tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 19, 2014 4:00am-6:01am EST
have the working group process that put forward unprecedented level of cooperation you are seeing. we learned a lot from that, that narrative system. you will find we talked about 1755 to 1780, some sharing, in the end we go pre auction, making sure everything gets set up but then operational lives the use of the spectrum. as we saw, we had some challenges but you got to work through those challenges, requirements on both sides and even today we deal with those issues. in the end it will be a collaboration, working with the agencies that will make this whole thing works. >> had a great talk.
i say that facetiously in the same direction. i have never seen closer alignment on the federal side and the non federal side with the appreciation we need to find ways to accommodate all of the innovative ideas, the growth and challenging the need for more spectrum, and they check their smart phones and get into the car, checking at home and so forth and what you saw on the screen, the driverless cars a little bit farther out but things where you get up in the morning and the device is checking how you are doing today, do you need to go in and
get a checkup? this is enabling all sorts of new applications that will improve our lives in the economy. i want to say a few words about the tech talk, what we have been learning as we have gone through this process you heard reference a few times, just for some of you who may not be as focused on the details, why this is important, it is a piece that's adjacent to one of the major broadbands, a w. s. 1, we already have in our portfolio on the nonfederal size spectrum that would match up with a companion piece to expand that using what you have been hearing about 1755-1780. it was a long and hard road and we have a ways to go. a lot of work looking at a
broader peace, 1755-1850. the difficulties of the reallocation and expense when compared to the benefits of lower piece really centers down the staff. there is a need to transition systems out of that spectrum, we found ways to identify ways to share with what will be there for some time. part of the solution was sharing with the band of 2025 used for electronic news gathering is on the nonfederal side. was not used constantly. there is space for the services to share and great cooperation between the broadcasters and
department of defense and working up a way to share that specter mess part of the solution. what we have ahead of us is working on the transition plans and making sure parties understand, with the transition the going to look like. the second thing i will talk about is 3.5 gigahertz, i agree that people view the spectrum of three gigahertz with the prime beachfront property, and a few temples or stones, and the federal size identified 100 megahertz of spectrum that would be made available for nonfederal use. what is there? the biggest thing that people focus on is offshore high-powered navy radars so the sharing was identified as having
exclusionary along the coast that was rather large but this was all focused on ubiquitous wide area coverage wireless systems. the real issue in many cases for wireless broadband is capacity so people start focusing on small cells, low power cells put in place where you need to pick up capacity and already have coverage but not enough space. once things turn there was a lot more interest on the nonfederal side and it chang
>> the u.s. had advocated a model based on dynamic frequency selection or dfs. it was brand new, it was accepted by the world. we came back, found out that it took a little bit more work than we anticipated, so why is this so hard? because you're searching for signals that you can't always identify. [laughter] and just looking for a particular level to tell you whether something is there or not often is not sufficient. so it was really tough, and there were points along the way where it wasn't clear we were going to come up with an answer. so now fast forward to today. if your wi-fi technologies has continued to evolve, there's a new standard that you're seeing on the store shelves, the
802.11 ac standard. what's so magic about it? it can offer data speeds of above one gigabit per second, and it uses channel band bandwidths of 180 megahertz. there are a couple of lines that have been identified for expansion, 5450 to 5470. the difficulty is that there are different kinds of radar systems in there, and the techniques that were used before can't be used without some adjustment or some other change to share with the systems that are in there. and you've already heard the question there the audience, there's also the earth exploration satellite system in there. so there's a lot of work that we have to do to make in this happen. i tend to be an optimist. when you get technical people together trying to solve a problem, you often can come up with a solution. maybe not all the time, i but
more often than not, you figure out a way to do it. so i'll stop there. i just would add that, you know, as we go forward, you know, we're going to continue of to have the exclusive use and the unlicensed models, but as we're searching for more spectrum, sharing is really going to be the focus. trying to figure out how we develop techniques to evaluate both an analytical and testing side on these new sharing methods, it's going to be a real challenge for us as we go ahead so that we don't stand in the way of these things coming out, our testing processes have to be at least as fast as the technology's rolling out. thanks. >> great, thank you. peter? >> thanks, jim. thanks for having me, thanks for the reunion and looking back at fond memories that the last time i was at the old location, i guess, at csis i was working with paul on spectrum policy task force at the fcc.
and back in 2003 i did pull up the report from there, and a lot of it's kind of interesting to go back and revisit. i recommend everybody do that. take a look at -- so paul and i came over and briefed former secretary schlessinger and mr. galvin who are leading this effort at csis to do this report. jim invited us over. i can't remember if that was before or after we had run into each other at our kids' school, you know? but we also add that in common. had that in common. i went back, i just pulled it up when we were back there and kind of looked at the recommendations. it's amazing how these things come around. first recommendation was white house oversight. well, since then i think there's been at least three presidential memos on spectrum and a new spectrum policy team established within the white house. another recommendation was a spectrum advisory board at ntia
we have a commerce spectrum management advisory committee. one of the members sitting here in the front row, jennifer, you know? so i think that serves the bill. there's also an interagency group called the ppsg, policy, plan steering group, i believe it's called. jenna wheeler participates in that with the cia from dod and all the other federal agencies with spectrum. so there's lots of interagency collaboration. reinforce the international functions was another one that we had a little discussion about that, how that's maybe still in the works. but i won't go into that. research support for spectrum innovation, that was one of the things that struck a chord, and i think that is a key focus, and that's one of the things that ntia's work on in conjunction with the national institute of standards and technology, and we're putting together a center
for advanced communications which jenna wheeler talked about the nastin initiative which would be under that center for advanced communications. so that's being implemented. and last but not least the recommendation from csis was a national spectrum strategy. and, wow, that's kind of interesting. couple days before dod implemented -- you know, announces their strategy which, you know, i think is important that it be, you know, technology-driven and then so these guys mentioned centered around, you know, collaborative efforts and spectrum sharing. so it's interesting, you know, these things don't die easily, and these recommendations even though they were made a long time ago, you know, ultimately, ultimately, you know, somebody picks up and implements them.
