>> you can find the rest of this online at www.c-span.org.we now take you to the floor of the u.s. house of representatives for the first day on the job for paul ryan as speaker of the house. the steering committee is starting to find his replacement of chair of the house ways and committee this week. the clerk: the speaker'room, washington, d.c., november 2, 2015. i hereby appoint thhonorable rick w. allen to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker p tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the

speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, e clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 29, 2015, at 3:22 p.m. that the senate passed senate 1731. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable he speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 30, 2015, at 11:57 a.m. that the senate concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment h.r. 1314. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to clause 12 of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today.

some forms of criticism of the government were a federal offense. charlotte shank handed out and mailed leaflets against the draft. >> this is a flyer that was produced by charles shank in 1917. 15,000 copies were produced and that is to encourage men who are liable for the draft not to

register. the language is particularly fiery. it constraights a description of slavery and calls on every citizen of the united states to resist the conscription laws. >> he was arrested, tried and found guilty under the recently enacted espionage act. he appealed and the case went directly to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled, weighing the issues of clear and present danger and freedom of speech. our guess include attorney thomas goldstein. and beverly gauge, professor of history at yale university. that's coming up on the next "landmark cases" live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the "landmark cases" mpanion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> next, the discussion about

the presidency of barack obama with members of the press corps and their role about covering the presidency. it's about an hour and 15 minutes. >> welcome, everybody. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm going to have a couple of quick announcements. then, we're going to have a short pause and -- for the cameras to pick up and then we'll go to kevin who will introduce our moderator this morning. so good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. i'm allen, senior director of academic affairs here at the washington center and it's my great pleasure to welcome you to this second conversation in the fall, 2015, leader series. this is an important part of the washington center and it's an opportunity for you to learn about issues of public concern. this afternoon you'll learn about different strategies for citizens to make a difference about the issues that they care about and at the conclusion of today's conversation, my colleague, dr. jenna del, will

take a few moments to share with you some logistics and some thoughts for making that transition to this afternoon's conversations. you've come from all around the world and all around the country, and we have a panel of professionals today that we could pretty much only put together here in washington, d.c. they're journalists. they covered the white house. they're leaders in their field. they're also the folks we say get to write the first draft of history. so this is a good opportunity for you to think about today about the issues you care about and the difference you want to make as you embark on your pathways of achievement. so to introduce us in just a moment is our vice president of student affairs, mr. kevin nunnelee. [applause]

kevin: good morning, everyone. it's my pleasure to introduce christy, a white house spornte for the "washington tribune." a 26-year veteran of the "chicago tribune" where she covered campaigns, state government before joining the washington burr ein 2006. a recent path president of the white house correspondence association -- please welcome .s. christy >> thank you. i didn't expect you to show up. on a friday morning. and we didn't expect you to be dressed so professionally. i expected all sweats. we are just going to have to up

our game a little bit. >> it's not at 8:00. >> christi: right. >> i've already seen a pair of shoes i like walking across. christi: it's really terrific to be here at the washington center which does great work educating our future leaders and reporters. hopefully some of you are aspiring journalists, public servants, and advocates so it's really great to be able to talk to this particular crowd directly on this friday morning. as the introducer said, i'm kristi parsons. i work for "the los angeles times." for 26 years i also worked for "the chicago tribune" and "tribune" newspapers. i don't write for one outlet anymore. i work for lots of readers and for wire services as well. the media atlanta escape is changing. we'll talk about that a little bit. that's my audience is broad and wide too.

and we're really lucky to have this panel of white house correspondents to talk about the press and the presidency. the president could not be here today. so he's running the country or something, but -- so this will be from the perspective of the press but this is a really special group of people. these folks are members of the white house press corps and go to the white house every day and cover the presidency and among us we have something like 40 years of experience covering the white house. so we thought it will be helpful for you to hear from each person here, sort of their personal story, their professional story, how they got to where they are today. so i'd like to start with that and we'll go first to kathleen hennessey from the associated press who for many years was my partner at the white house covering the president for "the los angeles times." so why don't you start us off? kathleen: christi and i were

colleagues like three weeks ago. i work for the associated press which is a wire service which means it serves almost all of the newspapers in the country in addition to the internet and internationally enormous audience. it is sort of almost alone in the way that it covers the president completely, fully at every possible moment more or less. therefore, my job when i worked for a newspaper has shifted a little bit to really being sort of a constant presence in the white house. we consider ourselves sort of constant set of eyes on the president as much as possible. i started my career in washington and with the "l.a. times" and then left to go and cover state house in nevada and

politics in las vegas and sort of get out into the country and cover politics on sort of a more local level and then came back to washington. i covered congress and national campaigns, the president's re-election and now the white house. and i think one of the things, as i said, that's sort of unique about the way -- that's different -- the way we cover the president is really different than we cover any other politician in washington or anywhere, really, in any state house that i know of. he's basically stuck with us almost all the time. and any -- any public statement, any public appearance, even if it's a personal dinner out with his wife, a golf game, we are nearby. a small cluster of the press is a representative of the larger -- we call it the pool --

representative of the larger press corps is often a few blocks away in a van. sometimes it's not particularly glamorous. looking for any sign of him and making sure he is where he says he's going to be and trying to get some sense of what he's doing in the rhythm of his daily life. christi: i want to come back to that. for your personal story, will you say where you're from and your academic path? kathleen: i'm from st. paul, minnesota. i didn't do any journalism when i was in school originally and sort of didn't know what i wanted to do i studied history. i studied the classics. it wasn't a terribly useful major but i then later got into journalism later in my life and went to berkley for graduate school. i have a graduate degree in journalism and did internships

at "the l.a. times" and a.p. and now i'm back at a.p. christi: thank you very much. let's do an introduction with april ryan who i just want to say started as a deejay but now is a public author. very exciting. i'm really excited about this new book by april. "the presidency in black and white" and we'll talk about some of the themes she raised in this book too. april, will do you your two-minute personal history for everybody? april: i'm from baltimore, maryland. i grew up in baltimore. cut my eye teeth in baltimore. just up the road. 50 miles door-to-door from the white house to my office, it's about a two-hour commute each way so you know i love my job. i started out as a disc jockey in college. personality radio for a couple years. i was bored giving time, temp and weather and station i.d. i wanted to delve into news so

i started producing a news wwe am and then i left for in baltimore. i left there. went to chattanooga, tennessee. came back to baltimore being a news person. and all the way while i was in news i kept stringing from every place that i worked. every state, every city where i worked. stringing is being a reporter who sends news from a local area to a network. it can be very newsy. i was stringing to various networks to include urban american radio networks and they loved what i did. they really started looking at national naacp headquarters. at the time their president was under fire. it wasn't about when he would leave but how he would leave. i broke the story. want you to come to d.c. and

they little did i know wanted me to be the white house correspondent. if i knew then what i know now, no. i have been the last white house correspondent the last 18 years. covering three presidents. we are the first line of questioning an american president. in the last 18 years what's changed, it's more intense because we are in a social media realm. everything is immediate on twitter. the president responds. people on the hill respond. you have to watch the twitter feed instead of getting the press releases. you talk about being in the advance. you have to be in good physical condition to run after the president. the bear was on the loose the other day. i was running behind him. i'm not a spring chicken. but it was -- it's been a very interesting ride. christi: when the president says she is having trouble

keeping up he slows down. april: he did. christi: and i want to introduce jirm acosta from cnn. he will share his personal story with us here. jim: you heard the expression, people who think like they're inside the beltway or from inside the beltway, i was born about a mile outside the beltway. i was born at fairfax county hospital in virginia. i grew up in northern virginia. i'm sort of a d.c. kid. i grew up in this area. i went to james madison university where i was the news director of my college radio station. so i started in radio. after that i came to washington. my very first job was in television answering the phones at channel 5 here in washington. april and i'm sure you guys remember sam donaldson. sam donaldson's wife worked at channel 5. jan, jan smith. hello, can i speak to jan smith, please? yes, mr. donaldson.

