speech issue. we're not trying to curtail this soldier's right to do that, to be involved and to blog. but he has, he has an obligation, as a soldier, to be in compliance with the policy. but more than that he has an obligation to tell the truth. and -- >> by way of background. he wasn't just blogging out in cyberspace. he was writing for "the new republic" right, under the name of baghdad diaryist. >> baghdad diaryist. you may recall some of this. it was 2007. he did come forward. having been involved with the investigation and having seen what had happened, very small grains of truth but, most, mostly embellishment. it just caused, it created a problem, a distract shun for the unit because a lot of those guys were doing the right thing and, they deserved better. they did not deserve that kind of negative focus and

attention. >> are the rules now about blogging? assuming it is true? i mean for a soldier on the ground, in infantry say, in kandahar right now? can he blog? . . blog? >> well, yes. i can't get to the absolute details of the policy because to be completely honest, you know, i'm going off of my experience, my tactical experience that was three years ago. i haven't seen the policy of late so i don't know what's in it, but yes, soldiers can blog. the most -- the stick yis wicket so to speak is an operational security. when these guys are >> blogging sometimes what they may believe in their mind completely innocuous, relating an incident or situation or a photo is taken could be a -- something that puts old soldiers in harm's way.

and that's what we mean by operational security. and so there has to be a level of oversight. again, it's not about curtailing an individual's free speech. it's about making sure what they are doing is not going to put over soldiers in harm's way. that's the bottom line. >> i agree with kirk has to say. to me, this is one of a myriad of examples of this new world that we are all living in. which is in my view largely defined by the fact that technology has outpaced policy, has outpaced law, and has outpaced legislation. so what you have is the capabilities to do things you never could do before. as a result, your having to deal with questions and unintented consequences for which there are no frameworks. is it doesn't mean that we -- that we are adversaries. it means we haven't figured out

how best to deal with these yet. >> well, we have a lot of ground to cover. we want to open it up to questions. the word on everyone's mind is wikileaks. i wanted to bring that up too. we wanted to talk about the mbed situation. people like you, elisabeth, have gone out there. military reporters and editors have circulated sort of a protest letter in which they said that last month while in kandahar, several journalist complained about being ousted from their planned mbed. a dozen photographers and reporters found themselves booted for unclear reasons because they got in trouble by going to the director to the personnel, rather than the public group. this is people from ap and times all campaigning. -- complains.

i wanted to touch on that. we wanted to get into guantanamo. i've been down there several times. one of the things that was hard was to get transcripts or documentation. i know somebody down there covering the qatar case in terms of what the public feels what's happening down there. that's another issue. we can sort of -- if you want, why don't we start with the mbeds thing. is there any kind of restrictions or is it because of operational, you know -- you know, restrictions in terms of not being able to go to places because of the combat situation. or? >> i'm probably not the right person to ask in terms of being able to answer that completely. my colleague, greg smith, admiral greg smith who heads

communications for of isaf as are all operated in an public affairs operation. i don't know. i do know that have request for embed in kandahar, they have enormous requests. we are trying to fill them as much as possible. i would have to defer that to my colleague greg smith. >> of course. do you want to talk about the kandahar situation? >> i can talk to what i experienced in iraq. that is united are limited to the amount of media they can bring in. it's not -- you can't apply a universal template. different units have different capabilities. it's just the way of the world. sometimes there are situations beyond the control such as weather that prevent the transportation of media

personnel and journalist into the formations of things. what i'm saying there are probably very good reasons for why this is happened. not having been there, you know, i'm not a part of that chain of command. so i can't talk to what's going on in afghanistan. i will tell you that i tried as a pao to facilitate as many embeds as i possibly could. i always tried to work with the journalist to the best of my ability. most of the time we could do that. my higher headquarters gave me the leeway to work with journalist to try to solve the problems -- not so much problems but the challenges in getting them into formations. not every headquarters have the same policy and the way to do business. without knowing how they do it, i can't speak specifically to that, other than to say that i think that most public affairs professionals want to get these

journalist into their formations. >> right. >> there are going to be challenges and factor that is are out of their hands. >> right. >> you just have to work through it. >> i don't know specifically what happened down there. i know there were a lot of complaints in kandahar airfield. they were six embeds canceled all the around the same time. if you get all the way down there, and the embed is canceled, it's a serious drag. i also know, of course, we had a "new york times" reporters and photograph jawal silva on an embed when the photographer was hit by an ied. whatever caused that rash of cancellations, there seems to have been so more going on. >> right. >> again, i don't know what was going on. >> right. let's get to wikileaks. everyone knows the back story.

they released 70,000 confidential dispatches from u.s. troops in afghanistan, and just in recent days they distributed nearly 400,000 classified documents from the iraq war. and there's been a, you know, flurry of responses in washington from both sides of the political aisle. and i think that there are some people interpreting jeff morel's statement as a suggestion that maybe that the federal government is considering having wikileaks be the first public target for a u.s. government cyberattack. by that meaning using whatever means necessary to shut them down. if you can't stop them in court, we might to use other ways of taking out their ability to do this. i think his remarks, and i could read them to you, i don't get that reading from them. i think other people have publicly written that. that's something that's being

contemplated. what do you do with an organization like wikileak, especially with an obama administration saying we want public transparency. this seems to go farther across the line than mere transparency. but you wanted to ask you your thoughts on that? >> let me give me a shout to geoff morrell who's taking a beating. he's having to deal with the same kinds of issues we are. i don't think he's sated nor is it our intent to state, whatsoever, that we are out to bomb wikileaks. >> no, cyber. >> cyberattack. okay. wikileaks is another one of these. in my view, it's the template of the inability of policy and law to keep up with technology. >> right. >> you now have the ability to send anything, anywhere, to

anyone at any time. >> uh-huh. >> in doing so, i think wikileaks has given whistleblowers a bad name. there are absolutely justifiable reasons for whistleblower to want to make available information that they honestly and truly believe people needs to know if they have been mislead. i think here this is a different case. >> right. >> i'm not sure what the journalistic credentials of our wikileaks. >> right. >> you are hundreds of thousands of documents that have been released illegal. ly. they are in the possession of wikileak illegally. >> right. >> they contain information that could put the lives of men and women in uniform at great danger. that point was made very strongly in the first batch that was released. the founder of wikileaks said they made an attempt to do redaction. they didn't have the expertise

to do it. in fact, they'd only apparently addressed 2,000 of the 10s of thousands of documents that were in that case. >> they didn't consult the pentagon, i don't believe. >> no, but i have to say i don't think pentagon is in an position to do consultation with documents that are presented illegally. these are illegal, and they want them back. what you have though is a situation of -- if you want to define it as what is the role of the whistleblower in the internet age. >> yeah. >> i think wikileaks -- i think wikileaks is the template for arrogance, self-rightness, and naivety. they were given the reward in

the 2008 for being the best media in the uk. a couple of months ago joined other organizations in writing to wikileak writing and saying you are putting the lives in people at danger. as this whole issue evolves and emerges, and as there are no absolutes in so much of what we do, i would say there's a couple of absolutes. one is, the documents they have have been obtained illegally, and are being used illegally. second, i do not believe they have the expertise to know how to eliminate information that could be of danger to our men and women in uniform in national security. and third, it is a glaring example of how technology has outpaced law and policy. >> yeah. well, i noticed one thing that it did in a rare point of convergence, it brought the "washington post" and

"washington times" together in criticizing them for doing this. that doesn't happen. i wanted to make sure, i wasn't saying that geoff was saying it should be certainly bombed or seen cyber -- disabled through cyber space. there are people out there that have written that's what they interpreted from his remarks. does anybody else want to talk about the wikileaks? >> i'd justin -- i'd just like to repeat anonymity and accountability. a lot of things have failed to keep up with current events and with technology. but i wrote that down. it's -- that's fundamental here. >> elisabeth? >> just that "the new york times" has been the recipients as they pointed out in the news pages, we have redacted names and identities. >> right. kirk do you want to? >> i just -- it's not just

people in uniform they are putting in danger. it's the people in these countries that have been -- >> afghans on the ground. >> right. afghans, iraqis, that put themselves at risk because they believe it's the right thing. >> right. >> if you've been there and you've been in the situation, you've seen some of the horrible, horrible things that are done to people, it's inconceivable to me that someone would be -- would do this. >> has any of that proven to be true? i know that was the concern especially in the afghan documents that people, going to be retaliated against. has there been any evidence of that happening yet? >> it is absolutely clear that our enemies in many places are basically going to school now on these documents. >> yeah. >> and certainly efforts are being taken to protect the lives of people who may be at risk. so i would just leave it at that. but let us just say that anybody

who has access to the internet now has access to the documents. >> right. just because it was tantalizing, can you give me clarification. moving people, putting them into witness protection, or increasing security around them as a result of this? >> i will resist the temptation to take you up on the tantalizing part, and just say that there are a lot of people who are paying a lot of attention to making sure that those who may be at risk are not so. >> right. well, i think we should open up to questions now. i do want to circle back to guantanamo later. where's the microphone? >> the microphone is right here. so if you'll just give me a moment. >> here in the first row. >> clark? >> clark. if you want to state your name and affiliation. >> i'm clark bell with the mccormick foundation. since 1992 we've hosted an every

other year conference on military media relations. at the last conference, which was about a year ago, there was talk that embedding was down, request for embedding was down partly because the newsroom cut backs and partly because of the situation in afghanistan. and the green zone. i know the dynamics have changed. is somebody keeping score on applications for embeds, how many are placed, how long they go? i was just wondering. are the records kept on this? >> well, i don't have -- >> the answer is yes. and i'm not the one keeping them. yes. yes, of course. [inaudible question] >> yes, but there certainly are a large number of requests now, particularly in kandahar. >> does anybody else want to add to that? >> yeah, the big embed, it

varied with the news, of course. in the winter, i know there's a number of -- large number of embed for helmand and marjah when the marjah operation got going. there was a waiting list. that's now shifted over to kandahar. depends on what the big operation, now it's in kandahar. >> nadia here, and three pentagon reporters. i'll let them have it. then you. nadia, brian, then tony. >> microphone? >> yeah, it's coming right here. >> thank you. my name is nadia, i'm a reporter with nbc tell vis middle east center, you raised important and interesting topics about wikileaks. for almost, i heard, since the documents have been released, it's almost a dismissal from the military and civilian leadership, we haven't learned

anything new. yet for us who have been covering the war in iraq in particular, the civilian deaths, infiltration of the iraqi prime minister. don't you think that the release of the documents is going to cause a problem of creditability to the u.s. military? considering that general petraeus is now talking about a twofold strategy in terms of reaching hearts and minds when the u.s. army and civilian leadership is turning a blind eye, at least to say the best, in terms of civilian deaths and killing in iraq? >> on the creditability question, i think that we've been quite clear that the release of these documents, and the publication of them is -- causing a creditability question for us. you know, our allies in particular. in terms of, you know, how do you keep information protected? it's one the questions that i

think that is an unintended consequence of the advances in technology. in terms of what is in the documents, i'm not going to get into what is in the documents or have that discussion here. that's a discussion you are more than welcome to have with my colleagues at the podium. but what i will say is that in my view, the difficult thing for me to grasp about wikileaks is that the thing that is are out there now have been covered by the press and has been covered by journalists, warts and all. and so the question becomes: what is the whistleblower value here? i think it's a very valid question to ask. and there are many of us who question whether there is in this instance. >> well, i would just say from the point of view, "the new york times," i didn't write the stories.

michael gordon wrote the main stories. i sit right next to him. you know, i can just say what you saw in the paper was the editors and michael and the other reporters felt that while it didn't change the overall narrative, we know it certainly added texture, a lot more detail, especially for somebody like michael who is now writing a third book about iraq. he looked at the documents as someone who -- they were essential to the historical record on the long history of the war in iraq. and the story on the -- there was more influence from iran that had been previously disclosed. and again, the greater number of civilian deaths and the torture that was going on. that's how -- that's the view of the "new york times". there was something that was important to know in these documents. >> uh-huh. general? >> there is a little bit of picking at the scab that this

wikileaks has done. my -- i left iraq in june of 2004. so my experience is dated. but one thing that i will not forget is when abu ghraib broke. when my senior iraqi advisor, who was a brigadier fighter pilot under saddam said general you can't imagine how badly this is going to play on the arab street. we were in the business of developing the iraqi army and security forces at that time. and we had been put on a pedestal by all of the young iraqi men that we were bringing in. that caused -- that abu ghraib thing cost us dearly. the many snapshots in wikileaks that could hurt our reputation

will do again, perhaps not as violently as happened in 2004, but i would also try to balance the bad things that we discovered in there with the great things that young men and women from the united states and the coalition are also doing. so i would plead for a balanced review of these documents as we see outcomes in the analysis that intel officers either as professional intel officers or as folks who do it for an advocation try to see into the picture of the last few years in iraq. >> do you have anything to add? >> i can only speak from my own experience. the characterization of the united states military as a whole turned a blind eye to

torture and abuses is incorrect. because i was personally involved with an investigation of abuses of iraqi detainees by security forces. and i know that my chain of command, my commander, jumped on that immediately. saw it for what it was, unacceptable. and we investigated it. so for anyone to characterize this is a blanket kind of policy that has occurred across the spectrum. >> i don't think we brought that. >> no, but i would put that out there. if that's the perceptions from the wikileak documents, i've seen in a few media outlets, the u.s. turned a blind eye to this. in some cases, it could be correct. i can't speak to that. from personal experience, there are people out there trying to do the right thing, as the general said. that have the values and the moral standards to do the right thing when confronted with a

crime. >> can i use this opportunity, by the way, i'd be interested, elisabeth and brian and tony and anybody else in the press. wikileak does raise the very interesting issue above and beyond wikileaks itself as to the role of the mainstream stress in taking the documents, using them, writing about them, you know, we are aware that it's happening. we've had, you know, a number of folks come to us which we greatly appreciate. others have not. but i'd be interested in the press view of wikileaks and does that put you in any kind of more difficult situation or is this -- is this -- is the framework under which you all currently write and operate allow for a wikileaks presenting all of these kinds of, you know, classified documented? >> well, speak for the editors.

