because the use of the word "tactical" does have a number of imprecise aspects to it. so that's a very important point. i do see the russians refer to "tactical" nuclear weapons, but it's in comments on what we have to say, it's not in their own doctrinal writings, so i would agree in that regard. >> might actually suggest that one thing that could perhaps be done between now and the next round of negotiations is maybe some in these working groups actually beginning to talk to the russians, what would be a common theme for cat guiding nuclear weapons? i suspect when we talk about strategic, nonstrategic, tactical, we may have a different way of classifying than the russians do, and having a common language on that, i think, would facilitate another round of talks. >> and the council years before the sort of warmer feelings that sprung out of lisbon's summit, they do have these joint definitions which the russians presented their definitions of

what tactical means, and the u.s. presented its definitions of what tactical means, and those could be a starting point for how both sides conceive of what tactical nuclear weapons are. >> yes, ma'am. please. you, yes. the microphone here. thanks. >> hi. sally horn, independent consultant. i have a question for all of the panelists. i was struck by what you said, cliff, about what are the lessons that could be learned from the debate on the hill and the actual negotiations. i'd like to ask if you could take that a little bit further in terms of what are the lessons that could be learned in terms of the perceptions, you know, for example, some recent russian public writings have suggested one of their key concerns is not today, but what might happen in the future which is suggestive of of a policy concern about what direction might we go and

how might that impact their concept of their deterrence? when you look at some of the writings of the senators on the hill, what you also take away from that is some concern about policy concerns. not the numbers, not, not even their tactical or questions about the technical aspects of verification, but underpinning it all is a broader policy concern about direction. i'm bond withering if you might -- wondering if you might speak to the question of what lessons might be learned about what you perceive as this underpinning of perceptions and views, and how do we deal with that moving forward in the era of further cooperation with the russians? ..

that may have the opposite but unintended impact of making the russians press even harder in the next round of negotiation for limits on missile defense. my guess in this end was that the russians finally accepted during the new start negotiations that it was a very effective tone, they looked at the new s.t.a.r.t. period and said we would announce ten years to 20242021 and when we look at the approach that described a

very good indication, with defensive forces. but if you are talking about a follow-on agreement of 20205 to 2030 or 2035 the russians have a lot less clarity about where missile defense is going to be and there is concern on the russian side. one way to counter that is to extend their offensive force. one of the issues that will come up in the next round will be the russians perhaps even harder for constrained on missile defense and that is why i hope very much this pact with nato russian cooperation can be developed because that may be the way to get out of that. >> part of the question gets to how robust are you on relations

overall and indeed over the last several decades there have been many peaks and valleys in the relationship. we go through difficult times in any bilateral relationship but it seems we have been on quite a roller-coaster ride with regards to the relationship with russia. one of the core reason the obama administration has been so intent on its new policy has been to try to in short that we have a robust relationship across a number of policies. we are here to talk about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and where to go another nuclear arms control but i would like to wonderscore that if we notice our relationship with russia has undergone great strengthening in

the last couple years, the 123 agreement, little notice that something like the afghanistan transport agreement. that was reached at the same time that we were doing our first joint understanding with the russians in support of the new s.t.a.r.t. negotiations in july when president obama went to moscow. little recognized but in fact now we are transporting an enormous amount of material for combat operations in afghanistan through russia. that is a great change in how we did business in the past and a great amount of money because of shortening up the transport lines. those very robust cooperative projects that in this end will help to get us through the tough times. i want to bring that to your attention and say that i believe

we have come a long way in strengthening and adding some robust elements to our bilateral relationship. >> the issue of other countries i believe there's another agreement between the united states and russia on strategic and tactical that can be reached before you address other countries. the specific country that you need to talk about is china. we know china, based upon they don't have much transparency in their nuclear system. secretary gates was invited and visited the second artillery corps of few days ago which was an unprecedented visit for someone in the pentagon but there is so much little transparency on behalf of china and weather nuclear system looks like and the conception of their nuclear doctrine and what they think of nuclear weapons control and yet years of that to happen. wild repercussions in this dialogue build momentum in the united states and russia with

other agreements. >> looking back. please, ma'am. >> thank you. mary beth sheridan from the washington post. a question for rose gottemoeller. is there any timetable or tentative timetable of when follow-on negotiations might begin or is it going to depend on other factors like progress on missile defense? >> we have already gotten underway, i would say first of all i want to give an advertisement for what i have done. i am not endorsing them but -- >> bill ahead. >> very interesting papers on the future of where we go from here. i am not endorsing anything specifically but there's a lot of good discussion going on both here and in moscow.

it is enormously interesting, the kinds of writing we are seeing being done in moscow, and also there has been beneficial discussion of this when the chairman of the defense to committee came to worse off for an interim parliamentary meeting. in his remarks for that conference, there is a lot of work going on in moscow to try to study what the options might be for future non-strategic negotiations. in and out of government in moscow and washington, a lot of work is going on but is one more phase and we are not ready to go to the point of setting any scheduling place for out right negotiation. there are lots of consultations and back and forth about where

we go from here. >> toby please. >> congratulations. i have two questions. the first is talking about amendments. not about negotiations, many arms control agreement going through the senate. >> you may have noticed all of you in december, a lively debate in the senate, the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and ratification. during that period our russian colleagues not commenting on the

debate. and not commenting on there debate for the federation council. and the next several weeks, we are not going to speak about it. the second thing i would say is i take a different lesson away from the ratification debate. and interest and discussion with the new s.t.a.r.t. debate in the senate proved it to me. not only a debate around ratification perce but a long series of discussions we have throughout the negotiations process. i do think we have sparked a new interest so i am looking forward to continuing that debate and discussion and frankly it has

laid the foundation for the ratification debate. i can't predict what will be next. great store of substantive knowledge, a store of interest. that is natural. it is part of a healthy debate as well. we have in place good conditions for future work on topics overall. >> let me comment on the russian resolution, there should be a number of russian understandings that will probably -- just as i think if you go through the u.s. senate's ratification and read the russian discussion there is an implication the russians are cheaters on arms control. you will see that language.

the most important thing will be do the russians in this end will not require the treaty. the important thing, hyperventilating over the language with ratification, question is at the end of the day is the treaty ratified? >> please. microphone. >> to what degree does the complexity of destroying and inspecting warheads slowdown the process of reducing numbers? >> that is a very good question. for those of you who have tackled these issues over the years you realize up to this point arms control treaties have dealt with delivery vehicles and launchers, large items, missiles, bombers that we can

see with our satellites and also therefore count more easily. future negotiations and president obama has already clearly laid out this path, weather he signed the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty in april of 2010, he said next we will be tackling non-strategic nuclear warheads and non deployed nuclear warheads. this is part and parcel of the nuclear posture. it is part of a consistent policy development going on in this administration. you are quite right. the next phase is going to be a complicated one because we will be grappling with smaller objects that are more difficult to address in terms of monitoring and verification, elimination, the entire range of activities. i will say in my view the new

s.t.a.r.t. treaty puts in place some important innovations with regard to the entry vehicle on-site inspection. they are pursuing more interest of reentry vehicle on-site inspections implementing this treaty that will push open the door in my view to more intrusive measures that involve warheads. we are beginning to take some steps in that direction certainly in terms of the research study work that has to be done on the activity inside and outside government that are referred to a moment ago. >> in the first row. >> hunts benedict, congratulations. i want to go to the non-strategic tactical question and put it in the european context a bit more. two questions.

first, what we do with a small number of u.s. nuclear bombs deeply in five european countries. the question is is it important to keep that small number still in europe as a bargaining chip for the future? v nato strategic concept didn't settle the issue. the second question is given the fact that as steve said, looking forward to negotiation which we might lump together, non strategic and non deployed systems, that may take a long time. is there an interim step you might take that might create a zone in which you would remove the non strategic systems as an interim step to the broader negotiations? >> my colleagues may want to comment on this as well.

i would just refer you -- i would refer everybody who hasn't had a chance to look at it, the remarks secretary clinton made past april when she spoke about these very issues with the nato foreign ministers. that federal remark is that the core of our policy with regard to this very issue and she does take note of the fact that further reductions involving non strategic nuclear weapons must take into account overall negotiating. in other words, these are the kinds of things that we would involve in a negotiation rather than unilateral action. that is a very important mark to look at and i refer all of you to them if you are not familiar to them. it lays out a policy very

succinctly in my view. very interesting proposal. there are a number of proposals in and out of government. i am not at this stage in my own deliberation or with my interagency colleagues ready to endorse the -- my colleagues may have some other things to say on that. >> when you look at just europe now, there is a lot of pressure building up in european countries basically to say we don't use american nuclear weapons in europe anymore but the american extended deterrence can be extended by strategic forces like forces now extended to japan, south korea, australia. if you look forward i see three ways american nuclear weapons could come out of europe. one would be is the result an individual country decision? right now there is -- the german air force -- to their designated

aircraft and designated weapons' between 2015 to 2020. and not only program to have nuclear capability. if the german air force goes out of business the personal that puts a lot of pressure on holland and belgium. that is one way. a second way to do it would be as a nato policy, nato is withdrawing all nuclear weapons. the third way that is most preferable is to put the new negotiating mix and hopefully i am not sure how large as a a bargaining chip it would be but hopefully we could use them to get something in terms of russian readiness for non-strategic nuclear-weapons. clearly feathered way is the most preferable. >> one more time. >> good point. unless nato figures it out, for first wave may be the default mode. the point you made about the

interim step of doing something, certainly there might be the negotiation in withdrawing nuclear weapons away from borders in centralized storage and locations in the interior, i would be nervous about -- those pushing this junk -- that generates a host of problems and because they are fairly transportable i am not sure it buys you all that much. >> to echo steve's third point, they should be done in a consulting way with the allies. if you look at the decision in the nuclear posture, retired the tomahawk missile which provided

at the time tactical nuclear deterrent to u.s. allies. that was retired on the basis of many complications with u.s. allies to make sure they were still comfortable with u.s. deterrent support through conventional systems and offshore strategic weapons. if you look at the trends within europe, weapons that are based on classified estimates. in 1990 there were 4,000 u.s. nuclear weapons the year and now there are 200. now probably in five places. at one time eight types of bombs. now there's one bomb. it has been a sort of steady stream down. what you are left with is a small number that could potentially be bargained away if the russians make cuts in their tactical nuclear weapon forces which are primarily based in operational status in bases third nato allies. and the split within europe

between basically history and geography from russia. the country's closest to rush are least comfortable with nuclear weapons in europe. countries for this to our most comfortable. nato should make a decision for the entire alliance based upon article 5, commitments the united states makes. only collectively should that be done. countries put a call for u.s. nuclear forces, it is a bad starting point for nato. >> we go to the back somewhere, anyone? >> price mcdonald, you as institute of peace. thank you for mentioning possibilities of additional cooperation between the united states and russia and i hope you will be able to elaborate more on that next week when you are

speaking at a conference, the national academy of science is holding on future technical cooperation of science diplomacy. small plug for all interested. going beyond that, several comments about bringing in additional nuclear power as you go to lower levels. i want to ask in addition, certainly from a quantitative point of view that makes sense. the numbers the u.s. and russia have are higher than the others. but another dimension of arms control is qualitative limits. there are qualitative limits even in the new s.t.a.r.t. with verification. given how sticky a multilateral nuclear arms negotiations might be, might there be some merit in establishing a completely separate -- you wouldn't want to muck up the fallen s.t.a.r.t. agreement but separate negotiating for where these non quantitative issues could be discussed for two reasons.

