it is highly debatable in terms of social philosophy. believingto the case that corporations, because they >> because they are in some probably are they capable of absorbing their religious preferences and value system of their owners. >> the lighting of the national christmas tree, and michelle obama.

venture into the art of good writing. 12:30, the secret history of wonder woman. , authors talk about their reading habits. then, the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage of president george bush, and speeches from john kennedy and ronald reagan. then, fashion choices of first ladies and how they represented the style at the time. then, tom brokaw on his 50 years of reporting on world events. that is christmas day.

for a complete schedule go to c-span.org. >> sunday, washington post fact checker columnist wayne kessler on his biggest pinocchio's of 2014. upset.crats get more i think they have bought into the myth of the little media. they think the media is on their side. republicans believe in the myth of the liberal media. bey expect they are going to -- they are not going to be fair to me. that over the last four years i have done enough back-and-forth, treated both , thats with equal fervor

people have now come to ok, you areay someone we can do business with. the senate majority pac, harry reid, they stopped answering my questions midway through the campaign season. they felt they were not getting a fair shake from me. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific. an analysis of a recent poll that found 49% of americans think 2015 will be a better year than 2014. 42% think it will be worse. this is 45 minutes. to the website. when to welcome back to our table, pete, who is the senior fellow, for the ethics, and public policy center, and former

speechwriter for romney presidential campaign. let's begin with the mood of america. we were just asking our viewers, if they are feeling optimistic or pessimistic and, where do you see the mood of the country? guest: well it's a disinchanted country. it's pessimistic time, who ten to be optimistic and, forward looking people. there's more anxiety. and a lot of it, driven by the economic conditions. so it's a country, that is out of sorts, we got some good economic news. the economy grew at 5% rate in the third-quarter. that kind of thing will help but it has to be sustained over time, and overall, forum, a this is, we're in something after

trof. the research folks came out with a new poll, the public is not so happy, 49% expect a better year ahead. with 42% saying otherwise. 26% are satisfied with national conditions, and 71% are dissatisfied and what's going on there? is it the leadership? i think it's severalfect tors, part of it, is the economy, and really, the economy, since the great recession. we have been in a recovery since the summer of 2009, and, weakest economic recovery on record. and, in fact, medium household income has gone down, more in the recovery than it did during the recession itself and, we have a record number of people in poverty, and, we have the largest number of people, that

have left the labor workforce since the late 197 numbers. so, those kind of things, put a damper, on spirits. so that's one thing, and second licks we've had a prolonged period of economic difficult tits, and wages have been stagnant for 15-20 years and people are working harder, and more hours, than they did, in the late 1980s. and but their standard of living is lower, and health-care costs, and tuition costs are going up, and we're going through a change and, that's affected both presidents. i would say there's two other things, one, in the last year, a sense of growing disorder and chaos in the world, middle east and, russia, and china, becoming more aggressive and, north korea, and that adds to a sense of disorientation, and concern, and then, fourth, i think, that

there's a really deep aithere'sn the people, and the a people they elected. in terms of how they view the president, and congress, and both political parties. while we have some large challenges, our institutions, just aren't up to the challenges, that we do face. you wrote, we are in the middle after prolonged period of alienation between american people, and those who govern them. we're in the middle of this. what's been the fallout? are both parties to blame? where do you think this is headed? well, i think both parties do have some responsibility for that. that's at least, with the public opinion polls, and, i'm a conservative, and, republican,

and, i have my own views, but if you ask the public, it's boathouses. one of the things, that has fed this despair, is the president barak obama when he ran in 2008, ran with such enormous expectations, about what he could produce. very unusual. he promised not only to bring about prosperity, but to overcome the divisions, and if you go back, and read about the campaign, what he was saying, president barak obama's campaign wasn't on a set of issues, as it wases a at the time particulars about politics, we'll overcome the divisions, and work together and, transsend the usual bickering, and we're more polar rised and more divided than we have been.

very high expectations, poor performance in terms of his ability to overcome those divides, and economy has not been good. and, the affordable care act is extremely unpopular. and more so. can we overcome it? sure, it is a great country. and we have faced a lot worse problems than we're facing now. we had a war, and great depression and it takes political leadership to do that. and we're going to see, if america can produce the kind of leader that is up to the challenge. it's an open question, 2016 will go some distance towards answering it. president barak obama's end of the news conference, laid out all the reasons why he believes americaners should feel good. take a look. but there is no doubt, that we can enter into the new year with

renewed confidence, that america is making significant strides where it counts, the steps that we took early on, to rescue our economy and, rebuild it, helped make 2014 the strongest year for job growth since the 1990s. over a 57 month streak our businesses have created 11 million new jobs. almost all the job growth, that we have seen, have been bin in full-time positions, and much of the recent pickup have been in higher paying industries, and a hopeful sign, wages are on the rise again. our invest mns in american manufacturing have helped fuel its best stretch of job growth. and americans now the number 1 producer of oil. the number 1 producer of natural gas. we're saving drivers, 70 cents a gallon. effectively, today, our rescue

of the auto industry is officially over. we have repaid taxpayers every dime and, more of what my administration commit he and, they are on track for its strongest year since 2005. and we have created about half a million new jobs in the auto industry alone. president barak obama at his news conference, and c.n.n. out with a new poll showing, that this is starting to, his numbers are starting to turn around for him. aprofl rating is up, 20 month high. and largely due to the economy. yeah, i think that's right. he's right about 42%, which is low. but, look, if this economic news continues, to be good, and the economy continues to grow and, get job growth, it will go up and, the mood of the country will get better.

some is true and, some of it is false and, some is cherry picking. and it's a little dangerous when they keep talking about how good things are, when country doesn't feel that way. look, you're out of touch, and if things were really that good, the american people would feel it, and it is more complicated than he said. he wouldn't have suffered a massive loss, historic loss in the 2014 mid-term elections. some of what he said, in gas and, oil production, which is true, but it's in spite of his policies. he is going to claim credit for it. politicians do it. they claim credit, and when bad things happen, they blame others, but, look, remember, historically, when the worst, the recession, the better of recovery, that's how it goes, in this case, we had a real i bad recession, in

2008, the recovery began in the summer of 2009, and it is the worst recovery on record, and even this good news, in 2014, and it is good, we have the best back-to-back quarters, remember, in 2013, we had two good quawferters, at the enof that year, and then the first quarter, what happened? the economy contracted, and economic growth, this year, is going to be less than 2.5%. so, we'll see, that this recovery has been a step-and-a-half forward, and one step back, if it can be sustained. experts in the paper saying it doesn't look sustainable. and, weather related. we'll see. i mean, weather, every year, you have bad winters, and to blame the winter, was a little bit of

a stretch. but, we'll see. if it gross, i hope it does. the other thing, which has happen, i don't blame this on president barak obama, is that a lot of the growth that we're seeing, is helping the best off, but it's not filtering down, the last eight years, have been good for the top 1% and, they have not ben good for the rest of the country. and that explains why the country is in the mood that it is. what are republicans doing about that problem? well, the republicans, have been responsible for putting a check on some of the spending that's gone on, and pushing entitling meant reforms, which are very good. but, president barak obama had two years, where he really got through his entire agenda k. he

had a majority in the house, and the senate. and since then, 2010, republicans have had control of the house. but, they've only been able to put a check. they haven't been able to put their imprints. and it is drerch by the president, and so i think they have checked, his things and, put forward some good

class income has been stagnant for years and years. but the top 1% -- how do they justify that in light of the their rank-and-file employees are not experiencing the same growth that the ceos are? i don't think there is a justification for it. it is an observational fact. the stocke done well, market has done well. been because of that but because of the tectonic changes, the dramatic shifts and technology that have happened, outsourcing

that has gone on, this has been a difficult and challenging time for low skilled workers because of the technological changes, because of globalization. worker,re a high school you tend to be in pretty good shape in this economy. but if you are a low -- if you are a high skilled worker, you tend to be in pretty good shape in the economy. but if you are a low skilled worker, that is not the case. inflation,een higher so the average tuition cost in america is half the median income for a family. i will say that politicians in both parties have done very little to address that kind of thing. but there is no question, income inequality has gone up over president obama. the income inequality -- the ability of people to rise on the income ladder -- that has always

