president obama talks about retirement savings at a steel mill in pennsylvania. and republicans and democrats give their impressions of last night state of the union address. officialsigence briefed congress on national security threats. bringing attention to what women do or how they have contributed always returns to the question of the body. for one thing, many people object to bringing women's studies or history enjoy middle school, high school classroom because there is an assumption that women's studies is only about sex, birth control, abortion. and actually, it is also about women in politics, women in law, women working on farms, queens, prime ministers. down theb is to break fear many people have.

what goes on in a women's studies classroom. history,, women's feminist movements, and the backlash. professor and author bonnie morris will take your questions in depth starting sunday live at noon eastern. and you still have a few days to weigh in on the book club. join the conversation. onto book tv.org and click book tv to enter the chat room. c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house and events, briefings, and conferences, offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a private service of public industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider.

in his state of the union address, president obama announced the treasury department would be creating a new type of retirement account called myra. at a steel mill and west mifflin, pennsylvania, the president discussed retirement savings and gave more details about his proposal. this is 20 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> hey, hello, everybody! well, thank you, mario, for that great introduction and your leadership. you just don't come to the steel city without coming to u.s. steel. i just got a great tour and had

a chance to see a little bit about how you guys build america every single day and i could not be prouder to be here. i brought a few friends with me. we got america's treasury secretary, jack lew. [applause] we've got a couple of guys who wake up and go to bed for pennsylvania workers every single day, senator bob casey. [applause] and congressman mike doyle. [applause] we've got the mayor of west mifflin, chris kelly, in the house. pittsburgh's new mayor is here. and we've got allegeny county executive rich fitzgerald. and then we've got one of my good buddies who is always in my

ear about working people, and i love this guy, the international president of the united steelworkers, leo gerard, is here. [applause] and i also brought along our great friend, our former ambassador to ireland and most importantly chairman of the pittsburgh steelers, dan rooney in the house. [applause] and most of all, it's great to be here with men and women of u.s. steel. this company helped build america, and over 100 years later you're still at it. you forged the pipes that transport cleaner burning natural gas. you manufacture the lightweight alloys that our automakers use to build fuel-efficient cars. you're part of one of the great turn-around stories of this

economic recoveries, the rebound of the american steel industry. and look, just every time i go to the steel plant, i remember being a steelworker is hard work, but every single one of you is doing your part to make the country stronger. and because of your efforts, businesses like u.s. steel have now created eight million new jobs over the past four years. 9,000 new jobs in the steel industry alone. our unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in five years. our deficits have been cut in half. housing is rebounding. manufacturing is adding jobs, not shrinking jobs, for the first time since the 1990's. we sell more than what we make here in parts of america to the world than ever before. business leaders are starting to

realize that china's no longer the best place to invest and create jobs. america is. the u.s. of a. [applause] which is why i said last night i believe this can be a breakthrough year for america. after five years of hard work, after everything we did to dig ourselves out of the worst recession of our lifetime, we're better positioned in this 21st century than any other country on earth. and the question i posed to congress yesterday is whether folks in washington are going to help or they're going to hinder the progress we've been making. whether they're going to waste time creating new crises that slows down our economy or they're going to spend time creating new jobs and new opportunities. [applause] and i don't know what their

plans are, but i choose a year of action because too many americans are working harder than ever just to get by. let alone get ahead. they still have the scars of the recession, but the truth is the middle class has been taken it on the chin says way before the financial crisis hit. you know that. the economy now has been growing for four years. corporate profits, stock prices, they've gone up, but folks' wages hasn't risen in over a decade. and that's why last night i laid out new steps we can take right now to speed up economic growth, strengthen the middle class and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. it's an opportunity agenda, because opportunity is what america's all about. and the agenda has four parts. number one, more new jobs.

jobs in american manufacturing, jobs in american energy, jobs in american innovation and technology. number two, we got to train more americans with the skills that we need to fill those jobs. number three, we got to guarantee every child in america a world-class education. [applause] and number four, we got to make sure hard work pays off. now, some of these ideas that i presented last night are going to require congress to pass legislation, but america doesn't stand still. u.s. steel hasn't stood still. i'm not going to stand still. so wherever i can take steps to expand opportunity for more families, regardless of what congress does, that's what i'm going to do. [applause]

because i am determined to work with all of you and citizens all across this country on the defining projects of our generation and that is to restore opportunity for every single person who's willing to work hard and take responsibility in this country. that's what i'm committed to doing. [applause] now, i've come to u.s. steel today because i wanted to talk about that fourth part of that agenda, making hard work pay off for every single american, making sure jobs pay good wages, making sure affordable health care is there when you need it, making sure after a lifetime of hard work you can retire with some dignity. today women make up about half our work force, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. as i said last night, that's wrong. in 2014, it is an embarrassment. women deserve equal pay for equal work. they deserve to be able to have a baby without sacrificing a job.

moms and dads deserve to be able to take a day off for a sick kid or a sick parent. we got to get rid of some of these workplace policies that belong back in the 1950's, back in a "mad men" episode, i said. we ought to give every opportunity she deserves because when women succeeds, america skeds. i'm proud that there is a woman heading up this plant and doing some amazing work. i was really glad to see that. but women hold the majority of lower wage jobs, and they're not the only ones who have been stifled by stagnant wages. the truth is wages and incomes for the average working american haven't gone up. even though the economy is more productive, even though it's grown over the last two decades,

the average person's salary, what they're taking home, their paycheck, it hasn't really grown. now, americans understand, we all understand some people are going to earn more money than others. and we don't envy anybody who achieves success through their hard work. that's what we want for our kids. now, michelle and i were talking. michelle's dad was a blue-collar worker. worked at a water filtration plant in chicago. her mom was a secretary. my mom was a single mom. when we were growing up, we weren't worrying about what rich people were doing. we weren't going around saying, oh, man, we don't have caviar for lunch and we're not -- we're not, you know, vacationing down in some fancy place. we don't begrudge the success of other folks, but we did expect,

and i think most americans still expect that if you work hard you should be able to make it. you don't have to -- you don't have to make it the way some folks make it but everybody should have enough to feel some security. and americans overwhelmingly agree that nobody who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. if you're doing your responsibilities and working hard, you should be able to pay the rent, buy food, look after your family. today, the federal minimum wage doesn't go as far as it did even in the 1950's. that's why some states and cities are raising the minimum wage on their own and i support their efforts. as i mentioned last night, as chief executive, i'm going to lead by example. in the coming weeks, i'm issuing an executive order requiring federal contractors, folks doing

business with the federal government, pay your federally funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour. because if you cook our troops' meals or you wash their dishes, you shouldn't have to live in poverty. [applause] of course, if we're going to reach millions more, then congress is going to have to get onboard. there's a bill in congress right now to raise that minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and i told congress, say yes to that, give america a raise. but that's not all we have to do to grow our middle class. making work pay also means access to health care for you when you get sick. now the good news is, if you work at u.s. steel i know you got good benefits. and that's why i'm a strong supporter of unions because they fought for those benefits. [applause]

but as everybody here knows, and i bet you got friends and family who haven't been so lucky and don't have those benefits. what the affordable care act means is that no one can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition like asthma or cancer. you can't be charged more if you're a woman. you can't be charged more just because forging steel might hurt your back, make it hurt sometimes. and if you don't have health insurance on the job, you can actually get affordable health insurance. so the days when folks are just on your own, out of luck, those days are over. more americans are signing up for new private health insurance plans every day. we're signing folks up for medicaid, and if you know somebody who isn't covered, call them up, sit them down, help them get covered at healthcare.gov by march 31. we are going to get all of america covered. that's one of my commitments. [applause]

and finally, and that's what this little desk here is about, there's another thing we can all agree on. if you worked hard all your life, you deserve a secure retirement. you know, some of the folks i met before i came here on the tour, some of these folks have been on the job 15 years, 20 years. i think your roller has been on the job 38 years. let me tell you something, if you worked 38 years, at the end of it you should feel like you're going to retire with some security. and a retirement used to be a three-legged stool. you used to have a pension. then, you had your social security. then, you had your own private savings. and you put that all together and you could retire. but today most workers don't have a pension in america. just half work for an employer

that offers any kind of retirement plan. social security check is critical but oftentimes that monthly check, that's not enough. and while the stock markets doubled over the last five years, that doesn't help somebody if you don't have a 401-k. so what i've asked congress to do is work with me to give more people more retirement security. let's fix an upside down tax code that right now gives the wealthiest americans big tax breaks to save but does almost nothing for middle-class folks, doesn't give them the same kind of tax advantages. that's not fair. and we need to give every american access to an automatic i.r.a. on the job so they can save at work. now, i'm hoping that congress goes along with this, but i'm not going to wait for congress.