for what ever value it might have and to get our feet wet if you will in what would eventually be a multilateral negotiation and i throw that out to all three of you. >> perhaps i will start because already some activity underway in that regard but it emerged in the aftermath of the treaty review conference that took place in may of 2010 in new york. out of that came an action plan agreed to by consensus. very important. one of the items in that action plan was to get together and show progress -- non-proliferation and nuclear energy cooperation. again, it is not well-known but in london in september of 2009 there is an interesting

conference where all members of the b5 started to talk about verification and transparency technology. the very kinds of things you are talking about. b5 has agreed to continue that process pursuant to the review conference, action plan and government and the french announced in september that they will host the second of these conferences to talk about verification and transparency, cooperation. that is a very welcome step. we are planning to hold this conference in the first half of this year and it will get together and continue basically along the same trajectory that was lost by the london conference. i welcome this very much. basically setting up a process that will be very beneficial.

the next review conference already on the horizons of thinking about showing results in that context. just in terms of beginning to shape dialogue and discussion allow all members of the p 5, important issues of this kind. it is not been advertised a lot but it is out there for all to see. you are interested, a very worthy project that we will be continuing now. sometime -- i think it will be later in the spring. it will be in the first half of 2011. >> these consultations can be important. there is room for one more negotiation. the numbers between the united states and russia and everything else. having consultations that allow you to get measured transparency with regard to britain and france and nuclear china plans to do.

one concern you mentioned from time to time is the united states and russia come down. chinese will make a huge investment. i am not sure i buy into that. the chinese talk about their nuclear forces, where they plan to go and weather doctrine is. that makes people more suspicious. if you have these consultations with greater understanding about chinese forces in particular, that make the united states and russia more comfortable in terms of the reductions we might negotiate in their bilateral challenge. >> we are out of time. i would like to remind everyone that this meeting has been on the record, i like to thank our panelists and all of you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> lawmakers gathered on the house floor to pay tribute to representative giffords. see what members said on line with c-span's congressional chronicle. follow the comments of your congressman, tracked daily time lines and read transcripts of every house and senate session.

congressional chronicle. it is washington your way. >> middle and high school students. kissel try to unload your video for the student can documentary competition. get your video on this year's topic please the washington d.c. through my lens on january 20th to win the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. this competition is open to students grades 6 through 12. for complete details:line to student cam -- studentcammed.org. >> robert groves announced his agency will begin releasing more detailed state and local information in early february. the data that will be used by state legislators for redrawing congressional district as well as determining state and local election maps. this news conference from the national press club is just under an hour.

>> i am the census bureau of public information office. welcome, happy new year. happy to have all of you here especially those who braved the weather. we are happy to have all those on the phone. ..

>> will alternate between questions from those here in attendance as well as those on the phone. so without further ado i would like to bring dr. robert rose. doctor rose. >> thank you, stand, and welcome. i welcome those people on the web who are listening and are watching them. on december 21 before the turn of the year we released the 2010 official state population count, and the national count. and as you know those numbers shifted 12 seats in the house of representatives that were spread around 18 states. when we released those we've had those numbers only for a few days. and we have now placed them in the context of other data we have, and we wanted to share that with you because this is one of the ways we evaluate the

census and try to get deeper insight into what our society looks like right now. i'm also going to alert you to some things that are coming up, releases that are of great importance as well. as stan dimension. in the past i've noted that there are three methods of evaluating a census. one of them is to keep track of how the data collection activities proceeded. we call those process indicators, and i'll give you some results from, analysis from those. another to is to compare the results of the 2010 census with other ways of measuring the population. and with two principal ones that i want to talk about today. and then finally, the third way that we evaluate how good a census is, is to do a very large

sample survey that we call a post-enumeration survey, that in a very detailed way attempts to check whether we found all the houses and all the people that we should have come and we counted them in the right place. i want to go through those three things briefly to tell you where we are on getting results from those. so i'll start with these things legal process indicators. these are the things that we track during data collection. i first remind us that after one event in the spring of 2009 where we had an overrun in the address canvassing operation, we were able to finish all the other operations, a whole lot of operations in the decennial census on time and under budget. things went smoothly from so -- from sort of a macro level. i also remind us that when we finally tabulated the participation rate, a way that

we try to estimate what% back of the household return to form by mail, that we came up to about 74% of the households doing so that equaled the short form rate in the year 2000. but remember, the year 2000 have both a short form and a longform. when you combine to the short form and longform return rate, it was actually lower than we got this year. so overall we did better in the census. we did about the same short form to short form comparison, but we had a higher percentage of the household return forms, we can say that honestly. we also have reported that on the longside when we went out and knocked on doors and asked people to respond face-to-face, that despite going back to these houses six times, we found a

larger number, a larger percent of households that we had to rely building managers and neighbors to supply the information about population. that was about 22% of the households that we followed up on, compared to 17% and 2000. that's a bad sign. on the face of it. we now know a little more about that, and i can say that the percentage of people in the final census count that we delivered on december 21 that had usable data, either from a mail back for more face-to-face interview is really quite high. it's virtually the same as in a 2000 census. so the numbers are in the 2010 census, 99.60% of the population either mail back their form or get usable information from building managers or other

proxies, versus -- that was 99.60 -- versus 99.57 in the year 2000. these are virtually the same numbers. so if a very high percentage of the houses we measured and the people we measured came through this process face-to-face interviews and mail back. that basically means those proxy interviews that we did indeed take higher than normal reduce disproportionately quite usable data for us. that's a good sign for this census. those are process indicators. let me move on to to, actually three different ways that provide corroborating evidence, you might say. one of these is called demographic analysis. and for those of you have been following this story from some months, you know on december 6 we released something that we called demographic analysis. what is that? that's another way to estimate

the national total population. it uses not census data, but birth and death registration data and estimates of in migration and outmigration. i noted on that day that come after gathering together the best we could from this country, and talking about how to estimate the immigration count, they came to the conclusion that there was no consensus on what that number should be. so we presented five different estimates of the population based on that because of the difficulty, principally of estimating in migrants. if you look at the slide that we will put on the plasma here, we can now compare the 2010 official national count to these

alternative estimates. if you look at this slide, they are a raid on the line from the high demographic estimates to those, from the low to the high. and if you again look at the plasma, the red point is the 2010 official census count. this is very, very close to the middle estimate of the demographic analysis. it's within, in fact, .09% of that number, virtually the same. how do we react to this as the statisticians at the and demographers? this is a comforting fact that we do something completely independent of the census that has its own integrity, although problematic because of difficulty of estimating component, and we basically get similar information and similar story out of that. now, there's another point on

this graph which is in green. we have another way of estimating the population that we do continuously throughout the decade. and, in fact, we're beginning of this again now. we take the last census, in this case we took the census of 2000, and that was sort of our benchmark, our foundation. and then we start letting the population -- we got birth data and test data, immigration, and we grew the population based on that foundation. it is different from demographic analysis because it rests on the 2000 census. demographic analysis completely independent from census data. the greenpoint is the point that we had on population estimates on april 1, 2010. so we can ask the question how does the official 2010 count compared to the april 1, 2010

version of the national population. it's within single .8%. so we now have three different ways of estimating that same number, how many people live in the united states on april 1, 2010. they basically give very similar answers. this is very comforting to us as statisticians and demographers. now, we have a third way that is relevant to talk about, because the story that we posed on december 21 about the official counts was a continuation of what we have seen other senses. movement, after a movement from the northeast and midwest to the south and the west. well, it turns out we have corroborating evidence on that. and that comes from a very large sample survey that we do called the american community survey.

that survey allows us to track migration. asks people where they lived in the prior year. and, indeed, other people have been analyzing this. if you look at the next slide, the pew center has been looking at, under the american committee survey, and this particular graph, this graphic covers the time period 2005-2009. the green arrows our movement into the region, and the orange arrows our movement outside the region. if you look at the size and the numbers attached to those arrows, you can see that even in a period of time you can see this larger movement into the west and the movement outside of the midwest and northeast, same with the south.

well, one of the findings we had on december 21, there were three states that went through noticeable events on the 2010 census. michigan lost population. texas grew at a 20% rate and got four more congressional seats. california grew at a smaller rate, and for the first time in many, many years received no new congressional seats. these are kind of threshold events for each of these states. we can look at acs data and query, does this make sense, to have any corroborating evidence, does that make sense? the next slide takes those three states, uses a similar analysis as was done on, from the pew center, and asks the question about movement in and out of

those three states. and for example, if you take the contrast between texas and california there. you can see both states are receiving a lot of in migrants. people are moving to those states. but you can see that there is our movement as well. in california, with his acs data, are showing larger out movement. this is 2007-2009. you could actually go back in time and look at earlier things, earlier results. so there's a noticeable difference. and you see the michigan movement. people are moving to michigan, more people are moving outside of michigan. so what do we do with these sorts of data? this again is helpful information for us to gain insight into the official counts that we gave on december 21, to try to understand the counts and try to decompose them in ways that are useful.

the next slide is, something that bill frey at the brookings institute, institution has worked on, which -- which basically grabs for texas and california and florida, the movement of people. ethernet migrations. and you can see a distinct california has been. although there are a lot of people moving to california, there are people leaving california. it's quite distinctive from texas and florida. so in short, when we compare the 2010 official counts at the state level to these alternative ways of estimating the population, things that together. everything points to the same direction. and our auxiliary data sources, the american community survey is quite useful for us to gain

insight into the why question. why have these counts been achieved. the third method of evaluating the census is called a post-enumeration survey. this decade we call that program the census coverage measurement program. it's a large sample survey where we started going back to a probability sample of households with a very detailed interview with very, very highly skilled interviewers. and they asked who live there on april 1. and asked if there was someone there that didn't live on april 1, where did it before. this is a very detailed instrument. it is a key tool to asking the questions, did we miss anyone? did we count people twice? did we measure people that shouldn't have been measured? and that's what we're involved in right now. the final results of this

effort, which is a massive one, won't be available until 2012. but i have some preliminary findings. they are three in number. first, the percentage of housing units that we find in this sample survey with higher quality methods, very expensive methods, that match to the 2010 census, that match rate, is higher than it was in 2000. it's a good sign. this means our address, our list of addresses is a good one. secondly, the percentage of units that were verified as correct in enumeration's in 2010 is higher than in 2000. this is a good sign. and then finally we have calculated that the percentage of housing units that were found to be duplicates are lower in