i think the view was certainly that wikileaks was viewed as a source. the way "the new york times" views the source. you check the source out. you just don't take everything verbatim. you get different opinions. in this case, in the most recent, certainly with afghanistan but in the most recent case with iraq. we have michael gordon, who's, you know, the "new york times" authority on iraq who covered this war for many years. michael and sabrina poured through the documents. pulled stuff out, and had researchers, would never have used -- didn't use anything that didn't check out. like any source. went to the pentagon. this is what we've got. and, you know, redacting these names and so forth. that was how "the new york

times" chose to view wikileaks, not as collaborate or partner, but outside source. >> how do you verify? >> you'd have to ask michael. the point was it was reviewed by people who have covered the war for a long, long time. >> right. brian first and then tony. >> brian bender with "the boston globe." to kind of follow up on nadia's question. she talked about creditability. obviously, the documents, as you said, were released illegally. but they do -- they do raise creditabilities questions in the mind of some of us. you mention creditability in terms of the american allies, can the u.s. government keep secrets, that sort of thing. one thing that struck me, it's been covered somewhat in the last few days, some of the numbers on civilian casualties. something that us in the media

for a long time in iraq tried to get a sense of. how many civilian deaths were there? who were responsible for them? obviously, the u.s. was not the primary driver of that. and we were told for many years while the u.s. military doesn't keep those statistics. then when some media outlets would make an estimate based on news reports and other sources, i forget at one point i think it was the ap was estimating 2,000 civilian deaths were month. we were told by the u.s. military command at the time that was over blown. well, turns out one the documents or a number of documents talk about that in the wikileaks release. which put the number at one point at 4,000 a month around the same time. my question to you, without getting into the specifics of that, where you sit, sort of atop this pyramid of this, you know, what is clearly a vast public affairs operation, worldwide, how can you be sure

that when that official is put out there to talk to the press, that number one, they are not lying. or number two, which i assume is the case more often than that. they don't have all of the information and they are actually misleading by omission. general casey was asked about this the other day. because he was the commander at the time, he's now the army chief of staff. he basically just booted the question, punted, didn't answer. i haven't seen the documents. the fact is his command, number one said for a long time they didn't keep casualty counts at all. when they did respond to press inquiries about press estimates said it was over blown. the internal estimates were far higher. >> one the first estimates came from president bush. it was news. that was the first we'd heard. >> that was much later. >> well, yeah. >> how do you know, or how can you be sure the information

getting out there is truthful, is not omitting, and is not purposefully untruthful? >> it's a great question. i can't speak for those who have in my office in the past, although i'm sure they have approached this in the same way that i want or anybody would whether they are republican or democrat. when you take a job like i have, you have to take this on the understanding that your creditability is key. it's your currency. you have to say as i did under oath in front of the senate that i will be as creditable, transparent, and timely and accurate in dealing with the press as i possibly can. the people that i choose to work with me, the people who speak on behalf of the department for whom i'm responsible, i'm responsible, i'm accountable,

and i can only do the very best that i can to ensure that what is being said is the truth. i don't know how i or anybody else could answer your question above and beyond that, other than to say that it is a commitment that i have, it is a commitment that those who work with me have to take in order to work with me. and based on the individuals with whom i've worked on both sides of the aisle, i'm sure it's a commitment that everyone who would take a job intends to live up to. >> general, do you have -- do you want any thoughts on that? or? >> the -- during the last administration, it was the military's view specifically the army's view that the military that the army chain of command had to impose a higher standard of discipline and moral warfare

execution than did the civilian leadership at the time. this goes back to what happened in guantanamo, how it morph over into abu ghraib, it caused general petraeus and among others as the commanding general to put a letter out. we are not going to torture prisoners. we are going to follow the following policies associated in our treatment of detainees. near concurrent with that, you had an unfortunate face off between mr. rumsfeld and general pace. and the comment was related to finding something going on that is wrong, but it's in -- it deals with iraqis a sovereign state at that time. general pace said that the -- that the soldier or marine is

obliged to stop the activity. to stop the illegal activity. and the secretary of defense at the time, said, no, the obligation is to report the activity. and general pace came back and said, stop the activity. general pace had to recant the next day. that gives you an idea of some of the ambiguity that came from the highest level of our government and it's impact on what was going on in a theater of operations. where the military actually had to go in and establish a higher level of moral code than they were getting from washington, d.c. >> tony is next. i guess, and then we'll -- >> tony with the bloomberg news. i had two quick questions for

doug. one, at this point, have any of the 300 iraqi names from the pentagon was particularly concerned about in the wikileaks documents, have any of those names been released in the dump from last week? or did wikileaks at this point in your estimation do a credible job of redactions those names? i have a follow up. i'll answer that first. >> again, tony, who is my great friend, a question like that is more appropriately directed during the daily briefings to the briefer. but i will say this, that we understand that the wikileaks team understands redaction. you had to have been deaf not to have heard the message the first time. we still believe that there are individuals who could be at risk, we believe that there's information about how we conduct ourself on the battlefield, which can put our soldiers at

risk, and we are doing everything possible to address that. and there's an enormous amount of man power and financial resources going in to having to do this. that would not have been necessary had these documents not been released illegally. so i'll just leave it at that. >> second question, between the first wikileaks dump in july and last week's dump, there was woody leaks in the latest woodward book. the city was definitely silent about the material that was in his book. he bragged about his access to classified documents, contemporary officials last december and january nobody else could get access to. it's a striking double standard. how do you square the circle? outrage for wikileaks, silence and praise everybody should read

the books when that thing is filled with classified information, and probably access to individuals that mr. gates is probably tearing his white hair out. how do you square the two? >> great question. [laughter] >> there are three other people on the panel. >> no, no, you don't want my answer. >> actually, i'll ask all of you. >> that's okay. because i think it is a valid question. i mean we are living at a time when we are seeing presentations of facts and opinion appear like we've never seen before. wikileaks is certainly one of them. bob woodward has written 16 books. he does have a kind of iconic presence in this town, given the watergate coverage. it's hard for me, tony, to really reply to what i think is

a great question about the woodward book. because what we've seen in this is the rise of kind of histories that don't cover years and decades and long periods of time. but they may cover, you know, 18 months. it's a new definition of history. given the kind of coverage that takes place here. coverage is no longer just separated into here's the news, and here's the gossip, and here's the stories about who's up and who's down. they all do tend to blend together. and i think that there are the kinds of new relationships that individuals have both with who are inside press and outside of it that i think come together to collectively raise new kinds of questions that hadn't been raised before. i don't know how i would answer that question. other than to say that those

kinds of questions are being asked when they have never been asked before. >> right. [inaudible question] >> yes. but they are being asked by lots of people. >> so what is it? so if you had to define the difference between the information in the woodward book and the information that wikileaks released, is there a difference in -- quantitative, qualitative, what's the difference? >> the information that presented by wikileaks is hundreds of thousands of documents, literally, obtained illegally, and dumped illegally. snapshots in time, individual reports, no context and no permission. those who talked to mr. woodward

about his book, each of them talked to mr. woodward consciously, and for a reason. i am not a judge, and i am not the person to judge why or how they did it. but each of them did so knowing what they were doing. i don't think the release of the documents illegally obtained was done in any kind of coherent manner for any kind of stated purpose with anybody having reviewed everything that was in those documents. i understand the question, and i understand that -- >> so legally. >> they are not easy answers. >> the leaks with the sophisticated political agenda are acceptable? >> no, i didn't say they were acceptable. >> i know. >> i just said you asked what the difference was in terms of the information conveyed. that's how i convey the information. it is not for me to judge the

bob woodward book. i've never been in a bob woodward book. with any luck, i'll never be in a bob woodward book. those questions are probably asked of those who were. >> one thing i can say, at the justice department that i covered until recently, has been much more aggressive in obama in actually investigating leaks. criminal investigation of journalist for classified information. should the justice department be investigating bob woodward's sources of leakers of classified information? >> again, i'm not a lawyer and i'm no a judge. so i would probably not be the right person to asking or answering that question. i understand the reasons for the questions. and i understand that we are seeing new forms of presentation of what is a combination of facts, opinion, and strategyification that we

haven't seen before. >> i remember there was one anecdote where he went into a meeting with a bunch of classified maps. i know other journalist who might be arrested if they had maps like that. it's a good question. do you kirk obvious -- kirk or general, do you want to weigh in on those? there's a lot of other ground to cover. >> kirk has details on reporters coming into arenas where classified information is exposed and the rules are understood. at the same time, i'm reminded of president nixon's comment to pair pair pair -- paraphrase. it's not wrong if the president says it's not wrong. >> that's right. the president can declassify information. [and you haddable] >> that's one big difference.

>> i thought it was just the president who can declassify. >> each level the guy who is responsible can act on it. it does not all go to the president for classification authority. [inaudible comment] >> we have -- wait for the mike. >> woodward received the mcchrystal assessment, classified on every page. and the pentagon bent over backwards to declassify all of it. the double standard. nothing happening. there was a deafening silence, sorry it got out. that was it. >> you are right, tony, i wasn't here last september. i was preparing a conference on military families. so. >> let's go to another question right here. moe. >> i'm a maurice davis.

i used to be on active duty. throughout my career, the public has talked the talk. the media is important. the problem is walking the walking. the administration has talked about transparency and openness. they have used the secret privilege to drop the jepsen lawsuit. you had the oothman decision, then pulled in a redacted version that painted a entirely different picture of the case. in the cotter case, you had the video that the supreme court of canada had released. it was available on the internet. yet, a closed secret proceeding to air the video at guantanamo. it met the requirements of the rules, but the rules made no sense in that case. the over classification of information and secrecy, i think is why people are so curious

what's behind the curtain. i'm just wondering what's being done to try to avoid the over classification of information. >> that's a great question. and do you mind if we turn to guantanamo. i'm perfectly happy to do that. >> that's great. before we do, i interviewed one the reporters who's down there right now. this reporter said that at least on the cotter case, reporters are still -- we still have to struggle to get basic information like court transcripts. even information like how much the pentagon spent on mental health testimony in the cotter case. photos are still censored to a ridiculous degree. >> let me address that. that's too bad the reporter that you talked to felt that way. because we made a huge effort over the past several months to bring in reporters, bureau chiefs, lawyers, and representatives of the military commissions. >> right. >> in order to address what i

think everybody agreed were outdated ground rules of engagement between the media and the military commissions. again, this is one of these areas where we're in a new world and there haven't been been -- e aren't precedents. particularly when you are dealing with the military commission down there. the rules were twin -- were written in 2003, 2004, they weren't getting the documents, their photos were being overly censored. we felt there was valid issues to be dealt with. we took the initiative and we brought the group together. including the pentagon press corps. in the process, we tried to deal with both of the operational aspects. we went from how do you determine what are the security

risks with photos to how do you provide better toilets for the journalist who are covering this? and we believe that we covered all of these issues and we have developed new ground rules which were developed in cooperation with the press and presented to them. i'm aware that in the process of implementing these rules that there are -- they are not going absolutely perfectly. although i've been told it is a huge improvement over what took place earlier. i don't know why there's problems getting transcripts, but i will find out. because it's part of the ground rules that transcripts and documents are to be made available. the issue with regard to over classification was a very valid issue. we have dealt with that with the jtf and with the commissions. >> uh-huh. >> interestingly enough, i'd been involved in trying to address everything, you know,

from over redaction to liquor. you know, how can we make sure that journalist have a place to drink? and where should they have liquor? and i've spent a good deal of one the days this past week trying to find out, you know, where the jtf put a particular reporters liquor, because her bureau chief, you know, asked me, isn't this kind of bad faith? well, actually, no. it's not bad faith. we're trying our very best to respond in a forward leaning way to valid issues. we did the same thing, we think on battlefield engagement when reuters came to us with regard to the death of two of their reporters in 2007. >> right. so the intention is very -- our intention is to work in tandem with the press in order to address these issues. i am going to find out about these particular issues because

i essentially have an issue a day at guantanamo. but it is not because there's not a willingness. there's a lot of people to inform. and i guess i'd be interested with what you would have to say or, tony, i guess, you are not here anymore. each side has rights and each side has responsibles. we try to address the context of both. the press has rights that needs to be addressed and we intend to address them. >> uh-huh. >> there are also responsibilities. and i will say that virtually everyone with whom we dealt in coming up with these new ground rules on the press side acknowledge that military commissions, those at the pentagon, they have unique responsibilities and are in unique positions are put in unique positions with regard to protection of information and

with regard to the new world that we face down there. i found the whole process to be not only enlightening, but very encouraging that people were recognizing it's not just a one-way street. that's the ab attitude with which i try to approach this job and how we deal with the press. are we perfect? no. but it's not for lack of trying to address valid issues. of >> >> so we only have a few e minutes. very briefly, you are involved in the guantanamo four. the four reporters who were reportedly booted out of guantanamo, and then allowed back in. can you just go into that for a minute? >> sure, the actual physical image of them being booted out, chained, behind bars and never allowed in is probably not the right image. >> sure. >> every reporter that goes down

there has to sign a willness to adhere to the ground rules. they all signed the statement. four of them went against the rules that they signed. i'm somebody who believes maybe naively when you sign your name to a piece of paper, you are signing your willingness to abide by the rules. they did not. it was my by staff. i backed the penalty. there was an appeals process. that was implemented very quickly. it went all the way up through us and the reporters were reinstated. as a result, we all agreed to take a look at the rules, and we all did collectively. with regards to all of issues involved with guantanamo, from the imposition of the penalties to the reinstatement to the revising of the rules altogether, i personally don't regret any part of it. >> sure. so who's got a question out

there? al too? anybody here who's not a working journalist who would like to ask a question as well? we encourage that as well. anybody. al, go ahead. we have time for a couple of more after that. >> i'm al pessin, i'm the pentagon correspondent and adjunct at medill in washington. i want to follow up on two things. one is on the record versus the background in the pentagon briefing room. it was good to hear you say your preference is to have as much ons the record as possible. i haven't researched it, but i'm trying to remember when the assistant secretary or secretary has been in the briefing room being on the record, even undersecretary, or deputy undersecretary with the acception of ash carter. certainly nobody talking about policy that's always on background, whether the report,

like the china power report or power up to some foreign visitor, it's always on background, and also on trips when traveling with the secretary. policy folks always on background. i'd be interested to hear why that is or whether you have any interest in changing that? and the other thing on wikileaks, you mentioned colonel that does the morning. about a week before the documents came out, he urged establish media organization not to cooperate with wikileaks and public the material, says it would give a veneer of responsible actions. do you think "the times" and the other newspapers did a terrible thing by participating? what consequences do you foresee? elisabeth, was this discussed at

"the times." although you are always happy to get new information, maybe there was some reasons to consider maybe it shouldn't be done in that way. >> before you start out with regard to your first question, i did ask the secretary if we could be looking forward to more on-the-record briefings in the future. anyway. >> i'll go first. and elisabeth. then you, josh. i want to raise one issue for the school and for the purpose of this seminar. because al is a correspondent for the "voice of america." i worked for several years in public diplomacy. i want to make one point. al is at the nexus of the military and civilian parts of journalism. i want to make a point about the public diplomacy in the military as well. let me respond and say we are making every effort to provide

as much important as transparency, credibly, and timely as we possibly can. i take your point about having more of the policy folks beyond the record at this point that i intend to follow through on. i also have to say that there are times and i believe that what we did last week is that the background decision was made to be able to provide information. we saw it as either provide information this way or we wouldn't be able to provide it. so i think that there are -- we're not always making zero sum decisions about this person is going to go out on the record. and this person is going to go out on background. but the point that you are making, i think is a valid point. okay. and if i can say one other thing with regards to the "new york times" and other papers writing on the subject. it was one the reasons that i asked elisabeth and wanted to hear from the press what you

thought on this. because i don't think there's a clear cut answers. >> on wikileaks? >> no, no, -- well, yes, on mainstream media arriving. but i personally think it's possibly an issue that if you are a journalist trying to put myself in your shoe, you are always faced with. you are always faced with what are your sources, how do you get the information, and how do you present the information as best you can? i have to make difficult decisions. and i understand that members of the press have to make difficult decisions as well. so in dealing with this, i've stated what we think about wikileaks, and i've stated what we think about the information out there and how it was presented. but i also understand that no one is living in a zero sum world, including the press. >> and al, on the mike, i wasn't part of the discussions of whether this would be run in "the new york times," once it was made available. all i can tell you what i've

been told by editors. there was news value in the information. "the times" decided to treat wikileak as a source and handle it responsibly. >> may i say something? >> if you don't mind. i'd love to hear also my colleagues what you hear and al's question brings this to mind. i think it's relevant. >> right. >> in a world where you can and do communicate by technology and e-mail and facebook and all of this, i think we are losing sight of the importance of the direct human contact in conveying information. you have a -- you have a decade in which younger men and women in uniform have really been the ones representing the u.s. government out there engaging directly. not just -- you are not longer dealing in london and paris and

rome with editors and government leaders. you are dealing with village leaders and religious leaders and teachers and people who themselves have become opinion leaders in this countries because they have the means to do so and because the press is covering them. you can have religious extremist from florida to yemen become international figures of consequence as a result of the intention paid to them. it's an issue that i think is not addressed and discussed enough. and i think an accompanying issue not addressed and discussed enough is the fact that nonmilitary components of our government, those in public diplomacy, development, and elsewhere, have, i think, lost the ability to do their work productively, given the structure and the circumstances now in which they have to work behind, you know, embassies which are virtually fortressed,

spending a good deal of their time stamping visas, and in essence on a kind of parallel but lesser track to try to become ambassadors. you see young men and women working for ngos, americans all over the world. and i would just say that i hope your next seminar, one of your next seminars would have to do with how do you provide the incentive and encouragement for those kinds of people to come into the nonmilitary parts of communication and be able, once again, to provide the essential elements of the human interactions that i think is so near developing policy. >> that's a great place to stop. it's a great idea for the panel. thank you for coming, everybody, thank you in the audience for coming. and whatever is watching too. appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the florida governors race is one that remains close as republican rick scott and democrat alex sink are within a few points of each other. mr. sink, i head by 5 points according to a poll from the university of south florida, reported by the "washington

post". ms. sink ahead by one point in a poll released today according to the "l.a. times." florida is set to gain two seats in the house in redistricting in 2011. the governors race playing a key part in the process, and the state could be a pivotal for the 2012 presidential race. just a reminder, dozens of debates, speeches, and rallies available for you online. you can check out newspaper endorsements, analysis, and links to other web panels. all at c-span.org/politics. >> on the eve of this year's elections, what might a republican-controlled house mean for the communication and technology industry. we'll talk with two former advisers tonight on the communicators, on c-span2.

