sang called "secondhand rose." and i think the media began to see that, you know, this is a woman, she's a human being like all of us are, and whether some believed she made mistakes or not, you know, she could laugh at herself. ..

>> we know that president reagan met in four summits with gorbachev, and was eventually led to the fold of the soviet union. and yet there was a strong component of relationship in his personality and the leverage of that involved in that dynamic. what can you talk about in terms of your experience and perspective and others that you may have about the influence of the president on the world stage? and that being able to deal civilly with our opponents in an international way. >> i'll just say one thing about that. i'll let my colleagues get their perceptions. i think what makes an effective relationship is they could really trust each other, they could have, you know, conversations that maybe private

that will remain that way. and i think there was, you know, one of those four summits where, you know, president reagan excused all of his staff and gorbachev excused all of his staff and the two of them spoke, obviously through interpreters. president reagan never betrayed confidences of world leaders. i know president bush didn't do that. people could count on his word. i think the dynamics of being able to trust each other are really important. i think with that, i will let my colleagues add. >> this is part of the reason that we send our presidents abroad to visit different countries to build a rapport, and it's extremely important for any coalition that you are trying to build, whether it's to get other nations to help in libya, or to help get other

folks at the united nations to vote with the united states and our allies to strength sanctions against iran. it's just very important and sort of the indispensable part of this is the personal relation that is the president has with the foreign leaders, and that's why they need to be able to get around the world. that's why they try to do cultural events and the like when they travel aboard. that's important to be able to convey the respect that the united states has on their processes and their culture and the rest. that all sort of translates into something in a way that we are able to try to inspire other nations to vote with us or to stand with us when things get tough. and so that's a really indispensable ingredient. >> my name is connie chen from maryland. my question is i feel a lot of

students right now are -- kind of have the representation of being indifferent or ignorant to the political activity. comparison to the '70s and '80s, it's like a stark contrast. i'm asking how can the youth of today effectively create change in the government while practicing civil discourse? >> rachel made a good point. >> you have a leg up already because of the kind of media. i was born in 1973, not that -- ladies aren't supposed to tell their ladies and gentlemen -- that's how long i am. we didn't have -- there wasn't really internet until i was in college. i mean i think i first sent an e-mail in college. you know, there certainly was facebook or twitter or any of that stuff. and i -- by virtue of just being here, you are more attuned to politics than i was at that age. so you guys are already involved and effecting government.

president obama's election, i think in large part was motivated by young people who took hold of the opportunities of that media gives them. you are already doing it. i wouldn't -- you know, the premise of your question is right actually that you are less informed and less involved in people in the past. i think you are probably more involved. >> you know, an important part of the reagan centennial is not to be nostalgic and reflective, but the next legacy of young americans. that's what the conference is about, we've brought 102 students across america, we have a lot of other programs going on throughout the year. if you go to reagan centennial.com, we'll see all about that. we talked about last night in our group at the end of this week, we have students from all 50 state that is will have friends from all 50 states. there are probably some candidates running for president of the united states who don't know people from all 50 states.

yet these students here will have relationships and be friends. and that's a huge leg up over our generation and certainly president reagan when he came to office. there was al little more than one face -- fax machine in the white house. >> and the computers is unbelievable, first max machine i saw was 1989 with the new bush administration. it was sort of unbelievable. you are connected as rachel said by the internet, you know, and can make the connections between young people in the middle east rising up over a dictatorship, wanting freedom, wanting the ability to have this kind of thing that you are participating in and make that connection between them and yourself. you know, i do agree with rachel, you are already doing more than you think you are doing. how you share this and, you know, help to proliferation the

message that you have here, that are you are learning here is really, really important. >> let's go to this side. >> i'm wilber baker from washington, this question is for any of you. what about ronald reagan's beliefs and ideals do you think enabled him to have a close relationship with house speaker tipp o'neil? >> i think it was a shared anises tri. -- an an an -- anises tri. there was a basis of understanding right there personally a connection that led to, you know, a further deepening of their personal relationship. i don't know if you want to add to that, michael. >> i would agree with that. also just reagan's confidence. he didn't have to prove himself

to any particular group of people. he was who he was. he gave hundreds and hundreds of speaks when he worked for general electric of california, he knew who he was. i don't think he thought he was compromising himself when he had to deal with people who might have diametrically opposed views. that's not to say he didn't ever sort of, you know, get the conservatives upset or different factions upset at one position or another. i think he had the enduring confidence that he felt like he could deal with whoever he wanted to and not be seen as suspect for doing so. >> it's a good example of a general thing that people might not realize, even in the senate, in the house, personal relationships are really important in terms of policy because, you know, if michael and i are from different parties

but we get along really well, admire each other, we're much more likely to do business across the aisle with each other and find -- really go out of our way to find a way to agree we don't like each other. you see that in the confirmation process, john roberts going up. he was qualified. there were lots of reasons, it didn't hurt at all that people liked him. >> thank you. >> my name is kevin, i'm from dixon, illinois. my question is do you think it would be a good idea for students our cage to already affiliate themselves with a political party or better to keep our minds open and not affiliate ourself. we can go within our own selfs and discover what we want, rather than a party that we are with once. >> that's great. i hope we earn your trust in the republican party. we have to do that by making sure we have effective communicators and policies and issues that you can believe in. here, i came from a family of

democrats all immigrants from foreign country from italy to this country. i was the only one born here in my family. you know, they came up through unions and unions and they were really aligned with the democrats. and when i first registered to vote, i did the same thing. but it was an out of country experience in 1979 living in italy when the american hostages were taken by iran that forced me to think differently. but i started paying attention to the people that were running from president when i came back home in 1980, jimmy carter and ronald reagan. it took an event to propel me to pay attention. i began to volunteer for ronald reagan. changed my registration, voted for him, it was one the greatest decisions that i ever made in any life. but i didn't necessarily know

what i was registering for. i thought my family did. then i began to understand -- i became more of a participate in the process and understanding the candidates and what they were saying. i think you've got to pay attention to what people are saying. >> thank you. kevin is from dixon, illinois. two of our students both from dixon, which is president reagan's hometown. >> right. exactly. >> we were talking about last night the proud moments of always remembering where you are from wherever you go in life. president reagan was true to that. we never lost the midwestern values and the influence that his mother's family and community had on his life. how important is that as a member of congress, congressman, senator, president of the united states, staying in tune and in touch with that home base, the home port, those people that you not only represent, but molded you and made you into who you became as an elected leader.

>> it's very important. members of the house of representatives go home almost every weekend. there are a lot of weeks that they spend in their districts and the reason they do that is to stay connected with their constituents so that they know sort of so they have their finger on the pulse. so it's very important to remember where you are from and that probably helped form the values and the way you've made decisions about your politics and the way you are going to vote or vote in a presidential election or vote in congress. and so it's tremendously important and i think if you asked a lot of members of congress who have lost their seats, they might sight that they sort of gotten out of touch with their constituents. one way they try to do that is to go home frequently. it's critically important. >> hello, i'm adriana, i'm from

columbus. thank you for being with us. i think our nation is diverse. what would you recommend to us in learns to expand our views from people of different backgrounds while still being civil in public discourse? >> well, you came here. i mean that's -- honestly, you know, i grew up in iowa. i went to college in minnesota, then i went to law school at harvard. each place, you know, i grew up in a small town, very home home- homo genius and everyone is dutch. getting to know a lot of different people expands your horizons. you are doing it right here. at a younger age than i did. you've already taken the good stuff. >> thank you. >> hi, i'm from huntington west virginia. i wanted to say rhetoric is a powerful tool within a discourse. i wanted to know what you think politician can learn today from

the way that reagan used rhetoric and what do you think about the way that media is using the rhetoric and if you believe it's being used correctly or incorrectly, and if you believe that rhetoric is effecting the way -- affecting civility? >> well, you still see presidential candidates in the republican party try to emulate reagan's message. one the things that you hear, that you can find it in the newspaper this week if you tried, is the republican nominees or the folk that is are running for the republican nomination, talking about reagan's optimism. that was a big strength of his. i think it's something that many conservatives want to emulate because it appeals to sort of our ideals of who we believe we are as a special nation. and so to the degree that you could be optimistic, you know, people are attracted to optimistic people. i think that's important.

>> right. >> for presidents, and that's why even all of our presidents in the darkest day at end of the day try to summon up something about our values and our history so that we know that -- they will be reassured the united states will come through it. >> great. >> thank you. >> another one on this side. >> after the presidency of president roosevelt, there was an amendment added to limited the tenure in office to two terms, two, four-year terms, this was mainly supported by republicans. the next two that were capable of running for a third term were president eisenhower and president reagan. i wanted to know in a broad question, what effect do you think a third term by president reagan would have had on the late '80s, early '90s of america? >> i have very strong opinions

on this. i think that two terms is enough. i really do. for anybody. in fact, there was sometimes where i was thinking even six years is enough to do the job. but it's, you know, our country handles transition very well. there are institutions within the government and all of the agencies and civil servants that continue the work of government, continuities of operations means more now than it did after 9/11. we go through exercises to make sure our country is safe. but these -- when you come in the jobs and political jobs, you come in as president and all of the appointees you bring with you. these are extraordinarily demanding jobs, and they've really after a period of time, you do really burn out and you are not -- you run the risk of not being as effective with new

ideas and with people really following. you know, americans get hired of things way too quick lip. so i think, you know, two terms is plenty. >> very interesting question. they had the support of excellent vice president and george h.w. bush that was elected president of the united states when president reagan was term limited and cannot run again and it was a very effective president on his own. >> right, had to work hard to say he was his own person. that it wasn't another four years of president reagan. although it was hard for george h.w. bush, because he's so respected and loved ronald reagan and they were so close. he was probably, you know, the most loyal vice president anyone could ask for. so to branch out on his own, yet still benefit from this

extraordinary run by an extraordinary person in ronald reagan was a very delicate balancing act. >> their relationship is another example of where contentiousness can lead to collaboration in the 1980 election and the primaries that was rather heated. and vice president bush supported bush, president reagan wonderfully, and they became good friends and supportive of each other throughout the administration. >> my reagan friends believe i entered into a mixed marriage when i married the personal aid of george h.w. bush, it was between the staff too. we bridged that gap after 20 years, thank god. >> thank you very much. >> hi, i'm david, i'm from new hampshire. this question is for any of you guys. what would ronald reagan think of the way we conducted the war on terrorism and what changes would he recommend to accomplish

our goal of keeping the united states and the world safe from this threat? would he negotiate with the enemies of freedom? >> michael? >> i don't think he would be interesting in trying to negotiate. i don't think either political party has -- there's no real constituency for trying to negotiate this. i think -- i think president bush tried to use all elements of national power in the war on terrorism. which is something that reagan did against the soviet union, and so i think he would look at way we've revamp the government, the way we took the fight overseas, and the way we've enhanced the authorities in the united states. i think he would work on all of that favorably. and president obama has continued a lot of president bush's policies. so, you know, this is still a work in progress.

but i think a lot of people see there's a lot of continuity to what we're trying to do as a country to fight this particular threat. >> well, our time as come to a close. it was a fast hour. i wanted to thank our panel in anita mcbride, michael allen, and rachel brand for our discussion. we want to thank our students who are representing all 50 states here with us today. thank c-span for the coverage and for the national archives for hosting this today. president reagan was a prolific fier diary writers. one of the diaries is here in the national archives on display. i hope you all have a chance to see it. i want to invite everybody and check out the reagan centennial events for the rest of the year on reagancentennial.com. thank you for being here with us today. >> thank you. [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span3, discussion of legalization of marijuana and the war on drugs. >> there has never been a drug free society. there is never going to be a drug free society. whether we like it or not. we have no choice as children, parents, grandparents, citizens, what have you, but to accept the fact that drugs are here to stay. and that the challenge for us is

not how to build the mote between those drugs and ourselves or between the drugs and children. it's not how to keep them abay, and abolish drugs in the face of our society. rather it is to accept the reality that they are here to stay and figure out how to learn how to live with the reality of drugs in our society so that they cause the least possible harm and in some cases, the greatest possible good. >> more on this event, tonight at 8 eastern on c-span3. >> now eric schmidt, executive chairman of google. this is a little more than an hour. >> welcome to the 36th lecture.

