critical issue that will be considered in the next congress. my hunch it is not on list of things that will be acted on in the next 10 days. i am happy to take one more. >> sorry, i cannot stand up. senator, you said the best way to address the foreign-policy and defense concerns regarding china's to deal with domestic issues, but are there some things that the united states can and should do specifically in the defense round as china becomes more assertive particularly in areas of the western pacific with the economic stone, with all the various things they are doing, saying that the u.s. aircraft carrier shouldn't go into the loc and the state financing him or that he had to accept these arms sales in the visits in the past but we don't have to accept

them anymore and we are not going to. how should the u.s. respond to that? .. and so, short-term strategic concerns and interests of the united states, absolutely we need to continue to respond in a multilateral framework. if we don't keep an eye on the long-term interests of the united states and focus on those long-term interests, than the

short-term strategic interests will be overwhelmed by events. the way you drive a car is not by looking over the time of the looking down the road. in my view, the united states and china cannot coherent and harmonious long-term challenges which are significant and real and deserve our engagement and attention. we need to make sure we are attending appropriately, but not in the wake that prevents us from forging a long-term relationship. thank you. >> thanks a lot. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator kearns. thank you for emphasizing the economic strength. thank you very much. now it's my pleasure to introduce a special guest representing the united states government. we're very honored to have wallace chipped train to come up assistant secretary for asian and pacific affairs. he is also retired general of

the united states or in court. he was formerly the commanding general of the marine corps in both the specific in the central command. he served and lived in japan. he's also a combat veteran of vietnam, where he earned the bronze star and a purple heart. he's a graduate of the u.s. naval academy and i would note in concluding this service to this country is evidently a family affair for his son is serving as a marine corps officer. secretary gregson, we're very proud to have you here. >> pardon me while i rearranged the proctors so that i get my notes that the right type between the regular lenses in the bifocals. and if you laugh it back camille be there sunday. thank you for that introduction in thanks to jim arcade arkedis

for organizing this program and for providing the wonderful venue. i join you this morning on behalf of undersecretary of defense policy, and the show for a night. michelle was looking forward to being here, but she was called over to the white house this morning for various meetings on short notice. there's a lot of these short notice meeting these days. she sends her best regrets for the form. i also like to join with senator coons and noticing the passing of richard holbrooke in the past day or so. we have indeed lost a giant figure on the american scene. for over two decades, will and his colleagues at pti have been among the leading progressive voices for a strong, smart,

principled approach to american national security. this blend of progressivism and military strength as a proud lineage established in world war ii and during the postwar decades by such later as franklin roosevelt, harry truman and john f. kennedy. it is a model that remains quite relevant as america faces challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. among the greatest challenges and opportunities that we face in this century is the continued growth and develop into the asia-pacific region and in particular the rise of china. i think it's useful when discussing topics to remind ourselves of some basic facts and tips. one of the most important is that the asia-pacific region has to experience nearly 60 years of general peace, stability and prosperity. yes there have been significant exceptions such as or worse than korea and vietnam as well as flashes among asian powers such

as those between china and vietnam, china and india and between india and pakistan. but even with these exceptions in mind, it is impossible to look at the last six decades in the asian pacific region without marveling at the overall stability and prosperity of this. this record is even more remarkable when one considers the poverty and strife that had prevailed over this part of the world for so long. another basic fact to keep in mind is that this long-term stability, security and prosperity are the direct result of u.s. leadership and engagement. as this audience is keenly aware, we are a pacific nation. our presence in the region has been vital to the progress and growth that we have seen there. the that progress cannot growth have proceeded to the point that the asia-pacific region is not a true global economic catalysts. consider just a few statistics. china has sustained economic

growth rate that top 8.5% per year, even at a time of great financial uncertainty elsewhere in the world. fifteen of the 20 largest ports in the world are in the asia-pacific region. nine are located in china alone. china is now the largest trading partner of japan, india, thailand, australia and south korea, all of which are partners or allies of the united states. the extraordinary growth of the asia-pacific region and a china in particular constitutes one of the most important geostrategic developments of our time. yet that growth is increasingly based on a paradox. on the one hand, relies upon the security and openness of the global economies and the broad acceptance of international norms that make it possible for a pacific nation to trade peacefully and profitably. and economies of the middle east, europe and the americas.

but on the other hand, the immense growth of the asia-pacific region has created shifting power dynamics. even as the region's vitality creates opportunities to cooperate, and also create a more complex security environment that is not properly managed, could potentially generate conflict. for a stark illustration of the potential for trouble in the region, consider one more. five of the largest standing armies are in the asian pacific the asia-pacific region. china, india, pakistan, north korea and south korea in no particular order. in many ways, china said benefactions will help determine whether the region's future holds continued stability and growth or deeper discord and uncertainty. the u.s. welcomes a strong was awful and prosperous china that plays a constructive role in the world stage. we see opportunities to cooperate with china to solve some of the world's toughest problems such as countering

terrorism and weapons proliferation, developing new, man-made time a change in helping the spread of pandemic disease. as president obama said of the u.s.-china relationship, our ability to partner is a prerequisite for progress by many of the most pressing global challenges. china hasn't he shown in the number of occasions its willingness to cooperate on regional and global issues. for example, china has increased the deployment of peacekeepers contributing to u.n. mission and is getting more actively involved in humanitarian distance and disaster relief efforts. finish on the willingness to cooperate in multilateral institutions, put them at the u.n. to improve a set of robust sanctions against both iran and north korea. is an active participant in the emerging asia-pacific architectures such as the fan regional forum, east agent summit and aipac.

china has deployed five rotations of naval vessel to the gulf of aden and to work in concert with the international community in combating piracy around the horn of africa. this administration's policy has been clear and consistent. we seek to engage china and to encourage its development as a constructive participant in regional and international affairs. both countries have a great deal to gain from deeper cooperation and a great deal to lose from estrangement. our policy towards china stands on three pillars. the first is a sustained effort to strengthen and expand bilateral cooperation between the united states and china. for example, we have created the u.s.-china strategic economic dialogue, which brings together the senior leadership of our two countries for in-depth discussion on the entire range of issues on our bilateral agenda. in addition, we aim to improve

people to people ties including two or 100,000 strong program designed to send 100,000 american to study in china over the next four years. the second pillar is a commitment to strengthen relations with our asian allies and partners. this point underscores the fact that china is part of a broader policy and we want to shape the regional context in which china's emergence unfolds. the third pillar is our insistence that rising china abide by the global norms and international laws that have enabled its own rise to greater prosperity and power. in short, we seek to expand the areas of u.s. chinese cooperation while improving america's ability to uphold our economic and national security interests. unfortunately, such cooperation is not always easy to attain. while there have been great progress in relations between our two countries, china's priorities and intentions too often remain opaque and

uncertain. its willingness to act as a responsible major power is not yet fully evident. some of its recent actions, including regard to north korea has increased anxiety in the region and beyond. me take a moment to focus and detail on the situation in the korean peninsula. here we can see how china's role as a regional actor can determine whether the region retains its basic stability portraits closer to conflict. after all, china is uniquely positioned to influence north korea's actions due to the historically close relationship between the two governments. seen in this context, china's failure to join the swift and strong international condemnation of recent north korean provocations has left many of the region, including south korea concerns that china is not doing enough to constrain north korea's deeply irresponsible behavior.

this is especially troublesome in light of north korea's determination to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which have the potential to profoundly unsettled the security situation in east asia. with these realities from a mine, we seek to work with china to reduce tensions on the peninsula and to send north korea a clear signal that it must cease its provocations. in addition, with concerns about the lack of transparency with which china has pursued its rapid military consideration. in the department of defense, we have a special responsibility to monitor china's military development. it has become increasingly evident that china is pursuing a long-term comprehensive military buildup that could open the security balance. the focus of china's military development appears to remain focused on potential contingencies in the taiwan strait. our one china policy based on the three joint sino u.s.

communicate and taiwan relations act are well-established. we believe the cross issue should be resolved peacefully in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of the straight and we oppose unilateral action by either side to offer the status quo. we have welcomed the increasing dialogue and growing interaction between taiwan and china. many of china's newly acquired capabilities appeared to go well beyond what i'd be needed in nearby waters. these are weapons we refer to as anti-access or area denial system or simply an acronym rich pentagon, 80 to 80. these are designed to deny access to the western pacific region or to deny the ability to operate -- pardon me, within that vital area. the systems threaten our primary means of projecting power, our base is in the networks that support them.

the a2ad challenge is not limited to a single weapon system or tactic. it is better understood as a series of overlapping capabilities across multiple domains. the capability that has perhaps been getting the most attention is [cheers and applause] ballistic and will be up watching for some years. there are other examples such as china's investments in advanced submarines, surface to air missiles, anti-satellite weapons and computer network warfare to meet. we acknowledge that increase capabilities are not necessarily cause for alarm. military modernization is after all a natural aspect of any countries development. however, the u.s. shares the concern of many in the region that this type of military buildup far exceeds china's defensive needs. in addition, these kinds of weapons threaten to undermine the basic norms that will bolster the east asian peace and

prosperity, such as open access to ceilings, for commerce and security assistance. we call upon china to become more transparent, regarding its military capabilities, expenditures and intentions. we are not asking for an unreasonable degree of disclosure simply enough to allow all parties to avoid miscalculation. a crucial element in building this mutual understanding as the development of better military to military relations between the u.s. and the people's republic. during our defense consultative talks, which undersecretary point i'd posted last week, both the u.s. and china expressed their views of the dangers that exist whenever the military to military relationship is suspended or fails to be implemented to its full potential. accordingly, both sides stressed the importance of moving the relationship beyond the on-again off-again cycle. we need to sustain a

comprehensive dialogue, including two. the disagreement. after all, we must develop procedures for reducing the risk of misunderstanding between american and chinese forces as they come into more frequent contact in the western pacific and other regions of the world. we seek him out to relationship based on both mutual respect and mutual interest. a relationship that acknowledges differences, but provides a continuous process for seeking common ground. we must actively seek points of convergence in a while candidly discussing those areas where interests diverge. the united states and china are not inevitably destined for conflict. even as we manage our differences but we can deepen our cooperation across the full range of our shared interest. we are at a crucial moment in this process. following completion of the defense consultative talks, we now move towards two major events next month or secretary

gates's trip to beijing and president who's meeting with president obama in fear and the united states. these high-level visits will give our two nations an opportunity to set a tone of broader, more sustained engagement. the stakes here are very high. after all, interdependence among states has grown. global challenges have come. the need for greater cooperation and greater shared responsibility has grown and no bilateral relationship in the world can shape outcomes in the 21st century more profoundly than that between the united states and the people's republic of china. between us, we have an extraordinary opportunity. we can help foster an era of continued relative harmony and prosperity in the asian pacific region and we can work to extend that harmony and prosperity to other parts of the world as well. we can extend and deepen

international laws and norms that are fostered the progress of china and other asian societies over the last half-century. together the united states and china can help build a new century of global stability, brought in prosperity and sustainable growth. this will require a greater measure of our trust and mutual openness and the time to begin this now. thank you very much. [applause] and maybe happy to take any questions. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> there are about three questions in their. during the defense consultative talks, there was a sharing of viewpoints on the arms sales to taiwan. the second question was whether the u.s.-china relationship is on a more stable ground. yes, the more interaction we can have at all levels with the people's republic of china, the more there is a shared understanding, the more we can reinforce those, our joint two days or even independent act duties in an area where we agree and thereby minimize the difficulties we have very disagree. the third point as to where one taiwan arms sales away. that is up for others to decide.

