we don't and medicare as we know it. but we need to pass reconciliation so we can pass health care and people can be secure in knowing they will have health care in the future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> all time has expired on the motion of the gentleman. of of virginia. a vote now will curse on the last motion offered by mr. scott. all of those in favor say aye all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it read the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. ..

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the house budget committee wrapping up its work for the day. earlier they voted 21-16 to move big reconciliation bill for. that legislation will be used as

a vehicle to make changes to the senate passed health care bill. the next stop for the reconciliation bill is the house rules committee which is expected to meet on wednesday. "the washington post" writing that that rules committee, that panel on which the democrats had a have in mind -- go for it bandage welp smoke out the language by the budget committee today today substituting the amendments that have been crafted in consultation with democratic leaders, chairman and the white house. supporters of the legislation hope the process will end with a final passage vote in the house floor by the end of the week. you can continue to follow live coverage of the legislation as it makes its way through the process on capitol hill on the c-span network, c-span radio in c-span.org. we are going to go back to the beginning of this markup from today. chairman john spratt outlining the process.

>> the budget act designs the role of packaging the reconciliation bills and transmitting them to the house "without substantive change". the rules committee is to make subsidy changes in reconciliation rules as amended to the floor. i will briefly describe her purpose and make an opening statement limited to 10 minutes followed by an opening statement limited to 10 minutes by the ranking member mr. ryan. without objection other members wishing to make a statement may have been included in the record at this point. after opening statements the committee will take up a motion to report to the house the recommendations sent to us by the authorizing committees and written response to the reconciliation instructions i have just cited. after its passage we will move to consideration of a maximum of 10 motions on each side all nonbinding, subject to our mandate which is to finish before midnight tonight. or we will turn into pumpkins.

these motions requested chairman of the committee go to the rules committee and ask certain amendments be made in order. i will outline the process in greater detail when i come to the point. i would remind all members the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time based on the agreement we make at our organizational meeting earlier this year. now i am on a ten-minute clock. the budget act calls for this committee to combine the legislative language sent to us in october in response to reconciliation instructions included in the budget resolution for last year, passed last year and then report it to the house by way of rules committee. the budget act ourselves from remaining the bill and reported without subject to change. in response to the reconciliation and instructions budget resolutions we have received them and before his legislative language sent to us in october by the ways and means committee and education and labor dealing not only with

health care reform but also higher education. the budget committee cannot amend the language they authorizing the committees in the house of representatives can amended and attempts to do so. in the reconciliation package the house passes and sends to the senate is going to look very different from what is before the committee today. we are taking the next step in a long arduous process resolving the debate on health care reform. critics may suggest the process is moving too fast in congress has been considering how to reform our health care system and expand coverage for more than one year. during this congress the house spend 100 hours and heard from 81 witnesses, democrats and republicans. during a market trina mark-ups the three house committees with jurisdiction over health care considered 239 members from democrats and republicans and accepted 120 amendments including some republican amendments. it is hard to understand how anyone can claim this bill is

being rushed or ran through the house in view of those doubts. by most measures we have far none the best medical system in the world but it is also by a wide arch in the world's and the world's most expensive system and readily accessible to millions of americans. each member here has tales to tell about what is wrong, what is right and what needs to be fixed. the reviews express today are likely to be-- but no one will dispute that one health care is increasingly unaffordable especially for millions who lack concerns and rising costs. not only in business budgets but in the federal budget as well. high premiums are putting health insurance out of reach for more and more americans than even those who have insurance have no ironclad guarantee of protection annual and lifetime caps lead with astronomical bills, bills that can wipe the family out even if they have insurance, even if they have insurance they may not have the coverage they need.

the final text of the reconciliation bill the house will consider now is not before us but it is clear they have big care provision that will support the majority of this congress should be able to support and agree upon. for starters we need insurance underwriting reform, restriction denial of preexisting conditions are raising hard due to raising renewal premiums when insurance is needed most after the insurance suffers a major almost. second, we need far more competitive marketplace for insurers for consumers benefiting from competition. third we need affordability credits to individuals and small businesses so they can have insurance. for three to strengthen medicare by closing the donut hole by eliminating overpayments to medicare advantage and we need payment reforms to encourage doctors and hospitals and other providers to stress quality of

care over quantity of care. all these and more, all of these needs and more are addressed in the conference's bill coming before the house. everybody some perspective on why reform is needed but let me use tax for my own state to make my point. according to statistics provided by the department of health and human services in my state of south carolina 764,000 residents currently lack health insurance, 290,000 residents wouldn't be able to afford coverage to the exchange where proposing in this bill. 127,000 seniors would have their brand-name drug costs in the part d donut hole cut in half. 49,300 small businesses would be helped by small business tax credit to make premiums more affordable. they make up -3/4 of all businesses in south carolina but only 40% allow for health coverage. we will also here today the reconciliation was not intended for this purpose.

reconciliation has been used 22 times in prior years and on 20 those occasions republicans were at the majority in at least one house or in the white house. in 2001 our republican colleagues use reconciliation to pass massive tax cuts to worsen the bottom-line bottom line of the budget by $1,350,000,000,000 over 10 years. in 2003, the second round of tax cuts using reconciliation added $350 billion to the deficit. by contrast the clinton administration used reconciliation in 1993 the deficit was reduced by $496 billion over five years and when reconciliation was used in the balanced budget act of 1970, 97 it was used to create children's health insurance, met pac for oversight of medicare advantage. what we do today lies well within those precedence. i have devoted all of my remarks to health care reform at before closing the legislative text

before us today also includes higher education student loans, pell grant provisions. of the if the house passes a higher education provisions in the reconciliation bill we will pick up later this week, it will result in landmark investments in higher education baking higher education making higher education more affordable and accessible. in doing so without adding to the deficit. productive requirement demands education that is successful, affordable and of good quality and the higher education provision being considered today will help us advance that. so today the budget committee meets to reform the important role on the budget act and take the next step to begin the process of bringing to a fruitful conclusion our work on these vital issues. i will now turn to the ranking member, mr. ryan and recognize him for 10 minutes for his opening statement. mr. ryan. >> before discussing health care reconciliation i want to begin by thanking you for continuing

this committee's tradition for allowing the full and fair debate and giving the minority an opportunity to offer motions to modify this reconciliation bill. you have always been a gentleman and i want to simply say thank you for continuing to be one. today in this committee we began what might be the final chapter of this health care debacle. my friends in the majority claim what we are doing here is simply paving the way to fix a mildly flawed senate will. they argue it is a simple frequently used procedure to move legislation through the senate. but that is not what is happening here and we all know it. this is in fact an extraordinary and unprecedented abuse of the budget reconciliation process. reconciliation has never been used, never to push through a 1 trillion-dollar expansion of government and to seize control of one sixth of the u.s. economy. no one has ever employed the process to leverage such a vast

social change based upon a token $1 billion in savings but we are facing a $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year alone and doing it on a deliberate come cometh purely partyline vote. the only bipartisanship in this procedure is in the opposition to it. never before has the house committee process been so grossly exploited. that thousands of pages of legislation reported by the committees and jurisdiction are irrelevant. even before we vote on them we will report these provisions right here is the process requires and then they will all be stripped out, discarded, talk stomach as she been a real legislation will get written under the cover of the rules committee. in other words, we are right here creating a legislative trojan horse in which a handful of people hidden from public view will reshape how all americans receive and pay for their health care. and then it will be rushed to

the floor and members will be forced to vote on it to beat another artificial political deadline. we have also learned the house might try to pass this 2700 page senate bill and send it to the president without actually voting on it. it appears that you are going to deem passage of the senate bill in the rule. last week, in a stunning and revealing statement speaker pelosi speaker pelosi said quote we have to pass a bill so you can find out what is in it." this is the transparency the president promised? the arrogance, the paternalism, the condescension to the american people is just breathtaking. this is not just a simple fix erbil either. this is the linchpin for health care. it is is the vehicle for the backroom deal that will buy the votes of the house can pass house can pass the senate carol -- health care bill that will supposedly be amended by

this bill. to put it another way of this process fails the whole health care house of cards collapses. of course the real reason we are all sitting here in this room is because of one man, scott round. we are here because god round won his election and got elected to the united states senate sent there by the people of massachusetts. you can't pass this health care build the right way so now you pass at the it the washington way. we are not governing here today. we are greasing the skids for an abuse of the budget procedure intended to control the size of government, not expand it. the stakes are big-- go beyond the details and even the integrity of our constitutional duties. let's consider the underlying health care legislation itself. using the president's proposal because it is built upon the same philosophy as the house and senate bills. first and most fundamental problem is this legislation is not about health care. at the base essence of it is

about ideology. it moves away from the american idea mentor to a european-style european-style welfare state double lead americans into becoming more dependent on the government rather than upon themselves. even though it is not single-payer and even though with so-called public option is to still a government takeover of health care and health care and here is why we keep saying that. the entire architecture is designed to give the federal government control over what kind of insurance is available for patients, how much health care is enough and which treatments are worth paying for. this plan assumes everything is connected to everything else. you can guarantee coverage for preexisting conditions only a few have healthy people in the insurance pool to spread costs and you can only do that by requiring everybody to buy health insurance and you can do that only a if you subsidize people. once you start handing out subsidies you have to impose artificial limits that further inflate the true costs and further decision-making power

from patients and from doctors. it creates a health insurance rate authority, and washington controlled price setting board. this will usurp government's control in regulating insurance premiums and further mother normal market forces that would encourage innovation and cost saving efficiencies. it empowers washington to decide what kind of insurance will be available. the proposal gives the secretary of health and human services a new health benefits advisory committee, an unelected group of federal bureaucrats unprecedented washington power to change the requirements were acceptable coverage. it gets u.s. preventative services task force new powers to further limit patient choice allowing the secretary of hhs to unilaterally deny payment for provincial services contrary to task force recommendations. it empowers a it a comparative effectiveness board created by last year stimulus bill that will restrict riders decisions about what treatments are best for their patients.

