>> let's look at what drives this fundamental imperative. as we all know, when we learned through an incredibly painful deep recession, the u.s. growth had been driven too much by consumption, by investment in housing, financed by borrowing from the rest of the world.

and we couldn't place a way to a growth strategy in the united states and more investment driven, more export driven. and we have to be saving more and investing more and that process is happening. if you look at the initial shape of recovery in the united states, private savings is much higher. and private investment is growing very, very rapidly. the underlying pace of productivity gains is very strong. manufacturing exports very strong and that's very encouraging. what it does for the rest of the world is fundamental change and growth strategy outside of the united states. those other economies recognize that they're not going to be able to look to the united states to be as strong a source of demand for their products as was true in the past. and china, of course, recognizes that reality as do many other countries and that is part of what has driven, that along with the crisis and the vulnerability

they were exposed to in being so export-dependent has forced a fundamental reassessment of how they want to grow and again, it's that fundamental economic interest that motivates this shift, this rebalancing broader imperative. now, these are thing you can't force other countries to do, you know, this is a much more integrated world economy and a world of sovereign states and so what we have to do is to find it a way to make compelling for countries to make those broad changes together so that the changes that we're going through in the united states are complemented by other growth in the world and allow the world economy to grow much closer to its potential growth. that's a overwhelmingly compelling fundamental imperative for the major economies. i think it's broadly recognized. you're going to have different paths to get there but there's no alternative.

>> we have four students. >> thank you. i'm an assistant professor in international economic region of american university but i'm also an alum and a adjunct professor here to economics. i have a question about the topic of today which is emu's -- the european debt crisis. the japanese are buying europe-owned -- your president promised to double american exports in the next two years and it's much bigger than china and must be a major source of american product. the euro is at four-month low against and it doesn't seem it will get any stronger anytime should not so i'm just wondering, u.s. treasury secretary, are involved with brussels in the u.s. decision-making and how are worried are you about this. i don't think the chinese will be any rush to straighten their

currency but demand will change too. >> i think you're absolutely right. one of the still most remaining challenges in the process of the economy is the challenges europe is facing but i'll give you my personal view. i do spend a lot of time talking to my counterparts in europe about the choices they face and how to get ahead of this problem. it is my view that they have made decision that they will do whatever is necessary to prevent this crisis from escalating beyond the countries that were the initially were the focus of so much pressure. there is no doubt that they have the ability to do that financially and economically. and i think they've chosen to do so and if you listen carefully to what the leaders and germany and france and the others are saying, they made it clear they're going to do it. and what they're engaged in now is a complicated discussion of how best to do that. what scale of financial support

and support of what set of reforms to help the banking system through this, help the weaker sovereigns to do this. and they have the capacity to do it and i think they recognize that if you get behind the fundamental forces driving this process, it's more difficulty to solve, much more costly and expensive to solve and they are eager not repeat that -- the choice of the last first six of last year. and that's my perception and you're right to say that europe and japan together are still a very large share of global growth and demand. and the world economy as a whole is not going to be growing at a sufficiently rapid rate unless you see the major economies in europe play a major role as part of that. now, of course, realistically the challenges that greece and

ireland are going through are going to -- they are unavoidable. i mean, they are necessary adjustments they have to go through. but for growth in europe as a whole, what matters is how rapidly do the major economies, germany, france, and spain and italy grow and how successfully are they going to in restoring confidence in their capacity to manage these financial challenges. >> wait for the mic. yeah, yeah. >> charles, a teacher at sais. as you said in your speech, i think, correctly, what is very important is what we do in terms of our own economy. so my question to you? -- to you is this, what can we do to accelerate foreign investment in the united states and our own investment into this economy as rapidly and as effectively as we can?

>> in the short term, of course, it's worth noting that the tax package that was passed in congress has a very short-term incentive for this that because we provide for one-year period of investments and capital equipment and that has the benefit of providing a pretty powerful spark and catalyst, useful reinforcement and recovery in gathering momentum but we have some ways to go to repair the damage, climb out of the hole. long term, it's obvious. we want to make sure we have a tax system that create better incentives for investment in the united states. the president proposed last september to expand resigning a permanent tax credit for research and development in the united states. but that's just one of the things we can do and we're examining whether we can find the political support for a comprehensive tax reform. it would be neutral but would

improve incentives of investment in the hundreds what we do for education, not just higher education but the basic quality of public education across the country is fundamental. our ability to make this still a compelling case for talent people around the world not just to go to school but to build a business and make sure that we restore our economy that was a financial system that was really very good, really the envy of the world and taking the savings of americans and channeling them to support innovative companies, entrepreneurs, making sure those reforms work and creating not just a more stable system but want to encourage inocomparison allocate the capital sufficiently is very, very important. i'm repeating now what i said in my speech. we were very early very, very good as a country in investing a substantial share of public resources in research and development in basic science. that's something we have to make

sure we preserve the capacity to do. and if you look at the quality of public infrastructure in the united states, it's alarmingly poor and that operates like a tax on american businesses, raises costs for businesses and there's a very good compelling economic case, you know, for a prudently financed economic investment in the united states. that's a good start. doing those well won't solve all of our problems. but if you won't do those things, nothing is possible and that's what i would focus our priorities on. >> good morning, professor. i studied with you for two semesters. my question is about the financial narcotics china and deepening them and making them broader. and what do you see and how do you see that in terms of a bond

market or a derivatives market. >> excellent question. financial reform is a key part of that. and you see china expanding foreign firms so they have a spark for the major global institutions in in this area but they are starting to gradually set a more market set -- a more driven system and reduce the role of the state, reduce the administrative controls on how capital is allocated, and that process has a long way to go. but i think they recognize that part of this transition to a more domestic driven growth strategy requires financial reform creates greater ability for individuals to borrow, for companies to borrow. and, of course, fundamental to china, they want to make sure that the -- you know, what financial systems do is they

allocate capital. and how fast you grow over time depends on how well they allocate capital. you know, we've had a great long run in the united states. but you saw what happened when our system misallocated capital substantially to housing investment. and for a state-dominated financial system that risk is much, much greater. the risk for them is much greater that there will be huge investments wasted over time and things that are not going to be very helpful to china's growth ambitions. so there's a very substantial financial imperative to move for a financial based marketship prudently managed and good but you don't want to -- you can't grow if you rely on the state to decide who get capital at what price. it doesn't work. there's no successful example of a strategy that relies on a government to decide how to allocate the price capital. >> i have another student

question in the center here. >> good morning, secretary geithner. my name is john gams and i'm a ph.d. student here at sais. my question, is we went through a heated political election and china's role was not the chief concern but was certainly a concern and was -- the potential to scapegoat the chinese and our economic problems was certainly leveraged by both parties to a certain extent. is that worrying to you as a policymaker. how disconcerting is it to you and if you don't mind sharing, how disconcerting to your counterparts in china. >> it should be a concern to anyone in the united states and something the chinese need to watch very carefully. if you look at the strength of concern in the united states across parties, it's not a republican or democratic concern. it's the bipartisan concern. you saw the strength of the vote on the current legislation in

the house in the fall and i know it's something china is very attentive to and they need to be. what china needs more than anything is an external environment with access to not just our markets but if they're going to meet their broader growth ambitions. so they're very tied to it and i think we should all be very troubled by it. you know, what's happened in the united states today has happened in the past. when you're in a moment of crisis that's caused a huge damage to the basic economic security of americans, you know, we tend to look at the assent of others, the relative assent of others as a concern and a threat. we look at them as sort of the prism with which we view our concerns. but as i said, put that in contest to recognize how well we do as a nation will depend fundamentally on what we do in the united states. china presents huge

opportunities for us. and where things we admire in china's growth create a bit of a more spirited action in the united states, that would be a good thing. >> okay. now i guess we're going to turn it over. we've got a couple last questions from the media. so i'll go ahead and turn it over to them. >> thank you for taking our questions. it was said today chinese officials over in beijing ahead of this visit suggested in a news conference that it would be welcome if the united states provided more reassurance. during president hu's visit their holding of u.s. treasury, are you prepared right now to offer any sort of reassurance and will president obama offer any concrete actions that the u.s. will take to put its fiscal house in order? >> okay, these are the kinds of things that you typically see foreign ministry people say in the run-up to these meetings. it's the typical pattern, nothing exceptional interesting in this. and, of course, no one cares more than i do and the president

does that we make sure we're doing things for the united states to sustain the confidence of the americans and countries around the world in our capacity to manage our challenges here at home. and, of course, we're very focused on that. >> mr. secretary, i have a question regarding the chinese currency. regarding the letter of the chinese currency you used to judge the assessment by the imf. but i'd like to ask your judgment on the currency -- >> i agree with the imf. [laughter] >> and secondly, does the pace of the appreciation -- you mentioned it's 6% annually. are you satisfied -- are you satisfied with this that's or do you have any idea of the ideal pace of the appreciation saying 10%, 20%?

>> well, again what matters is the rate of the nominal change against the dollar but also the relative rates of the inflation in the hundreds because it's the real change that matters and the real terms the chinese currency is moving in a rate substantially faster of 6% a year. just for comparison the last time the chinese allowed the currency to move over time was a period between 2006 and 2008 where it moved roughly 20%, i guess, a dollar in a two-year period of time. how is that? [laughter] >> i mean, i said this in my speech, we'd like them to move faster. we think it's better for them to move faster. it's better for the exchange rate to carry more of the burden of meeting the challenges they face in the inflation side. if they don't -- the nominal

exchange rate, the nominal rate would be higher but that would not be as good a mix for china. but peter can do a better job of explaining that than me. [laughter] >> all right. well, i agree with you the real exchange rate is the thing to really focus on. not because they designed it that way but because of the events, the inflation in china. the real exchange rate is appreciate much faster. i agree it's probably going to be at least 7% this year. >> well, it could be significantly higher than that but again, the most important thing to understand, it is going to happen. there's no alternative path. the only choice for china is how it happens and what happens with inflation with the exchange rate itself. i think there's substantial recognition among the chinese leadership. >> thank you, mr. secretary. john with cpi tv of taiwan.

the end of the election season seems to have taken a lot of steam of the currency debate. my question is, how much of it is politics? and how much of it is real economics? thank you. >> all economics is politics. i would put differently, what makes economics interesting and challenging is how to -- is how to figure out how to get closer to what's good economic policy given the political constraints that can get in the way of that. so how much of this concern is political. and for us it's a fundamental economic concern for the reasons we've discussed. but, of course, it has huge political salience. here's one way to think about it. you know, the exchange rate some of you can see. so you can look at what it's doing and how fast it moves. and since it's obviously

undervalued, it naturally becomes the focus of concern about fairness. it's understandable. if you look at all the other things that we focus on the trade relationship and will continue to be a very substantial focus on the trade side, it's still harder to measure progress. you know, if you -- if you try to think about what the what's the prospect what a campaign, it's difficult to know. if you look at the collective impact that china puts in place that's subsidized in products and services and investments, it will take time to know. it will be less visible. the exchange rate you can see. so it's a more natural focus of attention and it's not a surprise that it's a borrowed political debate about fairness. >> this will be the last questionth morning. >> thanks. you had mentioned that tax reform should be revenue neutral which seems we would have to do more on the spending side to --

