if your suggestion is the republicans are to blame i would reject that. if your suggestion is there is bipartisan blame to be had i voted against the tariff legislation that was by president bush and his secretary of the treasury and i think there were mistakes made in the bush administration absolutely and mistakes made by republican congress's but the solution has to be bipartisan one and the first thing to do is to develop a tool requires the congress the matter who's in charge republican or democrats that they have to set priorities and have to make decisions about what the limited resources of this government and of the taxpayers are going to be devoted to. that to me is the first half toward avoiding future disaster that will recap upon everybody in this country now matter what their political affiliation.

well, and this amendment does not take a tax increase is off the table. i am just simply expressing my preference that when i vote on a budget i will be voting on a budget that looks at the enormous size of the federal government and looks at the fact that the growth in government spending has just been off the chart compared to what families in, have grown and, quite frankly, the growth in the percentage of what the average american family has to spend on taxes at all levels has grown as well. so, the idea that we can have an unlimited path of tax increases to address society's problems and still have families able to take care of their basic needs is a faulty assumption, in my opinion. host: carl, independent line. springfield, missouri. caller: i have a >> host: karl, independent line, springfield, missouri. >> caller: good morning. i have a few comments.

when president reagan assumed office, the government has got to the point where they had a balanced budget, his first year in office. we actually had a surplus. in a 10 year projection showed a trillion dollar surplus, and at the end of 2010, -- >> guest: evening president bush. >> caller: yes, president bush. i have a comment about president reagan's next. and at the end of 2010, the public debt was down to zero. so the only thing that the government would really all was the social security medicare, railroad retirement and trust fund. >> host: karl, get to your question here. >> caller: okay, so what happened was big tax cuts and the wars is responsible for the

current deficit. you guys like to pretend that it is due to spending and it isn't. >> host: we got the point, thanks. >> guest: and it takes a lot of spending to spend on the military operations that took place there. the point that i would make is when you make these decisions, you ought to bear in mind that there's a limited amount of resources, and whether you're in favor of spending more on military and defense, or whether you are in favor of spending on health care. you have to first sit down and figure out how many resources you have available to accomplish these goals. many people do remember, back during the 1990s when republicans first got the majority in the congress, the confrontation they had with president clinton. we had a government shutdown at that time. and the result of that was that the president reached accommodations with republicans about the rate of increase in government spending.

and that, coupled with a strong growing economy, resulted in balanced budgets at the end of the 1990s, into the year 2000. that generated $500 billion in surplus that was used to pay down a portion of the federal -- the public portion of the national debt. then during the early years of the 2000s, we had the 9/11 attack, which knocked a trillion dollars out of our economy. we had a recession, and we do have the beginning of the wars in afghanistan and then in iraq. my concern was that after we got those things addressed and the tax cuts that president bush and congress put into effect started the economy growing, we did not take those resources and use them to provide for a tighter budget. we actually borrowed and spent even more than that. that continued on, but was

accelerated very dramatically when the democrats got the majority in the congress, and president obama became president. so if you want to cast blame, i think it can be cast for the wide net. but the fact doesn't change that no matter who is in charge, they are to be required to be fiscally responsible he balanced the budget. >> host: finally, joe in california, republican. >> caller: about 10 minutes ago you said the balanced budget amendment would work. next question is, why are you doing it? the second thing is, i agree that people make a lot of money here in california and half of what they make his tax. i don't agree with spending for groceries and everything else you said because it got 150 after-tax annual income. you can afford that stuff that the last thing is, my mom is on medicare. and social security. she pay to get that stuff.

so did my father. i think they should at least be able to get some of that back. >> guest: first of all, i don't believe i said that a balanced budget amendment would work. i said it would be very difficult. it would require a lot of sacrifice on the part of the government. if i even intimated such a thing, i want to make it very clear that not only do i think it would work, but that it is absolutely essential for our government to continue to work in an effective fashion. because you simply cannot continue year after year after year to borrow unbelievably large amounts sums of money. if i might, let me give an example of this. i have spoke to high school classes in my district, and i've asked them how much is a trillion dollars? we spent almost a trillion dollars on stimulus, the health care bill, the president says it will cost a trillion dollars. republicans and others would say it costs a lot more than that, the deficit for next year 1.6 county. last year $1.2 trillion.

how much is a trillion dollars. i asked him that question. they know who will be responsible for paying it back. they will have to be responsible for paying that future generations. it's a shame we might leave them with that kind of burden. but i said leading to you a starting point. if you had a stack of thousand dollar bills, just 4 inches high, freshly printed, tightly packed 1000-dollar bill, you have a million dollars. how it would that stack of thousand dollar bills have to be to total $1 trillion? and they had no idea. one young lady said it would be about 12 inches that a young man said know it would be way more than that. it would be about 20 feet tall. and i said well, you know, a billion dollars is a thousand times a million dollars. and a trillion is a thousand times a billion, or a million times a million dollars. so we've got a just a few decades am talking about deficit in the millions of dollars to deficit in the billions of dollars, and now trillions of

dollars. and yet over that same period of time we've seen a situation where we are now talking about trillions and trillions, being a million times a million, or a million times 4 inches to a stack of thousand dollar bills which represents just one of these massive spending and duffers would be 4 million inches high, or 63 miles high. a thousand dollar bills stacked up right up into outer space. people need to understand that the expectation, the federal government can step in and meet all of their needs, is one that is fast coming to a close. and we need to have imposed upon the congress the discipline to make the priorities that haven't been, those decisions that haven't been made in the recent past. >> host: congressman bob goodlatte, republican of virginia, the sixth district. thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> the u.s. house begins work next week on president obama's health care plan. house speaker nancy pelosi told reporters today the democrats

are one day closer to passage. president barack obama is delaying his trip to asia next week to focus on health care. going before the house. the senior administration official tells "the associated press" that the president now plans to leave washington the following week. white house spokesman robert gibbs is likely to have more information in his briefing today. live coverage begins at about 1:30 eastern. before it hits the for critique images will be meeting to review it. it starts monday with the house budget committee. the rules committee meets wednesday. we will have live coverage on the c-span networks.

>> former senior military interrogator mathieu alexander was part of a team that help locate and kill zarqawi, the former leader of al qaeda and iraq. he spoke at an event hosted by the new america foundation and national interest magazine. it's about an hour and a half. >> we'll talk about why she commissioned this story. and then matthew alexander will proceed and basically tell you about the major findings of his store. matthew alexander is a pseudonym. he is a former senior military interrogator in iraq who was instrumental in the capture of zarqawi, the al qaeda commander in iraq and has written a book. on that. how to break a terrorist, i believe. and matthew's e-mail is how to

break a terrorist at gmail.com if you want to get in touch with them. this is the cover story in national interest, a very good issue of the national interest. not only with matthew's story but a great discussion of the various accounts of the great recession that we just had. and also a great debate between others about afghanistan. so with that, justin, do you want to go ahead? do it to ahead? >> thank you, peter, for having both of those. this is one of those times where i was lucky enough to hit on a terrific story, an author who was a pleasure to work with. and a topic that just felt so right because of this detainee issue is not going away, unfortunately. we have someone with us who you have, you have supervised over a thousand interrogations, done 300 yourself. was also wise enough to go out

looking for better ways to do interrogations. and that was really how this story came to be. it is a sort have the indonesians, country not necessarily known for their, what do we say, moderate interrogation techniques, learned a new way of doing things that actually through funded through the u.s. government. and when matthew came about, came to me about this story, there was no resisting it. it is clearly also the cover. i have heard from matthew that people are saying that they really learned a lot about how we might be able to do interrogations better and actually gain more information, and most importantly, what turned them away from radicalization over the long-term. and i think with that, you will do your subject matter far better justice than i will. thank you. >> i'm going to stand up your thank you for that. let me start by saying thank you for everybody for coming, for peter for putting this together.

and steve who is not here but to the new american foundation for hosting me. and to the organization which i am a fellow for right now, which is give me the time and resources to actually go out and do the research into justine for printing my story. euripides, the great greek playwright wrote the force of words can do whatever is done by conquering swords. i believe firmly that we, as americans, are more than capable of outwitting our opponents, terrorists, and interrogation booth without using the interrogation techniques. i have to spend a little bit before they can because there's an important piece of the puzzle here which is that i was a criminal invest carefully the air force before i was an interrogator, led to the army. and so i was going law enforcement techniques. and i grew up in those techniques in my professional

career as an agent for the air force, and i had a mentor who is very good at teaching me how to use noncoercive techniques and law enforcement settings. so when i went to the army, i had a very unique background having been in for that officer, and every else was in my group from the air force. and learning interrogation the army we. by far not the most expensive interrogator. i have done about 300, a little over 300 interrogations. i have supervised over a thousand, but there of people who've done over 5000 interrogations. what i bring is kind of a different background, a different set of eyes on this puzzle of how can we improve interrogators and interrogation techniques. come with me for a moment to iraq, 2006. it is a summer, the height of the violence. this is a few months after the golden domed mosque bombing. and iraq is engulfed in flames. the body count every day is in the hundreds. for anybody who was there, it certainly feels like a civil war is erupting around us.

i am in northern iraq and i'm a member of a special forces raid team. myself and my education partner, our job is to dedicate people at the point of capture, whether it be a house, a car, industry, and get information in a matter of minutes. where before this, i was interrogating in a prison, i had hours, days, weeks to get information. now i have 10 or 15 minutes. every single day we go out on a mission to raid a house. a couple weeks after arriving from a couple dozen missions under my belt, we get a lead on a house, and al qaeda weapons dealer. this is the guy who provides all weapons in northern iraq. we throw honor to embrace out the gate in our strikers. we come to the house, soldiers disembark, blow the front door off, race into the house. clear the rooms in the capture and iraqi sleeping in bed next to his wife in his pajamas. they called the interrogator. we come up to the realm.

i walk inside and i find a book accounting looking book man in his mid '40s, standing against his dresser with his arms flex cuffed behind his back in his pajamas. and i approach him and i go through the standard list of questions. how are you doing? i'm fine. what's your job is to? i work at a bank. who lives in this house? me and my family. his wife and young son and daughter are in a separate room being interviewed by my interrogation partner, mike. has anybody visited his house? no. soldier behind me is going through the room at the same time. is looking through drawers, under the bed, through the hamper, dirty clothes. no weapons. he walks by me. he says it's cleaned. carries on. the lieutenant comes in from outside who's in charge of the mission, a poaches me and says there's no weapons in the house. about that time i look around the room and i see something on the wall.

it's a wooden cross. i look the other way and in the hallway, i see an oil painting with the face of jesus. i look at him and i say are you christian? he says yes, i am a syrian. i look to my interpreter and iraqi from the south of iraqi shia and he nods to me that iraqi's know these things intuitively. he didn't need to see the cross on the wall. i just didn't realize we were in the wrong house. in iraq, believe it or not, there's no numbers on the houses. happens quite often. and so i say to him, i'm sorry. it appears we're in the wrong house. [laughter] >> it's a little bit embarrassing. and i know it's quite scary scary to have your house raided at night, to be separate from your wife and your children. and he says is my family update? and i said yes, you can be sure we're not going to harm them. we're not going to harm you.

i will pay you for the door that we blew off and the damage to your house. but the biggest thing i can offer you is an apology. i said, but the problem is i'm looking for something. he said, i know. but you have to understand i have a family. and i have to protect them. i don't want to be involved. i said i understand that, but how long can you afford to not be involved? every day, al qaeda is clear neighborhoods of the series, of christians and she is. how long until you will be targeted in the next attack? so i'm asking you to work with me. an american, to try to make iraq safe. he nods at me. he looks at the grand. he exhales and he says, well, it's truly. you've already come in my house. everybody will assume i am working with you. and he thinks about for a second and he says to me, three doors down the street on the left. we raced out of the house down

the street. within two minutes a soldier kicks down the door to the house down the street runs into the room and captures the weapons dealer asleep on his living room floor. within minutes we pulled out every type of weapon and ammunition and armament that al qaeda is using in iraq. and we've just discovered the super wal-mart of al qaeda weaponry. what did i learn from this experience? what i learned is that what you do in the wrong house is always more important than which do in the white house. you go into the right house, you capture terrorist. you take one down the street you might shut down a cell for a week, maybe two weeks. but at the end of the day, the violence will return. you go into the wrong house and you make an enemy of the family, maybe an entire province. fast forward now to indonesia, september 2009. detachment which is indonesia's

elite counterterrorism unit set up after 9/11 by the u.s., trained and funded, has been searching for several years for a man named mohammed top. he is the guy who was behind the bali bombings. he is also behind several hotel bombings in jakarta. is bent on about for years. he is the number one most wanted terrorist in southeast asia. the police detachment get a tip associate lives in central java. instead of rushing the house and rating it base and policemen and a the undercover surveillance for a week, gathering evidence. after that they capture the man, bring him in for an interrogation. and do they bring in to advise them on that interrogation, none other than monster. used to be the number three guy. but after he was captured, by

the pleased in turn, he became an advocate against violence and now works with place and advises them on interrogation strategies. he wrote a bestseller in indonesia about why violent extremism is wrong. when they analyze this young man they determine the most important thing to him is his family. and supporting his family. that's why he joined jihad. so they offered him money to support his family. and his captivity, treat him with respect, never criticize him, or his affiliation. never use harsh methods. no enhanced interrogation techniques. they present him with the evidence they have collected over the week. and the man turns in a matter of hours. he tells the policeman, the location of him, they run to the house and after six-hour gunfight, they kill him.

i highlight the stories so that i can talk about three things. and those are who are interrogators, how do we go about improving both interrogators in interrogation techniques, and how can we maximize interrogation to achieve our strategic objective, which is countering violent islamic extremism? who are interrogators? 80%, maybe more, of the interrogators on a daily basis are interrogating al qaeda members or other terrorist suspects are in the army. and the average age of those interrogators is about 22 or 23. they come in at a basic, out of high school to basic training. then they go, perhaps, to a year of language school, maybe not that into a five month in interrogation course. when they get to iraq or afghanistan or guantanamo bay, for many of them it's the first time they've been outside the u.s. it's the first time they've ever talk to a muslim or an arab.

is that a bad thing? i would argue no. our young people today, this next-generation, are the perfect raw material from which to craft an interrogator? why? well, let's look at the three major mistakes we made early on conducting interrogations after 9/11. the first, interrogators didn't understand how our enemy organized. which is more like the mafia or like a criminal gang, not like rank-and-file soldiers. we didn't understand their culture and how that affects interrogation methods. and were unprepared for the fact that in past conflicts direct questioning and logical reasoning approaches worked 90 percent of the time. and that fell off dramatically. yet, this next generation of american's are perfectly suited to address these three issues. first of all, this is the facebook generation. anybody here on facebook? i know most people won't admit it.

[laughter] >> al qaeda is organized like facebook. i'm -- you get recruit, you progress up to the ranks. it's organized around social networking. i have a friend, i have because and. i know a guy who can get money. i know a guy who can get weapons. maybe it's the same guy. maybe he has devoted. maybe run into an old friend on the street have seen in 10 just that like when that person talks to you on facebook that your doctor since high school. our young interrogators understand al qaeda organization intrinsically, because they grew up in this social networking culture. they are also more globally a war and culturally curious, i believe, than older americans. because of the internet, because of our global community, the more likely to know about the tenets of islam or cultural differences, holidays and festivals. and lastly, you're going to love this one, i suggest that there

better made for interrogations because they grow up with reality tv. but how many people here watch reality tv? that gets less hands every time and facebook. [laughter] >> what is it about this young generation and reality tv and their obsession with drama and emotions? well, i don't know what it is, but i know it is perfect training for interrogations. because in the interrogation room, emotions rage like wildfire. an interrogator has to understand the ability to use emotions to and emotional approach is to appeal, especially to our enemies in this war who were recruited based on emotional approach is. and the young generation gets that. so secondly, how can we go about improving interrogations, interrogators in interrogation techniques? three things. training resources, and research. we've improved the training, i continue.

there is now, for instance, readings on islam, on culture inabilities, on east, on history of countries. but those courses are typically taught by american soldiers, or contractors who are former soldiers, not by needs. if we want to expose people to the culture so they can have what i call cultural acumen, the ability to use culture, not just to know it, those classes should be taught by people who grew up in it. the other thing that this is important is because our education about culture would imagine what i believe is the root cause of why we turned to torture and abuse as a method of interrogation. and that is we have to eradicate prejudice. and stereotypes about our enemies. which our deterrence to conducting effective interrogations. most popular book people were reading when i went through the training and when i got to iraq, understand are in was the

publicly in good guide to islam. this would be able to of reading the mein kampf to understand western christianity. i was the only interrogator ever met or know of that have read the corn. this is the religion in the stereotypes are probably i get a within the training not by all that but my son, that islam is a religion of violence. i can open up the koran. this is the translated version that i've had since college. and we do for since. it says in the name of allah, the compassionate and merciful. and that's the phrase that begins every chapter in koran. perhaps this is a religion of compassion and mercy. and perhaps we can use that end in interrogation if we understand the culture and quickly leaving stereotypes. and this is what we should be teaching our interrogators. the other thing we could improve on is teaching them law enforcement techniques. we could bring in detectives

from nypd our lapd, and teach him how to use things like prisoners dilemma. i was surprised when i arrived in iraq that interrogator stood understand that if you catch to people and asked, you can put them in separate rooms and use the statements to play off each other. anybody ever see the move as a confidential? great scene where they use this technique. you can you every night on law and order or in cis. but interrogators are not exposed to these techniques. and lasting i was is we need to put resources into interrogations. if you go to almost any -- i went to three, four different locations in iraq where we interrogated every single one was this a big interrogation booths were merely for by -- four walled rooms may buy plywood with cheap plastic chairs that would barely support your weight. in most cases you could hear through the walls. the interrogation that was going on next to you. and we will spend $1 million to give soldiers the right weapons

to go out and kill people, but we can't find them because we won't spend the resources to get the information that would lead them to the target. we should put in a place of certain incentives, recruitment bonuses for instance, that would retain and recruit the best possible people from which to mold interrogators. instead they just recently lowered the standard of testing to enter the career field of interrogations. and we should give senior interrogators, those people who supervise interrogators, the power and ability to apply real incentives. the best i could give some weight in iraq was a pillow or a blanket. we should give them the funds to be able to prevent come a present real incentives to convince people to cooperate. can we learn something from indonesians? in our last area, which is research. what other countries do and what interrogation methods are now says of detainees and terrorists that we are not doing? i present this figure, which is

-- i think you're all right. the model of dealing with islamic extremists when ejecting them from indonesians, which is a study, the tar, and didn't use their be. maybe that's a doctor. we do -- we preached something similar in a train which is to analyze the caney but we don't go into details about how to analyze that that person. . .

who had been brainwashed by his father. i met a lot people who joined al qaeda because they needed protection from shia militias and repriceal killings. a lot of reasons. but none of them were religious-based. that is not to say there aren't hardcore. >> awed difficult members of al qaeda who did join for ideology. i also argue they're the easiest to interrogate because they're the most emotional. interrogators are underutilized weapon in countering violent extremism. where used to together to

gather tax intelligence to stop the next terrorist attack. in comparison, indonesia has turned interrogations into a strategic weapon. not about stopping terrorist attacks although they will do that if they get that information but stopping the recruitment of future terrorists by turning detainees into advocates against violence. they have done this successfully with numerous mid and high level leaders. we should learn from their experience. to do put train and research into interrogation. we need to quit seeing interrogation as a skill and see interrogators as profession. we have no professional organization of interrogators. there is no american bar association, american medical association for interrogators. why can't we get those resources when everybody argues this is a very important weapon in this conflict.

