chatter] >> up next, the swearing in of a new defense secretary ashton carter, followed by remarks from president obama. then eric holder at the national press club. then later vice president biden on combating terrorism. >> on the next "washington journal," alan gomez discusses the decision by a judge in texas to temporarily block the president's action on immigration. more on the blocking of the

executive action, the process of -- possibility of a dhs shutdown and rebecca berg of the washington examiner. later our to her -- tour of historically black colleges and universities continues with brian johnson at tesco g university -- tuskegee university. former defense secretary william cohen sits down to discuss the teacher of defense wednesday looking at issues like the situation in ukraine and pandemic diseases. we will have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern rum the center american progress. the c-span cities tour takes tv on the road, traveling to u.s.

cities to learn about the history and literary life. we partnered with time warner cable for a grids it -- visit to greensboro, north carolina. >> after months of cleaning the house, charles was making one more walk-through and in the attic he saw an envelope with a green seal and walked over. noticed the date was 1832. he removed a single nail from a panel in an upstairs cattle and discovered a trunk, books and portraits. this was this treasure of dolly madison's things. we have had it available to the public displaying different items from time to time but trying to include her life's story to her death in 1849.

some of the items we currently have on display -- a calling card ivory case with has -- which has her signature as well. some small cut glass perfume bottles and a pair of silk slippers that have tiny little ribbons that tie across the arch of her foot. the two dresses are the reproduction of a peach silk down that she wore early in life and a red velvet down lasted and was heart of this collection. and there is a legend that accompanies the dress. >> watch all of our events from greensboro, saturday at noon and sunday afternoon at 2:00.

>> vice president joe biden swore in ashton carter tuesday. the 20 minute ceremony took place in the roosevelt room of the white house. >> make a two-for-one. [indiscernible] >> hello, everyone. welcome to the roosevelt room. dr. carter, stephanie, william carter, where is william?

hey, man. how are you? welcome. daughter ava couldn't be present today, but the deputy secretary who has been running things, it's been a great asset to the department. general marty dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, as well as admiral james winnifeld, vice-chairman, and members of the carter transition team. i said as i walked in, tash, if anyone is made for this job, if there's a job description that that the person, this is the guy that fits the job description. it's kind of fitting that we are here the roosevelt room, a lot of renaissance men, from teddy to franklin. they get sworn in in this room. ash, you are a scholar of strategic military affairs, and nuclear weapons policy. a profoundly capable manager demonstrated time and again with universal respect and affection of the people you work with. reflected in a near unanimous vote in the united states

senate. we have to talk more. [laughter] i tell you what, they used to be the good old days. i'm glad you got us back and harness, got the senate back in harness. a physicist with a genuine expert on the acquisition and technical capabilities that are going to help guarantee the united states military is second to none in the world. this man has a driving intellectual force behind all that he does, and all this in administration has been doing. strengthening our nations -- nation's cyber security, and deepening defense cooperation with india. even when you were allegedly gone, we never let you go. i don't how many times i was on the phone with you for your advice after you had left. the president didn't like it when you work here, -- when you weren't here, ash.

i'm glad you are back. most importantly, you have been a fighter like the men and women in uniform, have been a fighter for the women and men who served in uniform. our incoming secretary of defense, like his predecessor, understands that while this country has many obligations, it only has one truly sacred obligation, many obligations but one truly sacred one. and that's to equip and protect those we sent to war, and care for the families while they are there, and them and their families when they come home. years ago, when we learned that what improvised explosive devices were, it's hard to believe that 15 years ago, people were talking about -- we didn't know what ied's work on it wasn't part of the

vocabulary. they are responsible for upwards of 60% of the death and injuries to our troops in iraq and afghanistan. and ash carter was the guy who leapt into action to honor that sacred obligation -- taking care of our troops. he was then undersecretary of defense of acquisition technology and logistics. and then as deputy secretary, he works like the devil to get our troops mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. they have saved lives and limbs, and countless numbers for american women and men. i can remember, ash, i read your report and then spoke at the time on the senate with the commandant of the marine corps. we had a universal opposition to spending money at the time it, as you are member.

even some division within the defense department on whether we should spend the money. that was $23 billion we were trying to get that year. to begin to build these. it's faced not only bureaucratic opposition, but there was opposition on the floor of the united states senate. i have a great privilege of leading the effort to get this money put in the budget. and remember before we went in to the debate, going around quoting you, referencing your report. and then in the middle of the debate, why was told by democrats and republicans, leaders in the house -- in the senate armed services committee, that this was not a priority for the united states military, i called up then the commandant of the marine corps. i left the floor, i suggested the absence of a quorum, left the floor, and went back into the cloak room. and he referenced your report as well, and said he believed, i'm paraphrasing, his highest moral obligation was to get these

built. and so, guess what? we did. but then the argument became a are we building too many? i remember saying is a little like franklin roosevelt saying how we built to many landing craft? because we are not going to be able to use than after this, we won't need the very much. that was the argument of the time. we shouldn't build as many because we're not going to need them. we're not going to need them, why waste the money? in the end, we sent more than 24,000 two iraqi in afghanistan, and your binary work was was saved thousands of lives and limbs. i remember my next trip to afghanistan, after this.

to iraq, they were in falluja and the battle had been run. there was a group they wanted to show me. it was a meeting going on. they wanted to show me one that had just been blown up. two young sergeants in an armored humvee got out of their vehicles and showed me how this one was blown up. i forget how many pounds of explosives, but it blew the entire vehicle up higher than a telephone pole, it brought down wires. but they all survived. they had all of the soldiers there survive because the internal portion of the vehicle was preserved. if you did nothing else in your career, that was a pretty important thing to have done. but that's just one example of the way he cares for the troops. the also led the effort to develop -- this is not a joke, protective undergarments.

earned him a pair of signed bulletproof underwear, but enduring gratitude from writers whose bodies were broken -- run broken because of what he rushed into the field. ash and stephanie -- my deceased wife used to say you want a measure of a man or a woman, look at what they do if no one was looking. if no one was looking. almost every saturday, when no one was looking, ash and stephanie were out at walter reed, no cameras, no publicity no advance. they just became regulars. they got to know the families of those women and men, they looked after their children, they saw these warriors heal. and they formed lasting bonds with hundreds upon hundreds of these young women and men. that's what endeared the most to you, ash and stephanie.

he didn't just do these things he wrote eloquently about the lessons of his experience of the next time, we could do a lot better. in other words, ash carter is a thinker and a do or. he gets things done, he's famous for holding meetings while walking briskly in the pentagon with aides struggling to give scribble and jog simultaneously. they hope you stay in the bigger office and don't wander as much. and woe to the person who runs -- carter -- runs into ash carter having not finish a project. they're probably staffers over there thinking of the things they told you you would do before you left. where is that memo, did i get it all done?

many tough missions as you know as well as any of the men or women in here lie ahead, from the fight against isil, to the asia-pacific rebalance, to maintaining a technological edge, to the continuous efforts to make the most out of every dollar we invest in defense. as you know now, after your vote, not only to the president and i, and the chiefs, but the united states senate are counting on you to keep holding yourself and all in your charge to the highest possible standards required for our ideals. never stop demanding and delivering the best for the men and women in uniform. and dr. carter, as you take leadership of this greatest military in the history of mankind, that is not hyperbole. that is an absolute fact. in all of human history, there has never been a military as capable as this.

you do so with confidence of everyone in your building, confidence in the united states senate, the confidence of president obama and me. and so many other people who admire your work. so, god bless your mission old buddy, and may god protect our troops. now, i'm going to, with your permission, i'm going to administer the oath, and you and i are going to have to sign a few documents here to make it official. and then i'm going to turn it over to you. you walk up to her, and he raised her hand. put your left hand on the bible. i, state your name. >> i, ashton carter, do solemnly swear, that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic that i will their true faith to

legions of the state. but i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of invasion. and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which i'm about to enter. so help me god. >> secretary, thank you. [applause] you and i have to sign this, ash. and then the podium yours. let me make sure i sign the right place. sign there, and i'll get out of the way. >> well, thank you as vice

president. i think you know how much it means to me to have you swear me in today. i thank you. and for me, this is the highest honor, to be the 25th secretary of defense. i'm grateful to the president, and the vice president for your trust and confidence, and to the u.s. senate as well, for their trust and confidence. i've got a lot of banks to give out here, first and foremost to my perfect wife stephanie. my wonderful sun will, and my daughter ava, already mentioned. a number of folks who were part of my transition team, and helped me get to where i am, without whom i would not be where i am.

i won't name each and everyone of you, but i'm looking at you. and i appreciated it. it was a time when i really needed help. and i got help from you all. and to join, my wonderful deputy bob lark, my fantastic chairman, marty dempsey, i've known and worked with you before. it's wonderful to rejoin the team with you. i have some special friends here, deputy secretary of energy liz sherwood, i'm very grateful that you would come today and take your time to be with me. all the rest of my team to be, eric, ron, thank you all very much for being here. i am honored to rejoin the men and women of the defense department in what is the highest calling, which is the defense of our country. starting today, i want to make three commitments to them, and

to the country, and to the president, and to the vice president. and my fellow citizens. the first is to help our president make the best possible decisions about our security and the security of the world. and then, to ensure that our department executes those decisions with its long accustomed competence and effectiveness. and while we deal with the challenges to our national security, i also want to make sure that i help our leadership grab hold of the wonderful opportunities that lie before this great country. and to make the world better place for our children, and to create a safer world.