one other point i just want to touch upon regarding incentives. and spectrum. and then how incentives apply to the federal agencies. those of you stayed at home thursday and friday because of snow or if you didn't, you missed it, there was an announcement that came out of the white house, the office of technology, of science and technology policy, ostp, about a new report authored by the science and technology policy institute. it was a survey of a variety of incentives or approaches, recommendations for federal agencies to relinquish or share spectrum. so they -- spectrum policy team in the white house put out a
federal register notice seeking comment on that report, and i'd encourage, you know, folks -- i think it's about a 30-day cycle to take a look at that report. it's quite lengthy but very comprehensive. hits on all the major areas that, you know, would encourage or facilitate sharing, relinquishing of spectrum by federal agencies. things like user fees, spectrum innovation fund, even applying a spectrum property rights regime for federal agencies. and the kind of old-fashioned command and control approaches to improving efficiency for agencies that have over the years, you know, have been proposed by various, in various documents, papers, things like that. so i'd encourage folks to take a look at that report, respond to
the questions in the federal register notice. one of the questions that's most interesting kind of personally to me is the practicalities of some of the incentives. federal agencies are a different animal than the companies that are on the other end of the table. the things that drive them, what i've learned in the last two years i've been back in the government at ntia is their incentive is to perform their missions, you know, in the best way possible. so how can we get them to -- and i think jenna wheeler talked about a lot of ways that can be done through better technology, obviously, through -- money doesn't necessarily translate into the mission, especially if the folks that are doing those missions don't have control over that money. so what are the ways. and in a property rights type
scheme where you're giving agencies more freedom, you know, more autonomy over how they use the spectrum, how they control the spectrum, can they sell it, can they buy it, can they, you know, divide it up just like the private entities. i'm kind of reminded that when i worked on the fcc's spectrum secondary markets policies, even the fcc did not grant secondary, you know, market authority to all users of the spectrum. it was really limited where there's exclusive use of the spectrum. in the federal side, that doesn't exist. they really, there's no one single agency that does not have exclusive rights to the spectrum. it's all shared among the agencies or between federal and nonfederal organizations. so i'd encourage those who were who are interested in this area to provide views on some of those incentives and those ideas. thanks. >> thanks, peter. he reminds me that one of the lessons i learned the last time i did spectrum, it was a lot
more fun than doing rf than ew. the lesson i learned was you really need patience. so we are making progress here, and when you think about where we were ten years ago, we're in a lot better place. but i want to challenge the panel with a question. not sure who it would be fair to start with. thinking about where we want to be in ten years, what should the spectrum environment look like in ten years or a bit longer? what's your goal here for where we want to end up? maybe you could start with that. stacey, student to go first? -- do you want to go first? we could circle around and do you last too. [laughter] >> well, i think, you know, over the next ten years there's going to be a lot of new technology that's going to be introduced. obviously, there'll be spectrum-sharing technology, and i think you'll see a lot more like the three dot five initiative where there's the use of the shared access, databases and things like that. that'll be very important. there actually may be some
software-defined radios that are cost effective enough to be consumer based. but then also i think that you're going to see more smart networks, and that's whether it's even in a wi-fi environment where everything is connected to a controlled plane, that way there is some sort of master smarts that is actually controlling the communications across a variety of platforms. and that will, in effect, make the communications a lot more efficient, and i think that's what we'll see in the next decade. >> yeah. i think to add to that i've said this before in a number of forums, but i think the spectrum sharing, certainly, it's an evolution, not a revolution. i think as the general pointed out some of the technology there, is there today and we're seeing great strides with those advancements. but by and large, there are a number of challenges we have to work through with regard to spectrum sharing.
but in the next ten years, absolutely, i think we are going to start seeing more spectrum-sharing-type technologies particularly given the three dot five band that julius talked about. i think, you know, there's concepts of databases sensing, i think on the five gigahertz band the challenges you have with that 11ac and the ability to sense a wider bandwidth can be problematic in trying to figure out how you would make that work. so i think there are going to be other types of applications with, you know, with five gigahertz. if it's not dfs, then maybe a database is more appropriate. but i think moving forward with, i think, the 1755 to 1780, i think, you know, we are going to see some sharing there with the satellite operations geographic based, but then as we move forward, i think from an industry perspective we're going to get an opportunity to showcase some of the features
that lte has to offer. and, in fact, we're going to be doing a demo with one of our vendors, and we've invited dod folks to participate in that demo where we're going to share that next month. thank you. >> so in the end, i think the goal is that we're getting as much out of this space as we possibly can. that the folks who come up with innovative ideas, new industries have that opportunity to develop and implement them. from a technical standpoint, we often will talk about the spectrum below three gigahertz, but when you really start to get down into the weeds of what's there and you start to understand that all of the low hanging fruit, so to speak -- and it wasn't so low to begin with -- [laughter] has been picked. and so you're down to what i mentioned before, you know, 2700
to 3700, and you start to look, oh, great, what's there? the weather radar system that you look at on television every night to see the storms coming through. that's what's in there. well, let's just move them someplace else. you can't do that because of the physical characteristics that they need to be able to do what they do have to be in these parts of spectrum. so you say, well, how do we share with these things? first, it matters where they are. and most of them are in places where people are. and so this isn't, you know, the classic geographic separation where the one system is out in the middle of the tez cert, and all -- desert, and all we have to do is stay 200 miles away. we're down to doing things like, well, can i operate when the radar's pointing in the opposite direction? i can tell you that it's incredibly complicated and hard, and it points to the need when you start going down this path
of detailed analysis and testing. because we're past the simple stuff of, well, we're just going to reallocate spectrum, and a new system's going in. we're really kind of at the cutting edge of technology and what can be done to gain access and value out of that space. >> well, to look ahead ten years, i'd need to look back twenty. and look at the transitions that we've kind of gone through and the trends that i personally have gotten scarred from. but the improvements that have been made more, because i'm the lawyer, i guess, on the panel, i will talk about the kind of regulatory and the process. it still takes an awful long time. i mean, the process -- you know, and throw in the international component to it, and you've really got a long time. so i would like to see in the next ten years some improvements
in that process, and the way that can happen is really through what's been started fairly recently as more and more kind of public/private partnership collaboration approaches to regulation get the issues on the table as early as possible, get the folks in the room as early as possible, hash out these issues. where there's differences, figure out a way to resolve them. so it's really about, you know, what kind of process improvements can we make, what kind of institutional things need to be re-examineed, and we're starting to do that. we're creating these new -- i talked about a couple of the groups and organizations, the new one, one being the center for advance communications on the research and development side. the testing and evaluation aspect of that is very, very, very crucial. so to make, you know, leaps and
bounds towards that aspect of the technology would be great. because looking back at the various transitions from 2g to 3g, 4, you know, 3g to 4g, you know, some of it was technologically driven, but some of it, you know, was driven by the fact that, well, you didn't need to come pack to the regulator -- come back to the regulator and get permission to go from, you know, one generation to the next. you did need to come back to get the spectrum, you know? so if there's a way to figure out a way to, you know, sharing spectrum, access to spectrum, improving the process for that, that's what i'd like to see. >> sure. >> so peter set me up for one thing i wanted to mention, because i agree with him. the processes today take a long time and often are us from freighting for all -- frustrating for all of the parties. i've seen things go on for two
