come together i hold it much greater than the sum of its parts. , for the faithful catholic who is a faithful son or daughter of the church was also appreciative of the good that economic freedom brings to human beings. that would -- i would say, ought to be our goal. it would not to sort of separate these things. not say that catholic teaching is one thing but economics just involves is sort of impurecal questions. it's rather is this. it's distinguishing the economic ideologies that pope francis talks about, that michael talked about. from the empirical results and discoveries and the theoretical insights of economics and integrating those things with the perennial principles of catholic social teaching. i would argue if that's done

properly, they can be an advocate of economic freedom. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will now open it to q&a. please wait to be called upon. that's for the benefit of our viewers. microphone will come to you. and would you please be so kind to make your question really short and in a form of a question so we can get through as many of them as possible. so are there any questions in the audience? the gentleman over here. >> wonderful talks by everyone. my name is steven shore. i have a question that -- of a dog that didn't bark. a classic distinction between accidents and substance, and when the holy father talks about the capitalism, is he clear as to whether he's attacking unfortunate accidents or the very substance itself? >> so far as i can tell he

tends not to make that distinction. pope john paul did make that to capitalism. i'd frankly love them to make the difference but pope john paul ii, st. john paul ii said if by capitalism we mean this then no. if by capitalism means this then yes. but let's call it something else. and very often i think not just catholics but many people, many critics of free market economics don't distinguish the metaphysical assumptions and the ideologies that might be the package of someone making the case for economic freedom and the real system itself or simply the question, just the empirical

question. if we look at the types of systems and institutions that societies have, in which do societies tend to do better off or not? and frankly i did this as a college student is i confused say, the moral assumptions with the case for economic freedom. but the catholic doesn't need rand. there's plenty of ways to make the case for economic without that. i would argue we don't want to do that. if you want to be a catholic that is sort of in this area is use authentically catholic resources and develop the case for economic freedom based upon our empirical knowledge and key insights that are not dependent on ideologies. division of labor, these sorts of things. subjective theory of value versus the labor theory value, these are insights drawn from economic study but they're not dependent on any particular ideology. marian: in the back. just one second.

>> the man with the baby. >> i was wondering how you would define economic freedom and if that concept exists anywhere in the papal and cyclicals and formal documents? jay: is this for anyone? >> no. jay: the passage i referred to in a 2005 incyclical by benedict xvi, the only case there is a reference so far as i know in a papal incyclical to the role of -- i forget if he uses the market or freedom, lifting billions out of poverty which may be a bit of an exaggeration. it's one sentence. there's a reference -- he is aware of the fact that india and china they've lifted people out of poverty. there's not a lot of reference

to that. there's reference to freedom. the freedom that's discussed in catholic teaching is not a merely sort of negative freedom from. it's a freedom for, what i would call freedom for excellence and developing our purpose and the end to which we are designed for. >> yeah. i think this is my problem with jay's comments is i don't think you can't just say rand, we can dispose of this but keep that as if the one did not flow from the other. and i think this is where the rubber hits the road. all the way do you to the prudential judgments. this idea that somehow we have these theories but then we have these prudential judgments where we can all disagree. there's something to that obviously, and we all have different experiences that we bring to our judgments of given situations. but prudential judgment is not a get out of jail free card. there are still things. what was just forced on greece, what is about to be forced on puerto rico is not just and therefore it is not acceptable

and the economic system that makes those things necessary is itself implicated and indicted as unjust as well. and i -- we can talk all we want it's all so rosey and wonderful and this, it's not. i don't think we can benefit from, you know, -- the only other thing i just have to object to is the idea pope francis the poor benigned argentinan because he knows is crony capitalism. it's walk and you gone on to that, cronyism. it's like walking into a burning house and complaining about the color of the curtains. i don't think that's the problem. i find it insulting because i don't think anyone saying of pope bennedict, he came from this snow globe village. he's capable of speaking of the universal pastor of the catholic church.

he's an argentine and -- i think that's nonsense. jay: it's grotesque reference to what i said. i didn't say that. what i said, read pope francis and look at argentina and see if that helps you understand why he's saying what he says and if that's shaping what he's saying. i of course didn't say he must be relevant or device because he's from argentina which of course would be a ridiculous thing to say. marian: that side over there. >> hi. my name is nona, a card-carrying economist. and i'm also probably a disappointed catholic. i was -- i was really put off by the handouts. marian: can we ask the question. forgive me. the time.

>> i guess i want to say, even the question if you believe in capitalism the pope is saying we can do better and my childhood there is what we called liberation theology, which my irish mother -- marian: ok. thank you, thank you very much. can we do better and what about liberation theology? >> i take can we do better part because that's certainly an easy one. sure, we can. i, like both jay and michael sean, there is a danger in flattening what the pope has to say in the same way as political writers in the united states or members of political parties in the united states tend to flatten things for public consumption.

i think what the pope has to say about this is enormously complicated and sophisticated and i think it should be understood in the same way and not flattened. let me just give one example. when we talk about the economic recession that we went through in the united states in 2008 and affected much of the western world then and then has traveled around the globe to the other side, there's a tendency to say on the one hand, this is the fall of the bankers who were gouging people and just concerned with the profit motive and repackages mortgages and deceiving people. that's one theory, popular on the left. there is another theory, popular on the right, that it's the fault of barney frank and fannie and freddie which forced the banks to give loans to those who really shouldn't be getting them. when the pope talks about this thing, he talks about both of

those sides and a third side which is the kind of materialism or the consumerism of the borrowers. he said, look, you're all guilty of the same sin which is a lust for consumption and for acquiring things. the bankers want to make more money, the government can't be trusted because they're human beings like the bankers and given to their own prestigious and desires and the consumers who take out loans for 100% of their property value which they can't repay, they, too, are guilty of the same kind of materialism and consumerism. so we can all do better but we have to begin with ourselves. so in this kind of world, there isn't a solution that says that unregulated free market capitalism will be the right way to go. he says we need the government to tame the excesses of capitalism, but we shouldn't trust the government either, and he knows that better than

anybody having lived under fernandez. this is a personal message as much as it is a message of political reform. marian: anyone wants to comment on the liberation theology, does it have a place in the catholic teaching today? michael sean: the condemnation was not -- there are other liberation theologians that waeren't condemned. it is the condemnation, the understanding of the human person that certain theologians put forward and certainly materialistic reductionism in understanding of the person. i have argued you could cut, copy and paste that condemnation of certain liberation theologians and apply it to,

say, an institute today. you would have to change some direct objects. but they make the exact same mistakes in their effort to defend or to baptize free market capitalism which is a -- which is something that cannot be done and at the level of -- at that theoretical level which is the differences i quoted in my remarks, these are directly in contradiction with one another. so i think -- but the night he was elected, i spoke to a friend and i had to go on their tv show and talk about him. i didn't know much about him. a lot of us didn't. the thing to remember -- we knew that he was opposed to -- he said the latin american bishops never stopped asking the question -- what does it mean to exercise a preferential option for the poor? even after this condemnation. this gets to earlier the discussion of the levels of authority that, you know, the pope obviously when he's speaking on the plane, it's a

different level when he's writing an encyclical. the level of authority could not be higher even on the plane because he's speaking straight from the gospel and there is no higher authority in the catholic faith than the gospel of jesus christ. this is where some of us -- oh, we can part this level of authority we are suspicious of that. and we americans don't always like to hear that. jay: i think michael is right. i would object to certain aspects of liberation theology on impurecal grounds, again. just to give one example. an idea from an argentina person which held the southern hemisphere, at least south america and central america was poor because north was rich. the fundamental theme in the prominent liberation theologian