i can do more with congress, but i'm not going to not do anything without congress, not when it's about the basic security and dignity of american workers. so here's what i'm going to do today. this is what this little table is set up for. i'm going to sign a presidential memorandum that directs the u.s. treasury secretary, jack lew, to create a new way for working americans to start their own retirement savings. [applause] and as soon as i sign this, jack lew will get the memo. he is right here. i'm going to say here, here's your memo. and we're calling it my r.a. not i.r.a. my r.a. and what it is, it's a new type of savings bond in a we can set up without legislation that encourages americans to begin to build a nest egg and it's simple.

workers can contribute through automatic deductions in their paychecks, just like those of you who have an employer-sponsored pension fund can do, they can keep the same account, even if they change jobs. so they can carry it over. it's safe. these accounts balance -- these account balances will never go down in value. they're backed by the full faith and credit of the united states government. and it's affordable. so you can open an account with as little as $25. you can contribute as little as $5 at a time. but what that means is for those of you who don't have a 401-k on the job, don't have a pension on the job, don't have a mechanism to start saving, especially young workers, you can get started now. and in an emergency, you can withdraw contributions without paying a penalty, so it's a pretty good deal. [applause]

and what i'm hoping is that working americans will take a look, because i want more people to have the chance to save for retirement through their hard work. and this is just one step that we can take to help more people do that. so this is the opportunity agenda that's going to help restore some sense of economic security in this 21st century economy. we want jobs that are more plentiful. we want skills that keep you employable. we want savings that are portable, we want health care that's yours and is not going to be canceled when you really need it. we want every american who works hard and takes responsibility to retire with dignity after decades of honest work. these are real practical, achievable solutions to help shift the odds back a little bit in favor of more working and middle-class americans. if they work hard, they can get ahead and they can leave something for the next generation and that's something that u.s. steel knows a little bit about.

for over 100 years, people throughout the valley and throughout this country have been punching in at plants just like this one. you've been keeping the furnaces blasting, keeping the coal mill rolling, carrying on the tradition of hard work and determination. we got two, three-generation steelworkers at this plant right here. and i know for a lot of you this is more than a job. in is a team. this is a family that you're proud to be part of. now, robin burke is with me today. decades ago her granddad worked for union switch and signal in pittsburgh making parts for railroads. her dad worked for u.s. steel for over 30 years, rising to plant manager. robin's been a safety manager here for 23 years, and i want to share something robin said. she said, when i was growing up

i would think about what my grandfather and father did for a living and i always thought my brother would be the one who got to work here. but it ended up being me. women before me maybe didn't have that opportunity. now, robin's dad, bernard, who just passed away a little more than a year ago, he was full of pride for this company. he used to say, when we bleed we bleed blue. the color of u.s. steel. so that pride has run across generations. that's the pride that built this country and that's the pride that built america. that's the spirit we all need today. that's the resilience, the grit, the determination and the optimism that keeps the american dream alive. not just for this generation but for future generations to come. that's what i'm going to be fighting for this year, just like i was for the last five years and for the next three years. and i expect all of you to join me in making sure that we deliver that promise to the next

generation. and now i'm going to sign this bill. thank you, god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] it's done. here's jack lew. i'm going to give it to him. we're going to get it started. thank you, everybody. ♪

>> ♪ grab your ticket and your suitcase, thunder's rolling down this track well you don't know where you're going now but you know you won't be back well, darling, if you're weary lay your head upon my chest we'll take what we can carry yeah, and we'll leave the rest well, big wheels roll through fields where sunlight streams

meet me in a land of hope and dreams i will provide for you and i'll stand by your side you'll need a good companion now for this part of the ride ♪ republican and democratic politicians discuss this year state of the union in an event hosted by politico. the prospects for immigration, an increase in minimum wage, and other items on president obama's agenda.

[applause] >> good morning, everybody. i'm thrilled to be joined on this early post-state of the union morning by susan brooks, congresswoman from indiana, james lankford, congressman from oklahoma, mike pompeo, congressman from kansas, three house republicans who were obviously at the state of the union, we hope, last night. our mobile polling question for this conversation is displayed on the tv's above us so weigh in and participate in this event. so let's get started. guys, this is a question that we're asking everybody today. so you'll hear throughout the presentation but the biggest thing i learned about president obama last night was that he was blank. i'll start with you, congressman pompeo. >> in charge for five years but responsible for nothing. >> and congressman lankford. >> i'm not sure i learned that.

i knew that side of him. i think he -- i learned he finds it very important that you call your mother. >> obvious reference to his urging of the american people to sign up for health care. >> call your mom. >> congresswoman? >> he likes to use the word "i" a lot rather than "we." >> on that note -- sorry. continue. >> unfortunately, i paid a lot more attention to that and rereading his remarks this morning. used the word "i" a lot. >> on that note, one thing that was obvious and very prominent and the white house talked a lot about was his -- he wants to take executive actions. unilateral actions on things like -- he's going to raise the federal minimum wage. he's talking about a whole host of executive action. congressman lankford, what do house republicans plan to do about that? >> that's the interesting part. in some ways he's going back to his base saying i'm going to

stick those republicans in the eye. i'm just going to go around them. most of the proposals he's laying out he already has statutory authority to do. he's just trying to charge up his base and go after it. and some things should get pushed back on. traditionally there is' been a member of your own party in the senate that's risen up and challenged his own president when they exceeded constitutional authority. think about robert byrd challenging democratic presidents saying, mr. president, you can't do that. we have to honor the constitution. we just find that in this day and age people challenging their own president. if he pushes beyond constitutional authority, he should be held to account that, not only hearings but also supreme court, as we see in the supreme court case just last week where the supreme court -- the president says to the senate, i'm going to define what your schedule is. i'm going to tell the senate when you're in recess and when you're not and i think the supreme court is going to knock that back. >> congressman, you're an attorney involved in the king

committees on capitol hill. what does he have the authority to do by executive order? what do you think the bounds of this are and how should house republicans respond to that? >> look, every president's issued executive orders. that's appropriate to do. but the scope of things this president has done, take major pieces of law and just because he says so choose not to enforce them, that's radically different than previous presidents' executive orders. he says we have this health care law i loved and passed without a single republican vote. i'm going to take huge pieces of it and delay it. he said that's an old fight. we don't want to refight that fight. that fight is less than a month old. and major players say, it's -- he's declaring this as an old fight and out of bounds of what we shouldn't discuss. those are the kinds of things that we should push back on. when he takes things outside of statutory authority, we'll have hearings. and even people like the good solid conservative ned when presidents take executive action

you begin to have a country that's very different than what our founders intended. >> i want to pose this question to all of you guys. i assume that you guys have the same views. but congressman pompeo and lankford talked about oil and how oil production is up. his energy policy. i want to get your take on that. you might have a different opinion than the president, i would guess. fire off here. >> it is stunning to watch a president who is bound and determined, honest about his desire to stop coal-powered power plants. talk about how oil production is up on his watch. every single policy statement that he makes puts a burden on folks who are trying to produce these energies. he talks about taking away ordinary tax deductions from him that every other industry player

gets, a health care bill that makes it expensive for them to operate their companies. then he talks about a transition. he didn't say how long he wanted natural gas to be a transition for. i suspect his base will be a transition for about 20 minutes. and we know that fossil fuels are going to be around for decades to come, and yet this president will wave his magic wand and pretend it's not so. >> what's fascinating to me, the president says i'm going to streamline bureaucracies. that's my favorite statement where he said i am going to streamline bureaucracies to make sure natural gas can be used in factories. well, my first thought was, if you want to streamline some bureaucracies and use your pen and your phone that you talk about, there is a keystone pipeline permit that's been on your desk almost 2,000 days waiting on just a permit signature on it. there's some significant things there. he talks about streamlining for factories but right now the e.p.a., if you want to actually modify your vehicle to use c.n.g., it takes six to eight months just to get that permit. the vehicle is almost out of