>> can i clarify what you said? >> yeah >> as the president said before, we are going to take a look at whether we can find a political support for a reform of the corporate tax code that would lower rates by broadening the base but not for revenue because we don't think it's fair or reasonable that does not achieve that fundamental objective. >> would the administration then be open that would increase revenue from the corporate sector? >> well, i think -- you know, you have to recognize -- and i'm sure you do, that, you know, we have to set -- we have to look at the incentives we create in the united states against those created outside of the united states. and although our effective tax rates for corporates are roughly even, our rates are roughly the average of the other major economies. our stature rates are much

higher and we have to be aware of what's going on around the world. what we want to do is make sure that we're strengthening the relative incentives for investing in the united states versus shifting investments outside of the united states and we don't want the tax code creating incentives to shift investment outside of the united states. so that's one way to think about the constraint we face. >> and just on the spending side, you know you said we need to spend more wisely. where -- >> i said spend less and spend more wisely >> and specifically where are we spending unwisely? and would the administration be open to what house republicans have floated in that discretionary back to 2008. i know that the administration has a discretionary spending freeze but would they be willing to go further? >> you're going to see the president in the state of the union and the budget lay it's a set of proposals how we bring our fiscal policy back in balance. if you look back what he proposed in the first two

budgets. he proposed a level of discretionary spending that will restore nondefense discretionary spending or let me say nonsecurity discretionary spending back to the level that prevailed in the -- i think the reagan administration. so we proposed very substantial restraints on the rate of growth in discretionary spending that would shrink the discretionary part of the government back to a level that prevailed about a generation ago. now, that's not the most important thing to do. the most important thing to do is to do that but preserve the capacity to invest more in things that will be essential to our competitiveness and that's why i wanted to emphasize again that as you think about how to restore fiscal sustainability, the challenge is not fundamentally how to bring our resources and get us more into balance. our challenge is how to do that that is not just fair to the american people, to the middle

class family but improves rather than impairs our capacity to grow if the future. and our debate is how to make sure that we're preserving the capacity to spend more strategically and reach the development in education, in incentives for investment. and in public infrastructure. thank you very much. nice to see you all. i hope all of you -- i hope all of you here at sais will have the chance to do more for your country. it's a cool, noble thing to do. nothing more compelling. i hope you do it. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> middle and high school students, it's time to upload your views for c-span's documentary competition. get your 5 to 8-minute video on this year's topic washington, d.c. through my lens to c-span by january 20th for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. c-span studentcam video documentary competition is opened to students grades 6th through 12. for more go to studentcam.org. >> there's a new way for you to follow congress. with c-span's congressional chronicle.

track the daily floor timelines, read transcripts and find a full video archive of each member. congressional chronicle, part of c-span's video library. it's washington your way. >> coming up next, we'll go to the indiana general assembly in indianapolis for the annual state of the state address by governor mitch daniels. he began his first four year term as indiana's 49th governor in 2005. he was elected to a second term in november of 2008. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege to present to you the lieutenant governor of the state of indiana, becky skillman. [applause]

[applause] >> members of the joint assembly. pursuant to section 13 of article 15 of the indiana constitution, the indiana general assembly has convened for the purpose of hearing the governor. ladies and gentlemen of the house and senate, distinguished guests, i have the high honor of introducing our governor, mitch daniels. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> mr. speaker, members of the assembly, hoosier friends and men and women, thank you for the podium. one of our strongest memories of youth is that great school teacher that man or woman who reached us and stretched us and in the process left indelible recollections. for me one of them bob watson, still mr. watson to me who introduced us to the mysteries of the periodic table in high school chemistry. [laughter] >> in addition to mixing potions

that suddenly turned purple mr. watson was familiar with his of a missions, his little sayings so often repeated that his students still smile and recite them to each other decades later and the most frequently applied of all watson's wisdoms was, good things come to those who wait. patience is the essences of life. patience does not come easily to a teacher or to adults for that matter. at the grocery store, the airport scanner, or the bmv, none of us likes to wait. like all americans, hoosiers are waiting tonight for a national economic recovery. far too many are without work and even worse than their number is how long many have been waiting, waiting for that next job. waiting for the basic human fulfillment of knowing you're standing on your own feet, providing for yourself and your

family. the deep frustration of unemployed hoosiers is shared by those of us charged with public duties in these times. the best efforts of our state or anyone's state to break free of recession suffocating clutch and we can't wait for better times. building one of the best job climates in the country isn't enough. breaking the all-time record for new job commitments isn't enough. adding new jobs that's twice the national average isn't enough. we did all those in 2010 but it couldn't offset the terrible drag of an national economic ebb tide that continues to leave too many boats stuck in the muck. we hoosiers don't like to wait when we can act. if we cannot overcome a nationwide job hemorrhage we can fight back better than others. again in 2010, we broke all records for road-building and

bridge-building for the fourth year in a row. put thousands to work doing so. as the final installment of our 2008 property tax cuts took effect, hard-pressed hoosier home and business owners found an additional $600 million still in their bank accounts. tonight, because of our actions, indiana's property taxes are the lowest in -- anywhere in america. [applause] >> and thanks to a ringing 72% verdict by our fellow citizens who voted in referendum to protect those cuts in our constitution, they're going to stay that way. [applause] >> and in the clearest example of hoosier resolve, we handled a

$2 billion drop in state revenues as any family would. as any small business would. we decided what is most important, separated the must-do's from the niceder -- nice do's unemployment is still up sharply over the last six years but here it's virtually flat, one-third of the rate of inflation. elsewhere, state government payrolls have grown but here we have the nation's fewest state employees per capita. fewer than we did in 1978. during this terrible recession, at least 35 states raised taxes but indiana cut them. since '04 the other 49 states added to their debts by 40%. we paid ours down by 40%. many states exhausted any reserves they may have had and

plunged into the red but our savings account remains strong and our credit aaa. what we did in 2008 and 2009 and 2010, we will do again this year. we will take the actions necessary to limit state spending to the funds available. we will protect struggling taxpayers against the additional burden of higher taxes. we will continue improving our jobs climate by holding the line on taxes as our competitors take the easy way and let theirs rise. we say tonight, whatever course others may choose, here in indiana, we live within our means, we put the private sector ahead of government, the taxpayer ahead of everyone and we will stay in the black whatever it takes. [applause]

>> in two days i will send to this assembly a proposed budget for the next biennium. as always i know our final product will be a mutual one. and i welcome your amendments and improvements so long as they live up to the following principles. one i just mentioned no tax increases. can i get an amen to that? [applause] >> two, we must stay in the black at all times, with positive reserves at a prudent level throughout the time period. three, the budget must come in to structural balance, meaning, that no later than its second year annual a revenues must exceed annual spending with no use of our spending account. four, no gimmicks. we put an end to practices like

raiding teacher pension funds and shifting state deficits to our schools and universities by making them wait until the state had the cash to pay them. that's a form of waiting we should never impose again. and to hasten the return of an even stronger fiscal position, i again ask you to vote for lasting spending discipline by enacting an automatic taxpayer refund. when the day comes again when state reserves exceed 10% of annual needs, it will be time to stop collecting taxes and leave them with the people they belong to. remember what the hoosier philosopher said, it's tainted money. it taint yours and it taint mine. [laughter] [applause] >> beyond some point it is far

better to leave dollars in the pockets of those who earned them than to burn a hole as they do in the pockets of government. [applause] >> doing the people's business while living within the people's means is our fundamental duty in public service. redrawing our legislative lines without gerry mandering and an insurance system are other examples we must do this year. i know you'll do so head on. so we had a little election last november. it changed a few things, like the seating arrangement in this chamber. one thing it didn't change at all, our common duty to take every action possible and make this a better state, a more progressive state, a standout and special and distinctive state. that election, like all

elections, was not a victory for one side. it was an instruction to us all. it was not an endorsement of a political party. it was an assignment to everyone present. by itself it accomplished nothing. but it threw open the door to great accomplishment. starting tonight, we must step through that door together. one opportunity lies in reform of our criminal justice system helped by the nation's most respected experts, a bipartisan task force of police, judges, prosecutors and others fashioned to package changes that lawmakers are incarcerated in a smarter way that matches their place of punishment to their true danger to society. we can be tougher on the worst offenders and protect hoosiers more securely while saving a billion dollars in the next few years. let's seize this opportunity without waiting. [applause]

>> two years ago, the bipartisan commission led by two of indiana's most admired leaders presented to us a blueprint to bring indiana local government out of the pioneer days in which it was created and into the modern age. of their 27 proposals, seven have been enacted in some form. that leaves a lot of work to do. and indiana is waiting some of the things are so obvious that our failure to make them is a daily embarrassment. the conflict of interest when double-dipping government workers simultaneously sit on city or county councils interrogating their own supervisors and deciding their own salaries must end. the same goes for the nepotism that leads to 1 in 4 township employees sharing a last name with the politician who hired them. township government which does not exist in most states made

some sense on the indiana frontier. many township lines were laid out to accommodate the round trip distance a horse could travel in a day. we've gone a little ways since then. today, over 4,000 politicians, few of them known to the voters they represent, run over 1,000 different township governments. they are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves. some have eight years of spending needs stashed in the bank, yet, they keep collecting taxes. some townships are awash in money while the township next door does not have enough to provide relief to its needy citizens. adjacent townships each buy expensive fire trucks which one would suffice to cover them both. those covering in township are good people and well motivated. we thank them for their service. our problem lies not with those holding all these offices but with the antique system that

keeps them there. i support the clear and simple recommendation of the shepherd commission that we remove this venerable but obsolete layer of government. and assign what little remains of its duty to elected city and county officials. likewise -- applause applause >> that's somewhere short of an amen. [laughter] >> likewise, a strange arrangement of a three headed county executive should change. >> no business has three ceo's. no football team has three head coaches. no military unit would think of having three coequal commanding officers. we should join the rest of america and move into a single

elected county commissioner working with a strengthened legislative branch the county council to make decision-making accountable and implementation swift and efficient. as in the last two sessions, i look forward to constructive cooperation with the assembly in bringing reform about. the only outcome that is unacceptable is no action at all. hoosiers have waited for decades for our governmental design to catch up to society. let's not keep them waiting any longer. in no realm is our opportunity larger than in the critical task of educating our children. the need for a major improvement and the chance for achieving it is so enormous tonight that opportunity rises to the level of duty. advocates of change in education are accustomed to being misrepresented. if you challenge the fact that 42 cents of the education dollar are somehow spent outside of the

classroom, you must not respect school boards. if you wonder why doubling spending didn't produce any gains in student achievement, you must be criticizing teachers. if your heart breaks at the parade of young lives permanently handicapped by a school experience that leaves them unprepared for the world of work, you must be antipublic schools. so let's start by affirming once again that our call for major change in our system of education, like that of president obama, his education secretary, so many others is rooted in a love for our schools, for those who run them and for those who teach in them but it is rooted most deeply in the love for the children whose very lives and futures depend on the quality of learning they either do or do not acquire while in our schools.

nothing matters more than that. nothing compares to that. [applause] >> some seek change in education on economic grounds. and they're right. to win and hold a family supporting job, our kids will need to know much more than their parents did. i have seen the future competition. every time i go abrood -- abrood to japan, join and let me tell you those kids are good. they ought to be. they are in school not 180 days a year like here but 210, 220, 230 days a year. by the end of high school, they have benefited fromwo or three

years more education than hoosier students and along the way they've taken harder classes. it won't be easy to win jobs away from them. it's not just tomorrow's jobs that are at stake. the quality of indiana education matters right now. when we are courting a new business, right behind taxes, the cost of energy, reasonable regulation, transportation facilities comes schools. what kind of school will my children and our workers' children attend? the question we're always asked. sometimes in some places, it costs us jobs today, it is no time to wait. in 1999, indiana passed a law that said schools must either improve their results or be taken over by new management. the little ones who entered first grade then full of hope and promise are 18 now. in the worst of our districts,

half of them will not be graduating. god bless and keep them wherever they are and whatever life now holds for them. for those children we waited too long. and it's not just about the most failing of our schools. the last couple of years i've seen some encouraging advances after years of stagnation only 1 and 3 children can pass the national math and reading exam. we trail behind most states and even more foreign countries on measures like excellence in math. at the recent rate of improvement, it would take 21 years for us to catch slovenia and that's if slovenia stands still. that is too long to wait. that is too many futures to lose. in every discussion, someone says, this is very complicated. then someone says, well, these changes won't be perfect.