top was can found by interrogation. saddam hussein was found through interrogations and zarqawi was found through interrogations. is it because we don't build anything. we don't have the lobbying muscle to produce jobs. i'm not sure, but i think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. i am completely confident if we give interrogators the right resources and train them properly they will win the battle of wits and return ex-nextly on dividends we pay to them not just in stopping terrorist attacks but in choking off the terrorist lifeblood, which is new recruits. thank you. [applause] >> great. we're going to open it to questions. you wait for the microphone because we have a c-span camera here. you also have to identify yourself your affiliation. we encourage questions, not

statements. but let me, as the chair here take, prerogative to ask matthew a question, which is the indonesia mod sell very interesting. they have had great success sort of turning people from jemaah islamiyah to become against radicallization. applying the models to the west seems pretty difficult a western policeman or, you know, equivalent of the indonesian detachment, they don't know enough about islam to, maybe reasonably well-educated about islam but half of them don't have the tactile understanding of the environment and, i mean, what are the lessons that can be apin the west? or is it more this is very interesting, these guys are doing something that is quite successful but it doesn't really have much applicability to the western police effort? >> one of the things that i

discovered in rack is that, first of all, this is well-known by interrogators, even radical muslims typically consider christians, people of the book, and even, even jews to be people of the book. so there is a fundamental level of respect. as long as you respect their religion. i asked in a similar note, can females be good interrogators especially against highly radical or idealogical detainees? my answer is yes. not about the fact she's a male. it is about how she respects the religion and culture of the detainee. we had several female interrogators very successful in iraq. that doesn't mean 100% is going to work. i think there are some difficulties because we're western because of the way that we think about things. you know, all types of research that's been done on cultural differences, you know one very basic one that

people talk about is, westerners tend to be very chronological. we ask somebody about an event, we typically want to hear about it in terms of time but in the middle east those events are usually described in of relationships. and those types of things, that's why i say we can do this just as well as indonesians even though we're not must littles. we have to have cultural acumen, not cultural knowledge. has go beyond being able to refacts. indonesians have inparent -- inadvantages. the colonel that ran the detachment 88 and ran interrogations and explained these thods, they are told the interrogators will pray with deees before interrogation and great way to show respect and emphasize common bonds. tell you one of methods i used to bridge that gap actually comes from sports

psychology. the practice of an athlete rehearsing in his mind making a basket before he goes out to the court. i would use this technique called the van gogh nokia which is van gogh in terms of the painter. i would paint a picture in the mind of the detainee using words of us cooperating and what the benefits of that would be. i would tell them to close their eye and imagine in iraq where my -- irfamily visits see babylon sometime in the future which is the disneyland of iraq. and his son and my son walking down the street hand in hand without fear of violence. i can tell you, images that often move detainees to tears. because they, it was such an emotional pull to them think about iraq that could be secure and we could get there by cooperating. they came in the interrogation booth with a lot of stereotypes of us after seeing pictures of abu ghraib and what happened at guantanamo bay. >> one other question,

matthew, how would you assess the strength or weakness of jemaah islamiyah now? >> i don't claim to be an expert on jemaah islamiyah but i think the trend is showing having more difficulty recruiting. i'm a big proponent to say that, the end of conflict, which we don't talk about often. what does the end of this conflict look like? well, let's take models of other conflicts. take for instance the battle against insurgency in the philippines against communists. it was a battle that took place from the 1950s to the late 1980s. was eventually solved through law enforcement techniques, government incentives. economic incentives, amnesty program for fighters. we consider that a success. the government still controls. because there is still 8,000 members of the communist organization in the philippines. it is not a zero sum game. so what i would say for

jemaah islamiyah, their recruiting is on a downward trend. and that's, what i consider to be winning the war. to get that down to a number where it is managed by law enforcement. >> okay. >> hi, eric goldstein, human rights watch. can you address the factor of time in discussing various techniques because, the approach that you described, which seems admirable, seems appropriate for situations where you have to, a little bit of time to play with no order to get information you want. how often is it the case you need information in 10 minutes how often in case you need it in two days or how often is it that you want information over the course of a week or two? how does that affect the techniques that you describe? >> one of my favorite questions, the ticking time bomb scenario.

i mean what do american detectives do when they're dealing with gangs and they interrogate, catch somebody and they interrogate him, knowing they don't get information very quickly that person's dealer or supplier is going to move knowing that they're captured? we dealt with this every day in iraq especially when we were hunting down al-zarqawi and leaders behind the suicide bombings. i describe in my book that we interrogated abu ali, captured litly 15 minutes after busting suicide bombers to go out to kill people. if we got there 15 minutes we would have saved hundreds of lives. we dealt with that consistently iraq. we consistently captured guys who knew where attacks would take place. if you argue enhanced tear gag techniques work and are they effective? my answer is no. if i knew torture was effective 100% of the time i wouldn't have used it. why?

because one of us in the prison where handled foreign fighters, day in and day out the reason they came to iraq to fight was because of pictures of abu ghraib and what happened at guantanamo bay. some people say, what about the fact we've been attacked before that happened? not a matter of are there people that will attack us. there always will be. last four presidencies we always endured terrorist attacks. it is a matter of levels. numerous additional fighters were recruited because of torture and abuse of muslimmers in. and so, everyone in my prison realized even if torture did work 100% of the time, even if it worked half the time, we would never use it. one, because, we just would be recruiting for the enemy. that's not some amazing discovery that we came across. it's been in the army field man at least since 1949 that if you use torture and abuse enemy will use that to recruit new fighters that is not a revelation. but we also realized that is

who we were fighting against. this war isn't just about stopping terrorist attacks. it is about preserving american principles. so, but, let me say this also about ticking time bomb scenario. if my mother was on bus with the bomb, that was going to go off and i had 15 minutes to info, i wouldn't turn to torture. that would be the last technique. every techniques works on somebody. what we're talking about probability of a technique working. torture as we know from a 180, if you have to use a technique 183 times, it's not working and it is not efficient. i would refer, what i did in the field when we had to get information very quickly i went to law enforcement techniques. i went to prisoners dilemma. i went to those type of techniques that police have been using for decades in that same scenario. because they give you the best probability success. >> what are the outer limits of what you can do with the army field manuel?

what is the most you can do? >> so, the army field manuel, which i believe, is actually very valid and great document for interrogation techniques but it has never scientifically studied. we're just now starting that. colonel kleinman. steve kleinman one of our most experienced interrogators is researching the techniques as they're being used. but the field manuel will allow you, there is line, you can use psychological tricks, ruses and ploys, that will allow that line allows you to use law enforcement techniques. people say the army field manuel outlaws law enforcement techniques that is not true at all. you can legally use law enforcement techniques under the army field manuel and they're not coercive. only people using them have law enforcement experience backgrounds. there are gray areas in

interrogations. i give you a perfect example. in fact this just came up in recently. you can't threaten a detainee, we all know that. i think that includes indirect threats but can you make a statement of. if a detainee, if you catch a detainee making suicide bombs, can you show them rack can i penal code which states punishment for participating in suicide operations is death? that is a statement of fact. that's the law. you can do that in a u.s. criminal interrogation. i heard a proponent of waterboarding last night on live television say, that, we can't tell somebody that the punishment for a crime is death in intelligence and according to army field manuel. that is wrong. i ask detainees ask me what is the punishment much my crimes? that is not a threat. statement of fact that is different in scenario if you

tell detainee you don't cooperate i put your face on poster you crop l cooperated with u.s. force and post it in the village and you can guess what happens next. so what is my standard? for these gray areas? the golden rule. if i would consider it torture or abuse or, what is actually minimum standard cruel and inhumane degrading treatment, would i, would i use it if it was being used against my own troops? that's my bottom line. >> matthew, do you think this is still going on? enhanced interrogation techniques? what do you think is the bottom line? >> i think we've learned from our mistakes but think there is still a resistance within the intelligence and interrogations community over what the law says and what people should be allowed to do. the army field manuel still allows us to separate people

indefinitely in solitary confine still allows us to put people through sleep deprivation. it doesn't even prohibit stress positions. so, i would say that we can say now that we don't torture people but i'm not confident that we can say that we're meeting the minimum standard which is humane treatment. but, let me add one more thing to that, you have to realize a large majority of interrogators would never torture or abuse somebody even if left alone in the room with detainee and there were no rules and nobody was watching. there is very small amount, call it 5%, of people who would do it with the rules, with supervision because there is criminal element to every population, we know that. it is that middle group of people that middle 30%, 20% of interrogators who would do it if there wasn't a rule or correct supervision. that's what we're trying to target.

>> in the back. >> i'm douglas norell from catholic receive services. we're in a weir in different work than you are. i'm impressed with your philosophy interrogation and where there is a point of synergy we're involved in conflict resolution around the globe. and part of that is fighting prejudice, which was a key part of your presentation. two questions. one, would it be more helpful in describing the kind of people that we're talking about in terms of other than islam instead of saying islamist extremists, why not just say call extremists or why not say pseudo islam extremists? because if as you say the principles that these people follow are totally inconsistent with the koran, how do we then recognize them as being muslim i think

it is beyond the pail of what a -- pale of a true muslim would be. the wiser question takes you a little bit beyond your own realm but how can religion in any way be an asset in conflict resolution instead of a divider? most the time we spend talking about, how, judaism, islam and christianity are different instead of talking about the common ground that they have as all of the book as, children of abraham? >> on your first question, i think, yes, we should differentiate. we're smart enough to differentiate between the difference in different terms of violent extremism. we have white supremacists, extremists in the united states who conduct terrorist attacks. as, tom parker from amnesty points out, only person to

come close to building a dirty bomb was white. and, may have even set it off had it not been for the fact that his wife shot him. now not suggesting we should recruit a bunch of wives and arm them but, i do think that language is important. extremely important from somebody who has been in the field and supervised interrogators i can tell you that the words used at top are interpreted literally at the bottom and impressions can make a very significant change in people's behavior in the field. the last commander i worked for in iraq who took over "the a-team" before i left, walked in, gathered everybody in the room the first day and said i came here with two things and i'm leaving with both. my father's last name and my integrity. no one ever questioned the fact we would treat everybody humanely. it was never an issue. i do think that language is

important, i'm not opposed to your idea we should call terrorists, what they are, which is violent extremists who happen to be misusing the title of islam but at the same time, i do understand the reality which is that the people that attacked us on 9/11 were muslim and that does define some of our enemies, the majority of the terrorists that we're fighting in this current conflict. i think to ignore that fact would do ourselves a disservice because we need to identify who are the people and why do they join these violent groups. as far as religion being an asset, you know, one of the stories i tell in book how one of the detainees, who was actually a religious imam that recruited from a mosque, very religious man, and way i built bond with him that encouraged him to cooperate was by trading stories from, from the bible

and the koran. he told me a story in the koran, his view of how the immaculate conception which was different from the story i had learned growing up and we traded the differences in stories and found it to be a point of common interest and bonding. so, i do think we can leverage that but i would be a little careful of that and here's why. what about soldiers that are atheists or abused buddhists or humanists or fall out side of those three religions? i think we should be able to bond on our common humanity as well as our religion. maybe that should be the floor that we use, to come together and not just religion. >> yeah i'm ben spanos from "executive intelligence review".

if all sorts of people believed a majority or good percentage of the american people believe torture should works and we should use it, and i've seen polls something like saying 60% of people questioned thought that of the mutallab, detroit christmas bomber, should have been waterboarded this is really dramatic departure from our traditions as a nation, even our military traditioning. what do you attribute this to? how do you explain this? >> i feel like it is a little bit of a loaded question, which i recognize as an interrogator. you know, is it that people who support enhanced interrogation techniques have effectively argued that those techniques kept us safe? i think is the real question. and i would say, they made a very loud argument. i would say they haven't made an effective argument.

anytime you hear anybody talking about supporting enhanced interrogation techniques keeping america safe there is no, never a reference to the long term. it is always about stopping the next attack tomorrow. there's never any addressing of the longer term issue which is terrorist recruitment. which, we can stop terrorist attacks for the next 300 years,. we can play that game of cat-and-mouse forever. that's not going to end the conflict. what i think is, there's a misperception in the public about things, first of all, is the competency of our interrogators. imagine if you went to infan troops and you said, i'm sorry, i mean i know you guys are trained to take hills but we think al qaed is better fighters than you guys are. so we're going to allow you to use chemical weapons. now, i don't know a professionaler that wouldn't be offended by that type of

offer and i can tell you all interrogators, every professional interrogator i know in the military is offended by the fact we need to be offered enhanced interrogation techniques to be able to do our job? they're not enhanced. we can do our jobs just fine out being able, without an exception to be able to break the law. and it's a lack of confidence in our ability that i think is driving this partially. and the other part is that it is not a static art. you know, we don't have to successfully interrogate every single person that walks into an interrogation room. a sold doesn't shoot every person with every bullet. interrogations, some of them will fail. we accept that. there is more than one way to get information. no single person in al qaeda holds all the information. there's, as we learned on the route to zarqawi, there were several guys we never got to talk.

we went around them. we made our methods better. we improved them and applied good ol' american ingenuity within the law to come up with better methods to achieve our objectives. >> david riff richards, cato institute. just curious, there are 19 approved methods in the army field manuel and you alluded to some law enforcementment techniques. could you give us sample specifically what techniques you would like to add to the manuel and what, example of threat versus statement of fact sort of clarification you think need to be made? >> so, what, law enforcement techniques. so, part of my fellowship i third an unofficial interrogation manuel and i list outlaw enforcement techniques and i shared that with army interrogators.

and it's, i can tell you almost everybody in the investigations world recognizes those techniques but we have different names for them. for instance, there's something called the read technique which is taught to many law enforcement officers. it is a method detecting deception and overcoming objections resistance to confessions. but basically what i call the shift of plame technique which is -- blame nokia you give suspect in criminal interrogation the ability to blame something other than himself for why he committed acts while confessing to them. it is extremely effective and in intelligence interrogation. even though you're not trying get a confession you can shift the blame off the detainee which provides them a guilt-freeway to provide intelligence information. as an example but we don't have shift of blame technique in the army field manuel. we, there's a line in there that does talk about not, not pointing out faults or the crimes of the detainee

but we don't describe that technique and how to leverage it. prisoner leverage is another one i talked about. there is others. how do we clarify what is a threat and indirect threat? i'm not sure we can ever specifically put that into writing other than to say, the golden rule which the manual already says. that already tells us to consider that, consider the methods we are going to use if they were used against our own troops, how would we believe it was a threat or indirect threat. the jags, that is the lawyers that advise us, in theater, when we go to them with a technique, and we'd say is this legal or not legal? they would use this phrase, you can't put the dagger on the table. i, i don't want to critthat but i would say you can't put the dagger under the table either. indirect threat is the same as a threat. because it is coercive.

you're trying to intimidate the detainee to give information through threatening their physical security. that doesn't mean you can't, as i said before, make statements fact and explain the judicial process to. i think you can do that. that's, that's part of the process and they should know what it is. but i think ultimately, we have to trust what is already in the manuel, which is the right way as the golden rule. >> imrebecca -- with the friends committee on national legislation. could you speak a bit about what it would take to put safeguards in place and insure cultural shift to promote humane of all detainees? would it be something revising the army field manuel or codifying the golden rule or creating a commission of inquiry or past abuse or another alternative? that. -- thank you.

>> three things i would say we can do. i mean how does any organization change its culture? the first thing i will argue is that we don't need to change our culture. what we need to do is uphold the culture we already have in the military. it is our tradition to treat detainees humanely. george washington leading the continental army prohibited the abuse of detainees. abraham lincoln, in no conflict that i know of have we ever authorized the abuse of detainees. and, like i said before, for at least 50 years we put that into doctrine with the exact wording explaining the negative consequences of doing so. so i don't think we need to shift our culture. i think we need to return to it and reinforce it. i do support a commission of inquery because i don't think we've had one and i'm not at all confident that we

even know about all the incidents. the best we proximate, i believe is an fbi inspector general report that came out in may of 2008 that found that fbi agents witnessed, what could be considered torture or abuse, certainly not humane treatment, incidents over 300 incidents between iraq, guantanamo and afghanistan. if you extrapolate that, fbi agent are only present at maybe 3% of all interrogations. it points the fact this was a very widespread problem and we don't have a full accounting i don't believe. and i do think there is difference between accounting and accountability. . .

consider the fact that we have tried people in convicted them for us all to for laying a finger tip on somebody. the very least those techniques are prohibited to the army field manual so you'd be disobeying regulation which is one of the articles. so i think we should have an accounting in terms of having inquiry to find out exactly what happened and i think everybody supports accountability. i think one of the most

interesting arguments or ways to look at this is go back to look at president clinton's impeachment and look at the quotes for a call for accountability in the rule of law then and what they said about how important it was two society. the last thing i will say is that this is also a leadership issue for the military. and read i do believe will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of we don't hold people accountable but we owe ourselves within the military and accounting of leadership and what it means. there's a very few instances of officers or senior enlisted people standing up and saying, no, to techniques that were clearly in violation of their training in their ethics and the code and regulations. very few instances and i think we need to go back and adopt -- i don't want to say make new training because it's in the training, maybe we need to

reemphasize that in the training from a leadership perspective our important to do is to say no to unlawful orders. >> thank you, and like i guess the air force and the army has a strong law between law enforcement and intelligence functions but most of what your saying seems to be in i need to break down the wall or soften perhaps -- how would you go about doing that? >> in the air force and navy recombine counterintelligence and criminal investigations whereas in the army its separate, their investigators don't to intelligence. there's a lot of issues, it's been discussed many times whether one service should switch to the others model. but maybe anything culturally because the army, because of its mission it makes more sense to have a separate. but certainly they still abide by the same regulations whether

together or different. the one place where these things merges espionage. when you have an espionage case is both counterintelligence and intelligence and criminal investigation and there's other cases that deal with intelligence that our criminal investigations for the emerging get into issues about intelligence oversight and where that overlaps with criminal investigations. but the services are well prepared to deal with that. i wouldn't say i'm in a position where i can recommend that was service takes the others approached. i do think that we benefited when we share information and that happens in law-enforcement between the military and civilians. we run joint cases with the fbi and military together all the time or with nypd in one of the military, the investigator branches and that sharing happens all the time but doesn't happen between army intelligence interrogators and the civilian law-enforcement community.