>> this year's student cam 2010 video documentary is in full swing. "through my lens" should include five to eight minutes of programming for your answer to win the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 of total prizes. the competition is open for grades six through 12. for all of the rules and how to upload, go online to studentcam.org. :

>> the reason the conference center access, the place we are now, is to bring together divergent views, people with the version views, viewpoints and opinions. something that is very dear to the first amendment, and the theory of i think why we have the freedom of speech and expression and the five freedoms. that's the marketplace of ideas. i want to of knowledge right from the start we expected to this discussion today because just based on the guest list we have some widely divergent views i suspect of some the issues we will talk about. but that is at the heart of why the museum and the night senate exist. to bring together with an opportunity for a civil

discussion and discourse and look at the issues that confront us in a serious issues that we have. the founders i think had a profound belief that if we just talked to each other without they have government placing undue weight on the scale that we would arrive at the truth come or at least the right direction. i hope we do in some way do that today. i should acknowledge of course that we are, we have our friends from c-span here today. and while in this audience idle spectator to be an issue, if you have any outstanding warrants or anything, you should know you're going to be on air and tapes. [laughter] there will be a posture about what you coffee in the other room if that comes up. but again, i think the order of the day, if you will, is engagement involvement, discussion, exchange of views. i doubt there are too many people in this room who would hold back. we encourage you, ignore else, the first amendment center and the newseum to dive into the topics that we have. now, let me bring up the callee,

john nassikas will walk us into the program and really introduced the rest of the day. [applause] >> thank you, gene. i had at the arnold and porter international white-collar practice, and also work closely with the national security group ou our law firm. our firm and mcdermott will at emory, abbe lowell sperm are newseum and theg along with the museum.er it's terrific everybody is here. today. i think in this building in particular looking out over theh city, the first amendment inscribed in the marvel onst thd front of this pennsylvania avenue entrance come is a very appropriate place to be to discuss our topic. to thaneverye i want to think of one who's to. have oday. whether a lot of thoughtful ande itd cost to any artist in many d whom we should be sitting up and getting discussion and their point of view. we deio encourage you to come uc

with questions and interact with what everyone is saying on then panel. abbe lowell is going to be lowel moderating the morning panel, which will focus on the news media. and national security.nd and then a law partner of mine at arnold and porter will beng e modeling the afternoon panel which we focused on investigating and prosecuting and defending a national security case. and i will introduce him more profusely right after the lunch program. i wanted to briefly describe inb a few minutes of my own odyssey with the intersection of national security and the first amendment that began in early 2005.005. abbe had been representing the two aipac lobbyists who were under scrutiny for their conversations,ru their meetings with government officials and the government, department of justice, u.s. attorney's office indicated to every that he no longer could represent both of

repr the lobbyists. and so i ended up taking on the defense of one of the two lobbyist and berube shortly thereafter joined our team, kind of what became really illegal band of brothers. but in 2005 when the aipac lobbyist case began, i was invited to a small room over in wistern district of virginia to meet with the fbi, a number of ages, number of my former friends in that office. continue to be friends, but assistant u.s. attorneys there. and lawyers from department off justice. and they played a few small portions of the series of tapess of these foreign policy lobbyists meeting with o government officials,f and talking about foreign policy.ci, and what the doj at the time alleged with classified information. the government said that the sai case was a simple one involving, conduct that violated the involi espionage act. espionage act.

we, the defense, said it was a first amendment case, a complex one about speech that the first amendment protected. the battle lines were drawn that early. unfortunately, those many lawyers in our law firm, it took over four years of complex, cumbersome mitigation under the classified information procedures act, which will probably be discussed. about $12 million worth of big firm defense work, much of it for bono, to have the charges dismissed on the eve of trial. the federal trial judge in the case, judge ellis, he is a judge to whom i highly respect since my early days in the 1990's. he issued an important 2006 decision that the press has

reported on and it is a public, like the decision on the applicability of the first amendment to the case against the aipac lobbyists. in that decision, the judge first traced the historic importance of free-speech in a democracy, particularly in the area of our nation's foreign policy. without going through the decision, the first quoted james madison in 1822, talking about how a popular government need popular information. it also talks about connors to it, who in 1991, used words that were quoted directly in a statement. and judge alice concluded his decision in 2006 with the words -- judge ellis concluded his

decision in 2006 with the words, "the time is right for congress to revise a law to reflect a better balance between our nations secrecy and security, and citizen's ability to engage in public debate about u.s. conduct in a society of nations. " this was a difficult case. the next difficult one, the government should not have to endure what was in a back matter, five years of investigation, five years of litigation, prosecution. my hope is that panel discussion will build the framework that is already being constructed for revised laws and procedures related to classified information. these are procedures that could work for the next 50, is not 100

years, balancing free-speech interests with national security. conversations could focus on the security process, oversimplification, improvement of the classified procedures act, and finally, what the judge focused in on, revising the arcane 100-year-old language of the espionage law. now i want to introduce abbe lowell. he and i shared a skiff in the federal courthouse in alexandria. we remain friendly route and united in our defense efforts. abbe himself is a terrific white-collar, trial lawyer coming here in washington, d.c. he has handled many high-profile

cases, he has defended not only the two individuals charged with illegal disclosure of classified investigation in the aipac matter, but he is also currently representing a state department employee whose case is pending here, also for similarly alleged disclosures of classified information. he wasn't a special ethics counsel in the house of representatives -- was a special ethics counsel in the house of representatives. he teaches at columbia and georgetown law school. thank you. abbe, it is your turn. [applause] >> if i could bring my panelists up, i will introduce them. then we will get into it. this is a strange program in the following way -- i can

randomly picked six of you and have you sit in these chairs and we could have the same program. that is a wonderful resource to have, and we will do our best to lead, but we need you to be leaders with us. joining me on the panel, to my immediate left, mark mazzetti, and intelligence correspondent for the "new york times." in 2009, he shared a pulitzer prize for reporting on the intensifying violence in pakistan and afghanistan, a finalist reporting on cia detention before that. to his right is my friend and a court reporter, walter pincus, the intelligence see a reporter for "the washington post." before that, and the editor of "the new republic." he has won the george polk

award for journalism. in addition to being the amazing journalist that he is, he also has a law degree. to his right is a cape schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the hudson institute who has written one of the most provocative and important books on some of the areas we are covering today called "necessary secrets." he has been widely appearing on programs, writing op-ed, discussing the issues that we will be discussing today. to his right is jeffrey smith, a partner at arnold and porter. former general counsel to the cia. current member of leon panetta's advisory board. he represents entities that we

are discussing, including congressional investigation and prosecution. to his right, eric lieberman, vice-president of the general counsel. before that, a litigator at the firm of williams and connally. before that, a staff to senator kennedy on capitol hill. quite a group to begin the conversation. i think we have to begin with the fundamental premise. the fundamental premise, it seems, to me is what is the role of the media fundamentally in the formulation of foreign and domestic information? what is the starting role? is it to be a member, watchdog, and after the fact watcher? walter, what is the role of the

media in providing, becoming part of the sausage making process of the formulation of foreign policy? >> it is a little bit of both. i think when we are operating the way we should, we should be covering people who are involved in the dialogue. public officials, hearings on the hill. we ought to report what is going on. but we also have a responsibility to find out for ourselves whether what is being said is the whole picture, whether what is being said is truthful or not. one of the things that has happened in the past few years, we have become more of a common carrier for the contending sides and have dropped the idea of doing original reporting, try to find out the truth.

we do a lot of it from reporting in more areas, but the difficult thing is finding out what is really going on inside the state department, white house. that leads you to this problem of dealing with classified information because it inevitably, as everyone involved in government knows, most of the things you are trying to find out have been classified. why they are classified, that is one of the great issues, and whether they deserve to be classified. given my view of the way it is done -- well, when i was much younger, i ran two investigations in the 1960's with senator fulbright.

both involve dealing with classified information. we had closed hearings and then declassified them. the declassification process 40 years ago was a game in which if you wanted to do it, you spent time how much of the information was made public before come and you found out that a lot of it had, and then you found out that people classified, not based on whim, but there is no single standard. the last thing i will say is, in the hardest cases, we always have asked the government to advise us what to write before we write it so they have a chance to argue against it. and also, we do not steal

documents. either someone inside government gives us the document or tells us information. if you want to protect your sources, you want to protect those that have access legitimately. >> jeff, the administration is hypothetically debating a new surge in one of the areas of conflict for sanctions against a country adverse to the united states. there are a number of players involved concerning the right course, and what it should be. from the perspective that you had in agency, what is the role of the press, if any? >> i am tempted to say none. it has been my experience that much of what walter said is

true. of late, the press has been a conduit of competing points of view within the administration. when one party wishes to communicate to another, get its point of view out, the press is often a means to do that. that is unfortunate. rarely do very senior officials find this discussion of their policy options in public to be useful. it forces them to make decisions they may not want to make. skews the internal debate. it gets things out in public and people have to take positions that they do not like because they may be wishing to pursue a course of action they know will be politically unpopular, but the minute it hits the papers,

they get buffeted by much broader political winds than what they saw as the focused national security objectives. having said that, there are lots of instances where leaks can be constructive, but those in my experience are rare. >> i want to come back to that and ask you is there a difference in my two hypothetical, a difference in the press's role that might be more military, operational, compared to something that is just as sensitive but in a foreign policy perspective? >> perhaps. when american lives are at risk, they pursue a much higher standard to what they disclosed. host: is there a difference in the press's role, rather if the administration was having a new debate about if there would be a

new project, a new banking bailout, and it is the same before the decision making event occurred, and there is internal debate. is there a difference there of the presses roll when discussing classified information? >> i think the government has a strong interest in keeping its deliberations secret, but the press, i think, should give a lot of thought to publishing that information. i think there could be different kinds of consequences. i would also add, i think the press in recent years has not been very responsible in choosing published stories that have consequences for american lives. i am thinking of the "the new york times" decision in 2006 to unveil the banking system which

started one of the counterterrorism programs. >> john has introduced the phrase, we are going to hear it a lot today -- over classification. i do not know where you are on this but i am sure we can reach a consensus, given that any discussion, document in a pre- decision on basis, is more likely to become classified then not. that being the case, if there is the notion that over classification is a problem in itself, not that whether we have a good foreign policy in another country, the right ideas in the military, but just over classification, is it fair for the press to go after classified material solely to point out that that material should not be

classified? >> i think it depends, obviously, on the substance of the document. our role in the issue of over classification is what walter was saying, to serve as a check by reporting, in fact, whether or not documents needed to be classified. the other factor in decision making is whether or not it is newsworthy. i do not see a lot of value in newsrooms going back 20 years just to under the fact that documents were classified that should not have been. but certainly, if there is pertinent information that is currently classified and we can demonstrate it is in the public record in some way and there has been over classification, and it serves the public in some way,

then i think it is appropriate. >> mark, if there is a common understanding that over classification is a problem -- i do not mean technically -- but because of that, the free flow of information does not occur. is it newsworthy, is it a good target for the press to focus on? >> there could be a story about the ridiculousness about the over classification of something. i have seen stories of mine that were turned into a government document and then stamped classified. there is no question there is overkill. we have written stories about the inclination toward over classification, but i agree with eric. just for the sake of exposing

it, there has to be a larger standard. we have larger fish to fry on the issues, what did the documents say, is there newsworthiness? just because something is classified does not automatically mean we want to or should report about it. obviously, there is a lot of classified information that we know that we have not put in the paper because we have made the decision that it does not rise to that standard, or for some reason, would put lives in danger. so we are making these calculations every day. i will give you an example of the classification issues. one of my colleagues wrote a story about a book that had been going through the process of redaction at dia. he managed to get a copy of the original version and redacted version.

he was able to compare the two, and you would be amazed at what was redacted and what actually slipped through the procedures, which was actually more classified. i agree, there is no uniform standard, and that is sort of what we are up against. at the same time, we have to listen to the government on these issues. >> assuming there is an agreement on whether over classification is a problem, other than reporting on a case by case basis, do the reporters committees, other organizations, have a role outside of reporting to influence the decision of what should be classified, what should not be classified, and how that process works? >> absolutely.

absolutely. what over cause of vacation does is we show disrespect for the secrecy system and provides justification for those people who want to be truly sensitive materials. more power to those organizations when they push for better systems for declassifying, ending the problems in the secrecy system itself. >> we hear the phrase the public's right to know, the public's right to understand. does the public have the right not to know? if there is a subject of a certain sensitivity, that the public could be informed about, and maybe they would want to be involved at some level in the debate -- but by disclosing it, provide that information to enemies, adversaries, etc. is there such a thing as the

right not to know? >> when you post that in your preliminary questions, i thought, no. on the other hand, i think most americans understand there are legitimate government secrets. the difficulty is always trying to figure out what is a real secret from what is not a secret. i would not characterize it as a right not to know. there is an interesting contrast between our system and the british system. our system, in simple terms, the public has the right to know about everything the government is doing, except those things that the government decides are so secret that they need to remain as such. the british system works in the way that the people are only told what the crown believe they

should be told. i prefer our system. >> we have programs that will be informative to the debate, but generally, the impact of the press on the classification, the source of a discussion on any issue, it is a story by story basis. is there a role that the press could play on influencing the very decisions on what kind of information should be classified or not? >> generally, i would say no, that is not what we consider our role to be. primarily, i think the newspaper's role is to publish information that helps policy makers and citizens make informed judgments about how to appropriately our government is using the classification system, and that we publish opinions as well from people who can help

inform the debate. the idea that actively trying to influence the government's decisions, not as reporters, but as participants in a public policy debate, not something that we would typically think of a newspaper doing or thinking appropriate. >> back to my two hypothetical. a discussion among the administration as to some potential surge in a place where we have military troops committed. a debate in the administration concerning whether or not a country should have more or fewer sanctions. in that debate there are the following kinds of information in the intelligence community. there will be a military assessment on the search aspect. there will be an assessment as to whether or not funds would be necessary. an assessment as to whether or not the support in the united

states for such a program exists. in the issue of sanctions, there would be a report as to who our allies are, what positions they take. there would be a report as to whether or not a party sanctioned would have an impact or reaction. there is also in that grouping a lot of different kinds of information that will have different kinds of classification status. some at the highest levels, some at medium levels. i want each of you to address this at your perspective. do you have a way of distinguishing among the kinds of information that might be classified that you might feel comfortable understanding, soliciting even, and that which you think, it goes too close to some lines. >> i think after reporting in this area, the more you report on national security issues, you

have a sense of what impact your story could have. you have a sense of the details be more sensitive than others. usually, the more specific you get, the greater the risk. my inclination would be everything you listed, i want to see, i want as much information as possible. we will then make our decisions about publishing or not and have a dialogue about that with the government. after that process, we will no doubt probably hold some stuff back that we feel is particularly sensitive, and then we will do our story. the argument i would make is it would be a good thing. >> i agree with mark. there are two things we have to put into the mix.

