-culture and you read all five of them, that is what we try to do every day and try to get a wide array of stories. we also tried to do it in a way where hopefully you cannot tell what my political leanings are, which helps with today's cable- tv landscape. it distinguishes it from competitors in some ways. at a time when we're all reading to so much on our newse, how does cable state central? >> i think there are two ways we can do it. we do not always succeed.

one of them is obviously what is going on at 4:00 or 7:00 or 9:00 , whatever the case may be is important. what you sawt than on your ipad3 hours before. also trying to get smart people and contacts for the story, things that everyone on this panel except for kelly has been on the lead. i turn up the volume. >> we would have you any time you want to come on. >> i think there would be a very gracious combination of that. >> you have been on. we're trying to get smart people to talk about the events of the day and talk about things you have not talked about obviously. people who read the news or are relatively savvy news consumers. we need to bring something to the table other than what they are ready no. havelly o'donnell, you

been a news correspondent in new york, l.a., and d.c. of the the difference news capital? >> i am so grateful i had a chance to do work at the network level in other places, because i did not fully appreciate until i got to happen in really does america, too. i found everything from covering the the -- the o.j. simpson floods andres and the urgent -- emergency urgent to the entertainment things. we actually did entertainment stories. the variety that jake is talking about, being able to do that in the course of telling stories is so helpful. andve been on the board doing a variety of stories along the border, and that gave me

context personally. you may not always find its way into the story but certainly frames how i look at it. fromw york everything launching international stories to being on wall street on all things that have helped in covering politics here. are when youimes get out in the country and get to talk to real people, as we say, and see them in their lives and hear what is interesting to them, and people are quite bold about telling you what they like and do not like. great to get that feedback. is the feeling for telling the bigger story. that is always hard. has always been hard. >> when you do it, the power is

incredible. .> remedy is very compelling i always look at it that we are but in somehere, ways it is like the person predict the -- writing the record, the song, leary, all the team the production team can put to it and there is a different impact. just hearing the basic melody. with tv news on the there is a way you choose the news, choose the soundbite and images, whether they be video or graphic inks, and that combination gives you the experience of being there. i think that is what we go for. you are from the l.a. area. people out there just do not care about the news. do people care what we do? >> in a way. aboutn industry town

new trends.vie and many social trends come from the west, which i found very interesting when i was working and living there. i do not think people care about the minutia that we care about, and that is ok. we trade on it in this town. the backse guys in signing books. i am like is there a petition i can sign it? i would be held -- happy to. people do not necessarily speak the same language of legislation or politics. they do care when it affects their lives. war often than not i find what happens does affect people's lives we just have to be smart about telling it. ofi am friends with a lot soldiers. a lot of them are retired now. a lot of them were e-mailing me about ryan murray. they knew it was ryan murray and

the retirees new the cost of living was going to go down, was going to be cut. they were aware of that and the budget deal in a very real way. for the guys that do not make a lot of money when they are in the service, a lot of them are from their time of service for what they did for us. this was a moment of bipartisan compromise and affects people in the real world, and whether you ,upport the compromise or not they were very aware of it. >> there were impacts. you are ready have patty murray a part of this saying we will find a way to adjust that's going forward. other people are looking for ways to make a change to the effect of the increase of cost of living for pensions. there is an immediacy for when people feel things that can have an impact. >> are quickly the -- mark

lubavitch you write -- politico gets blamed for an thing up and camping down political news. playbook is an insiders dog breakfast. overnight news, press release previews, and birthday greetings to people you have never heard of. is it that had? -- that bad? request, i eat breakfast. i read playbook. the badtely dispute premise. >> what is the most legitimate criticism? >> would you like me to step back? >> a most legitimate? i would say putting it in the -- put it this

amplifiesould say it the insider doma i think can be of what weerous part do here, what the media does. what i mean by that is one of the many reasons washington seems very out of touch with the rest of the country is a group think prevails. a group think that leads to major misconception about what is really going on or really important to people. whether it is the conventional wisdom that there is absolutely weapons of mass destruction, which the new york times has a hand in perpetrating. america is not ready for an african-american president.

health care. there was a pun of coverage in politico. the politics of health care. theyuld have been nice have a technical debate about whether it would work. espn for politics stated this. it is true. they would say espn has elevated the personality of sports. also, the notion of sports.