>> my name is elizabeth smith, a retired television producer. we hear very much criticism in this country about our lack of language and accountability and there was a story about the fact that 63 presumably arabic speaking men had to leave this service because of sexual orientation. is that the lack of our language sophistication a severe detriment or is it overrated in questioning? >> i'm going to be the minority opinion on this one, but let me explain it. the thing i would say is if you gave me a choice and have a limited amount of resources when i choose to train all my interrogators in arabic or would i choose to train and recruit better interpreters. i would choose interpreters. i had a team of a dozen interrogator's some of whom had been through a year of arabic training and i couldn't interrogate in arabic and iraq

there are 14 dialects of arabic and it interrogations' are a subject. i do know -- i have a friend train in arabic and it took him quite a time in country before he could actually interrogate us by himself in arabic so some people do have the capability to do it. but i would choose the interpreter because the interpreter is a cultural encyclopedia and that's an additional resource. then there so many times i could give examples of where interpreter's saved my but because they realize some cultural nuances and even i've been in the middle east before, i anderson and the culture, but i didn't understand some very fine details that were where they were able to pick it out. in the example i gave and the story i told about the syrian, my interpreter probably knew that when we walked in the house and for started talking and held his tongue until i discovered there was another point in time where i was interrogating a

gentleman in my interpreter stop me and looked at a clock on the wall and said that guy is shia. he can't be part of al qaeda. i said how you know that from the clock and he said just the picture. so the interpreter they bring something to the equation that's an additional assets and given time and resources when i train all our interrogators and language, if your plans and can interrogate that's an advantage because the detainees and to respect the fact that you have learned their language. if i ask anybody in here who francisco press the is the world war ii a's, jimmy doolittle, billy mitchell -- i can ask you famous names of pilots from world war ii any would recognize them probably. but i came off others from a famous interrogators from world war to anyone of who they were. but these people, one of them, wrote a guide for

interrogations' after he successfully interrogated numerous japanese p.o.w.'s and he said everybody should be a train linguist because there's an innate ability once you understand the language to understand a culture. i don't think that's a requirement but certainly it's a help. >> my name is jimmy, i am from the voice of america in the nation's service i have done a lot of translation for the state department program. fi question is, the way that you described it is like they have already adopted all these new techniques, but have a bit skeptical about that. is in this one of the tools where they have also retain all the old methods and i think this has big implications particularly since indonesia is going into more depth into

democracy because with obama's visit coming up this next week and also there's already talk about a resumption of military aid to the special forces, so can you explain to me really this unit had used these more friendly your methods and has set aside all tortures' or is it still 80 percent of their methods that they're using and that has let them to capture of a them? , so sure. i'm a bit of a skeptic about this. >> that's another loaded question. i will be a skeptic with you. just as i would be skeptical of my own interrogation force and whether we adopted good methods. because we have a checkered past

now. and i think it's good to be skeptic. but i don't think that being a skeptic for admitting that some people use bad messes that there's bad actors within an organization that we shouldn't go on and praise when they act in a good manner. because as i was taught early on as an officer in the military, you don't fix a broken wheel by complaining about its. you fix it by coming up with a solution. and so in my book i made a conscious decision not to write about the times when i witness people bend or break the rules and because i knew that if i did that everybody would read my book to read about torture. and it talked about like an odd to great scandal. what i wanted people to focus on is how do we improve the methods how do we do sings right and where the success stories and that's what i wrote about 88.

i am aware that people have concerns that and other instances they haven't always used to this techniques, i don't know, i can tell you that i have any knowledge of them doing that or not doing that. what i can say is i wanted to highlight what they did something well and if we put a positive incentive on the effectiveness of doing things the right way, i am convinced that it will help things change. men like tivo who came up with this massive and and who are explaining in helping us to advance methods really our leaders and i think we have to concentrate on the positive and traditions to the field of interrogations. to promote good behavior. >> you talk to the article about afghanistan and that it's going to be entirely different in terms of interrogations' and the kinds of enemies were facing

there. that's clearly the designated next battlefield so why is it so different? >> i have not been to afghanistan so qualify i will go off other's expertise which is just that there's more diversity in the reasons why people join the taliban or al qaeda. then in iraq. and that diversity can vary by valley. and cried significantly so the incentive to apply have to be much more varied whereas in the iraq this sounion awakening was facilitated by a reaching out to several prominent sunni shakes and that might not be as easy in afghanistan or you have to reach out to significant larger number of players. to make the same type of its finances. and so that is why i think when we talk about complying a sense as to these models is not a

one-size-fits-all. but i can tell you there is something universal about interrogations and that is people have motivations for why they joined a group and you have to understand those motivations and then apply the proper incentives if you're going to get them to change behaviors' and that is universal. >> for jessica for strategic studies. my question touches on exactly that point, one of the main reasons uc ongoing support for a enhanced interrogations' is a belief wrong or right that there's a limited to the effectiveness of standard interrogation. in other words, if you are interrogating a hard-core al qaeda operative and his loyal and will be harder to sway through normal techniques, correct me if that is wrong assumption that whatever, but that leads to a two-part question. are there limits to standard interrogations and if so, can

those limits be overcome by enhanced interrogation or is that just as -- or is enhanced interrogation techniques just as limited in their goals as standard interrogation techniques? >> well, the problem, first of all, semantically, they are not enhanced interrogation techniques, there's nothing better about them than regular interrogation techniques. >> keira seven -- coercive interrogation techniques. >> it is not like you used all the traditional methods and now we have better methods that have to apply. it's like i said before -- every technique as a probability of success. and that success depends upon the interrogators skill and applicability of the detainee. in have the best be one of the best technique in mind at work. just like a soda can have the best gun, be the best trained and is a target. so i don't think we can save

like the traditional approaches get up to a certain level and don't work and then you use -- i'm sure there are numerous examples and know this because it's basically an open a good, bad cop for the use coercive techniques, they didn't work in this is how we found al-zarqawi. we used harsh methods, they didn't work and then it was it approaches the.org. so maybe we should call the relation of billing interrogation techniques enhanced interrogation. >> can you tell the audience in council form which did work to find out abu musab al-zarqawi? >> the way we found al-zarqawi is we talk a group of men in a farmhouse who were about to stage equipped and suicide bombers and we brought them back to the prison and there was one guy in particular we focused on a guy that i call hater who is basically anybody here has seen silence of the lambs and the hannibal movies, this guy was the hannibal lector of al qaeda

in demeanor, posture he spoke with a british accent, sat back barry casually and he was very manipulative and intelligent. he even studied as he told me the art of logical reasoning and argument persuasion. in the original interrogators tried control methods and by control methods i mean that their basic approach was pride he go down, strip down his ego, make him feel like he's not able to resist their methods, they can dominate him a and then force him to cooperate. they tried that for almost three weeks and it didn't work. try to maintain the the whole time he was told to bring a video camera to the farmhouse and he didn't know why he was there, thinking it was a wedding. [laughter] right before he was supposed to be transferred after they had given up on him i interrogated him and had six hours until his transfer and the whole time all i did was run a pride and ego approached and told him, i

flattered him, i showed him that i respected his culture, quoted from the iran, brought in a copy of the qur'an, we discussed iraqi history and sports, discuss the ultimate fighting championship, soccer, and a lot of things. then at the very and i used a law-enforcement techniques. which is basically i gave him the chance to a list in a conspiracy and the conspiracy was that i would allow him to play a role in the future of iraq if he cooperated with me. back then his ego. it fit perfectly within his culture it and within his individual motivations. and he decided to cooperate in a couple weeks later there are some more details that happened after that because we went backwards after we went for were, he told us that his best friend was al-zarqawi adviser, where recoup by the friend and how we would know when he would meet with al-zarqawi and that is

how we found al-zarqawi. >> thank you for your presentation. i am a graduate student at george washington. however, my question is unrelated to my experiences. i have a friend going over there and counter intelligence in the marine corps. what advice would you have for someone in his position who has just finished school and he's going over there for the first time after a bit of language training blacks may be directed advice for him that i could pass on. >> interestingly enough, the night before last i was an army reserve interrogators course telling students into a graduate to a deploy in the near future some advice. words of wisdom if you will. it was similar to the speech you heard today. but i also told them trust your

training because i believe in the military training, i think it can be improved by the do think that we do a good job of stressing ethics and abiding by the law and fighting in accordance with our principles. but the other thing i would say is go over there in the attitude that you were going there to learn something. john calls this the learning environment, the learning army. and our ability to learn faster than our enemies is an asset. if you go over there with preconceived notions about who our enemies are and how they fight and how they're organized, then you'll be static. and you should go over there with the mindset that you're over there to learn something while you're doing your job and that you are going to use that knowledge that you learn while you're there to improve processes or your techniques.

>> psychologist with responsibility. i'd be interested and when you promise something to somebody like this man and offer him the chance -- what happens then? is anybody able to carry through with the things you promised? if he comes through with information? >> that's a great question. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> let's clarify that because by killing al-zarqawi he did change the future of iraq. [laughter] so i feel i wholeheartedly -- honestly believe i did a poll of my part of the bargain. but let's also talk little about the deception. a lot of criminal investigator techniques are based on deception. we will have people write statements and alter them. we make up information. for instance even in the army

field manual herseth while dossier approach which is basically taking older and have documents and it's a bunch of blank paper except for one and then you pull one out and show to the detainee and make them thank you have a whole bunch of information. the sections are a part of warfare. in world war to rebuild the whole base of wood and fighters in england to see the germans into thinking that we had forces there. there's nothing wrong with deception interrogation. back the course of criminal cases several sticking use deception as long as a dozen shock the conscience and i would say you can use deception as long as it doesn't rise to the level of inhumane treatment. i can tell you how many times detainee's caught me in the allied war i taught them in . and we were able to get over it. it wasn't the end of things and they weren't like a big liar. [laughter] y? because they know there are line

also. and we both expect that, what's happening is negotiation over information. deception is just one tool that we use but ultimately what we have to get to it is the negotiation and trading information. now, do i think we should follow through on promises? yes if we can and we don't have enough ability to do that. something that significantly is going is back from doing if i did interrogations'. as a senior interrogator i can offer more than a blanket or a pill or a meal. take the indonesians' on their side, they can offer real incentives and promises they kinky. now, a year after i left iraq they did start dealing with people more detainees and the problem is we have a hard time as americans getting over people who attack us. and commit acts of violence against american soldiers. yet that is a part of warfare is to be able to turn enemies into

allies and i do think we have to be able to follow through on some of the promises we make and make them real. and we can do that unless we see interrogations' as an exercise in negotiation, rather than exercise and retribution. >> [inaudible] >> i am a writer and i've written a play about some of these issues. i would like to get back to general question on how attractive, who are you reaching with the use message, is very powerful message really -- how do you think you're affecting the course of our behavior? and specifically with the likelihood there will ever be any kind of accounting end of the influence on the policies of rendition which i understand are not to renounce and may still the ongoing?

>> emendations is a topic that i have never really engaged in or had anything to do with. and i oppose it simply because i think it's against the law. and i think is wrong, but also i think pilots are principles. plus we should have the courage, if we detain people then we should detain them and process them and be the ones that are responsible for them. do i think the message is reaching people? yes, but how many people is the question. most polls, you have a question about polls and i wanted to address something -- the polling is actually extremely dependent upon the wording. of the question. we know that every phrase the question that says do you support al-zarqawi -- enhanced interrogation techniques and the large majority of people say yes but what is loaded in that

question talk about loaded questions is that they work. or that they don't recruit new terrorists bent down the road make us less safe or that their enhanced interrogation techniques and not torture. so the polls -- >> [inaudible] >> there is no soft or hard in this argument, there's an effective and noneffective and those arguments have to be made from both the short and long term perspective. and so what i would say is are we reaching people, i think yes and i have had -- i can only go by my personal experience that people have come up to me and said the, some people say i think we could use enhanced interrogation techniques sometimes but if your methods work better and faster than i am ok with giving up on those. that's fine. i think it is a band-aid. but the question goes back to wide we torture, why would

somebody torture another human being? and i think it goes back to prejudice and that's what i think is the long term white in this argument is how we eradicate the prejudice because we didn't torture people after the attack on pearl harbor. even though other attacks were imminent in you to make the argument it was an active and would have saved lives. >> we are going to take this question together because we're almost out of time. >> since the debate over torture service in the united states after 9/11, it seems there's a growing class of a former interrogators' or current interrogators like yourself who take to have positions on whether torture works and a blind up on both sides of this issue and i'd like you to diagnose this divergence here what explains it. is it more your emphasis on the long-term effects of using torture or is it the

interrogators who have lined up on both sides of this debate have had very different experiences and honestly feel differently about whether it works in the short-term as well? >> you're question? >> thank you. and with the justice initiative and i wanted to ask if you had any thoughts about the lessons from your own experience in this arena which is that of trying to detect and deter people in the profit -- and the radicalization with in all countries, jihadist jane was on the front page of the washington post this morning and i am doing work in western europe where we are looking at at that profiling and the role of a focus of religious practice on islamists in particular in efforts to detect persons in the process of radicalization and we've been quite critical of what we see as an excessive and stereotypical a focus on

religion both in looking at the pattons and then also when people are brought in for any kind of question in their often askari deal about the religious practice. it was actually suggested to us by the senior french intelligence officer that the police should simply be barred from passing anything about religion and should focus entirely on actions on behavior's so i would be interested to get your thoughts on that and if you think there are key lessons and, indeed, if there is a conversation here given both the nypd and the lapd have been looking at these issues in the nypd brought a major report a while ago about this. >> let me answer that question first. but i learned in iraq is that people join and resort to violence for personal reasons. it can be in the case of the one

who was a blessing suicide bombers it is because melissa had come to his neighborhood and assassinated his best friend and force them to move from his house and give up his business. he sent suicide bombers out against an marketplaces and he later admitted to me after he started cooperating that his mother was shia. imagine the feelings he must have had inside that he had to overcome to build to participate in that type of activity. was extremely personal to him because of the assassination of a friend because of a loss of everything in his life and his pride in his honor and being able to support his family. the very personal reasons and i would say the most trying reasons and the most powerful reasons for al qaeda to be able to recruit are intangible. the same way that my most powerful weapon in the interrogation demise most powerful methods are intangible and numerous times i could come in and through $10,000 on the table and that wouldn't move anybody at all.

but if i appeal to their honor and respect and their pride in that would be much more powerful. and i would say that the reasons that people join al qaeda probably my biggest learning curve and in iraq was that is a convenient convergence. as i told general casey when he visited our prison and he asked why do people joined an intelligence officer gave him a standard until about al qaeda ideology and the reestablishment of the caliphate ensure real lot and have you and i disagreed. i said that there's this convenience convergence of a lot of different factors from social, economic, some religions, but they are rare personal factors to each individual and they are aligned. ..

>> so we differ because we are different over the term works. every technique works on someone. handing someone a stick of gum will get somebody to talk. i guarantee of their summit in the world will talk if you hand them a stick of gum. the question is probability. when you assess the probability of a look at both the short and long-term effects of using these

techniques. >> thank you, justine. thank you both. that was great. [applause] >> is your book your? >> e-mail how to break a terrorist.com. >> i didn't bring books to sell. but you can get them at amazon.com and barnes & noble. >> we have the magazines for these sonatas as an article. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and momentarily here on c-span2 we will take you live to the pentagon briefing. the defense undersecretary ashton carter. he is in charge of acquisition, technology and logistics. expected to talk about and get questions on the joint strike fighter program and also the air force aerial tanker program. it should get underway fly from the pentagon momentarily. here on c-span2. president obama today announced he is delaying his asian trip as house speaker nancy pelosi forecasts final passage of health care legislation possibly next week. the president is staying in town. he will leave on his asia trip on march 21 instead. before that, legislation hits the house floor. senti gimmies will remake to

review it. the budget committee will meet on monday. rules meeting on wednesday to consider parameters for debate. meanwhile, house and senate republican leaders had each named three members to the president deficit commission. president obama created that commission a couple of weeks ago after legislation to do so failed in congress. the commission is going to recommend ways for government to reduce or eliminate the one and a half trillion dollar deficit, protected by the congressional budget office. we are likely to hear more about that, more about the president's plans in the upcoming health care debate when robert gibbs speaks to reporters. and that is scheduled for 2 p.m. eastern. will have live coverage at the white house.

while weee is i wait for the pn briefing two-stroke will bring a portion of this morn's "washington journal." >> host: on terrorism, if you could start by telling us what that is. >> guest: is an organization i found in 1995. to track the activities, investigate the operations of radical islamic groups on american soil and their ties to international terrorism overseas. in folder production and broadcast of documentary that it done in 1994, for pbs called jihad in america. so the investigative project of terrorism, now 15 years old, has amassed a repository closer to 5 million documents, 50,000 hours of recorded video and audio of radical islamist groups, gatherings and conferences, as well as many

other types of data. >> host: why did you start this project in 1995, or start a documentary in 1984? >> guest: good reporter. i been reported for cnn in 1993, and right after the first world trade center bombing in february of 93, cnn asked me to do a documentary on the roots of that bombing. and i already had some prior knowledge of the extent to which radical islamic groups had morphed from being anti-soviet jihad groups in the u.s. to being anti-american groups, like hamas, like islamic jihad. and i proposed back to cnn that we do a documentary about how the radical islamist groups on american soil had morphed into a legitimate groups under false names and fake monikers. they did not want to do that. so hell has no fury like a journalist who scored. i quit. i took my documentary to public

television. they gave me some seed money. i raise the rest of the money, and i did a documentary called jihad in america that had a lot of video of the undercover radical gatherings in the united states, from boston to california, calling for jihad. and after the film was done, i realized that there was nobody tracking these groups here the fbi wasn't tracking these groups. they were all below the radar screen. and if they were doing anything illegal, except rhetorically calling for the death of america, there was nothing that they were doing that was violating the law. so i form this organization to track them, and we see now that many of the groups were formed out of the muslim brotherhood, which was at organization that was created in 1920s in egypt that believes in the imposition of the sharia, or code of islamic law. >> host: how long have you known about this? >> guest: i have known about her

a little bit before it was announced in the papers that she had been arrested just the other day. she had been arrested actually october 29, that was not disclosed publicly. was only disclosed this past week that she had been arrested and charged with i think seven counts including one count of material support, another count of conspiracy to murder. >> we will take you now live to the pentagon for a briefing with the undersecretary for acquisitions, technology and logistics, ashton carter. live coverage on c-span2. >> doctor carter who will spend time this afternoon talking about the f-35 joint strike fighter program. server? >> thank you. i'm delighted that you're all here. i do apologize for the delay in this. something came up, but whatever it was at 11:00 when this is scheduled, and i know some of you got yo-yo dieters for.

i do apologize for that because i know it is friday. the purpose of this is to revisit some of the points that i made yesterday before the senate armed service committee regarding the restructured of the joint strike fighter program that secretary gates directed on the basis of the various estimates and analyses that were done in the fall. and the departmentwide review, which i lead over the last few months, and which led to the decisions that he made in that he announced in connection with fy11 budget decision. so in that sense, yesterday there was nothing new relative to that. but that was our first opportunity to appear before the congress and kind of lay out in detail. so let me kind of revisit some

of the main points of the restructuring, and then i will take questions. and i will do that as i did yesterday in the hearing, by addressing the three phases of the program, namely the development phase, the ramp up to the transition from developing to production and wrap up to full production, and in full production and actions taken in each of those three phases. for the development phase, the secretary directed the reactions -- three actions to reduce the overall duration of the development program. that duration had been like the name, with time, for reasons i will go into in a moment, and in order to reduce that span of time, he directed three actions.

the first was the procurement of another aircraft, a carrier very aircraft, and to the test program. that's another resource to get through the various test points that constitute the flight test program, so it's not hard to understand that if you have more aircraft to do certain number of test, you get to them faster. that's it doesn't worth making. because you bring back the program schedule and you keep a lot of people doing flight testing for a shorter period of time. secondly, he directed the loan of three aircraft that would be in the operational test program to the developmental test program, for the same reason. to hasten development of tests. and finally, he directed the

creation of another software integration capability, which was intended to forestall the possibility, that if you, if you as we intend to do with the first two actions, compress the developmental flight test program, that is, bring back the schedule, then you have to say, well, by the time you're done you finished of protesting, is the software going to be done. want to make sure the answer to that was yes. and so those are the three actions that secretary gates directed to correct the schedule of the development program. and that's not to say that we were able to restore and to what it would have been projected to be by the program office and the contractor, but we got some of the way back.

that's where the famous 30 months and 13 months comes in. the secretary believed, and this is a principle that's important, that the investments needed to get back the development schedule ought to be made solely by the taxpayer, that the responsibly for that should be shared. and it is being shared with the contractor. that's with a 614 million-dollar withheld key comes in. so with those actions, we have restored some of the schedule he wrote in that was occurring in the development program and reduce the risk of the developer program, and save the taxpayer

money that they shouldn't have to spend. and get to the next phase, and that's the transition to production, which is always a difficult historically difficult transition to make more aircraft programs. and there we had another independent review done. that's the so called independent manufacturing review team report. that report was commissioned by my office, and they just looked at the workings of the assembly line at fort worth. and they identified a number of steps that would be needed in order to guarantee that that assembly line could ramp up its production in the way that was originally planned. so we identified those steps that needed to be taken to make

sure we could ramp up production as quickly as possible. the secretary judged that the independent estimate of the ramp rate was the realistic one, and therefore, we should plan for a later, because the development program was a little bit later, and a flatter, that is, less risky ramp. that means fewer jets produced in the early years in the interest of a more predictable and more stable achievement of full rate production. so there will be fewer aircraft produced over, but the objective there is to reach full rate production in a predictable, stable way. and that was the secretary decision in that regard. and additionally, to require

that in the contracts that cover that ramp that we transition from a cost-plus structure to a fixed price structure, he directed that also. that, in order, to ensure discipline in the transition from development to production. then we get out to full rate production itself, where we're going to by a large number of aircraft for the are three services, and we have a number of international partners who are also counted upon this important aircraft. and for the production phase, the secretary viewed the independent costs estimate as realistic.

and that estimate projects a breach of the non-mccurdy threshold for the entire by joint strike, joint strike fighter aircraft, as i said yesterday. that is the disappointing fact, but it is a fact, is a fact of life at this point. and he recognized that. and put in place a number of measures to try to cap in control that cost, which includes a fixed price contracting that i described, should cost effort which is an analysis independently by as of what the joint strike fighters should cost so that we have our own estimate of that, and not just the contractor's estimate. of that. and the implementation of the steps we are taking, which we

identified also through the so-called joint assessment team to control and reduce the costs of the engine, which one of the things that was increasing the cost of the overall aircraft. so, just to take it from the top, i know some of that is technical and it's friday afternoon. i hope your eyes aren't glazing over, but this is the stuff of aircraft programs. and in the development phase and the ramp up to production in full rate production, in each of those areas, we had done an assessment of where the program stood. we wanted to be realistic and candid, but also managerial smart about how we address each of those three faces. the secretary took actions in each of those phases, and on the basis of that, we judge not to be a realistic, not optimistic, not pessimistic, realistic program plan and schedule, to

plan on that basis and to put the management mechanisms in place that he had defined to ensure that going forward, the program performs better than it's been performing over the last couple of years. so that in a nutshell is what secretary gates directed back as part of the budget process. yesterday was our first chance to get in front of our committees and explain that. it was not new news to us. it's not good news to explain a mccurdy bridge. it was not new news to us to give us the news we first began to confront back in november, and we began to do, to act as though we were already in a mccurdy bridge, but to identify and take the managerial steps that you would need to take if you read a mccurdy bridge. that kind of in a nutshell is

what i said yesterday. and that ready for question. >> to take a step back and look at this, try to click to the average taxpayer. you have a program that in 2001 was as but dacosta $50 million budget. that it is at as much as 113 million per jet. you can account for inflation and there but that isn't asked not to go increase. how do you explain that to just the average person without an acquisition background or legal background? how does it happen and how do you keep it from happening again? >> first of all, just a good the numbers straight, you do need to take account of inflation there. so what christine fox said yesterday was, what was a 50 million-dollar aircraft integrated over the entire it in 2002, had grown to an 80 to 95 million-dollar aircraft in those year dollars.