and then you hear, the devil is in the details. it's all true but we can no longer let complexity be an execution for inaction nor imperfectfection as the enemy of the good. when it comes to our children's future the real devil is not in the details. he's in the delay and 2011 is the year the delay must end. [applause] [applause] >> we know what works. it starts with teacher quality. teacher quality has been found to be 20 times more important than any other factor including

poverty in determining which kid succeeds. class size by comparison is virtually meaningless. put a great teacher in front of a large class and you can expect good results. put a poor teacher in front of a small class, do not expect the kids to learn. in those asian countries i mentioned, classrooms of 35 students are common and they're beating our socks off. we won't have done our duty here until every single indiana youngster has a good teacher every single year. today, 99% of indiana teachers are rated effective. if that were true, 99%, not one-third of our students would be passing those national tests. today's teachers make more money not because their students learn more but just by living longer and putting another certificate on the wall. their jobs are protected not by any record of great teaching but

simply by seniority. we have seen teachers of the year laid off just because they weren't old enough. this must change. we have waited long enough. teachers should have tenure. but they should earn it by proving their ability to help kids learn. our best teachers should be paid more, much more. an ineffective teacher should be helped to improve or asked to move. today the outstanding teacher, the mr. watsons whose kids are pushed and led to do their best is treated no better than the worst teacher in the school. that is wrong. for the sake of fairness and the sake of our children, it simply has to end. we have waited long enough. [applause]

>> we're beginning to hold our school leaders accountable for the only thing that really matters. did the children grow? did the children learn? starting this year, schools will get their own grades in a form we can all understand. a to f. there will be no more hiding behind jargon and gibberish but it is only fair to give our school leadership the flexibility to deliver the results we now expect. already, i have ordered our board of education to peel away unnecessary requirements that consume time and money without really contributing to learning. we're asking this assembly to repeal other mandates that whatever their good intentions ought to be left to local control. i'm a supporter of organ donation, and cancer awareness and preventing mosquito bourne disease but if a local superintendent thinks time

should be spend on these courses instead of math science and english should eliminate them from a crowded school day and what unions and collectively bargaining are the right of those teachers to engage in them they go too far when they dictate the color of the teachers lounge or who can monitor recess or on what days the principal is allowed to hold a staff meeting. we must free our school leaders from all the handcuffs that reduce their ability to meet the higher expectations we now have for student achievement. [applause] >> lastly, we must begin to honor the parents of indiana. we must trust them and respect them enough to decide when, where and how their children can receive the best education.

and, therefore, the best chance in life. visiting with high school seniors i discovered one new option we should be offering, a significant fraction of our students complete or could complete their graduation requirements in well under 12 years. we should say to those diligent young people and their families, if you choose to finish in 11 years instead of 12, we will give you the money we were going to spend while you cruised on twelfth as long as you spend your money on some further education. in this year of survey high school students, 3 out of 4 would like to have that hospitalization let's empower our kids to defray the high cost of education by entrusting them with this new and innovative choice. [applause] >> another new kind of choice has come to indiana parents the

last couple of years as a byproduct of our property tax reduction. people are able to choose schools outside of the district they live in tuition-free. school have been begun advertising campaigns touting their higher graduation rates and high test scores. this is a highly positive environment as long as it's fair. i ask you to protect our families against any possibility of discrimination by requiring that any school with more applicants than room fill it through a lottery or other blind selection process. indiana has lagged behind other states for charter schools. we must have more of them and they must not be unjustly penalized they should receive their funding exactly when other public schools do. if they need space and the local district owns vacant buildings they have no prospect of using, they should turn them over.

widening parents options in these ways will enable the vast majority of children to attend the school of their choice. but one more step is necessary. for families who can not find the right traditional public school, or the right charter public school for their child, and are not wealthy enough to move near one, justice requires that we help. we should let these families apply dollars that the state spends on their child to the nongovernment school of their choice. [applause] >> in that gallery, and outside, sit the most important guests of the evening.

they are children and parents of children who are waiting for a spot in a charter or private school. they believe their futures will be brighter if they can make that choice. look at those faces. will you be the one to tell the parents, tough luck? are you prepared to say they mean, we know better than you do? we won't tell you where to buy your groceries or get your tires rotated but we will tell you no matter what you think, your child will attend that school and only that school. we have the money to send our children where we think best but if you don't, well, too bad for you. these children and their parents have waited long enough for a better chance in life. and indiana has waited long enough for the kind of educational results that a great state must achieve. i've spoken of the economic implications but at bottom this

is not about material matters. it's about the civil right, the human right of every indiana family to make decisions for its children. it's about the right of all hoosier children to realize their full potential in life. will you join me in saying, the waiting is over. change has come and indiana plans to lead it. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> for us sports fans, recent times have brought a frustrating string of almosts. at 60, tom watson almost won the

british open. the colts almost won the super bowl. butler almost won a national basketball championship. besides the disappointment of coming so close, the bad thing about almost is knowing you may never get that close to victory and history again. this cannot be the almost general assembly. we are on the 18th hole in the red zone on the final possession of a chance of historic greatness. indiana has waited long enough for local government that fits the realities of the 21st century. we have waited long enough for an education system known for excellence in teaching, and accountable schools that deliver the results our kids deserve. our parents have waited long enough for the freedom to decide

which school is best for their children. we cannot almost end the waiting. one thing is certain, the rest of the world will not wait on us. other nations and other states are forging ahead with the kind of reforms i have proposed here. indiana is now a leader in business climate, fiscal integrity, transportation, property taxes and so many other respects now comes the chance to lead in ways that long-term may matter than all of those. wishing won't make it so. waiting won't make it so. but those of you in this assembly have a priceless, an unprecedented opportunity to make it so. it's more than a proposal. it's an assignment. it's more than an opportunity. it's a duty. our children are waiting. our fellow citizens are waiting.

history is waiting. it's going to be a session to remember. you're going to do great things. i can't wait. god bless this assembly and this great state. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> the joint assembly is

adjourned. [applause] >> the chair recognizes the representative for a motion. >> is there a second. >> all in favor by voting aye. we are adjourned. >> a little later today we'll have a live update from arizona university medical center on the condition of gabrielle giffords and other victims of last weekend's shootings. it's at noon eastern here on c-span2. ..

>> good morning again. i'm tony saris, the program manager, the washington center for internships and academic seminars. the washington center is the largest provider of academic internship opportunities here in washington, d.c. with 1500 students coming from over 850 colleges throughout the country to do intern ships in the fall, spring and summer terms in washington, d.c. welcome to the second day of

week two of inside washington 2011, politics and the media. we're happy to have you here with us again this morning and it is my pleasure to welcome our faculty director who will introduce our next speaker. our professor is professor ameritus at ball state university. professor steve bell. >> thank you, tony. this is a special guest this morning from my perspective becaus wante us and i use the contact, and the contact was a i former student who is nowntact s working for the state department and the public affairs office n the state department in the public affairs office and i have so much pride, whether i defsh it or not in following his career and he was sitting where

you are. he did this seminar when he was a student and just remember, you can go from this seminar right back to help us in many different ways. our speaker here is the assistant secretary of state for public affairs and he is the guy who greets every day at the state department. he's the guy you see on the newscasts from time to time being put on the hot seat by reporters and handeling himself very well, just thank you. before going to the state department he was the senior fellow and director of homeland security at the center for american progress and while there he authored very important papers on subjects involving a national security. issues such as how we keep bombs off airplanes and how we protect

our country while all these terrorist threats are out there somewhere and he's a frequent guest speaker on all of the network news programs. he's done both olbermann and o'reil o'reilly. if you can handle that you can handle anything. it's my pleasure -- one other thing i wanted you to know was more than 20 years in the air force retired as a colonel, his wife is also a retired colonel from the air force, and i found that very interesting as part of his background. ladies and gentlemen, i introduce p.j. crowley from the state department. [ applause ] >> good morning. i'm delighted to be here. i'm delighted to be in a situation where i can take tough questions from students and not from pernickety reporters.

so when the state department briefing happens today on c span, my abel deputy will be at the podium, but the daily briefings that i do at the state department do feature snappy repart, with a professional and talented group of reporters, many of whom have been covering foreign policy for longer than i have been in and around government, and this is my 34th year of being in and around national security policy, but i came to appreciate the difference between the state department press corps and journalists who cover other agencies and other branches of government. i was answering a question one day on nato and i threw in what i thought was garnish. i simply said nato was the most

successful military alliance in history. really, said the dean of the state department press corps. what about the league? now i come to the podium every day prepared for a wide range of foreign policy challenges. iran, north korea, venezuela, and the middle east peace process. not so much the league which last held its formal meeting in 1669, 120 years before the establishment of the department of state. no. i still think i was right. the league, for the record, was more an economic alliance and nato was more a security alliance. as steve said you do have to be mindful of history and stay on your toes. what i do every day when i step

to the podium is to enunciate the united states view on world affairs and as events permit i try to find some humor in these situations. we're not exactly political although i went from a political background and when the president was selected to receive the nobel prize, i was asked bia reporter, does he deserve it? it's better to have these accolades thrown away than shoes. when president hugo chavez of venezuela with whom i have a twitter -- ongoing twitter relationship suggested that venezuela would pursue a space program despite the fact that he can't keep the lights on in caracas, i suggested that he

stick with terrestrial rather than extraterrestrial pursuits. he called me ridiculous, high praise, indeed. iran invited diplomats from a handful of countries, but not the united states. to visit nuclear facilities as an alternative to full cooperation with the international atomic energy agency, maybe reflecting my age a little bit, i said this is the magical mystery tour. today we use a variety of media to mun kate to governments and people around the world. we use formal briefings at the state department covered by traditional media and we use social media that bypass governments and communicate directly with people and chuck todd and savannah guthrie of msnbc late last year recognized me for issuing the tweet of the

year. in part because the state department spokesman had a sense of humor. what i said in my tweet after president carter traveled to pyongyang to rescue an american citizen jailed there and this followed a similar trip last year when our president clinton brought home two journalists, i tweeted that the american people should heed the travel warnings. after all, we only have so many former presidents. now in a shameless attempt at self-promotion since i am currently hundreds of followers behind my friend and the ambassador to the united nations, feel free to follow me at p.j. crowley. now, in my view, success in the 21st century depends on effective governance. a free and vibrant press plays an important role in the development of civil society and

accountable governments, as a general rule, the freer the press the more transparent and the more democratic a government is likely to be. any in the context of this similar, media and politics, think of places around the worlds where fraud that skews the results to a significant degree or steals elections outright. this involves, for example, the election of june 2009 in iran where the government harassed traditional media as they covered the election accident fraud that was evident as well as the opposition that had effectively used social media during the campaign and has refused to be silenced to this present day. dictator ships understand the power of the media where the ruling junta held an election in

november where it did not allow aung sung suu kyi, a nobel laureate to run in that campaign, nor did they allow outside media to cover the election. the result was kieptd of an election laundering, where an existing military government attempted to use the election to transform itself into a civilian government, but it looked the legitimacy that only civil society backed by a vibrant press can bestow. unfortunately, there is no shortage of present-day examples from coat devoir to belarus where the media continues to document the actions of repressive governance that in one case refuses to accept an election that it did not expect to lose and in the other case has literally jailed every opposition figure that dared run against europe's last dictator.

