strange concept. it's something i've had to familiarize myself with since being sworn in as a member of congress on january 3, 2013. whether pattern -- weather patterns are shifting, global warming apeers to be -- to me to be a scientific reality, yet there are people in this congress who persist in denying that climate change is a reality. in advance of sequestration not withstanding the fact that independent economists warned that randomly spreading out cuts across the american economy, given the fragile nature of the economic recovery would be a harmful thing and threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs moving forward, there were people who denied that sequestration would be a tough thing for the american people to have to absorb. yet, at the end of the year, wisdom prevailed because people saw that it actually was something that was problematic for the american people and our economy. i guess a long, long time ago there were people who denied that the earth was round, believed it was flat. so denial syndrome is something that throughout time has been commonplace as it relates to individuals who want to articulate a particular agenda. i understand that. but it's a dangerous game to play. to deny the reality of the catastrophic impact that would occur as a result of a default on our debt for the first time in our history. it would be another self-inflicted wound, as my distinguished friend from nevada has end kated, and i was interested in a study that i came across a few days ago that i wanted to highlight and bring to the attention of the american people and perhaps my colleague can react to it. there's in awe -- there's a new study the "times" reported from the peterson institute of international economics. washington, d.c.-based research group. it indicated that all the theatrics, all the drama, all the brinksmanship that occurred in this congress last year around government shutdown and the potential debt ceiling default and whether we would be able to come together an reach an agreement, all of the theatrics and drama and brinksmanship have cost us about $150 billion in lost economic productivity. shades of about a percentage -- shaved off about a percentage point in economic growth and cost us about 150,000 jobs. that's not us saying it, that's an independent research group saying it, the group for international economics. so there's a price to pay for the theatrics. that's why we've come to the floor today to say we need a clean debt ceiling increase and we need to do it now. now, secretary lew indicated that his ability to use extraordinary measures will run out by the end of the month. mr. speaker, i recognize that there's some on the other side of the aisle who are in disbelief as it relates to that statement. we've heard individuals make the representation that that can't be accurate. well, there's a logical reason why in this particular instance the capacity for the administration to use extraordinary measures to get us beyond the debt ceiling cap is only weeks, in this particular instance, and not months, as it's been in the past. it's because the treasury of the united states in february and in march and in april and perhaps even into may returns a lot of money, billions of dollars, to the american people who have led taxes, are owed money in connection to a tax return. i would believe that we all conclude, it's a good thing for the american people who are owed money by the federal government to be able to get that money back in return. that is why in february, the capacity at this moment for extraordinary measures to be used is extremely limited. we don't want to short circuit the american taxpayer. bad enough we are threatening to short circuit social security beneficiaries or veterans and others. but now we're potentially risking withholding money from the american people that belongs to the them. we hear that refrain all the time. but that's what we're faced with right now. so let me yield to my good friend, representative horsford. mr. horsford: i thank my friend for yielding. you bring up a very valid point. i was just at the william pearson community center in my district over the weekend at a tax preparation site for the las vegas urban league and it was packed. there were -- there was not a seat available because so many people were there seeking assistance in order to file their annual tax return. particularly this year. trying to get it done early so that they can get the refund coming to them so they can help meet an obligation they have in their household. it's been tough for a lot of families system of you make a very valid point that the fact of the timing of this particular the ceiling increase and february 27 date and the obligation that the country has and this time period in particular, there are 110 million americans who will be filing their tax returns, many of whom will be getting a refund and i don't think they will take kindly on a delay in that refund if our colleagues on the other side use this debt ceiling legislation as an opportunity to load it up with conditions and requests that have nothing to do with the debt ceiling issue. so i would ask my colleagues on the other side to listen to their constituents, to be aware of their needs, and to know that -- the cations that consequences of your decisions to fail to cast a clean debt ceiling could have very negative consequences on our economy and we don't have to look very far. we could look become to 2011. the g.o.p. brinksmanship during at time cost the economy the following. it was the first time the u.s. credit was downgraded in u.s. history. so failing to increase the debt ceiling on a timely basis, we ultimately got it done but it was delayed and there was some concern in the markets of what would happen and it resulted in the first u.s. credit downgrade in our history. are we going to allow that to happen again? he stock market plummeted 17%. consumer confidence dropped to its lowest point since the financial crisis of 2008. we saw businesses stop hiring in 2011, with one of the lowest months of job growth over the last two years during that period. so we've seen what the consequences of failing to pass a clean, swift debt ceiling would mean, why would we even toy with the idea of failing to do it now, or to do it by adding conditions to it that basically hold the bill up as a hostage. finally, and i'll yield back, there were 1.-- there were $1.3 billion added to our national ebt for fiscal year 2011 and $19 billion over 10 years in higher government borrowing costs. if you're a fiscal hawk, if you're someone who is concerned leek i am, about our federal deficit, if you want to have good fiscal discipline, then you might want to pass a clean, swift debt ceiling bill so that we don't have added costs to our national debt and so we don't have additional borrowing expenses added to a debt and deficit that under this administration in the last few years is on the decline. let's do our job, let's help the process, let's move our country forward, let's work together, let's be a congress that acts, not a congress that continues to obstruct. i yield back to my friend. mr. jeffries: thank you to my good friend and colleague for that thorough explanation again as to why there's such urgency in terms of us acting. throughout my time here in congress, we consistently hear bout constructionism and adherence to the constitution. the 14th amendment of the constitution reads in part, the validity of the public debt authorized by law shall not be questioned. that is a constitutional principle. it's the reason why the brinksmanship we've seen time and time and time again is so reckless and threatens the well being of the american people. earlier in my remarks, i referenced this being a yogi berra moment. that great yankee catcher, having once made the observation that it feels like it's deja vu all over again. there's another contemporary urban philosopher i wanted to quote, her name is mary j. blige. she said, no more drama. i think the american people are tired of drama and theatrics. if they want theatrics, they can go to broadway. in new york city. if they want drama, you got hollywood. but congress is here to do the business of the american people. not to entertain. to do the business of the american people. and the matter before us that hopefully we will deal with this ek, not with unnecessary ideological demands that we attempt to inflict on the american people in order to do what our constitutional responsibility says congress should do, but again, a clean debt ceiling. now i wanted to explain as best hat i can to those who are interested in understanding how we arrived at this moment that when you hear characterizations about what's at stake, why we can't just simply raise the debt ceiling without going through the drama and the theatrics, the representation that's made which seems reasonable to many, we have a $17 trillion plus debt, that's a very significant number. and we can't just simply give the president the unfettered ability to continue to drag this country further down the debt hole. that is the argument that is advanced by many, mr. speaker. it's fundamentally inaccurate. the debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle designed to give the president the ability to spend more money. it is a backward looking vehicle simply designed to give the president the capacity to pay bills that the congress has already incurred. and if you actually were to inspect what those bills actually were, many americans would be surprised to know that it was incurred often by those same individuals who now claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. let's go through this chart. it illustrates both the projected debt under current policies, laws they enacted during the administration of george w. bush and what the debt would have been without these factors. and so the top line is an illustration of what the current debt is and what it is projected to be over time. in advance of 2019 as a result of things that this congress has already done that were not paid for. and on the lowest line on the chart is an illustration of what the debt would be had these things not been done, mr. speaker. and so what's interesting is that a significant part of the debt, as this chart illustrates, resulted from the war in iraq. a completely unnecessary war, chasing down weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. lives were told to the american people and hundreds of billions of dollars unnecessarily spent. debt incurred under the previous administration. the war in afghanistan that was inappropriately prosecuted, even if it was in the beginning, a necessary one in response