gustavo gutierrez, if you read his entire argument, it hinges on this dependency, the poverty of the south is a causal relationship between the poverty of the south and the wealth of the north. even gustavo gutierrez in later editions of theology liberation based on the empirical details of economics actually abandon impurecal questions are very, very important here. there are many questions we are talking about economics that are not merely theoretical, not merely philosophical. there is data on it. it's important, sort of respect the catholic has on science. to take a look at these kinds of things. >> i'm not an economist but i was a lawyer and i was 15 years on the staff on the senate banking committee. so i want to read something here from the actually incyclical

itself where the pope says the principle of profits frequently isolated from other considerations reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. now, you can have different types of capitalism, in my view. in the united states, from world war ii until about 1985 or so, we can stakeholder theory of capitalism that you had responsibility out -- marian: could you please ask a question. >> the idea that capitalism has responsibility to its workers, to its community and others and then we shifted into this shareholder capitalism where the only responsibility is to your shareholders and the c.e.o.'s who did tie to shareholder value, that's quite a different capitalism from what we used to have in this country 30 years ago. i think that's the important thing to understand. you can have different types of capitalism. it's not capitalism as such but whether capitalism can be moderated to produce benefits

for the whole society. jay: i think you are talking about particular business models in which, for instance, managers are rewarded, according to short-term sort of monitoring of profits or something like that. i think it's a very bad business model. i think there's a lot of evidence to that. on economic grounds you can make the case that it's immoral to treat profits as the only end of a business. i think the opposite of profit is loss. if it's not an indicator you'll probably be in trouble. nobody will have a job. the short-term indication, the incentive structures that encourages managers and c.e.o.'s to work for short-term profits but long-term destruction are very bad business models. i totally agree. >> given pope francis's views, what are his perspectives on

taxation and more broadly, what are his views on what the state should do to battle inequality? >> i think i can answer your question in a different way. there was a photograph in "the washington post" about three weeks ago when they were having the horrible wildfires in washington state. there is a man whose home was saved. he had on a t-shirt that said lower taxes, less government equals more freedom. [laughter] now, that firefighter was not only a government employee but i can guarantee you he was a union member and this guy whose house had just been saved was probably a tea partier because they make those t-shirts. that is the problem. now perhaps they should have let it burn and he would be not concerned about all the possessions. the man was on -- it was like the people who are opposed to obamacare when they first passed

it and keep the government's hands off my medicare. what? again, the government -- the catholic church has never had this kind of hostile view which goes all the way back to before the american revolution. this hostile view of government. as, you know, the leviathan. that's not how catholic culture and theology ever viewed it. i think that's -- to answer your question, we wouldn't view taxes as repatience. when i ran a business, i remember the owner saying, unless there's 100% tax, you always still have an incentive to make more money. we forgot that since the reagan years, haven't we? this idea that oh, if you raise the taxes, people will lose their incentives. they got to put their money in something. i never bought that. marian: one question over there in the back. a gentleman.

>> yes. this is for all of you because you are all in higher education. where do you see sort of the practical implementation of francis's vision coming from within higher ed outside of sort of professional ethics courses? john: i couldn't quite -- >> where you can see an implementation of francis's position? jay: well, to plug in catholic u, what we're trying to do is bring together economics and economics as science but economics was originally part of course of essentially ethics, of ethical philosophy. the business school of catholic u is trying to bring together an integration of catholic social teaching with economics and philosophy. it's at least one place that's being done. i'm not saying it's the only catholic institution trying to do that but it's the mission of the school in trying to do that.

john: i second that point. one of the interesting points that francis's predecessor make, universities are called universities because they aspire to a universal view of human knowledge that we should not segregate disciplines into economics and political theory and ethics and philosophy that these disciplines ought to be talking to one another. one of the aspirations of our university is to do that very thing. economics divorced from ethics brings about the kind of problems that the pope is worrying about. michael sean: in our little institute of catholic u, i shouldn't say we have 50 fellows but we will keep going on our erroneous autonomy theories. we'll do another one next june. we are at the beginning levels of trying to put that together and it focuses on these issues

very, very clearly and we keep waving the pope francis flag. marian: that's all we have time for. i'm deeply grateful to the panel for this discussion. thank you so much for coming. lunch is upstairs. please come again. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> in august, workers for the epa caused a rupture at a holding pond. congress is investigating the toxic river spill. willpa commissioner testify tomorrow. we have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3.

thefda is trying to improve process.ty progress -- the acting commissioner will testify along with other fda officials. coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. of tv is oureature all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals with top nonfiction authors. near the end of september, we are in new york for the brooklyn book festival. the southern festival of books in nashville. the weekend after that come alive in austin for the texas festival. two festivals in the same weekend. the wisconsin festival in medicine. the boston book festival. at the start of november, we will be in portland, oregon for

word stock. comee end of november alive for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. that is a few of the fairs and festivals this all on c-span2's book tv. >> now gop candidate donald rally in san pedro, california. he talks about national security and veterans issues. this is 15 minutes. [applause] tromp, trump, trump. mr. trump: thank you so much. i did not expect that. they said, would you come over and speak. i got here.

possibled, would it be to come and say a few words? an endorsement from your group with so many veterans, hundreds of thousands, i appreciate that. i did not expect that. i did not expect it. i did not ask for it. i will say this. i am with the veterans 100%. are our greatest people. they are being treated terribly. not only the number of deaths, is going that is, what on is incredible. as of two weeks ago wednesday, had the longest wait in the history of the veterans administration.

you go in and see a doctor, you wait for days. with me, that is not going to happen. the veterans hospitals have problems. when you have to wait hours and days and then have the doctor say, i am sorry i'm going on vacation. thanesn't get much worse that. we are going to create a whole new system. system apart. if they are not doing the job, the veterans are going to go to private doctors and hospitals. public hospitals. are going to reimburse those doctors and hospitals. you are going to get the greatest service of any veteran in any country because you deserve it. [applause] mr. trump: that is going to be broken down into something that is going to be very special. you know it, we have illegal immigrants treated better than veterans.

that is not going to happen anymore. appreciate it. unexpected to be here. they do not build ships like this anymore, folks. we don't do them this way. i said, what about recommissioning? the largest guns in the world. iowa.ned a lot about the iowa is a great place for a lot of reasons. we have been treated so well in the state of iowa. number one in the polls. we love those people, they are great. this is the great ship. that is a great state. i just want to say we are going to come out with plans in a short time. we are going to be building up our military. we are going to make it so big and strong and great. [applause]

mr. trump: it will be so powerful i don't think we are ever going to have to use it. nobody is going to mess with us, that i can tell you. presidentng to have a who is respected by putin. who is respected by iran. about for two seconds, the iran deal. now obama, obama and his people call him the supreme leader of iran. he talks about the supreme leader. him thecalling supreme leader. he said it, after the ripoff deal is completed, he will never do business with the u.s. again. we are finished with the u.s.. they are taking $150 billion. isy are getting a deal that going to go right into nuclear weapons, sooner than you think.

they are going to self police, think of that. .hey have 24 provisions what people don't understand, the 24 day provision doesn't start -- you know this, right? it doesn't start for a long time. the clock is ticking. we may never get there. deals,ne of the dumbest one of the weakest contracts i have ever seen of any kind. [applause] mr. trump: so we are going to do things in this country right. we are not going to sign deals where we have more prisoners over there and we don't even ask if one of them is there because he is a christian. .e have a writer the whole thing is insane. they asked the president and the secretary of state kerry

