hypotheticals. if he wins, are you saying republicans will not go to him and say, try to convince him? >> i am on the political side of the equation. i will leave that to the policy side. the leader ship will try to have as many voices at the table supporting republican policies. if that is part of the equation, it is part of the equation. those are decisions made in the great big white building in the middle the city come and not where i live. >> either of you may buzz in. excuse me, go ahead. >> i think the leader will try to get him to join the republicans. the fact of the matter is, we do not have a candidate.

we see the same polls as everyone else, which is it is a jump ball. i like will go until election day. >> either of you may buzz in. which of you has the technology edge in this election? >> voter vault has been a tremendous asset. it was created in 2002. it provides great historical data. it got a little threadbare. the movement itself inside and outside the party structure has invested over $50 million and data. we don't have the real-time application we had in 2012. i think we have made massive strides and it has worked well. in mayoral races, florida 13, where we went head to head with

the democrat technology and turnout machine. performed well. the proof of the pudding will be how we do tuesday and the runoffs but based on the cultural changes, in which we have the data, i think that has been an unbelievable change. i was joked it is hard to turn an elephant. you have to smack him hard. we got smacked hard and we turned him. do we catch up? i don't know. can you catch up to something built over the course of the obama presidency? we are going to have to find out. a massive investment and cultural change. early returns show we are doing ok. >> what is ok -- possible any

the technology area that was not possible in 2012? >> one of the things we decided early was we were going to try to apply lessons learned both in senate races in the presidential race. that is why, in addition to bringing field and technology folks, we also brought on board the president's analysts team. the deputy campaign manager for the president. to serve as advisors for our field director. the real-time application, i think, talking a couple of days ago. our ability to go in and look at, from my office, the organizer in the arctic circle office. to see whether the doors have been knocked on, the goals have been met. the flake rate. >> what is the flake rate?

>> the number of volunteers who sign up but do not show up. that allows us to adjust the total number we need. i think maybe four or five days ago, the rnc put out a huge press release the first time in history that republicans have passed democrats for early voting in iowa. everyone of those days since then, we have outpaced them in both requests and returns. we have a pouty -- have about 835,000 vote lead. we are looking at unaffiliated voters. which are most likely to vote for different candidates. the real-time application of the data, the booty of us and campaigns to share facts, is something that has moved leaps and bounds. >> what have you learned about

technology that will help your candidate in 2016? >> the further application. >> what is the next frontier? what are you hoping to do? >> the better the date it is, the more robust the data is, the better the application is going to be. the ability to not only target your mail to a household but target your individual television ad to a particular household is a huge next step. >> what have you learned about your electorate? your voters? that will help your presidential candidate or shape how the twitter 16 provincial primary is run -- that will shape how the 2016 primaries run? >> all the talk about the republicans being a regional party and having demographics

against us is a talking point. >> you think the graphics are working for you -- demographics are working for you? >> i think what we have learned is the engaged audience, if you talk broadly but also specifically, almost to the household level -- there are predictive analytics that say they can predict how the kids will move based on the parents. you can do well and do better. we spoke about the gender gap. also, if you look at millennials. right now, we are plus for. >> what did you make of that? >> the same of what i make of most public polls. >> now you are going negative on harvard? >> this is not a nationalized election.

this is not about the president. >> asking millennials how they feel. >> the reality is we are operating in an election. whenever you have midterm elections where the environment is difficult, the map is difficult, the coverage is difficult, or a president who like every president that is at 40%, you are going to see these types of changes. not just among millennials but all voters. the reality is that republicans find a new ways to alienate the emerging coalitions. you can't expect to welcome latinos when they are running ads attacking democrats for supporting a bill that was originally authored by marco rubio. that is not the way you expand

your election. they are basically picking up the shovel and digging their graves for the 2016 and 2018 elections by alienating young people, unmarried women, african-americans, latinos. that is a failing philosophy of politics but of government. >> i think you heard you say, when you get away from generalities and look at specific audiences, you are more optimistic. what is the most encouraging demographic trend for republicans? >> long-term demographics are something for other people to worry about. our job is 22 months. >> you saw clues. >> it is hard for me to make broad generalizations looking out 10 years. i would be honest and say,

outreach to younger voters and single women has shown in impact. we can move them if will reach out. we have seen that movement. it implies a status model. the democratic and republican parties will be on these paths in america is going to change. change is going on within the party. if you look at our leaders, and who is going to run for president, who was going to do things in the future, we have diversity on our side. if hillary clinton does not run, they have none. >> what is the diversity on your site? >> look at our candidates.

>> brian sandoval. >> a lot of people running for president. >> is a better group than yours. >> what has been your most effective surrogate? >> over the course of the last couple of weeks, president clinton and secretary clinton have been remarkably effective. in particular, there is a better committee cater to women who are going to decide the election and secretary clinton. the other great surrogate for us in terms of motivating our base and getting volunteers excited has been senator warren, who has trouble to run the country. we have been the beneficiary of a handful of surrogates. >> who's your most eager surrogate?

>> my answer would have been barack obama read anytime we got low, he was always able to say, my policies are any ballot. that was helpful. we don't have the president or first lady. a former resident or first lady on the stump. we have had john mccain. mitt romney. rand paul, jeb bush, marco rubio. they have been engaging. they are not only going out but freeing them in. saying, come to my state. i want to help you out. i'm sure i forgot somebody. what has been gratifying is how many people have said the senate thing, even though i may not be in the senate or have visions outside this one race, everyone

gets how important this is. they are working hard. we are going to see that continue through the election. >> a question from the playbook reader. with the map and environment you have, -- >> the nrc has been a small committee. they are in the majority. obviously to the victor goes the spoils. i would say this. they raised $30 million more than we have. however, if you look at spending and our cost of fundraising, we have been able not only to the competitive over the summer when they had a spending advantage between their party and outside groups, but also to things have been important factors. last month, we have been

competitive. we had a great september. we were able to keep cost down. two, we have had a partner. $100 million that they have invested in races. governor, house, senate, dogcatcher. the focus on the senate, we have focused energy to build a world-class ground game. well we got outspent on tv and it has been a challenge, we have been competitive. february, 2013, nothing would have changed to change that fact. the important fact is we have had enough resources that people get there is a choice. based on the incumbents. is not just one party. >> how helpful has mayor bloomberg been? >> i don't think he has done any

fundraisers for us. he has been engaged in some races. it is less about the raising that is important, even though we have raised more. it is more about the spending. >> who has been the most helpful outside force? >> the senate majority pack has been more engaged and involved. i would expect by the end of this, there will be over $80 million. they were able to come back what was a significantly more aggressive, earlier operation on television than our site had. it gave room to delay going on television and some key states. the other key is most of the television coverage is about how much money is spent. he one thing republicans have not learned from the 2012 race is how --

in many cases, we are being outspent. we have significantly more points on television because we reserve time earlier, more efficiently, and that has made a huge difference in not just the amount of money spent on television but how many points it is actually buy, how many ads it is actually buying. >> you worry about a tom sire who can come in and play big. >> it's no secret that most democrats believe that we have a campaign sinensis -- campaign finance system that rewards outside donors. what i am concerned about is that it does not tom sire or michael bloomberg or michael koch. but candidates have less and less of a say in what is happening in their races. across the board, it is not uncommon for a senate candidate to have 20% of those voice on

television. everything else -- by the way, not just what is on the other side but also on their side. 70% of the advertising is something that is completely out of your control on both sides. i am not sure that is the way that we want to run campaigns. ultimately, long-term, it is not the way you want to govern. >> i agree. [laughter] and the gators. >> you have agreed to have lunch together. >> after, yes. >> every cycle, two ed's get together and have lunch. we are going to do that on roll call. [laughter] >> how did your researchers miss the john walsh ledger is an

