school. what we're suggesting is as a thought is we have to bring technology into the classroom and teach digital literal simplicity, and teaching digital literacy is students teaching parents and understanding how we do this together. again, it's not one individual group or one individual student or teacher. it's everyone working together to figure out how do we do it and advance the goal going forward. >> i got the last word on that point before we close because i heard the bell, and we're in school herement. >> i think we're in a historical transition. we had analog childhoods, and then the digital world happened to us as adults. our kids are just basically living in a digital world. we have a major job on our hands in this transitional phase to

get particularly to parents, but in interesting ways. i thought it was significant that we had -- you know, a hollywood star to open up this show for us. "glee" recently did a program on bullying and "medicalmodern family" had a skit where they had to give up the internet for two days. we watched the family almost fall apart, but it was a teaching moment for us on the couch wondering if we could do that, and the answer came back don't try. [laughter] all i'm saying as much as it's got to be done in the schools, government has a role, industry have a role, but hollywood and the story tellers have a great role too. >> a great way to end. tremendous panel with great ideas. this is not solved overnight, but it's important and that's what we do at the fcc to have these conversations and help

parents do what they think is right and have the tools they need. that's why we are here today. i think it was -- i want to thank the school for hosting us. this was really a tear risk day, and -- terrific day and thank you for taking time out of your busy days. take care. [applause] >> this week on the communicators, congress and communications policy, a look at potential telecommunications and policy in the congress.

>> now a capitol hill reporter on saturday's shooting in tucson from today's "washington journal." >> host: we jon on the line now, house reporter for roll call. mr. stanton, what is your assessment of the security aspect of the story, and what's talked about on the hill right now? on the phone: well, it's interesting. the security for members is always sort of a difficult issue. there's 535 of them i guess, and the idea that the capitol police would be able to provide securities for 24 hours a day for all of them i think probably seems to be a little unreal usic given the budget climate now. you hear talk about cutting

members personal office spending levels, there's talk about cutting levels for congress, and all of that will cost a lot of money. you know, the new talk now is sitting around making it that lawmakers and the capitol police and arms # and state and local officials are coordinating better so when members have an event back home in their district or state, police know that they are there, there's a presence there to make sure these events don't happen anymore, but there is going to be a sort of a big question that members are going to have to deal with over the next couple days and weeks i imagine. >> host: one the headlines in roll call here says part stalls in the wake of tragedy. give us more insight here. on the phone: this is sort of an interesting aspect. folks on the hill are looking at what happened. congresswoman giffords was

beloved by her colleagues. most people had never heard her name outside of arizona maybe, but people on the hill liked her. she is well-known, one of the rare members in the house that really tried to avoid sort of the overly ugly politics i guess that have become the hallmark of congress over the last few years and tried to work across the aisle with members who had different views, and i think it struck a cord with people that she was the one who got attacked. some of the people used whether or not this guy was a conservative or liberal or socialist or capitalist or whatever, you know, there's a sense, i think, in the capitol communities that at the very least, some of the rhetoric that people have used may have contributed to the overall atmosphere that this guy was sort of living in and operating in, and so it seems, you know,

it's not appropriate now to have a big partisan fight, so no health care bill this week. nobody wants at this point to fight with each other and be into the ugly at this time. >> host: remind us, health care is off the table this week, but what else do we know about the schedule at this point? on the phone: essentially this week is a bit of a wash. today they are not in session. tomorrow, the house is in session in a proformal way. we don't expect much then, and then on wednesday, they will come in to discuss the tragedy, does a res -- discuss a resolution and discuss the situation in arizona. there's not expected to be a vote on it, but just unanimously agree to it, but we can expect to see try buttes. >> host: we read about gun legislation possibly being

pursued as early today. can you speak anymore to that? on the phone: members are starting to introduce bills, certainly. there are some gun legislation bills, bills that are designed to limit the kinds of im-- imagery people can use in campaign ads. there's the use of a bull's eye, that, you know, sarah palin is the most famous user of it, but democrats used it for years and republicans in railings and letters like that as a way to pick out sort of, you know, their opponent frankly. there's now legislation pursued to limit that. i don't know that that will get very far frankly except to get into areas of free speech when you sort of hand picking what kind of images people can use, but you can expect to see a lot of these bills come up in the next few days. >> host: john stanton roll call, thank you for your time

this morning. on the phone: sure.

>> a forum on the security of the global supply chain and what it means for the world economy. speakers include customs and border protection and officials from the commerce department, transportation security department, and boeing. this last about an hour and 10 minutes. >> all right, well, thank you, everyone, for sticking around for the star-studded cast here: i actually had a good colleague of mine had to leave, but he was regretting it because there's several folks, actually all the folks on the panel wanted to hear. i'm looking forward to it as well. the next panel, obviously, is entitled opportunities and challenges in the global supply. john gold is the moderator. he's no stranger to it, and he joined nrf in october of 2007

where he works with congress in the administration of supply cane issues that impact, obviously; the retail industry. prior to this, he worked in border protections so he knows that agency and the homeland security extremely well which is why i asked him to moderate the panel. he knows a lot about retail as well. during that time, he was actually a member of the advisory committee on commercial operations. he graduated from american university majoring in international business, and the floor is yours, thank you. >> thanks, adam. appreciate the opportunity to participate in tonight's panel. i'll introduce the panel, and each will speak about 10 minutes with regards to the challenges and opportunities they see from their perspective whether agency or private sector from the

supply chain, and then we'll open it up for questions and answers from the audience. first is brenda brokeman smith. she was appointed to be the executive directer at u.s. customs and border protections in august of 2007. she uses strategic efforts to facilitate trade issues on text tiles, dumping, and other eater efforts. she worked on capitol hill at the department of treasury. next to brenda is david long, currently the director of the office of service industries in the department of commerce. he manages the group that follows a broad port foe owe -- portfolio and contributes to industry and policy expertise in trade organizations and services and other efforts to enhance american competitiveness. in addition to more than 15 years of senior level commercial policy experience in the

national telecommunications services, mr. long is a trade negotiator with u.s. trade representative from 1991 through 1994. next we have doug britain. doug joined the transportation in 2007 as air cargo manager responsible for the development of the certified congress screening program as both policy in forward programs and technology development. he is executive level in operational positions with thely gistics industry like bax global, emery. he has more than 30 years of experience. his area of speedometer now includes international air cargo policy, all programs, assessments, and stake holder relations. doug has a very important job right now.

finally is ken is bowings program and tsa certified cargo screening program overseeing boeing's supply chain and security requirements. with that, brenda, we'll go ahead and start with you. >> good morning, everyone. thank you, john, thank you, adam. we appreciate the opportunity to be here. sometimes, though, i wonder if it's wise to follow your boss. i hope, and i think he was actually fairly clear and fairly eloquent about the challenges not only facing cbp, but he laid out for those of us who are long time customs folks, and i think it's a challenge looking at the

title of the panel, challenges and opportunities. i think he's given us both which is a good thing, not always comfortable, but it's a good thing. just to recap a little of his speech and some the concepts that we've really been focusing on for the last year, but particularly since commissioner came on in march. the paradigm that he's put on the table for us is that security and facilitation are not two sides of the same coin. they are no two things that have to be balanced. they are, in fact, essentially the same thing, and if we don't accomplish one, we won't accomplish the other, and he sees the integration of those two things not as the end goal, but in fact, the end goal is economic competitiveness of north america, and as you can tell from this morning's speech,

he's very passionate about that. he occasionally mentions his grandchildren, and you can frequently feel the energy and the focus that he puts into really pushing us to think fairly creatively about our day-to-day work and our long term vision for how we spend our resources, how we develop policy, and how we interact with the numerous partners that are engaged in facilitation and security. he pointed out, and i want to reiterate the importance of using advanced data, getting the right data, doing the right targeting to allow us to manage risk, segment traffic, however you want to label it, the idea is that we are separating the wheat from the shaft. we are moving low risk trade and

moving through our borders. it's not a stopping appointment. the points of entry and the border are not a stopping point. along with that, we have to make sure we are conducting effective enforcement, not more enforcement, not less enforcement, but effective enforcement of our problems, and we all recognize whether you're talking about the protection of property rights or the protection of the american public on import safety issues that enforcement has to be a tool in the strategy to be able to do those things well. we are undertaking or we have undertaken a number of initiatives either from cbp or as part of a larger government-wide initiative, or even global initiative in a number of areas that i'd like to give you a few more details about. the first one i'd like to talk

about just a little bit is the national export initiative. when the president and administration first started taking about increasing exports or doubling exports in five years, there were folks within the customs realm who said we deal with inbound, not exports. in fact, when you look at our ability to assist in enforcement of export controls as well as to assist in the management of export data, we've got a lot of experience with inport data. we have a lot of systems, many of which could be better, but we have a lot of systems, and a lot of experience with managing risk through data, and one of the capabilities that we would like to bring to the table and support our partners in the department of commerce, throughout the department of homeland security, and all the other agencies involved in the nei is help with enforcement and data management.

another initiative, and i'm not going to go into a lot of detail because i believe my colleague, mr. britain, will focus on the efforts of air cargo security, really good partnership efforts, i think, within the department of homeland security as well as with the private sector, very -- a lot of activity going ton there, a lot of activity very quickly after the most recent threats, and i think that's a major area where we can test a lot of these theories about better segments risk and using advanced data to really segment that traffic. the third area is an area that i'm much more familiar with, and that is cbp's current efforts on managing by account. we've talked about account management within the first u.s. customs service in the cbp for nearly 15 years, and, you know, it's a bit of a time-worn

phrase. commissioner has given us the opportunity and actually asked me to lead a major review in place since the beginning of july to try to assess what could be done with this concept of managing b account. we worked closely with the advisory committee to submitted a white paper to us in may of 2009 with a lot of ideas on expanding the potential of managing by account and over a lot of discussion, through a lot of conference calls, several multiday meetings here in dc, and the application of a three month, two dozen person working group, we have really tried to sort through some of the concepts, figure out how they will work in the real world, and put a couple tests on the table. commissioner mentioned two of those tests that we kicked you

off on november 1,s executive pilot, and the center of expertise pilot, and what i'd like to note about those two pilots is they really are two tests of an account-based approach. the goal with both of those pilots is try to facilitate low risk trade more effectively. i think one the things weave realized is years ago when we talked about facilitation, we immediately thought of inspections at the border, and what we have come to realize, and i think many of you have come to realize is that the inspection rate or release time is minimal for you. we were talking to a major importer yesterday, and they quoted their average time to release as negative 3.4 days.

