♪ ♪ hello, everyone and welcome to "amanpour & company." here is what is coming up. >> do you solemnly swear -- >> a new year and a new congress in washington. and trump's shutdown enters the third week. the president now threatens to declare a national emergency and we hear from the trump strategist david urban. then america's global leadership at the start of the new year. backtracking on syria, and economically perilous trade war with china and even european allies. i discuss all of this with foreign policy expert kori schake who worked on national security in the bush white house. plus -- ♪ >> rock icon lenny kravitz tells us how his new album came to him

in a dream. ♪ ♪ a proud sponsor of "amanpour & company." b. tollman is synonymous with style. so when she acquired uniworld, a boetd eek river cruise line inspired by her ashford castle, she brought a similar style to the rivers with the destination inspired design for each ship. bookings available through your travel adviser. for more information visit uniworld.com. additional support has been provided by roslyn p. walter, bernard and irene swartz, sue and edgar walkenheim iii, the sheryl and philip mills team family, seton melvin, judy and josh weston and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers

like you. thank you. >> welcome to the program and i'm christiane amanpour in london. the president refused to back down on his budget of $5 billion for a border wall with mexico and the government remains in partial shut down. the impasse has a dramatic impact on about 800,000 federal employees who are out of work or working without pay. tens of thousands more federal contractors are also out of work. the fall yoult -- the fallout for the country is immense and many national parks and museums are closed and the ones that are open lack basic services such as waste disposal. the agency that processes loans for small businesses isn't working either. home buyers seeking federal mortgage approval could have to wait and scientific research is disrupted by a lack of access to data and government support. and that is just a small sampling. president trump is warning that

he could just declare a national emergency and take money from the military for his wall. could that really happen? and has the president, in fact, walled himself in? here to discuss is david urban, trump campaign strategist in 2016 and now a corporate lobbyist in washington but also a member of the trump 2020 advisory board. david urban, welcome to the program. welcome back to our program. >> thanks for having me, christiane. and happy new year. >> happy new year. let's talk about this new year. i don't know whether you are think it is starting auspiciously or not, would you support as the president warns a continued situation whereby it could be months or even years he's said where the government could remain in this state of partial shutdown. >> i don't think it is to anybody's benefit to have the government shutdown for an extended period of time. that being said, this president is come to the table with an offer to compromise saying here is what i would like.

i would like the $5 billion for security along our southern border and he hasn't heard back from the democrats as to what they would propose. so you have kind of one hand clapping in this situation and you need two parties to negotiate a resolution and the democrats haven't come forward yet with any proposals so it is going to be quite sometime i think until the government reopens. >> well before i get to the democratic counter proposals because there have been some. we heard senator chuck schumer, but the question we raised and what president trump is saying. we hear he's going to the border this week. could he just declare a state of national emergency and remove money from one agency to fund another one? take it from the military to fund his wall? >> well, this president likes to push the limits of presidential executive power. i suppose he could do that. woe be challenging the courts i believe. also the president just can't simply reallocate funding

without some congressional authorization. he can do it to a certain limit but there are limits as to how much money he can reallocate and move around. but the president can issue an executive order. you've seen it done in the past. and do that and declare it a national emergency and do it. but i imagine it would be challenged in the courts quite quickly so i think that is the last step. and's point out, he's going to the border on thursday so i don't think you'll see any resolution before that visit. >> well what do you think, then, he will do at the border? how will he use that visit to the border? what is the point? >> well, christiane, i think the president will reiterate his -- that you saw his acting budget director sent a letter to democrats laying out and outlining the things that the administration would like to see done. there is a humanitarian crisis on the southern border and emanating from the countries of el salvador, honduras and nicaragua in the northern

triangle below mexico. the president administration would like to see $800 million for beds and processing the refugees coming in. there is a -- a comprehensive letter sent to democrats. i i think the president will use that highlight his proposals. >> so that is interesting. because that would show a humanitarian side of a administration widely considered internationally to be harsh at that border. but i do want to question you more about this issue of the democrats. so chuck schumer, senator minority leader, has detailed the quite detailed compromise that he and others, leaders in the house now, have apparently proposed to the president. this is before christmas. in the early days. where they had a proposal to open most of the government and let most of the government carry on with the work of the american people while still, you know, continuing to negotiate over this one demand of the

president. the president didn't accept the -- the congress didn't accept it. why not? if you really want to get government working. >> sure. because i think you give out the -- the president viewed as giving up all of his leverage if he agreed to that proposal. giving up every bit of leverage. christiane, the u.s. budget as you know is trillions of dollars. trillions. and the president is asking for $5 billion which is a relatively small amount to secure the southern border. he vies -- he views it as one of the most important jobs as keeping america safe and keeping our border secure. this president has statsed on the campaign trail and over and over again, he feels a strong need for a secure border on the southern border. it is a centerpiece of his administration. i think it is political. that is part of the reason why the democrats don't want to agree. and i think this president didn't want to take it off the table by simply conceding the rest of the spending bill and saying, look, we'll negotiate on this small part of dhs. i don't think that is -- he would withdrawal all leverage over any other negotiating.