--i have been saying hillary clinton is the worst secretary of state. in the history of this country. the world blew up around her. it just blew up. it is like a different place. it is possible, because of this deal made by secretary kerry who has no cohead to negotiate, it may be he is going to supersede her. he may want to run for president. he has no chance she has no chance. we are going to see what happens. [applause] mr. trump: we have many problems in our country. one of them is immigration. i took a tremendous hit when i brought up illegal immigration. for two weeks, i said, rush limbaugh was a great guy. suffered more in coming

from the press than anybody i have seen. what you have now, you have what is legal immigration is all about, and i brought it to the forefront, he it is a problem. it is a problem. remember for about two weeks, this is tough running for president, and that you found out there is tremendous crime. admit is tremendous drugs point across the border. going to chicago, going to new york, going to l.a., going all over our country, so the drugs are in, and the money pours out. not a good deal. we get the drugs, they get the money. the drug cartels are going wild, and they cannot believe how stupid are government is.

moneyugs come in and the goes out daily, and i saw it because i was on the order, and i saw it, and everybody sees it every day, and we have the kind of people who can do something about it, but we have no leadership, none whatsoever. so we are going to build a wall. and mexico is going to pay for the wall. believe me. you know, a lot of politicians have said, oh, they are not going to pay. they do not know anything. they never read "the art of the deal." i said the other day to my people, why is the united states mexico,ficit with japan, and china?

let's start with china. almost $400 billion at year. now, if you are a company, and you are losing 400 billion dollars, you have to do something very fast. we don't. we have been losing hundreds of billions of dollars a year frankly for decades. it is not going to happen anymore. it is not going to happen anymore. japan, their massive ships built here, and they drop off the cars, right, they drop off thousands and thousands and thousands of cars, millions of cars, and we sell them beef. and they do beef, not want it because their farmers do not want our beef, so they protest and send it back. now, mexico -- and i love mexico. i have many, many people from mexico that work for me and by my apartment, and the same with china. i have so many people. they pay me millions and millions.

to hate china because they gave me millions of dollars to buy an apartment? i don't think so. the good than any banks in this country. they are from china. the problem we have is that the leaders from japan, mexico, and china and every other country we do business with, they are more cunning and sharper than we are. i love free trade. the concept is great, but you need smart people. people in smartest the country lined up. i know the smartest. i have carl icahn. i have the best business leaders, and they all want to do it. they are wealthy because they make good deals like me. i make good deals. it is a talent. you cannot be a politician. look, i am fighting some very nice people, even though i am leading in the polls.

they are very nice people, but they are never point to do anything with these countries. they are never going to be able to do it. it is an instinct. it is something that is special. they don't have it. believe me, they don't have it. it will be more of the same, so we are going to make our country so great. we are going to make it strong. to rebuild the military. we are going to make it so strong. we are going to take care of our , and in the end, in the end, i want you people to look around and looked at each other, because this is going to be a special day. week, two weeks ago, in mobile, alabama, 31,000 people showed up on a rainy day. 30 1000 people came to see us

speak, and we are talking about making america great again. last night in dallas at the american airlines center, 20,000 people -- the basketball arena of the mavericks. 20,000 people showed up, and i want to tell you. it was a love fest. everybody was -- think of it. 20,000 people. there wasn't one heckler in the whole room. i kept saying, there has got to be one. it was a word or two words that used to be used a lot, the silent majority, and they stopped using them. the silent majority, believe me, if that, and i think -- and i think we can use it somewhat differently. i don't think we have to call it a silent majority anymore, because they are not silent. people are not silent. a are disgusted with our incompetent politicians.

a are disgusted with the people who are giving our country away. they are disgusted when they tell the border patrol agents who are good people and can do whenob, they are disgusted they are allowing people to walk right in front of them, and they are standing there helpless, and people just pour into the country. they are disgusted when a woman who is nine months pregnant walks across the border, has the navy, and you have to take care of that baby for the next 85 years. they are disgusted by what is happening to our country, and you are going to look around. you are going to remember who the people are who are here because we are doing something special. this is a moment. we are going to make our country great again. believe me, we are going to make our country great again. i love you very much. i love you. ♪ mr. trump: thank you.

hottest thing out there. you cannot get them. ♪ everybody.thank you, we love you. thank you very much. ♪

announcer: our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues saturday morning with the new hampshire democratic party convention live from manchester. speakers include five candidates, former secretary of state hillary clinton, mott senator bernie sanders, lincoln chafee, former maryland governor , onin o'malley, and lessig c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. campaign 2016, taking you on the road to the white house. a conversation on research at the international space station. we will hear from retired astronaut mark kelly and his twin brother scott kelly. from the national press club,

this is one hour. john: good morning, everyone. bloomberg,tor at they're breaking news desk in washington, and i am the president of the national press club. we have a historic day here at the national press club. our guest life by video link from the international space station is astronaut scott kelly . here in the ballroom next to me, we have astronauts mark kelly and terry virts, but first, i want to introduce our distinguished panel. 's right, thece washington bureau chief for the detroit news, robert, the deputy news editor for physical , and a kernel, a nasa , a senior frank

editor for aviation week and jerry, theology, washington bureau chief for the buffalo news, as president of the national press club, and current chairman of the speakers committee. danny, the senior vice president for public policy wire and a press club member who organized this morning's breakfast, thank you, danny, and captain samantha, a european space agency astronaut. for the newsief aency of russia, tass, reporter for the gray sheet, tom mcmahon, vice president of advocacy and public affairs for the association of unmanned vehicle systems international and a national press club board member. welcome to you all. [applause]

john: i also want to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences, our live audiences watching around the world on the internet. you can follow the action on twitter. c live. #, np that is on twitter. one of the first calls made from document club, and we the moment, and it also marks the moment a high-ranking official was photographed at the national press club, he guessed it was then secretary of state william jennings bryan who made that historic call, san francisco, and earlier this year, vince ate a speech here, doing some work for nasa, and asked the question, what would be the 2015 equivalent of that 1915 phone call? conversations that

resulted from that question with some cooperation from nasa led us here today for another first for the national press club, a live press conference with live messaging going up to space, and it is a historic day and raises the question for the national press club president of 2115, which is, who are you going to call, and how far away are you going to reach? so it is very fascinating that we are here today, and i want to remind you all that our astronaut in space is scott kelly. to the space station in may to begin a 342-days did -- i amnd that will be sorry. it was march, not may. this is his brother, who just corrected me. this will be the longest ever stand by a u.s. astronaut, and as of today, he is just under the halfway point to making history, and here on the ground,

we have scott's twin brother, the retired nasa astronaut, captain mark kelly, and he is undergoing a study about spaceflight on the human body. we also have here on earth air virts, whoelterr returned from the space station. we expect it about one minute, we will be hearing from the international space station. what are you going to say to your brother if you are able to send a message to him? mark: so you want me to say it twice? [laughter] mark: i should wait until we can say it on the screen. i talked to him yesterday, so we caught up. there is a phone on the space nation, for folks who do not know that.

it is kind of like an internet call, and there he is. scott, can you hear us? >> houston, are you ready for the event? scott: i am ready for the event. this is the national press club. how do you hear me? scott: i hear you loud and clear. space station. john: welcome, scott. here, and ill room know it is about lunchtime there, and we just had breakfast. can you tell us what you are doing today? scott: well, first of all, it is great to be with you guys. i know you are having breakfast because both my brother and t virts sent me pictures of

your food. i guess they are trying to make me feel bad about what we have to eat up here, but today, we had some crew members departing late last week, so today is actually a free day. john: and what do you do on your day off at the international space station? scott: we have a lot of work up here with over 400 different science experiments going on throughout the year up here. we do a lot of work on the different systems that keep us off,, so mostly on the day it is a time to rest and recover from a very hectic schedule. i generally take a lot of pictures of the earth, do e-mail, maybe watch something on tv. yesterday, we were watching the texans game, and the broncos game later, so that was nice. you are about halfway to your year-long old.