or three years arguing whether an out of band limit should be 10 db tighter or not. not always, but often if we get the parties sitting down together and the technical people, they'll work it out. i've often used the example of the medical body networks which was seeking to share spectrum with aeronautical tell metally systems, and for two years it seemed each side would basically pin the other about its technical analysis. and once we got them sitting together in a room, it took some time -- it was more than a year -- but they kind of figured out a way with a combination of operational controls and coordination and technical limits, the two could share the same spectrum. and so on friday we released, i should say diane cornell who's headed our process reform group, we released a report on process reforms at the fcc including
some of these ideas that peter just talked about, trying to find alternative ways to address some of these issues that come up. so we've invited public comment on that, and i think it was -- don't hold me to it -- the end of martha we et as a deadline -- march that we set as a deadline for comment. i'd just encourage you since this is really a collective matter for the entire community to take a look at what's in the report and, of course, if you have ideas that you think might be alternatives or better than what we've got out there, our ears are open. thanks. >> let me ask one inspired by those remarks which is about the international side which we've heard a fair amount today. where do we stand in terms of other countries' thinking in terms of how we move forward on spectrum? what do you see happening on the next work, where do you think
the u.s. is most effective in driving an international process? i know that's sort of a general one, it's a little off topic, but given how much the international theme has come up and given that we do need to coordinate, i wonder if people want to give it a try, and maybe this time we'll start with peter and work down the row. >> it's, it's definitely not my area of expertise, and i'm more of an observer on this. but there are definitely a cadre of very dedicated folks in this, and that's where collaboration does occur. to come up with, you know, u.s. positions especially. but also, i think, but in my experience looking at other countries and seeing how they have evolved, typically you see kind of the following the lead of the u.s. other times, you know, maybe they're driving some of the things.
like i would say spectrum sharing, you know, has definitely taken off, you know, globally, the concept. and various areas like europe has really been focused on kind of a licensed approach to sharing. like licensed shared access or authorized shared access, the concepts that they're exploring. so if, you know, back in the old days, you know, you looked at within the united states the states as kind of the laboratories for experimenting with new approaches, it's now different countries or regions around world that are experimenting with different ways of providing for spectrum access. we ought to kind of learn from. i mean, the u.k., for example, experimented for a long time and developed the spectrum fees for their government users. and how they managed the government. so we've looked at that. the report i mentioned from
stippy evaluates that. so we look at the other countries as laboratories but as collaborators too. as jenna said, this is a global spectrum environment, and pretty much you need to be on the same page. but at the same time, you know, let others to kind of take the lead and see if it works out and maybe follow with that. that's a good approach too. >> great. >> so at the technical level there's a lot of work going on internationally. universities and so forth. so you go to a conference, as peter and i and i'm sure there's others here go to, called dice band which has been going on ten years? >> 2005, yeah. >> yeah. it's a bit surprising how much work is going on on dynamic spectrum access around the world.
and, you know, the normal process is you first see these things in the laboratories and in the universities, and then assuming they still have merit, they bubble their way up through the policy ranks. so i'll just focus on a couple of things. tv white space in the database model that we adopted here in the united states, it's been embraced already by a number of countries around world that are deploying systems either on a trial basis, experiment someplace operational. in many of these countries, they actually have more white space than the united states. and if you're trying to send signals out for broadband at a distance, it's ideal. so it's an instance where something that was born in the united states is catching hold in other parts of world.
of the world. the international process is slow to change, you know? and i think it's understandable. you know, so while at times it can be frustrating, why is it moving so fast, you have to keep in mind there's huge investments in the systems that are there today, and we should be making sure that those systems are protected. the classic model has been the kind of stove piped allocationed. that's the way the international cable allocations is set up. so when you come to an operator or people who have, are stakeholders in a block of spectrum and say we've got a great idea, we're just going to put somebody in who will get out of your way, there's naturally first reaction of, well, that puts my system at risk, and it's not clear to me that it's
actually going to work. and then, of course, in the end how does this -- other than making the community better, how does this benefit me? so i think it's going to be a long process internationally where when people start to see benefits to their economies from access to these systems and that the technology also works, it will work its way into the international process. and, in fact, i think there's been a task group that's been looking at software-defined radio, cognitive radio. so it is getting more attention internationally. >> yeah. i just want to -- i think from a commercial perspective, you know, we kind of look at this, in many cases it can be like watching paint dry. it really does take a long time, and i certainly appreciate all the work that goes into teeing up these bands, the mobile brand. and i go back to, you know, to 2000 when a number of bands were
teed up in the wrc and assessed for mobile broadband, and subsequent to that i think with the president's 500 megahertz initiative, the work that's ongoing at ntia, going through the process of evaluating each of those bands, it is a lengthy process. and so, you know, the fcc has the tough job of trying to balance the federal needs with the commercial requirements, and so that, that is certainly difficult. i think on the technical level, you know, in preparation for the this upcoming work, you know, a number of joint technical working groups that are working to assess a number of bands that are going to be put on the agenda. but challenges are abroad, and i think it's going to take a lot of work on both sides. and peter's right, if the u.s. does lead, i believe, the world many this regard, other countries tend to follow our lead on it. so hopefully the process will speed up a little bit more. >> and i'll just add to the fact
that the international standards community and the role that they play in this so critical. i mean, carriers by their very nature are looking for the greatest economies of scale that they can get. and if you can get bands that are harmonized globally, that makes our device manufacturers much easier to build devices that are affordable. so i think this is one of the things that we all have to be -- especially those as we go into work and things like that -- the participants need to be thinking through how do we make sure we've got harmonized bands and, obviously, the least expensive devices that we can get. >> that's a pretty robust agenda there. let me see if anyone out in the audience has a question for our panelists. go ahead, please. >> thank you. carolyn brandon from georgetown. a question for any of the speakers, has there been any
discussion or evaluation of the ability to use some of the spectrum in the re-lo fund for some of the r&d research related to the answer of can certain things be cleared versus what are the best sharing opportunities? >> yes. >> many thank you, peter. [laughter] >> oh, you want -- [laughter] there's been several proposals to expand the use of those funds. why not reinvest auction proceeds into the development of new and better technology? it totally makes sense, right? right now the spectrum relocation fund that was created by the enhancement act of 2004 as amended recently in 2012 only covers costs for
implementing it because there's lots of demands for money, you know? and that goes to the point, kind of really one of these -- we talk about the process and stuff like that, these processes are such a drag sometimes on resources, and it's finding the resources to get these things done. you know, whether it's do a test to go out and conduct tests, to some modeling, simulation. i mean, this is -- i was talking to a company the other day about -- a really large company -- how long it took them to get approval to buy some kind of software package to do some modeling. i was like, oh, my god, you know? and this is for one of the bands of the future that they had a lot of stake in. so it's not just the government, it's a lot of folks that are, you know, hurting for money and resources. so any way to kind of filter that back into r&d testing, that would be great.