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> to the first part of the question, we are aware that not dray long period of discussion covering ears, that the japanese are about to come out with the new national response guidelines that move away from a posh

shared that was really inherited from the cold war days to one that is different from a. to the question of whether the united states is somehow leading japan into a posh shared that is altering their military with regard to china, no. we are not. and you'd have to refer questions on more details on by the japanese see the need to do this to japanese spokesman. this is always good. i'm looking right into a spotlight. another somebody back there, but i can't see them. >> general larry shaughnessy from cnn. my question is that secretary gates trip to next weekend.

do you foresee that they can advance gates and his chinese counterpart can advance the relationship to a better place than it was about a year ago? >> shortest answer to your question as we return to a far better place than it was over a year ago. both president to end obama has stated we seek a positive, comprehensive and constructive relationship between the united states and china. and that also includes military to military relationship. as they try to say in my remarks, there are areas where we disagree certainly. there are areas where we agree on areas where we can operate together as we are doing now in the gulf of aden and we seek to reinforce those areas where we can work together and continue

work on areas where we disagree, while minimizing the ability to make the relationship more difficult. [inaudible] >> good morning, general. amateur dickie, professor of international economics. the previous speaker, senator coons said we are compromised in our relations with china but i are now in norway's indebtedness. i think this may be arguable. there is a saying that if you invest a million dollars in a company coming on the company. but if you invest a billion dollars in the company, the company owns you. so exactly what -- in what way

is our position with regard to expanding areas of operation issues is your objective was, how is that exactly compromised by our indebtedness to china? thank you. >> questions like this are always a bit amusing when they are aimed at somebody who spent 37 years in uniform. a definition, i don't know anything about high finance. let me offer a point by goes perhaps to senator collins broader theme and that is a general lack of confidence in america that is being exhibited in various quarters. i heartily endorse his comment on the positive side. our university system, other things like that. manufacturing that we do that is in areas that are very much in our interest.

i know that my colleagues with treasury and with commerce and with others work very diligently with their chinese colleagues on the matters that she spoke a. but we are only limited by our imagination here about what to do as far as accelerating the positive relationship. i'd be happy to take the substance of your detailed question and pass it to my friends at treasury, who would be much better to answer. [inaudible] >> thank you. during the advanced consultation this week, the united states suppose that the two sides should establish a goal framework to avoid on and off military to military relationship in the future.

but i'm sure if the united states has the arms sales to taiwan in the future, the relationship will be again. so would you please elaborate what kind of framework it will be. >> well, i hope you are wrong on the certainty of the relationship he interrupted. on the united states taken the week of the military to military relationship is a mutual advantage to each side. and it is part of the cooperative comprehensive and constructive relationship both president q. and president obama have stated that the stated that the goal of our two countries. we seek further participation of chinese defense and security personnel and a wide range of talks with the united states, not just the defense relationship. and we would see the relationship going in that direction.

so thank you very much. [applause] >> the head of the national source center spoke at her form about publicly available in. a u.s. intelligence efforts. as part of an event featuring journalists, scholars, hosted by the lexis-nexis company. this is just under two hours.

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio]

that can best support the vital work of our intelligence community and the future. in june, lexis-nexis hosted a similar presentation which included next by dan butler come assist in director for open source. along for civil liberties and private law, defense intelligence, strategic intelligence and technology. one of the authorities mentioned at that event with section 1052 of the intelligence and prevention act of 2004, which states that it is the sense of congress that open source intelligence is a valuable source that must be integrated into the intelligence cycle to ensure that the united states policymakers are fully and completely informed.

that highly attended chin roundtable shows there is indeed a hunger in the national security community for discussion to best leverage unclassified to resource r. decision-makers. the theme of that was 2020 come in the future of open source intelligence. today we continue exploring that theme with some incredible leading experts in the practice, policy and assessment of intelligence. together we'll explore the potential future landscape down the road. one of the challenges referenced by pamela said earlier conference but there is bound to be an information overload in the future. essentially, in a world where roughly half the nation pages of text can fit on a flash drive, the challenge is not any shortage of data, but instead was 82 information sharing, systems integration and knowledge management across the

enterprise. today, we can ask for the future landscape, including where and how it will fit into supporting national security decision-making and an information environment now characterized a new technologies in evolving role or foreign media and the rise of social media by mark bird is now the time person of the year. we could not have a better assembly for this purpose than we do today. beginning with the keynote speaker, including chet lunner, deputy undersecretary of homeland security the office of intelligence and analysis. tom sanderson, direct your and senior fellow for international studies, transnational. suzanne spaulding, an attorney and consultant with dynamic tension, llp he and jeff stein

of the "washington post." thanks very much to each of you for taking time out of your incredibly busy schedules and your willingness to publicly share your expertise and leadership at this group. with that, i'd like to introduce our keynote speaker, mr. doug naquin. mr. naquin has been the director the dni open source center since december 2005. prior to that he was director of the information service where he led the organization's transformation into a provider of unique open source intelligence, while painting its community leadership role. in its current capacity as director of the open-source owner, mr. mr. naquin's response will for collection, analysis and dissemination in support of the intelligence community and its customers, ranging from the president of the united states and local law enforcement. it operates as a hub across the community and has its own

products and services, but also brokers other products and expertise that resides inside and outside the u.s. government. mr. naquin himself as a career that spans over three decades in the intelligence community. you don't look that old commissary. he entered on duty with the cia in 1979 with the foreign broadcast service. subsequently serving tours in asia, latin america and the middle east. he went on to serve as cia svg information officer, where he helped the consolidation of the agency for permission to elegy and management resource. mr. naquin has attended the u.s. army war college and has been awarded the intelligence accommodation medal three times. in 2005, federal computer week magazine named mr. naquin one of its federal 100 or been a leading executive who has had significant impact on the company. so we are very lucky to have you here with us to share your expertise.

in thank you. i'll let you take the podium. [applause] >> thank you, andrew. it's a pleasure to be her this afternoon and gratifying to see so many people interested in what we do day in and day out. we don't necessarily see that all the time. if i appear a little down in my remarks this afternoon it's because i did lose out to mark zuckerberg, but also to ryan reynolds as people's sexiest man. so i figure i'll do this. kind of going over my career made me realize and brought to mind a story, one of my adjunct duties as director of osc and naming the word or two, teach some of the courses we provide for the community on open source and one of the ones i do. it's part of the orientation for

a distant source. in the community all the way back to the establishment of the precursor of sbs, which is in 1941. in attacks about how an analyst using just japanese broadcast said the japanese had changed their tone. we haven't seen this before and it was the day before pearl harbor. and i go through the whole story out through the current president. and i always read my feed back and one of the pieces of the feedback says was really nice to get the history from someone who lifted. so that made me feel, sound older than the truth is in a way i have lived through at least the last five years or what they call the post and tell him form resource. and lived through also this new context of not just an open

source vendor to produce intelligence or information supports intelligence, but also what we call the community catalyst as general hayden used to say, connective tissue is the metaphor we use. so what i would like to do in my 20 minutes or so is talk about what a make of this experience for the first five years. what if i've learned? and frankly if learned as much as my colleague contributed and what do i see in the next five years? but just briefly. when the son arrested in five years ago, it was based on the premise, the broad premise that based on both about forming commissions, the 9/11 commission, that we think there's smoke open source out there that the government isn't making decisions. and that was pretty much it. so when the center was established after a lot of discussion about the best way to

establish the center over the summer of 2005, it was decided that they were going to make this an ent center at cia. of course i was out of camden yards, orioles parking camden yards. but the idea was this would be an organization in cia with the responsibility, dni part was this would have community response ability. and that the cia, director of cia was named the second is agent. so if i put it in ways i can understand it, my report card with 50%, proving that there is intelligence in their open sources. in other words, show the inherent value of open source. in 50%, how do we act as if this catalyst for the larger national security community is broader than intelligence community of the national security community. so in that context, it took us a while to figure out the second part. we kind of felt what we need to

do to get better in the intelligence piece and i think we made some significant process on that front. but the community peace, given our size, which isn't all that big took us a while to figure that out. and i'll talk about what we did figure out. but in terms of what i've learned in the general about open source is one that open source is fraught with irony and i don't have to expand or take the liberties of the designation of irony too much. first of all, open source or unclasped is not equally easy. it is not a matter of a bunch of people doing google searches or even research or even translation. there is a continuous education process involved -- that is involved. every time we have somebody come out to osc to get what we call the overview briefing, they leave here with a variation of i had no idea. i circle it when people come out, they leave the variation we

had no idea. and so this is a continuous education process because it's not necessarily intuitive, particularly with the national security context that it is all that valuable. i've had people argue some intelligence, information. i won't get into semantics, but the plaintiff is not easy and it is not always intuitive. most open source exploitation is done as well and nuanced. i don't know if many of you have read the sticklers in trilogy, but i am mostly connected with the main character, or for slander does, minus computers. we don't do that. in terms of the scale and how to match the specific type of research with a specific question. the second irony all mention is the better we get, the more we have to protect.

the better we get, the more we have to classify. the open source isn't necessarily open. the better we get, the more impact, the more influence for having been the more that provides an advantage. so again, it's counterintuitive. that said, 99.6% of our products are still unclassified. but there is increasing project tree in terms of that which is classified. the third -- the opportunity cost to get it to open forces not high. the database, a lexis-nexis or another database or you do translations, you are in the open source. but what we are finding that the more people involved, but more a center and i mean that philosophically a supposed organization a more needed to address areas of common interest or concern. so areas like policy, legal,

information sharing, collection strategies rather than have real and go off into their own thing is they way you can combine efforts to go after a particular topic. the concept of partnering, to take advantage of comparative advantage. so even in the initial months of the center back in 2005, 2006, we knew -- in fact, interviews said we know that open source is too big for any one organization's master. so from the outset, we didn't set up the open for sun or to be this monolithic, some are your centers. it was more how do we set up a network we can tap into for their advantage, to respond to the various passing that we've met. so there's this concept a center we found to be actually growing in importance, and the more the

people coming to exploitation. and that was good. we did not prejudge people. they're pretty much soon after they can evolve, they come in say we need training. we need to buy some policy, i'd say somewhat we can do legally, et cetera, et cetera. so the concept of center became more important. so that's the first thing i learned. as one of irony involved, and a lot of counterintuitive. the second is that being said about the center, what we discovered is one size doesn't fit all. okay, one of the things we learned within the community governance process over the past five years is there are at least four separate domains of national security community. through the intelligence domain, the diplomacy department area there. homeland security and there's this sense. so we use for circles, right-click each one of those domains has unique requirements, unique authorities that make it

impossible for one approach for all those domains. so what we have tried to do within the governance process, within our community will has defined the area of common good. in fact we call it the rising tide. but we try to do is assign things like economy to scale, areas of policy that we can benefit all those domains to use open source is more effectively within their context and their authorities and their requirements. also, we say one size doesn't fit all. dealing with open source as i've said in the past is like the blind man with the oliphant. some people are perfectly happy. just buy me the databases i need and leave me alone. just to translation for me on what various people are saying it made me alone.

just give me a map and leave me alone. everyone has a different sense of what's important. when we started building is the center, we said, we really can't afford to only focus on one area for going to be the dni open source center. we have to expand business areas to things like contact procurement, research, translation, analysis. content, which is crucial. it gets to the way for the right people at the right times. i.t. of course, information technology for things like information sharing in the tape elegy, training. one of things that have been most demand on us as a center. and i think we've trained up until one november, 2010 i think over 18,000 people in various open source courses. over half of them have been outside the cia. so that's been one of our metrics we use in terms of our we've been community?

this concept of brokerage. i talked about the network and the idea of centers of excellence. what we look for is to house the advantage and can we hope that center up with a specific requirement or type of requirement, said the brokerage is actually necessary for us as well. so as i see occasionally, i have only two types of lessons. i have one that they don't presume to know what i need. give me everything and that they figured out. and the other thing is i am too busy. i only want to military specific thing. so you tell me what i need to know when i need to know what. but other than that, i don't have any more types of customers. so we have to satisfy both. the last thing in terms of what we learned, what i have learned is that substantive expertise and i think we've gotten steady recognition over the past five years that there is a discipline

involved into an open-source exploitation. my wife doesn't like term exploitation. but the idea is that you can can't do good open-source exploitation if you don't speak a foreign language well and if you don't know how to do good research. it's like doing it with one hand behind your back. and so, one of the things we have developed is the substance of expertise based around those two key factors. language and research. if you can combine someone with an mls from a master of library science with a foreign language coming out of killer for open source office. but that substantive expertise is only half the battle from a national security to. the key that we found is matching on expertise to a specific requirement or request. you can't do what i call the old shotgun approach revealed fbi s.