been a hallmark of america. we do not have much social mobility grew there is greater -- social mobility. there is greater social mobility in canada than in the united states today. depend moreospects on income in this country than in canada, in europe, and elsewhere. that is something that is really not consistent with how americans see themselves. obamayou blame the administration for that. hasn't that been a trend happening long before president obama came into office? guest: no, i do not blame the president for that. aboutas been going on for 25 years, 20 years. i think some of what the president has done has exacerbated some of the tendencies, but i do not think he has taken steps that could helped -- that could have helped to the middle class as well as he could have. but there is no question that these trends are global and worldwide, and neither party has

figured out an agenda to deal with it. sometimes it is just the nature of things. i think we are conditioned by a certain post-world war ii period where america was -- it was not even close. we were first among equals. to 2000, the economy grew 3.5%. from 2000 to 2009, it was about half of that. from 2009 to the present, it is lower than that. so there are some deep structural issues that are occurring. host: south carolina, jim, a republican, you are on the air with peter greater -- with peter wehner. guest: greta, looking good as always. host: thank you. guest: it is from texas and north dakota and essential oil development groups, and if it was not for fracking, which president obama stands against, we would not be

enjoying this kind of growth. i really think that your guest has talked about that. one quick analogy about why the disparaging of income that is happening -- when tom cruise did movies in the 1980's, he only sold his movies to 120 million people. now with the explosion of the global economy, he can sell movies to 2 billion people. when you have apple and companies like google exporting their goods with their workers, they can make more money because of what they are exporting overseas. on the other hand, you have some parts of the economy making less because of the lower manufacturing pay. this does not really have anything to do with any president, but president has not done much about it. guest: i think that is a very intelligent call. i completely agree. if you ask me on the whole series of policy agenda, what is the most hopeful and what has

the most potential, i would say exactly what the caller waltered, which is what russell mead, a professor, says in the 21st century. there is a huge amount of natural gas that we have -- and hydraulic fracking has the potential to be a game changer. not just in the terms of oil independence, but in terms of growth. he is quite right. a lot has happened in these industries. the other thing, if you look at states with republican governors, who have more havervative policies, they done much better. you see over the years, california is a very liberal state, high taxes with onerous regulations. businesses are leaving and going to arizona and other states, and i think mitch daniels, the former governor of indiana, he put in a series of policies that made indiana a very business friendly state. you have an experiment going on

among the states. republican governors have shown that conservative policies are good and they create jobs. you see people like john kasich in ohio, he won by 30 points, a stunning performance. maryland, joeon, is the caller. an independent caller there. caller: good morning. ehner, i just want to -- thank you, greta, for c-span. it is very good. you say that there is pessimism. that is the farthest thing from the truth. you may observe the pessimism of a few, but overall we are blessed because we have a set of governors that sometimes do not .ven see across the line on the other hand, we have a set of governors who see the line

completely. so when you are being partial presidentng credit, obama, just like the rest of the presidents, he does what he can. i hear you talk about how he is a failure and not successful, but you have never said anything about obstruction. you have to understand, god is going to bless this nation as a whole, not in art. not in part. if god is going to bless the nation, he is going to bless the nation. you all have to watch how you all -- show appreciation in public. will take your point about obstruction or anything else you want to address. guest: it is not my judgment that the public is in a sour mood, it is their judgment. that is the case in every poll. you may disagree or agree with it. certainly the case in a

country of 315 million people that some people are doing well, but some are not. it economy, as difficult as has been, compared to the rest of the industrialized world, we have done pretty well. a theological question over whether god blesses nations or not, the united states has been a blessed nation, that is for sure. in terms of criticism of president obama, i try not to make them personable -- i try not to make them personal, but that your to policies. dad but attributable to policies. york, bill, a democratic caller. caller: again, the key is income inequality. the 1% are doing well while the rest of us are not, and i think the reason for that is that the republicans obstruct everything

obama tries to do to lift up the low and middle class. they obstruct minimum wage, they obstruct making loans easier for students. they obstruct equal pay for women. in doing so, they stifle the middle and lower class. the other thing republicans do is they are masterful propagandists. rhetorict anti-obama on a constant basis, and it works to some extent in that the country perceives everything as being negative. the problem here is the republicans. what they are really doing is defending oil. oil is what keeps the 1% prosperous, but oil in the long run of course is a bad thing. we are addicted to oil. we have to change our ways or we are going to destroy the planet. but the ruling class makes all

their money on oil, so they obstruct that. guest: a couple of things that bill is being tendentious and predictable. let me talk about income inequality. i do not think income inequality is the big problem. you can have a situation in which all stratus of society get that are. as the rich get better and the gap is wider in the middle class and the lower class, but if everybody gets better, that is good. contrarily, let's assume everybody's got -- everybody's income got worse, but in the -- the the income economy got shrunk. is that good? no. i understand that at some point income inequality can be problematic, but again, under president obama, the key thing here is social mobility. giving people the middle class and the lower class the ability to rise. he mentions minimum wage. whatever you think of minimum

wage, it actually hurts low income workers because mcdonald's and other places that have lower income, you force minimum wage to go up, they are going to let more people go. there is a trade-off, because the people who get minimum wage get more money, but don't pretend that will help the low income or poverty. in terms of obstruction, i think that is not right. if you go back and you look at the first two years of the obama presidency, he got almost everything he wanted including the affordable care act, which has had a pernicious effect both on health care and the economy. fulhad the most success legislative record since lbj. the republicans could object more than they have, but it has essentially been small ball. the minimum wage, as an example -- a lot of states can have their own minimum wage laws, so what thego up over

federal minimum wage is. when people bring that out, it is a shallow issue, usually invoked by people who are dogmatic and criticisms. host: we are talking with peter wehner, former senior adviser for the 2012 romney campaign. he is now with the public policy center. here to talk about the mood of america. us from florida. caller: what i see, i am watching businesses darken their doors. i do not see anybody replacing them. that is the comments. guest: i missed the -- host: the jobs not being replaced. guest: some of that is going on. there is a situation in which, because of the technological changes, you now have technology replacing people who used to do

low skill work. you have outsourcing. you have a situation in which you have a tremendous high number of people who have been long-term unemployed, and these are the people who have dropped out of the workforce. you have the highest percentage of people dropping out of the labor force since the late 1870's. those are discouraged workers who have said i have looked and i cannot find anything, so i am giving up. and the people who did lose their jobs during the recession and did get jobs, the pay was considerably less. for low-wage, low skill workers, this is hard. host: from nevada, john, an independent caller. ma'am. yes, good morning to you, mr. weh ner. i am trying to figure out -- wasn't it the republicans who recently put in for the bill to give more money to the campaigns and stuff? host: we will take that, john.

the money for campaigns, $1.1 trillion spending bill that releases the caps on money to party committees. guest: i think it was a reconfiguration, giving parties more control over finances. but i think i would be wary about whether republicans spent much moneyspence too in politics when president obama spent more in two elections than anybody in history. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot, as president obama continually did, crow about the money involved in politics and , andgo out in raise it break records that we have never seen. he decided he could raise more money, he decided he could let it go.

if you compare the amount of money in american politics versus the amount that people spend on potato chips or something, it is a lot more in potato chips. i don't think the amount of .oney is the problem i think the main problem is performance. has the most to answer for interests of performance is the president. if you compare what he said he could do that he would do to what he has done, he has failed on every front. people can blame republicans if .hey want or not yo he has a record and people can examine it. host: john, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. this is amazing. at youtting here looking and you are talking out of both sides of your neck. offensive.an to be

answer this for me, yes or no. is china a communist country? guest: yes. caller: ok. we are wondering why we are getting hacked or whatever. here you talk about minimum wage , we cannot do this, we cannot do that. but we can find everything else in the world. you never hear anything about money to thising country. we can come up with billions of dollars for that country. but then you talk about entitlements, social security. if i work 30 years and pay into social security, what is the problem with me getting my money? host: ok, peter wehner. guest: nothing. fact, if you look at the republican plans for social security and medicare and others, those are the kinds of reforms that would ensure that people like the caller would get their money.