>> so that is why i'm pleased that we have you on tonight. because you just said it is political and you obviously inferred it is political for the democrats. but surely it is political for the president as well. >> absolutely. >> i talked to -- about chuck schumer and he was talking as the new york times reported and i'll read you exactly why this border wall has become so important. as mr. trump began exploring a presidential run in 2014, his political advisers landed on the idea of a border wall as a device of sorts, a way to make sure their candidate who hated reading from a script but loved boasting about himself and talents as a builder would remember to talk about getting tough on immigration which was to be a signature issue in his nascent campaign. i see you smiling there. you were a campaign adviser. did you box him in in. >> no, listen, i don't think he's boxed in any way, shape or form. think the president is willing to -- to give. he said, look, we talk about a

wall. the president recognizes and has stated that he realizes there won't be a physical barrier built across the entire southern border. it is impossible in some places. and i think the minority leader senator schumer forgets that he voted in 2006, along with a majority with vice president -- then senator biden, senator obama, senator clinton, they all voted for a very, very robust structure, a wall along the southern border and in the bush administration. it passed the senate by 80 votes. i think only 19 members of the senate didn't vote for a wall in 2006. and so suddenly it become an an an an thelma to build a border. it smacks and screams of po politics on the democratic side as well. >> so we're talking ten plus, 12 years since that first vote that you're talking about. times have changed. >> absolutely. >> things have changed. >> they have gotten worse. >> no. facts have changed.

in fact, a huge number of people are being deported back across that border under the obama administration. but let me ask you this, because the facts really do matter. again, senator schumer, but i'll bring up other facts in a moment, talks about the reality, the factual reality of what -- is -- what are the security -- far more effective ways to deal with the border. here is what he said earlier today. >> it is ineffective. just about every expert you seek to says that there is far more effective ways to deal with the border. second it is expensive. the president is asking for $5.7 billion and that is for a small piece of the wall. estimates are it could go up to as much as $70 billion. okay. and of course that $70 billion is not being paid for by mexico. >> so firstly, what is your response to that? >> to which piece? >> well both. there are other ways to deal with it that is really expensive. >> absolutely.

i agree. >> and the president said the mexicans will pay for it simply is not going to happen. >> it is expensive. but you when -- when you look at it, we're talking about securing our nation and our border and if you look at what is being spent in syria and afghanistan abroad to secure our border, it pails in comparison to those places. i think the president views it through that lens as well. he sees what is being spent abroad and foreign aid was being spent domestically and it is a small drop. i do agree with schumer, there are more effective ways than a wall in certain places in the southern border. absolutely. there are radar and drones and tule ways to enforce the border. but in fact, the wall works very effectively in certain portions along the southern border and for him to ignore that is just factually incorrect. >> so again this administration talks about drugs and terrorists and all of the rest of it which

frankly don't bear up to the facts and to fact-checking. here is what the president's own favorite news channel, fox news, talked to sarah sanders, white house spokesperson, this is chris wallace talking about her claim that terrorists are coming over the mexican border. >> we know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally. and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry -- >> wait, wait. if i know the statistics and i didn't know if you would use it. but i studied up on this. do you know where the 4,000 people are captured? airports. >> not always. >> the airport. the state department said there hasn't been any terrorists coming across the southern border. >> it is by air and it is by land and by sea. it is all of the above. and you are for getting the most vulnerable entry into this country is our southern border and we have to protect it. >> you know, the thing is we have to get honest about this

and sarah sanders was not correct and chris wallace picked her up on it. what would you advise now? let's face it, everybody is at an impasse and they are playing games and facts with the facts and something has to happen, because as you say, this government can't stay shut down for months or years. >> no, it can't. but that presupposed the democrats want to get a deal. i don't know what democrats-you heard nancy pelosi will give $1 for a border wall. well you have somebody saying that when majority leader saying that, you're not going to get a deal done. that is not a realistic proposal. i don't hear her coming forth -- when she is sending aides to negotiate with the vice president and the chief of staff as opposed to sending the principals to negotiate that shows me that democrats are not serious about getting a resolution. >> so let me then drill down on this. they seem not to be serious and one reason not to be serious