instance. in october, he said john walsh was the right candidate with the right team in the right time in place to win for 2014. >> probably in the same way that republicans missed monica levies pledgers and charges. i think -- plagiarism charges. on both sides, both sides have struggles with dealing with it. in john's case it is regretful only in that john is remarkably kind person who has spent his entire career in service to this country and put his life on the line repeatedly and led one of the largest national guard battalions in iraq. my only regret is that it happened to him. but this is something that happens, as we get more into

research and income pain that runs on two years, it happens on both sides. >> we made a strategic investment early on. we were going to internally and with outside groups research demography. they find these little things that blow up our campaign. we put $3 million into research in the off year. we are going to bite the bullet and we will continue to do that. the researcher who discovered elizabeth warren's native american claims is a fabulous researcher. he was going through the paperwork. what caught his attention was there was a very pro-bush neocon thesis. he was investigating it and he put it through a translator that checks for plagiarism. the entire tablet turned bright

red. subsequently, the name on the wall at the university has been pulled off. it was pretty dead to rights plagiarism. >> how did your side come across michelle's campaign plan? >> it is the secret sauce as to who found it. but the research team through america rising and our team -- you know, i don't know much about the research techniques and i asked the same questions. what kind of insane under web, dark web, or silk road? we basically googled michelle nunn and there was a link right to it. so they downloaded it and no one wants to go there because they were afraid to see a bunch of outside things. but it was an unsecured google documents.

so he pulled it down. we thought it might be a ruse or a trick so we watched it all the way through. our goal was to actually campaign to make sure that she did not go up on tv -- she is sitting on a huge pile of money. purdue was coming out of a rough runoff. we ran a memo to try to distract him for a couple of days. we distracted him for three or four weeks. we were able to get him some money and prepare him for the next election. >> is there something unique to the cycle or has something changed in our politics that the research it's grab so much of the conversation? >> -- research hits grab so much of the conversation? >> i think it has gotten more prevalent in part because there are more avenues to deliver the hits. 10 years ago, we talked about an

apo hit, you would go to a local reporter and talk to them. the reality is that so many local newsrooms are the pleaded -- are depleted. there are still very active news bureaus in des moines to cover politics and in some cases in big cities. i think it is the function of the coverage of the d.c. cases that has driven a lot the expansion on the research side of things. we already have research operations like american rising and american bridge whose express purpose is research for an election that will not be happening for another 2.5 years. i think this is what we are -- and i use this word intentionally -- stuck with unless something fundamentally changes about the way we run the race. >> what is the biggest story about the cycle that was either overlooked or underplayed by the

press? something you felt would be a big deal or that you thought should be a big deal that went under the radar? >> kay hagan is worth $50 million. she got her husband and her son stimulus funds for a job that they had never done before. i could not believe that the north carolina press took a pass on it. >> you have a better answer. [laughter] >> it was unbelievable. i don't even remember the question. i am processing all the -- >> the question is -- i am talking about a bigger picture, something about the landscape. what is it about this cycle that you thought would be a bigger deal and it has been under looked. >> when you are in the middle of challenges, when you are in the middle of the website rollout, which obviously was not helpful, it feels like the worst thing that could possibly happen.

then you get two months away from it and the reality was all of our incumbents recovered their favorable rating and we were starting the race. i think it is just a reminder for us that, in the moment, things that feel very big will have an enormous influence on the election because it receives 145 blog posts and was on the nightly news for two nights. i think that perspective is something that all of our campaigns tried to work their way through. i don't know that there is one story that is fundamentally -- >> you were in the permit sector and you came back into the political game. how has the game changed? >> the focus on technology, the real investments, not just the thought of, well, i've got a college kid who wants to do some kind of website so give him a few pizzas and he will do it to the actual professionalization

of investment in technology, investment in digital and data, but also investment in grounding. i was on 13 campaigns and it was always a point of pride that they paid their volunteers and we had better volunteers. they showed up for love and not for money. but in 2012, we learned that there is a hole in our logic which is to professionalize the whole operation. and now you have seen a much more professionalized ground game and the proof is in the pudding. we are hanging tight against the democrats. >> i think we have learned a new phrase here -- paid volunteers. >> yeah. >> we don't have paid volunteers, but i think the reverse is actually true of us. we do have about 4000 staff around the country. we have invested about $60 million in the ground operation

that is about four times as big as 2010. actually, our staff, we prohibit them from doing the voter contact. we want them out there extending the volunteer base, managing the volunteer infrastructure, keeping it local, making sure they are talking to their folks in their precinct, on their block. the difference between a paid ground game and a volunteer ground game, americans for prosperity put out a press release a week or two ago that they had not on 140,000 doors since june in colorado. we are on 225,000 doors this week and 4000 calls a night. that is not from paid volunteers. that is from doing everything you can to get people motivated and excited about the race and it is why in colorado it makes what we did frankly in 2010 look pretty junior varsity just in

terms of size, scope, technology and we hope that it pays off. >> we appreciate the numbers guys put out. a lot of smiles in colorado. >> i will ask you all -- people in this room and people on live stream, we have a lot of young people who watch and they want to be used. [laughter] what is your advice to a young person watching? >> run. >> america needs more lawyers. go to law school. [laughter] >> here is specific advice for getting ahead in washington. >> the most common question i get is why i decided to come back after last cycle. >> you are a former southern baptist minister. >> i am. >> explain. >> explain? [laughter]

i do this job because i care about it. i took the job because i believe in what our party stands for and i took the job because i wanted to have an impact on the election. if the source of your motivation is that and not am i going to get promoted? when will i become the field director? at what point will i get to manage a campaign? you will do remarkably well. the two pieces of advice i give to anyone who asks is work hard and be nice. the combination of those two things, actually despite all of the back and forth between the two of us and what you see is the most important thing you can do in order to be successful. don't always live up to those two at the same time, but try my best to do it. >> i would echo what guy said. the people who make it long-term in this town are easy to deal

with and they have passion. if you are doing it and just because you want to get some title on a business card, you won't be happy. if you have passion for what you do and you are walking every day and say i am going to make a difference, d.c. is a great place. i remember i was 27 and i was on a $10 million governors race. where do you see in corporate america them interesting summit -- then interesting so much responsibility on someone so young. you've got to work hard. >> guy young is said of the board of el james charter school. be kind, work hard, get spark -- get smart. what are you going to do next?

>> last night, i was talking to my wife and we are going to disneyland. [laughter] >> january 6? >> you have two book in advance if you want to have breakfast with the princess. i have four kids. it is not just my wife and i going to disneyland. as exciting as that would be, we would probably go somewhere else. >> i've got to get through this election. i used to work at a really great place. corporate strategy. we will see how that goes. >> what is next for you? >> i got married last year so the honeymoon is going to get scheduled. we will not be going to disneyland. [laughter] >> group rate?