the problem is because of demographics shifts. these entitlement programs are not sustainable. so you have to put some reforms in place. the kind of free market reforms that republicans have been advocating would work. take the medicare prescription drug land president bush -- take the medicare prescription drug plan president bush put in place in 2003. you had prices on medicare prescription drugs 40% below what was predicted by the cbo, and you have a tremendous amount of satisfaction with seniors in that plan because of the free market reforms that were put in. to have that kind of efficiency in medicare, in a health care program, is virtually unprecedented. the republican plans, in my estimation, are exactly the ones that will keep these entitlement programs sustainable and ineffective. -- sustainable and effective.

paul ryan says if you are 55 or over there will be no change. younger, there will be changes. i am completely open to the idea that higher income people get lesser social security benefits. , which political movement, which philosophy can put in changes, the reforms that will sustain it and make it efficient and helped the most people? host: we will go to robert next. missouri, republican caller. caller: good morning. i would like to ask peter two questions. why with the gas going down the way it is and the economy picking up, why can we this money that we are saving and put it on the deck? bring the debt down.

i am 81 years old, and before i die, i would like to see america out of debt. buy go out here and something and overspend my budget, i go to jail. what in the world is wrong with americans? number two question i have to ask peter -- we are fighting a whole new ballgame now on retired military. a whole new ballgame when we are fighting isis. i've are rather fight them over there than in america. why can't these politicians get together? why can't they get together and pay for this as we go? host: ok. guest: thanks, robert, and thanks for your service to the country. it is a fair question. let me make a couple of observations about it. he is 81 years old.

are not going to pay off the debt by the time you pass away or by the time i pass away. the debt is a norm us. weather has been -- the debt is enormous. where there has been progress is in the deficit, which has been paid down. oil, fracking, and so forth, the revenues that are coming in, that is good. but you really do need structural reforms to entitlement programs if we are going to deal with the deficit, and especially the debt. we have a lot of elderly people getting money. we have a lot fewer younger people going into the system. it cannot be sustained. unless you do the kind of for sure -- the kind of structural reforms that republicans are arguing are correct, they giving $100 million here or $1 billion there to reduce the debt, those

are grains of sand on the beach of an ocean. we do have to get these kind of structural reforms. i would argue that we need structural reforms on a whole range of issues, entitlement programs and the tax code, education, our schools, our immigration system. i think that explains a lot of the frustration that americans feel. that ourave the sense institutions just are not performing well, and they are not producing the kind of educating -- the kind of educated children and the workforce and the economy that we should have. i will say also that the american people have some complicity in this. ones who elected politicians who are acting the way they are. politicians, they are publicly -- they are tuned into what the

public wants, and the trouble is that the public is divided. it wants low taxes and it wants to get rid of the deficit, and it wants programs to pay high benefits. at some point, these things just do not work. now the task of political leadership is to take some of these competing issues and challenges in a way that is constructive. i am happy to be critical of the political class, but the american people are also in part responsible. host: looking forward to 2016, of the contenders we know about, which one of them do you think can tackle the problem that you just laid out? side, on the republican the people i am most favorable to our florida governor jeb bush, marco rubio, wisconsin senator paul ryan. i think they are really impressive. for the same reasons, for some different reasons. john kasich i mentioned earlier,

the governor of ohio. scott walker is very good. bobby jindal in louisiana. those are all very serious people. on the democratic side, i'm not a favorite -- i'm not in favor of any of the. not as worried about hillary clinton as i was president obama. i just do not think she is a particularly impressive political talent. i think the chances of elizabeth warren giving stiff competition and even beating hillary clinton are higher than most other people, because i think elizabeth warren has tapped into disenchantment on the left, which i think is very real. i think hillary clinton is tone deaf to it. host: of the names that you mentioned, do you think they could beat hillary clinton in a

general election matchup? guest: i do. but i think overall the democratic nominee would be a slight favorite because of certain demographic advantages. if you want to take a step back in an objective way, what is happening is that the people who are traditional republican voters, that group is shrinking. the people who are traditionally democratic voters, younger voters, single women, minorities, that is growing. there is something called the and thel, 18 states district of columbia, which have gone democratic in each of the last six elections. that is 242 electoral votes, which means they only need about , 18 or soal votes tossup states. so the map in general favors democrats, not republicans. having said that, the democratic nominee will face problems. whoou have had a president

has served does go terms, the ofs of electing a president the same party is low. it has happened, with george h w bush after reagan. obama, hepresident has been on a very bad trend in the last year and a half. it may well be that the nominee for the democratic party, probably hillary clinton, will an annded the torch from mud unpopular democratic president. policiesratic party have shown to have been tried and failed. that is going to be a problem. if it is political -- if it is hillary clinton, i do not think she has the political talent. anhink it will take unusually gifted republican candidate to win. and i think the three names that i mentioned, one of those could

win. host: we have a few minutes left with peter wehner. we go to detroit, michigan. an independent. caller: good morning. c-span, you are fabulous. , someone with your thoughts and verbalization, it is no wonder george romney lost. i as an independent find it very offensive when all i hear from the republican party is how terrible the president is. he is so terrible that yesterday the stock market was at 18,000. all the many plans that he tried to institute were in favor of the general populace. i have been at work in a physician's office, as the office manager, and i have seen a lot of people benefiting by the affordable care act. however, i have never heard one republican say anything but it

is terrible, it is horrible through the problem with our country is that negativity is the name of the game. no one ever says let's do things good for america. it is just, that guy is so bad, he is horrible, nobody likes him. but surprisingly, he was elected twice. host: peter wehner, go ahead. guest: first, it is mitt romney, not george romney. and i worked in the reagan administration, the george h.w. bush administration. i do think that mitt romney would have been a far superior .resident for somebody to have that call to complain about negativity is ironic. taking the affordable care act, i will say several things about it. number one, it is the monster ball that the president and his team lied in terms of what they said it would do versus what it has done.

there is just no question that they made promises that they knew were not true. for example, repeatedly saying that you can keep your doctor, you can keep your insurance, and of story. a lot of republicans said that would not help in -- that that would not happen. one of the architects of the informal care act, mr. gruber, is on tape saying that they misled the public. i think that is a problem. secondly, you have to answer for the website rollout, which was an epic disaster. they spent $2 billion, had four years to repair it, and it was an utter catastrophe. that is the kind of thing the president should be held responsible for. thirdly, it was the most unpopular major domestic program that was passed in 100 years, and it has gone down in popular approval since then. why is that? because people are living with the consequences. it does not mean there are no

good effects to it. there are some people getting coverage that they did not have before. but according to the cbo, which is pretty objective, the fewest number of people that will be uninsured under the affordable care act will be 30 billion. he essentially tossed on its head and did tremendous damage to a health care system to go from roughly 44 million uninsured to 30 million uninsured. in aould have covered them different way. you did not have to destroy the entire system. the affordable care act is his signature domestic achievement. it is singularly unpopular, and i think by objective circumstances it is not working. as john adams said, facts are stubborn things. host: the headlines today in the paper are that in the second round of enrollment, the exchange has added 1.9 million new insurance customers. we will get in one last phone call. it comes from nick in norwalk,

connecticut, a democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my , greta. happy and merry christmas and happy hanukkah and all the holidays. is, i want to tell you have been a registered democrat for over 40 years, but i will be january my party in when the senate takes over as republican. 2006ported these people in , and the first thing i want to say is, top 1% are also democrats. so when we got a bunch of rich people that are supposed to be getting all kinds of breaks, and we got democrats, we got republicans. i am out of work. i have not worked in a while area i am very good at what i do