about the wall because they don't believe the administration's facts. for instance president trump said the drugs are pouring into this country and they don't go through ports of entry. on the facts he's wrong. because according to the dea the most drugs that come into america go through legitimate ports of entry. that is what the u.s. dea said. he said the new trade deal with mexico and canada will just pay for the wall many times over. no, it won't. the fact is mexico is not paying for the wall. no trade agreement would cover those costs. but here is the thing, in december the senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to fund the government through february and from what we could tell and it is out there -- and just go back and look at the sound bites, it was then when the -- i don't know what you want to call them, the fringe of the republican party, the rush limbaugh and ann coulter and

officials screams again at the president and he runs away from it. is it official that these people should govern or should the president and congress govern. >> i think the president and congress should obviously govern and i don't know that is in fact the case. i was not in those meetings with the senate where they agreed to and i don't know what senator mcconnell and the president and then chief of staff kelly, the discussions they had as to, you know, compromise and reaching that agreement when they did. i don't know if it was -- if the president had shaken hands with senator mcconnell and said, okay, you pass this i'll sign it. i'm not sure what the conversations were. but getting back to the broader point, irrespective of the claims of how many people are captured where or what drugs get where, there is a basic underpinning this entire debate as to whether a nation has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, a nation without a secure border is not a nation. and this president views it very

seriously. he takes that charge very seriously and believes there should be a more secure border on the southern border. and that is not just this president. go back to president obama, president bush and president clinton. every one of the presidents have had to deal with this issue and this president just has it higher on his agenda items. >> look, mr. urban, you are absolutely right. everyone nation has the right to secure is boards, the argument is what the president wants is effective or just a political slogan that has no chance of being enacted and brings the government to a complete and utter shutdown. >> christiane, you saw this week in the white house a large gathering of customs and border patrol, agents that patrol the border, that said we work this border and we drive along here and we work here, and we tell you that a physical structure does work. and so when you hear from the

folks who are on the ground, firsthand, the people who are the tip of the spear enforcing this, and they say it works, i have to believe it works. >> well, i mean, ironically some of the shutdowns affects those people's work. >> absolutely. they'll get paid. they will get paid. it is unfortunate they are not get paid and it is unfortunate our government doesn't work. and i don't forget. these are employees of the people. the people send them to washington to do their jobs and i would implore both sides and the house and the senate and the administration to all roll up their sleeves and try harder. i don't see the democrats coming forward and trying hard. >> and of course just to point out that you could get all sorts of agents and agents in the past have said that a wall is not the best defense. but let's move past that for a moment. >> sure. >> and talk about leadership. the president and leadership going forward. many, many of his cabinet positions are unfilled, if i'm

not mistaken in the first cabinet meeting of this year, a third of the cabinet posts were filled by officials not cabinet appointees. i don't know whether you consider that an issue going forward? >> look, the cabinet -- the agencies are running and working. most notably you are probably talking about the secretary of defense decided to resign and withdraw after the president decided that he was not going to -- to continue to stay in syria. very somewhat controversial decision but not. the president seemed to unite both sides here, the left and the right in terms of having an honest and open debate about open-ended u.s. involvement globally and so secretary mattis decided it was no longer time -- he could no longer do his job and so he stepped down. but these agencies have very, very capable acting heads and i don't think it really impacts the administration or this government one bit by having an

acting in there versus someone senate confirmed. and christiane, i'll point out, that is a problem due to the minority leader senator schumer requiring -- and this is inside baseball, but requiring the full 30 hours to be burned on each nominee. no matter how insignificant or unconsequential, senator schumer required the full debate of everybody to be put forward and that created a backlog of 300 executives on the calendar and the senate to be confirmed. it is not fair. if your going to point fingers, senator schumer should be the top of the list. >> so we have a backlog and a shutdown and back pay that is due. do you things seem to be getting stuck. not good. and let me ask you one thing since you brought up secretary mattis. obviously it was over syria. that is the ostensible reason for the departure and resignation and there was a bipartisan backlash and global backlash against the president's move.