let's take a quick look at price tags. as they pointed out at the blair house summit a few weeks ago the reality of this bill violates the presidents promised that this legislation will "not at a time add a dime to our deficit." by my friends would say that cbo has scored this overhaul and instead it reduces the deficit. here this committee we work with cbo every single day. very good professionals and they do their work very well but let's be very clear, cbo's job is to score when his place in front of them. the authors of the bill have gamed the system themselves. writing for smoking veers into the bill. when you strip away the gimmicks the double counting in the faulty assumptions and the faulty assumptions it is clear that this overhaul does not reduce the deficit and it does not contain costs. cost. this charade and the entire past year of debate is dispiriting in so many ways. there are real problems that need to be fixed in health care

and we could have done so so in a bipartisan way. that is the shame of all of this. we agree on the key problems and agree reform is needed. skyrocketing health care costs are driving families, businesses and government to the brink of bankruptcy and leaving millions of people without adequate coverage. we agree on the need to address conditions. we-- realign incentives with patients and doctors and root out waste, fraud and abuse. we agree on the problems and even rhetorically many of the same goals. yet the past 12 months have crystallized. the difference is that approaching what is broken. it didn't have to be this way and it doesn't have to stay this way. at the blair house summit vice president biden claimed we aren't qualified to speak on behalf of the american people. i respectfully disagree ben and i respectfully disagree now. we are representatives of the american people. we communicate every day with

those we serve and it is clear they are engaged. the people we represent and i suspect most of us here passionately believe we need to fix what is broken in health care but i don't believe this is the way to do it. the abuse of the legislative process, the abuse of the constitution, a massive government takeover of health care in america. this process is not worthy of your support. this is not worthy of your vote. let's start fresh and let's work seriously to address this issue and let's do it together. mr. chairman before you move onto the we move onto the motions i would like to ask the requisite 48 hours to submit my views. >> so ordered. >> next on "the communicators" tim sparapani facebook's public policy director. following that former house majority leader dick armey talks about the future of the republican party.

this week on "the communicators" , a discussion about the popular social media sites facebook. our guest is the public elsie director, tim sparapani. >> host: on your screen is tim sparapani who is the public policy director for facebook. mr. sparapani if you would start by giving us a snapshot of what facebook is. >> guest: facebook is one of the fastest growing new communications tools. it is a company that is six years old and our mission is to make it both open and more connected. we do that by providing people a free tool whereby they can share information with anyone anywhere at any time. it has turned into a fabulous success, and so far we have over 400 le and active users worldwide. it has become a phenomenon. >> host: what countries don't permit facebook? >> guest: we are oftentimes block by china, occasionally

vietnam or regularly via tom. it started in november of last year. >> host: why? >> guest: it is a remarkable question. we are not sure. this is not a company with any political agenda whatsoever. we are a vehicle for communications of our users, so whatever our users feel like talking about with their family, friends or business associates, we we are the intermediary that allows that communication to take place so it is unusual that countries would take the step of blocking their own citizens communications at blocking access to our side. >> host: how many employees and where in where and where is it headquartered? >> guest: a little bit over 1200 employees. we still act as a startup company. we are based in palo alto, california, a true silicon valley success story. we feel like we are the successor to a long-term process in silicon valley where

innovation is led to really exciting new tools for people to explore the world around them. i think we are the next step. we hope, in that iteration process. >> host: mr. sparapani facebook recently opened its washington office and you are the public policy director. why does facebook need-- feel the need to have a face in washington? >> guest: we stood on the shoulders of the giants who came before us. i also think we are the next step in the washington d.c. process. we saw a microsoft come to washington, really after they had been embroiled in some difficulties based on antitrust complaints with the department of justice. they were not a tremendously established office here until that moment occurred. in fact to some people's minds there was disdain for washington from the tech community. google i think learned from microsoft's experience.

google said we need to be there before we are in trouble but it did take google seven or eight years into their iteration process before they had a washington office to begin to communicate what was important to the company, to washington. facebook i think learned from both companies. we were here as of our fifth anniversary, between our fourth and fifth anniversaries as a company and i think we have taken the position that it is important for us to translate silicon valley to washington and washington back to silicon valley. these are not places that oftentimes communicate and when they communicate they tend to speak in different languages almost as if they were english and mandarin as opposed to tech and beltway speak. and we stand i think is the intermediary here in washington to help take that communication flow both ways back and forth. i think advantage of that is that we are able to help

washington not regulate or legislate without understanding what is important to a small, energetic startup company with great innovations coming down the pike. i think for the company we are able to help them understand the nuances about social mormons, about long-standing public policy, certainly about the long people's feelings about important questions we have. >> host: recently and before we go any further, cecilia kang is a tech reporter for "the washington post." she writes a column and we should mention that her boss the chairman of the board of "the washington post" is on the board of facebook. before we get to subfor's questions recently there was a senate committee hearing on internet security and this is what senator dick durbin had to say. >> we have asked facebook to come and they replied by saying, we have no business operations in china or for that matter most of the companies in the world. it is a young startup, resources

and influence are limited. we do not have the resources to devote to membership. a but here are the facts. facebook has over 400 million users which makes it the second most viewed web site in the world. about 70% of facebook users are outside the united states. facebook has over 1000 employees, hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenues and is worth billions of dollars that is hardly a mom-and-pop operation that can afford to be part of gni. if facebook acknowledges it engages in censorship. and a letter to facebook and that quote when content chair from a particular jurisdiction violates the local laws or customs, facebook may take down that content. >> guest: there is a lot to respond to by senator durbin and i pray she you giving us the opportunity to do so. a couple of important points. facebook does not have any

business operations in china and by that i mean we don't have any data stored in china. we don't have any servers in china. we don't sell ads in china. we don't consider ourselves to be people who are doing business in china and by any definition that would pass muster in the imitation from senator durbin's staff made clear to us this was going to be a large if not the dominant point of conversation for that hearing. to the second , senator durbin talked about avoiding so far participating in an entity called the global network initiative. this is an idea for your viewers , is a public private harder ship the tween human rights organizations and companies, so far there were three or four companies that have joined gmi. they are without an executive director. they have never had an executive director. they have never had staff and so far what it it is is a set of

principles on paper. designed to help companies navigate these very difficult moments when countries around the world decide to block access to certain tech elegies for their own citizens. facebook has so far decided that's where it needs to put its energy is into talking directly to the u.s. government rather than to other companies about how to help a company like ours open new markets. we desperately want people around the world to be able to use our communications tool. again, it is free by intention. we desperately want people to be able to talk to their family and friends about whatever topic whenever and however. we however are skeptical of the notion that a group of companies, however well-intentioned and human rights activists on their own without a staff, without an executive director can influence the government of china or vietnam or indonesia or turkey

when those countries decide to put in place barriers to prevent the free flow of information and ideas. we believe it is the obama administration's role to stay in the shoes of the great companies coming from the united states to open their markets and allow people to communicate so we have asked again and again for the senate, the obama administration to act and we are hopeful that with their participation and involvement we can in fact open up these markets. we think that is the most profitable place for facebook to put its energies. again you talked about how new are public policy offices. i am one of three people and i can't be flying around the world to open these markets on my own so i have to do it from my seat here in washington. i think that is really the important.. if i could respond to senator durbin's.. staff has been fantastic. they have been opened and met with as many times to talk about

these issues for the many months before the hearing but i have to take issue with a statement the statement that facebook censors. we do not. we have never censored. quite the contrary. we don't do anything like what google has been talking about, as mentioned in the news about google over the last several months. google, microsoft, the companies in order to do business in china has had to make the difficult decision, one i hope we never have to make that in order to open those markets they have had to pre-censor information between consumers and citizens who want to communicate. facebook in contrast and referring to the passage of our letter in response to senator durbin's increase that quite the opposite. where there is a law in place illegal to have on line, and where there is a report from one of our users on her facebook site, back to the company that says you have an infringing content on this site, we we then

act in accordance with the law of the country and we take it down. let me give you a concrete example of how this works and how it is different from the censoring discussion senator durbin mistook our answer to mean. in germany, and austria and several countries in western europe, it is illegal to have nazi propaganda or nazi discussions on line. that is a matter of law. it has been repeated over and over again in statute. is 30, 40, 50 years of history and having that line place. so when some of our users happen to see content between austrians or germans, which is about nazis or pro-nazi propaganda and it is reported to us, we act in accordance with german law for austrian law and we take down that infringing content, but only after, and this is really important, only after our users who were in the country, austria

and germany seek other germans and austrians sharing content which is illegal under the laws of those countries this country so it is not at all a censorship issue. we rely on are our users to police their own experience on facebook or. quite. quite apart from what other companies have been forced to do unfortunately by rogue regimes around the world who have asked them to pre-censor content between folks. so i think senator durbin misunderstood our letter. we don't censor and i hope we never will. >> host: cecilia khan. >> guest: certainly your story is a growth narrative in washington, a broad. 70% of those users are abroad and i wonder what you believe your responsibility as, even if you don't have operations in china, even though you don't have many operations abroad. 400 le and end-users is bigger than the population of the

united states and canada combined so what do you believe your responsibility is in this debate on internet freedom, on how companies should sort of spearhead their own efforts, there should be some responsibility that they should take? >> guest: it is an important question and i'm not sure we have a full answer yet quite candidly. i think we do very responsibility. our responsibility at least begins with the notion that we are going to provide a robust communications tool which is open and free and doesn't make decisions about people's political views, their religious views, their cultural or ethnic biases. we simply allow people to share with people what they want to share and how they want to share it. that is sort of the beginning of the conversation. i think if you asked all 1200 odd employees of facebook what is our responsibility? i think everybody would have a slightly different answer so it

is hard to speak about a company position which is still evolving we do feel a responsibility to allow people to communicate. we feel a responsibility to knock down laws which require censorship as a condition of doing business. let me give you a really bizarre sort of example which is confronting us right now. one that people here in washington are finding pretty shocking. and australia a first world country where we think we have tremendous consistency between the united states and australia in terms of our social norms, our values and systems, there is real talk right now on the government in place about putting in a full force censorship regime. we do have is this operations in australia. we have got staff on the ground. at the contrast that with their experience in china. we are in a vigorous debate right now with the australian government along with other technology companies here in the united states and we are all

trying to get the government not to take a step. we think it would put australia outside of the bounds of modern communication societies. it would erect barriers that would make the internet balkanized if you will, erect barriers that truly create walls around countries rather than knocking them down. so if we have a responsibility it is to help knock down artificial barriers between people around the world, to eradicate barriers between countries and peoples communications and certainly we take that responsibility seriously, enough so that we feel we are going to speak out to the australia government about these proposals because we think they are wrongheaded. >> guest: i feel like if you were to look at a spectrum you have google on the one hand saying we don't agree with censorship in china so we are threatening to pull out her coach or go chippy said they have not pulled out and they have not given a timetable as to whether they are. this is almost two months later. then you have a company like