i always get uncomfortable when we talk about the press as the media because we are all different. it is not just that our newspapers have different policies, but reporters have a different style, a different approach. the idea of rules does not exist. now you have the blogosphere, people putting out all sorts of information. that said, you do try to find out as much as you can find out, but i keep coming back to this point -- we can only find out people -- what people with access tell us. it then is up to the individual

reporter, and the newspaper. we go back to the government agencies involved and tell them what we have been told so that they get a crack at making their best argument -- and there is a history of this -- all the way from the editors getting a visit from the cia, editors going to the white house to let the president make the case. in the case of the post, i am sure it is the same in the times, we have a system, and there are plenty of protections for the government. we have been doing this for so long, we have been through the mill, as to what is important, what causes danger. the other thing is it has to be newsworthy. then there is this other thing where people tell us things they

say are classified but turns out not to be true. in my case, most people i do not know that tell me things are classified turn out to be untrue. >> not true factually or on classified? >> factually. classified is such an arbitrary thing. the dni has been trying to get commonality among the agencies, and they cannot even get that. they cannot even agree whose security clearance is good with another agency. this is an area where ketches catch can from a one. >> i gave you some hypothetical set with a degree of various classifications status of the material that is in the debate of each of those. should there be a different gradation of the involvement of the press in any of those, is it

all the same? >> i am not in the news gathering business, but clearly there would be a distinction between those things that might be sensitive to the military and those which may cause embarrassment to the government. if it were in the latter, i would be much less reluctant -- more reluctant to publish things that may put lives in danger. but listening to the responses to my colleagues, i have heard cases where the press has not behaved responsibly. just thinking this week, "the new york times" revealing the wikileaks document that was not redacted. it was a report by a low-level intelligence officer in iraq that suggested the three hikers arrested in a iran were actually on a mission to agitate the iranian government.

this was published on the times website. i think that puts these people at risk. they are on trial next month. i think journalists are striving for care but not always meeting the high standards that they set for themselves. host: jeff, you get a call -- >> jeff, you get a call from someone who says they got information from wikileaks that shows that the three hikers may have been on a mission to iran to agitate the government on behalf of the dissidents and they asked for their comment -- for your comment. this is one where you ask them not to use the information. what do you ask, what criteria do you use, and when you ever

ask of those things of the press? >> my experience is the only way the press will listen to you is if you tell them as much as you can. in my experience, the press, especially the ones represented here, are responsible. they will listen to reason but you have to say why. you have to say precisely why. in the example you just positive, what i would do would be to call my colleagues in agency, department of state, and find of exactly why people think they would be at risk. we would then sit down with the times and say here is why publishing this report puts them at risk. >> are you in a position of disclosing more classified information in order to hold the

press from using classified information they have? >> yes, and i have done that. i am particularly interested to hear from general hayden at lunch. he has done a lot more of this than i have, but that is exactly what you have to do. these are good, responsible professional journalists, and americans, and they do not want to do anything that would harm us or our allies. but that only works if you tell them what is going on. >> does it have to be high stakes? >> lives at stake, in terms of persuading the press not to publish something, that is the easiest. other things that are relatively easy, specific intelligence sources and methods. i have seen examples where the press -- none of these

ublications, by the way -- release information about technical operations and then the next day we lose the ability to collect that. that is the sort of thing that you have to do with the press, say, please do not say -- that intercepted communication from a x said y. x will then shut down the communications channel. you have to establish the ground rules at the beginning of the conversation that says we are going to tell you a lot of things that are sensitive, but we are going to tell you in order to persuade you why it should not be published. >> erica, so you are on the

other side of this phone call. we know you have information, we know you are contemplating running it. we do not want you to, we want you to delay it, what ever is in between those two possibilities. what is the criteria to about the way, from the media's point of view? >> " ultimately, it comes down to -- ultimately, it comes down to what we publish, if it would be subjected to by the administration. the debate in the newsroom over these sorts of stories are pretty vigorous debates about what is the public's interest. that is paramount, in our view. is there a way that we can tell

the story that can convey the information that we think is important for our readers to know about how the government is operating, without compromising specifics? we look card in each of these cases to find a way to strike that balance between providing our readers with the information we think they need with the kind of granular the we think it will give the credibility for readers, with at the same time, balancing the concerns expressed about specific things in stories, specific locations, names of people, specific methods. the hardest cases would be one where there is just a fundamental disagreement between the administration and newsroom. >> it is a negotiating process between you and jeff, on the phone or in person, dealing with

what you might be able to publish, how you can publish it -- is it a negotiating process? >> i think it is. my role is much less than what i am making it sound. >> i think you understand your role. >> if yes, it is a negotiation. >> -- yes, it is a negotiation. >> i guess it's sort of depends who is on the other side whether or not it is credible. the familiarity with a person will matter even if the information is the same. >> yes, it has been interesting for me to participate in these discussions, as a lawyer.

it has been interesting to see that they almost have a sixth sense about the communication that is coming across the administration. as a lawyer, i would tend to take things at exactly what they are saying. there is a lot of new ones in the process that i have grown to appreciate the day -- and they are saying no, but it is not really a hard no, and it depends who it is coming from. at least in our newsroom, there is a good understanding when you can go ahead. i think most of the times we end up in an o.k. place. but it is a new ones, fascinating process. >> dave, it is eight weeks ago and "the washington post" gets a phone call from someone in the intelligence and law-enforcement

community. that person says there is a -- extra activity being spent looking at the vulnerability of the d.c. metro system. this is a credible source, somebody who knows what they are talking about, and it affects, in the most obvious way, the livelihood and lives of the people who read "the washington post." the source indicates that this is coming from intelligence sources, law enforcement as well. what is the "washington post's" obligation to translate -- transfer information to put people on guard?

how does walter know, when he gets that phone call, whether or not this is something the administration or intelligence community wanting to know as official policy, or someone in the agency thought, my gosh, this is a dangerous situation. the people of washington need to know. >> how do you know that, walter? [laughter] >> you know by who is telling it to you. that is why we have our sources. the irony of the coverage that we go through, we do the same thing that the intelligence community does. we have sources, we develop sources. we learn to trust them or not. you cannot just accept what anybody says. you have to do some real work to find out whether it is true or

not. >> do you have to have dealt with this person before you are comfortable feeling that the information that they are disclosing is credible? >> i do. it is not as simple as people make it out to be, or as simple as some people do it. >> mark, even if it is someone you have never spoken to before but they have a high enough position in an agency structure, would that alone be enough to allow lee to make the decision that this was something that the minister should wanted to discourage harassed --

disclose? >> i would certainly look and to see if the information is credible and then i would wonder why they are telling me. that would factor into whether i would publish or not. you are never going to go after what this one person just said and that is it. it is more complicated. it is not everyday that some high level person will call you out of the blue and give you some high level classified information. maybe you have to think there is a hidden agenda here. >> are you satisfied that you have found out the difference between the two weeks, those that are sat -- authorized and

those that are not authorized? >> one of the many perplexities of our system, is publishing information going to scare the public? that is a tough call. i am curious to know how the press would handle that. i do not think that the public needs to be fearful of going to work. however, if it is a real alarm, -- that is a tough call. >> let's go back to my hypothetical about a foreign policy debate within the administration -- something like sanctions. i want to take it out of the operational, military sense, and i want to look at it from the perspective of whether we should work with a country or two. you speak with a source.

are you doing this in some sort of off the record, authorized way? do you ask that question, or do you just accept, if they are talking to you, they want to talk to you and have the authority to do so? >> it depends on the person. we are all affected by what has happened to us in the past. everyone of us has a history, at least having done it so long -- but your instincts help you a lot. the question about sanctions, though, incorporates the question of whether or not sanctions ever work. it is more than just what that person is telling you. >> you would filter your

willingness to report, a further explore, even on the level of your qualitative analysis based on whether the issue involved -- as you said, sanctions do not work. would that make you more or less likely to cover this? >> it is not a question of covering this, it is a question of how you report it out. the question needs to be what kind of sanctions you are talking about. the abstract idea of applying sanctions to this country, where we have not done it before, to me, is not that important if you do not find out what we are going to sanction, how, and what we expect to get out of it, how many other countries have been sanctioned for such a thing. no sanctions will work by

itself. so by that nature, you know that we would have had to tell a lot of other countries when we were planning to do. >> we will leave the prosecution side of the conversation to the afternoon, but on the front end side of disclosure -- if an administration is dealing with a sensitive issue and the head of the agency wants to float the idea into the public to determine any number of things, to corroborate the information, to see how the public feels about it -- whatever might be a legitimate reason. so somebody would need to begin this conversation.

that is a "authorized leaks of classified information." is it ever ok to have an authorized leak of classified information? >> yes and no. [laughter] i have seen countless such instances in the department of defense where the secretary would call the assistant secretary and say, background the press on this, we have the assistant secretary coming up. he would them show them and read from the memos, circulating with the u.s. position would be. it would be selective to get out in advance what the position was. i have somewhere in my basement a newspaper of such an authorized week that i was a part of, directed by the secretary. right next to it was an unauthorized leak, and they both

read basically the same. sources close to the administration today said x. in one case, they said it was okay that they got it out, in the next, he was furious, and started an investigation. they get information, they published it. from the point of the efficacy of the classification structure, it is very destructive. >> but folks in our position chat with government people all the time, multiple times a week. they talk about what is important to the agenda of their organization, important to the agenda of the administration in dealing with certain things.

on any given day, they would talk to people and pass it along. on another day, they would do the same. the problem came about that at some point, but they were being told, -- what they were being told, it was authorized or prove or something, and then the next day they were told something else and it was not approved. they need to know the difference between what they are supposed to hear and what they are not. in my kitchen we have the thing on the dishwasher that says clean, unclean. from that point of view, how does a listener make that distinction? e listener.rd for th

in the aipac case, that was one of the key issues. how did they know? franklin, who pleaded guilty, did know. >> the defense department employee who was charged initially and then pleaded guilty, go ahead -- >> he acknowledged he was aware some of the information was classified that he ultimately kept in his home. so there was no ambiguity. on someonet granular like larry franklin. as i said, like larry franklin. he is in an agency, he has higher ups, colleagues, and on a particular day, hypothetical larry, see what this person has to say about this subject. no problem.

another occasion is, larry is involved in the debate on such a thing, and makes a decision on his own this is equally interesting, of the same benefit to the american public, and does it. his boss does not yell at him about it, and is glad that they got the feedback. now comes the third case. he makes the decision because the last time he did it he got a pat on the bat, but this time he gets indicted. how do we know the difference? >> i would be careful about getting written authorization for doing anything like that. without that, you are putting yourself at risk. >> jeff, in the time that you were involved in an authorized leak of classified information,

did you get a permission slip? >> a lot of this was before e- mail -- [laughter] y but it is mostly oral. they get instructions from more senior people but it is very difficult. in the case that you just posited, where that line begins and ends can be difficult because of the authorized leaks dealing with the same set of circumstances. if i could jump ahead just a moment -- think about bob woodward's extraordinary new book on obama's war. he had unbelievable access to a great amount of information.

how are people and elsewhere in the government meant to know, when they read that book, they have documents to run their file that are still classified top secret, that deal precisely with the secrets and facts that bob woodward, presumably, put up with authorization? maybe it is one of those things in our democracy that we have to accept. >> it is not just a question of authorized versus unauthorized. there may be an agenda of leaking -- which makes it more authorized -- but for instance, what is one of the most classified things the cia does? one could argue the predator campaign in pakistan. did anyone in this room and not know that the cia is involved in that program?

and that the program has escalated over the montpast monh and a half? i think everyone knows that. it is not very hard to find information on that, but it is a classified program. so why is it more well-known and why is it easier to report on? maybe there is reason for making it known there is an escalation of the program. i am just saying there are reasons for providing classified information and sometimes it falls into a gray area of why it is authorized. >> for example, let's use bob woodward's book. he figures out a way to get unique information that others do not have access to. it is clearly the tear that exists currently in a classified state. it is clearly material that, if someone in the government

provided without authorization, they could be prosecuted, etcetera the information is out there but he only has one piece of the story. so there is another side to the story. the ice has been broken. is there different analysis now, in terms of whether or not people are authorized to further discuss the issue with different classified information? >> i think the ice has been broken. the taboo when but i think the woodwork but -- the woodward book points to our problem. the obama administration has

prosecuted four leakers. that is more prosecutions in 22 months than the entire american history. we only had three. at the same time, they are allowing some high level officials to put highly classified information on the public domain without consequence. it is calling into question the integrity of the secrecy system and the legitimacy of prosecutions that may be necessary but appear to be critical. >> i have to point out for full disclosure that in my representation of a person that has been charged here in the district of columbia for disclosing information in violation of the espionage act, i happen to have written a letter to the people at the justice and the permit after the woodward book came out that said i do not get how you are providing this kind of detailed information to a reporter in the same branch has authorized the

prosecution of a low level person for doing a far less thing. it is october 29. i have not received a response to that letter yet. we will see what happens. what are you going to say? >> there is another practical one you can think about, which goes back to the valerie plame case. in which you actually went to court and found out that scooter libby was authorized to leaked classified information. it is unclear who gave him the authorization data but other people were leaking to us and nobody cared about it. when you talk about breaking the ice, you have to remember that this game up administration leaking things has been going on for years. i mean, kissinger -- going back to dean rusk, he would have

people in every friday for drinks. depending on what is published, and this fits into your point of view of creating openness, people who are on the other side of issues that the government was leaking, and it has gone on in every administration, then feel free because they know something that is contrary to that, whether it is classified or not, to leak it to get in a vault in the debate. it is the fact that people at a higher level, i will bet you if the republicans win the house or senate, you'll have an investigation of that. not because they want to find out the leakeer but because --

not because they want to find out the leaker, but because politically, it would be good. >> eric, let's step away from the issue of classified information but, right back to it. the competition among the media in at 2010 is greater, i think, and most people think, than any other time, with all the various possibilities of channels and blogs and web sites. so to be the first is very important. and to keep up with whoever the competition is is very important. that said, as classified information become a singular kind of prize? people seem to get a lot a pulitzer prize nominations for being the first to disclose something that was from a classified piece of information. so wasn't that -- so is that sort of the golden fleece to be the first person on the block to

have a story about the drones or a story about the detention camps? >> i do not think it is anything about publishing classified information that motivates the news room. i mean, it might make it a little bit sexier to know that the documents are classified. but it really goes to the information that is in the classified documents that is going to dictate how much energy we're getting behind reporting and publishing something. >> is the mix of buzz that a story gets the issue? the demonstration is debating whether or not to sanction country x compared to the administration today is debating whether to sanction country x according to classified information obtained by the "washington post?" >> i think it does make these stories sound more interesting and authentic.

so i think that adds a layer to the story. but honestly, and this may sound self-serving, but i think they really are more interested in what is in it rather than being able to report that they simply have a classified document. at least that has been my experience. >> the first lead of the story you mentioned it sounds like an authorized leak. the second one does not because of the first part about administration debating whether to sanction china sounds like it comes from the administration to see what the chinese say. >> we talk about prosecutions and changes in the law. i keep using the word authorized and unauthorized with the not so clever use of my fingers in quote. the espionage act has a formula, and the formula starts with depending on which section it is, a person who is authorized to have the material makes it an unauthorized disclosure.