>> we are going to take a honeymoon. that is the plan. >> you are often mentioned as a potential campaign manager for hillary clinton. is that a cup that you would >> it is not any surprise that i hope secretary clinton runs. i think that she would make a remarkable president. but i am going to focus on winning one election at a time. if the opportunity presented itself, i will deal with it then. >> you are a fleetwood mac and i. you are a -- fleetwood mac guy. you are a grateful dead guy. why? >> it's a long story that could be summed up that my older brother handed me a tape. he was getting rid of a bunch of tapes and he gave me a cassette tape. cutting grass was my job when i

was 12 years old for the neighbors. i put it in my walkman. as they say in grateful dead world, the bus came by and i came on. >> you've got fleetwood mac. tell us why? >> that was the best wedding gift that we received that my husband could care less about. it was a first edition, never-opened fleetwood mac album. they are a little before my time. i just want to stipulate. i did not grow up with them, but i am a big stevie next fan. and fleetwood mac will be here halloween. so i will be there. >> as we say goodbye, we want to thank a member of the politico family who is going to a great job in new york who helped us putting on many events over the years. we want to thank sophie for hard

work and [applause] we appreciate all of you in live stream land for watching. thank you for coming out in the middle of the day. and thank you. [applause] this tuesday night, watch c-span's coverage to see who wins, who loses, and which can't -- which party will control the senate.

will also see candidate victory and concession speeches and some of the most closely watched races across the country area to route the night, and into the morning, we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments, and tweets.

>> doctors coming back with ebola, patients in texas hospitals, nurses and so forth. people are reacting to a very serious disease or you have to have teams of doctors and nurses waiting on you constantly. we have the isis fear to. they show beheadings over and over. we should of got hyped up about isis, but not ebola that is actually here. the people who are in the area of ebola should be banned from entering the nation. to doup to our leaders that. >> i would like cc been to a question -- i would like to see c-span2 a question.

we're just -- we've just seen what is happened in texas with the capitalistic health care system. now it is going to cost us millions to clean that messed up. get out thereuld for remarks on that, if this is proof that we need a national health care system.

[applause] >> notice she kissed my microphone. >> i did. >> anyway, last year i spoke at this ideas festival and i looked around the room and the audience was just as impressive as the green room before. anyway, it is a real honor, a real privilege to be here. listening to tom fanning, he was outlining what a tax deal might look like and i was talking to some people with a very large company the other day and asked them would you go along with raising the minimum wage in exchange for lowering the corporate tax rate? without taking a break, in a second. those are the kinds of deals were used to put together in this town. let me get back on subject.

i am glad everybody is seated because i don't want anybody to fall over and hurt themselves. we have this election coming up on tuesday. it is kind of a big one. this election, if you go back to early last year, early 2013, there were two very different possible scenarios that we could have had in this election. one scenario might have been that some of the problems and challenges that plague the republican party, that hurt them so badly in 2012, might just flow into 2014. so that was one scenario. and the other scenario was that this would become a classic midterm election, particularly second midterm election where he comes a referendum on down on the incumbent president and policies.

every once in a while, you will have one. mostly, midterm elections are up or down for the president and policies. the outcome is one of four categories. light losses, heavy losses, and extra crispy. those are the basic categories. just to kind of look at these two, in terms of republican problems potentially flowing on in, if you think of 2012, there was an enormous disappointment for republicans. they were only three seats out of the majority. they only needed three more seats to get a majority in the u.s. senate and it looked plausible they could get it to at the same time, president obama's numbers were not very

good head every president that had a worse job approval than his wpn. he was in a gray area. we were coming out of a recession but the economy was stuck in low gear and people didn't -- the economy may have been recovering but most voters didn't think that their economy was recovering. after all, median family income had not gone up since 2000 and that had been under democratic presidents, republican presidents, democratic, says and republican congresses. but it is stuck with whoever is there. republicans had every reason to think they had a good chance of winning. what happened in 2012? instead of gaining three seats and getting the majority, they had a net loss of three seats and they came out of that election six sea side of the majority instead of just three. and mitt romney lost by a hair up under four percentage points.

you can blame if you want mitt romney for the loss. mechanically, his campaign was inferior to the obama campaign. i think it also had some bad strategy. but there were broader, systemic problem's that were plaguing the republican party and damaging the brand that also led to romney losing by four points, republicans losing the national vote for that popular vote for the house of representatives, even though they held their majority, and came up short in the senate. challenges with minority voters, young voters, women voters, moderate voters, self-described moderate voters -- these were all real challenges. plus, this tendency we have seen in 2010 and 2012 for republicans primary voters to nominate candidates -- my wife lucy is trying to get me to stop using the term while co--- term wacko.

so i am going with exotic and potentially problematic. [laughter] it had cost them as many as five u.s. senate seats between 2010 and 2012 great all these were things that republicans had to have it on their minds coming into 2014 to worry them. then you go to the other side and you say, well, ok, where are we right now? the poll that i watch the most is the nbc wall street journal poll. for 30 years, they have paired up. fabulous poll. the poll from a couple of weeks ago, they asked people, do you think the country is headed in the right direction or do you think it is often the wrong track? what does it show? 25% think the country is headed in the right election, 65 percent off in the wrong track.

the president's approval rating is net -10. underwater, upside down. in handling foreign policy, even though americans rarely vote on foreign policy, clearly over the last your, people have been thinking more more, anxious about what is going on around the world for good reason and the president approval rating was -30. so just horrible numbers. two different courses of action. it has now become very clear which one it's going to be. while there were problems and challenges that hurt republicans so badly in 2012, they were real. they are real. and i think they may be big challenges for republicans in

2016. but in the context of this midterm election, they have shrunk in significance. the potential problems for the democratic party are just as big and broad as a year and a half ago. in the house, nothing is going to happen. 96% of all the democrats in the house are in districts that obama carried. the house is kind of sorted out and not much is going to happen. the senate is where the action is. if you think about it, it's like a perfect storm of factors coming together that go against senate democrats. the democrats have seven seats up in the states romney carried. seven democratic seats up in romney states. there's only one republican seat in the obama state and that is susan collins in maine and she

couldn't lose if she tried but more importantly, democratic seats, the same number republicans need to miss six of those are in the state's mitt romney carried by 14 points or more. montana, south dakota west virginia, alaska, arkansas, louisiana. so, given that romney lost the national election by four percentage points, you show me a state that mitt romney carried by 14 points and i will show you a state i wouldn't want to be a democrat running this year. so the bottom line on this is that republicans don't need a wave to run to get a majority. all they need is people that live in the republican leaning states to vote republican in a very republican year. that's all they need. now to the extent they have weird things going on for montana, south dakota, west

virginia. they are gone. it's like a strong swimmer with a real, real, real horrible undertow. the democrats are lucky if one of them survives and the odds are probably not. so that republicans obviously have some problems but i think it is going to come down to besides georgia and todd -- that -- pat roberts in kansas that will be those in the purple states kay hagan, jeanne shaheen in new hampshire, mark udall in colorado into the open seat in iowa. that is what has come down. we think there's about a 60% chance that republicans could get the majority, but keep in mind there are a lot of close races that will be about a point or 2 one way or the other and it don't be stunned if democrats hold onto their majority but the odds are pretty good that republicans will. now, for the first time in my

life i have done this in ten minutes and 30 seconds. so i'm only 30 seconds over. thank you all very much. >> next on c-span, more from the ideas forum.

remarks from john kerry and dr. anthony fauci. this comes in light of a 29-year-old's decision to end her life after a diagnosis of terminal brain cancer. plus your phone calls, facebook posts, and tweets. this is 25 minutes.