the former yugoslavia, and i have to stop here. how old are we here? you may remember something called the former yugoslavia is my best example. we call it the western balkans, but it's the best example of where investment in independent media helped to transform a country and we hope over time our region contributing to the dynamic that led to the end of the rule of slobodan milosevic and his transfer to the hague where he died in prison while facing charges of crimes against humanity. we also note that media can be used destructively to encite violence as we saw tragically in the 1990 in rwanda and we continue to have concerns regarding state-controlled media, particularly in the middle east that continued to ferment religious tension across the region. >> now no one is a great are advocate for a vibrant, independent and responsible

press, committed to the freedom of expression and the development of a true, global, civil society than the united states. every day we express concern about the flight of the -- the plight of journalists and now bloggers around the world who are intimidated, jailed and tragically in some cases killed by governments that are afraid of their people and afraid of the empowerment that comes with the free flow of information within a free flowing saasity. most recently we did so in the context of this week tunisia which has hacked social media accounts while claims to protect their citizens from the encitement of violence. in doing so we feel the government is restricting the epitome of its peaceful to peacefully assemble and express their views in order to influence government policies.

these are universal principles that we continue to support and we practice what we preach. just look at our own country and cable television. we don't silence dissidents. we make them television analysts. okay. got to work on that one. some in this country and around the world are questioning the united states' commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and internet freedom in the aftermath of something you might have heard of called wikileaks. i'm constrained in what i can say because individual cables remain classified. if you read "the new york times" we all have our favorites and the leak of these cables that is under investigation by the department of justice, but let me briefly put in context before i open up the floor for questions, what this is about.

wonning i leaks is about the disclosure of crass phied information and it is not an exercise in internet freedom. it is about the legitimate investigation of a crime. it is about the need to continue to protect sensitive information and that can be government information or personal information while enabling the free throw of public information throughout our society and around the world. now, we remain arguably the most traps parent country in the world. the american people, through innovations including c-span are a well-informed citizenry which is crucial to a functioning democracy. we can have a discussion about how well our democracy is functioning and whether political figures are spending more time pandering or posturing on television than actually

governing, and of course, in the aftermath of the tragedy last weekend in tucson, we pray for the recovery of congresswoman gabi giffords, i'm not going speculate about what led that troubled man to do what he did, but we should recommit ourselves to improve public discourse going forward so that we can sustain a functioning democracy that is important both in the context of serving our national interest, but also to collectively solve global challenges for the benefit of our people and others. this transparency relies on a vibrant, independent, fourth estate that serves as a vital check and balance in our democracy. the first amendment created deliberate tension in the relationship between the media and government. this tension helps to sustain effective oversight of the government in which i serve. when i stand up every day to answer questions about z

policies and action, in a small way i am part of this process where government is accountable to its people and, trust me, the system works. and i have the fan mail to prove it particularly when i do appear on fox. some fox viewers have me on speed dial. transparency does not mean that there are no secrets. whether you are a government or a business, there is proprietary information that is vital to your day to day function. think about it. coca-cola has a secret formula. google has its search algorithm. their success is based on those secrets. as a government, we are no different. in the conduct of our diplomacy at the state department we have confidential interaction every day arne the world. these conversations with government officials, society

activists, business people and journalists help us make sense of the world and inform our policy making. these confidential exchanges are rooted in our values and they serve our national interest, and they are based on mutual trust, trust that a conversation will be held in confidence and not betrayed. now, someone inside our government violated a sworn oath to protect the national interest and protect classified and sensitive information that is an inherent part of our conduct of our national security policy. we can debate whether there are too many secrets, but no one should doubt that there has been substantial damage in the up authorized lease -- release of a database containing among other things, 251,000 state department

cables. many of them classified. now, we have encountered government leaks before and we've worked through them. some of those leaks have been to expose wrongdoing, without getting into any specific information. when you hear about the stories about the axe contained in the state department cables, they're about right doing and we're very proud of the work that we do in behalf of all of you every week. we believe our activity is serving our national interest, mitigating crises and in some cases saving lives. but what makes this case different is its volume and its scope. unlike the past where someone might have smuggled out of document or a file on one subject and give 10 to one reporter, in this case the database contained documents that touched on every part of

the world affected almost every relationship we have around the world and almost every national interest. the reaction has varied country by country, but human nature being what it is there will be an impact for at least a time. governments will be more cautious in sharing information with the united states. why is this important? it was the sharing of information last year that enabled the united states working with other governments to intersent the plot to blow up cargo aircraft over in chicago. if less information is shared in the future, our policies and our actions could be less effective. now the release of this information has placed helpundr of people at risk. in many cases, the very civil society activists that wikileaks has suggested, it wants to

empower around the world. now we interact regularly with people from all walks of life who are trying to reform repressive societies both from inside and outside their governments. in some cases their names have been withheld by the media, but many have been exposed and are now at risk. the mere fact that these classified documents now reside in unclassified computer networks means that this information can be intercepted by a foreign security service. so the fact that only 2700 documents out of the 251,000 have been publicly released so far is small comfort to the people who have been needlessly exposed. we are tracking hundreds of people around the world, we believe in one way or another are now in danger, reaching out to as many as we prudently can in helping to ensure to the extent that we can that they

will remain safe. the founder of wikileaks has claimed that no one has lost his or her life due to these releases. that is true as far as we know, but that is not the only measure of the impact. real lives and real interests have been compromised by what has been done. we are doing everything we can to mitigate the impact, but as secretary clinton said a couple of days ago, it will take years to move beyond it. we are a nation of laws and the laws of this country have been violated. so as we funk under the rule of law it is appropriate and necessary that we investigate and froms cute those who have violated u.s. law. though some have suggested that this ongoing investigation marks a retreat from our commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and internet

freedom, nonsense. these are universal principles and our commitment is unwavering. these freedoms have always co-existed with the rule of law and the application of laws is in no way intended to deny access to readily available information or silence legitimate and necessary political discourse, but our belief in internet freedom and it did not give me the right to use the internet to illegally inflict arm. we must use it responsibly. wikileaks reminds us of how to protect vital information, whether personal or classified information while also promoting the free flow of information that can empow tor form global communities and to change the world for the better. we believe it's possible and necessary to do both.

with those opening comments i'll be happy to take your questions. [ applause ] >> amelia naj ar from clark university. >> i'm sorry? >> ammel arnajar from clark university. my question is about how most americans are not well informed about national security issues and foreign affairs and more concerned about domestic issues such as the economy and health care. how can we change that and make more americans informed about foreign affairs? >> that's a great question. i say there may or may not be a need to change anything. in my time in government going back to the early '70s, 30 years

ago there was this clear dividing line. there were lots of things that were domestic and there were lots of things that were international, but think about it. most everything that has domestic consequences today can have international consequences as well. we live in a global economy, in this country, that challenge is shared by other countries and other political leaders and in fact, to resolve the economic challenges that we face in this country will involve action not only by the united states, but action in concert with other countries. if you think about health, another issue of great debate in this country, global health is a very significant challenge and as we've heard about various strands of flu, last year being h1n1 and while thankfully that turned out not to be as severe

as feared, the fact is our public health was in part affected by the great work done the public health system in mexico where that strain of the flu was first identified. when you think about our food supply, the fact is the safety of our food supply depends on international supply systems. so our -- the security of our food supply is in the supply chain in another country any another country. so on and so forth. if you think about the traditional concerns about domestic policy they now have international counterparts and to turn that around when we look at foreign approximately see challenges, say the situation in afghanistan, we are now drawing

other agencies of government that are traditionally called domestic into those challenges. vilsack has made a couple of trips to afghanistan and he's trying to help them re-establish agricultural economy. also, you know, pushing out or decreasing the current narcotic economy. so you have agricultural experts standing next to rule of law experts, standing next to health and human services experts and staying next to military soldiers. that is going to be the solution to a country like afghanistan or iraq or pakistan or others. i would think that it is important for people to think in

terms of these challenges as being global challenges and not necessarily domestic challenges in the future. thank you. >> hi, my name is -- hello? >> hello. >> my name is monique madden and i represent the honors college. my question is to begin, i'm editor of my college paper and i'm currently facing my college attorneys, and college police department as well as the legal affairs office, trying to collect college crime activity logs i was denied time and time again. by all of these departments, aware of my rights i had a press attorney represent me with his request. now, would you say some departments denied releasing this information for the sake of the institution's reputation. is that worth not keeping the student informed? that's a great question.

i would say that it is important for students to be informed with the environment and the security that might exist on your college campus us or other college campuses. in most cases, the real question in terms of negotiation between the media and an institution is can you find a search for common ground so that you can obtain the information so whatever instushl interests may be a trigger. >> i can use my own example. i've been the chief negotiator between the united states and the new york times about what to do about these cables and we

opened up a channel of communication whereas "the new york times" is preparing to report on a cable and perhaps post that cable internet, they give us the opportunity to say aside from the fact it's classified and the conversation, always starts with we know you'd prefer we not reference this at all, but is there anything of particular concern that, you know, we might want to be mindful of as we decide how to treat this particular document and we have a productive conversation of where we go back and try to determine this name or that circumstance that may, in fact, we believe put an individual or individuals at risk. so it is a coop struckive interaction within a relationship whereby its very nature is going to have some tension. so what you're experiencing is in fact the relationship that has been set up under our founding fathers where the media

is a gadfry, it is a watchdog and institutions can react to that in different ways and it's very much a conversation worth having and perhaps there's a way to resolve it without having to take legal ak, but necessarily at times governments and the media will find themselves in court and that's actually a quite good thing. >> thank you very much. >> matt diamond from clark university. >> wooster. >> wooster, mass. yes. >> my question is on the shift that happened in the geopolitical structure. the shift that changed with the united states and the soviet union, something that's very different. how has the interstate conflict and intrastate conflict and small conflicts that are contained within the particular geographic areas, how has the 24-hour media cycle changed that? >> first on the shift, for the

last 20 years there's been a different dynamic, you had the emergence of for want of a better word, and that is playing itself out in a lot of ways and take the former yugoslavia and at this point, you pause and talk about the great work done by the country's most able diplomats, richard holbrooke who passed away late last year who actually was the protagonist of the ultimate agreement that led to the end of the conflict in the early '90es, but yugoslavia was a manufactured state, but within it, it had department a variety of different identities that serves croats and muslims

in check, but at the end of the cold war, the glue that kept yugoslavia together could not hold the country together and now, in fact, you have the countries and you still have 20 years later the seed of the conflict and the conflict has ended, but the tension is not. we see this playing out as we speak at this moment where over the next six months we may see the emergence of yet another country of south sudan. now there was a peace treaty in the -- negotiated by the bush administration of 2005 that ended a four-year civil war in sudan and promised a referendum with the people of south sudan will have the vote to have a vote which is happening this week over whether to remain a part of sudan or split off into a new country. the betting is that they'll vote for a new country and so we'll

see the, mergence of the member of a united nations and one that may or not have at this point the capacity to govern itself effectively and it will need an enormous amount of international assistance for a number of years, but this dynamic is playing itself out. i'm trying to remember, when theup charter was approved in the late '40s, i think there was something like there were 38 voting countries that approved it. my math is correct. we have 192 members of the united nations, but as has shown you how the world has -- the world hasn't changed, but the map has over the course of this length of time and this dynamic, whatever you call it, it was for a while called the post-cold war phenomenon and thou we're in the post-war phenomenon and the post

economic collapse phenomenon and it has changed from a bipolar situation where as president obama said you were for us or against us to where you will have much more complex challenges and you have a reality that today, the united states by itself cannot solve any major international challenge. without an effective action, and he was asked to collaborate that requires us to have partnerships and alliance wes other relationships where we can collectively solved the challenges that we face, up to and including the challenge of climate change as one example. >> hello, i'm from new york university. correct me if i'm wrong, but as i understand that julian assange

is not a u.s. citizen nor did he commit his crime in the united states and as the only law in the books that criminalizes his activity violates the act of 1917. in terms of prosecution. >> that is a question i cannot answer. julian assange is not a citizen. that is not the only law that may or may not be triggered by that investigation and beyond that i will leave it to the justice department to continue on its investigation. >> good morning. >> hi. >> can you hear me or should i project? >> you're projecting very well. >> my name is rachel gonzalez from miami date college and my question is in regard to speaking about with this beautiful thing we know as freedom of the press. where does that merge into or get dangerously close to the disclosure of unauthorized material?