really try to impact the number of inspections that i think most importers see may not be where we can have our greatest impact. we've begun to think it may be actually on the costs that are associated with bringing goods across the border. the commissioner talked about lowering transaction costs and the goal he's laid out very recently for us. is lower transaction costs by 10-20%. how? well, frankly, we don't know. that's an area, and i'll make a pitch at the end of the remarks, that's an area we need assistance in better understanding the supply chains, and better understanding those points of leverage where you can reduce your cost, and we can better use the tools we already have available to us or tools that you might make available to us whether it's advanced data,

whether it's intrej or bet -- intelligence or better understanding of the global supply chain or more experts within the c berk p who know your -- cbp who better know your industry and know when to ask questions. we're hoping these two policies focusing on the electronic industry and experts and expertise help us gather information in a fairly focused way from the two industries, and figure out how to use that information better to facilitate trade and effectively enforce the law and then spread those lessons learned to other industries if those pilots work. we are also looking at simplifying the entry and financial processes. one of the points of trade made to us repeatedly is we give you lots and lots of data. this costs us money and time,

and we realliment you to use -- really want you to use our data better. fair point. how do we recognize and reconcile all the data we get from manifest sub fissions, entry submissions, and target effectively off that data? that's going to be a challenge. we spent, frankly, three months working on it working very closely with the organization itself and some additional subject matter experts from the trade, and we couldn't come to a set of options that really provided value to cbp or the trade. we're back at the drawing board. stay tuned on that. we're also looking at testing better ways. is it the right data? do we know enough about your supply chain to be able to

essentially negate compliant low risk importers? if i know who your manufacturer is, your carrier, your broker, wear house, -- warehouse, ect., ect., ect., and i see that pattern and am comfortable with the pattern of moving goods, i shouldn't be looking at you. if i see a manufacturer that i know is not one of yours and you're producing a protected good, i should be looking at that, so we need to do some tests within specific industries to focus on using that data better to refine our targeting and our risk assessment. another effort that we have undertaken, commissioner mentioned is the import safety conference, and our partnerships with other government agencyings. we have -- lets see -- 53 other government agencies that

interact with us at the border. 47 of those agencies are members of the international trade data system. 12 are really where most of the work gets done. 10 of those 13 attend -- 10 of those 12 attended the import safety conference at the end of the october that pulled together the heads of the 10 agencies into a senior forum to discuss the importance of facilitation at the border. we have had the experience of talking to a number of government colleagues talking about facilitation as one of our primary missions, and they will say that's not our mission, but it is. i think there was a good healthy discussion about that, and there was an acceptance by most agencies that we had to develop a risk management strategy that relied on partnership between

those agencies as well as with the private sector and that we had to get a consistent risk management approach. if we were going to rely on trusted partners that couldn't just be cbp our other government colleagues also had to be comfortable with that concept and use the data we had available and the relationships we had available to us through those programs. commissioner also mentioned that he is looking for that to be an on going discussion, and there was broad support across the other agencies for that ongoing executive level discussion focused on trade facilitation and border management which i think is a huge step forward. the last area i want to raise for you is the work we're doing on ace and the international trade data system. many of you know that over the last year or so cbp has had a pretty strong epiphany that ace

was not going where we needed it to go, and we have implemented essentially a new approach and that approach really as i see it has two pieces. one is to finish up the work we already committed to primarily on manifest, things like post summary corrections, and then identify functionality in a great deal of corroboration in the trade community that will best let us get our mission done and let you manage your account and facilitate trade. cargo release, obviously, a huge focus for many of our importing community, it's about getting released to the goods. we hear that. we also recognize that that is going to be where most of our other government partners are going to want data and going to

want interaction and are going to impact that facilitation process. that's where we are planning to put our effort. we look to you for some support both in temples of developing -- both in terms of develops requirements and within our stake holders of the government know that ace is a really critical systems not just for customs issues, but for everyone else who does customs at the border. so, i mentioned i had a pitch, and that is to work with us, talk to us whether it's through continued interaction here at the chamber, the commissioner mentioned he's having meetings, regular meetings. in fact, we spent nearly 8-10 hours yesterday with a variety of groups who are looking to really support cbp and want to say thank you, but ask you to continue that support, educate

us. where are the touch points, the cost, and where are the tools that we can be both using. with that, i'll turn it back over to john. >> thank you. i'm david long, with the commerce department. i'd like to talk to you about the key elements of the national export initiative and then turn the focus on how supply chain relates to that and talk in more detail about some of the things we've been doing in realize an improve the supply chain in the united states and north america. next slide please. ..

access to the funding for that. improved market performance by getting better market performance of the bustling commercial problems they are, better treat agreements in compliance with agreements we have. the origins come from some basic realizations. the u.s. has not voted for lots and lots of small x orders the way some other countries that are. about 50% only go to one country, so there's room to

expand that. their souls to room to deserve exporting to emerging markets as well as established countries with large tree froze already. what are the key elements of this is they have organized the chlamydomonas. some of the agencies of the state. it saw the related groups. and there's also budget.to advance this. it is a terrific idea. we can do better next morning. there's a lot to do there. for a group like this, expertise in supply chain. let's look at how this relates to some other issues here. first name, it all flows through a precaution. if were talking about sustained economic recovery and gymnastic increases in trade flows, is the u.s. system, infrastructure and supply chain capabilities, up to the task right now? another way to put it is can we

enter tomorrow's business and trade flows with today's infrastructure? wittier for most businessmen and women is the shortest route to this is probably know, there's a lot of work we can do to improve this make sure we can sustain without there. biscuits to how you would finance it, with the governments need to do to make it all real. but with the recognition that export growth and sustained economic recovery depends on real supply chains in real efficiencies they are. we been able to build this whole concept of a competitor modern supply chain into the presidential report on the national export initiative itself. the goal behind this is to work with our friends at d.o.t. and the other agencies to make sure the united states comes to some decisions on what an adequate modern for a policy might look like. and in the simplest possible commercial terms, the ability to have a real competitive modern supply chain has to do with the

cost of everything that's made or moved, exported or imported in this country. so this is a big deal. this has to do with how we compete, meaningful price points, our products and services back up around the world. there's always been a good deal said about how this is a commercial issue. we've got a great response to my distress it more than 300 companies have joined us work on these issues. we'll look at some of that in a moment. to keep them behind this is to assist a real issue with how is this is done today and it globally sourced environment. it has latched with the financial performance. in fact all financial ratios comfortability of shipping rate. it also gets down to questions like where people are going to invest. you're going to invest in places that have adequate supply chains and these are long-term decisions that depend in

important ways on how good the infrastructure in the supply chain capabilities are, where you're going to make the investment. also, it's reality today the entire supply chains compete each other, not just individual companies or so there's a lot of sharon go on in the database. and this is the business issue behind it. with that, let me show you a few things we been doing with iata and our partners at the department of transportation. we'll take a look at this and see if we get close to them in old for a policy the men's states. we've done a lot of things not listed here. we spent a lot of time at congressional activity and helped organize minutes on a hill and testified on the importance of the issues with our friends from other departments in the private sector. did a lot of work at conferences to get the word on this. but the main element for us as we start with a national conference last year to take a look at what the big picture for free policy ingredients should be. we are an all-star cast at that come with it the cabinet

secretaries and the blue ribbon panel of industry executives from around the country. what we've been doing since then is to start going out to the regions of it for the regional input. we've done events in atlanta and chicago that were fantastically successful. the hundred 85 people show up to work with us. this is organized at their colleague, page siplin at the georgia center for logistics in september. we people from all of the southeast looking out the particular particular mix of issues who are relevant to supply chains and business generally in that area. a week later we did one in chicago. a different mix organized with rick laskin at ces cmp and ben wallace and bob ran from the chicagoland chamber of commerce. here the issues are different. a lot to do with land interfaces for tracking rail and that area. again, we have something like 90

people. probably because double that with a larger room. great enthusiasm, good debates we're getting ready to do two more events, more regional output -- out of reach discussions in seattle and kansas city early next year. we also did an event at the cscmp annual concert with tony thurston d.o.t. and senior-level people from dns, the ceo from bms. the secretary of transportation from california. representatives at dhl, caterpillar. basically it all starts looking at the same issues. i mention this not in the sense that we're going out to do late great session. there's been a lot of discussion about many of these issues for many years. what i'm finding in this is that at this age of the debate, everybody's pretty much gotten the idea that something house to be more thought about visually

and more schematically about our going to handle this. go question is not whether to upgrade policy or think about these things in a more organized way that favors business and the ability to manufacture and do business in this country. what are your answers? we are organizing meetings where people bring their ideas for the spirit will take you back in documents to debates in washington. what this means a more concrete terms, to an escape to some of the things going on internationally as the sole question of what sort of vision should we have for facilitating free movement in the united states. i had the good fortune in september also. some month we had come to visit europe come and visit with the german government and the e.u. as part of a larger fact-finding mission, organized a d.o.t. with the governments of canada and mexico to take a look at what free policy look like in europe.

discussions of borders, funding issues. when i saw there was that confirms a lot of what you see, which is therapeutic problems in every market with this, but the europeans like the canadians, even like mexicans and chinese governments are voting serious attention to any vision to the future should be. what should it be like? how should we organize priorities for spending, for moving freight and the rest of it? and it's a real challenge. it's not a competitiveness issue that's going to solve it of without activity on our part. this gets down ultimately to questions that things like performance measures. how fast should freight moved? what should be performance on a highway if they're different intermodal cities? what is the role of the federal and state governments on all of this? how should we organize or should we organize? how should we manage these things? at the thing we're trying to do

is capture not just of valuable views of the operators of the modes of transportation, but also catch the views of the shippers, who compete in global markets with their products via the systems. that is just terrific and i think were going to get a lot more people engaged in this as we go forward. a couple other things we are working on this. i mentioned an advisory committee to where we're hoping to advise to announce that will house a formally organized advisory committee and supply-chain competitiveness issues very soon. we require are going to apply for that. the really plenty of room for people to participate. i can assure you the information and views and recommendations that, but that will first go with the secretary of commerce and department of transportation, but also the government as a whole and should inform the discussions on what we are doing. finally, i'm hoping will be able to build things into the overall

process and the interagency stuff within the federal government to ensure that world working towards and holistic system of systems integrated approach to moving freight in this country. so with that, as i mentioned before we had a great response from them is he on this you will be doing focus groups in washington in early january to bring people up today. we've we've had a great strong turnout with all these things do pass. i mention we have something like 300 companies, many horses asian, many whom are in the room with us today as participants demanded that she will to come join with us and be part of this. we try to develop something that would keep the united states competitive in global markets. thank you very much. [applause] >> the morning. i am doug brittin with tsa not

to think the chamber for inviting us to talk about some of the critical issues facing the air cargo industry as it is a global trade going forward. i at all how any sites or anything. i want to talk about the challenges we have faced in the challenges we still see industry facing going forward. so i'll talk first about what has been done already and what's been accomplished in the u.s. as far as screening of air cargo. i think everybody's familiar with the requirements of the 9/11 act of 2007 to screen 100% of air cargo transported on aircraft by august of 2010, which industry did accomplish. and i think it's very important to acknowledge when we said was industry that accomplish the comment was very much a collaborative effort between the u.s. government, tsa in particular, working with the regulated parties with a freight forwarding community that we already regulate, certainly with the passenger airlines, both u.s.-based and foreign-based

carriers. and more importantly than that, engaging a shipper community. ken is going to talk about that as well as we go forward. but the task when he looked at this in 2007 what had to be accomplished over the next several years, with over 12 million pounds a day being uplifted in the u.s. of air cargo on passenger aircraft, most of which is export cargo. we realized pretty quickly and the airline let us know quickly that that was almost an insurmountable task if the airlines were to try and accomplish that on their own simply because their facilities at airports or just to restrict and too limited. they're designed for handling cargo on the bellies of widebodied aircraft are not designed to take things apart and screen pieces of cargo individually based on the requirements of the outcome of said it had to be screened commensurate with check package. so working as a community, working with the industry, we

came out and jointly developed really the certified cargo screening program, which enabled other people in the supply-chain other than just the airlines to screen cargo and keep it in a very secure chain of custody process all the way from a shipper if they chose to screen the cargo courier for you forward who wants to screen cargo on behalf of multiple shippers, keeping that in the supply-chain and moving to the airlines so they could accept the cargo and move it. and really certainly kudos to the airline especially in getting the word out to the u.s. industry so to speak as far as the challenges of that effort to get that done without disrupting commerce. because certainly they would've been significant delays if the airlines had to screen all of those visas and packages at their facilities. we are certainly pleased to see an advisor and industry to get past april as of august of this

year. in fact, over 52% of the cargo uplifted on passenger aircraft in the u.s. is screened before it even gets to the airlines. so that's a significant change from over several years ago as far as certainly the smaller percentage of cargo that was being screened overall and where was in the process. so we think that's been pretty successful. certainly there are challenges that remain going forward. would like to see it get better. the challenges really are also in the area of type elegy. we still don't have available anything that can screen larger than basically a 488-4560-inch high scared of homogenous cargo. there is anything that can scan a prebuilt utility with multiple commodities. it doesn't exist yet. but certainly a challenge for industry. canines are affected were pleased to see now that we are moving towards piloting the use

of private canines in the industry to determine how much we can certify those going forward because they may be an effective vehicle for them in the future. again, those types of challenges will remain to get the larger volume of cargo screened even more efficiently and effectively and cost effect are they going forward. so that's pretty much what has happened in the u.s. domain. it's a little bit different story when you look at international air cargo. we're still under the requirements of the 9/11 not to obtain 100% screening of cargo on international inbound cargo on aircraft. it was different and was supposed to have been accomplished in august 2010. we had been working and basically what we heard back from industry as well the same challenges exist at cease its

