♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to amanpour & company. here's what's coming up. >> it's beautiful. >> extraordinary times, the fbi once investigated trump as a possible russian agent. and, is he really going to bomb iran? we digest these latest headlines as the longest government shutdown in u.s. history continues. i'm joined by the former chair of the house intelligence committee, republican mike rogers. then -- >> ladies and gentlemen, the enemy is committed to detonating a nuclear device in an american city, unless we act now. >> a political thriller on the silver screen. hollywood legend jamie lee curtis on her new movie "an

acceptable loss," plus, the entrepreneur, innovator, and disrupt for. an cor jane takes to our elisia menendez. uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." basically bea tolman is synonymous with style. when she acquired uni world, a boutique design, she brought a similar style to the rivers, with a destination inspired design for each ship. bookings available for you travel adviser. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter, bernard and irene schwartz, sue and edgar wachenheim iii, the cheryl and philip milstein

family, seton melvyn, judy and josh weston, family, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. welcome to the program, everyone, i'm christiane amanpour in london. now in week four, and no end in sight. some 800,000 federal employees continue to be affected by the government shutdown. many face financial hardship, and possibly even ruin, amid this political game of chicken, the latest headlines underscore the remarkable state of play in this white house. fbi officials reveal that when president trump fired director james comey of the fbi, the agency says it explored all options trying to figure out why trump seemed to be be-holden to russia. from investigating whether there was nothing out of line at all to whether he might have fired comey at moscow's behest. the president says he is insulted by the accusation.

>> i never worked for russia, and you know that answer better than anybody. i never worked for russia. not only did i never work for russia, i think it's a disgrace that you even ask that question because it's a whole big fat hoax. it's just a hoax. >> that, amid more bombshell reports, "the washington post" says that trump may have taken unprecedented and possibly illegal efforts to keep private the records of his conversation with vladimir putin, the president of russia, plus, "the wall street journal" says in a terrifying account of lurching into another middle east war. this past summer the white house reportedly asked the pentagon to draw up plans to attack iran. now, to discuss this whirlwind of government dysfunction, and new american foreign adventures overseas, mic rogers joins me. he's the former republican congressman. mike rogers, that is some setup,

welcome to the program. >> yeah, yeah exactly. i think i'm going to head straight to the bar after this. >> okay. well, i mean, i don't know, if your lifetime, has an american president ever, even been considered to have an investigation launched on whether he might possibly have been working at moscow's behest, by the fbi nonetheless? >> yeah, i can't find any time in history that would exactly parallel this because, remember, he was a sitting president. this was -- this decision was made in 2017. so this was after he was elected to president of the united states. and it surrounded, i think those conversations, according to all the press reports, happened when they were talking about the firing of comey. and so what's really -- in this, i believe, is what predicates, and predicates are really important. so i'm a former fbi agent. so when you open up a case, you would have to show the -- any prosecuting attorney that these

are the crimes i think that were committed. here's why i think that these crimes were committed. you don't have to have the answers to all of those questions, but you have to have enough to say, okay, let's investigate this. so the predications of which they used in this case is going to be fascinating to me, and i think all of this is going to -- will come out at some point. >> so you are, as you said, a former fbi agent. you've also been in congress and so you've had all sorts of access to classified information and the politics around all of that. so when you say predicates, do you mean some of this context in some of the facts like, you know, it's believed that russia interfered in the election to help trump. trump has said he believes president putin's denials of interfering. trump has almost had nothing but praise for president putin. michael flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about contacts with the russian ambassador. paul manafort, the campaign adviser, heavily in debt to the russian oligarch, alleged to

have shared private campaign data with someone close to russian intelligence. on and on and on. is that the kind of predicate you're talking about? >> well, they would be instances of kind of collaboration of a predicate. but the predicate must be, was the president committing some sort of possibility, really important here, the possibility of some sort of criminal activity? all of the things you listed, in and of themselves taken separately, are not criminal acts. but those could be context to say that we believe he may have been, you know, acting as a foreign agent or fill in the blank, whatever they decided that predicate. the predicate is actually the crime itself. all of the details of which you listed would be used in that as saying here's all the things that lead us to believe that there's something more going on here that we should understand, and, in fact, maybe, you know, criminal in nature. if it was just a counterintelligence investigation that would have a