and the first one ever to be given by someone not directly working in the fields of film and television. yes, it's taken the 36 years, but i think we can finally admit that the world and the channels through which we view it have changed. which is why we've invited the executive chairman of the biggest internet company of the world to give tonights lexture. when i came to think about finding a few words to say by way of introduction for eric schmidt, executive chairman of google, i did what most people these days do when they are in need of some facts. ibook -- i googled him. you know, it's very interesting what you can find on google. under the very many entries for eric schmidt, 75 pages, i gave up at that point, i found a cv for eric schmidt dated 2011, which says he has a math degree from michigan and can successfully operate windows 95 and vista.

he's currently looking for a job as a contract programmer. under honors and awards, he listed the fact that last year, 2010, he was fantasy football champion. then i found his web site. and during the time he lived in china, he studied mandarin and classical brush painting. he lives in the state of california, and on some days he can be found in valencia leading the youth choir, and he can rag roll your walls and cheer your interior because he runs a design company out of 1466 avenue, new york, new york. i also have the television number. in fact, i discovered 50 entries registered in the state of california alone. and by googling 1, 2, 3, people and paying $39.95, i could also

access most of these eric schmidt records including birth certificates, marriage certificates, google, it's an amazing thing. but, of course, i didn't need to do any of that. because the vast majority of the 750 google entries eric schmidt belonged to eric emerson schmidt, ceo of google for ten years and now it's executive chairman. eric schmidt was born in 1955 in washington, d.c., he went to yorktown and princeton where he got a degree in electrical engineering, as well as a phd in computer science at the united states of california. he joined google in 2001 when it was a relatively small internet start up. based on an ingenius search engine called back rub which used links. google as it quickly became known now have officers in more than 60 countries. it maintains more than 80

internet, and offered google search in more than 130 different languaging. under eric schmidt's tenure of ceo, the company launched google news, google maps, google earth, google docs, it's acquired youtube, established gmail, and launched google chrome and this year google plus. and what's to come? google as made it's a global brand, bigger than coca-cola and it has created itself as a verb. google is where we go for answers, and tonight and tomorrow in the questions and answers, answers are what eric schmidt is going to give us. answers about what google's intention are for its partnership for our industry and it's plan for original content.

eric schmidt once said, i don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable, and recorded by everyone all the time. tonight's speech is also being streamed live on youtube. it will be read, listened to, and viewed by many, many, more people than are in the theater. and it will be stored on servers and databases around the world for a long, long time to come. i'm very pleased to introduce tonight's lecturer, the executive chairman of the google, the one and only, eric schmidt. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> is my mike on? let's see. can you all here me?

yes, hi. thank you very much, elaine. i'm particularly excited about all of the people in the circle. thank you all for coming. all of you. i wanted to start by saying that it's great to be in scotland. many people don't know how strong the initiatives are in computer science with scottish universities here in greater edinburgh. i think there's every reason to believe there's a tougher renaissance here in a place you might not have thought. i also wanted to say it's quite an honor to be here. especially because in my growing up, i've always assumed that there were sort of people from the media and television world and people from the scientific world. there has been one person who managed to actually live in both

worlds. i wanted to say that we've seen steve jobs to step down as ceo of apple to become chairman. he's the only person that's never been able to actually merge the two worlds with an artists eye, as well as the definition of what grade engineering is. i'm sure that he and the company will do well in the future. from my perspective, that's the perfect example of the kind of union that we should see in the future in other companies and collaborations. from my perspective again, this is the first time in the lecture has been given by someone not employed in broadcast or production. i'm not sure whether it means the bar has been raised or lowered, but i'll do my best. it's an honor to be here as i said as an outsider when he spoke here two years ago, james

murdoch described himself as the crazy relative that everyone is is embarrassed by. i guess i wondered what he's saying now. but if james, if james is the family outcast, i'm not sure what that makes me. right, am i geek in the corner. is this -- am i the alien species, am i the android? am i this? you know, you get the idea. don't worry, i promise i'm not a tellic. charles allen called them the longest job application in the industry. by the way, isn't it great to have google to look this stuff up? sorry. come back. [laughter] >> sorry, plug there. it's very kind of you to think of me. i'm committed to google. all that's changed now -- [laughter] >> all that's changed now is that larry has the keys to the

google taurus. we have a private joke at google is larry is is actually from the future. which is always exciting. so i'm also indebted to my friend, mark thompson, who gave last year's lexture for his tips on what makes a classic lexture. according to him, it boils down to anger, villains, and insults. now i'm not sure about anger, but i'll do my very best to come up with the rest. and mark has even identified candidates for demonizing, usually a choice between the bbc and murdoch. and i must say how refreshing it is that google is not on the list. thank goodness. i don't kid myself. i know some of you have suspicious about google and the havoc blamed on the internet.

some people accuse us of being unresponsive, uncaring were or even worse. so today i'm going to try to set the record straight on those points and demonstrate why we can and should be optimistic together about television's future which i think we can if we work together. and a little bit about my industry, peter finch said the lexture -- lecture is the closest most television people get to going to church. that's what he said. i'll a tech evangelist. i'll take any excuse to preach about the internet. the internet has grown from almost nothing to two billion users, and we have a ways to go. it's available on mount everest, south pole, half of the adults in the european union use it every day. our goal is to get the other

half. it has become such a profound part of life that four or five adults worldwide now regard it as a fundamental human right. hmm. today it's hard to imagine life without the internet. we take it for granted, but it's worth reminding ourself what an incredible force for good what the internet has been. without the internet, the child growing up in the remote village is unlikely to reach the potential with little access to books or learning. without the internet, people worldwide couldn't band together. we saw in haiti, so quickly in a crisis helping to raise the alarm and deliver support. without the internet, oppressive regimes can deny the people a voice, making it harder to expose corruption and wrongdoing. without the internet, europe would lose one the most important, literally the biggest driver of much needed economic growth. we were looking at this.

in the uk alone, the internet accounted for 70 -- sorry 7% of the gdp in 2010. 100 billion pounds, big numbers, that will grow to 10% by 2015. companies who use the internet are going four times faster than those who are not. like everyone here is. but for the rest, let's go on with it. so in short, the internet is not making inevitable change faster, it has become an engine of change itself. it has recast the way that we communicate. it has transformed the way we learn and share knowledge. it's empowering people everywhere, making the world more open, fair, prosperous. you see it around you. just think about how far we've already come. i encountered my first computer in high school. it was enormous, i might add, and very, very clunky. today my smartphone is 100,000 times were faster than my high

school computer and fits in any pocket. when i first became the programmer to relay information, you had to use the punch cards. today you can touch to your phone doing voice search, things like that, point the camera, or even tilt it and the phone understands. when i started working in computer science, we had big dreams. but the technology just could not deliver them. i remember it's interesting i remember being blown away by doug engelbert of a mouse. it was utter science fiction to imagine one day the computer might be able to respond to your facial expressions or decipher of nuances of human behavior as we can today. it's literally magic. of course, while i'm optimistic in computer science and speaking of computer scientist as the internet or forces for good, i'm not naive. john f. kennedy said i'm an

idealist without elusions. there are many, many challenges that we are still gapping to address. for example, how do you make the world more open while respecting privacy? it's important balance. very important to get it right. how do we empower people without provoking energy? how do we ensure technology and riches rather than devalues the relationships and the culture around us. these are hard and important questions. why does this have anything to do with television? well, in 2010, uk adults spent as much time watching television in four days as they did using the web in entire months. on the other hand, all of us ignore the internet at your

peril. it's fund thal because it's what people want. ultimately, what people want, they will get one way or the other. the internet is a platform for things that traditional television cannot support. it can make television more personal and pertinent if you will. the team behind the music player. more than 10% of the population every week. great product with a vast range, much more advanced than anything i've seen. just launched a european version soon tour global and as an ipad presituation app. another example. and i'm sure it'll be a request. i have one more request. please get an version going.

they are not the only show in town. including the most global. youtube now has content thanks to pioneering partner in channel 4 who in 2009 became the first broadcaster in the world to the full service online. they have, in fact, in youtube, it's the fastest growing youtube category in revenues with more than 80 content partners. pretty good. but more choices just the beginning. it can backfire if you are not careful. just remember how it felt when you would go, you know, to the video store and in the old days of renting videos. face to face with thousands and thousands of movies, picking just one to take home was always a struggle. and that's why a system for recommending content is so vital. it's what channel schedulers

have done. but traditional is one size fits all. sometimes they suit me, or someone else, sometimes they don't. online for those who wish it and grant permission, things can be different. online through a combination of algorithms and nudges, they can be crafted to suit your interest and needs. the more that you watch and share, the more chances that the system has to learn and the better the predictions get. taken to the ultimate, it could be a challenge. sometimes good at new ideas, but most importantly, always worth your time. and we've already had a glimpse of this. if you look at netflix, look at the recommendations. around 60% of the netflix's rentals are a result of the recommendations.

the underlying computer science to have it done is really fun. also now quite well established. another example is amazon. the recommendations like, you know, others who bought this also bought you all have seen this, incredibly compelling. in recent years have accounted between 20 and 30% of amazon's sales. but delivering on the promise of personalization is tricky. both technologically and culturally. personalization requires data and the more data the better. the more we can compute a better personalized result for you. as i've learned first hand, any online service that involves personal data will be an absolute magnet for privacy fears. and it will be vital to strike the right balance so that people feel comfortable and in control. not disconcerted by the eerie, oh my god, you know, accuracy of suggestions. this is a new territory for your

industry, and i don't want you to under estimate the challenge of this. now i've talked about how the internet is transferring television choice. but there's also changes in how we watch. i remember the excitement about interactive television a few years ago. all of the drama over pushing a red button. remember that? wasn't that great. you know, maybe we were riped a little bit. wouldn't be the first time. now we're riding a second much bigger wave of interactivity, seems more real to me this time. it's a convergence of television and internet stream. this time it's not a red button, it's on the laptop, tablet, or mobile. this sometime it's social. for some shows, the online

commentary that swirls around them, be it through twitter, chat forums has become a part of the experience. now consider in your case, think about bbc question time. how they are using twitter to engage audios. all you can do is shout at the television. this is the average american does all day. shouting at the television; right? but the politicians that they see, and now you can tweet your rant to the entire world. and much larger audience for you sitting at home watching television. adding a social layer to television will actually increase in my view television viewership. it's interesting that we have some data on our side. a new product called google plus. people are beginning to use it. it's been out for a month. it has a cool feature, video chat called hang out. you can watch a youtube video in a way it's like being

in the same room. while the video is playing, you can chat overt top and text on the side. anyone in the hang out can grab the controls and rewind or fast forward or skip to a new clip and it keeps everybody in sync around the shared youtube experience. what an improvement over static linear television. how interesting this might become a significant way in which people collaboratively view content. a social layer is something that viewers or a substantial numbers seem to want. i'd argue it's trending. hashtags raise awareness, help you predict what's going to be hot next week, next week, what have you. it can be a metric for viewer engagement, feedback, channel for reaching people outside of broadcast times and provide a great incentive for watching

live. i don't expect television viewer to ever completely switch to the on demand. there will always be a cultural pull. this is obvious. i want to say for some shows on some occasions to watch in real time. the data is interesting. let's have a conversation based on data. then the viewing remains remarkably robust. 90% remains live in the sense of being watched contemporaneously. i sense that the default mode will shift to more of the dvr type over time for the reason that is are obvious. try forcing a 6-year-old, your son or your grandchild who's grown up on a dvr to only watch live television. once you've gotten used to such things, it's hard to give them up. no pause, no rewind, no choice. already in homes with sky plus, it's claimed nearly 20% of the viewing is time shifted. it gives us some data.