not even further than in the u.s. and that the airlines and their facilities are not really geared to screening high volumes of cargo at their airport facilities. that's further compounded by the fact that we don't have the regulatory reach. we can't go out and set up a certified type of program at non-us locations because our regulatory reach a tsa only goes to the carriers and the airlines. so we can regulate what american-based carrier does find cargo in the u.s. but we can't go out can't go until the freight forwarding community or the shippers in germany or japan or brazil or anywhere else what they must do in the way of cargo security screening. really the burden still falls on the shoulders currently at the airlines and sells. and they're still over almost three and a half billion pounds of cargo year that flies into the u.s. still in the bellies of passenger aircraft. so we really have only two

vehicles with which to accomplish that goal. and we've said and we have testified to congress that we expect industry can accomplish this no later than 2013 if not sooner. we think it actually can be done sooner and were working with industry and approaches there. but really only a two vehicles available to us in order to accomplish that. one is to continue to ratchet up the screening percentages required by the carriers are we most recently did that in may of 2010 and not cause a little bit of cost nation, but it also changed processes and practices which in fact have enabled airlines to screen more cargo. not that it is not a burden. that does place a burden on the airplanes do that, but they have stepped up to the plate and answer that challenge and got a lot more cargo screened coming into the u.s. research by not yet 100%. the other vehicle we have in order to get tobacco is working with foreign governments to work towards recognition of their

supply-chain security practices. recall that our national cargo security programs. so what we can do is work with individual governments to determine what they do in the way of air cargo security, many of which do contain a supply-chain element, so we're very pleased to see that. but we can't collect automatically if it looks good on paper. you've got a great program that allows your forwarders to screen overseas or allows your shippers to screen similar to what we do in the u.s. under a certified program. we have to go and physically, lifted the covers and check under the hood and do all those kinds of things to determine that what they're doing is actually commensurate with the requirements under the 9/11 that. and that's a very time-consuming process, but we've engaged in that and are actually welcome the path with a number of countries to get that done. we think that is still the most efficient way because it does allow somebody to screen cargo as they're packing it in boxes

at its point of origin or allows a free quarter to screen the cargo potentially as they are collecting cargo from very shippers whether it's in europe, asia or anyone else so they can still prebuilt containers and you will these for the airlines and people much more efficient. that we are looking at overseas. again, same challenges apply for how the cargo gets screened. we can dictate in the u.s. than we do dictate in the u.s. with technology the airlines are the shippers are for your forwarders must use. we can't do the same overseas. we can tell someone in germany they must use any piece of technology. we can set the baseline and say this is what we want or we can try to specify a list of equipment. so the same challenges exist overseas as they move toward the challenges of getting to 100% passenger carriers going forward.

now it had some discussions this morning as far as advanced manifest information. we think that's a very effective tool for usage going forward. if we can get. when i say we, the u.s. government can get more information sooner in the process and is certainly a challenge on the air cargo site that a lot more different from a time standpoint on a maritime side. current requirements are the carriers have to turn and get the full manifest data on shipments four hours before touchdown in the u.s. it certainly doesn't become a very effective tool for targeting screening from a security standpoint, from a method of physically scanning because the fight dirty and they are. and as an instance in yemen pointed out that is something we need to see much earlier in the process. we fortunately and i say we collectively, have been working on a project for well over a year on how we can work with carriers to get the data earlier

in the process. so we had good framework and foundation built prior to the incident at the end of october toward starting heating up the process. since october, we've really moved quickly forward and we have actually couple of pilot projects for removing jointly with industry, both on working with the integrated carriers, express out the raiders with information on most the point of somebody chopping off a parcel. they can start getting the information into the system and getting key data elements that we can look at and possibly target something for targeting screening on the latest information we have. the other side of the equation, which is still shippers going to freight forwarders is a little bit different scenario because that information currently, most of that does not get into the system until it's in the hands

of the airlines. while trying to make some of the cargo must be an hour before departure overseas. so it doesn't give you much time to do anything with that. and in the case of the larger pieces of cargo coming over, worry forwarder wants to consolidate 45 different shippers into three u. l. these only an hour nap until the flight to plates. the airline is burdened from a delay and everything to do that and that is not the environment they want to do. everything on the second pilot is to determine what community can feed into the system. they're collecting various shipments to their processes and get them into the system so it can be viewed, observed to make a decision going forward. so that really is the ideal goal for us is to get the information so we can make targeted

screening based on current risk intelligence in the future. with that were working collaboratively with industry to get that done. hopefully its pilots will give all a much better information to use over the next 30, 60 days with these issue that going forward. the seed of the union as regard to airfreight right now, particularly in god is a hot topic right now, so we're glad to have their questions later. thank you. >> good morning. ken konigsmark with the boeing company. either that of a challenge in trying to represent industry in general today. i'll do so with boeing blinders on. but they do so with a lettuce input from the rest of industry as to the challenges to a lot of the supply-chain security

issues. i've heard in many conferences with forwarders, fellow manufacturers, other industries the difficulty and the desires we have in regard to supply-chain security. first, i think it's important to note its december 7, pearl harbor day. and this whole discussion is about how to not let another pearl harbor happened in the united states as a result of something happening in a supply-chain or piece of cargo coming in. so in my case, i have been to probably 30 to 35 countries over the last five years, looking at supply chains and looking at the security. like everybody, i don't think we worried about those issues too much until after 9/11, and tell the program came. once he started looking, you see their issues. there are challenges. and yet there are ways we can go forward to address is.

a little bit about us. why is this a matter of turns are important to us? well, what the world leading aerospace company and a lot of countries, pretty good revenue. are the largest u.s. exporter. a lot of people don't know that. in terms of dollar value, boeing is the largest exporter. we make a big impact the overall trade deficit issue. were a major defense contractor. now if you put the two of those facts together, that also then makes this a target. and as you recall in 9/11, it was for boeing aircraft that were used. we don't think i was by accident. so we do take a very serious they'd probably more so than the comp made because of a large economic targets and defense target, we consider ourselves to be at risk. we're also a ct reader company

and an importer with over 6000 imports annually, hundreds of different supply chains, about six william and the value of this import. interestingly he% by air cargo, most of which is on passenger aircraft. likewise because we're just-in-time manufacturer. we don't have the luxury of inventory in extra time in our supply-chain to enable the shipment should be either static and inspection or in some other sort of delay. what does that mean? and then for example in the case of the icelandic volcano, we had to scramble and trying to get shipments out of europe to sustain production to the point of chartering one of the few available aircraft we could find and then prioritize which imports needed from europe would we put on that plane to keep our production lines going. so when you start talking

security, there is that in margin of production capacity in input and it keeps supply-chain and production going. as you guess, like many of you, we have a huge ramp up in imports over the last few years. that will continue significantly as we grow our 77 program. if you're not aware, were increasing production rates on every other one of our airplane programs as well. so the volume import ship is will increase significantly in the years of head. another issue, challenge 20% of our import arnon procured. these are returns, spare parts, being sent back and forth. these are not regular supply chains. but that's a significant volume. how do you secure these phenomenally shipment of fact delay? that is something we're working

on and others will need to work on as well. doug mentioned me to have legislated in the cc sp program. recertified two different knowing utilities to screen cargo. upon the outgoing mode because one of the challenges to his we are obligated to provide a spare part to a customer, anywhere in the world were they of a broken airplane within 24 hours. i mean, off our shelves, on a plane to namibia or wherever it may be on the ground within 24 hours. again, we can afford to have the shipments delayed in screening for getting on for the first available aircraft. the recertified two different sites come and be very good experience in working with tsa on that. so now, let me jump into what i think i can say on behalf of all this from industries that are in this room and the broader community.

we do want to be a willing partner in securing the global supply chain. we're all in this together. we're all americans. we are were appalled by what happened on 9/11 and don't ever want to anything like that again. so we want to be partners. the second bullet then comes into play. find the proper balance and security in the flow of commerce. based on what the commissioner said, balance may be the wrong word. and it said the balance is fighting integration of security and facilitation of the full commerce were all working together effectively in a way that doesn't add overbearing cost delays, but also provides security. there is a concern about cost increase. as a result of the 100% air cargo screening requirement, those of us in the shipping community has seen orders and carriers impose additional security screening fees. those are not insignificant.

so there is a cost. there'd been to turn about potential delays due to lack of capacity of screening, screening capacity in the system that has not materialized and we hope it doesn't in the future. some concern as we go international in that realm as well. but then again, i mentioned are increasing import and interdependent these. when you think about something like the bp oil spill and all the mistakes of one partner in the process with other partners and the lack of communication inability to reach on cohesively cascaded into a catastrophe. that's what's happening in today's global supply chains that we are dependent on suppliers in far-flung places. if they don't get something done on time to the right quality

when we need it, we are at huge risk and we are totally dependent on that. we know behind schedule sanctify and soon-to-be delivered -- soon-to-be delivered to our first think of them are. these are the issues of risk and security and potential for cost increases and delays that are into all of that. so what's the answer? sounds easy. a risk-based multilayered approach versus 100% screening. we've heard this repeated throughout the morning. perhaps something like a global program, advanced shipment data and analysis that identifies the wheat from the chaff and then targeted some random screening to make sure the system is ominous. in a global system, when you've got a range of maternity from i.t. systems or capacity in the

u.s. or japan or korea to other places it again, use namibia as an example. how do you call that altogether? much easier said than done. also the jurisdictional issues as you alluded to. screening sounds great. 100% screening. but that is in the answer. it's both impart to go accomplish the impact been on industry and also is not guaranteed to find the problem. my understanding is that the yemen cargo packages for both screamed by x-ray, but they slipped through. so 100% screening may not be the answer. and they think we all need to take on the task of ensuring our policymakers in congress understand how business operates and the technological limitations of screening and that the better preferred approach is exactly what's been described from commissioner berson to all our other speakers from advanced shipment data

leading to targeted screening and analysis of that data. another point we've heard repeated his harmonization or just cooperation amongst international partners and usually recognizing programs and ensuring that were not doing multiple, different types of security properties depending on the country are doing business and are with. ideally there would be one standard and we could expand a risk status based on global hindered on a very supply change for a country. but for those of you may or may not know, the world customs organization has been working on such a puzzle for years and has reached the point of having a framework of international security standards. but the double senate details and trying to turn the framework into an actual set of standards.

another issue come up for us and others in the industry who have a similar concern is what happens if there is an name? how do we sustain our business? how do we get our goods across the border and who gets priority? there has to be a coordinated response and that takes into account in situ or the identified critical manufacturers of the united states and how do you get your cargo and to keep those critical manufacturing operations going. in our case, you know, i could talk about f-15 or f-16 production. a third major attack on the united states, had we sustain this production lines in the event of a response where we need a surge in the capacity of those products. those are the kinds of things we need to talk about. having said all that, the last thing i wanted to say is that the agencies involved are

partners deserve a great deal of credit. i've never seen a worse damned if you do, damned if you don't situation didn't tsa finds himself in today. on one hand, they have to stop every possible incident of somebody blowing up a plane or getting something into this country. on the other hand, they are told don't touch my job. so what are they to do? it's a very difficult situation. and i want to give them credit. having particular work with for over two years in deploying the great industry outreach, great partnership, great adapting of the program to the needs and reallocation of industry and doug came at the right background to understand that in the first phase. there's a lot of good people in tsa, ccv doing good work and we

and i say we uncap of industry, going forward to help find a rainy of tears coming to find the integration of security and facilitated trade. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for apple, today. we have two grad these on the back of your chairs. i think we sort of microphones going in the room. so if folks have questions -- a question appear. >> eric coolidge, american shipper magazine. i have a question for mr. brittin. you mention pilot programs on how to get some of this advanced air shipment information to do the targeting before departure. anticipate those pilots close to

getting started. how i do anticipate them running before you you have enough information to lead to some rule and then might we see a role for this kind quiet >> we are starting this week the express consignment pilot, working with a couple of the larger entities in that environment. we are looking at them kind of in 30 day increments to determine how fast we can get information, but the information sets may look like and how quickly we can turn that abound. the other one working with the heavier air cargo, working with the freight forwarding community and so forth. we've identified the partners that will be in a pilot project. probably won't be able to start until january to give that up and running. the same thing applies for a 30 day increments to determine what information we can get, how quickly we cannot and get the rule sets, to then look at the

longer-term aspects of it. >> other questions? in the back. bob. >> admits that the journal of commerce. doug, did the incidents from a month ago with the laser printers, has that given any kind of entities to bilateral negotiations as far as screening rules further countries? >> as i said before, we have engaged with the various foreign governments for some period of time now several years am a working towards tribeca nation of their programs. but i think it's been interesting to see the dynamics that has happened since the october 29 incident as far as the global security that are counterparts through tsa's of

other countries have responded, working with us to set more common frameworks going forward. i think that's given a lot more impetus towards moving those things more quickly going forward. do not actually adam, one more. as a moderator, i want, to my question. we talk a lot about exports, but i want to lose the importance of imports are both finished product and inputs to production one of five workers in the workforce, siliceous an important focus on import as well as export. the question i have is brandon and can, commissioner berson type about the additional benefit. a lot of folks as on the clearance in the process. i think it's more than just the cleared of by cdp and other agencies for me for this numerous times.