i would get people their coffee and meals. i made $4.25 an hour, had no health benefits. they'd say, jim, go out and over this drive-by shooting. moreon berry would come up and give an impromptu news conference. that was my first taste of tv news and i was hooked. a rt of worked my way into job in nashville, tennessee. went to dallas and chicago and then hired by cbs news and then cnn. it's been a long road. i came back to d.c. and covered the mitt romney campaign back in 2012. and typically it's whoever, you know, wins goes to the white house so i thought, well, i'm not going to the white house. mitt romney lost but cnn said, why don't you go over there? you're pretty good knowing these guys and giving them a hard time. why don't you try the guy that actually won the election? so i've been there since early 2013. not quite as long as april but

i agree. it's fascinating. sort of -- somebody was saying earlier, writing the first draft of history. doing the first live shot of the first draft of hitter is quite challenging and it's exciting. little exhausting. but it's a real treat and, you know, when i walk through the gates of the white house every day i still feel, you know, like the luckiest guy in the world that i get to work in this place. and, you know, it is, you know, a real honor to work with all of you. i count myself lucky every day to work with great journalist that keeps you on your toes, keeps you honest and makes you want to do your best every day. christi: you really do write the first draft of history. i don't know if you watch the briefings. do you ever watch the white house briefings at the white house, you see jim acosta turn around and start talking to the camera like 30 seconds after the press conference has ended telling you what just happened.

and the rest of the press corps is sitting there listening to the tv folks do their immediate take on what happened. and it's very influential over the whole process because that's the first read that most people get on air. and you're not the only ones listening. the other people in the press corps are listening as well. it's an amazing talent. i usually need at least 15 minutes and a phone. jim: i'm still working on it. christi: so anyway. we'll pull back the current ain for you how we cover the white house and that was the first part of the curtain. kathleen alluded to something in her opening story about the pool at the white house and this is a really important group of 21 people. it's 21 people at the white house every day, are very close to the president for every open or press open event and they report back to other members of the press corps about what has

been said or done in a small room where you really can't sit the whole press corps. but when we travel, that number is 13. those people are on air force one with the president. everywhere he goes. those members of the pool are with him sending feeds back to their peers to report what's going on. kathleen, as a member of the a.p., is a member of the permanent pool. a.p. is always in the pool. always with the president. that's why it's kind of rare that we have her here right here right now. kathleen: watching the president right now. christi: one of her peers is watching the president. but could you talk about that a little bit? why is it so important to keep that constant watch? and the a.p. obviously spends a lot of money, a lot of resources, staff time, travel costs to make sure the president is watched at all time by your organization, why do you do that? kathleen: i think it's a mix of -- i mean, sometimes it's just

dark lesson of history, really, in that the president has, you know, people want to do harm to the united states, president of the united states and if anything were to ever happen, my organization and several other organizations have decided we have to be there. we have to be in the motorcade. we have to be near him should anything ever happen and so that is i think a real sort of the core. we don't always talk about that but that's part of it. another part of it is that he is arguably the most important person in washington and how he spebbeds his time is without a -- spends his time is without a doubt almost a public interest. there's very little that the esident does or says that is like completely inconsequential. we really do want to hear what he's saying.

what he's saying and what he's doing and who he's golfing with dining with. i mean, it seems crazy and i know it makes some folks in the white house crazy but it is just -- it is the truth of him being as important as he is and as public of a figure as he is and so it's really just -- my organization and a lot of the organizations have come up with this very elaborate system to make sure just about everything he says and does is done under some, you know, some oversight and some eyes around him. it can be complicated at times. christi: many people ask why do you keep up that constant watch and the president says, why are you always here? april, are there times when -- i mean, you spend a lot of time at the white house. you've done so for 18 years. when you're watching the president and sort of keeping up with his daily schedule, are there things that you learn

just from being there? april: oh, my gosh yes. you're not going to learn it from the public schedule. you have to be there. i mean, you have to be seen and you have to be around. you have to know who the players are. and i remember recently i was walking into the white house and i saw people coming out of the white house and i looked closely and there was some congressional leaders. and their families. i'm like, mmm. they knew who i was. what are you doing here? we met with the president. what committees are you on? so you learn a little bit more. you have to be -- you're o.c.d., i hate to say it, being in this job. and for instance, you know, we are away but i keep my phone -- i was told to turn my phone off. we all normally have our phones here because we need to find out -- our sources could be telling us something is going on. someone inside the white house could be telling us something is going on. we're 24/7, i hate to say it, any president.

it's everything all-presidential. being there you get a chance to talk to the newsmakers. talk to the principals and they see you. it's about trust. it's about relationships. if they trust you and they feel they can talk to you, they'll give you information. they'll give you breaking news. they'll talk to you. you might even get a chance to talk to the president. it's important to be in that building. it's not a kind place. you know, closter phobics need not apply because i'm in a room that looks like a phone booth. am i joking? christi: they don't know what a phone booth is. april: that's right. picture the -- i have to go to london. remember the red london phone booth, about that size, ok. wow, that is true. they're young. christi: back when april and i were -- you filed your story from a phone booth. jim: i remember doing that, absolutely. christi: you would literally call in and dictate your story from a phone booth. april: and pick a hand set up

and dialed and it didn't have electricity. they're like, what are they talking about? christi: you're getting a sense of what's happening. the people talking to the president, what are they then talking about when they come out? april: a lot of times when they come out they're told not to say anything. but if you are a reporter and you have that relationship with them, you can pick up the phone and they'll talk to you on their cell phone. not their government cell phone but on their personal cell phone about what happened or what was said. so it is important to be there. it's important to be seen. it's important to be a part of the mix. it's important to be in the pool. it's important to be with the white house press corps because you find -- you are only -- you're only as good as your last story and if you're not moving a story forward and advancing a story, you know, what good are you? i hate to say it, but that's how it's viewed in this business and at the white house. it's the best of the best. and if you're not doing what you're supposed to do you're out of there.

christi: and the press corps at the white house plays a different role. there's analysis available all over television, in newspapers, in magazines, online. and that's really important and valuable. a lot of times with what people are working with is their own original reporting and very often it's started what's broken out of the white house, stories we break out of the white house. and very often it's just as simple as, wow, the president looked kind of down today. what is -- what's going on? why was he upset? i just remember the body language being really important during the first afghan review that led up to the surge. the reporting that was done was sometimes very intuitive. people trying to get a sense of what the metabolism was at the white house. the white house press secretary at the time was very close to the president, robert gibbs. when he personally seemed agitated or frustrated i thought, you know, that's a reflection of something. that bears -- i think i'll make a couple extra phone calls back behind the wall today to see

what's happening. that first draft of history that the white house press corps is writing sometimes comes from -- it's just from your impressions of being there. and jim acosta is someone who's really great at breaking through the white house bin. as you know, this white house is very adapt at crafting its own message. the president is good at crafting his message. he's good at telling a story his white house communications staff is also very good at that. but jim, the job of a reporter, really, isn't to take just what the news maker is saying and retell it. talk about how do you that job a little bit. jim: that's right. i was thinking about this as we were getting ready for this. the one -- there are a couple different episodes that bring to mind the sort of spin machine that goes on inside the white house. and one of the most recent examples is when the president was going to american university to deliver that speech on the iran nuclear deal

and in the runup to that speech, you know, they had allowed us to draw the comparison with j.f.k. back in the early 1960's. and we were saying, oh, this is going to be like j.f.k. going up to american university to talk about how the united states will pay any price, bear any burden, a la j.f.k. what the president ended up doing is delivering a very partisan speech. you recall he went after the republicans and said they were in common cause with the clerics. and i remember the next day, you know, just thinking to myself or even later that day, my goodness, we just sort of fell for this spin that they were putting out there that this is going to be like j.f.k. when the president was going to go up there and deliver this partisan speech because he had to rally the republicans behind him -- democrats behind him because there was opposition within his own party among jewish american democrats. i was thinking, we really need to call them out on this.