microsoft saying we don't like censorship but you have to play by the rules of the country you are in. this is what steve ballmer has said. where do you fit facebook if there was a spectrum? are you more towards google or are you more towards what microsoft or somewhere a mix? >> guest: right now they are saying the same things because google has not eshoo said taken a step of actually stopping the sensor to censor to my knowledge. i need to be corrected if i'm wrong. i think facebook is finding its way. there is no question that faced with wants to be able to provide its tool everywhere around the world and that includes china. it is a huge marketplace. we have people in china who are residents in china who are using our service because they have been able to evade the blocking software the chinese government has in place. we are excited about that. do we want to be in china? i think probably in a company

would want to be. i think every major technology company that has come out of silicon valley has tried. will we be successful? i am not sure. i'm not sure what kind of culture shift it would take for the chinese in order to make that happen and i think that is part of the ongoing dialogue. you see from my experience, my example i suggested from australia that even countries where you think the ground is stable and the social norms and the laws are stable enough to allow free flow of communication, there can be an erosion of those things, so i think these are always involved in moments of society and facebook hopes in the future to be able to do this in a free and open china where everyone can communicate exactly how much and what whomever they want. >> guest: as you expand your office in washington you are going to add two more positions? to policy positions. what will those people do and what are the issues that they

will be working on? is this a response to anything that is happening now in washington making sure you have your message across to your legislators and regulators? >> guest: we are excited to be adding more staff. trust me, i am desperately seeking more systems because we keep getting asked to do things like talking about international expertise. those are my areas of expertise but i could spend 24 hours a day , seven days a week doing just those two things were facebook and that wouldn't allow us to engage in discussions and debate and form regulators, legislators a better position on other issues as they begin to evolve for the company. we are going to get an administrative person. the person will help make our office more efficient. i am knocking i would hear. the ideas allowed someone to focus on state government actions in particular, state legislature and also interfacing

directly with consumer protection organizations. we have really want to hear from various consumer groups about how facebook is experience from from the consumer side. we have had an ongoing long-term dialogue with with a variety of groups that we need to have someone doing it more regularly so that person will be performing a number of things. i think that is the beginning of a long-term buildout of this office. if you look at facebook relative to any of the technology companies with offices in washington we are a tiny fraction of their office and i don't know the exact numbers that we have to be a tampa side of most offices in terms of number of staff. >> guest: was it difficult to convince folks in palo alto to beef up your staff? apple only has one person here. that is a reflection i think of their attitude towards some of the issues here. google has been expanding quite

a bit. microsoft has a big office now. you beefing up your office, i think you are going to go to five people? was that a hard sell to the folks in california or is there a recognition that maybe you are being misunderstood or their issues that need more clarification? >> guest: it absolutely was a hard sell. senator durbin talked about us being a bigger company. i sort of disagree. we have a desperate need for more engineers in palo alto. everybody who can do the tech cool things to make facebook faster, cleaner, better for users. that is where the energy of the company which feels like a startup, that is where the energy is going and communicating the message is about that company and what in what the company means are kind of a secondary question. so, in fact every staff person who is out here in washington are talking about policy and regulation is not somebody who is helping to build that that phone of this communications

tool. so, there is some reticence to put in extra energy and as i said there is always going to be i think a residual sense in silicon valley that washington doesn't understand how companies are made, how innovation happens and so we do need more people to help make that communication take place in a more seamless way, but it is a struggle. >> host: this as he spins is c-span's communicators program. our guest is tim sparapani, the public policy director for facebook and cecilia kang at "the washington post" is our guest reporter. she is their technology reporter. just a little bit about mr. sparapani. he served as a senior legislative counsel at the american civil liberties union prior to joining facebook. now, as is your old organization happy with your work at facebook? >> guest: i don't know, i hope so. seems like the mission ahead of

the aclu was not terribly different from the mission i have now at facebook. the goal was to maximize privacy and free-speech. primarily for folks here in the united states. now that we have at facebook 70% of our users outside of the united states i feel i do the same things, maximize privacy and free-speech in real-time with a communications tool but i get to do it on a much bigger stage. it is a worldwide populous, so if anything i think these two visions are remarkably complementing each other. >> host: just to go back quickly to the australian example, what is the impetus of this trillion government for the censorship? >> guest: there've been a variety of incidents over time and i think this is not a typical. we see this here in the united states occasionally. a bad incident happens, crime occurs. it might have some distant

linkage to a new technology tool and the first unfortunate response of legislators is to blame the technology tool rather than individuals. in this case there was a moment when unfortunately a memorial site established on facebook for somebody who was a ceaseless defaced by hackers. there is no company which is impervious to hacking attack to people who want to do despicable things. facebook unfortunately despite robust security measures , anti-hacking, what was the victim of a short-term attack on this particular site. we are not sure what motivated it. since we found out about if we were able to take it down and repair the damage but of course it became an instrument-- interesting situation in australia. some people took the unfortunate fact that rather than decry the behavior behind the attack, they said the technology tool must be a problem and therefore we must

have pre-censorship of all content on the internet. think about that. if we wanted to do that, we would shut down virtually all communications. we would block what is the robust nature of the internet, a free flow of information, a lack of barriers to communication and we would impose a serious one. so this kind of censorship opportunity could be raised here in the united states and in fact it sometimes is. there will be, unfortunately, some crime in the future where someone may have met someone on facebook or there may be some indirect indication to facebook and i guarantee we will see the same sort of conversation take lace in the united states. hopefully our free-speech standards will help us all understand that the speech is not what is the problem. it is really the individual's behavior in that criminal behavior is what should be punished. we hope the australian government will see at the it

the same way. >> host: cecilia kang? >> guest: i would like to go back to your experience at the aclu and maximizing privacy. last december you guys changed your privacy policy settings if you will. a lot of confusion. some people acted very positively and some people not so positively. there was generally a feeling among privacy advocates that some users data became more open on the web. what was response from your 400 million users? i think you told me at some point that impact a lot of people to change their policy settings and i wonder what that says to you? and if you think you handled that correctly in retrospect? >> guest: i do. someone who went from the aclu to facebook with the goal of increasing people's privacy, i feel like we really have a tremendous success. that privacy transition tool was

the first of its kind effort. there's never been a company anywhere that has tried anything like this. we designed a program to make everyone every one of our users stop and think about privacy at least once and for it period of time before they did anything else on our side. no company has ever asked their users to do that. certainly not a company with 400 million customers. as a result our users, almost 50% of them now have customized their privacy settings. the industry standing at the read literature about this and this is only when companies release a little bit of the data is somewhere between four and a percent 8% of users on a tape fickle customer facing cycle and that their privacy settings that there aren't any so the fact we got 50% of our users to actually stop and say privacy is important to us. i'm going to control my data and i have now been given tools by facebook to do so i think is

something that makes the greatest corporate privacy effort in the history. i don't think there is anything that compares to it and i think of it is a huge success so if i could just mention what our customers thought about it. there was a lot of press reporting that suggested at the time that we were going to have a major backlash. i think quite the opposite. are consumers have shown that they embrace the fact that facebook has been open and candid about how data was being used. puts us in juxtaposition from other companies and i think our users understood that by being honest with them and giving them the tools to control their data, that we were on their site and we wanted them to have the experience on facebook that they wanted to have. as a result we saw almost no drop-off in user activities. in fact quite the opposite. we have seen an extraordinary spike in people joining the site had people set entities who are already members of our growth rates have not diminished at all

, and i think we have had a really extraordinary success in dancing the ball for personal privacy. >> guest: do you think those 50% of the people that change their privacy settings, did they make their data more open or did they repeat-- retreat? >> guest: the great majority set the privacy setting and by that i mean not putting any setting in place to actually putting it very are in place, it very are in place for their data to be shared with other people. when i read this is somebody who is then part of the privacy debate for a very long time, i think this is that people says that people understood what was going on, they understood what the choices were and they understood they had tools and they chose to actually exercise those tools to protect privacy. i am actually hardened as they privacy a privacy advocate. >> host: we are just about out of time. very quickly tim sparapani, why is it necessary in your view to have public policy state

directors? >> guest: i think it is important at the state legislative level to have people who can talk to state legislators for the exact same reasons we have talking about with australia. there will be a moment in some states around the country like my state of wisconsin for example where an unfortunate incident may occur in the first reaction will be let's regulate the internet. the internet has to be not only a national standard, one unified set of standards at the unified standard and hopefully other countries will follow the u.s. lead and haven't open have it open and honest internet and share its information freely. at the state level we have to make sure that that open internet starts here at home and all 50 states are operating under the same rules so people's communication isn't blocked at the border from wisconsin to illinois or wisconsin to minnesota. we shouldn't have those kinds of rules to enforce certain norms on the rest of the country particularly with speech. >> host: tim sparapani and

cecilia kang, thank you both for being here. >> guest: my pleasure. >> guest: thank you, peter. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and on line and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube and sign-up for our schedule alert e-mails at c-span.org.

>> former house majority leader dick armey and active member of the so-called tea party movement and chairman of the groucalled reagan works, talks about the future of the republican party. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. my name is allen and i'm the reporter for bloomberg news and the president of the national press club. we are the world leading professional organization and are committed to our future through our programming and fostering a free press worldwide. former information about the press club please visit our web site at www.press.org to donate to our programs please visit www.press.org/library. on behalf of our members worldwide i would like to welcome our speaker and attendees of today's event which includes guest of our speaker as well as working journalist. i would also like to welcome our c-span a public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i

will ask as many audience questions as time permits. i would now like to introduce her head table guests. from your right, kathy kiely of "usa "usa today," ralph today, ralph laney of the eurasian business coalition, todd gilman of the dallas morning news, mark heller of the watertown daily times, rick dunham of the houston chronicle and former president of the national press club. matt kibbe resident of freedomworks. andrew schneider associate editor for kiplinger washington editors and the chairman of the national press club speakers committee. skipping over our speaker, andrea stone, senior washington correspondent for aol does in the speakers committee amber who organize today's event. ambassador c. boyden grey cochairman of the freedomworks foundation and a guest of the speaker. diana of the milwaukee journal sentinel, jonathan salant of limburg is also a former president of the national press up and adam brandon, vice

president for communications for freedomworks. [applause] our speaker today is someone many republicans would love to have over for tea. dick armey is no stranger to washington. after 18 years in congress during which time he became house majority leader leader he now is his second career as the leader of the tea party movement through his group freedomworks. when you saw citizens rally against taxes they consider too high last april or packed town hall meetings last summer to protest democratic funds for health care or perhaps storm congressional offices tomorrow you are watching dick armey organizing acumen come to life. some polls the grassroots tea party movement has become more popular among conservatives than the republican party itself. even as the organization grows into its identity. dick armey however has always known his identity. the ph.d. economist taught at

