and secure movement of people and products in a post 9/11 world. we look forward to working with the kennedy and tsa coming and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this important topic receive for. >> thank you, mr. dalia for your testimony. our third witness, mr. philip byrd serves as the president of the blog highway. i like that name. the highway express testifying on behalf of the american trucking association. he previously served as the terminus of south carolina association in addition to being in the south carolina maritime association in charleston with triet further his president ceo mr. byrd is in the american trucking association and i recognize you for five minutes. >> thank you alterman. jarman rodgers and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the tsa surface transportation inspection program. my name is philip byrd and i am the president and ceo of blog hi

the express based in south carolina. today i'm testifying on behalf of the american trucking association where i presently serve as the vice chairman. first time to be freed the subcommittee for addressing the continued fall to paucity of background checks for commercial drivers. ata is a supporter of the modern security credentials act and my hope is that congress will soon pass the bill to bring some common sense to our government security provincial in process. again, thank you for your support and leadership on this issue. ata and its members participate in any industry government efforts to enhance the security and the highway sector. for civil, we meet on a quarterly basis together with industry stakeholders. tsa officials and other government counterparts to increase the communications and share ideas to improve the security of our highways. such initiatives are in essential to further enhancing the cooperation and coordination between industry and government

agencies. ata has followed with some interest but tsa efforts to the higher visibility operations in the surface transportation. these efforts have focused on the use of the visible intermodal prepare does and response program also known as viper. ata became aware that the trademark highway exercise and georgia and in tennessee mostly through the media. it's important to note the support operations as long as they are based on intelligence or specific risks require increased vigilance and security on our highways. at a recent meeting, tsa officials informed the industry the the presence of the vipr teams of the facilities such as waste stations wasn't due to any specific threat or intelligence. rather, tsa stated that the teams were invited by state law enforcement agencies to augment their security capabilities. ata was informed that during the highway operations from the teams distributed information to

commercial drivers about reporting suspicious activities that might witness -- they might witness while on duty. deploying the fiber resources for such a purpose seems contrary to the tsa assistant secretary objectives of employing risk-based intelligence driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce vulnerabilities. ata fully agrees with mr. kristol's approach to deploying agency resources. though the highway operations made media headlines the same cannot be said of the results of these activities. this committee should request reports to scrubbing the results of the vipr highway operations as well as other similar initiatives. the report should detail the specific objectives of such operations and the results. only when such information is provided will this committee, tsa officials and industry representatives be able to assess the cost and benefits of undertaking such operations. again, i think you for the opportunity to testify before the committee and i am pleased

to answer any questions. >> thank you for your testament. our next witness mr. blankenship is the director of greyhound. he's been with greyhound since 1996 as the chief operating officer he oversees the operations of the greyhound lines as well as monitor safety and security. prior to becoming the co of greyhound lines he served as the division director for the western region. the chair now recognizes mr. blankenship for five minutes. >> good afternoon. >> chairman rogers and members of the subcommittee, i am billington should the chief operator and i am honored to be here today to discuss intercity bus security and the tsa surface inspection program. in october, 2001, less than 30 days after line 11 a terrorist attack and overpower the driver of federal land the bus took over the bus and crashed killing seven passengers and putting the terrorists and injuring 40. not knowing if this is the first of a coordinated series of attacks from greyhound ceo

ordered the nationwide shutdown of all servicers after approximately 12 hours the fbi determined that this was the work of a lone wolf and greyhound service is resumed. it underscores the vulnerability of america's iniquitous bus network. greyhound bus serves every major city in the continental united states. with open trommels in downtown locations and operate over almost every interstate highway across most of the nation's major bridges with multiple daily trips. greyhound is responded vigorously to the terrorist threat since 2001 which installed the driver shields and on board emergency communications effort response systems install the upgraded facilities security systems institute of random screening of passengers at major terminals and conducted a security training for all operational maintenance personnel. greyhound is also participating in the programs that involve tsa surface transportation inspectors, the face assessment and invisible intermodal prevention response program.

these have been somewhat hold but are not at the core of the greyhound security efforts. under the base assessment, tsa inspectors deutsch and on-site analysis of individual greyhound terminals, the score is based on the analysis and the conditions are made for security improvements at each terminal. some of the recommendations are helpful although others are not particularly realistic in the context of the terminal. so far there and eight terminals that have per dissipated in this analysis. the teams are groups of two or more individuals in the looking for potential tourist suspicious activities. these are completely random and appear to be more focused on transit and amtrak. a greyhound doesn't usually receive any feedback after these visits to the visits are useful as a deterrent when they occur. the the u.n. security efforts are considerably more important in addressing our security. one area of concern we have is a silo approach to the surface transportation security the take in the past.

this limits the effectiveness of the surface transportation efforts for example, tsa funding came on an explosive detection for major transit agencies greyhound tried to get the tsa to authorize the use of the nearby terminals which would have little if any incremental cost. we couldn't break through the law of tsa to make that happen. we are pleased that recently tsa has taken action to integrate all of the surface transportation under the director of the transportation. we recently met with the new director and encouraged that he understands the risks associated with inner-city bus service and we move to integrate intercity buses at the tsa security program in a way that will enhance overall surface transportation and security. the single most important tsa activity regard to the inner city bus security is its administration of the inner city bus secured a grant program which is averaged around $10 million per year through fiscal 2011. in fiscal 2012 congress included

the intercity bus security grant program as one of the eligible surface transportation programs, but dhs chose not to make funding available for it. we believe that intercity bus security projects should remain eligible for federal funding either through a combined surface transportation fund or otherwise. the fact is inner city buses carry roughly 720 million passengers annually which is compatible to the airlines. given those numbers in the world wide track record of the terrorist attacks is difficult to conclude that a federal such a program that makes billions of dollars available for aviation security and nothing for the inner city bus security as well balanced. in our view the project such as maintenance of the passenger screening program should continue to be supported. thank you for the opportunity to testify to it stomachs before mr. blankenship. our final and eagerly anticipated witness serves as the director of safety and security operations in the independent drivers association

and he serves as the chairman of the department of homeland security highway coordinating council mr. morris was the commander of the transportation security administration and safety division in the maryland state police as over 28 years and safety the chair and i recognize mr. morris for his opening statement and the director of safety and security operations for the owner operator independent drivers association is. i have over 28 years of experience and security in putting commanding, positioned within the state police. approximately 150,000 members are small from all 50 states the majority of the trucking in this country as small business. a 93% of the nation's motor carriers own 20 or fewer trucks. more than 69% of all is moved by truck and a block of the shipments are completed by small business truckers to involving the men and women who make their

livelihood behind the wheel of a truck makes sense for the nation's homeland security efforts to read these men and women travel through all areas of infrastructure and with the proper training, these individuals add tremendous value to securing our nation. the first observer program of which is a strong partner is the dhs tool for providing them that training. first observer helps in the security of the transportation infrastructure by enabling the sharing of information from well-trained and conserve professionals have the capacity to of serve, assess and report risk and potential security breaches. we bring to the program the unique perspective and experience to help the training modules for the enhanced power dissipation from the professionals like truckers with a particular vantage point to this report suspicious activities that have been overlooked in the past. first observer currently offers 12 different training modules covering everything from trucks and motor coach drivers to the port workers. one example how this was specialist was to lead up to the