approach, which was attended to saying you can have any car you want as long as it's black. yourself are doing. you cannot assign. if you don't, too bad. we've figured out what we needed to do as we do need to provide a common basis of information that will satisfy the broader community. that's really have relevance and impact at the national security context. we've had to put our people out into other organizations to each other what they actually needed to do on a day-to-day basis so they could come back and say this is what we really need to do. we found that not by accident, but we have found that it was much greater return on investment by putting one person, for example, in a combatant command then we could have done done it six years of talking back and forth between resting in the command.

as we got much more smart, much smarter and as a result, they were able to reach back to us and then we were able to advise them on what they needed to do in terms of their own capability. finally, all of this combined, all of what i've learned into this concept that is really integral to our strategy which is what we're calling the power of the network. so what we see as we set up the source and are as we didn't try to set up this monolithic requirement. we saw our value at the center as the ability to provide an help organizations develop their own learning source capability to the extent they want to do it to satisfy their local needs. and in turn, we a partner and we

request a partner that is beyond our resource within alice t. to answer. that is why we are equally interested in working with domestic agencies like fbi and dhs that were under their authorities as they are with intelligence agencies or military commands because before an part of this network and commercial companies, but the whole enterprise -- we heard the word enterprise discussed is this higher network there really combines the power of what we're looking for. and that's why most of you in this room are potentially if not actually involved in this enterprise in some fashion. okay, over the next five years, i think that i believe that more of what i've talked about today is understood, especially in their unique intel value in a broad customer base in a need

for more than just data. there is a paradigm that open-source is equated with a collection -- kind of a collection area and areas of collection aspect to it. but we see us involved in the entire value chain from raw data. and when you're dealing with some of the questions that people are asking, why do people not like us or how did they react to this or that? you don't necessarily need a lot of kindness and information which are asking for. there is a value chain, but also a discipline and you can also mess up pretty easily. and that's one thing we try. i think more and more of that is understood. the open source needs to be embedded within all three strategies for efficiency and effectiveness. occasionally it's either somebody write an article or somebody say that there needs to be an open source center at center that's outside the agency. i have difficulty understanding that because once you do that

come you divorce it from the community they need to support. open source is like breathable air or portable water. if you want is for the department of agriculture, it's got to be in the intelligence community to have relevance and to have the relevance and value. and finally, there is a trait. there is a discipline. it's not just stuff. it's not just information. i think a lot of that is more understood than it was five years ago. through community governments, and getting a bunch of different agencies together with different authorities in this, you can imagine it's an interesting challenge and what is kept my hair this color grade. but there is more collaboration across agencies. if you're doing that, i don't have to do it. i hear a lot more that than i heard five years ago. and we have proven economies of scale in things like data

acquisition, training and i.t. so in that sense, we're on a good start. a lot of progress. i still think that open source. one of the sources i mentioned recently that i was -- i said that very thing. we made a lot of progress, but we still nascent. someone read them and said, i've heard it everything, but not in a thin. i don't know if that person worked for me or not. we had a vocabulary test. and we still have to do that to continue education. and to do that, we have to be successful. we have to do more of this embedding. he has to be more extroverted and give more people out of our

headquarters in working with others and their topics. we have to be actively successful to be strategically relevant. in other words, once people say i have no idea, then they start inviting us to the larger party. i do it from afterthought to forethought, anti-trajectory or somewhere between afterthought and forethought. strategically focus is also important because given we are the industry and i.t., we can't just be responding to today's response. so we spent a lot of time looking five years down the road in our personal investment. what kind of people are we going to be five years from now. because we can't be in requirement sketching mode. by the time the rest of the community as they are, you can't say that's fine because we are

to have to be there. and finally, i'll pose the same success on the national security is around word integration. and this is simply the key thing. for us, for open source, that means integration on two levels. one, or centers of excellence i talk about. but equally important, how is open source integrated within the strategy? so, that is really from a social security standpoint the big question. but we have to work from the standpoint to both those levels. so with that, we will stop in thank you and turn it over to our panelists. [applause] >> thank you very much, sir. we are incredibly lucky.

other people there and they have seen it, but general hayden has been speaking at a number of conferences and he has routinely said publicly that the value in the wake of the community crises. so we know you're exceptionally busy in the newspaper. we hope to build a national network fusion centers to enhance information and intelligence sharing the department of homeland security and its partners in state, local, tribal governments and the private sector.

check also helped design a standard transportation security evisceration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. and played a key role in the expansion of several earmark expansions. in addition to its amazing government career that prove service in the halls of congress and supporting state, local partnerships, check has significant experience as a journalist himself. i was fortunate enough to see the bylines of the national press club that broke a major story on the nasa climate. check has been a great friend for a long time and were very lucky to have you with us as well, sir. i think all of your experience really makes an excellent candidate to discuss state local law enforcement partnerships in addition to kind of bigger picture journalism aspects.

[applause] >> thank you, andrew. just to clear it up, that's a story about the challenge -- [inaudible] well, if you enter mentioned, i'm going to talk to little bit today about a different perspective than a historic ac gathering and that is the journalist aspect of journalists. i don't know queen sent in that we were in the open source and had to use it. when in fact i got a nexus account, i thought the rainbow had landed on my desk because it was such a great tool. and also from the state and local perspective. so these are two different customer bases. ..

the way to connect them they will be open source in the future. i also want to again lay down this cautionary tale about just because it is printed doesn't mean it is true. that may sound simplistic but how often do we hear people say i saw that on the internet and i've got an app for that. i am a freak we all have to be somewhat more cautious than we have been that lexisnexis is

a wonderful research tool, sophisticated getting better by the week and the things you can find. another danger is that you often find these systems and keywords you will hit on that end up with homogenize conventional wisdom from an applicable search and reporters and researchers and editors tend to find comfort in shared insights and if you are looking for -- it is sort of a self-perpetuating prediction. it can be predictable and self validating so if intelligence is looking for the unknown in ways that a lot of traditional places are some open source could be too lazy and i will furnish you with information that has been in circulation and circularly reported for years. so i would say be sure you know what you are looking for with the secure data reported in just

the facts style or more editorial expert analysis. a reporter's notes from another colleague just signed who is also had experience on both sides of the sense of the journalist and the icy, the reporters note -- in the field and there is no judgments. the editorial and opinion columns are closer to the finished intel then maybe we have seen and that is the objective. again, i caution you. i would ask some other questions about the -- we are working on.

both of the journalist and the icc and where did it come from? is from a general circulation publication? that from a trade magazine where the expertise is likely to be better but the conclusions a little murkier? we don't have to have good intel that even if it is from a public record or those really specialized sources. in fact i recommend always to go beyond the headlines. there is an old -- in journalist intensely red newspaper information is often the smallest type and when you think about that, the sportsline stories and the stocks reports are very small but there is a lot of truth in their to base your intel on. who wrote it? how long have they been on that eat? do you know wh their political leanings are? who paid for it?

it looks completely objective and it is often very useful to find out who is behind it and on the other hand i always advise people to beware of balance. this is a relatively modern injection into journalism particularly print journalism and the sense that a demonstration of 6000 people on the mall against -- and there are six people for it, a counter demonstration. the chances are the media because it is trying to be i guess politically correct so you have really got to bring your expertise to this and figure out is there really balance and if it invented balance.

my experience that is usually called gossip, not necessarily journalism. journalism is, there still is in legitimate publication a rigorous fact-checking and second-guessing by copy editors and assignment editors and other writers. the bloggers don't operate by the same roles. of the traditional sourcesyou just have to again know your sources. the "associated press" for example adheres to strict rules of reporting ethics and they have a remarkable level of accuracy considering the thousand stories that they publish every day. bloggers and columnists and tv pundits and even some academics i susct operate under different rules and it is fair fair- and art under different deadline so i would make sure something beyond the mere words word you are looking at in terms of the sources. did they have an identifiable

agenda? some of us older practitioners can identify many of the anonymous sources that we see in the "washington post" particularly on political stories because we understand whose ox is being gored and what happened to that guy five years ago or what phrases they used and many analysts would be able to bring to something they have been studying for years. open source does not relieve any one of the necessity to trust and verify or to use your own expertise and questioning the findings of the product. it is truly a valid and. i was really pleased to hear doug mentioned that there are now four separate categories because there are different uses for these different ends and homeland security is again, a less experienced lumber should be subject to interrogation as a matter of course or in my last cautionary note in regards to internet all that twitterers is not gold. [laughter]

thank you. i was thinking thanking jeff for laughing at my joke. i wanted to go to the headline of the conference just briefly and that is the future of open-source. i predict eventually the value of open source intelligence will be widely appreciated but especially by the homeland security domestic consumers, the state and local people. we may have to change the name because it confuses some of the players whether it is intelligence particularly when you get into the domestic arena and he used the phrase domestic intelligence and a lot of reaction comes up. i prefer situational awareness or something like that, something that in my experience that the department where i was in touch on a daily basis with the police chief, the first responders, emergency managers and homeland security advisers, they need more tactical close to real-time information often.

salted with with the combined wisdom and opinion of the operators who can do that on a quick basis. i know that traditionally i.t. products, the people that produce them are often very proud of you know the highly researched, peer vetted products that come out eventually but eventually is the key word there. the homeland security people are going to need to know some pretty quick information not unlike what a journalist looks for when they go to the scene. what happen? who do we think that it? what did they use? what tactics they employ? what does the device look like? what are the components or a particular order or something you should be aware of and what are the recommended countermeasures? they need to know that now because the governor is outside the door wanting to know what the answers to those questions are in the media south side of the governor store about to ask him so there is a time pressure that open source i think particularly in our domestic market is able to serve because it is more nimble.

traditional intelligence will be more like the editorial page or the op-ed in the newspaper. open source may well evolve because of this customer -- into the breaking news type of information, more cnn then cia. thank you. [applause] >> thank you mr. lunner. we appreciate your mining is all the value of the individual analyst and how of important critical thinking is an evaluation of sources. next we have mr. tom sanderson of the center for chiquita international studies where he is deputy director of the organization of transnational threats project. time is over 12 years to counterterrorism experience. is conducted fieldwork across 50 nations engaging all manner of sources including extremist and insurgents themselves along with foreign intelligence and non-governmental organizations and academics.

for five years, the csis open-source counterterrorism project designing and moderating two two to two major studies on threats in europe and southeast asia. mr. sanderson's expertise and trusted information networks and counterterrorism certainly make him a perfect speaker to address the future as it may pertain to the long war against al qaeda and its affiliated groups. of course, perhaps we might also persuade you to share some of your more general experience working on open-source projects. thank you for being here. >> can you hear me? thank you andrew for the invitation. i'm happy to be here and happy to be here with suzanne spaulding who is a key component of our five-year study as one of our senior advisers to the project and also happy to see david here who is the former national intelligence officer for transnational and who also took a great interest in our effort. as hendry said from 2004 to 2009 we ran an open source trusted information network which emanated from a conference we have in norway at that time.

