>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin with a growing controversy in washington, the conflict between the c.i.a. and the senate intelligence committee. we talk with mark of the "new york times." >> it sort of captures the history of this incredibly controversy program and incredibly controversial period. this report is going to be considered the most definitive history at least at this point. so i think that's one of the reasons the c.i.a. seems to be pushing back so hard because they know this will be the, this will be the bible for the time being about this program. and it's really about who gets to write the history. >> rose: we continue with a look at pope francis at one year. we talked to father john general sins of notre dame, father james

matter im, elaine paying el and miguel diaz at the university of dayton. >> he has been an inspiring provocative wonderful presence. the question is will he been transformative. >> rose: we conclude with the great conductor now with the israeli philharmonic orchestra. >> that's not a single member of the orchestra that i have not personally engaged of course with a committee always. always with discussions and arguments. but now there are people that we have chosen together and we have played over 3,000 concerts with them. >> rose: a conversation about the conflict between the c.i.a. the senate intelligence committee, a look at pope francis, one year into his papacy, and zubin. all of that when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: conflict behind the scenes have been brewing between the c.i.a. and congress sometime. it's about the multiinvestigation of the c.i.a. interrogation program post 911. the chair dianne feinstein accused the c.i.a. of braining the law and constitutional principles. she says the agency has removed documents, search computers and intimidated congressional investigators. >> the recent actions that i have just laid out make this a defining moment for the oversight of our intelligence committee. how congress and how this will be resolved will show whether the intelligence committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation's intelligence activities. or, whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee. >> rose: john brennan director of the c.i.a. fired

back later that afternoon. >> as far as the allegations of c.i.a. hacking into senate computers nothing can be further from the truth. we wouldn't do that. i mean, that's, that's just beyond the scope of reason. appropriate authorities right now both inside the c.i.a. as well as outside of c.i.a. are looking at what c.i.a. officers as well as the staff members do. i defer to them to determine whether or not there was any violation of law or principle and i referred the matter myself to the c.i.a. inspector general to make sure that he was able to look honestly and objective at what the c.i.a. did there. when the facts come out on this, is i think a lot of people who are claiming there has been this tremendous sort of spying, monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong. >> rose: joining me from washington, mark mazetti a national security correspondent for the "new york times." i'm pleased to have him on this

program. this is a fast noting story. here you have the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, here you have the director of the c.i.a. in a bit going at each other. the executive branch versus the legislative branch both of them believing they should be abused. tell me how this story began. >> well, it began really at the beginning of the obama administration when president obama ended what would be a year long project to document the history of the program. it was sort of fraught from the beginning because they tried to get documents from the c.i.a. and the c.i.a. was not initially forthcoming. then republicans pulled out of the entire efforts so it became a purely democratic effort. then they toiled away for several years. they finished their report in the end of december 2012, and then another fight began and that was the fight over whether

to declassify it. and so there's been this year of back and forth between the c.i.a. and the intelligence committee over whether the report's conclusions were wrong, whether this facts were wrong. culminating in what we have today which is these accusations that both sides in effect have been spying on each other in a sort of way to begin advantage in this internal debate. and what's really extraordinary as you said is that it's all blown out into the open. generally the intelligence committee handles these things in house with intelligence agencies. this one is pretty ugly and pretty public. >> rose: okay. so there we have a situation where the c.i.a. said we'll find the facility out in virginia where you members of the intelligence committee can come out and look at our documents. and you'll have a facility, you'll have a computer there, and you can find out for yourself what it is that you're looking for. they then claim that they didn't have a search to these documents and it was a mess for them.

i think senator feinstein said it was in fact a document dump. a document drop. then the question of the panetta review come. how did the review which is on those computers get there and then what happened to it which leads to the public fight today judicial it's important to sort of explain what we're talking about when we're talking about the panetta review the there's an ongoing effort by the senate that culminates in this 6300 page report. separately, the c.i.a. conducted an internal review of the documents which has been called the panetta review. we've not seen it, it's not become public but certain democratic senators say the panetta review is very close to in its conclusions what the senate came up with. and that's why the senate is making this case. senator feinstein's making this case that the c.i.a. is challenging our report. but their own internal documents basically come to the same