to the tragedy on 9/11, it was inappropriately prosecuted because we were distracted in iraq. we didn't pay for that war either. it's responsible for the debt burden that we now have. cutbush-era tax cuts, a tax in 2001, largely and disproportionately benefited the wealthy and well-off, not paid for. it's responsible in part for the debt burden that we now confront. another tax cut enacted by this congress in 2003, largely benefiting the wealthy and the well-off. not paid for, responsible in rt for the debt that we have incurred. and then of course, there was the economic downturn. that occurred in 2008. it resulted in part from the failed policies of the previous administration and we allowed some on wall street to run wild and to plunge us into the worst economic collapse since the great depression. that, in part, is responsible for the debt that we have incurred. we had to bail out fannie may and freddie mack and the tarp bailout and the tarp measures in response to this horrible collapse of the economy inflicted upon the american people. these are the policies that are largely responsible for the debt that we find ourselves in. and that's why we find it a bit curious that president obama is often blamed and we have to have this will drama connected to the debt ceiling, when, in fact, much of the debt, the bills he is trying to pay now, he wasn't responsible for. in fact, when these policies re enacted, the current poll -- president was in the illinois legislature but you want to blame him. it's just not factually accurate. > would the gentleman yield? mr. horsford: i appreciate you providing this historical context. as you indicate, a lot of time on this floor, we tend to focus on the rhetoric of the day and not the facts of the matter. as you have well illustrated, if it were not for the bush-era tax cuts, which are the biggest contributing factor to the debt and the deficits and the wars in iraq and afghanistan, we probably would be in a much better position to address the domestic needs in this country and to have the type of economic investments to help grow our economy, put people to work, grow and buildup our infrastructure, help our roads, our highways, our schools, the things that matter here in the united states, but yet, money has been obligated by previous administrations enacted by members of congress before you and i got here. and now this congress and some on the other side want to hold administration hostage and add a new set of demands to that process for items that this administration or current members of congress and our constituents, who are expecting to do our job, did not have a decision to begin with. so i appreciate you giving that historical perspective. and i hope my colleagues on the other side will listen to the facts of the matter and move away from this drama of the branchingsmanship and the political games that unfortunately are done too often to distract from the reality of the issues you brought forward. mr. jeffries: as you pointed out, i think it's very important that in terms of the explosion of the public debt that has taken place over the last decade or so, the most significant factor, as this chart illustrates are the bush-era tax cuts. so the question, then, that many people back home in my district are asking, what was it all for? because now we know that income and equality has exploded. the middle class is being left behind. what was it all for? we were told based on an old, stale philosophy, that these tax cuts help to generate economic activity to create jobs. ok. now in the previous eight years prior to the bush administration , during the eight years of the presidency of bill clinton, the tax rate for the highest income bracket was 39.6%. and 20.3 million jobs were created during those eight years. and then we have a new president, who comes in -- and by the way, he inherits a surplus and then immediately as a result of these reckless , licies, foreign and domestic creates deficit after deficit after deficit. that didn't happen under this president. it happened under the previous president. but the american people, the people back at home -- what was it all for? a tax rate of 39.6% under the administration of president clinton? 20.3 million jobs created. we get tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 as a pre-occursor to the recession and during the previous eight years of the recession, we lost 650,000 here in america. what was it all for? we lost jobs. income inequality has grown. you add it to the debt, and yet, folks on this side of the aisle are supposed to be fiscally irresponsible. let's just have a reasonable evidence-based conversation. that's all we want. that's what the american people are asking for. and so as we prepare to close, let me just yield to my good friend for any parting remarks. mr. horsford: one additional area that i would like to touch on and ask maybe my colleague to expound upon is under those bush-era tax cuts included tax cuts to companies that shifted jobs overseas, which contributed, did it not, to that 650,000 job loss? was there a correlation there or not? >> i think that's a very appropriate question, and we are going to have a broader conversation about some of our policies that have resulted in the exploittation of middle-class american jobs to other parts of the world. and for the life of me, i haven't been able to figure out why anyone in washington thinks that's a good idea. now, we have had an economic recovery under this president and i believe more than seven million private sector jobs have been created, but we still have a long way to go, and we certainly cannot afford to engage in the type of policies that, as you've pointed out, have led to the transfer of american jobs overseas. why? because we are incentivizing companies to ship jobs abroad as opposed to incentivizing american companies to keep jobs here at home in the great united states of america. and i certainly hope that that is something that can be reversed as we move forward and enter into discussion about some of the agreements that will be pending before this congress. mr. horsford: if the gentleman would yield, i would just say and i think this would be an appropriate discussion for us to have at a future special order hour, but the fact that some of hose corporate tax breaks to ship american jobs overseas resulted in debt that is now being obligated by this country in the future years, indicates a change in policy that we need to have. we agree we need tax reform in this country. we need tax reform that allows those jobs to be returned to the united states by eliminating the corporate welfare that was provided by giving those tax incentives to those companies to take american jobs overseas to begin with. and to add it -- add insult to injury, to have it included in the overall debt and obligations of this country going forward. but the bottom line here tonight, mr. speaker, is we have a job to do here this week. and that job, we're asking, is o bring a bill, a clean, swift debt ceiling bill to the floor without a bunch of conditions or demands that allow this congress to do its job this week and send to the senate a clean debt ceiling bill that allows us to meet our obligations. those obligations, as my colleague here tonight has aptly explained that prior administrations and prior congresses have entered this country into. we have to keep the full faith and credit of the united states intact. we cannot repeat some of the damaging consequences from 2011. we cannot have a repeat, mr. speaker, of lost economic productivity or economic activity. we cannot have the stock market plummetting. we cannot have lower consumer confidence. we cannot have businesses deciding whether to hire more employees because they're concerned that this congress is going to cause more harm than help by failing to pass a clean debt ceiling. that's what we're asking here tonight. i thank my colleague, the anchor for this hour, the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, for leading this discussion. i'm pleased to have participated. and i yield back to him to conclude us out in this hour. mr. jeffries: i thank my good friend for a very thoughtful and comprehensive remarks and analysis in a situation that we ind ourselves in and is very clear-eyed plea that we in the congress simply do our job and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default and threatening the full faith and credit of the united states of america. 14th amendment of the united states constitution states in part that the validity of the public debt of the united states enacted into law shall not be questioned. no more drama. no more theatrics, no more brink smanship and let's raise the debt ceiling and get back to doing the business of the american people. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. jeffries: mr. speaker, i now move that we adjourn the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york puts the question on a motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate. >> our first ladies series look at the life and death loss of current first lady michelle the life ofks at current first lady michelle obama. how thea story about two met. >> he was a summer associate and she was his boss. probably like modern work place laws would not allow this to develop. in fact, he was taken with her was up her colleagues at that hour interviewed became aware in the late afternoon that they want to buy his office and he would be on her desk and they could tell that something was developing. and i knew inc. it took -- it did not take too long before there were going out and were smitten with each other. that is right. go back toe had to law school. she was in chicago. he was going back to harvard law. wherewere several years they were not necessarily living in the same town. and if she doesn't tell a funny story where she began to pressure him. and they were going out to dinner in chicago and she sort of started in on when are we going to get married. for a while, he would say marriage is just a word. a ring was delivered with the desert. she tells of the story. that did shut her up. but they were married in 1992. michelle obama's church which would become a part of the political's story. the pastor there reverend jeremiah wright. how did his story -- their story be, important? >> it becomes an important part of the 2008 campaign. it really speaks to in so many ways this kind of latent question that was always out there. it ready for african-americans in the white house and is america ready for a black president? in some ways jeremiah wright stands as a kind of charge point for that question. he comes out of a kind of strain