sports does, too. >> what is the most important thing that you have learned since this town him out on either feedback for people -- from people or doing talk shows that you wish you had included or reflected? this reflects on what is the distinction between this town, would beple assume about washington, d.c., but in fact, the citizens of this town are a very rarefied culture of people of disproportion. amount ofionate influence, wealth, exposure. the citizens do not reflect the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of anonymous, very hard-working people who make the city work, not to mention the

men and women who lost their lives at the naval yard a couple of months ago. these are people who make the city work. >> in retrospect, anyone that you were too hard on in this town? >> if you had a do over, you would not quite say it that way. >> i am a veteran second-guess her. my editor can attest to this. -- second-guess her. i do not think i was too hard on anyone. i would have probably been harder on certain people. >> who were you too easy on? without naming a name, what

category of person were you too easy on and in retrospect do realize that was really the problem? i think the old is pretty well covered. i am pretty equal opportunity i think. book review, 10 best books of 2014. five nonfiction five that are nonfiction. how did it start out and when. >> it started in 2006 before it was over. capital that he was going to spend it. he felt it spans of and his

ambition. the ideaural dress was of american ideas spreading around the world. the next two years was a dogs breakfast of misery for any president. it occurred to me this was something we have not seen in quite this extraordinary way. i had the idea of doing a book about the second term. it started out reporting. that is what i was doing. >> i was covering the book -- bush white house at the time. idea -- the book changed over time. trying to make this the first real history of the administration.

they used art to be a major antagonist to talk about evolving and rather dramatically different relationship. >> what is the most interesting thing you have learned or have been told since the book was published that you wished -- that you wish your been told? >> people say why did you not tell me this? you will have to buy the paperback. i will not give away too much, but there is a fascinating katrina story. different moments that people told me about. learnedlesson i have now doing books, and this is the third, is that when you come in the moment as we do every day in isitico or cnn or nbc, it

always more than you suspect. when they say we are not debating this or so in so is not in trouble, it is almost always happening. it is almost always happening far more than you ever imagined. we will do a rapid rounds of one-word answer. then you can elaborate. we will each give a one-word answer. it is more difficult -- which was more difficult to cover, the bush administration or obama administration? >> one-word? >> bush. >> we get to expand, right? >> obama. >> osha. >> i was going to say obama. >> expand.

therehink at the moment is an interesting issue that is getting broader attention, and that is access to the white house. collectively we have not told our own story well in terms of traditional news media. and i say traditional, i do not mean in the sense of where you get it. i mean in the sense of reporting the news of the day without a lot of opinion attached. i think the issue of access, is the white house allowing coverage for official function, bill signing, things where this happened. it was taken by an employee of the white house, not a group of news photographers or journalists were able to independently attend an event, cover an event, and people say what in the world -- it is a

picture, what do you expect? are you trying to do something that would make any president look bad? signing asident is bill that is part of the function, swearing in a new cabinet official, meeting with the world leader, i think those are the events of the office that should have coverage. have more coverage. >> why not? why are they going the other way? i believe they felt they could go directly to the public, and they certainly can. they can have the photographs, web service, but not to the exclusion of an independent run press. >> white house correspondent organization and other organizations have formalized the concern. yesterday a meeting between jay carney and the white house were spawned association. does your sense from what you hear him from what you read

between the lines of a public statement that they get it and and that something might change or are they trying to run out the clock? >> i think they get it and will try to respond. it is the easiest thing in the world for the white house to be nice to photographers. they are not there to try to screw them in any way. they just want to get good xers. they are not trying to do things that are tough or mean or in any way embarrassing. all presidents like to photographers. those are the ones they want to talk to. they are friendly. toughre not asking questions, just trying to capture an image and a moment. they are not threatening in that sense. >> you hear a lot behind the scenes. of how thesense obama people think.

it.y white house does why is it that much worse? >> the one i would add to that in terms of why i would say obama rather than bush is it is difficult in its own way. each white house has its own challenges. the things i miss most is what we used to call a fool spray where they will bring in reporters to the oval office. meeting with a world leader or congressional leader and a chance to ask a couple of questions about the day. orre is a riot in cincinnati ukraine is up in arms. what do you think? we do not get that anymore. they want to control the message. a want to control everything. they think those things distract him the intended message of the

day, and they are right. i completely understand the logic. so many events go by in which we never have a chance to hear the president thought about that. north korea is just an example. they just executed the uncle of the leader. i would like to know what the president inks about that. by the time the next questioning comes along we won't move on to three or four stories. >> if you are in for the pool , something which advisers are present tells you a lot about who has the president here. i always like to look at who else is in the room, who can approach the president, and those things give you a lot of the texture of the moment that i have found so many times is helpful to find what may be coming next because you get a feel for the room. if you're never in the room, you do not have that opportunity. >> what are the pros and cons?