my second commitments is to the men and women of the department of defense, whom i will lead to reflect in everything i do, and to honor the commitment and dedication that brought them into service. to protect their dignity, their safety, their well-being. to make decisions about sending them into harms way with the greatest reflection and care. and third, i have a commitment to the future. to building a force for our future. that involves not only securing the resources we need, but making sure that we make the best use of the taxpayer's dollar. make sure that we embrace change so that years from now, and

decades from now, we continue to be a place where america's finest want to serve. a place that is a beacon to the rest of the world, a place that has the best in the way of technology, and in the way of caring for our own people, and people around the world. we are entering the fourth quarter of this president's tenure. these commitments i think will help me help him come and help the vice president to ensure that those years are productive, and that they leave our country's future in the best possible place, in the best

possible hands. so thank you, once again, for this honor and privilege, to lead and serve alongside the members of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. thank you. [applause] [indiscernible] [indiscernible]

[indistinct chatter] >> ashton carter becomes the >> president obama met with the defense secretary in his private office. i just had a chance to meet the first time with my new official secretary of defense, we spoke about a wide array of things around the world, to make sure we're dismantling isil, not only

stabilizing the situation in iraq but addressing the foreign fighters and the violent extremism that has been turbocharged through the internet. we also had an true opportunity about how to make the sick -- strongest and most effective military in the world. i could not be more confident. he will do an outstanding job and is hitting the ground running having already spent a lot of time in this administration. i want to thank the senate for concert -- confirming him an outstanding almost unanimously. i think america will be better off for mr. ashton carter. i disagree with the texas judge

's ruling and the justice department will appeal. this is not the first time where a lower court judge has locked something or attempted to block something that ultimately was shown to be lawful. i'm confident that it is well within my authority and the tradition of the executive branch's process per -- prosecutorial discretion. it will help make our borders safer and will help us go after criminals and those -- it will help able get on the right side of the law. to get out of the shadows. keep in mind, this is something that we necessarily have to make choices shadows. about because we have 11 million people here who we are not all going to support. many

-- all going to deport. many of them are natives, many of their children, many of the relatives. and the action i took was for dreamers. people who come here as young children and americans by any other name except for the legal papers who want to serve this country and oftentimes to go into the military or start as mrs. or in otherwise contribute -- start businesses or in other ways contribute. i don't think were going to ship them out, that is not who we are. my hope is that throughout this process, the only way we are going to get the broken

immigration system fully fixed is by congress acting. we know there has been bipartisan support enter the past with immigration reform, i held off on these executive actions until we had exhausted all possibility of getting congressional action. with a new congress, my hope has been they get serious in solving the problem and instead we have had a series of votes to kick out young people who have grown up here and everybody recognizes are a part of our community and threats to defund the department of homeland security which would make it even harder to protect our borders. my strong advice right now to congress is if they are seriously concerned about immigration and our borders and about being able to keep criminals out of this country what they should be doing is

working together for a comprehensive immigration policy that will allow us to have a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. certainly they need to start funding the department of homeland security so they can go forward with all the functions that republicans say they want carried out including strong border functions. with respect to the ruling, i disagree with it. i think the law is on our side and history is on our side. we are going to appeal it. for those who are wondering whether or not they should apply , we will defer those questions to the apartment of homeland security -- department of homeland security. we will be repaired to make sure the legal issues get resolved. >> [indiscernible]

>> keep in mind, we are not going to disregard the federal court ruling. the law is the law in this country and we take things one step at a time. we will not be taking applications in until this case is settled. but we are doing the secretary work because this is a place of business. it is important that you actually secure our borders successfully and to allocate limited resources to the most important tasks and functions that the department of homeland security has. we should not be telling in some mother away from her child when the child has been born here in the mom has been living here for 10 years mining her own business -- minding her own business and being an important part of the community.

we should be focused at stopping people at the border and re-focusing our effectiveness there and going after criminals and felons who are in our midst who we can border and support. strengthening our systems for legal immigration. those are things we could be going through with a comprehensive immigration reform bill and we know there has been in the past bipartisan support for that. as i said before, i am not willing to stand by and do nothing but engage in a lot of political rhetoric. i am interested in solving problems and i would like to see congress take that same approach. in the meantime, the department of homeland security will continue, because we want to make sure that as soon as these legal issues get solved, that we are ready to go. thank you very much, everybody. [shouting questions]

>> thank you. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. there are also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the veteran. keep track of the members of congress using the congressional chronicle. the page has lots of useful information including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. >> the bookings institution posted discussions on the civil war and violence in yemen and libya. we'll have coverage starting at

9:00 a.m. eastern. later the pakistani interior and narcotics control minister is in washington d.c.. you can see that live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. the c-span cities tour takes american history and book tv on the road. this weekend we partnered with time warner cable for a great -- visit to greensboro north carolina. >> after months of cleaning the house, charles halpern was making one more walk-through and in the attic he looked over and saw an envelope with a great seal on it and walked over and noticed the date was in 1832 document. he removed a single mail from a panel in an upstairs attic room, and discovered a trunk and books

and portraits stuck under the eaves, and this was this treasure of dolly madison's things. we've had the story available to the public, is playing different items from time to time. but trying to include her life story from her birth to her death in 1849. some of the items we currently have on display -- a card, ivory calling card case, it has a card enclosed with her signature as well as that of her niece anna. some small cut glass perfume bottles. and a pair of silk slippers that have tiny little ribbons that tie across the arch of her foot. and the dresses are the reproductions of a silk, peach silk down that she wore earliest in life, and a red velvet down which has intrigued both that

it's lasted and it's part of this collection, there's also a legend that is now accompanying the stress. >> watch all of our events from greensboro. saturday at noon eastern on c-span two's book tv. >> outgoing attorney general eric holder was a featured speaker at the national press club. he spoke on nonviolent drug offenders, the death penalty and terrorism. this is an from our. eric holder, the 82nd attorney

general of the united states is one of three original members of president obama's cabinet still in office. he is among the longest-serving attorney generals in history. and he took office in 2009 as the nation's first african-american attorney general, it was a tough time to begin. the nation was debating how to collect intelligence and prevent terrorist attacks without infringing upon civil liberties. states were fighting the federal government over voting rights, marijuana legalization immigration, and same-sex marriage. under holder, the justice department aggressively fought new voter indication laws that he characterized as both overt and subtle forms of discrimination. the justice department under holder also stopped defending defense of marriage act cases. holder addressed the intersection of new technology in u.s. law, such as the use of drones in targeted killings when the u.s. killed a terrorist suspect, an american citizen and

top recruiter for al qaeda. critics accused the u.s. of sanctioning assassinations. holder said that he sought to strike a nation at war and a nation of laws. in his final year as attorney general, the deaths of two unarmed black man, eric garner and michael brown, caused many to question whether all citizens could trust police to protect them. in meetings and speeches, older has sought to confront these issues, convening a series of discussions around the country. holder announced his departure from the office he holds late last year, pending confirmation of his successor. he has begun to reflect on his six years in office. he might have summed it up best with something he said back in 2010.

he put it this way. i quote, "one of the things i have learned over the last year is that it is simply not possible as attorney general to make everyone happy." as we would say here, spoken like a true journalist. join me in welcoming mr. eric holder. [applause] attorney general holder: thank you president hughes for that kind introduction. for your leadership and stewardship of this venerable institution. i would also like to thank the past president for inviting me to be here. i would like to think your entire board of governors for their critical work and all of the journalists who contribute so much to our

national discourse. we don't always agree but we have good conversations that i think is ultimately good for our democracy. it is a pleasure to stand among so many distinguished members of the board of state and i am humbled to follow in the footsteps of the really remarkable men and women who have addressed this organization since its founding over a century ago. before we open the floor for questions, i have to give you a commercial. i would like to take a few minutes to discuss the latest developments in the justice department's ongoing efforts in the field of criminal justice reform as well as the significant and extremely promising results we are beginning to see, just 18 months after the launch of our smart on crime initiative. when i took office a little over six years ago -- i am the third longest serving attorney general in history -- i saw the

i saw the american justice system from different angles. i have had the great honor of serving alongside and learning from countless dedicated lawyers, great men and women in law enforcement, and leading criminal justice experts. i served under administrations led by presidents of both political parties. despite the progress of lowering the crime rate, real and daunting challenges remain before us. i understood that few of these challenges were more pressing than to strengthen the federal justice system and to reduce america's overreliance on incarceration. after all, the u.s. comprises 5% of the worlds population. we incarcerate almost a quarter

of its prisoners. 25% of the world's prisoners are in american prisons. the entire population has increased by a third since 1980. the federal prison population has grown by 800% over the same period. on the day i took office, as a result of well intentioned policies, designed to be tough on drugs, nearly half of all federal inmates were serving time for drug-related offenses. as many of you have thoroughly reported, this state of affairs not only had serious financial limitations for our country, it also exacted a human and moral toll that is impossible to calculate.

studies show that the policies that impose these costs have not had a significant impact in making our communities measurably safer. the persistence of the status quo demanded that national criminal justice leaders really closely examine our institutions and re-orient our practices. under president obama's leadership, we began to push for serious change. in 2010, as a result of our efforts and the close partnership of leaders from both parties, both parties, on capitol hill, the president was able to sign the fair sentencing act. over the years, we have also worked to strengthen reentry policies, to advance targeted improvements.