how do you feel? what effects have microgravity had on you so far in this almost six-month period? scott: yes, so i feel pretty good overall. i definitely recognize that i have been up here a long time and have just as long ahead of me, but i feel positive about it. manage my work, my pace of work, and my energy right, i will have, you know, enough in the takes to get to the end. i am pretty sure i will. as far as physically, i feel good. some pretty good exercise equipment up here, but there are a lot of effects of this environment that we cannot see or feel, like bone loss, the effects on our vision, effects on our genetics, our dna, rna proteins, and that is why we are studying, myself and misha on

this one-year flood, and a think right now, the jury is out on it. we will have to get all of the data and have all of the scientists analyze it and some the results were peer-reviewed, the stuff that scientists do, so hopefully we will find out some great things about me and my colleagues spending a year in space. john: there is a lot of attention and interest on getting to mars. how will your efforts of their help us get to mars? scott: so are a lot studies we are doing focuses on particularly me and my russian mikhail, and the international space station has a lot of capability to collect data on us. you know, we have an ultrasound.

we have these devices that measure our vision. next week, we are going to do a lot of imaging and data collection and a russian device that actually pulls the blood down towards your feet, this lower-body negative pressure device, and from these experiments, we will hopefully issuest if there are any out there. if our vision gets significantly worse after nine months or a year, and even though they russians have flown onboard the mir space station for a year or longer in a couple of cases, they did not have the technology that we have today to figure this out. you know, the space station is also a great experiment on sustainable energy and life support equipment and understanding how that works and how we can maintain ourselves with the systems for longer of time, and all of

these things will help us go to mars someday in the not dod distant future. john: part of what you're doing is undergoing a twin study along with your brother on the ground. explain how that is working. do you have any results on the twin study, anything you can share, or will not any of this be known until after your experience is done and you analyze all of the data afterwards? scott: you know, i think most of it will be stuff that we learn afterwards. i have had some interaction with some of the investigators. you know, one thing that i found somewhat interesting, maybe not too unexpected, is our microbiome, you know, the stuff inside us that is not -- you know we have more cells of bacteria that we carry around that isn't part of our

body, but they live inside of us , and, you know, one of the principal investigators told me that while i was up here that she found it interesting that my microbiome arey completely different, and i thought that was interesting because we live we separate lives, but i thought it was an interesting factoid. the: the goal is is that at end of this, you will be able to document, or nasa will be able to document as never before the effects of microgravity on a human using a twin human to really get at a detailed level. scott: yes, you know, it is really kind of a serendipitous thing that my brother and i are both identical twins and astronauts, and the fact that he is an astronaut and has a lot of experience with nasa means not

only is he comfortable doing all of these types of experiments as the control person, but also nasa has a lot of data on him going back to when he interviewed in 1995, so they can look at the data and the data they collect from him over this year and see what kind of deviations we have on a genetic level, which, you know, could be a result of this environment, the weightlessness of the environment, the radiation that we see, and from that figure out other areas we need to know,igate so we can, you complete our journey to mars and elsewhere. john:: nasa estimates that the recently discovered earthlike planet in a star system has doubled the earth's gravity. mentioned yours heroic experiments and your effects on gravity and talking about this, so as you anticipate

the physical recovery needed to return to earth's gravity from the weightlessness of the space station, how do you think humans could one day adapt to gravity stronger than earth's? guess charlesw, i darwin proved that, you know, the species, different species in general are very adaptable to their environment, and they -- you know, so i think over the long term, it would not be an issue. have learned to live and work in a microgravity environment, i am sure people will be able to live and work in an environment that is twice the amount of gravity, although i think to be comfortable with that, in that situation, it will probably take a little longer to optimal up here. much, but, youas know, when we come back from a space station, we do feel like you weigh 500 pounds, more than

double your real weight. but it is something you adjust to very quickly, and i think we as a species, you know, throughout evolution, it has shown that we are very adaptable. john: how long has it taken you to get used to this environment of microgravity, and is it a constant process of adjustment, or is it something that you figure out, and then it is just there? scott: you know, that is a really good question, and you know one i have never been asked before. what is the process of adjusting? far, i have found it is a continuous thing. gets, you know, less significant over time, but i do notice, you know, i can do things now that i couldn't do right when i first got up here,

even though i had flown 180 days in space before. you know, my ability to move around has really improved over time and continues to improve, and you just get more comfortable. your clarity of thought is greater. your ability to focus, things found that thei adaptation has not stopped. it will be interesting to see where i am at six months from now. i know that on earth when they do experiments -- there you go. that is good. that is good. earth, when they do experiments, they often put people down in a closed environment and leave them there for months at a time to see how they interact with one another. you're up there for a long time with your colleague.

component of human this, the human interaction? are there subjects that you need to avoid in talking about, or how do you learn to live with one person for such a long time or people so long up on the space station? scott: you know, i think people find it hard to believe, but, 300know, so far in my over days, actually approaching one year in space, i have noticed very few conflicts. but oury does nasa international partners do a good job at selecting people who are easy to get along with in this type of harsh environment, so, you know, especially on this flight. i have not had any issues. nor do i expect to have any. people have issues with me, hopefully not, but we get along great, and we are all one big team up here. we recognize how we rely on each

other, you know, on a psychological level but also for our own personal safety, and it with myas important fellow astronaut here as it is with my other international colleagues, including the onboard.osmonauts john: all right, i am going to bring in your brother here in a minute, but do you think that you or mark got the better end of the deal on the twin study? scott: well, i think it depends, you know? is a privilege to fly on this flight, but sometimes when he sends me pictures of his breakfast, i am a little envious. [laughter] john: and, mark, what would you say to your brother? : what, about breakfast? john: sure.

mark: i communicated with him yesterday. about theresting texans and their performance yesterday. scott: well, fortunately, it is a long season, so i am very optimistic they will improve. i think there are areas where they need to, but regardless of how they do, i am a huge fan and feel fortunate to have football season here and something to look forward to on the weekends. john: and a question for scott. mark: interesting. you see his feet. i think it is interesting to what happens to your feet in space, if your company sharing that with folks. so we dos, you know, not use the bottom of our feet

much, so over time, any calluses that you have on your feet kind of fall off, and after about five months up here, you have a be feet, but then you have a big callus on the top of your toe, your big so, because you use that to move around. when i got that from my last flight, a few days after the flight, i was getting a massage at one of those massage chain places, because i was pretty sore in some places, and the "you have the softest feet i have ever felt in my whole life," and my response was, "thank you. i am very proud of them." john: this is part of the long spaceflight missions as we contemplate mars and beyond in our future. you have been up there about halfway now through your full

year stint, but do you have any advice to give to future astronauts who are going to be spending a long duration in space? anything you have learned that you can pass on to them? scott: you know, i was fortunate that i had flown, you know, almost six months my previous life, so i sort of knew what i was getting into, but despite i did have, you know, certain apprehensions, having to go into something that was going to be more than twice as long, so i intentionally, you know, thought about ways for me to get to the end of this with as much energy as i had in the beginning, and part of that is having a good balance between work and rest, and i intentionally do not work at the same pace i did last time i was up here, where, you know, i felt ore i could go at 100% speed