and there are hints too of shifts if you look beyond the headline figure, specially for shows that appeal to a younger demographic. no surprise there. more people watch itv's hit show, ethics online than on television. i must confess, i have not seen the high quality show myself. [laughter] >> despite almost every broadcast outlet showing the footage, live stream 72 million times on youtube to 168 countries. interesting. what are the trends to watch? let me comment for you. there are three. mobile, local, and social. now already mobile search traffic on google surpasses that in some countries. globally, 40% of google maps usage is via mobile, and two hours of video are uploaded to

youtube every minute from noble divisions. two hours just from the noble devices every minute. soon the users won't be endorse ed. they will be out and about with the mobile or tablet. reflecting this, i think generes of service are amazing. if content is king, context is the crown. and one the most important contextual signals is location. if you search for coffee, odds are looking for starbucks. if three of any friends rate a television series, odds are i'll check it out even if reviewers say it's rubbish. we're just at the earliest stage of learns how best to use social

signals and taste indicators to provide more specialized content and services. if it you think it is all exciting and frightening, it's just the beginning. we're at end of the first act of the internet. again, all of this represents the upheaval for your industry. i do understand that. i'm trying to be respectful of this point, because i know what it feels like. i was very much present at the birth of microcomputing, or recently i heaven google change to direction to help promote google first. i didn't get social networking as fast as i should have. if any industry is posed toize to the challenge, it's yours. i say this with conviction. the creative talent is unrivaled. we're not debating that. your independent producers are famed for their entrepreneurial zers s s s -- zeal, excuse me.

you have fought for efficient si and won. it has an unparalleled representation, including journalist, comedy, drama. i grew up watching your stuff. i know this to be true. look, you cannot turn the clock back. even if you could, why would you when you have such interesting strengths, the opportunities are really ripe for the taking. just look at i've lots of examples. sales of digital downloads, apple has reported that they have more than it 00 million customers with accounts tied to credit cards. and their one click purchasing in the itunes store. amazon has not released the similar number, but it's not to be roughly the same kind of number. at least in numeric terms. thanks to the internet, it's far easier than ever before for content owners to sell to a

global market. and don't forget that the uk is the per capita e-commerce capital of the world. we know this at google. thank you for the business success. right? so more generally, think about what on demand means for traditional business models. most television channels seem to practice a drip, drip, drip feed whatever you want to call it, approach to releasing content. but in an out -- my view that on demand view, it's outdated. doubt it. look at netflix. in march, they out bid the networks to win the exclusive rights to screen the u.s. version of house of cards. and they are going to do it by making episodes available in clusters, rather than one per week. this is experimental. this is a new model. we'll see how well it works. consider how first run airings attract an ad premium.

which is good for everybody with that i would argue. less relevant distinctions as viewers shift to their own schedule. it's first run to you no matter how many times it's been broadcast. you should be able to get a higher rate at that context. as television becomes more personalized, ad models should adjust. this requires a new processes, the way tv viewing and ad effectiveness is measured. but to that end, google and others, i should add, are investing in research to better understand how viewers are consuming television and the web across multiple platforms. in the uk, we have recently teamed up with a computer to measure web and television habits. there are big opportunities for creative processes as well. i'll give you an example. recognize that there is new

opportunities for and freedoms maybe we should say in storytelling. david simon who's the writer for the wire put it tv is no longer an appointment, it's a lending library. interesting way of thinking about it. help me think it through a little differently. he says, you no longer need to worry about your audience missing episodes. watch at their own pace. the thing is writers can craft more complex story. they don't have to put sign posted reminders, which they say why are you reminding me again? it's for the people that missed an episode. now they can catch up on their own. another example, don't underestimate the internet's potential as a venue for talent spotting. more than 48 hours, that's the total number of content, up minute. two hours are mobile, the rest

is traditional sources. the two is growing fairly quickly. put into context, more video is uploaded in month than all three major network in the united states in 60 years. frightening numbers. i'm not suggesting the quality is the same, i might add. [laughter] >> the creativity requesting and is being found. perhaps most exciting for all and at least for a technologist such as myself, are the opportunities to integrate content. we are busy exploring this with some of the experimental apps for mobile. in our case, you can use your phone to control youtube videos, watch it on the bigger screen, receive background information. a number of people have commented that more than half of television watching seems to involve having another screen next to you, a phone, or a computer, or something or an

ipad, what have you, or a game counsel. there are clever mobile apps, one in the u.s. called into now that identify a tv show that you are watching from an audio fingerprint and make it easy to share this with your friends. let's pause and say that's magic. they can listen to the show and figure out what show you are watching. like how do they do that? it's magic. i'll give an example. i'm fascinated by the notion of bbc notion of orchestrated media. that's what they call it. in in case, the show that you are watching triggers extra material synchronized with a program. another way of making the experience deeper. now so let me pause here and say no matter what i say, and no matter how enthusiastic i am and

you all are enthusiastic about the possibility that is are before us, there will always be some who fear the internet is set to destroy everything; right? nothing new. almost every invention has been reinvigorated that has reinvigorated and helped the immediate industry was first forecasted to destroy it. this is very interesting. i didn't know this. in 1920s and 1930s, the u.s. newspapers fought a fierce campaign to prevent radio from news gathering, terrified that it will would them out of business. they lost eventually. but it didn't matter as newspapers retained their influencing and continue to rake in profits. years later they had a new target. newspapers said, and i quote, i look upon them as parasites, and quote, they should handle their own news instead of cashing in

on our brains and experience, unquote. does that sound familiar? hmm. these were not gained at google. they are from 1957. again the power of google looking things up with as newspapers campaigned about tv muscling in on the news turf. again, the fears proved unfounded. what about hollywood? that's a special case. in 1982, jack valenti who was running the motion picture, compared the vcr to the boston strangler. pretty rough. [laughter] >> these guys are rough. the calamity that he predicted never happened. in 2005, dvd sales alone accounted for more than half of studio revenues. shocking the boston strangler is profitable. the dvd sustained through the

inevitable and tough business cycles. they later said home video was the bonanza that saved hollywood from bankruptcy. a decade ago, jamie blasted tivo for stealing tv by skipping ad. dvr could be a savior, by providing second by second ratings and helping the broadcast compete in the on demand world. let's take part. if i can say anything -- anything in historical context, it's clear to me the history shows that in the face of new technology, those who adapt their business models don't just survive, they prosper. this is always a surprise. for ever generation. the technology advances and no laws can preserve markets that have been passed by. and just to be a little

obnoxious, listen to the entrepreneurs, not the lawyers. if you want to revitalize your business. listen to the people who invent a new business, they see a new way of building an audience. they see a new way of monetizing. because your customers are moving. i would argue the ownous is on you as producers and managers in the top folks here in europe to have the top business models that work. i'm absolutely convinced this is possible. in fact, summer and vcr, look back in 20 years time and say the internet is the best thing that's ever happened, rather than the worst. and in 2007, jeremy paxman dismissed the notion there ever was a golden age of television. i just completely disagree. chef bucus and others pointed out, i think we're on the cusp of a golden age. a vast choice made manageable by

a magical guide; right? ensuring there's something wonderful two watch every second of your waking moments. you can watch while your sleeping, we don't care. we watch alone, chat with the community, they have the social experiment that people care about. all of that is possible now because of the invention of the new underlying technology that we can take advantage of. as i said before, i think the uk is well primed to lead the way. the production talent is unpassed. the pioneering format has gone worldwide and become global smashes in ways that everyone here in familiar with. the uk is home to one the most competitive broadcasters with the courage, ambitious, and deep pocket to innovate. i was looking a at the numbers. in 2010, sky 10 invested as much as channel 4 and 5. sky is upping the investment to

600 million pounds in 2016. there's no doubt they will be formidable player in the online revolution. they are going to do both. itv, appear to be in strong shape. as they restructure with profits up 45% in the first half of this year. a tremendous feat. showing, i think, courage and toughness and leadership in responding to the opportunity before them. and, of course, you have the bbc. not only is the bbc the worlds most, i think, finest public service broadcaster, but it's arguably the most creative as well. :

so, if i may be impolite, and here is the insult mark says i throw in. if track record is not so good and some of these cases. the u.k. is the home of so many media inventions. you have television, it's not widely known, but the world's first office computer was built in 1951 by lines change tee shot. interesting. none of the world leaders are from the u.k. that's a problem. how can you avoid the same fate for your television innovations?

this one is a hard question. it requires a lot of serious discussion. there is no simple fix, but i have some discussions. with apologies again, i'll bring them forward. i think you need to bring art and science that together. think back to the glory days of the taurean era, which they are so many studies on television growing up. a time when the same people who wrote poetry also built riches. he was also not maddox tutor at oxford. bet you didn't know that. james houck maxwell was described by einstein as one of the best businesses since newton and that is without doubt. but he was a published poet. over the last century, the u.k. has stop nurturing of polymath i would argue. there's been a trait the

humanities, even worse, both sides seem to denigrate the other to use what i am told by my british friends is the local vernacular. you are right there you have the great thing. not good, not good. sorry. i hope i didn't offend one group or the other. to change that may need to start at the beginning with education. we need to read in a children's passion for science, engineering and mathematics. in the 1980s, another interesting thing about the bbc's penultimate broadcast about programming, but in partnership with acorn, shipped every million ppc bbc micro computers into schools and homes. it was a fabulous initiative and it's now gone. i was actually flabbergasted. i've been working on this question about math and science

education globally, how the western world compete with asia, all these questions, i was flabbergasted to learn that today computer science is not even tied a standard in u.k. schools. your i.t. curriculum focuses on teaching how to use software, but it doesn't teach people how it's made. this risk throwing away your great computing heritage. the u.k. minister provide more encouragement and opportunity for people to study science engineering. in the united states, president obama announced a program to train 10,000 more engineers a year. there is an example of someone sticking his neck out in the correct way. i sat on the other way on the apprentice at alan sugar said engineers are no good for business. [laughter] okay, shall we check a few facts here?