>> anyone else? no? or, go ahead, john. >> yeah, i just want to add i think, you know, with regard to doing the testing and the studies, i think from an industry perspective, you know, we actually embarked on a monitoring activity to assess the type of admissions that were uncovered in specific bands and figure out what impact whose those admissions have on an incumbent dod aircraft. so i think the results from that analysis were very telling, and we're hopeful to begin the process of sharing that with the regulatory community and dod alike. and, hopefully, as a way to, you know, move things forward with regard to how can you, you know, better share between federal and nonfederal assets. thanks. >> well, i was going to follow up on that by saying, you know, i think that's a great idea. the idea of using the srf for this might actually be a good
input to the whole spectrum incentive rfi. because if you think about that there are toddies incentives for an agency to do testing and expend the resources to try to figure out either how to move out of a band or to share it, but a case in point going back to the combat training center example that i gave before, had there been money available for the u.s. army to have done their testing, that program might have accelerated itself twofold easily. but it took a while. but the point is that it was still a proposal that was brought to them that they finally were able to test and get behind it, and now they're implementing it. again, that's probably a way of getting around the disincentives for relocating or sharing. >> jennifer, please. >> jennifer warren, lockheed martin. i guess my question is mostly
for peter, but others as well. the leadership the dod is putting forward in this new strategy, are you seeing that reflected in any other federal agency? because as you and general wheeler noted, there really is no exclusive dod spectrum or very little, so it's shared with other agencies that may have significant infrastructure investment or operations. thank you. >> yes. oh, okay. [laughter] it's, ntia on behalf of the federal agencies writ large is also re-examining its kind of strategy along these lines. so, obviously, it plays in, aligns tightly with what is going to be announced later this week. so i won't go into any kind of the details on that to not get out in front of that.
but, again, you know, like i mentioned before, it really should center around, you know, technology and innovation but also collaboration. and so it's about, it's continuing what we've kind of been doing in the sense of bringing the agencies to the table and being on the same page, seeing how they can work together like in the example with regard to one of the bands, 1755, law enforcement surveillance activities. happens across several federal and state agencies. so is there a way that they can collaborate on developing the next generation of law enforcement surveillance applications and technologies. so it's really about, you know, getting the right people in the room talking to each other and a strategy really or a tactic more like of using those kinds of
crowd sourcing for lack of a better term among agencies in the commercial side. so it's, that's really kind of the focused strategy that i'd like to see. and there are definitely other agencies, i mean, there's other agencies that are very interested in, like, the center for advanced communications that we've been developing. so there'll be all participate -- they'll be all participating in that. >> i think, yeah, i would agree with peter's short answer, yes. you know, you're actually seeing it, i think, in some of the grassroots in the agencies. you know, having gone through this exercise focused here on commercial wireless, but there are plenty of other services where we are looking at sharing spectrum. important point, though, to mention is it needs to be a two of way street.
two-way street. so i think when the agencies look at this and say, well, okay, if you're going to believe in sharing, it can't just be sharing my space. it needs to also be providing for the benefits to agencies of being able to share space elsewhere on the spectrum that, you know, where they may not have a current allocation. and we've actually issued proposals to do just that in a number of places, you know, certainly one you know about, you know, relative to commercial space launches. and it's been very important, i think, to the federal government to have an upgrade in their allocation for their own earth stations that are using commercial satellites. we proposed to allow federal systems to actually, well, federal users to have access to the space in each -- even the
spectrum we're talking about here, and we also proposed to allow three dot five. so i think there really has to be a change in the way we've looked at things on both sides. >> we don't have any final questions, i'll ask the analysts -- oh, do we. oh, go ahead. sorry. >> good morning. courtney robbins with -- [inaudible] industries association. and i suppose this question is mostly for fcc, though anyone's free to jump in. it has to do with unmanned aircraft systems kind of as a specific example of an emerging technology that is going to require spectrum sources. general wheeler had a couple pictures of the dominoes pizza uas and all this other stuff. but the jokes aside, this is going to be a technology that's going to, you know, have thousands of aircraft in the skies before too long, like
we're thinking before 2020. and faa has a congressional mandate of 2015 for full integration. yet we don't have -- one of the details that's missing from faa's road map is how we're going to handle frequency for line of sight and beyond line of sight. so i'm just curious to know if while dod has its spectrum assets, civil users do not. and what is the plan for addressing addressing that? thank you. >> we'll have different -- [inaudible] depending on whether the pizza is going to a private sector user or -- [laughter] yeah. i think we have a lot of work ahead or us on this -- ahead of us on this. first of all, i don't think people appreciate the uass or uavs come in all shapes and sizes. and have all sorts of different applications.
so you have to be concerned about command and control, you've got to be concerned about in some cases we're looking to have -- we, i talk collectively -- the realtime video. so we have a lot of work ahead of us in identifying exactly what the needs are and where the appropriate places for them to operate. and i think sharing is going to be, i take as a given. we're going to have to figure out what can they share with. so it's not going to be easy, but we'll find a way. and i just know although it's fcc, it's clearly the federal government as well. >> yeah. i'm glad you brought that up, because it also demonstrates the fact that the demand is not only on the commercial side in your traditional broadband mobile-type applications. there's a lot of applications,
federal and nonfederal, you know, in other contexts. and supporting uavs and other unmanned systems is a huge, huge driver for this. and so it's, you'll see for example in the dod proposal for using 2025, you know, it suggests, you know, using smarter technology, multiband capables. so -- capabilities. so the newer applications, newer approaches are going to be more dynamic and more capable of finding the best spectrum available when and where it's needed. and so you can't -- there's not one single scenario, you know, for those types of platforms. they're at various altitudes, various locations, various times, and they're going to have to be very, very spectrum agile. and so they're going to be driving a lot of that technological development as well. so i don't see the same old
dedicated band approach. there may be one or two dedicated bands, you know, for the safety, life-critical command and control links for those. but video download, payload-type applications coming from those things, yeah, your going to have -- you're going to have to find a lot of spectrum a variety of places depending on where it is. and also i'll just point out that the way that the supply chains work in these various industries are so different. and they don't even cross each other sometimes. you look at the commercial global industry, the suppliers there and look at the suppliers in other radio markets. they don't even cross. so you have to figure out a way for those to do a little cross-pollinization. >> with yeah. i just want to touch on the number of bands. i think it kind of coi said
sides with what general wheeler was talking about with having platforms with multibandwidth capability. what we found during some of the working group projects, the uav platform itself is a mull i band platform, and it, actually, had become somewhat agile in terms of your ability to move that system to other bands without impacting, you know, incumbent federal operations. so i think as we would look to, you know, frequency bands for uavs, i would hope that we would continue that same process and making sure that these platforms do have a multiband capability. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> we need a new way of thinking -- [inaudible] we've heard pretty frequently.