the full six months. i cannot do that, so i consciously tried to throttle myself back to the bit at certain times and have a really good balance between work and rest, and that is what i would encourage anyone who attempts to spend this amount of time in this type of environment, is that you just have to pace yourself. john: so in the remaining time you have of their, you are about half way, what are you most forward to the next six months or so up there? scott: you know, we have a couple of spacewalks coming up, and i look forward to that. i have never done a space walk. doing one with a guy who just got something out of the refrigerator, so we both forward to that. that will be a challenge for the two of us, but what i am looking most forward to is just getting

youhe end of this with, know, as much energy and enthusiasm as i head in the beginning and doing it safely and completing all of our mission objectives and getting all of the science done. john: ok, last question. what is the thing of all of the things that you miss in your , and now from earth after such a long time, what is at the top of your list of things you miss from being down on the planet? scott: so after being with other people, people you care about, your family, your friends, just going outside. this is a very closed environment. you know, we can never leave, you know was to mark the lighting is always pretty much the same. the smells, the sounds, everything is pretty much the same, and even though i think most prisoners can get outside

occasionally, you know in a week, but we can't, and that is what i miss, after people. john: scott kelly, i want to thank you for joining us today on this historic day at the national press club, and the audience wants to show their appreciation by giving you some applause. thank you. [applause] scott: my pleasure. john: all right, see you later. somebody passed up a question, -- maybe it was one of our there are some large cameras in the pictures, telephoto lens types. are those to take pictures of earth, or what are those used for? : yes, those are for earth.

where's scott was, there is a very large window. it is very high quality. sometimes we take pictures of farm fields or different experiments, and when we do not blocking theiment window, we can grab a camera and take some pictures. scott has been very good. i had the tendency to take big pictures, and scott was a big fan of getting that big, gigantic telescope, and it is one of the favorite things we do in space, take pictures. the room he was coming to us from? the lab,were in looking back, and where joe came from is some exercise equipment off to the side, so i think he was in there, either running on the treadmill, or there is a texas size machine that allows you to do do do deadlifts and ss and that type of thing. --n: and how would you avoid

he mentioned missing going outside. what would you do to avoid being stir crazy out there? : it is funny. i think right after scott get there, when we were there, i missed earth, and the russians were sending us audio clips of rain and wind and words and stuff, so there was one weekend, where there were 100 laptops, so we put this rain sound, so it was raining in the station for the whole weekend. everywhere you went, it was rain. that was one way. mark, i talked to your brother about the twin study. study ont your twin the ground, and how much time does it take question mark how much are you being tested? : so far, my purpose has ,een to provide samples, saliva

other things that will not go into, and be there for m.r.i. studious and ultrasounds, and sometimes i would be an a contraption, and i would not even know what they were trying to figure out. do what you need to do, so providing data over an extended period of time. sometimes i will visit houston and meet with the researchers and spend the whole day giving data. sometimes they will send somebody to tucson, or even once to select datay after he gets back for a period of time. from what we understand, from some of these researchers, one of them recently said that they are going to have more i on ation on scott and molecular and genetic information than any other human ever. not anw, that was official position, but that is what one of the researchers,

their comments on this study, and there are probably 10 or 12 or toent experiments universities doing experiments, from all of the way of the university of frankfurt to stanford, harvard medical school, johns hopkins, i think the university of pennsylvania, so really pretty substantial research universities, and it will be what the data the shows on the genetic and molecular effects from this long-duration spaceflight. you know, my brother mentioned and there might be a cliff, i think that needs of the bit of further explanation, right? so we have data on a lot of people after six months of being in space, so we have a pretty good idea of what happens in that six-month period, but we have no data after that six months, so maybe there is a bend in the curve. what i mean by that is we know

that people's vision gets worse after a six-month period, but maybe after 10 months, it gets really bad, and imagine you are trying to send a group to live on mars for an extended period of time, but we find out by the time they get there, they are going to be nearly blind, that is a big problem, so that is part of the idea of doing this research over a one-year period, to find out if there are any bends in the curve. john: how sin can we get to mars? : i think our ability to go to mars is not so much based on the technology to do that. i think that part we can figure out, and we can figure out the engineering and the propulsion system. ultimately, i think we can figure out what it is going to take to mitigate some of these physiological effects from being in space. i think the limiting factor and the thing that really controls when we actually do this is the

public desire to do it. you know, we will need a lot of public support if we are going to take on that kind of endeavor , put a person on mars, and that public support then means that andet congressional support administration support, support of the administration in the white house. that is the most important thing, because a challenge like sending somebody to mars is going to be expensive, and it is going to take a long time, so without that public support, i would say -- john: both of you spent time in that station and have the experience of adjusting back to earth gravity, and scott will have that in a more significant way because of the length of time that he will be up there, but what are the three or so moe unique things that your body experiences that you go through

when you transition back to earth from the period of time up on the space station? mark: that is interesting. after my shuttle flight which was relatively short, about two weeks, i felt heavy, more than anything that the sense of gravity was pretty significant, and after my station flight of 200 days, i felt heavy, but the main sensation i had was one of being dizzy, where i could still walk. it took a few days before that dizziness abated, but the thing that really surprised me about the station flight, 200 days, was how quickly i adapted back to earth. i was prepared for much worse and had months of lingering effects, but i adapted a lot more quickly than i thought. john: was that also your experience in the transition? terry: i flew some that were more or less, so i do not have

that experience of being in space for a long period of time, but my observation has been when you're flying a space shuttle mission, it is like a two-week train wreck, of trying to operate and get everything you need to complete in this very short period of time. a lot of crewmembers working very fast. you do not have a lot of time to exercise. it is important exercise in space, so on a space mission, i like to do it to or three times. even though they are in space about six months, they are doing a significant amount of exercise almost every single day, and i think that helps. i think that is how you acclimated pretty well after 200 days in space, and it probably did not feel a lot different than being in space a couple of weeks. the amount of exercise and the amount of work you are doing during that time in space. john: i think both of you would isee, the technology

imaginable on getting to mars. what happens with our astronauts once they get there? making it sodle astronauts can live there? how difficult will that be? and do we have any idea how long they will be able tuesday before coming back, or would they just not come back? terry: are we going to see that in a movie? mark: yes. there are two ways to go to mars. you can go the slow boat way, using a traditional chemical rocket, the kind like we have now, and if you do that, it is six to nine months, and then you have to wait for the long way to catch up with the sun again to come home, so it is a three-year mission, which is a long time for your water systems to work and for your carbon dioxide removal to work, and it is a lot

of food packets. it is a big thing. and the fast boat to mars is elelecicelecicelectric propulsig electricity. you pump out the propellant really fast out the back end, and the spaceship moves a lot faster, and you can get there in a few months. the problem to do that is you need a nuclear reactor in space to produce enough electricity. if you go the fast way, the problems of the human body in space are mitigated, also packing a lot less food and water, and the systems do not have to last as long. that is a decision we will have to make, how to get there be fast way or the slow way. behind it,ngress got how far away are we from achieving this?

terry: 1961 to 1969. getting to mars takes longer than getting to the moon. it could be done. maybe, that i two think mark said it. it is more a question of political science than rocket science. john: let me ask you about nasa in general. me, apollo 15 was the end all, because i was seven years old. i did not remember apollo 11, but i had the astronaut dolls or what everyone to call them, the little guys that i would play with. deal, right?ge and then in more recent years, there was some thought that nasa had come on harder times. we were relying on the russians more and that nasa's glory days were over, and twedays and nasa seemedhen wemuch exci, to be hip again.