date by the time you get certified to use it. so there are a lot of bureaucracies for the expansions of fuels. we had a major push on the export of l.n.g. the administration is slow walking all these permits for the export of l.n.g. it would be a tremendous job boost. he talks about natural gas being this clean fuel, which it is. if it is then we should be exporting that worldwide. >> congresswoman, you were shaking your head. >> well, what amazed me last night a couple of times is when he talked about cutting red tape and, you know, making the bureaucracy much easier for the companies of all sorts to operate infrastructure and so forth. he was talking about, again, just making things simpler and cutting red tape and lessening bureaucracy and that we shouldn't be fighting about the size of the government. i think he actually started out by that. that we should get over talking

about the size of the federal government when those are exactly all of the type of policies that we continue to see from this president. and so i kind of laughed when he was talking about cutting red tape because as it's truly the growth of his bureaucracy and the government under his watch that has really made it so much more difficult for the american people to move forward. >> and one thing that the president probably can't do by executive order but would like to see you guys accomplish is immigration reform. i know this is a touchy topic and not only republican circles and obviously some democratic circles, a very tough issue to deal with in 2014. congresswoman, what is your view on the senate's immigration proposal and what will you -- what would you like to see house republicans do? >> well, we're headed today to have a really important discussion with the rest of our republican colleagues at the retreat about the principles that we can -- there we can stand together on with respect to immigration reform. i do believe immigration reform is necessary. i don't believe the senate's proposal in this huge massive package was the right way to go about it. it's too complex of a problem, and so i agree with our approach of taking the different problems with immigration piece by piece. and so i think we will tackle

it. i hope that we jump into it because it is a problem that's not going away. and so, you know, i'm pleased that we're going to come together and come up with those principles. we know that the business community is one of their top agenda items. in my community, whether it's the chambers or the agricultural community, they want to see immigration reform happen. and for the work force of this country, we actually need to get this right. and so -- but we got to secure the border. if we don't secure the border, then we're back at the same problem that brought us this problem to begin with. so it does start with border security and then, i believe, you know, we can get into the other reforms that are necessary. but in a piece-by-piece fashion. it's too complicated to take it in one bill. >> vice president biden this morning on cbs this morning said that citizenship is what should be at the end of the pathway. it shouldn't only be legalization.

it should be citizenship. if that's the white house's stance, is immigration reform going to happen this year? >> no. because -- and that's our biggest concern. i don't think anyone looks at our immigration system and say, wow, it's looking great. everything is working fine on immigration. it's not. legal and illegal immigration, we are not convinced that we have a willing partner, we're afraid he wants to work on the politics of it and that's a business concerning. it's not just the rhetoric. you go back to december of 2012 when we passed a bill that dealt with high-skilled workers and the president jumped out and said, i am going to veto it. i want to do everything. i don't want to do it piece by piece. it's not something we should be done in a comprehensive fashion. so if his focus is if you can't do everything we'll do nothing, that's really sad. because i think we can agree on many things. >> just to close it out, to bring it back to where you began, to the president with

respect to immigration has taken executive action that is deeply, deeply outside of his statutory authority. right? he's chosen not to enforce major pieces of current immigration law. and so when he comes to us and say, hey, pass another statute, there's the confidence that he'll execute against the law is incredibly low with respect to immigration in particular. so what i'd love to see him do is say, watch, i'm going to implement what's out there today. you'll find a great more willingness from folks on the republican party to pass new laws and fix things that we've identified. >> and just to give the audience a sense of where the house republican conference is, they have a great sense of where the conference is. how deep is the distrust based on what you said? this is something i hear all the time from you and your colleagues. how deep is the distrust with the president? >> just to start -- it's not us. it's the folks we represent. it's when we go home.

i was home in kansas this weekend. when you talk to folks, the distrust of this president, the promises he makes, the statements he asserts and then he walks away from them, that's a kind word to describe it, is known by them. they see it. they're living it. it's impacting their lives. this isn't about politics. this isn't about our party. this isn't about getting re-elected. this is about the lives of folks across this country who doesn't trust the president to do the things that he promises. >> due to my position in the house, i've been at some of the negotiations in the white house, i sat around the table in the roosevelt room as we worked through some of the issues. the president said things behind closed doors and we thought we were headed in the right direction and 12 hours later it's completely different. >> in my first year in congress, besides hearing the president at the state of the union last year we had only one other meeting with the president of the united states where he actually came to the house republicans and talked

to us. one other time. and so i think the problem is in order to have trust you have to have a relationship. and there is not a solid working good relationship with the president. and so this is, you know, coming to the state of the union last night, i feel like it's the third time i'm not in those meetings. you know, at this point having those negotiations but yet we have little to know relationship with the president and actually i would think a lot of democrat members i've talked to would say the same thing. >> and so give -- so let's fill this out a little bit more then. given the entire state of the union, all -- you know, 65 minutes or whatever it was, how many proposals that the president laid out will house republicans tackle this year? just to give a sense of where the house republican conference is. >> there are a couple of them. he turned to the vice president and said he's going to work on reforming our jobs program and the training program. i leaned over to kevin mccarthy and said, that's the skills act. we did that already.

and he threatened to veto that immediately. it wasn't a, well, let's have a conversation about it. some of those things we're very supportive. we talked about the streamlining of permitting, we're very supportive of those things. we'd like to see duplication removed in government. we'd like to see more decisionmaking at the local level. he talked about the american people and the strength of their decisionmaking but then halfway through the speech he said the american people won't be successful unless we do those things. it can't be the same. >> you head to beautiful cambridge, maryland, for the house republican retreat. i heard they got three inches of snow so hopefully you bought your boots. give us -- if you could give us a sense of what house republicans will be tackling this year, give us a sense of what you want to see at the end of this weekend, next week what will washington be talking about and what will house republicans be doing? easy question. >> well, i'll say this. one of the things that was noticeably absent last night was

any serious discussion about america's debt. he opened the speech by saying he reduced the deficit by half. right. i told my son, it's like you're going 200 miles an hour, son, you went down to 100 and told the cop, great deal, huh? i hope we haven't lost sight. to quote the president, that's not an old tired debate. it's what james and i and the class of 2010 and susan's class came to tackle. i hope we didn't lose the sight that we're spending $600 billion more than it's taking in. it's not sustainable. >> one of the things i was pleased that he talked about last night and so i have real hope if he chooses so lead on it as well is tax reform. and he did bring up tax reform last night. and he actually talked about tax reform in a way that he didn't talk about raising taxes for the first time. so he talked about actually helping businesses and lowering rates and trying to make sure that we keep jobs in this country and bring those overseas

profits back to our shores. so i'm hopeful. you know, i felt like tax reform was really moving in a positive direction. and so with chairman camp leading the way, i'm hopeful we can get some tax reform done. >> congressman lankford, you're policy chair. you can actually tell us what will happen. >> oh, no. i'm not clairvoyant in that way, especially among house republicans. most of our conversations in the next three days will circle around two different sets of issues. some of the problems we want to solve that we'll try to tackle there will hopefully move through the senate and the white house and the other is, what are the big things we'll work on, tax reform is one of those things, immigration is one of those things. what will we try to do in energy policy, those are all big issues that will take up a lot of time. we're actually planning to do appropriations bills. since we have an agreed-upon number we can work through those appropriations bills. we'll be limited somewhat with what we can do through the summer so we have to be strategic on what we take on the

schedule. >> thank you, guys. it's time to wrap you of. thank you very much for coming and sharing your thoughts and hopefully that made a lot of news. it's a lot to digest. thank you very much for your time. and now i'd like to welcome -- so i think you guys -- >> exiting. >> and we're shuffling right away. >> stage right. >> stage right, i'm sorry. >> thanks. >> i'm a reporter for a reason. thanks, guys. now i'd like to welcome congressman kevin mccarthy from california and congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz, the chair of the democratic national committee. [applause] ok. so it's just me and you. >> yeah. >> congressman, how are you? >> very well. >> so we got a one-on-one. i've been asking for a one-on-one for a long time with congressman mccarthy. >> you want me to give you

debbie's answers? >> you can give me her answers as well. one question we're asking everybody is the biggest thing you learned about president obama last night was what? >> he watches "mad men." >> so you're saying out of that whole 60-something speech, there was nothing new that you learned about president obama? >> no. when i listened to the speech, i was trying to look through what he talked about is what he has talked about. there wasn't something new that came out. maybe a little more humor. he watches "mad men" and others. i thought his ending was a very moving, compelling story. but there wasn't something new that grasped. my r.a. really wasn't the concept. it's almost as i watched it a metaphor, you watch someone going on a long trip in a car that's running out of gas.