in early 2013, i took these efforts to a new level by initiating an unprecedented justice department review of the federal criminal justice system as a whole, to identify obstacles and efficiency and inequities and address ineffective policies. now, this review culminated about 18 months ago with the launch of smart on crime. it was a catch-all term for a range of reforms that we implemented simultaneously in the summer of 2013, each one of which was significant in its own right. we made major changes to the departments policies related to non-violent drug offenders. we put sensible limits on when it was appropriate to seek formal sentences based on prior criminal records. we took steps to improve reentry processes to reduce the chances that incarcerated individuals

reoffend after they exit prisons. taken together, these reforms reflect the department's age-old commitment to the criminal justice system that is fair, that deters serious criminal conduct and holds people accountable for their crimes and utilizes incarceration wisely, to punish, deter, and rehabilitate. not merely confine and forget. as my colleagues and i have implemented new crime prevention efforts for effective community policing and promised diversion and reentry strategies, i spoke extensively about the changes we have made and the vision that has driven us forward. i pointed to the favorable results we have seen on the state level, in places like kentucky, texas, ohio, and pennsylvania, where governors and legislatures of both parties have provided models for others to emulate by directing funding

away from prison construction and towards programs designed to reduce -- i have put emphasis on two vital reforms at the heart of the initiative. the prioritization of cases and the critical changes in charging processes. the data is preliminary, but it shows that the smart on crime initiative is working exactly as it was intended. it is having a real and measurable impact on the decisions made by federal prosecutors from coast to coast. the changes we have implemented are firmly taking hold. the key reforms appear to be successful by every measure that we have taken and seen so far. the numbers are particularly encouraging in three areas i would like to discuss with you today.

first, among the central components is an effort to reduce unnecessary incarceration by asking federal prosecutors to exercise their discretion and to make smart and targeted decisions about which cases warrant federal prosecution. as i said in a speech to the american bar association in august of 2013, not every drug case should be brought to federal court. accordingly, i directed the u.s. attorneys to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines, consistent with national priorities for determining when federal charges should be filed and when cases should be handled at the state or local level. today, i'm pleased to report that our federal prosecutors are heeding the call and are being more selective in bringing certain drug prosecutions. between 2013 and 2014, the number of defendants charged with drug trafficking offenses declined by nearly 1400

individuals. this is a reduction of more than 6%. second, i instructed the prosecutors that in the course of weighing which type of drug cases merit federal prosecution, they should focus on the worst offenders and crimes. today, prosecutors are focusing their attention and resources on the most serious cases. in 2013, before smart on crime was implemented, the average guideline minimum for federal drug prosecutions, the average prison term suggested was 96 months.

a year later, while the number of prosecutions has dropped, the serious drug offenses are getting the most scrutiny. third, in august of 2013, i also ordered a modification of the justice department so that people accused of low-level drug offenses face sentences appropriate to their individual conduct, rather than excessive mandatory minimum sentences. the change was founded on the belief that by preserving mandatory minimum sentences for the cases where they are warranted -- we can better promote safety deterrence and rehabilitation while making our system more productive. today, we are making significant progress towards this goal. in the year before the policy took effect, roughly 64% of federally charged drug trafficking offenses carried a

mandatory minimum sentence. last year, the new policy brought the number down to approximately 51%, a reduction of 20% relative to the prior year. we have gone from seeking a mandatory minimum penalty in two out of every three drug trafficking cases to doing so in one out of two. that is a major reduction. it is historic. the sentencing commision confirmed the numbers show that federal prosecutors have a lower rate in 2014 than in any other year on record. this figure, perhaps more than any other, shows the significant impact policy reforms are having. all other factors may play a role in the drop we are seeing in the overall number of drug cases, as a kind is pronounced in the rate at which are prosecutors pursued mandatory minimum sentences can only be attributed to the changes announced in 2013.

these are encouraging results. they demonstrate that since we launched the smart on crime initiative, the federal government has begun to operate more efficiently by reducing its involvement in low-level criminal activity. more effectively, by targeting the serious crimes, and more fairly, by ensuring that those who are convicted of crimes receive sentences that are commensurate with their conduct. now, some have suggested that reducing our reliance on mandatory minimum sentences might negatively impact prosecutors' ability to get defendant cooperation. a defendant in a drug case would have substantially less incentive to provide information or testimony about others who might being engaged in criminal

enterprise. some worried that prosecutors would be unable to obtain guilty pleas. i never considered these concerns persuasive. like anyone who is old enough to have served as a prosecutor in the days before the sentencing guidelines existed as mandatory minimums took effect, i knew from experience that defendant cooperation depends on the certainty of swift and fair punishment, not on the disproportionate length of a mandatory minimum sentence. with or without the threat of a mandatory minimum, it will always be in the interest of defendants to cooperate with the government. i'm gratified, but no means surprised, to announce that the smart on crime approach has been vindicated by the data we have gathered. even the mandatory minimums have been charged significantly less

frequently under the new policy, the percentage of cases in which we receive substantial cooperation from defendants has remained exactly the same. it also holds true of the ability of the prosecutors to secure guilty pleas in these cases. the year before smart on crime took effect, our prosecutors had guilty pleas in 97% of the cases. a year later, the percentage stands at 97.5%. the notion that the smart on crime initiative is somehow robbing us of an essential tool is contradicted not only by our history, but by clear and objective empirical facts. this new data shows we can

confront over incarceration at the same time we continue to promote public safety. already in fiscal year 2014, we saw the first reduction in the federal prison population in 32 years. meanwhile, since president obama has taken office, we have had is a continued decline in the overall crime rate. this marks the first time that any administration has achieved side-by-side reductions of both crime and incarceration in more than 40 years. all of this progress is remarkable and all of it is notable. these concrete results illustrate the tremendous and real promise of the work that smart on crime initiative possible. it signifies a paradigm shift in the way our nation approaches vital questions of fairness and justice. in the preliminary data, criminal justice reform is an idea whose time has finally come.

now, for years prior to this administration, federal prosecutors were not only encouraged, they were required to always seek the most severe prison sentence possible for all drug cases. no matter the relative risk they pose to public safety. now, i've made a break from that philosophy. old habits are hard to break but these numbers show a dramatic shift is underway in the minds of prosecutors handling nonviolent drug offenses. i believe we have taken steps to institutionalize the fair, more practical approach such that it will endure for years to come. i think we can be proud of these efforts. thanks to the work of my dedicated colleagues, the valor of our brave men and women in law enforcement, and leadership of the u.s. sentencing commission and the partnership of republicans and democrats in congress and so many state

governments, the goals and values of the smart on crime initiative have been codified and put into place as every stage of the criminal justice process. the work we have done is nothing short of groundbreaking, but this is no time to rest on our laurels. significant challenges remain before us. a great deal of work remains to be done. our prisons are still overcrowded across the country. far too many people remain trapped in cycles of poverty criminality, and incarceration. unwanted disparities are far too common. law enforcement is distrusted in far too many places and cops are not

appreciated for the tough job they do. if we hope to build on the record we have established so far and make the smart on crime initiative not only successful but permanent, we must work together to ensure that all of this is just the beginning. from critical improvements to the juvenile justice system, we must continue to advance promising, bipartisan legislation to make our communities safer and treat individuals more justly and allow more efficient use of law enforcement. we await a strong foundation for a new era of american justice. congress can help us build on the foundation by passing important bipartisan legislation, like the smarter sentencing act which would give judges more discretion for people and they could of certain drug crimes. going forward with measures like this one and the tireless work of our u.s. attorneys and their colleagues, strong leadership of our outstanding new attorney general and new deputy attorney general, and robust engagement

of u.s. people, i believe there is a good reason to be confident of where this work leads us. in the coming weeks, my time with the obama administration will draw to a close. i know that for me, this effort will continue. whatever i do next and wherever my own journey will take me, i will keep seeking new ways to contribute and remain engaged in the effort to improve our institutions and build trust and those who serve them. though i will soon leave the justice department i love, i will never leave the work that is become a mission and the single greatest honor of my professional life. i want to thank you all once again for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon and the work that you do every day to strengthen our democracy and

inform our national dialogue. i look forward to handling your very easy questions. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. we have some questions on the breaking news of the day on the texas judge issuing an injunction to block president obama's executive orders. this questioner wants to know if you'll go to the fifth court of appeals to try to stop the injunction and what is the practical effect of this ruling on the president's immigration order? how much of a setback is it? >> we are still looking at the opinion and trying to decide what steps we might take next. i think that we have to look at this decision for what it is.

it is a decision by one federal district court judge. i expect and have always expected that this is a matter that will be ultimately decided by a higher court. if not the supreme court, then a federal court of appeals. i think it has to be seen in that context. i would view this as an interim step in a process that has more to play out. >> you talked about the sentencing guidelines that have been reformed and a few of the things going forward. what would you prioritize as the next biggest thing that is needed in the sentencing reform? >> as i have said in my prepared >> as i have said in my prepared remarks, we understand that in terms of the numbers we have seen, the proposals we have made the work that has been done in the state. i think that congress needs to

work together in a way they have shown an ability to, before, to make federal law that is consistent with the steps we have done. i would encourage the states as well to look at what their state counterparts have done and the results we have seen in the smart on crime initiative. to spread more widely. more sensible approaches to dealing with the criminal justice system. and overreliance on incarceration has proven not to be effective. i think in some ways, i was the u.s. attorney here in washington, d.c. back in the early 1990's when washington, d.c. was considered the murder capital of the country. the tactics we used then are not necessarily the ones we need to use now in the 21st century. with the declining crime rates we've seen -- and they're at historically low levels -- i think in some ways we have earned a peace dividend, we ought to base our policies in the 21st century on the reality we confront, not have it tied to a past that no longer exists.