[laughter] really? i don't think we've done so badly. sorry, i just couldn't resist. if the u.k. is creative industries want to drive in a joint future, you need people who understand our integrated and from the very beginning. take the leap from the victorians and ignore sugar. bring engineers into your company at every level, occasionally including into the top. i can commentary essay in this complete number one. sorry to be blunt, but might as well. number two, you need to get better at growing big companies. the u.k. and this is very, very well established company sheer government has identified that does a great job attacking small terms. you are the world leader at it. but there is little point in

getting 8082 sprout if they get transplanted, sorry for the metaphoric, overseas. u.k. businesses need champa need to help them grow to power houses without having to sell out. they are literally forced to sell out to companies, including google a night at. if you don't address this coming u.k. will continue to be where inventions are born and not bred for long-term success. thank you for innovation. thank you for your brilliant ideas. you are not fully taking advantage of them on the global stage. i would say you have to figure out a way to get smarter about the divide between the public and commercial sectors to get the most out of your public-sector innovations. i talked earlier about the high player. it is a great product. wouldn't it be better if it were expanded to more channels? in fact, there's a project called project kangaroo to do

this which looked great. despite several attempts, clever lobbying resulted in the regulators knocking it. seemingly on the basis that it would be too successful. [laughter] okay. so much for you. [applause] it doesn't make sense. so why do we start from the principle of we are going to have really successful products? now, there is a product coming along that has the name you view, which looks pretty good to me, that even if you view meets the timetable of 2012 i met the love sternly several years for the u.k. could have been in the lead and that's a lifetime. it's a complete lifetime in my world. so since we are in a critical note, at least for this minute, and this is as good a moment too many to address the criticisms leveled to google. that would be yes but i referred

to earlier. one i faced a lot is that we are big, scary and trying to take over the world. it takes many forms. i love these. just wait. in january, luke johnson claimed quote, justice rockefeller's standard oil was an impressive enterprise, it became so powerful it had to be broken up for the public good. i believe google must be seriously tackled in the national interest, unquote. for carly come to subject an to antitrust investigations in both the united states and europe. obviously i don't share these views it should be clear. i do respect you should be debated and so forth. it's only natural that success comes scrutiny. that said, it is hard not to perceive an undercurrent of protectionism on some of these attacks. here's the other side.

john singleton from the officer trading said while lots of people have talked about current competitors, nobody has articulated to us harm to consumers and that's the key. i would argue to you that consumers are the ones in the driving seat. all we are doing, all of us, is hitching a ride in the doors opening to to anyone. the internet brings the consumer to a4 in a way that we have not seen. online as you know, it's very easy for people to come, sample windows. if you don't get it right, they leave very, very fast. in our case, it's common for once again unless there is this to become out innovated and not taken. arrivals are formidable innovators and who knows where the new startups will join the phrase. so what we're doing is we have a survival tragedy to place big bad on to knowledge he shines.

it does sound risky, but given the rate of change, we think it's the only logical result. when they were small, we did not have the capital to place big vats. now we have access to more capital we need to place even bigger bets to try to anticipate what consumers really want over the next few years. not every bed will succeed, but it's safer to deign to hide into the comment to strive for game changing process rather than fiddle the margins. it's better to launch fast, fast, fast, to fail fast and learn from your mistakes but to spend years of planning and the health of the face. if you look at these online social world, which is where a lot of the frothy mess is right now, you'll see they iterate every day. imagine working in a company and indeed they are. it is possible that the focus continues innovation and drive change.

unfortunately, one of the downsides is it can be quite disruptive. at times we have inadvertently made things worse by sharing our delighted innovations without appreciating the discomfort that we have caused. for that i really do sincerely apologize. we could've handled some of those things better and i'm actually really sorry about it. i don't think we'll ever stop it some level rustling feathers. it's an occupational hazard of innovation, but i do hope we are now sufficiently engaged in energy conversation -- literally, conversations today, tomorrow, next week, next year to be sensitive to everybody's concerns and be more responsive is. i was thinking of an example. google tv is an example. this past year when we launched in the u.s., everybody feared we were sent out competing with red casters and content creators.

our intent was the opposite. we seek to support the content energy by providing an open platform for the next generation of tv to is often the same way in trade is for the next platform of mobile. so just as smartphones sparked a whole new era of the internet, i think -- we think that google television can do the same for creating more value for all. it is a platform that combines literally the browsing and web world with all the wonderful things they do in a platform that's never been offered before. we expect this to launch in europe early next year and the u.k. will be within our top priority list for obvious reasons. let me take you to the second criticism that just does. we sometimes have been accused of living off the back of others' content and not paying our way by everyone from michael grade to rupert murdoch.

andy duncan and arrested most distinctly by saying quote, google takes more ad revenue out of the u.k. in itv makes. it isn't fair that it's not reinvesting back into the independent film production countries in the u.k., unquote. some have suggested google would invest directly in television content. i think would make it into the argument it reflects a misunderstanding of what google is or who we are and what we're capable and not capable of doing. we provide platforms for people to engage in content or automated software. we show as the donors have chosen. we have neither the ambition or the know-how to actually produce content at any large scale. i mean, can you imagine if you put us in charge of programming? sci-fi, strange looking viral videos and weird colorful things. i mean, what you will do is hard and we are no good at it.

let's be clear. there is no confusion here. every once in a while to explain this at google. we are good at other things. so instead, what we'll do is help fund content. last year we shared more than expelling the publishing partners worldwide. and we've been investing in deep relationships for example with channels four and five, many partners as well to provide catchup services on youtube. what is happening instead is all mind revenues and fees enhance -- i'm quite convinced, and hints rather than cannibalize existing. we also invest in friday's other ways but also benefit television, certainly the industry. it is worth noting that over the years we invested billions of dollars of capital expenditure on i.t. infrastructure to the content owners when a u.k. user

collects accessory google website, we don't force the isp to send it to the u.s. about your prebuilt data centers and work with providers to help them cached content locally. we cut transition costs and make everything happen much faster. in a world where speed is everything, fast distribution content gets your content and edge. don't underestimate the money and brainpower that goes to creating and maintaining our platforms. the world's best engineers follow simple surveys. it is not one of the great intellectual challenges of our time. we hosted by shared about 20,000 improvements in the launched 500. even we don't get it right the majority of the time. we keep testing and testing and testing. the most disturbing statistic of all is that 15% as the queries we get each day, we've never been before.

at our scale and the scale of the globe shows you how hard this is. we have an army of spammers trying to gain results for one reason or another. so it is that constant vigilance innovation and investment that we do just to stand still. google's r&d spent the last year it grew faster than any other company worldwide. so who benefits from this? user should get a better search tool, content owners are better able to be found. there are some exceptions. we do on occasion also find content that's groundbreaking and uses our platforms. i'm proud of some of these examples. sometimes you have to build a prototype that people have to see for themselves. one example is life in a day come a unique experiment filmmaking done with willie scott and kevin donald. the goal was to show the potential of youtube as a

commission platform by creating an entire feature film for submissions. so this is not for the faint of heart. we had 80,000 contributors sharing 4500 hours of footage into a two-hour film. it was premiered at sundance in january to rave reviews come even got paid for theatrical release. so it can work. we are trying to show the way. it's an experiment with new content that is entirely different to do this professionally at scale. were never going to be with the commissioning and creating content. it's not in our skill set or core business. we care about great content, we actually do. we are under no illusion that great content is what makes them useful. we want to support content industries have embraced the online media, want to direct refund site. it's one way we can help.

more broadly, we're investing in initiatives to equip the next generation to push digital boundaries. we had a contest called the next that contest i promised you to tell it to take ideas to the next level by offering training and the funding. in a similar vein, delighted to announce her partnering with uk's national on the television school to help young filmmakers navigate the world of youtube. so these are examples. the msds is one of the world's most successful film schools as everybody knows and i suspect quite a few are graduates from the programs. they've been credited here as well as in hollywood. starting in january, will be investing to appoint an unnamed filmmaking and distribution module as part of the curriculum. so we're always on the lookout for more of these kinds of ideas. bring them to us in one way or the other.

ultimately, the bulk of our best -- focused on creating content, but rather in the platform, will figuratively to jointly make money and have distribution. for us, he platform offers distribution to a global audience of 2 billion people free of charge is a pretty good rule. and that's where our strengths lie. that's a reconnect the biggest contribution to the television industry's future. i want to talk sort of family and contacts with the issue that is generated some of the most histrionic criticism of google and in general the internet, which has to. this is something we care a lot about. viacom, who sued us over this a few years ago allege that google made a deliberate calculated business decision to profit from copyright infringement in sweeney from disney said serving a pirate sites when you search for shows in something we find unacceptable. i want to respond very clearly

by saying we respect copyright, that we've taken steps to prevent terms from searching -- for example, appearing in the search auto complete, which leads to copyright infringing links. we both tools that make it simple for copyright owners to report violations. we roll out a system to let him credible were viable takedown request remove sites from our index within 24 hours and it's faster than any other web service in the u.k. i looked at it today. our average response time for removal is four hours. so pretty good given the scale of which we have stuff coming out as. i guess i would hazard a guess that by now most of you have used youtube is a free promotional tool, sharing trailers and so forth. the power of youtube as a platform of proven and not at least by viacom, so valuable that couldn't resist uploading clips while they are busy

silliness. [laughter] so youtube is a platform. and it isn't practically possible. it is not possible with all the stuff coming out of to human review every piece of content that comes before it comes to us. if we had to read that every new video, 48 hours every minute, it couldn't exist. much of what you see in content type in the web would not be able to ask this. so we thought about this for a while. this is a new and unproven area. we worked hard to find a technology solution to give rights holders control the content, including ways of making money from it. the centerpiece is called the content ip system. many of you have heard of this. i suspect quite a few you said. it's a 50,000 engineering hours to develop. so not a trivial matter divestment under par. the way this works is very

simple. you send us a master copy of video content you own and want to protect. our system insists there is a giant pile of stuff that keeps coming in to us, looking for anything that shares the same fingerprints. if a match is found, you decide -- do you decide what to do. a few companies fund violations taken down immediately. okay, we'll take it down immediately. most prefer to leave it up in salads against it. okay. a decision i prefer. but we respect your decision, whichever one you make. and to help you with getting to the right decision, hundreds of content owners are now making a substantial sum from their share of ad revenue on content that was originally illegally uploaded, caught fire system, compared to two proper illegal activities. so speaking of all of this,

everybody says google sends out content to be free. this is not the case. we are actually agnostic when it comes to free or paid content, for the right ones. it is up to the content owners, literally up to you to decide if you want to charge your stuff away -- in other words, do not have a subscription model or do you want to have an ad supported model? it is set to the users to decide if they want to pay you cannot pay you were to whatever they do with ads. only one for content is it to be acceptable, accessible, visible if you go to as many people as possible. that does not mean it has to be free. this is not rhetoric from us. we built a range of tools to business is controlled and earn money online. earlier this year, for example, we launched a proto- caught one

pass, he that helps publishers erect a pay wall for their content. we are experimenting with other transactional models on youtube that are quick to die. of course we would argue that google advertising is the ultimate tool for content owners to monetize their work. so that's enough about google. i hope i've made my point clear, that we're not sure enemy and we want to help. i certainly am not suggesting we have all the answers, but we have some insight into where things are heading. we want to work together to support you in this transition. so now you're probably wondering who i'm going to single out as the bogeyman. there must be a guilty party here. for me, no one has yet filled that role, but i think we should keep a close eye on your regulators. very interesting. the u.k. has created and broadcasting industries have

done remarkably well so far, punching way above their weight. home audiences seem broadly happy with what you're doing. innovation in content is quite good. i've looked at the numbers. but as this happened because of or in spite of the uk's broadcasting regulation? i'm going to let you guys judge. the world is changing. television is following for a domestic affair. online, any broadcaster cannot it overreach. so plain to this wider audience is a new mindset, particularly when it comes to laws and regulation. overall, my immature invention of this can of british television is subject to far more stringent regulation in your counterparts in the united states. and this means less flexibility and scope for u.k. companies seeking to compete on the global stage. even though much of europe is worse off so, it is irrelevant because your main competition

for shared language and similarities in culture, your former colonies. across the atlantic. i am not suggesting the u.k. should marry u.s. regulations. we have her own problems. i've listed them all day. it may sound counterintuitive for me to call for lighter regulation when you all have just been through the hacking scandal in other things like that. but here my argument because it's important to be heard. it is no exaggeration to say that decisions made in the next year will determine the long-term health care broadcast and content industries for decades to come. these are critical, critical times because of all these changes. economic growth is the priority of the government, your regulators seemed to be cautious when making new laws. a risk stifling the growth of your content business. since i have a stage come if you a are my opinion not my opinion not give you suggestions.

as i said before, the government should put innovation front and center at the regulatory strategy. television is going global. english of course is the global language, so congratulations and thank you for inventing it. television is going global come you guys should own it. you invent it, you own it. in the era where parallels to the internet. to compete on the world stage come your content businesses need the freedom and legal framework to behave more like internet companies. i was surprised at the starting point for every new piece of legislation should not be how do we regulate this, but rather how do we protect the space for innovation? how do we get people some room? you, josh were in a recent people coming right out of college. all the smart people i've met, all of this wonderful island in ireland. listen to the ashburn hours, not the lawyers if you are an efficiency drive. there was recently a copyright

law, which is a good example of how you can make some small changes that would create space for new innovation, putting a little more flexibility into copyright law without undermining the business of content creators are giving away people's content would enable new businesses to spring up and it's estimated under one study to have maybe a billion more pounds to the u.k. economy, certainly would be helpful. a direct corollary, you need to stop others like her regulation at the broadcasters are facing. i mean, i appreciate the public mood wants to micromanage every single thing. i can't imagine the internet company being subject to these rules. there's nothing more stifling than having to jump drama strips. imagine a separate these books for each region. staff would have to be spread out. there would be willing to enforce diversity of office and quotas for religion and education. you could forget about poking.