but also some of the entry procedures in cdp that we may it's the science and penalties. had a mashup with with advanced data? looking at isf, we have data where it's not, you know, it's best available at the time. how do you match that up with the entry? and others were members of a great concern as to how we go with those kinds of issues. so maybe want to comment on those. >> sure, sort of two issues there. one is the government agent v. i think as we've addressed incidence. i mean, what to do your cargo. i know our ability and incentive to share data so that we're making consistent data -- consistent decisions across the government is a priority for not only dhs, before the other agencies we work with. the other areas we have done a lot of work and outside the security realm has to do with

import the key, which is actually another security issue. some of you may know that we established an interagency targeting center. we call it the seatac center for targeting -- i'm not going to get it right. another acronym i can't define. it is modeled on the cbp targeting centers, but the strength of the other agency participation. fda, ccsp and other agencies that cannot be huge impact on this release decisions being made together, not only in a consistent approach, but using the same data and coming to an agreement over what is important, what is not so important as opposed to having cbp make one, fda make another decision. do you think you are home free and then you're not. or you get stops, but then your wait time. so we're looking to really integrate those targeting and

decision-making processes. the second issue of the use of advanced data. i would say that cbp generally recognizes the value of advanced data. we also recognize it as flawed. internally, we are not looking to ding the trade for providing data that's best available. maybe, you know, how many days that is one set of data. but as you get closer come your quantity gets perfect date or your value gets protected because you have a technical issue that you then have better data on as you get closer to the actual time of importation. we're not looking at some enforcement initiative to get picked the differences between early data and a little data is provided later. and i think you can see the commitment to that from cbp.

we've had extensive conversations. tom makovsky and field operations have actually pulled all penalties related to the import security filing into headquarters to make sure that as the however many people are involved in the cargo processing and penalty process do not send the message that we are going to knit take your data. that is not the intent. so i would say that's a pretty good faith effort i'm cbp is part and should signal where looking to work with the data, not to penalize you for it. >> and just quickly, that's exactly what i think industry wants to hear. it's what we want to hear. and the whole idea of you mentioned two, brenda, the agencies and the top 12 and 10 of them meeting together. that's exactly what we're hoping, to, that their commute is collaborative effort to approach will importation process as a whole until

facilitated across the board come with a retail, aerospace or whatever the industry may be. >> jam, i think final question. >> yes, thank you. very interesting discussion. certainly i would encourage all parts of the government was looking at advanced data, whenever possible, data can be provided on an account basis will have a shipment to reduce transaction by transaction information. i would certainly encourage you to look at that. specifically with tsa and looking at these needs for security, the need for additional data, a lot of industries are truly just in time. some industries that are just in time you, rail, ocean as well as they often use care when there really is a critical shipment. i need to get it as quickly as they can. they can encourage you if there's any way to look at

accounts for data that can be preset up, that might help lower that time. i had, that tsa, cbp, whatever the government agency has commented the data. certainly we would all appreciate that. because the further back the most critical time sensitive shipments, the data needs to be provided and it creates more difficulty in actually getting it to where we need it. so again, i know about the paradigm or the balance, but there is a very real need for the security information at the same time, trying to keep a train moving. thank you. >> i think we still have some time for some questions. >> i just have one. well, actually to real quick. david, you talked a lot about the national export initiative. obviously the chamber has a lot of small members, small medium sized businesses that would love

to take advantage of what you guys are doing in trying to help them. what can they do to kind of get plugged in to take advantage of this initiative? the second question is for ken. you know, commissioner% talked about ct path and taking it to the next generation. you know the system better than everybody from a private sector perspective. what information do you have to kind of take it to the next level? >> let me say a few words about the export initiative. i'm not, there are plenty of opportunities. just call us. were adding new people for trade advocacy and trade promotion. so would be folks who can identify good target markets, good market research. we have partnerships with some of the larger export and transport companies, including our sponsor, fedex today to help identify people, potential markets and provide data that will help people get started into exporting or take existing

businesses and expand on it. for larger companies, there are also opportunities to be some of those partners as well. we are the people ready to help and were stepping up to do that very project. >> i'm taking ct paths to the next level is a tough question. but a couple things come to mind. commissioner% discussed increasing number of imports that fall under the ct scanned on on perl and then focus on the spotlight more. that's when that might help separate the wheat from the chaff. again, you find a needle in haystack. as he was saying. although, ct path as a program you have to trust industry and industry has to take a serious way and do their part, to coach his way up into 30 or 35 countries than you do from problems. you do find manufacturing

facilities. you'd particularly find some of the family tracking, trajan other countries that may not have security needed. and it's up to us and industry to make sure that the standards are being met. then in return for doing that, i do think we need to look at additional benefits for ct members, two or three in particular. even if you're doing a minimum, you meet the standards. other things that potentially leaving penalties if you inadvertently mess up some other area of the importation process. you are doing everything on the security side. things like melding papaya said data and other data, we may provide tsa and air cargo. cannot somehow be used or can you get credited as a ct compliant member to somehow tie all these pieces together so they're not also.

if we have a manufacture and in other countries security program that is certified in their program that were certified on our end and were using a certified forwarder, let's get a green lane in place tickets that import right into the country and writing to urge hands immediately. those are the things that popped in my head right away. we would talk with a about these issues, but that's at least a starter. >> david, you mention national trade policy during your remarks. you have an issue at the highway bill had been reauthorizing out and were hoping we do could highway reauthorization bill in the next congress. i don't know the reaction see that happening, but where does the administration hand country and stand as putting up the highway bill? i do you guys are working at d.o.t. d.o.t. is working with industry and others put together something. where does that stand right now? >> i suppose i can add to the specifics of how that's playing

every now. the information we been gathering his things that will be useful in framing the debate. but their internal schedules or what the politics of the hobo look at are pretty much unclear. but we have been able to add to this is a clear sense of how these issues are being handled in other parts of the nafta group, especially in canada, what's going on in europe, a clear vision vendors have for coming to terms with these issues. you know, how are we going to facilitate freight and control costs and make sure just-in-time works here correctly. but how that plays out in the reauthorization bill i think it's probably unclear for most of us right now. >> other questions? >> our next speaker has arrived. >> well, why do we thank our panelists once again. hot back in my thank you for

moderating. i thought it was an excellent discussion. those are usually my favorite because you get a lot of interaction, so thank you very much. i think probably another minute and we should be in good shape.

middle and high school students, it's time to upload your videos for c-span student documentary competition. get your five to eight minute video this year's topics in washington d.c. to my lens by c-span and by january 20, or a chance to win the grand prize of $5000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. c-span's student documentary competition is open for grades six to 12. for complete details, call 92 student cam.org.

>> top expected a state department briefing includes advanced referenda. vice president biden's trip to afghanistan in search with willie richard holbrooke. >> i double checked and the state department does not have an official position on tonight's national championship football game. you know we can get this briefing over with quickly and then be prepared to do some tailgating and prepare for the big event. good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. several things to mention before taking your questions. today, deputy secretary tom knight, counsel cheryl mills and undersecretary for management kennedy a bad the observance

here at the state department in our courtyard of the main entrance in honor of silence of the terms of the shootings in arizona this past weekend. we are mindful of the tragic events that took place in tucson and join all americans in playing for the rapid recovery of congresswoman gabrielle giffords and the others who were injured and we of course joined in extending our deepest sympathies for those who died in the shooting and their families. the secretary, as you know, has finished her first full day in the polls. she participated in events in abu dhabi and dubai, including a counter view cohosted by middle east broadcasting companies columbo one at syed university. she also visited monster city and the monster institute of science and tech elegy.

she met in abu dhabi to thank them for their dedicated efforts and she met separately with abu dhabi crown prince mohamed bin sayyid and amber rady prime minister mohammed bin rashid discuss regional and bilateral issues and then decide civil society engagement. we are obviously watching very closely the beginning of voting in southern sudan. voting will continue throughout this week here today, special and to scott gratian went to polling sites throughout the south including mullah call and then to her tomorrow he will return them later this week later he will go to darfur will among with ambassador james smith, the administration's new senior adviser on darfur. ambassador lyman has returned to

washington and we hope to have them in a briefing room tomorrow afternoon to give you his firsthand as on the sudan referendum. it is an historic occasion in africa and most importantly for the people of southern sudan, all referendum centers opened on time yesterday and have the necessary materials and train staff. notwithstanding some instances of violence, the atmosphere and polling was orderly and peaceful and there is a robust presence at all polling stations we think it is off to a very, very good start. usaid administrator raj shah has arrived in guatemala for a two-day visit. the project of the trip is to gain a first understanding of the challenges that face guatemala society and to review the usaid response to these critical challenges. go visit usaid programs in the

highlands region, home to the majority of guatemala's rural poor and indigenous populations. usaid is working with the government of quantum mullah to implement u.s. presidential initiatives on food security, global health and global climate change. in guatemala city, the administrator will hold a courtesy meeting with president colom to discuss these presidential initiatives. this week, we are anticipating that envoys yitzhak malho and saeb erekat will come to washington to meet separately with u.s. officials as part of our ongoing consultations with the parties that the working level to achieve a framework agreement on non-core issues. we anticipate those meetings will include george mitchell. for several days, there have been media reports regarding an american citizen in and around iran. i can report to you that u.s.

consular officials in turkey have been in touch with the citizen and that we can convert -- we can report that the individual is safe and has not requested -- we offered a consular assistance and none has been requested. so as far as we're concerned, this case is closed. but we do not have a privacy act waiver, so ultimately it will be up to this individual and family to determine if they wish to describe in any further detail the -- her -- [inaudible] >> they are safe where? in turkey or they're safe in iran and they don't want in a consular? >> know, our consular officials contacted the individual in turkey. >> what is the individual's name? >> we don't have a privacy act waiver, so i cannot report that

to you. again, i am not at liberty to talk about her travel. that is to say we have been in telephone contact with her in turkey. she is does not request assistance from us. >> she was not arrested at any point? >> again, i'm going to leave it there. as to, you know, where she was, how she might have attempted to enter iran and interact with the border, i was a bit too, you know, if the citizen wishes to describe her travel, that the to her. >> i know you can't identify the individual, but this was the individual who was aboard to have been arrested? >> in multiple places, yeah. there've been various reports as far as we can determine. one individual, one case and she is not in iran. >> so what was the source of the iranian allegation in this case?

..