conclusion. now, how this document, this panetta review got into the document dump that the senate had and then how it was removed when it was removed, is all a matter of dispute. the senate, senator feinstein has said it was included in the documents they got. they searched them, they found the review. and then mysteriously it disappeared. so this is still a sort of he said/she said quite clearly right now sneesm it didn't disappear before they made a copy and put it in a safe. so they have the document. >> that's correct. they have what's part of a document. they said they've seen a draft of it. they don't think they've got the full version. this is one of the extraordinary moments of the speech yesterday where senator feinstein said they took a copy and brought it to the senate office building where the committee's headquarters is and put it in the safe. the reason why they did that is because they didn't trust the c.i.a. not to remove it or

destroy it. senator feinstein pointedly referred to the episode in 2005 when the c.i.a. destroyed a number of interrogation video tapes showing these methods like water boarding. basically she was saying how could we know that they weren't going to do it again. >> rose: what do we know was in the panetta review? what was there? >> what we think the panetta review is, was a series, is a series of sort of memo that are summarizing the documents. so as soon as the c.i.a. gave millions of documents over to the senate intelligence committee, then director of the cia leon panetta says as we're giving these dump to the committee we should know what's in them. there was an effort to document through a series of memos what is in these, what is in this massive data dump. and what the committee has said is that some of what's in the panetta review is not only just summaries but also conclusions saying you know, that not only

criticizing the interrogation methods but also being very critical about the information or lack thereof that was gained from these interrogation methods. which is the same conclusion that the senate committee has. so that's why senator feinstein said this is such an important document because she says it really bolsters their own conclusions. >> rose: what is the reason the c.i.a. does not want the senate report or the panetta review made public. >> first of all they're saying when we agreed back in the day for to do this review, we were only going to give you documents from a certain period of time. from the beginning of the program 2001-2002 to some five six years later when detainees were removed the they were moved and outside the scope of the agreement. the second reason is we the c.i.a. don't have to give them to you because it's all sort of

covered under executive privilege considerations. they are deliberative documents, they're draft documents and we don't have to give them to the legislative branch because they're not final c.i.a. documents. they're only intended for internal review. those are the sort of two arguments the c.i.a.'s making. >> rose: beyond that is the c.i.a. worried about a full disclosure during so-called interrogative. >> that's what the question is, it's a controversy program and controversy period. this report is going to be considered the most definitive history at least at this point. so i think that's one of the reasons why the c.i.a. seems to be pushing back so hard because they know this will be, this will be the bible for the time being about this program. and it's really about who gets to write the history. >> rose: is it clear that the cia removed documents from the

files that were being, from the computers operated by the committee somewhere in virginia perhaps close to langley. >> it's not, senator feinstein said that the cia removes hundreds of documents in 2010. the cia has not countered that charge. the one thing both agree on is that the cia did do a search of committee computers last year to part to find out how the committee may have gotten ahead of this panetta review. so right now the charge of removal of documents comes from senator feinstein but they do agree that the c.i.a. did take this step to monitor what the committee had been doing on the cia computers. >> rose: is there a suggestion that the president knew about this? >> not at this point. we know that the president knew after the fact of the search of the committee computers. because in a letter last week

from senator udall to the president, he makes a statement in the letter saying as you are aware, the c.i.a. conducted this act. we don't really know at this point about president obama and what he ordered or what he knew and when he knew it and those things. >> rose: there's also this thing. senator feinstein suggests that the cia was trying to intimidate, harass senate staffers who are part of this investigation. and even referred to the justice department to look into whether there has been some criminal violation. what is that about? >> right. so the c.i.a.'s office of general counsel referred the criminal charge to the justice department alleging that the c.i.a., the committee staff had possibly broken the law by getting access to this panetta review, and in an unauthorized manner. and what's interesting is that the lawyer that referred it, the

acting general counsel is someone as senator feinstein pointed out yesterday someone that's mentioned 1600 times in their report. a lawyer named robert iting jury and involved in controversial decisions including the c.i.a. tapes in 2001. >> rose: i think it's self admitted by the officer's name rodriguez as remember. >> jose rodriguez was the person who gave the order but he had gotten clearance from a couple c.i.a. lawyers to do it. >> rose: including one who is now general counsel and has recommended. >> that's correct. >> rose: so the questions that loom it seems to me is who put the panetta review in the computer files of the senate committee? >> we still don't know how they got into the files. if we take senator feinstein in our word they were inside the documents given to the committee. they found them through a regular search. but how they got put in those