i don't mean to correct you, i'm just saying that's what the facts are. how do you justify that? nobody wants to pay more than they were told they should have to pay. so that his poor performance. and secretary gates i think made it pretty clear how he feels about poor performance in acquisition systems. that's why he took the steps that he did that i am describing. they don't make it any better. they tried to get it under control and get back to affordable aircraft into a story that we can to that will be different five years and 10 years from now. so we are trying to be realistic now. obviously, a realistic story has not been in people's minds for the last couple of years, because this is the picture that we came to see in november.

we have some indication last year, but that persisted for another year. and say hey wait a minute, there's a real issue here. so that is an explanation. i'm sorry? >> is this wishful thinking that people think it will cost less? is it played like what is it entirely the contractors? what's the defense department's role in this? >> no, i think some of it is a fact of life, in terms of things are more complicated than people imagine they were going to be. and an unwillingness to recognize that things were getting more expensive. you can't control costs. you can't control schedule if you're being unrealistic. about cost and schedule. and now we're trying to be realistic about cost and schedule. that puts us in a better situation, position to manage. >> there were some bipartisan anger yesterday.

if congress comes back and decided as a want to fund the full 20, 2100 planes, and cuts back to say, 15 or some other smaller number, that's going to increase the cost per plane, is it not? and is it possible even with cutbacks to truly reduce the total amount of the program? >> there are more aircraft, by the way, that toilet hundred, just to give you specific members. i know we will get this checked we afterwards, at the number is 2443, for the united states. and 734 the international partners. over the entire lifetime of the by. i think that most of the customers are going to recognize a slip in time and a slower ramp up to full rate production is --

doesn't mean that their aircraft are going to be there when they need them. and so i think that most of the customers are going to stay with the joint strike fighter program because of its capabilities. and i don't think that our services are clear about what the requirements are. and i think that when we have the program on a realistic plan, that everybody can see what forward, then congress, as well as the military department here in the international partners, will stay with your plan, which is to equip their fleets with this aircraft. >> you just said you think that most are going to stay with the joint strike fighter program because of its capabilities. do you understand that some are reviewing and reconsidering their plans to purchase? >> international partners have been reconsidering their plans

for the joint strike fighter right along. all than have a dynamic situation, budgetary, strategically, and so forth. and so that is -- they all have been reassessing their needs right along. but i think that, as i said, capability of the aircraft is there. and it will be the best fifth generation aircraft we will emphasize. it's affordability, which was a critical feature for all those partners when they first decided to buy the joint strike fighter. we will try to deliver to them what they wanted. >> based on consent speedy's i don't know if it's as quickly as the united states expected. again, this is their decision making and their decision-making

can evolve as they look at their needs, and we know -- i can't tell you what the israelis are thinking about it. they are obviously interested in the joint strike fighter. i think that's a good thing for them. but we don't have any particular expectations. >> doctor carter, talked about slower flatter ramp up but with a aircraft be there when people need them? what at this point -- how long does it take to get to maximum sustained rate of production and what is that we? >> i try to -- i did that yesterday. in terms of both -- you have to be very specific about what exactly, what the question is. it gave the date of first delivery of aircraft to our services yesterday. and i gave the projected ioc's. it's in my written statement. and those are our projected

dates on the basis of the we structured program that i described in the actions that secretary gates has taken. so it's always out there. >> you given an enormous number of fighters aging outcome we are to get a sustained rate of the program. at -- will that rate come to? >> no, it ramps up exactly the same rate. it is just a little bit slow in getting up to that, just be a little more careful. by the way, we hope to get to the original ramp rates. just, tried to be very realistic and we're projecting, if you like the midrange of the estimates. this is an estimate about the future, and would like to do better than that. so we may be able to climb up that ramp faster. obviously would like to climb up it fast as we can. but that depends on the stability of the assembly line. and that's something that we're

working on making happen as fast as possible. >> i'd expect no, we don't. know we don't. [inaudible] >> i can get that for you. it's a little bit outside. is not that long in the future but you ramp up and that plateau has not changed at all. it's the rate at which we get there. >> i'm carries on fixed-price contracting. that's been a real push of yours. going to fixed price, will lead you to believe that lockheed's operation will be stable enough to go fixed-price wax and what will protect the government from potential change that might come from the government that will really go she the entire contract, thus no fight the fixed-price speak with this is always to any fixed-price. this was a chance to contract which was to get control over the line in the stability of the line so they could price its performance, recognizing that if

they price it too low, they would pay the extra. and the government, to know what it wants, we know that. we're in a position to be specific about the configurations of the aircraft that we want. so we're prepared on our site to be specific. were not going to change that. and i explain just today we have a change the combat capabilities of this airplane. or not. there were no technological issues that cause us to believe we could have all the military get those. so the configuration of your plan is a change that hasn't changed we can specify exactly what we want. and it will be up to our industrial partner as as always any fixed-price environment to specify, specify the price. it is a good discipline to have to specify the price. specs of the changes up to now,

like for example, i think was like a 50% overage in labor rates, the issue with the parts they that you discussed, were those the kinds of things that would be on the contracted to pay for under a fixed-price situation? >> yes specs of the government would not have to pick that up to? >> no. but that was done in the early stage of the program at a cost type of contract, in which all of those, the cost of making those adjustments, which are perfectly understandable, but cost money, fell to the government. except for that part of it, which is now in the withheld base. >> on fixed-price, when you, secretary donnelly and secretary let's spoke to us about the tanker, there was a discussion about going fixed-price and what would happen if there was only one contractor, which seems now to be more than hypothetical. it may very well be a reality. there were some options that you

alluded to but you did want to discuss it because it was hypothetical. >> i don't have anymore to act on that. on that today. >> mr. secretary, produce ability has been a big part of life key to selling point on the play. you talked a lot about basic problems, parts. quality control. are you concerned them as as happened with lockheed space programs and similar others in the last few years, that lockheed may not have a good grasp on its suppliers, good enough to ensure that produce ability? >> that has not been a major problem. recently. that's always a problem. it was early on in the airframe. remember, there's more than one airframe contractor by the way. be a, so it is 18.

early on they were late to need parts issues, which is not uncommon, but not something you want to have a lot of. i think that particular problem has been dealt with very aggressively by the contractor team down in fort worth, and is in a much better place than it was, say, a couple of years ago. in the f1 35 engine, the supply chain has been an issue as well. another thing being worked on. >> so at this point you're confident that the contractors have -- >> i think that particular problem has been work very aggressively and is in a much

better place than it was, say, a couple of years ago. >> a couple of questions. 196 or $40 million. you keep bringing this up that it is sharing the risk, countably. how is it sharing the risk if they are having the opportunity to win it all back down the line? >> when some of it back. well, that is an incentive for them to meet all of the targets. and so that's a perfectly appropriate -- is reasonable for us to withhold that part of the fee, which will be used for the remedial measures that i described, the new aircraft, and the immigration line. but beyond that, they will have an opportunity to win back parts of that fee, if, but only if, a very specific set of milestones are hit on schedule.

and that's the way these are supposed to be awarded. they are not supposed to be awarded willy-nilly. they're supposed to be awarded in return for specific performers, and that is not just in this program, but in other programs always been the case. and it is something we're going to insist upon. >> how much of that six and 14 will be -- >> i can't tell you that now because that's part of contract issues. >> one of the issues yesterday was trying to get a baseline on which to judge delays. going back to the way we were, in october 2001, can you as clearly as, when was it supposed to end, what were the ioc dates? when was milestones supposed to -- >> i'm going to refer you to take for that, for the specific problematic history, which they have and they can lay out all of that for you. what was said and fought at every moment going back to the birth of the program, which goes back to 1985. what actually happened, and then

we are projecting now, which we believe to be realistic. again, i hope, we hope to do better than that plan, but that's a realistic plan. they can take you through all that. [inaudible] >> i don't think there's any problem. they are the keepers of all that data. it's perfectly realistic. >> the kurds are has the whole program at $298 billion. what is the current estimate today going for? >> again, i'm going to ask k. to answer that question just to make sure that all the numbers are in turn consistently. >> and we get that next week? >> i don't think that's any public they have all these numbers i just don't want to mislead you there. they are the keepers of those numbers, and it's competent. it depends on what year dollars you are using. i don't want to confuse you. >> they were asked that question yesterday about the overall cost

of the program and didn't have the figures been. why is it so difficult to come up with figure? >> the number that was asked about was not the production of the aircraft. it was something called total ownership costs, the lifecycle cost. decades in the future, to own the aircraft. okay? that assessment is being done. it's perfectly reasonable that it is not done yet. that this is the number that doesn't become operational for -- it to the becomes operational. so we -- there's a cost estimate, have been focusing on the development program, the raptor production in full production. so it's hardly surprising that that analysis has been completed and hasn't been completed yet. it is not germane to decisions, managerial decisions we are taking a. this is something in the future. they're doing that analysis and

that will be part of the overall non-mccurdy process. we tried to do total initial cause for all our programs are obviously there is a certain amount of -- that is in art of estimation because you're looking at the distant future, but those numbers will be, will be provided. >> i know talk about joint strike fighter here but it is would ask one about the tanker program to see, you know, what your plans are for possibly accelerating. >> iaaf anything new to tell you on that. we will tell you, as we proceed with the tankers, but i don't have anything new for you today. >> dr. carter, this is a fifth generation fighter, and love capabilities. is not just airframe and engine but a lot of avionics, sensors. how much of him so far is to

click -- is a following stuck with the aircraft and airframe develop it so far? what about the sensors, is that part of the delay? or has that not followed up yet? >> it's some of everything. most of the drivers of the scheduled issues that we have been discussing, and are so central, the sbd scheduled issues have been associated with the airframe assembly. but in the overall cost, for example, as i mentioned order, the engine has been an issue. >> speaking of the engine, yesterday christine fox told the senate armed services committee that the latest analysis showed that the second engine, there was a business case that showed it would break even for

taxpayers. and chairman levin said he was more convinced than ever of the wisdom of going ahead with a second engine. what's your latest thinking on the pros and cons? >> i encourage you to read that business case. >> they told us it was not available because it includes proprietary information. >> i don't believe that's the case. so we will get you -- i'm sure there are versions of that do contain proprietary information, but i believe that the business case, essential case which has certainly been made available to congress, can be made available to you as well. i will take it up with the essence of the -- >> we will leave this now and take you live now over to the white house. that's robert gibbs on your screen. white house press secretary, the daily briefing about to get under way. >> we would do a couple of non-service announcements. >> what position did kids play?

>> i am first of all, as you can tell, not in my normal attire. though it does signify for us here at the white house casual friday. i am making good on my aspect of why wager with dimitri dmitri, mike indian counterpart who is somewhere several hundred miles north laughing. i am not -- i'm a little warm. but the number 39 is for ryan miller, who was the united states goalie in the tournament mvp. i have one official government announcement. we have instructed the embassy, our embassy in our ambassador to make their wages to deliver one case of molson canadian, and one case of locker from pottsville pennsylvania, america's oldest brewery to the prime minister's office today.

i am sure to make it will take most of at home and consume it. let me do the week ahead. and then we'll get back into normal semi-series of attire for the rest of your hockey questions. 15 minutes? i that we're doing this on the metric scale? [laughter] >> thirty minutes. >> no. exactly right. what's the exchange rate? the president has no scheduled public events this weekend. on monday as you know the president will travel to ohio where he will deliver remarks on health insurance reform, on tuesday the president will attend meetings here at the white house. on wednesday the president will meet with brian cowen at the white house and eating. the president first lady will host at the annual saint patrick's day reception held in the east room in the event will

be pooled press. on thursday friday the president will be here in washington, d.c., and will have a chance to talk i'm sure about the trip here in a few moments. let me get a little bit sort of organized. i will say, no offense to my canadian frontier, but we couldn't have done this really without -- [applause] -- also, but my specs back on. that's, this just has 104-2010 on it. mick and u.s.a. hockey, happy providers of this jersey. it's a little smaller in size, which i think nick did on purpose so the conclusion of this i would give the jersey to him. [inaudible] >> know. that is wrong, man. that is the chief of staff. [laughter]

[inaudible] >> you like the u.s.a.? up. [inaudible] [applause] >> idle because you take any questions with us. go ahead. >> now that the trip has been delayed have with the present use those extra today's? >> the president has met with and talked with, as you know, many members of congress over the past several days. i anticipate that he will talk with the leaders and members of congress in, talking to them about the benefits of passing health care reform. so i anticipate that kind of thing will happen. this came about as a result of a conversation that the president had with speaker pelosi, majority leader reid, who, all three agree, it would be helpful to have a few extra days here talking to members. but they also agree that this

was an extremely important trip for the united states of america for the president to go to indonesia and to australia. >> congress will be around for a week after the president leaves, so is the '20s now the new 18th? >> and speak in terms of deadlines? >> i -- i'm simply going to say the president as we announced today will be for the trip at 10 a.m. on the 21st. >> the present is okay with congress continuing discussions on health or even is traveling? >> i think we been talking about this for more than a year. i think the president wants members of congress want, a vote as soon as possible that will lead to improved health care for millions of americans. >> doesn't present expect to leave having the house past speakers i believe deadlines up to the speaker. guesser? >> if congress fails to get this

across, or very close to it before the next sunday's schedule, reschedule departure date for asia, is there a chance this trip could be delayed again or even canceled altogether? >> in speaking with speaker pelosi and majority leader reid, all three agree this was an important trip for the president to make. the asia-pacific region of the world is tremendously important to the united states, for a number of reasons. we're going to visit obviously indonesia. the world's largest muslim population. and emerging democracy. the president will follow up on his speech from cairo in a speech in indonesia. a key partner obviously in our counterterrorism efforts. before traveling to australia, obviously a very important trading partner. and an important ally in our

efforts in afghanistan. i will say that, as the president said in tokyo, that four years of the united states has been absent from the asia-pacific region, we are -- we can't lead in this region of the world without strong bilateral relationships. with indonesia and australia. they are key in our ability to keep our country safe. they are key in our ability to grow our economy through increased exports. and they are key to tackling big challenges. indonesia is the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. obviously, they will be incredibly important to international agreements on climate change. so the president, believe it was important to give the issue of health care and effort to get votes on health care a few more days, but also believes as do those leaders in congress that it's important to keep the strip

on our schedule. with two important partners. >> can you confirm that jack is the leading candidate for the nominee as vice chairman that sarah and peter diamond our inconsideration? can you give us time in of what he's going to make that announcement before this trip, after the trip? >> look, she is obviously somebody who, a former chair of the council and economic advisers, somebody with great expertise in microeconomic issues. the current president of the fed in san francisco, and she is a leading contender for the vice chair nomination. as you know, we are hoping to

fill the vacancy of the vice chair in time for the end of the current term, which is june. and i would say sarah raskin, peter diamond are also under strong consideration for additional vacancies. i don't have a timing announcement to on any of those. >> isn't a matter of weeks? >> again, i don't want to stick it on when the timing would be, except obviously for janet who is under strong consideration. i was to anybody that is appointed to the vice chair would need to be done. our hope odyssey is to get it done before the current term expires. >> she is the leading candidates to? i would say she is a leading contender, yes. >> is it 15 minutes get? >> are you feeling uncomfortable? spent i feel like if i show this to new york or something, they're going to do a little confused why the story about health care you are wearing a

hockey jersey. spent a can be any stranger than any other stuff i say on the news. [laughter] >> i'm not entirely sure what -- summary give jake the can anyone and will do a quick to shot. >> a soft. >> would you feel more comfortable if i switched? >> i'm just glad it was a hockey and not a wrestling that. [laughter] >> sumo wrestling. >> i was going to say something. >> no. >> just a happy for him. >> other than talking to members of congress, what is so important that the president needs to be here? i understand that members of congress are asking president obama to do this, that you're not opposing his presence, but what can he -- what difference will it make? >> look, jake, i think the president will use the time as i said earlier to speak either

individually with or in small groups with members that may be at this point i decide on how they will vote. the president, i think, will take the opportunity to once again reiterate his case for why this reform is so important, what it is important to do this now. why it's important not to stop or to start over. why we are dealing with dramatic spikes in health insurance right now, and why we have to do with this problem. >> why do you think so many -- 216 members of the house who voted for in november, voted for the house bill, are still there. and that's majority. why do you think so many of them are having second thoughts? >> well, jake, i think some of them are likely waiting for finished cbo scoring. i think -- i think it is a natural thing to wait for, and i think they will have time to

evaluate that's going in to evaluate the legislation in full. but again, i think the president believes he can make a very strong case for why this is important for everyone. >> lastly, as you know, if of house democrats are distrustful of the senate, senate democrats. they are worried that with the way the parliamentarian has ruled they are going to be tricked, somehow, into passing the senate bill and then the senate won't pass the fixed and they will have been tricked into passing the senate bill that a lot don't like without those fixes. is president obama reassuring them, telling these house democrats, that is a reconciliation, if the fix doesn't pass, the senate bill in itself, he won't sign that bill? >> again, i mentioned some of this yesterday. i think some of this -- i do

want to wade into the parliamentary politics on capitol hill, except to say this. the president is talking with, not just with members of the house on the boat that they're going to have to make, but also with members of the senate to -- look, to ensure that the corrections that the president sees as so important, not just the house, but the president sees as so important are also acted on. so i don't -- this is -- is a dual track. it works together, but the president is working on both of these issues. >> but is it possible in any way you look at it that one what happened at the the senate bill passed but the fixes would not in the senate bill would become law? that's what house numbers are worried about. >> they're concerned, i think that is why the president is spending time also dealing with senators to ensure that they are

supportive of those legislative fixes on their side of it, too. >> thanks, robert. representative dreier in referring to the president's delay said today we know that they're doing everything within their power to try and twist arms and encourage people to vote for something that is a chore to unpopular, and i believe would be devastating for our nations economy. what do you say to americans who are still having a difficult time buying the president's plan? >> i would probably tell mr. dreier the same thing, mr. garvin california. when people in his did are getting the letters that we talked about here for the past several weeks, the letters that say, i know your pager premiums. i know you haven't gotten sick. but you're in the individual health insurance market and your health insurance rates are going up 39% next year. that's what we're dealing with.

that's what we have to take on. we have to provide the ability for a small business in the state of california and throughout this country, or in mr. dreier's district, or family that is to do with a high cost of health care to give them some help. the president is doing this because he believes that this is the right thing to do for our country. to have health care and health insurance network that works, not just our health insurance companies, but works for average, everyday working americans. that's why he continues to pursue this, and that's why he will see it to passages and. >> doesn't frustrate the president at all that he has been making this big push, pointing out what the insurance industry has been doing, with

premium hikes, doesn't frustrate him that the message still isn't getting through to some? >> i don't think the message of -- i think the president is, i think the president feels some momentum on this issue. i think the president believes that, while many thought this issue was going to go away or was dead, a few weeks ago, has gotten new life, i think largely because we've seen insurance send out the letters that i'm talking. >> can you tell us more about that? >> let me give you a quick read out in their we can go through a couple of questions. the president met with his national security team as part of the regular updates that he receives on afghanistan and pakistan. this was part of the monthly video teleconference. next month i believe is scheduled for april 16. the meeting began with a briefing from general mcchrystal, who noted the continued progress in the margin

of offensive and the strength in partnership with afghan national secret force. the president and his team discussed a range of issues relating to security and governance. the is also receive a briefing from ambassador patterson, ambassador in islamabad. on russia critical operation with pakistan in support for the pakistani people. of note, general mcchrystal told the group, including obviously the president, that we were on schedule on our force low in getting additional forces approved by the president into afghanistan by the end of the summer. they discussed in surrounding marjah that we were largely through the clearing phase, and more rapidly moving to a phase of hold, which puts a premium obviously on good governance. and we spent quite a bit of time

discussing the afghan national security forces, the army and the police forces, the training and some adjustments that the president and the team have been working on around recruitment and retention of police and army forces, dating back to the president original meetings in the situation room prior to his decisions. >> is the administration please with the pakistani government and the effort, fighting terrorism? or does pakistan need to do more? >> well, look, we have had -- we've enjoyed i think almost unprecedented level of cooperation with them, dating back probably almost a year now. to extremist movements, that threatened the pakistanis, and i think in many ways i learned

them to many of the concerns that we had. we feel like we're making progress, each and every day. and i think any updates that he got from ambassador patterson, that was conveyed. >> yes-man? >> -- yes-man? >> why do we keep getting by as present by date, ironclad commitments to israel it violates international law and present says our relationship is unshakable. how can that be? >> well, we enjoy a strong and important relationship with the country and the people of isra israel. and we are -- >> even when it violates the law and go into this, why should they be, get this reprieved? >> well again, we into a strong

relationship with the country and the people. we are committed to their security and very important and dangers -- let me finish my answer. that a very important region of the world. i think the vice president so could not have been clear, as i said in as the vice president said on both the timing and the substance of the announcement that was made during his trip, that we have asked each side to refrain from the type of announcements that would shake the trust needed to sit down together and make some decisions on moving forward on the peace process. so i think the vice president was extremely clear on his trip there. i know the president looks for to speaking with the vice president. he is going to get back very, very early tomorrow morning, and

it is a bit that they will either -- they will likely talk either later in the weekend or first thing on monday about what the vice president saw, not just in israel, but in the region. as we try to move things forward. . .