but i cannot find a job, because they want to give you a part-time job. the last thing i wanted to is that with the thing that is going on right now in ferguson and new york, the president is ,eally not supporting anybody especially the police, and he is out there golfing in hawaii. host: we have to run on that point. guest: that is the problem americans face. people who voted for president obama had high expectations, and the performance has not been there. what he said happened in new york -- i just want to say, and i think president obama and mayor deblasio, and eric holder have really act in a disgraceful way toward the police. they have furthered a narrative that at its core is wrong, is a lie, which is the idea that there is rampant racism in police departments, and that police are targeting african-americans simply because

they are black. mayor deblasio has been the most irresponsible. president obama, when these things have happened, he has consistently weighed in in terms of statements, whether before a camera, whether it was the cambridge cup in 2009 in ferguson, or the staten island death that happened, in ways racism atnually put the front in ways it is not. when he died, i thought it was in excess use of force, but for these political leaders to stoke racial resentment and to help promote what i think is a pernicious narrative that is anti-police, i think that is really disturbing. now we are in a whirlwind, and it was extraordinary the scene that we saw this week and when you have these police officers turning their back as the mayor

was walking into the hospital. that kind of tension between a mayor and his police force is very dangerous, very problematic. i think that attorney general holder and the president have acted in ways that are really problematic. host: we could talk about that for much longer, but unfortunately we're out of time. peter wehner, thank you for joining us. you can see more of his thoughts and writings on the website for join us tomorrow for our christmas edition of "washington journal." we will talk about the 2016 elections. later an author will talk about her latest book, which looks at the role of public diplomacy and pop culture in the wake of the sony hack attack, at tomorrow's limited release of the seth rogen film "the interview."

tomorrow and everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. all this week we have been showing you selections from 10 years of our "q&a" program. join us at seven :00 p.m. eastern for a conversation with robert novak. he spoke about his memoir, "the prince of darkness." that is today at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. at 8:00 we will show you president obama and the first family essay like this yours national christmas tree. that event organized by the national park service includes musical performances and a reading by the first lady of the night before christmas. this yours white house decorations and the capitol christmas tree lighting ceremony with members of congress. this starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. later tonight, a discussion on how religion impacts decision-making at the supreme court. journalists and scholars discussed the issue at a recent event hosted by the museum -- nuewseum in washington.

watch that program tonight starting at 9:00 eastern on c-span. here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on the c-span networks. these festivities start at 10:00 a.m. on c-span with the lighting of the national christmas tree, followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. 12:30 p.m., celebrity activists talk about their causes. samuel alito and former florida governor jeb bush on the rights and the founding fathers. on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, venture into the art of good writing. at 12:30, see the feminist side of the superhero. the secret history of wonder woman. at 7:00 p.m., authors talk about

their reading habits. onamerican history tv c-span3 at 8:00 a.m., the fall of the berlin wall. speeches from presidents john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on first lady's fashion choices in how they represented the styles of the times in which they lived. brokaw on his more than 50 years of reporting on world events. that is this christmas day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. a discussion now on the military's use of cyberspace to wage war from today's "washington journal." this is just over 50 minutes. guest: we are back with shane

harris, author of a new book, "@war: the rise of the military-internet complex." the timing of this could not be more relevant. let's begin with north korea. what do we know about their internet going down? who was behind that? guest: it is still an open question, although some people would be motivated to think it is the u.s. government. taking down north korea's internet is not that technically hard because there are so few connections they have. it is really quite vulnerable in that way. this comes three days after president obama promised a proportional response to the hacking, which he publicly blamed on north korea. the united states would have a motive. so far we are not taking credit for it. legal experts say it would fit in that proportional response, so we do not know for sure. but activist groups have claimed credit for this. we may not know for a while, is the straightforward answer.

it looks like their internet is coming back up, but the timing is certainly more than curious. host: let's look at what the state department spokeswoman had to say when asked if the u.s. was responsible. [video clip] >> we are considering a range of options in response. we will not discuss publicly operational details about the possible response options or comment on those kind of reports. except to say that as we implement our responses, some will be seen, some may not be seen. i cannot confirm those reports, but in general, that is what the president has spoken to. host: how would you describe that answer? guest: the classic washington nondenial denial. what she was also saying in that statement, it fits very much with the idea that a proportional response, those being the key words, are what the administration is looking

for. taking down the internet of north korea, as dramatic as that sounds, may be a proportional response because no physical damage is done, you are just attacking computers. it is possible this is some and that fits within the realm of the kinds of things you would expect the u.s. to do in response to the sony attack. host: does it matter? what does north korea say in response? guest: we have not heard much from north korea in terms of whether they were responsible for the event in the first place. the country does not have widespread internet access, so if you take out the internet, you are only affecting the elites, party members, government elites, some media. most north koreans have never been on the internet, so it would not affect them at all. this could be the beginning of what would be called an information operational campaign instead of a propaganda campaign, where we attempt to manipulate information in north korea, we can cut off access to commit occasions. this is about sending a message

not to the country but to the few people who can get online and are running things. host: "the washington times" reported yesterday that the state media of north korea sunday night put out a statement , that "the army and people of north korea are fully ready to stand in confrontation with the u.s. in all war spaces, including cyber warfare space." guest: they are doing this because it is a domain cyberspace where they know they can compete with other large powers, where they can flex their muscles and be aggressive, much more so than they would in a conventional military setting. so even by taking on the united states, what they're trying to say is that we are not defenseless, we are prepared to strike back and defend ourselves if we are attacked.

very much the war of words that they have displayed in this space before. now what you have is the possibility that they were hit, so what do they do? if they came out and blames united states, you would expect the north koreans to retaliate in some way. history would tell us they will look for some other provocative measure to take the signal back to us, that you cannot just do this. host: your book is about the rise of the internet military complex. how does it compare north korea's military internet contacts and our own? guest: one of the most powerful cyber forces in the world would be us, the chinese, the russians, and the israelis are very sophisticated in this area. north korea is in the second tier of cyber power, and people have been joking in the past few days, how could north korea have launched a sophisticated attack on sony when they practically have no internet? to some extent they rely on hackers and other countries. a lot are in china and sort of farm this out. they are not the most sophisticated and skill, but they are highly aggressive.

they have demonstrated that they are willing to use these offensive cyber techniques against other countries, including south korea, that offend the regime or that they feel are rivaling them in some way, or maybe are strategic adversaries. and now they have done this in the united states and that escalates it. not as powerful and strong, but they're willing to use it, at least publicly in ways that countries have not done. host: you write that the u.s. military views cyber warfare as the fifth domain of war. what does that mean, and what sort of resources are going toward this? guest: we are pouring billions into it right now. cyber security is one area of the defense and military budget that is growing, not being cut. the other 4 -- air, land, sea, and outer space. the military is trained and we have doctrine for offensive and defensive fighting. cyberspace is the fifth domain,

and military services are training up generations of cyber offenders and attackers, hackers, soldiers who will work alongside their colleagues who are flying planes and driving tanks and sailing ships. cyber becomes another component of how we fight wars, both in terms of propaganda against enemies, knocking out there to medications systems. -- communication systems. even the kinds of things that we're seeing with north korea, you can imagine -- if we were able to go to war with a country like north korea, we would want to sever communications systems and knock it off line. this is something we will see in the future playbook, i think. host: how does the military recruit that type of soldier and compete with silicon valley and compete with those who want that type of worker? guest: they try to compete with people who come into services. one was spotted early on. he had a background in math and physics and was routed into the

intelligence line of work in the military. that is where they are recruiting a lot these people from. but the nsa, the national s colleges right curriculum >> the competition with the financial sector, people can make more money doing cyber security work for a company. company or for one of the private security contractors we are seeing. the military will be behind the curve for a long time. they can promise a level of excitement and interesting job that maybe you would not get as

much in the private sector. host: we are talking with shane harris, author of the new book "@war: the rise of the military-internet complex." taking your comments, in light of what we have seen with the north korea incident with sony. republican, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8002. guest: the cyber command will be whichl command, wench -- runs the war in iraq and syria. all of the offenses and , all of themponents

expertise, the capabilities, the cyber weapons, will all reside under the authority of cyber command. is that because cyber is such a particular discipline and will become such a big component of how we fight wars, the military at the end of the bush administration felt that cyber needed its own home rather than being strains and pockets of activity scattered throughout military services, so that when we do go to war and we need the cyber operators, they will be tasked out of cyber command. own command, its it is run by the director of the national security agency, which is an intelligence agency. that has been controversial because now you have effectively a military command being run by the head of an intelligence agency, and we are mixing these two disciplines and these worlds together. our people have advised president obama, that if we want to mature are cyber capabilities

and make sure they are not being run by secretive intelligence agencies, you need to split the command up and that cyber command stand on its own. it is getting there, rowing, and ultimately the military wanted to be able to be its own full-fledged command. but right now what it is is feeding the nsa and those intelligence agencies that we have learned so much about in the wake of the snowden kay's, in particular. that is not exactly the right --ture, because we have been we need to get it out of the race of the classified intelligence agency. it is governed by different parts of u.s. law. harris has written about this in this book. and i want to ask what you have learned about cyber warfare from eric snowden. we will take your comments and questions on this as well. , 202-748-8001.