less higher standard, meaning if it's going to be a criminal investigation, you have to show "x" amount of information. if it's a criminal, or a counterintelligence investigation you have to have a little bit of a less threshold. and all of the material you cited could be used in that lesser threshold to say we just need to understand, are the russians, in some way, trying to or manipulating with the president's knowledge decisions that he makes as president of the united states. >> so just for our viewers, and frankly for my sake can you explain the difference? you've explained the bars, how they're different. but what is the difference in this case between a counterintelligence investigation and a criminal investigation. >> so a criminal investigation is used specifically to say, hey, i'm going to put mike rogers in jail because i believe he's done these three crimes. he's robbed a bank. he's done wire fraud. he's, you know, embezzled money from a bank, whatever those charges are. and so the -- every piece of evidence goes to what would be a public disclosure in a court of

law to prosecute that person, if, in fact, they were found to be guilty of those charges. or at least enough that a prosecutor would prosecute those charges. in a counterintelligence investigation it's collection of intelligence. so we would want to know, there's lots of counterintelligence saying, you know, is person "x," who happens to work for whatever, the state department or department of defense, are they acting on the part -- as a part of an agent of a foreign government? are they passing information that is not -- is not intended to be in the hands of foreign governments? those kinds of things you could use to collect information, and then at the end of it you might say, oops, guess what? we found out that they are committing espionage, or they're -- the computer fraud and abuse act, they're causing information to be leaked, you know, that commits a crime here in the united states. so the intelligence piece means i'm just collecting information. i'm trying to figure out what this person is up to. or is the -- are the russians,

excuse me, trying to influence either the office of the president of the united states, or the president himself, you would collect that information, and then you would move into a criminal case at some point, with, again, the bar is higher, everything that you do would go through, you know, a third and fourth set of eyes to make sure that everything -- all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, not so much in a counterintelligence investigation. >> it's really complex, and there's a lot of words we have to use and caveats and all the rest. to be fair, the reports on this, you know, explosive headline, do say that the fbi agents, or officials in question, took a whole gamut, the whole range of possibility, either that the president was working at the behest of the russians. or, that there was nothing to it and he's totally innocent, and this whole thing is much ado about nothing. so those were the parameters. when you add to all of this the other reports that the president

didn't want anybody to see the notes, not even his closest advisers to see the interpreter's notes when he was alone with president putin, on several occasions, including in helsinki, for several hours, how unusual is that, first of all, and where, now, do you fall in -- was he working for the russians, to there was nothing to it, where do you fall on that spectrum? >> well, i don't know yet. i mean, certainly -- and i think this is part of the president's problem. he interjects himself into these discussions when he should not and it just leads to more questions about the whole narrative of was he or was he not knowingly working with the russians during the 2016 campaign, or after, in any way, shape or form? and so this is such a serious thing. i would like to see more evidence of that -- of that, which we haven't quite seen publicly. but all of these little instances, i mean, the fact that manafort went to spain to meet

with someone who is affiliated with russian intelligence and share information inside of the campaign with that individual, the fact that these -- roger stone, who was a campaign adviser also had conversations with wake pedia, and possibly the russians about what information they may have had and would there be any value in causing that information to be disclosed. all of these things, you know, general flynn, who is now, you know, pled guilty to a felony, and cooperating with the investigation, all of them just continue to build this question around what is your relationship with the russians? and here's the crazy thing about this, christiane, if you're in the real estate business in new york city, you are likely to run into russian businessmen who are in the real estate business in new york city. and so why are -- i don't understand the shroud of secrecy around all of that. i think the president should

have said, yes, i bump into these guys all the time in my business practices in new york city, and work that we would have done in moscow. the fact that dehadn't evhe did disclose this portion about moscow just, again, continues to feed the narrative, gosh, where there's smoke, there must be fire. and if there's not, why are you obfuscating the truth in what your relationship is here. to me, as a former fbi guy, chairman of the intelligence committee, and candidly a republican, it's a little frustrating for me. >> you had a very privileged and unique perch, and you could see all this stuff. one of your successors now, adam schiff, the chairman of the house intelligence committee has said that last year we sought to obtain the interpreter's notes or testimony from the private meeting when trump and putin. the republicans on our committee voted us down. will they join us now? shouldn't we find out whether our president is really putting america first? what do you think?

>> i mean, i think now, because of this clouded narrative about relationships and why the president made certain decisions in not having staff a part of these meetings, you know, taking the notes from the interpreter and saying that you can't talk to anybody about this, which, by the way is highly unusual. you want someone else in the room listening so that you can feed that information back into our intelligence services, department of defense, so that the policy positions that we make subsequent to these meetings are based on real conversations. and now, you know, we have to -- our intelligence services kind of have to guess about what happened in there or they use other intelligence means to find out what the russians are at least saying happened in these meetings. so, again, all of this is a bit troublesome. i do believe that the notes from the interpreter will eventually be made public. i don't know at this point how. now, there may have been some

classified questions, they may have had to redact some of that. but the context of those notes is going to come out. there really -- when you're the president of the united states it's pretty tough to hide these senior level conversations, head of state to head of state like this, from everybody. it's just darn near impossible. and so now with the house being in democrat control they're going to go after this in multiple ways, the foreign affairs committee now has a -- and oversight committee. i don't remember when they've ever had an oversight committee to try to get back says to this kind of information. i do believe it's going to come out. the administration would do themselves a favor in articulating what their policy is so the rest of the world, our allies would also understand where we're going and then find a way to start talking about what happened in these meetings and make it clear. if the president believes it's a hoax, then this is his opportunity, i think, to frame that right by providing the right information so people can make that decision.