>> freedom of the press is vitally important and it is enshrined in the first amendment and we have to steadfastly protect it even though the press may not be popular, and i think if you look over the polling of various institutions, the press is kind of low on the polls, nonetheless, it plays a vitally important role in the maintenance of a civil society. whether we, and i -- whether we like what the press prints or reports every day, and i certainly wish that the wikileaks story had not emerged and the many stream media or the guardian or el taes in other you countries has not published this information. there was damage done, but by the same token the media has a right to report information that it acquires for the benefit of

its readers. we can debate that role, but the media is vitally important and as much as we might rail at the media for an individual story, it really is important to contrast what is happening here versus what is happening elsewhere. journalism is a very important business and a dangerous business. if you're a journalist in russia today you are at severe risk of being imprisoned or killed. if you are a despotic regime you're not in favor of a free press, and so to be able to bring the activities of government to light so that citizens can have the impact of knowing what's going on and influence the policies of their country and participate in an open, political process, that is

how you acquire effective government and as you acquire that effective government, that government is more likely than not to be democratic and democracies as a general rule are more stable and more peaceful and they tend not to get into conflicts with each other. so i am an ardent supporter of the importance of a free press even as on day in or day out i might have an argument as to what particular story or set of packs they might report. >> good morning. i'm from the honors college at miami-dade college. the united states is known as being an advocate for human rights and also for gender equality. what is the opinion on the ongoing discrimination towards women around the world? >> well, i have the benefit and

pleasure of working for arguably the most famous woman in the world and this is a topic of significant importance to the secretary of state hillary clinton, and it is part of every conversation that she has when she travels around the world. when secretary clinton visits a country as she is currently today, she's in the gulf region and we set up for her, a public forum and usually a forum that is covered by the media and even in traditional societies and an audience that would include men and women and both who are empowered to ask questions and she will go to places where they have dramatic concerns about the

safety of women and she went two years ago to the democratic republic of the congo and to a part of that country where rape is used as a weapon of war, and she has come back to that issue time and time again to tell governments and multilateral institutions and governments and the united states and it is vitally important for us to work together and protect women. why? because if you are a poor country and you're trying to lift yourself up out of poverty, agriculture is probably going to be the most important means to get there. 70% of the agricultural workers in the world are women in societies that only give full rights to half of their population and that societiy is necessarily probably by design going to be less successful, if

you were able to empower women and give them access to own properties and access to microcredit. if a woman is producing food, she's going to feed her own family and she's going to create a surface, but then she can use to help generate an income for her family. so this is fundamental not just in terms of gender rights. it's fundamental importance to how we build a more stable, peaceful and prosperous world and the secretary's working on that every single day. >> popman college, with wikileaks, i agree with you to an extent that certain things need to be kept secret for national security reasons. what about secretary of state hillary clinton ordering u.s. officials to smil on certain u.n. diplomats by getting their dna and getting the fingerprints and iris scans and getting their credit card numbers and their

frequent flier miles, do you deny that? are you guys proud of that? because you said you were proud of the diplomacy, i believe, you completely defy it and you speak about it and the whole threat, is it more that you guys are concerned or because you're embarrassed by this being released? >> without getting into the contents of any particular cable, we have nothing to be embarrassed about. i mean, if you read the coverage in the paper, you can see that diplomats are doing, are pursuing the national interest day in and day out in very difficult settings around the world. we're very proud of what the diplomats do. we don't get as much of the headlines as say the military does, but we're not embarrassed by what has been revealed by these cables. our concern is is about, you know, compromises in our relationships and those relationships have value and

importantance to the united states. the secretary of state did not order any diplomat to spy. we are not spies. there was a cable that came out of the state department. it had secretary clinton's name on the bottom because of the hundreds of thousands of cables that are generated by the state department every year, by tradition, the name on the bottom of the cable is the secretary of state, whether it's hillary clinton or condy rice or colin powell, mad rin albright and whatever have you. the contents of that cable was generated outside of the state department. it did not instruct diplomats to spy. it simply was a cable that said these are things that are useful to us if you come across them. it didn't change the day to day activity of our diplomats. message like that arrived at post it was ignored. >> david from nicholas college,

south of wooster. >> i'm a holy cross graduate, so i know where all of you are coming from. >> far eco-zack rya said it was harmful to the state department and the united states government. how do you react to the suggestion that the american people should take solace in the way that the state department is dealing diplomatically, you know, based on what is in these cables? >> we are not embarrassed. we are embarrassed that confidential communications have been compromised and that means necessarily that the next time one of our ambassadors or one of my counterparts or other assistant secretary is talking to the leader of the country is cautious about what he tells us because they don't want to be on the front page of the furp. we're very proud of what they

do. we are pursuing our national interest and it helps create economic opportunities and jobs in this country and we are out there trying to resolve conflicts before they become all-out wars, but the -- there's no question that the revelations here which in many cases involve not -- as much as they involve what we think, it's detailing what other countries think, that has had an impact and we are going to have to take months, if not years to rebuild that trust and rebuild those relationships because of what's been disclosed. >> good morning. my name is paula and i'm from the miami-dade college. my question is how economic interests, mainly petroleum have interfered in the diplomatic relationship between venezuela and the united states? how do you think that this relationship can be improved?

how can an oppressed nation recover its freedom of speech? will the u.s. be willing to help venezuela to escape from becoming the next cuba? >> it is a relationship that we would like to see improve. secretary clinton on january 1st was in brazil for the inauguration of the new visit of brazil and she happened to have a brief encounter with president hugo chavez. the dilemma is that venezuela, for example, has has refused to have our ambassador candidate, larry palmer and it is -- his nomination was up for approval by the senate this past fall, but venezuela clearly told us if

his nomination was con firmed by the senate they would not allow him to present his credentials to the venezuela an government. we have ambassadors at posts around the world. it's to carry on the day to day interact between our country and that country. we have great concerns for trends in vep ven. we have great concerns that president chavez, among other things has taken dead aim at -- at media institutions and he's trying to intim date those in business. and there is, and in venezuela, and since he came to office. we would like to work with the venezuela ans to see if we can't

reverse that trend, but we'll have to work to see if we can try over time to establish more diplomatic relations with that country. >> i'm from the university of san diego. i'm wondering what is the interpretation of international relations within the state department? >> we're against it. what do you mean? >> like are most of the people in the state department realists, liberals -- and which one is -- >> i was having -- well, they're american citizens and they're patriots. most of our foreign policy has great continuity and we have a foreign service just like we have a military service and the foreign service serves whatever, you know,know, president and secretary of state is in office.

they're not political. they're very pragmaticpragmatic. most of us are realists. i was talking to a journalist the other day. he was reflecting on wikileaks and said what astounded him was the absence of ideology in the accounts of the day-to-day diplomacy that we conduct around the world. you know, we need these kinds of people, a profession sol, diplomatic service backed by a civil service who will just serve the needs of the american people in this construct of diplomacy and pursuing the civilian dimension of our national security, you know, strategy. it is important to remember, i spent 26 years in the air force so i can critique the two agencies that i have served both of them. you know, the military budget is

give or take going to be, you know, $550 billion, $560 billion for this year. can anybody guess what the budget is for the state department and foreign assistance? no guesses? one tenth. so $550 billion. $56 billion. the american people can be assured that you get a significant return on that investment. and in many cases, in the -- in developing -- in development, in diplomacy, you're trying to build something and also prevent something and we're very, very good at that. but it is not id logically driven. we are in afghanistan today because we are pursuing our national interest. we are engaged in pakistan today because we are trying to

mitigate a threat that's a threat to the united states as well as a threat to pakistan and that region of the world. we have diplomats in coat devoir trying to convince a dictator to leave office trying to promote democracy and have governments around the world that do, in fact, respect the will of their people. we're in haiti today on the eve of the anniversary of an earthquake, you know, not because, you know, haiti has, you know, some mineral or some oil that is of importance to our economy. because it's the right thing to do, it's humanitarian thing to do and it's country in our hemisphere that we think we can help, you know, rebuild. we are serving our interests and in serving our interests we're not a hedgeaman. we're concerning the interests of other regions and other people and other countries, as

well. >> hi. i'm megan from the university of san diego. and with the -- >> there is a trend here. >> qua. with the upcoming olympics being in brazil, do you think that the media spotlight on them will help create short term or long-term more civil society or democratic government? >> it's a very good question. and of course, you've got the olympics coming up in russia, as well. let me take you back, you know, very briefly. china hosted the olympics in the immediate past and this was very important to china. and, it was a ten or 15-year process and part of this was kind of the coming out of a country that had an uncertain relationship with the rest of the world. so, with the awarding of an olympics it recognizes that

countries like china and countries like brazil are emerging powers and that's a recognition of the increased role and importance they play in their region and around the world. we welcome that development. but at the same time, with that emerging power also comes responsibility. and just as china has a significant role to play in terms of the economy and security, so does brazil. and so, i would certainly think that that shines a spotlight but it also reflects a larger phenomenon that countries like brazil, countries like china and turkey and south africa are, you know, which hosted the world cup, are playing an increasingly important role in the world and we welcome that and want to work effectively with them for the benefit of all. >> we're going to take a few more questions.

>> okay. >> i'm from kosovo and that nato, it's a good organization for me to have helped us a lot but i'm also concerned as far as how media covers conflicts such as rwanda and kashmir and other third world countries to fight for change in peace and what is the foreign diplomacy doing to meet their needs? >> i don't exactly put that -- in all of those cases i don't exactly put a challenge like kashmir in a media context. kashmir is a very complex challenge and ultimately only effective, responsible governments in pakistan and india can sit quietly and try to resolve, you know, that challenge once and for all. i think the media actually play a important role here in making sure that challenges are not

forgotten. go back to what i was saying a moment ago. you know, we intervened along with others in europe in bosnia in the early and mid-'90s, but 15 years later that work is still not done. it's going to take a generation as you know better than anybody else if not longer to reduce and resolve the tensions underneath that conflict. you know, the same with kosovo. it is going to take a generational change before other neighboring countries are willing to accept a kosovo and its independence. you look at a challenge like haiti. i mean, a year ago we all remember the compelling pictures but it's going to take a decade or more to rebuild haiti. are we as american people and are we as international citizens going to be able to sustain that support for as long as it takes to resolve the challenge once

and for all? the media actually have an important role to play in keeping -- in, you know, keeping that spotlight bright enough so that leaders can marshal the political will and the resources to solve these challenges. on the way in to work this morning i was listening to the incoming chairwoman of the house foreign affairs committee who was looking at how you can cut foreign assistance to other countries. we have to put that in context. if you cut foreign assistance to other countries, what that means is that in front line states like iraq or afghanistan or pakistan, we'll not be devoting the resources for as long as it takes to resolve that challenge and iraq is a good example of we intervened in 1991. we did some very good things in 1991 but we didn't fix the problem which necessitated

having troops come back to that country 12 years later. we have to sustain our effort for as long as it takes and devote the necessary resources in partnership with others to actually fix these challenges, integrate the countries into the global system and have them play a responsible role in the future and that takes time and that takes money. and so, the media can be beneficial in helping to sustain public interest and public support for what we need to do. >> all right. my topic -- oh, first off i'm courtney from florida southern college in florida. my topic is something that i'm passionate about and that doesn't get the spotlight of the media as much as we want it to and there are issues in america today that do not receive as much media attention as it should. but i just was curious and had a question that what is the state

department doing to prevent and inform americans about the issue of human trafficking in american borders and whether that be sex trafficking or agricultural trafficking and human beings today in american borders? >> we actually do a lot. it is a -- it's a significant challenge around the world. coming up a little bit later this year we'll have an annual report on global trafficking in persons. you can see it on our website, you know, state.gov and country by country it goes through what the challenge is for the trafficking persons, particularly, you know, women who might be trafficked for or taken advantage of for a variety of reasons. and that very definitely informs our policies and our relationships with each of these countries and we will rate countries as to what effective steps we are taking to both

intercede to prevent trafficking of people and also to help and support those who are victims of trafficking in persons. and the secretary of state has said that we are not immune. you know, so just as we look and evaluate and we assess eveffort in other countries, the secretary has made clear that we should also and this upcoming report will assess what we the united states are doing within our own borders prevent traffi >> thank you very much. have a good day. [applause] >> thank you so much. in the old days, it was payola. [laughter] >> thank you very much. >> and we appreciate -- [applause] >> we appreciate so much his

participation and we have marvin kalb coming up next who will keep us in our foreign policy theme for the date at least in part. i haven't talked about his remarks with him. but don't you notice the intersection between politics and the process of foreign policy. and how not only it separates the left and right into warring factions, but how it also -- when you become the president and you're looking out through those windows in the oval office, it in a way brings us together because it has to be a unified foreign policy. and, therefore, it is a very worthwhile discussion for politics in the media. thanks again, p.j. crowley. >> okay, we'll take a quick little 1-minute break.