essentially we looked out at the intel community and the national security community in general right after 9/11 and realized they were not many 20 year veterans on the terrorism issue, on extremism in some of the areas they were working in but we also knew that people with 20, 30 years of experience on the ground with these groups existed outside of government so people who were business people journalist worked for the international crisis group, organizations like that better on the ground and in the field have that information. in a world war and intelligence community oftentimes values things that are expensive or clandestinely obtained over open sources, we realize this is a great opportunity to demonstrate to remodel how you can tap these human open sources overseas. so what we did was we got 15 people from all different organizations to try to avoid groupthink to the extent we could. men and women from all different

backgrounds and we put them in an on line form and gave them a question every month that we moderated at csi. questions similar to those being asked by analysts within the intelligence community but not being directly pass by them or even indirectly. we know what their questions are so we put them out there to these individuals and over the course of the year have them answer questions using only their primary sources of the people they are interviewing whether they are extremists or intelligence journalists on the ground, people who can understand what are are called unobtrusive measures, graffiti on the wall, a lyric to a song, the way particular people dress. think about a policeman in south-central l.a. when he or she is walking the beat. they know what those indicators made of a gang movement or their situation or whatever it is so we want to draw those people inside and demonstrate for the intel community how you would reach out to these individuals. so we did that for europe and then we did it for southeast asia over the course of the five years, and wanted to develop

this model. we briefed all 16 members of the intelligence community as well as the office of the dni and we found a lot of approval and resonance with what we found it. the key judgment are the following and we hit key judgments as farsi groups such as collection which worries the intelligence community very much so because collection starts to get into the area of tasking so this is not about trying to find people to task for collection but in fact they are very effective at doing that. if you pitch someone a question that you need analysis on they have to collect information in order to make that analysis of essentially the signings on the role of non-governmental open sources, human open sources in the analysis and production phase where they are important for evaluating sources, challenging analytical assumptions formulating new hypotheses, evaluating existing analytic hypotheses or conclusions and generating alternative conclusions. again, essentially stand up a

sounding board of non-governmental yet open sources who can take those analytical assumptions, those given to have an intel community and challenge them. so we did that and it was very effective and i will get into this third phase which was extremely difficult to even approach and that was putting actual intelligence surveillance in touch with the sources. so given that today's discussion is about looking ahead for 10 years and went to related to a project underway now at csi that we are using in order to address the future of non-governmental sources and open sources work, a dod funded study on the future of al qaeda and affiliated movement so we are looking at 2025 and we want to try to determine where al qaeda central, the affiliates and the decentralized movement may be in 2025 and they may not come under that name or that sort of umbrella but we want to look at the range of threats that are out there and try to model what it will look like.

that is entirely dependent on open sources. we are an open source organization and we don't to classified work at csi so we are up there looking at these issues and what it will entail is again pulling information on line, from on line and then more importantly going on the ground and interviewing maybe 50 or 60 people from across 23 countries, nigeria for example, bangladesh, areas that are not the tier 1 concerns right now the way afpak are better certainly showing some very troublesome signs. so this is where i think we are going to rely on open sources to a much greater to degree. given the difficulty there is with accessing top leadership in developing human service for leadership of these organizations and how difficult that is we realize that you have to use open sources, people who have been looking at in studying these groups in the region and use those foreign languages as doug mentioned. we don't have to rely on translations through a second party or through software who can really understand what is

going on. because there has been -- i spent so much in my time overseas and only using open-source as i am a big believer in open sources and underused sources of intelligence but i also understand the real difficulty the intelligence community has and that there are so many rules about engaging people outside of these communities and especially engaging people outside of the united states. it is something we have certainly use through briefing dug over the years, working with suzanne and working with david and others and we know that it is tough to do. they do it. the intel committee reaches out to academics and asked people to provide analysis. that has been very good. they have also done it through crowdsourcing by standing up to excellent open source that doug was involved in and elliott jardine and dan butler. we had hundreds of people come together and address a number of topics and i think that was very very good.

it is something that has to be done very carefully, very thoroughly. when we try to move towards a third model for the network, that was to actually bring the analyst together and that just proved impossible. finding someone who wanted to take the risk of exposing themselves, exposing even to american academics was very difficult. there certain components of the intel community that are more engaged. recently the national intelligence council, the state department inr is more used to doing this and they are effective at doing it, but i think over the next 10 years we are going to have to to do more but infinitely and turn around as i think suzanne is going to refer to an interstate grids, you are going to have to go out there. is going to be harder to protect what you think is important so i think it is time to engage in a much more extensive

what do you think ms. balding? do we need to consider what a world would look like if governments were unlikely to secure classified information or how are national security apparatus may function in the world without secrets? thanks for joining us today. [applause] >> thank you andrew. i'm really pleased to be here. i think it is an incredibly important topic and it's been a fascinating topic so far and i appreciate the leading question is, looted to. this is a topping -- topic that that -- when andrew first call me about this panel and

suggested he wanted a forward-looking discussion, i couldn't help but think about a comment that i heard a couple of years ago at the dni's open source conference. there was a panel that her good friend spike bowman had put together where folks from corporate america as well as from the intelligence community, talking about how much information is out there in the open source, an incredible massive amount of data and the power of today's information infrastructure. and don, who is on the panel, who is a 20 plus year veteran of the cia, with the title of the intel a pdf -- which i think is wonderful. as one of the codevelopers of the intelligence communities version of wikipedia which is called intel a pdf. don said on this paddle -- panel

in 15 years there will be no more secrets. which really struck me as a very significant statement. you can quibble with his, with the absolutist quality of no more secrets. you can maybe quibble with the timeline. maybe it will be sooner and maybe it will be later but i think to my mind there is no question don has the timeline exactly right. we are ready have fewer secrets than we think we do, and we will have far fewer secrets tomorrow and even fewer the next day. our ability to protect information and/or to have a monopoly on information is rapidly diminishing and my sense is we are not ready for that world. we have to get ready for that world. i convened a conference is under the auspices of the ada under

the national strategy at the end of july entitled, no more secrets, national security strategies for a transparent world. the conclusion of this gatherinf national security current and former national security experts was that we need, the government needs to learn what many businesses already understand that in an increasingly transparent world, those who figure out how to operate with fewer secrets will prevail. and i guess that is the message that i have been trying to convey ever since. i think the premise, you know, is inescapable. we have heard the discussion today again about the ubiquity of information in the open-source world, the amount of data out there that -- the digital exhausted each of us leaves every single day. i had dinner from -- with a

friend who i've been shopping at a sampson store. she just went and looked around. she didn't buy anything and she didn't talk to anyone she was there. a couple of hours later on herself when she gets an e-mail from sampson, thanks for shopping at our store today. i mean, so that is one area in which you know it is really hard to keep information secret. the dana priest series on the national enterprise that ran in the "washington post" was another clear example of how much information is out there. she compiled that she says, entirely from unclassified sources, just doing good investigative journalism, revealed all kinds of information that i think it's fair to say the national security establishment thought was secret and that it was protecting. you know, mention was made earlier of the girl with the dragon tattoo, and there is another example of someone

basically using open source and gathering incredible amounts of information. so there is the power of information technology. there is also pressure to not hold information clothes. doug described it eloquently and the intelligence world, you know, love with the focus on information sharing for all of the reasons that we learned after 9/11 and many folks knew before that, but also in the business world you see the incredible benefits that come from sharing in terms of innovation and collaboration, tremendous pressure and the business world is responding by keeping fewer secrets, by learning to operate in a much more open way because they know that is how they are going to win, so we see a pharmaceutical company for example traditionally that would hold information so close and so secret creating and e. subsidiary in putting its hardest research problems out to

thousands of researchers to get help with that. trading, you know the benefits of keeping information secret for a bigger return that can come from sharing that information. so there are all those pressures for sharing information for renovation purposes and we all know that want to tell the secret to one other person, you have already significantly undermined your ability to keep a secret. as you take advantage of the benefits that networks have to offer us, you inevitably make it harder to keep secrets, and i think -- with the cost of keeping that secret and holding a close is in many cases going to be too high to bear. there is also then of course the cybersecurity threat which makes it harder and harder to keep secrets. it is not from the general public, at least from our competitors in business world and its government and some of our adversaries. again an area in which we think we have far fewer secrets than we think we do so for all these

reasons i think we are fast approaching that world and it is a huge challenge and we have got to figure out, it seems to me, to learn how to operate in a way that requires us to keep fewer secrets. we have to learn how to make plans, strategies and policies that are not so dependent on keeping secrets aren't having a monopoly on information. it is incredibly challenging, but you know i tell my friends in the national security world if you develop a strategy or policy that is absolutely dependent upon secrecy for its success that is a very fertile strategy in today's world. and you need to rethink that. you may have no alternative. i'm not suggesting there is always an alternative but you need to push really hard to find some other or at least a plan b. don't assume you are going to be able to keep that secret for an extended period of time. my friend jennifer, used to be

be -- teaches at georgetown university talks about sort of the half-life of secrets of information that you should only keep information secret to the extent and i would say for so long as it gives you a decision advantage. so another way to think about protecting information, protecting it for a shorter period of time. and i think open source intelligence obviously is leading the way to helping prepare us to live in this world a fewer secrets. i am concerned about the tendency to classify open-source products for precisely that reason. i understand the impetus behind it, but i think it is something that we need to really fight hard because it undermines our preparedness to live in out world of no more secrets. i have not suggesting that today we should throw open the doors and release all of our classified information. i think it is something we need to learn, we need to train to

get ready for that world. we are not there today. i make the analogy to learning, if you trained every day to fight in the dark, you could meet your adversary at night and you would have advantage. my messages message is a think we need to be learning to fight in the light. we need to be training today to fight in the light so that when we do encounter that increasingly transparent world, we will indeed prevail. i think open source information has an important role in counterintelligence in that regard, recognizing that our adversaries are also looking at open source intelligence, so what can we learn from open source that we should assume our adversaries and competitors have i think that is a very important role, and i think i will leave it at that so we some time for discussion. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you ms. spaulding.

as we move into the cleanup position in the panelist rotation here, and some of the comments from mr. lunner and mr. sanderson got me thinking about it baseball quote but i don't want to screw up but it was such satchel paige a thing. i think he said it is not what you don't know that hurts you. is what you think you know that just ain't so so and is that we were talking about reliability sources, i am a simple man. but we have amazingly smart people on this panel and one of them is mr. jeff stein. jeff is a true open source intelligence collector analyst and producer at the "washington post" where he covers the intelligence community speed grooves at the name column, spy talk. mr. stein is a longtime investigator and reporter specializing in u.s. intelligence defense and foreign-policy issues. and military veteran myself mr. stein was an army intelligence case officer in vietnam. he has authored three highly regarded books and more

magazines in public to say since then i can list right now. he also appears briefly on television and radio and an analyst on national security issues. in the 1980s he was a deputy foreign editor at upi. until late 2009 he worked in "congressional quarterly" where he launched the on line cq homeland security daily and served service national security editor creating spy talk column. mr. stein's experiences of former intelligence officer and currently in the journalist world makes him an apta bookend for mr. lunner who began in journalism and moved into national security. so perhaps mr. stein they could ask you to elaborate a bit on the evolving role of traditional media within the realm of open source intelligence or to talk about your experience as a producer with many major publications. thanks for being here tonight. [applause] >> thank you. nice to be here. i'm going to speak very briefly

because i have already heard important and jarring things and i'm sure we'll want to get to questions right away. i should say right away i was cautioned by my editors this morning to make sure that i said i'm not in any way representing the views of the "washington post." but that i am permitted to say that we are all for open source intelligence. actually when i first heard the phrase open source intelligence many years ago, as some people what it meant and they said it meant institutionalizing the use of books, magazine articles, scientific studies and so on and putting it into the intelligence system. and into the product. well, i aligned myself with those who think that a document stamped secret does not necessarily more valuable than something that is not classified whatsoever in one word for that curveball but i also thought back to my stint as a case

officer and get him where merely being able to read vietnamese newspapers gave me the first clues, the fact that i had double agent in my operation. the newspapers of course weren't classified but my clipping them and saving them was classified so i had the stamp to -- newspaper article secret before i put them in my files. in any event i think open source intelligence the use of public sources is incredibly important although no more important, as important as ever could be because of the war we are in and still in iraq and afghanistan and the struggle against al qaeda and its affiliates. and people who we don't even know their and al qaeda, sympathizer yet tomorrow maybe. now, to be really useful, osi has to stay open and that would

seem to be so obvious, but i heard a frightening story a couple of years ago that when osi, when the office of osi created a study that was in stark opposition to cia findings they would take the osi study and classify it, bury it in the system. i hope that is in through but if it is it is very frightening indeed. so, osi to remain valuable had to be open to everybody and not just other intelligence consumers but to the public at large, and that is all i have to say before i want to open the floor to questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much mr. stein. as we prepare to ask questions i think we will begin with a credentialed media and i guess i have one question that i would like to press for the panel and for you. i know we are going to lose you a little early for work schedule

concerns, but one of the concerns raised by panelists at our june event was related to a diminishing number of foreign correspondence from american newspapers and media outlets and i would like to ask maybe we should go down the line, if you perceive a downward trend in the quantity of traditional reporting from overseas bureaus or perhaps any changes in quality and objectivity over the course of the next 10 years and what that -- challenges and opportunities that might raise. >> from my perspective, although i'm probably not the best person to answer that question or my organization, i have seen more what i call homogenous reporting, a lot more in english frankly from these agencies and some less from some other foreign outlets but not to the extent that it causes any alarm or concern. but i do see a lot more english coming from foreign capitals

then i would have seen 20 years ago or 15 years ago. >> thank you, sir. mr. lunner? >> well, yeah i think it is a dangerous trend not only for the osi but for our culture at large. you know we live in a world where jurisdiction and country boundaries disappear with a keystroke and if you don't have people on the ground, i think it was mentioned earlier about how useful it is to have people who know the clothing in the culture and customs and language in sort of the buzz around the village. we will be blinded very quickly or classified and as a country i think we need to have a better understanding of the rest of the world than we have ever had and you don't do that by cutting back on foreign coverage. >> thank you. >> i have benefited from working

for the last 10 years with working with one of the best-known foreign correspondents. we spent decades working in over 100 countries, senior editor of "newsweek" and your chief starting back many years ago. he often talks about this with his colleagues long-standing about the significant drop in foreign correspondents and he thinks americans are exceptionally misinformed and ill-informed about the world because of this. you don't have the top people going overseas as they do as insurance to cover these individuals for iraq and it -- afghanistan so you have to hire a lot of people who don't require the eight stringers and don't demand that so there has been a diminution in the quantity and quality that is coming, so i do see that trend. i think it is accurate and coming from someone who has done that work in 100 countries for 60 plus years i'm inclined to take his word for it.