andfrican-american pastors thinking of black liberation and theology where there were many radical sermons which were accepted and lines were taken from them which became a huge political problem for the obama's. he was also a man for a time had quite a bit of influence on them. president obama -- when he is in the u.s., takes the title of his second book "audacity of hope," comes from one of the sermons. reverend wright is talked about this idea of not having very much a but hoping and holding on to the hope. these are some of the kind of ideas that connected them to him in the church. when in a campaign, there is really a large sort of national conversation about race that began. >> they were married in 1992. until 1990ot arrive eight. what was life like for the early couple? >> they were working very hard. barack obama helped persuade michelle that she could leave corporate law. and she could do something the less conventional and more interesting. she did not have to follow a really kind of predictable path. i think that is one thing he did for her. at the same time, she gave him a rooted family. a sense of belonging. he gave her a sense of the possible. what was possible for her. she took a job in the city government and then a nonprofit called public allies. time, he was teaching at the law school and getting involved in politics and they were working very hard and intensely. >> is it true in addition to her community oriented jobs come up she was also serving on corporate boards? i read she serves on several corporate boards. >> she was on some boards. one was a dance company. i am not sure. important in her development. when barack obama starts to move from community organizing and two elected politics, how will supported -- how supportive was michelle? bookhave a quote from his where he was talking about how after sasha was born, michelle would say you only think of yourself. i never thought i would have to raise a family alone. america classic argument that happened repeatedly during this time. she was shouldering so much of the weight of raising a family. and supporting the family. point in difficult their marriage. and kind of what he is going to do with his life. >> and not the first time in the history of a ladies aware the political wife has left to really raise the family. >> a real commitment on the part to pursue. >> there have been first ladies who are prayed for their husbands and defeat. >> it was not elections in that camp. >> not quite. but high, sandy. quick hello. i want to commend you for doing an excellent series. the question i have is probably twofold. the main one is a presidential library. the first lady in it will be in honolulu or chicago. >> eu would be more likely to know. >> no one knows. we know they have formed a committee to begin to think about the library and where it will be. they will begin soliciting i guess you would call them bids from cities. chicago is on the list. i hear new york. president obama spent time at columbia. hawaii will put in a bid and there will be other cities that they pass through. there is a sensor that chicago makes sense in part of the political start was there and they got to their rooms. at this point, it seems settled. in chicago, there are different locations they hope will eventually. >> will fast-forward -- we will fast-forward. for the u.s. senate and coming to washington. the decision to start running for president. how much a part of that decision was michelle obama? was that something the two together strategized? >> he had to convince her according to the way her brother tells the story. first, barack obama went to michelle's brother and had a conversation with him. opportunity is the and i should do this. he says, have you talk to your wife? and barack obama said, i thought you could help me with that. -- craig robinson met with the mother and sister and had this idea -- it was described in the way and as a family, they make a decision that this is something they would do. >> we will go back to the 2008 wisconsin speech. michelle obama out on the campaign trail. because another part of the of ah contains a section statement throughout her teen you're in office. let's listen. [video clip] what we have learned over the year is that hope is making a comeback. it is making a comeback. [applause] -- fortell you something the first time in my adult lifetime, i am really proud of my country. [applause] not just because barack has done well but because i think people are hungry for change. seei have been desperate to our country moving in that direction. and not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. i think people who are hungry to be unified around some basic issues and it made me proud. tonight on our facebook page, people are quoting that years later. her view of american society. has she talked about what she was saying and what she was trying to say? >> i think she did. she did soon after talk about that. in fact, at the time, she has said and expressed things in different ways. what happened in that moment was the political press had not been paying much attention to her. she was out mostly speaking to grassroots and supporters. i saw her a couple times on the campaign trail. people enjoyed hearing her in part because unlike the candidates, she was not so strictly message. she spoke from her heart without a lot of notes. the democratic grassroots found that refreshing. here comes this moment a where this one line is taken from this speech. it became his to defend -- it begins to define her. immediately snap into action and begin to create a different story around her because one emerge is not favorable. >> any comments on that narrative and how it's defined her and the opposition used it to create a narrative about the president? wouldlined up with they -- reverend wright and all sorts and evidenceiews, that she was unhappy with america. thatas talking a lot about time and she would talk about racial division. she was say there are white students here and black students here and i know what that is like. you need to come to gather. she will talk about america being isolated. people fighting a war. people at home are going shopping. there was a coming together that still needed to happen. that is what that was coming from. the campaign kicked into gear after that. that was not another episode like that. , hillary the primary clinton was the arrival of barack obama. will you comment about this interesting relationship about the former first lady and ultimately, is defeated by this opponent and goes on to serve as his secretary of state and has a first lady that she can give guidance? how did the relationship work out between the two women? because interesting during the primary, it becomes a dogfight toward the end. they are grasping. it got ugly at some point. you had to really defined camps within the democratic party. the clinton knights and obama. everybody was going to be able to come together in a very natural way. that hillary clinton would serve as secretary of state in terms of mending those bridges. obama's term, michelle obama goes over to the state department. they have some interaction. they are very warm to each other publicly. moment of note of coming together. michelle obama has been a different kind of first lady. in many ways, she relied on lower bush -- laura bush giving her guidance on how things would operate in the east wing. hillary clinton has an office in the west wing which was different. >> after the reverend wright controversy, michelle and barack went to nbc and talked to the about the issue. we got a chance to see them interacting. we show a short clip and how they used the national media to present a portrait of themselves. [video clip] >> you never sit in there and get upset about these? >> i never get upset. no. >> she gets -- >> cool and calm. take the paper and ball it up and throw it on the floor. of course. there are frustrations. [laughter] >> she gets protective of me. >> i love my husband. anybody to talk poorly about the people that you love. quite frankly, i think he has handled himself. howknow, i am so proud of he has maintained the dignity and his cool and honor. i know you're charging cut me about you. nicely >> i get embarrassed. [laughter] i know.- i appreciated that. >> what can we take away from that? >> it is always interesting to see them interacting with each other. the playfulness. look atthey sometimes each other and joke with each other. he genuinely enjoys being with each other. that more than anything, the idea of family. and in this relationship in addition to president obama addressing some of the issues around reverend wright hundred first he and the speech that he to toss ate did much that issue out of the window. and please help right to the white house. >> john mccain chose sarah palin. awonder if that engendered national discussion about women in politics. >> and, but not a very coherent conversation. what struck me about michelle she did define herself. that had a big effect on changing her image. one thing you saw was before the highion, her polls were with the democrats. after the election and the inauguration, hard favorable roles with conservative women. presented herself as a mother did a lot to change her image. and it is something that women of hillary clinton's generation cannot fathom themselves. soda with your a children if you wanted to see as a credible working woman. >> too soft. >> you are not supposed to do that and you were supposed be all there at the workplace. iphoto that was like a generational difference between the two women. >> we will look at the convention where people of both parties who watched and sized up the candidates. they had a chance to see michelle obama for this national audience. [video clip] me when i met barack was even though he had a funny name and even though he had grown up across the continent in hawaii, his family was so much like mine. he was raised by grandparents who were working class folks just like my parents. and by a single mother who struggle to pay the bills just like we did. and unlike my family they squirmed and saved so he could have opportunities that they never had for themselves. barack and i were raised with so many of the same values. like you work hard for what you want in life. your word is your bond a you do what you say you are going to do. [applause] you treat people with dignity and respect even though you do not know them and even if you do not agree with them. >> what was she doing there? >> introducing herself and her husband to the american public. the guy with the funny name. and really -- she did a lot of that early on during the campaign. the role of the first lady