2012 super bowl. first trainer's room for 1,000 you and stuff and other related personnel in the homeland security awareness. first observers the only program that is capable of meeting these specialized training needs while also engaging in the long-haul truck drivers on the road every day. it is truly a force multiplier for homeland security. some of the recent success stories that i can speak of include a hijack motor coach, the disruption of a bomb plot targeting for president george w. bush and the plots against the west coast power plants. these successes already the first observer mission. leiter has lent transportation professionals are more respect of the training from individuals that have a distinct knowledge and first hand experience of the industry. feedback from our members participate in the first observer provincial but the trends that they received was geared toward the specifically towards them and they felt part of the mission. this program takes homeland security seriously and in return, first of server members are taking it seriously helping

to make the program a success. to the best of my knowledge, first observer has the expectations they've 137 industry affiliate's, associations and organizations and despite the successes the program faces challenges. first observer has been operating on the no cost expansion since january 1st, 2012. broad budgetary challenges on the unbalanced funding resources within dhs especially tsa threaten this program's ability to continue its mission. allowing this program to falter would set a clear message that tsa blease is greater value on other modes of transport. it is widely known that the lion's share of the funding within tsa is allocated towards the aviation sector less than 2% is dedicated to the surface transportation arena not taking regard to the significant economic importance of the surface transportation trade and its infrastructure. it is hopeful commerce will address this in balance. first prisons are permitted to

plan a role in ensuring the protection of the country, but they have a commitment from congress and the department. shredding the nation's collective surface transportation personnel on what to observe, assess and report to other areas of expertise helps achieve, and securities overall mission at a cost below some of the of our priorities. especially those focus on substituting technology for real-life professional eyes on the road. to date, first observer has over 160,000 program members. of these we have several hundred school bus and truck drivers in the district alone as well as over 2,000 in the ranking member's district. the program has proven its value and activities should be privatized moving forward. thank you very much for your time and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. i do agree with you. we can be smart about the way we are spending our money. that's one of the reasons we want to have this testimony on the record. i recognize myself for the first set of questions.

chief o'connor, but did you mean when you said that tsa should have more operational focus? what does that term mean to you? >> as i sit in my testimony, the approaches prevention partnership and participation. i think that is where the tsa inspectors should be focusing their efforts. they should be helping agencies into direct prevention efforts like supporting viper the should be helping a partner with the communities to help protect the local transit systems and they should be helping us train our employees and doing public outreach cannot bring out and enforcing regulations that do not add to the value of security. >> have you noticed the increased numbers of these tsa assets in your stations. we have a lot of support on the

normal diapers in terms of the inspectors we are getting sporadic reports around the country showing up and basing profiles and efforts to i'm sure hour well-intentioned but i'm not sure would add to the value of security. they did assist this with the bass program, but again, once the program is in place, you know, where we go from there? >> i had the privilege of visiting with one of your facilities and i was very impressed with what you were doing as you know a big supporter of that in the secure now primm can you elaborate on that, please? >> yes, mr. chairman, first of all live with like to thank the state for participating in what you think is a very worthwhile program. we believe that transparency is

very important in building a solid and incredible security. the secure now program is actually a technology based program that allows bonafide security homeland security agencies in the case of the state's with fusion centers we also have partnerships that several federal agencies that actually allow agencies to see any real time format is operating under the transportation every commodity that's been transported within the trains. oftentimes states and federal agencies to translate and you lose valuable time to secure now program does allow the states and federal homeland security centers to have this real time access to all trains and commodities said of the get an indication of a credible or confirm the threat they can see the real commodities bader

moving for their states' on csx and take the action by commenting so we can either stop train tour move trains through at a fast pace to provide the level of security that we need. >> can you put this on the screen? >> visually i hope he can get a grip gist of this, but in 2008 we have over 200 of these inspector general's and the surface transportation and a five-year worker you can see a double to where we have 404 of these inspectors, and my question is do you all think that we have seen a commensurate enhancement of security or not? and i open that up to anybody. starting with you, mr. elliott? >> i think it's fair to say that much like my colleagues on the witness stand today we appreciate a lot of the very good work that tsa does.

with the increase of the surface transportation inspectors who we see with increased frequency and our yards that really all we are seeing is not just one inspector who would come to kind of review the transfer of the custody regulation, but we are seeing the multiple inspectors basically just showing up to look at the same regulations. so, i'm not sure we are seeing any commensurate enhancements in the security by the addition of more surface transportation inspectors. >> then yes or no, do you think that it has been worth a doubling of the work force from the securities and point? >> i have not seen that. >> we have 24 seconds. >> nope. >> chief o'connor? >> we've seen an increase in the canines and increase in public and employee training. >> mr. bling and chip? >> the increase is in the baseline inspection that has

occurred. >> mr. morris? >> i have not. >> we have been joined by my friend and colleague from texas who's come from the intelligence community wearing shorts she's made the world safer and we are glad to have her here now and i recognize her for in the opening statements she may have. >> thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. the chairman has been gracious thinking mclaurin to become members and mr. davis, mr. turner for your courtesies. we are also in an immigration subcommittee, so i think you very much. this is a subject that is enormously close to my heart, and i thank all of you for your participation in this value will hearing that will provide and that is providing insight on the critical issues. as a ranking member of the transportation security committee we continuously support the allocation of adequate resources aimed at enhancing the efficiency, safety and security of the rail and mass transit systems. there is no doubt come and i

know that you on the front line when we think of a target of the target that has been most attractive to the franchise group you can speak of the transportation and we will fool ourselves if we don't recognize that the surface transportation is clearly in the eye of the storm. this morning's news reported that buses transport more people or at least the same amount of people as the aviation industry. how many americans would know that? which is why i've offered an amendment to the surface transportation by the full committee recently considered by the committee my amendment would authorize $400 million for the transportation security grant program in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. i want you to know the good news is that agreement was unanimously supported. members on both sides recognize the need to authorize the funds