the university of north texas before turning to politics being elected to the house in 1984. he was a principle author of the 1994 contract with america that helps republicans and 40 years of the majorities in congress. the party he helped lead was not a party of no. army army and house republicans worked for president clinton to pass a balanced budget and welfare reform even as the bitter impeachment battles of that decade increase the partisan tensions. armey left congress in 2003 and was mostly out of the spotlight until last year. an outspoken critic of resident obama, he was quoted recently as saying it was very reasonable to expect republicans to adhere to his new so-called 10 commandments, a list of party principles that some have dubbed a purity test. called the outsiders insider in a recent profile in the "new york times" magazine, please welcome former house majority leader, dick armey. [applause]

speaking initially, before leader armey's remarks will be see boyden gray. [applause] >> after that introduction, then all of you know dick armey anyway so i don't want to take up any of his time. i just want to say how fond i am of him and how much i respect him, and just one little anecdote about my relationship back in the reagan-bush years. we plotted-- he was really helpful -- that we plotted to try to figure out a way to get a line veto back on the executive branch. and did involve possibly vetoing the congressional staff authorization for the congressional staff in return for giving executive branch the veto back. it didn't work out but it was a great idea and i think to use

that and go to describe that what he does now and what this tea party movement is about now is not that different than what reagan stood for and pushed for with his help not so many years ago. it is said that tea party as some kind of radical fringe. i think it is mainstream reaganism myself and for a member-- what reagan said, he said the heart and soul is libertarianism and what he meant by that is limited government is the asic anchor of the conservative way of thinking. he once said also reagan, quote whether we believe in our capacity for government or whether we abandon the american revolution and confess an intelligent intellectual elite in the far distant capitol can plan our lives better than we can plan them ourselves. i'm not sure that doesn't kaptur

pretty much about what dick armey is now working with. so i view this as a wonderful correction of the notion somehow that you can have big government conservatives, and i don't think you can. i think you have to have limited government circumstances so i will let dick armey explain this much better than i can. let me turn it over to dick. [applause] >> thank you both for that nice introduction. i always feel so privileged to be with lloyd and gray. i just often, mostly worry if i am smart enough to be with you. anyway i so admired boyden gray. i wanted to talk about what is now known as the tea party movement. i know there is a lot of confusion about that, and i have studied on it quite intensely as

my general tendency. i might just mention i am an academic by profession. i am a professional economist and my last years in the university university were university were devoted to what was a new emerging field within the discipline of economics out of virginia with people like james buchanan in the public choice theory which i always described as the aberrant behavior of people in public office. so it is almost instinctive for me when i see something happening out there, that affects public policy, to study on it intently and as i see this , this is another way of grassroots conservativism and i think i forget the number by 45 ways that i have observed intimately in my adult lifetime.

i would suggest to you that the way this ordinary people expressing their concern for their country. and their concerns and fear of what their government might do to their country. or oftentimes their hope there hope for what government might get that would honor the tradition and history of the country as they see it and hold it dear. and the first ways i think was born out of optimism. notice if you will as the waves go through time, they get bigger and more impacted. the first wave i call the goldwater wave and 64. it gave birth to dick armey. my in politics? i am the goldwater baby. it was born out of the optimism of what this person who loves the constitution who believes extremism in liberty is a virtue , what he might do for

america to honor its great traditions. the second wave is, and noticed that the waves ed and after goldwater many of us ads in disappointments. i rememberñuñ being asked in 19, do you think ronald reagan will be elected president? mike response was no, bearing the burdens of my goldwater heartbreak, people like us don't get elected to office. and then reagan got elected and there was a way that was known then as the reagan, citizen activists emerging, being involved to their optimism and there hope. now we begin to get a better sense of identity of who are these people with the reagan wave? first of all they are far more likely than most of us to have read the federalist papers, to actually have read the constitution, to have read the history of the thinking of our founding fathers, to think of

our founding fathers is the most courageous geniuses in the history of the economy, the history of the country. ..

to cherish that constitution to believe the framers of the constitution were extremely intelligent word discipline demand men who prayed over and weighed over absolutely every word, no word got in to the constitutional i accident. they met exactly what they wrote. they knew the meaning of the word is and wrote what they meant. they haven't suffered the indignities of the construction of some and they took the english language liberally with a great deal of discipline. to believe that it is the purpose of the court to interpret the law to see if disinfect reconciled to the literal translation of the constitution and to believe that your duty, your oath of office to protect and serve the constitution should be taken with a religious sense of commitment. the folks are frankly pretty much normal people. they are involved in their

normal lives and would rather do so, would rather believe the american government can continuously understand that liberty is a gift given demand kind by the lord god almighty and the duty of government to protect it and be confident of our government will see the duty and to read without me being involved and only involve themselves out as a sense of distress and concern and would rather go home so after the reagan waived accomplished its purpose there's a great rejoice and everything but it came back again. we were confident and relaxed. then the next wave that came along after reagan won his third election and george herbert -- george w. -- george h. w. bush broke everybody's heart in the fall of 1990 and ensured that he would not have a second term because he hadn't been aware of the fact simple things eighth

graders can understand, politicians often times can't get you can't say the most memorable thing you would have said in your entire life and go back and expect to be the elected. and so then there's another way they can out and this time they came out in its bitter disappointment over george herbert walker bush and came out on behalf of ross perot, and was much noticed but result in virtually no results whatsoever except i believe the only elative official that came out of it was jesse ventura hardly a great contribution welfare of mankind. but that some of us might have looked back at that we've we often called the police the and think it is a good thing that happened. i don't know there's a great country-western song my heart just cannot take another you and i feel that way about jesse ventura. in a way that was minnesota's

problem and 80 serve him. but in any way that we've didn't do very much but these were regular men. these are normal everyday folks like you and me and they are coming out of optimism or a of disappointment. then we had another called the contract wave. they looked at the republican party in 1994 and said my gracious what do we have here. republican -- we have a political party in america that really wants to stand on the principles of constitutional limited government of individual liberty of freedom, of fiscal restraint responsibility and they said these guys are worth fighting for, they are worth working with and so we had a happy wave of optimism born out of the contract with america. and then of course what

happened? the republicans doing what politicians do which is drink backslide your swing by the gallants, switch their vision in office from a policy vision for america to a parochial vision for themselves and they broke everybody's heart. so then you had another feared wave that started with and this is the beef we are looking at now. i give you the birth date to this wave as the day that george w. bush endorsed arlen specter over pat to me six years ago and there was a little birth as birth tend to be but it was expressed in this way would in the heck is the president doing in forcing the democrat when he had him and for specter and there was the prediction he will come across as soon as he gets reelected and that happened the eventually the defector went back to his roots and there were

validated and there is a sense of foundation. there's a sense among these folks no matter what expectation i have of disappointing behavior on behalf those who are trusted with the great honor and privilege of public office they are going to rise to my expectations and then george w. bush went further with the great t.a.r.p. fiasco and to grow more anxious and actually while it grew in its disappointment in the republicans with their earmarks and george bush with his t.a.r.p. and this consistent behavior on the part of republicans to be like the democrats, it never in fact found its legs because it had a ready of hope. they believed initially that when george w. bush was defeated and democrats came back that

things would get better and people said why weren't you guys out in the street marching? because many of our activists bought barack obama is going to save us from this crowd up there, the crowd of people who don't understand the bush republicans. and when president obama got in office immediately we got more than allowed, the automobile industry, we had the great insurance takeover scheme, we had cap and a trade living and mandatory unionization out there and these folks started to say oh my goodness what have we got here? this guy scare's us. nancy pelosi, speaker pelosi scare's us. we have people that do not cherish america the way we do we would do it with destruction with a romantic egalitarianism. they didn't read ayn rand or fahmy since. they didn't read the constitution, they didn't read

the federalist papers. what did they read? i'm fearful that a sociology course or a worse english course at duke university. they don't seem to understand anything important and precious to us and it's scary so look at this wave. the first thing you have to understand. these are ordinary americans scared these people will black america. we won't have a free market system by which we will all prosper. we won't have a government that knows its limitations and protect our liberty that we will have government control and the one thing history has shown time after time controlled economies are failed economies. and it is frightening to them. our children will be so deep they will never get out and will destroy the most creative and innovative health care system in the world and the whole world will be made worse because

creation creativity will disappear in health care. and so they are aroused now. but make no mistake about it these are not kooky birds, so right now the greatest player, the big tent on the political scene in america is called the tea party movement. i see it and define it as small government grassroots activism that got tea party activists are part of it, freedom works as part of it, it's the longest standing most active organization with in this movement. why did they find us? they found us because they got concerned they wanted to get organized. let's do something. how do you do it, they went on the internet and found us and one of the reasons this is a much bigger and more effective is it is the first internet we've and the by the way is the reason why this we've is not likely to happen. there are two things. this wave of activist

conservatism which is normal ordinary everyday americans who are in essentially the same as you and me who would rather be home with my kids little league team were mauney bridge club but feel compelled to be of and defense the liberty are not going to go away after the republicans' most likely win a majority in the house of representatives and quite possibly win a majority in the senate if not this election cycle certainly the next and when there is a republican reform republican in the white house because this wave is not going to allow some republican soft on his commitment to the constitutional limitations to big government to get the nomination. so someone who is reagan and his stature. and in the past with such success this great wave was back

but now they will lead back because they had the internet by which to stay in touch with one another and wife edolphus something akin to the national guard. they will be involved in their daily life, involved in their daily comforted by the fact we now have good people but they will have their activism at the ready and when the republicans, as they will in the majority in the white house consumer back sliders' white start becoming discomfort of analyzers start looking for what is in it for me now? start getting provoke deal short-sighted and simple-minded and last in the performance of their duties they are going to see these guys are back. they won't just have gone away and disarm and left it in their hands so this is a big change. this is a big sea change. now one final characterization of this that i want you to understand.