in the modern time has been to candidate to help people connect with who he is as a person. about and what he is like at home. speechcampaign -- some she will talk about he leaves out sometimes and he snores. he is a real guy. and talking about him as a man. >> i think it was more important because she was also americanizing him, she was confirming he has a funny name. i thought he had a funny name when i heard of him. and it why met tim, i relied he was just as an -- and then when i met him, i relied he was just as american. i think she wanted the audience through that process. >> david is watching. >> thank you. first off, thank you c-span and the white house association for this series. i have learned a lot. is, istion is i'm a -- know what the issues michelle obama has been interested in his military families. do the panelists know where the issue originated from and how she has influenced military families today? >> yes, she got involved with the issue of military families really early on during the campaign, she talks about having met in many cases women who were raising their families without their husbands who were away at war and being moved by their sacrifices. and wanting to do something for not only the veterans but their families who were left behind and realizing that the like herself, most americans do not have a relative who is serving in the military. and associate along with the joe biden -- and she along with joe biden and joe biden's wife, who has children who have joined armed forces, they have done more than 10 visits families and go to basis -- bases. she went to the business roundtable and spoke to ceos of top companies about the need to hire more better at and to their families. and some companies have signed pledges to say how many they would hire. a program that is multifaceted. continueshe plans to it throughout her time in the white house. election night. the obamas are victorious. well one of the iconic pictures of the two of them. about themment significance of that tonight? know, they are going to be in history books regardless because they are firsts. it comes the moment aware that history is made and you see in the photos of the jubilation amongst their supporters there. a very divided electorate. you heard afterwards, many people on both sides of the aisle, who took pride in the country for having at least eclipsed that barrier. and the president himself said, he thinks people were excited about that. he said something like for about five minutes and then they want to know what you are going to do? pretty quickly that idea that they do not only want to be history making for being -- for having achieved know,eally remarkable you of being the first but to leave a legacy that is brighter than that. >> remembering they came in the 2008 financial crisis. people were wanting them to get to work. an attribute at c-span a width first lady lady in a 2009. she talked about her approach to it. every first lady brings a unique perspective to this job. notou did not, you could live through it. to the extent that it feels natural to me at any level and i never would have out living and the white house and being first lady would feel natural. it is because i try to make it me. i try to bring a little bit of michelle obama into this. at the same time, respecting and valuing the tradition that is america. >> they reached out to laura bush for ways in which they that she took to the role of first lady. >> lean onto some of that knowledge. it is a significant -- michelle governor'sot been a wife. she did not have the experience of setting up shop in that way. she had to figure out how to do that. she got help there. nancy reagan came in and they had lunch. i am told some of nancy reagan's advice was to have a lot of state debtors. she talks to those who knows as she prepares for this role. >> she went out to visit cabinet agencies which was an unusual thing for first ladies to do and and meetinglters with officials. we have an article that you wrote about another thing she did which was unusual was that she really lived in washington, d.c. you have a story called "michelle obama's washington," her first term. all of the areas that she visited and went out to work in ma speeches and went to restaurants. how does that differ from other first families in this town? >> it was interesting he cut she made this place home. i was able to talk to her. -- it was interesting because she made this place home. she visited the agencies and went out to restaurants with girlfriends and her daughters being in school here. at soccer games and catching shells at the local behaviors. -- theaters. getting to know the place outside of politics. that is not only rare for first families of but families in washington in general where you folks ejecting the back to their homes every weekend. spending time in washington is almost like a bad for your political life. she may have made a concerted effort to get to know this place and this city and town. as i was putting the list together of all of the places she had been, i had colleagues saying she has been to more restaurants in town and then i have. she is not allowed the white house to be as martha washington said something like a prison. the idea that you cannot get outside this bubble. she found ways to do it. >> including visiting families like target and the suburbs. if she alone and doing things like that? are they able to sneak away? -- sometimes, for her in terms of of being alone with her family, it means leaving washington. going to camp david or someplace where she can walk away and not to be the target of people. >> modern first ladies have done similar things. ng andbush went antiqui would check out to be shops. the idea that you have to find some way to maintain a life outside of just the structures of the white house. >> bill clinton would go running. not so much hillary clinton. i felt like the clintons had a presence in washington as well. really has covered the first lady extensively. we have graphics of the number of magazine covers that have been done on her. you wrote a book. there were lots of books coming out about michelle obama in various heart of a life. -- parts of her life. is there something special about this first lady? interest atintense the beginning. engage a willingness to the public outside of the traditional press corps. and the magazine covers are one example of that. every ain't from "vote -- "essehing from "vogue" to nce," such a broad spectrum. you are speaking to those audiences of those magazines in a very personal way. in the same way, she is on urban radio. and talking to people directly. mediae ways like social and that removes some filters. she's able to connect. >> one thing i want to ask. this is pretty soft stuff. the covers of women's magazine. you are both a journalist who want to cover this one and white house, how accessible have they been to you? >> part of that is bypassing the traditional media and going to solve outlets. i am very eager to cover her. when i wrote my book, not accessible. they were being very careful. it was outlets. 245i were being very, very careful about the public image. know, does she like her country episode. and they were being very careful public image. really not making her accessible. accessible. being i had to find other ways to report the story. still hink that's really the case. >> here's a clip that emonstrates the obama administration's approach to the entertainment media, really, to impression of he the first family. let's watch. >> thank you, jack. welcome to the white house, everyone. i'm so honored to help introduce year's nominees for best picture. >> this is my mid life crisis, bangs. i couldn't get a sportscar. they won't let me bungee jump, for the bangs. >> you went to the bangs. >> i went for the bangs. you're the boss of your hair. me, ou can take it from eating the right foods can help make you a better athlete. >> whew! >> oh. you was just wondering if could do more push-ups than i could do. >> you know, it depends on how your back is. i know you have these back issues. >> no, no. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20! keep going! 21, 22. >> so it has been fascinating series since television arrived on the political scene and late 1950s. you mentioned jaclyn kennedy and the tour of the white house. how the political have used this medium to campaign. the way she's collapsed pop culture and politics in the public in the has operated in that. creating the videos that go viral on youtube. on instagram, but she's just on instagram, she's posting throwback thursday in a but really engaging way that kind of captures the imagination. likewise, as i was saying, not doing that through the filter of press.n stream so you're constantly cultivating image and being present in the everyday people. she's a popular figure. i don't know everyone's poll now.rs but she is probably one of the most popular figures within the party.atic so to have her, you know, be such a public presence, you team like the miami heat in that -- that basketball around, at got shared you know, so much is -- is a strategiceresting and way to look at her public image. two things. do i like to put a slide which seriesone in each of the about the key events that have happened in the terms so far. a graphic in pugh research that compares to the president's approval ratings and the first ladies. take a look at the key events in the 2008 ency so far, presidential crisis and the stimulus package and all the of.entations there the prosecution of the iraq and afghanistan wars and the policy debates over that. health care f the act, the 2010 election which republicans in and the standoff relations with congress and again so many story including the closing of the government debates.ebt ceiling osama bin laden's killing. and the 2012 re-election of those.some this is how pew research tracked and president's approval ratings. you can see the president's story is one of coming down over time. and the first lady has been consistent along the wail. the president from 79 now in the 45.a of about michelle obama, 68, 76, 69, 66. along the way.ent to what do we owe that? chrishink everything that said, the management and tending image, the special approach to social media as well media.prevent the mom in chief, the family does seem to be flourishing. it is and remains a very appealing family tableau. issues that she's chosen. they're not hard issues. breaking t mold issues. the let's move campaign. in ink they're -- they're and sort with literacy of traditional first lady this.ms like >> jacksonville, florida, go ahead? i have for you concerning mr. obama and dr. biden. be so recognizable and work so well together as political wives? go out and socialize just the two of them together, if they're allowed to go outside of the white house at all together? >> that's an interesting question. dr. biden iece about in the 2012 campaign and got to her staff and,of you know, see her and read up on her. point that they work well together. both e friendly, but they have very busy lives. so the idea that they're sort of hanging out very regularly just doesn't happen. being tion to you know the vice president's wife which comes with much fewer but some duties. joe biden also continues to teach at a local community college. she's an english professor. so often when she was travelling campaign, she had her papers with her and she'd be that kind of and thing. you know, thatt, idea that they're just enjoying another's company doesn't happen very often. >> also the lesson the second continue to pursue her career but so far the first lady has not been able to do, laura bush talked about with us during the series. she chose somewhat issue, oversial including the -- the eating well campaign. 