democrats, 202-7 48-8000. 202-748-8002. what did we learn from eric snowden? guest: a lot of things. there were documents that did not get as much attention as the surveillance, the phone surveillance programs that were very telling. we wanted to learn how the nsa has been intersecting its computers around the world with what is called spyware, so that you can monitor them and control those computers. it is classic straightforward hacking. we learned a lot about the systems and the global nature of how the nsa does that. there were blueprints for exploits, which you might think of as cyber weapons that were leaked out as well, published overseas. what we got is a glimpse into how systematic cyber operations have become for the intelligence

community and how central hacking is to both the intelligence gathering mission of the nsa but also the mission to go out and try and disrupt and penetrate adversary networks. the united states was responsible for knocking north korea offline, the expertise to do that resides in the nsa. those are the people you would task to execute that mission. documents told us a lot about how central the cyber mission has now become for the intelligence community. doctrine ast have a the others do for offense and defense? guest: it is developing. there are some rules of the road beginning to form. how it plays into the sony situation is the question of what constitutes an act of war in cyberspace. what would be an action that a country or group could take against us that would be so significant that the military would recommend that the president have some sort of

response that might even involve cyber operations, a kinetic response. we do not have a lot of doctrine around that yet. it is generally agreed that a cyber attack on a system that causes physical damage, like a blackout or destruction to major communications systems, that might rise to something that the aesident would consider hostile act. but the doctrine of the rules are of engagement are forming around that. we do not know the rules in other countries. when we talk to china, what would we do in your cyberspace that we would consider hostile, and here is what we would consider hostile. the chinese are not telling us a lot. we are not having a two-way conversation. that leads to a misunderstanding. you can see how the doctrine is loose and is not gelling together. let's get to robert in

richmond, virginia. you are on the air. we as a country seem to be -- we are already in that we are all in -- we are all in everybody else's business. -- why are wes always in everyone else's business? when we do not take care of our own at home? is a big policy question in that that i do not know if i am completely qualified to answer, but you are hitting something that i write a lot about in the book. the united states and our officials like to talk a lot about how we are at risk from other countries and how other countries are hacking into our systems, stealing our information, and trying to manipulate our infrastructure. but we are doing a lot of these things to other countries as well. we are one of the big aggressors in cyberspace, so we cannot be that surprised when another

country decides to use these capabilities against us. say we can do is go out and there are certain behaviors across a line. the chinese are notorious for hacking into american corporations and stealing data from us that goes back to their companies, and we say, well, we don't give that information to countries in our country. between thehis line economic espionage they are doing and the kind that we are doing. takingare all out there aggressive measures, so we do not have clean hands in the space. so i do not think it is surprising to administration officials when you see north korea getting up and becoming more aggressive because this is the people are vying for dominance, and so are we. we are part of that entire struggle. host: ray, you are next from

california, an independent. caller: my question is, are you like a security trend specialist in counterfeits? i have been in security for 25 years, and my company is in detection security. you might be a security risk or security police, but i am not sure where you're going. but i am will tell you this, when you start assertions -- because assertion means you are not knowing -- and accuse other countries, especially in cyberspace, when the united states of america -- you do not have a blanket of security. two, you do not have a guard against police infringement. or a security analyst, which might be, according to my -- looking at the situation, especially individuals with no expertise in security, security analysts -- i will tell you this . insecurity, you have to have

strict. you do not have anything strict. a firm, assert, and propose. all that good stuff, if i was to say in exchange for the money that you get paid, what would deter this counterfeit? because that is what it is, right? counterfeit, when you infringe -- i.t.'s, your phones, all that. it is here, not over there. host: i think we got your point. shane harris? guest: you asked me my position. i am a journalist and i write about security and talk to people in the industry. i think you are talking about how it gets to this idea of attribution. how do you have certainty when you are asserting that other countries have done something aggressive. in the sony case, the president directly pointed the finger at

north korea. north korea is responsible for this. it is extremely difficult to know in the whole space when someone is actually behind a particular event are attacked. it is interesting president obama went on television and tells us that the information we have not seen publicly revealed probably is pretty persuasive. but this is an issue in the space of trying to a trip in these particular actions to individual countries. that is very hard, and it makes retaliating for any of these tax or these acts of espionage more difficult because we cannot say with certainty who is responsible for it. host: kathy from long branch, new jersey, a democratic caller. caller: let me tell you something. war? what is a good for? absolutely nothing. except for these people who are hard at oil -- excuse my french -- are absolutely crazy. we voted for obama because he is

an antiwar person. i am not even dates of that anymore. i remember dick cheney did not even -- i were over dick cheney did nothing but lie to us back in the day. host: are we inching toward cyber wars? are we getting closer than that -- closer to that? guest: i think we are. i do not think the sony situation rises to the level of war because no physical damage was done. but let's look at the attack years ago where the u.s. and israel built a computer advisor -- a computer virus that we inserted into a new care system and cause the centrifuge equipment to spin out of control and breakdown. with that qualify as an act of war? perhaps. it certainly was an act of sabotage, causing physical damage to another country, violating its sovereignty. these kinds of instances, you will see more of them. we are entering into a new age of cyber war. and draw a spectrum in the

book of different kind of activities that happen in cyberspace. what looks like war is hacking that has an actual outcome. you break into a computer system to cause physical real-world damage. that is not what happened in the sony case. that is what happened in the iran case. you will be seeing a mixture of all of these kinds of events that we should be careful to classify war legally as something that has an outcome. if something is an act of war, that will prompt a different response than sabotage or basic espionage host:. host:. . --t: here is a tweet how big is the industry? guest: the industry is growing, and some of the startups are companies that come in after a company has been hacked to help them clean it up, helping them putting countermeasures to make

sure it does not happen again. i write in the book about copies helping to develop cyber weapons quietly. it is information that is sold to governments, that is sold to companies in some cases. there is a really booming industry around this. part of the reason is that the governments cannot protect all of the internet. for one thing, the networks in this country, 85% of them are privately owned, private properly, effectively -- private property, a tentatively -- private property, effectively. it depends on the industry to protect itself. target and home depot and sony and j.p. morgan and many more that happened that you never hear about, the more the securities companies will look to experts in the private sector to comment and guard them at i talked to one former official is possible for cyber security in the homeland security

department, we have these -- and he said we have these massive services that are standing up that are as intelligent as the people in the intelligence agencies. many of these companies are formed by people who used to work in the military and intelligence agencies. so the industry is big and it will only become more central to all of security and cyber warfare in the future. book, you say $67 billion worldwide is spent. guest: we should emphasize that is not taking into account offensive spending by governments, classified spending by intelligence agencies, but the market for this, if you are looking at taking a valued measure of this, it is absolutely huge and growing fast. next, froms, your humble, texas, an independent caller. caller: i was calling about the fcc and the rules and regulations. how did we get the war so wrong

when we know about this information? aboutif you are talking the information in the war, let me talk about the current war that we are fighting in syria and iraq and how it pertains to cyber grade we had a lot of success in 2000 seven using hacking to get inside the communication systems, inside al qaeda and iraq. i read about how we were able to break into the networks and find all the major players. we have not had that kind of success with isis because they are not using communications in the same way. much on the phone. they have become very savvy as an adversary for how to counter our hacking and surveillance. feature ofecome a these wars in the future. every time we develop a new way to break into a system or spy on

someone, they are going to develop a countermeasure for that. all of this cyber warfare is about the moves and counter moves sprint it's true and traditional military but the speed at which it's happening in cyberspace is so much greater because of the technology. i think that will become a unique aspect of how we fight wars, the need to constantly be developing moves and counter moves. host: stephen in illinois, independent color, you are next. you, i want day to to comment on the gentle man talking about why are we always in other people's business. i think we have always been a commercial nation and the world is getting smaller. tried to stay out of the world's affairs in world war i. in world warlesson ii by trying to stay out of the world affairs and we were drawn into a bloody mess.