>> let me ask you about these other policy headlines that have come out. as i quoted from "the wall street journal," we learned that john bolton, who became national security adviser back in april, wanted the pentagon to look into striking iran. there had been missile and other projectiles aimed at some sort of u.s. and other locations in iraq. they didn't cause any damage. didn't hurt or kill anybody. but it turned out that a group affiliated with iran, an iraqi group claimed responsibility. you know, what do you make of that? and the wall street journal does quite a lot of heavy lifting and digging talking about how others in the administration in the pentagon were surprised by the cavalier nature of just being asked to, you know, draw up attack plans for iran. >> yeah. two things on this. if they're asked to draw up the plans, to me that's one discussion. if they were -- if the national security adviser at the time said, hey, what are my options? that, to me, is a different

conversation and i would expect, in all cases, with all of our adversaries, that discussions of options happen, and you want, just like the fbi that went from nothing to see here to he's in the pocket of the russian intelligence services, they covered the whole gamut. you'd want those kinds of discussions internally for that. if, in fact, they were saying hey, we're hell bent on, you know, launching some attack into iran, you know, that's a wholly different conversation that would certainly raise concerns, certainly for me, about what their intentions were, and do they really understand the magnitude of what they're talking about doing? i'm not sure -- to me i read that story and i read it several times. i wasn't quite clear if it was, we want to do this, tell me how to do it, or it was give me options if we decide that this is something we would consider doing? again, i hope it was the first, and i hope that they, you know, it's okay to have that conversation. if it's the latter, boy, that to me is a big judgment problem in their national security team.

>> let me just play this sound bite. it's an interview that secretary pompeo did. it was a while back, actually, in september. about this issue. >> we will not let iran get away with using a proxy force to attack an american interest. iran will be held accountable for those incidences. >> even militarily? >> they're going to be held accountable. if they're responsible for the arming and training of these militias, we're going to go to the source. >> so, i mean, look, you are an iran hawk, you always were. but do you think, given the state of affairs, that striking iran now, having another war in the middle east, i mean, what do you think on that? is that even doable, possible, sensible, smart? >> it's none of those things, for sure. so one of the things we do worry about iran, and i think you and i have had these conversations, they do have proxy forces fighting across the middle east. hueth his a great example in

yemen. it was always subject to conversation about what you do and how you do it. there are other places, we see their activities in afghanistan and iraq, and syria. and so we -- baa rain, other places around the nation, certainly not in the interest of those nation states, activity on behalf of iran forces of some sort, other proxy forces around the middle east. we know that, i don't think that's a disputed fact. but having open conversations about striking into iran to me is -- that's not the most responsible course of action. there are other things that we can and should be doing to push back on iran, building international coalitions around what iran is doing and what together we can do to push back and keep them back in the box. that to me would be a very productive conversation. but this very cavalier -- the reason i worry about it is

because it's not consistent either. and so you have, you know, tough talk in one hand. and then they pull back on the other and you have the defense folks saying one thing to our allies, and our intelligence folks saying something that's close to that. and then the political appointee saying something very different. the president tweeting out policy on twitter, which is inconsistent with everything all of those folks have been telling our allies. that's the most concerning thing to me. i think they need to get back to a process. there's reason, you know, process can be frustrating, and believe me, i was as frustrated with some of the processes by both bush and obama in conversations we were having on international affairs. but they're there for a reason and this is the reason. you want to present a unified message, and you want all of the arms of the united states government, our intelligence services, our defense services, our diplomatic services aligned in its mission set so that we can be more impactful with less likelihood of having to use

violence or military interaction or intelligence operations to accomplish the goal. >> yeah. >> and so that part is confusing, and i think it's -- i know it's confusing to our allies. i talk to a lot of them. that piece they certainly need to get right. >> yeah, including on syria san the dispute with turkey. very muddled. the shutdown, we said it was in the fourth week, impacting 800,000 federal employees, coast guards, people being encouraged to have yard sales to make ends meet, hundreds of tsa agents, the people who guard and check at airports, other places not being paid, calling in sick, apparently we've learned a passenger who boarded a flight from atlanta to tokyo was carrying a gun, for heaven's sake, how concerned are you that this shutdown might have a very real impact on security? >> well, security, for sure. and i think economically we're starting to see this impact. and so we know that in the fbi