2010 dead in 2000. so we have three prohibit indicators. they are berliner in the following way. we will refine its estimates over time. we expect these results to hold up. i will let you know if they change, but so far this is looking good on the post-enumeration survey finding, and we are quite pleased. i can tell you that that operation is continuing. there will be a small number of households that we beg patients with us, because when we in these interviews learn that there's a complicated pattern of residential mobility that we need to follow up on, we are going to knock on their doors one more time just to make sure we got it right. and we beg for the patience of those people who will receive those knocks. so let me sum up. the results of the three sets of evaluative tools that we have

thus far, and they are preliminary, is that the vast majority of quality indicators of the 2010 census remain positive and suggests a measurable improvement over the 2000 census. we are very happy with that. as these become available and we will give you the negative sides as well as the positive signs, we will update you with that. these are preliminary, but heartwarming. that me turn to the future. i'd like to give you a little more detail about the 2010 census data releases that are coming in february and march. this is when we really start seeing small area counts. this is why a whole lot of people around the country are waiting for. this is where you can look at your neighborhood, you can look at your village, yorktown, your your city, your county and get,

understand how it's changed over the years. we are going to provide data releases for redistricting purposes, block level data, on a state-by-state basis. between february and the end of march. all of the states will receive their data by april 1, 2011. which is a legal deadline, by the way. the first step in this process is to give states that are involved in redistricting process, mapped files so that they can put our towns into small area geography. at about 80% of those maps have been completed and they're on their way out. they are rolling out on a state-by-state basis. and by the end of this month

everybody should have what we call shape files. these are geographical files. for each state the census bureau will provide summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, hispanic or latino origin, and voting age population, for multiple levels of geography within the states such as blocks, tracks, voting districts, cities, counties, school districts and so on. the census bureau is also going to provide a housing unit count along with their occupancy status. this will tell us, this will be an interesting thing to look at because it's going to give us a snapshot on april 1 a vacancy rates around the country. an issue of great concern to us in this moment of tough economic times. the way we do this, and it's governed by law, is that we send

these geographical products and redistricting data first to the states leadership such as governor, such as the governor, the majority and minority leaders in the legislature. when we receive positive evidence that they have received his, then we make them completely available to the public. on our website using a really cool tool called the american factfinder. so everybody gets it at the same time, except for those political leaders charged with responsibility for redistricting. for those of you who looked at the american factfinder before, we have good news and bad news. the good news is it's neater than it was before. it has some neat functions. about is if you're to have to learn those new functions. we've tried to make it as user-friendly as possible. i think you will find attractive, and hopefully easy

to learn. we are anxious to get your feedback on that, by the way. after this april 1 delivery date for all the states, we are going to all have block level data from the short form census on the vast majority of variables that we are interested in. but there are other things that will be released much more detailed files in terms of demographic profiles. and those will come out basically continuously through september of 2013. so this goes on for a while. you will see a different kind -- different kinds of focused products are during this time we will also be releasing american community survey data, updated data. and the way to keep these straight in your mind is that the census data are complete counts of the country. the acs our sample-based

estimates. the census data are fairly lean because the short form didn't ask you very many things about your household. we don't have that many attributes. he acs data are wonderfully rich, talk about socioeconomic and education and travel to work, status and so on. when we are through with the census, i can tell you that we would have given back to the society for their efforts in 2010 over 100 billion numbers. 100 billion counts for different levels of geography, for different attributes of the population, and we are proud of that. those are my remarks. i want to give you a heads-up that we'll probably will probably have a briefing on the first week of february. this will be a deeper dive into the block level data that would

-- that we will be releasing to give you some sense of what it will look like. we are also, we will also have the ability to do some limited comparisons of population estimates for census data as lower levels of geography, and that will be informative about what's going on with these numbers. so it will be our -- it will be an update on our long-term evaluation of the 2010 census. so i will stop you and happy to take your questions. >> thank you, dr. groves. what we will do as alternate between questions here in the room and on the phone. will take the first question in here. let me ask when you do have a question, if the person can hold up their hands. if you can give us your name and your affiliation. so the first question. >> i am with univision news. dr. groves, so this is what

everybody has been waiting for? >> well, for vegetarians in the audience i'm not sure we should say this is the me. this is what the substance of the census. we are now delivering. we have been asking you and the rest of the public to give us things last year. this is the return. and we're hitting everything you gave us, summarize it in hopefully you can find useful for real action decisions adverse levels. you're right, this is the substantive part of the. i won't use the meet were. >> okay, as a vegetarian in the room have a question? next question. >> i'm with the "washington post." so are you in this initial data in favor of march are you going to be releasing information on family characteristics, specifically same-sex couples?

>> okay, the counts that we release in february and march are totally from this on serving the redistricting communities in the states. that's why we release it by state. that data, the attitudes that we release are those that are needed to form districts and compliance for the voting rights act. there are other things that are not on there. and it's these other products as we roll out that will be assembled in different geographies to -- visited a state oriented the next two months, and that's when all the details will come out. you mentioned specifically the same table that we are doing. we pledged as soon as possible, and were hoping this is in the may time frame, to release

counts that reveal relationships between the person number one in the form and other persons that are labeled as spouse but have the same sex. those counts will be available at that time frame. >> thank you. i think we have a question on the phone. operator, can we have a question, please. >> operator: when the question with newsday. your line is open. >> caller: thank you. will the census bureau be releasing a schedule of when the states for redistricting data for the states, so when will the information on new york be coming out, which is where i am? >> okay. this is a very common question. we are releasing it state by state, and through long, over

months, long discussions, we've tried to be responsive to the needs of states for the scheduling of the redistricting. and we have taken that into account in our schedule of what states come out first in what states come out later. because of the nature of this processing, we are releasing this stuff in real time. it doesn't sit an age for a while. we're getting it out as soon as we can, and were able to promise that we'll give you a heads up about 10 days, roughly, a week or 10 days notice about when your state comes up. and that will be public -- that schedule will be publicly available so you will get a heads up. and in the next thing that will happen, we will send them out to the two sets of leaders at the state level. we need confirmation from them, and they we need about a 24 hour

period to get it out on her website so you can download it and do your stuff. so that's kind of the process. >> okay, thank you for the question. question in the room please. >> i'm just curious, what a particular cities or states where you ended up relying on proxies like building managers more than in other areas? .. also true as we know from

various survey data that people in urban areas are away from their homes -- on average more hours of the day than other places. so it's harder to get ahold of urban dwellers. it appears to be related to the income levels of the area in harder and poorer areas and there's a set of attributes. the good thing -- there's one kind of silver lining here. building managers tend to be fairly well-informed about their occupants more than neighbors in single family structured neighborhoods. building managers have as part of their duties to sort of keep track of things. and that's helpful. that's a good thing. if there's any silver lining.

>> okay. i thank you for that question. can we get a question from our phone operator. >> we have a question with sandy weisberg. your line is open. >> hi, i want to make sure -- i hope i'm not being repetitive but i'm trying to still get a sense of when we could find out certain details. you talked about occupancy status for housing units. would that also include tenure -- i'm trying to get a sense of -- let's say i want to know by ethnicity what the homeowner shift is in areas in san diego county, is that something i would find out more in february or march or is that going to be a later march? >> that will be later. we can't wait to see this, too. we're with you. on the february, march releases, these block level counts in state chunks we're just going to have the vacancy rate, not the tenure as it's called whether it's owned or rented. >> okay. and thank you for that question.

the question in the room. >> i'm from puerto rico. i would like to know this the same schedule for the puerto rico numbers and also if in the release of the hispanic or latino areas of february and march we're going to see a breakdown. am i going to see how many puerto ricans, for example, are living in florida? >> the schedule is the same. you're in the same set. the breakdown of the latino -- the population of puerto rico and others will not be part of that release but that, too, will come later. >> okay. and certainly from the public office information wants that planned and we'll get a schedule for the later releases to come out in the spring and in the

summer. do we have another question on the phone. >> we have a question from chad day from arkansas democratic gaset. >> my question deals with the format of what we're going to see state-by-state release. will any state will differ in the way it's organized when it's released? and if so, what are those states? and also will we be seeing any kind of dummy tables that we can use and where can i find them? >> first of all, every state's format is exactly the same. they will be boringly consistent we guarantee you. there's a wonderful brochure whose name i'm forgetting right now. strength in numbers, okay? go to our website. that gives you all the detail and let's you know what you're going to receive, the format of that. and that's a great tutorial on

what you're going to get. >> let me remind you as well that our website is www.census.gov. if you have any questions you can go to the public office 301-336-3691. question in the room, sir, you had your hand up. do you have your mic in place? >> i guess my question is involved with -- you're missing -- you have to miss some people. you can't get everyone 100%. why was it that when your denothingographd demographiers were there and it would be better if you were at the lower end? >> okay. this is a great question and let me sort of repeat it to make sure everybody got it. why are we pleased when we see these results that i just went

through i guess is it in a nutshell. let me first say something i guess i didn't say in this press conference. there has never been a perfect census. i'm willing to speculate that we will never have a perfect census not in a democracy. there's someplace where is we can have a perfect census. i'm not sure we want to live there. there's no perfect, there's no gold standard that's better than that, right? it's not the kind of thing where you could see how close it is. on an examination, there's a perfect score, say, 100 and you can see how close you are to that. we don't have that outside standard. so what we do is to look at a lot of different ways that try to do the same thing. when they do agree, that gives us some comfort because each of those alternate ways have a

rationale. there's a logical framework that says, you know, this is a reasonable thing to do to estimate the population. they all have their strengths and they all have their weakness. admittedly, there are undercounts and overcounts, you know, overestimates and underestimates in every one of these and the experts know these back and forth. and that's what they argue about when they're in their conferences. when, however, we see everything sort of pointing in the same direction, that gives us is comfort like most sciences, when you do things multiple ways, you get the same answer. you feel -- you know, you may have it right then. and it is in that sense that we take comfort in. if, for example -- you gave an example why shouldn't we prefer that the census count be way above the range of our demographic estimate? wouldn't that be a better result? i would counter that assertion by saying we know that in prior

decades we've counted some people twice. we know there are duplicates in the census and so a big number is not necessarily the best number. now, it's a very complicated thing but most of the professionals will say, i think, if you do things multiple ways and you get sort of the same answer, you feel good about that, and that's how we react to it. >> if your official estimate, what was 308 billion, can't you feel pretty confident it's going to be a little bit more. even with the duplication that you said? it's probably a little bit more than the 308? >> well -- >> i think. >> i'm not going to engage in this seriously until 2012 but i'll -- i'd love to have a serious conversation about it. you know, our evaluation isn't finished yet. and that's when we can really get into this.

i do remind us, however, that the post-generation survey of 2000 comes out with a small net overcount in the census. it's completely conceivable that this could happen. we do a whole lot to reduce undercounts. whenever you do a whole lot to reduce undercounts, you run the risk of counting people twice. so this is a very tricky thing. so i just refuse to agree with the assertion that big numbers are better numbers in a census. >> okay. and thank you. thank you for that question. let me again repeat the number to the public information office if you have any questions. it's 301-763-3691. so operator, can we have a question from the phone, please. >> a question comes from hope with the associated press. your line is open. >> yes, hi there.

hope with the a.p. i'm wondering regarding the upcoming redistricting data whether perhaps in that february briefing you mentioned whether the census bureau will be offering any basic national picture of some of the demographic changes we would otherwise have to discern state-by-state? and then related to that, i was also wondering if at that time there might be any preliminary census assistance made about potential undercounts or overcounts and differential undercounts based on the state data? >> okay. the first thing i take this as a suggestion on how we might be useful in february and we'll take that under advisement. on the second one we won't have any -- we may have a few more national level data from the survey. we won't have any new process indicators. we will have for the first time the ability to compare our population estimates at lower

levels of geography. but we're right in the middle of doing. we won't have that complete but we're happy to share everything we do have on that. with regard to commentary on patterns of racial and ethnic residence patterns, we're giving these countdowns to about the same time we get them. we wouldn't have had much digestion but i promise to do as much as i can because i know that we're all interested in that. we'll do the best we can. >> okay. and thank you for that question. and question in the room, please. >> al milliken, in looking at your handout in the 2010 census data product, for example, you've got national updates coming up november 2011 and may 2012 for american indian areas.

and i was just wondering why counts for some of this information is so later than other information you're distributing? and i'm wondering was there any significant differences in this last census in the way you counted american indian areas? >> well, i don't know the specific answer to your -- well, the answer to your second one is we're constantly on ways of working. just from my personal experience and in talking to people involved in that the cooperation and partnership activities with american indian reservations and indian country in general was really a wonderful part of this census. you could probably still go to the indian country count web page. i bet it's still up. it's just a wonderful thing. so we worked well with tribes.

the schedule of these things i can't speak to, but we could get back to you on the why of that. i know assembling different geographies and having these profiles is a scheduling problem in general. and we want to have focused reports that speak to different audiences. but i don't know the exact reason for the schedule. >> so if you want to follow up, give us a call. i'll repeat the number right at the end of the press conference. operator, do we have anyone on the phone with a question, please? >> yes, we have a question from anthony, "usa today." your line is open. >> hi, good afternoon. my question concerns the schedule again for the releases and i'm wondering whether you could give us a senses of the specific day or week when we would see the first of the states to be released?