you said they are easier to cover than president bush? >> they are not easier to cover. i agree with everything they have said. arguably inen violation of the president's --mitment to open this openness and transparency and accountability. peter's example is a perfect one, that they want to control the message. they do not want the president to talk about north korea. he is the president of the united states. to a degree, we are entitled as a public you hear what his thoughts are. it's d party did not talk about it, that i do not know we would have heard what his thoughts are. it is always weird to me when conservatives praise how tough i was on obama, because the bush people hated me. >> still do.

>> probably in a lot of cases still do from covering him in 1999 -- 2000. however difficult the obama people may be, at least 90% of the time they return my call or e-mail. that was not the case with bush. story, the the cover post-shame mccain shame. it says if you live long enough, anything is possible. tell us something new about the photograph. >> [inaudible] [laughter] very savvyk times is about the cross branding. >> they are beyond shame, but we are not. thing wherekind of it will get all the attention and no one will read the story.

anyone else want to look at it? what did you learn about senator mccain that you did not know? what surprised you? >> he has been a person of so many phases. his life and himself. was how striking to me reflective he is. it seems like the kind of reflective that you get when someone is deciding whether to run for another term. >> what do you think he will decide? >> i think he would not admit this. i think a lot of it will depend on whether the republicans when the senate. servicesbe armed chairman, and he wants that very badly.

if they do not win, he does not get it. >> do you think you will run again? >> he changes his mind a lot. >> i do. i think he is one of the people that is so in the game tom and i do not mean to diminish the importance of it by calling the game. he is someone that thrives off of the activity. i think one of the lessons is you can have many acts. that is interesting that you can reinvent, that you can evolve or change or can be down and then it -- and then get back out. with respect to his age, i think he is among the older, but has a more youthful spirit and some of the older senators. his mother is living into the hundreds, so i think he would reject the notion he is too old.

this wholeld read thing, not just the excerpt. one of the great anecdotes i have heard before is for john mccain retirement equals death. his dad retired, and he died. referredork times has to john mccain's mother as 101. >> 201. [laughter] >> she has been 101 for quite some time now. >> when you start hitting 100? -- when you start hitting 100, people start lining. another round. one word response. the news media leans left, yes or no? i think yes.

in places yes, but not entirely. >> yes. >> there are moments, but there is more to say about that. >> you did not hesitate. >> as someone who lives in d.c., i can say i rarely talk about politics with my friends. most of my friends have no ideal about politics. but i live in northwest washington. i do not know a lot of people in my kids preschool that are pro- life. i think when you do have conversations in all the , youapers i have worked at

seek clues there is a leftward leaning. >> you did not hesitate either. >> i did not hesitate, but i am glad i have the chance to respond. it is much more complicated and complex, which is a certain type of person he comes a reporter. generally speaking these are people that have not -- generally speaking the kind of person who is a reporter in washington, d c, or new york city, has never worked a minimum wage job outside of high school when you work at baskin-robbins or whatever. has never experienced poverty. is not an evangelical christian. like much in the country is. there are lots of experiences for the kind of people that are reporters, editors etc..

there is an think awareness of that. when there is an awareness is when the best journalism can happen, because then -- because then people are aware the country they're writing for in people they are on tv for and the desire to get out of washington and talk about experiences. just them that the media leans a little bit left. get aublications you can sense of what the editors are thinking. i would put a lot more on the editors and senior producers than the day today reporters. you do not see a lot of coverage of poverty. you do not see a lot of coverage of troop. you do not see a lot of coverage of faith. it is simplistic to say it is liberally conservative. it is about experience and lifestyle. i think there needs to be more

of getting outside the comfort zone. >> as everybody said, if you did a survey, more would report themselves -- more reporters report themselves as liberals do not. nthan not. i have people on all sides in my personal family. that is healthy i think to understand different parts of the country. isthink the issue of bias [ conflict. the bias toward sensation, the and easyrd the quick and the simplistic. that is our bias and what we have to fight every day to capture the world as we cover it in a more sophisticated, three- dimensional way with different aspects. i am not talking about every