>> we have a lot of ground to cover in 20 minutes. >> on one of the most uncomfortable sofas i have ever sat on. [laughter] >> that is duly noted. duly noted. i don't know how you could talk about that from the senate chairs you had but i understand. let's start with, i feel like we need to start with page one of the "new york times" where mark lander went through and to put mark's article in context, very interesting profile of the national security decision-making process and the players in it. and if you contrast it with just a few years ago when you had hillary clinton, you had jim jones and tom donilon and various other players in the department of defense, there seemed to be, they were all on the same page. you never saw people speaking off script. and i'm really interested, you

were described in there as someone that wasn't as tightly tethered to the white house. and i'm interested in what your comments on the national security decision-making process are right now. >> i think it is extremely effective and you know this is a chatty cathy town. where -- >> but it seems to become more chatty cathy. >> i don't want to get, look, we have much more important things to talk about than that. this is, you know, there is always people who make a business out of really trying to, i think, gossip and tear things down who may be on the outside and do not necessarily have the ability to be in the loop of what is happening. but, i will tell you, i will be with the coordination and relationship between susan and me and dennis and the team is as tight as i have ever

experienced, you know. susan was over at my house the other night. we spent 3 1/2 hours of dinner going over the world, working on things. i have not, i don't think i have missed a national security meeting or principles meeting as we call them even when i'm on the road. if it is 1:00 in the morning i'm on ctc dialing into washington. so i don't think it is very accurate portrayal. and i do not think it is particularly important to spend a lot of time on it. i think we're more engaged in the world than we have ever been. we are more strategic -- >> more confusing world. >> much more complicated world. >> what does the dashboard look like? what does the dashboard of the secretary of state look like when you see from asia to africa -- >> looks more like an airplane panel, yeah, both sides. [laughter] look, i'm not complaining about it. i think what is happen something i think result of year of things we looked at and advocated and

for and confusing an difficult moment. but i don't think we should be intimidated by it. i think we need to embrace it and envelope it and capture it to the best of our ability and we're working to do that. there is enormous amount of -- you know the workings of the state department and i saw a couple of folks here who have been there, it is like an iceberg. you see the top top whatever percentage, 20% or something like that. there is a huge amount of daily enterprise and monthly, yearly, strategic engagement that you don't see. and that frankly doesn't get written about. an example of that, i mean afghanistan is not on the front pages but i will tell you that our efforts to work the election, to know the election was the critical transition moment began the day i came in and even before when i was a

senator. and, as i came in, we worked the relationships so that as things got difficult, i was able to go over and work with dr. abdullah and work with dr.gani and so we have a stable policy in afghanistan where there is now a unity government and something that nobody thought was possible. that was a strategic outcome. iraq, similarly, it is not an accident we have a new government in iraq. and the president was absolutely correct to hold off getting immediately committed to the isil effort until we knew we had a government in iraq that we could work with and we knew that wasn't maliki. but the united states couldn't just crash in, hey, you're out, here are the guys that are in, that is not our, playing into all the worst stereotypes that brought us to the difficulties we're living with today.

so we put in place a clear strategy, working with all of our friends in the region, particularly the sunni because the sunni countries have been so angry about the way maliki was building a shia army and linking to iran and creating a sectarian divide. and that's why it was dysfunctional. so we worked first to get the sunni speaker to decide not to run again, to get another person who could run, quietly behind the scenes. >> sound like a lot of micro work. >> it is a lot of micro work. and our ambassador steve and assistant secretary of state bret mcgirk who practically lived over there during this period did extraordinary job of diplomacy. and we worked it. we worked with barzani in erbil to commit because the kurds were angling towards independence and to stay with it. we had a kurd president and with

a sunni speaker and kurd president it was possible to -- and ayatollah sistani's comments were very critical to moving maliki were, came out of a coordinated effort. the bottom line is, iraqis made the final choice. we couldn't. so -- >> we can check that off as perhaps a success at the moment. i remember some years ago, i was in your committee room when you were chair of the foreign relations committee with richard lugar, i don't remember who was ranking and who was chair, but you were both cool on either side. and david petraeus was testifying. >> we actually talked to each other? >> you talked to each other. and on this day, david petraeus was testifying in his isaf role as head of afghanistan and you and richard lugar quizzed him about whether what we were doing within afghanistan fit within a strategic framework for the united states where our strategic interests were furthered and both you and senator lugar made the point

that there is difference being in silo of afghanistan and what the other broader strategic issues are. i'm interested in whether we're running risk thinking about national today of chasing rabbits and forgetting strategic -- how does iraq and iraq solvency fit a strategic plan? how does afghanistan fit the strategic plan? isis, where does it fit within the kind of broad strategic plan? >> very straightforward. >> yeah. >> let me say to everybody, we're living, the cold war was easy compared to where we are today. and the immediate -- >> is putin trying to make it easy for you again, bring it back? >> i hope not. [laughter] that is a different, no, because he is doing it very differently and in way that is very challenging to the ability to be able to avoid conflicts and begin to harness the energy of the world and move in a similar

direction. the world we're living in today is much more, look, a lot of countries have economic power today that they didn't have in the, you know, in the last century. we wanted that. we have about 15 nations today that 10 years ago were aid recipients from the united states. south korea is an example. today, south korea is a donor country, doing what we have urged countries to do, which is accept global responsibility. so now you have more countries with more economic power in a globalized world and therefore -- they are feeling their oats. they're going to automatically react and say, well, wait a minute now. do we really want the behemoth united states, superpower of the world telling us all the time what we have to do? and so you have to approach these things a little differently. it requires more diplomacy. it requires more dialogue. it requires more respect for people, more mutual interests. much more of the world than

henry kissinger describes in his wonderful book "diplomacy" where he talks about the state interests and balance of power. and were much more, and many ways, back towards the latter part of the 19th century, 18th century, dealing with countries. countries are flexing their muscles and standing up for their own interest and they have greater economic independence and ability to do it. and then you see the "brics," brazil, china, india you, standing up and saying russia, we want something, a different access in a sense. so we have to work harder at it. and my warning to the congress and to the country is really, this doesn't come for free. >> are we getting a good deal? >> american power needs to be projected thought fully and appropriately but if we're not, you know, i will give you an example, prime minister modi from india came here the other day. he came here after going to china and going to japan.

both of whom gave him double-digit numbers of billions of dollars for infrastructure development. china, i think, did 30 billion. japan did somewhere similar a little more. we couldn't even do a one billion dollar loan guaranty. the united states of america. now everybody here ought to be shocked by that. we are behaving like we're the richest country on the face of the planet. we're still critical to everything that happens in the world. and we are not sufficiently committing the resources necessary to do what we need to do in the world. >> you're saying american power in the world is living on fumes? >> no, it's not. we're doing better than that. and if you look what we've done. we're leading in everything in the world. this narrative about the united states disengaging and the president not being committed is just, one of the reasons why i'm here today because --. >> there is a difference between the argument about disengagement and then going to brazil,

russia, and india, and talking to leaders in something doubt in america. there is a doubt, it is palpable. how do you fix that? people think it is wiser to bomb for a day and a half and do some damage that is to get all the chemical weapons out of the country. ... we got 100% of the chemical weapons out of the country. israel is safer today. i want to make a point that i think is key to all of this. which massesrld in

of numbers of young people, 65% of countries throughout africa and the middle east and central asia have populations under the age of 35. and have the age of 21 you know. are left to know , radical extremism of one time -- kind of another are get young kids to strap themselves into suicide vest and think things are better on the other side. that is happening. ... the fear that i hear is the void is not being feel -- filled by the west. we extol the virtues of our way of life, but are we backing it

up? are we doing what is necessary. all of these people have mobile devices. they know what is going on in the world. and i thought always the dream, america touch people the most, was the ability to be up to reach the brass ring. we have to help them do that more. and that is a long-term strategy. foreign minister of a country in africa, a big country, has 30% muslim population, and we went out to dinner he said, you know, we're frightened. i asked him how he was to limit this muslim population. -- dealing with the muslim population. he said the extremist have a strategy. they go to the poor areas of

town, take the young kids out and indoctrinate them, then they don't have to pay the money anymore. those young kids become the ,ecruiters or the emissaries unfortunately, the implementers. that was mosto me important is, he said they are disciplined and they don't have a five-year plan, they up a 30-year plan. we don't even have a five-year plan. so we have to get our act together and that is what the president is trying to say. that is what he said at west point when he talked about the focus on tourism, what he is saying in our tpp. the ttip. economy inglobal asia and europe and the united states, we're focused should you gently on how do you play the long game. the long game is raising the standards of trade.