what is your view with where we are with the space agency here in the united states, and what do we need to do, if anything, to put it on the right future course? i can't talk about what we are doing now and let mark finish. mars rovers. we have three rovers active on mars right now, and the mars program is very robust. the human space program is very robust. .cott is up there now so nasa is very involved in space exploration. robotically and human. all.s not gone away at we are flying with the russians right now, and that was one of the highlights of my mission, actually going with the russian -- sagues on the soy is any, edit has not ended in

shape or form, and i think it has a bright future. marco: we have the best engineers in the world, and i think we can do anything we set our minds to, i mean anything. especially in space flight. it is challenging, but we have the resources to do these things. i think we need to pick missions that the public will be interested in, like the pluto mission. nasa 70 used to work at and flying in space, even i thought that was pretty neat, you know, to see pluto up close for the first time and see this image is come back and learn more about something that is or is not a planet. i do not know what it is today, so we have got to pick these exciting missions, and then we have to allow nasa to do this. know, what often happens, you know, we will be asked to do something, and then either

sometimes nasa will cancel a program, or others will. ability of our scientists and engineers to do these things. they do take a long period of time. often from one administration in the white house to the next, so i think people just need to be patient. we need to give nasa the resources to do these hard things, but we have the people and the ability to accomplish exciting things in space. john terry, we heard scott earlier say he was really looking forward to his space walk, and you completed three spacewalks during your mission, and this helped prepare the space station for the new boeing and spacex commercial crew vehicle's, and you also gave us go pro shots, but can you tell us what it is like

to be out on those walks and doing this kind of work? terry: yes, it was definitely unique. that was definitely a, going outside for the first time. in the pool, we practiced doing , and it is about from there to there, and reach over and grabbed, and on my very dost spacewalk, i went to that, and then i was, no, i am not going to do that, so i did cut, but it ist amazing to look back and seat worth. at maybe a minute or two to do that. i i never really felt like had any free time while i was out there. john: market, -- mark: it is

almost like we are so used to it, we take it for granted. what about the impact it has? mark: my brother mentioned that over the period of time he will be there, there is like 400 experiments going on in different laboratories. a u.s. laboratory, a japanese laboratory, a european laboratory, the russians, they do science in the russian segment, so it is an incredible facility. tore is a lot going on expand the output of the space station. you need just more people. the space station was 1998, so 17 years now. it is starting to get kind of old. break, andt to people have to fix things when they break, and that takes time away from doing the science. you do not have an electrician

or plumber or somebody to clean the place up, so the crew members, they are the mechanics. they are the scientists. they are the secretary. a guy who is fixing the toilet when that breaks. you are the made. you are cleaning up on the weekend or during the week, so it really comes down to crew but to add crew members is complicated. you have more crew members, and now you need another return vehicle onboard that acts as a lifeboat is something happens. you also have to be up to support the extra people not only with food and water but oxygen, you know it or to grieve --you know, air to grieve need moreo we would to get more out of them. an -- then an

international effort. looking at long spaceflights in the future, do you envision these will be international collaborations, or will they be more u.s. efforts? mark: my own view is that it view is-- terry: my own that i think the international program aspect of it allowed it to make it through congress, and going back to the political science versus rocket science aspect to it, the international program makes it something that can survive over a longer period of time. plus, it is great to have the ingenuity, and you can gain some efficiencies by having different countries build different modules, so one country does not have to build the entire thing themselves. john: someone passed out a question about elon musk, who recently talked about mars and using a thermonuclear device as an option to make mars more habitable. any thought or comment on that?

yes, i saw an article on that. i do not know the science behind -- nuking a planet, and elon is a very smart guy. car company, and a big solar company. you know, he tends to know what he is talking about, but i do not know the science behind nuking the planet. john: another person in the audience rights that the u.s. russian relations are tense on earth but seem very productive in a. what can leaders on earth learn about your cooperation on the international space station? terry: preparing and getting ready to launch, and they are

very capable, very friendly. with a great time in space misha, whoasha and is up there now. the station has accomplished a lot of things, and the most important thing is the international relation aspect of it. it has been evolving. ups and downs in relationships on earth, and the space station has been a very positive weekend -- beacon on life. john: terry, 3-d printing. please describe this for the future and for the space station , benefits, if there are any. are there any lessons learned that can improve on the technology in the near term? terry: samantha, this was her baby in space, but 3-d printing

is a great concept, and you can imagine going to mars. you are limited to one bag only, so you cannot bring all of the tools that you need, and if you can actually print out parts or tools, for example, that can really save on the amount of mass you have to launch. we did make a little wrench, and it was made out of plastic. wrench, and metal it was the first time it had been done in space, and it was more of a technology demonstrator, but it was cool to see it print out in space, and we sent it back down to earth for analysis, so we did not keep it, but that is a technology that has a lot of promise, i think. mark, when you're up there, what is the thing that strikes you the most later on? well, what became obvious

to me, in 2001 during my first is that we live in an island, in a really unforgiving environment. you look back at the earth from a distance, and you have few people on board the space shuttle and the space station, and we have got 7.5 billion people on this ground ball just floating in the blackness of space with really no other place to go, and that becomes a very -- that was pretty striking and observation, and and by other astronauts that fly in space, so i think it gives you a little bit more of an appreciation of our planet and what it does for all of us and the need for us to consider that and take care of it. john: terry, as we have talked about, the space station crew has conducted hundreds of experiments, including many that have been developed by science

students and transmitted up there. do you consult with these same students when question's arise, and if so, how, and which student experiments were the most interesting or challenging? : sometimes we talk to when weor huntsville are doing experiments, and sometimes if it is complicated, they will tie us in with this rightist who made it. it depends on the experiment, and i am trying to think of what -- the student experiments we had. most of the experiments, you just do the experiment, and you do not really know who came up with it, but as far as student experiments, what i do remember if they built some equipment like storage bags.

there is something that was little satellites, little cartridges of air jet that fly around, and that was a big student-led experiment with m.i.t. that my crewmates were talking to the ground, and that was very interactive. students could make software and fly them around, kind of like the robotics that kids do these days, like a competition that they were flying. john: mark: i mentioned relying on others earlier on transport. do you think ending the space shuttle program before the was a replacement slowed the u.s. space program? in other words, was it a good transition, or could we have done better? the columbia accident happened in 2003, and after columbia, it was a joint decision made to retire the space shuttle because we realized that if we continued to

fly it, you know, for another decade, we would probably lose another spacecraft and a crew. we did not want to do that, so this was a decision made by congress and the white house and nasa, including the astronaut office. that is the right thing to do, to retire the space shuttle. what it allowed us to do is to speed up the development of what the next would be. and you get into testing developing and building the newware for a new system, a launch system, a new rocket, a new spacecraft, it get expensive really quickly, like upwards of $2 billion a year to do this, that it just happens to be that the space shuttle operating budget was about $2 billion to $3 billion a year, so there were two things he could have done. we could have retired the space shuttle and use that money to develop a new spacecraft, or we $2 billion orten