we did that story that evening. we pointed out that this president has been saying we need a better kind of politics in this country. and, you know, here he goes up to american university, leading us to think he's going to deliver this j.f.k.-style speech and he really went after the republicans and said they were like the ayatollahs in iran. so i think sometimes -- you know, i use that example to show that sometimes we can fall prey to the spin, but another quick example -- and i'll put it out there is in the white house briefing room, i think that's the best place to try to cut through that spin. and we have to be a little bit careful because those of us who sit in the front row can annoy the people sitting some rows behind us because we can ask too many questions and take too long. and april knows this all too often. he does a pretty good -- christi: jim and april sit in the first row. kathleen and i sit in the third

row. jim: the first question you ask of josh -- and jay carney was good. the first is the talking points. i have no problem with cutting in and, you know, directing that line of questioning somewhere else if i'm not getting the answer that i need. and i remember one day, christi, you and i talked about this. the day that they did not have somebody in charge of the ebola response and i was there, you know, going back and forthwith josh earnest saying, who's in charge, who's the boss, who's in charge of this? and the next day or two, it felt like laser beams coming out of their eyes at me. they were just not happy about it. but, you know, we're not friends -- we like to be friendly with these people but it's not like we're going to go home and go bowling with them. and, you know, we're not buddies, we're not there to be their buddies. we're there to hold their feet to the fire and hold people accountable. april: i want to piggyback something you said. the ebola issue and who was in charge of it. you failed to state we ask

questions and that question kind of perpetuated the fact there became an ebola czar or leader. so i want to give you credit for that. but at the same time our questions a lot of times help shape policy. and we ask questions. we -- it's kind of cyclical. we'll find out what the community is saying or what people on the hill vague, people outside the white house and we'll throw a question to them or we'll find out something is going on inside the white house and we'll ask somebody to find out a little bit more research and sometimes it does shape policy and that's one thing as well. i think -- jim: because they realized nobody was in charge. who's in charge of this? april: they were talking about shutting down borders. we had something we've not seen before, ebola coming from africa. people getting infected die. one person came and died. the nurse was infected. it was a real situation. we were very -- the nation was afraid of. jim: i hate to -- i doesn't

want to put this out there. the cameras are rolling. why not? christi, emails and you know this. you'll get an email from the white house or a phone call. and there may be some language in that email or in that phone call i can't -- i can't use here on c-span. but it can be tough and you got to have thick skin going in there. the thin-skinned need not apply. as april said, you have to be on your a game and break news. you have to have alligator skin in this place because they're going to come after you if they don't like the story. christi: that's a good piece of wisdom for anyone who aspires to work in washington in any field. alligator skin is really helpful. the folks here will help you build it up. you didn't come in with it. i want to pause for just a minute and ask you to start thinking a little bit about some questions you might like to ask the panel because in just a moment we'll open up those microphones and you can come and let us know what's on your mind because we really want to answer the questions

that are of interest to you. i want to take a moment and just -- we've been talking about how we do our job. i think we should turn now to talk just a little bit about what that means for readers, viewers and listeners who consume our reporting. and for not just for americans but for people around the world who are trying to understand the presidency. this is actually a pretty good representation of the white house press corps up here. we have among us three women. we have an african-american. we have a cuban american. i come from a very conservative part of the country. kathleen's from hennipen county, minnesota. do you think that kind of diversity is important in the press corps? do you think the makeup of the press corps asking questions makes a difference in what people learn here and read about the american presidency? kathleen: oh, absolutely. think -- april was

describing, every day there is a breaching where we all sit down and we fire questions at the white house and -- briefing where we all sit down and we fire questions at the white house and some are predictable. a lot are a reflection of what the reporters in the room know a little bit about, care a little bit about. the way that they're framed sometimes has something to do with your personal experience or your experience reporting. that's who you are. you do bring that to the job, and it comes through in a very public ways in terms of what the white house has to answer for and respond to and that matters. it shapes stories. it shapes policy to some degree. i think it's good for the state of media in this country to look and appear to be representative of the people who are reading the stories. and i think, especially -- the

campaign setting to have people from all over the country who understand, you know, like a little bit about the midwest and ohio or florida or whatever is the place that we're all sort of pretending to be experts on and how they're going to vote and all this stuff. i spent a lot of time in nevada covering the latino community there and the sort of booming rise of a growing city. i mean, that couldn't be further from the experiences of the people in ohio where we spent a lot of time campaigning in general election. to sort of have a breath of knowledge and you bring that to your reporting, it matters a lot. christi: april, you've written and thought deeply about this. how has the press corps done covering the first african-american president? april: i think the press corps, i mean, we cover him, period, any president you will cover.

being the first african-american president puts a little bit of an added pressure on this president. i believe that there -- i'm just going to say it. i'm not saying it as someone -- i'm not being partisan. i'm not saying this because he's an african-american, i'm african-american. i'm looking at this as a journalist who's been there, covered three presidents and i've seen how we've come together as a group. and also, you know, cover as a group. i believe sometimes he's not placed in the best light. sometimes he is placed in the best light but i believe there's a major hypersensitivity because he's african-american, particularly when it comes to issues in the black community. our race in politics will always follow him. always. but we saw the first term and this white house was very cognizant of the fact because of the unique nature of him as president of the united states that they had to navigate the

waters strategically to get to that second term. and the media kept harping the white house press corps and all media kept harpg on the fact, especially when he -- harping on the fact, especially when he made the slip when he wanted to come out and -- he went by heart and gut instead of doing what he -- the talking points and typically what he would do. and the media jumped on that and then they jumped on the beer summit but we didn't see much of that until the tray onvon martin issue. and second -- trayvo martin issue. and the second term barack obama is different than the first term barack obama. it's also for the greater good because we're seeing what the african-american community has been talking about for a very long time. this tension with the black community and law enforcement. and it's not saying that you

don't support law enforcement. you're supposed to support law enforcement. we're seeing bad policing. it's being caught on tape. in one sense it's a good thing because it's helping to hold people to the fire. there's accountability there. but at the same time it's unfortunate that he has thob held at a different level and a different standard by the media and by the public because he's african-american. he's president of all america. so i just think it's a double-edged sword. christi: do you think this change that you're describing, he's talking about criminal justice reform. you're alluding to the discussions he promoted concerning how police relate to their communities. are these changes that he feels -- do you think these changes are the result of the fact he's now in the end of his second term and he doesn't have a political price to pay or do you think it has more to do with the fact that americans and people around the world know who he is now besides just

the first african-american president? we know a great deal about him based on his record. april: there are several points you hit. one is he's african-american. before he became president and senator he is a black man in america that experienced a lot of this and the first lady expressed it and he expressed it. some days you can literally plan this is what i'm going to talk about. when something hits and a lot of these issues hit so largely on a large scale they made it to the desk of the president or to his eyes watching on tv, he had to speak because we are watching the news that you are doing. i mean, when trayvon martin happened, the crowds came out. when we saw the -- what happened -- i'm in baltimore. freddy gray situation and the riots just up the road. ferguson. i mean, the white house responds to what america is saying. so i think he had to respond as president but also, too, there's an extra burden because he is a black man and also

second time, he doesn't have anything to worry about. second term, we're seeing a totally different barack obama second term, fourth quarter. you know, two-four. you're seeing a totally different person. he is able to do things now that he was not able to do before. so i do think there is a different standard for him and they understand it. and, you know, could he have done more? was the political climate for him to do more? that's something you have to put into the equation as well. it is what it is at this point. christi: jim, i want to ask you a related question. your dad is an immigrant from cuba. you come at this job as a broad life experience but also cuban american. does this matter to you? do you think this matters for what your viewers and readers learn and what you report about the presidency? for example, in the last few months you've written about -- you broadcasted and talked about and written about the opening relations with cuba. that's a story that you brought

certain point -- per pect -- perspective. did that affect your coverage? jim: my dad emigrated to this country three weeks before the cuban missile crisis. my aunt, who was already here in miami, was reading the newspaper and was saying, hmm, this doesn't look good what's going on in cuba. got on a pan am flight and got my dad and grandmother and that's how they came over. i sometimes refer to my dad as one of the original dreamers. you know, he came over when there weren't a lot of latino immigrants in this country. and i was telling april right before we got started here, his acosta.abilio jesus and he changed it to a.j. there were no jobs in miami. he and my grandmother moved to northern virginia to the washington, d.c., area. you do have that human history,

that personal history when you do this. we have a presidential candidate out there right now who recently said that the mexicans who are coming into this country are rapists and killers and he said, i assume some of them are nice people. you know, imagine if a president of the united states were to say that from the oval office, from the briefing room? i think these are questions that people have to think about when they approach this. having said that, talking first quarter obama and second half obama, one of the promises he made was immigration reform. here we are, hasn't happened. he didn't do it when he had the supermajority in congress. so do you think about all of those things. but on the policy of -- with cuba, you know, i just never thought something like this would ever take place in my lifetime. and it just goes to show you, speaking of second half obama, these are one of the things, you know what, let's wait until

the second term to do this. let's wait until after the mid terms of the second term. oip: fourth quarter. jim: we are not at the two-minute warning yet so there might be more surprises, but the politics of it are very interesting when it comes to this cuba policy and he may go to cuba. the white house said, we won't rule this out. we may go to havana before it's done. april and i will be fighting to get on that plane. april: amen. jim: that will be a hell of a story. april: and ive i'll have a cuban cigar. -- and i'll have a cuban cigar. jim: i'm buying. april: i will take that picture and tweet it. christi: and this president has showing a willingness to do executive orders on immigration being a perfect example. your point is well taken is we have 17 months left to go and he still has a lot of latitude. he's checking things off the list. when he runs out of things he

can do with congress there are things he can do strictly by his own authority. so they took my phone when i came in here. is somebody watching the time for me? anybody? if somebody from the washington center could get in my feel and ive me a sense of -- 10 kwlk -- 10:36. ok. we have time for questions. i will invite to you come to the microphones now. one or two people just to get us started on each side. jim: we get a taste of our own medicine. christi: don't hurt us. why don't we start with you? >> good morning. christi: good morning. >> i just want to thank you guys for coming out this morning and talking. my name is matthew ryan.