i doubt the president -- i doubt for would be in health care after this long if the president wasn't personally invested in from the very beginning on getting this done. i think the president said at the state of the union, it's pretty clear by some of the polling members we're not doing this for sheer political benefit. i think there are -- you don't have to -- you can swing a cat in this town and get somebody who believes that the president should just get this up for political consideration. the president i think has been pretty clear about why he has made decisions during his time as president, not because there you see, not because they're in the next day's political interests but because they're the right thing for the country so i think what has provided

health care with the most momentum quite honestly for the past several weeks are the insurance company rate increases. i think that have crystallized for many across the country what happens. we have seen a report after report from wall street about what happens if reform fails, they all agree insurance companies like the ones that raise rates are likely to be the big winners out of this. >> two what degree was that because from pressure and democrats in congress ended nancy specifically ask him to do this? >> no, the president talked to the speaker and majority leader, they discussed what would be most beneficial for this process and agree together to move the trip back a few days, but the president as i said earlier, the majority leader and the speaker believe it's important that this president go on this trip. it's a very important region of

the world. if we don't help lead in this regional world others won't, it's in our national interest to have a strong bilateral relationships with emerging democracies like indonesia, an important part as like australia. i've seen some say -- the president have to do this because there's not some big multilateral conference is attending or as i said we have a long -- we have a long ago been for quite some time absent from again this important region of the world. we have important partnerships that lead to increasing our security, increasing our economic growth, an increasing likelihood that we deal with important problems in having strong bilateral relationships with places like indonesia and australia. >> the central reason the three decided delaying the trip was the right thing to do? >> to give time to get health

care donna. >> he said earlier that the president is not calling individual members sap. >> he has not at that point. obviously he has talked to -- he's had meetings with. there have been other events that individuals have been here for an obviously on monday he had talked to members who had visited him for like a paygo reception or things like that. he's made individual calls now and i anticipate he will continue. >> a good portion are doing that. >> is been a part and again he spent the afghanistan meeting in pakistan up date was scheduled for 60 minutes in the meeting went 90 minutes. >> a chance we could get a call? >> not likely. >> you said that the president is leaving 10:00 a.m. on sunday the 21st. regardless of whether the house has noted or not. >> the president is going on the trip the 21st.

>> regardless of the votes? >> the president is going on the 21st. >> you announced on printer this morning that this development the first family would not be joining, can you shed on y? >> scheduling wise the way the troops in the wake is not as good and for two young girls who have to go back to school at the conclusion of that trip. i will say this, this was and i should have said this yesterday to your question, even under the old itinerary the president was not scheduled to stop the house to spend time and when he lived there nor was he scheduled to go to the school that he attended. so i should have said that yesterday in answer to your question, but the way the trips it's in the week it's not as conducive for them to go. i will say in the itinerary is a

brisk trip. >> members met with the president last week and said he told them that success on another high priority piece of legislation is predicated on success of health care, energy coming emigration. does the president believe he will have diminished chance of passing the other items this year in health care not pass? >> well, i'm not spoken directly with the president about what you've heard member said. i think the president and leaving aside what he does for any other issue as i said earlier i think the president and believe strongly -- beat -- believe strongly in the desire to see progress on an issue that we've talked about before decades to do something positive on behalf of those that are struggling with high costs in dealing with insurance companies on pre-existing conditions and as borden to do something,. >> finally the immigration police and leaders yesterday said they pressed the president for a bill in the senate by the

end of april, does the president want a bill by the end of april and does he buy into this? >> in addition to meeting with activists and the congressional hispanic caucus as you know the president met yesterday with senators schumer and grants -- gram, please to get progress on that enforcing a proposal to fix our immigration system. the president, they asked the president and he agreed to review their framework and we're in the process of doing that now. >> is in a more important for the girls to go to the the feud is a schools? >> well, it's a decision i would leave to the parents and i think it is having a six year-old i think it's important that they also spent some time -- lord knows we've had enough snow time so spend time in school -- but

again that is above my pay grade by many many wrongs on a ladder. >> [inaudible] >> i may do that, with a lot of people in the front row. >> looking ahead to the ohio stop on monday, is there going to be a retooled a message, will it be more of a sense of urgency in the closing days? what can look for their? >> you will hear the president -- i think it will spend time hitting the themes he hit on wednesday and last monday. going through why reform is important, going through what it will do a the minute he signs legislation on behalf of millions of americans. discussing what happens again if we decide now is not the time. and i think you'll reiterate again when i said earlier in the fact that we're doing this not because it's easy, and doing this not because the president

is concerned about or looking to the next election, but looking to the next generation. and i thank you will reiterate that it's the important thing to do a. >> one housekeeping question. mike mention you made this trip announcement on tour this morning and still hasn't shown up on any of our usual vehicles through your office. is twittered going to be your vehicle of choice? >> carter of the reason i did that i bet some of the bad e-mail's that i sent to several hours after i sent them to you because there were some e-mail issues at the white house and we felt it was important to get a confirmation of that out. i would say put you're -- twitter is a quick meeting to get information out and we will probably use it more.

>> there are about 20 or 25 other robert gibbs on tour, some of them seem to use your picture. i don't know why. [laughter] or the presidential seal or the podium. are you concerned one of these guys is going to hijack your message -- message and maybe burn u.s. some point? >> no, i will say this. i think if you go to -- i don't know how many robert gibson there are, but if you go to at press there is a verification so obviously in -- >> use a formulation with the press secretary? >> i think some of them are quite humorous. i would again look for the verification and, of course, big big announcements in hockey. [laughter]

>> on the announcements in mentioned the three leading contenders, are there any lagging contenders and how big is the pool? >> i wouldn't get into characterizing, i would just put a few monikers on the names. to describe where they are. >> are there other names in the process? >> there are. >> with the indicators? leading contender. >> it means you are done well in your weight class. i would put those at the top of the president's list of. >> have they it spoken to the president and has he offered the job? >> when we have official announcements we will put them on twister. [laughter] i was joking. i am joking. [laughter] i am wearing a hockey jersey for god's sake. >> are you being funny? >> is a fair to say that next thursday and friday the president will devote his attention to dealing with health care, the votes and the pending conversations he may begin to have with house democrats?

>> i'm sure he will dedicate a portion of his day -- look, understanding that the president's -- there's not a shortage of things we can spend time with the president on a better pressing. the president service generally each day with a daily intelligence briefing, almost all this as an economic daily briefing, a series of meetings with senior advisers and again i assume he will spend certainly a portion of the day dealing with the issues of health care but i have no doubt that he will put on additional meetings on other topics that are of importance whether they are the economy our national security. >> the meeting yesterday senator gramm told the president is to raise that reconciliation if it is used for health care in the senate that will kill any hope of putting immigration on the agenda is a doable item for the remainder of this legislative session. does the president have a reaction? >> i've not talked directly

about that statement. i doubt the president would have agreed with that. as we have talked about in this instance and about this issue before, reconciliation is something that is a legislative tool and continues to on many, many occasions particularly as it relates to things like health care. we talked about the fact that children self insurance program was done through reconciliation. the cobra program was done through reconciliation. i don't know that senator gramm believes -- hold on, let me finish -- i don't believe that senator gramm thought that would do damage to the legislative priorities of the president when

in 2001 and 2003 tax cuts when a reconciliation. so i wouldn't characterize it except to say i doubt if the president agrees. >> one issue that has come up who i believe someone who attended the meeting at the hispanic congressional caucus -- >> i think we put out a list of invitees and i don't know who was there. i can certainly check and see if rep. gutierrez was there. >> he still remains concerned and was when he voted for the house about mr. sins in the senate bill was underlying legislation that there are known fix is being posed on emigration i'm aware of and correct me if i'm wrong and the senate language is too restrictive and does not allow undock printed workers even with their own money to purchase in the health exchange system and would keep them -- prevent them from doing that for five years and he says publicly now he will vote no. is that a concern to the white house? is there something that the white house is open to dealing with that issue and fixed in the

legislation or something --? >> you'll have to check with legislative affairs. i don't know the degree to which -- i was not in yesterday's meeting so i can try and check karen. >> yesterday said one of the president priorities other than health care our financial regulatory reform and citizens united case. what did you mean by that? in other words, what can you say specifically about that ruling? >> the legislation right now with senator schumer and congressman dan holland that would address some of the things that were open up as a result of that supreme court ruling, we certainly look at that legislation and i think counsel and others are evaluating bad and other vehicles in order to address what the supreme court opened up in their ruling. >> one more question while you

have the u.s. a sweater on. drawing your attention to a website that has posted a letter to barack, not what you think it means -- >> 2i need my canadian jersey? >> no, these are trying times and employment is double digits, audacity, this is a prospects than any other year. they plaintively right at the and the capitals is filling up quickly but we need a leader. will the president commit to go to washington on this? >> i can't say -- i think he has been two -- i will check and see if he's been to a game in chicago or not. less so in hawaii. i will check on whether he's been to a game before. i don't know whether he will do that before march 18th. >> [inaudible]

>> look, i think you very much enjoy going. obviously the last time he ventured out to a sporting event georgetown looked like they did yesterday, not like they did in the previous several weeks. i know he enjoys going out there and i know -- i think we've done invitations to go and i think he would be -- you can borrow my jersey. >> robert, i wanted to ask about the afghanistan meeting today. did the issue of reconciliation not in health care and reconciliation with the taliban, a? official said in the past that they think that the u.s. should only do that from deposition? >> i will say i left with about two or three minutes ago in a meeting, they were just getting -- i should say i left i thought to or three minutes left and i will find out if there were additional conversations and this is something the president was bringing up as i left the meeting after about an hour-and-a-half so let me see if there's any additional information on that.

>> thank you, robert. two questions on pennsylvania. first, last week both major parties chose candidates for the western pennsylvania see to the late john murtha. president campaign for balancing york last. then for this copley in massachusetts, does he plan to campaign for mr. price? >> i don't have information on that and i can check. >> the other thing, you have an answer on mr. sestak surcharge. >> i don't have information on that. >> robert, thank you. when all is said and done is it really more for images that the president -- you're going to take it off, it looks pretty good. >> i am listening. >> i can do two things at once. >> absolutely. is there really a good argument that the president is going to go to postpone his trip really

for image and not really for substance? inouye said before that he does have a telephone on the plane and he's in touch with everybody and he could do it here, but frankly there's a lot of heat generated maybe some people think he should be here. how to respond to those concerns? >> look, to the president shouldn't go at all? >> you've made the point is a good trip. >> it's an important trip right. maybe i don't understand, gimme the first part of your question and. >> the president is now not going, postponed his trip. couldn't the argument be made is more for its mission that you really can do everything as you said before on the trip, that he could do here and now he's reversing the course? >> no, look, as i said that certainly the plane comes in many ways regrettably with all that equipment. that would allow him to be in

touch. i think everybody believes that him being here was more important. in we didn't postpone the trip for any image. in the discussion the president had with the speaker and majority leader and the senate it was agreed upon and i quite frankly we could do -- we give a few extra days here to what they needed as well as and i will say are scheduling guys have done a heroic job in keeping the trip intact in an important region of the world and so this is not done for anything other than a few extra days to work on getting health care reform through. the process as well as keeping that important trip. >> has he got a few people he specifically earmarking to talk to debbie thinks might be able to change their mind, those who i voted against our people he might -- >> without getting into a lot of names we have all seen folks that have a said in the want to

take a look at what the new legislation is and again i think people are really waiting for an evaluation from cdl as a way of answering some of the questions that they have. i think that what -- i think the president will talk about why he thinks the bill is important and why he thinks it does so many good things on cost and things like that too. >> on immigration reform with the president or to round up republican co-sponsors with what schumer and gramm are working on. >> not let me not get ahead of the free-market process that they have walked him through some yesterday. >> also do expect the president may give it a public statement or a speech on immigration and, maybe before the rally in washington on the 21st? >> let me check with scheduling. i know the president committed to two senators schumer and

drama to the hispanic caucus and the activists as you thank you read in the statement as to the importance and his strong belief in getting comprehensive reform done. he is a supporter of that to and obviously it is our strong hope that we can make progress on matt. >> talking about putting the president's student loan proposal into the health care bill. what does that have to do with health care and what would that go in there? >> i don't think any final decisions have been made. obviously one way of getting important reforms through the legislative process would be in this vehicle. i think this is -- these are reforms that are good for students. they're really good for taxpayers. there are bad for special interest. i don't think any final decisions have been made on capitol hill. i know that president is a strong believer in reform system

that would cut out the middleman on borrowing money for millions of kids to go to college. >> is it because -- it would also save money -- is because would bring down the overall cost of the package included the health care part? >> i don't have anything on that and again and this is an import reform. >> on afghanistan in the meeting this morning, general mcchyrstal, is he satisfied with the nato involvement in the offensive, and knowing that nato hasn't been able yet to reach of the goal of several thousand nato soldiers on the ground, has the president or does the president intends to reach nato leaders and the canadian prime minister in particular on this? >> nato came up in a sense of discussing their contributions

and in walking through the commitment that we need quite honestly from our partners particularly in the realm of training. we did not discuss in the meeting any additional steps that the president might take. again, the president and many on the team understand the importance of what we have to do not just in force contributions as i mentioned the, the general -- general mcchyrstal the believes that the pace of force flow from what the president has asked for was on schedule. both critical improvements that have to be made as it relates to an afghan national army and critical improvement that has remained in an afghan national police and the importance of getting additional trainers from

nato countries to afghanistan as quickly as possible, we are -- in these meetings and the president has gone through and looked at monthly recruitment and retention goals because at some point we are going to -- we are not going to be there forever. and the afghan national army and then in many districts not only are we going to need to improve governance but we're going to need a police force that can keep the peace. so that came up but there were no -- there was no discussion of additional calls about the president. >> on that subject, will the president perhaps make any request to australia with more

help in afghanistan and perhaps trainers rather than combat troops? >> let me check with nsc on that, that was not discussed. >> back on the public auction. now that there is talk of a the fight for health care reform, is the president looking at passage and possibly going back after passage to a creek and the reason i ask members of the congressional black caucus who were for the public option are now saying there are problems before when he passed something and we have come back this weekend like on medicare and social security, is that the mindset as well and did he talk about that discussion yesterday? >> i will check with folks -- i was not in that meeting because it took place during my briefing. i don't know whether that was something discussed. again, the president is focused on the legislation we have at hand and tried to get that through and i think that is what

-- >> looking down the road in. >> right now we're focused on -- we can't read anything that we can't get past and that is what are focuses at the moment. >> robert, as you know you had a little bit of a hiccup at the end of the confirmation of ben bernanke. neither one of these three potential appointees seem to have a lot of small business experience and are really mainstream folks in the financial world. five senators have put out a letter to the president requesting that these three appointees have real world experience, experience with the middle class and small business owners. do these three folks have that kind of experience and how to respond to the concerns? >> i'm happy to look at the letter. i think that's -- i think that these are strong contenders. they have strong credentials.

they have been experienced. i'm happy to look at the letter and maybe have a better comment on it then. >> john boehner and mcconnell have put out their names for the deficit commission. do you have any reaction to those names and when you hope that the commission gets up and working? >> well, i think it's a positive development for the commission that while there was some concern about whether republicans would put forward names they now have and i think that's an important and positive developments. we think and hope that the rest of those names will be coming forward soon. look, i think the president believes that this is an important commission to look at all of the aspects of what this

government spends money on in to evaluate sustainability in the future. obviously you have got many of those choices that have put forward in the case of congressman ryan or in others their own plans in the past and i am sure that will govern many other recommendations and advice that some of those members have. ..

obviously the house will take up the measure. the budget committee has to take up in the house the reconciliation, begin that process. i think the speaker has said that will be posted on the internet for some period of time. i don't think it will be confusing because i do think that at this point people understand that this is a two-step process that has to gets done before we can wrap health care up altogether. thanks, guys. have a good weekend. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> house and senate republican leaders have each named three members to the president's deficit commission. president obama created the commission after legislation to do so failed and congress. the commission is going to recommend ways for the government to reduce or eliminate the one half trillion dollar federal deficit projected by the congressional budget office. congressional quarterly is reporting a proposed timeline. lots of questions about that. under the plan cq writes that the house budget committee will be expected to approve a bill on monday to be moved under expedited budget reconciliation procedures that would amend the legislation. cq goes on to say that the rules committee would follow on wednesday with a role for debate

with both this reconciliation bill and the senate health bill making it possible for the house to take up the measure together as soon as the next day. earlier today house speaker nancy pelosi told reporters she would not commit to a timetable, but congressional quarterly writes that an unidentified l awmaker reported that she received a broad shout of yes when she asked house democrats if they were ready to move forward. follow of the house debate next week. we're not going to take you to a house hearing on the proposed merger between nbc universal and comcast. testifying fcc chairman julius jankowski, the deal worth $30 billion. this is an hour and ten minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> this hearing will come to order. we welcome all. i notice there are a few people in the room. room, as i should say. we are here today to discuss consumers. they are the good guys, right. the people we try to protect. and competition and consolidation in the video and broadband market. these are services that are vital to our democracy. what kind of content to they did or how much to the have to pay for it? they shaped the way we communicate. they shape the way we share news information. they shape the way we entertain ourselves or dumb down ourselves, which ever way you look at it. the way we spend our free time. with consolidation occurs in these markets will need to pay attention. therefore we need to pay attention. when companies swell to include both content and distribution we

need to pay attention. because it is likely important. and we have mergers in these markets consumers cannot be left with lesser programming and higher rates. so today we are going to talk about these issues. this hearing is an option to have a serious discussion about consumers, how consolidation affects their lives directly and what we can do to make sure they are absolutely protected. we began our first panel with authorities from the federal communication commission's and department of justice. two top-of-the-line people in our country, much less the federal government. we know they take their jobs seriously. we respect that while comcast-nbc merger is pending there are limited to what they can discuss, and that is only the process rather than the substance of the merger. otherwise they would be doing

something bad. we looked to frame our discussion which we will continue with the private sector witnesses on our second panel. i need to apologize. we are doing the faa bill on the floor. byron dorgan is managing it for an hour. then i have to go down at 11:00 i apologize for that. i thank you all very much, and we should get started. senator hutchinson is not here. i will call upon the senator. >> thank you very much. there is no question that a proposed merger between comcast, the nation's largest video programming distributor which also happens to be the nation's largest residential broadband provider and nbc universal, the fourth largest media entertainment company deserves our scrutiny, vigorous scrutiny.