>> yeah. the first batch will be delivered in the first week of february. and we'll alert you to that, what the identity of those states are hopefully seven days before that, seven to ten days. >> okay. thank you. a question in the room, please. and we have one in the back. >> hi, i'm bob with cnn. considering the large increase in texas, they're getting three, four more seats? >> four. >> four more seats. considering the increase in texas, i don't imagine a lot of people moving down there to live the rural cowboy life or whatever. is most of that increase, is it least most of that increase in urban and very suburban, closed-in suburban areas?

>> the decomposition of the growth of texas we're going to know very soon from these releases. i remind us that cities like houston and surrounding cities received a lot of migrants from hurricane katrina who remain there. so that's kind of a special note about texas. and then as these graphics showed you before, even though there's movement in and out of texas, that movement into texas predominates in many ways. and the decomposition of this, the dallas-fort worth versus houston and austin and so on and san antonio we're going to have in just a matter of waits. i can't wait to see what it looks like. and we'll have our population estimates data there. and you'll be able to do a

similar thing with regard to change over time and how it fits with the official counts. >> so it's a nonanswer to your question. >> i figured that might be the answer. >> thank you for that question. operator, can we have another question from the phone please. >> we have a question from dave with bergin records. your line is open. >> hi, thanks for taking my call. [inaudible] >> boy, we're having trouble hearing you. or i am anyway. >> is that any better. >> yes, much better. >> great. do you know when you will be making available to the media the tiger files and also for the -- for the actual data when it is released? what, if any, embargo will be from the media so that we can have a little time to digest this and make good sense out of the data? >> so the first is about the

files i think and the release on the shea files -- [inaudible] >> okay. the files -- well, by the end of the month i guess all the files will be up for all states. for everyone. you and your neighbor can download them. now, the embargo issue or how you're going to get -- you as a journalist are going to get the data the same day, the same instant actually that everybody in the world will get it. these are pretty big files. they're down to block level. they're a lot to absorb. and to stay -- to follow our principle of being transparent as possible, we're releasing that to everyone. there will be many, many, many, many, many stories out of these files because there's a story for every county. there's almost a story for every block that could be written.

and there's a lot of time that we all need as a country to absorb these. there's no embargo on them. >> okay. thank you for that question. do we have a question in the room? carol? >> carol from "washington post." given the events of the tucson last weekend can can you tell us there's been any changes to the regional offices? >> well, first of all, the events in tucson were tragic as we all know. we have made no visible changes in security procedures to my knowledge around, in our facilities. we as you know have people every

day who as part of their job are knocking on the doors of american residence throughout the country. as always, it's useful to note that they have been trained for their own safety to be aware, to be streetwise, to be cautious. and we care about them deeply. and whenever we find any foibles in our training or anything that we can do better we try to repair them but to my knowledge there's been no change because of the tucson incident. >> i thank you it for that question. can we have a question from the phone please? >> we have a question from diana. your line is open. >> yes, hello, thank you. with regards to the redistricting numbers, i just want to clarify. i know you mentioned they are being released state-by-state as they come in. is that beginning the february

date or is that until the april 1st date? >> starting the first week of february ending the last week of march, those files state-by-state will be released. >> thank you for that question. do we have another question in the room? operator, do we have another question on the phone? >> yes, we have a question from laura parker with aol news. your line is open. >> hi, this is laura parker from aol news. can you just clarify a little bit about the release of the state-by-state data for the redistricting purposes. are you going to put out the data in the states that will have changes in their congressional -- in the number of members they have either by adding or by losing a member because those states, there may be more controversy over the

number than in other states? >> well, as i -- as i said, every state will get -- >> this briefing is available on our website, c-span.org. we're going live now to the white house press briefing. here's spokesman robert gibbs. >> good morning. i have about three hours to round off the three hours, how about that? but i know some of you all have less than that as the press charter was in a little bit later. let me do one quick announcement before we go forward. president obama will meet with president obama zadari in pakistan here at the white house tomorrow. the two leaders will discuss estimates of u.s./pakistan strategic partnership including our mutual commitment to economic reform, support for democracy and good governance. and joint efforts to combat

terrorism. the meeting is closed-press and we're going to do some still stuff out of it. with that, take us away. how are you? >> why is that meeting closed-press tomorrow? >> that's just -- that's just the way we've decided to do it. he's in town for holbrooke's service. and we thought it was a good opportunity to add a meeting with the president. >> do you think with the speech last night the president accomplished what he wanted to accomplish with the speech? >> look, i think -- i talked a little bit about this on the plane on the way back. i think it is president had thought about this on many different levels since we all got the news saturday of the horrific and senseless event. i think he thought of this as the president of the united

states. i think he thought of this as a friend of the congresswoman and i think as you all heard him talk about in the oval office on monday, i think he thought of this as a parent. and i think we've all probably gone through many in this country have gone through thinking about this at many different levels. i think what the president had hoped to do last night was to speak both to the community of tucson and to the nation. and i think his message of ensuring that our way of government moves forward in a way that best honors the memories of those that were victims of this tragedy as well as those we look forward to seeing recover.

>> did he typically have sarah palin in mind in her -- >> look, i think he -- i would -- i would point to many things in the president's -- in venues that the president has discussed this. the notion of civility and our public discourse dates back to his time in the state senate in springfield. at the university of michigan at the commencement last year. i have heard him say for as long as i've been with him the notion of disagreeing without being disagreeable. those are aspects i think that he has tried to live his public life by. and obviously the -- the speech

the president added a pretty heavy notion of empathy in the speech again i think he's spoken out on many different occasions. >> what is your view of sarah palin's choice of words -- >> you know, i'm -- i'm -- i think there are many people who can render opinions on that. i'm not going to do that. i think -- i'm to talk about what the president said last night. i think that's the role that i best play. >> what does the president hope to accomplish and in the press conference. are there going to be more than one question each side? >> i will admit i'm a tad behind. i believe there will be more than one question on that and i

will check on that. there will be an opportunities for questions. i think the issues that you will -- that the president wants to discuss are many of the issues that you have heard as an administration talk about or the length of our tenure here. it's an important bilateral relationship. obviously, there will be discussion on global economic issues as well as security issues like north korea and iran. and important issues of political reform and human rights. our hope is -- and again, i'm still working on the details on some of this, but we will likely be joined in some manner tomorrow by our national security advisor tom donilyn to walk through some of what you'll

see next week and some of the additional things that we hope to discuss and cover. yes, ma'am. >> back on last night and the idea of unity, the president has talked about and campaigned about bringing the country together in 2004 and 2008. in what way has he not been able -- why has he not been able to bring the country together if he's been president and is there some way in which his behavior is going to change after -- >> i think what the president would tell you on that answer is that, i think -- and i think this was conveyed in his speech last night. we are not going to remove disagreement from our democracy and we shouldn't. that's the -- that's the underpinning of the notion of our self-government. but the tone and the approach that we take in those debates, i

think, what we all hope changes because of -- both the events of the past few days but i think anybody would say that -- and again, what you see in the president's remarks the civil discourse has become more and more polarized. and i think -- i think the president hopes that -- again, we can have disagreements without disparaging and being disagreeable towards others. and again, i think you're going to see plenty of opportunities in the next few years where you have those disagreements. i think that again the tone and the approach on both sides -- and it isn't just a one-way street. it's for us, too, to ensure that we're doing this in a way as i think the president so eloquently said last night.

it's befitting the memory of those in tucson. >> the sarah palin message, and the overall message was headed in the wrong direction? >> again, i think there are plenty that can -- >> but the white house can have an opinion on her overall message. >> and again, i'm happy to speak on what the president said and how it came about saying but i'll -- i'll let -- i'll let others opine on that. >> have you decided how -- >> i don't know the answer to that. >> have you decided on a departure date? >> i have not. i have -- i don't have any news on that. yes, sir. >> on the first question and in the state of the union had the and the president on the last state of the union wanted to reach out with republicans and wanted to have regular meetings with him and he seemed to be

honest and frank in the last midterm election and look, i need to do a better job about this. he was upfront with this. with the new state of the union, they will use on the state of the union to build up will get. how is he really going to build up on the last night and the state of the union. will there be the similar tone and approach and how does he take in the following action like reaching out. how does it become a reality instead of both sides saying we're going to do it? >> well, a couple of things. i think you're very correct. obviously elements of what you heard last night and the improvements in our civil discourse and how we have issues will play a role in this year's state of the union. i think, again, this is something if you go back and whether it's in the campaign or, you know, you certainly can see it visibly in the 2004

convention address. but obviously speeches throughout his career where he talks about this. and i think you're right. the president was very candid with those republican and democratic leaders after the election that he had to do better. and i think, quite frankly, we were -- the country was successful in getting things done in a lame duck session because of that very notion. and i think that you'll see -- i think you'll see a greater efforts on our part in a much more systemic way to do the types of meeting that we had here before. again, i don't think anybody wants to take -- i don't think anybody believes that we're going to simply remove the

disagreement from our democracy. that's the very definition of it. but i think the way in which we do it, the tone, our approach is something i think we will all -- we all should be much more mindful and i think that's -- i think that was in large part -- >> is the state of the union the best -- >> i have not obviously looked through a ton of the drafts at this point. but i think there's no question that it will play a role. >> just a quick follow up. how is bill daley playing to that since we haven't had a chance to talk to you that he's taken over officially that his abilities to work with the republicans and he's a great impacts. what impacts will bill daley have in terms of that relationship with republicans and moving the president's agenda, et cetera. >> i think obviously bill is somebody who brings vast experience working with both sides of the aisle.

i think that was true when he was -- when he was commerce secretary. and as you said, it's been reflected in the statement that were made upon the announcement last week. that he would assume the job of chief of staff and as you said, i was in tucson yesterday so i was not here yesterday but he -- he began yesterday at the 7:30 senior staff meeting. look, i think that -- again, i think he brings a vast amount of experience in working with others. i think it also -- for all of us -- the truth is it's all us. it's everybody that works here. it's everybody that works in government and public service and it's been -- it includes the

leaders of our country. >> in keeping with that on a much lighter note given the solemn times, do you plans to put toilet paper on the white house because of your wonderful auburn victory? [laughter] >> i think it is a wonderful tradition. probably best reserved for the corner in auburn where there's -- there are many rolls currently hanging in a beautiful tree now. >> how about your house? >> my son is quite excited we're going to do that for the third time. i realized i might unwound something that might be in the end to wind back. [inaudible] >> right. but i think it's entirely possible that we'll do that. >> you said earlier -- >> what a lovely tradition. >> there's a lot of empathy in the speech. how did the president come to that because in the past it's

been noted that perhaps it wasn't as forthcoming as empathy as some of his predecessors. was it your staff advice or was it the five-day period that he had to think this thing over before he spoke? >> first and foremost, i've heard him -- i've heard him discuss and many of you all have heard him discussed over the course of many years the notion of what it's like to understand and -- understand other people. people we don't agree with maybe in a political sense. i guess the -- one way of saying it is to walk a mile in somebody else's shoes so to speak. i think that -- that's animated much of his -- much of his public life. again, i'd trace that probably the first time you heard it on a

bigger stage obviously is the 2004 convention. look, this was -- i did a little of this last night. this was -- i think last night was -- was a -- was a speech that was very much the president. and he spent a great deal of time going through his thoughts on this. and spent a lot of time working on what he wanted to say including making it even after the plane had landed in arizona last night. >> the empathy seems to adhere more to his comments about the victims than it did about political discourse. he said those things before, applying discourse. >> i meant the empathy in the

sense of -- i guess i point you in that sense to the sections of the speech talking about, you know, that these individuals whose lives were celebrated remind us of our mothers, grandmothers and our brothers. and just the notion of using their example in a way to lead our lives in a better way befitting their memory. again, i think that's what the president spent a lot of time thinking about and talking about over the course of many years including as you mentioned what i've talked about here, our civility and our civil discourse. yes, sir. >> robert, was there much study of previous presidential speeches following a national tragedy of this nature? >> mike, let me see if there's any information on that. i don't know what -- i'm not entirely sure what he might have read before this.

i think, a lot of the process of this was -- was in personal reflection, was in -- i think again when we all heard the news, it was -- it was hard to understand. it still is. it's senseless. as you heard the president say, we may never truly know why. and it gives you an opportunity to reflect -- it is hard to read some of those stories. the lives that people led. what they were doing on that otherwise beautiful day in an exercise in our own democracy shattered by the event.