>> there are several questions about marijuana. under the controlled substances act, the administration has the power to reclassify marijuana with no further congressional action needed. do you think that is something the president should consider in the next couple of years? >> i'm not sure that that the underlying premise is necessarily true. i think congress ultimately has to do that. this is a topic that ought to be engaged in by our nation informed by the experiences that we see in colorado, in washington. there is legitimate debate to be had on both sides of that question, where marijuana ought to be in terms of its scheduling. and take into account all of the empirical evidence that we can garner to see if it is as

serious a drug that would warrant class one categorization or should it be some were place. but i think this is something that would be well informed by having congressional hearings and congressional acts informed by a policy determination that i think the administration would ultimately be glad to share. >> last year, president obama directed the justice department to review problems with the death penalties application. what have you found in that review so far? >> all i can say i guess at this point is that review is still underway. we have looked at federal death penalty to think about what processes we have in place, how it is administered, ask questions about whether or not there are inequities, inequalities in who receives the

penalty. that is a process that still underway. i don't think it will be completed during my time as attorney general. >> specifically about the oklahoma system, the supreme court has agreed to review to that system of lethal injection. should there be a national moratorium on lethal injection until this case is reviewed? >> now, speaking personally, not as a member of the administration, so somehow separate yourself here. i think there are fundamental questions that we need to ask about the death penalty. i have not been shy in saying that i'm a person who is opposed to the use of the death penalty. our system of justice is the best in the world. it is comprised of men and women who do the best they can, get it right more often than not, substantially more right than wrong.

but there's always the possibility that mistakes will be made. mistakes and determinations made by juries, mistakes in terms of the kinds of representation that someone facing a capital offense receives. it's for that reason that i am opposed to the death penalty. it is one thing to put someone in jail for an extended period of time, have a new test you can do to determine that person was in fact, innocent. there is no ability to correct a mistake when somebody has, in fact, been executed. and that is, from my perspective, the ultimate nightmare. i disagree with justice scalia that that has never happened in our history. i think it's inevitable that we will find an instance where that has occurred. i think fundamental questions about the death penalty need to be asked. among them, the supreme court's determination as to whether or

not lethal injection is consistent with our constitution is one that ought to occur. from our perspective, i think a moratorium until the supreme court made that determination would be appropriate. >> last month you barred local and state police from using federal law to seize private assets, such as cash and cars without warrants or criminal charges. what impact have you seen since the end of the so-called equitable sharing program, and how have police departments who have often depended on the money reacted to this, and what do you hope to achieve by barring this program? >> it's probably too early to decide to see what the impact has been. i think we need more time together data and see how that has affected both the way in which police dnts conduct themselves and also to look at what the monetary impacts are. the hope would be that we would

use that tool in only ways that were appropriate. i was concerned about some of the abuses that i certainly had heard about. i have to say that the "washington post," in its really, i thought very good series, brought to the fore, in addition to the other things that we were looking at, i thought it was an appropriate time given the limited amount of time that we had left to try to make a policy determination about federal adoption. we have also introduced some new rules with regard to how one can consider -- whether one can consider a task force to be a joint one, a federal one or not. so i think all of these steps, plus the ongoing review which sally and loretta will continue to conduct, will ultimately put us in a better place when it comes to what is a very powerful tool, but that ultimately can result in injustices.

injustices that people don't fundamentally understand -- where there is no finding of guilt, and yet you lose property for some reason. the potential for abuse their is too great not for it to be examined and i think ultimately reformed. >> this questioner says it has been reported that you hope to announce a decision on the civil rights investigation of michael brown's death before you leave office. could you update us on the progress of the ferguson civil rights investigation? >> yeah, it is my intention to announce our determination, the decision we have made both with regard to the individual officer's conduct in the shooting of michael brown as well as the pattern of practice investigation we have done into the ferguson police department. my hope is we will do this before i leave office, i'm confident that we will do that. i guess it's ultimately up to congress as to when i actually

leave office. [laughter] you would think in some ways that loretta's process would be sped up given their desire to see me out of office. be that as it may logic has not necessarily been a guide up there. in any case, my hope would be as i said to make these determinations before i go. the reviews are underway. i was briefed on both of them just last week. i'm satisfied with the progress we have made and comfortable in saying i think i'm going to be able to make those calls before i leave office. >> critics, including some former law enforcement people in st. louis, say you have unduly influenced the justice department patterns and practices investigation of the ferguson police department. in particular, with an october 29 statement in which you noted the need for wholesale change in the department. was it proper for you to declare

a need for this before the doj actually concluded its probe? >> i have to thank "the washington post" reporter jonathan capehart for asking me that question that elicited that response. i don't think that response was inappropriate. the reality is that i had been briefed all along on this matter. nothing i say in response to a reporter is going to have an impact on the career people who are looking at whether or not, what action we ought to take if any, with regard to the ferguson police department. i think everybody will see when we announce our results that the process that we've engaged in as as i said, the time i went to ferguson, independents thorough, and based only on the facts and the law. and i'm confident that people will be satisfied with the results that we announce. >> you have called for better

tracking of police use of force incidents. why is that, and what do you think the justice department and local police could do with that information? >> this is something i called for a few weeks ago. and that director commey also raised in his remarks just a couple of days ago. in what i think was a gutsy, important speech by a law enforcement official who i've had a great deal of respect for for a number of years. i knew him when he was an assistant u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia and have been able to follow his career. i think that our nation should watch, read, and have a conversation around the issues that jim raised, director commey raised in that speech. he talked about the need for gathering data, as i talked about a few weeks ago. we have this sense based on

these incidents that get huge amounts of attention, stir the nation, we have a sense that that things are amiss. but we don't have a real good sense of what the nature of the problem is. both with regard to the force that police are using and the kinds of violence that is directed at the police. so i think the gathering that information, in both ways -- how are police using force, what kind of force are police having to deal with, what is being directed against them? that kind of data should began -- should be gathered. we can find ways to encourage state and local counterparts to share that data with us and coupling, federal grants that we make with a requirement that this data should be faired with the federal government. we can have a much better sense of what the problem looks like in our country. and then base policy based on

the empirical evidence that we're able to gather. >> you have publicly questioned the use of militarized tactics by local law enforcement in many situations, including the protests in ferguson. yet the philadelphia police commissioner charles ramsey, head of the administration's 21st century policing task force, defenders the practice of giving surplus military hardware to local law enforcement. what is your take on this -- should local law enforcement have access to combat military equipment that was originally designated for the battlefield? >> it depends on the kinds of equipment you're talking about. certain military equipment i think can be shared with state and local counterparts. then the question is what kind of training do they have? what kind of training do they have with regard to how it should be deployed, when it should be deployed.

i think getting into the underlying investigation that the deployment of some of that military hardware in ferguson exacerbateed what was a pretty difficult situation. on the other hand, if you are in new york city, and you have to deal with the terrorist incident, i think that some of the military equipment that has been made available to state and local authorities in fact can be useful. again, it depends on the kind of equipment. abrams tanks, i don't think should be shared with our state and local counterparts. it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would be useful. but armored carriers and things of that nature, i think can be useful if deployed in appropriate ways. they're even fundamental things about how these things get painted, what did it look like? if it looks like the military is in fact occupying american streets during civil disturbances, that, i think, is not a good thing for the

american people or for the world, necessarily, to see. they're a number of questions that have to be worked through. i wouldn't really disagree with chuck ramsey from philadelphia. i think there is the need for it, we just need to use and deploy this equipment in a way better than we have in the past. >> what concerns do you have about isis-linked foreign fighters who returned to the united states, and the justice department's ability to find and prosecute these people? >> that is the thing as i leave office that i've often said keeps me up at night. the notion of worrying about people who have left the united states to join the fight, and then who try to come back. i think we do a good job of monitoring those people, stopping them where we can through the use of a variety of techniques, including undercover techniques.

to stop them from getting there. and monitoring them with the use of our allies once they are there and trying to stop them when they come back. the ultimate concern is about those people who remain here in the united states. and who, through a variety of means, become radicalized. either they are in prison and become radicalized as perhaps we've seen in denmark. or they are in their basements and online, listening watching, isil-related propaganda that's totally inconsistent with the reality that people who go to join the fight face. we have to do a better job of getting that message out, about people who go there and want to leave, because they have been mistreated, they are horrified by the things that they have been called upon to do. it's a real serious problem. we have a countering violent

extremeim summit next week at the white house where we'll have experts around the world held at the ministerial level where we'll be discussions these issues. this whole question of self radicalization, radicalization of people who never leave the country is something that we have to focus on. i'm confident about the abilities of the fbi, dhs working with our joint terrorism task forces to do a good job. we also have to understand that the ultimate solution to this is to make sure that the young men who might be attracted to that siren song have to be dealt with. they have to be made to feel a part of our communities. i think we do a better job perhaps, than other nations in integrating those people who might be attracted to the isil call. we have to redouble our efforts given the notoriety in the publicity that these heinous barbaric acts that isil has taken.