>> thank you. ms. spaulding. >> it is interesting, think it's a little bit of a mixed bag. and some ice on the really big issues, one or two top issues of foreign affairs and foreign issues, where there is video or where there is a conflict over the issue back in the states. i think we in some way see more coverage or better coverage. certainly starting with embedding reporters with troops going in and over time the ways in which the press has fought to have greater freedom as it covers those issues. at the same time, though, seems to me there is no question that coverage of all other issues, foreign issues, has really fallen off and you know you are lucky if you get a tiny little paragraph in a wrap-up section. i've been particularly struck in the last week or so by the lack of attention paid to a whole series of major bombings in pakistan, an area that is

obviously of such significant interest and importance to us, and these are significant events on the ground there and you'd know if you would almost never know it by reading our daily papers. and i do think that particularly on television that trend -- the trend towards opinion versus straight news reporting has really distressing. >> thank you ms. spaulding. mr. stein. >> you will be here -- surprised you may say that it is a disaster. washington post is closing -- it is not just the cutback in coverage but "washington post" like most newspapers have a smaller news holds that we don't have as much space for stories and the reporters are being called upon more often to shorten their stories. so it is a real problem and you can say well when you put it on

line you can go on forever on line, but the fact is that newspaper still bring the kind of authority to a story that on line journalism doesn't quite do yet. so, in the absence of information of course you have opinion and when you look at television news, a sharper and more festive and more extreme the opinion, the greater the ratings are. so that is what is driving it. i don't watch television is any more. i just can't do it. i call up somebody after a real liberal friend the other night, after watching two hours of msnbc and i said now i understand why do you were angry all the time. i am ready to burn down the white house and congress, you know because it is so extreme. is irony and i'm not the first to remark on this. is highly ironic here we are involved in these wars and

shedding blood and we have less foreign coverage. it is just dangerous and outrageous and really dispiriting. >> thank you. yes, sir. how are we going to do this? with a microphone? if you ask a question if you could identify yourself and ask your question for the panel, that would be great. >> i am an independent journalist. i m-atv war correspondent and i'm -- this is why i'm going to ask you for help because it is gamely interesting what you said and it seems to me what happens to us 25 years ago when we had to start -- in today that we have al qaeda for instance. 25 years ago without the internet, i found much easier to

study colonies and to penetrate from urbain you to north korea where i have been because there was free or your. there was the pvc monitoring service. there was the hoover foundation and the vatican. there were six or seven infinite sources that you could put together and they were quite clear and honest assessment of what was happening in those countries. of course i had to go to these countries to answer what you said. you have to go there. if you don't go there you probably don't understand fully, but what is easier then than now. my question is, don't you think that with all the open information that we have today on al qaeda, we still lack a system of putting together the

open information on different phenomena. the interesting thing is you are starting the future. we have new phenomena like al qaeda -- which was started three years ago, four years ago. apparently we don't know enough and what we know, the countries and the sources don't share. >> thank you, sir. i believe the essence of the question was how are we consolidating open-source information on al qaeda and maybe mr. sanderson you are a great bersin to talk about that. >> thank you for the great question. one way we have done and this is how i describe it and that is running these open-source networks which we have done outside of government. another couple of reports that you can find on line and how we do it as we bring 15 people again who are on the ground in these countries. you mentioned al qaeda and maghreb and north africa.

we find people who are working in europe where there's a lot of immigration flows from algeria, mauritania from morocco and libya and tunisia who deal with individuals who have a range of activities going on in europe and then people who are in north africa so you bring those people together and you asked them for alternative viewpoints on the nature and the degree of nature of the threat coming out of aqim or in general. study the -- stand up to networks that can do it but one thing i mentioned as we have been exceptionally difficult time getting close to the actual leadership in getting an understanding of what their operations are going to be but they also telegraph though sometimes. if you think about inspiring all of the on line sources that terrorist put out there, they are telling us what they are going to do and that is very important. i will comment on something else regarding understandings soviets. you know one thing the intelligence community benefited from was the jewish russians and

ukrainians who left the country, left her in the cold war and we could benefit from as individuals, from their language capabilities, from their understanding of the role of russian literature on decision may kink, bring them to the intelligence committee duart tap them in the academic community and get a great understanding of that at we are dealing with an adversary that is so markedly different from that. it is not a bounded thread. we don't have the same language capabilities that we can array against them. and i offer our bottled but there are lots way to do it. i don't want to say that this is the only are the best way to do it. >> do any other panels want to comment on the question? >> this goes to the earlier premise that andrew was talking about with the diminution of foreign correspondents. there's an element we haven't talked about that is important. it's good to have a foreign correspondent but it is a hell of a lot better to have for

foreign correspondents covering the same country or city or region because that element of competition brings out different views and different perspectives and it just increases your possibility of getting ultimately to whatever the ground truth is. there is a great demonstration of the importance of different views that happen every day in washington at the newseum here in the capital where they put up the front pages of every newspaper from every state, 50 or so newspapers and it is the same day, the same news, the same happenings but you swear you are in a different planet and some of these papers look at what happened that day through their prospective. so you lose that variety of respect its and some sort of -- that you might get by researching it for intel purposes or to understand anything. if you have just got one source. >> i would to say

parenthetically that we still, all the information we have, there is still a pretty heavy bias in washington toward what the government thinks and this spreads out into the media where its consensus builds. this is a certain point of view, and very little contrary views are still really making it into our consciousness. i mean there is a question over tactics in afghanistan but not large questions and tactics in iran but not large questions. the head of mi-5 testified before a commission looking into the iraq war and she said elijah manningham bowler said that iraq was essentially a disaster for this trouble with -- struggle against terror was the man she testified after the invasion of iraq she go 100% increase in

mi-5, the coroner terrorism agency, counterintelligence counterterrorism agency, got 100% budget increase because of threats were substantially higher because of young british muslims being drawn to al qaeda. she's she said our involvement in iraq radicalized for lack of a better word a whole generation of young people. now, contrast the head of the british counterterrorism, contrast that with the coverage of mr. bush when his book came out. going around saying iraq was great, still believe in it and this is generally reported without a lot of criticism and i think americans really don't understand what happened in iraq so i think there a lot of contrary views out there in the european press, the asian press, not to mention the intelligence channels that still is not really getting through and giving us a balanced opinion of

what is going on in the world. >> thank you mr. stein. do you want to comment on that? the next question, any members of the media or if you are an attendee and have a question for a panel. yes, maam. >> i am more interested in the area of ethics and intelligence. i like that juxtaposition. i also have some institutional memory file how certain constructs about for example, the middle east occurred. i mean you just -- i grew up in those circles, and i think that i am just struck by the fact that as loss johnson has written a book on intelligence and he considers the core problems between the academics and the

inability of covert operations people to talk and he has been trying to bring -- and i just wonder whether, you know these institutions here like the cia and others really do want to sort of lessened the threat and that does mean ringing and dissenting and perhaps unpopular perspectives about a situation. so i think this sort of goes to what jeff was saying. >> the question for the palace, within the framework, bringing in dissenting perspectives and fusing that with intelligence analysis and available information. if you have any input on that process or thoughts over the next decade what that might look like. >> that is what we are trying to do and to be clear we were not trying to bring academics or non-governmental sources into contact with the covert

operators but with analysts who have a much greater, i mean relatively, greater level of freedom of engaging people that can go to conferences, not covert sources or covert operatives. it is very difficult. there were abuses in the past with domestic spying with connections with anthropologists and the cia during the vietnam war and after, so it is a real stigma to be seen as cooperating with the cia among the academic communities but less so i think over the past few where's -- years where there has been a big rush of a trend of cultural political and social anthropologists working with the department of defense to better understand what is on the ground and human terrain teams and things like that which had been effective and good. there is also the problem as we mentioned suzanne spaulding is a former general counsel or to the cia will know as soon as someone inside the intelligence community approach is someone on the outside and asked for some degree of help you get into

problems of whether you are tasking and in visual to do something and that percentage problems with the safety of that individual and the legality of doing that, so we submit there were other ways to do it and the national intelligence council does it. i and our intelligence and research bureau does it. they convene conferences. our argument is that it houses the sustainable. you have to have a group getting to your final point of serving as a sounding board so that those as i can have someone on the outside of their world challenge and check what they are doing and it is tough because we had covert operators advise us on the project. if they stole something or it was difficult to get that is going to be more valuable than something you pick up in a journal. well it isn't necessarily but that mindset is still there in the day you went to the intel community and you are told hey you reveal anything you are dead meat, well that goes totally against the notion of reaching

out. so it is setup to not facilitate outreach. >> ms. spaulding? >> i think also that we focused -- because we call it open source intelligence that we focus on the role of the intelligence community in that. i think we really are missing a really valuable collector of open source intelligence information and that is their diplomats overseas and the state department, and i think we are getting an insight to this take us to our friends over at wikileaks. but i think it is true that these are folks who are on the ground obviously and they are in a position and often do reach out to hear different views, alternative views and perspectives and that is one of the reasons why, and then they write that up often in their cables and it is one of the reasons there was a lot of concern about the safety of folks who have been talking to our diplomats and reporting

information, so i think they can escape, folks can escape a lot of the stigma, a lot of the expense that comes around anything that touches the intelligence community to and the tendency and the inclination to over classify it etc.. so i think we need to, next time you have your open source panel, your next one and read think he should have someone from the state department. >> a great suggestion. >> andrew i think she mentioned something that prompted me. a lot of our problems are not breaking the ethics but following ethics that were set up you know 50 years ago or something. these delineations where information can be transmitted domestically even though the threat comes across earlier, the threat information is what we need. everybody is afraid to talk to the cia on the domestic side directly because of the

long-standing chinese wall there that has been set up for good reasons at the espionage act is from 1917 or something originally. that sort of thinking has, is not applicable to some of today's issues and cooperation so collaboration suffers a bit because of that. >> mr. stein? >> i wish is going to see a think -- has such an uphill struggle to be a player and i mean any open information because what the covert side of the community always says this we know something that you don't and that is a very powerful argument. of course as it turns out they don't. i have intelligent people would tell me things from time to time mostly former cia people going into contractor something and they give me a tip for something in two days later they call and say why having a printer that? i say i'm like you guys we need

more than one source. we have to get corroboration. corroboration. this is an argument that the intelligence people make all the time, we know something that you don't and therefore you can go blah blah blah about the reports you have written but we have secrets if you don't know about and if you knew about it you wouldn't say what you are saying that is an argument that wins again and again and again in washington. >> yes, sir. wait for the microphone to get over there. >> the crisper haney independent consultant. ms. spaulding copp's comments on the prospects but the potential benefits not just to businesses but economic organizations but government organizations is a very interesting quote in the headquarters building of the cia. is not classify classified, this