>> i'm trying to change the tone a little bit. you had last night speech and you have the state of the union coming up, is there a thought of a presidential event that could -- >> well, i think in the near term, obviously, i guess i would point you to the state of the union. but i think the president will continue to look for opportunities to build on what ed talked about and what the president has talked about, which is how we reach across the aisle. how we have that more civil debate and discourse. and again, you know, going back to the michigan speech, it was -- he said a little bit of it last night but the notion -- what -- what we lose in a debate that is overly charged and overly personal is the ability at some point to all sit together at a table and come to

a good conclusion on solving some of our most serious problems. again, i point to -- i think some of what happened in the lame duck session of congress, which was whether it was the tax cuts or whether it was the s.t.a.r.t. treaty or don't ask, don't tell, all very important achievements in the sense that we had been -- we've been struggling with those questions for quite some time. and found some bipartisan answers. and i think that provides -- hopefully provides a roadmap for how we can get some stuff done this year. >> is it hard for you guys to -- after such a national tragedy, to know when to effect business in a reasonable time with full

steam ahead? >> look, i think that -- again, i think we've all had time -- i think you guys, too. i think everybody in the country have had time to reflect on this. and i think -- i think all those that were -- remember, they were there to again see the exercising of the way we govern our country. and i think that while we will continue to celebrate the lives of those that were lost, hope for and pray for the speedy recovery of those that were injured or some that are and some that aren't in the hospital, i think you'll see -- because they would have wanted us getting back to the business of again how do we solve those problems? and how do we do it in a way

that lives up to the thoughts and the aspirations of those that were involved in the tragic event. yes, sir. >> robert, of civil discourse of sitting down and talking together, over the of the of the two years, republican leaders were up and people would walk away from that and instead of emphasizing areas of agreement they would emphasize disagreement to score points with their political basis. voters respond to the differences. how can the words no matter how eloquent are spoken by the president or anyone else change the political incentive? >> well, i think we have to separate out differences and discourse. because as i said, we're not

going to -- we are not going to take differences out of our democracy. and i don't -- that's inherent -- look, the founders had some very different ideas amongst themselves as to how to construct the union that we call america now. we have taken occasion in more than two centuries to build off some of those debates and create something more toward the perfect union that we strive for. so i don't think you're going to remove different from democracy in self-government. but the way we approach and address those differences is something i think that all of us, the president, leaders of both parties, members of both parties have to work hard to strive for.

to make progress on. and it's -- the description that you laid out at the beginning of this -- it's the easiest thing and we have to resist the temptation because this is -- this is hard. but it's -- changing our discourse as i said and i point you to the michigan speech where the president talked about the fact that this isn't discourse just for the sake of better discourse. it is -- there's a means to that end in the sense that if you and i so violently disagree that we -- in order make our argument, tear each other down, it is impossible at some point to sit down and construct a solution, that moves our country forward. and that's what -- you know, that's -- i don't doubt that just as in a town meeting the president might do that there

were people that disagreed with the political views of congresswoman giffords. they were at that meeting to ask her questions. that's the great experiment of self-government. but we have to strive to have our discourse played out on a plane that does the discussion of our big problems justice. >> now, where the rubber might meet the road in terms of -- we're talking philosophically but in terms of a concrete policy issue, gun control seems to be -- you can't touch it especially if you're a democrat or a democratic leader in this town. the assault weapons ban has expired. apparently this extended clip he was able to obtain, he would not be able to obtain it had it been in force. where is the administration on gun control and with assault weapons in particular.

how will it push if it's a political leader by democrats? >> we are and have been focused on the important healing process. we will have an opportunity to evaluate ideas and proposals that may be brought forth as a result of circumstances and the facts around this case. the president, again, since i have been with him since 2004, has supported the assault weapons ban. and we continue to do so. and i think we all strive regardless of party to ensure that we're doing everything we can to reduce violence. we'll have an opportunity to evaluate some of the other proposals. yes, sir. >> is there a solution on the president's commission on -- [inaudible] >> and i find this a little alarming if it's true in lights of the predictions of $4

gasoline prices by memorial day. one of the other conclusions that the administration does not have a comprehensive energy plan. there are a lot of different programs but no overarching strategies. would you agree with that? >> well, i think that -- i think that -- i would agree with this notion. that you have seen presidents date back many, many administrations discussing our need to take concrete action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. to look for and embrace a clean energy economy. we have -- we still have a lot of work to do and when i mean "we," i mean the country in taking some of those very important steps.

i think if you look at the investment in the previous two years in continued investment in wind energy production, in windmill turbine production, in solar, in as you've heard me discuss on 1,000 occasions increased advances in investments, in electric batteries for cars. the steps that we've taken with business and with industry to increase fuel mileage standards, not just for cars and not just for light trucks but even for heavier duty trucks. but i don't think anybody would disagree with the notion that there's still much work to be done. we still have progress that we need to make so that we don't find ourselves 10 or 20 or 30 years from now continuing to have the very same debates about

how we -- how we reduce that influence with foreign oil and our dependence on it. that's going to take many forms. our administration made the first investment in building a new nuclear power plant in more than three decades. because there isn't one thing that we're going to do that's going to fix all this. there are many different approaches. you've heard the president more specifically as it relates to oil. we have to -- there's certainly -- there's drilling in the gulf. there's drilling in other regions of the united states. but we have to ensure that all those activities are done with the utmost safety and care. >> if gasoline does peak at $4, that's threat to this fragile recovery. that's a big tax on consumers.

is there anything you can do about that? >> well, look, obviously, there are many people that would get upset at me if i started to opine on oil and gas prices. so i won't. but i will say, look, we are -- we have to continue to take steps to impact the medium in the long term, even as we go through the cyclical adjustments that you see year in and year out, that are reflected in fluctuating prices. the question is whether we're going go about doing that now or we're going to continue to punt some of this year after year after year. and find ourselves having this debate and discussion repeatedly. >> when you talk about the need to reduce imported oil, are you referring specifically to the middle east or our biggest

borrower is canada. if canadian oil so bad or -- >> i think you've heard the president and i'm happy to dig up some of the quotes. i think that having our fragile economy dependent upon energy that comes from any other place presents its own inherent risk. and there's a way of increasing our adding to the number of jobs that we have in this country and dealing with our energy problems are all in the same action and i think that's our hope. mark? >> robert, what does the president think about the pep rally aspect and tone of the event last night? >> well, look, i'm not a

tucsonion obviously but i think having been there for a day before the president got there, you could understandably feel the weight of what had happened. and i think part of that -- i think part of the grieving process is celebrating the lives of those that were lost. and celebrating the miracles of those that survived. i think you've all probably read now the transcript from the two members on the plane last night about their personal experience with congresswoman in her hospital bed. you know, it's an emotional thing to read. again, i think -- i will say the speech -- i read the speech

several times. and thought that there wouldn't be a lot of applause, if any. i think many of us thought that. but i think you -- i think there was a celebration of the lives of those that have been impacted, not just those that -- not just at that grocery store but throughout the country. and i think that if that is part of the healing process, then that's a good thing. >> can you share with us any words the president said to the parents of christina? >> i was not in the room for that. obviously, he had an opportunity to speak with them on the phone a couple days ago. i think all of us -- i don't think this is referred for a parent.

i think this is anybody -- i think anybody that reads that story it's a tough story to read. it is a tragedy sort of. it's a tragedy beyond any real description. >> what was the reason for choosing the arena as opposed to maybe a church or a smaller venue? >> well, i would -- i would point you to the university on that. and i think it's important to understand this was -- we were -- we were invited and accepted quite happily the invitation of the university. i think having that many people there and being able to include people from the community was -- again, was -- was and is an important part of that feeling process. but in terms of logistics and things like that, i would point you to the university as they

probably would be better -- better to answer your questions on those sorts of things. >> going back to china in answer to the question, you listed some of the items on the agenda and it's quite a full plate. can you talk about whether there are any expectations for decisions made or agreements signed as a result of that? >> yes, let me, again, i would point you to a few things. we'll have a chance to talk to tom tomorrow on some of this. i'm not going to get ahead of the official events of next week. i point you to what secretary geithner said yet and secretary clinton is also going to speak on the topic of china tomorrow. so i don't really want to get ahead of that process too much. >> can you talk about -- >> based on what i know, i'm not going to get ahead of -- and what i don't know, i'm not going

to get ahead of the official there. >> one other thing. [laughter] >> one other thing. the president's said is -- [inaudible] >> can you talk what else he's doing, for example, staff appointments and going over -- >> he's got -- i don't have the schedule with me. he's got a number of meetings today. i haven't looked at tomorrow's schedule. the president has got to spend a lot of time here in meetings. i know there's a regularly planned long meeting today. >> robert, he's been for the assault weapon ban and one of the other gun weapons ban and preventing mentally ill shooter from getting guns. does the president think it's

possible and has he directed anything to it? >> well, again, i would leave the legislative proposals that obviously as i said earlier -- we'll have an opportunity. i don't know if that evaluation on specific proposals that have been introduced thus far has been done. but we will certainly -- we'll certainly look at that arrangement. >> and he talked about the importance of like examining our assumptions about issues. i mean, he seemed to almost invite a discussion about this. >> look, i think what the president said was -- it is important. and it is required of us to look at all the facts and the circumstances that surround these events. i know that's what law enforcement and investigators are doing on the ground. and i think we all look forward to learning more about -- about

what happened and try to explain the why. >> he specifically said in order to prevent this from happening again? >> again, i don't have a lot more than the fact that this is -- you know, evaluation of the facts and how we got to a tragedy like this. i think it requires us to look at everything. >> robert, i'd like to ask you about the president's meeting with the lebanese prime minister which occurred as the government was collapsing. does he believe that the actual state of getting an indictment in the massacre of 2003 -- [inaudible] >> and it's more important than what's come after, whether it's -- [inaudible] >> well, obviously, look, i first and foremost would point you to the readout from the president's meeting yesterday. i was not in the building

yesterday. i was in arizona. i reiterate what part of that what readout says. i think the resignations only demonstrate the fear and the determination the hezbollah-led coalition has to block the government's ability to conduct its business and most importantly, to get some much-needed answers and justice on the assassination inquiry. our support is for the sovereignty of the lebanese people. and we'll continue to strive toward that. >> one more about the speech. i know you talked about the personal nature of how the speech is constructed. will some of the comparisons between that speech and bill clinton's speech after the oklahoma city bombing and, you

know, other tragedy speeches, all those comparisons overdrawn or do you think -- >> look, obviously, there are historians that will weigh in on these topics. i think that there are moments in our history, oklahoma city, the challenge or accident. what happened in arizona that -- that are important for -- for the president to talk to the nation about. and to help be part of the process of celebrations and healing. i think that's how he approached -- that's how he approached this and obviously we've had -- we've had -- we've had and every president does, unfortunately, had far too many

examples, a mining accident in west virginia, a shooting at fort hood. certainly immediately come to mind is things that the president has had to do. but, look, i think he approached it as -- in his role as president as somebody that might help to -- might help to further that healing process. ..