really quick before -- i guess before we do that break. i've lived in washington now for several years. and coming from montana, you don't see a whole lot of television cameras out on your front lawn every day. and a couple weeks ago, a couple months ago i was on my way to work. running a little late. i had my ipod ear phones on the way on the metro coming to work and there was a television camera on the -- on the lawn of the apartment building that i was living in and i didn't think anything of it. and they came up with a microphone and wanted to ask me a question. i just kept on trucking 'cause i was running a little late and had the ear phones and didn't think anything of it and maybe they're doing another story on the ridiculously high rents there in washington, d.c. well, i get to work and i find out that there are -- well, i already heard the stories but i found out that several of the russian spies that were here in the united states -- of those several, two of them were living

in my building. [laughter] >> and what befuddled me even more when i think of the state department, one of my roommates works for the state department. and how interesting of an environment washington, d.c. is when we talk about diplomacy and the international relations. and washington, d.c., and the media and there was this television crew wanting to know had i ever met any of the russian supervise. and my answer is, no, i never have, but that afternoon when i came home from work, i'm walking through the parking lot and the license plates of cars that are registered to the great state of virginia, commonwealth of virginia, all of three letters followed by three numbers. and sure enough, there's car in the parking lot and can anybody guess what the three letters of the license plate were? kgb. [laughter] >> anybody know what the kgb was, anybody not know what the kgb was?

great, i wanted to make sure i wasn't too old. we'll take another 1 to 2-minute break and then we'll have our next speaker. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a live picture now from the national press club here in washington. as the national alliance to end homelessness is releasing its nationwide report today. rhode island senator jack reed is taking part in this event and

we're bringing it to you live here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> again standing by for remarks of rhode island senator jack reed. he's taking part of this event with the national press club with the national alliance to end homelessness. they are releasing their nationwide report today. we do expect it to get underway in just a couple moments on c-span2. while we wait the u.s. house is in session today.

members are devoting the day to a resolution honoring those who were killed, injured that were injured last week in the shooting in tucson, arizona. among the injured, gabrielle giffords who remains in critical condition at the university of arizona medical center. and during the day, members are coming to the floor offering their thoughts on the matter. today at 12:30, the house is expected to go into recess for a prayer service on capitol hill to honor those affected by the shooting. that service is to start at 1:00 pm herein it's expected to last an hour. we do expect the house to go back to the house to continue their tributes. you can see our tributes on our companion network on c-span. very quickly in arizona and tucson, arizona, a memorial event for the victims of the shooting. >> good morning, everyone. and thank you for coming to our release of state of homelessness in america.

i am nan roman president of the national alliance to end homelessness. state of homelessness is a plan to be an annual report that will examine two things. whether homelessness has gone up or down since the last year's report. and what the economic and demographic causes of homelessness look like over that same period. we'll answer these questions both nationally and for each state. typically when we think about homelessness we focus on homelessness programs and homelessness assistance as being responsible for whether the number of homeless people goes up or down. homelessness assistance is definitely part of the equation but the other part is larger outside drivers like unemployment and housing costs. and this report really focuses on those economic factors. state of homelessness shows that homelessness which had been declining over the past few

years went up between 2008 and 2009. and that this increase was associated with the economic recession. the total number of homeless people was 656,129 and that was up 3%. also populations of homeless people went up. however, families went up most, about 4%. the number of chronically homeless people went up less than 1%. just a note about the data that we used for the homeless numbers, we used data from counts that communities submit to hud. the data are not perfect but we examine them carefully and they are adjusted where we find problems with them. although not without limitations, we think that the data do present a valid picture of what's going on in terms of homelessness in america. the homelessness went up -- this is probably not a surprise to anyone given the recession. we looked at several economic factors that are associated with

homelessness to see what happened to them during the period. unemployment, unemployment, of course, is up some 60% more people were unemployed during the period we looked at. incomes, low wage worker incomes were down about 2%. that's twice as much as the rate of workers incomes fell overall in the country. housing, the number of people who were low income and doubled up went up 12% over the period we looked at. people who become homeless were often doubled up before they became homeless. so this has obviously appearance big effect. the number of severely housing cost burdened households which are low-incomed households that are paying more than 50% of their income -- more than half of their income for their rent went up 9% so these housing factors also have an impact on the number of homeless people. so the national picture is that the economy did poorly especially for low-incomed

people and as a result, homelessness went up. while the national picture is clear, the picture in the states varies. in some places the number of homelessness went up and some went down. in 19 of the states homelessness went down and in the majority of the states, 27, homelessness went down among chronically homeless people. similarly the economic causes of homelessness did not behave consistently. in some states the factors got worse and other places they got better. or the picture was mixed that was more typical. we did find that states had the most signs of economic distress were the states that had the biggest increases in homelessness. so if you hear locally or talk to local communities that say that their numbers went up substantially more than 3%, that wouldn't be a surprise. also, it says we said it's true that in some communities, the numbers actually went down during this period.

but homelessness did get worse nationally because of the recession. and it's important to remember that these data are comparing '09 with 2008. this was early on really before some of the interventions that later emerged to help prevent recession related homelessness kicked into gear. it's also important to remember that homelessness is a lagging indicator. people don't become homeless on the day they lose their job. it typically takes a while for that happen so the pressure is not yet off. we anticipate that there could be continued increases in 2010 and 2011. on the other hand, the good news really is that the number could have been a lot worse. what's been happening in communities to forestall a recession-related increase in homelessness what have people been doing? in a lot of places, the number of homeless people went down during this period so communities are to be

congratulated for improving their homeless systems, for redouble their efforts for investing wisely in solutions. those things can obviously work and did work. an example of this was the big increase in permanent support of housing during the period. the result of which was that the chronic homeless numbers did not go up at all, barely at all. since this report, communities and the federal government have continued to take steps to try to prevent homelessness increases. communities are focus in prevention and getting people into housing faster and the federal government has stepped up with a $1.5 billion federal stimulus program and rapid rise program. it also passed the heather act authored by senator reed who's going to join us that funds action oriented activities and these are upcoming but these resources are not adequate to meet all of the projected needs nor will they probably last long enough. so we'll be discussing a little

later what can be done to prevent further increases in homelessness. i now would like to introduce bill sermons. bill is the author along with pete witty who's also here of the report and he is the director of the homelessness research institute which is the research arm of the national alliance to end homelessness and he's going to tell you a little bit more about what's in the repor report. >> thanks, nan. and thanks everybody in attendance today. you should have all found copies of the report in your seats. the binder -- or the folder that you have has a copy of the full report. and what you'll find inside is a report that consists of three main chapters. the first chapter looks at 2009 levels and 2008 to 2009 changes in overall homelessness and for individuals for the nation and each state. recognizing the impact of housing affordibility and income

on homelessness, the second chapter looks at 2009 levels and changes from '08 to '09 in four economic factors and factors, the number of unpeople the number of households below of the poverty line that pay half their income on households, average real incomes of working poor people and the number of residential units in foreclosure. these measures are reported nationally and also for each state. further recognizing another truth about homelessness that some specific groups of people are at increased risk of experiencing homelessness, chapter 3 looks at the 2009 levels and '08 to '09 changes in the sizes of four specific groups. these are low-incomed people who are doubled up, that is living with family and friends for economic reasons. young adults who have aged out of foster care, people discharged from jail or prison and people without health

insurance. these indicators are all reported against nationally and at the state level. as i move into presenting some additional findings from the report i'd like to acknowledge the very hard work of pete witty, my co-author and has katherine and shaun. it's an honor to be able to present our team's work today. nan provided an overview of the major findings in the report particularly at the national level. and i won't repeat those here but i'd like to highlight some additional findings including some insights into some of the state level data. nan mentioned in her introduction that while the nations saw an increase in overall homelessness, the individual states point decreases. and this is the wide variability across states and also in individual communities. by contrast, one thing that stood out when we were looking at the economic data was the relative consistent worsening of the economic circumstances

across states. between 2009 -- 2008 and 2009, the number of unemployed people increased in all states. the number of doubled-up low-incomed people increased in 45 states. the number of units in foreclosure increased in 42 states. and the number of severely housing cost burdened households increased in 40 states. the ubiquity of the increases across states points to the widespread economic pressures faced by families experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. and to the demands on the systems that serve them. the first three chapters focus on homelessness and the economic and demographic factors that i talked about separately. chapter 4 looks at the economic and demographic factors in their relationship to the measures of homelessness that are in the report. a review reveals a handful of states, states like florida and nevada and california have rates of unemployment, cost burden, doubling up, lack of insurance, all worse than the national

averages. and so not surprisingly, all of these states also have high rates of homelessness and they also have changes from 2008 to 2009 well above the 3% national increase. the report goes on to identify additional states with multiple high or worsening economic and demographic factors as well. lastly, the report combines 12-month shelter use data from hud with data on doubled-up people, young adults who age out of foster care and people discharged from prison and estimates that all three of those populations have annual odds of experiencing homelessness of 1 in 11 or greater. these relatively high odds speak clearly to the need to address these and other high risk groups and efforts to end homelessness. an appendix in the back of the record provides specifics about

the data used in this report which relies most heavily on the 2008, 2009 january point in time counts conducted by over 450 communities across the country and reported to hud. and on the census bureau 2008 and 2009 american community survey microdata. sources also include foreclosure data from realty track, unemployment data from the bureau of labor statistics and data on prison releases and foster care emancipations from the departments of justice and health and human services respectively. sources using the report represent the most recent available national data. newer national data on homelessness and most of the indicators will be available toward the end of this year. i want to close with a little bit of background. two years ago, we released a report called homelessness counts, changes in homelessness from 2005 to 2007.