there is also a section which talks about people who do not have authorization to begin with. so it is not just practically, but it is legally has an impact. i want to turn to the use issue. all right, so you guys, mark and walter. you are doing a story. somebody's talking to you from inside the government. they want to talk to you about the information. and it is very clear that the subject you are pursuing is going to include classified information. it just is. both because of over classification but also because this has to do with the formulation of sanctions or something you just know has it. do you try to help the person and by providing information in a way that makes it easier for them or for you? for example, you could say to them, is there a document that says that? you could say to them, can i see the document that says it? or you can say to them, i do not

want to see the document. i just want you to tell me what it says. do you have a methodology? >> we always want to see the document. sure. you generally will find people will be hesitant to give it to you. some people have standards of i will show it to you but will not give it to you. i do not legally know the difference is. we want to see more. instead of having to take someone's word for it, we want to see what the document says. >> is there any level of classification on the document that you rather not know about it? if you see the document, it will say that it is a certain level of classification. some of it i am not even supposed to know the names of it, although i do. do you want to know that, or do you just want to know that it is classified? >> it does not much matter to me the level. other than something that is top

secret is probably considered a bigger deal or more sensitive than something is secret. it is what is in the document that is more important to me. >> but then if you actually see the document, you'll be immediately aware of its classifications that is as opposed to being described to you. you want that possible deniability? >> i think this standard is the same either way. we are going to protect the source. whether he is giving us classified or top-secret information, we have a relationship that we're going to protect the source and no matter what. i do not think it much matters the circumstances of the discussion. >> walter, do you want to see the document, too, or do you just want to know what it says? >> well, if there is a document -- there may not be a document. the information is what is important. the fact that you see a classification i do not think

makes much difference. .ou're still going to go down you still go down the same path of finding out. the document classified does not mean that the information is true or that it is in the public interest, and you need other people to confirm what is in a document. and that the document is a real document. the fact somebody gives you something does not make it a real document. this is my history of not trusting almost anything. [laughter] that is given to you. >> eric, walter strolls to your office and says that a source tells me about the sanctions or about this or that, and i can sort of look at the document or i can have it read to me or i

can have its summarized to me. do you want to give them any predictions? do you want to say that you are the reporter, go to the source, and get to the document at all costs? or you might say that it might be better to have an oral exchange. >> as a practical matter, those conversations did not happen. when walter walks into my office my heart's -- when walter marks into my office, my heart started racing. for a practical matter, i do not get involved in national security reporters to that level of detail about their interactions with their sources. you know, it is probably preferable to knock it a document. >> thinking ahead to the possible litigation, for example. >> right. if i am worrying about possible criminal prosecution, but you have to take a step back as a newsroom lawyer and recognize that the statutes say what they say, but the reality is the

press. they have never been prosecuted for violating the espionage act for what they publish because of the things we worry about more in these stories of leak investigations, more than the exact interaction and the reporting, something that is potentially technically a violation of the has been nosh act or a government statute or something like that. and really, the approach that think the newsroom lawyers that i work with have taken is a more hands-off approach. let the reporting be paramount, and the most important thing is getting good and accurate information that is in the public interest that we can defend in reporting at the end of the day. rather than micromanaging the conversations. >> i think rather than asking about getting the document, as eric will confirm, it is really

what you write in your notes. because your notes become your document. and that becomes an issue. >> so just, on that occasion which might be in a discussion with the agency head -- so, jeff, on that occasion which you might be in a discussion with the agency head and you are making a decision making role about the authorized league, the make the decision to provide access to a document when there is a document that could do the purpose as opposed to doing it orally? does that come up in the equation? >> it has on occasion. but typically, the instruction from the most senior person is to just background the press on this, and then there are some general lines are drawn about what you can talk about and what you cannot talk about. and there really is not much

focus on showing them the document. it is a more general conversation. what happens is you put out a, b, and c, but they are smart enough to know that there is more out there. so they will start calling around and look pretty soon find that. >> is there a difference in the conversation that you have with somebody who is your source in the government in terms of protecting that source win that source is providing you with what is either acknowledged to be or known to be classified information versus anybody else who is a source? do you have a different conversation? >> you have to ask it chronologically, before i got a subpoena two times.

>> before subpoena. >> there are people you have regular conversations with. and a lot of those cases, you do not say i am going to protect you or i will not give away your name. this is on a background, etc. post-subpoena, i will sort of wait till i get another subpoena. >> and do you volunteer that? in the context of talking to somebody who is quite obviously talking to you about something that is classified, because they admit it and it is obvious. do you volunteer any information as to how you are going to protect bedsores? or do you wait to be asked by the person talking -- and do you volunteer any information as to how you're going to protect that source? arkansas dewer for them to ask you? >> it depends if it is somebody

i talked to regularly. it may come up or it may not. you are premising the idea that somebody is saying i am calling you up and this is classified. most people do not do that. >> but they do say things like i shall not know this. or they do say things like i have read a report, and they happen to be calling you from the cia, so you could put two- and-two together. the context will indicate that it is classified. one of the questions is the volunteer or weight, but is it a different conversation you have with any other source just because it is classified or is it the same conversation? >> i think it is the same conversation. but the difference is, is that person familiar with how the press operates? is it someone in washington who deals with the press or is familiar with the espionage act?

or someone who is outside, who is much more reticent to talk and much less familiar with all of this to be more inclined to ask you if they will be protected. i think the people you deal with on a regular basis, if you develop a relationship with them, will know that and trust you that you will protect that information because you have in the past. i think the short answer is i do not have a conversation every time i get on the phone. wheat renegotiate it. >> you do not have a classified information miranda rule? >> no, is certainly not with anyone i am familiar with. >> eric, i want to understand how it works on the most practical level. you are general counsel in a major reorganization in a city that thrives on the disclosure of information that is not quite ready for prime time disclosure.

some of it will be classified, much of it may be classified. do you have pre-sessions on any regular basis with your reporter staff, giving them the dos and don'ts? >> from time to time, we have had seminars about the risks of national security reporting with our national security reporters, just so that they understand the gravity of the issues that can come up in the course of national security reporting. we do talk about the espionage act and the other statutes that can come into play. but typically the conversation is more revolved in the day, in around dealing with your sources. >> on a case by case event. >> yes, but we do talk to them generally about the risks, best practices, and from both the standpoint of what we publish, whether it exposes the newspaper to risk of some sort of prosecution, and then in the

context of how the newspaper will deal with a leak investigation and what that means for your reporting practices. for example, do you put the names of confidential sources in your notes? i prefer that you do not do that. there are rules that we require somebody else to do follow-up, but we do sensitize them to the issues. >> hold on to the thought of the general before and conversation. should media organizations have this rule book the the id to reporters when they come in to say here is how you deal with classified information? >> i do not know about the rule book. is i fascinated by the -- am fascinated by the conversation. a classic study of the espionage act pointed out that the espionage act itself is a loaded gun pointed at the media. and what is described are highly

legal acts taking place for government officials are breaking their oaths of protecting government secrets and turning them over to journalists, private parties. so there is the law-breaking of the leaker, and the lawbreaking under the espionage act of the journalist. of course there has never been a prosecution. i think the risks of a journalist are low, but the law itself is being violated. >> one of the interesting things about the aipac lobbyist case was that they were not the government officials at all. they certainly lived in the first amendment, both either because of the freedom of speech or because the right to petition the government, but they were not quite the media either. but many saw that as a way of if this worked and ended up as the prosecution with grit, that it

was a smaller step to the issue of using that as a precedent. i think attorney general gonzales said that on a sunday morning show. >> the judge said it in his sentencing of lawrence franklin the this applies to government officials, professors, and it applies to people who write books, and it applies to journalists who come into unauthorized possession, the loaded gun remains a loaded. >> sadly talked about the front and in a more perfect a lack -- broke pat -- we have looked at this in the context of the case by case issue. does a reporter come to you at the front end up having received the information and seek advice? does it depend on to the reporter is? is their policy about reporters doing that? or is it only when the stuff hits the fan and there is an investigation or subpoena? >> no, it is pre-publication.

i am not saying that i agree with you about whether the law is violated by anything that we are doing. i think the first amendment would make it unconstitutional to apply the has been the object to the press, and that has never been fully litigate it. -- the first amendment would make it unconstitutional to apply that in the espionage act, and that has never been fully litigated. there is the point at which reporters are either close to writing a story or have written a story and we're getting ready to engage in the dialogue that everybody has talked about with the administration. that is typically when they might lose in the lawyers. >> generally speaking, reporters that work in the organization know that if they are in receipt of something that is classified, that there should be a pre-

publication discussion with somebody? >> well, i wish i could say that it is automatic, but it is not automatic just because there is classified information that we might be reporting. we rely on the editors in the news room and the reporters to know when it is time to call in a lawyer and seek our advice. we do not dictate what gets published in the paper. but to seek our advice about the process and what we would recommend publishing or not. >> if there is a leak investigation, be it in an agency context, inspector general context, or even a criminal context, and they now issue of who the source is, where the information is, if the media organization retains a document -- if that all comes up, has there been a change of the last 10 years? it has been pointed out that there have been four

prosecutions in the past 22 months, more than nine the prior 90 years under the espionage act. -- more than there has been in the prior 90 years under the espionage act. is it that we're not talking or that we're not giving? the best way to get what we want is to hold us in contempt and we're happy to be there? >> i think that oversimplifies the. the bedrock principle for our news organization is that we do not break promises to our sources. and the second part of our approach in these things is if there is a way to avoid a confrontation with the government in this context, knowing that the law is not as protected as we think it should be for reporters, that we have to work hard to find a solution that allows us not to have to break a promise to a source but

to provide information if we can that will eliminate the need for a confrontation over the subpoena. that is not always available. but those are sort of the two guiding principles. >> is it only based on keeping the promise to the source? what if the source does not care? >> i think that is something that we learned. i have done this with walter. in its bitter libby -- in the scooter libby case, at least to the investigation was presented with written waivers from sources that said i hereby release you from any promise of confidentiality. and what do we do with these waivers? we're looking at them, and the senior editors, the publisher, walter -- do you credit the

paper waiver alone? were you know that under the circumstances under which they were signed, employees were probably told either sign this waiver or you're going to lose your job. is that truly a voluntary waiver? >> and let's even assume it was. that is an important distinction, whether it was coerced or pressure. you need to factor that. but do you have an obligation for all the next sources that may come down the pike to hold on with that, notwithstanding that any one source says to go ahead because it is a crack in the wall which can turn into a bigger crack, which can turn into a bigger crack. >> resort to put the paper waiver aside and said that we need -- we sort of put the paper where aside and say that we need to find out if they are truly releasing you from confidentiality. you have to look at what the circumstances were. in the plame investigation, we

did reach a high degree of confidence that they did want to release to reporters to testify. under those circumstances, whether you're protecting? and in the source is releasing new, asking you to cooperate -- and then the source is releasing you, asking you to cooperate. at that point, why resist? >> we talked about the espionage act of 1917 as the principal law by which leak investigations and prosecutions still occur under the frame of espionage. it is used as a leak statute as often as it is used as any other purpose. is the present scheme of statutory, regulatory criminal laws the right scheme? if not, what should be done? >> that is the question that i am glad you have gotten too. the current as be announced

statutes today from 1917 that are based on some earlier statutes, and in many ways the language is out of date, and i think some of modernization could be useful. but it also could be very dangerous. from the point of view of the executive branch, my experience is that the existing statute works to prosecute people who leak truly classified information. as you know, there is the said committee in the senate judiciary committee that has instituted a look at statutes to see if they can be modernized. some minor tweaking may occur. but also worry about going too far one way or the other. and the first amendment is precious to all of us. and i think we need to be very careful as we think about modernizing the statutes. one final point, and i look

forward to everybody's discussion, is the wikileaks case. and a question in my mind -- it is not a question. i think if we got a hold of, in some way, saenz, i think a strong case can be made that he should be prosecuted. it is hard for me to argue that he should not be. but that is a different in many ways from what the papers have done, even with the documents they got from him. it seems to me what he did is so -- maybe as early ahead of my brief here, but it is hard for me to argue that what he did is not a crime and we shall not seek to prosecute him. >> is the present statutory criminal law scheme sufficient, even if old, and if not, how should it be changed? >> actually, the pentagon papers case, six of the nine justices that if the case came to them after publication, and it was

material that was classified, they would uphold the conviction under the espionage statutes. >> the american samoa cannot statutes themselves -- >> i did not mean to confine it to the espionage statutes. start there, but talk about the regulatory scheme in general. is it working fine? should it be changed? >> i think it is not working so well, but changing it can be dangerous. does senator shelby want to have a law that punishes all disclosures of classified information? i think it would be difficult and dangerous given the amount of over classification. i would not go in that direction. the morison case, the one that was first convicted, and the aipac case when a great distance to clarify some of the difficulties in the espionage

statute, so we understand that that makes them more workable. the one area that i would try to strengthen the integrity of the secrecy system is to have a more fluid it whistleblower protection act. so that leakers would have no excuse to go to the press. that would have a thorough process for their internal grievances or evidence of government illegality. >> so there would be a place that they could take those inside the government that would be as effective as bringing it to the attention of walter or mark? >> the question is whether the intelligence committees are paying sufficient attention and if there is enough over said. that is part of the problem. it is not necessarily paying

attention enough when whistle- blowers' come to information about wrongdoing. >> let's see what everybody here things on the things we have talked about or those things that we might not have gone to that you hoped we would. we have microphones set up so that it gets onto the taping system. please come to a microphone. >> thank you. i have an unusual perspective. i am former national correspondent and journalist newspaper editor. i changed careers and retired recently as an intelligence officer for the department of common security. given that background, i have seen, under the tent a both of these areas, and in fairness to the government side on over classification, it is not about laws or authorities or such. a actually, for the past two administrations, bush and obama, a presidential directive in office set up in the white house

and the director of national projection to create more sharing, all of those information-sharing in the shins. there legally, technically, governmentally supported. but the problem, in my observation, is cultural. there's a cultural element that we're fighting the people often do not realize. if you go to the average intelligence office, you'll see three or four different computer systems on every desk. there is unclassified, sigrid, a top-secret, and god knows what on the other one. the buzz factor that was mentioned earlier about the press having a sex your story if it is taken for a classified sources -- about the press having a sexier story if it is taken from a classified source, and sometimes it can be accidental. i once received, in the spirit

of being more open, this executive had planned a session like this where there was going to be an open discussion of some issues about homeland security. i noticed that she created it on the secret system because that is where she worked, so it came out classified secret. i said that is an interesting idea, but i think you're going to cut your attendance at dramatically because it automatically said secret. so that cultural barrier. there are many cultural barriers that stand between us and what is next. >> the issue of the cultural barrier, does anybody have a comment on it? >> i am a former reporter, and i have been involved in litigation in this area as a lawyer. i guess, the first, doubled like to make -- >> we tried to ask the people to ask the panelists questions as opposed to making comments. >> it is partly a question.