>> this questioner notes that the muslim community has expressed deep concern about how they are being characterized as the administration begins its summit on violent extremism. i know that on the other side, the administration has been criticized for not calling it religious extremism in some of these cases. it sort of come on both sides. could you tell us your thought process, and when you talk about this issue of religious extremism, how do you -- do you try to nail that right down the middle so that you are not going too far, but also you want to call it what it is, i imagine? >> whenever you're getting criticized by both sides, it means you are probably getting it right. [laughter] we spend more time, more time talking about what do you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it.

you know. i mean really. if fox didn't talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me. radical islam, islamic extremism, i'm not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. it doesn't have any impact on our military posture, it doesn't have any impact on what we call it. on the policies that we put in place. what we have to do is define it not by the terms that we use but by the facts on the ground. and so i don't worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. and i think people need to actually think about that and think about, really, are we having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions out to be? this is a difficult problem. it's going to be an ongoing issue. this is something that requires us to think as a nation how we

are going to deal with the domestic issues that i was describing in my previous response, and how are we going to deal with the foreign policy consequences of some very, very serious problems that our allies face, and that we face particularly in a part of the world. the terminology, it seems to me has little or no impact on what ultimately we have to do. >> the obama administration has prosecuted eight alleged whistle below zero under the espionage act, more than all previous presidential administrations combined. what justifies this more aggressive posture toward leakers? >> for the record, the justice department prosecuted seven. eight is right, but seven by the justice department, and we inherited, i think, two of those.

what i would say, there has been great concern by members of the press about these prution. i understand that sensitivity. we had a series of meetings at the justice department over the course of the summer, we talked about changing the way in which the justice department would view these cases. the policies that underlined how we would interact with members of the media. and i think we have come up with some new policies, new procedures that i think have been generally well received. what i have said is we have to continue to look at these policies to make sure that they are kept up to date, and make sure we are meeting the needs that we have in the justice department while being sensitive to the important role members of the press play. i think that, we have more than other administrations. but that leaves us with a total of five or six that this

administration has brought over the course of six years. i don't think, as you look at those cases individually, that there was anything inappropriate about the cases that were brought. i think if you look at the last case involving mr. rison, the way in which that case was handled, after the new policies were put in place, is an example of how the justice department can proceed. when you have people who are disclosing, for instance, the identities of people who work in our intelligence agencies, that's the kind of case that i think we have to bring. but i also think there's a question for you all, for members of the press. as we have asked ourselves when it comes to national surveillance. simply because we have the ability to do certain things, should we? members of the press have to ask that question. simply because you have a source -- you have the ability to -- because of a leak or a source of information that you have, you

have the ability to expose that to the public. should you? i'm saying it is for you to decide. it's not for the government to decide. but it is for you to decide. i will use an extreme example, perhaps unfair. in world war ii, if a reporter found out about the existence of the manhattan project, is that something that should have been disclosed? we are not in a time of war, and i'm saying that's an extreme example. but i think there's a question the members of the press should ask, about whether or not the disclosure of the information has a negative impact on the national security of the nation. we have tried to be appropriately sensitive in bringing those cases that warranted prosecution. we have turned away, and i turned away substantially greater numbers of cases that were presented to us, and where prosecution was sought.

>> is there a realistic chance that president obama will be able to close guantanamo before the end of his term? if so, how can we expect this to play out over the coming months? >> i think there is a realistic possibility it could happen. it would require the cooperation of congress to lift some of the restrictions that they have placed on the administration. there is no question that the closing of guantanamo would be a good thing. says something that costs us an excessive amount of money. if you look at the amount of money we spend to house one person in guantanamo for one year as opposed to what it would take to house that one person in a super max in the united states, the costs are dwarfed. we pay a foreign policy price, it is something that is used as a recruiting tool for those who we are currently engaged with. there are a whole host of reasons why guantanamo should be closed.

i think it's possible. we made a substantial amount of progress in the last year or so. but i think ultimately it will require the cooperation of congress to reduce the level to zero. >> has the administration entered into any discussions at any time with legal representatives of edward snowden about the possibility of a plea deal in his case? >> i will say no comment. [laughter] >> several questions about the wall street aftermath in prosecuting banks, both large and small. one questioner compared it to the s&l and so many more prosecutions came out of that than they're seeing in the wake of the last one. has the justice department done enough to go after both large and small banks? >> yeah, if you look at the

institutions that have played a part in the financial debacle of 2008, 2009, you are looking at a relatively small universe as opposed to the s&l crisis, where you're dealing with thousands of banks. i think it terms of scale, there are not quite the same. we have extracted record penalties from banks. who we found to have engaged in inappropriate practices as a result of the residential mortgage security task force that the president announced in the state of the union a couple of years ago. i've said -- and i don't know if i'm making news now or not -- i've asked the u.s. attorneys who have amaze those cases and are still involved in those cases, over the next 90 days, to look at those cases and try to develop cases against individuals and report back within 90 days with regards to whether or not they think they will be able to successfully

bring criminal cases against those individuals. that will ultimately be given to loretta to make determinations about whether further action is appropriate. i think that what we've done has been appropriate. as i say, we have this ongoing examination of whether individual cases ought to be brought. but it is to the extent that individuals have not been prosecuted, people should understand it's not for lack of trying. these are the kinds of cases that people come to the justice department to make. young people who want to be assistant u.s. attorneys in the southern district of new york and eastern district of virginia, san francisco, live for these big cases. the inability to make them at least at this point has not been as a result of a lack of effort. >> before i asked the final

question, i just wanted to give a couple important reminders. first, i want to remind you about upcoming speakers. we have fda commissioner margaret hamburg here on march 27, and vince cerf, chief internet evangelist for google will be here on may 4. second, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug. let me say, of all of the remembrances you will of had from all of your time as attorney general, i doubt there is a better one than this. [laughter] >> thank you. [applause] >> ok. question. a recent video shows you shooting a perfect jumpshot at the willie maze boys and girls club in san francisco. now that you are leaving, please evaluate your basketball skills

as compared with president obama's. [laughter] >> well, i would first ask everyone, and certainly all those who are within camera range, to go online, go to youtube, and put in eric holder basketball, and really examine that sweet jumper. [laughter] viewed in isolation, it is clear that i still have it. [laughter] i mean i had on a tie i had on these shows. it was sweet. and with every telling of the jump shot, it goes back. it is now 24 feet. by tomorrow it will be a three-pointer. i was asked that same question during my confirmation hearing. i'm not sure by which senator. but i think i will paraphrase that answer.

i'm from new york city. the home of basketball players like nate tiny archibald, kareem abdul-jabbar, julius the dr. erving. connie hawkins, chris mullin. the president is from hawaii. [laughter] now, i'm just saying that's his background. he's a good ball player. he's got a real good left hand. he has the ability to drive. he's 10 years younger than i am. he's in better shape, he's still my boss. when i become a civilian, he will still have access to all things about me that you all are worried about, i suppose and i will be worried about. i'm simply going to say he's a great ballplayer a great friend and i will leave it at that. [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you for coming here. particularly on a snow day when the government is shut down. that is wonderful. thank you for coming today. i have a request that you stay in your seat until the attorney general has left the room. please stay in your seats after i bring down the gavel. i would also like to thank the national press club staff including its journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing the event today. if you would like a copy or to learn more about the national press club, go to our website. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause]

>> attorney general holder announced his resignation last september. president obama selected loretta lynch two succeed him -- to succeed him. >> on the next washington journal, the decision by a federal judge in texas to temporarily block president obama's executive action on immigration. and then more on the blocking of the action. the possibility of a dhs shutdown and a look ahead to the 2016 election. later, on bust work, historically black colleges and universities continues with the president of tuskegee university.

you can join the conversation with calls and comment. >> former defense secretary william cowan sits down to discuss the future of defense, looking at issues like the situation in ukraine. we will have live coverage starting at looking 10:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> keep track of the republican led congress. on c-span, c-span2, and c-span.org. >> vice president whiten opened -- biden opened the summit on combating terrorism.

he hosted a roundtable summit. this is 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. first of all, welcome. particularly to our friends from belgium and the netherlands. who have come a long way to be here. we appreciate it a great deal. but thank you all for being here. especially in this, quote, snow emergency. now, those of you from minnesota know this is not much of an emergency. i understand that. but in washington, when you're here, snow is coming, everything shuts down. but we did have some snow last night and i appreciate you all making the effort. particularly those of from you boston who probably view this as visiting the caribbean. [laughter] so thank you all so very much.

look, we're here today because we all understand that in dealing with violent extremism that we need answers that go beyond a military answer. we need answers that go beyond force. countries, all of us, including the united states, need to work this from the ground up. we need to work from the ground up and engage our communities and engage those who might be susceptible to being radicalized. because they are marginalized. societies have to provide an affirmative alternative for immigrant communities, a sense of opportunity, a sense of belonging, and that discredits the terrorists' appeal to fear, isolation, hatred, resentment. and we also have to -- police have to build partnerships within religious and business

and civic communities. but we've also brought along all those folks. we have religious leaders here we have the business community civic leaders, all with one purpose in mind. but we've also brought along all how do we counter the appeal of radicalization? in september president obama convened the u.n. security council, as some of you might remember, and led in the passage of a resolution committing countries to take on the scourge of foreign fighters, foreign terrorist fighters, but more needs to be done that what has already been done. leader after leader explained that it's not enough to take on these networks of extremists who wish to do us harm. we also have to take on the ideology that attracts fighters from all around the world to join them. in this meet something a continuation of that effort. over the next three days we'll

hear from leaders from government, from civil society from communities in nearly 70 countries around the world in this three-day conference, about how they believe we can make good on the collective commitment to build from the ground up here. and i'd like to thank again those from belgium and the netherlands who are dealing with the most recent manifestations of this challenge. we asked you both to be here today because you've been active and innovative. i just had a chance to meet with the european council and parliament. the topic of discussion in our closed meetings was about what to be done in europe now. they're asking me to discuss some of the things we have done. both of you have been leading. we're anxious to hear what you

have to say. the focus of today's events are on making sure that violent extremism never finds a home in the communities of the united states here. we're going to hear from representatives from los angeles, minneapolis-st. paul, as well as boston. as well as u.s. attorneys from each of those locales, who have been leading in this effort as well. your cities were chosen because of what you've already done. what you've already done. reverend brown and i go back a long way. i wrote the so-called crime bill in the united states, which everybody thinks put 100,000 cops on the street, but it devoted more money to prevention than any program we've ever engaged in the united states of america, so reverend brown, you've been at this for a long time. i'm not talking about we've ever engaged in the united radicalization, i'm talking about communities being left behind.