the second in the homelessness count series. at that time, we were in the midst of a major economic downturn that was ultimately declared the recession of 2007 to 2009. because of the economic services at that time, the question that most people wanted answered was, what will this recession mean for homelessness? and while we knew anecdotally that many homeless service providers across the country were reporting increased demands for services and unemployment would lead to increased poverty and lead to increased homelessness there was no archive of national annual homeless data from past economic crises that we could consult to validate this expectation. fortunately, given the fact that annual national counts have been conducted since 2005, these data are available for 2007 to 2009 and the state of homelessness in america provides the first of its kind 5x5 look at changes in homelessness and the relevant

economic and demographic factors. as nan mentioned, this is the first in the state of homelessness series which we expect to release annually. because of the relatively slow pace of economic recovery through 2010, it is expected that the next issue in the series will again focus largely on the economy's impact. it will also be where the first -- the first where the initial impacts of efforts like the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program will begin to be evident. thank you for your attention and i'll turn it back over to nan. thanks. >> thank you, bill. we'll be taking questions at the end about the report. but in the meantime, homelessness really can seem, when you read a report like this or hear comments about it, to be rather an abstract concept but for people who experience it obviously it's all too real. and i want to introduce you now to ebony roscoe, ebony and her

children were homeless. they were living in the community of hope which is a wonderful organization here in dc that helps homeless families and thanks to the resources of the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program that bill and i both mentioned earlier, ebony and her family were able to move into an apartment and now she has a job with the mental health services organization. so ebony is going to give us a little bit of a perspective of the reality of homelessness and what it means in human terms to see these kinds of numbers increase. ebony? >> hello. my name is ebony roscoe. several years ago i moved to washington, d.c., from charlotte, north carolina, with my four children. we had need an unhealthy marriage that i was involved. i moved in with my brother who is staying here in washington, d.c. and without a job and stayed

there for approximately four months. i stayed unemployed for 20 months. during the of unemployment and even while employed now, i make ends meet with assistance that i receive. benefits from social service have decreased tremendously but we still try to make things do with the current situation that we're in. homelessness and unemployment took a toll on me and my family. but we were able to receive the things that -- i'm sorry, my children weren't able to receive the things that they wanted as being children such as like bikes and small toys that they wanted during the time. we had to relocate so staying -- staying and feeling stable within a school was difficult. it was hard enough moving from place to place and not knowing where we were actually going to be staying. so making and keeping stable friends made them feel sad at times. plus, they didn't have a place to call home.

we were finally housed by community of hope, a local housing program here in washington, d.c., with resources from the hprp program, my family and i were able to find permanent housing. finding housing is like a brick being lifted off of my soldiers shoulders and being placed back on the ground. my family and i are able to move and be more involved in our school and in the community. without being restricted to any time frame. also, it gives my children security, and they are happier. you can tell when they want to have a sleepover or have some of their friends over i'm able to say yes and make the decision without turning to someone else for approval. i'm able to build my independence again and make wiser choices when it comes to living with the necessities and wants. it makes a significant difference for secure, confidence stability but for children it gives them a piece of a childhood that they can say

is like everyone else's in their eyes. it's difficult to see parents who have problems and not know if the children blame themselves or if they will later in life blame themselves. you never know what children are going through in the midst. i'm sorry. but to see the change so drastic and for them to see a positive direction. if you keep aiming high and to change things in a bad situation, that they can go through anything and overcome and see themselves come on top. moving forward, i'm aiming to increase my income to better support me and my family and eventually purchase a vehicle so that i can expand my children's eyes in the world. i would like to get back to my community because when i needed it, they gave it to me. [applause]

>> thank you so much, ebony. i know it's not always so easy to tell your personal stories in front of people so i appreciate -- we really appreciate you doing that. the state of homelessness shows us not surprisingly that homelessness is linked to economic factors like unemployment and low wages and that as a result of the recession, homelessness is up. it also raises concerns that since homelessness is a lagging indicator, it may continue to rise over the next few years. what can congress and the administration do to avoid increased homelessness. while obviously as the report shows, there are two dimensions to this. one is the bigger picture that reduced unemployment, decent wages, in short and improved economy will lift all boats. and especially if housing costs stay a little bit lower. so as the economy improves, we

expect that to have a positive impact, obviously, on the number of homeless people. we need congress and the administration to target their economic interventions, though, to the very lowest-incomed people because it's the very lowest-incomed people who have been hit the hardest by the recession. and although resources are scarce, experience tell us that letting people become homeless because of budget cuts is a false savings. increased medical, education, housing and law enforcement costs eat up anything that might appear to be saved. now is not the time to abandon the most vulnerable people. scarce resources should be targeted to those people who need them most. since we will face a period of time before the economy recovers obviously and even longer before those benefits reach the poorest people, we will need to rely on the homelessness assistance system in the short run to help people, obviously. the homelessness prevention and

rapid rehousing program and other emergency resources are helping now. but they need to be replaced when they run out and they need to be strengthened. and communities across the country have shifted their homelessness approach from band-aid approaches to housing solutions to prevention to rehousing and to planning to end homelessness. these communities have developed plans to end homelessness. we need congress and the administration, good timing, to -- [laughter] >> which also the administration by the way also has a really excellent plan to end homelessness, opening doors which focuses on ending homelessness over the next 10 years. we need congress and the administration to continue to support these local and national plans to end homelessness and to fund them to succeed. and one of the real leaders in congress really our leader on homelessness is senator jack

reed from rhode island. we know he does not need any introduction to any of the people in the room but let me just say we will rely and continue to rely on senator reed to advance the issues relating to homelessness and homeless veterans. he authored and led the heather bill which is really going to change the help communities change their homelessness assistance to be much more solution and outcome oriented and really refiguring the approach to homelessness at the local level, his experience at west point and as an army ranger has -- has only strengthened his commitment to homeless veterans and he has been a leader in that issue as well. so we look forward to continuing to work with him to solve the issues of homelessness in the country and we're delighted to have him with us today. thank you so much, senator reed? [applause] >> thank you very much, nan, for those very kind words.

and i also want to recognize nan for her extraordinary work in leading this national alliance but bill sermons who's a researcher, bill, thank you for your great efforts and ebony roscoe, ebony is a consumer advocate a community of hope graduate and thank you so much. i also have to recognize on my staff james and tara who actually do the work. i get to give speeches. they actually do the work extraordinarily gifted and committed individuals. i've been engaged for many years in trying to address appropriately the issue of homelessness. as a young lawyer in rhode island, i was asked to go to be a pro bono lawyer for a a soup kitchen and homeless shelter in south providence and i began to understand homelessness in this

country. today's report state of homelessness in america, it's gotten much worse despite the efforts and despite the extraordinary contributions of individuals across this country. the partnerships that have evolved. one, it's a reflection of the most difficult economic circumstances we've seen since the great depression. that has taken a huge toll and not surprisingly in terms of the homeless population as well as other americans. and this is not just about a topic, a policy issue. it's about people. our neighbors. our fellow americans who are facing some very, very severe challenges. one of the ironies back home in my state of rhode island is that the average rent, monthly rent, has increased 45% at a time when the housing market is collapsing.

the residential housing market is collapsing. that is a bit of irony for people who are struggling to make ends meet struggling frankly in too many cases middle incomed families who have to give up their home and now have to look at soaring rents in the rental markets. that is a very bitter situation and all too prevalent in our communities, not just rhode island but in rhode island particularly we've seen the unemployment rate go from 6% to as high as 12.7% in 2008. it's come down to 11% plus now. still unacceptable. and the homeless population, no surprise, has increased dramatically. about 34% from 2008 to 2009 in rhode island. and what else is happening and what is identified in this report is the doubling up phenomenon, people moving in with other families. technically not homeless but as the report points out, if you're double up, there's a 1 in 10

chance that you'll be homeless very shortly. and the providence journal in one of their reports, my leading newspaper, more than half of rhode islanders sleeping on cots and mattresses in 2010 remember homeless for the first time. this is not the situation, the chronic individuals with several different issues, housing, health care issues, et cetera. these are people who have always had a home until very recently. so this issue of homelessness which has always been at the forefront of your efforts is now taking on an even more important dimension in our country and our neighborhood. the federal government, state government, local governments cannot tackle this issue alone. we need this kind of partnership that you're on the forefront but we all understand the fiscal pressures that are building in every level of government. that means we have to be more

innovative, bring more ingenuity to these efforts, more partnership, more collaboration, more of those things that will put people in homes with less resources to do it. now, i'm here to work as i've tried to in the past to help you in your efforts. we must build on a passage of the hearth in 2009. it's not sufficient to make a legislative statement and not put the resources behind it to actually help people and we've got to do that. that's going to be a challenge. it's going to require your grassroots efforts across the country to help my colleagues battle from difficult choices of priorities about where we put resources. and this is going to require a national effort in the rural communities, in the urban communities. one of the things about the hearth act there's significant

improvements in how we deal with rural homelessness and this was a central city issue not an issue affecting the great plains and the small towns of america. it's there. unfortunately. and this hearth act has some better approaches so i hope we can engage all of my colleagues in this effort. we're beginning an effort today but actually continuing an effort. i can recall again thinking back to the late '80s and when i came down here for a march against homelessness in the 1980s in washington, all across the country, that spirit is still alive. even in this very difficult environment. and the reason it's alive, frankly, because you, ladies and gentlemen, but you have not forgotten we are literally our brothers and sisters keepers and that's an important thing to remember. thank you very much. [applause]

>> well, you can see why we're so grateful to have senator reed on our side working on this issue. thank you so much, senator reed. and now bill and i would be glad to entertain any questions you may have about state of homelessness in america. yes. >> i wanted to ask you about -- about homelessness in the district. and i wonder if you had a chance to look at the data and credit that to whether that was a policy or what were your explanation for that? >> well, i think here in the district, speaking from my own experiences as a resident of the district, that really was as a result of a policy to house chronically homeless people so

there was a real effort on the part of the district government to identify chronically homeless people and get them into permanent supportive housing. there was also a big effort to house homeless veterans in the district. identify them and house them using hud -- the hud federal program. and also families who were also housed so there was a policy change in the district focusing on housing. >> do you have any numbers on how many houses like yours in the country now? >> it's a good question. we do have information in the report about the number -- total number of beds broken out by -- into three categories. sort of permanent supportive housing beds. also looking at transitional housing beds and emergency shelter beds and so i think the 2009 numbers on shelter beds were about 180,000 in terms of transitional housing beds, about

185,000 and in terms of permanent supportive housing beds around 215,000. >> there was an increase also, i believe -- there was an increase in permanent supportive housing beds of 11,000 between '08 and '09. >> given the variation that you found among states, did you look at what was working in a systemic way in the states where there was a decrease? i mean, you focus on the risk factors in the states where there was an increase but did you see in terms of states that spent more and allocated more of their budgets to this or what did you see that's consistent in those states whether there was a decrease? >> rights. and, you know, one of the things that's true is that these efforts tend to happen at very local levels. you know, one of the series that we have, of our publication series we have community snapshot series where we look at individual communities and our last three series which focused on wichita, quincy and alameda county all showed that from '08

to '09 there were individual communities that had decreases in specific populations and in overall homelessness in the context of the same economic factors that we're looking at. in this report we don't really look at sort of identifying one single factor that seemed to drive things. although we did find -- and i didn't mention it in my findings, a particular association between high rates of severe housing cost burden for poor households and high rates of homelessness and so those two seem to go together. >> any questions or comments? yes. >> you talked about the inadequacy of the resources that are available for homelessness programs. you probably also are aware for many cities across the country are in severe financial distress and there are estimates -- some people are estimating 50 to 100 municipalities are going bankrupt. do you have any sense what kind

of impact -- if this continues -- if the cities continue to collapse this way, what kind of impact that will have? >> well, we're obviously very concerned about the current situation and the numbers going up because of the pressures you mentioned because, you know, the things that are talked about in the report in terms of income unemployment continue but also as you say, really the state and local budget cuts had not hit when this report came -- when the data from this report was accessed so we're very concerned about the numbers going up because of all of those factors. and the communities are going to have to do much, much more with much, much less because of the lack of state and local resources. i think with respect to state and local government resources it's also not only a matter of funding the homeless assistance programs for people after they become homeless but also whether those cuts are going to cause more homelessness because of

inadequate mental health services, substance abuse treatment and supports for families. so we're worried about it. you know, the counter-veiling pressure this report does not impact the homelessness rapid recovery housing funding which we hope will push back some of those potential increases. and really the change strategies that communities are taking. but we are very, very concerned about increasing numbers. >> what do you think of states like south carolina where the risk factors are going to up but then homelessness is going down? >> i think as i sort of alluded to before, i think and maybe nan will answer that with ebony sort of communicating her story, you know, every individual, you know, that experiences homelessness has a very sort of unique circumstance. and i think that shows up when you look at the fact -- when you