[laughter] have i made my point? i mean, i could give you example after example. in fact, i have another example that has to do with advertising. this one is particularly egregious. mica regulation around television advertising. look at the creativity in advertising industry for television. a life local broadcast industry outside of bbc and yes it doesn't get championed by policymakers. in fact, it's the opposite. take the investigations of the ad trading. in this tough climate with even more competition for the marketing dollar, it seems the right time to make things easier for ad funded broadcasters by removing market distorting constraints like to see our rules you have an itv. you can't trade the stuff around. a similar principle is the use of data, both in advertising and content distribution. unique data protection rules

that reflect realities of the digital age. a worse you have to be careful about privacy. you have to be respectful of user concerns. it is important not to overreact and prevent any kind of sharing at all to those who wish to have a personalized service. i want -- i want to see this. in many cases, your rules don't even allow it. that will stifle innovation. europe of course these very sensible data and protection laws to ensure when people share their data and shared across national boundaries. when you opt-in and when he chooses. another example of something that would significantly enhance or change the outcome of innovation here in the country. right now the internet sector is at the forefront of the data today. if you follow my reasoning and look at the number of people watching television company amount of hours, the technology solution before is that combining these two as you

spread your wings online, it won't be long before you'll be with us in this fray. on this particular incredibly sensitive topic, we have lots of experience at google and i believe the key to any solution is to be transparent with evil about what data is content y and give them tools should themselves. they are after all a customer. so, on a broader note, i went from micro -- let's talk about openness. very, very important we keep the internet open. a prerequisite of innovation. no one should ask permission to launch a new program online. for more attempts to curtail the internet's openness, the harder it is for tomorrow's larry and sergey is to become a success. it's good for google if you think about it because we're already well known. it is not good for the ecosystem

and ultimately the ecosystem makes all of us stronger. the adoption of this new type allergy, all the content and competitors are required openness. now, i'm not suggesting a completely laissez-faire approach here. there is content and behavior that none of us want to encourage, whether it's copyright infringement or a phishing skims or sexual abuse and the trees. when legislators try to figure out how to manage the harm of content, technology solutions rather than law should be their first. give us an opportunity, as they did this content i.d. to come up with a solution, which is a fair balance on these issues that works well and scales. it's stifling the internet, whether by filtering, shutting off pieces of it are blocking the whole thing, turning the off switch. ..

>> working with the grain of the internet, rather than against it. makes sense; right? allowing the sharing of online data and ensuring the laws that allow innovation to flourish. these three principals would really help the television industry succeed globally.

thank you so much for spending so much time with me tonight. it's a great opportunity for me to speak to an audience that i have not had a chance to speak with before. if you told me ten years ago as an engineer like me would one day deliver the highest television lecture, i would have never believe ited. i guess there's a lesson in that. the computing are on remarkable journeys. sometimes the path will intertwine, sometimes potholes, sometimes there will be stunning, shared success. in the journey, google really does seek to be your partner. we do understand, we're trying to listen, invent, we are not your foe. i would argue that we should focus on the vast opportunities and british television is uniquely well placed to take

them for the reasons that i outlined quite convincingly if i say so myself. you guys really do invest this stuff, you are better than anybody else. you occupy a global stage. so to end what i would say is let's think big, all right, let's think global, and let's think beyond the tv box to what we can do with this extraordinary medium that you all have invented, the content that it's coming, which i've grown up with as i said, you have fans all over the world. thank you very much for listening. and i hope we see each other very soon. thank you so much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> tonight on c-span3, discussion of legalization of marijuana and the war on drugses. >> there's never been a drug free society, there's never going to be a drug free society whether we like it or not. as the children, parents, grandparents what have you, but to accept the fact that drugs are here to stay. and the challenge for us is not how to build a mote between the drugs and ourselves, or at least the drugs and our children. it's not how to keep them abay, and pay any price or have a burden of how to abolish strucks, rather it is to accept the reality, and figure out how to learn how to live with the reality of drugses in our society to cause the least possible harm. and in some cases, the greatest

possible good. >> more from this event tonight at 8 eastern on c-span 3. >> he's a partisan guy who wants to unite people. i mean you -- all of the problems of the era you could get from this guy and why we couldn't and why we couldn't elect him is the same reason that we went to war. they wouldn't be resolved. >> he had the misfortune of running against a great military hero, dwight eisenhower. i don't think there was any way that adlai stevenson would have won. >> think of al smith, herbert hoover, but paid the way for franklin roosevelt. there are 14 people in the series, many of whom i guarantee viewers may never have heard of, and all of whom they will find interesting to fascinating and certainly surprising.

>> history professor gene baker, politic editorsing carl cannon, and richard smith talk about the 14 man that ran for president and lost. it's a preview for the contenders beginning friday september 9th. >> representative mac thornberry is the house of the republican cybersecurity task force and democratic representative, his co-founder of the house cybersecurity caucus. >> and that is c-span's communicator's program. we are continuing our series on cybersecurity and cyber threats to the united states.

this week the congressional response to cybersecurity. joining us is representative mac thornberry who serves as chair of the house republican task force on cybersecurity. congressman thornberry, thank you for being here. jennifer martinez of politico is our guest reporter. congressman, what is your view are the cybersecurity needs of the u.s. to defend against and do you think that the white house plan introduced in may addresses those needs? >> well, the country faces a wide spectrum of threats in cyber space, all the way from vandalism, and petty crime to more serious crime, theft of intellectual property to things that people are calling cyberwar fare, it's a wide spectrum of threats. i think the fundamental issue is the laws and policies have not kept up with the changes in technology. to a large extent, the

government is playing catch up. that's what i think the white house proposal is trying to address, that's what we are trying to address, and congress is to try to help update, basically, our laws and policies. i think the white house proposal has some very helpful elements in it. it -- there are -- i think it's agued building block for steps that congress can and should take. it doesn't address all of the issues. but we're not going to fix all of the issues in a single bill. it's going to take a conversation with the american people, it's going to take, i think, an incremental sort of approach. but there are a number of issues that it does not address that i think we need to at least be talking about. >> do you think that cybersecurity legislation can ever keep up with cybersecurity threats? >> no. >> given that it's fast moving.

>> and it shouldn't try to. we cannot have a federal government pass a law that says what the defense needs to do. but we can improve our organization, we can update laws, criminal, our military doctrine, to reflect the new reality that we are -- we have national security challenges as well as criminal challenges and other things, economic challenges in cyber space. so there are nody fintive point that we'll reach and say, okay, now we are done. this has to be a continual sort of process. >> the house is going to tackle cybersecurity legislation and a piecemeal. up in the senate, they are scrabbling to get out a single larger comprehensive cybersecurity bill by the fall. since the house is taking this piecemeal approach, are there any bill or bills in particular

that you think the house should act on first? and you think are particularly important? and also do you think it's possible to pass a cybersecurity bill through this congress? >> i do think it is possible to pass legislation in this congress that will make significant progress in cybersecurity. that's what the speaker wants to do. and so -- but as -- because it is so complex and it touches on at least nine different committees, he wanted to form a republican task force to at least begin to lay the ground work for what the committees would do. and so the work would go through the regular committee process. as you know, speaker feels strongly about that. >> uh-huh. >> but our hope is the task force can kind of set up the framework from which the committees can operate. and you are right. i think when you have the committee's do their job, that means that we'll be more of a

piecemeal because different committees have different pieces of jurisdiction on the cyber issue. and i can't tell you what the final legislative vehicle will be as you say the senate is working towards the big bill, but i hope we don't take an all or not approach. big bill or nothing. i don't think that would be helpful. because there are some parts of cyber that nearly everybody agrees we need to act on. improving the government's own procurement and cyber practices, there's a legislation called fizma for the government's own. so there are other examples like that. but i think the key is and with the speaker wants to do is do something that helps make the country safer in cyber space. >> and so for the task force, speaker boehner, majority leader cantor announced the creation of that last month. they asked you to lead it. congratulations.

congressman langevin though have been pretty vocal about how the task force is not bipartisan, it's only comprised of republican members, do you think that because it's comprised as members from only one party, do you see any obstacle that is you are going to face because of that, or potential challenges? and then also can you address the charge from congressman langevin about how this is potentially turning cybersecurity into a partisan issue? >> yeah, i don't think it's turning into a partisan issue at all. and jim certainly is one of the most knowledgeable people in congress, house, or senate on these issues. and he and i happen to be chair and ranking member of subcommittee that has cybersecurity jurisdiction. we work very well together. and there is no reason for cybersecurity to be a partisan

issue. it has not been in the past, and i don't think it will in the future. the speaker felt that before we move legislation, that he needed an advisory group basically to step back and look at the broader picture of cybersecurity, and establish or at least lay out some sort of framework from which the committees can do their work. we are not writing legislation in the task force. we are just trying to step back and look at the bigger picture, lay out kind of an approach that seems to make sense from a house republican stand point, but then it's going to be up to the individual committees. and there's every expectation and hope that as the committees actually write the bills, it will be completely bipartisan. and, of course, in the armed services committee, i guarantee it will. jill and i will be working together on legislation there. but -- and the other key thing, the task force has members on it from each of the nine committees

that have significant jurisdiction. and so you get a variety of inputs as you are looking at that bigger picture. and he felt that we needed to do that first. >> congressman thornberry, as you know the u.s. chamber of commerce has expressed concerns about hampering business with regard to the cyber plan. there's also been concerns expressed about privacy issues. where do you stand on both of those fronts? >> i think both are legitimate concerns. if we take action through the government, that makes our business less competitive. we will not have been doing the economy or the country any favors. and at the same time, if the government takes action that significantly affects our individual privacy rights in the name of cybersecurity, then we'll also have changed the essential fabric of our freedoms. and so it's a little bit like some of the screening mechanisms that we've gone through in the

last decade, we're quick to have to work our way as a country through it. understanding that we'll accept some risk in cybersecurity. but at the same time, we can't leave ourselves open and vulnerable and exposed. we need to work with privacy folks, we need to work with business and the high-tech community to take these steps i'm talking about. i understanding it's not a final answer. but to try to increase our general level of cybersecurity around the country. >> is this only a defense threat, or do you see it as an economic threat as well? >> it's clearly an economic threat. i can't tell you the numbers. various people use the gigantic numbers about how much stuff has been stolen from industry. it's intellectual property that is being stolen. that's american jobs that are being stolen. so there's no doubt that there is an enormous economic almost to this as well as criminals

making money, as well as the national security element to it. and, of course, that is the primary function, i think, of the federal government. >> jennifer martinez. >> so industry has discouraged congress from constituting a set of regulations or security standards that they must follow. and instead they have advocated for those to have incentives that reward the private sector for taking steps to better secure the computer systems and networks. so i wanted to see do you prefer incentives over regulation, and if so, what would possible incentives be? are we talking tax breaks, are we talking grants for research and development for businesses? >> well, to me it's always preferable to encourage somebody to do the right thing, rather than to tell them go do the right thing. if you get their interest aligned with what you are trying to accomplish, you are going to be more successful.