>> that's probably not going to happen. but i think the role that any president can play is to work, help the country work through questions, some of which have simply no answer. >> falling your exchange, do you have any thoughts on the suggestion by senator udall that the parties should not sit separately at the state of the union? >> i haven't had an opportunity to talk, to some folks around here. it's an interesting idea. and i will say this, look again, we're not going to lose a disagreement to politics. but, you know, maybe, maybe not

having a physical i'll separate us is, would be a good thing as we talk about the state of our union. and that's everybody. that's not one side or the other. that's everyone. >> is a time to move past the pep rally aspect of the modern state of the union, the dueling standing ovations? >> well, some of you guys have been up there. it gets a little -- it's like a seesaw. you know, i think that, i think everybody approaches, i think we all want the state of the union as a very serious and sober discussion of the important challenges that lie ahead. it's time to reflect on the strength of our country, the

resilience of our citizens in tough times of either war or economic turmoil. but more importantly, to chart the course forward. i know that's the way the president is approaching the construction and the writing of that speech. >> first of all, i'm wondering, i'm when it is a thing about how the president has personally handled this. >> i think, truthfully the reflection is in what he wrote and what he delivered last night. >> as he had clergy members and to pray with him? >> i know he gets stuff from josh each day but i don't know. i'll find that answer. >> i also wonder if there's been a moment when the president has offered counsel to his own

staff? >> let me find that out. >> robert, you know the president has made the possibility and elevating the discourse, but the thing that seemed to resonate this time, obviously was the personal aspect of the strategy, the particular story of the nine year old girl. do you think the ability for him to connect on that particular issue has been enhanced by the nature of this tragedy? or did his speech last i reflect a new approach to sharing some more of his emotions in public? >> well look, i think you can go back and see, i think the president, you know, the president has discussed many of these topics on a number of occasions. i don't think there's any doubt whether there's -- when you are

-- when we are at, a country, forced to face the reality like that, it provides, as i think you heard the president discussed, it provides an opportunity for us to reflect on the past, on the present, and on the future. and i think he has taken an opportunity to, once again, do that. i think his hope is that those moments of reflection and our actions that come from it will simply be governed by doing so in times of, in times of unspeakable tragedy, but hopefully we will govern more of our actions on a day-to-day basis. >> you've read criticism of him in the past in terms of not really being able to empathize with folks. those really went by the wayside last night. his speech had a tremendous

emotional impact. i mean, do you think that will fundamentally -- >> look, i do want to get into political -- i think the president over the course of his career has been a pretty good job touching on the hopes and the aspirations and dreams of many in this country. and again, yes, they provide an opportunity to reflect. yes, sir. >> thank you, robert. i think there seems to be agreement across the board about president touching on civility and healing in his remarks last night. and bipartisanship. is he aware of, and does have a reaction to some of the comments made last week by members of his own party in the other direction, to blame congressman clybourn making the suggestions about free speech and the nature

of it, or senator bernie sanders including reference to the tragedy in a fundraising letter and suggesting arizona is unsafe for people who are republicans? >> i'm not going -- there are many, many who can comment on, on all this. i would simply point to you, i think what the president said last night is a message that was not reserved for or intended for anybody in particular. it was intended for and i think received by the whole country. and there are plenty who can play -- that's not my role. >> are you aware of those common? >> i can't. spirit when he first heard about the congresswoman opening her eyes, did he decide right thing to put in his speech? how does that work? how did he decide where and

when? >> he -- just to go through the art of it. we talked about this but i guess i should do it later for people who might not have seen. this happen, his first stop was in her room. he spent about 10 minutes of their with members of her family, with her husband. and then goes on throughout the hospital seeing other patients, doctors, nurses, other staff, thanking them what they have done. the three friends go and -- i don't know the exact time -- and have an exchange, and there's a miracle of opening her eyes. and of responding to their voices and their memories as

they are talking aloud to her. the president ended by saying the trauma team that had first received those harmed in the shooting on saturday, and then got into the car for the very short drive to the mcgill center. in the car, along with the first lady, was her husband and mother and that's when the president first heard the story. and talk to the husband about whether he would be comfortable with sharing that story. obviously, there's a lot of personal privacy issues that i think the president wanted to ensure. he didn't write any of it out. he mentioned to me -- we ended the meeting with the families about nine or 10 minutes before the president went out. and in the hold he mentioned to me that, that he would insert

that story in the portion of the speech where he discusses, you know, how she's aware that we are, we are all there rooting for. and that's how it all came about. >> robert, did you know that bill daley gave money to dan hine in 2004, if you think the president cares? >> i probably knew that at some point, and no, i don't think he cares. >> same subject. spirit and let you to follow up on -- >> no. first, my condolences to all americans, especially to the victims. but second, as to why it does not seem all that comprehensib comprehensible, at least from an outsider. it's the reverse side of

freedom. unless you want restrictions, unless you want bigger role for the government, -- >> look, i think there's an investigation that's going to go on. let me take my time for a second. there's an investigation that's going to go on. i think as it goes on we will learn more and more about what happened. i think the president was clear last night, we may never know fully why or how. we may never have an understanding of why, as the president said, in the dark recesses of someone's mind, a violent person's mind, to actions like this spring forward. i don't want to surmise or think in the future of what some of that might be. but i think it's important to understand, as i said earlier, the event that was happening

that day was the exercise of some very important, very foundational freedoms to this country. the freedom of speech. the freedom to assemble. the freedom to petition your government. democracy, or form of self-government that is of, by, and for the people. all very quintessential american values that have been on display, along with tremendous courage and resilience of those in the community, and throughout this country, but have had to deal with this tragedy. >> this is what i was talking about, exactly this. this is america. that democracies, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition your government. many people outside would also say, and they quote unquote

freedom of the deranged mind to react in a violent way it is also american. how do you respond to? >> what's the last part? >> they quote unquote freedom of the deranged mind to react violently to them, it is also american. >> know. i would disagree vehemently with that. there are -- there is nothing in the values of our country, there's nothing on the many laws on our books that would provide for somebody to into and, indeed, on the very freedoms that you began with, but exercising the actions that that individual took on that day. that is not american. i think there's agreement on all sides of the political spectrum, violence is never, ever

acceptable. we had people that died. we had people whose lives will be changed forever, because of the deranged action of a madman. those are not american. those are not in keeping with the important bedrock values by which this country was founded, and by which its citizens live each and every day of their lives, in hopes of something better for those that are here. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> and just a reminder come you can watch last night remembers program in houston with president obama. we are sure that now over on our companion network c-span at our live coverage on c-span2

includes a forum on small business lending being hosted by the federal deposit insurance corporation. 

>> secretary of state hillary clinton was in yemen this week as al qaeda's influence grows stronger in the arabian peninsula. the u.s. will increase its aid to yemen to $250 million this

year. the present chief counterterrorist advisor john boehner spoke about yemen late last month at this hour-long event your. >> good morning all. i am jessica mathews, president of the carnegie endowment. it's a pleasure to welcome you this morning. we are privileged to have with us today the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism john brennan. as we reflect on the end of 2010 and look towards 2011, it's difficult to overstate the effect that we can states have had on global politics and security, and are having. and you the very top of the list of those countries of concern is yemen. and we are there for a particularly key to their mr. brennan's insights today. you have in front of you a brief

biography. i just want to emphasize that he is has been impressive three decade long career in the intelligence arena. at the cia, he served from 2008 -- from 1980-2005 in numerous high level positions. his accomplishments include establishing the national counterterrorism center, and directing the terrorist threat integration center. and he served as its principal senior aide to cih record george tenet and is the principal intelligence brief for president clinton. for the last two years, john brennan assert as a top counterterrorism official in the white house. the "new york times" said of him, it is now obama's war, bringing is his general. so general brennan, we are very happy to have you. the threat that mr. brennan will

address today, yemen, has been on the world radar screen ever since the tragic uss cole bombing 10 years ago. it return to the front page after the yemeni trained christmas day bomber last year, and in recent months when al qaeda in the arabian peninsula attempted to send explosives to chicago simcox. aqa a psi greater threat to american domestic security in all likelihood than the more well-known central al qaeda organization in south asia. at carnegie, christopher has shed new light on the unprecedented problems that are facing yemen today. in addition to a resurgent al qaeda, the government has to contend with a civil war in the north of an increasingly active sessions movement in the south, a deepening economic crisis am a dwindling water supply, which is

linked directly to much of the violence in the country, addiction to widespread narcotic, even more widespread corruption, and a weak central government. as chris has noted in his work, yemen is a country close to the brink of failure. and if it were to fail the ripples from that would certainly spread rather widely in the region. so given this leaked picture the questions that we are eager to answers to today are what the u.s. can do to help stabilize yemen, how with u.s. counter terrorism policy adapting to this growing threat, and how can the united states work with other nations to ensure yemen and the region's security? i think there probably is no better person to address all of these questions that are speaker today. and so i hope you will join me in welcoming him, john brennan.