in the near future the house will consider fy 2013 appropriations bill and i will respectfully request that my colleagues continue their strong commitment to the transportation security grant funding on the appropriations measure on the floor of the house. if you are happily giving off to the casino in louisiana and parts of texas or if you are having to get to granma's house, you are using a mode of transportation that could innocents be a target. i cannot overstate the importance of the funding for the grants that allow state and local jurisdictions to secure our nation's transportation infrastructure. according to the national counterterrorism center since 2004, over 1,000 terrorist attacks were waged worldwide against the mass transit passenger charges resulting in over 2,000 deaths and over 9,000 injuries. in fact, we were one of the first congressional delegations to visit mumbai in the series of tax to visit the station where the attacks occurred. madrid, london, mumbai and

moscow we've been fortunate that we haven't put on that list one of our fights even though there was a plot to attack to the to attack the subway system in 2009 and of devotee remembers the times square bomber trying to disrupt times square if you will a center point for the subway lines crossing in that area. given the open nature of the transportation system and the millions of people who use our subways buses and highways the effort to assure adequate funding for the transportation security grants high priority for the contras and demise osama bin laden we must be diligent. last year i introduced the surface transportation transit security act of 2011 if enacted this bill would ensure that tsa provides the kind of attention and resources necessary to effectively operate surface mass-transit. the bill authorizes the hiring of additional service inspectors to validate the security programs that impact our surface

and mass transit. let me indicate how much i think this during this crucial and we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. it's important that we work with tsa to make changes. it's important that tsa has additional transportation security inspectors being the first step, for the agency must ensure that regulations impacting training and front-line workers across surface mass-transit issues and chaired for public comment. without this overreaching framework of the single programs are likely to have low impact for the overreaching framework must include the kind of mechanism such as a protocol stakeholder of reach for business through the visions of the public to its petition security assistance and recognition of the importance for the canine teams and looking forward to these efforts to go forward in a fast and expeditious way to read i also look forward in the testimony that's come about in the first observer program known as

highway watched and i believe that this hearing mr. chairman answers a number of questions the congress does maintain its responsibilities of oversight and vigilance because it is important to secure the homeland in all aspects but i yield back on my statement. >> i would like to do so and try to appreciate my question if i might to respect the chair recognizes the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> first of all, i have taken it to heart the visiting various sites and watching the work that is done. let me give just one question. unlike airports where security

is to realize the the local transit law enforcement agencies bear the brunt of implementing effective security programs for the surface transportation system. as we discussed moving forward with the tsa program, i would like to know what your major resource and operational challenges are and how tsa can use inspectors for preferred expertise to help meet post-religious pittard i'd like to start with chief o'connor. >> thank you, ranking member to the stomach as i interrupt you let me say that you have one of the toughest tasks and my you put on the record if i missed it what you think you're traveling census is up and down the corridor. >> thank you. i appreciate those comments and my task is made easier by working with some of your colleagues with she frederika's and the former jacinta it just last month to consult with them.

in terms of the usefulness of the inspectors, i testified earlier that our efforts are here towards prevention, partnership and participation, and i think that is where tsa needs to go. focus less on repeating the vulnerability assessment and regulations which do not add to security, but develop a partnership with the agencies that help in the prevention efforts, helped partnering in the communities and helping training employees and doing public outreach. i think the whole program needs to be looked at from top to bottom to see if that is where their efforts are going. >> thank you. i'm going to yield backend come back to get these questions answered at the next go round. >> the chair recognizes mr. turner for five minutes.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i'm interested, mr. elliott, in the inspectors. there are now 400 rail inspectors; is the right? and what is their mandate? are they -- >> with regards, congressman, with regards to the freight rail security, there is one of tsa regulation that deals with the secure and positive handoff of hazards so their focus has been to go out to our rail facilities and basically focus on how well that regulation is being adhered to. really, as i mentioned before in my testimony, we value a lot of the good positive relationships with tsa but what we are typically see now, we do have concerns about the level of knowledge and training that the surface transportation

inspectors are getting especially since the growth was so fast. but we've recently seen the multiple inspectors coming out to basically observe the same function in a number of limited locations. so, again, we recognize tsa brings great value and partnerships we have with them but i'm not sure that we are seeing a total value in the program. some is in there already a rather profound infrastructure for the safe handling of the coupling and uncoupling of cars and toxic materials? and other agencies transportation these are homeland security inspectors. >> that's correct. predominantly, the freight rail safety and security regulations, under the auspices. we traditionally see a number of inspectors who are out in the property looking at compliance with the regulations that they

oversee the one regulation currently that tsa has jurisdiction over is the secure posit handoff of the hazard that basically requires that there is a physical handoff of toxic inhalation hazard such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia to make sure that physical handoff. we recognize that there's a significant difference in the security threat to the freight transportation verses the security that needs to be focused on the traveling public. again, we focus quite significantly on a number of security issues. we are just not quite so sure the focus the tsa has put on this particular interest. >> do you see this as a redundancy? >> there are two things. 1i do see it as a redundancy with what the federal railroad administration focuses on its securities if the initiatives, and quite honestly, i will tell you that i think we worked very hard internally with of the

regulation. again, in my testimony, we get lauded on one hand by an inspector who watches the physical handoff and indicates that we are doing it perfectly than only to take exception to the fact that we may have a misspelled name or something may be out. so the indication to us then has to be that we are meeting the intention of the regulation that the inspectors may have to find something so they are turning to some very minor administrative issues instead. >> thank you to read another question for chief o'connor. for the railroad stations etc, the detectors are the moses of canines, is that correct? do we have enough of them? >> i don't think there will be achieved with enough resources, but certainly in terms of the

canine, we need to expand that they are one of the most versatile tools and skills tools out there, and i think they should be extended not only in the surface transportation but -- >> well, they are very appreciative of their handlers and a good program creates a good team, but i think they should be widely used throughout the whole transportation industry. >> thank you. i yield back. >> now you know why i like she's o'connor. richmond is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for the personal district that has just about everybody on the table with a large footprint in new orleans and louisiana you can take amtrak and greyhound, which is right next to the new

orleans superdome and the arena and you can look at all of our major lines that come right into the port of new orleans and some of our chemical plants, not to mention the truckers. i guess the disturbing part is that you'll take your jobs very, very seriously, and you'll have recommendations from being the votes on the ground so to speak of the front line of defense, and it appears though the working relationship with tsa in terms of suggestions on how to make things actually work of better and safer and there's some gaffe in terms of feedback or input or maybe the sense that they don't respond or to your suggestion seriously. ..