it's not whether we should be involved for our own interests and the stability of the world but it's how we go about it. is, how do struggle we gain partners and deal in the middle east? our engagement in the middle east could make things worse and to succeed.emies you made an interesting point about how the world seems to be getting smaller. cyberspace is a great encapsulation of this idea. the barrier to entry for any building aget into cyber army is much lower than trying to build a maybe orfield and army or build a sophisticated modern air force.

cyberspace is your mining us how interconnected we all are and how this domain is very contested. toe toon can really go toe with us in a kinetic military science. plenty of countries can cause a lot of damage and do a lot to annoy us at the very least in cyberspace. it's a reminder of how small the world actually is and the potential for escalation. host: does that mean that the military/internet complex will be cheaper than the military-industrial complex? guest: it may be. at the end of the day, building cyber systems is a lot cheaper than building missile systems. it isvestment in supported. these are not long-term projects like talking about building of militaries. there will be less money to be made in the government space. that is why i think they will turn more to the private sector.

if you are a start up right now doing private cyber security, a government contract could be very lucrative and get you access to a lot of people and projects you want to work on. it's really, the money will be made in the private sector. $65 billion is a much bigger figure than what they government is spending on cyber security. the real money to be made will be on these companies selling these services to private companies and not just working for the government. different than the military-industrial complex of the past. host: "usa today" has this story -- guest: it's true, another reminder of this is a big multinational corporation, sony,

brought to its knees because its security appears not to have been very good. there is an education campaign that is going on. are watching what happened to sony and wondering if they need to worry about this. is the quest for expertise in information and more intelligence security that will keep driving the growth of this interesting -- of this industry. this is the opinion page of "the wall street journal." how big of a task would that be and what does that entail? >> it would be huge and we have not been successful since the cessation of hostilities in the korean war.

i think what this event reminds people of -- maybe this is the conversation -- even though north korea is this isolated country, a hermit kingdom, it has the ability to project force and influence on provocation outside what it's wait would suggest around the world. if they are in fact responsible for what happened to sony and i put a big"if" on that, look at what they have been able to do. look at the political consequences of this. to say nothing of the damage to the company itself. it is a huge month -- moment that has fixated our national security establishment. i think it's a reminder of how countries like north korea -- iran is in this category -- see cyberspace is a place for they can go and flex their muscles and cause a lot of trouble in ways that they cannot and other domains. we should expect to see more of that. i think this will absolutely

focus the attention on what you do about a larger threat of north korea. you cannot just isolate the cyber problem. it's indicative of a mindset of a country. you see the latest projection of this. host: he says it will come down to china. china not only has these ties to north korea, but it also has economic ties to south korea and that could be the answer. guest: beijing has been not too happy with the regime in north korea. this is a real moment for the obama administration to push china on this question of its relationship with north korea. on the issue of hacking, most of the internet from north korea goes through china. most of the people behind the

sunny attacker probably based in china and that's one way were beijing could crackdown and that's how it will have to happen. this is an opportunity i think for the white house to start pressing for realignment about these priorities. if this was if north korea, we have a public example of why this is a country that is likely to do this again, can't necessarily be trusted to moderate its behavior and china has to worry about this, too. you don't want a rampant cyber actor in your neighborhood claiming to be one of your allies. it will not be a chinese benefit. host: we'll go to texas, an independent, you are up next. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: ok, good morning. host: good morning. how i: i was wondering can get involved in this area.

i have a fatalistic view of everything. host: you are wondering about jobs in this industry? caller: helping develop this area. guest: it's a growth area. government agencies and companies looking for people with expertise in computer science and engineering and programming. we are trying now to field the next generation of hackers to defend and conduct operations offense of late. i think people who are interested in this particularly young people who are interested in this as a career will find that the kinds of places used to go to study computer science for the purpose of writing programs, this -- these may become the new incubators to do cyber security. i think it will be an exciting and interesting time for people who want to be in this field. it is growing so fast. it is so closely tied to

technology which has been the economic trevor for so long. if people want to get involved go to a i would say university that will have a program of computer science and you'll probably start finding the avenues are just opening up. companies are actively looking for people for cyber security. cortland, new york, joseph, democratic caller -- hi, joseph. one last call for joseph. eileen, in on to glencoe new york, independent color. you are on the air. i'm a previous generation of what you folks are talking about. i worked at headquarters and am an air force veteran and i ran their intelligence messaging system in the late 1980's and early 1990's. i have been watching this whole

thing with edward snowden with great interest. know about what our military is capable of, i have noticed a trend in domestic to startnce purview singling people out based on their religion, their gender preferences, their politics. there has been this syndrome rising in the united states and all over the world called a targeted individual where people are being harassed electronically with electronic weapons, they are using more wireless technology to survey houses. au can actually arrange wireless perimeter around the house and you can spy on the people inside using wireless technology now. the fcc does not seem to be

interested.in addressing this the press is completely ignoring the issue. about thee said possibility of looking at this. we are starting to organize now. the people being targeted, including myself, are starting to organize and talk to each other and share our experiences and we want to go to the government and say help us. it has not gotten a lot of tension. -- i tension. -- a tension. the security of the phone system on the wireless on system is an issue that is getting some attention. washington is a city with lots of foreign officials and embassies on a lot of intelligence gathering going on in this city. there are devices right now that are sold cheaply on the open market.

they are stingray devices. the technology to literally sit outside a building and start down during all of the phone signals in that building is very cheap right now. uri could probably go out and put it in our car and sit outside a building into some very basic surveillance if we wanted to. a number of people at the aclu and other x and -- organizations have been raising the question as to why the government is not doing more to secure those systems and make them less vulnerable to spying to say nothing of monitoring buyer on government but by anybody who wants to go out and monitor someone or foreign intelligence organizations that are monitoring embassies. the answer is because the government needs to keep vulnerabilities so it can monitor it as well. it points to one of the really unusual and interesting aspects of cyberspace. the government has this incentive on the one hand to try to make medications networks safer and defend the networks

but on the other, to keep fundamental weaknesses and vulnerabilities in them so we can spy on other people and we can do things to other people and possibly in this country as well. those are very conflicting missions. sorting out which side youerr in ahat is really a policy political challenge and that will be something that future presidents will have to start to reconcile. austin, texas, sue, democratic caller. , before i sayre anything else, when you tell a caller to tender -- turned down their tv come you should also tell them not to watch it. host: ok. caller: there are visual cues that happen and i often hear and stutter because they expect to see your reactions that they will not happen. host: good advice. go ahead with your question or comment. code foram 63 and i

games. in doing this, you have to be able to figure out all the ways the people using your code can abuse it. that is just a game. it can take a long time. came out,bama website it's not the first website that came out horribly. we come as americans, most of us do not code. most of us watch tv. tv, you can fix the hacking problem in an hour. on tv, you can see what's wrong with code in 30 seconds just reading it. that's just not how it works. -- there are so much more involved in it and you have to be able to have guile to understand how people are going