i wonder if you look at it, did the american people tune out? he seemed like he wanted the democrats to stay together. really rally around health care. but i wonder if that split a lot of the democrats that could cost them the senate and just put them in a stronger box. >> so as everybody probably knows but i'll remind, mr. mccarthy is the number three house republican, the house majority whip, in charge of wrangling house republicans to vote for bills and initiatives, party initiatives. >> how do you get people to get up this early? >> we have a dedicated audience. we're very fortunate. so out of that entire speech last night, touched on a lot of things, executive orders, immigration, minimum wage, the my r.a. concept. what are some things that house republicans will take from that speech and put into legislation?

>> well, one, trade. we'd love to work with him on trade. we'd love to work with him on energy. nothing in that speech said legislation. it's either do what i want or i'll go around. and i don't think that is helpful. i understand he has the phone and the pen. i always say, well, use the phone to call and work together. use the pen to sign the bills we work together on. to me that's a frustration. but remember, we make policy in the world of politics. when he talked about what i referred to about job training and others, that sounded a lot like the skills act that passed the house and lingers in the senate. so that's a capability. use the phone to tell harry reid, let's move that. find common ground there. there are opportunities, but it's got to be more than a speech. it's got to be worked. there seems to be a little history of that -- not that following through.

>> you touched on a number of things that he discussed. let's start with the job training piece. you talked about the skills act. tell our guests kind of what the contours of the skills act are? what could you work on with president obama there? >> well, in the house we passed something called the skills act. what you do, you have a lot of job training programs, a lot of duplication and others. how do you streamline that? how do you get individuals to get the training they need in a faster and working it through, eliminating duplication? these are things a lot within community and community colleges love and can be helpful for development. so we've passed more than 160 bills that linger in the senate. now, the challenge of what we do is -- and this is why i bring up making policy in the world of politics -- the house can pass a lot of legislation, but you have a senate that has the fear of maybe losing a majority.

so you have a senate leader that doesn't want to put a lot of his members that can be vulnerable in tough races up on any votes. so you deny amendments and you deny bringing something up. that's difficult for the president if he wants to accomplish legislation as well. it's not the biggest challenge to deal with us in the house. his biggest challenge is, will the senate and can he get members within his own party or the leader in the senate to say, yes, i'm going to bring that up and we're going to have a round of amendments and some are going to be tough votes because that's not the nature the senate wants to go. the senate doesn't want anything to happen. >> so you're saying a lot of house bills are stuck in the senate, some of these things are things that president obama talked about. one thing that he talked about last night, the centerpiece of his speech was immigration reform. so talk about what you guys are looking at with immigration reform and will it happen in 2014, will you actually pass bills in 2014?

>> well, we're going to our issues conference today, and that will be one of the topics. immigration currently is broken, and the challenges what we have -- and there's different ways to look at the immigration, but the system itself today is broken. an interesting fact that most people don't pay close attention to is 42% of everyone that is here illegally came here legally. they came on a visa and they overstayed. nobody has any checks in it, right? and today's society, we don't have that? we have a system that is a luck of a lottery and a chain migration. that's probably not the best mode for america. we have an idea where you come here, you become an engineer, one of the best and brightest coming out of our universities and then we tell you, oh, no, no, no. you can't stay here. you need to go to another country and compete against us. that's a backwards thought.

there's a lot of places there -- first and foremost, what members, i'll tell you, really on both sides of the aisle, if you're digging yourself in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging. if you don't secure the border or you just going to perpetuate the problem? a lot of things that we asked for in the 1986 immigration reform never came to fruition. so secure first before you do anything, and then i think you'll find the way the house will go about it, issue by issue. i mean, when you deal with an issue of immigration, a lot of people have different opinions. make each issue stand on its own and have that debate. that's the way the house looks at it, and i think it's more important to get it right than of the timing when you do it. and every time i read about a big bill and me say, it has to get done today, that's when it gets done wrong. and how many times do you have a chance to do it right? so make sure it's right before anything moves. >> so what i hear you saying, maybe 2015 is an option?

maybe doing this in 2015 is feasible at this point? >> well, the thing i will tell you is, i would not support unless it's right. so it's not -- >> that's a lot coming from the house leader. you're saying it probably won't come to the floor if you don't think that it's right? if your leadership doesn't think it's right? >> well, we're going to sit down in a conference today going through all the irch use, from health to -- issues, from health care to energy from economic, we're going to set out our issues and these are the things we'll work towards. we come to make a difference but we come to get it right. not to say we have to readdress it the next day. >> so one of the issues of immigration is the aspect of citizenship. what to do with the 11 or so million undocumented immigrants in the united states. you made some news last week when you were at home in bakersfield about your view on citizenship and what to do with the 11 million here. what is your view on it?

>> i don't know how it's news. it's the same thing i always said. >> it was interesting. >> it was news because we were on break. well, i think first and foremost you have to change the current system. you have to secure the borders. once you have done that and you've gone through anew, then you can talk about what the others are going through. a lot of people come to me, and what the big argument is, a path to citizenship right off the bat. i don't believe that from that standpoint. i believe the idea that you can get to an earned legal status. it doesn't mean if you came here illegally and you broke the law that you can stay here. a felony, you got to go. i think it's different for people that came here under the age of 18. we don't hold in society you liable for items before. i think that's different. but otherwise if you came over the age of 18 -- and when you look back in 1980 provision, i

mean, half of those that were illegal that they said could become citizens became citizens in the process. but we are a law -- we are a land of immigrants, a land of rule of law. and i think you have to sustain it. otherwise you'll break down society. and so i get protested because i won't support the senate version or say law does not matter and that somehow someone just becomes a citizen. that's not good for society. >> i think we'll have someone join you on stage. the chairman of the d.n.c., debbie wasserman schultz. i point out you were both at the grammys. i don't know if you hung out and danced like taylor swift and -- >> we were -- >> being here is enough. that's enough of an opening act. well, congresswoman, i am going to bring you into the conversation. mr. mccarthy had a lot of time to hog the stage alone. now, the question we're asking all of our participants is, the one thing you learned last night

about president obama was blank, was what? >> was that he's going to reach out to congress and continue to act -- ask the republicans to find common ground but that after five years of trying to do that we have a lot of progress that we need to continue to make and he's not going to wait on them. he's going to take the actions that he needs to take to ensure we can continue to move america forward and help more people reach the middle class. the ball is in their court. >> so if you listen to mr. mccarthy and as these fine folks just did, he said there's a bunch of bills the president wants to streamline the job training programs, that's sitting in the senate. the skills act that house republicans passed. house republicans said they've done all this stuff and the president and harry reid have ignored it. what's your response to it? >> my response is we have to make sure that when we are trying to find common ground that we not engage in the my way or the highway politics. so with all due respect,

suggesting that there is legislation that the house passed and sent to the senate and they should just take it up and pass it is not the way to approach achieving common ground. the president proposed last night that we should make sure that we're making a significant investment and focusing on building americans' skills so they can be retrained and focus on new careers, that's obviously something that the republicans have indicated they're interesting in. probably the approach and the skills act is probably not something we can fully embrace by the democrats, but if we can agree on the basic premise that job training and building american skills is something we want to work together on, that is the starting point. >> this is a good point, one thing debbie brought up, we don't say it is our way or no way. we say today we will take up the farm bill. we pass the bill in the house,

the senate passed the bill, then we went to conference. that is the way the country was created. i'm not saying take ours, i am saying take something. tell us where you stand. when it comes to the drought, the first thing the president said when we went to the back for the escort, you have a big problem in california, the drop, i'm calling the governor tomorrow. i said, thank you, mr. president. we want to work on this. the house took a position on the water crisis more than two years ago. the senate has never taken any position. stand,ll me where you the structure of our government will find a way that we have common ground. i could actually step back for this segment. >> since i was running late and kevin had a lot of time, let me jump in and suggest the president made it clear what he thinks we should be doing, made concrete proposals. lots of things the republicans

should be able to embrace and work with us on. we need to ensure that when you are working, you should not have to do a tremendous amount of handwringing about how you're going to be able to sustain yourself in retirement. ensuring we have not a medic enrollment process in an ira when you started job. that has been proposed in the president's budget every single year since he has been president. unfortunately, the republicans have not been willing to take that up. last night, he proposed in the absence of congressional action, program so we can have a treasury bond for low wage workers to invest into transition to an ira. that is not a concept? i hope that is a concept that republicans can embrace. we should at minimum ensure that people who have a job are not living in poverty. the overwhelming majority of americans support minimum wage.