documents we don't know whether this was on purpose, whether it was an accident. that's one of the key questions we're still looking into. >> rose: and did the c.i.a. have to go beyond, behind the firewall behind the senate committee for whatever it did, whatever it was they were looking for. >> they said they didn't. they said they stayed on their side of the firewall. they were given all the documents and the documents included this panetta are view. they vigorously dispute the charge they were on other side on the firewall and places they shouldn't be going. >> how significant a class is this about senate congressional overview of the c.i.a.? >> it's really significant. i think you have this, first of all it's public but also you have a committee that's been very supportive of a lot of what

the intelligence agencies have been doing, including the very controversy surveillance programs. so to have senator feinstein who has been really a bulwark for the agency on a number of issues, being in this open dispute with the c.i.a. director, that is certainly troublesome for the c.i.a. and so that's why this is a pretty big deal. >> rose: how damaging could it be if the senate report and the panetta review are released to the reputation of the c.i.a. >> certainly that is something the c.i.a. is concerned about. they're concerned about even years after this program has ended, they're concerned about how it's framed that their own internal documents might dispute what the agency has said in its rebuttal to senator feinstein. so certainly that's why there's this forceful fight over the panetta review. >> rose: well the senate review come out? >> i think it will all come out

at some point. i think the senate review at least the executive summary will come out at some point, whether we'll ever see the 6300 pages in their entirety without redaction, that could be years and years. >> rose: what does leon panetta said about all this. >> he's said very little although yesterday he did say that sort of down played, i think he doesn't like the fact that this has been associated, it's been called the panetta review. he has just sort of said that down played what this was. he said it was a sort of cursory look at documents that he never saw the final version of it. and i think he's trying to stay as much as possible out of it. >> rose: is it likely that the senate will call up the c.i.a. director or the senate intelligence committee will call him for hearings of some kind. >> yes, certainly. whether it's open or behind closed doors, certainly brennan will be up to talk to the committee about this, you can

bet on it. probably a few times. >> rose: has the president said anything about it? >> the president did speak this afternoon about it and he talked about how the, you know, just basically saying this report needs to be declassified and the sooner it's declassified the better. >> rose: that's a great place to stop. thanks mark, great to have you here. pope francis became head of the roman catholic church one year ago. he has led a bold and ambitious awe -- agenda. z7his modest sometime is not traditional as his predecessors. he's gone a long way to change the economic bureaucratic. controversy issues like homosexuality and contraception remains unchanged. joining me is a distinguished group father john jacobs is president of the university of notre dame. father james matterren is editor at large of america the national

catholic magazine. and -- will join us letter a professor of religion at prince stop and -- is professor of the holy see at the university of day taught i'm pleased to have each of them as we mark this year as i say with a great sense of pride because i happened to be there for the conclave and in rome. as soon as that took place, it seemed to me that spread out an idea of this is new and this is difference and this is a unique human being. fair appraisal. >> certainly true. >> from the moment he made his first public appearance. >> he had the remarkable ability to communicate. i met him and we were at a cantina and here's this man who can communicate wonderful warmth and kindness in a remarkable way even though i don't speak italian and he doesn't speak

english. but at the end of the session, there was a picture to be taken. he had his chair in front of our group. and here's this 77 year old man, he pushes the chair in line with the group. almost to say i want to be down with you. i felt that that was sort of expressive of who he is. >> rose: you talked about when america magazine did this great interview, people when they read it, you read it, you heard it and you thought my god is he saying what thinking. >> the 16 jesuit journals across the world approached him and the italian jesuit magazine interviewed him and when we got the translation in italian neither myself nor the editor-in-chief speak italian very well. and we read it and we thought he can't possibly be saying this. we send it back to our italian english translator and it came back and it was incredible.