from the bible and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. it would be very interesting to find out who was enlightened enough to put that there but in the context of your remarks, and in the context of shifting geopolitics we are seeing the rise of economic powers in asia. upon economic superpower hood is political and superpower hood built and consequentially as we learn from the soviet union if you are not an economic superpower you cannot sustain military and therefore political influence. so i guess i would appreciate the panels response or in situ if we see a world emergent gration power is principally china and india become economic superpowers and with the associated military and political influence that brings, might infect in fact the u.s. be advantaged by operating more as a national entity and the global

community in a world without secrets because knowledge is power, but only if disseminated to enough people. >> a great question. mr. sanderson are you ready to feel that one? >> i think it is a great point and interestingly i think that democracies have a natural advantage, a leg up, in this you know sort of competition to see who can prevail in a world without secrets because democracy, is premised upon the notion of transparency and by and large our leaders don't lie to us and we do have a free press. i am struck when a look at the consequences of the cable, the release of the cables through the media as a result of wikileaks, that -- at the impact of that. i think those folks who have looked at these suggest that

there really has been no moment from the american public, that the dichotomy between what we see in the cables and what we sort of knew or understood or believed you know is not very brave. there are very few instances where there is a split between sort of the public understanding and what we see in the cables. not so with regard to some of the foreign leaders whose secrets are revealed in these cables, who face a far more significant problem, largely because they were trying to operate in a world where they were keeping things secret -- secret from the public and their restricting the flow of information. so i think there is an interesting lesson there. i also think it is fascinating to see what is going on in china with regard to a bit of attention i think that is just beginning to emerge between the government's desire to restrict

the flow of information primarily as a security for the regime measure, and yet their primary focus is on building up the economic infrastructure to raise, you know, for a rising middle class and they understand the importance of that for regime continuity as well. and businesses are suggesting that the restrictions on the flow of information in some instances are really hampering them, their ability to compete in the world market. and so it will be interesting to see if just as businesses are leading the way in these other contexts, whether those economic forces will begin to push china for example in the direction of more openness for economic reasons, and you know i think you will be fascinating to watch as that develops. >> i just want to add a postscript and i think everyone agrees with this but it needs to be said.

there are legitimate secrets and in the intelligence round that involves secret agents, their names and some operations which allegedly deserve to be kept secret. and at the "washington post" like other major news media have not rented information that we know. it could endanger someone's life for information about operations that we have learned about and we haven't printed as we have been persuaded that it could endanger lives. so, there is a responsibility on our side there and there is their responsibility for the cia and other agencies to keep certain kinds of information secret. it deserves to be kept secret and even in the wikileaks cables "the new york times" and other media have centered these cables before writing about them because they had information that they decided was legitimately, which legitimately, legitimately deserve to be kept secret. ..

>> is a challenge potentially to the government. at the same time though, they are dying to get as much info as possible. which we see as a counterintelligent threat realm. just online in the open sources. this is and will be one the most interesting things to watch in china over the next few years. >> thank you. looks like we have a question

over here in front. >> thank you. starling wright. excuse me. i was formerly with the renden group, i'm now involved in other things. my question is for anyone on the panel, although miss spaulding has commented. i'm interesting about any thoughts you may have about wikileaks and how the existence of wikileaks is being framed internationally and whether you perceive that as a potentially effective attack in as many permutations on the u.s. and how we may want to think about counterrering that. i noticed that 9/11 truthers are teaming up with them. michael moore is bailing out assange. some of the same players who insisted that we knock down our own buildings to go steal iraq's

war are now out lobbying for assange. i'm curious on your thoughts. >> thank you. someone want to tackle questions on wikileaks is an attack on america. >> i'd like to talk about renden group. [inaudible comment] >> i read stuff, i wrote things, that's all i know. i know nothing. >> well i just -- [laughter] >> that's what they all said. [laughter] >> just in the question renden while in london -- [inaudible comment] >> don't take it personally. it's not personally.

in other words, renden group is involved with a lot of covert action and propaganda. i think they made sure that kuwaitis had american flags in their hands. we as "washington post" had learned that, do you think we should have reported that? [inaudible comment] [laughter] >> do you think that -- anyone want to comment on that? an ongoing covert action? >> also before my time. >> is that information that should be printed? >> are you asking whether we should print the information that renden group handed out? is that what you are asking? >> no, not you. i didn't expect renden group would be exposing it's own covert operation. >> i think the panel has answered your question, miss. if we can get to the next question. [inaudible comment] >> yes, sir? with the microphone.

>> i will say as you are waiting for the microphone, i just want to pick -- echo what jeff said about the importance of -- there are things today that need to be kept secret. and so, you know, my comments about getting ready for a world in which we had to learn how to keep fewer secrets is by in means the suggestion that today we throw open the doors or there aren't things that ultimately we are going to have to learn to protect. i think we have to do it at a much more careful loss-benefit analysis. the cost of protecting that information means that we have to apply that to a far, far smaller universe of information than what which we today are trying to protect. you know, i think things like covert actions are the kinds of things that folks are going to

have to do some real thinking about. how do we protect if we are going to enter into an operation where secrecy is absolutely essential, you know, do a realistic appraisal of whether keeping that secret is viable. my sense is that most covert actions, there's a -- many covert actions, certainly historically, there's always been a recognition that the activity itself would not say secret. the definition of a covert action is that the hand of the united states will not be publicly acknowledged or apparent. and so, you know, i think they present a different sort of category. >> sure. thank you. actually that exchange reminds me of something that mark wrote in a book i used around classes that i thought at graduate school. there are operational failures and policy successes. but there are no operational successes, because by

definition, they need to remain secret. i appreciate people that under take dangerous missions. >> a couple of comments and then to get your reaction. my immediate predecessor here used frequently the comment that was before my time. i'm in the fortunate situation that really not a lot happened before my time. [laughter] >> because 25 years ago, the director of central intelligence and depty director of central intelligence bill casey opened the fame in world war ii and john mcmahan established a place for open source information in the intelligence community for the purpose of bringing together all of the intelligence community organizations including those tucked around nonintelligence

agencies for the better exemployeation of open source information. exploitation in those days meant the processes, storing, and retrieval and the analysis and the preparation of intelligence reports and the dissemination. in other words, it was a very big broad term. it did arose a lot of opposition in terms of the broad framework. in that perspective, a number of things that were said that have been brought up here and even in those days there was the difficulty of being able to deal with to reach people in the private sector who were recognized as experts in a lot of sectors. i'm very pleased to hear about the developments of setting up the somewhat institutionized way of being able to tap into that. however, the intelligence community never had a difficulty in reaching people who were

willing to speak to people in the intelligence world. but not tasking them, in other words, debriefing them after they had been on foreign travel and one thing or another else. and they were quite willing to speak on those subjects. because they recognized there was a contribution that they could make and an entire organization was doing that throughout the entire country for a long period of time and the vision of cia. i had at the time railed again the development of the term open court osi. open source information. we preferred that for the value. over time to be able to insecure it was going to be able to come time with int, information

recovery, i'm encouraged by the things i've heard here today that was a good fight and we gave up too soon. because the value of going back to open source information as a term was, in fact, a very good -- would have been and would be a good thing to continue. the reason for that at the time was -- >> i'm sorry. i don't mean to cut you off. i wonder if you could ask a direct question for the panel to respond to, sir. >> the value at that time was make view open source information as the platform on which all of the other stove pipe hinges stood. i'd like to get your react to that. one other sector that has not been touched on here but what was developed in parallel for 25 years and that is an organization was established in the private sector called the society of competitive intelligence professionals, scip, started here in the united states and quickly grew to

become an international organization. private sector people, private sector admission, and private sector in the intelligence -- in the information technology sector for preparing information, performing all of those steps that were being done, are being done in the intelligence community government activities that are being done in the private sector. that organization has just recently in the last year changes it's name to strategic and competitive intelligence professionals, but kept the scip acronym and.org. very interesting web site. i'm interested on your comments on the open source issues and just beginning with a couple of comments here and the open source issues and intelligence issues in the private sector that are very much parallel. >> private sector, open source intelligence. >> i will quickly on your

broader topic, i'm not familiar with the organization that you were talking about, you referred the -- the long-standing relationship with over seas company information debriefing ic analysts et cetera. but it's a two-way street now in the post 9/11 situation that the private sector and this is another tired connect the dots phrase, the number that we always hear is owns and operates 85% of the infrastructure that we are trying to protect from the threats. they are trying to become consumers as well in the u.s. the procedures of open source, i think, is the best way to facilitate that, particularly in the same sort of information that i was talking about that the first responders need a lot of the companies, particularly the larger ones, have the capability and the responsibility to know as much as they can to protect it's critical infrastructure.

so private sector is a legitimate concern in ways it wasn't before 9/11. >> mrs. spaulding? >> you know, it's interesting too. one the things we've always talked about, intelligence needed to be timely and actionable. timely being a critical piece of it. the private sector -- by sense is still that the private sector is way ahead of us on timely intelligence. and you referenced it earlier, they will increasingly in the future become the breaking news at cnn, open source will become the breaking news cnn of intelligence. you know, that panel that i referenced a couple of years ago with the open source that had corporate security and corporate intelligence folks on it, it was fascinating to hear them talk about particularly for arbitrage clients, for example, the amount of information that they gather from open source and how incredibly important it is to have the absolute latest steps

that really a matter of a few seconds sometimes or certainly minutes can make the difference between making millions and losing millions for these corporate folks. and so they have honed their open source intelligence skills in a way that i don't think most of the folks in government have felt the pressure to do yet. and obviously it isn't necessarily relevant in all contacts for government. it really is interesting in terms of the private sector's focus on that timely aspect of gathering information. and we still have a lot to learn from them. >> sure. mr. sanderson, your thoughts? >> i think we're getting down to about five minutes left here. four panelists and i'll give you each about 60 seconds for parting thoughts.

mr. lunner? >> it gives me an idea on how important they are. we have a relatively kumbya gathering today. i was in a similar situation about a month ago down the street. a number of them would not agree with the number of what we thought were settled issues here today. so this is a conversation that has to keep going and it has to keep getting into areas that -- and nontraditional partners have to understand, you know, what's important, what needs to be kept secret, and what doesn't and conversely what has to be released if we are going to protect ourselves from these various threats. again, thanks for your time. >> thank you, sir, mr. sanderson. >> thanks, again, andrew. i'll close by saying that

certain intelligence analyst are overwhelmed with information. classified and unclassified. you can swim through that more effectively by creating a funnel essentially by bringing in experts from the outside who have already collected the relevant information who know what you need to know and being able to bring them in is key. as the world gets more complicated, we are going to go from $6 billion to 2 billion. you have to go to outside sources. that's it. >> thank you, sir. mrs. spaulding? >> i guess i would say by closing on the no more secrets notion, when we talk about advocating, it really doesn't matter whether you are in favor of a more transparent or not in favor. i think what i'd like to do is serve more as in the intelligence world and call an alerting function. this is coming at us whether we like it or not. and that we can either continue

to fight and buck this trend or we can adapt. and we figure out ways to adapt. >> thank you. mr. stein? >> i've learned a lot here today. and some of the things have actually been pretty alarming and have solidified my suspiciouses that private intelligence organizations and corporations and the news media all of which, i guess, comes out of the umbrella of both is eclipsing the government. the challenge of the government is whether it can keep up and use it effectively. if they are late, slow, and dumb i don't know what's going to happen. we need to find some other use for them. >> great. well, thank you, everyone. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> before we go i'd like to thank mr. naquin who had to

leave early for sharing his vision and each of our panelist for sharing their expertise, and the press club for their venue, and everyone who helped make all of the arrangements and set it up for us. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> and i'd also like to thank each of you for joining us. lexisnexis helped with this event. together perhaps we can bring innovation to bear on the challenges and opportunities described on today's conversation and ultimately answer the calls from congress, federal agencies, and several independent commissions to serve the interest of efficiency and effectiveness of national security. if you saw value in this event and would like to help us continue as a series or if you have suggestions for future topics or speakers, please feel free to contact me or any others

of the team from lexisnexis today. happy holidays and merry christmas from us. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> now a discussion on childhood nutrition policy and it's impact on schools. from today's "washington journal" this is about 40 minutes. >> host: all week we've been looking at issues involving food policy. on monday we started to take a look at food safety legislation --