we should make sure that we create manufacturing opportunities so we can make things in america again. establishedama has an proposed more last night, but acknowledge we could take that into a higher gear if republicans are willing to work with him on actually passing legislation to do that. but at the end of the day, we have to make sure that we are focused on working together. kevin, we have a good working relationship. i think there are things we can sit down and come together on. we have talked about that privately many times. a look at the republicans agenda this week. with all due respect, to suggest that your top rarities have been focusing on helping more americans join the middle class when yesterday the top priority for republicans on your agenda was to restrict women's access, women's rights to make her own health care decisions through pushing through legislation hr-7, i mean, that is the stuff

that is reaching the top of the republican agenda, not economic bread-and-butter issues. that is why the president show the contrast. and passede voted yesterday a bill that would restrict federal funding for abortions. is that right? >> which is already law. >> just taxpayer money. difference of opinion, using taxpayer money. >> this is far more than a difference of opinion. -- this islation legislation that would go much further. we have federal law that already were taxpayer funding of abortion. statute, codified in the affordable care act, further buttressed by the president's executive order to make sure it was clear that was not allowed. republicans, because their top priorities unfortunately recently have been there'll social issues and a rigid social agenda rather than making sure -- >> wait a minute, i understand

it is your job -- >> kevin, yesterday, that was on the floor. >> the number one thing is about the economy. >> exactly, which is why we should not have had a bill on the floor yesterday that oka says on the restricting of access. >> i'm going to try to play "let's find common ground" here. [laughter] >> great. good for to be something. i tried to divide them all the time. now i will try to bring them together. the my r.a. concept, which was new to us last night, this is one of the things the white house projected in the run-up to the state of the union, what is the initial republican take on that? is that something you should be open to or are open to? >> i don't know the specifics yet, but i'm a big believer in allowing people to invest their own money. einstein said the only miracle in this world is the time value of money, compounded interest.

i put away. what i started my first mutual fund putting $50 a way and it built. same thing with my kids college. i love the idea of giving somebody the opportunity tax free of putting something away, letting them be more self-assured in the future they don't have to rely on somebody else. to me, that is a structural idea we can talk about. tax reform, hold it in. >> you heard that first year, my r.a. concept is not yet dead. [laughter] not yet. it is only 8:45. we only have a couple minutes left. i want to ask you both -- we are now in january, and obviously the elections are rapidly approaching. both of you have key roles. you both raise a lot of money for your parties, you both have key positions within your parties. tell us exactly why you think each of you in 2015, that your party will be in control of the house and senate.

>> i want to hear her. >> you first. age before beauty. [laughter] >> ouch! that's probably true, said that's ok. >> we should create a talk show. >> >> first, within reality, i don't see democrats gaining the house. if you look at the retirement, if you look at the prospects of where the seats are, you look at the latest "the washington post" poll, just on economic voters. we're the strongest point we've been since 2002, at any time during the president's time served. i watched the other side stand up when it came to health care. i think obamacare comes in three waves and i think voters are going to send a real message. as of today, more people have lost their health care than actually gained. if you watch the approval-

disapproval. at the end of the day the house will end up with more republicans than they currently have today. in the senate, this is a true play for the majority. it's actually expanding where it could before. for that same reason that democrats stood up for health care, as the d.n.c. chair, she says they're going to run on that. those that determine the majority of whether they keep in the senate will not. even in the questions last night, account president come into their state and campaign for them? that's a difficult part when you're running against. both parties have been in these places before. i think the senate is up for a majority as well for republicans to take over. >> will the president campaign? should he campaign with people in arkansas, alaska -- >> yes, he should. [laughter] >> in answer to your first question, yes, i do think that in 2015, i'm not going to

confidently predict that democrats will take the house back -- >> oh, come on. >> what i will predict is we're going to pick up seats. >> where? [laughter] down, boy. and it's because if you look at the contrast of the president's speech last night, unfortunately for the republicans, and the country, they are strangled in a civil war where the tea party has been allowed to take control of the agenda, as evidenced by the legislation that was the top of their priority list this week. restricting women's access to health care. the pew poll, we can throw out a lot of different polls, the pew poll, almost extremely credible, shows more americans want democrats to be in charge of the legislative branch in government after the election. more americans trust democrats to move our country forward when it comes to the economy. and more americans are concerned about republicans' ethical considerations. for lack of a better term.

the stark contrast between the priorities of democrats, we are wanting to focus on more americans joining the middle class, and republicans continue to be engaged in a civil war and are focused -- i didn't interrupt you. and are focused on much more, though, on a rigid social agenda which, you know, doesn't even get to the top five or 10 for the majority of americans. >> we have to wrap. that was a very lively conversation. thank you very much. i would like to know welcome mike allen and roy blunt to the stage. [applause]

>> good morning. think you for being here at your ugly tweeting and doing all the things you are doing. welcome to the viewers on c- span. c-spaneciate very much bringing this conversation to the audience. we are honored to have with the senator roy blunt from missouri on the appropriations committee. most important thing you learned about president obama was what? >> the most important thing i learned that it did not know was i thought he was the speech -- he was the most comfortable

giving this speech. he showed he was relaxed with who he was. that does not necessarily mean he should be relaxed and where he is going as an individual but i thought that "mad men" moment was pretty good, talked about calling your mom to get her signed up for health care because she might like to hear from you. that was pretty good. if you was added in our part of the speech, either way it was well done and generally well delivered. >> senator, you are wearing cowboy boots. >> these are my snow boots. war in other shoes today, but we walk from the parking garage to the school here in washington and i thought i should get my boots on to do it. escortwere on the committee. it was that like? it like?as

>> he was pretty relaxed. i spoke to him just briefly and frankly i think he and mrs. obama have done a great job with the girls, a great job as parents. i think they've been a good of prioritizing what you do as a family. it's one of the things i think they have both done the very best. girls, ihe age of the think sasha is the youngest -- i'm not sore -- i'm not sure. one will still be in school. they may stay in washington another year or so because that this is would take and where she's comfortable. it's a good example to set as a father. best i can tell as a father and they have been, he's doing the kinds of things you would want a father to do. appreciated it.

the girls are growing up fast. that's another thing on his mind. said something about his children and grandchildren, you could see it would happen quicker than he thought it would. >> senator, you had an exchange with the president's chief of staff, denis mcdonough. >> he was sitting right in front of me. when the president mentioned one of the things that could happen, this idea of a unique manufacturing hub, the chief of staff said that was a bill of mine. there are lots of bipartisan legislation out there, mike, that could happen. the president, more than anybody , talks about what he would like to have happen that is possible and i think that is the

elements of the art of government that the president has had the hardest time putting together, not just what he is for but what he is for that could actually be done is more important. i think he's had a hard place to that out how to get place. nobody's in a better position than him. a number of things he mentioned could clearly happen. advancing an american energy. senator stop now -- stabenow and bill that would allow us to expand that very little federally located health-care centers.