>> does the state department believe there is any justifiable grounds for the government of iceland to object to the disclosure of her twitter messages in response to a just -- >> well, again, all i can tell you is that our ambassador was called in. the government of iceland

expressed, you know, expressed concerns. i'll leave it to the government of iceland to describe the concerns if they have any. as we've indicated, department of justice continues to conduct investigations. >> they have concerned because you said they express concerns. they do have concerns; right? >> i'll leave it to the iceland to describe it. >> okay. whatever were their concerns, did they inform the ambassador of an intent to contest or move to squash the subpoena? >> again, i can't answer the question without getting into the investigation which i defer you to the department of justice. >> yeah -- >> again, as to any legal steps that the government might take or this individual might take, it's up to them. >> when you say that the ambassador listened, did the ambassador offer a kind of

rational for why this subpoena was being sent or refer the government to the department of justice for further explanation, or was 24 the opportunity for the ambassador to explain to the ition -- >> i think he gave a general response as i outlined here. >> well, when you say general response, you're say saying general response of how the u.s. views the wikileaks affair and that there is some kind of investigation, but from what you are saying, it doesn't seem as if the ambassador offered a kind of explanation for why the subpoena was necessary. >> again, that's a matter that i mean, to and some may recall, and again, it's not clear to me the justice department actions took place in this country, and -- but beyond that, i'll defer to the department of justice. >> so just to be clear, did --

when the ambassador went into the meeting and listened, did the ambassador offer comments about wikileaks and say i refer you to the department of justice for any further explanation? >> can't -- i don't know. >> yes,. >> p.j., you said that moloho is coming to the town this week. >> do you want to answer that first? no, that's not mine. >> bilateral mealings? >> correct. >> they are in the building at the same time? >> i wouldn't -- we are engaged with the parties on, you know substantive issues. i wouldn't necessarily an tis pace that will be any three-way

activity. >> can you share how they will be conducted? >> well, we are at the working level. we are engaged with the parties working to narrow the gaps that exist on the core issues, and that is something that we continue to aggressive do with the respective sides. >> okay. now, will they begin from, let's say, where the talks ended last time or will they begin anew? >> i'm not sure i completely understand the question. i'm we had some activity at the working level before the new year. >> right. >> we're into a new year. as we kind of, you know, hinted to you last week, we anticipated there would be follow-up discussions, and those will occur in week. >> my question is will the settlements be the issue where everybody gets stuck again? >> i mean, we are working with the parties on core issues.

they are well known, but i don't know whether the meetings we have come up will address one issue, all of the issues, i don't know. >> [inaudible] >> towards the end of the week. i don't know that the specific timing in both cases is yet set. >> and then in terms of the core issues, the secretary took the relatively unusual step of issues a statement yesterday that specifically raised her concerns about the demolition of part of the famed shepherd's hotel in jerusalem. from the actions on the ground, it would seem as if nobody is any closer on the core issues given that the demolition of the shepherd's hotel went ahead despite your view let alone the palestinian's view that such things should not happen and

that jerusalem and billing in jerusalem should be decided in final status negotiations. >> well, i wouldn't say that it was an unusual step. where we have had concerns about unilateral actions by either side, we have not hesitated through this process to express our concerns. the secretary said yesterday that the demolition of the shepherd's hotel was a disturbing development that undermines the peace efforts to achieve a two-state solution. her language is clear and consistent with the well-stated policies we have regarding east jerusalem and the west bank. >> is it fair to say though that the demolition and your commentary on it shows that the two sides are no closer on at least that core issue? >> it is expressly the meetings we'll have this week. the efforts to move the parties towards framework agreement and

direct negotiations which is at the heart of the concerns that we expressed yesterday. we've made very clear that these kinds of steps need to be resolved in a negotiating process and not, you know, to change the facts on the ground outside of that negotiation process. >> one other question. you said towards the end of the week one of the reasons why i asked was as you know the secretary is traveling for much of the week, and you described these as working levels. do you expect any of the meetings to perhaps take place when she is back in town and do you expect her to participate in -- >> i do not anticipate at the present time that she would be involved in these meetings. >> back to the demolition. i mean, understood that you believe that these should take place in the context much these type of steps shouldn't be creating realities on the ground, but does that -- i mean, even in terms of all you've said

not parties in the last few weeks and the secretary's speech in terms of creating the atmosphere that's necessary for talks, i mean, does an action like this signal to you that the israelis are making any efforts whatsoever to create an atmosphere? this is the opposite. >> i don't know that, i mean, the shepherd's hotel has particular historical significance, but we have seen actions on the ground in the context of east jerusalem. in that as pelgt of this being a unique structure, these kinds of activities have occurred in the past. we have expressed our concerns in the past and will continue to do so. >> question on vice president's visit to afghanistan. would it be fair to say his visit is meant in part to smooth things over after president obama's visit there when he

canceled the face to face meeting of the president? >> i mean, it would be fair to say that the white house is in the best position to characterize what he hopes to achieve during his travel. i'll leave it to the white house to catalog where he is and who he's talking to. >> also, he said that india is now again at the brink of terrorism war or terrorists may strike india at the indian embassy in afghanistan, and also in india itself, so what india is seeking now he said protection as far as indians in afghanistan and the indian diplomats. do you have any comments about his remarks in which he told information president that -- >> well i mean, goyal as we've said many times, we've taken a regional approach to these

challenges. the challenge of political extremism is not just focused on any one country. there have been attacks against indian interests in afghanistan in india and this is why we're deeply engaged across the region with afghanistan, with tack stan, with india to try to attack this extremism that affects all of our countries. >> also, so, p.j., what he said, he mentioned that somebody i'm sure he was referring to pakistan that somebody wants india to be out of pakistan. >> we have made clear that india as a regional emerging global power has every right to its own relationship with afghanistan, and we appreciate the support to the government of afghanistan that india has provided. >> thank you. act srap frank ruggiero is in

kabul today as well. could you talk about what the goal of the visit was there and the search for the replacement. >> the search for replacement for ambassador holbrooke is ongoing, but as you say acting srap frank ruggiero is in pakistan. he's in afghanistan, has met with, you know, president karzai, and this is his, obviously prior to assuming the role as acting srap, he was, himself based in kabul. we have the opportunity to return, see what has, what progress occurred on the ground and confer with general petraeus , and afghan officials. he had a very successful trip to, you know, pakistan.

he is demonstrating we are committed to helping to build a stable secure and prosperous pakistan and used the opportunity while he was there to pronounce a contribution of the $190 to the damage compensation fund. this was, you know, part of the $500 million in kerry-lugar-berman act funds that previously, you know, committed to help pakistan with its flood relief. >> is it true that has the "washington post" reported that frank ruggiero is not on the list of possible permanent replacements? >> again, the search is on going, and when the administration determines who will succeed, we'll let you know. >> p.j., how would you comment on foreign policy -- [inaudible] including mr. berman, and also pakistan is in a most dangerous

place today and also it's a failed state. >> look, we are trying to help pakistan improve its government, improve that government's relationship with its people, help pakistan develop the tools and the strategy to combat extremism within its borders. this extremism is first and foremost a threat to pakistan itself. there's no country who suffered more significantly from terrorism than pakistan itself. it's a strategic country. it is important in terms of regional staibilityd. it's important to the united states and others in terms of its links to extremism and the risk of terrorism that does affect all of us including the united states. we are committed to long term partnership with pakistan and, you know, the srap's trip is an indication of that. >> also reports said that only

very few elite enjoys the u.s. aid in pakistan. >> we are committed to helping to improve the circumstances of the ground for the people of pakistan from, you know, those areas that were significantly affected by the flooding, but we have a strategy focused on all of pakistan including, you know, bringing greater economic opportunity to those areas where we have concerns about the presence of extremists that are and can affect pakistan on the one hand and afghanistan on the other. >> has your strategy suffered a significant blow with the government's decision to described last week by the secretary as a mistake, to roll back the price, the energy price increases? >> not at all. you know, a stable civilian government supported by the people of pakistan is essential

to be able to carry out the strategy that we have worked out together. the secretary has described our specific concerns that economic reforms continue, but economic reforms have multiple dimensions. gasoline is one, but there are a number of other areas from agriculture to reform of state-owned enterprises. you know, pakistan has to make progress in all areas. >> well -- >> we quoted a pakistan petroleum ministry official as estimating that the rollback would of the price increases would cost the government about $58 million a month. that, in one year alone, exceeds $500 million in assistance that the late ambassador holbrooke announced, and even if there are other aspects to economic

reform, i think it's widely believed that economic reform in pakistan is partly con ting gent on its continuing to receive money from the imf, and that is by most accounts called into question by the fiscal implications of rolling back price increases. given your support for pakistan, are you will, the u.s. government willing to step up and provide money if the imf deems it unable to do so? >> well, we have made our views clear to pakistan on the importance of these economic reforms, plural. we will continue to do so. as secretary indicated, these reforms are fundamentally important to pakistan's future, and it is related to the ability of pakistan to qualify for international assistance as arshad, you just outlined. this is vitally important.

we do understand not only duoyou have to have the right strategy in pursuing these economic reforms as part the strategy, but you have to have an effective government that is able to carry these out. you know, the two go together. >> you talked about aid not just to pakistan but to other countries in a way tas sustain baling. it's talking in terms of partnerships. is the u.s. willing to expand discussions with pakistan and giving treatments for textiles for instance? i mean, you can increase revenue that way. >> there's no question that economics is a very important dimension of boosting pakistan. it really has to have a viable economy, access to markets, and this is something to continue to discuss with pakistan. >> well, is that something secretary clinton is willing to push with other agencies? >> as i said, we take the whole of government approach to our

strategic dialogue with pakistan. trade is an important dimension, and this is something we continue to work, you know, within the u.s. government and between the u.s. governments and pakistan. >> but does the secretary believe pakistan should be afforded treatment on textiles? >> the trade is important and it's part of the conversation, and that will continue. >> "washington post" reported over the weekend that u.s. is planning to announce more aid to pakistan. is that true? >> the fact is we have committed significant amount of resources to pakistan under the kerry-lugar-berman act over the last two years. we've tripled our civilian assistance to pakistan to $1.5 billion a year, and that is a substantial amount of money. we've -- it's at the heart of the ongoing roadmap we are

working with pakistan. i'm not aware of any plan to change that. >> and there's another bill pending in congress, roz bill, which would benefit both afghanistan and pakistan. what is the state department -- >> yeah, that is something we continue to discuss. >> and do you have the world leaders who are coming? >> i do not have a full list. >> do you expect all the special reps from afghanistan countries? >> i'll talk to the srap office and see what details we're going to have getting closer to friday's event. >> [inaudible] >> that is something that is under discussion. >> [inaudible] >> tunisia in >> could you talk

about the situation in tunisia and are you concerned the events -- [inaudible] >> actually, as we talked on friday, we don't see a connection between what is happening there and in algeria. the situation in algeria has improved to some degree. we continue to monitor the situation in tunisia. we continue to encourage everyone to exercise resphraint. our ambassador gordon gray had a follow-up discussion with the tiew notion government in tunis today and we affirmed our concerns not only about the ongoing violence but the importance of respecting freedom of expression and also the importance of the availability

of information and we will continue that discussion. >> are you aware that -- >> are you counseling the government of algeria against harsh measures? >> again, let's talk about the situation in tunisia. i don't see the two as being directly linked, but continue our dialogue with the government. >> are you aware they closed all schools and universities until further notice? >> yeah. you know, we are concerned -- we understand and -- >> that's a drastic step. >> to the extent that we urns the government has a very legitimate right to ensure the safety of its citizens. that said, we do have, you know, concerns about some of the steps that the government has taken, and we will continue -- >> specifically the schools? >> i'm not aware of that specific step, but, obviously,

that would be something that -- there's a way of dealing with those who are in fact trying to insight violence while preserving for the balance of the population the right to assemble, the right to freely express and the right to have access to the internet. >> [inaudible] was he summoned to hear complaints? >> well, that's a fair characteristic. >> can you elaborate? >> there was a follow-up conversation to our comments last week. >> north korea -- >> the president called roiters terrorists. >> sorry?

>> the -- [inaudible] >> i'm -- >> i don't know that i want to get into competing labels here. obviously, you know, we are always concerned about violence, but at the same time, we believe that the fundamental rights that people around the world have need to be respected. >> north korea, yes, do you have any updates on ambassador bosworth's trip now that he's back and if it helped in making progress? >> well, i mean, he is back. he had the opportunity over the weekend to report to senior leaders within the department about his consultations in south korea, china, and japan. kurt campbell is leading or he's

in beijing as well having follow-up meetings with the chinese officials, preparing for next week's visit by president hu jintao, and we certainly expect north korea is the major topic discussed between the presidents. >> noted. >> he's been here before. >> yeah, like a year ago. >> all right. noted. got it. >> yeah, north korea has dialogue with south korea. they offered the dialogue to south korea in a continually more agenda -- [inaudible] >> as we've said, we are open ourselves to dialogue. we certainly are encouraging, you know, dialogue between, you know north and south korea, but the context of that dialogue

malters, and there are still things that north korea must do to make it clear that that kind of dialogue would be productive. >> well, what about this statement that the north koreans put out over the weekend that, you know, on one hand it was very forward leaning emotionally that south koreans should open their heart and have talks, but then they also listed a number of measures to improve the atmosphere including opening up border crossing and putting red cross monitors at the series of borders. are those the kinds of steps that you think could improve the atmosphere and lead to a direct dialogue? >> i would say that first and foremost if north korea makes a public pledge, you know, not to attack south korea or undertake further provocations that threaten south korea, that would be a significant step to improve

the environment and it would be one among many steps that north korea could take that could convince south korea that dialogue would be constructive. >> well, i mean, but specifically in this i mean, you must have seen the statements put out. how do you view that statement? is that moving in the right direction? >> well, i mean, -- >> i understand -- >> i understand that. i mean, we went through last year a provocative stage where now we are in the charm stage, but, you know, the charm stage has to be followed up with a real demonstration that north korea is prepared for sustained and constructive dialogue, so saying the right thing, helpful, but really what north korea demonstrated in its day-to-day activity that makes the difference. >> but these are specific measures. >> i understand that, i do.