and the pentagon papers case, i am not sure that having a better whistleblower system solves the problem of the public becoming involved in the debate over the basic public policy question. but the real question is, we're looking at a group of people in a rather pristine situation. national security reporters and news organizations that regularly deal with national security and the government. but they are not the only people that get classified information, that it leaks. -- that get leaks. when a reporter from the paper that the cia does not know calls up with information, do they get the same treatment that the post does? >> that does not happen all that often. it sometimes does. and it would be a case by case

decision that is made based on whether we have any hope -- how serious the information is and if we have any hope of persuading him or her not to publish it. >> also, it is a new era for us as well. we're not going to put a story of the publishes the names of the last five cia station chiefs in an islamabad. we know who they are. however, if the blogger knows that information and puts it out in the public, they may have a dialogue with the public, may not. where does that put us in a decision? do we then report on what was reported? do we keep the original standard we had? i think that is a somewhat murky area. >> i think that is a critical question, and one we have not had much of a chance to talk about. >> and it raises something the media is talking about in other

contexts, which is at the different forms of media we have now and the lack of barriers. wikileaks is an example in part. >> i am from the university of southern california. i have been in journalism for decades. the journalist perspective was summed up by saying i want to see it all, and then we decide. let's go beyond the "new york times" and "washington post" and it to wikileaks and other sources. how does that not inevitably lead to wikileaks and the disclosure of powerful information if there is no other limitation? >> gabe, take that first. now that we're changing the world, how you make that distinction? >> we have never had a prosecution for publishing classified information. during world war ii, there was information published suggesting

we had broken japanese codes. the prosecution was a drop because it appeared that the japanese had not taken notice of the story. [laughter] had they taken notice of the story, it might have changed their occurrence. in any event, there is a theoretical possibility of a prosecution of the press. the prosecutors obviously have to use their discretion. you have standard practices described by walter and mark. they are unlikely to provoke the prosecution. you might have a domestic wikileaks that would be prosecuted or the disloyal paper. or you might have a publication that hires american contractors to write their newspaper, and they start extracting classified information from the pentagon. >> does that scare you guys to get when you hear about all the

procedures that exist in the traditions of institutional media organizations now being victim to prosecutions based on whoever can get access to the internet and become a media organization and do things that were never clear eric's point of view? are you worried about it? >> again, if they steal it, that is one thing. if they get it the way we get it, if somebody breaks their oath and gives the information, i mean, the only thing that -- i mean, the web does not totally scare me. what scares me is they put out information that turns out not to be true but people believe in it. and there is a demand for publication. but i do not think it is going to -- i hope it does not move us to do the same thing. >> on the wikileaks case, there

was part of it over the summer when the "new york times" got a hold of a large amount of classified information about the war in afghanistan, and we had the decision of what to do with it. our decision was that wikileaks or wherever they got it, they're now source of information. we will take the information and digest the information. first of all, of whether it is credible. we could have gotten stuff that was made up. we have to first find out whether the stuff is true or if it is real information. we determined it was. then we determine if it is newsworthy. we determined it was bid up the was also the calculation that wikileaks was, given their history, they're going to get the information up. so we will do it in our own way and go through the information and decide what we are going to publish. >> i am television reporter here

in washington. it was briefly mentioned about it be not so much about having a classified document that makes you nervous but what you put in your notes. do you keep your notes or do you shred your notes? >> and when? >> exactly. [laughter] >> i have to speak to my lawyer. [laughter] >> i do not reveal sources. >> you do have a fit the menin right here. -- you do have a fit the amendment right. [laughter] >> i generally keep my notes because i deal with things that people argue about whether it is true or not. i am worried about the truthfulness of it. and thank god, it is very useful. but i note people -- but i know people are about shredding. i do not believe in and

shredding or having secret meetings are being worried about phone calls. >> i suppose that from the point of view from the litigation side and the resistance a media organization or a reporter would put up to not reveal anything, there's not much of the difference between getting him to talk compared to providing his notes. i suppose that is going to be on the same basis. on the prosecution side, what is interesting to me is that, remember, the espionage act as a provision which does not prosecute the disclosure by prosecutes the improper retention. so if you had a document -- the camel's knows maybe in the retention prosecution as compared to a disclosure one. >> i coordinated government initiatives. you asked about the regulatory

framework and whether it works well. i wonder about the implementation of that. how does the practice work? does it work well? does the negotiations work well? is there something about the way this plays out that you would like to change? >> do you mean in the way that jeff and eric was discussing a piece of information or do you mean the way prosecutors to discipline those who leak? >> i mean, if there's one thing you can change about the way this plays out. >> and to see if the reporters have a different point of view. is there anything you would change? >> i think it works quite well. the frustrations i have had, frankly, have been with journalists who were not responsible and not responsive. my experience over time has been the journalists, when told about things that they should

not publish and are given a reason to not, just cavalierly put things out. they're very few of those. i think one thing that does worry me about the new media is that because there is so much information that is so readily available, we will have more which the late problems. from the government's point of view, there is a need to share information to connect the dots. and the countervailing pressures within the intelligence community to not share information because we do not want another wikileaks case may mean that less information is shared and we may be put a greater risk because people cannot connect the dots. that is a very real worry in my mind. >> eric, is there anything that you would change? >> iowa agree with jeff. -- no, i agree with jeff.

i think the process works well. the times of the process is frustrating is if the administration is unwilling to engage in a serious discussion. that is a very frustrating for the news organization. i think if you read bob there iss buook, information about the time before published the mcchrystal report. and there were desires to get engaged on what issues would be posted on the website. fortunately, there was a good healthy discussion and we worked out what we thought was a good compromise. but if you cannot get that conversation going, it would be very hard for the news organization to do what would be responsible if we do not have the information on which to make

an educated decision. >> on the flip side, one area i would look for is more transparency from the media about decisions to publish. think of the extraordinary cases. for example, the wire tapping story that the "new york times" got in 2004 and sat on for a year. and then turned around and published it in december 2005. they wanted to understand the decision. the authors of the editors were stonewalling him on the explanation. one of the two reporters that wrote the wire tapping stories that one of the factors in the publication was the fact that his co-author had a book coming out the following months. and they had the the danger of being skewed by their own reporter. -- and they have the danger of being scooped by their own reporter. there needs more transparency by

the media. >> one more question. >> i think -- these negotiations happened before got to the "new york times." but it has been said that the story approved for there was significantly more information over the course of the year that made them more confident about writing the story. he has said that several times. >> i am from germany, public broadcasting. i was wondering whether the development of online journalism, but in a general and the web sites of your own papers, puts you under more pressure to come up with a story quicker, faster, along with a picture, tweet, things like that? >> there is more pressure. we're writing for the web and different platforms. i think we are a little bit more

insulated from it than political reporters where there is a lot of pressure to blog and tweet and do all this stuff that they have not yet come to us to ask us to be blogging every day about these issues, and we are given more time to develop stories. but it is only a matter of time before we are all doing it. but so far, the pressures are not as bad. >> so this could go on, and it will. partially overlapping this afternoon with a bunch of new topics. but for the moment, please thank all of our panelists for making this such a great panel. [applause] >> somebody is going to come and tell us how to do this, but we're taking a break for lunch.

then the general will speak after people have had their lunch and come right back. please enjoy the rest of the program. that is according to the cook political report. if republicans pick up a net

gain of six to eight seats, downgraded from a 77 to nine seat range. that change, due to the increasing likelihood that democratic incumbent senators barbara boxer in california and patty murray in washington will win re-election and in west virginia governor joe manchin, democrat, appears to be holding advantage in his race against republican john racey for the west virginia senate seat. as we have been mentioning, tomorrow is voting day. join us for live election coverage starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will have results from around the country, victory and concession speeches and your calls, e-mails and tweets.

>> according to the college boards, the u.s. is ranked 12th among 36 developed nations in the percentage of young people who hold college degrees. last week nbc's david gregory moderated a panel discussion on efforts to improve college completion. outgoing d.c. schools chancellor's michelle rhee is among the participants. this is about an hour and 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. please welcome the associate rice president for enrollment management and director of scholarships and student aid at syracuse university and chair of the board of trustees of the college board, youlanda copeland-morgan. ♪ >> good afternoon everyone. you look wonderful even with these bright light shining in my face. thank you for joining us today for what will surely be a very stimulating conversation. the title of today's panel is vision 2020, college completion and the american future. lets reflect for a moment on what this means. as evidenced by recent local and national efforts, there are many

often competing visions of what our schools, colleges, community colleges and universities should do and should look like so that our students can remain competitive in the global world economy. virtually no one argues that getting our students into and through college is an unworthy goal. after all, there are numerous studies that have shown that college graduates on average earn more than those who are in a high school degree. they are typically healthier. they contribute more to our society, and they help stimulate the economy with their earning potential, ingenuity, and their skills. certainly a prosperous american future will require that each of us in this room today and all of our colleagues continue to search for solutions that ensure

college success for the students in our charge. however, the stark reality is that, on our increasingly competitive interconnected planet, american students are lagging far behind their international peers. we now rank 12th among 36 developed nations in the degree attainment for young adults. this is a far cry run the educational system that many of us are products of. the u.s. educational system that once led the world in college degree attainment for young adults. in order to recapture our position as a global leader in educational attainment, the college board completion agenda has recommended that the nation increased its number of 24 to 34-year-olds who hold an associate degree or higher to 55% by the year 2025.

president obama of course has set an even higher and more ambitious goal, that of having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. we have with us a panel today for of four individuals who have vastly different experiences with and in the american education system, and i am sure that you are as eager as i am to hear from them regarding their thoughts and their solutions. but before we begin, let's also take a moment to recognize the revolutionary work that is being done in some of our schools today. there are after all many success stories from which to learn and emulate as we forge a path ahead. we are all aware of the profound effects that good schools and

great teachers can have on a child's entire life. every year, the college board, the college board's inspiration awards recognizes three public schools that have defied the odds and created vibrant college going cultures for students who faced tremendous economic, social and cultural barriers. b-school sherrie believe that our young people are more than capable, and when you have high expectations, they will rise to the occasion. at each of these schools, there are educators whose dedication and faith in their students is a testament to the success that we can achieve when we have the will and the commitment to bring about real change. these schools serve as models for the rest of the country. you can read more about them in

your forum programs. today, you will have the opportunity-- tomorrow you will have the opportunity to hear from the students at each of the three award-winning schools and what is always a very memorable forum event for us. to set the stage for our discussion today, let's take a look at how the schools have managed to open the doors of higher education to all of the students that they serve. ♪ >> the college board looks across the country, and we honor what we consider the three best high school-- high schools in america. >> it isn't because the students are unique or different from other students. it is because you believe in them. it is because we are get them to

believe in themselves. >> regardless of race or gender, all students can excel. >> is not what happens at home. it is not the problems that you bring to school. it is what the school does for you when you get here. >> the typical kid comes to an a half years behind grade level but for the classes and 0708 we have got 80% of our kids in college and persisting in college. which is about the average for the state of missouri and if so are twice the average for the traditional public school districts around here. >> i come from this area. i know what obstacles the students are facing, and that is why i push them so hard. >> my parents never went to college. my mother never graduated high school. it would be a big deal for me to be able to make it and be able to provide for my family. >> they are just prisoners.

they believe in us, so it helps us to believe in ourselves. >> the teachers when they sit down and listen listen and have a commerce edition they continuously complement me about things that i probably wouldn't say to myself. they say to me and it makes me think. >> we love when they say it is hard because that means that we have raised the bar higher than what they are used to. >> i realize how smart i actually am and i'm like you can't really let this go to waste. >> we are continually looking at the next that. when are you going to be an algebra ii and trade? >> they have a class specifically to get kids to college like it is a requirement that you apply for five colleges. you have to fill out of these five scholarships. all of the seniors get into a college or university. that is kind of what inspired me. >> 55 seniors graduating right now who are currently over $1 million in scholarships for those 55 kids. colleges affordable and

accessible to everybody. >> greenland high school is the smallest high school in her division. we have been able to create a culture here and i think our kids feel comfortable in saying hey i'm going to college and i know how to get there. >> a year ago we had six students enrolled in this year we have 105. the vision is to immediately start an aspiring school and to also begin to just give them the vision of college right from the start. spew my sophomore year i decided to take ap european history. that is the hardest course i have taken her go when i look back at it, it made me start writing better, helps me question more. ..

>> there are many obstacles that these students are confronted with outside of the high school. >> these students here, they came from the same neighborhood, they live in the same projects as other kids, but the difference is we offer something that is unique in terms of our care, in terms of the curriculum and also the belief in our students. we do believe that they can achieve great things. >> when i started as principal, we had about 60% graduation

rate. >> now the graduation rate last year was 95%, and over 90% of our students graduated -- [inaudible] >> we changed the culture continually. some kids said that they were not -- [inaudible] and from parents visited me but i said, no, this is what they're going to do. >> if you need any tutoring and if the course becomes too difficult, they offer summer school, they offer saturday school. >> my daughter's in the tenth grade. right now she's taking three ap courses, she's taking chinese, she's passed regents exams, she's finishing up i all her high school requirements and will be taking college courses next semester. >> this year we have students accepted to columbia, cornell, u-penn, brown, we are making

dreams come true. >> i've been accepted to so many colleges, five colleges so far. i never -- i'm going to be the first child in my whole entire family to even go to college, first out of five be, and it's really exciting. >> i'm going to tcu and, basically, on a full ride because of the program. >> my dream school is cornell university, i was accepted. >> i'm going to -- [inaudible] >> i'm going to attend missouri state university to major in social work. >> hopefully, i want to work for be microsoft or google. >> i want to get my l doctorate. >> this generation of kids in my whole family is all going to college right now. >> i can maybe become the first female president. i don't know, it's out there, you know? very exciting.

♪ [applause] >> please welcome our panelists today, the host of nbc's "meet the press," david gregory. the president of the university of maryland, baltimore county, freeman ri bow sky. the chancellor of the district of columbia public schools, michelle rhee, and the president of the college board, gaston caperton. [applause] >> well, good afternoon. can everybody hear me okay? all right. we're going to have a discussion up here, we'll take some of your questions as well. i don't have to tell any of you how important this topic is. i wanted to say three quick things before i got to questions. one, before i came out to this session, i had a phone call with one of the nation's most

important military leaders, and as i often do when i speak to him, i thank him for what he's doing, and i offer god's blessings to our soldiers and what they're doing and how important that is every day. [applause] but i bring that up -- [applause] because when i was watching the film, "waiting for superman," that's out, i was taking some notes, and i thought to myself, you know what? what this story is about is the new front of america's patriotism which is education. when i speak to my son -- i have three children, my oldest son is 8 and is in second grade -- and i said to him recently, you know, sweetheart, i want you to do well not just for yourself, not just so that we feel good as a family, but you need to do well and get a great education for our country, you know? okay, your country needs you. and i think it's very important while i have this platform here to say, this is the way we ought

to be talking about this. education reform is about patriotism, it's about belief in our country, and i think that's very important. nbc news has, i think -- thank you. [applause] nbc news has a big commitment true education nation which is sustained. the president of our association has made it clear, this is not a one-shot deal for us. this is a conversation we want to keep having, we want to keep driving, we want to live up to that. you know, we're covering a very busy election season, and there's talk of aqua buddhas and witchcraft and all the, frankly, silliness of the political season, but this is the stuff that matters, america's competitiveness and education. my son's teacher, i said to her, what's the point of second grade? [laughter] i always like to challenge them on back to school night. [laughter] but his teacher -- they love parents like me. his teacher had a great answer which is to inspire a love of

learning. we want them to learn to be learners. i thought, fine, that's a great answer. i'll go back to the poe today poe chips over here -- potato chips over here. it's an important thing in terms of what inspires me both with teachers i've had, and i know you all are talking about and i think teachers for our young people. we have chancellor michelle rhee here, and i want to say publicly what i say privately which is thank you for what you've done, thank you for your commitment, for your leadership, for your stick to itiveness and for the results that you achieve. washington, d.c. will miss you greatly and this school system for your commitment to kids and to education endures and there'll be a great many people lining i up -- up to support you in your efforts. [applause] so i'd like to begin with gaston

caperton, and frame this discussion for us which is where are we? are we competing as a country educationally? >> i don't think we are. and we certainly were when i was born. we went through, we were always number one, and i think we're really shocked when we found ourselves not being number one. and as you look at why we're not number one, i think it has to do with not paying attention, not working hard, not setting high enough goals, not getting the right teachers in the right place, not getting the right leadership. and i'm very honored to be here today with two educators that are doing that, one in higher education, one in k-12, and it's this kind of commitment that's going to take us to get back to where we belong in america and where we want to be which is number one, not number 12 or 13 or 14. >> and, freeman hrabowski, we have some unsettling facts. the u.s. ranks 21 in math, 21st

in science. we have in terms of college degrees for people 25-34, 12th among 36 develops nations. developed nations. again, this is the framing, right? these are the concerns. >> sure. the fact is, though, we can do a lot. i think it's important to have passion when talking about education. we have to believe our children can you succeed, and they can ce to love math. i love math. i want people to get goose bumps doing mathematics, and we've got to have that attitude. connected to the math is the reeding. it's very -- reading. the challenge is twofold. number one, to increase the number of young people who are doing well enough, taking ap courses, that they can come to college and be prepared. number two, once they get to college the real challenge is to make sure they can succeed in these areas such as math and science. the fact is half of all students who start off in be math and science and engineering in universities leave it within a year or two. two-thirds of people of color.