i'm interning with the republican society in my university's i.u.t. which is indiana university of pennsylvania. a lot of the republican debate a few days ago was based around the mainstream media being an extension of the democratic party. i just want to hear your thoughts on that and possibly whether or not you support or debunk that theory? christi: great question. i've been thinking about that a lot since that debate. does anybody want to start by taking a swing at that one? april: i want to say it. i think that's a safe thing -- a lot of people want to come up swinging at the media there are some people who put opinion with fact. but for many of us in the white house we definitely get all the sources, not one or two sources. i think we push the fact. it may be something you don't like but we put it out there. i'm going to say this. they can talk about the media all they want but they're the first ones looking at the media to find out what's going on in this country.

it's a double-edged sword. we take it and let it roll off our backs. trust me, we are good people and we are good journalists. i am not in anyone's pocket. you can assume what you want to be. democrats think i'm republican and republicans think i'm democrat so i'm doing my job. jim: i remember -- [applause] jim: i just want to echo that. i remember when i was covering the romney campaign and in this age of twitter you can look at your mentions and people coming after you on twitter. and i had so much hate coming at me, you know, from republicans who just hated the stuff i did on mitt romney. and, you know, now i get it from liberals on twitter who don't like what i'm talking about when it comes to talking about president obama. and so -- and walter cronkite used to say that -- i used to work at cbs and walter cronkite used to say, if you are getting hit by the right and the left you must be doing something right. there is some truth to that. the one thing i will say and i

find it interesting about this audience, i'm pretty sure everybody grew up, except for those on the stage -- the student grew up in this age of partisan media. april, we didn't grow up with fox news, msnbc. there were newspapers that took points of view and endorsed candidates but it wasn't the way it is now where it's just saturated in television. and i think for those of us who grew up in a different era, it's not unheard of to be objective, to be the refs who can call it fair and square on both sides. but, you know, i do understand that mentality. well, you guys must have opinions and you're letting your opinions affect your stories. we wouldn't be where we are if that were the case. we have too many editors, too many people behind the scenes like, you are aout of there. you're not doing the job right. that's the way i look at it. we're the checks and balances within our own bureaus.

kathleen: and i would add we're not perfect either. i don't think anybody watched -- there's a lot of criticism of that debate on how it was handled. that's all fair and good and we should be scrutinized. and people should debate how we do our jobs. think viewers also have to be mindful that when you're talking about the mainstream media being an arm of the democratic party, that is a long-standing sort of political complaint with the republican party. it works for them, right? there is a political reason for some of those folks to come out and complain about the media. the president of the united states loves to complain about the media. i mean, our current democratic president of the united states is a media critic. like i feel it might be his second, you know, job. media criticism. because he has a lot of thoughts on it. and i think, you know -- so i do think we get it from both sides and we should because we

play an important role and people should be watching what we do closely. jim: cokie roberts used to have an expression that our own bias is for a good story. and i think for the pros, for professionals in this business, that is true. the bias is you want a good story. you want to break news. that's much more valuable i think to all of us up here than trying to skew one way or the other. it's too transparent. it's too obvious that that's what you're doing. christi: yes. >> i'm working at american legislative exchange council and i would like to ask you about -- as you already mentioned about the nuclear -- iran nuclear deal. so some of the people didn't like it. actually a lot of people didn't like it and there were several protests about it. i would like to ask you, so how do you guys respond to these situations and what course of action do you take when a

decision or situation of that kind hits the road and because you work really close with the white house so how do you -- christi: are you asking how do we remain impartial even though we're at the white house and hearing their point of view so much? >> do you have to act neutral about it or can you -- christi: well, yes. we don't just have to act neutral about it. we need to be neutral. neutral is the only stance from which to do appropriate reporting. there's an awful lot of opinion media in the world today, and you can hear like opinions, you know, without end on the internet and on tv. but really what we're -- what people are doing, reporters at the white house are trying to do is find as many facts as we can and get them to you. you just can't do that if you're not neutral. you can't -- you cannot get people to be straight with you.

you can't get people to be forth right with you. kathleen: it does speak to one of the dangers of covering the white house is it's true that you're there to know what the white house is thinking. so you really do talk to a lot of people who all sort of think or agree, right? you sort of -- that is your job is to know what the white house is thinking and there is a bubble effect sometimes. you can spend a lot of time talking to a lot of white house officials and it -- you do have to fight against that. one of the ways -- it is to make sure -- i think journalism is a team effort. you have to go out and talk to your colleagues who are talking to folks at the state department and other -- and the pentagon and all over washington. folks on the hill. you know, make sure you get out of the white house, have sources outside the white house and just draw from a bigger pool to combat that what you're talking about which is sort of

hearing one side of the story all day long. april: and you have to bring history into it. history plays an important part when it comes to major issues like this. i mean, you have to remember conversations that you've had in the past with presidents, private conversations and private conversations with people in the national security council and then go out. one of the most dangerous things for -- in the white house -- and it's a friendly adversarial relationship but it's more dangerous for the white house to know that we don't rely solely on them. we go outside. you can't just listen to what they say. you have to have outside sources. talk to people, flush the story out because they're going to spin it one way, the other side will spin it the other way and you're going to put both of them in there. you need other people say, this is the fact and break it out. we try to give you the information as it's coming from all sides and give you the history so you know this may be the right thing. this may not be the wrong thing. and i think on that issue you really need intelligence to talk about the fact, you know,

you didn't know what was going on in iran before. i think that's the key piece. and you decide, we leave it you to decide, does this actually let you know what's going on with iran as far as their nuclear capability and would this kind of quell what they have? so it's a lot of pieces to the puzzle versus saying, i feel this way. it's a lot of pieces to inform you as to adequately inform you to make your decision. jim: and i'll say very quickly on the iran nuclear deal, i think maybe the thrust of what she was asking is that, well, it's an unpopular thing. why didn't the media report it as such? why didn't you hit it harder? i will remind you that prime minister benjamin netanyahu of israel came to the united states, spoke before congress. that received extensive coverage. so i think both sides were erred pretty adequately during that debate but the outcome did not agree with people on the republican side of the aisle. they may have the last -- i don't want to say the last

laugh on this but certainly the last say on this if it ends up not being what it was cracked up to be. christi: let's go to this question over here. >> good morning. university in southern california and intern at so you side prevention. being white house correspondents, what's it like to do coverage on mass shootings since we've had increase of those in the last several years? christi: it's a great question. kathleen. kathleen: i mean, i think it's -- unfortunately, it's sort of repetitive or kind of predictable these days. like -- we don't -- we are there, our role is to find out when was the president made aware. what does he know about the incident on the ground and then these days it's typically covering presidential remarks where he comes out and renews

his call for gun control. and that's a pattern that's just really kind of set so on that level it's just a little depressing, frankly, like it is for -- but nothing like the people who really have to go and cover these events on the ground. so you get used to sort of the cycle. christi: there are certain kinds of stories that infuse the white house when they're happening. and that's one of them. when those mass shootings are so regular and they hit the president and his policy staff very hard when they happen because they feel this great sense of frustration they haven't been able to stop it. this phenomenon has really proliferated. there you are. during the white house -- during the obama white house. so when that happens there is -- it happens every day, by the way. there is a mass shooting in this country on the average of once day.