i think part of the appeal of this man, this pope is he speaks in such an inviting and act sense way. you can say that pope john paul was a philosopher, benedict was a theologian and this mope speaks like a pastor, he speaks like your parish priest. >> rose: and focusing on the role of the church. >> that's something he said on the american magazine interview rather than being obsessed with certain issue he's focused on the gospel, mercy, compassion and love and that's a message everyone needs to here. >> rose: making the point some of the most divisive issues shouldn't overwhelm the role of the church. >> that was the most surprising thing. he says we cannot be obsessed with a few issues and he named them, abortion, same sex marriage, contraception. he says we're too focused and he wants to broaden them out. not to say they're not important but we need to broaden what we're looking at. >> rose: miguel what was your impression when you began to see emerging in this pope. >> well i think he has shifted

the conversation from the focus of the culture of clash, a clash of cultures to really an amazing, a culture of even encounters. and i think that has a lot to do with his jesuit spirituality and the whole notion of encountering god in all things. as a latin american he has shiftd the conversation to focus on the preferential option for the poor. the marginalized, the destitute. and also by making the name of francis, he has taken on a new meaning when he comes to interreligious engagement, when it comes to care of the earth, the poor and the search for peace. so i think all around he gets high marks from me and it really is the new and refreshing moment for the search. >> rose: is this part of what the shaping life in latin america did for him do you think? >> i think that's part of it. he is someone who is associated with social justice as a jesuit

and religion order. he's always lived in poverty and particularly in argentina he was known as the arch bishop going out to the poor so he brings that with him to the vatican. >> rose: in fact he says to depict the pope, these are his words, as a kind of superman or a star seems to me offensive. the pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps calmly and has friends like everyone, a normal person. >> he's sort of emphasized that. his first line in that interview from the jesuit publication was i'm a sinner. almost to say to move back from the aloofness of the papacy and say i'm like you and we're in this together. i think that's what resonates with people. he shares the burdens and struggles that we share. he continues to emphasize that. >> rose: what is the pope francis effect. >> i would say on this one year anniversary he certainly captured the imagination of

catholics all over the world. i have non-catholics more interested than even catholics. but i think my question is, he has been an inspiring provocative wonderful presence. the question is, will his papacy be transformative. i think it has the potential to be transformative. >> rose: you say the potential to be. what has to happen for it to be transformative. >> i think he is working to reform the bureaucracy that works around him which is as miguel knows better than anyone is somewhat arcane and needs reform. i think he needs to appoint bishops who embrace his vision. he is one of many. women should have a role in the church. >> greater role. >> rose: but not as priests.

>> but also being more consultive. he's emphasized that with bishops in talking to the faithful. if he changes in the church that would be transformative. >> i agree. the principle of solidarity. this is a wonderful moment for him to really put this into practice. these are not new things in catholicism, this is part of the second vatican council but it takes a leader to begin to really shift things and appoint persons who like father jenkins was saying shares that kind of vision. >> rose: do we know what he wants to change. >> i think he's been very clear about what he wants to change. and i think that the people who elected him. the cardinals who elected him, they knew this was one -- >> rose: they knew what they were getting. >> i don't think they knew what they were getting. i think they forgot they were electing this particular man. a friend of mine told me who is a highly placed person in the

vatican said that we knew we were getting someone who could change things and change things quickly. this is someone who another friend said he's not afraid of anything, of ruffling first. >> rose: and he knows he doesn't have that long to do it. >> he's 76, 77 but he is someone high think is really trying to emulate jesus and the gospel and trying thinks best to be christ-like. i think that too is striking an accord in people. >> rose: are you suggesting that the pastoral role and the image that he has and this sort of sense of this remarkable presence that he has, but he also knows that that will help him as he changes the church not doctrine but changes the courier and the ways the church operates. >> i think he's a smart day. he was jesuit provirtual, arch bishop of into way no, sir airs.

when he goes out to reach people or hug somebody who has a disfiguring skin condition, he knows the message that's going to send out. >> i would say kind of i thought of in this connection, it will sound odd but ronald reagan was called the great communicator. very different views but part of his power was to be able to express a message that was accessible to people and people could be inspired by it. and he was kind of a likeable person. in some way i feel, i don't know if you agree is the great communicator. that interview he did was remarkable, surprising. but the gestures he did, they inspired people too. and in a way that in itself is powerful. >> rose: you get a sense it's not for show it's in fact who he is. >> authentic, these right. >> the man who came with a skin condition it was the like your holiness this person's coming. he came into the crowd and he spontaneously hugged me. jesus formed his words and his deeds formed his words and