not a very direct connection to safety, i'd like to know about those because at the end of the day, i think that new orleans is a very sensitive or delicate city when it comes to transportation. so we want to make sure we get it right. chief o'connor, if we did so with you and just go down the line, that would be very beneficial. >> let me start by saying in

other areas working with the tsa, our partnership has been very good. when we first started out with vipers we had a lot of problems. then we reached agreement to work on operational plans together where we both signed off on the purpose of vipers and how they would be deployed. but for some reason that hasn't happened in the inspector program. entertainment program we work hand in glove with them. and, in fact, they come to us to learn about the canine program, and have made efforts to expand based on our expense. we have raised these issues with administrative pistol. he's aware of them. he has promised that he would look into some of these issues, but we are still waiting for the results. >> so just to be clear, for you it's really a problem with the inspector program? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> congressman, i would underscore what chief o'connor

says. in our dealings with tsa i would rate our relationship with the freight rail branch, the headquarters group that basically focus on regulation and policy as being very good. we've had good interaction with the group since its inception. traditionally they will listen to our concerns. most of folks within the group actually come from a rail background which we find very helpful. we don't always agree with some of the regulations they bring for the we understand in the task in trying to make this country and rail transportation safer, and we can appreciate that past. we also have a very good relationship with original safety coordinator whose job is to kind of understand the concerns and issues that we have that csx. but finally i think our relationship with the service to his petition inspectors, given that the report up through director focuses more on aviation security, we find that communication and coordination probably is lowest of the three groups we deal with regularly at tsa. >> and then i may have missed it

but any suggestion on who should be at the top of that command chain? >> well, i think that perhaps they might win if you it's not who should be at the top but they should all be together. >> with a focus on service transportation as opposed to aviation, at least for this group of? >> correct. i would tell you that a rail yard and a freight train is entirely different than airport and air passengers. >> mr. byrd. >> thank you, congressman. i would agree with my colleagues to the right, that the relationship between the trucking industry and tsa is good on one hand, and on the other hand can be improved. and i think that is in basic terms is a partnership. antitrust a partnership and one that needs to be expanded on. and the trucking industry has been dealing with what is not as transportation worker identification card or approximately five years.

that program has been economic burden to our industry and returned very little results in terms of antiterrorism or securing our seaports and other venues. its purpose was to be a single biometric credential that the trucking industry could use to gain access and to sensitive and secure areas. it has yet to fulfill that requirement. we still have readers in the field. and yet we are looking upon a situation where these cards that were first issued are going to expire shortly, and we're going to go to that economic burden again and we still don't have readers. so that's a problem for us. in terms of the viprs situation that in the coming to you in the testimony in georgia, and tennessee, you know, as a taxpayer is it a good investment to have a level of inspectors go out you simply demand that

material to a commercial drivers about how they can communicate what they see when we already have ineffective programs, both in our private businesses and as an industry at large. so i think that the key from the trucking industry would be to expand on the trusted partnership program, work together, communicate together, and he felt that. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. craddick. then we'll have another round of questions. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you all for coming here today. appreciate it. and if i could, please, mr. elliott, can i just come had a couple of questions in regard to relations -- does the tsa inspectors you've dealt with, are they more focus on securing the environment or technical compliance?

>> technical compliance. >> okay. so they're dotting the i's, crossing the t.? >> that's correct. >> not looking at the security over environmental security can? >> well -- >> when i say environmental i mean conditions. >> correct. >> okay. do you think the current structure with tsa inspectors are reporting to federal security directors and the field is working well? >> and i believe there's probably too much inconsistency with the current tsa organizational structure that has a group of individuals who are responsible for coming out and providing security inspection of the freight rail yards, not in any way, shape, or form connected with the headquarters organization that really is responsible for formulating policy and regulations. and i think what happens is that they he this tremendous inconsistency with the application of the regulations and interpretations. we spend an inordinate amount of

time resources deal with very minor and trivial administrative issues. fact input, approximate two weeks ago we received notification from our regional security liaison about what they considered to be a serious security breach, violation bridge in our rail yard in jacksonville. they asked for a meeting. so brought my security team in, myself, the representatives from the tsa service inspections and i came and. they laid out the issue as they saw it, only to find out that it was a misinterpretation of their own regulation. and that the region -- the regional security liaison actually had to call back after he called the headquarters group, the freight rail group in washington to get the interpretation to find out what to them was a significant violation of the regulation wasn't a violation at all. we spent a lot of time and effort preparing for the meeting trying to understand what we need done wrong only to find out that it was inappropriate or inaccurate application of the regulation by inspectors who are

supposed to know those things. >> you touch on a point i want to try to hammer home. when railroads speak of regional security inspectors, rsis, security inspectors, what actions are rsis available to actually take? >> probably very, very little, if any action is directly, but i do give our regional security inspector good marks for his consistent communications with us in trying to act as an intermediary to solve some of our concerns. but you're correct, he is very little capability to solve any problems independently. >> that's pretty much because of the chain of command as i understand. the problem -- sts eyes do not report to the tsa freight rail branch, to the? >> no. >> or to tsa headquarters of? >> that's correct. >> no, and rather be sts i

report to a federal security directors, is that correct speak with yes. >> ty murray a focus on aviation? >> it is. >> that's what i thought. >> so now, although the tsa, the point of tsa appointed the regional security inspectors to be liaisons to the railroad on surface transportation issues, the rsis are not in the chain of command of the stsis, is that correct? >> correct. >> or the tsa freight rail branch? okay. so they lack really any authority to resolve any issues or the ability to provide meaningful subject manner our kinds of freight rail security issues, is that correct? >> yes. >> so it is a pretty messed up system, wouldn't you agree? [inaudible] [laughter] you should run for politics. >> okay. i just wanted to show the

inadequacy of the system and how it is working. you brought up the point, i mean, your example was right on. on just how ineffective and inefficient the system is when there is an issue, and you have to go to great lengths to explain yourself some we may not even understand what you're talking about. so thank you very much. i appreciate your time and i will yield back, mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognizes my friend and colleague for any questions he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me thank the witnesses. want to begin and ask each one of you if you would respond, and we'll begin with mr. morris. the department has been championed and "see something, say something" campaign for the last couple of years. how does your membership report or collect data on the reporting

of incidents? >> thank you, congressman. to "see something, say something" is basically a slogan, and that campaign. were involved in the first observer program. the first observer program has a call center. with over 160,000 program members. last year we received over, since the inception is summer in area 4000 calls him a 400 of those have been referred for further action for the transportation operations center and for investigation to so see the something say something campaign is basically an ad campaign. the first observer restraining involved with it and tell people what to look for. >> mr. blankenship? >> we train our entire workforce on to report any incidents, and we have a 24 sevenths operation center that is meant to take those calls. based on the level of incidents, there's a called entry or notification trade so the more

serious incidents get raised up pretty quickly. it's instantaneous industry the three entire corporation, as appropriate. >> mr. byrd? >> thank you for the question. i would simply say that the "see something, say something" program has been effected in the trucking industry. we have two prime examples to share. in my testimony, written testimony i submitted you will note that we make mention of an incident that occurred by one of our members with a very alert employee of a trucking company saw suspicious chemicals coming through and going to a suspicious residence, made comment of the, took it up the chain of command as he'd been trained internally and through our association to do. and the end result of that "see something, say something" scenario was a terrorist attempt at was thwarted and apprehended. another such incident, the american trucking association ran the program highway watch, and i'm sure all of us here