more than one person being shot and the gun person -- the shooter being -- having a gunshot as well. by that definition there is a mass shooting in this country almost every day. so there is a real sense of sadness that goes on with it. did i a story in the past week how this informs the president's approach to gun control, and i think that one thing we try -- i try very hard to do at the white house is exactly what kathleen said which is to step away from that -- whatever the white house fixation is or the white house point of view and to try to inform the conversation more fully with information, evidence, data from the outside. april: yesterday. sorry. yesterday i literally because the president was just in chicago talking to the police chief, the international association of police chiefs and gun control was one of the issues. so yesterday in the briefing i did ask, how do you move it forward? i asked him along the question,

is it now time to bring the n.r.a. to the table? and josh earnest said, well in 2013 --ry said, well, what about 2015? so we're trying to get information and find out what's the next step, especially as the president comes to the podium and talks about, i'm tired of this. he's very upset every time he walks to the podium having to address america about another mass shooting. and no change and background, gun show loopholes, all that stuff. jim: and i just want to say for the young people who are here. you guys have to solve this problem. i mean, for you guys to have grown up with this mass shooting epidemic in this country to me it's horrendous. and i think if there's anything we need fresh thinking on it's this problem. how do we solve the gun problem? how do we solve the mental illness problem? how do we put these things together and solve it in a way that does not bring out all the partisan boogiemen because that's been the pattern in this country for the last jen operation. and i would love to see the people in this room get to work

on that one. >> hi. i am an intern at the aacte. my question is, this administration has been known for exploring other types of media other than the traditional media. twitter account of the president to which we all know he does not like peas in his guacamole. and in your opinion, how has that impacted the relationship between the press corps and the white house? christi: that really hits us where we live. great question. jim: do you have another hour on this one? christi: i'll take a swing as someone that's covered barack obama since 1995 when he was a member of the illinois senate and i was three at the very beginning of his presidential campaign. and immediately what set him apart from previous candidates was his ability to go around

the media, the established media because there were these blossoming avenues for opportunities for him to take his message directly to his target audiences to give a particular message or a particular audience. his opportunity to do that has only grown while he's been president. i don't know if you ever go to the white house website and look at what they have there but they have their own tv show and it's pretty good. it's well-produced and it has a lot of information in it. we watch it because there's stuff on there that we only learn there, right? they got a lock on that information. the white house photographer is my former colleague at "the chicago tribune," a wonder of photographer with almost unlimited access to the president. and those pictures come out on his twitter account. april: instagram account.

christi: flicker account. pril: are they periscoping it? christi: that's probably around the corner. jim: he's not only the first african-american president but the first social media question. when they brought youtube in for that round robin of interviews and glozell. she did a thing -- she's famous for doing a thing where she sat in the bathtub of fruit loops and the white house -- the cinnamon challenge. she's got millions of viewers. this is like gangbusters. let's bring her in there and she called michelle obama the first wife andin stead of the first lady which i thought was -- that was a lot of fun. .

kathleen: the way they generate more of their own content and feed it out in ways that isn't always identifiable as not journalism. that looks like -- that they are able to create their own television shows. their own tweets. their own photographs. it jim: between two ferns. kathleen: it's produced by the white house. and -- jim: it's often to get a policy position across. they did a lot of that social media to talk about obamacare. and they did it in a way they got all the air te they wanted to talk about what they wanted to talk about without having to go through us. what about -- if you like your plan you can keep it. when they do it on their own time, own outlets, that they handpicked, they don't have to answer those questions.

>> sean mitchell, from the university of new hampshire. and you mentioned a couple times that you guys are the people writing the first draft of history every day. so with that do you think that the obama administration's foreign policy legacy will be remembered positively or negatively? jim: that's a good one. i think that when your biography is written and you're the president who called the order to take out osama bin laden, it is very difficult, if you don't like barack obama, to expect that his biography will be this terrible disaster. it is going to be remembered that he made that call. like it or not. at the same time he is also the president who said, i'm going to wind down the wars in iraq and afghanistan. as we know what's happening right now with isis and the ecision that was made just recently about not pulling our stakes up in afghanistan and

getting out by the enof his term, those wars are going to go on and the next president, if it's hillary clinton or jeb bush or if it's donald trump, these are people who are more hawkish than barack obama. so it is possible that those conflicts could escalate and continue. i think the iran nuclear deal, brought up earlier as another x factor that may also have an impact on his lega sitcht the killing of osama bin laden -- legacy. the killing of osama bin laden is a big one from an historical standpoint in my view. christi: as donald trump would say it's huge. >> you guys laugh, but we talked monks ourselves, donald trupp, with all jokes aside, there's some people who are running for president that could be president. april: you're laughing. but -- jim: that's how it works. april: you're laughing. he's still high in the polls. he's not falling off.

not walked away. you're laughing. ut this is really serious. christi: back to the original question. some of the facts are not known yet. we don't know how the iran nuclear deal has worked out. we don't know if the opening relationship with cuba is going to achieve the things that the obama administration wants it to achieve. but to a large degree to answer your question depends who you are talking to. are you a person who thinks the u.s. should be moving toward a more multilateral approach to the rest of the world? or do you think it's weak for the president to keep trying to build coalitions everywhere he tries to go? do you think it is a bad idea -- president hasn't actually fully drawn down troops, but he has dramatically reduced the american involvement in ground war and also absolutely refuses to enter into another one.

so do you think that's a good idea or do you think that the u.s. now has a weaker position as a leader and as a military force around the world? to analyze your querks i need to know -- there are -- your question, i need to know -- there's a lot of data to be analyzed. i don't think it's a slam dunk question. >> good morning, my name is glenn, from massachusetts. my question is regarding policing in the media. coverage of policing. as we know there are millions of interactions of police in the community every single day. it seems to me personally that there's a lot more coverage and a lot more in-depth stories about the negative interactions of police in the community. and they seem to be getting more media attention than the positive interactions with the police and the community, especially lately. which is a good thing but at the

same time do you think that that makes an impact on the community's perception of the police, of all police, not -- specifically speaking the quote-unquote, good cops that don't have these interactions, negative interactions with the community? [applause] kathleen: i actually think -- again because we are sort of so narrowly focused on the white house, i will just note that i do sense that the white house is trying to walk this line a little bit. april mentioned that the president talked to police chiefs this week. it was an interesting speech in that he was really struggling, i think, to try to both acknowledge everything that he said about police brutality, his support for the black lives matter movement, his own personal experiences, and also not antagonize law enforcement who actually he needs their support on gun control and other

issues he cares a lot about. he is walking that line personally. i noticed, i don't know if you guys did, this week there was this viral video of a d.c. police officer dancing the nene. it's fun. with a young woman. i don't know where they are. somewhere in d.c. there was some sort of mild confrontation, she was trying to get the woman, the young girl, to leave the corner, or do something, they basically got into a dance off. it's a fabulous video. jim: didn't obama tweet about that? kathleen: and the white house tweeted it out. don't know how do it. the power of the whip and the nene. april: there will be a danceoff at the white house. kathleen: they too, when they have a moment to seize it and elevate. april: one thing, i know how i

report things and go about and how my network treats things, news is about something that's extraordinary or sensational. what happens is we have law enforcement in this nation for the most part it's great. for the most part it's great. fact, we have some issues in this nation that have been videotaped. how do you marry them? that has gone to the leader of the free world, to his desk. then you have police organizations that are upset because media's covering it and then some people internalize it and take it the wrong way instead of trying to make positive change, they -- you also have people out here who make an opinion. but there is a fact that we have some great policing out here. i'm from baltimore. i grew up with officer friendly coming into my schoolroom and talking to us. community policing. but then you see this other -- there's a problem that needs to be fixed. it doesn't mean that everyone is

bad. so there is -- i don't know who is reporting it. i know there are people who have opinions and say things, but it doesn't make it right. you have to find a way to marry the support and fixing the problem. and i think any good journalist would really put that out versus saying the police departments are all being chastised. it's called we'ding -- weeding out issues. it's not problems with the black community or latino community. there's problems with white people as well. it could be excessive force and control. there is a problem that needs to be fixed. that's t that's the simple answer. christi: i think we have time for two more questions. let's go to the question over here. > my name is ga by yell -- gabry yell. working in the white house, what do you think is the major issue that needs attention or policy change that you have experienced or needs more attention to it?

jim: you guys go. i said guns earlier. that has got to be solved in this country. it's one of those -- the n.r.a. has so frightened politicians in this town to touch anything related to guns that it's just not -- i don't think that's going to get solved -- we thought the sandy hook tragedy would be that catalyst. even that was not enough to get things done. even when universe at background checks is supported by the vast majority of americans, i think almost nine out of 10 americans, it could not get done because of the power of the n.r.a. it's one of those stories that we cover fairly extensively when one of these mass shootings pop up, then it goes by the wayside. christi: i don't think education gets nearly the coverage it should. that's into the media at large. there's lots of reasons why that's true having to do with

ironically how widespread and decentralized the whole enterprise is. but it's a major problem in this country. everything else we have talked about up here relates to it. and yet it is almost -- it's probably the least, if you were to list the top 20 things people wrote about in the past week, i bet that would be at the bottom. christi: i might have to agree. when arne announced he was resigning it was sort of a moment in the white house press corps, we had to remember when was the last time we wrote about education. it's just not a daily topic. but a federal policy does -- people have strong opinions about it, too. it's coming up in the presidential race here and there, particularly with jeb bush. i think it's something that it's just a matter of news organizations not having the resources to have someone who is xpert on that topic generally.