these are folks who don't care about politics and don't like politics and don't like politicians. thir skeptical and cynical about all of them. but they are also realistic enough to know that 99% of all people who hold public office in america do so as republicans or as democrats and they also have a sense that the democratic party has pretty much abandoned all the things that they've cherished as they've committed themselves to the romantic egalitarianism and that the republican party has a chance of understanding. the have a tendency to look to the republican party and say to the republican party if you can rise to the location of liberty, if you can show us that you understand and commit to our personal liberties and to the productivity and effectiveness real free-market economic

activity we want to be worked full with you. they've already found themselves making a difference within the republican primary process to reduce the must me today why don't they deal with the democrats? they see no hope. and i'm from texas. texas is a part of the last 200 years dominated by the conservative democrats. the last conservative democrat to win a statewide primary in texas was to lloyd bentsen, 1972. you see the same thing in south carolina you were probably the last conservative democrat to win south carolina. conservative democrats don't win primaries any more any place even places like the carolinas or texas or tennessee. so they despair over that and if we've got any help at all we must put it that this unreliable as they are with republicans and try to rehabilitate them and reform and demand and manage their behavior, punish them when

they lapse and applaud them when they do well so they are in a great sense right now more than they have ever been before that a great big swing votes to and right now they have a clear understanding what they are swinging against. swinging against the democrats because the democrats are threatening them half to death but they haven't yet found themselves comfortably able to say yes and i am swinging for these guys because they are still waiting for the republicans to show they are not the republicans that broke our heart a few years ago and the republican party has got to find a way to convince them that they're reliable adults. a rare thing indeed to be found holding public office and they are cynical and doubtful and while the same time hopeful because they basically are seeing america is too precious a gift to the history of the world

to not be saved and we must look for its salvation wherever it is possible and right now as pathetic as it is the republicans are the only hope we have got so don't think of themselves as energetically some kind of a allied organization or republican party that is not the case. the republican party is of course politically inept. they do not have a good record of creating its of a reorganization. one final point. for those of you who wonder where our money comes from it comes from real people in america. you want to worry who gets put money from political activism, what party look at a.r.o.r.n., part of their money comes from the government. don't talk about the 15% of the money that we get that comes from corporations. the just ask for the privilege of keeping their identity private so they don't have or

one specter going after them because he didn't get his due fee plan for insurance reform on his best this and with a deep in debt as he would have taken against anybody he could have found that was instrumental in founding freedom works as a destroyed the bill and you would understand why country liquors might want a little privacy because the need to protect themselves from vindictive office holders and they have a right to that. the law allows the their privacy beyond. but a.r.o.r.n. on the other hand takes public money so look into them. all right, somebody's telling me that i've said enough and i am sure i have. and adams says he wants you to lescol the questions you want. he is the axle on this staff. >> thank you for your time this afternoon and for having taken the time to answer questions of which there are many.

first one, just bringing up your commentary on independence party candidate jesse ventura in the election of 90. that was very much attributed to grassroots mobilization over the internet. the answer group that opposed the iraq war. moveon.org, the campaign toward the in and of president obama have often been attributed to the new politics of the internet and the ability to mobilize grass-roots. how is your group different from those groups in terms of internet mobilization and how are they not simply another wave crashing on the partisan shores? >> well, first of all i think i can say certainly there are others that got better use of the internet more quickly than the grassroots small government activist state. so, number one, we are now seeing the small government and

activists. moveon.org is not a grass-roots organization because you know the name and that he provides the money. you're still trying to figure out who provides the money to us and is in charge. you are going nuts. who's in charge? and the reason that you are going nuts is nobody's in charge. that's what happens when you have grassroots. when there's grassroots nobody's in charge. the democrats left wing outfit soros at the top is not grassroots. they are all paid. whoever showed up for a.r.o.r.n. without a paycheck? funded by federal money. from the democratic party who needed an ox of a reorganization out there. that's not grassroots. grassroots is the real people getting out of their homes with their own expense, going to washington on their own terms with their own something to say about leave me alone.

that's real grassroots and it's true i don't want to be too harsh on jesse ventura but don't you think he's been acting a little bizarre lately? medium and long it seems strange to me that's all. >> what are some of the strong movant the tea parties must be where? >> we are going to mobilize the attention of the voters at large and in the and democracies are carried out by officeholders. you have to stay with the key issues. stay focused on the big issues. the senter stake of the largest tent in american politics today is fiscal responsibility of individual of liberty, restrict to big government and defense of liberty and that doesn't mean you ignore other issues but you also handle them in a responsible fashion and the

other thing when you have a tent like this and that much diversity and in this tent if you walk among these folks you have christians and libertarians walking hand-in-hand and evangelicals we haven't seen that since reagan. we have republicans and independents and democrats. we have all philosophical strips and some to keep birds. when did they never show up. 1985 my first town hall meeting of their work fruitcakes, who are these people? who are the grocers'? they are democrats. the first thing i would like to remind you they are democrats but you've got to get some folks never going to come to the tent and they are going to have issues that you are not going to be altogether comfortable with them. but in fact if you are going to have a big tent of diversified tolerance, and you just live with that. some people are going to show that are not perfectly happy to

you. you know what happens at family reunions? [laughter] >> much of your appeal has come from pocketbook issues such as taxes and at the same point issues such as immigration have changed in past years. what role to individuals such as tom tancredo play? >> though republicans frustrated me and my line on that was who in the republican party was the genius that said that now that we've identified the fastest-growing voting demographic and america let's go out and alienate them. we have serious issues. by the become virtually no emergency that the government response is in fact an emergency. governments make the impression of emergency so they can prosper. republicans are the only ones that create by which they can buy. they're the most talented part

of losing this natural constituency in the history of the world. this party was born in the emancipation proclamation and can't get a black vote to save its life how did they do that. same thing with hispanics. fix the ims. the biggest problem and immigration in america today is the dysfunctional ims. a rude and mean ins. they treat these folks ruda and callis and crew. then you can control your borders. republicans, when i was a majority leader am i salles tom tancredo could not get on stage because i saw how destructive he was. that doesn't mean he would ignore an important issue before the american people to handle it with some sense and some compassion. this is a nation of immigrants

we are today's way from st. paddy's day to realize every person in this room is cui to pretend they are irish? [laughter] trent lott said why don't they do that for the scotts? i said because you've never heard a scott walked into the bar and say drinks are on me. [laughter] so the fact of the matter is the hispanic american myths the most natural born constituency for the republican party since the black american was in 1965, and these guys are out there trying to blow it. just do we write. understand the tradition and history generosity of the great nation. there is room in america. if you love america and freedom and work, if you're willing to pay your weight and taxes and obey the law and you should be welcomed in america and we should have institutions of our government that make your presence here not only a convenient matter but a pleasant matter.

so our problem is what? the biggest problem in the immigration is a government that doesn't do its duty properly. fix the government, then we can attend of the problems of the deserving people. the republicans have got to get this right and get off of this goofiness that they have. ronald reagan said tear down that wall. tom tancredo said build a wall. who was right? america is not a nation that builds walls, it opens doors. >> when the republicans were in power they tripled earmarks, turned the budget surplus to a deficit and enacted a prescription drug program without paying. haven't the republicans for their credibility on budget and deficit matters? >> that's the point i make. i say to john boehner and by the we a lot of people don't realize this the 1994 when we did the contract with america it was

john boehner that wanted to include a ban on earmarks. so he got in and gets it now but the fact of the matter is they went back in office and did a disservice to this country and offended a lot of the natural voting constituency in doing it. that's why they can't do in my estimation they can't come back with a second contract with america. you can't offer a contract if you don't have the standing to offer the contract. i say i'm from washington. i am a republican and i've got a contract for you you're going to say yeah you want me to fall for that again? that is why the press roosts activist movement has developed and through participation by the grassroots activists all over the country they count a contract from america which will be unveiled april 15 at the rally which most of you will underestimate the number of people by tenfold and then

report, cut it in half and then report. but at that rally we will of the of the contract for america and we invite everybody. come and accept the contract. we think they've got the ability to stand on the legs to accept the contract while they don't have the ability to stand on legs and offer the contract. we think there may be one or two democratic officeholders were seekers that will try to accept the contract and they will force suffered severe reprisals from the leadership and people the delegate. but so we don't expect a lot of democrats to actually show up and accept the contract. i would love to see what happens. i remember when -- jean of the texas of the asian >> it will come to me tomorrow.

vote against the tip o'neill and the next day he found his office doors off. he voted for tip o'neill, remember? the next day ralf went to the office and the doors were locked. he calls the number 2424, you get locked out of your office call 2424. the guice is i'm sorry but the speakers if you want to get in your office you need to go visit with him. so that democrat says i like that the contract from america. i think i'm going to sign up but just as well just go directly to speaker policy's office and save yourself the time. >> chairman conyers endorsed senator specter before the parties which increase in florida. minority leader richard to the commission mcconnell ran. do the such republican leaders get it? >> this is one of the things i'm

kind of to cold play. were grass-roots activists i have a keen on it. they know what is going on in their communities. and when chris announced he was going to run for the senate all of washington swooned and all of the voters on the ground across the state of florida said this guy is not going to be elected senator from florida. look a bit goofy insurance scheme he's got in all of a sudden this guy shows up and says i think i'm going to run. rubio, wasn't he the guy that traveled all over the state and talked to people and listened to them when he wanted to be the speaker? he campaigns like us. they said we are going to go with rubio. he can win. he will win. it was our grassroots activists that first set we have a guy named ron that can run the senate seat in massachusetts. i said get out of here. the republican party said go on. they said no he campaigns the

way we do. he's out there with a chevy pickup. i said first of all it's not afford he can't be too bright but nevertheless, he's telling what we do is we ought to go out and help him. all of a sudden remember the new york 23rd our dog is called up some of the day the nominee was handed over and said republicans just lost this congressional race to nominate somebody who can't possibly win. our real people on the real to ground in the districts and states to live with the voters this is a shocker for you they know better what's going on than the people in the office is in washington looking at superficial criteria like they can himself on their campaign or they've got large name ideas like i've got the largest name idea among farmers in all of america and probably anybody in this country. you think i'm going to win a primary and iowa? no because peanut farmers and corn farmers hate me because i'm

against ethanol so a large man idea doesn't mean that you are delectable it just means people know you it doesn't say whether they like to suggest means they know you but politicians and politics is very superficial business and the choice criteria is oftentimes not something that runs very deep or is very well informed or insightful. our grass-roots activists no more quickly what's happening in terms of the productions of the voting constituency than the party apparatus why? because our people live in america. these folks live in washington. there is a big difference. >> the most recent electoral test of the tea party movement was in the texas primaries. and in those elections the candidate for governor fizzled after she failed to repudiate the mining law of conspiracy theories and most of the congressional candidates got few votes.