>> host: tracy fox is our guest. what happened recently? >> guest: huge, this is the biggest event in improving the quality of school meals. the healthy hunger kids act was passed by the president and signed several weeks ago really makes the first investment in 30 years in our school meal programs. what it does is three main areas. it improves the quality of nutrition by providing food service operators with more resources to improve the quality of school meals. right now agriculture provides reimbursement for offering and providing meals that meet certain standards. this finally for the first time in 30 years provides a pretty significant bump up. it also provides usda the authority to regular gait what we call competitive foods, all

of the other foods and beverages that you find in the cafeteria, and vending machines. right now the usda's hands have been tied and they haven't been able to do much. the other main area is access. we want to make sure that more children who are eligible receive the meals that they need. there are a number of parts of the bill that really try to improve access and try to get more kids who are eligible into the program to get the healthy meals. either snacks as well as after school separate programs. and the third major area is it really identifies some accountability and structure issues. in other words, schools should be monitored more closely to make sure they are adhering to nutrition standards and other things. it kind of puts the checks and balance. three main areas, a ton of components within those areas. but it's pretty significant. >> is it too simple to say the

usda has more control over the menu than the school in the united states? >> guest: in some respect, they've always had a say in the menu. if you decide you are going to participate, you've already had general guideline, this many ounces of meat, this much milk, and you've had a lot of liberty to do what you want to do. it provides you a few more resources and there is some guidance training to also encourage you to improve the quality of the meal that you are serving. not only that, but at the same time the bill was improving through congress, usda has been hard at work to encourage you to serve more fruits and vegetables, lower-fat milk products, but you need more resources. this bill does that. it compliments what usda wants you to do while providing you

the resources to do that? >> host: does that mean the child will see the changes next year and beyond? >> guest: and beyond. what we are going to see, i think, schools are making pretty significant changes now knowing this is coming down the pike. but they will see changes. regular pizza and very sweetened pizza, they might see a whole wheat with low fat mozzarella cheese. and i think when all is said and done by 2013, 2014, you are going to see some significant changes. >> host: with us until 10:00. want to ask about the new child nutrition program give us a call.

the e-mail and twitter of c-span w jay. you said something called competitive foods. can you expand? >> sure, competitor foods you think of the child walks in the cafeteria, they get the sandwich, fruit, often times in cafeterias, there's a lot of things they can choose as well. they can choose the donut or the sports drink or the chips, those are what we call competitive foods. they compete with the schools meal program. those foods are in the just in the calf -- cafeteria, you have them in vending machines and throughout the school day and after. there are lots of other opportunities for kids to eat, not just during the school meal program. up until now before the law was signed, usda had very limited authority. they had authority with the school meal. okay, if you are going to participate, you need to serve this, this, this.

competitive foods, very little. the standards haven't been updated in 30 years. so this law really doesn't -- in a law you won't find and you can only serve this. what it does is it gives usda authority to regulate just like they regulate the school meals. so there have been a number of reports that have come out that said if you are going to have competitive foods, these are the types of standards you should meet. usda has a lot of guidance as they prepare and there will be a lot of advocates watching them over to encourage them to make sure the standards do come up and they are strong. >> host: so if they exceed a certain calorie or fat will they get pulled? >> guest: they will not be able to provide them. in the guidance and regulation, there's determining to provide training and technical assistance and make sure there's some checks and balances. there has been a number of states in districts. i lived in montgomery county for

years and worked very hard when my kids were in the school system to work on improving the quality of competitive foods. we were successful in getting sodas out of schools and limiting the number of items there. a number of districts and states have a pretty good track record. not all of them. we have a long way to go. which is why we are excited about the provision. there's good benchmarks, more standards. we think this is going -- this is implementable. it's not as though this is a huge burden or barrier. >> host: do schools use competitive foods to make money? >> guest: they do. although there's some research that shows some kind of accounting research that has shown the sometimes the reimbursable meal, that's helping compensate for the price of the competitive foods. we don't like to see that. so while some school districts might lose a little bit of money, as the quality of the competitive foods increase, we see more kids participating in

the school meal program which is exactly what we want to see. because the quality of the meal they receive is going to be far better no matter how good the competitive food, it's going to far better. >> host: as far as the monitoring of the legislation some of the details include that schools have to be audited every three years, it includes provision to ensure safety in school and it provides training and technical assistance for providers. what does that mean for people on the ground? what do they have to deal with because of this? >> guest: right. i think right now they are used to being monitored. it's going to ramp up. i think it was once every five years. which is not that much when you think about how much money the school pumps in. that includes lunch, breakfast, child care, i think one in three careers is not. there's going to be training and technical assistance as you mention. we hope this is going to be a

smoother transition that one might expect. they are used to being audited. providing training and technical assistance. so we do think that these are really important provisions. this is a significant investment that the government is making. >> host: one more question, is the usda ready to handle these improvements? >> guest: you know, it's going to take time. they were very involved and cognizant. often times when congress is going to be reauthorized and working on legislation they are very much in contact with the administration, this administration, secretary vilsack, all the way down to the leaders in the food and nutrition service. which is the agency that runs the program in the development of the legislation and very cognizant of it. and i think also very responsive. it's going to take time and many years before the implications are implemented. >> host: we're looking at childhood legislation with tracy fox. first call, baltimore, maryland,

john on the independent line. go ahead, sir. >> caller: thank you very much. a couple of comments for ms. fox. that is since we believe that big brother knows more about our children's nutrition, the question that i have are several questions that i have. one is where was ms. fox during the years when local, state, and federal government allowed all of these snack machines to be put in schools which was insane. and i can recall in the '60s going to school, we couldn't even have gum in the classrooms, not all of the candy bars and soda. it's just disappointing. we wonder why a lot of our children that are low income that are going to school are hungry, just take a look at the federal food stamp program and what that is allowing parents to buy. then we wonder why children go to school hungry. those had a couple of things. i'm very concerned about.

thank you. >> guest: sure. no thanks for your comments. i agree. i remember when i was going to school as well, there were vending machines were a rarity. it would be -- excuse me. it would be a really fun deal for me to get a soda once every few weeks after school. i do think we have seen a proliferation of vending machines, and competitive foods like we talked about in the cafeteria, part of it financial, part of it because we are in an environment where food is everywhere. we expect it. even in our school system. i totally agree with you, it has gotten out of control. that's why one the provisions in the bill to really give the government a little bit more authority over all of the foods offered in school is really critically important. it was in the '70s that the soda industry basically took that authority away from the usda. so we are glad that usda now is in a better position and there are some good standards out there for usda to follow and there are been some good success

stories that state and local levels regarding competitive foods. >> host: atlanta, georgia, carl, republican line. good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i like the last fella's comment. i know children that come to school and buy soda and ice cream, and it's a waste. that's not why i'm calling. my original comment was the food stamp program. i'm concerned with what people buy who have food stamps. i've been behind people in line and i think the junk in the cart. i've talked to check out people and i think they should ban anybody on food stamps any crunchy things in a bag or junk food. a bag of potato chips is $4, you can get a frozen bag of vegetables at walmart for $1. it's not what you hear, it's the cost of everything.

i think we would really improve the health of our poorer people who are on the food stamps if we limited what they can buy with the food stamps. and i agree, get those machines out of the schools. it's just -- it's just hurting our children. thank you. >> guest: thank you. i appreciate the comments. again, i agree with you. we are hoping that some of the parts of this legislation will make it a lot easier for kids to have access to only healthy foods. there's absolutely no reason why they should be walking down the hall and have access to vending machines that provide them with nonnutrition meals or foods. you talk about the food stamp program which is now called the special -- supplement nutrition program, everybody remembers it or still calls it the food stamp. what's remember the healthy, hunger free kids act that we are talking about, there's a provision that restructures the education component for the

s.n.a.p. program, it not just provides benefits to families in needs, but also education funding. we are hoping with some of the changes, we are going to bring that education initiative up to the 21st century to do some approaches, multilevel approaches, community-based approaches that really help s.n.a.p. participate understand the benefits. a bag of frozen veggies or canned item versus a candy bar or potato chip. there's a lot of education that needs to go hand in hand with the benefit itself. and we need to get to that as well. >> host: twitter adds to the solution. you have to eat all of the salads. there>> guest: there is a provin that has school-based gardens. i think i'm the first that's not the solution.

we don't expect all kids all of the sudden when a salad bar is introduced, clamber to it. there's an initiative. the schools i've been in, whenever that salad bar is introduced, the kids do go crazy. you need to make sure you are providing a number of items from the kids of cultural backgrounds to accept it. i think with the right approach and the right promotion, it's not going to be the solution, but it's an important component. there's going to be an additional resources for schools to use it. it's also kind of interesting from the education side because we are hearing some of the callers talk about the need for people to be educated about what they purchase. there is some benefit to the farm to school as well as school-based gardens. not they are going to provide all of the vegetables the school needs. it's a great learning lab. you have kids outside in the garden, they understand and recognize where they food comes from.

again, there's going to be some resources in there to complement a lot of the work. >> so is the new requirement tied to the food pyramid? >> guest: it will be president they are based on the dietary guidelines and from that comes the food pyramid. it's a graphic reputation of the dietary guidelines. they are in the process of being revised. you can guarantee that anything the u.s. department of agriculture does in the improving the quality of meals as well as getting rid of junk food in schools is going to be tied closely to the guidelines which is also going to be connected to what is now the pyramid. >> guest: for food that's serves the low income and the kids that fall under there, what's the reimbursement rate that you were talking about. how much does the federal government provide currently and how will that change as far as cents or dollars? however it works. >> guest: sure. just to back up a little bit. right now about 30 million kids

participate in the school lunch program. they are not all children that are economically poor. 30 million participate. about 18 million of them fall into the free and reduced price. the other 11 million are kids who's -- you know, income is -- does in the qualify them for those two categories. just to classify, all kids participate. the majority of them happen to be an economic category that they are eligible for reduced price. right now for free child, the school will get $2.70. for a reduced price, that school will get $2.30, and free child, school receives about 25 cents. that's what the school receives now to make the meal. the 6 cents will be for every single meal serves that qualified and meets certain nutritional standards. basically bump up 6 cents on