so in addition to working on k-12, we have to think about ways of improving the culture and the way we teach math, science and engineering at the university level and at the k-12 level. in math and science we have to get teachers to appreciate the need to believe every child can do math, that it's not just -- if i asked the audience right now, how many of you knew by the time you were in 11th or 12th grade you were either a math/science type or an english/history type? most people are that way. we've got to change our attitudes about the work, and we have to have passion for the work. >> we'll driven down on some of these. chancellor rhee, you've experienced being in the trenches, not just questions of competitiveness, but also politics. so the reform effort is a bumpy path, and you now know that firsthand. but is accountability as the basis of reform now inexorably

part of the way forward here in making things better? is. >> i think it absolutely has to be. you know, we, we have a system, a school system, public school system in this country that for a number of decades now has been getting worse and worse. we are, we are doing a disservice to children in many of the schools across this country, and there is no accountability for this. so let me just give you a specific example. when i entered into the washington, d.c. public school system in 2007, 8% of the city's eighth graders were doing math at grade level, 8%. which means that 92 president of our -- percent of our kids did not have the knowledge necessary to be productive members of society. but if you looked at the adults in the system at the same time, you would have seen that 95% of the adults were being rated as

doing a great job. how can you possibly have a system where all the adults are running around thinking, i'm doing wonderful work, and what we're producing for kids is 8% success? that, that misalignment means that we are not holding ourselveses for producing academic gains for kids. and i know that the path there, as david said, is bumpy. when you change evaluation systems, when you start to tell people, well, i know last year we told you you're great, this year you're not so great, those are hard changes to go through, right? i get it. but it is our responsibility to, to really get real and to begin holding ourselves accountable for what we're producing for kids because if we don't do that and we want to save all of our egos, we're going to continue to fall further and further behind. >> can i ask you, mr. caperton,

what is -- because i'm thinking about the audience here, and i'm assuming a lot of knowledge about a number of these factors. what is the responsibility that the college and university community bears for partnering up to deal with some of the challenges? so if the public education system is a mess, frankly, you don't have the luxury of sitting back and saying, well, we'll just wait and see who applies. you've got to get in there and be a partner. tell me what that relationship's like and where it's lacking. >> well, i think you're correct that higher education has, in many places, hasn't been as involved in what's going on in the public education system that they stood back to some degree and said, send me your students, and we'll take 'em and expect 'em to be at a certain level. and that sort of washed down in some places, we're taking people that weren't prepared to go to college. and other people were taking kids that weren't prepared but really took that responsibility so that they became prepared.

i think that a lot of the teacher colleges that came under the auspices of these universities weren't at the level they should have been, weren't demanding the kind of students they should have. so i think there's some responsibilities that higher education has. if you take a person like freeman, and it's always my -- when i get, dave, when i get down and don't feel good about what's going on, i go to see freeman. and when you see what freeman is doing at his institution, the energy that the students have, the commitment they have, i remember the last time i visited was right before summer, or spring exams. and freeman didn't go -- we went into the library, walked around, and he talked to all, different groups of students. he didn't talk about what the football game was or the basketball game or the sporting event, he would ask them, are you studying hard enough? are you ready for your exam?

i remember when we were leaving, freeman, this one young man was from west virginia, so i was glad to see him. [laughter] and the other young man was an asian kid. and freeman asked him what mathematic, what course in math he was taking. and, frankly, i'd never heard of math that was of that high level. [laughter] and i'm not sure that any of y'all would have either. and he told freeman what he was taking, and freeman said, what grade do you have? he said, i have a c. and you could see fright in his eyes. [laughter] and freeman said, what did you make on your s.a.t.s in math? he said, 7 1r5. freeman said, go to work. you should be making an a. and freeman looked at him in a very serious way because he takes this seriously. and that's what if we have freemans in both our high schools and colleges, if we had

the commitment freeman has of expecting high performance be, we wouldn't be where we are today. >> there's a lot of tendency to talk about, you know, we need more of yous, we need all of that, but let's get back to then. how does that relationship happen where you and others like you are reaching out and becoming partners to the chancellors of the world in this school districts so you get some of that going? >> let's talk about mathematics for a minute, fundamental problems. and this is going to relate to you because it's a great example of higher education working with k-12. the national academy has a study on trying to get more kids of color into math and science, and one of the things it says is we've got to have colleges and universities working collaboratively to strengthen the schools of elementary and middle school teachers because they have not had the math support they need. [applause] they need much more math strength than they have right now. and what that means is professional development. i know we worked in baltimore county, the national science foundation has a lot of these

programs, math/science partnerships between universities and school systems to strengthen the skills of teachers because they've not had the work they need in the college setting. if you don't have teachers who are comfortable with math in the third grade, in the fifth grade, how can you expect the kids to become excited about the math as well? look at those kinds of programs and further develop initiatives that focus on developing the math skills of the teachers themselves and then working to understand how you work with children who may not be prepared to learn. it makes all the difference. >> chancellor, when i hear some of this, i'm inspired, but i also think it seems far away from some of the issues you're deal with. >> it's actually not, and it goes back to accountability. we need accountability for schools of education in our higher -- in our institutions of higher education. because we have teachers across the country who have paid $100,000 to receive a degree and then they come into the classroom, and they feel ill

prepared for their profession, and then everyone wants to look at the school district and say, what are you going to do to professionally develop them? i want to say, what did you do for the $100,000 to prepare these people to be successful? [applause] and i think one of the things we were doing here in d.c. was we're going to start holding institutions of higher learning accountable. we have a new system where we know who's effective, who's highly effective, we're going to back that up to where they came from. which schools produce these people. and if you are producing ineffective teachers, we're going to send them back to you -- [laughter] you sent us a faulty product, you sent us a product which is not producing results, so it should be your responsibility to do professional development and put the money in to get them to where we need to be. because, again, i mean, accountability, i mean, has to

sit in every place across the chain, but we can't just sort of say after the fact let's, let's have institutions of -- >> doesn't that have to occur in any profession on the job? >> sure. >> let me be provocative, i don't think we should call teachers faulty products, i just don't. michelle is absolutely right that we really need to work to strengthen what we do in colleges and universities so when people come out, they have much more math than they have right now. but we have thousands and thousands of teachers in our systems right now who are not comfortable with math. am i right? there are lots of these people who need this support. and professional development is not about long term, it's about now and working with that because teachers want to do a good job. we can work with those teachers while we do what michelle says which has everything to do with strengthening what we do in colleges and universities to make sure when they come out, they are prepared. i don't disagree with that at all.

>> and the doctor has a point, you've got to look at things in different buckets. if you are talking about a teacher who does not have subject area expertise in math, then professionally developing them on their communications skills or on their pedagogical skills is different because you're having to go back and teach them the basic math skills. those are two different things, and when you're -- so if they have the math knowledge and you're just trying to professionally develop them on top of that, that's a much more reasonable proposition than having to actually go back and teach them math. >> i wonder if part of this, mr. caperton, is talking a little bit about can we find consensus about what it is our students should know in 2010? what constitutes an appropriate education? you talked about math. and i want to bring this into the context of pursuing higher degrees. through michelle's leadership,

i'm connected to an elementary school where i'm doing some tutoring and mentoring, and there was a young boy, 11, 12, who was described by the principal, and i met him. really on the ball, really doing well. and, you know, he was talking about his interest in carpentry, you know, moving forward. and, you know, that's fine except he may have aptitude to do something beyond that kind of vocation, okay? is -- and this becomes an issue of how we're teaching young kids moving beyond, you know, those who are going to go to college, those who are going a more vocational path. talk to that in terms of getting more kids to get into college and complete their degrees. >> when i came to the college board 12 years ago, we basically had an ap program that sat here and not much else. and then we gave it s.a.t.. and we now start in the sixth grade in math and english and build that program to the ap program, and we can give kids a

psat in the ninth or tenth grade and find those kids that can, that can do the quality of ap work that they never thought they could do before. it was sort of the best teachers kind of picking the best kids. and we've doubled the number of people in ap programs. but we couldn't have done it by just hoping it would happen, we had to start down in sixth grade and prepare kids to begin to do that, and also to identify kids in a scientific way into the program, not let somebody -- what we were doing originally was ap teachers went around and picked what they thought were the best kids. but there were so many others available and capable of doing that work. so that system, what we call college-readiness system that's what the college board's about today, it's very different than it was ten years ago, and it's getting better every year. >> the good news is that when students seek others who look like themselves who are taking these ap courses, then it

becomes a possibility, and they want to do it. >> and your point, chancellor, is public schools need to think about, you know, driving those kids toward ap courses and not separating them. >> right. i think there is a misperception not just in d.c., but across the country that some kids are college material, some kids are not college material. we should be preparing kids for the work force or for college. and i think the you look at the data about professions that students can enter into straight out of high school and still earn a good living, they require the same skills and knowledge that colleges do. so it's sort of this false dichotomy that we have right now thinking, okay, we're going to prepare kids one direction or another. we actually have to compare kids with the same level of knowledge and skills for the work force as we do for college. and that's why i think we need to shift the mind set because that is not what the situation was 40 or 50 years ago.

back then it was a very different proposition where if you learned a trade, you could actually have a career that would lead you to good places. but the world has changed, and i think the problem is that the public education system has not changed along with it. >> that's a perfectly, doctor, what is an education worth having in 2010? what would you like a graduating senior from high school to know? >> sure. let's start with something that wouldn't surprise anyone -- >> [inaudible] >> you know, i cannot say that enough about america. [laughter] at a fundamental level, we have to because we are so frightened of math in the country. >> no, i agree with you. but i was just kidding you, but, no, no, even there -- [laughter] >> well, what i thought was my mother taught me, and she was an english teacher, quite frankly. the fact was reading skills are at the foundation of anything we're going to do.

give me a hand for reading, please. reading skills. [applause] so whatever the difference is, michelle is right, i had students that i was trying to get them to community college and auto motive training to become mechanics, and the problem they had was they didn't read well enough, and they couldn't get past developmental math. what is it we need for any student graduating from high school? we need students to learn how to read, write and be communicate effectively. very important. we need children to believe that they can do this work. we need children who have developed the skills to work hard and to understand that the only way you do well -- it's not about you're naturally smart, it's about willingness to work hard, to focus on the work. and most important we need kids to be innovative, to be curious, to be willing and interested in asking good questions. what america has not large numbers of people relative to the world, we've got this creativity and innovation. how do you connect the creativity and innovation with

skills that talk about good thinking and analysis? it's the combination -- >> you know, one thing i want to amplify is communication. this may sound obvious which is what i talk about at home, what do you mean you were shy in front of a group? [laughter] i do think social skills and knowing how to communicate well interpersonally and in front of a group is very important. and i meet young people who come in to intern for me, and it's as if they've never spoken to anyone. and i keep telling them, how do you think you're going to get ahead? you've got to learn to get out there and demand it and get it from me or other or people, and there is this timidity, i think that's got to be an integral part of this. but, chancellor, what about the role of proficiency, indeed even fluency, in a second language? what's your list of what people ought to know? >> i think part of the problem we face currently, right now is we have 50eu different -- 50 different states with 50

different sets of standards. meanwhile, in the countries internationally that are doing the best, there is a, there is a nationally-established curriculum. and so there are no questions about what a south korean 12th grader should know or an eighth grader in singapore should know. and that's why i think the common core standards movement is so incredibly important, because we're never -- right now for kids growing up in washington, d.c. today they are not going to be competing for jobs against kids in memphis and detroit. they're going to be competing against kids who are in india and china. and so we have to make sure that we are internationally benchmarking those standards. and one other thing i'll say about international standards, if you look at assessments that are done, one of the biggest problems that we face in america is that we are a mile wide and an inch teach -- inch deep. in other countries in third

grade for math there's one page. master these things. and it's very, very clear for everybody what needs to get accomplished. for our teachers today, you're combing through this entire, you know, huge binder, and that's just for one subject. add all the summits in, and it's -- subjects in, and it's almost impossible, still, what do we want these kids to leave this grade knowing? what are the nonnegotiables? we can't please everybody, we can't teach everything, we have to prioritize and know a child cannot leave this grade level without having these specific skills, and it has to be very, very clear. >> so president caperton, who sets something of a national curriculum? should we have something, can bruce stewart said we ought to think about a west point academy for teachers, so you have these national ideas. comment on that and then what should a graduating senior know today? >> well, first of all, i've

talked about that same thing. i've always thought there should be a west point for teachers. i think that's a great example of -- not as a sole place, but as a place for getting to do what is the best for this country. great place for us to put our resources. it could set the example of what we need to set which is what you were talking about earlier, really an education school that is as good as our medical school, as good as our engineering school and probably should be even better. the second thing you asked me was what? laugh. >> what should people know? what should a graduating senior know? what's worth knowing? and i also asked you who should -- how do you agree, and who actually sets the national curriculum? >> well, i think this common core standards is a very important thing that's being done. we've worked on it from it very beginning, we think it's extremely important. we believe the ap is a good

measure of success in performance, and it's growing very fast because of it, and i think it's making a big difference. and so i think that if you have this, these core standards that you can measure year to year, i think at the end you get the results you want. >> i want to -- michelle, do you want to comment on who sets the core standards? >> well, i'd say this, i mean, we shouldn't recreate the wheel, right? this we should look at the countries across the globe that are doing the best, we should see what they're doing, we should see what standards they've set, and we should use that as a starting point. not that we won't have to make modifications for our own country, but we don't have to create this from scratch. there are other people who are out there doing these things very well. >> we have the common core standards in mathematics, and we're looking at the literacy standards, and michelle is right. and they focus on what we think students need to know to compete internationally, and we're just about there.

>> i want to ask you about this, though, and i'm kind of a little naive here because i'm, you know, i actually grew up with a little bit of that, that, that sense of, oh, i'm not very good at math, and my dad would say, oh, i'm not good at math, and that did hurt me a little bit. but thankfully, my wife is really smart. and i'm working with my son now, but i may peak at second grade. [laughter] in the teaching of math, it seems like it has changed where there's more utility to it rather than sort of by rote. and i sort of came to later in life, oh, i get why math is important. it's the whole spatial relationship thing, are we doing a better job approaching math in that way? >> if you look at what we're trying to do -- >> because i don't use algebra generally -- >> well, you probably use it much more than you think you do. >> thank you, you're very kind.