thanks. [applause] >> thank you very much, jessica, for that kind introduction, as well as for your leadership, not only here at carnegie but four years of public service and for your many writings which have helped both policymakers and the american people better understand and address the challenges facing our nation. i would like to think it will here at carnegie as well for being here today, and for sustaining this institution as a force for global peace and security for 100 years or can congratulations on your centennial. the mission statement on your website says that carnegie is dedicated to advancing operation between nations, and promoting active international engagement by the united states. these two words, cooperation and engagement, capture well the

essence of what i want to talk about today. and that is why the carnegie endowment for international peace is such a fitting venue for my remarks. and let me say that it is wonderful to see so many people here, diplomats, civil society leaders, public servants, academics, who have dedicated their professional lives to the study of yemen. and i especially want to acknowledge former u.s. ambassadors david newton, stephen sash, for being here today and for your service and support of our nation's policy objectives in that part of the world. i very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss the country and the people that i have come to know and admire for over 30 years. when i first joined the government in 1980, one of my first assignment was as an analyst on yemen. when i was posted to saudi arabia in the early 1980s, i traveled so times to the border, capped among and within the tribes in the region and saw firsthand the duty of the land that was done in ancient times

as arabian phyllis, or happy arabia. because of the rich landscape, the plentiful spices and the enterprising and dutiful people found there. i've had the great pleasure to return to yemen for time since joining the administration 23 months ago. with each visit i found something new and fascinating about the country, to dramatic topography, the beautiful architecture, the handcrafted silver, and the back streets that appeared unaffected by passing centuries. and in each of those last four visits i've had the opportunity to meet with president and senior yemeni officials. in each of our meetings we've had direct and serious discussion about the partnership between yemen and the united states. and i came with each of these visits to yemen with the other insight on interest, concerns and aspirations of not only the president but also of the yemeni people. and more about that in a few

minutes. in short, i had a great pleasure of coming to see yemen, nightmare how many westerners, including americans sometimes perceive it, but for what it truly is, a rich culture, a beautiful country, and a proud and resilient people. i have also come to understand something that all of you know, yemen matters. yemen matters to the world not simply because of the threats emanating from within its borders today as we saw again during this week's attack on our embassy personnel in which we strongly the. yemen matters because its interest strategic significance. with its strategic location at the junction of two of the world's most important waterways, the red sea and the gulf of aden, yemen has served as a commercial and transportation hub for centuries, conecuh mediterranean, african, and arab ports. this location of course had made yemen the target of foreign interventions that have left an

indelible mark on the country. yet its location has also allowed yemen to into a period of wealth and prosperity, cultural development and burdening industry. during medieval times and yemen became a center for spices and textiles. as recent as this month in the midst of so much challenge yemen coast of the gulf soccer tournament for the first time ever with thousands of soccer fans flocking to aden. that's successful and peaceful international event was a tribute to jim and determination to hold the tournament despite the challenges as well as the threats. likewise it is impossible to understand humans current situation without a historical context. those of you in this room need no lesson in humans complex history, but i do want to spend a few minutes on the past because it informs a president obama and those of us within the administration see yemen today. traditionally, yemen has not

been united into one nation, but rather to fight back for his tribals and external actors pick in the 19th century human have become part of the expanding on them and encourage empires which resulted in the north coming under the control of the ottomans and the south becoming part of the british sphere of influence. eventually the ottomans and the british lost control and missile fell under the influence of the communists supported by the soviet union. it was not until 1990 under president saleh that yemen was united. this is the history that feeds into the current tensions between the yemeni government and domestic opponents. some yemen is in the southern part of the country side in an equitable distribution of resources and political power as the reasons behind increased tensions with yemeni government. the government of yemen has engaged in these issues with local activists in the south, including those calling for secession. disengagement can help maintain stability and foster a political

environment and institutions that address these long-standing grievances. this dialogue must continue. in the northern part of country is present another challenge which has resulted in open military conflict. based, the opposition is our followers who claim is the status among the muslims your the descendents of the prophet muhammed. they cited similar concerns as opposition is in the south they seek reconstruction of wartime damages, economic assistance and stable access to essential services. as well as the lifting of religious and educational restrictions. they have developed a robust and cohesive military arsenal and yemeni and other forces clashed again last year, the sixth round of fighting since 2004. even more daunting is the scope of you and socioeconomic challenges. remains one of the poorest

countries in the world with perhaps 40% unemployment, and per capita income of under $1000 a year. yemen was severely affected by the recent flood crisis, and about a third of human these are considered undernourished, one of the highest rates in the region. basic services are woefully lacking with just 40% of the people having access to electricity, and much of the rural population living in relative isolation. and the pressures on yemen will only continue to grow with more than half of the population under the age of 20 and with its population of about 23 million projected -- projected to double well before the year 2040. in addition, yemen is one the most border scarce countries in the world and destroyed water faster than it can be replenished. create enormous challenges for public health and agriculture. many farmers had turned to cultivation to which so many are unfortunately evicted.

it also required a large amount of water to grow making for a vicious cycle with much of the available water being used to grow crops, and the development of other crops is titled even more. to topple the u.s. economy which is not sufficiently diversified continues to deteriorate. much of the economy and the lion share of the government's revenue and public expenditures is based on oil revenue. but oil revenue are expected to drop due to the right of factors, including natural feel declined and reluctance of international oil companies to work in yemen. these companies site for political security environment and opaque business and private, as reasons they don't do business in yemen. without these counties working alongside them, the yemenis are losing key investments and technical expertise. with a decrease in oil revenue, little to fall back on and a teacher chewing fiscal situation, yemen reach out to

the imf for assistance to help stabilize the situation. so let me say this. even if there were no threats to our security emanating from yemen, the circumstances that i have described so far would be more than worthy of american attention. yemen matters. the people of yemen matter. and as president obama has made clear, our common humanity can access to those yemenis who are struggling to make ends meet, and to live in freedom and dignity. all of these challenges have made not only yemen right for internal instability, they've made the country an attractive recruiting and training ground for al qaeda. indeed, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is now the most operationally active note of the al qaeda network. so who are these terrorists? al qaeda of course has had a presence in yemen in saudi arabia for well over a decade. for its part al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is a hybrid of old guard operatives with a close tie with osama bin laden,

as well as new generation elements of al qaeda who have embraced bin laden's mandate to attack the united states and the west. it was al qaeda operatives in yemen to attack the the uss cole in 2000, and a french oil tanker in 2000 do. some of the individuals responsible for the attack on the cole and escaped prison as part of a larger prison break in 2006 and will go on to form the leadership of the al qaeda or even potential franchise. in saudi arabia the al qaeda affiliate derek conducted a series of attacks begin in 2003 that over the next few years killed 13 americans, including an attack of u.s. consulate in 2004. the campaign against this group waged by the saudi government has been largely successful, capturing or killing most of the group's leadership in saudi arabia by 2007 at however the remnants of that network fled the kingdom. many of them going to yemen

whether join with yemeni counterpart to form al qaeda in the arabian peninsula in 2009. more recently the ranks of al qaeda have been bolstered by members with ties to the west or with american citizenship such as milwaukee. indeed, al qaeda is seeking to attract not just westerners were americans overseas, but americans inside the united states. is increasingly acted outraged is in line with al qaeda senior leadership positions a global violent effort against the united states and its allies. as a result, al qaeda today poses a serious threat to yemen, the saudi arabia and to the united states. al qaeda has conducted a wave of attacks against security forces attacked our embassy in september 2008 come and attend to a small rocket attack against a british ambassadors vehicle earlier this year. it also attempted to set back saudi counter person successfully suicide attack in

2009 which thankfully failed. and, of course, al qaeda has responsible for to attempted attacks against the u.s. homeland over the past year. attempt by umar farouk abdulmutallab to bring down a northwest flight on christmas day last year, and the recently, attempting to send air cargo packages containing explosives to the united states. the groups leadership clearly seeks to apply lessons learned from past attacks, including those of the groups. and their definition of success, stoking fear even if they're a tax sale, portends more such attempts. this is a challenge the united states, yemen and our partners face today from al qaeda, thugs have put down roots in the arabian peninsula. now, no nation could address this range of challenges alone. and yemen is no different. it needs partners. it needs assistance. and it needs to know that the

international community will not stand idly by and watch a yemen fall victim to al qaeda's murderous agendas. and that is why the obama administration has developed a comprehensive approach to support human and it's time of need. in this sense, our human policy reflects the presence clear understanding of the dual tosses -- challenges before to protect american people and our partners. on one hand, there's a near-term -- and let me assure everyone in this room, we will destroy al qaeda. but there is a larger a long-term challenge of confronting the political economic and social forces i can sometimes drive individuals down the path toward militancy. this in turn involves offering an alternative that affords people the political space, economic opportunity, and social inclusion that made countries like yemen less vulnerable.

in other words, we aim to forge partnership that offer people a future of hope and dignity. in fact, president obama has been very insistent for those of us on his team that our partnership with yemen not be defined solely by common threats. but rather by the shared vision of a brighter future that the yemeni people want and so richly deserve. so in yemen like elsewhere we are pursuing a comprehensive approach that addresses both near and long-term challenges. and we are doing so by harnessing every tool of american power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic, as well as the power of our values. the obama administration has been working closely with our yemeni partners to address the drivers of instability in yemen well before the al qaeda in the arabian peninsula attempted the attack last christmas. over the past few years we have strengthened our bilateral relationship and have dramatically expanded our efforts to help improve yemen's

political situation and social economic outlook. we have increase the total u.s. assistance to yemen from $22 million in 2008, about $300 million in 2010. the role of our civilian agencies in yemen is steadily increasing, and our bilateral nonmilitary assistance accounts or to half of the assistance provided in 2010 with a total reaching approximate 130 million in non-security assistance. our efforts in yemen involved a wide range of u.s. government agencies. the departments of state and defense and usaid have been working in yemen for years and they are now alongside counterparts from agencies including commerce, treasury, homeland security, health and human services, justice, and agriculture. on the economic front our treasury and state departments reported gammons negotiations, signed this summer which provided much-needed fiscal relief for the yemeni government

and people. i was pleased to learn about the approval earlier this week of the world bank grant to support yemen he private sector growth and social protection. we also look forward to seeing the next version of yemen's development plan for poverty reduction. in another important step the united states and yemen have concluded bilateral market access negotiations as part of yemen's efforts. yemen's progress and the path adopting international standards is an important step toward integration with global markets and improving the economic fortunes of the yemeni people. to increase the opportunities for the next generation of yemenis we continue to expand our educational exchange programs. the department of state sponsored exchange programs provides world-class educational intranet opportunities for over 100 yemeni students each year. from high school students to cabinet level government officials. these are the people who will help determine the future of

their nation, and the united states is committed to lending a helping hand to the next generation of yemeni leaders. our comprehensive study in yemen put the premium on reform that increases stability, capacity, accountability, and inclusiveness of the yemeni government. in both the short as well as the long-term. we are working with the yemenis in our international partners to help build the necessary components of a functioning democratic system at this includes promoting political reconciliation, increase government transparency, improve the delivery of essential services, support for freedom of the press, the growth of a vibrant civil society, strength and rule of law, and free and open elections. it is no secret that yemen faces profound challenges in many of these areas. and none of them can be ignored. yet it is also undeniable that governance and rule of law are the bedrock of development, and

development is a foundation for stability. just last week my staff had the opportunity to meet with two very dedicated representatives from jim its anticorruption body to discuss opportunities for training a financial investigation and rule of law. we continue to stress the importance of the national dialogue which is the mechanism used in yemen to reach political consensus on a range of problems, including election modalities, conflict and southern unrest. at the same time we're working closely with our international partners to leverage the expertise, resources and assistance that nations in the region and around the world can offer yemen. for example, the friends of yemen forum include saudi arabia, the united emirates, united states and united kingdom prime arable -- i will assistance that yemen pursue political, economic and social reforms. a working group chaired by the uae in germany is helping on the economic about and governance

runs. another working group chaired by the netherlands focus on improving justice, security and the rule of law. we are looking for to participate in the friends of yemen minister and saudi arabia next year and will continue to work with the government and people of yemen and our international partners on coordinating and streamlining the assistance going forward. this is a long-term challenge. while the results might not be immediate, they are absolute critical. since the very first days of this administration, we have also focused substantial time and attention on the terrorism threats in the meeting from yemen. and on developing the appropriate response is to that threat. we are helping to train and develop yemeni counterterrorism forces, and those efforts will continue. the resolve has grown over the past year as al qaeda began specifically targeting yemeni security officials, and many brave yemenis have given their

lives in defense of the country and their fellow citizens. we will continue to work with yemeni forces with the intention of building their capacity to allow us over time to read been security aid and assistance as their forces develop greater proficiency. we are helping yemen build its counterterrorism capacity for very specific purpose, so that yemen with our assistance can go on the offensive against al qaeda. going on the offense is meant exactly that. using all the tools available to identify, locate, captured, and when necessary killed those who are dedicated to murdering innocent men, women and children. and in my mini discussions with president saleh, whether in person or on the phone, i have conveyed president obama's personal commitment that the united states will do whatever it can to help the people in yemen with the country of the terrible cancer of al qaeda.