agent's association has been talking about how it impacts investigations from lab work and other processing issues they need to go forward on both criminal cases as well as counterintelligence cases. that's a problem. you look at the tsa, they're starting to have some problems. remember, these folks are like every other american and sometimes they live check to check, right? that's exactly where it is. now they don't have a check to go to and that's causing personal problems, which it's impossible when human nature not to take that into your workplace if you're being asked to show up and not get paid. all of that, to me, is a problem. the economics part is also starting to wear thin. i think this is where the president is going to lose republicans is it's starting to impact the economy at large. you can't take that much money out of the economy and its spending without having an impact. but also things like initial public offerings. they stopped processing those to

get them into market. all of those things are starting to add up. and, to me, it just shows a fundamental failure between both congress and the democrats have some blame here, and the president who has made the issue very small, you're either with me or against me, which is never a good way to go into any negotiation when you're dealing with a legislative body of multiple parties. it's created a significant problem where there doesn't appear to be a break to the impasse. that's what i worry about more than anything. and they're going to have to broaden this out. you have to bring more people into the solution so that people can say, hey, we've got the government back running. and, again, this is nowhere -- no way to run a railroad. i think a lot of americans who sent donald trump to the presidency believed, hey, shake that place up, break some china, we think some things are broken. the longer this goes they think, yeah, i want them to break some china, but i also want the lights to come on and i want the trains to run on time.

and that piece, i think, and you can see the loss in his numbers within a short period of time of support, really are starting to indicate, hey, americans don't think this is the right way to do it. i hope they both come together and get this solved soon. what message is it sending to our international partners all over the world? how dysfunctional the u.s. government and its ability to just function in normal process of business? i worry about all of them. >> yes, well, it is very worrying. thank you, again, you have a very unique perspective, fbi, chairman of the house intelligence committee. thank you so much, indeed, mike rogers, for being with us tonight. >> thanks for having me. so, ruthless politicians on capitol hill, and a white house with a highly controversial national security policy, just some of the theme lines in the new political thriller and acceptable loss, starring jamie lee curtis, she plays a political veteran involved in a controversial military strike

designed to end the war on terror, the latest role in a remarkable career for curtis. she is a queen of the screen who became queen of the scream after making her name in the horror movie "halloween" which redefined the entire genre, and made box office records when it was revived last year. in 1988 she starred in the lacerating comedy "a fish called wonder" with john cleese. and in this clip, kevin kline. >> don't call me stupid. >> oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. i've known sheep that could outwit you. i've worn dresses with higher iqs, you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape? >> apes don't read philosophy? >> yes, they do, auto, they just don't understand it. let me correct you on a couple things, aristotle was not belgian. the central message of buddhism

is not every man for himself. the london underground is not a political movement. those are all mistakes, otto, i looked them up. >> they make me laugh even now. away from the screen and in her personal life, jamie lee curtis has enjoyed a 34 year long marriage, but she also knows pain and destruction, having suffered a fierce opioid addiction. she's joining me now from los angeles, jamie lee curtis, welcome in to the program. >> wow, well, it's fun -- it's actually good to laugh after your last guest. >> well, yes, it is good to laugh. it is. baa, you know, i'm going to get to that in a second. it's almost like, you know, art is imitating life when you consider your film in terms of what we were just discussing. but you were laughing at those lines you delivered this 1988. they are still hilarious. do you miss that sort of comedy genre? >> sure, yes, of course i do. but i did a tv show two years ago for ryan murphy called scream queens which was a

comedy. so, you know, you try to mix it up a bit. but that one in particular was so beautifully written by john cleese. and it was just sort of a magic moment for all of us. and it still makes me laugh, which we need to do. >> we really do. but your new film is no laughing matter "an acceptable loss," you play a batty politician rachel burk trying to cover up for american strikes that have killed thousands of civilians. before i play a clip, i want to know what was it about this that attracted you, why did you take on this role? it is a bit of departure for you, not horror, or comedy, it's a political thriller. >> well, i'm an actress. so as i like to say, i'm a freelance actress, which means i'm unemployed most of my life. joe chappell wrote this script as his answer to the election in 2016. and it posits a question which we are, as you said, seeing at

large in taking place today, art imitating life, life imitating art. and the posit is that a nuclear device is detonated in syria to counteract the gathering of certain terrorist organizations. on faulty intel, which as we know with the weapons of mass destruction has happened in our lifetime. >> well, i mean, it is quite scary to think that, you know, a nuclear device could be used in this manner. here's the clip. >> we've turned a side show into the main event. >> but the response has to be specific. surgical. i do think we need to take into account the reactions, both at home and abroad. >> doesn't it bother you? that the idea of american exceptionalism is an anachronism? >> of course. >> we're a rudderless ship.