look in states, you know, the same factors that may be caused homelessness to increase in one state may not have the exact same impact. nan mentioned the fact that homelessness is also a lagging indicator so as we move forward with future reports we'll be able to take a little better look at that. one of the things that can't be overlooked and shouldn't be overlooked is that in the face of a lot of these overwhelming economic challenges, communities have adapted. they have innovated and introduced strategies to try to deal with homelessness to prevent it. and so i think we can't overlook, you know, the commendable work that's been done all across the country. >> any questions? >> over the years you guys have been great about identifying the different populations, especially chronic homelessness or, you know, youth aging out of foster case is there a new face

of homelessness under the whole foreclosure crisis that we should be proactive about are making new alliances, you know, because there's like a world out there preventing foreclosures and something that we should be doing nationally or as we were talking about it? >> i'll let bill speak to the foreclosure connection because he has worked on that but i will just mention something we didn't mention earlier, which is the report identifies that only a very small group of homeless youth were counted by communities, was it 12,000; is that right? >> yes >> there are 12 more than 12,000 homeless youth in the country. and one thing that we feel that we're very concerned about is that we don't have a handle on the problem of homelessness among youth. we don't have a handle on the numbers. we don't have a good assessment of the solutions. and we called a lot of -- we called the communities that had

reported no homeless youth which a lot of -- was it 30% of the continuum of no youth at all. i don't know about the new face of the homelessness but that is a population that i think we join with the federal government and the u.s. interagency council on homelessness and hha and hud trying to get a better handle of that problem and the solutions. >> and certainly as it relates to foreclosure, yeah, i see some people that help -- there was a joint multiorganization effort on the foreclosure to homelessness report. and one of the findings in the report was that while, you know, the majority of people being served by, you know, homeless assistance organizations are not there due to foreclosure. they're still are -- i think the report estimated 5 to 10%, you know, of serving organizations reported some of their -- the people that they were serving were experiencing foreclosures

so i think that there's -- there's a mix. there's a lot of people who were experiencing the same kinds of factors that would have led them into homelessness before the foreclosure crisis and a lot of additional people who are having additional stresses whether it would be foreclosure or unemployment that they just wouldn't have imagined a few years before. >> a follow-up to that we're still a nation at war. so what's the status of homeless veterans and specifically in increased homelessness or decreased or awareness of communities of that population. >> we don't report on homeless veteran numbers this time around at least in part because in the past, the va had a system of counting or estimating the size of the homeless veteran population. they've recently teamed up with hud to come up with a new methodology and they're releasing that as an addendum to

hud's report and so as that becomes a regularly sort of issued item and as the methodologies of that become clear, we'll be able to report on -- be able to report on that. >> i just would mention there is a national goal that the department of veterans affairs set the goals to ending veteran homelessness in five years. that's big priority for us as well. the number has been going down, which is a really good thing. and there's no reason we should have any homeless people, there's no reason we should have any homeless veterans. this is a solvable problem. and i think it's very -- there's a lot of political will behind it, and i'm pretty sure we'll be able to make good progress, we as a nation will be able to good progress on that moving ahead. other questions? very good. well, thank you all so much for coming. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> there's a new way for you to follow congress with c-span's congressional chronicle. track the daily floor timelines, read transcripts and find a full video archive of each member. congressional chronicle, separate of c-span's video library. it's washington your way.

>> a little later today we'll have a live update from arizona university medical center on the condition of congresswoman gabrielle giffords and other victims of last weekend's shootings. that's at noon eastern here on c-span2. >> the papers this morning are still talking about what happened over the weekend and here is the headline in the "washington post" this morning. could this be a moment or political middle? it says as the debate over civility and politics continues in the wake of the shootings in tucson, groups founded to push bipartisanship could this be a political middle. and heated discussions over immigration and health care moderates groups on the right and left are hoping their method of comity could can finally take hold. the house republican leadership's decision to delay the health care debate and lawmakers from both parties talking about the need to interact more with members on

the opposite side of the aisle. it goes on to say when you go back to the type of rhetoric we saw in the 18th century, people would saw the face of a pig. our rhetoric is as heated as people think it is. it's actually less heated than thomas jefferson would have welcomed. moments of bipartisanship have weighed on the nation's political leaders before. most were short-lived. on capitol hill, we talked about what lawmakers are considering for security. "the washington post" notes this, steve cohen, democrat from tennessee says that he is reapplying for a state permit to carry a concealed weapon even if he didn't necessarily plan to carry the pistol to public events. he joins jason chaffetz and others who have also said -- who are considering carrying a gun. republican and democratic leaders signaled that closer coordination with local law enforcement was a practical first step after the arizona shootings. beyond that, talks centered on legislation that would make it a

crime to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of elected or high ranking federal official at publicly announced events and a proposal to install a plexiglass enclosure it off protect from spectators and congress rolling back a 5% gop congressional cut at spending and redirecting that money towards security. house speaker john boehner democrat of ohio seemed cool on the ideas. that's from the "washington post" this morning about possible changes in the wake of those tucson shootings. we want to hear from all of you about what you think should change. here is a new cbs news poll out. this was in the "baltimore sun" this morning. did have it anything to do with the shootings. 57% of those polled in this cbs shooting said no, 32% said when

you break it down by party, republicans 19% said yes. 69% said no. 42% of democrats believe that it did have something to do with arizona shootings. while 49% said no. and independents, 33% did not believe it had anything to do with it. and 56% -- excuse me, 33% said it did have something to do with it. 56% said no. washington, d.c., george is a democrat. he's our first caller this morning. what do you think if anything should change? zblaek >> caller: first of all let me say what a beautiful thing the congresswoman was and i looked back on the statements she made on c-span and other places. just a civil, decent human being and my thoughts and prayers go out to her as well as the other victims. i hadn't been listening to talk radio for a while because really

i got tired of the vitriol and i've been listening to talk radio since braeden and buchanan so i go back aways and i tuned in after the shooting on monday with the hopes of finding a difference and, of course, there weren't any. if they were still talking about the same things and it is upsetting but i think we should realize that this is nothing new. i mean, there were times in our country when our politicians actually had duels. i think the only difference is the speed in which these comments reverberate. and they reverberate at the speed of light. i'm an avid shooter. i have guns. i will always own guns. i go to a shooting range in virginia and i will tell you i feel the safest when i'm at that shooting range. people are very civil to each other. and i've never experienced any

problems at all. i think there were plenty of warning signs with this young man. i think whenever the army rejects a 22-year-old man at wartime, that's the biggest flag that any of us need. >> host: it sounds like you don't gun laws should be changed but perhaps there needs -- >> caller: no --. >> host: with flagging people who have mental issues? >> caller: i absolutely don't think gun laws should be changed. i have guns. i know lots of people who have guns. and i've never had an issue. keep in mind, greta, that the people that are going to be affected by these law changes are the law-abiding. people who -- you know, your criminals and you are deranged types, they don't care anything about laws. so when you change these laws, you directly impact law-abiding american citizens. so, no, i don't think that we should change any laws at all. >> george --

>> caller: that guy never should have been allowed to have a weapon. he was clearly unstable. >> host: let me get your direction to bloomberg report. glock pistols jumped amid ban concerns. sales of arizona jumped 60% to 263 on january 10th compared with 164 the corresponding monday one year ago. handgun sales rose 65% to 395 in ohio. 16% to 672 in california. 38% to 348 in illinois. and 33% to 206 in new york. what do you make of that? >> caller: well, i will tell you this, i wish someone was in that audience who had -- who had a gun and could have taken this guy out. again, i go back to my original statement that when i'm at my shooting range in virginia, i feel completely safe and you should see the high caliber pistols that are used there.

and the multiple clips and all the rest of it. if people that go into these situations know that they can possibly encounter armed resistance, trust me, crazy or not, they're not going to do it or they're going to at least think about -- think about it before they do it. >> host: all right. back to your phone calls, jonathan a republican in l.a. what do you think if anything should change? >> caller: i believe that when politicians have these get-togethers, i believe like -- these politicians to deter someone from trying to shoot people and things like that. and i also think that like a lot of people are like seeing replay a factor in this like the dude smoking pot, you know, kind of crazy and i don't think that's true. i think that should change also. i don't think pot makes people want to shoot people. >> host: have you ever attended a political event with your

member of congress? >> caller: no. >> host: do you plan to? second thoughts about it? >> caller: well, yeah. i'm 19. so, you know, i'm kind of just getting into politics and stuff like that. >> host: the front page of the "new york times" has a story about threats to members of congress but the headlines rarely precedes attacks. as they investigate the shooting of gabrielle giffords, democrats of arizona a review of hundreds of cases involving threats to lawmakers from 2000 to 2009, demonstrates just how hard it is to discern the real threats from mere bluffs. so far no reports that gabrielle giffords assailant ever communicated a threat to her or her staff. studies of assaults on public figures that attackers almost never telegraphed their intentions to their targets or to the authorities ahead of time. that suggests that the threats to lawmakers are likely being made by people other than those they most need to worry about. law enforcement officials say that the authorities must take

threats seriously and make sure there's no real peril. in most instances lawmakers report incidents to the united states capitol police threat assessment division which refers soch to the fbi. dayton, ohio, anna is a democrat. morning. >> most of us, our hearts go out to the family members who have been injured and killed. so -- i mean, i think we're all on the same page on that one. but i noticed as i flipped through the channels there's some really important discussions going on in regard to -- and i know nothing about guns, but on ed schultz doing a lot of talk about the number of clips and are they really necessary? and that type of gun that the mentally challenged individual who used that gun and then the enforcement of existing gun laws and then how far -- i've been hearing them discuss how far these, you know, people should be able to get -- you know, how close they can get to congress

people. and again, and their choices of words that some of our political leaders are using. you know, not saying that sarah palin or glenn beck or limbaugh or any of those guys who have outrageous language used towards the public and it does incite and encourage others to use that type of language. and it is very, very dangerous and needs to be looked at. >> host: anna, it needs to be looked at. what does that mean for changes? do you think there should be some laws on the books? >> caller: well, i mean, i know -- i really do feel like if i as a -- i call those of us out here peasants, i think many of us went around using language like that out loud, i think you or i would be thrown in prison quite frankly, because it does incite anger and hatred and -- i mean, i mean, i know palin at some of her public, you know, situations -- she would just sort of fuel that type of anger and i think it is very dangerous.

so i don't know if someone should be thrown in prison for that. i know the freedom of speech piece, but people need to be more responsible including sarah palin. so i think all those things need to be looked at. >> host: that's anna, a democrat. in ohio let's go to harold also in ohio. canton, ohio, a republican. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i'm so-called you took my call. hey, yesterday a man called and wished that someone in the audience had had a gun and again today same thing. do you not know a man named joe was in the grocery store next door, a store next door heard the shots, ran towards the gunman. he did have a gun in his pocket. he did help secure the man. he did take the gun away from the older gentleman who was holding up. he said don't hold that up there. you will become a target, too. anyway, my point is this, if he would have shot the man, in my book he would have been a hero. i wonder what some of these other people -- how would

they -- would they put him in jail or something like that. second thing, my congressman, a freshman congressman, just came back, he replaced my congressman. they had four policemen inside and four policemen outside. can we really afford that in starke county they are laying off the sheriff's deputies and every city is going broke. where is the end going to be? and the third thing, if gabrielle should die, i don't take this the wrong way, i'm praying that she does survive, but if she should die, she would be such a wonderful person to donate her body parts. i know that several people who are going to dialysis day in and day out. >> we'll leave it there. go to an independent, daniel in