and now you see the president sort of retracting a little bit and sending his chief national security and diplomats around the world, secretary pompeo and national security adviser bolton are in the middle east trying to patch things up and saying we're not moving from syria until isis is done and until the kurds are safe, our partners on the ground. what would you say to the president on that? >> listen, i think the president had been asking -- i don't have any direct information on this. so i think the president had been asking his military leaders for options to withdraw from syria for quite sometime. i think that he thought it was a fight we should not be in. nothing was getting advanced. we've been on the ground there announced we would withdraw and didn't put a time frame. i know he said originally it was shorter than is anticipated now

but you see secretary pompeo on the road as you noted and ambassador bolton traveling to turkey to make sure that nothing happens to our allies, our kurdish allies in the region. and i think the president is fine with that. you saw he tweets-- he tweeted this afternoon he was on board with that and making sure things are done deliberately but make no mistake, the president does not want to be in syria and the president -- [ inaudible ] what are long-term open-ended objectives are in afghanistan. the graveyard of empires as you well know. >> david urban, thank you very much for being with us. and in fact, we ended with you on a subject that we're going to dig down further with our next guest. so with the government not fully functioning, what impact does that have on president trump's foreign policy of 2019. traditionally the president as hey freer hand with fewer congressional checks. national security adviser john bolton and secretary of state mike pompeo are criss-crossing

the world trying to -- the shock announcement from syria. and the administration, as we've been discussing is drawing back after a fierce backlash. joining me now is kori schake, a national security aide in the george w. bush administration and she has also -- is also the director security general of the iis, international institute for strategic studies and with that and trade war all of the things looming. you heard what presidential adviser david urban said about the syria issue and he did talk about what trump said then and what he said now. we just want to play that little bit of sound of president trump explaining his move in december and now what he's going to do about syria and then we'll drill down on that. >> our boys, our young women, our men, they are all coming back. and they're coming back now. >> we are pulling back in syria. we're going to be removing our

troops. i never said we're doing it that quickly. >> so kori schake, what do you make of that? what has just happened in -- with president trump and his own people at home plus his allies abroad. >> well the first thing is that the president is clearly trying to reverse himself and denying that he said things he said on the record. and over which secretary mattis resigned. and it looks like secretary pompeo going to the region and the national security adviser are hearing from allies what all of the rest of us heard from the allies, which is that isis isn't defeated. with the united states withdrawals we'll leave our forces in the region, our allies in the region and other -- 74 other countries are part of the anti-coalition -- anti-isis coalition. all of them are left in the lurch by this and the president underestimates how damaging this is to american policies and not

just in the middle east, for the united states to be unreliable like this. >> so we're talking essentially about presidential leadership as this new year starts. we just heard about leadership at home and now global leadership. one of the criticisms is that he's distanced allies and accommodated adversaries and competitors and seemed to, as you just said, be an if unreliable friend. no other words not necessarily want american global leadership. >> yeah. >> what do you think -- clearly he got the message and he under advisement is not going to do the shock thing in syria immediately. that is a good thing, right? a debate and statement and backlash and there was back and forth and he's now reversed himself on the move right now. >> you're absolutely right. it is a better policy that he appears to be adopting. but that policy was also available to him a month ago and he would have still had a

competent defense sekts -- secretary and still had american allies fighting in the region who believed they could rely on us and that is the opportunity cost of the president choosing to make policy in such an erratic way. >> so before i get to secretary mattis, because you wrote a book with him and you edited a book with him and you are quite close to his thinking and you know quite a lot about him. but before i get to that, because he was considered by certainly allies all over the world as somebody with the experience and the heft they could rely on to continue traditional american foreign policy. let's get to that in a moment. i want to ask you what you think beyond isis would have happened if president trump had left the -- the field open to russia, to iran, to assad and he even said at this same presser iran can have it. we don't care. it is just a bunch of sand and death. >> yeah, so several things.

first, i think you should anticipate that turkey will move against the kurdish forces. certainly in syria, possibly even in northern iraq. because the weakening of the government of iraq is another consequence of president trump's policy. i think you should expect russia to have a long-term military presence in syria because after all, bashar al assad would not still be in power if russia hadn't moved in military to protect him. i think you should expect iran and russia to be elbowing each other for -- for the glory that comes with that. the iranians did the hardest, most dangerous work on the ground. they are now even in southern syria, something the israelis are having to deal with. that, too, is a consequence of us -- president trump saying that the iranians could go whatever they want. and it destroys our policy towards iran which seems to be their -- their top priority in the middle east. focusing everybody on iran.