>> did they implement the measures, is that a positive step? >> again, south korea in the context of encouraging north and south dialogue, we are certainly in favor of that, but we understand why south creigh, yaw know, might hesitate having been attacked late last year and also in the sinking of the cleonan. i think south korea is looking for clear demonstrations that the provocations that have been inflicted on south korea are a thing of the past. >> they are not clear? >> i'm not saying we'll know it when we see it. >> a question on india. >> yowch already had several questions on india, but i'll take one more. >> thank you. is it politicians sending billions of dollars overseas

including the u.s. and the u.k.. my question is now indian government has decided to open at least eight offices overseas and including in the u.s.. have you gotten any information about how to get back the indian black market money by the -- [laughter] corrupt politicians out of india, and about this new office in the u.s.? [laughter] >> sorry. >> but i guess are you aware of the new office being opened in the u.s.? >> i'm not aware of black market offices being opened in the united states. thank you. [laughter] >> this

>> and now the launch of a new organization that describes itself as a movement to unit americans of all political affiliations called no label. organizers say it will expand to all 435 congressional districts in the coming year. with former presidential adviser and senators joe mansion, this is about an hour. >> well, thank you. let's bring out our panel is, shall we? all right. good morning, everybody.

[applause] there should be four of them. there they are. good morning, everyone. our poppic this -- our topic this hour is hyperpartisanship in america, and we have a great panel. starting with david gergin, a senior political analyst for cnn. [applause] as well as a director for the center for public leadership at harvard kennedy school of government. david began his career in public service in the nixon white house back in 1971 on the speech writing team, becoming director just two years later. is that not right? >> sure it is. >> sure it is? okay, he did become director of communications under the ford and reagan administrations also serving as counselor on foreign affairs in the clinton administration and advisor to the ghw bush.

>> you left out grover cleveland. >> oh, good lord. we'll go back there. junior senator from indiana, welcome to the senate. [cheers and applause] during tenure, he wrote legislation calls upon congress to fully implement the 9/11's commission's recommendation, helped close the loophole allowing companies to set up po boxes overseas to avoid u.s. taxes, and cast a tie breaking vote to enhance credit card reform and speer heeded the organization of third way on developing common sense resolutions and founded the moderate democrats working group. prior to to election in the u.s. senate, he served two terms as governor of indiana. >> that's the good ole days. [laughter] >> didn't we talk about that this morning?

joe to the right. -- [applause] elected to the united states senate for west virginia last month. prior to to his election, he served as the governor of west virginia, and during his five years as governor, he led the effort to pay down $1.7 billion in unfunded state liabilities and cut the food tax in half saving west virginia consumers millions of dollars. [applause] under his leadership, more than 240 companies expanded or moved to his home state. mansion previously served in the west virginia house of delegates, and as the state's attorney general. to my left, joe skarboro serving as a member of the u.s. congress -- >> i'm from columbia. >> you are? >> no, not really.

>> don't identify yourself, it's not safe. >> not here, not today. it's not about labels. he was a member of the judiciary committee and armed services committee and part of a small group of republican congressman that the national journal said there's surprising amount of power given their youth and lack of years in congress. that's a nice way of putting it. his 2004 book roam wasn't burpt in a day predicted the collapse of the republican majority and republican economy due to his party's reckless spending, and his recent book, the last best hope, predicted that democratic policies would not revive the economy. today, joe is cohost of the show that "time" calls revolutionary morning meat pass. [laughter] let's start the panel on bipartisanship. let's not call any names.

david, you've been around the longest, obviously, you start. [laughter] you -- >> your day will come. [laughter] >> i'm already there in media at least. you worked for presidents on both sides of the aisle. is hieb partisanship worse than ever? how would you characterize it? >> 1 to 10 #? it's a 15. no, it's worse. i have reached an age where i am older. my son tells me it takes an hour half to watch 60 minutes. [laughter] i came to washington in the early 70s, and the world war ii generation was running things, and i must tell you i think the spirit of that generation was a very civic and almost to a person i found that they considered themselves strong

democrats or strong republicans, but first and foremost strong americans so that the country came first. one brief story. richard nixon for whom i worked before he died said one of his proudest moments in politics came early in his career. nixon was part to have the world war ii generation. the young men and women took off their uniforms, and he ran for congress in 1946. that was the year of the republican sweep taking house and the senate. harry truman really down in the polls saw in 1947 that europe was going to hell. he wanted to have a rescue plan. he didn't want it named after himself, so he asked secretary of state george marshall to be under his name. the marshall plan was unpopular, and truman called in republicans to write this plan and have buy-ins and they gradually got support.

one of the proudest moments came when the marshall plan came to a vote on the floor of the house, and he as a freshman member of the house stood up on one side of the aisle in favor of this democratic plan, and there on the other side of the ail was another freshman member standing in favor of john f. kennedy. he said the important thing is american politics is when the chip are down, we stand up together. that was the spirit of the world war ii generation, and it's that spirit that's badly lost in recent years. >> joe, there is a media component too. [applause] >> i wonder if some of the worst of it is in the upper chamber and america doesn't reflect what we're seeing on television or hearing on the radio. there is a media component to hyperpartisanship, and there have been worse days, haven't there? >> i don't know. you know, one the most fascinating things that i've heard on our show was when pat

bucanan and tom brokaw talked in 2009 during the health care debate about how bad things have got. i said, well, you guys, you covered the civil rights struggle in 1968, the chicago convention when chicago was on fire. that was about as bad as can could have gotten; right? brokaw and buchanan said, oh, no. this is worse, much worse. it's interesting now when i was looking at the clinton administration and the gingrich congress, when we get together despite the fact that seems ugly in the 1990s, despite the pact fact redidn't like each other, when chips were down, we said we have to do the right thing, balance the budget, four years in a row since the 1920s, grew

the economy. it did a lot of very positive things together, and i think that is before the hyperpartisanship really got fueled by a lot of the new media components. i'm not saying it's the responsibility of bloggers to be more tactful when they are in their basement eating chips at their mother's house writing nasty things about leaders. the responsibility falls, and i think very terrible getting chip stains on your computer. it's hard to get off. i think the responsibility lies in politicians being grownups and knowing what to filter out. over the past five years, washington has not done a good job as distinguishing between ground noise and the signal, and i think that it's beginning to change. i really do, but there is no doubt that there is a media component to this that we didn't even have in the cline toll administration.

>> we have found that actually our show, if i may, has been kind of a breakthrough in the national conversation because we don't attack each other. >> well, you attack -- [laughter] >> but there is ultimately peace at the end usually. >> it's not personal. >> it's not, and that's the bottom line, and the viewer knows that. that's helpful, but we have an outgoing senator and incoming senator. idealistic or fed up? >> still idealistic looking for a new role. >> oh, fed up? >> no. >> tell us why. i'd like to hear from both of the senators why you're here today because this obviously wasn't with you, and it's something you think we need moving forward. >> i have the perspective of someone who kind of grew up in public light by virtue of my father's service.

i think we search in vain for a golden era of, you know, comedy in american politics. it's always been rough and tumble, but having said that, there's no time worse than it was before. my father tells a story in 1968 running for his first reelection. the republican leader was dirksen. he comes up to my father on the floor of the senate, puts his arm around his shoulder and ask what he can do to help with the reelection. this would never happen today. you look for sharp objects in the other person's hand. [laughter] there's a number of reasons why things have changed, but i guess my message is that -- and the reason i'm here today is because there are gathering challenges that will define the future of our country that if leaved unaddressed my children at 15 will inherit from me, an america that is in somewhat less than what we inherited from our parents. i feel a deep moral speedometer

to not let that -- responsibility not to let that happen. the current -- [applause] the current political process is not delivering the results the american people want, and the unfortunate part is that that vast middle, they don't care what party you belong to. they want progress which also can be good politics. look at the last election cycles, mike con independence by 8 or 9%. this last time we lost them by 13%. they are looking for something better and different. that's what this organization has a chance to deliver and we'll make a remarkable contribution to the public welfare if we do that. i was on a radio program, and he said, well, what is your audience? i said we have a large audience of the public. for those of you wanting a place to go for a better approach, this is it.

we have an inside audience too. if i stake out that sense, i'll get shot from both sides. now there's a movement to support you in doing the right thing. that's very important. [applause] >> [inaudible] [applause] >> i sit here with a sign with no labels behind me, i was i wrong to label you as ideal lissic? you talked about things that surprised you in washington and in terms of how separate the parties are in whey are trying to work together. >> well, the only thing i have to compare is the legislature in wefdz being in the house of delegates and became secretary of state, and then governor. i've seen this in all different aspects. i've been in washington for three weeks. november 15 i ran for the unexpired term of robert c. byrd, and that's the senate election when you take office. at twelve o'clock on november 15

i was governor. at four o'clock i was sworn in as u.s. senator. i had four hours of transition. by the first week i was labeled a conservative and a liberal. >> that's a good day. [laughter] >> depending on the votes. what i see and i told joe my first observation when i go into my first armed services committee meeting listening to the joints chief of staff, and i look around, here's the chairman and then we have john mccain and then we have all the republicans on one side and the democrats on the other side. well, i know in the body itself, i'm just giving an observation, the body itself we're going to have separation. in committees in west virginia, we all sit together, talk, sit there, and talk to republicans and my friends on both sides, and we start building relationships. this system right now what i observed in three weeks is designed to push us apart, not bring us together.

it's gotten to the point where committee assignments are based on the best lobbying to bring the mess money in -- best money in, not where you can make the best input for america. i ran on a thing saying my observation of washington was that they put their party first, personal politics second, and the government last. i was taught to put the country first and let the rest fall where it may. you gave us that vehicle. no labels has given us the vehicle to do it. [applause] >> we also want to talk about how we can get the two existing parties talking again. >> well -- >> if -- >> the tea party had a movement because -- [inaudible] in my state, people don't believe that you can spend yourself to prosperity, spend more money, things are tough economically, we have a hard time and kids having a hard

time. they don't believe that in west virginia. >> what's is interesting about that is -- [inaudible] [inaudible] nght [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> this is what americans want. david, you've seen it time and time again. well, everybody is pointing and screaming and yelling and finding the wedge of issues and calling out the other side. quietly they are all working together to get us deeper and deeper in debt. it's a charade, a sham. [applause] >> david? >> it's -- i think all of us are discouraged by what we see in washington, but i must tell you around the country, there are examples of where government is working an people are working across aisles. it happens in cities and it happens in states where you find this happening, and here in new york city, mayor bloomberg made a lot of progress in schools and other things and creation of jobs -- [applause] it has no ideological administrationment i think

chicago has been a supremely well-run city. we have two former governors sitting on the stage. you had to learn to work across. it was much more productive in your states and a more satisfying job in some ways to be a governor because you get things done. >> don't get me started. >> yeah, that's another time. >> sitting senators who were former governors because they are the most depressed people on earth. >> they thought it was an upgrade, and in a way it wasn't. >> i don't know what it's like in the senate, but i can tell you in the house not only do you get committee assignments based on like you said the money you bring into the party, but they see how loyal you are, and it's kind of like the sopranos. you don't get credit for being loyal to the family 595% of the time. >> there are important institutional reforms that ought to be made involving the filibuster. if i could change one thing,

it's the caucus system. it's almost triable. democrats have lunch together, we don't eat with republicans. we never discuss issues with the republicans. in my 1 years, -- 12 years there's three times where we've sat down to actually listen to one another. first was when president clinton was impeached. there were no rules. people didn't know how it was going to go. it was a constitutional crisis. we gathered in the chamber, listened to each other, finally teddy kennedy, phil graham on the right, you figure it out. they came back and it was adopted 100 to 0. three days after 9/11 is number two, the senators who could make it back to washington, we gathered in the senate dining room. we wanted to protect the country. that lasted for a month and month and a half, and then the

midterm elections came along. the third time was immediately following or rend ring the financial panic collapse. i was a member of the banking committee. we were called down, bernanke said we're within 48 hours of the global financial system. it will take thousands of businesses and jobs with it and trillions of dollars in savings. period. we looked at each other and was like, okay, what do we need to do? it shouldn't take a constitutional crisis, an attack on the nation, or a financial panic to have our government function in a way that's in the american people's best interest. [cheers and applause] >> okay, so -- [applause] >> there obviously are a couple reasons why we got to this point, and joe gives incoming senator joe advice because you wrote a piece in "politico". he may not want it, but you wrote a piece in "politico" --