and just as we were talking earlier, this is a very difficult issue -- area for the federal government to regulate in, because it changes so much. on the other around, if you can encourage the changes to keep up, i think you'll accomplish more. there maybe more regulation that's needed. people most often talk about the nuclear power industry, maybe the electricity grid as areas that are already fairly regulated and perhaps additional regulation is needed. so i think we need to look at that. but to me it makes more sense if you can encourage people to think the same way. and a variety of incentives that we've been talking about from tax incentives to liability protection to -- and many others if you can streamline some of the audits that are already in law, you can often an enticement

for businesses to improve their cybersecurity and thus remove some of the security that they face under some of the other and current regulations and laws. >> uh-huh. and also as part of the task force, basically you are reporting back to gop leadership in october. have they asked you to look into any particular areas of cybersecurity? and when you are report back to them this fall, what are they doing to with the feedback? whether they did give us four specific areas that they wanted us to consider. one is critical infrastructure, one is information sharing, and another is laws that need to be updated. and the fourth one is authorities issues and there we are talking about a fair number of national security related type authorities. those are four areas they've laid out. there maybe others. wasn't exclusive.

really it's going to be up to them on what they do with the recommendations. but the hope is that we take this kind of cross committee framework without writing the details of the legislation. we set that up. that enables the individuals committees to move out in their piece of jurisdiction under the framework and consistent with the framework. meanwhile, as they write, you have to have the bipartisan approach, talks with the white house, and considering what the senate approach is. that all has to come together through the process. >> some of the committees that will be active on cybersecurity in the house include the armed services. mac thornberry serves on that committee. in fact, he's chair of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, homeland security, intelligence, commerce, oversight government reform and judiciary. just to follow up on jennifer's question, if you are reporting

back in october, what do you think could possibly be past with regard to cybersecurity legislation in this congress? >> well, there are two or three pieces of legislation already moving in the house. that touch on cybersecurity. i think a subcommittee of energy and commerce is already reported out a data breach bill. we have a couple in science and services, a bill related to cybersecurity. things are moving. and again i think the hope is that with the framework, over the next year and a half, we can make substantial progress in a variety of areas. but not put all -- my preference personally would be not to put all of our eggs into a single 2,000 page bill that you have to ram through and nobody knows what's in it. i don't think there's a good history of that sort of approach. >> jennifer martinez?

>> and then the budget crisis has consumed washington for months as you know. how do you think that's going to impact the types of bills coming through the house and also the house gop freshman have made it very clear that they are against anything that's going to increase spending. do you see that as a possible issue going forward as the various committees are looking at cyber legislation? >> you know, i think you are exactly right. it will be an issue going forward. a lot of people perhaps would like to have more federal research in cybersecurity, if so, the question is how do you pay for that? and the incentives that we were talking about, some of them maybe tax incentives, may have a cost to the federal treasury, or at least cbo would score them that way. that may make them more difficult to accomplish. so cybersecurity, like every other issue in washington right now is going to be constrained

by the budgets that we face. i think that's absolutely true. >> and, in fact, the national journal reports at the pentagon's budget for 2012 includes $ 2.3 billion for protections against cyberattacks. omb estimates that total government spending this year will be about $12 billion. jennifer martinez, we have time for one more question. >> okay. well, since you are the vice chairman of the armed services committee, i wanted to ask you about the pentagon's recent release of its first foremost cybersecurity. and in that, they did not give a very clear cut definition for what an act of war is in the digital age. and what type of cyberattack would warrant a physical or kinetic response. were you disappointed they left that question unanswered? how important to you think it is

for the pentagon to be spelling out what an act of war is in the digital age? >> i was somewhat disappointed at the vagueness of the strategy. i don't know that we -- any of us should expect the pentagon or anybody else to come up with thedy definitive answers to the questions because they are difficult. in the first hearing in the armed services subcommittee, i tried to pose the question this way. we know what we expect the department of defense to do if a bunch of planes come to bomb a refinery in the houston ship channel. what do we expect the federal government to do if it's a bunch of packets coming to bomb the same refinery in the houston ship channel? what is the government and the particularly the military's responsibility to defend private business and facilities in cyber space. we don't know. i didn't really expect the

pentagon to come up with definitive answers. i think it's important that we grapple seriously with the issues and that particular strategy was more vague and didn't advance the ball as much as i would like. at the same time, secretary lind has been very helpful in puts forward ideas and strategies to help defend the country. and so some his speeches have advanced. >> mac thornberry, chairman on the emerging threats and abilities, thank you for being on the communicators. up next, congressman jim langevin, democrat of rhode island. we'll be talking with him as well. >> now we are continuing our conversation on the congressional response to cybersecurity threats. now joined by representative jim

langevin, member of the armed services subcommittee on emerging threats and capability where he serves as ranking member and co-founder of the house cybersecurity and caucus. mr. langevin, the president's cybersecurity proposal introduced in may, how do you think the congress can implement that and how would you like to see it improved? >> well, it's certainly the white house proposal that has been a long time and come, but i'm glad it's here. i think it moves us in the right direction. i'm hopeful now that the congress will take up most of the elements of the cybersecurity proposal and implement it. the challenge would be, of course, reaching across jurisdictional lines and committees that have responsibility for cyber and trying to move a bill forward. i'm hopeful that on the senate side there maybe a comprehensive bill that they've been pushing, at least they are talking about moving through the senate. senator harry reid said they

wants to make that a priority. and again i want to continue to push the house to also take up comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. >> now mac thornberry said when he was here that he would not prefer a 2,000 page bill. he would prefer it almost in piecemeal. >> yeah, well, i would say let's get something done. where it's comprehensive bill or the piecemeal, we at least have to address what i think are glaring threats out there. right now we have serious threats in the country in both vulnerabilities in cybercrime, cyber espionage, and the most damage is in critical infrastructure. we'll go a long way towards protecting the country. >> jennifer martinez with

politico. >> when congressman thornberry was here, he was talking about the creation of the cybersecurity task force in the house. >> right. >> we've talked earlier about how you've been disappointed that it's republican members only, and you had hoped that it would have been bipartisan. and he was saying the reason behind the creation for the task force was to help reduce the procedural challenges in the house, when dealing with different types of legislation, and also make sure that the bills are shepherded to the right committees. do you think that's going to help with some of those challenges? >> well, as we have spoken about, i would have preferred to have seen the bipartisan effort. i've been at this for several years now dealing with the issue of cybersecurity. i've always taken and trying to make it bipartisan issue. and it has creation of the bipartisan cybersecurity caucus. that being said, you know, i've also raised, you know, concerns that i have with the speaker

both for directly and through correspondence that it should be a bipartisan effort. i'd like to see that continue. but that being said, i do want to see the issue move forward. however, we get this done, and i'm not looking to make it a partisan issue. let's see what it going to come out of the task force and we're going to try to work together to try to get something through the congress. >> uh-huh. and then you were talking about protecting critical infrastructure. so in the white house plan that came out this spring, the administration basically gave the department of homeland security a stepped up role in managing the federal government's cyber defenses. that also includes having dhs work with industry to come up with the framework that would boost their own defenses against cyberattacks. but there's been some concern raised by those in the security community about dhs's ability to perform in this new elevated role. do you think dhs is up for the mission?

>> well, as you know, i would prefer to see a strong director in the cybersecurity office in the white house that is a senate confirmed potion that can reach across government and better coordinate, but also working more closely with the private sector. so that being said, there are strong elements in the president's plan that i like, and i think it's very important that they emphasize information sharing between the government and the private sector. the government has broad visibility into the threats. but we don't have broad visibility into what's happening in the private sector. and like the isps do. if we can, you know, in the barrier that is prevent information sharing going both ways, i think the private sector will be much better protected. :

electric grid not that long ago. do you think it is possible to get a bill passed with congress on protecting the electric grid? >> this is where the authority is going to be important and i'm hopeful that we can get the grid at passed in the last congress and fortunately didn't it were

needed to become law but that would give the direct authority for example to which they don't have the authority now to direct the vulnerability closed when the identified problems in the electric grid to read its assault regulating body of the grit and they propose the changes to ferc either approved or denied the changes to the contract changes be made. we need to improve that authority and that's what my legislation would have done and with a great act. my legislation might introduced would give authority to the security to regulate the area of critical infrastructure where they don't have the authority and the president's proposal isn't strong enough and it encourages the incentives for the grid to close the border devotees, but we need to -- i think we need stronger authorities to regulate.

>> congressman langevin, do you see the need for one director of cybersecurity in some capacity so if there is an attack on a u.s. government site or a private site there is one resource to go to that also has budgetary authority? >> i do believe that and that is the legislation that i have introduced and the cybersecurity act basically creates a cybersecurity office within the white house that has policy and budgetary authority and would be a senate confirmed director and reach across the government to compel compliance with the things that need to be done to protect the network. we are not doing a very good job right now in protecting the network. but also, that person needs to work closely and collaborative flee with the private sector. general alexander is the head of the seibu command, and they do a very good job as can be done on

the network on the military networks, but we don't have that same robust authority and coordination in protecting the network and there's a lot to be done. >> where are most of these attacks coming from? >> a variety of sources and i don't want to -- it's not only about the tax. in looking at the cyber intrusion or the tax being the worst that could happen most of also are familiar with cyber intrusions and people think of things like going in hacking into our e-mail or spamming the list. the intrusions can be much more serious. the espionage, criminal law activity, the banking system where there are millions of not billions of dollars that are stolen every year so that is a problem in conducting the banking system and espionage, defense contractors and the critical information being stolen, some of which is a

classified level or will eventually become classified. there is a real problem. the area of attack somewhat gratuitously but the potential of this that a nation state or terrorist code for example hack into the electric grid which governs safety systems and could actually cause a generator to build that has been proven to the idaho national labs when they describe this and those are the things. what we see now is cybercrime or espionage and those need to be addressed. >> what do you think about the kill switch legislation or the concept of the kill switch? >> there's no such thing and i don't believe -- i don't ever want to see the government have

that kind of power to have a kill switch. what i do want to see is the close cooperation between the government and private sector, the president's proposal would help to achieve that by allowing a great information sharing so that the government is seeking in terms of the viruses and attacks that are out there that we could share that with the private sector so that we know what to look for, but then the private sector can shield the government of what they are seeing and how we can work more collaborative flee to protect our citizens. >> do you think that businesses need incentives to do so, because they are afraid of sharing information with the government because they are not sure how the government is going to use that information has it could possibly hurt their business leader on down the line. when we talk with congressman thornberry he said that he preferred incentives over the top down regulation; do you agree? >> i think it is to be a combination of the two.

certainly we have to have better and stronger regulation where just incentives won't accomplish what we need to accomplish. but where we can collaborate and encourage the incentives we should certainly do that. >> and that another problem that you've identified is the shortage of trained professionals who can deal with this every faulting and growing threat of cyberattack. how big a problem is this going to be for us later on down the line? >> i'm so glad you raised that point because that is another area that has to be addressed. we don't have enough people with the right skills and talent to go into the cybersecurity field right now the clandestine information technology information at the cia had going back a couple of years ago we only have brought a thousand people in the country that can compete either the world class or the area of cybersecurity and what we need is between 20 to 30,000. so, there is clearly the need.