fox? >> you mean the tea party -- yeah, this should surprise nobody. if you take a look at the infrastructure of the republican party and democratic party is very real and strong and pervasive and has been in place a long time. third-party efforts don't compete well with that and in an awful lot of these in texas we have a term we got called coca-cola cowboy. we don't call a cowboy until we've seen your right, you are all hat and no cattle. some guy shows up and says this tea party is a big deal out there. those folks are making a lot of noise i want to get in the campaign against kevin brady. how did i get to be that? a sidley was and the tea for party folks say you can't just

blame most of the american people don't do well with the english language pure hit tea party doesn't mean a party called mt. it means a bunch of people got together and threw tea in the water to protest excessive all petrouchka this debate the -- excessive of truce government and they say there is a third party in america called the tea party. i'm going to be that he candidate. so they don't do well. the fact of the matter is republican party is going to -- now what we do is we are helping to the republican party in florida to pick the right candidate through its normal process. we are helping the republican party of utah to pick the right candidate through its normal process. so that our job is not to have

our folks when the election against the republican nominee that get the republican party to nominate somebody who believes in freedom, liberty, small government and all the things we cherish and that party can be what it is and has been in the past on occasions the party of reagan. >> how would one tell who the authentic tiahrt candidate is other than the criteria of if it is successful with it is the tea party, if it is not successful it is an imposter? >> the first thing i talked a lot of folks about this, if someone shows up and says i have to pretend the date and call somebody who is a known identified tea party activist that you've actually seen before, doing something and say do you know this guy. if they know them then he's got a beginning with you. but the fact of the matter is the small government conservative movement which includes people who call

themselves t party patriots and so forth is the principles of liberty as embodied in the constitution with the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the federalist papers your understanding the way the world works a few read how ibm can and nieces. i know it's hard but it cuts deeper. any eighth grader can understand cannes. i can show you the model in 15 minutes if you have a sixth grade education you can understand it. read things that run deep and understand the marginal conditions about the kid efficiency. and get deep into things and then all of a sudden you understand freedom works. freedom of enterprise, freedom of individual right to hold your expressions commodore first amendment second amendment rights, all of these things are precious to us and they were given to us by greed and courageous brave people all of whom -- i'm going to say something now that i want you to -- i tell you i believe with all

my heart. those people at the american constitutional congress were all smarter than any number of people in this town today that would equate to the number. you can't get -- if there were 100 people were i don't know how many, if there were 100 people you can't find 100 people in the town today that are as smart as they work. and they were more courageous of any number of people you can find. who the heck did these people think they were to try to sit in this town with their audacity and second-guess the greatest genius most courageous genius in the history of the world, who the hell do they think they are and our folks just get mad about that. we look at the sisters and say you guys got it right. mr. big shot, who do you think you are?

these people should be cherished. no nation stayed in the world, the world never got a gift. so great as these wonderful geniuses who had enough decency to respect the language and use it with discipline. how bizarre is that today? they understood the meaning of every word they used and the use it with precision and cared about what am i saying? the didn't just babel. they didn't just be glib, they didn't think that talent was a substitute for ability. they thought you had to work hard and take a risk to create a nation and light on any before or since having been created and they ought to be celebrated and respected. and quite frankly, we, and i dare say now i speak for all but send a small room, we are short on patience with modern day

smart-alecs who think they know better than those wonderful courageous and brave people that gave us the greatest nation in the history of the world. and we simply ask them have a little respect will you? have a little respect. >> part of your job as majority leader was to put together the majority with votes from moderate republicans. how did you do that and what do you believe the moderates bring to the gop? >> well, by the adis current legislative relationship is quite an act. the first rule we had was as we take a bill through the committee process, fix the problems along the way, don't try to fix the problems on the floor. resolve the problem -- i remember the banking bill that is bad the cursed by people who think they can manage thinking in america. we sent the bill back to the kennedy four times before we let

the chairman to get to the bill. it was very painful, he got impatient. it was very simple. people have major problems with the bill we put it on the floor. we won't be able to get the votes to pass it, let's go back and fix the problems. the legislative process requires rigorous hard work, a thorough and complete hard work. you don't just slap negative something of the weekend and stick it on the floor. we have been legislating by panic certainly since 9/11 of 01. is that not right? bucket congress i see a bunch of lemons, somebody's going to jump in hollow fire and rush off the cliff. could you imagine somebody coming to me, if you had come to me and said mr. majority leader on a need a bill that gives what is it $700 billion to this sector of the treasury no strings attached no questions let them do what they want and i needed by monday? i probably would have said you

suppose we ought to stop and think about this for a minute? but sell one, look what they've done in health care. you talk about annette. no wonder dennis kucinich is mad. the star of saying we're going to have the government to single-payer, the government is going to do all they couldn't even get that from among themselves, they said okay we will have a government auction and we will make enrollment in the option so onerous and punitive and fraught with audits and other reprisals that people will just voluntarily come. they couldn't get that even among themselves. now they got nothing other than a federal mandate everybody must buy insurance as we defined and a few other things to sabotage the private-sector and this effort to get something and they have to go through extraordinary

kinds of parliamentary practices and to compel through congress just so they can walk away having said we did something. now that is not the definition of in that i don't know what is. the president is going up to help me, ohio to try to get kucinich. so first, do serious rigorous legislative work. and it's helpful if you really want to get it voted on and get the votes, have the thing somehow just remotely acceptable so the voting constituents or the poor slobs you're trying to throw under the bus. it's cracking me up. these guys crack me up. the biggest problem you've got right now is they are an athlete

trying to do the wrong thing. if they listen to wheelan jennings they would have gotten to the point he said very clearly there's no right way to do the wrong thing and they can. they probably can force this through because you can't discount the number of people who can be moved by a ruthless and powerful political leader or group of political leaders. the consequences this to say no to powerful and ruthless people who have a serious case can be personally very painful and then a few think the average member of congress off and the senate is first and foremost on the a self-serving inconvenience minimize your who doesn't have a lot of principles the stand on in the first place it doesn't take a whole lot to move a jellied sign. so they will probably get their votes but just think of the pain they will have put themselves

and their own members through in order to only do the most feasible way as possible to wrong thing. >> sausage making a side do you think the democrats could get a political balance from passing health care and could you please we in on speaker pelosi's skills on getting votes? >> no, they will get politically balanced. if i can do play on words there is a pun intended. they say only bright people get the pawns. but anyway. they will get bounced to read you have to understand the american people don't want this in any iteration. and you have to understand i like nancy pelosi personally. i like harry reid personally. i had more friends than were democrats faugh and more enemies that were republicans and get part by we had the same

experience. the reasons were that -- and a democrat never did office politics against me and that is the mean stuff but the fact of the matter is what has probably surprised me more than anything else about speaker pelosi his ineptness. i didn't realize anybody could rise to the position of speaker and be that in connect. you have to understand the democrats in office have practiced purposeful sloppy work for years in order to enfranchise the most important constituencies, trial lawyers and bureaucrats. so they are so accustomed to doing sloppy work that i don't think they have left within them the skills to do the disciplined hard work that such adventures require so i don't really falter -- she wasn't trained and skilled disciplined work. she was still in a sloppy work. harry reid, too.

it breaks my heart for him he's quick to lose his senate seat but he doesn't have the administrative skills to do this. this is hard work. one final point, i believe with all of my heart -- i am [inaudible] i don't think that nancy pelosi is that mean that a person. i'm very surprised a lot of the main things she does and i honestly believe that hurt me in this comes from george so i just want to say that. i don't think nancy pelosi is nearly as mean as people think she is. i think that he's back their saying i hated these blue dogs anyway let's throw them under the bus. anyway, i'm surprised by that i really am shocked by that. but i don't think -- she's more in it than i thought she was but she's not as mean as people think she is. >> you have repeatedly cited the federalist papers that is an intellectual inspiration for government conservatism of the

tea party movement hit alexander hamilton the author of the majority of the federalist papers was regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government. thoughts? >> i would have to go back and review this and the first thing you see if you tell me about hamilton is widely regarded by whom? today's modern day ill informed political science professors? i wouldn't take their word for much of anything. first political science? what on the call with political opinion? anyway. but i just doubt that that was the case in fact about hamilton. i will go back and study on that question in mind. but there were so much warning against the travails for example of a legislation body that would cede its just and necessary authorities to the executive branch and how much of that had we seen going on in this country. so again, i just -- i would first question your authority of the characterization of

hamilton. >> we are almost out of time before asking the last question we have a couple important matters to take care of. first to remind us of the future speakers on april 1st we will have robert groves, the director of the u.s. census bureau. on april 5th we will have douglas schoem and the commissioner of the internal revenue service. on april 12, dennis quaid will discuss the prevention of potentially deadly medical errors at the press club luncheon. second, and the moment we all have been waiting for before the last question, we would like to present our speaker with the coveted national press club mug. >> thank you. thank you. [applause] i'm going to really get myself in trouble with my press. these are great for target practice. [laughter] >> now for our final question

and this actually there is a final question and it actually relates to the discussion that we had in the moment before the events began themselves, which is the admiration of that cowboy hat you have sitting there at the table. wondering if you could take a couple of moments to talk to the audience about your hat and explain whether there is any cattle behind its. >> yes, i do have cattle and i can ride and this is a 200 x before the fleet could be made by space. it's the only i've seen in my life. mckee in from california has been in the business about 100 years. he's never seen a 200 x beaver. i couldn't afford a 200 x beaver but my wife could.

space is the most popular hat but i've discovered and this breaks my heart, in upstate new york there is a hat company and they will make you a six x beaver that will be of the same quality as what stetson gives in the ten x. so what they're my hat's off to you they make a great at. i have two of them and they are a marvelous hat, but the western hat is a wonderful instrument other than being downright stylish and manly, right? [laughter] it's just the cowboy uses it for a lot of things and we don't do that so much anymore. nancy reagan gave me a copy of ronald reagan's stetson and i loved it and i ordered and my wife said you are not going to wear that no more.

she didn't say that, she said you are not going to wear that anymore. and so she went out and bought me that. so the reagan stetson still hangs in my study properly as it should but that is how i can to be wearing the stetson because of nancy reagan gave you a copy of ronald reagan's hatch wouldn't you want to wear it? and i did. so than -- but i hope you like to have as much as i do. [applause] >> thank you for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press club stuff in putting the library joining the club and how to acquire a copy of today's program please go to the website, www.press.org. thank you. this meeting is adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible cversations] c-span or public affairs content is available on television, radio and online and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube and synnott for our schedule alert e-mail at c-span.org. at the closing news conference of the national people's congress, chinese premier responded to questions

on china trade and currency policy and relations with the u.s. following the dalai lama's visit and arms sales to taiwan. this 35 minute portion is courtesy of the to watch the entire program go to c-span.org to read parts of the season or in chinese followed by the english translation. >> jeff from the financial times of like to ask a question about the chinese currency policy. the economy is now growing very strongly in china, you've recovered quickly and inflation is rising almost close to the 3% target that you set for the year so regardless of pressure and comments from other countries isn't it now in china's interest to begin appreciating your currency? thank you.