however, size alone should not be the basis for approving or disapproving mergers. if that is the standard when many previously approved mergers should have been denied. the key factor is how the merger will impact the quality and affordability of services available to consumers and whether the merger will be in the public interest. today's hearing will hopefully provide the members of this committee with a better understanding of the impacts of this proposal based upon the facts. for there the merits of the proposed joint venture should not be judged based on extraneous issues such as personality. i have known mr. brian roberts and his father, the founder of

comcast for many years. both of the men are of unquestionable integrity and under their leadership i have no doubt that comcast will live up to the commitments they have made as part of the proposed joint venture with nbc universal. the question before us is whether even with the commitments that have been made this is a good deal for consumers. there have been significant changes in the communications that it in the marketplace. it is in this context that the proposed merger must be evaluated with the public interest at heart. the changing marketplace should also serve as the basis for reviewing policies that may need updating due to developments. for example, as one of the authors of the 1992 statute that established free transmission

been sent i believe the time is right with the federal communications commission to exercise its oversight responsibilities on matters of this nature that impacts consumers and the general well-being of the nation. while i believe the fcc has the necessary authority to resolve retransmission consent disputes i will be interested to hear from the chairman whether there are any additional tools that would be helpful in the fcc's oversight efforts. i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee and the fcc on these important issues, and i thank you very much, mr. chairman. i, too, have to leave early. i have a couple of questions for the fcc. >> of course.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the honorable kay bailey hutchison, the great state of texas. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome to our distinguished p anel. i am pleased that we are holding this hearing. we are going to have to grapple with the evolving technology and convergence between traditionally distinct businesses like telecommunications and video program distribution. we want to look at this type of consolidations impact on consumers and the competitors, but we also want to make sure that policy determinations to not impact innovation and investment in this rapidly moving area. in my judgment, the fcc's review of this transaction should be limited to the transfer of the relevant licenses between the parties and whether that is consistent with the public interest. merger reviews at the commission

have not always stayed as narrow as i believe they should. frequently parties have used merger review proceedings as a proxy policy-making forum to pursue conditions that reach well beyond the merger itself. in a number of cases previous fcc's have imposed some of these conditions. while i hope that the current commission will about flea conduct its public interest analysis i also hope that they avoid imposing conditions that will require a significant ongoing involvement of the government is monitoring and policing the market. in that context, mr. chairman, i would like to note that we have seen some recent disputes between programmers, broadcasters, and cable providers about the terms for retransmission of signals on cable systems, mainly in the sports arena. and that has led some to suggest that we need more government involvement in these marketplace

negotiations such as through fcc managed arbitration. again, i think congress and the regulators need to tread very carefully and make sure that the policies we discussed take account of the evolving nature of the marketplace, the competition between providers, and the growing number of choices consumers have to access content. what we do not want to do is intervene in private market negotiations in a way that disrupts what's blowing on in the marketplace or needs to advantages for one stakeholder or technology. with respect to the comcast/nbc transaction, mr. chairman, i do have a number of questions, particularly with a combined entity would deal with independently owned broadcast stations. in a number of cases non-nbc owned stations will have to negotiate the terms for retransmission of their broadcast signals with the very

same company that provides programming. how comcast will deal with those stations from a transparency perspective is important for us to understand how the transaction could impact one segment of the industry. texas has 14 telemundo stations, three of which comcast will own and operate. we also have 21 nbc stations, one of which will be owned and operated by comcast. consumers in texas want to know how programming and availability of all these stations will be impacted. they particularly want to know whether contest will continue to invest in and develop programming for the stations and that nbc and telemundo will remain available as free over-the-air stations. now, i understand that the chairman of comcast has made commitments in this area, which i think are very positive. remaining free over-the-air stations is an essential component of this transaction, in my opinion. transparency will be important

in this area, but it will also be critical to assessing how comcast will deal with competitors who want access to nbc programming as well as affiliated programming developed by comcast such as its sports programming. i have heard from a number of smaller cable systems representing primarily rural areas of my state. although bundling or tying arrangements are prohibited there are concerns that the combined company may wish to pricing arrangements to use car makers the smaller systems to accept multiple strands of programming. i will be interested in hearing mr. roberts stops on have comcast will address those concerns. i am also interested to hear how he and other witnesses viewed the 16 voluntary commitments that comcast has made, some of which i have heard personally, and whether those conditions adequately ensure transparency and availability of content to consumers and competitors.

mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. thank you for appearing. i think it is important that we look at all of this. i just hope that we don't overdo it, but that we do just the right amount of regulatory and congressional action. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator hutchison. senator hutchinson, like myself, has to go do the faa thing. that is not for a while. senator dorgan will be taking my place for a while. so -- and he is also going to chair the second panel which i will be able to because i will be on the floor. you can give your statement then or now. >> mr. chairman, i will go to the floor when we start the faa reauthorization. i will be happy to chair for the

second panel. >> we have two of the most important people and government. two of the smartest people in government. i really mean that. this is a perfect first panel. de julius ganachowski, of course, is head of distillates and sick of the federal communications commission. and christine varney does and does just that a very high level for the department of justice. so mr. ganachowski, we turn to you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to address the role of the sec in reviewing proposed mergers and the communications industry including the contemplated transaction involving comcast and nbc. the commission approaches these matters mindful that the timing of vibrant, innovative consumer

friendly and domestic communications sector is a center for our economy, our society, and no democracy. communications policy affects the lives of all americans and is becoming ever more important. communications represents a major sector of our economy and plays a vital role in addressing many of the challenges our nation faces. congress has set the basic framework for our review of mergers and transactions, section 214 and 310 of the communications act require that the for fcc licenses or authorizations may be transferred from one holder to another the fcc must find affirmatively that the transfer is in the public interest. this is a statutory requirement to protect and promote the interest of all americans. in exercising our statutory responsibilities in the context of reviewing transactions the commission has focused on several important and into religious principles. these include protecting and advancing the interests of consumers as well as those of children and family, ensuring effective competition, the managing innovation, and

encouraging investment in the broad and rapid deployment of broadband and other advanced services throughout the united states. specifically with respect to television programming the commission's goals include a vibrant and healthy marketplace guided by the well settled communications act values of competition and diversity, localism, and a deep respect for the first amendment. in a review of any particular transaction some of these considerations may be more centrally at issues and others. additional factors such as spectrum, universal service, foreign ownership may also be important in specific cases. the law further requires that the commission analyze these issues through an open process. the administrative procedures act provides for a record pace is a synergy with a full opportunity for all interested persons to file all of their facts and arguments and ultimately a decision supported by the evidence. in my written comments that described in more detail the commission process including our coordination with our colleagues at the department of justice.

the commission's review of communications transactions fills a unique role that complements the important role played by the department of justice. of course the fcc's review of transaction must be thorough, efficient, timely, and transparent. it must have the appearance as well as the reality of of gentility, fairness, and reliance on the best available data analysis. in the pass some had expressed concerns about fcc reviews of transactions. i'm committed to working with my fellow commissioners to make sure that the agency's review meets the highest standards of openness, transparency, rigor, and fairness that it minimize costs and delay while fully protecting the public interest. in general the sec begins its transaction review process once it completes a compliance transfer application has been received. that point we ask for public comment. and the comcast/nbc proceeding the companies filed an initial. at the request of the parties it

was relayed into is supplemental economic report. the commission will soon issue a notice that begins the public comment. to promote a thorough and efficient process a dedicated team at the fcc has already begun work on staff level review of the proposed transaction. reflecting the scope of the transaction the team members come from a number of the agencies, bureaus, and offices and bring to bear years of expertise. i have directed the team to learn from experience, to examine passed similar transactions, and see with the benefits of hindsight what the fcc did right and where the agency could have done better. our staff has begun the process of consideration with their colleagues at the justice department. as you indicated, mr. chairman, the legal requirements of record based decision making prevent me from commenting on the merits of pending transactions including the comcast and b.c. transaction. our decisions on mergers are made only after we compiled and reviewed a full record. the fcc will thoroughly consider all the issues that have been

made or will be raised. the media landscape is rapidly evolving. new technologies are an increasingly important part of the landscape, even as millions of americans continue to rely on traditional forms of media and communications. the landscape today is very different from five dustin years ago and will be very different ent five continues to 10 years from now. while the changing landscape must inform the fcc's decision making certain core values remain constant. important part of our responsibility at the commission is to ensure the communications industry transactions do not enable firms to frustrate innovation or raise prices ultimately paid by consumers. we must ensure that american consumers enjoy all the benefits of competition and choice in a vibrant and diverse communications and media landscape that upholds vital first amendment values. investment, innovation, and employment are key objectives as of the rapid and widespread

deployment of the best communications services. these and other traditional goals and values will inform our view. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i will be happy to address any questions. >> thank you, sir. ms. varney. >> good morning, mr. chairman and members of the committee. i am delighted to be here today to talk with you and chairman ganachowski about how the m ergers. our nation's antitrust laws play a vitally important role in ensuring u.s. markets remain vibrant and competitive. assuring the market provides price competition and product innovations that increase our standard of living. i take seriously the need for vigorous review of transactions and judicious enforcement of the intelligence laws. over the course of many years and many investigations the antitrust division has developed significant expertise in both

the telecommunications and media industries. both industries have seen dramatic technological innovation that has brought incredible benefits to our society. we look forward to bringing our expertise to the review of the proposed transaction between comcast and nbc. we also look forward to working closely with the federal communications commission during both our agency's reviews of the transaction. although the justice department and the fcc have different missions, ours is to protect competition web the fcc's is to promote the public interest. we share similar concerns. i am precluded at, as is the chairman, from discussing the specifics of the proposed comcast nbc transaction because the matter is currently under investigation. our authorizing statute prohibits discussion opinion matters. i hope, however, that a review of some of the antitrust division work over the past year will provide useful insights you regarding our approach to

antitrust enforcement. as the assistant attorney general for antitrust have sought to take a measured and responsible approach to enforcement using well-established antitrust principles evaluating each matter carefully, the early, and in light of the particular facts of the transaction. some matters involving large significant companies have proceeded unchallenged because they were unlikely to result in an anticompetitive are. as senator inouye pointed out that size can that be the factor. for assistance, the justice department did not challenge either the combination of oracle and sun or the collaboration between microsoft and yahoo!. some proposed mergers have been approved under conditions designed to protect competition. for instance the combination of ticketmaster and live nation p roceeded only after we obtained

consent decrees revolving our competitive concerns. in ticketmaster, for instance, we required divestiture of ticketing assets, licensing of ticketing software, and prohibited retaliation and anticompetitive bundling. we have also been ready to litigate when we need to. for instance, we are currently challenging a transaction involving the nation's largest dairy processor because we believe the transaction harms competition and will inflate prices. additionally just this week the parties to the proposed transaction involving the two largest health insurers and lansing, mich. an ounce they were abandoning their merger after being informed by me that we intended to sue to stop their transactions because it would have harmed competition for health insurance. the justice department also uses its expertise to advocate on behalf of competition and consumers.

for instance, we recently provided the fcc with a detailed market analysis of broadband competition as part of the commission's ongoing preparation of a national broadband plan. we provide seven analyses to other agencies and policy makers sharing our industry expertise and understanding of market dynamics and transportation, agriculture, finance, and many other sectors. in my prepared statement i describe in some detail the procedural framework that gives the ns the justice department's process. would point worth emphasizes is that the review is confidential the law places significant meaningful restrictions. however, with appropriate waivers from the parties we may

share confidential information with the commission. in the course of our review we will also use our analytical skills and tools to determine competitive effects of the transaction. we will work closely with the putter communications commission to ensure consistency in the government's review to protect competition and promote consumer welfare in a vibrant telecommunication and media market. mr. chairman, this concludes my remarks. >> thank you very much. i will start with the questioning. you have both gone to great lengths to explain your separate roles and where you can, with waivers, talk to each other. i want to sort of make that clear because the fcc assesses the "public interest standard"

in the communications act, and the doj considers mergers under the clayton act which is a different matter. looking for substantially lessen competition or tendency to create a monopoly. frankly i start thinking back. the first bill that congress passed laws allowing the cia and the fbi to talk to each other. it was embarrassing that we had to do that because it was embarrassing that they couldn't talk to each other. all of a sudden everything changed. can you explain how and why this works tonight how the overlap porks to match and how it helps and how it hurts them how it is frustrating or whenever? we are having a hearing. we are only going to be able to hear part of what we want to your. if you are the cia or fbi you

would just talk to us openly. >> well, we are both print to give some insight into that, senator. under the current framework much of the information that the department of justice receives confidential. we would like to protect the business proprietary information. i think that the companies that come before us has a very sensitive information that should not be publicly disclosed. however, what we can do and will likely do in a significant transaction that involves multiple agencies is we seek the party's waiver to provide the pertinent information to another reviewing agency. generally parties provide that a waiver because they are interested in an expeditious government review. within the framework of the confidentiality that we were can we are actually able to work fairly clever to flee with our sister agencies throughout the government to be on the process that we have a

mechanism in place that generally works. i will let you know if that process ever does not work. on the substative side the chairman will speak to it. i think competition is a very important import. although they have great competition analysts at the fcc we have a long history here and we complement the piece of their review which is the public interest based on the competition, consumer welfare, investment and innovation. ours is more focused on the narrower competition question. >> i think i agree with that. we have just started to collaborate together, mostly as a result of this transaction. i think we are both committed to having a process that serves the public and that has benefits for everyone involved. our agencies have stamped with complementary expertise. it is helpful to everyone involved in the process to have been speaking with each other, sharing data and information where it is appropriate, testing

and analysis on each other, and coordinating in a way that increases the chances of a better decision for the public and reduce the cost on the parties by not duplicating where duplicating is unnecessary. so there are opportunities for both improved decision making and more efficient decision making by effective collaboration, and this is something that we are both committed to. >> okay. obviously the markets are evolving. they have access to more content in places never before. i was arguing with my wife last night. viewers can go watch tv or the internet screen. now, how do your analysis take into account, this is for both of you, the evolving nature of a video markets? and does the internet video

really compete today with traditional cable programs? >> well, let me field that first. the first thing i would note is that at least since the early 90's the cable act of 1992 with the telecom act of 1996 there has been a commitment on the part of congress and the fcc to promote competition in this area has the best strategy to protect and empower consumers and to be very serious about it. in fact in the video marketplace there have been, as you pointed out, many changes since the early 90's. a lot of good news and some issues of concern. we have the satellite industry competitor that did not exist before. we have providing multi channel video programming in some markets. hopefully more that didn't exist before. good news coming increases in competition. there are issues of concern. we certainly hear from consumers regularly about their rates and

concern that whenever the competition is it is not constraining rates. something we have to take very seriously. we hear from consumers and also operates in rural areas saying that the competitive dynamic in smaller markets are very different and the fcc's policies to take this into account. in fact overtime both congress and the fcc have taken into account the differences in rural areas. with respect to the internet and evolving story in the early chapters of its. a lot of hope that it leads to more competition, more innovation, more consumer benefits, lower prices for consumers. but the story continues to play out. there are issues of concern. i don't want to touch on items that were, and directly in the comcast nbc transaction, but there are issues that certainly we need to pay attention to with respect to competition in the overall broadband marketplace

and with respect to developments on the internet itself. if i could say one more word, the enduring values, to me, remain what they were, promoting effective competition, protecting and empowering consumers, ensuring that there is innovation complementing investment. even as the technologies and landscapes change our focus will be on making sure that those values and goals are achieved. >> thank you, sir. my time is out, and i apologize for that. i call upon senator hutchison. >> in my previous / i was general counsel of a bank holding company. i found that sometimes the regulators that had to approve mergers and acquisitions had no sense of timing. a contract would expire and then

be renegotiated, a detriment to one party of the other. so i would ask you. this is going on two tracks. are you talking about timing as process going to be going t ogether at the same time that you would be having your public comment comment period at the f? you would be doing your diligence. is that an issue or a factor in the way you are going to proceed or will you be looking at one and then the other, which i think it really make a difference in the real world of contracts, and also business. i am sure when there is the limbo that there is probably a limbo investment or limo and decisions that probably ought to be made in the best interest of both both companies. so i would just ask you what you

are looking at. >> first of all, we have already started, and our staffs have started talking about how to ensure. a process that takes place that is as efficient as possible while tackling the important issues that any transaction raises. in some cases we found this is true both of our agencies. sometimes the delays in the process are due to understand the issues that the party had of pulling together the information that is required. i mentioned that in our case we are just now able to put out our public notice, really beginning the process. for a completely understandable reasons it to the party some time to assemble the information they need. i would say that we have already spoken and will continue to speak about how we can invest most efficiently and run these processes in a way that delivers on our important responsibilities as reviewing agencies but recognizes that needless delay does not do anyone any good and we have an

objective to move as quickly as we can. >> center, they are parallel proceedings. i status i'm investigating innovative ways were they may be able to share documents in a manner consistent with the law and the requirements but that would be expeditious and would benefit both the reviews of the parties. >> thank you. let me in my final minute ask you if you are of the opinion that i stated in my opening statement and everything you said so far would indicate that but basically you stick to your congressional response abilities as opposed to being creative and putting new issues in that may be are not being your purview. how do you feel about that?

>> the public interest standard is obviously broad. i mentioned in my opening statement a series of important values and factors that will take into account in reviewing transactions. we also are obliged to be open to issues that are raised with us as part of our public process to analyze those to take this seriously. that is our mandate. now many decisions that we make in any transaction need to be tied to the issues that arise in that transaction. that is our, that is our focus. we have rulemaking process is to deal with broad issues of general public ability. we also have very serious obligations to consider all the issues that arise. any actions that the fcc would take, and i am sure assistant attorney general we will answer

for self, will be tied to issues raised in the transaction that are appropriate for decision and action in the transaction. >> center, the same standard applies to a merger review with the department of justice. every merger is considered. we essentially on every merger have three courses of action. we can determine that the merger creates no anti-competitive effects and we do nothing. we can determine that the merger is anti-competitive and cannot be remedied and we would have to litigate that. or you would be subject to judicial review. finally if we determine a as anti-competitive effects but can be remedied that remedy itself is subject to review. so we stick to it. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. i am going to a use my practice. telecommunications is a massive subcommittee. i am going to ask senator kerry

to ask the questions now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. obviously the proposed merger that we are discussing today would create an interesting and unique company. i have confidence that the chairman of the fcc and the assistant attorney general for antitrust i'm going to conduct a fair review, and if needed to impose a sensible conditions on it. let me say at the outset the note that i have immense respect for brian roberts and for his father, ralph. they have been terrific corporate citizens. i think that everybody in the industry would acknowledge that, and we began sort of there as a starting point in this. they have taken a small cable company and turned it into a communications giant. i think that kind of success is

admirable. i have an open mind on this. i have met with mr. roberts, ask questions, and listens to him explain some of the concerns that we might have about price increase, access, different things that obviously on the table here. clearly your scrutiny is important to this, and i think they acknowledge that and welcome and. we all know that without that big mergers can destroy a market. they can reduce consumer choice, drive up prices, but also they can provide and promote efficiencies and innovation if they're done properly. my advocacy during their recent transmission concern disputes i think has accepted the fact that i try to focus on consumers and encourage the market to maximize consumer access to content and to try to discourage prices from escalating without commensurate consumer benefits. i think that is sort of the principle that ought to guide us here.

competition between cable, satellite command television providers. also i am a big believer in vocalism, diversity in programming, the continued growth of the internet as a tool for communication. these are the principles that guide me. i would like to ask you, mr. chairman, if you would just comment correctly. i know you can't speak specifically to the case, but with respect to a merger of this, what are your considerations with respect to the retransmission consent negotiations and their impact on consumers as you see them? >> i shouldn't and can't speak specifically to this transaction. but settling the topic of retransmission consent has been the topic of active consideration at the fcc, since christmas weekend years de when we all are on the cusp of some stations shutting down. we saw it again last week. there are a lot of consumer concerns, a lot of consumers to

wonder why their lives should be affected because of business is peace between two different media companies. at the same time media companies have a right to engage in transactions and determine the terms of those transactions. we have heard more increasingly recently arguments from the various people who follow this closely or are involved in it that the framework that is in place and that has been in place for a long time may have lost pace with the changes in the marketplace, may be changes in technology. and i think we are beginning the process of reviewing whether there are improvements to the framework that makes sense. we look forward to working with you and the committee on that. certainly it is something that we will be looking into and would like to be a recess for the committee as we look at retransmission consent, whether the drama continues to make sense.

>> fair enough. ms. varney, should reconsider the internet as a possible standalone alternative form of the channel television service delivery? if so, how can stand-alone internet video services be guaranteed access to the content that the adage to ? >> senator, as the chairman has pointed out, the end and that is still in its early chapters. we don't know where it is going yet. we are committed to preserving competition us. we are in many transactions and telecommunications and media very concerned about the role that the internet can play as an effective competitor to increase output, and bring more diverse and quality to consumers and hopefully lower prices. i am hesitant to say what the intent can and can't do to promote or inhibit competition. in any transaction where there is an aspect of the internet providing a competitive effects it will be seriously evaluated.