we need to think about how the process can be streamlined, but also how it can be guided by a policy that's shaped by both national security and economic concerns. and general wheeler pointed out how intertwined those are, but there's still some significant differences that we need to think about the balance between the two. we talked a little bit about incentives, we talked about technology, we talked about r&d. the technology one always strikes me as sort of silver bullet the this some ways for spectrum problems. we always say, yeah, we'll fix it because we'll have a new technology. which i, like julius, i'm an optimist on, but you've got to invest in it if you want to get it. so something to think about. and finally, we talked about slow process, particularly when you throw in the international side. these are all good topics. i'll close by asking anyone have any final words of wisdom they want to share? >> i'll start off just by saying
that, you know, the sharing is not the only solution. you know, i think that the mobile operators and the whole auction environment which is very good for the economy and the treasury and all of that needs to continue, and that's going to be done by vacated and cleared spectrum that can be sold at auction. so while i understand the report is promoting sharing and i think we've heard general wheeler say from his perspective sharing is really going to be the future, i think we as an industry and as an economy need to be thinking about how can we find more available spectrum to auction and provide the commercial mobile operators. >> yeah. first off, thanks for having us. no, i think it's, it is a balance, you know? i think to julius' point, you know, looking at the bands that are out there, it's a challenge, you know, i think for the
federal government to find spectrum and make that available for mobile broadband. but i do think that, you know, as julius pointed out that we are moving in the right direction. i think both industry and government are moving, forging ahead and trying to figure out how we can make this spectrum utilization work better for everyone. and i think, you know, as i said, it is an evolution. the it's not going to happen overnight. we're seeing some sharing capabilities we're going to be able to employ in the 1755-1780 band. so if we can continue to focus on the improvements that are facilitating access to those bands, then i think that's where sharing becomes, you know, more common place as what we're seeing today. thank you. >> yeah. i had mentioned i think those, the models we've had in the past of the exclusive use where we see opportunities will still be
pursued. but i also think as you look at the spectrum chart the challenge you have is the services that are there, where do you relocate them to? and that's what drives you often to sharing to see if you can actually get value. [laughter] by value, i mean not just having access to spectrum and saying, well, i got 100 megahertz here, and all it is -- i can't use it any place that there's people. it's got to be something as we go through this process that we, you know, actually is going to serve needs. so i think we're going to continue to pursue along all fronts, and, you know, it's just not going to be any easier. >> no words of wisdom but maybe just words of ignorance to offer is that you don't, you know, we don't know how, where
technology -- ten years ago, whatever, we could not have predicted necessarily where we are. we would have probably predicted, yes, that the industry would be back for more spectrum for exclusive use. and i think it's easy to predict that some parts of the industry would not, you know, favor a sharing approach and would like -- and i think that a lot of federal agencies would like to have exclusive access to spectrum as well. but you just don't know where technology's going to lead you. and so if you have the incentives and the drivers for technology, basically, to develop and make sure that any regulatory barriers are out of the way, you know, then the limit, i think, the future's limitless. so let's come back in probably ten years, you know, after your next report, and we'll reflect on that and see where your, how your recommendations are doing,
>> that is the great place to start and a great place to talk. ♪ summertime ♪ ernie els a have a son, todd lorenzo, who is here. thank you for coming out. saturday afternoon in the rain. new orleans is playing the new orleans saints, playing the seattle seahawks today. i want to hear something. okay. i bring that up because that is what we play. he is saying we are 8 point under dog and i say we are going to win. i was in new orleans 20 years before i met james carville but after katrina when he said sugar, we are going to become a sliver on the river, as i am
from chicago, anybody from the midwest, you know that if you are all women any words that follow sugar, you are going to melt. value anywhere, honey. the issue, kids were 10 and 12, we built our careers, i was nervous about having the children to be in proximity with his academic record of 11 years at louisiana state university. so i will let you pick it up from there. >> thank you very much. when it became public, a reliable section, they called me and said i am like an old jew
going back to jerusalem. after the events of august of 2005 i had always lived up river from new orleans and spend a lot of time there. my grandmother from there. i was used, abused, par take the culture and assumed it would always be there for my use and pleasure whenever i wanted. and then the story started coming in whether people were going to come back, and a thousand trumpets were lost. and this kind of thing, understand the things that sets new orleans off from every other place in the united states, we were not economically significant area in terms of political power. 380,000 people. what we are is one of the most
culturally significant places in the world. we have an identifiable culture you know when you see it, what the food tastes like, what the music sounds like, what a carnival crew is, what a funeral is, what architecture looks like, the idea that this whole thing could go, it was terrifying to me. my wife when we got married, she always loved the sound, the fragrance, the church bells, the rumbling of the streetcar, sounds like no other place, but it is very very fragile. environmentally fragile, politically fragile, culturally fragile, and i didn't know what, but i just couldn't -- profound deep freshen. if we were down in 2007 and just
like -- and she was as much as i was and fought and schemed and plotted and a couple other things to get to washington, i liked it here, i loved the airport and the park, and it was not funny, and the data, june 13th, i put in the book, going to lincoln stein, if any of you have been there kind of luxury, and never -- got the worst you can imagine.