>> i have to tell you, i have been trying to figure that bit of it out. because the whole rational for getting out of the iran nuclear deal was to gather a coalition and precisely to affect iran's behavior in places like syria, the iran negative behavior in syria. and now the president is saying, well, they wanted -- they want it more than us, they could have it. >> if you are an american regional ally or iraq or saudi arabia or the uae, the united states has not only destroyed their policy, they've destroyed their policy and the president did it sequentially, encouraging the saudis and the uae to end the feud with qatar and not taking account of how russia would play this, how turkey was going to play this. i think the problem with your analysis is you assume there is a guiding logic to it instead of just a bunch of sloppy erratic and undisciplined choices where they are not thinking their way

through the consequences of it. nearly as well as you are thinking your way through the consequences of it. >> so let's talk about the real -- well one of the real issues and that is to end isis dominance. now the president and others say it is all but defeated. but some people -- a pentagon report and others -- have said that is not the case. they are still pretty strong in iraq despite being turfed out of mosul, they still exist in syria and still tens of thousands of them around. what are the facts about isis and about them potentially coming back to the west? >> so the president is right that isis no longer holds major swaths of territory in the way it did. but he wrongly believes that defeated means never coming back. and we've seen this movie so many times before. we saw it in iraq after the 2003 invasion. where it you don't stabilize communities, if you don't ensure that governance is working and

people have the ability to support themselves, that leaves fertile ground for the rise of jihadist organizations. it did in iraq and in syria. it is in other places. stable governance is the solution to this problem. >> fine. but what happens when all of the united states and its allies is doing -- are doing is war and not really promoting stable governance and the president presumably has a point that we can't have these never-ending wars. it is just gone on for so long. 17 years and counting in afghanistan and in fact he kind of blamed secretary mattis a little bit saying well he didn't -- i gave him billions of dollars when he asked me to stay in afghanistan. i wanted to pull out. and look, we're still in a major problem here. what should the united states be doing to actually get rid of the military in the insurgent threat and pave the way for stable governance. >> if anyone has a better strategy than the patient nation-building strategy in afghanistan, i would love to hear it. i would love to adopt it.

but the strategy that we have taken is with governance at the center, to train the forces and grow the political leadership of countries so that they can carry on these problems. >> do you believe that 14,000 u.s. troops are going to be pulled out, there was some suggestion that the president had alluded to that. is the community of foreign policy experts and military experts expecting that to be the next shoe that drops? >> so the challenge is, is afghanistan making enough progress for us to continue to keep those troops there. and that is exactly the right question. should the united states still be fighting in afghanistan. and i think the answer to the question is it depends on whether afghanistan is making the progress in recruiting, training and governance and afghanistan is -- it is s and uneven. it is unpleasant.

but afghans are still signing up for their own security forces even though they are the targets of the taliban and other jihadist forces. they deserve our help to try and get to a better place. because the alternative is an american strategy where we swoop in, kill bad guys and then leave the place for bad things to happen and that is how your intelligent sources dry up and the good will that your forces are operating under dry up. that is how belief that the united states has a better solution to problems than people just accepting the bad forces in their midst. that is what we know about fighting these problems. >> so let's just get back to secretary of state mattis, who was the commanding general. in his time he was a force commander and a major military strategist on the ground. you've written that his resignation letter was perhaps one of his biggest contributions to democracy and strategy in the

two years that he was secretary of stats. what do you mean by that? what specifically? >> so secretary mattis in his res egg nation letter did two important things. first, he made the case for an ally -- an allied centric policy and by helping our allies we help ourselves. that is the strategy since 1945 and president trump is the first big departure from it. and the first thing secretary of defense mattis did is reinforce that the american policy that has allies at its -- center isn't some nefarious deep state to contain the president. there is a reason it is the establishment view because there is not a better alternative. as unsatisfactorying it may be. but the second important thing secretary mattis did is point out that the president deserves to have a cabinet that supports

his policies and work to carry them out. and that it is wrong for major political appointees to work in opposition to the president's and that is an important part of american governance. >> but you found fault with a guy you admire. he said his silence over the years, his public silence over the years as secretary, he didn't give many interviews, hardly any. he didn't want to be seen as conducting the commander-in-chief in public. you said that he missed an opportunity to be both secretary of defense and sort of guardian certainly for the troops and for those who fall under his purview. >> absolutely right. that the president's not making the case for the wars, the vice president occasionally makes the case for the wars. it really matters 45 years into an all volunteer force and 19 years into the war that we're fighting in afghanistan for the country's leadership to explain to the american people and to

validate for the people we're putting in harm's way what it is we are doing. and the president's not willing to do that and i think secretary mattis for understandable reasons didn't do it. but it is bad for the war effort that he didn't do it. >> so let's get beyond the war effort. if we can, because it is quite troubling that america has been locked into these wars for so long and there seems to be no real sort of discussion, certainly not publicly, about how to make them work. how to bring the american people on board if necessary. but certainly nation building does not happen. and that is a problem, basically. >> absolutely. >> let me ask you this. what do you see as this year in terms of, let's say the saudi/gulf strategy. the president went there. his first trip as president, january 2017 or early 2017 he went to saudi arabia and israel and they concocted a plan to contain iran and et cetera. where does that all stand? how do you see that piece of the