's move >> her staff would argue with you about that. >> noncontroversial. can tell you from facebook comments it is controversial, yes, with some people. e have another clip with her talking to young people at the white house. these were students who were in from washington, d.c. it all happened from the c-span up from the student cam competition. one of the students did a about the let's move concept. mrs. obama met with the students to talk about it at the white house. talk a little bit about that. >> having the platform in the tote house is really helpful getting attention to stuff, right? i do something, a lot of cameras people tend to watch and write about. sometimes they write about more wearing.t i'm so i think it's my job to help shine the light on things that are already working. so that's one of the reasons why chose this as my initiative. i also think that one of the the ways i think we can move this effort, one of the think we can be is that it doesn't require, i don't believe, and others may have struggled a more, it doesn't require whole scale changes in your life. guys,eauty about kids, you is that you're young, your metabolisms are really healthy, really means that once you start moving and eat right, -- you guys to change really quickly. is're growing and everything work right. so if we make some little changes, get you guys moving little more movement, a little less tv, if we take out can make nk, if we school lunches better. if we can get you guys educated families about what to eat, these are things that you can control. millions of ke dollars and a whole bunch of legislation to get it done. to count on people passing stuff, thank god, to move this problem along. but, to your point, calling sugary drinks a problem for the school lso lunch. >> there's a lot of money tied up in the food industry. there's also some strategy in how you address know,-- these issues, you food politics for those who are are ved in it, you know, very contentious. and you see some of this in the debate, you know, this idea that, you know, she's a part of the nanny state in telling, you they can't eat. and in the video she talks about not needing to pass legislation some of this. but she very much was supportive the legislation that changed chool lunches which in some corners has been a bit controversial. they're big changes in, you teenagers from some making videos complaining about, you know, like not having as junk food at lunch. people are trying to figure out these things nt and, you know, there's some support in some corners and not in others. >> you -- we have a photograph of the organic garden at the white house. were talking before the program started. you mentioned it's going to become a permanent part of the as far as werounds know, is that slight. >> is it going to be -- like an garden? well, as the first lady wrote which made g book, "the new york times" best seller the beginning, the proceeds of the book were going to the foundation supportive of the garden. there's money there to continue to tend it even after the obamas are no longer in the white house. that's in keeping in the tradition of the white house, right? there used to be animals could bring in urban chickens on some point. >> right. > i think left the wilson administration. other part that we don't see, the influence she's had on the president, what is known about him he's been able to move and the direction in causes that matter to her from a policy perspective. we talked about some, this dea that especially on social issues, she's pretty progressive. talked about same-sex marriage before they came out in support of gay marriage. he's important. 2012 stump the speech before the vice president came out and the president came out for same-sex marriage, she talking about discriminating against people because of who they love. her speech.s in it didn't generate a lot of headlines. made clear where they stood on that issue. time in the white house. the first lady of mexico, in a school in the washington, i think they were in the suburbs. and there's a young girl who's the audience. they're just having a conversation probably about omething related to healthy eating. she raises her hand and says -- you know, says, what should i do? my mom doesn't have papers. to the first ladies who were there. really gripping moment and so that's hard to imagine there weren't the white ns back at house about this encounter in immigration. watching us in bridgewell, delaware. hi, liz, you're on the air. >> hi, susan. for the program. i've been enjoying it. ask your guest how michelle obama interacted or about her in-laws. family seems to be very them.ant to and i was wondering how much she meant to each other. fond affection for the ininform laws? >> on twitter, the same question. obama ever meet the president's mother? if yes, what was the relationship? a really good question. i can't answer it at length. meet.did she would not have met barack obama's father. >> we have a picture she was at wedding. >> right, right. i don't know a great deal about their relationship. i don't think that it was close. christa? >> i don't know and, you know, bit about nt talks a his mother's passing when he talked about health care and i'm time they did ch have to spend together. >> right. right. >> tomorrow night, there's going dinner at the white house. you mentioned earlier that they used the state dinner. asked in each program about the first lady's job as a the white house. how has mrs. obama approached house, what white has she done in the mansion? how does she approach it ifferently than other first ladies. >> we talked about the garden a bit. hat's her signature stamp on the place. she seems to be the part she's most excited about. out e her regularly going for the kind of ceremonial plantings and harvesting and being out there with children. also using the house -- she's referred to it as the people's house. idea that people who never come to the white house should and what are ways to do that? and the kind of bringing in who have never been there before. o you can zealots of school children coming through for are a ps when there celebrity giving a musical performance, there will be a the day withier in students from local schools. so this idea that you could use in some hird space or is i community center, think a little fresh and different. >> we must remember for a number years in the beginning of the administration, it was closed to publish tours because of the downturn. so restrictions were happening at that point. they had different public interface with the white house than in previous administrations. 15 minutes left and a lot to cover in this. you mentioned chris thompson once the election election was won, the first lady got together with strategists to issues she would get more involved in. one of those is going to be clearly education. have a clip from bowie state university last year, whereically black college the first lady talks about education and its importance. let's listen. for generations, in many parts of this country, it was people to get ck an education. writingaught reading or could be beaten to within an inch of their lives. anyone, black or white who dared to teach them could be fined or thrown into jail. just two years after the emancipation proclamation was signed, this school was founded not just to teach them to educate americans, but to teach them how to teach others. act of n many ways an defiance, an eloquent rebuttal black people at shouldn't or couldn't be educated. but today, more than 150 years emancipation proclamation, more than 50 years of separate but equal, when it comes to getting too many of our oung people just can't be bothered. today instead of walking miles on chool, they're sitting couches for hours watching on tv. or a d of being a teacher business lead leader, they fantasize about being a baller wrapper. >> what can we expect on this issue from the years ahead. > i was there when she gave that speech. i don't know if you could hear the applause clearly. it was well received. the meetings and thinking about what she would spend her time doing in addition o the healthy eating and military families, the sort of connectivity that you could see she had with these audiences where she was talking bout issues around education became clear to her staff. planned to develop education to be focused on students, working educationepartment of to just reinforce the high particularly s those who are still early in the high school years that they eally need to be preparing themselves for college, you know, going through the minutia of it, you know? just last week, she was at a seminar where they were talking filling importance of out your financial aid forms. she's done a video where she -- shared some of her experience when she first got to prince ton and didn't have were long enough for her bed. these kinds of things, the idea that she knows what it feels not to be completely prepared for in process, but that you can go through it nyway, that you could be successful and really, again, this idea of role modelling saying that and there's no magic here. hat's her message in this education. oregon, you'red, on. >> i want to say to the host and the guest invited that you family, my mother is really enjoying the show. i have a quick question. jordan,hards and barbara one was a double standard, you have to know your own purpose. exemplifies a knowing her own purpose. i want to say this is a great show. there a possible consideration for a hillary clinton and michelle obama 2016? in thank you very much. >> thank you. >> a number of people on twitter