>> obviously that is one of the things he will look at in the context of this. >> without commenting on the specific merger we will look at anything that is relevant in any transaction. >> mr. chairman, how do we ensure that independent programmers to have competing contents have some effective redress under the nondiscriminatory protections and the cable act? and perhaps he might share with us how many complaints have resolved and how many complaints are currently pending to back. >> the issue of independent programmers having access to multichannel video providers, the issue of diversity in programming and independent voices has been a longstanding issue for congress and the fcc. as you mentioned, there are provisions of the statute that provides some mechanisms for enforcement. i can't tell you the specific number of complaints we have had. we would get that to you separately. we have had some.

we have also had complaints that the existing framework can be improved to give independent programmers to believe they have a complaint under the statute a more efficient process to have those complaints resolved. this is one of those areas where the values remain constant. at the but the fcc and i is in the committee will remain vigilant in thinking about how those values could and should be applied in the changing marketplace and technology landscape. >> can you share with me as a matter of principle, do you think that consumers should lose access to broadcast programming when the broadcasters and the cable providers fail to reach an agreement? >> i think that is certainly of issue. one of the things that concerns me the most is when consumers are surprised. this is, i think, one of the biggest issues around the new year's day potential saddam, the idea that the consumer can find

out on december 30th that they might lose their tv signal on january 1st and have to figure out their options so that they can just have a constant feed of viewing. it is tied to explain to a consumer wind r why that makes . without drawing a general about whether there are circumstances. >> a conception of what mechanism, if any, might be used to resolve this? obviously some people are pushing for some kind of arbitration. their is a lot flitting around on this issue. do you have any thoughts? >> the only thought i was saying now is that i think the events over the last two or three months confirm that this is a subject that should be looked at seriously. all ideas should be looked at with the goal of coming up with a framework that works for consumers and that is there for the parties involved. >> that was avoided with skill. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> that said.

okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciated earlier when you're talking about wanting to, you know, continue encouraging the government promoting investments, expansion of broadband and more competition, all of those good principles that i think we all share. sometimes we have disagreements on exactly the best way to get there, but certainly the principles, those kind of guiding principles that we all do share and aren't always talked about. i want to turn just a little different because we have heard recently dealing with title one, title to issues, a title one being ng a much wider regulatory touch and title two given the

fcc much more potential heavy handedness when it comes to regulation. i would like to touch on that. we have heard recently that some groups of called on the fcc to regulate the internet under title two. i believe that this would reverse the successful deregulation that has helped to lead to explosive growth in the broadband age. the billions of dollars invested annually. i guess i would like to ask your opinion what would the impact on the private sector investment be if the fcc with the reclassify the internet under title two? >> the first thing i would say is that job number one right now at the fcc, our focus is on developing the policies that will promote universal broadband in america, rural america and urban america, so that we can have a world-class infrastructure that is an engine

for job creation, for ongoing investment for innovation, for helping improve our education. this is, to me, a major issue of global competitiveness by the united states and we are working very hard, as you know, working at the policies to promote the interests. as you know, the fcc has relied on title one as its authority to promote the interests of consumers tomorrow americans, others in and around broadbent. today we are, not literally today, but right now we are arguing in court defending the position that title one gives us the authority we need to do the right things for american communities, american businesses, american consumers. we will continue to assert that position, and we will hope that we get a favorable decision from the court that is looking at it

right now. until then our focus is on the issues that i mentioned. if the court does something that requires us to assess and consider issues we will do that. right now i think there is nothing more important that we can do than to make sure we move forward on a national broadband plan that drives forward u.s. global competitiveness on our communication infrastructure. >> i appreciate that. add just wanted, you know, i encourage. as i mentioned, i think that there is a real cost to have the regulation. we have to be so careful with, you know, this almost a miracle of investments in the internet is that we have seen in america and across the world. we want to continue to see that, that investment with 4g coming out and all of the various things that we are seeing.

very exciting. a lot of job creation. i just think that, you know, whether you get a favorable court decision or not is the fcc decides or considers taking it from title one to title two i think it could be a major, major mistake. thing that is why this issue needs to be aired out and discussed and a lot of input put in, so that we can consider all the ramifications. i appreciate both of your service and both of you being here today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. unfortunately i have to go to the floor to the federal aviation administration. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your discussion this morning. it is challenging because of your over sight re heed to realy get into some substance here. i do have a question. i guess i would like to say at

this point in time i can't support this merger. maybe he will provide some facts and oversight and qualification that will help with this, but from the seattle perspective i see a lot of consumer groups are already very concerned about this. obviously we like media diversity in the northwest. if you have ever been there you see that. we can turn out at less than 24 hours' notice for any fcc chairman who ever wants to come there and discuss it. [laughter] but my concern today is that, you know, we are talking about one of the largest, you know, carriers of internet provider and phone service and cable. merger with content. specifically right now seattle is very upset about what happened with the olympics.

the fact that access was not provided to the canadian broadcasting system or the see tv in this case which would have always provided an alternative coverage was of great frustration. then there was a lot of criticism and critique that basically online access was also blocked by various of vindication measures making it difficult for people to gain ople to gain access. i know that my colleague, senator kohl, who chairs the antitrust subcommittee in his searing said, i fear that this practice of blocking out certain content only four paid tv subscribers may be a preview of what is to come in respect to tv programming of the internet, particularly in the context of the proposed comcast's nbc merger. so whereas i think the seattle times said it in their opposition to this merger, it just leads to mischief.

now, i am not sure we are going to be able to uncover all of the mischief that might happen and protect against it. that is my concern. how are we going to do that. but those two examples of how seattle viewers were shortchanged on what is a digital age of content access is very frustrating. my question is this, as it relates to -- it is mine understanding that comcast is challenging the fcc's most recent extension of its program access rules. and so i am interested in what parts they are challenging and if comcast prevails when this mortally wound one of the protections that we have in place to say you have to meet these programming requirements? if we get rid of that rule and aren't we going to see even more mischief in this process? >> center, two things. on your first point while i can't comment on the merits of

the transaction and i could not comment on the specifics mentioned, i can let you know that the interest of consumers will be heard in our review of this transaction. they have to be. that is our obligation. a core principle for us is to protect and empower consumers. we will be looking at all issues relevant to consumers. with respect to program access rules certainly all of the competitors in the video programming marketplace will tell you that over the last 10-15-20 years as those rules were adopted they have been of force to promote competition in the marketplace even though they may not have worked perfectly at times. that has been our experience at the fcc as well. in fact, recently we improved those rules by closing what is called the terrestrial loophole and providing a better mechanism

for competitors to get access to regional sports programming. we took the program access rules very seriously. it is in court, as you mentioned. i am optimistic. i think that if issues arise they're adding to the litigation we have to work untogether i look forward to that because we have seen rules like that in this landscape can promote competition. >> once you have to take that into consideration on this merger? >> i want to be careful just given that it is a pending review. we will take into consideration all relevant issues that are raised by the parties in our proceeding. i imagine this issue will come up in the context of our proceeding, and you can be assured that we will review it very carefully. >> you know, i did not agree with mr. martin on a lot of things. i think this just begs the question for us to review. i just think we can't hold consumers hostage because we are building a vertical, you know,

integration. that is going to be my main concern about this. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman ganachowski and ms. varney, with respect to some of the procedures involved and what has occurred since the last mergers that have been considered by both the justice department and the fcc, i was wondering whether or not there have been any internal changes in both agencies with respect to the merger review process to back because obviously there has been a perception in the past that some of these mergers have been rubber-stamp, media related mergers. and if you're looking at some of the charge with respect to consolidation which has been media consolidation and on a ship and cross-ownership issues, it's certainly has been a central focus of this committee

for an extended amount of time as these mergers have become more and more frequent. the number of independent radio owners have plans in the last 11 years by more than 39% in between 1995 and 2003 on a ship of the top-10 much as television stations has increased. their ownership from 104 to 299 more than 187% increase. obviously it is a major source of consideration. i would be interested in knowing what, prospective agencies to know what has changed in terms of the review process that you will apply given the fact when you see the number of corporations that now control the majority of broadcasting, and that talk to mr. rogers to made a number of commitments. obviously it is kind to be important given this vertical integration that is going to occur between distribution and content. but the number of corporations

that control has gone from 50 to relatively if you. so the department of justice did not apply any conditions. an sec provided nominal and temporary conditions on various mergers. so says in review can you tell us what is going to change? he mentioned in your statement that some have questioned in particular cases with the commission's press the seas were sufficiently open and reflected a sufficiently thorough analysis of relevant data. so given the increasing consolidation is that is occurring he could affect diversity, competition, localism, and dependence. not negotiating fair deals for those who are not, you know, connected with comcast. ..

>> in the context of merger reviews at the fcc. in this case we have very different ground rules. the d.o.j. has to stay confidential. ours should be, and on the record, open process and we are exploited best ways to conduct a

process to do that, as you know. in other proceedings that we have managed over the last few months, we have revolutionized the way the fcc does business. over 50 public workshops around broadband, reforming our export tables. so we take this very seriously. with respect to coordination, we each empowered our staffs to start coordinating, start collaborating, to both honor and respect our separate missions, but to make sure that we're helping each other achieve the goals that in each case the relevant statute has given us. >> ms. varney? >> senator, i can achieve there is no rubberstamp at the department of justice. i won't speak to the past but i can save since i've been there, we have sued dean foods over its acquisition in wisconsin, illinois and michigan, over milk consolidation. we are very troubled by that.

we announce we are going to sue blue cross blue shield over its acquisition in lansing, michigan. they abandon the transaction. we're on the record in the southern district of new york with our concerns about the proposed google settlement. settlement. we have approved some big transactions with conditions. we conditions the ticketmaster. we conditioned the voting machines approved acquisition which has been in the press quite a bit lately. we conditioned the at&t acquisition of centennial, which is in a telecommunications face. we put significant conditions on that. we have recently find key span, a major electric provider in new york for the way it was doing business. so we are very, very active. we do every transaction on the merits of the transaction. and you can be sure we will do the same here. >> well, i know in the department of justice instance, that you have to redo this transaction based on

substantially less top addition. but yet we have seen, go you know, just increased consolidation. you know, obviously we have to evaluate these trends that are occurring as well. not just on the short term, but also on the long-term and was going to occur. chairman genachowski, one of the question. on program access rules, what has changed in that regard? >> i'm not sure what you're getting at, senator. what is change in terms of -- >> anything has terms change in terms of access will? >> the goal of access rules i believe remains as important as it was. we've been doing the program access rules to make sure there is effective as possible. a couple of months ago, we close the so-called terrestrial loophole so that the rules could work more effectively for competitors and will continue to look at ways to make sure that rules designed to promote competition actually promote

competition in practice. >> because in this instance, that will become even exponentially greater. i'm in, in terms of magnifying the problem in competition and making sure that there is their competition to negotiate fair deals, or allowing their own programs that they have developed. to the offer to nonaffiliated stations. thank you. >> thank you, senator snowe. senator thune? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and a one to thank our panel for being with us today. this is an important subject, and one that we obviously want answers on. i know that you are limited in some of the things you can say today. but i want to ask you, in south dakota, we have a number of small rural telecom companies that provide high quality multiprogram video distribution, to the extent that you can comment, i guess i retract that comment directed to you, mr. genachowski, how might these entities be impacted by this merger? and how much will that be a factor in your deliberations as

you evaluate this? >> well, without addressing the specific transaction, i can tell you that the concerns and unique needs of rural multichannel video providers is something of great interest to the fcc. it has been to this committee for quite sometime. action has been taken in the past, for example, by enabling those companies to combine and by collectively trying to balance out the leverages as best as possible. i can't talk about in the context of this transaction, other than to say that promoting the kinds of interests that have been pursued by congress and the fcc in this area concerning rural providers are the kinds of objectives, the kind of principles that are appropriate for review in this transaction, and i, assuming they are raised in our record is part of the proceeding, it's something we would take very seriously. >> i guess when using appropriate to review, my question gets at, how much would that be a factor in your

deliberations? i mean, obviously, you've got a public interest requirement that you have to look into. and i'm trying to sort of get at the issue with respect to this merger, had the fcc might define a public interest standard, and would that include how these, you know, this particular merger might impact the situation i just described in rural areas spectra dish like the public interest standard has included those kinds of interest. so without commenting on this transaction, it safe to assume it will adhere exactly how much, what, if any, action the commission would take that would have to be based on the record that is built in the preceding. we will encourage the broadest possible participation in the submission of real facts and data. our response is to get our arms around i shall facts in the marketplace, and then to do the transaction against those facts and data. >> without beating a dead horse,

that how would you define a public interest standard? i mean, you talk about all the various things, you know, that would be appropriate as you describe it to review. but could you perhaps should all of more light on that? >> sure. our starting point are the core principles and objectives that the sec has relied on in the past and that i have spoken about, promoting competition, protecting and empowering consumers, promoting investment and innovation, ensuring the widespread deployment of broadband and advanced to mutations. into the extent, its immediate transaction, promoting competition, localism, diversity, well-established principles onto the public interest standard at the fcc and in congress. >> in your testimony you note the sec has not made decisions on past mergers in a timely and transparent manner. what specific actions you plan to take to remedy that observations the? i know the fcc has been

criticized for that, and we do have a stab at the fcc that works very hard commiserate committed to this and very expert. but i think an agency can always improve, and i've instructed this staff to identify the ways in which we can learn from past experiences, develop improved processes that are efficient, that meet our obligations under the kidney patients act, that maximize all the probate coordination in cooperation with the justice department, and that specifically look at ways that we can have an open and transparent process that everyone understands that is fair to everyone who has an interest in the transaction. >> and let me ask you, because one of the things that chris argued is the transaction is going to allow a single company to control the content that consumers receive and how they're permitted to access it. do you agree with that statement? and are concerned about that possibility? >> well, i wouldn't , specifically on this transaction and what the results might be. i think promoting competition

is, as i said, a corporate table. so transactions that have any of the consolidation requires of the public interest standard to ask hard questions about what effect does this have on competition, what effect did it have on consumers in terms of the provision of services. and prices and innovation. so those are back with the kinds of questions we are obliged to ask in a contest of reviews of this sort. >> i'm not trying to ignore you, ms. varney. >> i associate with anything. >> okay. all right. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator thune. senator begich, from alaska, i know you're used to being far away. this is taking it to a new extreme. >> i sometimes feel like a witness. [laughter] >> we can ask him question. >> actually, you're in the penalty box. [laughter] >> this is what happens when your new and to cause trouble.

let me -- obvious, i'm going to leave my question for the nextel. i just want to for say that my interest are going to be how local aspects are dealt with, how in the sense of intellectual rights and so forth are dealt with. the nextel will really be my q&a. to be very great with you many people have asked the questions i was interested in. i have a few go through a process. it is a new organization. they are new. that's what i was banking on. i was ever for the history of what's happened. there's been some concerns over the past, but i have a feeling the new folks, you guys voted come are going to do the right thing over time and make sure consumers are heard. i've heard that over and over again so not going to ask you questions because the next panel is a big panel. and my worry is the way the system where everyone will have, because i'm at the tail end you may never get to my questions. so thank you all for being here. >> senator, that won't happen because there's not very many of

us here right now. [laughter] >> they will know we're doing this so they won't come back to. >> i would invite you to even move up. [laughter] >> delusions of grandeur. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for coming in not coming on any other specifics. [laughter] >> we appreciate that, and general, also, if i could just ask you quick, can you give us a sense of timing? how long will this take? >> either way, i think it's we're just going to put our public notice in the next few days, and i think we will know more about what realistic time is once we see what kind of record comes in, we're committed to doing this as fast and sufficient as possible, but also honoring our obligations under the communications act to be through and look at all the issues. >> we want you to be through. we want you to do that, but i think many of us are frustrated by the length of time it takes

to get business decisions out of government. and i think the faster, more expeditiously we can do it, the better our reputation will be. so i hope you will do that. thank you. we will welcome -- >> before it was a this panel, i've got some others here from independent programmers. if i could, i would like to submit for the record. >> without objection, they will be put in the record. we would like to have a seamless transition. if we could ask the nextel just to come up very quickly. >> president obama delay his scheduled asian trip today. house speaker nancy pelosi forecast final passage of health care legislation, possibly next week, quote, it's going to be historic, she said, as house and senate leaders in the white house reach for final agreement on the measure. before the health legislation hits the house floor, key committees will begin to review it. it starts monday with the house budget committee, the rules committee meets next wednesday

to meet floor debates. we will have live coverage on c-span networks.

>> now a discussion on the use of the filibuster in the u.s. senate. senate rules require 60 votes to stop legislation from being blocked in that way. new mexico democratic senator tom udall wants to change senate rules. hebert is that in this two-hour discussion, hosted by the center for american progress action fund. >> good morning, everyone. i am jim thurber, i'm the director of the center for congressional presidential studies at american university. this is a joint forum with the center for american progress, and i want to say at the very beginning before we get into the

program, all of us are saddened i senator reed's wives accident, injury of her daughter. his wife is in serious condition. if you didn't know. they were rear-ended yesterday at 1:00 by a tractor-trailer on interstate 95. they're both in the hospital right now, and a moment of silence i think would be good. to send good thoughts to the read family. it's my pleasure to, yet again, work with scott lilly in the center for american progress. this is the 30th anniversary of our center. it happens to be the 30th anniversary at c-span, and we've had over 204 runs in 30 years. and c-span has covered many of them, but they usually cover scott, the ones, that we do together. and we've had five of them. and on issues related to the

presidency, but also issues that are of importance to congress. and that's a we're doing today. we're going to have, as you know, a form on the filibuster, but to put the filibuster in context, it is a problem. people think. i think it's a problem. it is, and there are efforts by senator udall who will be introduced later, and others, to change the rule. rule 22 on the cloture vote. but let's put in the context of the perception of the american people and institution of congress. and many other problems that are facing the institution. this is one problem, in my opinion. facing the institution, but we also have holds that clogs legislative work, delays in confirming executive branch officials. we really have a lack of true deliberation and debate offered in the senate.

there's a breakdown of the budget process frequently. it's not passed on time, or it has changed every year. there's an excessive use of earmarks. there was a debate as to whether they are excessive or not, but i think the american people think it's excessive. there have been writers added not going to appropriations goes, but also tax bill. sometimes they become a crutch to act on significant policy issues that cannot be acted by the authorizers. there's withholding sometimes of appropriations to fully fund authorization bills. there's a tendency towards government by continuing resolution. there's the non-jews, or abuse, of the conference committee. has a really met recently, very often. and there's a lack of comity and civilians at the american people are concerned about. a lack of true bipartisanship. now, that's controversial, because some people think that

we don't need bipartisanship. some of this comes from the polarization of congress, where there are fewer and fewer moderates. back in the 1970s, a third of the senate were considered martyrs. if you look at ideological support scores, as we do in political science, now it's down to about five to 8% moderates in the senate and in the house of representatives. and then there's criticism of the institution for ineffective or no oversight of the executive branch. it is within these trends that we look at the filibuster, in these trends have led come in my opinion, to a serious decline of public confidence in the institution. trust in congress are generally. and government generally come and it is increased skepticism, cynicism and discourage public participation and trust in the institution of congress. the form today is primary on the filibuster, but it is within the

context that we look at the filibuster. in conclusion, in the introductory remarks, i am reminded that change comes from elections. change comes from freshman, frequently. change in this particular case on the filibuster is coming from the class of 2006, 2008. and indeed now, in the leadership race in the senate, the leaders are becoming focused on this issue. and the leader of this change on the filibuster is senator tom udall from, democrat, from new mexico. and i would like to have my colleague, scott lilly, here from the center for american progress, introduced the senator at this point. >> it's always great to work with jim and american university. they are great partners in these kinds of events. and i hope you find it as useful

to listen to as we have found it useful to prepare for. if you go back to 1954, halfway through the eisenhower, first term of the eisenhower administration, and there were 19 new democrats were elected to the house of representatives. and when they got there, they found out that all the things that they campaigned on, all of the ideas that they presented to the constituents about how the country needed to change and adapt, were things that they really could do almost nothing about. institution, there had been an election in the institution had gone from democratic chairman -- or from republican chairman to democratic chairman. but the democratic chairmen were, in many cases, even more conservative than the republicans. they were old line senators who have been in the congress for decades and decades. they were extremely conservative

on social grants, certainly on civil rights, on economic issues. and these freshmen found that it was next to impossible to get anything done. one of the 19 new democrats was a young congressman from arizona, named stewart udall that and stewart udall began meeting with a couple of other disgruntled younger members, lee metcalf of montana who had come to yours earlier, and frank thompson was elected later in 1955. and they typically met in gene mccarthy's office over in the cannon building. and plot how they were going to change the system. that little band grew into what became known as the democratic study group. before stewart udall left the

house of representatives to become secretary of interior in 1961, they had already pulled off the first two. they increased the size of the house rules committee, which allowed speaker rayburn to gain control of that committee and block judge smith of virginia who was the chairman from controlling the floor agenda. that in turn made it possible for the kennedy administration to get the new frontier agenda to the house floor. so they already had that, that one victory before stewart udall left the house. but he was succeeded by his brother who e-mail he became a major figure in the reform movement that in 1969, he led the effort of the reformers to replace speaker mccormimccormack, but that time was 78 years old, and by most accounts, was not really a

functioning great as a speaker. he was crushed in that effort. which shows that reform is not easy because he said when he left the caucus his famous words comparing the caucus with a cactus. he said with a cactus pricks are on the outside. [laughter] >> but at any rate, six years later, the reformers did win in 1974 after the watergate landslide. they changed the house rules that they turned the institution upside down. they made committee chairman subject of votes before the caucus. they removed three sitting committee chairman, and house of representatives was never the same again. it took 20 years from when stewart udall started meeting at gene mccarthy's office, but they finally did it. and they permit adjacent. i say that in part to say even

the biggest and most powerful institutions with the most intimidating people running them can be changed. if people are smart and stick to it. and i also point that out to say that our speaker has the genes to take to do that. so we are very pleased to have been. he has spent his life in public service. he was a federal prosecutor for a number of years. he was elected as attorney general of the state of mexico and served two terms before he came to the house. where he was a member for 10 years, and very much beloved in the house. there was great pleasure with the fact that he decide to run for the other body, but i think everybody is glad now that he has done that because he is someone who can be part of an institution, the loyal to the institution, and still recognize the imperfections and the need for change. tom, thank you for coming.