to misuse the code you are writing. you can write code that has that couldentions still have workarounds for people to abuse. guest: you are absolutely right. coding is externally, located. it is in many ways an art as well as a science. it's beautiful, really. ,hat she's pointing out is that particularly in complex systems, orre will always be some way some flaw of vulnerability. that's what hackers are doing is finding those weaknesses. it's incumbent on the people designing these two think one step ahead. what i find fascinating about the engineering of this is that to be a really brilliant hacker, it requires you not just a figure out how you might undo a system but how you might build it so nobody else can manipulate it. this is where you get into the ,eeds of cyber operations

people trying to find the weaknesses and flaws in each other's code and exploit that. these are the kinds of minds that are working both sides of those issues. it's really quite fascinating. it's a field that will grow. i know the administration and others are trying to encourage young people to get into this. they want more women to get involved in coding. this is a feel that has been largely dominated by men in computer science and engineering. teaching kids how to code can i sometimes wonder if it will be like when kids build soapbox derby cars and kids grow up writing codes and programs and apps on they probably will. reservoir ofthe knowledge from which all of this activity will spring in the future. host: from twitter -- there is a lot of similarities. one similarity is that if you take cyber attacks as a category

of military operations, you might put them in the category of something like remote warfare, things we can do without having to send troops to a battlefield. drones are the same thing. the drones that we have now are becoming more sophisticated and advanced. they talk to each other over computer networks and their run over computer and satellite networks. there is a question of whether those networks might be vulnerable to our adversaries. we put all of this in the category of future kind of war being the ones fought remotely for it is not about sending troops into harm's way. it's all most entirely dependent on technology and can indication systems to run. clifton park, new york, independent -- sorry, i have to push the button. now you are on the air. caller: hello, i'm curious to this involves changing

legal tender laws to digital currency. affect -- i think he is concerned with national security and the military and how that relates to the military. if he could comment on that. i would like to take his comments off the air, if i may. guest: it's not something i look at much in the book, digital currency. it's a fascinating subject. that comesquestions up is how do you secure a digital currency system question mark how do you make sure that the essential bank and if you think of it that way, is not hacked. it is a fascinating field of study and i think security is the underpinning of that area. host: the book is "at warp your r." we've got about 10 it's left and we will go to arnold in

tennessee, democratic caller. caller: good morning, how are you all doing? you were talking earlier about code being as much an art as it is a science. i would like to ask you a question -- i have written a book and i put the book online and it's free, there is no charge for it. godislove.org. on pages 31 and 32 of that book, you will see something that is either the signature of god, the signature of intelligent design or it's the signature of just coincidence. from an alignment of 7's the book of revelation. want to say it's nothing but coincidence, host: what does this have to do with the topic? caller: ok, got as a programmer.

carbon-based,n a three-dimensional, virtual reality game called life. just as people turn to god all the time in times of trouble, you know, controlling computer systems and stuff like that will be no problem.for a superior being host: travis in atlanta georgia, the lady had mentioned coding being the responsibility of the coder and before that it was mentioned the israeli attack on the centrifuges. some people talked about the massibility of the fukushi being a recoding. how do you feel about responsibility question mark ,uest: this raises the question

do you blame the victim in an attack? up question has often come of whether or not companies and manufacture pieces of software that have flaws and vulnerabilities in them should be held to some degree of liability. that has been something that has been a big debate. we should underscore that persistent hackers who want to break into networks and disrupt the's are always going to have an advantage which is time. they will constantly devote time to get out a system. if someone was to break into your house, you can protect your self as much as possible but they may find a way into it. the responsibility and onus has to be on people creating software to make your they aren't as secure as possible but that aderstand persistent adversary will have time and possibly resources to come after you. most people are not equipped to deal with that. we should not be too quick even

in a case like sony, there is a lot of blaming the victim that goes on in these cases. that may be an element of but let's remember that we don't go around blaming people for their houses getting robbed or for acts of violence perpetrated against them. there is a little bit of blame the victim mentality in cyberspace that should be modulated. host: another situation in the book is the relationship tween the government and tech giants like google and microsoft in this arena. what is going on there? guest: they are joining up largely because the government cannot protect all of these massive networks in the country on its own. it needs companies to tell the government what kind of threats they are seeing and what are the signatures and patterns and trends they are seeing in their network. google processes so much of the world's into met traffic -- internet traffic and has a

vantage point internetworks. a number of years ago, after google was actually hacked by spies in china and had some of its intellectual property compromise, they formed a secret agreement with the national security agency whereby google provides information to the nsa about the threats it sees and editing from its networks. an essay is supposed to in turn informed google about the kinds of things it sees perhaps from classified sources. this information sharing model which is unprecedented in american history -- companies becoming the beneficiaries of government intelligence derived from espionage and companies working with spy agencies to protect private systems is fascinating. that is at the heart of how the government is doing cyber security on a broad scale. it's partnering with industries and companies and saying let's work together and share information to attack this problem. there are those in the government who would rather have the agencies like nsa come into those networks and take that job over entirely.

the companies have resisted that and do not want intelligence agencies in their network that they're willing to form these partnerships as long it does not involve wholesale handing over the keys to your network. host: temple, texas, sam, democratic caller. good morning to you. you are on the air. caller: yes, you have to turn your tv off. listen through the phone. you are on. to cutler in new hampshire, democratic caller. caller: yes. you are looking very nice this morning. i wish the staff merry christmas.

the topic as i see is the rise of the military. i am ex navy from vietnam. i am in recovery and an alcoholic. i cannot justify any war we have been in except for world war ii and we did not enter that until we were affected by pearl harbor. i guess my feeling here is that we go into some of these wars looking for the best interest of the united states. oil or whatever. we have also supported corrupt dictators. i think it's time for the people of this country to wake up to is a lot oft there collateral damage for heard a man speak this morning who was sent 13 times to afghanistan.

ptsd, heck, he's got went to drugs and alcohol and today, through the grace of aa and god, he had dinner with his children who had turned away from him. host: we are running out of time. guest: as far as collateral damage, there is that risk in cyber wars. all of us who have to use the internet as well, the big question for policymakers in washington is if we are going to devote resources to defending our computer networks and the vital infrastructure in the united states, at the same time, we will have a mission of trying , how do youtworks reconcile those? i think we need to have a real discussion about which side of that ledger will come down on. if defense is the business of

the government to make the internet safer, there are a lot of things we are doing better making the internet less safe in trying to make it safer. there's a conflict between our missions now that we have not sorted out. host: what is the justification? guest: from the united states perspective, if we don't get their other countries will first. they will take over and dominate this space in the u.s. does not want to allow that to happen. we should also at the size that networks in this country are under assault. copies are having their intellectual properties stolen. the sony case has risen to the level of public optio consciousness and thousands of other companies are being compromised for it is a real threat and needs to be addressed from host: that's what we'll talk about coming up next about the sony movie. do you plan to see a question mark guest: absolutely, hope they show it in washington. i want to see of it is any good. i think they set their

expectations pretty high. i wanted to see before but i think it is a happening. i personally think that sony should air the film. i don't think we should bow to threats from whomever it was be -- that was behind this. it is free expression and i'm in the category of people who believe that. i will see the movie just as an active protest or a sign of solidarity. shane harris, rights for "the daily beast," covering cyber security and out with a new book "@ >> join us tomorrow for the washington examiner's rebecca berg to talk about the 2016 election. diplomacy andblic pop culture in the wake of the sony hack attack. the show is live tomorrow and every day at 7:00 eastern on

c-span. all this week we have been showing you selections from 10 years of our q&a program. join us for a conversation with the late syndicated columnists, robert novak. that is today at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. we will show you president obama and the first family as they like the national christmas tree. musical performances, and a reading by the first lady on the night before christmas. this year's white help -- white house decorations. and journalists and scholars discuss the issue at a recent innt hosted by the museum washington.