> interning at the office of congresswoman nita lowey. does it bother you or offend you as professional journalists when the president goes on week day ows like "the view" and hang with whoppi p goldberg who i love to talk about policy instead of talking to professional journalists and media, superstars such as yourself? jim: wow. pril: i like that. jim: it does not bother me. actually presidents have been going on late night tv shows, i think nixon was on "laugh-in." his is way before your time. clinton on "arsenio hall" playing the saxophone. that was a good one. that i don't mind as much.

the thing that concerns me and it's something you guys should be concerned about is, i feel like this is a case in covering campaigns as well, maybe i'm getting old and too gray and grumpy. i think that this barrier that exists between the people that we cover and the press is getting bigger and bigger. it's getting easier and easier to corral us and move us off to the side. i don't know if you saw this over the summer, hillary clinton's campaign, they actually used a rope to pull back the press to make sure that they kept moving. as if we are cattle. no. no. we are human beings. come up with a different way other than using an actual rope to move us around. hillary clinton's campaign also has its own pool. and there is a story in the "new york times" where somebody who is in that pool, which is a small group of reporters who

cover a president as opposed to all of us with the president all the time, they create a pool, hillary clinton's campaign in its fan fancy has a -- infancy has a pool, and one of the reporters had to be accompanied to the bathroom by somebody with the campaign. if there's something to end with, don't want to end on a gloomy note, about presidents going on late night talk shows, you guys have to fight against this effort to put a barrier, an ever increasing barrier between us and the politicians we cover. because i think that is one of the greatest dangers to our democracy. people talk about, you guys are liberals, or too corporate, we still need us. what separates us from a lot of countries on this earth is that there's a strong, robust, independent press corps. if the people who are in power can exercise great and greater control of us with a rope or following us to the bathroom or not answering our questions are

in trufpblet april: i think i can put a more positive spin on that as great ending point. christi: which is many of you will go on to work in politics and advocacy in media. i think one theme that we have explored here today is the importance of an authentic dialogue. an authentic relationship between news make earns the people and the press. -- makers, and the people and the molest. when people here talk about smart things the white house has done because they understood we were expressing the interest and legitimate questions and concerns of our readers, viewers, and listeners, that makes the white house smarter. it makes you smarter. it makes all of us smarter when we are engaging in conversation having real interactions with each other. not building false barriers between the people, the press, anti-people who make and carry out apolicy. i think that's probably -- if you were to ask each person up here, what is the thing we care about most, what drives us, why

do we go to the white house? it's not because we are superstars. because the only person who i know who calls me up to tell me, great job on c-span, is my mom. hi, mom. but the people who cover the white house, the people on this panel, get up and go to do this job every day. all of these people could make a lot more money doing something else. but they choose to do this because they really believe in the cause. that cause is asking questions, getting answers, and making people more informed. i thank you for that question. i thank you for having this great panel. i hope you'll join me in thanking them. [applause] >> thank you-all for being here this morning. if you would like to dig a little deeper into at least one of our panelist's stories, ms. ryan has a book.

if you want to say a few words about the took. give a little synopsis. you can purchase a copy later this morning. for 17 bucks. we'll be in classroom four later on. ms. ryan will stick around and sign those for those of you lucky enough to buy one. april: the presidency in black and white. up close view on three presidents and race in this i can. bill clinton, current president, laura bush, colin powell, the list goes on. talking about issues of race in this country and what they thought for these types of people to go on the record on race. you don't hear a lot of people of this magnitude going on the record about certain issues. it means that they are trying to talk about issues of race. that's the issue in this country right now. we are a nation that is browning. i encourage you to pick it up and let me know what you think. thank you. >> just a little piece of housekeeping. remain seated. we are going to continue our conversation here in less than a

minute. we are going to take a moment to allow our speakers to get up and leave the room. and we'll continue that conversation in one moment. just one more time how about a round of applause for this great panel. thank you. [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] >> president obama signed the budget agreement into law this morning. a measure that would also include raising the debt limit through march of 2017. cbs' mark knoller tweeting the president used a single pen to sign the two-year budget deal that the house passed last week. often presidents use multiple pens to sign important legislation dating back to f.d.r. they are often given as thank yous to those who helped create the legislation. he then boarded marine one, heading to new jersey. we'll have live coverage of the president while he's in newark as he announces an $8 million program to help former convicts with education and resettlement. the president's remarks scheduled for 4:20 eastern time. we'll take you there live on our

companion network c-span2. live this evening a hearing of the house veterans' affairs committee with smeenaed witnesses on alleged misuse of v.a. relocation programs and ncentives. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> this week on c-span's landmark cases, we'll discuss the historic supreme court case of schenck vs. the united states. in 1917, the united states entered world war i. patriotism was high and some forms of criticism of the government were a federal offense. charles schenck, who was general secretary of the philadelphia socialist party, handed out and mailed leaflets against the draft. >> this is a flyer produced by charles in 1917. 15,000 copies of this were produced and the point was to encourage men who were libel for the draft not to register.

the language in this flyer is particularly fiery. it equates conscription with slavery. and calls on every citizen of the united states to resist the conscription lauts. -- laws. >> he was arrested, tried, and found guilty under the recently acted espionage act. he appealed and the case went directly to the supreme court. find out how the corled ruled, weighing the issues of clear and present danger and freedom of speech. our guests include attorney thomas goldstein, co-founder of blog.ssblog -- scotus coming unon the next landmark cases live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases.

>> the house gaveling back in at 2:00 eastern time. starting legislative work at 4:00 of the debating nine bills today, including one with security clearances for hurt department. and today the first legislative day on the job for new speaker of the house paul ryan. we'll have live coverage of the house here on c-span when they gavel back in in just under 40 minutes. while we wait, we'll look at the future of medicare and trends and the numbers of retirees who will depend on the program. our weekly your it s money segment here on c-span. we do this every monday morning on "washington journal." we take a look at fiscal issues and your money in particular, this time on medicare and medicaid. joining us this time is tom scully who headed the centers of medicare and medicaid are in the

george w. bush administration. what did that role an entail? guest: been a long time ago. it was the private medicare advantage. it was a drug benefit, but it's run fornsurance program seniors and the disabled and it's rya running a huge insurance agency could a lot of it's not political. there's $1.5 trillion in spending this year. host: this a reminder that programs that are available part a, paide are by payroll taxes and helps cover inpatient care in hospitals, part b has most pay premiums and it helps cover doctor services, and parts he covers with most paying premiums and helps cover prescription drugs. this was passed by congress back in 2003? guest: december 2003.

projectedtalked about medicare spending. here's the projected for 2015. the net spending is 520 $7 billion. go forward to 2020 and it 688 billion. by 2024, it is $866 billion. how does the program survive at that level of spending? aest: it is been growing at rate like that for a long time. the growth rates have slowed a little bit for a few years for a variety of reasons. i think it is sustainable emma but it's a massive piece of the federal budget. is growing at a bigger clinton health-care spending on the commercial side of the aca is growing. health care is becoming a massive piece of gdp. some people think that is terrible and others think that is the essential service that people want. we have an aging population that wants health care and i did not think it is going away and we -- keepkeep this thing appear d fixing this.