the president could be signing that into law. maybe if he gets involved, all of these things are easier than if he does not. we could see a number of significant things happen if the president wants to be part of that. at thethose of you here capital hilton, there is a mobile polling question on the screen for you to use. those of you on live stream, hold that print edition with the headline, obama to congress, if you won't, i will. senator blunt, the president has been talking about his pen, what do you think of that? >> the president with three years left in his presidency, which is the length of the entire presidency. he has that much time left to

say that i'm sort of giving up on both the congress and maybe the constitution. if there is a reason that things are supposed to be done the way they are supposed to be done and normal order of things in legislating, in governing and in life and occasionally you can violate them and get away with it, but if you violate them over and over again, you will face a significant problem. >> what is he violating here? >> trying to shortcut this process and think that is the way to get things done. i don't think that's the right way. it takes more effort on his part to pass a law than to sign an executive order, but one, think a number of these executive orders are questionable and two,

they don't necessarily have to have a life beyond the president. when he was running for president he said i'm going to look the every one of george bush's executive orders and see how many of them i need to eliminate immediately. this is sort of like if you are running the race around a track and you decide, well, i deserve to win and i'm pretty important, i'll cut across the middle and get to the finish line, you are disqualified at that point from being named a winner. i would like to see the president make the effort it takes to get things done the constitutional way and there are plenty of things that we can do if we did them the right way. >> there are things in washington that are starting to work after saying -- talking for years now how broken washington is, looks like republicans are not going to shut down the government again or have a serious threat to.

there was a budget deal. senator blunt, you are on the appropriations committee, you were mentioning to me that it looks like the appropriations process actually might work for the first time in -- seven years, which is both a tragedy and travesty that we haven't done this the right way. appropriating sounds pretty boring until you set your priorities, how you set your priorities with your family and your personal spending and how you set government priorities and not one time in seven years has the process worked the way it's supposed to. the other day, we brought all the appropriations bills to the floor, a third of the year into the spending year and passed

them all at once. actually that was a step forward because many of these appropriations bills haven't been updated in years. a year ago when we started talking about cutting the line- by-line cutting which happened when we didn't follow the law and appropriated more money than the law said we could spend, the so-called sequester, didn't have to happen. the point i was going to make, when we brought the service chiefs in and i'm on the armed services committee and commerce committee and brought them into the committee and later to the defense appropriating committee and every one of them said the sequester is a problem but you are cutting a budget that we haven't wanted for years. you are cutting lines in a budget that met our needs six years ago that doesn't meet our needs now. this would be like a family and set aside money to remodel the bathroom and every year for the next years you couldn't touch

that column for the next years. and in the government, either you don't use that money at all and you remodel that bathroom. but getting the priorities in order, updating what we need to do, if we take these bills to the floor as the new appropriations chairman, senator mccull sky and senator shelby, the leading republican on that committee would do, take those bills to the floor like we did for 30 years in a row and let any member of the senate or house and bring a amendment as they would like to spend the money to the best of their ability, defend the bill they brought to the floor, but occasionally members come up with something better than you thought of to spend that $10 million and that's how you set priorities. so one thing about the system working again, we have set the

bar now so low that we surely can get over it. we can chin that bar because it's not a very high bar. if we go back to the normal way of doing things -- you know, to legislate, we don't have to a total rewrite of the tax code to do better than we have been doing. we can look at the pro-job- creating bills. surely some of those could pass the senate. we could look at these manufacturing things that a number of us are involved in a bipartisan way, and energy will drive manufacturing. more american energy doesn't just create the jobs that produce the energy. all kinds of jobs begin to be created if you are confident about the future of the utility bill, if you know the delivery system is going to be there because you figured out how to make that part of the process work in a better and more

dependable way, all kinds of things will happen if we get busy and do the things we need to to get the economy going. >> in the house, you were the number three leader, majority whip when i was covering the house. you never listened a vote on the floor. what do you think the chances on immigration are this year and you were telling me this year you feel strongly that doing immigration in pieces does make sense? >> i do, and when i was the majority whip in the house, that's when the republicans were in the majority of the house we didn't lose bills on the floor but we never passed bills. two bills in all the time i was in the majority whip six years passed without democrat votes. that means hundreds and hundreds of bills passed with some democrats voting for every single them.

two times in six years that we passed a bill that didn't have democrat votes. i think that could be right. i have to look and see, but there's more division, and part of that is that there's no sense that this bill is going to find its way to the president's desk. it's a different ask when you are asking members to vote for something that is going to become law, that is actually going to change the country and then say let's vote on this because we want to make a statement. but on immigration, i have said this for a long time, there are at least three distinct questions to be answered, how do we secure the border, both at the workplace and the actual border in a better way? and what do you do with people who came illegally or stayed illegaly. and 50-50 came without documents and some came here illegally and then they just stayed. what do you do with those people and my vote is or my view is, rather, that the same majority in the house and senate that are

the best majority to come up to question one, how do you secure the border, may not be the best 218 people in the house or 50 in the senate to come up with the answer, what are the workforce needs in the country and what do you do about people that came. you are going to get a better solution to all those problems if you'll deal with them one at a time than to try to deal with them collectively. a l and on many occasions, difficult problems had to be broken up and solved in pieces to get the best solution rather than just a solution and what we should want here would be the best answer to all of those questions, not just -- we don't want any answer unless we answer them all at once, is that the right goal or the right goal how do we get the best answer to this challenge. >> one of your roles for leadership is working with members on the importance of social media. what are you telling members what they need to be doing this year?

>> we have seen such a revolution in the way people communicate in the last decade and probably in the last three weeks. there is some communicating thing going on right now that i'm not even aware of and interestingly, the closer that members have to running for election and six years in the senate is a long time. the closer they have run, they appreciate all the different ways people want to communicate with you. and every one of the senators now is doing things -- republican senators with media they weren't doing a couple of years ago. >> is it hard to convince some of them? do you have to prod some of them?

>> once their staffs gets into this as well, it matters. i started three years ago telling a story -- i think it was in one of the books about lyndon johnson but a story about sam rayburn and when he was a young member of congress, he probably had a staff of maybe two or three but told his staff how do -- he said if people write us a handwritten letter, i want you to write them a handwritten letter back. if they type us a letter, i want you to type the letter back and i'll sign it. he said if they write it on a big chief tablet, i want you to write a letter on a big chief tablet. what he was saying, i want to communicate with people the way they communicate with us. it would work more efficiently if you respond the way people communicate with you. the number of letters we get in our office trying to communicate

in all different ways, we don't get many letters anymore. and many of the questions that people ask, they don't need to get a complicated answer. if they say is senator blunt for or against this bill. our correspondents who do most of that and i say what do you need to know that you don't know. and i say to them, if someone says says am i for or against a bill, say yes or no. probably half the time that's plenty of answer for them. and if it's not the right answer, they'll challenge you back and say why is he not for this bill and then you have that discussion. but yes or no is all they need, say yes or no and go onto the next question and let's communicate with people the way they want to communicate with us. >> how many books to you read in

a year? >> i read a lot of books in a year. probably read more books than probably health care legislation. i read a book a week, about 50 books a year. >> that is an agreed practice. and we are going to have america's best senate correspondent. i think those of you on c-span, all of you here. and senator blunt, thanks for this conversation. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] coming up, national security threats, debate on u.s. farm bill, and secretary of state john kerry from switzerland.

>> on the agenda for organized labor. then, national school choice we got in his groups work to promote charter schools, private school vouchers, and other alternatives. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this is where the clintons lived when they were professors in fayetteville. they would drive down this road to go to the airport and they saw this house and hillary clinton thought it was cute. he took her to the are war and picked her up about a month said, i bought your dream house. you have to marry me now. that was the fourth time he proposed. >> the winning announcement made notable mention of the fact that she was retaining her run name.

he was not bothered by it. when the told hillary's mother, she cried. >> fayetteville is where they really settled in. they had arrived, got married, had successful jobs as law professors. plateau where they had achieved a lot of the things they had set goals for in life. >> watch our program on first 80 hillary clinton -- first lady were see it saturday on c-span. life monday, the series continues with first lady laura bush. c-span launched its first c-span schoolbus in 1993 visiting hundreds of schools and communities nationwide and raising awareness on how c-span covers government with the public affairs program. today, 20 years later, it continues on the road, the campaign trail, book festivals, history events, education

conferences, and schools. look for us on the road and our website, c-span. board. .-www.c-span.org this winter, university students would've their chance to join us morning's live as we hit the road for a big 12 conference tour. >> director of national intelligence james clapper called on nsa leaker edward snowden to return any remaining intelligence documents. here is a one of several chiefs briefing congress on national security threats. senators heard about threats from al qaeda affiliated groups in syria. the senate select intelligence committee hearing is an hour and 45 minutes.