you can watch the program tonight starting at 9:00 eastern. also here on c-span. >> i would say in the hobby lobby case, having to do with the right of a private business under the religious freedom act to refuse to provide contraceptive health coverage for their female employees, i would say the opinion of justice alito very much was influenced by his religious preferences. to accept the notion that corporation, an artificial being can have some manner of religious belief system transferred to it by its owners, aside from being close to debatable is highly in terms of social philosophy.

alitohink that justice went into that case believing corporations, because they are in some sense people, even george romney believe that, because they are in some sense people they probably are capable of absorbing the religious preferences and value system of their owners. >> that is a brief portion of tonight's program. you can see the entire event starting at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. >> here is a look at the programs you will find christmas day. all of the day activities start at 10:00 eastern. the lighting of the national christmas tree followed by the white house christmas decorations.

just after 12:30, celebrity activist talk about their causes. alito and jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. at c-span 2, the art of good .riting with steven pinker and the feminist side of a superhero, the secret history of wonder woman. pamela paul talk about their reading habits. eastern, the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage of george bush and bob dole. speeches from john kennedy and ronald reagan. fashion experts on first lady fashion choices and how they represent styles of the time in which they live. yearsm brokaw on his 50 of reporting on world events. that is christmas day on the c-span network.

for a complete schedule go to c-span.org. >> sunday, washington post fact checker glenn kessler on his -- ast a note you of 2014 ot >> democrats get more upset because i think they have bought into the myth of a liberal media. they think the media is on their side. republicans believe in the myth of the lowball -- liberal media. they expect they are going to be , they're not quite be fair to me. over the last four years i have done enough back-and-forth, treated both parties with equal fervor that people have now come to

grudgingly say ok, you are someone we can do business with. i know that the senate majority pack, which is affiliated with harry reid, they stopped insuring -- answering my questions midway through the campaign season. they felt they were not getting a fair shake from me. on q&a.y night >> as the 113 congress draws to a close, we have been talking to retire members of congress. next, dave camp, the chair of the ways and means committee has risen it michigan for two decades. c-span2 reflect on his time in the house of representatives.

this is happening hour. -- this is half an hour. >> house ways and means committee chairman dave camp. we're talking on closing hours on congress. in your time here, you've had something of a singular focus for tax reform, tax overhaul. you're leaving congress without achieving that. why not? >> well, when i became chairman four years ago, i knew that we had to do something about this policy that had expired. and then we retroactively put it in place. we're the only nation in the world that let's its tax policy expire. so my first hearing was on tax reform. you're right. it was my focus. i spent really three years -- i put out a discussion draft on the international taxes in october 2011. and then obviously created bipartisan working groups, more than 35 hearings, really to get the right input from families, businesses, stakeholders. but, you know, these are big things to move. i had a good partner this the senate with senator baucus.

we traveled the country together to highlight different parts of the tax code. a lot of the members got involved. but unless you have a president who is involved in something this big, it's not really going to move too far. but i thought it was very important to push. it's a debate this country needs to have. with edon't have the kind of -- we don't have the kind of growth in our economy, we don't have the kind of job creation or the kind of growth in incomes that we absolutely need to have. so it's a debate we need to have in america. i think the step now is the treasury department and administration need to come up with their detailed plan. they were part of the process. they've seen everything we've done. they now need to come forward, if they -- if the president does want to actually grow the economy, bring more revenue to the government and higher incomes to people, this is one way to do it. so i think it will happen.

>> i would do it again. i mean, i think it is so important to try to push this issue forward. somebody had to start. and people said to me, it's too complicated. it can't be done. and i showed them it can be done. that's really the most important thing. the second most important thing that came out of this is we got dynamic scoring of a tax bill for the first time. dynamic scoring is a much more real world evaluation of what we're trying to do. typically, tax bills had been scored by what they call static scoring, which is just they assumed that the economy would never grow, even no matter the tax policy changed, and they assumed that people wouldn't change their behavior as a result of tax policy. we know that didn't isn't true. i liken it to physics where they tell you assume there is no gravity. and you go outside and there is gravity. this dynamic scoring will be absolutely critical moving forward on any debate involving economic or tax policies, because we're actually know, does it create jobs?

can labor and employment and investment grow at the same time? and so not only did the joint committee on taxation evaluate this and said the economy, under my bill, which is now h.r. 1, would grow by 20%, other outside entities were able to score this detailed draft and now h.r. 1 and say, yes, it would grow. so the outside groups and think tanks and we had a university study, they confirmed what the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation did. some very good things were accomplished by this, even though it didn't get all the way over to the goal line. i'd liken this to a car analogy. this is the chassis. you might change the taillights and grill, but the car is going to have a chassis and this chassis is really what i think will be used going ahead. >> will you explain a little bit of the symbolism of h.r. 1 and also the fact that you formally introduced it just as congress is about to go away. >> i always said it was a

discussion draft. we wanted to get input and that's what we did. i also thought it was important to use that h.r. 1 designation which the speaker gave me at the beginning of this congress, which really says this is a priority bill. and i thought it was very important moving forward that it wasn't just a discussion draft, that in future congresses and in future years, it's actually referred to as h.r. 1. it actually is a bill, not just a draft. too much work went into it, i think, to get let it just sort of fade as a draft. it needed really to get that introduction. now that we're getting to the end of this congress, i thought the timing was right to do that. >> you didn't have much time left so -- >> gotta make the most of what you have! >> even though you knew it was a symbolic measure, what was it like standing there and introducing it today? >> it was very exciting. i actually did it yesterday. it really was sort of the culmination of the evident of

not just me but the entire committee was involved. many members on the committee from both sides said they very much really found the process. and that's what we came here to do. we came here to legislate. we came here to do things. and i think, particularly my party needed to be the party of opportunity. we were in the majority in the house. we needed to be the party of ideas. and i'm not afraid of a debate on ideas. i think those are what we were sent here to do, not just sort of sit there and hope you win. >> the process that you just described to me, that you worked through with your own members on both sides of the aisle and also with senator bawng baucus, a democrat, runs counter to the popular image in washington today. >> right. >> were you an anomaly in this evident or is there -- in this effort, or is in more of this bipartisan effort that the public needs to know about? >> i think it was a bit of an anomaly.

senator baucus, then chairman of the senate finance committee, my counterpart in the senate, he and i had the first joint hearing with house and senate ways and means committee and senate finance members together since just after world war ii. so it's been a long time since we'd gotten together on issues. and that, i thought, was an important move to make, an important symbolic move as well as an important legislative move. i knew that whatever i did wouldn't pass unless the senate was involved too. so that was why i thought it was very important to do that. >> so in if the larger rank and file or even within your own conference, did you find people that really weren't happy that you were working with the other side? >> well, some people were afraid that it was too controversial, that you'd make some people mad. and clearly there are trade-offs. i mean, what we did was simplify the tax code. 95% of americans would not have to itemize.

they would file the two-page 1040. they would not have to keep records, because they're getting the standard deduction. on the business side, we modernized international tax laws, allowed the $2 trillion that was overseas to come back without the double penalty that they pay now, took the dollars raised from the repateation and used that to fund infrastructure. there had to be trade-offs. there had to be certain provisions that weren't there anymore. some that would be too controversial. i don't think that's really something that should have driven the whole debate. so they were afraid to really get involved. what i found is people were just so grateful that we were trying to make things better. they know the code is complicated. and they know we're out of date in terms of our competitors. they know we need to make changes there. and so what was important, and

the discussion really actually did sort of evolve there, is not just what the provision is that might not be there anymore, might be changed or altered, but what does it mean in the context of a 25% rate with a growing economy? that's why it was so parent to so important to get the dynamic score. it was no longer just about the narrow provision. but it was about the narrow provision in the context of the entire bill and the economy. that was a very different prospect. for example, to an employer or businessman that came in and said we don't like what you're doing to our stuff you could say but more jobs are going to be created and more people are going to have higher incomes and our bill said about $1500 a year in median income would increase. it had been declining so big turn around on that. more people could buy cars, houses, give to charity. our bill actually showed charitable contributions would go up 2 billion because peoper