>> [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] >> translator: [speaking in chinese]

[speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese]

[speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese]

[speaking in chinese] >> translator: first why don't think the are in b. has depreciated. let's take a look at a set of figures here. we did a survey of exports of 37 countries in the world towards china last year. 16 out of the 37 countries exports of more goods to china. talking about the european area where this journalist comes from on the whole experts of european countries have decreased by 20.3%. yet it exports to china only

fell by 15.3%. last year germany's exports to china reached 76 billion euro reaching historical high. and last year exports of the united states dropped by 17% but the exports to china only declined by 2.2%. from this we can see that china has become an important export market for its neighboring countries including japan and the are okay. it's also a major export market for european countries and the united states. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

[speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese]

[speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: second, since the outbreak of the international financial crisis, we have made strong efforts to keep our in the exchange rate of a stable level. this has played an important role in facilitating the recovery in the global economy. we'll start to reform the exchange rate regime from july, 2005, and since then rnb has depreciated by 20% against the u.s. dollar. the effective exchange rate of rnb rose by 16%. here i would like to point out that between july, 2008 and february, 2009, in the midst of the raging international economic crisis, the rnb did not devalue.

actually, the effective exchange rate of the rnb rose by 14.5%. .. [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> the exchange rate policy is from the commission and the overall situation of the economy of that country. greek call for a free trade because we are of the view that free trade row help people keep economy's going also peace and harmony to the. [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: we are opposed and the practice of finger code teeing zero days pointing or to force other countries with their currencies but this practice is not in the interest of the reform of the exchange rate regime. [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: on trade issues we have always maintained they should be resolved through communication and equal competition needs to weigh woodwind solution teeeleven. [speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: we will

continue to implement in the managed market-based r&d exchange-rate regime and for all come we continue the review 90 the exchange rate basically stable at the balanced level. think you. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: people of seven dsos vitter of sites the tightness stance for free trade. we know it has become the biggest exporter in the world. however in the past weeks and months there have been rising protectionist measures against china and we have also seen increasing trade friction between china and the united states. some say that trade protectionism has affected in a serious way recovery of the global economy per car blunder what is the view of the chinese government of this issue? thank you. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: i am a staunch supporter of free trade press as i said i believe the free trade can not only promote their growth of the world economy, it will also promote harmony in the world. at the same time it can also change and hong improve people's mind. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

[speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese]

[speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese]

[speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: nine understand some countries want to increase their exports, but what i don't understand is the practice of depreciating one's own currency and attempting to press other countries to appreciate hong their currencies for the sole purpose of their exports. that is a protectionist practices. when the financial crisis was spreading far and wide trade protectionism did not dissipate, rather at it has gotten worse. countries should be fully alarmed by such a development. we will continue to take measures to increase our input.

last year they were very difficult. we have several procurement missions to european countries and the united states. we will continue to make every effort to promote basic equilibrium in our balance of people. to the international response and to the recovery of a global recovery. what is most important now is the doha round of the negotiation process and we must make a joint effort for establishment of the fair international trading order by giving a reasonable and balanced conclusion to the doe ha negotiations. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

speeeighteen i hope the it is states will recognize the status of the high technology and commodities to china because that will help promote trade balance in the world. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

[speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: agreed to a one thing that you may not be very familiar and it is true that china has a very big size of trade of 30% of the trade is the -- trade and 60 percent are from foreign businesses are greater cooperation between chinese companies and foreign businesses. therefore to restrict trade with china is tantamount to causing difficulty where businesses of your own

country. >> thank you. >> [speaking mandarin chinese] [laughter] [speaking mandarin chinese] a. >> translator: would eurocrat the press conference you said you were a bit worried about china's assets in the united states. one year has passed and i wonder you more or less worried about the china's assets in the united states or have you become confident in the chinese and in the

u.s.? second me, your view about the biggest cause of concern and worry apartheid not on the extra mile front? >> [speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: it as it is known to all that china has a massive foreign exchange reserve, we must protect and make it the best of these

assets. with the exchange reserves we follow the principles of ensuring the safety, liquidity and good value increase of our foreign exchange reserve. >> [speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: we have been buying the bonds from some countries on the international markets. the purpose is to introduce an appropriate level of diversity into our foreign exchange holdings to serve the purpose that i just mentioned. >>

[speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: dear dennis davidson is a country of a major reserve currency a. and eighth fluctuation of the u.s. by of the currency is a big cause for concern for us that i sense five was not concerned about chinese assets at the press conference that last year i want to make this a rare marks at the press conference this year. >>

[speaking mandarin chinese] >> [speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: we cannot afford any mistake houselights it is when it comes to running a were financial markets. here of apply to stress the u.s. bonds are guaranteed by the national credibility of the united states. i hope the united states will take concrete steps to reassure the investors. >>

[speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: natalee in the interest of the investors but also the united states itself. >> [speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: you'll also asked a question about what is the biggest fraud or concern for china as far as the in there mid beyond china's borders is concerned for our reply to say whether not there will be stability or security in the external environment. as reno china is concentrating on promoting development and in this protested this important for us to have a and external environment to have dave peaceful and at the security internationally. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: as i already mentioned uncertainties of the global economy will already affect the chinese economy. we're ready to work with other countries involved in building a fair and equitable new international political border. >> >> i am with afp my question also relates to the relationship of the united states. the foreign minister said a couple weeks ago in u.s. custody incredible steps to get the relationship back on track. can you tell us what those steps are specifically? are you waiting for them or are you ready to move fast

this rough patch and interest of the overall relationship? >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> [speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: tye relationship with the united states, this relationship not only concerns the fundamental interests of the two countries and the two peoples in a sense giant u.s. relationship has already gone beyond that scope for about. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: as a chinese poem reads we have no fear of the clouds that may block the site as fear of ready at the top. it is from such a prospective that we should manage it tried that u.s. relationship. >> [speaking mandarin chinese] [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: tye not u.s. citizenship got off to a good start after president obama's rackauckas. however in the past weeks and months united states allowed him to visit and sold arms to taiwan. they by allied -- violated the integrity and caused serious strains on the relationship. it does not lie with the chinese side but with the united states. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

>> translator: the three during communicators between china and the united states for the foundation of this relationship wreck the we hope the united states will face the issues squarely and take concrete steps to come back to the the foundation of the three joint communiques between china, united states so as to restore and improve u.s. and china relations. >> [speaking mandarin chinese]

[speaking mandarin chinese] >> translator: nylon's remarked what has happened in the past 30 years since china and united states is that -- established diplomatic relationship shows that peaceful relationship while a kemper additional one his abusive.

with mutual trust the two countries can forge ahead with suspicions and we will both fall behind. it is always better to have dialogue they add confrontation, containment, and a partner and the arrival. this is the right approach we should adopt in pushing forward u.s. china relations

it. >> a q4 covering to the american and foundation ims senior fellow here. a very interesting program for the day be well for start with the editor of the national interest that will talk about why she commissioned this story and then alexander will proceed it to talk about the major finding of his story. matthew alexander is a pseudonym he is a former

interrogator in iraq was instrumental in the capture of the commander in an iraq and has written a book about abu musab al-zarqawi "how to break a terrorist: the us interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in iraq" how to break a terrorist dead g-mail.com. [laughter] this was a national interests story and a very good interest with a mad you alexander story but also a great discussion on the various camps of the great recession that we've just had. and also a great debate about afghanistan. with that do you want to go ahead? >> >> thank you for having both of us this is one of those times i had a terrific story

and also was a pleasure to work with with a topic that felt right because this issue is just not going away unfortunately and we have someone with us you have a supervisor over 1,000 interrogations' and a 300 yourself and also wise enough to look for better ways to do interrogations'. that was really how this story came to be. a story of how the indignations hall eight entry not known for its moderate interrogation techniques learned to do things from funding from the u.s. government and when matthew came about and came to me from the story there was no resisting. also it was a cover i have heard that people are saying they have learned a lot about how we might be able to do interrogations' better and gave more information

and most importantly what turned them away from radicalization of a long term and i think you will do the subject matter far better justice and i will. think you. >> i will stand up. >> thank you for that i will start by saying thank you for coming and for putting this together and the new american foundation for hosting me and to the the open society institute died of a fellow to give me the research -- resources for giving me the opportunity. the great greek playwright euripides wrote a force of words can do whatever is done by conquering the swords. i believe firmly that we as americans are more than capable about which teeing alert appointments without using enhanced interrogation techniques.

i have to expand a little bit on my background because there is an important piece to the puzzle propeller was a criminal investigator pour the air force before i was the interrogator lent to the army sought was schooled in law-enforcement techniques and i grew up in those techniques as my professional career as an agent in the air force and i had a mentor that was good to use me how to use those context. i have a very unique background and then learn to interrogate with. i am not buy far the most experienced by have delivered over 300 and supervise a per 1,000 but there are people who have done 5,000. what i bring is a different background and a different set of eyes of the puzzle of how can we improve interrogators and interrogation techniques?

come with me to iraq 2006 come the summer, hi eighth of the violence after the bombing and iraq is engulfed in flames and the body count is in the hundreds and is certainly feels like the civil war is erupt gained around us. i am in it at a special forces see me and my partner but mike our job is to interrogate at the point* of capture whether a house or a car or get information in a matter of minutes. before this i was interrogating in a prison i had hours coming days or weeks know i have ted 50 minutes. every single day we go out on a mission two re negative house. a couple weeks after rising a couple issues under by bill bree did tell the on the al qaeda weapons dealer the guy who provide the weapons in northern iraq.

we brace out the gate and, up to the house the soldiers disembarked and blow the front door often break into the house and clear the room and they capture one iraqis sleeping in bed next to his wife in his pajamas. we come up to the room and i walked inside and i find eight account into looking at man in his mid-40s standing against his dresser with his arms flexed cuffed behind his back. i am power station first jim and paygo to this standard list of questions. redoing? what is your job? i work at a bank. who lives of the house? me and my wife and young son and daughter are in a separate room. has in a pretty visited this house?