together they present in the case of the pope this a then particular human being. >> rose: how important is the fact he's a jesuit. >> how important is it. >> very important. >> very important. i'm a little biased but you see as ambassador diaz was saying finding god in all things. you see the emphasis on poverty and social justice. even when he's speaking in hall lisa about praying it's a jesuit way of speaking. imagine yourself in the gospel theme. it kind of pervades all he does. i think that's what the cardinals may have been forgetting. they elected a jesuit and i think that promised him. >> rose: do we believe and all of you who know this so much better than i do that the church understood it needed to change. >> i think that's true and he was certainly an agent of change and what you're going to get in the change is not always predictable. i think there was a great sense that the cureia needed to be

reformed. >> rose: the fact he came not from rome. >> what i was going to say also from a diplomatic perspective appointed a great diplomate as the secretary of state so he had a great reputation in terms of diplomacy. so this is not just because he's both the head of the state as well as the head of the church. his way of going about doing things has a profound in determines of diplomatic relations and relating to not only catholics and not only christians but nations and leaders throughout the world. i speak now in the diplomatic hat and say this is a refreshing way to build bridges with, at a time when they are deeply needed to tackle the world's challenges in terms of war, in terms of migration, in terms of climate change. and so, human rights. and so i think that if he continues to name the kind of

persons who share that kind of vision of engagement, a culture of engagement hospitality i think we're in for many more surprises. >> rose: what kind of chain will he bring to the roman curia. >> this was eluded to earlier. i think he's already trying to and from the very beginning he's brought up the issue of governance and the need to have greater collegiality and the appoint of competent leaders both men and women who can help lead the church. greater role of lady in terms of even vatican offices. i think this all would bode well for an institution that can, that needs to really, that kind of updating that is needed in

order to answer our times. i think this is a man who can really pay attention to what is needed and empower the gifts that are present throughout the church for the sake of the commune good not just for catholics and christians but the entire family. >> rose: a lot of traffic in new york who is head of religion, thank you for coming. >> i only wanted to say as the university president i think bureaucracy around the world are alike. they try to preserve and protect their power and prestige. this isn't to discourage the curia i think it's from of university is governments and so you need to view it with a vision and change the structures that are necessary and get the people who embrace that vision. the danger of bureaucracy is it captures the leader. it needs the leader. and this pope has shown he has enough of a will to say no, i'm a leader.

and i think he's made changes i think and i assure you there are kind of serious ruffling of feathers behind the sceenlz tht we don't know about. >> rose: ruffling of people who don't want to lose procedure. >> i asked is there a lot of resussance and he says. where is it coming from, cardinals, burb ups. he was very removing but in the end it's very irresistible what he's doing and i said why is that and he said it's the gospel is irresistible and that's what he is trying to get across. >> welcome. >> thank you. what struck me is how different the initiation of this papacy is from the last one. when joseph bake pope the first thing i remember was he said he was going to clear homosexuality out of seminaries and also doctrinal deviance. i thought in a world of poverty and world those are interesting priorities.

but this pope not only gave up the red prada shoes and lace dresses. >> rose: and the apartment. >> and the apartment but started with the encyclical and latin america to the vatican. >> which was an incredible change. the founding father of liberation theology being invited to give a talk and writing a book with a high vatican official and being vetted at the vatican a person who was persona non-grata. >> rose: how about his relationship with the former pope. >> this is new so it is interesting and to the credit of pope benedict he has stepped aside. he did a wonderful gesture of stepping down and opening up

this new possibility in terms of the modern papacy. and so we all have to give a lot of credit to pope benedict precisely for what he did. and i think the relationship there has, very cordial and given the fact that you know we have two, the pope emeritus and pope francis living very close to each other, i think it's been a very interesting but wonderful experiment in terms of modern history. >> rose: yes. speak to that too because in fact a lot of people said you have a former pope living that close might present problems. it doesn't seem to have presented problems. partly because pope francis has had such an enormous sense of his own both humility and power. >> it must be said for pope benedict, he has been absolutely disciplinary to say nothing and appearing no where. he could be used just as a word here and there could undermine