>> i don't need to give him advice. the advice basically is be your own man. do not sell your vote, and that's not just sell your vote for money from the lobbyists, that's also don't sell your votes to party leader because i see it time and time again, the freshman, they separate them, and they surround them and say, listen, this is bigger. this is about a movement. this is about freedom. this is about the president. this is about whatever, and you got to learn to say no from day one. >> joe, you put your finger on it. it's about senator, if you want that committee -- we look at caucus solidarity. >> they do. >> absolutely. you know, that amendment you want brought up, we might find time for that, but we're want you in this other thing. those tradeoffs are constantly. you have to have strength of character to go your own way. this inside tactical stuff isn't

worth it. >> that's easy to say, but in this atmosphere there's dynamics. what i was getting out was more personal. years ago you talked about how people on the hill actually interacted, went to church with each other. they knew each other. they were not just competing out there. isn't that a problem? >> david, more importantly, they moved their families to washington. >> there you go. >> it was harder to talk badly about senator mansion if i knew tomorrow i was going to pick up my 7-year-old daughter from school and his 7-year-old daughter would be coming running. i can't call him in socialist if i have to eat with his wife and my family the next night. that's a huge disconnect. >> i was going to say in three weeks they get disconnected with your voters back home. in three weeks, i feel there's a disconnect, so i just felt like i had to go home. i went home this weekend to

reconnect, and you don't have jr. news, your newspapers, your local news, and you start getting caught in the world that evan described and what david was talking about. the best politics is good government. people want results. what we ran as a retail government, and retail government is this, identify your customer. government doesn't know who its customer is. they never reacted to a customer or made sure, thank you for calling, i'm sorry you're having a problem. we'll get back with you. call me tomorrow if you don't hear from me. they never reacted to that. most haven't been in business where they had to get a loan on their home in order to keep their little business alive. they don't know the pressures of the market. [applause] >> all right, all right. david, isn't what we saw this week giving the customers what they want?

>> i believe a lot of what we're seeing in washington is a reflection of culture, the political culture of the country, and as i said, i think what has happened is that the world war ii generation has passed from the scene. we lost a lot of that since of civic culture that was there, and to me, the question is not only what the folks in washington do, i think the real question is what you do. especially those of you who are younger. my sense from teaching, and i was just talking to david about this backstage. a number of us who were exposed to the younger generation believe you represent the new hope for the country, that you are willing to look beyond partisanship and you all believe in social change. many of you have entrepreneurs and there's a huge number on the board. we have 24 new teachers, 46,000 applications from seniors across the country. there's a great surge who want

to go out and work to change things. we have military veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan now who are deeply committed to this country, very loyal, and there's a culture of service growing up in your generation, the younger generation that i think could save the country over time because i think you can bring us back to some sort of greater sense of commitment that we're all in this together. we have sharp differences. of course we do as we should, but at the end of the day, butt the country first. i think that is what is represented here on the stage, but we need a whole flood of young people coming into the political arena to change things. if you could do that, you can still save the country. [applause] >> to add to david's point, senator, the message of no labels has its time come given what we are seeing in washington? will it be long for this movement? >> i think time has come because what we are seeing in the country. if this is an example where the

public is ahead of the politicians. the politicians aren't dumb. if nay see this movement gathering force and see independent and swing voters saying we're tired of this and this ideology, they'll catch on. joe, i share your concerns about the debt and deficit. i really do. we balanced the budget when i was governor, left the state with a large surplus. i look at the votes next spring on raising the debt. nobody is going to want to vote for that. nobody. that's the kind of moment that forces meaningful tax reform that also -- and spending restraint that has the add the effect to get us to a greener place. it may take that kind of event, that forcing event to make it happen, but with the environment we have today, i think washington will finally catch up to where the country's been for some time. >> you're exalgtly right. -- exactly right. there is such a fundamental disconnect from where washington is and where new york media is

compared to where most american voters are, and we've seen it time and time again. i guess we've gone out with a couple different books and given 200 speeches all across the country, and it shocks me. it shocks me that -- we give the same speech at the 92nd street y that we gave at path robson's university. they laugh at the same lines. nod at the same lines. they agree time and time again. it's a shocker that this country is a lot closer together than you would believe watching tv. are these republican issues or democratic issues? one, balancing the budget. most americans don't care how long it's going to take. they want it done. two. most americans are tired of us

fighting an endless war in afghanistan. we've been there for a decade, generals want us to be there for another five years. it's costing $2 billion a week. i don't care if you're a republican or democrat, all across america, people are saying let's rebuild our country, not other countries. the third is energy independence. these are thee issues. [applause] americans want their government to invest in energy like there's a sputnik moment because there is. it's happening in china, among our competitors, and we're going to be left behind. now, does that, joe, fit neatly in the republican platform or the democratic platform? no, it doesn't, and if you brought up some of those things to democrats, like we have got to balance the budget quick. you'd be nuts. if you mention getting out of

afghanistan with the republicans, you would be kicked out of the caucus. it's setting priorities. >> i mean, basically you have to set priorities. we started in west virginia what we call vision shared. >> tell them about that. >> this is something to think about. you have to have a vision of where you want this country to be and how to get there. if you talk to all spectrums of liberals and conservatives and democrats and republicans and labor and business, they all have a vision, but if you talk long enough, you'll find out everyone agrees on something. once you find that dmon denominator, hone in on how to get there, and then everybody is moving in the same direction. it's not if you're left or right, but you have a vision of where to go. if we don't get together -- >> what happens when you do what you did in weches? it's fascinating and we were talking about it backstage.

you got the endorsement of the afl-cio, and the chamber of ceres, and it's not because they knew you were going to win, but it's because you did nothing without first bringing them into a room saying i know you hate each other, but let's find a commonground and build a better west virginia, and it's a west virginia where the chamber of commerce thrives and the afl-cio. it's a revolutionary concept, yet it's basic to americans. >> i walk in as a democrat, and i give them my legislative, and i look at them, last time i check, we have the same constituent group. we are both serving the same people. this is the plan, let's work together. the priorities, you know, energy security, this nation, if you don't put security at the highest level, the only way to be secure is energy independent. every war in history is fought

over energy. now we are paying money buying oil from foreign countries and they use their money against us to reek havoc. that doesn't make sense. every state should be energy independent. play to your strengths. >> this is where i get discouraged. i was in the white house with president nixon when opec raises heck. i wrote a lot of those early speeches for president nixon and ford declaring we were going to become energy independent. that was 40 years ago. we were at 30% dependent on foreign oil at that time. now we're 60% dependent on foreign oil. those speesms were -- speeches were very effective. [laughter] the point is that is one area after another where the partisanship and the special interests have blocked our capacity to deal with the problem.

here we've been almost 40 years. .. of these problems i think use the phrase of the gathering of problems they are all coming down on us at once and we've got a choice. either we are going to deal with them now and compete with china or we are going to surrender

these problems and going down as a great nation temple. and so i think the reason this moment is here and why it's so important it's not just because we are tired of what's going on it's because the country is on the edge. if we don't deal with these problems now we are going to condemn our kids to a worse future and i don't think we have much time. >> so what's the we four word? joe, you are writing a piece for politico today talking about two parties, it tease it was just characters in the past ten, 15 years. you've got to parties that look very much alike in terms of the way they follow through on policies and spending. you really can't see much of a difference. what's the way for word? is there a third party? >> i just think it's inevitable. i heard your numbers and i read numbers before somewhere where nancy pelosi in 2006, her

democratic party won independence like 16 percentage points. it's a complete rejection of the republican party, bush republicanism. four years later, just four years later republicans won independence, the same independence by 16 percentage points. a swing of university of alabama 16-16i think that's still 32%, a swing of 32% among independent voters. it is inevitable that if both parties continue, and evan, i'm interested in what you think. if both parties continue with these been doing, ignoring the challenges of energy, ignoring the challenges of our deficit, ignoring the challenges of growing the economy, bringing our troops home is it inevitable at some point that third-party candidates start winning and

breaking this 150-year-old power that republicans and democrats have? >> i did what is most likely, joe, is because the state of the economy and some of the unsustainable imbalances that you mention on the debt and the energy what is likely is we will have a sustained period of turning where it will be consequential the vote it out with a swing on the independence that you just mentioned. however, there's still a material which chance that one of the two political parties will kind of get and change with your doing and to absorb the kind of feelings of this movement. >> a lot like when ross perot ran. suddenly than deficit reduction became popular. why? because they got it. there's a movement out there. people are voting on this. there's a candidate to scott 20 to 30% of the vote on this. maybe we should vote on the program. >> whole does it go from barack obama being the candidate of

change to 2010 john boehner being the speaker of change? its mind bending. [laughter] >> yeah, it is. [applause] >> it might make you cry. >> it's hard to hold those two thoughts simultaneously without -- [laughter] -- having severe cognitive dissidence. [laughter] but i guess my point is i find that there is a chance that out -- i wish i could say it was devotion to high your ideals -- but it's more likely to be self preservation and political success, one of the two major parties will get it and observed some of these feelings and have a platform that will embrace dealing with some of these issues. the practical barriers -- we had him independent governor of rhode island. you've got a couple of independence. you may see a little more of that, but the practical barrier to having a national third party or just some substantial that it's pretty difficult to pull off, more likely one of the two

existing parties will get it. >> david, do you agree with that? >> can i say one last thing? i do think look for this vote on the debt ceiling on that. look for possibly the credit markets reacting in a spike in interest rates if we don't get our act together at that moment. look for a run on the dollar perhaps. and exogenous event, finally as i mentioned the of times have forced people to do their duty. and eggs homage received and is more likely to bring that about. >> an independent party is possible, but i think evan is basically right. the history has been when these populist movements grow up is that one party embraces them over time and brings them and look that is the tea party. what's happening? the republican party is trying to increase the tea party the best it can but the tea party is a movement, it's not a party, it's a movement. and i think the question becomes here whether in this effort to revive the center of american politics -- and by we, the center of the economy we have a

vibrant middle class, too. it's not only our politics hollowed out it is our economic plans hollowed out comes a lot of people are either going down or going way up. most are going down. there is -- you know, i keep the issue becomes can you get something that has enough spontaneity to it so people show up at various town halls and various places where you raise your voices that the politicians feel the voices the rehearing are mostly from the end of the spectrum and if you're a republican you are mostly during t parties' races and can be intimidating. they are going after dick lugar for goodness sakes or orrin hatch of all people. >> [inaudible] look at this last election and jeff, you followed this. blanche lincoln and arkansas, $11 million spent against blanche because she wasn't there on a couple of the lummis test votes. the was a clear message moderate democrats if you're not with the program on the line, this is what's going to happen to you. lagat bob benet and utah.