$3 billion more out of congress and the white house and develop a new spacecraft at the same time. nasa's budget is only about $19 billion, so you are talking about a 15% increase in nasa's budget to build a new spacecraft. in the fiscal environment over the last decade, how hard do you think it would be great agency 15%et an increase of about in their budget? it would be really hard to do, so i absolutely believe we made the right decision. would haveonally flown the space shuttle every year for the rest of my life if i could. it is the best spaceship ever. i loved it. part of me still wishes it was still around, but at the same time, we did make the right decision, because the space shuttle was designed -- they were each designed to fly about endeavour, that

was flight 25. they were not designed to fly the40 years, so that was issue we were dealing with, so it put us in a position where we had to rely on our russian partners to get crew members to and from the station right now and over the next couple of years still, and we will be back with u.s. crew members on u.s. on your soil here in no time, and i think it puts us on a good path going forward. john: for either of you, if you were congress, where would you focus the resources for nasa? would it be a morris mission? would it be a mission like the pluto flyby? going back to the moon? the space station? where would we need to put our focus? terry: we would do everything. john: but if we did not have

unlimited resources, what would you prioritize? mark: i will let terry say. not focus on just one thing. doing aircraft research and also space exploration and human expiration, so i would not divide it up. terry, you stay connected through your favorite pastime to earth, baseball. as i understand, you posted your favorites. >> boston is very easy, san diego. it is when you get to the very

middle. kansas city, hundreds of miles of flat. st. louis, cincinnati. so, the ones on the corners were very easy to get to and the ones on the corners of little tougher to get. i think i did get them all. i still need to go through the files and check the ones in the middle the country. pittsburgh is hard to get with all of the hills in the middle of pennsylvania. workingnk my brother is on getting the football stadiums, i think because of what you did. host: before i asked the final question, some housekeeping. i want to remind you of our astronauts will be available down the hall for stand-up interviews after this concludes. i want to remind you the national press club is the leading organization for journalists. we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information, visit our website press.org.

institutee journalism visit press.org/institute. i would like to remind you about some upcoming programs. archbishop thomas one ski of miami. bishop cantu of new mexico, and of catholicwu relief services will discuss pope francis us upcoming visit o washington, d c and a discussion on college athletics and the chair of the national endowment for arts will discuss initiatives at a breakfast. i would like to present our in-room guests with a national press club mug. much cherished. you cannot easily find it on the space station. very valuable. we'll have to figure out how to

get it to your brother. bags give me an extra one. >> give me a next her one. i will get it to him. not very useful in space, though. [laughter] john: the new mars movie is coming out. i am a star wars junkie. grew up that way. will inch of you tell me what science enjoy, if any and will you tell me about what you think about the movies and science fiction that you see out there. terry: i always enjoyed it. star wars was the big thing. i remember reading arthur clarke as a teenager. he wrote some great stuff. inre is a space station north orbit, i watched it when i was in space. a lot of it came true 50 years

later. i just watched interstellar while i was in space. a lot of that stuff is not going on on board the space station. there are a lot of one wholesome stuff. you have to watch it a few times. course, they have to make it exciting. scott brought up a big projector. --watched "gravity close "gravity" one night. the mechanics of where everything was, what it looked like, was very well. they got it done. do not have giant explosions and fireballs. they have to do that to make the movie interesting. out there doing science experiments, you probably would not gross very much at the box office. [laughter] john:, how about you.

i was reading about, saving humanity, it is interesting to see how an author or hollywood uses an existing technology in their movies. younger, like these i used to read a lot of like, robert heinlein. about what itnk would be like to be in space one day and i think that is havetant because people ambition. they can a picture themselves at a different place at a different time. john: do you ever think about, you and mark, all that data they

have on you, we could clone you. what about as a youngster, so fascinated with the space program. young people who want to go to space someday get on that career track. what would you suggest they do? >> brigade asked this question all the time. the answer is, do what you are passionate about. everyone has different skills and abilities. when you are created to do, go do that and do that well. there is not one path to being an astronaut. there are engineers, scientists. mark and i are both engineers in our previous lives. -- scott isedical. a medical doctor. the idea is to do what you are passionate about and what your gifts are.

on the cusp of a big seachange with access to space. i think there is a very high probability that the young people in his today, sometime in their lives, even if they are not a professional astronaut, will have the ability to go into space. they see movies like galactic where people are starting on the road to space tourism. it is exciting. we will see a lot more. right now, there is probably about 550 people who have ever been in space, and i think that number is going to grow substantially over the next decades. think there is more excitement now about aspects in space than at any other time? >> i think the reason is, for are starting to think maybe this could affect now. maybe it is true.

maybe and some of our lifetimes and stead of taking a flight from new york to london that typically takes about 6.5-seven hours, maybe some of us will be taking that flight in the space shuttle. about 40 minutes. there is no reason why that is not possible in the coming decades. able or starting to think about this. john: how about a round of applause for our guests? [applause] john: i want to thank our national press club staff. if you would like a copy of this program, go to our website, press.org and that is where you can also learn more about the national press club. thank you for attending today. we are a jar and. -- we are adjourned.

[applause] [background talking] >> tonight on sees man, house intelligence chair and the highest ranking democrat on u.s.nal security and intelligence. pope francis visits washington, new york, and philadelphia next

week. the pope has been critical about some of the aspects of capitalism and we will bring you some of his crews. interview misted, donald trumps campaign rally in los angeles. setting the stage for c-span's new series, landmark cases: historic supreme court the cases in post the series. eachring the human behind story. georgetown university law professor and forming acting solicitor general and senior u.s.al judge of the district court for eastern pennsylvania. moderated by jeffrey rosen. live wednesday starting at 7:00 p.m. c-span three.

>> up next, a look at the oversight on u.s. national security measures. we will hear from the ranking members. member of the new york times moderates this discussion. >> good morning everybody, welcome to date too. this morning we continue our examination with respect to those who provide us oversight from congress. plays a critical role in oversight. primarily, the house select committee on intelligence. we are pleased to have congressman devin nunes and the ranking minority member congressman adam schiff with us this morning. they both represent the great state of california and have long and distinguished records

of performing rigorous oversight of intelligence in the interest of accountability and transparency. our distinguished panelists are joined by david sanger, chief washington correspondent for the new york times. david we are thrilled to have , you with us today is well. you, and thanks. david: thank you and thank you for coming at this early hour of the morning. i am looking forward to what will be a conversation of under one hour because both of our panelists have to get to what i hope will be a pretty interesting open hearing on cyber. it will have many of the leading intelligence agency heads and i think including the director of national intelligence who was here yesterday. i think you both. -- i thank you both.

as you heard in the introduction we're fortunate to have devin nunes and adam schiff with this. that is the role. i want to get to the question of how you assess the quality of the intelligence you are getting now with what will be at the end of the week, 14 years since 9/11. so a great time of upheaval in the way we organize the intelligence community and the way we assess information. let me start with this. when you look around the world and you see the assessments that come into you, we are in an odd moment. a true post-post-cold war moment. where the assessment of the threat differs considerably.

if you look at the national threat assessment you get each february, it has said cyber for the past two years as the biggest threat. if you look at what the pentagon would tell you they would say a resurgent russia under vladimir putin. if you look under -- at the assessments that come from others who are more focused on the middle east they would tell you the rise of isis. is perhaps the vigorous challenge we face now although not necessarily one that can reach the united states. i would like to ask each of you to tell us which of those you believe but more importantly, tell us what the fact we are getting -- why we are getting such a different assessment, what we should draw from that about the current state of how we assess intelligence threats. >> thank you and i appreciate the opportunity to be here with

adam schiff. we try to start out to be part -- bipartisan. it is behind closed doors so we do not have a lot of the political banter you will see in public hearings that you see on the other committees. the politics we try to check at the door. this is one of the most important roles that we both play in this town and for the united states of america to look over 17 agencies, that is very difficult. we looked at this before we both came on, we wanted to build what -- on what our predecessors did and we divided the committee into new subcommittees and tried to spread out the 17 different areas where we have jurisdiction

to get our members more engaged. we had very active members on the nsa cyber committee, for example, and we have a defense in overhead architecture, emerging threats, and cia. we try to divvy it up i the workload. and then we will have -- we will chair the big, important, maybe the first meeting of the week usually. then we try to let the other committee chairman do the rest because there is too much to cover. that is how we break it down and how we view our role in oversight area -- oversight. i do not think you can rank -- getting to the second question.