$2.70, $2.30. >> host: do states contribute? >> guest: some do. there's no way the food service can make a meal for $2.70 especially with labor and other costs associated with the production of that meal. it's difficult to make that. it's not like 6 cents is the end all and be all. there are other provisions that will help shore that up. yes, often times states and districts will kick in some. >> host: you are next on the democrat line. >> caller: thanks. quick comments. this bill was needed. being somebody who had a free lunch themselves, it was often the only way to get something to eat. of course, that was a little less than 20 years ago. but i'm going to have to second, of course, what other callers are saying about vender machines. they contribute to the change in

dietary needs of kids. they will rush to the vending machines. and now we need to obviously convince parents the meals are going to be good if we are going to have them pay for them. i hope the schools are able to have -- to meet the needs of the students with good meals the parents are going to pay good money, in which they should. now is it just -- i'd like to put in there also i keep hearing about the usda. it's my opinion that they are failing us because they keep publishing information that has grains as the primary source of fuel for the human body. but let's remember that 10,000 years ago, people were meant to eat meets -- meats and

vegetables. parents need to incorporate them into bagged lunches if they are not going to pay for their student to eat. >> guest: a couple of points. i think you raised a number of really good points. i think on the parents side, the parents need to understand, hopefully the benefit of the school meal. but also i think often times parents try to do a good job at home. sometimes when think send their kids to school, the last thing they think is their child is going to have access to vending machines with high fat. we don't want to undermine's parents hard work at home. that's why the bill is important in trying to make the school environment as healthy as possible. we want to complement what the parents are doing at home, not under cut or undermine their efforts. there are some good provisions in the bill that allow parents better access to what's going on in school. for example, there's a provision in there that calls for districts to create local policies. that started back in 2004. and stricts 15 done local

policies that include nutrition education, physical activity, those kinds of thing. it's not very transparent. parents didn't have the opportunity to see what was in the policy. there's a part of the bill that does require the school to public to engage parents a little bit more and provide them information about what's in the school meal. so we do hope that parents become better informed and can really one, understand, and two be advocated. >> host: how closely is it tied to michelle obama's efforts? >> guest: she's been a huge leader in this arena. i would have to say the administration in general, certainly that goes down to the department of agriculture and key leaders in congress has been instrumental. certainly when you have the first lady on the bully pulpit talks about the importance of the eating and visiting schools across the country and right here in d.c., hugely important. and i think we owe a huge amount to her and her efforts. >> host: st. helen, michigan,

thanks for waiting. lawrence on the republican line. you are on, sir, go ahead. of lawrence are you there? let's move on to michigan, joe, democrat lines. >> caller: yes, i'd like to hear a response on this bill was a lot further than what you are stating. how far will this go into the concession stands, the fund raising activities, they go on during and after school. whatever happened to local control? and this is one under-funded mandate as you said we will only get 6 cents on top of what it costs to make the meal to implement this. and there's cost of training, new equipment, and the reporting from the administration's viewpoint. how does the federal government plan for us to eat the additional cost for implementing

this program? >> you raise a really good point on the fund raising and after school. there's still a fair amount of local authority that will continue for local entities to do the fund raising and those kinds of things. there are so few provisions in there that call on local districts to take a look at -- kind of take into consideration the nutritional health and well being. there's still a amount of control in the fund raising and after school concessions. in terms of the actual unfunded mandate, it's important to note there was a $4.5 million investment in the legislation, that's over and above what already is committed to basically run the program. so there's a $4.5 billion increase in investment. the 6 cents per meal, i agree with you, many would say that's not going to be the end all and be all. because there are a number of other provisions that surround that 6 cents, schools will have a few more resources and tools

at their dispoa sure. $50 million alone for training and technical assistance for the school food operator to make sure they can handle the quality of meals and there has been funding through stimulus and appropriations through equipment. there's an increase in the bill, and training and technical assistance and we do hope that with those in the other complimentary provisions of the bill. >> host: one of them deals with drinking water. why is that? >> guest: often times what you will find, california has been a huge lead, you walk in and it's hard to find a functioning water fountain. there at least be free water in the cafeteria during meal times. that might sound like a no brainer, because we have seen indeed that isn't the case, the

bill can't go as far as to say there has to be drinking water in every single corner and hallway. at least it's a step making sure that children have access to free water in the cafeteria. >> host: maryland. you are on with tracy fox on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning to you, and good morning to the guest. i wanted to say real quickly thank you, c-span. i just got my copy of the supreme court book. it's great. it's the only station that you can really get unbiased information from. and the country can really interact, i love it. but we talk about childhood nutrition, my thing is just like almost everything else that's wrong in this country, the problem is corporations. you know, we get -- the federal government throws out $2.70 to feed a kid. the same three or four companies that are producing these meals, i'm not going to write off the

list of companies, i'm sure ms. fox is aware of them. we really need to do something about the quality of the meals. you know, when i was in kid in school, that was the joke of the town, the quality of the meals. i ate wholesome meals at home. luckily, my parents gave me lunch. so i wasn't participating in the school lunch program. good lord, i was glad that i wasn't. >> guest: well, i think you bring up a good point in terms of the quality. that's one the provisions, one the main outcomes that we hope will be a by-product of the legislation. we will provide tools, some reimbursement, as well as trying to improve the overall environment and provide the operators the tools they need to improve the quality of meals. it's not going to happen overnight. we want parents to try to keep up their effort and monitor the schools and be advocates like

you clearly are to make sure the schools are being held accountable for what they need to be doing. we as parents want to make sure when the kids walk through the schools, the efforts and the hard work that we are doing that you had when you were growing up is not undermined. while they were -- this is a huge step in the right direction. >> host: factor in the step off of twitter. years ago they ran their own programs, now outsourced, responsibility zero, quality zero, profits high. >> guest: certainly there are a number that hire food service. >> host: is that the norm? >> guest: no. not insignificant. but they have to abide by the same standards and quality. while i -- you know, there are differences of opinion as to whether or not that's okay thing. i do think again we are on the road to a better path with this legislation. it's not going to solve everything. but those companies are still

required to be accountable and a number of them are doing really phenomenon things. they have the benefit of being able to sort of use their resources across the country to be able to benefit the systems that they are working in. >> host: can you tell us the nutrition policy consultants? >> guest: i do a lot of work on children and health issues. i do a lot of work with the johnson foundation to prevent childhood obesity. they have been instrumental in pulling together the resource and evidence to ensure that the policymakers have the best evidence as they make decisions. we focus on trying to identify and create policies that promote healthy environments. >> guest: foodnutrition.com is the web site. >> host: republican, ned? >> caller: good morning. ms. fox, how are you?

glove >> guest: good. how are you? >> caller: i'm going okay. i'm going to disagree with the policy on the basis of the fact that the government is funding this this -- i take it; right? it is going to be set up state by state or is it going to be coming from the -- i mean out of washington? >> guest: how it works is the federal government does provide funding to states to operate the program. and then the states will provide funding down to the locals to operate it at the local level. so it's definitely funded at the federal government level with checks and balances and guidance, but there's a lot of flexibility on the state and local in how they implement it. >> host: caller, do you have a question? >> caller: yes. this is my last comment. everyone is paying for this and only -- but some are exempt and some are allowed to receive the benefit of this? >> guest: sure. let me clarify, actually all children can participate in the

school meal program. when my kids were in school, they ate school lunches on a pretty regular basis. regardless of your income cat -- category, kindergarten through 12th, you can walk in school and buy or get for a reduced price depending on the income a school meal. that's how it works. in terms of the government being involved, the government has been involved since 1946 when president truman signed the first school lunch act into law. he did it mainly because there was a national security issue. that was the recruits going into the military were nourished. there was really an effort to do as much as we could within the school system to shore up and make healthier the young men and women in the country and frankly in some respects that hasn't changed right now. we are facing in the military leaders are facing another

crisis. that is that the number one medical reason for young men and women not being able to come in the military is obesity. so the government has been involved in school lunch since half a century. >> guest: we call it school lunch. what about breakfast? >> guest: that's a good point. there's a number of child nutrition programs, school breakfast, lunch, child care feeding center, which provides after school at risk opportunities and it also includes special nutrition program for women, infants and children, a really important program. >> host: that's the wic program. >> guest: for pregnant women and kids up to age five. there are a number of provisions in the bill that are direct. a number of child nutrition programs. >> host: st. louis, missouri, you are next. >> caller: hi. i'm afraid my question is a little complicated.

i understand the -- and i appreciate the importance of providing healthy meals to the children in the school. my big concern -- a couple big concerns for me is number one the idea of being able to cook from scratch. i know it makes things more inexsensive for the meals at home or school. people start learning how to quote unquote cook from boxes and cans with sodium contents, chemical additives, yes, it's more economically feasible and it helps for the longevity of the food, but i question the contribution that these additives make on the individual's health. i mean i think that part of the biggest issue with the national obesity issue is that people don't know how to cook from scratch anymore and know what's

put into meals. and also, you know, from -- i don't know if i can mention another television program. but i was watching -- i believe it was "60 minutes" and they were talking about the lack of protein in some of the meals from third world countries and how it is affecting children's brain development. i mean number one i don't think that america really knows what nutrition is anymore. because we've been fed propaganda from food industries. >> host: let me leave it there and let our guest respond. >> guest: sure, i think you raised a good point. you are not going to hear any arguments in terms of reintroducing cooking and education, in addition to doing the policy i'm also president for the society of nutrition, we would love to see more emphasis on the basic cooks schools. i had the home ec class.

i learned how to do the cooking. i think the skills needed to be introduced. there aren't a huge number of provisions in the bill. that's one thing we worked hard to get the emphasis on in the bill. i'm hopeful that with some of the initiatives in terms of the improved quality of meals, the farm to school programs, school-based gardens, we will be able to use those opportunities to get back to basics and teach kids the importance of what it means to cook and where their food comes from? >> host: san antonio, texas, independent line, robert, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the food policy. if you create a new organization to control what the kids are going to eat, that would somehow give the government more control over what everyone and every child around the nation eats. and well, another problem that i have with that is if you take

away -- the ultimate goal is to take away all of the junk food in the schools. and if you take away the junk food from the schools, you are somehow telling the children they can't decide for themselves and the government needs to decide for them what good and what's not good to eat. you are giving the freedom of the child then you are taking the freedom of child away and not giving him the opportunity or her to choose what he should or should not eat. thank you. >> guest: thank you, robert. i think in terms of the government control, like i said, the government has been involved in the school meal program for over 50 years. i do think that bill is really just an enhancement of strengthening some of the standards that have been in place for that long. in terms of giving children freedoms, i'm all for that. i think when parents send their children to school, they expect they are going to be exposed to

the best and brightest and the healthiest environment. i know when my kids were in 5th or 6th grade, i didn't expect them to come home with a reading list that had captain underpants or garfield. not that i'm opposed, we don't expect that. nor do we expect them to go to school and have access to junk foods. we know they will. we hope as parents, we are teaching them to make the right choices so they will have the freedom to make those decisions. believe me, as soon as they leave the school grounds they will have many opportunities to use their knowledge in the convenience store or fast food. i think schools should and do provide the healthiest that we have to offer. >> host: it could be said both says, physical education and those kinds of classes? >> guest: there is a provision that calls on victims to

development the local owner policies. what the bill does is strengthens that and requires them to develop goals and guidelines for physical activity and nutrition and for competitive foods. and then it also goes a little bit farther and required usda to issue some guidance and regulation. there was no part in the 2004 rule and local entities were left up to their own devices. which is great if they were concerned and dedicated. we found that there are a huge inconsistency in those local policies. one, it provides a little better framework and two it also makes those policies more transparent. parents and many others -- it's like many other callers who were interested can take a look at what their policy includes. if they don't like it, they should be able to voice their concern and be involved. > host: landau lakes, florida.

michelle on the republican line. >> caller: yes, i have a question. how is it going to be funded? you said the government has been involved since 1946. >> guest: uh-huh. >> caller: it seems like we've been pouring tons and tons into the school lunch and it's worse than it's ever been. i paid $30 to $35 for one child in high school. he has to pay $1 for a bottle of water. i heard you talking about free access to water. that's not true. and my second point is where is the parental accountability and responsibility if you don't want your child to use the vending machines, they cost money. don't give them money. if you don't want them to eat the school lunch, make lunch. peanut butter and jelly. i'd like to know who's going to pay for it, the parents of children who do not qualify on the free lunch and are paying $30 to $35 a week for lunch?

>> guest: we hope not. you raise a good point. we really do obviously if you are not a category to receive a free or reduced price, you are going to be paying the full cost for a lunch. that doesn't go towards reimbursing or shouldn't go towards reimbursing the free and reduced price meals. there are some cases in which we hope to get thabilitying better straightened out. we don't want that to be the case. it should never be the case. in terms of parent accountability and responsibility, i couldn't agree with you more. as parents we need to know what's going on. also as parents, we don't have nearly as much, obviously as much control and we hope the environment is promoting and providing them with only healthy options because that's what the school environment should be about. >> host: t.j. in colorado springs, colorado. go ahead. >> guest: my question is what about the ability for kids to go off campus to get food and stuff

like that. i grew up in the early '80s. afterwards we had to go somewhat and have our own lunch after school. what is, you know, allowing kids to go out? i don't know if it's big over here. > guest: it's not huge. it doesn't sound like it's as big as what you were growing up. but it is a problem. anywhere around 10% of schools have open campuses where students are allowed to leave in the school level, mainly the junior high and they are allowed to leave in the lunch and go off campus. again, there's no control over that other than for others to work in the community to try to make sure they have healthy options out there. there's no provision to prevent or require closed campuses or to prevent open campuses. often times i know in my son's large high school in montgomery county, it wa