>> the meeting will come to order. i will say at the outset that we ho >> the meeting will come to order. assessment of threats facing our nation. i ask that everyone in this room remove any signs you may have and refrain from any disruption during the hearing so that the committee can conduct the hearings and people sitting behind you can see. i will ask the capitol police to remove anyone who disrupt this proceeding. today inittee meets open session to hear the annual report from the united states intelligence community on the

threats to the nation security and let me start by welcoming the witnesses. they are the director of national intelligence, james clapper, the director of the central intelligence agency, john brennan. the director of the federal bureau of investigation, jim tommy, the director of the defense intelligence agency, lieutenant general michael flynn, and the director of the national counterterrorism center, matt olson. every year at this hearing, members and intelligence officials alike talk about how the threats to the united states are more varied and complex than ever before. this year is no exception. all thehan listing sources of instability and proliferation of weapons capable of causing physical and computer damage, i would like to focus my opening remarks on the threats

posed by terrorism. thanks in large part to the efforts of the men and man of the intelligence community, there have been no terrorist attacks against -- in the u.s. homeland since our last thread hearing. numerous plots have been prevented. i am concerned that this success has led to a popular that the threat has diminished. it has not. the presence of terrorist groups including those formally affiliated with al qaeda and others has spread over the past year. while the threat emanating from pakistan's tribal areas has diminished due to persistent counterterrorism operations, the threat from other areas has increased. in fact, terrorism is at an all- time high worldwide. if you include attacks by crips

like the taliban against the u.s. military and our coalition forces, according to the nations consortium for the study of terrorism and response to terrorism, at the university of maryland which is the source for the state department's official tallies, there were more than a thousand 400 terrorist attacks. the instability that spread through north africa and the this leads to an increase in the terrorist presence and terrorist safe havens throughout the region. molly continuend to see regular violence. recent terrorist attacks and

of western iraq are of great concern. well has improved, they continue to find safe havens in these countries where they remained very ill and. al qaeda and the arabian remain intent on attacking the united states and al-shabaab which merged with al qaeda in february of 2012 continues to plot against western targets in east africa. think the most notable developments since last year's hearing is actually in syria. which has become a magnet for foreign fighters and for terrorist activities. the situation has become so dire centraln al qaeda's leader has renounced the activities of one group as being

too extreme to countenance. because large swathes of the country of iraq are beyond the regime's control or that of the moderate -- of syria are beyond the regime's control or that of the moderate opposition, this leads to the major concern of the establishment of a safe haven and the real prospect that syria could become a launching point or waystation for terrorists seeking to attack the united states or other nations. not only are fighters being drawn to syria, but so are technologies and techniques that pose particular problems to our defenses. also concerned about afghanistan and the drawdown of u.s. and isaf forces. the committee has heard the intelligence community's

of the likely outcomes for the future. especially of the bilateral security agreement is not signed in the u.s. is not able to commit significant personnel and resources beyond 2014. i am particularly concerned that the afghan government will not be able to prevent the return of al qaeda elements to some parts of the country and the taliban's control over afghan territory will grow. the vice chairman and i were in afghanistan in 2012 and he has just returned. i saw schoolgirls walking home with their white headdress and brilliant smiles on their faces on the streets of kabul. i also met women serving in the afghan .arliament i saw their courage and devotion and i am deeply concerned that 2014, ifars following

president karzai or someone else does not sign a bilateral security agreement among all the gains for democracy for women's rights will evaporate. i am going to skip some of this and put it in the record. as your testimony makes clear today, there are numerous confounding and complicated threats out there that need devoted attention. the intelligence community was -- has been through a very difficult time. i would like to thank the men and women of the united states intelligence community for their service to this country. it is very much appreciated by this committee. i also would like to note to colleagues that director clapper came before us in closed session two weeks ago and went through a series of classified matters and we discussed what the ic is

doing about them. he and other witnesses are available to answer classified questions in closed sessions but the point of today's hearing is to focus on the unclassified details of the threat we face and to provide the american people with a better sense of how our intelligence community views them. >> thank you.

we cannot let afghanistan suffer the same fate as erect. we must not withdraw from the fight before we finish what we went there to do. recent press articles suggest that we may week behind a force of eight to 12,000 american wouldry personnel which likely require continued support from the intelligence community. we have come a long way denying a safe haven to al qaeda. and building up the security forces of our afghan partners. we must not commit the same mistake of losing what the president termed a must win war. assuming we have a signed bilateral agreement, we must assume military assistance to it does not go the

way of erect. the growth of affiliates remains a big concern. the reason we went into afghanistan in the first place was to remove the safe haven talibanand the provided to al qaeda. the instability seems to be fueling a new reading ground for terrorism. especially in places like syria. as we fight these changing threats we must not lose sight of the national security challenges caused by our nation and regionalries instability. as we look to the intelligence committee to give us a clear reading on what is happening now, we also expect that you will look over the horizon to tell us about the impending threats. in this context, recent discussions to limit your abilities to gather information are troubling. i would like an honest thessment from each of you

potential impact of these decisions. we have to make sure that the community can effectively provide warning and protection for all of this country's national security interest now and in the future. it is a joint responsibility of congress and the administration to ensure that we prioritize our efforts appropriately. state and nonstate cyber actors of and ever evolving list proliferators and criminals will continue to try to do us harm. at any given time the intelligence community has to know which of these threats presents the greatest potential harm. i look forward to hearing the details of what those threats are and what is being done to address them and how we as your partners in this effort can assist. thank you. >> i thank you. i would like to announce that

last night we announced the early bird rules would prevail today. andnt to welcome the panel director, it is my understanding you have a joint statement for the gentleman and yourself. these proceed. my colleagues and i are here to present the worldwide threat assessment as we do every year. topics iner five eight minutes on behalf of all of us. this is my fourth appearance before the committee to discuss the threats we face. i have made this next assertion previously but it is more evident and relevant than today i have not experienced a time when we have been he said by more crises and threats around the globe. my list is long. it includes the scourge and diversification of terrorism loosely connected and now the will bleed dispersed.

syria, thisn war in attraction as a growing center threatemism and this that this poses to the homeland. this bill over in lebanon and direct, the destabilizing flood and the implications of the drawdown in afghanistan. the deteriorating security posture in iraq, the growth of foreign cyber capabilities and the proliferation of mass -- weapons of mass destruction. dangerous and unpredictable north korea, lingering ethnic divisions in the balkans, perpetual conflict and extremism in africa. violent political struggles in thailand, and bangladesh. the specter of mass atrocities and increasing stress of

burgeoning populations, the urgent demands for energy, water, and food. the increasing this -- sophistication of transnational crime, the tragedy of human trafficking, the and sent -- the rot of invented synthetic drugs the growth of drug-resistant bacteria. i could go on with this litany ,ut we live in a complex dangerous world and the statements that we submitted especially the classified urgent provide a comprehensive review of these and other daunting challenges. my second topic is what has concerned -- consumed time and energy. i am speaking about the most massive and damaging theft of our intelligence by edward snowden and the avalanche of revelations published and broadcast around the world. i will not dwell on the debate

about his motives or legal standing. or on the supreme irony associated with his choice of freedom loving nations and beacons of free expression from what an rail about orwellian state he thinks this has become. i want to speak about the cofounder damage his disclosures have caused and continue to cause. the nation is less safe. what he has stolen and exposed has gone way beyond his professed concerns with so- called domestic surveillance programs. as a result we have lost critical foreign intelligence collection sources including some shared by us -- with us by valued partners. terrorists are going to school on u.s. intelligence sources and tradecraft and the insights they are getting or making our job much harder. this includes putting the lives of members or assets of the intelligence community at risk as well as our armed forces,

diplomats, and citizens. we are beginning to see changes in the communications behaviors of adversaries. particularly terrorists. and then -- a disturbing trend which i anticipate will continue. hislaims he has won and mission is accomplished. i call on him to [indiscernible] to prevent even more damage to u.s. security. i want to comment on the ensuing fallout. it pains me greatly that the national security agency and its workforce have been pilloried in public commentary. i started and the profession 50 years ago and members of my family and i have worked at nsa so this is deeply personal to me. noted in hisent the menn the 17th am a and women have worked to protect

this country in a lawful manner. not to target the e-mails and phone calls of u.s. citizens. the agency does collect foreign intelligence. the whole reason nsa has existed since 1950 two. performing critical missions that i am sure the american people want it to carry out. the effects of the disclosures has heard the entire intelligence committee -- community. critical capabilities in which the u.s. has invested are at be curtailedy to or eliminated because of compromised or conscious decision. the impact of the losses caused the disclosures will be amplified by the substantial budget reductions we are incurring. the stark consequences of this perfect storm are plainly evident. the intelligence community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation and its allies that we have had.