middle east going forward now? >> i think that is in tatters both because of the president's erratic behavior, but also because of the behavior of saudi arabia and the uae, that it is -- the [ inaudible ] dialogue in the fall, the saudi foreign minister said saudi arabia has a vision of light for the region and iran has a vision of darkness and it is very hard for the ruest of us to see the difference given the saudi behavior. and i think it is in tatters and secretary pompeo is traveling to the region to try and figure out where we can go together from here. but it is very hard that america's traditional allies in the region are unnerved and america's new friends of the region are unnerved. the only people who aren't are america's actual adversaries. >> russia, who else? >> russia and china. >> let's talk about china. as we speak there were talks underway in beijing to try to

head off the worst effects of the trade war that could affect the whole global economy. what do you see and where do you see strategically that confrontation over tariffs and the rest of it going? >> yeah, i -- i don't see that there is much cooperation on that. the "wall street journal" came out editorially saying the biggest goal of the trump administration and ever was the u.s. withdrawing from the trans-pacific trade partnership. >> one of the first things the president did. >> exactly. not only because of the damage it does to american markets in japan and other places, but also because this was our opportunity to consolidate the ability to contain china's behavior that is trying to upset the rules of the game in asia, that we have lots of friends and allies but the polling now suggests that while countries in asia don't want chinese dominance, they also don't trust american reliability and that is something that

president trump's behavior in office has created. >> and that is new when it comes to america. one last question. you also wrote that president trump's announcement of pulling out of syria was also a known goal. [ inaudible ] the obama administration hadn't done. he had a better policy in syria than the obama administration. >> yeah. he actually did. and by -- with the national defense strategy, the national security strategy and the national defense strategy, both said we need to refocus on rising powers and great power competition so you could withdraw from syria, drawing down gently in a way that supported our allies and created stability in the region. he chose not to. and that really invalidated his own strategy. >> this is a really dangerous reason -- region as we've seen over the many years. it is really important to keep an eye on it. kori schake, thank you so much for joining us.

>> it's a great pleasure. >> thank you. and now we turn to a globe trotting superstar. lenny kravitz has rocking out for decades and releasing albums and starring in movies like the hunger games and now he's putk out his 11th studio album called "raise vibration" and he spoke about how he slept his way through the latest album and how growing up with his russian-jewish father and african-american mother shaped who he has become. >> "raise vibration", new album. tell me about it. >> very inspired. >> by what? >> by life. before i started the album i had to think who am i at this point. there are so many versions of yourself over the years. it has been 30 years now. and you can be a little confused as to what do i want to say and where do i want to go, what am i feeling. so the first thing you have to do is stop.

so i went to the bahamas where i live and i got really quiet. and after several weeks, because you're in this environment, nature, quiet, so few people, you begin to come down, and decompress, and then the dreams began and all of these songs on the album were given to me in the dream. so they were direct downloads and that happens to me. >> from your own conscienceness. >> yes. but i've never dreamt an entire album. maybe two or three songs on a album and the rest come out of the air. but these were actually in dreams wake up between the hours of 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. >> so do you hear in your brain complete pieces of music? >> absolutely. >> so you're just trying to, what, get it out and say write this down. >> you're asleep, in your dream.

>> yeah. >> you hear it. and then you have to make yourself wake up because you're in bed and it is comfortable. and you're hearing it and you think maybe, oh, i'll remember it in the guitar in the room. and begin to transcribe what it is that i'm hearing in my head on to the recording and then i go into the studio and i have that framework to work from. >> so does the music come first? do the lyrics come -- >> it depends. sometimes i hear the whole thing. for instance on a song like "here to love", that is a direct download. the words and music all came. >> so you got up out of bed and pressed record and that just happened? >> yeah. it is beautiful because you are

not -- [ inaudible ] is not involved and that is when is move beautiful. where did this come from? i didn't do this. i was given this. and that is when it is beautiful and pure. >> when you work with other musicians do you find a similar process, that people are somehow getting it from somewhere beyond themselves? >> when i produced mick jagger and we were writing together and i was watching him come up with the lyrics and it was the same way that i do it when it is not in a dream, when i'm not being given the lyric, the total lyric. but you start with this sort of scatting of words that aren't words. sounds. and i watched him do it and i said oh, that is how i do it. you know, you just kind of start to get strings and when you listen back to it, even though you haven't said one real word, it is like oh -- [ inaudible ].