it was almost like you want to leave, kind of open the book. and we look back and talk about it sometimes. in some ways it turned out great. it is one of the great success stories and now that it is doing better seemed like a cool and smart thing to do. a gamble we took moving our children, but very young, and like a place with a culture, it is hard to break into it if you are a child, not the easiest place, we had two girls. it wasn't the easiest thing and one of the things is if you aren't there or what i call the engineering failure of 2005, like you didn't fight the
battle, and they get fined, but there was an allotment of risk involved here. they were still stacked up from the storm, nowhere near where we are today. it is like you walk into a casino and put $10,000 and it shows up black and it was really stupid to do that, thank god -- >> i hope that was a metaphor. while we are in washington which we still do love, where the girls came back to school on the grounds that mother you don't provide enough structure for me, i want to say something good about politics. rock bottom after we were after katrina, you can't have the
luxury of having the kind of disputes we have. you got to come up with solutions and we literally, mary landrieu did not want to run and james did what he could and i said i couldn't support everything, but these issues that were practical conservative applications, i would be in league with three republicans in new orleans. and to watch politics and policy work and work quickly was such an inspiration. this sense of loss of confidence in all of our institutions and the sense of the kline and all that things can change that if people want to change them.
people want to protect something they love which they did in new orleans, we went from 15 feet underwater to red-eye the time of the super bowl we were number one. and in silicon valley south wore no. one entrepreneur, i could go on and on but this changes certain progress there is a way -- while i am here i want to talk about coastal's restoration and the everglades. you actually care about coastal restoration. 40% of the sea food and energy and 40% of your food comes up and down the mississippi and to the extent that coast is eroding is going to impact the economy of the entire country. there are a lot of issues there that we agree on politically met
except for this 8.-- we like being on the same side of things. >> let's talk about something we are not on the same side of, cats. >> i just have to say this. this is my motto. the presence of many cats is not proof of crazy cat ladyism. i take the point that cat hair in the butter is not pleasant. met but one day, i came down and my favorite cat, i have 12 of them. this is a black cat. hard to name cats creatively when you have 12. he was black. half of his face was chart of. what happened? he was getting near the butter
and somehow the stove turned on and burned half his face off. there are instances of kitty pyromaniac in the house and we have a few dogs and pet rats and birds but most of them are rescues. it is a good rescued place, the society in washington. so seriously about animals, we have brought some animals and people who had a difficult time socializing, you may remember when the dalai lama was here, one domestic place, battered women's shelter where we brought women together, since to do the program, a version of the program at walter reed so i have a larger interest in animals and i am going to agree with you
that we should put a lid on the butter. >> i could ride a horse before i could rise a bicycle. and not 4 h club, call me weird, i do not like animals in food prep area. maybe that is just some kind of cuckoos thing, and but when i see a cat licking the roof, it turns me off. i am fine. i can still get on a horse today. i had the best childhood you could imagine but i was really young. my grandfather grew rice. how you grow rice is nothing but mud and water and nothing better for a 5-year-old going around in
mud and water. >> he is not an anti hero. he knows what the animals mean to me, they mean nothing to him, they are not allowed anywhere near him and he doesn't know their names but every time we go to the e emergency that, why can't these bastards learn how to cross the street? just has -- the whole animal kingdom. >> reporter: you gave up working and u.s. elections and only work on 4 in elections. explain why you made that decision. >> when president clinton was 48 -- i just couldn't want to be some guy in center field.
and go back to that time, is clinton sending somebody in, what does that mean? the real truth is the united states wants to become a famous person, being the famous person. 22 different countries, if i like it, getting a little -- last trip i took was to indonesia, went to singapore, they just canceled which was one. i enjoyed doing that. i do it much more subtle now. i had run, really involved in u.s. politics for a period of time and what i did was i was a campaign managers so i didn't
have a firm. direct mail, tv spot, i just got paid for working 20 hours a day. and you couldn't -- it was a decision that i made and i look back on ad that i made bad decisions in life and that was not one of them. the game passes you by. when we did the '92 campaign the cellphone was as big as george stephanopoulos. so i am reading this stuff about social media, the big battle and everything, and that is good. there is something to be said for overstaying your time.
you and i have a common affection for sports and there is nothing worse than to see a former great athlete trying to take another year or two, you got to -- what is ecclesiastes, there is a time for everything and it was a time for me to do it. >> can i add to this? not to but in to your question, but i think because there is an emerging perception that people in politics, political operatives, whenever, okay? when we got into it and i am happy to be a woman of a certain age, why can't we say i am 60? i am happy to be 60. >> i wish i was 60. >> he is almost 60.
very upset that girls are both gone, his life is over, i am chopped liver, i guess. in our day, it wasn't -- when we got married we had nothing. he had a bike that i bought him. he never had a car. maybe he had a horse. since getting out of domestic politics, involved in politics, care about what it is a political system is trying to deliver. so at my respect, the state department's request, joins me in how to do it, in jordan to teach the iraqi women how to fight human rights in their constitution. you claim to get there because right after the revolution i didn't know the husband but the
so talking to him, richard holbrooke at the state department, is there any problem with me in the u.s. working for this guy? james is the finest man i know. doing little investigation, a fine guy. i know he can't pay me, can't pay my air fare. you are a member of the kennedy generation, you have to go. john kennedy, i guess i got to go. so i told him. i go to kabul and try to stay in his house and write a campaign plan and on the way out gives me a rock. two weeks later i got reimbursed for my effort which was not a bad deal. at least i wasn't out 13,000 grand for the ticket.
>> you want to hear me fight about you would think a guy who was going to cover where his wife had been, had been all over afghanistan in an armored vehicles, snipers, would have asked me something about the kid. he is driving around in some little bus, i e.d.s everywhere, this is pretty scary when the traffic starts. >> sometimes it was after i left, totally blew his house up it was a different thing, a kind of campaign plan for afghanistan, was really different. 1% is what we were predicted to get, a great guy, great experience. can't win them all. what is the old saying?
people say they lost races and political consultants and people said they never lost a race and call those liars. >> it is 1992, the election is over and you don't have a job, you don't have much money and you end up on what you call the first check fight show. and you also write that fish show was great until it became a hit. explain what you mean by that. >> i never wanted to be on tv. i don't like being on tv to this day. i like radio. i have a face for radio. when george h. w. bush who i adored was losing, this happens on campaigns, nobody wanted us to go out and defend, start
jumping ship, and the worse the numbers got, the more i went out there so i became the face of defense of losing this campaign and he became the hero, thinking about the mind. so not only did i have no job but i had no prospects for a job because i was a loser. i had no money coming in. i have a mortgage. i can to live in an apartment. somebody called up and said do you want to do a tv show? i hate tv. you are good on tv. on a topic. anyway i had to pay the bills, i didn't think anybody was watching us.
it was wayne's world on estrogen, like being in a basement, all we did is have a bottle of wine before the show and just talk about what ever and the next thing we knew it was, this was before there was political tv, cnbc before it was cnbc. when i say it was such a low-budget show, our furniture had to go out in the hallway, pull in one of these tables, we did our own makeup, our own hair, and all of a sudden it became this cult hit. who knew? we found out people started spending as furniture, and senators and congress people don't follow this stuff but their staffers do so we started getting great guests and then it
became -- when you have a hit and all of a sudden everybody gets involved and give you, fix your hair and get different clothes and do real interviews. so i quit. >> my favorite moment of the show, tony cornhouse was a regular guest and marion james was singing into hair brushes, he didn't have their hair rushed. >> and we were singing going to the chapel and tony is like where is my hair rushed, never stopped, the hair cut, tony insisted on going there to -- he went and got his beard done and eyebrows and hair done, i forgot about that. tony, if you are watching you know it is true.