we can probably solve this at 2030. you can look at it either way. you can say that medicare is solid and doing great and that medicare is growing unbelievably fast and out of control. tom scully is our guest. we have separator lines differently. for those of you under 30, there is (202) 748-8000. for 30 years of age, (202) 748-8001. between 51 and 62, (202) 748-8002. older, (202)and 748-8003. as the enrollment gets underway for obamacare for open season, which began yesterday, a piece from "the new york times" from this morning says that state policy stand out in the second year of the affordable care act. they say that two years into the affordable care act that

regional patterns are emerging about who has health insurance in america and who still does not. the remaining uninsured are primarily in the south and southwest. they tend to be poor and live in republican leading states. the rates of people without insurance in the northeast in but many midwest, parts of the country obtaining health insurance is still a problem for many americans. they say that medicaid expansion continues to be a huge predictor of how many people remain uninsured in a given state. we have outlined here and our c-span tv watchers can see that medicaid expansions continue to , but wee predictor almost a month have to because many of state lines are so clear from the uninsured rates alone could look of difference between missouri and illinois, for example. the uninsured numbers are quite high and southern states. the numbers where it grows are in the northeast in 2015. what is the incentive for that growth and medicaid?

essentially said that we will federally funded 100% of medicaid growth in any state that wants to do it. the supreme court said it was optional. the states that tend to take federal money, which is 100% now, comes down a little over the years. you can basically expand their coverage to 138% of poverty with all of your lower income people with all federal money. the states of the northeast and the west, basically the blue states, the democratic states all did it. a couple marginal states like ohio and john kasich got attention for doing that. in there vast folks southern states who do not want to expand the program and they have not done it. it is basically the southern states who are saying we are not doing it. we don't want to spend the money. we will be tied into this long-term entitlement expansion. this up in courts that they were allowed to say no and that is what many have done. given the makeup of southern governors, it is unlikely to change. it is pretty strange that they

are of token. it is a massive chancellor of money from the wealthier northern and western states, the two coasts, versus the deep south. notthey are saying they do want to. 100% of money going into lower income states. is fundamentally the pushback from southern conservatives about bigger government and more spending. the aca really, and this is my personal opinion, expending medicaid and taking care of poor people should of been done first. my complaint about the aca and present obama's plan is that the exchanges covered people before the percent of poverty. you should make an argument that wife don't we cover the poor people first? found thattes, we medicaid to not expand for lower income people. yeah people higher income streams which is 62% of the population getting a subsidy for the health plan. every state has done that and that has happened in every state under the law, yet the lowest income people have been skipped. to some degree, it's a little

out of whack. we are skipping poor people in covering higher middle income people. host: we have john waiting in michigan between the 51 and 64 age line. go ahead, john. caller: good morning, mr. scully. i signed up for the affordable and i've been on it for about a year and a half. basically what happened is because i am low income, i get my medical free. --amounts to $579 a year excuse me, $579 a month at no cost to me. the insurance companies have ofen an incredible advantage the affordable care act. i've not been to a doctor yet. they are stuffing that money in congress hadand if

been smart, what they would have you is said to me, look, pay $100 for medicare and by an early and it will cost you $120 a month. instead of the insurance thought getting -- pocketing $590 a month. the insurance companies are pocketing was left over. [video clip] guest: that's a complex question. , and i think there's an article on the front of "the wall street journal," insurance is a complicated business. essentiallympanies make about a 5% margin in medicare and the exchanges. that shows that most of the

insurance companies that get in the exchanges lost money. a lot of the co-ops, the nonprofits, most of them have gone out of business. is been an unpredictable business with new population and it has not been easy. many people like your caller in those unhappy have gotten huge additional benefits. it has helped a lot of people. there is a long way to shake out on this. i think the insurance business is a pretty predictable business. has worked, aca it's a long way to shake out. buying into medicare before 65 seems to be cheap at $100 per month. are 65 and you are paying $100 per month, that is less than 10% of the true cost of the benefit. buying any earlier, disguises any subsidies. aca has lots of subsidies for the gentleman like that, i think the aca is a great benefit.

maybe too many people are getting a benefit. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] host: from "the wall street journal" - is 7.5% a big jump? [video clip] medical costst:

are not going up. people came into the new market early in underprice their premiums. in and underprice their premiums and lost money particularly co-ops. many were funded by the government about half of them have gone under. many states are trying to get beneficiaries early on and came up with a low price that was cost way above their premium collections. youou are in a business and lose money, you raise prices so that's what's happening. of calls and have gotten broken down by different ages. jacksonville, -- albuquerque, new mexico, dave, go ahead. caller: i have a question on the drug coverage. why did the drug companies get the highest price drug coverage

and we were not able to get generic prices? or thegress get paid off drug -- by the drug companies and you guys went along with it t? in gettings involved it together, we designed it e intoily to help mov generic drugs. 13.5 million people who are lower income seniors paid basically no co-pay. we put in thesons copayments is seniors are smart and sensitive and when they realized they could not take lipitor or it switch to something else, they did in big numbers. of thatirst two years drug plan being in place, the generic utilization from seniors went up 2.5 times./

they started realizing when the money came out of their pocket, they switched. one of the main goals that worked well was to drive people to generic drugs. boughts more drugs being because they have more money to buy drugs which is a good thing. maybe the drug companies one by mass via but there is been a huge change for the drug companies to generics. mainone of the reasons why part d has come in under cost. is coming in about 60% and medicare part d looks flat for three years in a row. it has been looked as a great competitive success. people always want more benefits and the benefits have been increased. by any reasonable account, it has pushed huge volume away from

namebrand drugs into generics. host: here is friend from jacksonville, florida. senior who is transitioning from the affordable care act to medicare because i will be 65 in january. thank goodness, just in time. people are aspiring to be older because of health care. it's true. i got into the affordable care act last year. and i started up paying a premium of $326. this year, it went up to $529. saying fora notice next year, it will be 720 something dollars. i'm getting into medicare just in time. at any rate, my real question is, i have been looking at my options in medicare. i went to want to those -- i

went to one of those representatives. i decided on regular medicare, deductible the high f plan. i have some questions about that plan. can you tell me something about that? guest: it's complicated. medicare advantage is an option. it has about 32% of the population. you are talking about going traditional medicare and buying a separate medicare part d portion. and then you buy what's called

medigap. it is regular insurance and it's not regulated. it's not part of medicare. the one you mentioned is a high deductible and you will pay more copayments and the duck doubles. the main benefit is you can get any dr. you want. if you go out of network you pay more and others but the traditional medical care route will give you the most flexibility. there are some significant deductibles but it covers most of your costs. up rational but more expensive choice. it gives you more choice but it's probably a rational choice. leastnly, it's the risky choice.

you might want to take a look at other plan options in florida. the change in medicare came up in the debate last week. rand paul was asked about what he would do with the current plan. [video clip] >> the main problem with medicare right now is that the average person pays in taxes over their whole lifetime about $100,000. the average person takes out about $350,000. we have this enormous mitch mass -- mismatch because with smaller families. the last meet whose fault is it that medicare is broken and out of money and social security's broken out of money. i say it's not the altar the republicans and not the fault of democrats, it's your grandparents role for having too many damages. after the war, we had all these kids. now we have smaller families. we so have 16 workers for one retiree and now you have three. it's not working.

i have a bill to fix medicare and social security. for both of them, you have to radically raise the age. if you're not willing to do that , you're not serious about fixing either one of them. host: address the map of what rand paul was talking about, three workers for one retiree? guest: he's right and i don't always agree with rand paul. political choices need to be made and they are tough. we need to raise the age to 67. it's already being raised one month at a time. we should do something like that on medicare. people are living longer and working longer and staying healthier. verybody loves medicare but it is heavily subsidized. the numbers will not work. i think rand paul is totally collect on that view. most democrats and republicans

are in agreement about this. that's the number one thing they want to do is raise the retirement age. if you raise it one month at a time, i would probably have to retire at 65. we should have done this years ago. the numbers don't work unless we make an adjustment like that. the number one moving piece is the retirement age. we have already done so security that way. host: there is pushed back on doing it for medicare. aarp gets people angry about it. the numbers don't add up but it needs to be dealt with. back to calls, eldorado, texas. caller: i'm from indiana. host: go ahead. caller: i have four quick

suggestions for c-span and the audience that would reduce the cost of health care and keep people healthier. host: what would one of those be? people who are members of churches can contribute to a fund. the people who could not pay for their health needs, that cost would be contributed by everybody in their church and they would teach people how to stay healthy. except for one state, if you hare, you don'ts have to pay the penalty for not being in a -- host: do you agree with that? guest: i can't say that i do.