wondering whether or not the lady has political ambitions of their own. do we know? that.ople ask will she be like the hillary? parallel between her and hillary clinton because they're both lawyers. i don't think she'll run for office.al i think hillary clinton had a early on. policy may disagree. >> no, it's interesting. said emphatically many times she's not interested. say that and ns you know in the back of their mind that they won't run. expansive about it, you know, she doesn't feel like she has the personality for it. be too impatient for running for office. you get the sense, especially in were talking about messaging and the way she enjoys connecting to the public that through the rigors of dealing with the political press would not be something that she would enjoy. you know, she'll the whiteimpact after house and. >> she'll stay in public life somehow. michelle changing the role of first lady the future irst ladies will emulate or model? do we know yet? >> i think the way that she has entertainment and pop culture has been in some ways ground breaking. have to say as the reporter who covers her when i saw her at the oscars, it was head -- you know, a head-turning kind of a moment, lady hat was the first doing on the oscars. your staff talked about it. later, she talked about the that she the idea could do it and there was an invitation and maybe some of the folks in hollywood could come and support the program to help kids. and so just really kind of stricterstside of the of politics, i think that's a that we may lazed see other first ladies follow. > the time we have left, we looked at the approval raitings, than herhe 60s, higher husbands for much of the time. criticism. we talked about what she she's red for phrases used and for her husband. but there's been trips and taken.ons she's what are your comments when you look at how she approached that. inexpensive sneakers worn into a soup kitchen. otherrite about something than what i'm wearing. in fact, she's cultivated the public image of being very fashionable. and she's quite interested in well.lothes as then, hink every now and there has been a misstep of aking expensive vacations at a time when the country is really suffering. >> christa? had to do much to animate folks who -- >> true. don't like her. e looked at the poll numbers earlier. the favorable rate has stayed steady. and so has the unfavorable rate. quarter of the american public doesn't like the first lady. uncommon.t you hear from them on even issues like the healthy eating shows up on the oscars, there are tweets and she's everywhere. she everywhere? o it hasn't been a universal lovefest, that's for sure. >> you write in your book behind organizes and how she her staff around her. she had turnover in her staff in the years she's in the white house. write in your book, she's a better boss than employee. she likes to be in charge. not like her time to be wasted and she's forceful and intimidating. what's the michelle obama that the public doesn't see? >> i don't think that would anybody. we don't see that person, i would say, a lot. but i don't think it would surprise people. have a forceful and i think charismatic personality. hat you don't see interestingly, when she was in high school, she was terrified of public speaking. courage o work up the to give a public speech when she was running for office. -- she has mean that really grown into a role of having fun fortable and giving speeches and really, theknow, she's found the -- spotlight and is very comfortable in it. who'se a call from jackie watching us in clairemore, jackie. , >> caller: hi, how are you. thank you so much for taking my phone call. i have two questions. first one is, which first lady do you think michelle obama is most similar to. the second question is to your guests. if michelle -- if you could michelle obama to have dinner with any other first ladies, which one would it be why? >> those are great comments as we not only close the michelle but also close out this series? any responses for her? >> that's interesting -- hillary clinton a lot, but i don't think she's like hillary clinton. compared to jackie onassis, i think with the the ur and the arts and harnessing of culture, more of a comparison there. could take pieces of first ladies and kind of compare them to. some of the jackie o with the cultivation of the image and the family. nd you know you can see a little bit of laura bush and the kind of being able to maintain popularity, being very popular with the base. he was also a popular fundraiser within her party. hillary clinton is a more comparison. michelle obama is more ambitious as hillary ay clinton is. you can take slices of the modern first ladies. obama told michelle c-span that it is the modern first ladies that she sort of more than some other first ladies that history pages in the book. all an evolutionary process. you grow into this role. is that you never get comfortable if you're always pushing for change and growth, yourself, but in the issues that you care about. you're never done. a point in time where you feel like there. i am now here and i can do this all the time. it's always changing. change is given the state of the the country and you never know what those are going to be from one day to the next. so you have to be flexible and to evolve.pen > and on the evolution again, we're coming full circle of the three years she has left. what can we expect? >> what would you say? >> i think the education nitiative is going to be paramount. it's interesting because i do you know, 2013 felt, like a continuation of the first terms. idea of whether things will be much different in the you have already seen her be really busy about new ing, you know, this program. but they -- she also said, you know, she's going to continue been doing. o i think we may have seen michelle obama that we're going to see in the next three years. i don't think she'll stray very far. >> uh-huh. >> from course. >> i think she'll be sending her in the next ollege three years which is a really significant transition as a family. we'll see much of that. but that is a significant transition. protection -- he the bubble they put around their kids in the white house. 16, thetalking earlier, older daughter this year, a time when many children learn to drive. drive when earn to you're in the white house as a teenager? interesting to watch. obama has a quote i think you reported from chris thompson about her life in the i will be in my early 50s when i leave, and i have so much more that i should a mother, as a professional, or a mentor of other kids. >> she's representative of many women. we may see that women in general that our career trajectories are little different than mens and women's careers may peak later because of that child rearing period. so she's been in this -- in addition to being first lady, been in intensive child rearing period. and i think when she comes out reenterf this, she will the workforce, if you will, in a significant way. >> this marriage is about taking turns. this has been his turn. >> so we end it from martha obama, on to michelle the year-long series on the lives of the first ladies. i want to put the book on screen is they have written which the biographies of all of the first ladies and help to make the special edition to you throughout the year. historical organizations did and many other materials and organizations we did to produce the series. we want to say thank you to them and to all of the good folks along the way, interested in american history. and two guests tonight, liza and helping thank you for us understand more about the life of michelle obama? >> thank you. >> thank you, susan. is. >> next monday on president's day, we'll conclude first ladies the mage with a look at series, from martha washington to michelle obama. first lady role the has evolved and bring you highlights from the series. next week starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. we're offering a special edition of the book, "first ladies of the united states of biography esenting a and portrait of each first lady and comments from noted istorians on the role of first ladies throughout history. it's available for the discounted price plus shipping c-span.org/products. our web site has more about the irst ladies, including a special section, welcome to the white house, produced by our partner, the white house association. it chronicles the life in the executive mansion during the enure of each of the first ladies. you can find out more on c-span.org/firstladies. c-span.org website gives you access to an incredible library of political with more added each day nonstop c-span's coverage of national politics, history, and politician books. c-span's daily coverage of official washington or access ore than 200,000 hours of archived c-span video. everything c-span has covered since 1987. video is all searchable nd viewable on your desk top computer, tablet, or smart phone. just look for the prominent earch bar at the top of each page. the new c-span.org makes it easy what happens today in washington and find people and events in the past 25 years. it's the most comprehensive library in politics. >> janet yellen will testify before congress before the first the new head of the federal reserve tomorrow morning. she'll take questions from house financial services committee, and at nation's olicy, the economic outlook and last week's monthly jobs report. at 10:00 coverage a.m. eastern on c-span 3. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. and later in the day, on c-span coveragebring you live of the white house state dinner or the french president who's visiting washington. elected hollande was resident in 2012 defeating nicolas sarkozy. follow us on facebook and twitter. discussion on privacy issues and digital technology. from arizona congressman hostedlmon at this event by the heritage foundation's conservative policy summit. so matt began answering the call to serve. in 2012 he was re-elected to the house of representatives and we're pretty lucky that he was. matt's a rock solid conservative. he's the kind that we need more of. he's here for all the right reasons. and he also has a lot of experience. having served those terms in the '90s, he's somebody that his colleagues can look to for some guidance. and to understand the history of the house of representatives. this morning matt will talk to us about one of the big important policies that we're unveiling today. the bill he'll talk to us about this morning is actually very simple. it would ensure that the american people have the ability to communicate with one another electronically without the government eavesdropping. very basic. but very important. it's in our communications with one another, after all, with our loved ones, our families, our friends, our colleagues, our customers, our competitors, it's in those communications that we share our ideas, we share our passions. and in so doing we form those voluntary associations that form the bedrock of american civil society. a government that's big enough, and willing to put a chill on these kinds of communications, is a very dangerous thing for the health of a nation. please join me in welcoming matt salmon to the podium to talk about how to address this problem. >> well, it's really cool to be here today. a wise man named benjamin franklin once said, those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. now that saying is so important to me that i had my wife etch it on my wall in my congressional office. and this man was at the core of the generation that learned firsthand the cost of unchecked power. this experience gained the hard way offered our founding fathers critical insights into how a government for and by the people ought to be held accountable. in their wisdom gained by experience, our founders specifically guaranteed the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unwarranted search and seizures. our founding fathers were not simple men and they certainly were not ignorant or naive. and they understand that the challenges that we would have to face in a free nation as a free state, they understood well though that without security there is no liberty. and without liberty there is no security. to strike this delicate balance between liberty and security they instituted the constitution, and the bill of rights is the foundation for this new experiment in self-governance with maximum liberty being held to the highest ideals. today we find ourselves in a fight of epic proportions as it relates to our individual liberties and their preservation. day after day we see news story after news story chronicling the damaging effects of out-of-control surveillance states. in fact last summer edward snowden released a series of exposes revealing a series of surveillance programs such as prism, and tempura as well as the interception of u.s. and european telephone metadata. these revelations raise serious questions about what we, the american people, were willing to trade for our security. those who stood with me in defense of our constitution and particularly the fourth amendment to that constitution, were accused of being naive. and we were accused of being ignorant by those advocates of mass snooping saying, after all, what do you have to hide? mass spying did not protect us from the boston marathon bombers, or the christmas day bomber. it didn't protect us from the times square bomber, the shooting at an army recruiter center in arkansas or the shooting at ft. hood. in fact, when deputy attorney general james cole was asked how many criminal cases resulted from the use of this surveillance dragnet he said there may be one. in america's time of financial crisis, with billions of dollars being spent to support this gigantic secret snooping operation, a simple cost benefit analysis of these programs would determine if they're effective enough to warrant mass amounts of funding that they receive. in fact, i can think of at least one far-flung consulate in benghazi, libya, that on the night of september 11th, 2012, may have been able to use some of those resources. in a free country there's a strong case to be made for the use of clandestine operations to help ensure the safety of its citizenry. lawful covert surveillance programs provide critical life-living information to our service men and our servicewomen defending us at home and abroad. we as american citizens understand that these operations, just as any other military offensive, must be targeted and well executed in order to be effective in saving the lives of our troops and innocent civilians. while the case can be made that secret operations may be necessary in order to save lives, a case with a lack of congressional oversight cannot. transparency and privacy are the core of a republic. a republic demands transparency for the government. and privacy for its citizens. today we reverse that with government demanding transparency from us, but insisting on secrecy for itself. one of my favorite philosophies fredrick bossier in his treatise to law said this, if the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it's not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? or do they believe that they themselves are made out of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? of course there is a role for secrecy but there must be a role for transparency. when you have secret courts, and secret judges, giving secret interpretations of the law to a point where its author can't believe how it's been misconstrued and then lie to the american people about it, we got a problem. and this problem could not have been more obvious to me as i sat on a classified congressional briefing that was being held in the wake of edward snowden's release of information about the nsa's secret spying programs. now in this briefing, members of congress asked specific questions about the size and scope of these secret programs. time and time again the answers given by the nsa went something like, we're not going to disclose that. and don't worry, we've got it covered. needless to say our own government does not seem to think it important to tell the american people the truth. last year senator ron wyden asked nsa director james clapper whether the nsa collected any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans. clapper, who was under oath, responded by saying, no, sir. we now know that this was a blatant lie. furthermore it could not be ignored that the author of the patriot act, representative jim sensenbrenner has been quoted on saying on multiple occasions that congress would never have passed or twice reauthorized the patriot act had it known the full breadth of the nsa's snooping operation. the fact is, as usual, when you give the government an inch, they take a mile. we simply can't afford to play around with our most basic, fundamental human rights. back in may the 4 -- before the revelations of edward snowden came to light i introduced legislation to restore transparency, accountability and confidence to our national security apparatus. hr-1847, the electronic communications privacy act, is designed to increase protections for electronic communications, including personal e-mails, of u.s. citizens, and addresses the privacy concerns raised from the recent position that the irs took that the fourth amendment does not apply, and does not protect the privacy of personal, unopened e-mails because internet users do not have a reasonable expectations of privacy in such communications. clearly there is a need to ensure the privacy of personal e-mails. in the ever-changing world of our technology our laws must be updated to ensure our congressional -- excuse me our constitutional rights are protected regardless of what mode of communication that we use. my bill requires the government to obtain a warrant or explicit written consent to read e-mails, text messages, or any other form of private electronic messaging. we have a duty to uphold the constitution that freed us and the rights it provides and this bill is one way to achieve that responsibility. i'm proud to sponsor the house version of the electronic communications privacy amendments act of 2013 because it will properly update the current version of the electronic communications privacy act and affirm the fundamental right of every american in regards to their privacy. at times, when we feel most betrayed by our own government, it can be all too easy to focus solely on it, label it as the problem. and ignore the many other real threats to our liberty that confront us on a daily basis. to maintain a proper perspective on those threats to our freedoms at home and abroad can be difficult. on one hand, it's imperative that we remain vigilant. focused and willing to confront our enemies wherever they may be. on the other hand, we've got to be careful not to forfeit the freedoms that we set out to defend in the first place, in the name of temporary security. but i believe that we are, as americans, are up to the challenge. this challenge will require us to be educated, unintimidated, and something you probably don't see a lot here, reasonable. it require us to act pro-actively, and with precision, rather than with emotional responses. my friends, never. has it been more important to stand and be counted among those who recognize that our natural rights of god-given, not given to us by any government, we've got to stand together unintimidated in defense of these natural rights to ensure that the founding ideals of our great nation survive for many, many generations to come. our views are not foreign out of naivete or ignorance, rather they're borne of a deep understanding of history and human nature, and by the virtue of understanding we as independent self-reliant americans maintain a healthy distrust for centralized power. we understand at the end of the day that we are free men, and free women, under god, and that our rights are not ours to give away. thank you. >> congressman salmon is going to stay and participate in our panel. and if our panelists could come up now, that would be great. we are going to spend a few minutes talking about this. katie mcauliffe is the federal affairs manager and executive director for digital liberty at americans for tax reform and paul rosenzweig is a busy fellow here in our edwin meese center for legal and judicial studies, and we're excited to have them for this discussion. so we'll open it up for questions in a few minutes, and i think i'll join you all. >> good. we can start off, i think i'll direct a question to paul to start with. paul, talk to us a little bit about the constitutional history in this subject area, so we kind of have that background. >> well, as the congressman rightly pointed to the fourth amendment of the constitution as the ground for our discussion of the reform act, the text of that protects american people's reasonable expectations of privacy. it protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers and effects. the quintessential ground for that amendment is the searching of private correspondence. the classic cases involved, james otis, who was a publisher, and was subject of search by british authorities prior to the revolution, under what were then known as general warrants, which are essentially orders to permit searches without any specificity, and without a finding of