you listen back and you hear all of the lyrics. and i watched him do it and it was the same thing we wrote the song together and it is very interesting -- i'm sure a lot of people do it that way. >> for nonmusicians, this seems like a totally foreign idea and process. but it is really fascinating to hear that somehow your brains are able to process -- >> it is. you just hear it and you create it from this mumble jumble thing which then turns into real thoughts and feelings from your sub conscious. it is interesting. it is like your subconscious speaking. >> without words getting in the way. >> most people when they talk about speaking in tongues in churches, you're speaking a language that doesn't exist but god could understand it, so it is interesting where your subconscious is speaking this language and then you understand it. >> you also play a lot of the instruments when -- in your own

recording studio. >> it depends on the track. sometimes i play all of the instruments. >> so is that all in your head and trying to sit there and go backwards and this is what the drums -- >> i hear it all. i'm able to run from one strumts to its next. and i start on the drums and then the guitar and bass and more guitar and whatever keyboard and i might do pre -- percussion. ♪ ♪ >> there is a track "it's enough" that has for me any way a marvin gaye, curtis mayfield sort of vibe. >> it comes from that school. >> and what were you thinking? what was the story behind it? was this a direct download. >> again, it was a -- a download. but that song for me is a very easy song to write because it is a pleer -- a mirror to what is happening in this world. ♪ ♪

♪ >> it's much more political. >> absolutely. >> more political on this album. >> absolutely. it is hard not to reflect what is going on. we're living in really trying times. very interesting times. and it just boggles my mind that human beings are going into this direction. that we are completely destroying ourselves and so much of it is based on greed and power and business and control. but we're at a cross roads and we're either going to take the road to destruction and then maybe we'll learn or take the road to turning this around and putting all of our energy into trying to fix these problems. >> another track on there, you have a lyric "hug me like jonny cash", what does that mean. >> going back 21 years now, my mother was fighting breast

cancer. and she lost the battle. but when i got the news, i had just came home from a tour of japan and went straight to the hospital. she was already at the stage where they had her on morphine and she was in and out of consciousness. and after being there all of the day, we all decided, people in the family, let's all go to wherever we're staying and get some food and take a shower and come back and spend the night there. and at that time i was living with vick ruben, producer. he gave me a section of his house to live in for several years. and in the time it took me to get from the hopts to rick's house my mother passed. and so when i got to the house, i got the phone call. and johnny cash and june carter were living in that same house at the same time as well because johnny was there making an

album, that acoustic record that he made, that legendary record. and when i got the news, i was at the bottom of the stairs getting ready to go up stairs to my room and i -- i had no idea she would pass that quickly. and i was shocked and obviously dealing with the finality of that and johnny and june were coming down the stairs. johnny said, hey, how are you doing and just saw me walk in and i said my mother just died. and i was just standing there against the wall. couldn't really move. and the two of them came down the stairs and surrounded me and they both grabbed me and held me really tightly and were saying things that were really beautiful and they were comforting me. and it was a really beautiful moment because we knew each other but we weren't close friends. we would share the same home and pass each other in the hallways but we didn't know each other

like that and they took that moment to just be really beautiful people. so the song is not about that. but what it is about is a breakup that i had just gone through. and i was singing to this person, i was saying, hold me like johnny cash when i lost my mother, whisper in my ear just like june karts -- carter. and though i fight the tears that i hide, just hold me tight for the rest of my life. the last time i was comforted in such a deep way was the day my mother died when johnny cash held me and i was singing this to this person saying i need your comfort so hold me like johnny cash. it was very interesting way to get to that message. ♪ just hold me like johnny cash ♪ but when i lost my mother

♪ and whispered in my ear ♪ just like june carter >> when did you know this was your calling and get the downloads? are these different points? when did you know your music would be the thing that you wanted to do? >> when i was about five years old, i was list eveni -- i was listening to the jackson five on the motown singles and abc and all of the great 45s that my mom and my grandmother bought me and i was obsessed with the group. not only the music, but their whole look and their way of performing and then my father took me to madison square garden when i was in first grade. so i would have been six, i suppose. >> that is your first concert. >> my first concert, jackson five at madison square garden with the como dors opening and i saw this show and my life

changed the next everything was different. i knew that is what i wanted to do. >> now your dad was around a lot of famous musicians? >> yeah. my father worked at nbc news. my parents met at 30 rock. my mother was a secretary for an executive there and she was moonlighting in the evening. she was doing theater. and then eventually she did theater full time and then moved on to television. my father was a producer and a signment editor and he worked with people like peter arnette and all of the journal ifrts and very interested in very interested in jazz music. so we were always around jazz musicians and going to see everybody. i remember my fifth birthday going back a year, we went to see duke ellington at the rainbow room and showed up for sound check and duke sat me on his lap while he played piano and being around people like