>> are we playing along game? >> you asked earlier -- >> what is the importance. there's an interesting comment about the u.s.-israel relationship or he said that relationship transcends into individual leaders. it was an issue sting comment. what is the long game in a case like israel? jeffrey goldberg my colleague -- >> i read the article. >> he had spicy words thrown out there but the broader question is what is the long game in the arena that keeps ripping itself apart? >> everybody knows from the investment i made much of last year find a way to bring the parties to make peace in the middle east. we still believe it is doable but it takes courage and strength. you have to be prepared, both sides have to be prepared to compromise in order to do it. here's what i know and i think all of you know this viscerally and intellectually.

and i've asked this question of people in the middle east one of the greatest challenges for israel obviously is not to be a binational state. it wants to be a jewish state. to be a jewish state you have to resolve the issue of two states. if you don't and you are a unitary state and people have the rights to right to vote and participate as citizens is israel going to have a palestinian prime minister? i don't think so. i don't think so. it's not going to happen. so therefore what is the solution here? how do you move forward and what we are trying to do evenhandedly and hopefully thoughtfully cove strengthen israel's abilito the three of rockets. not strengthened, to make it free of rockets. to end this perpetual conflict

in a way that provides the complete security of israel that has the right to be free of tunnels coming into its country, terrorists jumping out with handcuffs and tranquilizer drugs, guns -- no country would tolerate that. >> do you think that it's time for you or the president or someone to be a little bit more evocative in terms of defining what you think a deal would look like? >> no, i think we need to work quietly and effectively and come -- condemn anybody that uses language such as what was used in this article that does not reflect president, that does not reflect to me. it is disgraceful, unacceptable, damaging. and i think neither president obama nor i -- i've never heard that word around me in the white house. i don't know who these anonymous people are that keep getting

quoted in things. but they make life much more difficult, and we are proud of what we have done to help israel through a difficult time. president obama is the one who committed the iron dome and made it happen. president obama has consistently -- he was supportive of the right to defend itself in the recent war but at the same time, the president wants to try to nurse the parties together to resolve these differences. now in iraq, if we didn't get engaged, i don't know where i i -- isil would be today. protectld move in to shia interests in the 80% shia country. what happened then with bush are -- al-assad and deterioration if isil commanded even more territory -- it already is

unprecedented as the terror group in the amount of land, money and assets that it controls, and it's already threatened europe, the west and others directly so you have no choice. you have to engage thoughtfully. we build a coalition for the first time ever that brought together five arab countries that have actually dropped bombs in syria against sunni extremists unprecedented. >> i did not think it was possible. >> and we are carefully trying to nurse this forward so that the iraqi army does the fighting. the iraqi army comes back is not an army that represents one person or one sector that has a national identity and can bring the sunni tribes to the table to reclaim the country. yesterday, we made some gains. in a city south of moz oh, they

took it back. this will be slow and take time. we've been honest with the american people and the world isn't going to happen overnight , but it's the best way to push back against religious extremism coming and we have united all the countries in the region in that endeavor. we are flying airplanes into series and a serious incident trying to shoot them down. we are targeting isis and trying to build a force that can have an impact on the decision-making so we can get back to the table where we can negotiate the political outcome because we all know there is no military resolution of syria. so that's what we are trying to get back to. we reached up with the russians. there have been conversations. >> we are at the end of our time. there are so many topics but i just want to finish, we really are out of time but on iran if i was thinking about walter isaacson's work, we've seen kissinger and walter and he

wrote the book kissinger. if he was writing the book kerry in the opening chapter, i'm interested in whether that entails the deal that you help put together on iran or not. yesterday susan rice gave the deal if 50/50 chance this is somewhat high here than i might have, but i'm interested in what happens if a deal with iran is not achieved. what does the world look like in your world if we don't go that way? because it seems there isn't a nixon goes to china moment to sort of re-create the sense that america can -- >> we are living in a different time. the nations were developed and assertive and it isn't a moment like that, but that doesn't make diplomacy any less important. it's more important because we have the bipolarity -- we don't

have the bipolarity that existed for seven years or so. we are working and a different format. the first thing that i would urge walter isaacson and he wanted to do that -- i'm directly involved in negotiating face-to-face. >> as i said to the president i'm not going to expect optimism i'm going to express hope. i think achieving it is critical. we have set a very clear standard. there are four present pathways to a bomb for iran. the hidden so-called secret facilities and a mountain there's the open enrichment

and then of course covert activities. we have pledged that our goal is to shut off each pathway. sufficient that we know we have a breakout time of minimum of a year that gives us the opportunity to respond if they were to try to do that. >> we believe there are ways to achieve that whether iran can make the tough decisions it needs to make will be determined in the next weeks. but i've said consistently mobile is better than a bad deal -- no deal is better than a bad deal. and we are going to be very careful, very much based on expert advice, facts, science as to the choices we make. this must not be an ideological or political decision and if we can do what he said as the president said at his policy, he

said they will not get a bomb. if we can change this dynamic the world would be safer and we would avoid a huge arms race in the region where the saudi's, egyptians and others may decide that if they are moving towards a bomb, they have to move there too and, obviously it is a much more dangerous world and that is not a part of the world we want massive uninspected and unverified nontransparent nuclear activities. >> ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of state john kerry. [applause] spoke atthony fauci the washington ideas forum about the ebola outbreak in west africa. in the treatment of the dallas nurse who was infected with ebola and treated at the nih. this is 15 minutes.

>> welcome dr. fauci. the first question is, where are we? just the curve of the whole ebola virus, are we up, down at the peak? >> we have about>> 13,000 suspect cases and about 5000 plus deaths, maybe a bit more. if you look at liberia, which is been one of the epicenters, particularly in monrovia, the cases are in fact going down. if you look at the burials and how you can monitor deaths. one of the concerns we have about getting complacent about that, ebola historically can go in waves. as it goes down in the city, in monrovia, you can start to see perhaps upscaling in areas around near the rain forest. and there is sierra leone, a bit

behind liberia, which we're concerned we may see an uptick. although it is better news than the opposite, namely, it is going down, we just better be cap for before we say we are on the right track. quotes are there maps the project where it could go? india,look at media -- latin america, how likely do you think that is? >> the reason we have this extraordinary devastating situation in west africa is what i refer to as the perfect storm. people don't realize there have 1976 when ebola was first recognized, there has been since 1976 about 24 outbreaks -- most of which have been in remote areas in which you could actually contain it. this is the first time that we have had an epidemic the size of which is much more than all of the other 24 combined.