and how to deal with violence. in minneapolis-st. paul, you've been working to build relations with the east african immigrants who have made your city their home. as the same folks have made my city a home on a smaller scale. a very large identifiable somali community. i might add, if you ever come to the train station with me, you'll notice that i have great relationships with them because there's an awful lot of them driving cabs and are friends of mine. for real. i'm not being solicitous. i'm being serious, so starting in 2007, the minneapolis-st. paul, you've trained over 600 driving cabs and are friends of officers in the somali language and culture. you're actually stepping out to try to engage. you've invited hundreds of teens from the community to your police stations for sporting events and swimming and i'm sure

you have pal-police athletic associations and the like in your city. and i know you have much more to talk about. we've asked los angeles to be here because you've reached out to the communities. you've reached out, you're building networks to try to connect the needs of your citizens with access to help everything from providing mental health resources to coming up with strategies for other interventions. sitting with us today is the head of the muslim public affairs council who came up with a program called safe spaces initiative. teaching community leaders religious leaders and counselors how to deal with violent extremism in the city of los angeles. and in boston, you are planning to provide forms and platforms for community leaders in every community. the muslim community, all

minority communities, for people to be able to advocate for nonviolence and be able to express themselves online, as well as in person. this is not something new to boston. as i said all the way back in 1992, reverend brown started the 10-point coalition, if i remember correctly, reverend. where a group of ministers worked to change the relationship between kids and police and kids on the street. and i might add, i'm very proud as vice president of the united states, to see how boston responded to the crisis that occurred in the marathon. it did not turn its venom, its anger, its frustration against any community. it resolved to pull the communities together. i think that was something that, as least i personally could take no credit for it, but i was very proud of -- i had the

opportunity to speak on the one-year anniversary and be there for the second marathon. i was proud, i was proud of the way the bostonians stood up and moved on. i want to make it clear, though, i'm not suggesting to the press or any of our guests that i think america has all the answers here. we just have a lot more experience. by that i mean, we are a nation of immigrants. that's who we are. that is not hyperbole. we talk, teach our kids we're a melting pot. the god's truth is, we are a melting pot. it is the ultimate source of our strength, it is the ultimate source of who we are. what we've become. it started all the way back in the late 1700's. there's been a constant unrelenting stream of immigration. not in little trickles but in large numbers.

i had an opportunity to be in singapore with the former president who is now 93 years old and i was talking to him on my way to china, to meet with the president and i said, he's known as sort of the henry kissinger of asia, for real. a very wise man i said to him, i said, what are the chinese doing now? he thought -- because we were talking about how rapidly the man i've come to know relatively well, the president, has consolidated power. and he said to me and speaks perfect english, he said they're in america looking for the buried black box. and i looked at him just like you're looking at me, like what's he talking about? he said, they're looking for that secret that allows america to constantly be able to remake itself. unlike any other country in the world. i said, i can presume to tell you what's in that black box, mr. president.

i'm old enough now. i said, one is that there is -- in america there's an overwhelming skepticism for orthodoxy. from the time a child, whether they're naturalized or they're native-born, they think about it, a child never gets criticized in our education system for challenging orthodoxy. for challenging the status quo. i would argue it's unlike any other large country in the world. there's a second thing in that black box. an unrelenting stream of immigration. nonstop, nonstop. folks like me who are caucasian, of european descent, for the first time in 2017 we'll be an absolute minority in the united states of america. absolute minority. fewer than 50% of the people in america from then and on will be white european stock. that's not a bad thing.

that's a source of our strength. so, we have been -- we haven't always gotten it right. i don't want to suggest we have all the answers. but we have a lot of experience. of integrating communities into the american system, the american dream. a generation from now, as i said, things will change even more. it's not merely that we're a melting pot, but we're proud to be a melting pot. with that we've made a lot of mistakes, but we've also made a lot of progress. we've learned a lot of hard lessons. but the most important lesson we've learned, we don't always practice it, is that inclusion counts. let me say that again. inclusion counts. inclusion counts.

being brought in and made a part of the community, whether as my irish ancestors with signs, no irish need apply, and the anti-catholic movement of the no-nothings in the late 1800's, straight through to how some respond today to the number of folks in the united states of america that are hispanic of background. we've always ultimately overcome it. but it's always been about inclusion. being a part of the whole. we still have problems but i'm proud of the american record on culture and economic integration of not only our muslim communities but african communities, asian communities hispanic communities, and the wave still continues. it's not going to stop. nor should we want it to stop. as a matter of fact, one of the things i think we can be most proud of. the truth of the matter is, when

i say we have to be able to see one another, i'm not talking about surveillance, i'm not talking about cameras. i'm talking about being able to look at one another and see one another. see who we are. understand how similar we are. it's about recognizing the dignity that every person in america is entitled to be afforded. without exception. every person in america. immigration -- excuse me immigrant or native-born. because at the end of the day, it's about treating each other with respect and although we need technology, technology cannot replace contact. technology can't replace contact. that was the principle behind the notion we had in that bill i wrote a long time ago called community policing.

it wasn't about just getting tougher on the street. it was about making sure that the policeman got out of his car and knew who the local shop owner was, knew his name. muhammad, my name is officer shmedlap, here's my card -- no, literally. literally. not figuratively. we did community policing, the police around this table can tell you. violent crime in four years dropped over 19% in the united states of america. it was because the police officers went to the community meetings, they showed up in the church basements. they were engaged. and the guy who said it best is a friend of mine, who occasionally gets criticized but his name is bill bratton. former commissioner up in boston and los angeles and new york boston, new york, l.a., now back in new york.

and he said, joe, when i was out in los angeles, he said, an african-american woman who was an activist in the community came up and said to me something i've never forgotten. she said, there is an african saying by a large african tribe centered just north of south africa. and she said, the phrase is, we see you. we see you. folks, we're not going to make a lot of progress unless we can actually see one another. we see you. bill bratton was correct. actually see one another. it's important when the minority community understands that law enforcement, faith leaders social workers like my daughter, mental health officials, athletic associations, ymca's, ywca's are all working together.

that's where it works, as the communities can tell you. that's where it works. when everybody is in the game. it can't be done without that kind of community building. but the efforts, the initiatives that we hope will arise from this summit are those designed to bring together coalitions to help solve the problems. but mainly so every child and every minority community in america, particularly now in the muslim american community, is able to feel like we see them. we actually see them. who they are. carmen ortiz said it best, he said, our goal is to really promote public safety and to have a community to be part of our national security. national security flows from a sense of community. it flows from a sense of community.

so if you're dealt out, if you're not treated with respect, if you're not understood, if i can't see you, then it won't work. it's not easy. we have some significant experience in the past and i hope we can expand on it. so, let me say to all of you since -- and i apologize for taking as long as i did, but this is the opening salvo of this three-day conference and i want to make sure we're on the same page what have we're trying to do and trying to figure out why all of you leaders have been invited, because that's been your business. you've been trying to see, see. not hide from, see what the problems are. and respond. and it's not going to be easy. but it's necessary. and i know from my discussions in belgium last week, all of

europe is trying to figure this out right now. because again, although there's been a good deal, there's been a significant amount of immigration over the last 40 years, 50 years into europe from all over the world, it is a newer phenomenon. there's a lot we can do together, i think. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> coming up next, mark cuban. and then a judge blocking obama's order on immigration. president obama and homeland security secretary jeh johnson will be speaking at the white

house summit. the second day of the event recruiting by terrorism. we'll have that two: 45 eastern here on c-span. later, michael daniel on security and information sharing. we will bring you that event starting at 3:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> february is black history month. the bus is on the road, visiting historically black colleges and universities. tomorrow morning at 9:15 eastern during washington journal, we will meet with brian johnson the president of tuskegee university. amendment will visit xavier university -- and then we will visit xavier university. >> nelly discussion of technology and innovations with

silicon valley ceos. this is part of the tech crunch disrupt conference. >> why is the press so hard on you? >> i just explained it. when people start to perceive you as the big guy, you are not allowed to be scrappy. if you are the little guy, that is cheered, that is lauded, that is the heroic startup story. like, i turned nothing into something on my last company and for most people they would call it a walk or a single. for me it felt like a home run. but again, as you get to a place where people perceive you as "the big guy" or "the man," you have to approach things differently and communicate differently, and we are not

there yet. we want to be there, and we are going to get that her, but those are the things, those are the challenges we are facing and those are the things we are improving on. >> you recently hired david plouffe, a former obama advisor to help you with the political war. you put it differently, you said it's a campaign that you are running. is bringing him on part of this creating a kinder, gentler -- >> he does not start until the end of september. he was obama's 2008 campaign manager and he was an advisor sort of in between the campaign and the white house in 2012. he is a pretty incredible guy. but the context is we view where we are at as there is a

political campaign that is happening. we did not really realize it but there is a political campaign that is happening and uber was the candidate. the opposition was the taxi cartel. they were the opponent. maybe there are some primaries going on that some other folks in the ridesharing space, etc. but the big opponent was the taxi cartel. they have been giving political donations for dozens of years, tens of years, decades. they have been lobbying folks for those same decades. >> bayonne local politicians. >> they have created a monopoly in every single city for taxis. the causes problems who want to get around the city efficiently, and causes problems for creating jobs. it is not only that riders have no options, the drivers get

stuck because there are no opportunities for jobs. in a situation like new york where a driver leases a car for $40,000 per year. that is the taxi. it's $40,000 per year. instead, it is just a taxi. and for that, for that privilege of leasing that car for 40 grand per year, he gets to be impoverished. and that's because he did not have options. >> and people cannot get rides. >> and that medallion, the license to own and operate a sealed taxi, is worth a million dollars. why? because of the artificial scarcity. there are 13,000 taxis in new york. there were 13,000 in new york in the early 1950's. >> so does he go in and grease the wheel, bribe people, or is he a hammer, you are going to do this because i know people?