where just getting by enough. and los angeles certainly showed how tenuous that is. if the tire does not blow out, if the chp does not pull over, if they don't panic, if, if, if, and if prevented a catastrophe that would have made 9/11 look like a footnote. now, i don't sleep well at night knowing that. we have to win this war, total victory. >> so it is really interesting because, you know, yeah, you said you're an actress, you're drawn to these issues, you're drawn to the same person who wrote "halloween," but, i guess the idea of this kind of another military adventure, which i was broaching with mike rogers given what some in this administration have talked about, potentially drawing up plans to strike iran. do you sort of feel, even though you're an actress, sort of a kind of a political warning

signal, or political, you know, activism on this issue? >> well, i'm an actress, and this is -- i am playing the alt position to my own personal beliefs. but it's not just iran. it's north korea. i mean, there is a tenuousness to these relationships, even russia, i mean, on some level with the inf. in the movie i play the vice president of the united states whose national security adviser makes the case to the president of the united states, based on false intel, that this group of terrorist organizations are going to be in the same place. and in her enthusiastic endorsement for him to approve dropping a nuclear weapon, her line, which really made sense to me, which is really why i did the movie, because i think there are a lot of people who feel this way, she says the point of a deterrent is that our enemies

need to know we are prepared to use it. and that, in itself, made me feel that we have hit a sort of nuclear indifference in the world. and we have to be very, very, very wary of that nuclear indifference. and do everything in our power, make movies that show these alt ideas as a way to counteract that. >> i mean, it is so, you know, desperately serious what you're talking about. i just want to shift lanes for a moment and talk about the recent golden globes, another really serious issue, that's women, that's women aging in hollywood. you created an absolute viral, you know, storm really by looking so amazing on the red carpet, your white dress, your white hair. everybody was thrilled by the way you looked. but more to the point, or equally to look at that, i mean,

that is pretty -- that is pretty amazing. the film "halloween" which you've just done broke box office records, it brought in more money than any film with a female lead over 55 years old. what do you make of that? >> yes. well, you know, it's not my -- it's not really my business to know what to make of it. i was very proud to represent. i am proud to represent. women are incredible, and i'm very happy to see that women are beginning to be appreciated for that. we have a long way to go. you're an example, christiane. you're an example, to me and to many, many other women all around the world, of someone who can proceed and grow with tremendous intelligence and grace, and articulation, and be at the head of her industry. i mean, you are brave, you are out there in ways that -- >> stop. >> many men wouldn't do. so i just think it's important

to recognize you're complimenting me, but really i'm sitting here talking to you. you have a show. it's named after you. >> any minute now it will disappear. but no, seriously, do you think -- first of all, thank you. but do you think that older women are being less easily written off now than perhaps in the past? it really does seem that there are a lot of older women getting a lot of good jobs and being very public about it. >> yes, there has been a shift, that's great. there have been a shift obviously in roles. but we have a long, long way to go in the technical side of the movies, directors, producers, writers. there have been many new cameramen -- camera women, excuse me, who have -- see how quickly. >> yes. >> you see cameraman. >> unconscious bias. >> unconscious bias, there right there it just happened on television. >> i said in the lead you are part of hollywood royalty, your

father was tony curtis, your mother janet lee, they have dominated films for so, so long. but, you know, i guess i asked you that because with the me too movement i just want to know whether that protected you from being taken advantage of, or from being aggressed or harassed in any way. you're also married through lots of your career as an actress. do you feel that -- or did you have, you know, horrible experiences? >> i don't know a woman in showoff business who hasn't had a horrible experience, and i am one who has. my experiences were when i was much younger. and i've been very fortunate. i was -- you know, i can't say that i was sexually assaulted, but i definitely had the

oppression of the power and some feeling of needing to succumb to that power. >> and you had another thing that you had to deal with, and you kept it quiet. and for some miraculous reason nobody understood or figured it out that there you were turning up for movies and this and that and you had a long, long time opioid addiction. how did that start and how did you kick it? >> so i had a small plastic surgery procedure, and i was prescribed painkillers, which really stimulated an ongoing addiction to them for a very long time. i will say that it was a very controlled addiction in the sense that i -- i was able to somehow compartmentalize it. obviously i was not high at

work. my work you can't really be high when you do your job, very similar to yours. and so it was a very private addiction. but more than an addiction, it was a private dependence. see, it's a dependency on something, some alternative to just being clean. it is a dependency that became the secret, the shame. the way i confronted is i confronted it. there was a moment of looking in the mirror and realizing i had a problem and i reached out to some friends and i found recovery in rooms all around the world. and i continue to support that recovery. i will be, god willing, 20 years sober in a week. >> well, it is incredible. and i just wanted -- you obviously have had tragedy with this. your half brother tragically died of a heroin overdose.