i look at these and kind of equal buckets that are always changing and that are working together and i see those buckets as you have the whole overarching cyber-problem. you have the russia problem. you have the china problem. and then you have what i call the jihad triangle which is isis, al qaeda, and iran. as you know and overarching with that is the cyber problem. so at times when you look at who are the bad cyber actors, they happen to be russia, china, iran, even some of the isil folks. and then you have the nuclear threat with north korea. i do not think -- if you live at sony it is cyber threat. >> when people ask how is the intelligence community i think too many people expect the intelligence community to be fortunetellers and they think they will predict the future. as we know that is hard to do. you just hope to have really educated folks, educated members, we can provide good education to our military, to

the military planners, to our policymakers both at the executive and legislative level. and through that we know that change is always going to happen. new bad things are always going to emerge and you hope that you have some education level amongst all the people i just named. congressman schiff: we have strongly left coast domination of intelligence oversight with myself, senator new year's, senator feinstein. as the chair was mentioning our committee tends to be nonpartisan. that does not mean we don't have our differences. we do that it is a very collegial environment. we try to basically cordon off the areas where we know we are going to be in disagreement and we agree to disagree without it becoming personal.

then we focus on the bread-and-butter of our job which there are no party line differences. it is a wonderful retreat from the rest of the congressional committees. i would say a couple of things about the state of the ic. we have gone through a time of tremendous growth and capabilities where technology -- technological advances made it possible to gather information. as a result we are seeing a couple of phenomena. one is that our public policy do not always keep paces with the changes in technology and changes in capability. perhaps we did not ask as much about things we could do, whether we should do, what the implications of disclosure might mean. that environment has very much changed. there are new analyses where almost the expectation is turned on its head. the expectation now is this will be disclosed, leaked, whatever.

that requires a new analysis of what will the implications of that be, what are the cost benefits of any kind of intelligence gathering, so the public policy debate is struggling to keep up with the technological advances.

we have been trying to deal with the challenge of the assimilation of great amounts of data which is a different kind of challenge than perhaps in the days gone by when the challenge was getting information, not so much assimilation of information. our oversight is very functional and contrast too much of the congress. nonetheless, we are at a tremendous mismatch vis-a-vis the intelligence agencies. we cannot take our work home area and we are reliant to a large degree on the agencies telling us if there are problems. within those constraints i think that the oversight mechanism is working and working reasonably well. in terms of the threats we face i find it interesting when people talk about about cyber. it is floating out there not connected to any particular actor.

it is relevant in the context of who is using the cyber weapon against us. as the chairman said, russia is the most sophisticated actor. china may be the most prolific actor. we have concerns about iran, north korea, and the increasing democratization of the cyber threat as other countries make use of it. it is a very asymmetric battlefield where a lot of the advantages are to those on offense and that provides great challenge for the intelligence community and all of our agencies. as far as nation state actors or non-nationstate actors on what poses the greatest threat, i view that through the prism of what poses the threat of changing the way we live. so when i look at isis, the threat from isis compared to the threat from al qaeda, i have been more worried about al qaeda because of their capacity to launch major attacks against this country. to bring down our aircraft or an attempt to do a spectacular attack. that could have a transform an event negative impact on the country in a way that the one

off kind of isil model attacks will not be transformative. i have tended to worry more about al qaeda. that is changing as al qaeda, the core leadership becomes increasingly decimated and isil is increasingly on the rise. that for me is changing. we may be getting to the point where isil has eclipsed al qaeda in my perspective as the predominate terrorist threat. russia presents a very real threat also. a threat of potentially transformative impact in our country. should they miscalculate should lead to warfare on the continent. you have the same risk although to a lesser degree by china with its aggressive action in the south china sea. those are two of the main nationstate actors we worry about. and then finally, iran, we will be training a lot of our resources on iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement. that will be the next type rarity.

host tom and i want to leave on the two things you raised. i want to move on to iran and some of the cyber issues. you mentioned at the outset, we work from an old assumption in the intelligence community that most of what you dealt with would remain secret if not for the entire 25 or 30 year period that you would see at the bottom of a classification stamp but most of that. the dni got around to declassifying presidential daily briefs lyndon johnson received early in the vietnam war. the vietnam war. that is the old model. the cia went through a procedure, annual review of the white house that basically said, is this operation, is the data we are getting out of this operation, this effort worth what we're getting if it got disclosed tomorrow morning on

"the new york of times" or "the washington post"? the nsa never went through that process until post-snowden time. tell us, go one more beat about how that is changing. what you are saying happen in the culture. is there now an underlying assumption that even the deepest secrets may only have a shelf life of a couple of years. how does of -- that affect one's thinking on how to measure risk? >> the has been an overreliance on technology. we have to continue to improve how we use technology and data.

you can also over-rely on it. there's nothing better than good old-fashioned human intelligence gathering. it is going to be more difficult to gather human intelligence times it isa lot of human intelligence that enables better technologies, new technologies or even discovery of what adversaries are doing. >> i think the allegations regarding angela's cell phone and i can only say allegations were a real tipping point in compelling policymakers ic to thinkof the long and hard about the risks of disclosure, the risks of relationship with allies, the ,isks to sources of information

most acutely human sources of information from disclosure. to think in new and different terms about the cost benefit analysis, because i think one of the dynamics that has changed is the conversations that traditionally have taken thee between the media and intelligence community when the media has a story and they go to the icn say, we are going to run with the story and there is a discussion about, what impact with that have and the newspaper's willingness to self censor and not publish out of the public interest. i think that dynamic has changed. you may be in a better position to speak on this. my perception is that post-snowden there is such a rush to publish. if we do not run with this some other paper will. we will get scooped. it is a very different dynamic now.

from the press perspective that may mean that -- described to of thenfidence and trust government. but the bottom line i think for the intelligence community is a much greater expectation that things are going to be published. the celebrity for lack of a better word that has been attributed to snowden encourages other people to make disclosures. this is a great challenge. we can have an intelligence community where people can unilaterally make the decision even when something is lawful that they disagree with the policy and they will make it public. tremendous challenge. i think it does affect what the ic does. it does affect our expectations about how long things will remain confidential. constraints, some

which may be useful and others which may be harmful in terms of national security. those communications inteln "the times" and have not changed all that much. there is a very good time at -- dynamic back-and-forth. while the times or the poster the wall street journal may call and have a serious conversation with the cia or others about whether publication would result in methods being revealed and so forth, wikileaks will not have that phone call or a blogger. we probably would not get the phone call returned. the game is being played at a far more complex level i think than it was in the old days. but you raised at the end the concern that some in the intel community about -- have whether

they do this in and out of channel. one of the questions we have gotten up here goes direct to that. to ask you both to comment on the news reports that appeared monday thats" on intelligence assessments of isis at varioustered points. this was mostly in the dia. to downplay their strength. when i read that story the other day i was thinking to myself, this is the same debate that played out during the pentagon papers in 1969. where history of the vietnam war suggested that the government had overestimated our success against the viet cong. except we were seeing played out in real time with the isis struggle. when you read something like that and maybe you have had some