the current pope and he hasn't done that. but it seems like they do have a relationship that's genuine. he talks to benedict, he speaks foundly of him. so despite the differences in personnity, they seem to have a remarkably good relationship. >> they say the rosary together a friend of mine told me at 4:00 in the afternoon. pope francis will go to pope benedict and they will pray together. father jenkins is right, he's been very retiring and i admire his humility from stepping down from one of the most powerful jobs in the world. >> rose: help me understand the difference in doctrinal issues and when controversy issues whether it's contraception, divorce or birth control. these issues have been so debated, an issue he spoke to not getting in the way of the pastoral role. those issues and doctrinal issues are all those doctrinal issues. >> in some respect they are. but i think jim mentioned it and it is true what he has said is there's a hierarchy of truth back in the catholic catechism

the center of god created us in love and that's his focus. i think he's worried about a series of moral norms or moral directives being separated from that central reality and becoming a bludgen to hit people over the head witness or to serve a political etiology. i think that's what he wants to fight against. now, i think he's been very careful and those close to him say don't expect us to change him but i think the emphasis and the central tree of the central dock for instance does -- doctrines does make it more. >> some people do not agree with so of the pronouncements for example the u.s. catholic bishops who are not hearing as much about those issues from the mope and hearing more about love, compassion and mercy are now feeling more welcome and less excluded in the church which is also the good i think. >> these are certain as you said

theological issues. i'm thinking of just just two issues, a but -- abortion. abortion is killing in a different way but contraception i don't see that way at all at least for myself and i think those are quite separate. >> i think they are separate. and one thing i do think, the emphasis on pastoral, the pastoral dimension again, it's not kind of are you with us or are you not. but how can we understand your struggles and help you to know the love of god in your life. and so there's less of a kind of you know the moral checklist kind of approach. >> rose: what do you think is ultimate ambition is. >> the humanization of the institution is probably has to be on top, you know. to really, to bring a new

pastoral face, and really these images that call for the church, the field hospital, it really is a refreshing image. it's bringing us to the core of christianity which love your god with all your heart, soul, strength and love your neighbor as yourself. this is the essential dimension of what it means to be christian and why we do this as christians for the sake of not only other christians but for the sake of the human family. and so if he can achieve a greater humanization of the church, i think he will receive lots of credits from catholics, christians and all people of goodwill. >> rose: miguel, thank you for joining us. we're going to lose your satellite so thank you for joining us. >> you're welcome, you're welcome. >> rose: how does he see his challenge as the holy father. >> primarily the role of the mope is to spread the gospel and to supreme the good news that

christ has risen. he's doing that very well. he realizes he came into a situation where the vatican curia for example was a mess to use a theological term and he needed to address that. he needs to put bishops has the smell ofas father jenkins was sg it's a bureaucratic thing. >> rose: that includes corruption, that includes the banking system. >> and careerism. >> absolutely unrelenting and condemnation people were interested in the next job up. >> interestingly jesuit, we make a vow we make a promise when we have our final vows not to quote strive for ambition any high offices in the church. so this is a man who years ago took a vow not to strive. and that's why careerism i think is just a horror to him. he really hates and he's trying to extra pate it. >> rose: where is he and what will he do and he has spoken to

the issue of sexual predatorrism. >> he has spoken to it but not as much as some people would like. he has set up a very high level commission. he's obviously, you know, aware of it and he was aware of it as arch bishop of buenos aires. but some people would hope he would be as strong as he is in other areas, in poverty. >> rose: that's yet to be seen. >> i think part of it he's been in for a year and the first thing would get the vatican house in order so i'm hoping the next year or two he puts his attention more forcefully to those issues. >> one communication he's made very few except recently he appeared defensive about the church. i think the church has lost its credibility. it has to earn it back through efforts. and i think i know he knows he needs to make that. >> rose: the catholic church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with

transparency and responsibility and the one to be attacked is a bit defensive. >> that's a bit overstated. >> rose: what are the other issues that will you know, i'm wondering if in fact this whole sense of his personality and his presence and his sense of commitment to the role of pastor and his personal choices as well as his words have so caught the country. "time" magazine's person of the year and so many other honors that's come his way and these talk of a nobel prize and all that. whether he sees this in terms of this was creating traction to change the church. and then now we need to move to these other important issues. i want to know what those important issues are. >> i think you know, he sees himself also obviously as an international leader so he's talked a lot about world poverty. >> rose: i'm so glad you brought that up. that's a crucial voice in the