miles davis and sarah vaughn and mile hampton and going to the certainty and the opera and ballet and shakespeare in the park and the apollo theater and seeing james brown and new york at that time was so vibe rant -- so vibe rant with live music. >> your father is black and your father is jewish. she goes on to play one of the first interracial couples. did you realize what a big deal that was? you see this -- >> because my father was whiets. so it is very interesting that norman lear chose her. i just saw norman lear recently and i hntd seen him since i was a teenager and i walked up to him and thanked him because him choosing my mother changed our lives. i would not be sitting here with you, i don't think, if that hadn't happened and i hadn't gone to los angeles. because i learned so much and my life changed so much and

musically i ended up doing a lot of things out there musically. but back to that question, it was interesting that he chose this woman, that he had no idea that my mother was married to a white man. and so he had her come out to los angeles to audition and he decided that he wanted her to play the role. and he said, listen, i just want to talk with you before i hire you. i just really want to make sure you are comfortable because you'll have to be with this man and play his wife and kiss him and hug imand -- and hug him and my mom pulled out a purse and picture of my dad and showed it to him and he said, okay, you have the part. >> you know who made those things up, don't you? rich people. to keep poor people happy about being poor. [ laughter ] >> i got plenty of nothing and nothing for me. >> music critics have had a tough time figuring out and they've put you into boxes when they've tried to put new boxes and the music is not black

enough or white enough or rock enough. [ inaudible ] where you came from and also that your music goes all sorts of places? >> which is what it is all about to me. i love music. there is no color to music. i love music. and i incorporate all styles. but in the selling of music, people want to have a place to put it. where are we going to market you? you're black and supposed to fit into the r&b category or at that time hip-hop, early hip-hop. >> and here you are with a guitar. >> and i didn't and came in with this guitar and into music that leaned more on the rock and roll side which of course rock and roll is black music. but somehow wasn't considered that at that time. but my record label that i signed with virgin records was very honest with me and they said they believed in the music, they weren't sure exactly how they were going to market it. thus they sent me to europe first.

where they thought there was less of this putting folks in a box. >> that is where you became more successful. >> that is where i started. i went to paris and london and amsterdam and i went to hamburg. and that is where it started. yeah. and they accepted me as i was and then i came back to america, later, toward the end of the album and did a whole tour and tom petty took me on tour, bob dylan took me on tour, david bowie took me on tour, the rolling stones and then i started doing my own gigs. >> there is also a through line of spirituality in your music and don't think most people recognize that and i'm wondering when did that start and how did that start for you and how would you consider yourself in you have a christian and a jewish person in your household. how did your parents? >> i grew up going to church and

going to temple. i was not forced to go any certain direction. my grandmother was a devout christian and i had all of that. and i had my own experiences with the teachings of christ and it was all beautiful and it was -- it is all still part of me. and the same thing with color. i mean, my mother at a very young age sat me down and said, list an, i'm black. this is our history. the bahamas and african-american. your father is a russian jew. you are no more one than the other. you have both sides. be proud of both sides. embrace both sides. but she said, society is only going to see you as black. that ments that people were not going to see the diversity and going to accept all of this beauty within you. your skin is brown, that is what you are.

>> and could you see part two of harry's interview with rock star lenny kravitz tomorrow. but finally tonight other star shines bright. congratulations to the actress glenn close on her gong at the golden globes, accepting the award for best actress in a drama for the performance in "the wife" and said women are expected to be nurtdurers but must be allowed to follow their dreams and discover what fulfills them. i interviewed glenn dloclose an you could watch it online at amanpour.com. that is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour & company" on pbs and join us again tomorrow night. >> uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & company." b. tollman is synonymous with style.

so when she acquired uniworld, a boutique river cruise line inspired by her ashford castle, she brought a similar style to the rivers with a destination inspired design for each ship. bookings available through your travel adviser. for more information visit uniworld.com. additional support has been provided by roslyn p. walter, bernard and irene swartz, sue and edgar walkenheim iii, the sheryl and philip mills team, seton melvin, judy and josh weston and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> announcer: this is "nightly business report" with bill griffeth and sue herera. win streak. stocks notch their longest string of gains since november, as investors start to brush off bad news. lifeline. sears isn't dead yet. the judge gives the company's largest shareholder one more chance to save the storied retailer. skyrocketing costs. it's no secret that drug prices are on the rise. but why is it so hard to lower them? those stories and more tonight on "nightly business report" for tuesday, january 8. and we do bid you a good evening, everybody, and welcome. three straight days of gains. given the way the stock market has been behaving