how does he get stuff done? >> the way to think about it, he is the uber campaign manager. so that means policy communications, branding, and strategy. >> and which of those four are you inserting cash? >> you will go to a city and say, look, you guys have the wrong policy. for instance, miami, if you call to get a town car, there is a law there that says if that car comes in 15 minutes, you have to wait 45 minutes more before you are a legally allowed to enter the vehicle. if you enter before an hour has passed, that driver can be arrested. that's not good. >> so you're trying to fix that. >> when you say you want to fix

that and meet with the city council person or meet with the deputy mayor or something, they literally say, there is no meeting unless you go through this guy. and this guy is a lobbyist. >> and that is where the cash is inserted. >> in the big scheme of things -- >> it is a dirty business. >> it's terrible. >> i'm glad you hired a professional to take care of that for you. how much of uber do you personally own at this point? >> i own a lot. >> more than 50% personally? >> i don't think it's appropriate to talk about that here. >> you think it's inappropriate, on a stage, a site where it is known for breaking news about people's net worth. >> yes, we can talk about it later. >> when you introduce yourself do you say i'm a billionaire, or is it still paper for you? >> that's kind of funny.

i think a lot of people who know me know that i'm pretty much the same today as when i was -- >> i know you, and you are the same. >> so you know the answer to that question. >> so you just -- yeah. [laughter] >> are those taxi socks? >> you used to be one of the poorest rich people buy new, if that makes sense. >> what does that mean? >> i think you had made a million dollars, but you immediately invested into new startups. now you are worth some number of billions of dollars, i think. i just kind of want to see a little bit of arrogance or something that i can make fun of. but i'm not really getting at. >> um, i'll work on that. >> all right, so two days ago i was in palo alto and i called for an uber and the uber came. on its way i get a call from the

driver who says, were you going. us a couple miles. he hung up and canceled the route. son of a bitch. so first of all, i assume he has been fired now, right. for my point of view, the thing i liked about uber back in the day as i would never have that kind of shit pulled on me. uber changed all of that. are you changing so fast that some of the old taxi problems are coming into the system? >> i mean, look, if you were to wave down a taxi in manhattan and say i'm going to brooklyn, he's going to say hell no. and that's normal. and there is nobody to complain to. >> yeah. >> in the uber model, we are not perfect, but we really strive to be. so when that thing happens, we encourage the feedback.

and folks who do this, drivers the partners who are doing this, they do not last in the system. >> so it is against the rules to engage in old taxi-like behavior. >> of course. but this is the tricky balance of this kind of business, right, is we have two sets of customers. there is the riders, but there is the drivers, too, and any policy that we have -- cancellation policies, minimum fares, things like this, in many cases it is good for one side and bad for the other. so you do something good for the riders and then the drivers are upset. you do something good for the drivers and in the riders are upset. finding that principal balance is quite tricky, and it's why anytime there is a little policy tweak that we do, it kind of makes news and somebody is upset. but we really try to find that

principal middle ground. it's the right thing to do to take feedback from riders when there is a trip that did not quite meet expectations or meet standards. and ultimately, folks who are not meeting those standards should not be on the system because then you cannot offer high-quality service. but there is also a driver constituency that you have to be mindful of. i'm not saying in this case that hates that line, but that is part of the nuance of our business. >> you have been trained, son. >> i have not. >> you are smooth all of a sudden. >> that's not true. >> before you would have been, he is fired. >> my team wishes i have taken training. have you seen some of the things i've said? >> yes, i have. [laughter] >> i had oatmeal this morning, so i'm a little calmer. >> ok, i'm glad. a nice, balanced breakfast is a

good way to start the day. >> yep. >> how many drivers does uber have now? >> we are in the hundreds of thousands. there are hundreds of thousands of partners connected to our system, right. >> how many are you bringing on every month? >> we are in the many tens of thousands. so like right now, you know, we are in the neck of the woods of about 50,000 new jobs a month being created. >> and from any deactivate every month for poor performance? >> i don't have that number right now, but there are some number. >> you have a computer, lyft which is annoying because you have to sit in the front and talk and they have these mustache things. i have not used to, but i have heard some people apparently half.

they seem to be constantly whining that you are beating them, that you are trying to take their drivers by offering them incentives. i don't hear a lot about their business, but i hear a lot of whining. so my question is, would you consider buying them just to shut them up? [laughter] that is a valid m&a strategy isn't it? just please shut up and we will buy you? >> this is an interesting question. i like to use -- i like to take the political analogy a little further and say of course the opponent as the taxi cartel, but there is a primary race going on right now and there are some scrapping that happens in the primary race. i think that's part of it. in terms of m&a and how uber thinks about it, we have not acquired a single company. we sort of are just really

focused on the product, building the business. we are in a couple hundred cities, 45 countries, and we are proud of that. we are proud of doing that in the timeframe we've done it. we have not spent time on the m&a side of things. >> that was approaching an answer. that's fine. >> how did i not approach it? >> i said would you buy them to shut them up. he said we have not bought companies, that's not the way we think about a full stop indirectly, you got there. >> we are not in acquisition mode right now. >> talk about the city bus. the pool. >> the uber pool. >> so you drive a bunch of people and make it much of stops and somehow this is not a city bus. i don't get why that works and why anybody would use it. >> here is the idea. the idea is that you push a button, the car picks you up just like normal. >> ok.

>> and while you are on your way to your destination, somebody else is going along the same route at the same time. and with less then let's call it two minutes or less deviation from your route, you pick some of the else up along the way. >> and they get in my car with me. >> that's correct. and what happens then -- >> this sounds a lot like a bus so far. >> understood. the difference is a bus, you go to a corner a half-mile away from you when you wait 15 minutes and sometimes it's on time and sometimes it's not. this comes just like the uber that you know. you push the button and it's there exactly when you need it and where you want it. that is the uber magic. what happens is you are still getting the benefit of the bus you are still getting the benefit of carpooling by literally taking cars off the

road. there is significant efficiencies in doing this right. >> it seems like to make this work -- i know you just started, but to make this work you have to have a massive number of users for the network effect to kick in and make this viable. otherwise it seems like a would not work at all. >> so if we were just starting out in a particular city, and we are launching all the time, you cannot do it. there has to be a large number of people going from basically having routes that overlay each other at the same time, and you cannot do it in small cities where you are not big. but if you are big, you can start to make that work. and i think one part is liquidity. the other part is product. the product has to be just right, because there is a lot that can go wrong, especially if they are the second user from putting the button to making this all work.

>> so do you think you have enough liquidity, as you call it, to make this work in san francisco, new york? >> i think we do. i think it is right on the edge of liquidity to make it work at scale. >> so lyft and others are doing copycat products. you are saying they are not going to be able to make this work because they are so much smaller? >> maybe this is a little bit of a hat tip, but i don't think that lyft copycat at this feature. i think that companies are often working on features at the same time and roll them out. but at the end of the day, liquidity is going to matter on this and it's going to -- you have to be very, very large to make it work. at least that's our sense of things. >> all right, we will see how that goes. i refuse to use that service personally. >> fair enough. we are seeing good pickup. but fair enough. i cannot wait to do an uber pool and see you in the car and say gotcha. >> i don't want to do this thing

where i'm stuck on a was with unwashed masses. i don't want to go out of my way to pick up yet another person. i want to go where i want to go. >> there is such an idea where they drop you off -- i cannot wait to see you on the uber pool. then i'm the only person in the car and some of you could come in. you could literally have a perpetual ride for the driver. what is interesting about that you think about the driver income side of this, utilizing that car and getting the income, and also how that affects prices and really helps bring them down. it's a big deal. our whole thing is about bringing the cost of taking an uber below the cost of owning a car. and right now we are -- >> which the car manufacturers must love you talking about that. >> if you have -- >> the taxis want you dead and some of them seem like they might hire someone to hurt you

and you have the ankle biter's -- who are you not fighting with? >> who am i not fighting with -- the nature of this business is that it is so disruptive, so insanely disruptive that there are a lot of incumbent in a lot of places that we have to persuade to come to the other side. >> so the answer is, almost no one. tell me about the wins. it seems you have won all the battles. >> we are starting to see the things from the u.s. in europe and we are working through it.

we still have a decent assist from the city of san francisco from october 2010 but there was a law passed three weeks ago in california that reaffirmed with the public utility commission already said 1.5 years ago or more -- >> you feel good about california? colorado, new york, ec, any trouble spots? >> we are not in vegas, there are a few cities like that in vegas is a good example. >> and europe is a train wreck you are sledging through that? >> our business is growing pretty good clip, faster than the u.s.. >> but in germany you ignored the van and drove in hugely but are you subject to 250,000 euro per drive penalties? >> there was a case in hamburg and the court decided we were

breaking some rule and that case got suspended and even -- and then there was another case in frankfurt which said we are charging too much. >> i thought too little? >> they will get you one way or another and we said, just tell us what the prices and they won't tell us what the price should the -- be. and that is on appeal right now. >> in china things are going well? >> in china we are in five cities and beijing is the fastest city -- it is either number two or number one, the fastest growth from a city at its age. >> you said beijing has 70,000 cabs. >> that's right.