probable cause. these -- this case, and others like it, were widely known and famous throughout the colonies at the time of the founding, and formed the basis for the traditional historic suspicion of unchecked government authority to access your papers. your personal papers. if you would have asked any founding father at the time of the framing, you know, what was the two classic things that were protected against intrusions without -- by the government by the fourth amendment the first thing he would have said would have been, they can't come into my house. because a man's home is his castle was a classic english common law principle. and then the second thing would have been, and they can't read my mail. they can't read my private correspondence. fast forward to today, or fast forward to 1986, which is the dawn of the computer era. i mean think about where you were in 1986 and the power of computers. e-mail was still really in the future. and the electronic communications privacy act was written at a time when the idea of actually storing e-mail was impossible. it would be delivered, you'd read it, and then it would disappear. so, congress, not, you know, not with any bad intent, but simply because of a lack of the ability to predict the future, which all of us share, simply didn't come to understand that gmail, and other cloud-based mail services, would become the post office of the future. and that we would now communicate more in our private letters, through electronic means than we do through paper and pen. and so the equivalent of what we're looking at today is a search of the desk in your house, where you keep your personal love letters from your husband, or wife, or your -- the personal mail from your daughter or your father or your mother, but now, instead of storing them in my desk, place and the way and the form in which i store them is different, but the nature of what is in them is exactly the same. and so that's the kind of constitutional transition from the fourth amendment to 1986, which, you know, the mac was just 2 years old, right, to today. thank you. one more question. then we'll open it up. katie, you've been working on the coalition on this, on this issue for quite some time, and what struck me about this coalition is, it is strange bedfellows to say the least. but i think that that says something about the power of the issue. can you talk about the coalition members, talk about the dynamics of the coalition. talk about where you see this going, what the chances for passage are, et cetera? >> sure. so there are a few different coalitions that are very supportive of this. i'm a member of both digital due process and digital forest along with heritage, american civil liberties union and center for democracy and technology, we're all working to the very actively to move this forward because the fourth amendment is something that everyone can support. you're talking about domestic law enforcement, going in to your service provider with a subpoena so they can read your e-mail, without your knowledge. they would have to come to you with a warrant, we think they should also have to come to your service provider with a warrant, with your knowledge, so that you can find out what is privileged and what's not so that you can go through the process. this is something that doesn't -- doesn't impede law enforcement's ability to do their job, which is something that's also very important. which is why, you know, we all support this. for passage it should be very simple. right? we're all concerned with privacy. there have been a few other things going on and electronic communications, privacy reform, common sense is something that should be easy to pass right now. but for some reason, the fcc and other civil agencies, investigative agencies, think that they should be able to read your e-mail. and that is what is holding this back. they came forward, and they said, wait, wait, wait, we're a civil investigative agency, the fcc says this, and if you change it then we can't read people's e-mails anymore and we kind of want to be able to do that. there's really not an instance that i can think of very easily where there would be a civil investigation that was, i mean so important that there wasn't a criminal investigation going alongside it. where they couldn't leverage some kind of warrant need. so this is kind of an outlandish thing that if it were to pass with any kind of amendment that would allow the s.e.c. or any other agency, you name it, computer financial protection bureau, epa, it just goes on and on and on, s.e.c., fcc, you know, they would all want a piece of the pie, and that would actually weaken where we stand right now. so we would be backtracking with any kind of amendment like that. and the coalition has been working very hard to keep this out, because if that kind of amendment is added, then i mean, what's the point? >> good. thank you. i think we'll open it up to questions. right here. >> as a firm believer in the fourth amendment, trying to understand the government's position as to why they need this information, has there been any discussion about, you know, there is software technology out there that could be used by the separate service providers that could essentially index the metadata, and keep it in, you know, essentially 20 or 30 silos, rather than the government's argument of having all haystacks in one location under government control? has there been any discussion about this kind of technology or keeping the metadata with the service providers, and only being granted that sliver of information when a warrant is issued? >> well, that's a little bit different when you're talking about metadata versus content. and not to go down the rabbit hole on this, but metadata is often used to build the -- build a case to get to the content. if we're going to talk about metadata there should be a discussion as to what metadata actually is and what should constitute that. whether a web address, or who is sending who what at what time, you know, who's sending who what at what time? you know, what's the problem in seeing that. that's how you build a case to get to the content but the content is really what we're talking about here. and being able to subpoena the service provider for the content without the target's knowledge, that's the major problem. [ inaudible ] >> -- in one location? >> they don't have that with electric communication privately with the way that -- when we're talking about domestic -- domestic law enforcement and them building cases and how they get to that, they don't have huge stacks of data somewhere that they go tap into. >> another question over here. >> hi. i script my notes otherwise i don't remember them. two points and then a larger comment. one, people need to remember that the service providers are private companies. we're already abusing our metadata. two is the issue of aliases. i think it's a word that's got to be brought up into any act addressing communications and privacy. are aliases are our twitter handles, our e-mail names, et cetera. my greater point is, congressman, i'm not hearing your bill address the underground activism funded by the state department that started under hillary clinton. she's been -- state es quite public that their funding with millions of dollars underground groups like tor who will then steal the identities, the isp identities of people domestically. and knowingly their identities have been stolen when they cross the site, and then an underground volunteer of this daisy chain that's been established takes that person's identity overseas, probably even to locations like benghazi, that are used then to spark unrest. so the identity of the overseas activist actually is someone possibly in wisconsin. so i think as you're discussing the electronic communications of what goes on with the nsa, the reach would benefit with what the state is doing quite actively. otherwise they're working against what you're trying to accomplish in my estimation. >> okay. good. i think what we found in actually moving legislation here on the hill, that we do think that a step by step process -- i'm actually sponsoring or co-sponsoring what i would consider to be many pieces of fourth amendment type legislation. we also have a fix on the patriot act that co-sponsored, as well, the liberty act that i'm co-sponsoring as well. and so the more we try to address in one bill, the less its chances of passage. we almost have to take it on a step by step. this bill was introduced after the irs said that because of the 180-day rule, that after 180-day rule e-mails were fair game and they didn't need warrants to go in. my bill revokes that 180-day rule, and also requires that they get warrants for any. but i think the more specific we get on a piece by piece approach, the more likely we're going to be able to get it done. we find that omnibus legislation generally speaking where you throw everything in and the christmas tree, especially on something like this, probably wouldn't stand a very good chance of passage. >> right here. [ inaudible ] >> -- digital privacy and sort of an effort to call for reforms? >> the tech industry is very much interested in maintaining the privacy of its consumers. that's a promise that they want to make. and they've been wounded in terms of their business model by suggestions that they are subject to government compulsion to give away the private information of their own customers. they are, therefore, large members of the coalitions that katie was talking about, and broadly support the idea that government access to the data that they hold on your behalf should be limited to the maximum extent that is consistent with good law enforcement practices. i mean, they're not trying to sit behind walls, and say the

Related Keywords

Miami , Florida , United States , New York , Arkansas , Nevada , Afghanistan , Delaware , Boston , Massachusetts , Honolulu , Hawaii , Illinois , Wisconsin , Oregon , Washington , District Of Columbia , Prince Ton , California , Jordan , United Kingdom , Mexico , Arizona , Iraq , Hollywood , Libya , Gas Sat , Aquitaine , France , Chicago , Americans , America , French , British , American , Craig Robinson , Benjamin Franklin , Joe Biden , Jackie Onassis , Clinton Knights , Janet Yellen , Bush Laura , Chris Thompson , Fredrick Bossier , Jaclyn Kennedy , John Mccain , Nancy Reagan , Mary J Blige , Ron Wyden , Paul Rosenzweig , James Cole , Jeremiah Wright , Edward Snowden , Barack Obama , Michelle Obama , George W Bush , Las Vegas , Sarah Palin , Freddie Mack , James Otis , Nicolas Sarkozy , Laura Bush , Jim Sensenbrenner , Katie Mcauliffe , Hillary Clinton , Martha Obama , William Pearson ,