in addition to near-term capacity building efforts we are currently engaged with yemeni officials to build immigration and vocational training program to complement their increasingly aggressive counterterrorism arrests campaign against al qaeda. the yemenis agreed on the need to better facilitate the integration of former yemeni terrorists back into society through a combination of job training, monitoring, psychological evaluation, as well as religious instruction. we are currently working with our international partners through the friends of yemen construct and other bilateral discussions to determine the best way to leverage each of the strengths, to address the need for this type of long-term program in yemen. achieving our shared goal of disrupting it is meant to the al qaeda network in yemen will require patience. we will need to draw on not just our cooperation with yemen and other partner nations against al qaeda, but also refine and develop intelligence relationships, security

screening processes, and yemeni counterterrorism forces to address effectively the threat posed by al qaeda. the attempted attacks over the past year also underscore the importance of a multilayered defense of our homeland and the need to constantly strengthen each layer. in the wake of the attempted attack last christmas, we implemented new screening measures and intelligence reforms. over the past year the department homeland security has work with the international civil aviation organization to reach historic agreement on improving international aviation security, including new standards for screening air cargo, and concurrently we deploy transportation security administration experts to yemen to train over 300 yemeni aviation personnel on security screen procedures and deploy screening equipment to address the gaps in this process in yemen. the department is also working closely with the yemeni government to determine a way forward that includes improved

security measures that will allow for lifting of the air cargo van now in place against items coming from yemen. the attempt by chairs to ship improvised explosive devices also demonstrates the crucial role that intelligence relationships with our partners play in disrupting terrorist attacks. in this case the saudis provide actionable information that enable our british and french and industry partners to intercept the package and disable the devices. i also want to know that we achieve our characters and objectives not only by disrupting terrorist operations and protecting the homeland, but also by depriving terrorist recruiters of the symbols he had used to and indoctrinate their foot soldiers. as president obama has said, once that civil is used at one time of a. secretary gates ,-comcompatible mode and have talked about the lasting effects of guantanamo as recruiting symbol for terrorists. and that includes al qaeda in

yemen. that is why the united states continues to work to build yemen capacity as a vital partner in the administration's ongoing efforts to close guantánamo. a significant proportion of the detainees still in car trade in guantanamo our yemeni nationals. as the president has said, we will not release or transfer detainees we consider a continuing threat under any circumstances. so we are working diligently with the government in yemen to build their capacity to properly monitor, prosecute and incarcerate individuals as required to protect both our nations. let me take a moment at this point to say a few words about the candor of a discourse that is taking place between yemeni -- between the yemeni and the american government. as with all bilateral relationsrelationship, a relationship between washington is at times marred by differences of view, tension and even strong frustration by each

side. we, the united states, frequently push the yemenis to move further and faster along the path of economic and political reform, to reach a peaceful accommodation with sun oppositionist and to be more aggressive in the actions they take against al qaeda. for their part two yemenis complain to us that our security and develop systems flows are too slow and and cover by bureaucratic requirements and complications. and we expect economic and political reforms virtually overnight without understanding the implications of such reform on yemeni society instability. and that we are more interested in fighting al qaeda than helping the yemeni people. i consider this to be a healthy tension. and president -- and president saleh and i will have what i will call anybody conversations and we've debated and argued over major substantive issues. but that is the hallmark of true

friendship. not telling the other in what they want to hear, but telling the other what they need to hear. that's what i called president saleh the day before the wikileaks releases hit the press. iceblink you president saleh that we deeply regret the public release of purported diplomatic correspondence that resulted from despicable criminal activity. i told president saleh that is most unfortunate that these releases would be taking place, and i hope they would not cause problems with him, the yemeni government, or the yemeni people. i told president saleh that president obama appreciated his understanding of unfortunate and regrettable development. and that the united states is now even more determined to pursue even stronger ties with yemen in the future. so this is a comprehensive study we are pursuing with her yemeni partners. not simply to destroy the terrorists who defile the yemeni ground they walk on, but don't

yemen to address the political, economic and social forces that contribute to violence and terrorism and deprive the people of yemen of a future of security and prosperity. our approach to achieve and is emblematic of our over all approach to counterterrorism and as i said previously, our ct strategy must be nested within an consistent with our broader foreign policy to national security strategy. that is true whether we're talking about afghanistan, somalia in the horn of africa, or the arabian peninsula. in yemen as in those other critically important regions, we are drawn on all our resources and capabilities to counter and disrupt the immediate threat to protect the american people from attack. at the same time, however, we are also working to create lasting security, stability and prosperity in yemen so that al qaeda and other extremists cannot find safe haven there. if we fail to do our part to address the underlying economic,

political and security challenges in countries such as yemen, will find themselves fighting against al qaeda threat for years and years to come. thethe counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the immediate threats to the exclusion of the more comprehensive political, economic, and develop mental oriented approach is not only shortsighted, but also doomed to fail. in closing i would simply reiterate that our counterterrorism efforts in yemen are part of our larger copperheacopy of the proposed to protecting the american people. yesterday the president provided the american people with an update with regard to her efforts in afghanistan and pakistan. as the president said in our quote goal remains the same. to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda, or prevent its capacity to threaten the american people and our allies in the future. we are making significant progress towards that goal, in the tribal region between afghanistan and pakistan the

core of al qaeda and under more pressure than at any point since it led afghanistan nine years ago. senior leaders have been killed. it's harder for them to recruit, to travel, train, plot in to launch attacks. in short, al qaeda is hunkered down. as the president said it will take time to openly defeat al qaeda and remains the ruthless and resilient enemy bent on attacking our country. but we are going to remain relentless in disrupting and dismantling that terrorist organization, and i can envision the demise of al qaeda's senior leadership in contrary in the coming years. and around the world, where ever al qaeda and its terrorist effect try to take root, we are going to continue using every tool at our disposal to protect the american people and build the capacity of our partners to protect their people. i that includes staying true to the ideals and values that make us americans, and make our nation great. because as the president said,

when as terrorists offer nothing but a vision of death and destruction, the united states is going to continue to offer people around the world a vision of hope, progress, and justice. thank you very much. [applause] >> you thank you for a notably clear and forceful and comprehensive policy statement from which i think all of us learned. mr. brennan is going to take some questions. let me ask you to be brief, and to identify yourself just as a courtesy to him. we will start with the gentleman right here. wait for the mic if you would. >> thank you very much. market for middle east policy council. mr. brennan, i would like to i would like to applaud you very much on your statement of a strategy that goes be on simply counterterrorism, but also talks

about development. my question is, is it enough, the figures you mentioned are really pretty small compared to the kinds of things we're spending elsewhere. and i could envision spending 10 times as much figures, would make this task tested. if it's worth doing, do we devote more resources to yemen? thank you. >> absolutely. i agree that there are quite a number of challenges in yemen that require a commitment of resources. that is one of the reasons why we put together this friends of yemen construct so that we will be working in concert with our partners overseas, would it be the gulf arab states, europeans and others, to ensure that we have a company to program that goes beyond bilateral relations between individual countries and yemen. but there's also a question about the capacity of yemen and making sure that investment in yemen is going to be something that's going to address some of those long-standing and

structural problems in the country. obviously, yemen gets a lot of budgetary relief and support from other countries so that they can continue to make payroll and other types of things. and we are not talking about trying to move all of that bilateral assistance into defense of yemen construct. however, what i think want to do is make sure wikified of infrastructure projects, those types of economic development to that are going to be a part of the future of yemen so that the investment is done wisely, not just as a temperate policy that is going to address requirements or request, and i think for too long it has been more tactical than strategic, more short-term and long-term. but this is going to take some time and that's what we're trying to explain to not just our yemeni partners but other countries as well, longer-term approach. >> john, with your permission i'll take three at a time. >> that will define. >> let's take this little group

of three and then i will move to the back. >> good morning, john. bob dreyfuss from the nation in rolling stone. i remember a conversation we had a number of years ago were you especially said the military is the wrong instrument to fight terrorism with. and among the incentives for recruiting terrorism, many people argue that the drone attacks and the night raids by forces in southern afghanistan and so forth are actually like guantanamo, recruiting posters for al qaeda. can you address that point, and i we as rumsfeld, creating more terrorists than we're killing? and i want to ask sort of in a parallel sense from you said al qaeda is hunkered down. and you say something about the

relationship between al qaeda and taliban? because many people think that we could make a deal with the taliban if they would renounce al qaeda under certain circumstances. >> john, to achieve a comprehensive plan that you have outlined, don't you think we need a special envoy like richard holbrooke for yemen, number one? number two, have we talked to all of our friends about allowing yemeni to work in the gcc countries? >> and right behind you guys. i found the world organization for education or want to thank you for informative presentation of my question was that this cover has a strategy sounds very similar to what we already have in place in several places like pakistan, for example. where on one front we are supporting pakistani efforts, while at same time providing them humanitarian and

development assistance. however, despite our best efforts pakistan situation has drastically worsened over the past nine years. so are the lessons we can apply from there to yemen? >> that's three, right? that's more than three. it was three people. spent we should have limited one per. >> bob kidder i don't think i resent the military is the wrong instrument. i think is a wee inappropriate to think of military as the only us but because we are trying to do to make sure that there is balance i guess all those other types of capability the u.s. government has, kinetic, nonkinetic, whatever. are we creating more terrorists than we're removing from the battlefield? that is sort of the key question. we have made significant progress in the fatah in partnership with our partners. and so we really feel as though al qaeda for has taken on the chin. and that they are focusing more on trying to assure their own

security and carrying on a attacks. that's assuming they're then us to leave a. based on the capability. we have to be very careful about. but if you think that we've been able to make progress, and i do think it is this combination of dressing to near-term threats and identify those terrorist operatives who are planning on getting out attacks, and find them. if we capture them or need be, to remove them from the battlefield we will do that. but it has to be balanced against this longer-term effort to we're working with our partners. as far as al qaeda, taliban, they have had a long history. i think the next chapter of the relationship between them is to be played out as we see the next phases of the situation in afghanistan. i think the taliban and others know clearly what our position is, that we will not tolerate whatsoever in the relationship of any entity or organization or country with al qaeda. but we continue to prosecute our

effort in afghanistan, and as the report said yesterday we have arrested a momentum of the taliban. as far as a the comprehensive plan on yemen, special envoy, i think some people in the u.s. government believe i'm the u.s. envoy says i go out there so often. but also what president obama want to do early on was to signal to yemen and to president saleh after well tasha as well as other governments, the white house has a vested interest in yemen future. it is important we move now to arrest some of these trends in yemen to include the growth of al qaeda, and the deterioration of some of those economic features of the country. so, i deal a lot, not just with our yemeni partners, but also with other countries about yemen. so, you know, at some point doesn't need a special envoy?

they are sort of the front and center envoy that everyday pushing forward as we move our foreign policy objectives. comprehensive strategies, we have in place in place like pakistan, yes, we have learned a lot from the. in many respects what we're trying to do in countries like pakistan and yemen and other countries where there is a series of terrorist problem, the problem of militancy, we are trying to ensure that it's going, our catechism strategy is nested within this broader and more companies to framework work but in all these cases i think time would is required in order to change the situations that have been the product of many years in the making so we are trying to absorb those lessons and now applied in as we move forward. ..