question of inequities. >> huge for him. and he's using words that i think were enat ma in political circles here. >> rose: why did they choose francis. >> it's a sort of resounding e fusses on the poor. interestingly in the conclave one of the latin american cardinals turned to him right before he was about to choose him name and said don't forget the poor. so he chooses this beautiful name which immediately sends this message of who i am for. i am for the poor and he chooses this beautiful name of francis which is just i thought a fantastic choice. >> it is a great signal. francis of course was a reformer and he was moving towards simplicity and poverty and service. >> i wondered too, i don't know if you would agree that francis stood outside the structures of the church, very much so. he was a bishop and he was

ordained. and so i think that sense of not being a person for the poor and not for the institution as such. >> and also the first pope from a religious order since the 19th century. so they're getting someone new, someone who lived poverty, chastity and obedience and not part of that diocese model. >> rose: he has this sort of travel the world, he's going to israel and coming here in 2015. >> 2015 he's coming to philadelphia, right. >> rose: we know that for sure. >> that's confirmed. they are vying for him. so far new york, washington and boston obviously want him to come as well. >> rose: he's as i said going to israel and he talked about his relationship with the new president of china. >> he's going to south korea. >> rose: going to south korea. so in a sense, as catholics, you feel pride, you feel a sense that this is given a jolt to the

church that it needed. >> no no, it's been a tough few decades. >> i think that's right and i think this is a kind of positive sense. i think that's part of his power. he inspires. and he elevates. and the kind of service to the poor, service to those in need. that's at the center of what he does. >> i have a question for both of you. actually i had lunch with an episcopal bishop and priest and we had this conversation about ecumenical which isn't high on his list. i think the importance of poverty and others are primary. >> i think going to israel is the anniversary of paul the 6th meeting with the patriarch. i think this whole culture of encounter is he wants to reach out. he wants to connect. and i think you will see a

continuation emphasis on e -- >> he wants to make these gestures but you're right so far it's add interest to reform the church. >> is he -- >> you're quizzing. i don't know. >> >> i interviewed him that's why. >> rose: thank you. go notre dame. i want to mention this book too, jesus a pilgrimage which is a story of your book. out yesterday. glad to have you here. thank you. >> rose: zubin mehta is here. he's been the music director for life of the israeli fill harman cause at the termed stage of 24. he's embarbing on a tour with

the israel philharmonic ochestra. i'm pleased to have him back on this program. this has been one illustrus career hasn't it. >> no. i don't travel around that much but i've been staying with one orchestra for quite a long time. with new york it was 13 years. >> rose: that's the longest of anybody. >> los angeles but now israel is 45 years. >> rose: i know, yes. 45 years. >> i think i broke the record, i think. >> rose: he was the philadelphia maybe 40 or something. >> i have to found out. >> rose: how large, well i can't think of anybody that's up there. >> no. >> rose: and why? >> they've become my family. there's not a single member of the orchestra i have not personally engaged. of course with a committee always, always discussions and arguments. but now there are people we have chosen together and we have

molded them. we have played over 3,000 concerts with them and during the 1970's and 80's when the soviet union started allowing jewish immigration we have a huge ingestion of culture. >> rose: what has been the biggest challenge in terms of what you have done with the israel philharmonic. >> the challenge is still in front of us. we still haven't played in an arab country. this is a challenge. we should have already played in 1978 when begin and sadat got together. i asked begin in 78 send us to cairo as a gesture. we don't need a hotel room. we go there and come back it's a half hour flight. he didn't understand it. >> rose: what did he say. >> do you know what he said. he said i have to think about my

settlements first. that's the first time i heard the word settlement in today's context. i didn't know what he meant. >> rose: you're very much against settlements. >> i think it is completely counterproductive. you don't have to force me to say that. i think releasing 400 prisoners is wonderful. and two days later announcing the 5,000 or 50,000 apartments is completely taking everything back. and until this is resolved, and i think until the united states, europe, everybody really insists in a hard way, i'm tired of them saying, and i'm the greatest friend israel has. my love for this country is undiminished. but because i'm there and because it's a democracy, i have to say that they are going in the wrong direction just now. and i cannot listen to any more because we have to think of our security first because i know how strong they are.