i am compelled to note the negative impact on the ic workforce. appreciate the men and women of the intelligence community and we will convey that to all of them. this leads me to my fourth point. we are faced with collectively and i mean this committee, the congress at large, the executive ranch and all of us in that community, the imperative to if dealing risk. with reduced capacities is what we need to ensure the faith and competence of the american people and their representatives then we will work as hard as we expectationshe before us. that brings me to my fifth and final point. the major take away for us from

the past several months as we must lean in the direction of transparency wherever and whenever we can. the greater transparency about these programs, the american people may be more likely to accept them. the president set the tone and direction for us in his speech as well as in his landmark directive. a major hallmark of which is transparency. conjunctionng in with the attorney general to conduct further declassification additionalvelop protections and modify how we conduct election of telephone metadata under section 215 of the patriot act and ensure oversight of sensitive collection activities. we will need your support in making these changes. of this, we must and will sustain our professional tradecraft and integrity. we must continue to protect our crown jewel sources and methods so we can account push what we have always been chartered to do

, protect the lives of american citizens here and abroad from them. it's a described at the beginning of the statement. will conclude and we're are ready to address your questions. rex thank you. thank you for being so upfront. syria has become a significant location for independent or a qaeda aligned groups to recruit, train, and equipped the growing number of extremists, some of whom might conduct external attacks. , how you respond to this concerned should we be about europeans or even americans training in syria and traveling

back to the west to carry out attacks? rex we should be very concerned about this. serious has become a huge magnet for extremists. engaged ins who are syria itself, 1600 different groups. we estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of between 75000 and 110,000 of which funny thing -- 26,000 week grade as extremists. of 7000ate an excess foreign fighters have been attracted from 50 countries. many of them in europe and the mideast. this is of great concern not only to us but to those countries. withur recent engagements foreign interlocutors especially in europe. of tremendous concern for these extremists who are attracted to

syria, engage in combat and get training and we're seeing the appearance of training complexes in syria to train people to go back to their countries and conduct more terrorist act. this is a huge concern to all of us. >> thank you very much. mr. olson. i would like to know what your assessment is of the threat to the olympic games and whether you believe our athletes will be safe. i would like director call me -- comey to respond to the level of cooperation between the russians and the fbi with respect to security at the olympic games. >> thank you very much. let me say i appreciate your leadership and your focus on

terrorism and the leadership of the entire committee. , i agree with director clapper's assessment of the situation in syria. as you made out in your statement, the accommodation of a permissive environment and extremist groups in the number of foreign fighters combined to make syria a place that we are concerned about. potential for terrorist attacks emanating from syria to the west. with respect to your question, we are focused on the so chelan picks and we have seen in up take in the threat reporting regarding sochi. this is what we expected given where the olympics are located. there are a number of extremists in that area. a group which is the most prominent terrorist group in russia. the leader of that group last july announced in a public message that the group would intend to carry out attacks in sochi in connection with the

olympics. we have seen a number of attacks stemming from last fall, suicide bombings that took a number of lives. we are focused on the problem of terrorism in the run-up to the olympics. i would add that i traveled to sochi last december and met with russian security officials. they understand the threat. they are focused on this and devoting substantial resources. the biggest issue from my perspective is not the games themselves, the venues themselves. there is extensive security at those locations, the sites of the events. the greater threat is to softer targets in the greater sochi area and the outskirts beyond sochi where there is a substantial potential for a terrorist attack. >> would you tell us what you can about cooperation between russia and your organization? click certainly.

the cooperation between the fsb been steadily improving. we have ad exchanges at all levels especially in connection me directlyncluding to my counterpart and we have a good level of cooperation there. it can always improve. we are looking for ways to improve it as are they. remains a big focus of the fbi. >> thank you. mr. vice chairman. >> thank you, madam chair. core al qaeda has been on a downward trajectory since 2008 and their ability to conduct con plex dance complex and sophisticated attacks has been degraded. at the same time you assess that aqap poses a significant threat and remains on -- intent on targeting the u.s. and interests overseas. i would like to have your first start off but i will -- i want

kind of a general discussion about al qaeda. not just core al qaeda but there threat to the u.s. domestically and overseas. each of you have kind of a different interest. with respect to homegrown terrorists in the future there. these are the questions i would like for you to address. how would you characterize the probability of an al qaeda sponsored or inspired attack against the u.s. homeland today as compared to 2001? if al qaeda is evolving from a centralized core group to goebel movement of multiple organizations, capable of attacking the u.s., would you say the threat has decreased or increased? has the threat diminished or

increased and what is the impact on limitations that are proposed to be put on sections 215 and 702 likely to have on the future of the intelligence community with regard to collection? director? >> thank you. while the ideological center of the al qaeda movement i think still remains in the font to -- operationalocus for planning has disbursed. there are some five different franchises at least in 12 that this movement has morphed into and we see sort of chapters of it. somalia, and north africa

and syria, etc. many of these movements, while essentially locally focused him a probably the most prominent one that has an external focus on the root -- homeland remains which poses the most immediate threat to a potential attack on the homeland. the probability of attack now 2001 at least for me is a very hard question to dispersionuse this and diffusion of the threat whereas we are very focused time period onat

al qaeda. we are facing a much more dispersed threat. but we spoke about before, what is going on there may be a new fatah force. what is going on and the attraction of these foreign fighters is very worrisome. cannot pass he ly,iration -- aspirational [inaudible] i can't say the threat is any less. the ability to discern it is much improved over what it was of 2000.rly part creates adispersion

harder threat to watch and detect because of its dispersion. that ourar as well collection capabilities are not as robust as they were. the terrorists and this is not specifically because of edward snowden's revelations how wetten smarter about go about our business and how we use tradecraft to detect them and to sort them. what impacts the changes that will accrue, particularly can with respect to 215 and tools we have, we can minimize the threat as we make these modifications and alterations.

in general, this is bighand, little map. we are going to have less capacity than we had in the past and that is occasioned by the changes we are going to make the significant budget cuts we are taking and those two things together as i alluded to in my oral statement, kind of the perfect storm we will contend with. the bottom line is we will have and be eyes wide open about identifying risk and managing it. let me turn to my colleagues. >> we need to rely on building capacity. the terrorists are becoming more sophisticated and they're going to school on that repeated disclosures and leaks. it has allowed them to burrow in

and made it difficult to find to address the threats they pose. when i look at the threat relative to 9/11 we have done a great job of addressing vulnerabilities that exist in the system and share architecture that allows us to move information quickly but you never know what you do not know. with the increasing diversity of the threat and gross of terrorist elements in places like syria and yemen, we have a number of fronts that we need to confront simultaneously. much. >> thankry you. thank you for joining us today. i want to thank you for purchasing fading in this open hearing on worldwide threats. i know it is not always easy to talk about some of these things in an unclassified setting but i appreciate your willingness to try.

i want to publicly thank the men and women of the intelligence community who am a day in and day out, dedicate themselves to keeping us all safe. that a thankless job simple expression of gratitude cannot capture but we fully appreciate their efforts. before get you my questions, i want to publicly note my continued disappointment with how the cia under your leadership has chosen to engage in -- and interact with this committee especially as it relates to the committee's study of the cia's detention and interrogation program. recent efforts undertaken by the cia including, but not limited to, inaccurate public statements about the study are meant to intimidate, deflect, and thwart legitimate oversight. it only makes me more firm and my conviction that the committee should release and declassified the full 6300 page study with minimal reductions so that the public can judge the facts for themselves.