he is looking through drawers under the bed, disclose come in a weapons. he walks buy me and says it is clean and carries on. the lieutenant comes in in charge of the mission and says there is no weapons of the house. about that time i looked around a room and i see something on the wall. it is a wooden cross. i the the other way and in the hallway i see an oil painting of the face of jesus. i say are you kristian? he says yes. i am a syrian per gram up to my interpreter, an iraqi from the south and he nods. they know these intuitively he did not need to see the cross on the wall. realized we were in the wrong house and believe there are not in iraq there is no numbers on the house is. it happens quite often. so i say, i am sorry it

appears that we are in the wrong house. [laughter] it is a little bit embarrassing for cry know it is quite scary to have your house rated at night to be separated from your wife and children and he said is my family okay? tsai said you can be assured we will not our view and we will pay you for the door the three blocks and the damage to your house but the biggest thing i can offer is an apology. but the problem is i am looking for someone and he said i know. but you have to understand i have a family. 1/2 to protect them. i don't want to be involved. i said i understand that but how long can you afford not to be involved? every day oxide is clearing neighborhoods of the syrians and christians and she a. how long until you are targeted in the next attack? i am asking you to work with me, and american.

he nods and looks at the aground and says it is too late. have already come in my house everybody is going to assume i am working with you. he thinks about it and says three doors down the street on the left. the race out of the house down the street within two minutes the soldier kicks down the door and runs into the room and captures the weapons dealer at a sleep on his living-room floor. we pulled out every type of weapon and ammunition and are meant al qaeda is using an iraq and we have just discovered the super wal-mart's about qaeda of three. -- weaponry. what did i learn? what you do in the wrong house is always more important than what you do in the right house. you going to the right house you capture a terrorist you may shutdown the sell for one week or two weeks but at

the end of the day they will return. if you go into the wrong house with the wrong thing you make the enemy of family or an entire tribe or province. fast toward indonesia 2009 detachment 88 which is the of the counter-terrorism unit set up by a that u.s. after 9/11 has been searching for years for a a man who was behind the bali bombings and also behind several hotel bombings in jakarta and has been on the run for years in the number one most wanted terrorist in southeast asia. the police get a tip one associate instead of rushing the house and reading it they send in the police and

it too undercover surveillance for one week gathering evidence after that they capture the man in bringing in for the interrogation. to do they bring in two was supervise? none other than the man that used to be the number three guy and after he was captured by the police and turned, he became an advocate against violence and now works for the police and advises on interrogation and strategies. you wrote day best-seller y pilates and extremism is wrong. with the detachment 80 interrogators determine the most important thing to him is his family and supporting his family that is the reason he joined. they offer him money to support his family and his captivity and treat him with respect and never criticize him or his affiliation or use howarth -- harsh methods. they presented with the

evidence they have collected over one week. and the man turns a matter of hours. he tells the policemen the location and they run to the house and after a six hour gunfight they kill him. i highlight these stories because i talk about three things that are who are the interrogators come have we go about proving the interrogators and interrogation techniques and how come we've maximize to achieve the objective to counter by lint islamic extremist? who are interrogator's? 80 percenter more of the interrogators on the day the basis all are interrogating al qaeda members are other terror suspects from the army. the average age is about 22 or 23 and they come in and out of high school to basic

training perhaps one year of language school or maybe not then a five month interrogation course. they get to iraq or afghanistan or guantanamo bay for many of them is the first time they have been outside the u.s. or talk to a muslim or in iraq. is that a bad thing? i would argue no. our young people today the next generation are the perfect raw material from which to craft and interrogator. why? let locale the three major mistakes we do after 9/11. the first interrogators' do not understand how the animate organize like the criminal gain or about mafia not rank-and-file. we did not understand their culture. and we were unprepared for the fact that in past conflicts direct logic to

work 90% of the time that fell off dramatically. yet the next generation americans are perfectly suited to address the three issues. a first of all, this is a facebook generation. anybody here on facebook? most people will not admit it. [laughter] al qaeda is organized like it is that you get recruited or signed up and get progressing through the ranks it is organizers social networking i have a friend or a cousin i know a guy who can get the money or get the weapons or maybe it is the same guy or maybe he has a relative for you run into an old street like a person contacts you on facebook you have not talked to since high-school level of the young the interrogators understand the al qaeda organization intricately because they grew up in the social networking culture and are

more coulter the curious i believe the and older americans. because of the internet, the global community are more likely to know about the tenets of islam or the cultural differences of holidays and festivals. lastly they grew up with reality tv. how many people here what two reality tv? [laughter] what is it about their obsession with drama and emotion? i don't know what it is perfect training for interrogation because emotions rage like wildfire and the interrogator has to understand the ability to use the motions and the emotional approach to appeal especially to enemies in this war who were recruited

based on an emotional approach is. the young generation gets that. have a can we sort techniques? training resources coming and research. we have to improve the training i can tell you there is now princeton's for islam on culture in the middle east, a history, the most courses are typically taught by contractors are soldiers. and if we want to expose people to the culture to have acumen to use culture and not just know it those glasses should be taught by those people who grew up in it. the other thing that is important is because our education will eradicated the root cause of the method

of reduce of interrogation to eradicate stereotypes and prejudice about our enemies which is a deterrent for conducting eight -- effective interrogainterroga tions'. when i got to iraq there is the politically incorrect guide to islam that is the equivalent to understand western christianity per car was the only interrogate third that it ever read the q'uaran. this is the vivid gin and the stereotypes are propagated in this training that islam is a revision of by the spread of this is a translated version i have had since college and read the first sentence says in the name of all of the compassionate and of the merciful and that is the phrase that begins every chapter.

perhaps this is of mercy and we can use that to understand the culture and quit believing stereotypes. this is what we should be teaching our interrogators. the other thing we can improve upon and what about the prisoner's dilemma i was surprised and put them in separate rooms and use a statement to play off of each other anybody see the movie l.a. confidential? there is this technique you can watch it every night with law and order. but interrogator's her not expose they are more capable to use them. lastly we need to resources that if you go to four different locations in iraq

were being interrogated every single one interrogation booth where is ply plywood and chief plastic chairs and in those cases you could hear through the walls the interrogation next year in weevil spend $1 million to gives holders the right weapons we cannot find them because we're less and resources to get the permission two-- location to lead them to the target we should put in recruitment bonuses that would retain and recruit the best possible people from which tumult interrogators but instead they just recently lowered the standard of testing to enter the career field. we should give senior interrogators those who supervise the power and ability to apply real incentives. of the best i can give somebody was a pillow or a blanket. we should give them the funds to be able to present

real incentives to convince people to cooperate. can mean learn something from indonesia and the last area from research? what are other companies doing with the analysis of the detainee's we're not doing? a present this figure which the model of dealing with the medical model to study the target, . [laughter] maybe that as a doctor. we preach something similar in our training, but we don't go into detail how you analyze the person? look at the indonesian model. they assess the level of radicalism i was never exposed to in our training.

what is the motive and the role of the network? that is the exelon model to crafting the approach strategy not based on stereotypes but based on each individual and why they joined the filing group is very specific and especially this one down here and most people i found in iraq i can tell you i never met said diehard jihadist common maybe one, a 12 year-old boy who was brainwashed by his father provide that a lot of people that joined al qaeda because they needed protection from the shia militia and people who joined because they were worried about this city access and that is not to

say there are not a hard-core jihadist members and those are the easiest to interrogate. interrogators are the underutilized weapon to use tactical intelligence or stop the next terror attack. and indonesia has turned it into a strategic weapon but into stopping their recruitment of future terrorist by turning detainee's into advocates against violence and they have done this successfully with mitt and high-level leaders. they should learn from their experience but threat together the right training and research interrogation

and quit seeing interrogations' as a skill and seeing the interrogator as a profession bird we have no professional organization of interrogators. there is no american bar association of medical association for interrogators. why can we get those resources when everybody argues this is a important weapon? muhammed was found sadam hussain is founder interrogation and abu musab al-zarqawi. we have numerous successes is it because we don't build anything? we don't have the lobbying muscle to produce jobs? i am not sure but it is an issue that needs to be addressed i am completely confident if we give interrogators the right resources they will win the battle and they will return exponentially on the dividends. not in just shopping

terrorist attacks by choking off new recruits. thank you. [applause] >> will open it up two questions please wait for the microphone because we have a c-span camera please identify yourself and your affiliation. but let me take the prerogative to ask a question which is clearly they had great success in turning those to become advocates of the radicalization but in terms of the other models is seems to difficult because the western policeman or the equivalent of the indonesian's too not know enough about is long but

half of them they don't have the tactile understanding of the environment and whether the lessons that can be applied and isn't this is interesting and they're doing something that is quite successful it does not have much applicability to the police ever? >> one of the things i discovered is that first of all, this is well known by its interrogator said even radical muslims typically considered christians and even choose to be people love the book. there is a fundamental level of respect as long as you respect to the religion. and females be good interrogators not about the fact she is of the male about their religion and

culture of the detainee in several interrogators were successful it will work for growth there are some difficulties because we are western and the way we think about things, there are all types of research done on cultural differences one basic line is that westerners tend to be very chronological plant in the middle east there normally describing in terms of relationships prepare and those types of things they can say this just as wrong as indonesian's but we have to have cultural i given and not a cultural knowledge going beyond reciting the facts and in donations do have some inherent advantages the colonel

morale, the general the head of the attachment 88 and explain to me that he told me their interrogators will pray for their detainee is. it is a great way to show respect and emphasize the common bonds. one of the amended to use to bridge that gap comes from sports psychology the practice of an athlete rehearsing in his mind making a basket before he goes out to the courts prepare reduce the technique-- technique called the van gogh technique that would paint a picture using words at of us cooperating and what the benefits would beeper coverage of them to close our eyes and imagine in iraq my family visits to conceive babylon some time in the future ridges the disneyland of iraq and they're balking hand in hand without fear of violence. i can tell you images like

that often move detainee's to two years because it is such an emotional pull to them to think of the iraq that could be secure if we can get there by cooperating because they come in having ideas about us especially after hearing about guantanamo bay and abu ghraib smear mckown would you assess the weakness or the strength? >> i don't seem to be an expert on it to me at islamiyah but the trend is showing they are having more difficulty recruiting. i am a big proponent to say to end this conflict which we don't talk about often, what does the end look like? take models of other complex for instance the battle against insurgency in the philippines against communism. that took place in the 1950's to the '80s individually through law-enforcement techniques

and economic incentives and amnesty program for five years and we consider that a success. the philippines now because there aren't still 8,000 members of the communist organization it is not a zero sum game. what i've would say is forge am i at islamiyah the recruiting is on the downward trend and that is what i would contribute to winning the war. to get that down to a number that is managed. >> hello. from human rights watch can you address the factor of time in discussing the various techniques? the approach that you describe it where you have a little bit of