i'm trying to address that in a number of ways in particular. we had a study done at the pentagon to identify the skills we need and the path of the people would go into that field but also would create the cybersecurity challenge at the high school level and collaborating with the same institute in creating the program but it encourages young people to think that the security and the openness in cybersecurity. we put them through the different challenges and the program last about a couple of months. it is just a highly in using it for fun or just schoolwork but the talent and skills. >> congressman, jennifer raised with congressman thornberry the issue of the budget issue with everything going on in washington right now with the cuts being made in the budget the omb estimates about $12 billion is spent

government-wide on cybersecurity prevention efforts. do you see this as a problem in the future getting enough money to protect from cybersecurity intrusions and tax etc? >> as we know we have to get smarter about how and where we spend our dollars and that is why that strong collaboration coordination is so important to read i.t. believe that if we have a director in december security office and the senate confirms that has the both policy and budgetary authority we can compel the compliance across the government to make sure that they are doing what they need to do in the cybersecurity and that we are not duplicating efforts were having things put in place and that is duplicative or isn't the best at what we could get in terms of the best bank for the buck. so right now we don't have that. we have agreed coordinator and howard schmidt at the white house, and i give him high remarks for the things he

accomplished with the limited authority that he has had. most of it has been kind of encouraging and the collaboration across the department and the agency's but doesn't really have the authority of going to omb and saying this isn't doing what it needs to do in cyber. we need to take the measures to ensure that they are held accountable. >> jennifer martinez? >> and also, i asked congressman thornberry about the house gop freshmen. very not spoken about how they are against anything that is going to increase spending. and they are saying the budget is going to impact the legislation that's moving through the house. do you see this as a possible issue that democrats are going to have to tackle leader on down the line? >> well, clearly if we don't address the threats to our own cyber networks on .gov or even encouraging the collaboration of the private sector that would be kind of foolish because the

damage that can be done and that is already being done in terms of the amount of data that we are seeing is costing us right now and so it is much more effective to do those of front and make sure we have a robust cyber defense on the networks and the cyber networks. and then obviously we can see things happen right now that will cost us at a very dear level. >> what you think of the pentagon recently released cyber strategy? >> i was of the pentagon cybersecurity strategy and i want to thank secretary for his work and leadership on this and a variety of other key players of the pentagon who all had a hand in putting forward that strategy. it was definitely a good move in the right after election. we're all i had concern about is that they didn't identify the

red lines of what we consider to be an attack and what our response would be. the pentagon response of what we want some of the ambiguity right now and it keeps the bad guys guessing if you will. but because the damage could be so catastrophic i.t. gets clear that we need to do more in identifying that what we see as the cyberattack and the enemies with the response would be. >> finally, congressman langevin, how do you thread the needle legislatively when it comes to keeping up with technology, protecting privacy and addressing some of the concerns that groups such as the u.s. chamber have expressed about this heavy handed this proposal which may hinder business. >> that's where the collaboration comes into play. this would have to be a

public-private partnership and privacy and the concerns have to be at the forefront of our thinking and our conversations about all of this and the more that we engage the privacy and the community and have been developing the strategy is the way of avoiding criticism in the problems that could result, but again, this is an ongoing effort and it's difficult to stay one step ahead of the bad guys but we do this by information sharing and collaboration. >> congressman jim langevin ranking member on the armed services committee on emerging threats and capabilities and also the co-founder of the house cybersecurity caucus and jennifer martinez of politico, thank you both for participating in the series on the communicators on cybersecurity. >> thank you.

why we couldn't even liked him is the same reason they went to war. >> he had the misfortune of running against the great military hero dwight eisenhower, and so i don't really think there's any way that stevenson could have. as in the gift you think of elspeth was overwhelmingly to herbert hoover, but paid the way for franklin roosevelt. there are 14 people in the series many of whom i guarantee

have never heard of and i can pretty much guarantee that they will find interesting to fascinating and certainly surprising. ♪ >> history professor gene baker and politics editor carl cannon and presidential historian richard norton smith talk about the 14 men who ran for president and lost. a preview for the contenders a 14 week series on c-span beginning on friday september 9th. >> now the first part of the series on this morning's washington journal. michael greenburg director of the house and homeland security center at the university of maryland on how the government and businesses prepare for the weather emergencies. >> today is day one of the 40

series looking at whether the ln government's role in it. wednesday we will talk about climate apology and what the dynamics. james is the director of the george mason university's on thursday, the role of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. the administrator will be with us on thursday. on friday, role of the national weather service and director of the nws. today, the topic is disaster preparedness. michael greenberger is the director for the health and homeland security at the university of maryland. thank you for being part of our series. there are three phases to repair ms. and response. there is the recovery, response, and prepared ness. who is on the front lines of recovery? >> for all of those phases, it

is important to emphasize, it is the knowledge throughout all federal and state levels, all problems that arise from whether catastrophes, any other human catastrophe, like an influenza, or terror attack, the first line response is the local level. then you go to the state, and if needed, the federal government comes in. in extreme emergencies, they may need to take are the eminent -- over the management. in any of these subjects. so what you're seeing now is a lot of secondary impact from the hurricane. people thought that the biggest problems would be the wind and the ocean search. what we are seeing now is inland flooding from north carolina, virginia, maryland, up to vermont. vermont has had the worst flooding in 83 years. they have to respond to the

secondary impacts' and deal with getting people out of harm's way, and secondly, when people get back in their houses, helping them get situated. electricity is a real big problem. there are hundreds of thousands of outages on the east coast. medical care. there needs to be a purpose and medical care for those injured. host: who frames the situation for these emergency responders? guest: there is money that is found along the way the federal gorman has had huge resources in terms of training. my center, made up of professionals, not the government, but we enter into contracts with parts of the government, including fema, to train state and local officials

in all of these phases. preparation, response, and recovery. so in the past, there has been a lot of federal money. a lot of that money is being used by the preparedness, response, and recovery from the past few days. right now, there is a terrific worry that there is no money suitable to back this up. for example, in recovery, one of the biggest role as the government place, if the president declares an emergency in the state, the government is supposed to come in under the stafford act to provide financial resources to help in the recovery and to put businesses and people back to where they were before the disaster. that fund is now down to $1 billion. billion. this incident, the early estimates are $12 billion of damage. the government plays a big role

there. like everything else, shortage of funding is a problem. host: here is the "new york daily news." $17 billion in total estimated damages. $5 billion in the wind damage along. this is a federal bill when it comes to recovery? guest: not a complete federal bill. the template is 25%, 25% state and local. the federal coverage is there. there will end of being a big fight. everyone agrees there should be funding. but house republicans have laid down a marker. we will give people funding for damage and recovery, but it has to come out of something else.

the candidate is usually medicare, social security, and that provokes a fight. hurricane katrina, the landmark event in 2005, was over $100 billion in damages, and the federal government was able to come through and try the best they could to put things together. now we are down to $1 billion. host: here is "the baltimore sun." as you said, there is a battle in congress over how to fund this as well. this is "the washington times." the house approved a bill with $2.65 billion for disaster relief funds.

but senate democrats have not passed the measure. let us now talk about response. who are the responders? first responders, police, federal workers -- guest: let us make that clear. there is an overall national response framework promulgated by the government that outlined the organizational structure for how these catastrophic events will be responded to. the major template, that all catastrophes will be handled at the most local level that they will be the most competent they dealt with, so the first line is localities, cities, townships, using their fire, police, emergency medical

technicians, medical workers. they are the first line of defense. host: who pays their salaries? guest: local jurisdictions. host: and for training? guest: yes, although, some of that training, fema has conducted a lot of that training. but now we are seeing money cut. most people, while there are complaints about individual strategies, most people have been very pleased with the response. the first line of response are anlice, fire, emt's, emergency operation in each jurisdiction. the county and the mayor, they all take charge of that. they are backed up by the state emergency management agency.

they come and help orchestrate. when you have a hurricane situation, you have many things going on all over the state. someone needs to have a centralized organization. in virginia, you have a virginia-wide operations center. in maryland, md.-wide. they are helping to coordinate and provide resources to the localities. but we have seen is fema making but we have seen is fema making available supply, linens, whatever is needed for cleanup. so you have these three levels, but the front line defenders are the localities, backed up by the state. they are using their own money. if the president declares a federal emergency, federal money comes in.

right now, federal money is quite low. joplin, missouri was hit by a tornado. they are going to stand back and not give them the resources that they need to the state of missouri to help with hurricane irene. this is the hidden underbelly of the problem. there is no money to help people get back on their feet. the president needs to declare an emergency disaster. those are the two buzzwords. that entitles states and localities to different types of resources from the government. we have had, in the last few years, wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes. we just had an earthquake just before irene. every time that happens, the governor of the state makes a plea to the federal government, this is an emergency that goes beyond our resources and we need

help. historically, the federal government has stepped up to back up these local jurisdictions. right now, because of the recession, localities and states did not have enough revenues, and now we find out that the federal government does not have enough revenues. host: michael greenberger, the director at the university of maryland health and homeland security center. we are looking over the preparedness, recovery, and response to disasters. guest: after 9/11, the principal focus in crisis management was terror attacks. those are called man-made catastrophic instances. after katrina, there was an

academic decision made that we cannot just focus on terror attacks. attacks. we also have to focus on katrina situations, hurricanes, wild fires, earthquakes. the government decided that many of the same per territory resources and response resources that are needed to prepare for a terrorist attack could also be used to prepare for a hurricane. mayor bloomberg made the point that if there was a terror attack in the city, he would have to evacuate certain people. in the hurricane, he may have to evacuate people. they may have to shut down the metro in a terror attack. they did that in the hurricane. it is all about preparation. a lot of the thing that you prepare for a hurricane are a lot of the things that you would prepare for a terror attack. host: we are dividing up the

phones of interest -- the phone lines a bit differently. the phone lines are on the screen. kay from peking, south carolina. caller: i have a question for your guest. he just made a statement that there was so much money spent in louisiana after katrina, but louisiana looks the same. the only thing that was fixed up was the tourist sections, the french market. i do not understand why we, the poor people, have to keep on struggling to make ends meet every day, when they could take some of this money that these rich people have stolen from us and use that. guest: that is a good point and

raises a good question. each of these bases are intricately involved. the problem in new orleans and louisiana was that the preparation and response were disastrously understaffed, under resource. you ended up with such a bad situation, so little preparation, so little response, that when you get to the recovery phase, there is little that you can do. if he did not set up the predicates for this sort of stuff, there will not be many things to recover at a recent -- reasonable expense. you also make a good point. our findings in the field in many jurisdictions is that there is not enough attention paid to of vulnerable populations. the poor, non-english speaking,

the elderly, children. the squeaky wheel gets the grease. usually, it may be the will appear parts of the jurisdiction that get too much of the money in return. that may have happened in louisiana. i do know that this is a very strong focus of attention and i think it will be less likely to find this kind of inequality in the recovery experience. but basically, what we have to worry most about now is not how we divide the pie, but weather is a pie to bring about the kind of recovery that there -- that will be needed from the many people impacted by the hurricane, prior earthquake, and from the beginning of hurricane season. no telling how many events we will have to deal with. there will be bickering over whether the money should be appropriated over this, whether

tax revenues should be increased to deal with this problem, whether other program like medicare and social security should be cut to pay for this. this is something that the viewers should be watching for. host: a comment from maverick on our twitter page. going on to chris in charleston, south carolina. caller: i am curious. i would think they would have a way to allocate funds to the victims. hurricane katrina, more than 1000 people. in this recent hurricane, 20 people. it would seem that there is a scale of the more victims, the more money allocated. i had also heard, when katrina was here, this woman from new york said that the reason we

are so devastated by hurricanes is because we are too simple to move away from the coast lines. i wonder if this last hurricane made people living in new york city move away from the coastline? guest: and the irony now is, in the after effects, n.y., off pretty lightly, but upstate new york, inland, unexpectedly, has serious flooding, series power outages. vermont, for example, prior to the hurricane, the president made declarations of emergencies as a predicate to funding. so far as i can see, not vermont. it was not expected that they would have this damage. he has now declared eight emergency -- an emergency in

vermont. the state that seem to be most affected by this, north carolina, virginia, and surprisingly, vermont has gotten hit heavily. you never know in these situations, even with the best science, the exact impact of this. we are now finding that flooding in land was worse than expected -- than what was expected on the coast. funding is supposed to go to people who experienced damage. it is not only loss of life. you are right, there were 1300 casualties in katrina. so far, this number is 40. i am sure it will be higher. but the sweep of this hurricane was much broader, cover more territory. people lost their homes, possessions. there are businesses that are down.