host: we have a couple of comments from twitter. is there a cap on fica medicare taxes when they are in the form of stock options? here's another question -- guest: those are two great questions. there is no cap. everyone pays your entire life but 1.4% from your paycheck. it's matched by your employer everybody pays that. aca, they raise the tax to

2.35%. for anyone who has significant stock options or income over $200,000 for an individual, you pay 2.35% and there is no cap. you willrn $1 million, pay $235,000. if you make $10 million, you will pay more. there is no cap. weighted toward higher income payers. they pay a bigger tax. there's not that many of them. it was a pretty big tax increase. that was a big financing mechanism. privatizing is something of a talks about. if you look at medicaid which 20 years ago was overwhelmingly run by the states.

it was run by the states insurance companies. the vast majority of states have moved to medicaid managed care led by governors. they found it's cheaper for them crosshire kaiser or blue and pay them a margin. over 75% of medicaid beneficiaries are in private but it's been going on for a decade and it's an overwhelming trend. when i get into the agency in 2% ofmedicare had about people and now it's 32%. it's growing and despite the fact that people don't like private insurance, it's about a 4% margin. both political parties have found that they are better off taking the risk and managing the company's well and having them private insurance because they

perform better on the costs come down rather than have state and you'd sees -- state agencies run these. it's been a huge quiet trend toward privatization of these programs as it is. i think it's healthy and is not very political which is good. most and aquatic governors of gone that way and people in congress like medicare advantage. -- most democratic governors have gone that way and people in congress like medicare advantage. i think it's good for the program. host: let's hear from sparta, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. wondering if you've ever seen the documentary that michael moore made called "sicko.' he went around to all the westernized countries in the publicnd they all have health care.

it seems to be working in france and england and canada, everywhere else it works. they don't have this problem. ourink the problem is health care system has turned into a wealth care system. it's more about making money than it is about making people healthy. do you have any thoughts on that? guest: i saw it a long time ago but i'm not a fan. this is a fundamental political debate that's been going on but as been shifting more toward right sector delivery. some people think the government should run these programs. people sit there and figure out what doctors should be paid. they run a giant centralized medicare system. they are wonderful people and do a great job. i don't think that works as well as regulating an insurance

company and letting them figure it out. that's been the debate for the last 25 years. are you better off with a single-payer government entity which creates behavioral problems? you get big by them increases and they each doctor the same thing. the other alternative is to hire private insurance companies and give them all the money and the risk and regulate them. let them figure it out in a more competitive environment. i am strong on the side of thinking the well-regulated site works better. that's clearly where the system has gone the last 10 years and away from the single-payer medicare world. when you look at the results, the results are much better when the treasury is not at risk to its assuming they are well-regulated. host: dorothy in great neck, new york. hello there. caller: yes, good morning and

thank you for taking my call. i will be transforming into medicare in february. i just got my card. i have to get my extended care to go with it. right now i have united health care which i love. i'm looking toward humana or united health care for my extended care. then you look at the deductibles and i'm trying to chew something that will give me less the dock doubles because i live in a -- less deductibles because i live on a budget. i have worked all my life and paid into it. right now, it's not what i thought it would be. when i would have to take it which am getting to the point where have to take it. something has happened to it. to the gentleman the gentle man they call before, just so he knows, having health care in the

country wherever and gets the same thing, i have friends who lives in great britain, it's not that great. the wait time to get into hospitals is astronomical. i don't know if it would work in this country. i heard what rand paul had to say. i don't have a trouble with the age going up to get it. at some point you'll have to raise the age. for medicare and social security. guest: i think medicare is the late great deal. my mom is 87 and is going through health care issues. average, some people consume 100 thousand dollars of health care but on average of $15,000 per year. pay about $1500 so it's a 90% subsidized benefit. we pay taxes but that does not come close to paying for it. medicare has flaws like

copayments and a dock doubles -- and the dock doubles. -- and deductibles. if you are a lower income senior, she should not have coat -- you should not have co-pays or deductibles. it's an incredibly large subsidy as it should be. i think it works better than it did. i started working in the senate in 1981 and i think it works that are than it did back then. there are things they don't like. host: this is texarkana, arkansas. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: thank you so much for c-span and what you guys do. we appreciate your candor. thank you for that gentle man to

answer this question. i have a short story, please bear with me. my daughter was married in palm springs, california and i live in arizona so i flew out there. i met a couple in the early 40's from canada and i asked them about their health care. he says we are in a middle income. taxedy it works is we are at a rate of 30%. that's what pays for the health care. everyone pays 30% tax and i have free medical care. i have heard horror stories that if you need something done, you have to wait. they said that's just a lie. i said would you trade your health care system for hours. he laughed out loud. they said are you kidding me. absolutely not. we do not understand how your

country can operate. you're the wealthiest country on people --t yet your insurance companies and people make money off of people's poor health. studied or has anyone in your office studied how sweden, denmark, canada, england, germany, and france takes care of their citizens. they are not going under or going broke. they don't have to wait months to see a doctor or whatever. host: thanks for your call. guest: i have studied all of them. you can have that debate. arebetter or worse, we used to high-quality health care. we are used to immediacy and going to any doctor and having wonderful cancer care. most of europe is not close to that.

if you get kidney dialysis in the united states, you are covered by medicare immediately. any other country, there is no dialysis. it is a whole different standard of care. our system works pretty well. people's expectations are high. we have built up an infrastructure that is way more sophisticated and other countries and way better. if you want to keep the infrastructure we have come i think it works reasonably well. we have more options and more expenses and highly qualified doctors. it's there and if you want to keep it up, our system i think is probably better structurally than most others. ofdefinitely have a level health care beyond any country in the world and you have to pay for it. if you don't want to pay for it, you'll get less services. host: let's go to arkansas again. caller: i happen to be a physician. i have gotten into some various

arguments. it involves risk pools. you are referring these patients to private insurance companies in the health scheme. it's open and roman and there are no denials, what happens with people with cystic fibrosis who signs up with one company and their risk goes to the dickens? we know that does not happen with kidney disease because that has been federalized. distorted risk pool like that -- host: we lost him. guest: this is more complicated. one of the fundamental. as if you believe that competitive health plans are

better than having the government fix prices, you have to go with risk selection. used to be that insurance youanies -- we used to joke want to avoid sick people. the exchanges, we put in something called risk adjustment. it says if you have a really sick patient, on average, everybody is a 1.0 risk. marathoner maybe less. if you get the patients coming in, you get different risk scores. general, if aetna gets more sick people and their risks or tends to be 1.2 in the blue cross plan is a 0.9, they get paid differently.

it encourages the insurance companies to find six people and cover them because they will get -- to find sick people and cover them because they will get paid for it. we have been working on this for 25 years. it's still being ironed out. in general, it's trying to move foremove the incentive avoiding sick people and only ensure healthy people. host: your some of what people are saying on twitter -- one mark call from rich in springfield, florida. hello there. spring hill, florida. caller: hi, how are you?

skelly forhank mr. his work in medicare. patient.ney dialysis i got very ill and almost died about a year and a half ago. aetna from mym on former employer. it has been incredible. they pay 100% of my dialysis. i'm going to go into medicare when i'm 65 next may. i have already done my background check. i will go if united health care. again, i want to say thank you. this is one person that it is saving my life. you make united health care happy. host: a final question on quicker -- -- on twitter --

guest: there is wonderful health care quality in every country. i agree but it's nowhere near as much of it or as many specialists. administrator, you go to a small county in south dakota or iowa or northwest louisiana and they have a nice hospital that's in good shape it to death with good doctors but that does not happen in rural europe. quality in more places and more diverse than anyplace in the world and we pay for that. that's a societal judgment we made. we might have overdone it but it's there. i don't think there's any turning back. if you want to spend time in rural france or belgium, they

have nowhere near the ca >> we take youre live now to th floor of the house. gaveling back in. not starting legislative work today until 4:00 eastern time. debating nine bills today, including one dealing with security clearances at the homeland security department. on the other side of the capitol, the senate out today, coming back in tomorrow. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for gives urs -- forgiving us another day. bless the members of this assembly as they set upon the work of these hours, of these dales. help them to make wise decisions in a good manner, and to carry their responsibilities steadily with high hopes for a better few you -- future for