>> 22-22 this year and san diego. san diego covers it, 10 point dogs, gone to the top of the mountain and peeked over, 23-22 again, the spread. i'd tell you the number of people that i run into in washington, i heard you picked tony's radio show. it is like released pending the kind of thing -- i didn't silence everything when i was here. the weather was going to be horrible, can't think about 4:30 kickoff. and we still have nationals tickets. that was happening last year. sports have always been a big part of my life.
it is great because i am home, going to games of the pelicans. let's talk about something else. >> let's go to my last question before we go to the audience question. this isn't really from the book but i have one political question. what is one piece of advice each of you would give to your own party that there not doing currently that would improve that party? >> i don't like doing tv but i am on tv enough to be not saying this for the first time and not the last time i will say it. republicans have to be republicans. they can't be a lesser version of democrats. i grew up as a democrat on the south side of chicago and became a conservative when i started reading and paying taxes. i know why i am a conservative. i know what the constitution is.
i am and in paris this and at burke, we have a long history of what works and what doesn't work and good intent is not the equivalent of good outcome and why republicans can't in a full throated way say what the alternative to good intention politics is or call people who have empirically done successful and turnaround and be for exactly what they call the wacko bird, i don't think that is going to work so what we need to do for the midterms, and everyone wants to jump to 2016, 2016 is going to be under 2014, as is always the case and i think in 2014 we will look at the records of a lot of governors who were elected in
the 2010 tsunami and look at the records. it is not a party thing. was in new orleans. look what happens when you incentivize business by lowering taxes, regulations that are understandable wendy will be enforced, balanced budgets. i don't think we talk about that in of. we too defensive, too much time defending straw men, the obama people, the democrats accuse us of hating women and then we spend all the time saying no, no, we really love women. that is a waste of time. it is just not -- we need to quit being so defensive about things that not true and say what we really believe in and
what really works. >> let me start by saying an unbelievable differential between economic performance on democrats and republicans in the last six years, is not even close. i agree with carey -- harry truman, if you want to look like a republican, vote like a democrat. [applause] >> we have -- in my opinion, and before this, we have a terrible problem in this country and it is going on for a long time, all the sudden the deficit was going to kill us, then health care costs were going to kill us, that did not tell us, then energy dependence was going to kill us. the things we have been unable to do, and unable to do for a
long time is grow in comes. we go and got every other thing we do and chase everything that comes and every deal we can and where is the joint committee on income growth? where is the foundation the books in to this? where is the zillionaire to say 80% of the people in this country over a longer period of time is stagnant? when they give the bank credit, we know how to create wealth but don't know how to distribute it. with the democrats should do is be succinct, we have done a lot of research, it is not an overnight, no one thing you're going to do to getting comes to grow again. their air some things you can do to help so, this -- i think the
emphasis on the argument about inequality misses the mark a little bit. if your income hasn't gone in 20 years is not so much that the 1 present income has grown 300%, yours hasn't grown. if your is grew 20%, that would be much better. and so it is not -- to get back to it, it should say this is the assignment, this is the job, the president can easily say we have an economic process to deal with, bank failures and a lot of things but now our charge for the future of this country is to somehow or another bring the prosperity across the country and the more we tell that story, the simpler we tell that story,
the better off we are going to be. so everything we do, go before congress, speeches, talking, that should be the defining mission of the democratic party. [applause] >> last place that will come from to quote a former democratic president, the era of big government is over. if we want to do what he is saying, it has to start locally. and trickle-down if i can use that term. >> now we are going to your questions so there is the microphone there and microphone there. just alternate as people get to them. so we start here. >> good to see you, thanks for
what you are doing. what do you both think of kenneth starr now in retrospect? and the other thing i want to ask you is when you were strategizing, this is what we were asking ourselves, talking about campaigns when you are both involved how did you protect the confidence? did it ever get broken? did you by accident conveyed to your team the strategy of the other person? how would you protect that in your conversations if something needed to be done and it is suddenly conveyed to the other side? >> let me say i always liked kenneth starr but i have not thought about him in ten years. at the time of that whole recent unpleasantness, i had my second day being post partner and all i cared about was my husband was out there defending a lie.
i said how could you defend this why? he said sugar, if i did some things that stupid with the girls that young i would lie about it too. [laughter] >> that is as far as i wanted to go with that. as for the other larger issue of honor, integrity, when we got married he was 49. i have been doing politics since i was in college and i know where i am, a conservative, jekyll and hyde. we are jekyll and hyde. i am not mary matalin the beloved and dearest wife you will ever have, mother of your children, then there is mary matalin, attila the hun. there has never been an issue, we have never, ever accidentally
or on purpose, we call it the burden of knowledge. even if it is something i don't care about, i am not going to tell you because you don't need the burden of knowledge. we also have physical constraints. i have my fox news fair and balanced through that he has his espn room, his own closet, his own bathroom, his own space. there is never any fear of accidentally sharing any confidences but in the larger sense strategies aren't secret. messages aren't secret. the campaign that is keeping their message secret is going to lose. >> by all accounts he is doing a heck of a job at bayless. athletically doing great and doing a great job, glad he is in waco and i concur. glad he is in waco.
to the back to that in this room people remember that. i will be honest. of everything i have done in my life the thing i'm most proud of is i was the first person out there defending clinton. not because i really do like him but because i was offended at the overstepping that went on. this is absolutely a true story. i am fortunate enough to give a lot of speeches. i was in boca raton giving a speech to a group and it was a high income, republican raspberry vinaigrette kind of crowd. this was in early january of 99.