and healthtracing care structure that allows you to identify somebody come isolate them, and keep them out of society when they are sick, because the only way you can spread ebola is by coming into the direct contact with the body fluids of someone who is sick. so you do all that -- in answer to your question, if a country has a health care system where you can at least do contact tracing and isolation, it is very unlikely that there would be an outbreak in that country. the perfect storm in nigeria, sierra leone, and guinea is that they had everything going against them. they had porous borders. if you look at the map of africa, guinea wraps itself around sierra leone and liberia. there are tribal interrelations were you go across the border for health care systems, customs of burials and distrust, authority, and that is how you have the outbreak. although potentially you could have it in other countries, the jury did a very good job of

contact tracing and stopping outbreak there. same in senegal. we're hoping that the best way to protect the rest of the world is to suppress the epidemic in west africa. >> you treated a patient yourself. can you describe what you did? it is interesting to learn. >> people who die and do poorly with ebola essentially lose an incredible amount of fluid either through diarrhea or vomiting. very rarely -- when you look at the motion picture depictions of this disease, bloody eyes and bleeding outcomes that occurs in a very small percentage of people. shock.ople died from namely, they lose so much fluid that you cannot get enough back into them. they're a lector lights or things that keep all of your systems going, get completely out of whack.

that is i you have the high mortality. depending on the strain in which you are, the mortality can be as high as 90%. or he can go down, they said, as low as 40 percent. it is curious the patient with taking care of here where you --e tours syria care sensitive care capabilities, the only person who has died is thomas duncan, who came in very sick into the dallas hospital. the seven other patients, one of which i had the privilege of taking care of, did very well. medicine,em u.s. monitoring electrolytes, things like that. >> so you can adequately reduce the death rate? >> it won't go to zero, but it will be very much diminished. -- how many we get health care workers do we need in africa? if you could talk about the chris christie-obama

dispute on how we should regulate the returns to this country and how we should regulate the flow? >> let's address the first point. .e need hospital beds the united states has really stepped of the plate. we are to have up there now and 25-bed hospital manned by at least 65 united states public health service officers or health care workers -- for health care workers who get sick taking care of people there. you give them incentive to go. not like, if you get sick, forget it, you're on your own. we're going to take care of them. we have a lot of volunteers going over there now. the department of defense is 100itted to setting up 17 beds. we need hundreds of not thousands of health care workers as well as many, many more beds. that is coming, i hope that is are ready contending to the downtick that we're seeing in

liberia. if that is the case, it will go up. the issue with this conflict is, i think it is taken out of proportion. if you look at the situation of how ebola was transmitted, it is only transmitted a direct contact with the bodily fluids of someone who is ill. not just feeling bad, but ill. if you don't come into contact with bodily fluid, you won't get infected. we know because we're been taking care of ebola people since 1976 and we know that is how it is transmitted. the issue of what was just mentioned about quarantining not only people who are traveling from west africa, but health care workers who have donated their time, put themselves on the line -- if you have a blanket, namely, just completely everybody can do anything for 21 days, we feel that would be a major disincentive. at that doesn't mean the people who are promoting that are doing

anything wrong. i believe the governors and others who have been pushing that, in good faith, are trying to protect their constituencies. so there is no criticism of them. it is just that as a physician and a scientist, i would say to look at the data and it tells you what the risk is. if someone comes back, rather than putting everyone in one pocket, either you're in quarantine or you can go out and do it everyone, i think both of those are extreme. what the cdc recommendations now are, david, you match the stratification of a risk of someone being infected versus the stratification of how you monitor them and the degree to which you restrict them. so if someone is at a high risk and comes back, if there symptomatically at away, you get isolated and treated because there's a good chance you have ebola. but even if you don't have symptoms, if you are at high risk come you don't travel.

you don't get on a subway. that is already in the guidelines. i don't think people appreciate that. but other people are at some risk and some who are at low but not zero risk. so with the guidelines, don't put everybody in the same bucket were someone is really feeling well, coming back, and all of a sudden you say, you can't come out of an apartment or a facility for 21 days because if that happens, we are concerned that health care workers who are donating their own time, when they come back and have no scientific reason why they should be quarantined, that will be a disincentive for them to go. i know, because these are my colleagues. say,act is, they would well, i'm going to take out a month of my life to go there and then when i come back, if i have symptoms, i definitely don't want to be in society because i want to protect myself in society.

but if i'm perfectly well with no symptoms, i want to get back to doing the things i do. i would say that is the controversy. but i don't fault those who feel that a quarantine is necessary because they are thinking they're acting in good faith. i don't thing it is based on what we know about the scientific data. >> you been doing this a while, , anthrax.them and how do you compare this to the other things you have dealt with? >> in my 30 year career as the hiv crisis in the beginning, and that was an interesting -- the other side of the coin. there was the emergence of a pandemicl, historic now that force anything else. quarters, there was that a lot of attention paid to it. there was fear that was unrealistic.

i can taste stories about being the same school or going into a restaurant where a gay waiter is waiting on you. just ridiculous. those were the fears that were going on. that was one level. then there was the anthrax attack right after 9/11. after the 9/11 attack on the world trade center and the pentagon, people were spooked. then you had the anthrax attacks right here in her own city. everyone was afraid of touching their mail. it was a bit unrealistic. this has a special flavor of fear because if you look at ebola and you look at the from ,"ge of "the new york times practically every day they show people dead of the streets dying purple deaths. people extrapolate what they see in west africa with what they think might happen here. i think what we're seeing is a catastrophic health crisis in west africa, and epidemic of

fear here. i don't disrespect that fear and i don't criticize it, but you got to evaluate your risk and relative risk faced on scientific evidence. to this day, to do people have gotten infected in the united states of america. people. both of those people were brave nurses who are putting themselves in harms way by taking care of ebola patient in a hospital. this is the only two people. that doesn't mean there might be other infections. there might be, i don't know. a look at what is happening the fear it is generated. talks how do you communicate this? do you just tell people to man up? [laughter] >> no, you have to respect the fear of people. you can't say, why are you afraid? you have to try to

explain to them and you have to do it over and over that if you look at the scientific evidence of how this is transmitted, you have got to give examples. i think one of the best examples is that the two nurses, and had the privilege of taking one -- ninag care of one of them, pham. she is doing very well. those two people got infected for mr. duncan when he was desperately ill and a dallas hospital. they were taking care of him and got infected. mr. duncan had contact with many family members while he was sick. none of those family members have gotten ebola. so what that tells you, if you look at the scientific evidence, that the way you could ebola is by direct intimate contact with the body fluids of someone who is really sick, not someone who is well, no fever, not ill.

you neverf that -- say zero, but it is essentially zero. it is not transmitted that way. why does this keep going on? what do we do? is there going to be a vaccine? this epidemic is going to get under control predominantly by health care measures, namely, the kind of acceleration the united states has done and hopefully, other countries will do. controly, because under afore we have the need to use vaccine. but right now, we're rapidly on a fast track testing a vaccine. we started it and what is called phase one here in bethesda and also in other places in maryland , were you give it to 20 people or so and see if it is safe. by november, we will know if it is safe.

a december or january, we will go in a much larger trial in west africa to see if it works. you don't want to give a vaccine to anyone if it doesn't work, or might be dangerous. if it works, we will distribute it. what about the next outbreak, is what you're asking, i think. that is something we need to look at as a global community. this bears the concept the president has spoken about in february called a global health security agenda in which you have a network of being able to the outbreaks of these diseases, but to have a system that can track them so you can stop it at its source. also, your to look at the health care infrastructure of countries. those are the countries in which outbreaks occur. we have to bolster up the global health security agenda, but we also have to convince the world that attention to the health infrastructure of their country

is as important as anything else they do with their country. , thank you.ny fauci >> on the next "washington journal" the national institute on retirement security dianne oakley discusses how prepared americans are to potentially outlive their retirement savings. after that, compassion and choices, the death with dignity laws across the u.s.. this comes in light of a 29-year-old's decision to end her life following a terminal diagnosis of brain cancer. live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the head of the international atomic energy agency will speak at the brookings institute today. about his agency's role in monitoring iran's took the program. live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on

our companion network c-span3. weekend --

find our television schedule at c-span.org. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. 2015 c-span student can video competition is underway. open to all middle and high school students to create a five to seven minute documentary on the theme "the three branches and you is quote shall not policy, law, or action of the federal government has affected you or your community. there are 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling

$100,000. or a list of rules or how to get started, go to studentcam.org. >> next, speakers reflect on the life of former washington post editor ben bradley. that is followed by remarks by michigan senator mental health legislation. this portion of the event is 25 minutes. >> good morning. thank you for being here. and president of atlantic life and on behalf of the atlantic, i want to welcome you. we think of today's forum as a way to bring thoughtful people together, top minds to explore some of the most pressing issues of our time with a kind of openness and curiosity. it is a place where ideas can collide and we can connect with one another to really understand the world beyond the beltway. partners at the

aspen institute for joining us on this adventure. this is the sixth year, our biggest year yet. we have more people attending. this lovelyin harman theater for the first time. this is the first time we have two stages running. from inside and outside of washington, fascinating people. they are at the forefront of their fields, changing the world we live in and the way we see our lives. we of the secretary of state here, ceos from whole foods and yelp, novelists and scientist and so many others. you should know downstairs on our foreign stage starting at 10:00, we have what we're calling deep dive, more intimate room, perfect for conversation. we think of it as an innovator stage. we have a woman who transformed urban life by creating bike sharing programs in cities across the country, including right here in d.c. we would love you to check out the foreign stage during the

course of the morning. i want to note none of this would be possible without the generous support of our underwriters. presenting in level, comcast, nbc universal, hitachi, nestlé, and the supporting level , the national council for behavioral health and google. determining level, with that, i want to say there are two masterminds behind the washington ideas program. they will lead us through the morning. margaret is here with us to get us started with a very special tribute. thank you all so much for coming. [applause] >> good morning. yesterday, washington mourn the passing of a towering president ben bradlee. journalism for four

decades. it was a great sendoff. from the opening eulogy by donald graham to the playing of taps. vice president joe biden and secretary state john kerry pay their respects. two of the journalists who worked alongside bradlee participated in yesterday's ritual and are here with us this morning. the former publisher and president of "the post," and the pioneer of the same style section of the "washington post" and mentored its star writer and the wife of ben bradlee, sally quinn. thank you. [applause] talks i'm delighted to be here. eath, hey is -- ben's d transformed "the post-" in his 26 years as editor. he was truly a role model for at

least a generation or two for journalists who wanted to improve their communities. his community happened to be washington, d.c., and he went right to work. many.ed a whole or chess -- warchest of reporters. paperstime the pentagon of watergate rolled around, he had turned "the post" into an aggressive newspaper that tried to do as much as he could. he brought in people like david leventhal for the style section.

probably the hardest section of the paper to write. in many ways. -- my role -- i was council during his years. one supreme court justice tommy, you have a very busy job. it's true. but it was very exciting. he was always pushing for a good story, always pushing for a good story. but he was a very decent man. he tried to be fair. he cared a lot about people's privacy and actual security. he wanted stories to be in context. likewe got something wrong janet cooke, which was a made-up story -- did not know that would happen -- but he trusted of people and it sometimes

backfired. there was never a single thing ever discovered about that story that did not come either from his own editors who ferreted out the truth from her or from those who wrote about it later. another matter that took a lot of our time, which had to do with a libel suit bought -- brought by the president of mobile, he never pass the buck on anything. used to be on his reporters until after years of litigation on the fact or on the question of whether -- stores the president a mobile headset up his shipping business that did not disclose it to the fcc. a lot of litigation over that, but it did change the rules. just typical the way ben would support his people. he said what made him successful as an editor was having a great owner, publisher, and those

katharine graham and then don graham, who did. ben and left him in every way. in every way.im such magnetism you could not help but feel inspired by it. he really loved the people who worked for him. his gravelly voice really had a huge affection for all of the people that worked for him. became a manager at 20. he went out on the pacific in the middle of world war ii, having just graduated early from college. he was a junior lieutenant, deck officer, on a destroyer in the pacific for three years. he had this very easy management style. he gave people a lot of freedom. he got the big things done. he was that way throughout his career at "the post." what made it hard to be a lawyer

for him, he did not believe in public relations people. he never had one. he did not truly believe in marketing people, either. if a story would break, ben would immediately answer calls from the press. in one case, one president complained, former president, before i could even get downstairs to talk to ben, he said to an ap reporter, what am asspposed to do, run bare up and down pennsylvania avenue? >> let me to reject from the standpoint and editor, reporter, ben hired me into this business. one of the great things about working for him and coming up the ranks was you knew you had a lien for you. whether it was someone at the white house who was calling to complain, ben would be giving that wonderful bearish growls to them. -- i remember one of

our reporters in the style section went out and was the subject of a very rude remark to my very prominent guy, and ben went in and called him up in the presence of the editors and said, "you are on my [bleep] list. don't you ever talk that way to our reporters." to this guy was a friend of his. whether you are at the top of the heat or the bottom, ben knew that washington was in many ways essentially a theater town. , inhe loved to puncture some cases, the hypocrisy to the people who had preached one firebreathing faith in them were suddenly cloaked in the garb of another. what he asked us to do was to have impact. impact. and he celebrated were victories. i will give you one executive lesson from him called the executive use of pronouns. editor for the

magazine and he called up one saturday, and said, "we just won the national magazine award." later, again, an unusual call on a saturday says, "you just got sued." [laughter] lawsuiton, because we've ever had at "the post." some of you may remember jean dixon, the prophetess and the memoirhe had written a in which -- and we are gotten an early copy of it, and she had changed her vision between the manuscript in the published version. ensued asd as hell for $7 million. ed williams, the king of washington lawyers, was our outside counsel.

they were very excited because she sued us in london. there were going to be a will to go over to london. this is the internet. there were about two copies of "the washington post" circulating there. how did he get settled? this is a wonderful washington ideas forum. example. dixon'sd out, jean taxes were being done by another part of the firm. she was down there on christmas eve getting the taxes done. edward bennett williams comes out of his office, sees jean and says, jean, it is christmas eve. we are both good catholics, can't we settle this." ever hadst lawsuit we got settled quietly in the back corridors of washington. loved and pressed. one thing that is a bit overlooked now was the rebel status of been bradlee in the

early days. he is now a lionized figure for history, but he really pressed investigative reporting. that is why he stood with the watergate people and stood up on the pentagon papers. it also what he wanted in the style section was impact of a different sort. it was to show the private lives of people in our theater town, and to explain them. to he also was a tough guy make mistakes with. i will tell you one anecdote. mary had dark, who followed me memoyle editor, read a this weekend which she got the said, dear mary, on my first day in my job at the washington post, a misspelled philip graham's name. later, we years misspelled katharine graham's name.

two times in one career is enough. [laughter] stayed at "the post" as vice president and was there almost as long as he been executive editor, over 20 years. it was his magnetism, his ability to go right to the heart of things that kept people wanting to keep in touch with them. and learn from him during all of the rest of those years. we really loved the guy. x and a will leave you with one statements.ic the clock says zero, and acacia, when we would be dealing with the press, hit a wonderful phrase he would shout "the wisdom of the ages cries out for silence. we are now silent." thank you all. [applause] >> thank you both very much. remembering a great man. how is everybody doing this morning? all revved up?

the see who we have appear. i am up next. in this country, large population of people living with serious mental health issues do not receive proper treatment. in matters senator, democrat from michigan, takes extra nearly seriously. her goal is to see mental health given as much attention and resources as visible help. her recent work on bipartisan legislation to the excellence and mental health act, which was signed by the president, will expand access to community health services and provide more money for research and treatment. she joins me today via skype to talk about this. great to have you, senator. it is always cool to have somebody in, but how many of you have grandkids? razor hands. -- raise your hands. her grandchild is imminent. i thank you for taking any time at all to join us, but congratulations in advance on your forthcoming grandchild.