>> and new york? >> 13,000. >> orders of magnitude larger. >> i think a lot of folks in america don't know all the stuff going on in we're in north asia and south asia. middle east -- there is a lot of interesting stuff in china specifically. 70,000 drivers in shanghai and 200 cities in china that are over one million people. there is a lot going on there, two big taxi companies or taxi apps, that are in and all-out war -- an all-out war, one partnered with alibaba -- hundreds of millions of dollars being subsidized on each side for these respective companies to grow and when, so there is this a chinese war going on. >> that makes me think, stay away from that market. two huge players with half $1

billion being subsidized and then you come in -- how do you win? >> what is really fun and awesome about china for us and me specifically is we get to be the little guy. for me that is like homecoming. we can see what happened and for me why not try? yes, i think you are right there are a lot of challenges but how much fun is it to try and see and if you can persevere and make that work, that is really awesome. >> so, let's get down and dirty how will you make that work? >> i think they got a little bit of a head start, these subsidies, they are giving rides away for free and in exchange creating payments account -- payment accounts. so if you're smaller -- if kwa dee is smaller they will be subsidies and will be more expensive for the intercompany to retain market share in that world.

there was a lot of interesting economic and competitive things going on and when you are the small guy, there are a lot of things a small guy can do that a guy -- >> you are a small guy in the sense that you arrive at your vague date balance sheet, how much is earmarked to fighting the price war in shanghai and aging -- beijing? >> we are so small that it will not cost us a lot to get in the game. >> every dollar you spend cost

them more because they are bigger? >> right now we are doing right sharing -- ride sharing and we are just finding ways to make the economics work. uber always starts with -- how do we make a sustainable business? the competitive dynamic can push you down sometimes but ultimately you have to have a sustainable business and that is part of our culture. at the end of the day we will try to offer the cheapest, most reliable ride in china. on the product side there are benefits to have uber roles versus the other guys and it will be interesting to see how we go against those guys going big. >> last question, we are double

overtime am a complete his regard for everyone else, if uber -- if uber fails, what is it that will kill you if you had to guess? the politics? the competitors? what is your biggest threat? >> that is interesting -- i think the stress will kill me. i think it would be the stress. [laughter] the last company was crazy stressful because i did not have any money and was always trying to make it work and i say i got 100 knows -- 100 no's per day for six years straight. this is a different kind of stress, four years in and you have to find ways to find that center, balance and sanity because again -- we are getting bigger and people look at us that way and you have to find that new balance. right now that is stressful. we are working hard to find. >> maybe you could do pilates?

>> i am down. >> thank you very much. >> thanks. [applause] >> awesome stuff -- a quick announcement because a combination of michael arrington and electricity have slowed us down this morning. we have a couple contest today's is called disrupt vine and that is the theme you are working on, if you can submit a vine we will give away a mini drone tomorrow and if you need more information it is on the hashed -- the website. our next guest is a super genius, do not confuse him with our techcrunch volunteers in green, he is a huge deal, not

that our volunteers are not. he had his hand in paypal, yelp and now a firm. he has been developing in mobile years before we thought it was important, welcome alex wilhelm from techcrunch. >> good morning. thank you. how is it going? >> great. >> it has been one year since you are here last time, wearing the same shirt. i'm impressed with that. dedication to the cause. >> this will take 100 years to build fully. >> uber was just on and mark cuban was on a television program and i did quick math and i think that makes you the poorest person we're

interviewing in the first block. how to make you feel -- how does that make you feel? >> that is entirely inaccurate if you priced might affirm shares correctly. >> how would you? >> the sky is the limit for changing 20% of u.s. gdp. >> there has been a lot of talk recently in the market about ebay divesting paypal -- you know the company other than anyone else, should ebay spin paypal out? >> at some point -- sometime in the next 18 months for sure, paypal volume will outstrip ebay so for all intents and purposes ebay will be in deficient's of paypal so whether paypal spins ebay in or paypal gets spun out, ebay remains a key market or paypal but ultimately it is the faster growing of the two, so

paypal must receive its full managerial. >> would you buy shares in the new public paypal? >> it depends who the management team becomes. >> who would you want to run the company -- you cannot say you. >> i'm unavailable, i'm running my own financial services company. there are a bunch of people, probably the last person to run paypal after peter departed was david who recently became available. he ran something for microsoft for a while but he definitely

knows paypal from the entrepreneurial age the best. >> to twitter had revenue of 312 million, do you think a pal by itself is worth more than twitter -- paypal by itself is worth more than twitter? >> that is asking someone who has not tracked paypal financials in a long time. i imagine is at least comparable. >> say 35 million? >> i know better than to prognosticate about public markets. >> if you sold paypal under 2014 market conditions as opposed to 2002, would you have a more successful ipo or have sold or more money? how would it look differently from the current market? >> again, that's an experiment you can only run once, paypal today is the force to be recognize -- reckoned with. it has as good a brand as easily or mastercard -- perhaps better. hard to compare.

it is an incredible company and i'm proud of what we accomplished. >> in light of current valuations, even among companies that are weaker and paypal was $1.5 billion feel small. >> sure. one decade has gone by and if anything, public arc at and large-scale investors realize how permanent an impact on fundamental industries internet companies are. when it went public it was still in question whether these internet whippersnappers would be around forever. jpmorgan has been around for 200 years, what will happen to paypal? at this point it is safe to say it will be around for a while. >> you regret the price?

>> i try hard to minimize regret. >> you only had 2.6% when it went public. small number. >> it took a lot of money to build it out. >> there is been a lot of talk about the bubble, i think there has been a rise in asset rices that has been somewhat scary, do you see it crashing? >> hard to tell about the public markets because they are so beholden to global forces outside the valley, so any attempt to predict our tempest silly. at a macro level we live in uncertain times, at any given time's there are three major macroeconomics affecting conflicts -- russia, ukraine

israel-gaza, syria-isis. >> will you see a correction in the price of companies in the next 12 months? >> selectively, yes. there are a bunch of companies that are solving big deal programs where the venture capital market pricing them at the very least, optimistically but correctly around the kind of impact it might have. there are a bunch of companies that are not selling big problems that are riding coattails. >> what are some of the companies now that you think are well price but are not solving problems? who are the superstars? >> travis just him off the stage -- on the one hand, eye-popping

value in the other hand an opportunity to disrupt market types, fedex, heinz -- [indiscernible] >> i have a very restrictive policy on buying shares or selling chairs but i probably would invest. >> companies -- do you see them getting a whack to generate more money? >> i think they will find themselves having a hard time breaking -- raising money at the actual value proposition at the revenue level -- series a lead's the series b. >> the think square possible you wish and is in line with where it should be? >> i'm not nearly as familiar with their business as i'm not an investor as i perhaps should be -- i think if they hack the small business pricing they are probably undervalued.

>> i love financial services. >> apple is expected to introduce some payment offer for the phone and i watch. >> there so secretive so i have no idea who is running the amide ring -- for a long time it was rumored they were interviewing someone to run their division and that sue like -- that seemed like an interesting step. they have the world's largest collection of credit cards on file and incidentally that database has never been cracked. they are giant targets that could do some really serious rearrangement of deck chairs. >> you think you would have to find some way to integrate your firm into it? >> i would love to. from what i read so far, apple

will release something like a container for a payment method and a firm is a source of credit so we would fit right in. >> so apple has not talked to you thus far? >> if they did i could not tell you and if they did not i couldn't tell you either. >> that is a boring answer. >> apple's secretive. >> as apple tried to buy you? >> apple has not. >> david said you would view that company in abject failure if it failed to sell for $1.5 billion -- via have the same standard for a firm? >> number one, i am not speaking for david right now, but having said that i figured out around the time of the slide journey

that i really want to measure my success and failure by the number of people who use my products over a long. -- long period of time. at some point i had 100 million users and did not feel good about it i made some announcement about this is of the company and ultimately it did not survive, there is not a single slide product in a and that is a year. i want a firm to use -- be used by hundreds of millions of able long after i'm done -- i don't really care what it sells for. >> you don't really care about the price in the end? >> i don't want to put a dollar figure on it i want a number of hopefully hundreds of millions of users. i would like to do whatever is best for my employees and investors when the time comes but at the moment i'm unencumbered by either concern. >> would talking about it but i think people don't know about it, can you do the rundown of

paypal was that the internet was peeling off complexity and lack of information from every industry and finance was hard to figure out and not transparent and it still is today. when you get your credit card in the mail in their small print in some bank in london -- why does it have to be so difficult to understand? [indiscernible] 100% margin product in the world of taking his late fees and forms of hidden charges. as you unbundle the complexity you wind up with a more