got a standard question. mr. carville, i got a question. you and your wife and two precious young children on meet the press during the holidays. yes pledge how old are a? i said one is 3 and one is 1. she said this is my question. they are not going to be little girls forever. they are going to grow up. they are going to find out all of the sorry things bill clinton did and the things he did in the oval office, discussed in. not just that, they will find out how their daddy went out and defended him and call people names and they are going to go to you one day and ask why did you do that? and i want to know what you are going to tell them? i said you damn bitch. you have a right to ask the
question. i said girls, one time in your daddy's life we had a good friend that the bad thing and he thought about it and said i am going to forgive the bad thing and stick with my good friend. sometimes in your life you will be in a situation where you will have a good friend does of bad thing. i want you to pause, think about it and think of sticking with your good friend but let me tell you the main thing. you are good girls and daddy knows that. daddy knows sometimes in life even good girls do bad things. if that ever happens to you the lesson i want you to take from this is a failure daddy first, he will be the first to forgive you. it is over. history rendered its judgment. the public rendered its judgment. for those of us who were there for it, you know, we will remember it forever. and i am glad it is over and i
am glad he is doing well. he is probably happier that he is there. >> can i add he is the best daddy in the world but when they do bad things, the first thing they say is don't tell daddy. >> name one thing you would change about chris christie's recent press conference. >> we don't talk about policy. you don't want to do that at night. we can talk about strategy. we agree on strategy. if i could have changed one thing i would have changed the
duration and i would not have talked about my pajamas and after that, i think what i said, kathleen parker coming out, we were on the train coming back, my us to and intelligent -- with james had, james was like this for hours and all kinds of strategies and got to go on and talk about it so take it away. >> a couple of things. first, the thing about a scandal, this was true in the monica lewinsky thing. everyone understood it. it didn't -- everybody understands this completely. this is not a fixed interest rate kind of thing. this is a direct deal.
i was asked, what i would have done is not go to the mayor. i would have gone to the people of fort lee and said directly to them, and whatever we know now, we are going to no more. it is the nature of everything. it is hard to get all of the information out, what he needs right now best thing to do would be get a federal investigation, let's wait till that comes out and just shut down. and people -- it has become a standard thing. no reason you can't talk to investigation but we can't say anything because -- and finding criminality is one thing to find wrong doing so hopefully it the u.s. attorney comes back and says we are not charging him
with a criminal act called fine now. that is where he is but right now the more you say the more trouble -- >> his is the best idea he skipped over, he said chris christie should have gotten dressed in a tollbooth uniform and gone to a toll booth and let people get in and out of fort lee. that was a good idea. >> i would have worked the toll booth and had bridget kelly scrubbing commodes at the restaurants on the turnpike. people understand this. when you think about it, you go dam, man, they really shut that bridge down. >> can you tell he has adhd? many doctors in the room?
a little hyper. >> what advice do you give young people who are thinking of getting into politics? >> honestly, there is a chapter in the book, i wrote everything and i was going to cut, cut, cut and the publisher left it in. you and never going to be more idealistic than you are at this age. you can't help it. the beauty of age is wisdom but the terror is realism. don't be afraid to fail. don't be afraid to do anything including dry cleaning, coffee, be fair, learn, take a mentor, don't be afraid to ask, people
our age who have done it want to teach you and think outside the box. we don't know about twitter. my best friend donna brazil's says we need to get a twitter account, if you are over 30 and like a glass of wine after 10:00 you don't need a twitter account. we need people like you and james teaches at tulane, we work with young people, we are so -- that is why we are so optimistic. you are a much better generations and we deserve. don't judge the current politics. bring your idealism to it. >> a lot of times -- i politely -- i want to do what you do. what advice do you have for me?
you are you. you follow your passion and you make the way you want to. you can't look to me who is 69 years old, who came up in an entirely different time. one of the great women of washington was sally smith who had two kids that were learning disabled and decided -- it looks like a college now. like a lot of those children i have learning disabilities and sally was very clever. she would bring people in and have a big banquet and it was myself and clarence page and kelly mcgill less, the actress, and whatever. and bring you in and raise a lot of money and it was a really cool thing and you were glad to do it and get with these kids and we were sitting up there and asked how many of you want to grow up and be like us?
no. no. you want to be like you. there is nothing wrong with you. don't aspire to be another person. be yourself. because if you try to be somebody else you are going to fail. every time i have not succeeded and made a fool of myself i tried to be somebody other than me. i tell my young people in my class it is not important what i think. is only important what you think. my job is to be a provocative. my job is to give you -- one of the things i decided to cover this spring and i don't know anything about it and don't know what i think about it is this nsa data gathering. i don't know. dangerous people in the world but it seems like a lot of information for somebody to have.
i find out i teach better if i'd do that. if you just bring some people in and explore and hopefully at the end of the thing i have a better opinion on what i think about it. what i do to my kids is i assign -- you fought the keystone pipeline, you are against it. so i give five different things to be on both sides of so the exam, they will have to defend or advocate ten potential positions, they don't know which ones they have to do. the idea is to get them to be thinking both sides of the thing. that is my advice. don't try -- you won't be successful being me and i won't be successful being you. you got to be yourself and find out what your passion is and what your talent level is and what your weaknesses are and go from there.
>> don't be anything like -- they both said no worries. >> i you raising your kids to be republicans or democrats? do you have kids? is there a connection between what i say and what they do? if i could just get them to close the door. who would want kids -- if you don't want that? >> this is going to have to be the last question over here. sorry about that. we don't have time for more. >> thank you. the documentary the war room, turn campaign operatives into folk heroes, made a really full career, and the lot more people would like to be the hired gun who steps into the campaign and turns everything around. what do you think of the legacy
>> nobody said it was 1992, the presidential election and the democratic primary and the candidates were -- no one's told you, there was no narrator. and nothing appeared to help you. it was -- and payback is, to pull that off creatively. but what people, but i've asked people what they like is they feel like that what they get is what the campaign wants you to get. and the reason that i think it's survived for so long is people feel like that they're getting to see something that wouldn't normally be available to 'em. although it was nothing strategic or anything like that,
they felt the sense of sort of realness. and i think that's why the film has sort of survived to the extent it has. and it was, you know, if you're gonna have somebody make a movie about you, have a brilliant film maker. and penny, obviously, was that. it's really come from a study of -- by the way, did y'all see this "american hustle"? wow. that's a good movie. [laughter] damn good movie. so i think that was what really carries that thing. i just want to really tell you how, i know i speak for mary, how honored we are to be at this press club and to have so many of you turn out on a day, and we're very proud of the book, and we're very glad that we could share this with y'all. and i want to thank the press club for doing this. it was very much appreciated. >> and we are surprised. who's going to come out a