reporter. i am sure there are lots of reporters that have experienced poverty. i felt i had to say yes because msnbc has evolved. i have watched that change. , personally i have worked very hard throughout my career to be as intellectually aggressive about both sides of the aisle in some places in between in order to not allow myself to be animated by political feelings. i really enjoyed the political discourse. i do not feel particularly swayed one way or another come and that can take a lot of effort over time to be unbiased. i also run into many things

interviewing people around the country. as i choserpret that to republicans, not understanding we get a signed. when you are in an environment that is very conservative and people,hance to talk to i have heard quite a lot of criticism and take it seriously. i also inc. if that is the person -- the world in which they have lived, they are less likely to be drawn into the media if they have been raised in the community, whether we're talking about a school, church, istown that thinks the media fair. you are not typically drawn to pursuing something in life that you think is not doing its job the best way it can. to bring you into the conversation in just a moment. while we're doing that, asking a twitter question. enjoy a similar

resurgence of popularity after ifice as bush and clinton? >> think history shows most presidents do better when they president. eisenhower had a resurgence comer particularly in the past couple of years talking about how he was a much better president than we gave him credit for. truman is the ultimate example. about more, really disliked by a lot of the american public. we exonerate him as the architect of the cold war. iconlk about reagan as an tom and it strikes me -- as an icon on the and it strikes me that a lot of people did not like him at the time. even nixon. very specifically, peter baker's wife has done a fantastic job of editor of e magazine.

they have a piece talking to historians about the fifth year of presidencies. fifth year andst a very common answer is fdr. >> then he gets snapped back. a lesson that president seem to learn over and over again. >> who had the best -- you had the best third term. >> by far. >> you were an early adopter, innovator on twitter.

you are aggressive. >> i am a time waster. >> how has social media changed in the past year at? what do you see happening in 2014? -- foryself, twitter myself, twitter is where i find the stories. >>politico is your politico. yes and nothing else will be my politico. i find out about a breaking news story on politico on twitter. you are not particularly active on twitter i should point out. dylan and a whole bunch of your reporters are on all the time and promoting each other stories. that is where i find out about them. i follow more than 2000 people from all walks of life and all over the world. it is the way i find out about what is going on. honestly it is a real-time newsfeed. also a way to interact with

people. i find it most valuable as a news source. it is better because it is every publication, and even obscure publications telling you what is going on from all over the world. someone will put out unconventional women reporters you should be following. i will click off every single one of them. sometimes they are writing about , butalian social policy maybe my eyes are open to something i did not know about. >> you are chief white house correspondent of the new york times. how do you do that in the age of twitter? >> that is a great question. when i started covering the white house on the it with his -- it was in 1996. clinton was heading to a second term. you had a beeper.

a paperld let you know statement and would write around 6:00. with a feather, a quill. carrier pigeon. it is a thousand times different. twitter is now an important way of getting out information. i have learned a lot from twitter. a stream you dip in and out of. you three are pretty good. >> thank you. >> by the time you get to that part of the story, you have done often three or four different things for the day. it is a challenge to make the phone call you do not have time to. >> beyond twitter, and instant news era where there really is

no news cycle, how does that change how you do your job, and do you see changes in the way our leaders act? >> i think in cable news we had immediacy in terms of my deadline may be a live shot at 11:00 and then another one at 1:00. we are writing, rewriting, continuing to report throughout the day. in some ways like radio. we do that as well. i think we are multitasking in new ways. i like twitter or the situation -- situational awareness. from the vice president has arrived, or i am heading to the floor to make remarks. it has been very help all. those who really know me know that i am not technically savvy. think in this, there are a lot of people around me that tell me

which apps to use and which technologies to embrace. so i bring my eight track and i have caught myself sometimes being at a news conference with the own -- and being the only one with a paper and pen. there are different ways that you can be old-school and new school. clearly members of congress had to embrace using some of the social media. some of them do it themselves. chuck grassley is known for tweeting when he sits on his wallet. or those who have staffers that do it. you can tell in terms of the voice of the person coming through. certainly, they have used their facebookpace image -- pages and various outlets to communicate directly with constituents, but there is a utility for reporters as well. --senator grassley quit clearly tweets himself, if you lo