now the summer kautsky came back as a candidate but was originally drum out of her party. look at mike castle as governor, he's a statesman. he would have won that election by 20% but he couldn't get through his primary. that is where a group like this can serve a real purpose. >> exactly. [applause] >> it comes down to this crippling debt that we are carrying. most people understand you can't carry a debt that we are treating as this nation. my grandfather was an italian immigrant and had a little worse restore, probably fourth grade education, but morally, his overview if you will end paabo would always say if you are inclined to want to help people, keep yourself strong and i said what you mean, pappa? he said i don't just mean strong physically and mentally i mean strong financially. and he would show me an example. to pursue what about charlie over there? and i would say pappa, charlie is the best guy in the world he'd give you anything he has. he said he would give you the

shirt off his back what it? the problem is charlie doesn't have an extra shirt to give you and he never probably would and that was in the latest in my mind when i took the oath of governorship. i'm standing there taking the oath keeping think yourself strong, keep yourself strong. he always said this, indebtedness will make our word out of the decisions you make. we are making cow word decisions now and we will continue to make them. [applause] >> joe, if joe is right and it comes down to the crippling debt we are facing, then what in the world happened in the past weeks? because it all sounds good until you're about to have your taxes increased or -- >> i think you're looking at the 700 million by extending any of the taxes that wouldn't receive the cash, right? >> no, my biggest problem is -- and as a conservative, i love tax stops, i don't think the government should take 40, 50%

of our money, but when you are $14 trillion in debt, if you're going to extend taxes, tax cuts, the bush tax cuts, and you're going to do all these other things at a cost of $950 billion you are already $14 trillion in debt, you've got to pay for it. now this is what i found and this is where both parties come together, they say we've got to pass this. it is a national emergency. we've got to get people back to work. so barack obama said two years ago national emergency, we've got to do this to revive our economy to get people back to work. and we can't go on without paying for it, and it's the same thing that we heard george w. bush say and republicans say about their tax stops. we've got to get americans back to work, and with all the defense spending. we've got to keep americans -- and that's fine. we have all of these priorities, but the only thing that unites both parties right now is that

they want something for nothing. >> exactly. >> that they want a free lunch, that they don't have -- [applause] >> -- they don't have the political courage when we are $14 trillion in debt to see if we pass, we've got to pay for it. now here's the reality, at some point we've chosen the united states senate in becoming, i think you can be there for six years at least, at some point in the next six years -- and i think david, you will agree with me -- we will understand that if we don't start saying if we pass it we have to pay for it, we are going to become greece, ireland or worse, california. >> so you are going to have quite a few states come up. the stimulus runs out 2011. >> people named sandy running around. >> 2011 the stimulus runs out.

the states that stimulus to keep them afloat. if the tough choices aren't made on each state by state, you have many states becoming, this june 30th of 2011 when the stimulus -- the cannot be their general-obligation bond. >> no doubt about it, david, again to put it in perspective though, we had this commission get together and work for months to try to figure out how to get $4 trillion from the debt over the next decade or two. and it was too heavy of of left. and so after they assured that we did the add another trillion dollars. >> i want to come back to all and -- here is a situation we all think agree on that some really tough choices are coming up on spending and taxes and said the only way that you can get the budget and get the finance to this country on a better place is that you have got to both cut spending and raise some taxes. the question is you have to do

both. now the problem is if you are a democrat and you are asked to vote on spending cuts there is a very real danger they're going to primary you the next you've run and run at you from the left by the trading the party. and if you are a republican, you vote to raise taxes you are almost guaranteed to be primary and take you out. that is the problem orrin hatch is going to face. and what these folks need if they are going to have the courage to do it, if you put the country first you are going to die or you can vote not to put the country first and survive. that's an impossible place to put political figures. and what's needed here is some kind of movement that gives some protection to people and i think for the country that gives them some sort of support that salutes them for doing something courageous. the system now has them on the way. [applause]

>> i think it was abraham lincoln and one of his inaugural events said we cannot be state history. so we basically have one of two choices. we can either make these decisions ourselves and do them any way that is best for the american people or we can wait for the outside forces to force them upon us at a time they will be more difficult, more painful and largely beyond our control. those are the two choices we have, so it is best to take the reins ourselves and to seize our own destiny and solve these problems and a way that will be more palatable to the american people. my best guess, gerald, for the concerns you carry is perhaps -- look at great britain. we have a conservative party and a moderate party together in a coalition government. they have come up with a very aggressive package about two-thirds spending restraint and one-third revenue and if you can do the revenue side under the umbrella of tax reform, getting the rates down, broadening the base, making america a good place to invest

to grow the economy than it's not just all eat your peas. there is another side to that but if we wait for the markets to impose it is going to be all pain, no gain. >> for that to happen politically, the leaders in washington have to follow governor mansion's approach. i am dead serious, when you were governor -- because none of us were talking about balancing the budget in ten years? that would be extraordinarily difficult. figuring out how to raise taxes, digging out how to cut spending, figuring out how to rein in social security, medicare -- chaparral third real american politics. you touch them and you dhaka. you have to get everybody in the room talking and say this is where we are, these are the challenges we face. china is destroying us on a light speed real. china is going to own the next century regarding energy if we don't stop investing money and wars across the globe and start investing in new energy sources.

i mean, the way you do that in west virginia is the way we need to debate in washington. [applause] >> it works for us. and also, we did things in -- we wanted to cut the food tax. the foot tax is a very onerous tax especially on low-income people, but it was a big part of our energy stream so we said we will cut one point year, one point in west virginia is 25 million. that is a big chunk of money for us to realize that we will cut one point a year and do it as we can afford to do it. devotees it could all together at one time. when you put such a hemorrhage on our finance we couldn't make it. then what we did as i said o.k. we will put a trigger on too. if we start dipping into our rainy day account because the first thing a politician will do is read the piggy bank first because there's no pain and then we might raise taxes, the would be the last thing you do is raise taxes because then there's a lot of pain. the first indicator is when you are in your savings, a rainy day accounts start dwindling that

means you're in the piggy bank, that is the trigger that goes off the stalks the reductions and gets rid of these opinion. it is common sense approaches but we've never been disciplined enough to do it on a larger scale. >> so before we get final thoughts, just a question, given the way all of you are talking here on stage, did the white house and the democrats and major opportunities this week with this tax deal. >> basically it was kind of a wish list to me on both sides. >> [inaudible] -- we are talking -- >> the missed an opportunity to get down to the finite of this is what we actually need to read this is our priorities and this is the pain we are going to have to pay for that. unless you all -- and i mean this, i get so excited on of labels meeting and they explained it to me because it sounded good from the beginning and then i heard about the purpose of this on as you take it state to state and expand on this and have real input and have a set down with your elective officials and you let this is allowed, god help us all because it might be the only

chance we have left to bring everybody together. [applause] >> we are going to take a few moments for some final thoughts coming and what i would love to hear as we wrap up, gentlemen, is what is the way forward and how your at no labels and anyone who wants to join the movement can or should play a role in the conversation and i will start in the order of seniority. >> oh, come on. [laughter] >> david? [laughter] >> looks, i feel we are at what might well be called the strategic inflection point for the country. we either keep doing business the way we have done it and we are going to go down as a country or we change we do business in washington and politics and i think we have a real chance for revival. but you can't -- we can't just keep doing what we are doing. and what we need is a citizen engagement, and what i would hope and my plea to you would be

to have this launch pad where you go from here to put real pressure on the political class to fix these problems and have the courage to fix them and give support to those who are brave enough to take the right steps, which are so important. but the second part of that is to prepare yourself from this point to get into the political arena yourself and change the underlying culture. if we can change the culture, a lot of other things will follow and we can still save the country. but if you go to the sidelines now and just leave it, our future is very cloudy. if you get into the arena and fight, i can tell you we've still got a shot. [applause] >> again, i am the new guy in town as far as in washington. i've met all 100 senators and i can assure you they are great people. they are there for the right reason and i know in their heart they want to do the best they

possibly can. there's something that is driving -- that makes them do things you wouldn't normally do everyday life. the pressures of the 24-hour media, the pressure of always chasing the dollar, trying to get your campaign in good enough shape to defend yourself and there is an old saying in politics, you better tell your story before someone tells one on you. and i think that happens. so they are always trying to defend themselves. i'm just seeing the pressure from the outside and turning good, honest, hard-working people that come from really rooted and crowded backgrounds into a political animal. and it doesn't seem to take that long to do that. so, you might be the common voice, if you will, in the ability to keep us all a little bit more ground it, and it needs to be done. >> joe? >> i think the senator is right. a lot of this has to do with the 24/7 news cycle and the fact that conflict drives ratings, and you guys are so important, this organization is so important because i can tell you

even with what we do every day -- we had an ideal several years ago we were going to do something radical on cable news. we were going to allow people to talk. and even though we had debates, we are always going to respect what they had to say, but it was always going to be a safe house for ideas, and worked. but like all of these guys appear, and i talked to them about it but i know it's a reality, you go on the internet, you read articles about you, or if you see your child reading an article about you you have to go don't read the comments. [laughter] because the hatred and the the trail toward people who try to define the common ground is remarkable. you would not believe the invective that is launched against people who were trying to keep the conversation going. these guys, i know, have dealt with it. i certainly know why deal with

it. and you get discouraged, and these book tours i was talking about, we would go out on them and people would come up and they wouldn't say thank you. they would come up and hug us. and you do that, and you find that time after time after time after time, and you think my god, there are normal people out there that don't live in their mother's basement eating cheetos in their underwear while you're blocking about what a halt portable human being joe and evin are. [laughter] joe scarborough house bill. but i cannot state this enough to read all of these guys can put up with 100 people screaming at them at a town hall meeting. but they see five people in orange shirts saying hold your ground and this is nothing to do with ideology. it has nothing to do with politics. has everything to do with

civility and keeping the column and carrying on, and that's the one thing we have forgotten what to do in washington, d.c.. and the one thing that this organization has to do to mind the gap. those are two british references i better stop now. [applause] >> evan >> three quick things. number one, the whole notion of compromise or principled compromise seems to have gotten a dirty name on both the far right and far left. joe is exactly right. you try to forge a sense is you were shot at from both sides. but i'm reminded we wouldn't have a united states of america if our forebears have been cut wanted a compromise. we almost didn't have a single country. you read the story of the constitutional convention, small states against large states, north versus south, the slavery issue, and almost fell apart but they decided we had more in common and they this divided us

and so they forged a single country. that is the kind of spirit that we meet once again. that's number one. it is not a four-letter word if you have principled compromise. as a matter of fact, it is essentially american. number one. number two, i've been on the intelligence committee for ten years, and i hope that that isn't an oxymoron in the senate intelligence committee. [laughter] but i want to build on something that david said. we are at an inflection point. when you're on the intelligence committee are privy to some information that ordinarily you wouldn't have access to, and when you see and read what the chinese leadership says, when they are by themselves and we are not around and the cameras are not around, they really do think we are a declining power. they think going forward that we will continue to be a military power because of our nuclear arsenal, but because of our inability or unwillingness to deal with our financial imbalances and energy independence, the just think that america is going to be an eclipse and be less and less significant with each passing year on the global stage, and

that has profound adverse implications for our future and a whole host of ways. we must not let that happen. that's number two. and number three, i would simply say i am sometimes asked what is going to take to make things better and that is what we've been talking about today. you've got the far right and the far left. i could give you the name, the names of at least half a dozen republicans that the country wouldn't be well served if they were not free elective and in the united states senate. they may be primary from the right. i can give you the name of lots of democrats. some kind of thing. okay, what needs to change? if you see people out there who are being excessively partisan or excessively ideological, don't support them. support the same candidate regardless of party to go to washington, d.c., to strike those principled compromise is, to deal with these and balances so that we can continue to be a great republic. that's what needs to happen. join the raging senator in

contrast to the extremes of the two parties. it is ultimately -- the last story i will tell, harry truman gave a speech and said in the united states of america it's not the politicians who run the government. in the united states of america, it's the people. the politicians? we are just the hired help. telhami your help what to do. that is what will ultimately turn this around. [applause] >> if you can believe this, there is someone by the name of joe who just wants to make one other point and it's not him, it's joe machin. >> i want to share with what evan said. there was a sermon one time when i was in the audience and a great guy said his audiences get more involved in the congregational as far as in politics, the right wing, and they say are you on the right wing or the left-wing? and the kept talking about the different wings and he said the kept thinking of a bird. if a bird had a right wing or

just a left wing with what he do? cuba and fly straight, he would go in a circle, go to the left or go to the right. he said i want the bird to have both wings on street, so i think that is what we all adhere to today and what we are here to see thank you for starting this no labels and let's keep it going. [applause] >> thank you very much. great conversation. [applause] thanks very much for having us. we appreciate it. [applause] great job. thank you very much. thank you for letting me make fun of you. [laughter]