remember the washington sniper. it was because of that program and the effectiveness of communicating the need of a community that "see something, say something," that individual was apprehended by the recognition of seeing something and saying something by a truck driver. >> mr. elliott? >> congressman, in the freight rail industry specifically csx, we have remembered here's a similar program that we call recognize, record and report which is basically trainings are employed employers to identify any suspicious or unusual activity either to the equivalent of our 911 location for our public safety coordination center, or if it's a bona fide concern, to the local police at 911. we will gather that information, and we typically been will report that further up to our trade association and association of american railroads through their network, and they will then move it forward to other federal security agencies. oftentimes will make individual

contacts to tsa at the operations center and even perhaps to the federal utc cutie center here in washington. >> chief o'connor? >> yes, sir. we've trained 19,000 employees in to "see something, say something" program, as well as the general public. we've developed a program, and any and all reports coming toward national communications center. they are invested at the local level, and those that have any substantive are passed on to our representatives at the joint terrorism task force. so it's been a very successful program for us. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i want to revisit something to i think you can tell by my opening statement on of the impression that this inspect a program is too heavy and personal, and based on his earlier history was

able to get by pretty efficiently and effectively with about 100 inspectors. certainly no more than 200 will be necessary based on what i've heard prior to the senate, and from y'all. so i'd like to start with mr. morris. is that your view, would you agree or disagree with that observation, yes or no? more deeply the fifth? >> i agree with the. >> mr. blankenship? >> yes, sir, i agree with that observation. >> mr. byrd? >> i agree. >> chief? >> i'll give you a little more qualified answer. the numbers don't -- >> out that anybody was going to be a yes or no. >> the numbers, i don't turn away any help. but it's got to be the right kind of felt. if they're not doing the right thing, then increasing the numbers doesn't help. you know, whatever the number turns out to be, it needs to do the right thing.

>> that basically -- when you say you don't need more people. i'm getting to this. if it were up to y'all, and we could reallocate the money being spent on 300 of those 400 inspectors and put them into a grant program, now, several of you talked about grants, pay for canine assets, it could be some of the secured acid. what you think that would be a higher and better use of the money? start with mr. morris? >> yes, sir. we would wholeheartedly agree to spit in my statement i agreed -- i refer to the grant. >> mr. byrd? >> we would agree. >> mr. elliott? >> congressman, i think would like to see them or risk approach and not just throwing manpower that may not be wholly effective? >> would the grant grant to congress at? >> yes a good.

>> chief? >> i am a proponent of the expansion of k-9 without qualification. >> great. i'm glad y'all help me get on record because i'll try to bring that amendment when we proceed to the floor with this but i do think this money could be used better. mr. blankenship, you mentioned earlier, this will be my last question, that tsa wouldn't work with you on trying to put k-9 assets in your systems at very modest expense. what was the problem? >> they just couldn't coordinate the activity. in most cases downtown locations, we are a couple blocks, four, five blocks away so why not come by the terminal, have the k-9 unit to a quick run to the terminal as a preventative. we weren't able to break that cycle down. we asked, had to reconsider we think that could be very valuable and very little or low-cost. >> you told the right person to i think i can help you with that. >> thank you very much, sir. >> anymore questions? >> sure.

thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. o'connor, you indicate that you would not turn away the extra support of help. how can tsa do a better job, or what kind of support do you need? could you use. >> they have been very helpful in doing passing baggage screened, helping us multiply our forces. they've been very helpful in the k-9 aspects. those efforts that actually do something in the field to enhance boots on the ground is what i'm wanting. >> also, and each one of you, if you just respond quickly. in the june 2008 report titled tsa's administration, and coordination of mass transit security programs, several

concerns were raised by transit security officials indicating that tsa's risk management did not account for certain needs of cities and their transit systems. in developing the fy 2012 transit security grant program, priorities and evaluate submissions, how do you think dhs can improve on its transparency in the evaluation and selection of transit security projects? chief, why don't we just start with you? >> well, that's a pretty long question. you know, i'll say this. with limited resources, again, those efforts that enhance frontline operational efforts

are the ones that come in my opinion, our best, best invested in. those that encourage partnerships, for instance, we work very closely and recently with the secret service and the city of chicago police department during the nato conference. and, in fact, our canines were used by the secret service in helping protect that hold event. so, you know, those efforts helped and the development, the partnerships that helped the frontline effort is what i support. >> the chicago papers, you will note that everybody felt that the entire team did an excellent job, an outstanding job, and we commend you for that. mr. elliott? >> congressman davis, at first blush, most folks may not think that a freight rail

transportation network has much to do with passenger rail security, but that's really not the case. at csx we have over 8 million rail miles a year, passenger and commuter operations on her network. we are very, very fortunate to have great working relationships with my colleagues at amtrak and some of the other passenger transportation networks. one of the things that we do through our police department on a yes, we use k-9 as well, i'm happy to announce we are assigning a new k-9 unit right here to a community-based policing effort we have in washington. one of the things we do recognizing that we do have the traveling public on csx rails is use our police department to basically go out and try to train other law enforcement agencies. we will be the first to respond to a rails related terrorist incident. but again, we understand the importance of the transit security side and we tried to do our best to help her colleagues that deal with on a more frequent basis.

>> mr. byrd? >> obviously we are not involved in the mass transit of people in that, but just respond in general as a citizen, you know, again i think it's kind of like the fact from what my colleague, chief o'connor mentioned, communication, working together, partnerships are invaluable to making it, a successful program work. that's the only comment i would have. >> mr. blankenship? >> i think my comment is more geared as a private bus company and the security cost is our burden. that congress did include the inner-city bus security grant in fiscal 2012 but dhs chose not to fund it. we would like to see that revisited. we think that is a big help with very little dollars. it goes a long way to screening our customers. >> mr. morris? >> as a representative for drivers, we applaud any efforts for service invitation security

realm. transit, where ever. our drivers, they need another bridge bridge, that road. their wheels are not wrong, they are not making any money. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. turner for additional questions, if you have any. i will close with this, this invitation to next week will have administrator pistole before our committee. if there's anything he would like to ask him, keep it up. mr. morris? spink yes, sir. i would like to ask him if future grants are going to be out there for homeland secured efforts, surface transportation, dedicate more money for surface transportation. >> excellent. i will do that. mr. blankenship? >> i would have the same response with inner-city bus grant program. also, better coordination on viprs when they do coming to