traditionally, going back to 1974, it has been the federal government who has stepped in as the insurer of last resort to get people up and running. that has been a non-partisan program that presidents of both parties have supported. now there is no money in the coffers, as far as i can see, to deal with the extensive damage, and we are already in recession. if these businesses cannot get back up and running, more people are going to lose jobs and there will be more dislocation. so i am hoping on a non-partisan basis there will be no departure from the standard operation. the government's role has been to back up state and locals and put people back in the condition they were in before the disaster happened. host: "the washington post" notes of the 130 billion

approves and 1990, 110 billion came as supplemental emergency spending. david in maryland. good morning. caller: you have mentioned the lack of revenue. it is interesting, the hypocrisy of the anti-tax people. of the anti-tax people. it just seems like there is a lack of tax revenue that is being pushed by the anti-tax people. host: let us talk about preparedness. how does the government decide what is critical, what they need to protect? guest: first of all, that question raises a highly technical point. the government is worried about what is called critical infrastructure. they have a focus on protecting critical infrastructure. what is critical infrastructure?

bridges, tunnels, subway systems, road systems, the electrical grid, and now we are even worried about our cybersecurity. not only natural disasters, the technology aspects of running our day to day life coming into jeopardy from loss of power, but cybersecurity is a concern in terms of terrorists attacking our cyber networks. these are the kinds of things that we are focused on. dams is also a big consideration. assessments are made at all levels of government about what is critical infrastructure and how it will be protected during an emergency. another preparation that is done at the behest of state, local,

federal government, is so-called continuity of operations. our center had been involved in advising state and local governments on continuity of operations. what does that mean? for example, in new orleans, the police headquarters got flooded out they called us up and said, do you have a plan that we can use? well, you cannot do it after the event. the preferred way to deal with things is for governmental institutions -- schools, hospitals, critical infrastructure -- to spend time in advance deciding if your infrastructure is debilitated, whether for a terror attack, hurricane, tornado, that you have a plan in place to move out of your facility and get up and running in 12 hours to carry out

your functions. we saw in this hurricane a lot of emergency operations centers disabled. emergency operation centers are like war rooms that local government uses to manage the crisis. many local emergency operation centers were flooded out. some of them had plans, some did not. for those who did not, fema led the locals and others use of federal buildings to do their emergency operations management from. the same is true for hospitals. what if a hospital is blown up or a buyer takes place? for certification purposes, a hospital needs a plan of how they will move patients, get up and running within 12 hours. in the business sector, it is called business continuity planning. that is an important aspect of preparing for disaster. host: a question for you --

guest: no, i am sorry, i do not have information. host: mari, in miami. caller: in 2005, when katrina happened, the mayor and the governor of louisiana were both democrats. there was so much confusion. do not cut me off. this man, all he does is talk too much. he is making excuses for the democrats and doing nothing. guest: well, one thing i'm proud about, normally, the merc and to prepare this response is a bipartisan issue. -- emergency preparedness response is a bipartisan issue. here we have the republican governor in virginia, democratic

governor of maryland, democratic governor of the city. my view is you could not tell a different by virtue of their party. all three were at the helm working hard and doing things correctly. the same is true for new jersey. you have the republican gov. christie who got hall -- who got high remarks. in new york, you have mayor bloomberg and governor cuomo. these are not partisan issues. the question is, did the emergency response plan work or did not work? in the katrina situation, you had democratic locals and a republican administration. federal administration. everyone agrees, not for lack of training, but for other reasons,

things did not get done. the irene situation demonstrates that lesson have been learned from prior catastrophes and we are operating, not on perfection, but as well as human beings can operate to respond to these emergencies. host: ed is in fort lauderdale. caller: if you are looking to find money, look for a republican and congressmen to say the words "off for tax shelter" or "corporate welfare." once you can find somebody to address those, you will find the money. host: next phone call. you are on the air with michael greenberger. caller: thank you for taking my comment. ron paul was talking about fema the other day, you know, the

great things that they have done in new orleans, how they are in a bit of financial trouble. could you elaborate on this? he was talking about how each individual should take responsibility. caller: that is eight -- guest: that is a very good question. congressman paul called into question the response with these emergencies. governor perry, who is now the front-runner for the gop nomination stated a template role that i have no big but -- no objection to. in fact, is the mantra of emergency response. states and local need to take the first initiative, but you need the government to back these people up. besides the funding that the government provides, fema was

all over the place. 18 incident response teams all over the east coast helping locals deal with this hurricane. they found food, water, other medical supplies that were short in the state and locals and backed them up with it. many state and local emergency operation centers were flooded out. fema found alternate locations for them. on a non-partisan basis, everybody agrees there must be a federal presence, but in the first instance, is state and locals that respond. the problem is, when you get an horrific situation like hurricane katrina or hurricane irene, a state local resources, even in the best of times, do not have the money to deal with these problems. up until recently, this worked effectively. through our taxes, we would

pitch in. as a emergencies arose, the u.s., as a collective people, would support the people who experienced these emergencies. loss of house, business, loss of life, medical injury. it is not so much a gesture of charity. the problem we are seeing since 1985, aside from terror attacks, there are catastrophic episodes all over the country. wild fires in california. tornadoes in the midwest. missouri was ravaged completely, is a prime example. earthquake in virginia. the earthquake -- the east coast is hit by hurricane irene. if the american people do not back up state and local governments, people who are flooded out will just be left to their own devices. our economy is not in great shape right now. if we cannot bring these businesses back to life and keep

their employees working and put people back in their homes, we will all suffer from the economic downturn. host: michael greenberger is the director of the university of maryland health and homeland security center. discussing disaster emergency preparedness and response. we are dividing up the telephone lines a little bit differently. we will go to darwin, college park, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. where is the involvement of the private sector? we buy homeowner's insurance, life insurance, auto insurance. i understand when you have catastrophic events, local, state, federal government get involved. but where is the involvement of the private sector? we are all paying for insurance.

how does that come into play when these things happen? what is the obligation of the local and state government, when it comes to providing a fund for these catastrophic events? we do not have money nowadays, but is there a requirement where there needs to be a certain amount in that pot to prepare were these events? host: we spoke to the president of the insurance information institute, about natural disasters. if you missed that, go to our website, c-span.org. guest: i would also add, a leading insurance assigned, my center has been involved in developing a memorandum of understanding between state and local institutions and the private sector, especially retailers. we just finished a project where we had 22 national retailers to agree to provide services during

a catastrophic emergency. wal-mart, target, sears, petco, you name it. for purposes of the mid-atlantic region, under a permit -- direction of fema, in an emergency, they will provide supplies. i would expect those memoranda developed by our center in the mid-atlantic states will be found to have been helpful in the circumstances. i toured target's emergency center in maryland. it is a sophisticated center. certainly, they are worried about keeping their businesses up and running, but they are also worried about providing supplies to the public in these emergencies. so i think the private sector certainly has the potential. certainly, in the mid-atlantic states we found it to be helpful. the second question with local governments and setting aside

funding. yes, they set aside funding. however, all of the country, state governments are in distress. revenues are down. there is a hesitancy to tax people more. let us leave emergencies to the side. in many jurisdictions, police cannot work overtime, fire stations are being closed. there is not adequate hiring. , and emerged to technicians are not adequately staffed. when you come to an emergency, we are asking these people to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, are not properly compensated, and they are under- staffed and under-resources. you see all this of women that is being used for water rescue to get to people who are isolated, to fix bridges, roads.

the federal government has generally helped states and local to do that. if that money stopped coming five years from now, you will see there will not be all of these water rescues, the ability to get to these people who are isolated, because there will simply not be the staff or equipment. host: fema has 60,000 employees nationwide. headquartered in washington, d.c., with 10 regional offices. -- just over 7000 employees. robert in springfield, virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you just recently talked about agreements, an moa, that your center helped to put together to

support the local economy. is that something that should be required from a local level? that is part of my question. the other part of the question the other part of the question is, should disbursement of funds and be based on preparedness established at all local level, whether or not it has been done or not? guest: those are two interesting questions. this concept of developing public-private partnerships is a novel concept. it was decided, by the state of maryland, taking the lead, pennsylvania, virginia, d.c., the mid-atlantic region, that they would start a formal program which costs little money to create a memorandum of understanding where the private sector would help the public sector in times of dire distress. we were told if we could get two

or three of these agreements with private retailers in one year, we would be doing great. we got over 20. for many different reasons, possibly selfish, but also good spirited, the private sector is willing to chip in and help the public in dire emergencies. secondly, i talked about critical infrastructure. 85% of the critical infrastructure is owned by private. chemical plants, biological plants, nuclear reactors. they are called upon to do their own planning to be sure that those incidents are secure. i think we have done a good job doing that. i do not think we have done nearly enough yet to make sure nearly enough yet to make sure that chemical plants are properly prepared to not be an catastroic event.blem dur i forgot the second question.

host: i am drawing a blank as well. here is a free lancer with his tweet -- where does nuclear fit into your work? guest: i think this raises the issue that i had forgotten. as a condition of getting federal money, states and localities have to demonstrate they are in compliance with these requirements. that they have continuity of operation plans. then they know how to manage a crisis, incident command system. also, as parting -- part of getting money, states and localities have to show that their private constituents are making an effort to shore up these nuclear, chemical facilities, what have you. we have seen, for example, in the earthquake, a power plant on the eastern shore was shut down during the earthquake. the japanese situation

demonstrates, the people thought that the japanese were leading in protecting their facilities, but of course, their major facility had a very serious meltdown. so there is a lot of thought being given to this, but this is an area that we need to focus on more and push through more. there are so many things that need to be worried about. evacuating the elderly and sick from hospitals and retirement homes that may be flooded. corn of transportation systems, tunnels. there is a lot of work to be done here and there is very little money. my own view is, across the country, on a non-partisan basis, different states and localities are doing the best they can under dire circumstances. i think that showed up in the response to hurricane irene. host: that brings up the urban areas security initiative. how does that being funded? guest: the uasi initiative came

about in the wake of 9/11 attacks. the government decided it would supply urban areas with supply urban areas with resources to increase staffing, training, increase adequate equipment to deal, first, with terrorist attacks, now, with hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. it has been somewhat criticized, but basically, people have felt -- on a non-partisan basis -- that this has worked effectively to the shore up jurisdiction within the united states metropolitan areas. there were 61 uasis but now there are 31. the expectation is that will be reduced to 10 in future budget

cuts. cities like baltimore, new orleans, richmond, will be cut off from this funding. i think it is penny wise and pound foolish. i hope when people see how important the government response is at all levels in these emergencies, and they will tell their representatives, at all levels, we must find a corporate funding to get our cities and surrounding jurisdictions in shape to do the kinds of things that we saw over the weekend. what we saw over the weekend was the 61 jurisdictions at work. it will be cut to 30, and then to attack -- 10. host: what is the role of the public in this issue? guest: people need to insist with their elected representatives that at all levels, emergency response is a priority. when you have an earthquake,

there is no such thing as a gated community. everybody should pitch in and make sure that police, fire, emergency medical technicians, the emergency response operatives are properly funded and the government has a reserve for to help people who are adversely impacted. the second point is, when you say how can people take care of themselves, i think you saw in the crisis there was advice given by all levels of government about what should be done to protect yourself against the emergency, in terms of getting additional supplies. battery, food, water. the government said that they had mandatory evacuation. but the mayor of new york said this is a mandatory evacuation of but we are not going to charge anyone with a crime who does not respond. so it is mandatory in some sense, but not completely.

the public has a responsibility of listening to the first responders and taking advice about evacuating areas that may be in harm's way. it is true, there is sort of a kick back against major bloomberg because he evacuate people from nursing homes and hospitals which were not affected. the subway system was shut down. some people were arguing that that was an overreaction. it is impossible to predict in these situations who and where is going to be hurt. it is better to be safe than sorry. as many governors and