[applause] >> boy, that's impressive opening statement, and impressive introduction. and i thank you all for being here. my brothers, i have five brothers and sisters, and when you talk about genes, scott, i think they always say in the family that none of them are in elected office. none of the five brothers is it an interest at all for running for office. they think i got a defective gene, that's what they say. but anyway, thank you and it is great. it's going to be great to be on this wonderful panel. let me also add to what you said. i mean, we're a very small senate family, and our thoughts and prayers really go out today to senator reid and his family,

and i hope i will be able to give him some encouraging words in person in the next couple of days. gym, i couldn't agree with you more in terms of kind of setting the stage on the filibuster. in my 11 years here in the congress, i mean, i am now the first year in the senate, the way i see the institution, it's an institution in much need of reform. you know, whether it is the committee structure. it used to be you specialize on the committee, now we are on so many committees we can't specialize. the appropriations part is, labor h., the biggest bill, hardly ever gets to the floor anymore. and i know scott is going to talk about that. we are authorizing responsibilities for 250 programs, or agencies, don't come to the floor for the regular authorization. somebody told me the other day

that the department of justice has a mandatory requirement and the law that it be authorized every year. that doesn't happen. and then the thing that i think undermines and corrupts, and is the most corrosive influence, is the fund-raising. so i think we'll have an opportunity to talk about all of that as we move on, here onto the panel. but i am going to focus now on senate rules reform, and specifically talk about the filibuster. scott talked about my dad after my election in 2008. my father gave me some good advice. he suggested that i reread the autobiography of clinton anderson, the man who held the same senate seat i now hold. anderson addressed many issues during his time in the senate. but the one that stood out to me was his dedication to making the

senate a functional legislative body. it's a dedication we share. one of the main reasons i ran for the senate is because i saw the world's greatest deliver to the body turning into a graveyard of good ideas. after a year of observations this body in action, or in many cases, in lack of action, it is clear that we are in danger of becoming just that. in anderson today, the toxic partisanship we face today have not yet poisoned the system. but the manipulative use of the buster had already taken hold. it was used to block some of the most important legislation of that time. including civil rights bills, that now rank among the senate's greatest accomplishments. anderson heard the same thing

from senate leadership that we here today. he was told that changing the rules would never happen because of a two-thirds requirement to limit debate. in other words, any attempt to change rule 22, the filibuster rule, would get filibustered. but anderson didn't agree. he knew the constitution, not the senate rules, the beach house the authority to adopt its rules by majority vote. andersons constitutional option was soundly based in constitutional interpretation and common law. article one, section five of the constitution clearly states, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. the constitution also explicitly requires a super majority vote

in seven instances for things like overriding a presidential veto, or ratifying a treaty, or amending the constitution. it clearly spells out when a super majority vote is required. and in state that each house may determine its rules, a super majority vote requirement is noticeably absent. there is also a long-standing common law principle of helping the supreme court that one legislature cannot bind its successors. liberals and conservatives alike have cited this principle to argue the senate can change its rules by a majority vote. professor stephen calabrese, a cofounder of the federalist society, stated in congressional testimony, that to the extent that the senate rule, 22, purports to require a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture on a

rules change, rule 22 is unconstitutional. it is an ancient principle of anglo-american constitutional law that one legislature cannot bind a succeeding legislature, end quote. armed with the constitution and common law on his side, senator anderson went to the floor january 1953 and moved that the senate immediately consider the adoption of its rules. his motion was tabled. but he introduced it again at the beginning of the 85th congress. in the course of that debate, senator hubert humphrey presented a parliamentary inquiry to vice president nixon, who was presiding over the senate. nixon understood the inquiry to address the basic question, does -- who do the rules of the

senate continue from one congress to another? noting that there had never been a direct ruling on this question from the chair, nixon stated, and i quote, while the rules of the senate have continued from one congress to another, the right of a current majority of the senate at the beginning of a new congress to adopt its own rules, standing as it does from the constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of a previous congress, end quote. nixon went on to say that any provision to deny that right was unconstitutional. and i would also note on this point, three vice presidents, democrats and republicans, sitting in the chair, presiding as nixon did, have all come to the same conclusion and to the same result.

but despite nixon's opinion, anderson's motion was tabled. in 1959, anderson again introduced the constitutional option. this time with the bipartisan support of some 30 other senators. then majority leader johnson wasn't happy with johnson's proposal -- wasn't happy with anderson's proposal. he saw it as gaining momentum, and realize a majority of senators might join the cause. to prevent anderson's motion from receiving a vote, johnson came forward with his own compromise. he proposed change rule 22 to reduce the required vote for cloture to two-thirds of the senators present and voting. johnson's compromise passed, but it tends to change the filibuster rule continued for more than a decade. rule 22 was last changed in

1975, when senators walter mondale and james pearson used the constitutional option to change the cloture requirement for most issues, except rule changes to 35th of those senators chosen and sworn. only three of my colleagues, senator byrd, in a way, and a lady were in the senate then. and have ever had the opportunity to vote on rule 22. 97 of us have never voted on the rule that prevents today senate from passing critical legislation. all of this brings us to today. over the last couple of years the impact of the filibuster has become even more pronounced. senators from both sides of the aisle have increasingly used it as a weapon of partisan warfare. you only have to look at the lengthy and winding path of health care reform to understand

that something is seriously broken in the system. and just recently, we saw another example. when a single senator used the senate rules to play politics, and ultimately prolong passage of an unemployment to that otherwise had wide bipartisan support. these examples underscore, for me, for dozens of my colleagues, and for the american people, that time has come to address rules reform again. i intend to lead that effort at the beginning of the 112th congress. by constitutional authority, and because one legislature cannot bind its successors, the next senate will not be bound by rule 22. it can end the debate on a rules change by simple majority, and proceed to a vote on its rules. next january, i will follow in the tradition of clinton anderson, and offer a motion to

adopt our rules. now, we don't have to make drastic changes, nor do i think a majority of senators want to, we can modify the filibuster rule in a way that still respects minority rights, but prevents our current state of minority obstruction. we should also look at reforming other provisions that are being abused or misused. provisions like the use of anonymous holes to block legislation and nominations. i'm often asked, how much support there is for my proposal. as you know, and many senators have expressed a desire to reform or end the filibuster. senators harkin and bennett of colorado have both introduced resolutions to change the cloture requirement. all of the proposals under discussion have america. but the reality is, nonstandard chance of passage without the

constitutional option, as the foundation for reform. each time the cloture requirement has been changed since its enactment in 1917, it was the constitutional option that provided the impetus for the senate to act. but let me make clear, my proposal is not the nuclear option, despite the assertion i some. the nuclear option was a threat by republicans in 2005, to declare the filibuster rule unconstitutional in the middle of a congress. to me, that's like a baseball team that's losing in the fifth inning, trying to make the oppositions home runs stop counting. i understand that to the 111th congress, we are bound by the current rules. the ones we asked to in 2000. we can't change course midstream and simply declare a rule

unconstitutional because we don't like the way it's being used. the right way to make the change is for the senate, is to exercise its beginning o a new congress. that's what the constitution provides, and that's what members of passed the senate have called for. the nuclear option is just a continued manipulation of the rules. it is not a real solution. and finally, i hear the question of what happens if your party is in the minority. won't you want the filibuster the way it is? well, first of all, history tells us that shift is inevitable. but i think the real question is to ask is this, shouldn't the minority's primary concern be the well being of our country, not the power of its party? and what will happen to this country if we fail to pass

critical legislation? i have every intention of making a motion for the senate to adopt its rules next january, regardless of the majority party. as senator, i want to have the chance to legislate, whether i'm in the majority or the minority, and to advance the best ideas developed by great minds throughout our country. our current state of paralysis prevents that, and it's unacceptable. the constitutional option will help ensure that the senate does not become a graveyard of good ideas. i am very pleased to be here, and as i understand the schedule, jim, we will take a few questions, and then move in to the panel. so i'm happy, happy -- [inaudible] >> i want to try to keep my remarks brief and then tried to do some q&a, and then we'll move into the panel, and all of us will have a crack at this, too.

>> jim, why don't you -- >> will you raise your hand, introduce yourself and we'll bring a microphone to you. and we will go that way. >> i am david. >> how are you? >> hi. i am puzzled by the assertion that we have to wait to have the senate rules change that there have been no set rules adopted. they can be set at any time, and i'm puzzled by the assertion that this would be like changing the rules in the middle of a baseball game. this is not again. this is governing the country. and it is ungovernable at present. it is more like saying these rules that say the other side

gets a two home runs for every one they had our bad rules, and they should not be acquiesced to. the country can't afford more of this gameplaying. so, what i want to know is, can't the senate change its rules right now? >> well, i gave you a little bit of the basis of why i come to the conclusion that i have, that changing in midstream is not a good idea. and the reason is, those three vice presidents look at exactly the issue that you're talking about. they look at the issue because it was brought to them at the beginning of a congress, and it was brought to them at some point later. and they knew that there was going to be the critical thing pastor can you in the middle just throughout the rules and put in new rules? and here's what they concluded. their analysis, is they look in

the look at the constitutional provision. they said at the beginning of a congress, by a majority vote, that you can do that. after you move past the beginning, basically what you have done is acquiesced in the adoption of the rules from the previous congress. and so, the crazy thing is, i mean, in some of these debates, this may be interesting to you, they extended the first day of the senate in this case, sometimes to six weeks while they debated the issue that i'm talking about, in order to try to come to a conclusion. but still, the same construct in legal analysis is there, but on the first day, on the first day you can take up this issue. and it may be extended as i've said, the first legislative day. and that is the appropriate time to do it. it doesn't mean, and i couldn't

agree more with your frustration about the current system. i mean, you don't think i'm frustrated? i mean, this is -- i came here to legislate. i was elected in 2008. i can't believe the energy that went into that 2008 election, electing a president that, for the first time, got this huge majority, you know, more than 25 or 30 years in the country. and what he stood about was, stood for was the change. he wanted to change our health care system. he wanted to tackle these economic issues. i mean, you know what the issues are out there. and here we have a situation where a rule is being abused, and misused, and we basically, with the rules we have, given the minority the power over the will of the majority.

and so, i read this book before i was elected, ms. anderson autobiography. and i thought, well, i should offer it in 2009. and as they came in, we preside, the newer senators preside over the senate. and i kept asking the parliamentarian's, how does this work with the adoption of the rules. well, i was, two days later, the opening day and they said, oh, the rules are the standing rules of the senate. they go from one center to the next. well, i didn't take that as an answer. i researched it, and a deeper and deeper that i got, i realize and came back to the conclusion that the three vice presidents have come to, the time to do it is at the beginning of the congress. there are many things we can do now to try to break this logjam. and i think one of them happened

yesterday, or the baby before, when harry reid basically sent a warning out to mitch mcconnell supporting the constitutional option and supporting changing the rules at the beginning of the next congress. to me, he was saying to mitch and the opposition party, if you continue this, you may find yourself in a big different situation when we get in the beginning of the next congress. and so i hope that with all of the things that are going on, that we will see some lessening of this opposition and this abstraction is a that is really become a part of the system. one more thing. if you look -- if we had a charger, i was going to bring charged today in my staff said, to bring a bunch of charge. but imagine a chart of the filibusters that have been utilized, motion for cloture

filed. if you go back to the beginning of the filibuster, close to 100 years ago, you would see on this chart very, very small numbers. and then you would see at the 111th congress, the 110th congress, the last congress, he would see it come up to 112 cloture is filed. so that 112 is more than all of the filibusters in the 1950s and 1960s. and we are on a path in the 111th congress to break the record for the 110th, up 112. and it is probably going to happen. this is a trend that we've got to do with and the will to deal with it is the constitutional option. yes, sir, all the way back the there. >> i am a retired army physician

that i'm a great believer in our government, of, and for the people. so my question is, where does the electorate fit into this issue? i have a feeling there is a lot of anger, but also an awful lot of ignorance as it is a complex issue. but where can you get going if you don't have the support of the electorate behind you? >> well, the interesting thing, the other day, and i -- i first thought the premise of your question, the public doesn't know much about this. the public is focused on this and there is an energy behind this that is pretty amazing. why do i say that? in a recent "new york times" poll, a majority of the public wanted to do away with the filibuster. and identifies the frustration that the gentleman that spoke earlier talked about, the frustration that i have a saying how can you allow the minority to prevent the majority from doing the will of the american people wax so you know, that's

where we are. with that. i am trying to do everything i can to engage the american people. we are on facebook. you know, normally on facebook you have fans of the people. well, i have set up a facebook cycle of fixing senate rules. and you can sign up as a fan. i mean, we are trying to use every bit of media savvy we know to get the word out there, but i can tell you what i hear over and over again when i go home i'm in this subject comes up is, people say why don't you make them stand up and filibuster these unpopular -- these popular things and show how unpopular they are? and the answer is, that's very tough. but we should be doing more of that. i mean, one of the reforms and looking at, i have assigned on

any particular filibuster reform. i'm trying to lead the entire effort at rules reform with the constitutional option. utilizing the constitutional option, knowing that history, every time there was a change in the rules, it came about by the constitutional option being the catalyst for that. and i think people are engaged. one other thing on reform. one of the things we might look at in filibuster reform is what i would call use it or lose it. if you view the senate today during a filibuster, and many of you would look at that screen on c-span2, and what you'll see is quorum call. and nothing is going on. and so you flip onto something else. well, what's happening during that filibuster. is time is being utilized. the filibuster is going on, but nobody is on the floor.

and that's the case for a significant amount of time. what my use it or lose it proposal would do with basically say, if you're not utilizing that time, then for every minute you don't use, a minute gives you the bag. are we are work out something like that. but we are working on the important, the important thing is work on something. protect minority rights. to make the senate exactly like the house. but make it work so that when you have a majority, that you can get things done. and i think that's what the american people want, and that's the frustration we feel out there. >> please go ahead right here. >> my name is maggie. and my question is if you have to wait until january, and don't you need to make it concrete for

the rest of the electorate? don't you have to, even though it is tough, don't you have to let some of these filibusters, let the senators, don't you need to show that to the american people xmi second question is that i had a discussion with norm ornstein a couple of months ago, and he seemed to still feel that the senate rule, the two-thirds to change the senate rules was to the top priority. how do you answer his arguments? >> give me the second one again. let me just deal with your first issue there, which is basically we are coming back again, aren't we, to what i was talking about, how do you make them stand up on what is a popular issue and show the of structuring, show the face of obstruction, rather than having a quorum call be the face of obstruction, which then

people don't understand. we're going to do more of that. i think the poster child of doing more of that was the senator from kentucky, standing up on unemployment. and one senator, it shows you the way the senate rules are structured. one senator is able to stop the entire show. but he paid a price for that. we had a number of senators come down to the floor and talk about what was happening with unemployment, what was talking -- what was happening with the highway trust fund, and the fact that we had to stop the project, and people were being laid off in these tough economic times. and it took us several days, but he ended up folding. he ended up folding. and the result was, i think, that the aggressiveness that we showed on that front meant that

they were going to have to think very hard are we going to do that again. and so by being aggressive like that, i think we can make a difference and try to change it a little bit. let me just get a second into the more arcane part of the way this rule is structured, to show you how difficult it is today to actually require them to get up and vote, and to get up and talk about a particular issue that we are considering a vote on. the first step that is required is to get a quorum before you can force that. a quorum is 51 senators. and they don't need to get the quorum. we need to get the core. the majority needs to get the quorum. so you have 51 senators. we have 59 democrats now. that have to be on the floor, or near to the floor to establish a quorum call to force that

debate. and so they can strategically, the opposition, in this case the republicans, it can always be reversed, but the opposition designates for senators, it will take a four-hour block of time and come down and speak. well, guess what? when they get up and speak about whatever the issue is, let's pick unemployment, like the senator from kentucky did. and so they are talking about, well, this unemployed, we don't like the way this bill is structured. well, as soon as they notice that 51 senators are no longer on the floor, they can note the absence of a quorum. the senate goes into a quorum call, which is what you see on the screen. and then the clerk has to call the names of all the senators to determine wind 51 are there. the 51 come back onto the floor, and then when a quorum is established, you then go back into the debating session. that you only have one senator

at a time have to stand up. well, 51 of us have to be there to meet the quorum calls. so under the current rules, we're talking about a very time intensive process. and as you will hear from these other panelists, in the things that they would like reforms they would like to see done, the most precious thing in the senate is the time on the floor. because that's the time you need to put the health care proposal, the financial reform proposal, all these proposals onto the floor, in order to move them along. and so by killing time, you stop that kind of thing. give me your second question there. because the first had a lot of parts to it. what -- >> its name they have would you argue to norm ornstein who still seems to feel that in order to change the senate will you need a two-thirds of the senate. >> you needed two-thirds. well, i wish nor more here.

made one of our panelists will argue norms position. my answer would be, look at the constitution. look at article one, section five. each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. there's nothing in that provision that says it requires a super majority. so you have that provision. on top of that, this constitutional principle, which is embedded in been ruled upon by the supreme court, one legislature cannot bind a subsequent legislature. the supreme court has ruled that over and over again. it is a standing parliamentary principle before our supreme court even existed. one legislature cannot bind a subsequent legislature. meaning, let's pick a little example. let's say you passed a piece of legislation and sit in the future, you're going to need 75 votes in the senate in order to change this legislation. that would be held

unconstitutional in a minute. what we have done with the senate filibuster rule is exactly the same thing. in the senate filibuster rule, it says that you need 67 votes to change the rules. if you follow that logic, you're caught in a box, where norm ornstein is caught, i want to free him, okay? norm, you don't have to be -- you don't have to be caught in the box, norm. you don't have to be can't in the box. we're going to for you. you can just go to the constitution and to the constitutional case law and constitutional principles and say, say at the beginning of a congress now as i said, beginning of the senate, right at the beginning there, you have the authority to change the rules by a majority vote. and, you know, there are going to be two positions out here. if you go back and read the debate in 1917, and to read the

debate in 1959 and in 1975 when the changes took place on cloture, there were always two sides. so there's room for norm, but i would suggest a better view and a better legal and constitutional view is that by majority vote at the beginning of a congress, you can change, you can adopt new rules and change the rules or modify the rules. guesser? >> my name is jim connors. my question is has vice president by to express an opinion on this and going back a little further when the republicans were in the majority, do you know whether vice president cheney offered an opinion? >> the answer is a vice president biden has not expressed an opinion on this. on specifically, i'm saying the questi