the terminals. coordination on time and and so forth. we don't need them come in when we don't have passengers. >> excellent. mr. byrd. >> trucking industry would like to know when our wic readers will be available to us. >> get you an answer. >> mr. elliott? >> mr. chairman, i think it has to do with better coordination perhaps consolidation of the organizational construct, tsa as a focus on freight rail security. they shouldn't be separate. they should all be one single focused effort that focuses on surface transportation. >> why don't you do this for me? why did you fashion the question you want tended in writing, and i will read it verbatim for you. chief o'connor? short timer. >> short timer. i would ask the administrator if you would take a look at, within the organization on the surface security inspectors looking to

partner with industry as they do in other areas of tsa. would you take a hard look at that. >> great. and for those folks who didn't get the short timer remark, chief o'connor is about to retire. and i'm proud for him. a little jealous, but he's been a great asset to come before us before and i appreciate. wish you well in your retirement and hopefully see you around here more relaxed attire in the future. >> thank you very much. >> can i just ask -- >> certainly. >> you discuss the first observer program as an important layer of security. could you amplify that a little bit? >> first observer program is a training program that puts together people who know the realm, know they're driving, whatever relatives. we put training modules together, geared towards their

expertise, their professional area of expertise. and they in turn call off when they see something that is either suspicious or out of the ordinary. calls veggie chili would probably not get in the past, or they would call 911, and calls would go to the wayside. those calls are then taken, debated and analyzed by transportation security professionals, and there's actionable items taken as a result of those calls and analyses. >> you think is perhaps any additional training opportunities that exist, or if they were training opportunities, if this would be effected to the extent of really being useful in terms of people learning perhaps more ineffective techniques and approaches and what to look for, how to look? >> yes, sir, congressman. the original program was

supposed beaches for trucking security. it has evolved into 12 modules. different venues. gaps that people saw. tsa came to us and said hey, can you put together more modules? we did it, no extra money or thing like that. we did it because we thought it was the right thing to do and we did. if there's additional money and additional training, we can put, everybody on surface transportation under the umbrella. the problem is the funding is scant at this time. >> thank you very much, and i thank you, mr. chairman, i see that the ranking member has returned it and i'm pretty certain that i probably didn't -- [laughter] >> i would yield. ..

ask the question, chief o'connor, and mr. morris, the importance of making sure we continue the transportation security grant as indicated in the amendment within $400 million we all knew from some resources don't always answer the question, but i have been on the ground, and i know that vastness of the work that law enforcement is asked to

cover, particularly the local structure and infrastructure. chief o'connor, as many other americans i have ridden on amtrak. amtrak i must say i think relatively documentation has received a track record is more respectable based upon hold this to the urban centers can be enormously attractive to someone who wants to do us harm. so those resources particularly the $400 million keeping those funding cycles open and flowing to be effectively with the taxpayers' dollars in mind how this continues to help secure the homeland.

chief o'connor? >> yes, remember to jackson lee come amtrak operates in more than five in the communities over 46 states and we interact with about a dozen agencies across the country so it's not just protecting america's railroad, but it's also protecting communities in major urban areas and commuter centers around the country. the transit security grants go a long way towards helping us in our catering programs to helping us in gathering the proper intelligence towards buying down vulnerabilities and lowering the risk. it's a daunting task just to protect the public on a day-to-day basis when you overly that with the threat of terrorism. the assistance that the federal

government gives to us and the transit agencies across the country is vital to come and there would be serious breaches and increases in vulnerability without it. >> mr. morris. spurring yes, ma'am, ranking member. the program as you are aware is on the no cost extension and we understand first in 2012 over 160 program members we have, that's what we have, these are volunteers and a lot of different venues. 12 different venues and in your district alone there's 12,000 school buses and truck drivers to help all in the homeland security mission is tsa walks away from this it sends a message to them saying they don't care what surface transportation. >> may i just get mr. elliott to focus on the question and quite

a different way we have quite a massive freight system in part of the work that you do in the major work that you do i think that there's no question that there are hazardous materials being transported that might wish to do us harm how important it is to have a partnership in the federal government on securing the homeland particularly with inspectors dealing with a surface transportation. >> we recognize there are many valuable programs between tsa and the freight rail industry with regards to the surface transportation inspectors. we have some concerns that we wish they had better knowledge and understanding of the system of freight can be inherently unsafe places and the folks interested by the government to basically come out and provide those inspections understanding of the railroad.

we also like to see to be as fully effective as the current group of the surface transportation inspectors can be in the entities that we deal with in tsa with one entity we also a sign a regional security inspector liaison to try to help us with issues that we have and then of course we deal with the headquarters freight rail brinza deals a lot of regulations and policies and no consistency between those three. you know, we would really ask that tsa does a better job of bringing the groups together to provide better service to, you know, us and the free to rail security site. >> so your comments are not on the lack of recognition of the value of the inspectors. what your instruction and insight is that we need to improve our training and

outreach so that we have inspectors that are sufficiently trained for each discipline, each industry. am i hearing you correctly? and if i might come any coordination within tsa. >> ranking member sheila jackson lee, i think currently -- and i have to say what i observed and that is we don't see the current country of the surface transportation inspectors that focusing on the transportation. our sector is the possibly could be. we are dependent upon, you know, our network of employees, our police department, our security professionals to provide most of the securities to the freight rail at work and it's the core mission between the entities that focus on the freight rail security that perhaps makes the current group not nearly as effectively as probably the should be. >> what i would say as i close is there is no doubt that transportation security inspectors are a valuable asset.

as i look at the industry for a long time, you have been under the u.s. department of transportation before 9/11 now there's an overlapping jurisdiction, and what i hear you crying out for is what i think is a at least his mind, no i cannot deal to the department of transportation federal railroad agency for security. but what i will listen to the and i think is important is the idea that we can improve training and coordination and we can answer your question or concern that we need to have focus on your industry and the right way. so i conclude by thanking the chief o'connor and understand he is retiring and i congratulate him for the service he's given to the nation and i yield back. >> i thank the witnesses for their testimony and the members further question. members of the committee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will be

asked to respond to these and writing. the hearing record will be opened for ten days. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. live now to minnesota and remarks from president obama. he's expected to speak on the economy and plans to create jobs. the president of the honeywell minister tran facility in golden valley, which is a western suburb of minneapolis. honeywell is prepared with the end ministrations joining forces initiative and has hired 900 military veterans since 2011. we also expect the president to discuss the release of the jobs numbers released this morning and according to the bureau of labor statistics, the economy added 69,000 jobs while the unemployment rate went up from 8.1 to 8.2% since the month of

april. as you might expect, there's been lots of reaction to the jobs numbers on capitol hill. house republican leaders held a press conference earlier today and we are planning to show that to you while we wait for the president. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. it's pretty clear that the american people are still asking questions, where are the jobs. other months of disappointing job gains it's pretty clear that the american people are hurting and small businesses continue to