they can wipe everybody out in two days. >> rose: you said you wished that all israelis could see what's happening. in the land that are being occupied because they would change their opinion. >> yes. they're not allowed to go there. i go from my hotel i see a settlement across the valley which is part of the city where the settlers have flowers and they are watering their flowers. and in itself every house has a black cylinder where they collect water either from rain or from the rationing that they get from israel. the range they feel looking over the hillside and looking at jewish settlers watering their plants and they have to scrounge for their water. this rage has to stop. >> rose: are you hopeful in the end. >> i'm a positive thinker. i think for sure it could be worked out but it must go with

goodwill on both sides. there are people on both sides that don't want it. you have to admit. there are people on the arab side want to continue. >> rose: if your musical career for whatever reason you say i've done everything i can and i want to have an influence in music, what would be the thing you would most be proud of in your musical life? >> taking the israel philharmonic for the first time to my country. and diplomatic relations for a long time. in 94 they finally went there and with the israeli philharmonic we played free of charge, myself in any case but my colleagues too. i'm very grateful. >> rose: didn't you play in kashmir. >> recently, in september. >> rose: with hindu and muslim in the audience. >> yes. >> rose: can you --

>> i joined the orchestra. we should never under estimate that power, never. i took the munich opera orchestra who gave up two weeks of their vacation and their pay to go and play in kashmir which is probably a little bit of a dangerous area. the government of kashmir was traffic in organizing the concert. the german embassiy was very instrumental in getting money together from germany. my friends in india helped and we played bethoven and tchaikovsky for an hour and-a-half and i feel there was peace. hindus and muslims in kashmir have been living in a state of crises for over 50 years. >> rose: where are you on wagner in terms of other than respect him as a great musician. >> in israel? i think we should play it. but i think we should wait. there are still people. >> rose: wait. >> yes. there are still people with

numbers on their arms. we don't want to insult them because music transport them back to the time of terror. and this we cannot argue emotionally. and wagner does take them back. al then they might not have heard it in their camps. some of them are still survivors of the camps. >> rose: what else do you want to do now that you have all of this. >> i have not had all of this. there are still wagners that i have never conducted. >> rose: why? >> i've done most of them. 90% of wagner. it hasn't presented itself. i was going to do it in florence and may but we ran out of funds. so we are doing -- >> rose: you ran out of funds. >> for a new production. so we are doing the production

of tristan -- i didn't say no. >> rose: what are you doing in new york. >> i have a concert with the philharmonic on the 16th. >> rose: pretty good orchestra. >> wonderful. and with the israeli philharmonic on the 20th and i'm connecting two that's where they're similar, they run themselves. and it's wonderful to have two orchestras where you only discuss every point of view with musicians. >> rose: anything you would do different in your life and career that's provided you with such a remarkable life in music. did you wish for something you didn't do? first of all it could be one example. >> there's a lot of music. there's still a lot of music. i've not stopped studying. >> rose: really. >> when will the studying stop. it doesn't stop. >> rose: studying what composers might have meant, the interpretation of their music. >> new scores, of course. you know, you can't do the woman

without a shadow of straus without studying the correspondent of straus. >> rose: to understand where they were there. >> yes. you have to do so much homework before that. and that goes with every opera that you do at least. >> rose: you didn't set out to be a musician. you set out to be a doctor, what was it. >> well my parents had decided. we come from an upper middle class family and our professions are decided by the parents. only five or six professions. >> rose: yes. >> my brother was chosen to be an accountant and me a doctor. he became an accountant later. >> rose: but you left for music early on. >> yes. i had a cousin in new york, i'm sorry, in vienna. and he was older than myself, a

pianist. i had no difficulties, i had no problem being an indian in vienna. i learned what anti-semitism was. we didn't know that in india. we had heard about it, you know. i studied in a jesuit school with seven religious in one class. >> rose: india has one of the largest muslim population in the world. >> 150 million or even more today. we have more than pakistan. >> rose: right, i know. thank you. it's great to have you here. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought to you in part by -- thestreet.com. featuring stephanie link who shares her investment , stock p market insights with action alerts plus, the multimillion dollar portfolio she manages with jim cramer. you can learn more at thestreet.com/nbr. >> working overtime and getting paid for it. president obama wants employers to pay millions of salaried workers overtime for their extra hours. but is it smart business? tarnished copper. what the recent slide in prices says about the global economy and why smart investors pay close attention. and why does it take days for checks to clear or for money to transfer between some accounts in a world where everything is