you have said i'm breaking the cycle that has basically destroyed the lives of generations in my family. getting sober remains my single greatest accomplishment, bigger than my husband, bigger than both of my children and bigger than any work, success, failure, anything. that, you know, again, it's huge what you say. and i wonder whether you had any notion how much of the country is affected by this opioid addiction and heroin addiction? >> i'm aware of it. obviously i have written about it for a long time. and, you know, sadly it often is that somebody famous has to die before you will pay attention. and it certainly was the case with michael jackson and prince. both of their deaths brought focus to this opiate crisis. and obviously i'm aware of it and when i say it's the single greatest accomplishment, you see it has -- it has destroyed

generations in my family. and how many others' families? and for me, the buck stops here. my goal is one day at a time to stay sober and clean and enjoy my creative life and enjoy my family and enjoy reaching out my hand, my hand in yours, to other people, and then linking up with people because it is the linking up that becomes the bridge back, i think, for people. because when they don't feel alone. >> yeah. and what a joy that you have -- you know, you're married, you've been married for 34 years, and in one of the interviews i read your secret to a happy marriage, you said don't leave. there's a recovery phrase that says stay on the bus, the scenery will change. >> yes. >> tell all those couples out there. >> you know, you tell me any married couple that hasn't

struggled, that they haven't had a moment where they have felt anger toward their spouse. that's insane. we are human beings. and so my quip, don't leave, is it will get better. the scenery will change. you can make it through hard times. and believe me, my family has made it through hard times, and my family has made it through beautiful, joyous times. it is the process of life. and somewhere we were fed some idea that bad stuff doesn't happen. well, look at the world today and look at the guest you had on prior, and look at the state -- look at today the teachers are on strike in california. go lausd, teachers, not the lausd part. and look at the country. we're on a shutdown.

people aren't being paid. they can't pay for their medicine. they can't pay for their children who are sick. it is a crisis and it's important for people to remember there are good times and bad times and i hope we as a country can come together. i hope that the president will listen and understand he cannot make this sort of unilateral, this or nothing. because that's just not how this works. and i hope he'll listen. >> and we just did hear -- >> people think i'm -- >> we heard from mike rogers, as you were saying, and he also hoped that there would be a broadening of this sort of, you know, situation so that people could come together and find a compromise. but listen, jamie lee curtis, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you, christiane, and thank you, again, for being the example for me and many, many other women of integrity, intelligence and commitment. >> you're really sweet. jamie lee curtis, thank you very

much indeed. >> thank you. and now we turn from hollywood to silicon valley, where technology is stitching the fabric of today's society, impacting everything as we know from employment to housing costs. enter 28-year-old oncor jean, the founder and ceo of chi ros, a venture investing in young intr entrepreneurs, how millennials can make an impact. >> start big picture, how would you characterize the current state of technology and tech industry? >> technology for the longest time has been this holy grail of change. it's been this opportunistic, do no evil, incredible place to be. all the sudden though tech is touching people's lives that i don't think us in tech ever expected to the point where i think technology kpaeps compans

are becoming more powerful than governments. >> give me an example of that. >> if you look today companies like amazon have more impact on the level of employment in cities, the cost of housing in areas. i mean, you look, amazon just announced they were opening up a headquarters in long island city, home prices skyrocketed. if you're not participating in that ecosystem you're priced out because one tech company decided to move into a neighborhood. that's a bigger impact than new york state can have with a ton of their different subsidies. you have city governments and state governments fighting and offering tax packages and government bills just to attract technology. >> so not even the way you're interacting as an individual with the technology. >> that's right, it's so much wider spread than that. you look at the impact from the product standpoint. the companies that own our data are using it in ways that i don't think any of us, again,

expected. the challenge that is embedded in the dna of these technology companies isn't the same level of social responsibility that at least government has, right, so you're starting to see this emerging distrust and backlash against these tech companies as people start to realize my health care prices are going up because of tech companies, my ability to get hired is disappearing because of tech companies, all the sudden tech companies are choosing winners and losers in society. >> explain how they do that. >> look at today, the algorithms determining hiring today, on one hand it can be used for good to help remove bias from hiring, and there are companies doing that. on the other hand there's now an opportunity where if you don't have certain skill sets the algorithm decided qualifies you for a job you don't get it. insurance models, health care, this is a big fear with the health care partnership with facebook, what will happen when