avert hiring any additional people. and it's clear that the policies that we've seen are not working. i would just hope mr. president -- sitting in a united states senate we could help the american people in time of this great need if the senate would just look at the bills before us. we've watched us the last year and have come up here every week and make clear that our focus is the focus of the american people. we promise we will listen to the american people and our focus is on this economy to read that's why it's continued to be our focus each and every day over the last year and a half because the american people are in a desperate spot. millions of americans have lost their jobs and are looking for

work as it is time for us to change course. >> good morning. these job numbers are prophetic and the american people deserve better and i think on the right leadership we can do better and in the house we remain committed to doing all we can to removing the uncertainty that is plaguing the small business people of this country. that's why you'll see us continue to focus on the fact of we are not going to come if we can come allow taxes to go up on anybody and we will put a bill on the floor this summer to make sure that symbol is sent to the small businesses of the country. we also believe strongly that the uncertainty provided by the president's health care bill is laying down job creation and weighing down the innovation and investment in this country and

that is why we are going to seek to repeal in total the obamacare bill. we will bring to a bill this summer a bill that will stay stop the regulations coming out of washington because they are proving to be an obstacle of job creation street stop everything that is providing disincentives to our job creators so we can get this economy growing again. >> i guess the only news this morning is that three and a half years later, the president's policies are still failing. three and a half years later, millions of americans still remain unemployed. three and a half years later millions of americans are underemployed. the president's policies continue to fail. this should not be a surprise. if you threaten the single largest tax increase in america's history, much of which will fall upon small business

people and entrepreneurs you're not going to get robust economic growth. if you have an avalanche of new regulations under this administration will of robust economic growth and job growth. with the free enterprise you're not going to have robust economic growth. if you engage in serial petroleum dollar deficits which business people know sooner or later they are going to have to pay for, you're not going to get robust economic growth. so unfortunately for our constituents who've seen their gas prices almost double in this administration their disposable income is down under this administration who look around and still see their friends, their neighbors unemployed in this administration.

again, the news today is three and a half years later. the president's policies are still failing the american people. estimate as i look at these numbers we can't help but think about the number of americans continuing to look for work and are not able to find jobs and these are really tough numbers. i also think about the fact that when president obama was elected he said if he hadn't turned the economy around in three years that he probably wouldn't be in office in his fourth year and after he was inaugurated, the cornerstone of his economic plan for america was a stimulus package, it was an $800 billion stimulus package, it was a record amount of spending and he told the congress at that time if you pass the stimulus package, unemployment will not go above 8%, and by this time this year, unemployment would actually be below 6%. well it's clear that that hasn't

happened. but i can't help but think it didn't have to be this way. we could have taken an approach that really focused on unleashing the private sector and the reason they oppose that big government approach is that we believe there was a better way, there was a that focused on a private sector and president obama could have taken a lesson from president ronald reagan in the early 80's, and he actually inherited a much more difficult economy inflation was higher interest rates were off the charts and in this re-election he had an economy that was booming. we need a course correction. we need an approach coming out of this administration that is more focused on the private sector, more focused on what it's going to take to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in this country again.

>> has he told when he slid to highlight the to do list and the veteran jobs -- >> house republican members on the job numbers. see it in its entirety. go to our website at c-span.org. going live to president obama on jobs, the economy and today's unemployment report. ♪ [applause] [cheers and applause] it is good to be back in minnesota. [applause] it is good to see your governor

here. on the way over we were talking of making sure they were staying. i was rooting for the vikings the second round here, and the governor did a great job. you were praying, too. you've got to outstanding senators, amy klobuchar and al franken. [applause] your mayor is here. outstanding congressional delegation in the house give them a big round of applause. [applause] i thought he was good to give him a big round of applause.

[applause] she's a natural. one of the last times i was here was last august we took a bus tour around the state. i needed a little minnesota might. stop for some pie, held a town hall. amy and al were there. i think al eight am i pie in fact. [laughter] i spent a lot of time talking to folks who spent the past couple of years making their way through a tough economy, and today we are still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the great

depression. the economy is growing again but it's not growing as fast as we want it to grow. our businesses have created almost 4.3 million new jobs over the last 27 months, but as we've learned in today we still not creating them as fast as we want. and just like this time last year, our economy is still facing some serious head winds. we have high gas prices a month, two months ago and they're starting to come down. they are spiking, the bigger still hitting people's wallets pretty hard to read that has an impact. and then most prominently, most recently we have had a crisis in europe's economy that is having an impact worldwide and it's starting to cast a shadow as well. so we've got a lot of work to do before we get to where we need to be. and all of these factors have made it even more challenging to

not just fully recover but also to leave the foundation for e and the economy that is built to last over the long term. with that is our job. from the moment we first took action to prevent another depression, we knew the road of recovery would not be easy. we knew it would take time, we knew there would be ops and downs along the way, but we also knew that if we were willing to act lot lately and boldly and we were acting together as americans if we were willing to keep at it and roll up our sleeves and never quit we wouldn't just come back, we would come back stronger than ever. that was our belief. [applause] and that continues to be my belief. we will come back stronger. we have better days ahead and that is because of all of you. [applause]

i place my bet on american workers and american businesses any day of the week. [applause] you've been fighting for this tough economy with resilience and innovation. honeywell is a great example of a company that's doing outstanding work and i want to acknowledge cody who's been serving on my jobs council doing a lot of great work. [applause] that's why our auto industry kept coming back. it's why manufacturing is consistently adding jobs for the first time since the 1990's. [applause] all of that is happening because of you. everybody plays by the rules, you work hard and meet your

responsibilities. and you deserve leaders to do the same. leaders that will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and do everything possible to strengthen the middle class and move this economy forward. that's where you to search. [applause] we can't fully control everything that happens in other parts of the world. the services in the middle east, what's going on in europe. plenty of things we can control here at home. there are plenty of steps we can take right now to help create jobs and grow this economy. let me give you a couple examples. i sent congress a jobs bill last september full of the kind of bipartisan ideas that would have put our fellow americans back to work and help reinforce our economy against some of these outside shots to bredesen the

plan would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion in a way that is balanced that pays for the job-creating investments we need by cutting unnecessary spending and also by asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more in taxes. [applause] and i will give them a little bit of credit. congress passed a few parts of the jobs bill like a tax cut allowing workers to keep more of your paychecks every week. that was important. i appreciate it but congress hasn't acted on the enough of the other ideas in the delta would help make a difference and create jobs right now. and there's no excuse for its. not when there's so many people out there still looking for work. not when there's still folks out there struggling to pay their bills. it's not lost on anybody that it's an election year. i understand that.

i've noticed triet [laughter] ["four more years!"] [applause] but we have responsibilities that are bigger than an election. we have responsibility for you. so, my message to congress is now is not time to play politics. now is not the time to sit on your hands. the american people expect their leaders to work hard no matter what year it is. the economy still isn't where it needs to be. there's steps that can make a difference right now that can also serve as a buffer in case the situation in europe gets any worse. right now congress should pass a bill to help prevent more layoffs to cut costs of teachers and firefighters and police officers backed in their jobs.