>> thank you so much. with youi would be because i'm very passionate about the subject. when it comes to grandchildren, that trumps everything. he is not here yet. we know he's a little boy. it will be soon. >> one of the things that i feel is useful to highlight is that now and then something useful comes out of congress. it is rare, but now and then, the idea behind washington ideas forum this year is great ideas outside of d.c. to show what is possible. you cooked up something with roy blunt. bluntoperated with roy and pass this mental health bill. why did you do it? what are the zingers you want to share with us today about what this bill does? >> first of all, i'm grateful to be a part of two things in congress is not getting much done, as you know, the five-year

farm bill we got done and then on a separate note, what we're talking about today is this expansion of funding and services for community mental health senator roy blunt was my partner. thise to say, we attached to a short-term funding for doc fix. called the funding for payments for doctors under medicare were temporarily extended and they said nothing new could be added. a because we have support of both the majority leader harry and the the speaker chairs and renting members in the house and senate, we were able to do that. what we have done is a first step highly project based on our bill -- pilot project based on our bill that will designate eight states that will develop more comprehensive mental health

and substance abuse services, and get paid their cost for it. why does that matter? right now we have something called timidity health centers that get paid for the services they provide. they get paid adequately. health,rea of mental they are woefully underfunded. have been for years. when we talk about mental health charity, and was pleased to offer that in health reform so insurance companies have to provide the same co-pays and the same premiums in the same coverage, [indiscernible] worked very hard. we brought together a huge coalition to have this as a major priority. veteran suicides a day, most in the community. sheriffs who have people in their jail that ought to be giving services. >> let me jump in the for a

moment, senator. you're beginning to walk through some of the human dimensions of this. , guess perhaps my editorial less freely question, why, despite this legislation passing, why when it comes to mental health are the steps that have been taken so small? words, you pass something, but it is not a huge bill. i had a recent briefing where they were saying things like mental health first aid, where everyone -- were people get trained and certified like cpr. but when you really put it on the face of it, we're talking about mental health. if you scratch between communities around their am a there are problems everywhere. we are kind of dealing with it in a pathetic way. >> there is been a pious and misunderstanding for years.

we need to treat diseases above the next likely treat diseases below the neck. the good news is, we do that and people can manage mental illness and go on and lead productive lives. if you have diabetes, you manage your sugar and you're able to go on with your life. if you are bipolar, you have a chemical imbalance in the brain. we can do the same thing. we can give people the tools, medications and therapy, to manage that and go on with their lives. but it takes an understanding that we can do that. and it takes changing the system to treat all kinds of diseases the same. you are right. we are woefully behind on that. and my father, when i was growing up, was bipolar and nobody knew it. he was in and out of the hospitals, did not get any help for years and years and years. finally, when i was in college,

we discovered this new drug called lithium. went on tocation and manage his disease and be healthy the rest of his life. we can do that today. we just need to understand it and be serious about it. >> senator, i've been interested today that tim cook, the ceo of apple, egg knowledge publicly he was gay. -- big knowledged publicly he was gay. harry milk. me of do we do see something like that with mental challenges, people in environments where they feel more capable talking about my father, my brother, my sister, toelf to come out in a way get sort of a larger footprint of action, if you will? >> yes, that is a really good point. it mixes difference when i talk about my dad and others talk about family members. i want to give a shout out to close to join the two

times in washington and brought her sister, her wonderful sister jessie, her nephew, both who suffer and manage mental illness. their powerful stories made a huge difference for us. one out of four dolls -- for adults every year will have some kind of mental health. we need to understand it. it is a disease like anything else. there is hope. there is hope available. we need to make sure people reach out and get the support and help they need. >> i mentioned mental health first aid. as back when to be part of your agenda? >> absolutely. tom harkin, chair of the health committee, he put together items and that particular item is frankend by senator al

and whole group of folks, education for teachers, law enforcement officials, research the needs to be done. i congratulate the president and brainw for having the project, actually focusing on research on the brain. the least researched organ in our body that probably has as much, if not more, impact than any other organ. we are finally doing the kinds of research we need to do. not just on mental illness. ms --son's, alzheimer's, a whole range of things that we can find cures for if we are willing to really do the research necessary on the brain. >> the other day i was in boston on night asked senator ed markey in a conversation what he would do if you were not running for senator but were running for president. ordid not act nervous at all

miss a beat, which makes one wonder what his future intentions might be, but he said, i would have a conversation in a bipartisan basis with the nation and it would triple the nih budget because of a broad set of issues like this. i am wondering whether that sort of focus, not just on the community dimension, but on basic research, is something that you feel needs a lot more attention and financial support. and what would you be willing to give up yourself in terms of funding nih? what would you give up? >> i missed the last piece of it. what would i be willing to give up? i think it is a matter of making system we can have a tax . has a bill that stops pain for put thats, and i would in the national institutes of health. the reality is, from a dollar

, lives,nt and savings quality of life, and money, the best investment we can be making and the national institute of health. not only for mental health, but addiction -- one out of five medicare dollars go to someone with alzheimer's. and we have the opportunity now -- we're so close in so many areas. that is why things like the government shutdown were a concern to me and so many others because it impacts those -- impacts things we don't see everyday, but it has to amend its impact on quality of life going forward. nih is at the top of the list. >> thank you for spending time with us and sharing these thoughts on mental illness. ladies and gentlemen, senator debbie stabenow. >> thank you so much. >> today, a discussion about the mature elections and the latino vote.

the head of the international atomic energy agency will speak at the brookings institute today about his agency's role in monitoring iran's nuclear program. we will join remarks by director at 10:30 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span3. >> here are a few of the comments we have received on our ebola virus coverage. >> my comment about ebola is, we ask that had ebola right here in this country. doctors coming back with ebola, patients in texas hospital, nurses or so forth. hysteria, people are just reacting to a very serious disease where you have to have teams of doctors and nurses waiting on you constantly. fear, too. the isis

they show the beheadings over and over in all the media channels. i suppose we should have got hyped up about ice is coming over to chop off your head, but not ebola that is actually here. people who are in be area of the ebola should banned from entering any other nation. it is up to our leaders to do that. >> i would like to cc spend to a question about, is this ebola virus the proof we need for national one pair health care system? we seen what happened in texas with this capitalistic health care system. and now it is going to cost us millions and millions to clean that mess up. and that is what it was curious, remarks on that, if this

is the proof we need a national health care system. talks continue to let us do what you think about the programs you're watching. us or you canl send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> coming up next, "washington live with your cause and comments. at 10 :00, d wilson center looks at the impact of low oil prices on russia, nigeria, iraq, and venezuela. at 7:50 a.m. eastern dianeshington journal," oakley talks about how prepared americans are for retirement. :30, a look at death with dignity laws. mickey macintyre is our guest.

on "washington journal." ♪ host: this morning on the "washington journal," we want to talk about a group called rebel pundits. it is out of chicago. they put out a video challenging dominanceatic party's with african-americans. it got posted on the drudge report. the videong to show to you. it is about four minutes in length. and then have a discussion about it. here is rebel pundits' video. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- [video clip] >>