health insurance companies can more accurately price you based on potential risk in the future. 23 and me is another example, if genetic data opens up to health insurance companies things change. all the sudden technology companies have this significant role in people's lives that aren't this separate bubble. >> all the sudden they have a significant role in people's lives or all the sudden we're realizing they have a significant role in people's lives. >> it's both. over the last ten years i'd say tech has started to mature as an industry. as tech asthmatured you've started to see these giants come in and these giants have been able to aggregate kind of distribution data, et cetera. so, again, if you look at even things like amazon, it's very hard as a non-consumer to compete in a market where amazon has distribution, you just can't compete in one-hour free delivery at scale the same way amazon can. >> can a giant tech company

reincorporate social good into its dna? >> i'm a big believer in capitalism as a force for good if prioritized. if you think about it, some of the biggest problems in the world are also the biggest market opportunities. so when people ask, should companies like amazon bake social dna into their corporate for the sake of doing good? i think they should. will they? probably not. but will they do it because there's a big market opportunity? i think yes. and so if you think about today, over 80% of all income today is just spent on five basic needs. housing, child care, health care, food and transportation. right? i don't think it's a coincidence that two of the five categories are where the biggest tech companies have grown in the last five years, so transportation, you look at uber and didi and lyft, and food. amazon has made their biggest investments. all the sudden you're seeing an opportunity for technology companies to hit these basic needs because there is a big

market. >> they're addressing the needs but they're not actually making those needs more affordable. >> well, this is where i think. if you look at where -- let's take a step back. the average consumer today, despite all the economic growth has been left behind. when average americans, millennials especially, can't afford to pay their rent, they can't afford child care to go back to work, these are serious, serious problems. and so i think what you will see is a new growth of startups, focused on affordability. >> your company, tell us about the work you're doing in that sector. >> we are one of the groups pushing more and more capital towards new technologies to help solve that. example, if you take housing, it's the biggest expense for people across the world, right, and yet, as rent has taken up a bigger and bigger piece of people's income, it's not what's tipped people over the edge. what's the problem today is that if you want to rent in any city, new york, st. louis, miami, san

francisco, in addition to paying monthly rent you have these massive up front costs, security deposits, broker fees, moving fees, combining that with a lack of savings, you start to see an explosion. so today, people have $45 billion of their savings tied up in security deposits. when you sign a lease they make you take a month of your rent, the average millennial only has $1,500 in savings. you're talking about double their life savings, locked away in a security deposit that you can't touch. i mean, that's crazy. and so one of the companies that we've been building at chi rose has said hey, we can give that money back to people while creating a business company. we launched an insurance company called rhino where for $5 a month people can insure their landlord and keep their security deposit. all the sudden that money being locked away can be used to pay off debt, to put into emergency

savings, et cetera. >> you're focused on housing. how about child care? >> so as people start to have families, almost 20% of household income is now going to child care. so you have this weird situation where you have a growth in dual income households, seven of ten new moms are going back to work, but they're not actually making much more income because most of that new income post taxes go to child care costs, doesn't make sense, right? and so one of the things we're doing is trying to say how do we actually change that dynamic by grouping demand? so we've launched a company called kinside in the child care space. like in health care, insurance companies pool patients so they can buy essentially health services at discounted pricing and increase kind of quality care. we're doing the same for child care. so now people can sign up for a child care membership, like an aarp or something of the sort, and we're actually negotiating cheaper prices by buying child

care spots in bulk, and allowing them to apply their $5,000 tax credit automatically. you're cutting the cost by almost 40%. >> you're building a for profit organization that is focused on addressing social needs. but at the same time needs to remain profitable. how do you truly balance those needs? >> this is why i think it's much easier for a startup to drive change than it is for a big company because truly at the beginning of the product tech companies have typically started in two ways, problem first, or technology first. i think part of the challenge you're seeing is so many of these businesses are starting with technology first, what if we could do "x" with "y" technology? and then they try to figure out the use case and you have like what facebook became, a lot of unintended consequences. on the other hand you have solving the problem first. and i think in that case it's not a tradeoff. the question doesn't apply. it should be that the more you

solve the problem, the more revenue the business makes. so it's a true aligned incentive from the beginning. >> how do you keep your eye on that north star? >> i think the bigger risk is not whether the company's alignment remains at solving the problem, it's can we identify the unintended consequences before it's too late? >> for example? >> so, again, if you think about, you know, at premise amazon had set out to make things more affordable and accessible, buying books or buying products. >> consumer perspective. >> by the way, part of the reason amazon hasn't been broken up as a monopoly is because under the monopoly trust law it has to show that it's been in the negative interest of consumers, where amazon has actually made products cheaper and more accessible, et cetera, so it's been hard for people to make the case that it's a monopoly in a bad sense. but the unintended consequences have been significant. this is where it's an actual