>> you're smarter than you think you are, you really are. [laughter] the fact is when thinking about fractions and decimals, you'll see people are using these concepts all the time. when you think about money, it's amazing how many kids don't realize is -- a quarter is .25. it's amazing how we have not connected the work to real life. how do you show somebody how you use the work in real life, and that's what we're working to do right now. >> one of the things i want to -- you know, there's a tendency in these kinds of conversations it's really big, and it's really broad, and you still sort of walk out going, oh, i'll be darned, huge problem and where's the valet ticket? i want to spend a few minutes, chancellor, look, here's the reality: aggressive reform is needed, but it's also controversial. and what you have learned firsthand is you can do it, it's going to be controversial, and people are going to get really angry, and if you don't build enough consensus, you will be

kicked out of office. and what happens to reform then? and it's a serious question because that's happened here in washington. so what are our next steps? what are some of the hows to how we approach some of these issues in terms of taking some of the next steps? well, i mean, i think what i would hope the lesson that people take from the d.c. experience is not, oh, don't be as aggressive as they were because, you know, then you won't be in office four years from now, but rather to look at what we did right and look at what we did wrong and learn the lessons and then do it better next time. so, for example, you talked about sort of if you don't have a broad level of engagement and ownership over the reform efforts, i think that's absolutely right. we, we did a lot of things to try to get there. i had office hours, i'd go sit in people's, you know, houses and have coffee with them and that sort of thing. and we used a set of strategies

to try to build that level of investment and engagement, and in this case those weren't the exact right strategies. so i would hope that the next folks who come along learn from that lesson and say, okay, maybe those didn't work, but what are the next 10 or 20 we can utilize to make sure we can get more people understanding why we have to pursue this aggressive agenda, why we have to make the difficult decisions. so i think it's rather than sort of seeing it as, okay, we don't want to do that because it didn't work, it's what can we learn from that experience to go and try to do it better next time? >> specifically, as you move on to whatever's next, what are some of the things you specifically want to build on, you know, perhaps many a broader frame? >> well, i think a couple of things. one has to do with educators and teachers. and i think we'd be surprised at how many educators contact me every single day and say, you

are right, you know, we totally understand what you're doing and why, and what i always write e-mail them back and say, okay, don't tell me this, go out and talk about it in other places because right now there's this monolithic educator voice in this country coming from teachers' union leadership. and if you just listen to those folks, then all educators, you know, sort of believe that tenure and seniority and job security are the most important things. that's not the way most teachers and educators that i talk to think. and so what we've got to do is get really effective educators in this conversation, people who believe in accountability, who want to see aggressive reform. they've got to take more of a stand and more ownership over this education reform movement in the country. >> doctor -- go ahead. >> i'm look into the face of the superintendent of baltimore county. i am so proud that after a decade we can say in our county right there we are leading the nation, one of the leaders in

the nation in producing black males who graduate from high school. would you give him a hand for that? i am very proud of that. [applause] very proud of that. and the challenge we face is, clearly, michelle, i commend you for your courage and all of that, and i think it's important. i think the challenge we face is to figure out how we can have sustained efforts over large, long periods of time because it takes lot of time to have change that will be sustained whether at the university level or the k-12 level, and it's tricky. it's the need for balance somehow. but the issue is how do we bring about some of these changes? because we do need change in a way that people will buy into the change and, quite frankly, move ahead. on my own campus, we now know how to help americans of all races, men and women, succeed in science. we have not figured out how to help most people who start off in our colleges with an interest in math, science and engineering to succeed, so they don't. so we end up being number 20 out

of 24 nations in the percent of science and engineering degrees, quite frankly. it's a major -- only 6% of the patch hours in our -- bachelors in our country are in math and science. all the reports will tell you this -- >> talk about the blocking and tackling here. how do we get to that? >> this is how it happens. it takes fact faculty, just as u were talking about teachers, it takes changes in attitudes to believe it can happen. the typical mindset in america has been some of you are going to make it here, and most of you will not. all of you remember when the dean says look at the student to your left, look at the student to your right. one of you will not graduate, remember that? [laughter] it's a terrible thing to tell a young person because if i'm insecure, oh, my god, he's talking about me, i may as well party all year, i'm not going to graduate anyway. we've got to change the attitude, give me a hand for changing the attitude. [applause]

we've said, we can make a difference here. we can rethink how we teach these courses, we can bring more technology in, we can have students working in groups, we can teach them how to collaborate are with each other, and most important we can tell them, you can do this. >> ask this even at the public school level where you engage a parent community, you think about how much time and attention you're focusing on math and sykes -- science and make it more central? >> sure. i think where i can be the most helpful when i was governor, we had in west virginia probably as bad an education system as you could in the country. we raised teacher salaries from 49th to 31st. we needed to do that. we also made teachers -- summer programs to improve their skills and their abilities. we built better schools, we put technology in the schools, ask our schools were much, much p better. but also i raised taxes, and i

was the most unpopular governor in my state's history. [applause] but -- >> are people applauding raising taxes? this. [laughter] i've never heard that before. >> but i got reelected, and i think anybody who's in a leadership position in government whether they work as you did as a superintendent of schools or whether you're a governor or a legislator, you've got to believe in something. i happen to believe that education is the future of this country, that's the reason i'm in this job. and it was one of the reasons i ran for governor, and that's why i spent so much time on it. you've got to do it because you think it's right, and that works every time. >> something that goes back to what the doctor said as wells which is, you know, it's got to be sustained. but here's the dilemma that we face, right? most people when they hear you have to be in office for a long time, you have to have a sustained -- they sort of equate that to, okay, don't piss anybody off. because that's how you will have longevity. right?

but you cannot significantly change these systems and keep everybody happy. it's not possible. so this is a balance that most people strike or have to strike, right? [applause] and i know this, now i feel like i've been in politics for about three and a half yearses, i'm married to -- about to be married to a politician, and it's a constant struggle of leaders, right? they want to do something, but they know that it's going to make a whole lot of people mad, they think, well, i have to get reelected. and then you find these folks who have been in office for a lot of years, but they've compromised on the things they wanted to do so they could stay in the office which defeats the purpose in the first place. >> but that's what politics is. politics is about some compromise and some consensus so that you can stay in office. i mean, that is the part of it. you talk about the balance department, that is a part of it. >> and it's a balancing act. i'll be more academic and say

you don't want to have people perturbed -- [laughter] >> you're going to perturb some people doing this. >> what i would suggest to you is the fundamental challenge, and there's no easy answer to this, michelle is right, when you make change, some people are going to get upset. the balancing act at a university in the school system ultimately is, well, how do you balance how many people are getting upset versus how many people are congresswomanning to your -- coming to your side? and i think we learned, i think michelle said something really great, you learn from every person's experiences. the worst thing to do is sit on the sidelines and say, this person did it the wrong way. it's easy when you're not the leader to assume what works, right? >> but i just want to yet to the questions in just a minute, but i just want to get, really, a little bit more narrow on this. there's one thing in an academic

setting, there's another where you're dealing with an entrenched middle crass, and the superintendent goes in ask says we're going to close down schools and fire teachers. that is a big step. so, you know, governor, you can speak to this. i mean, what the chancellor is getting at is a fundamental question which is we're either on the bus, or we're off the bus. we're either going in a new direction or we're not. could have to set a course that is much longer and incremental to get to where we want to go? because you can't be for reform and want all the big reforms and then get out of office in four years and not expect a slowing down to happen. that's what reformers in the country are now facing after the d.c. experience. >> just my own experience is you don't run for office, in my opinion, or take a lob like this unless you want to make a

difference. so you do the most you possibly can within reason. so i was willing to take the risk to be that unpopular believing it was the right thing to do. in the end i barely got reelected, by the time i left i think people realized i'd done more for education in my state than any governor had probably done anywhere. and those are the risks you've got to take. you can't be stupid about it. but why would i want to do this job if i'm not going to make a change that makes a difference? and i'm glad i'm not running today because i would never get elected today. [laughter] there's no way. it's the craziest time i've ever seen. but i know, i know personally you can make a change. i think what's the hardest thing is that you're usually in these jobs for four-eight years, and what's most difficult is you can't sustain it. who's going to take your place? i think all three of us would worry about that. >> chancellor, i'm going to dwi

you the last -- give you the last word here. in terms of constitutionally, you know, we always say why won't you commit, and why won't you take a risk? you really say something specific, and then somebody says, oh, how could you have done that? that was such a big risk. but as you move out, do you think -- i think i know the answer -- you're not going to think incrementally. but is that the choice? >> i hope not for our kids. look, fallen further and further behiebled, so incremental progress is not going to, in our lifetimes or our kids' lifetimes, produce the results that we want for this country. [applause] so as far as i'm concerned, we cannot settle for incremental. t doing wrong by our kids, i think that's what the mindset has been for a really long time.

let's not rock the boat, let's not fight, let's just sort of, you know, in-shout, and meanwhile, we're being left behind. >> i don't think there was either/or. i'm going to go back to the example i used in baltimore county, quite frankly. when you talk about focusing on black males, it causes problems. people want to know why should you disaggregate the data? and it was hard, it was really hard. but the fact that he's been able to stay there, quite frankly, and bring some stability and change attitudes has led to -- >> the leadershiplesston there is that you figure out how much can you get done and keep doing the work? i don't think it has to be incremental. you know, the washington situation is different from other places. it sighs we need -- says we need to be looking at places where we've found some changes that

are substantive. i think michelle has had courage and done some good stuff just in terms of getting us thinking about these issues, but then let's look at places where there are people who have been in place for a number of years who have been able to get enough people working with them to move aled. and there are examples around the country. >> all right. we can keep going on this. i want to get some questions in. i think -- how we doing? do you have microphones? you shouting them out? what's going on? [laughter] i'm used to both. this is from my own experience. >> food afternoon. -- good afternoon. >> oh, you're right there. >> yes, thank you. [laughter] first, i wanted to point out in the whole discussion that's taken place today, there's a fundamental element that was not discussed, and i just want to say something about that for a moment, and that is the role of parents. >> yep. >> remember, mr. gregory, you said as busy as you are you're still helping your kid with his second grade homework. we're talking about schools

where kids come home and there's nobody there because their parents are working and have things to do and can't help. further, there was a discussion about reading and writing and how important it is. in the global world of the internet, i was formerly the summit of a -- superintendent of a high school. kids write to us in a language that i don't understand, and because i want those kid to not be turned off, i answer them -- >> in a language you can't understand. [laughter] >> how many of the countries that we spoke about open up higher education to all the kids -- [applause] who are looking at a minority of a population whatever that country would be, and the great thing about our place is we're trying to educate everybody.

>> all right. thank you. those are important points, yeah. >> my colleague and i wrote two books on raising high-achieving african males and females, so we do need to talk about the role that families can play. let me go back when a superintendent can say to me at this school we've got a large percentage of the kids living in group homes or foster care. so the challenge that we face that while we need to recognize the role that families can play and get parents as involved as possible, the fact is in some cases it's not going to happen. and what we've got to be able to say is even when it doesn't happen, there are things we can do to help those children, everything from after school programs, the weekend programs, the summer programs. we can't let the challenges at home be the reason children don't if you can seed. we've got to cel them them -- tell them they can make it. >> but how does that work? i mean, we've talked about that.

there's support that in d.c. for kids who are homeless or living in group homes, getting outside, mentors and stuff like that. it's not just the most ab sect races of poverty or homelessness but, frankly,ing have schools where you got working parents working to get by, and they can't be there at 3:30 in the afternoon to help with homework. >> we need to understand that lot of kids come to school every single day with significant challenges, and we can't turn away from that and pretend that it doesn't exist or that they don't pose significant challenges to us. but we as educators, we can control what happens within the schoolhouse, within the school day and school year, right? and one of the things that we know is in front of kids for four years in a row -- the same

kids who are facing those same issues. why wouldn't we focus a ton of our attention on making sure that within what we can control? we are putting all of the elements in the place to make sure that those kids have access to that because a lot of people, well, you know, we can't solve the problems of public education until we solve the problems of poverty. i disagree, i think it's the other way around. we are never going to solve the problem of poverty in this country -- [applause] the chancellor. in reflection and the process that you went through, what is the biggest lesson learned, and what would you do differently? thank you. >> what's the biggest lesson learned? well, we made a ton of mistakes. and so that, certainly, is, you know, the fact. but i'd say if i had one lesson that i learned, it's that i thought very naively that if we

just put our heads down and we worked hard and we produced the results, that people would be so happy with the results that people would want to work on. and we were absolutely incorrect about that. we realized after the fact that not only do you have to produce the result, but that a broad group of people have to feel ownership over those results in order to have the political capital that you need to be able to continue the work. >> sir. >> i'm an elementary schoolteacher from charleston, west west virginia. i was teaching, golf -- governor caperton, in the '90s when you showed great leadership and began to put computers in every classroom in west virginia, one of the first states to do so, and we continue in west virginia to try to be on top of technology. i also work with the national writing project and our local

writing project, and i would say all the things about writing that the doctor said about math and how teachers need more professional development in the how to teach writing effectively. governor caperton, i wondered if you would also show leadership nationwide since you're in the position you're in and make a suggestion to the powers that be and everyone that every child in the united states ought to have access to a laptop in grades 3-12. >> i agree with you 100%. [applause] >> yes, ma'am. >> hi, thank you. my question is about attitudes and perceptions about the field of education. i think, you know, a lot of people would see the jobs that all of you have and say, oh, that's what my child is doing, that's wonderful. and when someone says, i'm a teacher, i'm a guidance counselor, oh, okay, that's nice. and i think just the attitude about what it means to be in the education profession, on the ground working directly with students and not, you know, in a

position that's seen more highly. when i graduated from college, everyone went into consulting or went to be a doctor, and that's what i thought my options were, you know? this if i wanted to be seen as something important in the world. so how do we start to change the attitudes about seeing people working directly with children as one of the most important jobs that you could possibly have? [applause] >> well, and, dr. hrabowski, that's important because it's also getting some of the top graduates, right, from the schools to get into teaching rather than -- >> right. and i think this is where higher education can play a role. we actually have very prestigious scholars programs for very, very high-achieving students in certain disciplines, and we're doing everything we can to make -- this is noble work. this is very special work. teachers change lives. and we all have to believe that, we have to say it. give me a hand for that! teachers change lives. [cheers and applause]

we've got to believe in ourselves, this is the best work you can be doing. it's very important. >> chancellor, we're in this moment at least this some parts of the country because of the film, a lot of attention about reform, in other words, there's a lot of people here, and you all who have been so focused on education. but getting to that place where it's a hot topic, it's about america's competitiveness, it's about this new form of patriotism, how do we keep that going? what i often say is if it evolves into a kind of policy debate again, you lose a lot of people, you lose media attention, you lose, frankly, political attention. i mean, it's ironic given the fact that this is probably one of the best prospects for bipartisan agreement in washington, d.c. is around education reform, and yet it's still not hotter than it is. how do you keep that stickiness? >> so i think the bottom line is that people need to understand that the public education system

in this country is in a crisis. and how you know that people don't feel that way is that if you look at polls and surveys, the majority of people in this country believe that the public education system is not particularly good, right? so the majority of people rate it as a c or below. but those same people when asked how is your school doing, the majority of them say it's an a or a b. so people aren't seeing it as their issue impacting their children. and i think one of the most startling statistics that the movie brought out is looking at our highest-achieving kids. if you look at the top 5% of children in this country, so the ones that are going to the georgetown days and the sidwell friends and the more rays of the world, you know, the top 5%, they are at the bottom of the top of the 30 most developed nations as well. they're at the bottom of our best kids are still at the bottom. so we have to figure out how we

raise the consciousness in this america of the tact that this is not just impacting -- of the fact that this is not just impacting somebody else's kids. this is impacting all of our children, number one, and even if you don't have children and you are a business owner, right, you need to understand that in a few years you are going to have all of these jobs that you cannot fill with a highly-skilled, highly-effective work force because we're not properly educating the next generation of kids. this is the first generation of kids in school right now than will be less educated than their parent in the history of america. that is a crisis. and it is only when we understand the level of severity and the consequences is it going to be sticky. >> we've got about five minutes left. let's try to keep the questions a little shorter. we'll try to be brief up here as well. sir. >> this is a question for you, david. can we afford to keep attacking other countries and trying to make them democratic?

[laughter] >> can i answer the last tough question? ? -- can i answer the laptop question? the obviously, i'm not a policymaker, but i think the security of the country matters, existential to a country like terrorism matters. i do think we're in a debate for how much we want to pay for, say, a war in afghanistan when there are more opaque results. it's an issue -- when we talk about our role in the world, it can't just be militarily. it has to do with how much money we're actually going to dedicate, and this campaign, you know, i was at a debate in florida the other night, i asked the republican candidate if he would be happy to support, if general petraeus felt he needed more troops in the afghanistan, he would support that. and yet we're spending, you know, over a trillion dollars on that war. and yet they know, you know, a lot of conservatives want to cut

the budget in other places. so i do think we're in for a big debate in this context when we talk about america's role in the world. yes, sir. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is a chemoherman from the university of pennsylvania. i'm a senior there. i had a quick question. well, it's not quick but -- [laughter] you know, coming from where i'm from, inner city philadelphia, many families do not value the importance of education as much so as learning a skill or a trade for a job. so with that being said, you know, how do we as educators go about instilling the values, excuse me, relative to education in children in this grades k-12? we can teach them every skill they need, math, reading, writing, but if they do not internalize the importance or value the importance of education, how can we expect them to succeed? is there any way that we can get our teachers training in values exercises where they can instill

in students the importance of education? >> i mean, doctor, it's a good point which is how do you say to a young child, parent or educator, education transforms your life? >> right. first of all, we bring people like you back to the school where you went, where you attended in philadelphia. children will listen to young people before they'll listen to anybody else, so we need large numbers of college students coming back, and when you get that great job doing whatever, being a teach or or whatever -- teacher or whatever you come, going back to the school and saying, this is what it took, and it made all the difference in my life. people will believe people who look like them, quite off. >> all right. we're going to take one more