moral responsibility of technology leaders to actually spend time thinking about these unintended consequences and saying how do they address them head on? >> do you have an intention of taking any of these companies public? >> eventually. >> and then what happens when you're be-holden not to your own vision, but to the vision of shareholders? >> it goes back to the same thing, is that our ability to drive returns with shareholders should be tied to solving these problems. right? and i recognize that this is -- there's a lot of distrust in the tech world, so ultimately the only way to show this is by actually making that impact. right, i mean, you can sit here and talk about it all we want. it will always be some level of distrust. but i think the product has to speak for itself. if people are better off because of your product, across, you know, again, both intended and unintended, then you're actually driving the change people want. if they're not, people will continue to stress and by the way they won't purchase your product anymore. that's part of the power of today's consumer they can be

very vocal, and they get to take their money where they believe they can trust the brands and the companies. so it's not -- it's not an entirely lopsided system. >> both of your parents are entrepreneurs, your dad, notably, was the ceo of info space. what did you learn from watching the two of them? >> a couple things. i mean, one is, my dad's always focused on big problems as an opportunity. i remember even from the beginning of info space days he always talked about success as how many people you're touching. and so you can build a luxury brand, with just a small amount of people, but then that -- your success, so how do you reach as many people? it forces you to then take on some big problems. >> you saw the boom and you also saw the bust. >> totally. look, look, i think the bust of tech 1.0 is something we should look at now. markets, things have been topsy

turvy. very likely we'll hit a recession in 2019. the question is, what does that mean for tech companies and what does that mean for average people? and i think right now, if you think of the underlying data, if you look at in the '90s bust a lot of technology companies didn't have the fundamentals to back the valuations. and so they imploded. but the impact is fairly tight to the tech investment community. in 2008 the housing market was so overinflated that everybody with home ownership exposure went under. this time i think it's a much bigger risk because now everyone has so much debt and so little savings that it's not the debt from frivolous spending, like buying homes when you can't afford it, we're talking student loan debt and credit card debt. and most people, even, again, like you look at all these folks coming out of university, the last ten years, debt was so cheap. you could get variable interest rates and all the of a sudden people are starting to see those

payments go up and you have no savings because interest rates are rising. if we don't find a way the fix that and create wiggle room, then this collapse could be bigger than any previous recessions. you're putting everybody under water. a whole young generation, last time, slightly older generation, some nest egg savings they accumulated. this could hit the millennials really hard. there are a few tips that i hope every young millennial follows. to help prepare for a downturn. i would love -- >> let me just get out my pencil, go ahead. >> number one is student loans. most people don't realize that their interest rates on student loans are going to be rising much faster in the next six months than they have the last five years. this is the last chance to refinance them at a fixed rate and kind of lock in that low rate so you can budget properly if the economy turns. that's number one.

number two, most people who have starting a family don't realize that you have a tax credit for child care. so the fsa tax credit gives you $5,000 of money that you can put tax free to child care, and most families don't even know about this. so that's, on average, 20% of your child care costs can get covered by that. so i think people need to look at that. three is, if you don't have a strong credit score, now is the time to build it. and then lastly, i talk about this with rhino, if you don't have emergency savings, now's the time to do it. i realize it's not as easy as just putting money from your paycheck, which is why we've built this insurance company so you can take money that you have but is not accessible, put it back into your bank account and hold it as emergency savings. >> thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. and a note before we go, earlier on the program we discussed u.s. foreign policy and iran. we heard how national security

adviser john bolton favors regime change in tehran, as do secretary of state pompeo and president trump. although they say it is not official policy. how does that affect trying to release and repatriate their citizens detained in iran? there are at least six u.s. citizens held in tehran prisons right now with no word on their cases. some of them are iranian americans, and an anglo-ir-iranian jailed in 2016 has now gone on hunger strike to previous to being denied proper medical care for her illness in prison there. and we'll continue to follow these cases. that's it for our program tonight. thank you for watching "amanpour & company" on company, and join us again tomorrow night. uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co."

bea tollman is synonymous with style. when she acquired uni world, a boutique line inspired by her 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 uni world.com. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter, bernard and irene schwartz, sue and edgar wachenheim iii, the cheryl and philip milstein family. seton melvyn, the jpb foundation. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ -today on "america's test kitchen," bridget and julia unlock the secrets to a foolproof chocolate cream pie, jack challenges bridget to a cocoa-powder tasting, and elle makes julia the perfect dark-chocolate fudge sauce. it's all coming up right here on "america's test kitchen."