[applause] lay off at the state and local level have been a chronic problem for our recovery but it's a problem that we can fix. congress should have passed a bill a long time ago to put thousands of construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and bridges and runways. no sector has been hit harder than the construction industry. and we've got all this stuff that needs fixed. remember that bridge in minnesota? so, this is a problem that we can fix. let's do it right away. instead of just talking about job creators, congress should give small business owners a tax break for hiring more workers and paying more wages. we can get that done. we can get that done right now.

let's not wait. [applause] right now congress should give every responsible homeowner the opportunity to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgages. we've got a hysterically low rate right now. i was with a family in reno nevada a couple weeks ago. they got a chance to refinance even though their home was under water. put that money back in their pockets because we've taken some steps as an administration to make that available for those that have mortgages held by government agencies like the fha or the government guarantee but not everybody has those kind of mortgages. i want everybody to have those same opportunities. i assure there are folks here that can use $3,000 a year. if you have $3,000 a year extra,

that helps you paid on your credit cards, that helps you go out and buy things your family needs, which is good for business. maybe somebody will be replacing something for their furnace. [laughter] they've been putting that off. but if they've got that extra money, they might just go out there and buy that thing. [laughter] right? [cheering] right now congress needs to expend the tax credit for clean energy manufacturers to set to expire at the end of this year. i miss talking today with cody. the issue of energy efficiency and everything we need to do to a shift away from dependence on foreign oil we are making huge progress.

we are actually importing less oil than any time in the last eight years we are down under 50%, but we can do more. and these clean energy companies are hiring folks helping as brit dependence on foreign oil. it's part of a package of stuff that honeywell is doing a lot of work on the almost 40,000 jobs are on the line if these tax credits expired. why would anyone in congress walk away from those jobs? we need to pass those tax credits right now. [applause] it's long past time we started encouraging with a lot of companies have been doing lately which is bring jobs back to this country. some of them are coming to minnesota. the governor and i were talking in the car about the company's coming back.

let's give more incentives. it's time for congress to end tax breaks for companies to shift jobs overseas. let's use that money to cover them with expenses for companies bringing jobs back to america that would make a difference right now. [applause] those are all steps we can be taken to strengthen the economy to provide some assurance of the situation starts getting worse so we control our own destiny and keep this moving forward which brings me to the last thing the congress should do is to help create jobs. that's why i am here at honeywell today. i believe that no one who fights for this country should never have to fight for our job when they come home.

[applause] for congress that means creating a veteran jobs or so we can put our returning heroes back to work. cops and firefighters, project to protect public lands and resources. they should do it right now. but we are going to serve our veterans as well as they have served us the need to do more to really just observed memorial they which makes us think about the extraordinary sacrifice that so many make. we have to make sure that we translate. we can't just be in a parade,

can't just march we also have to deliver for our veterans. over the past three decade, the past decade rather, more than 3 million service members have transition back to civilian life and now that the war in iraq is over and we are winding down low war in afghanistan -- [applause] over a million more of those outstanding heroes are going to be joining this process of the transition back to civilian life over the next few years. just think about the skills these veterans have acquired at an incredibly young age. think about the leadership that the different. 25, 26-year-olds leading a platoon in an unbelievably

dangerous situation, life or death situations to rethink the cutting edge technology that the mastered. their ability to change and unpredictable situations you can't get that kind of stuff from a classroom. these kids, these men, these women, they've done incredible work and that is six ackley the kind of leadership and responsibility that every business in america should be wanting to attract, should be competing to attract. that's the talent we need to compete for the jobs and industries of the future. these are the kind of americans every company should want to hire. [applause] and that's why here at honeywell you have made a mission to hire

more veterans. [applause] and let me say dave is patriotic and loves his veterans but honeywell is doing this not just because it feels good, they are doing it because it is good for business because veterans make outstanding which. today i am taking executive action that will make it easy for a lot of companies to do same thing. i told the story before of a soldier in the 82nd airborne who served as a combat medic and afghanistan saved lives and earned a bronze star for his actions but he came home care to minnesota, and get him on our way to cannon falls. when he first came home he couldn't even get a job as a

first responder. think about, he's out there taking care of troops wounded in action and couldn't get a job so he took us as to the post 9/11 the g.i. bill, class's he could have talked just so he could qualify for the same duties at home that he had performed every day in the war. let me tell you something. if you can save a life on the battlefield, you can save a life in an ambulance. [applause] if you can oversee a convoy for millions of dollars of assets in iraq, you can help manage a supply chain four balance its books here at home. if you can maintain the most

advanced weapons in the world and if you are an electrician on a navy ship manufactured the next generation of advanced technology in our factories like this one. [applause] if you're working on complex machinery you should be able to take those skills and find a manufacturing job right here at, but unfortunately a lot of the hero's with skills like these, they don't get hired simply because they don't have civilian licenses or certification that a lot of companies require. at the same time i hear from business leaders that say they can't find enough workers with the skills necessary to fill positions 80% of manufacturing delete the manufacturers say this. think about it, we've got all

these openings and of these skilled veterans looking for work and somehow they are missing each other. it doesn't make sense so that's where executive action comes in to fix it did today i am proud to announce new partnerships between the military and manufacturing groups that will make it easier for companies to hire returning service members to prove that they have learned the skills our country needs. [applause] soldiers from sailors, marines and airmen, coastguardsman, if they have the skills and machining or welding or weapons maintenance, for example you have a fast track to the good paying manufacturing jobs to the service members with experience and logistics and maintenance on the front lines will have a fast track to jobs in those fields

here at home to but i also directed the department of finance to establish a new task force charged with finding new opportunities for service members to use the skills they've learned in the military to gain the relevant industry provincial for the certifications and licenses so that it doesn't cost them and they don't necessarily have to go back to school for three years and take out a whole bunch of student loans and potentially they could do it quicker, more and expensively and get off the job faster we are talking about jobs in manufacturing and health care and i.t. and logistics for first responders if they don't have to prove themselves over and over again. so this task force action is going to create opportunities for up to 126,000 service members to gain the industry

recognized certification for the high demand manufacturing jobs like the jobs right here at this plant at honeywell. [applause] we launched last year with the national season of manufacturers to provide 500,000 community college students with industry recognizing credentials, when able to share in the opportunities of their defense. when our men and women signed up to become a soldier, sailor, airman, rain, coastguardsman they don't stop being a citizen. when the tip of that uniform their service to the nation doesn't stop.

they look at serving america however they can. at the time an american is all hands on deck they've got the skills and the strength to help lead the way. our government needs the patriotism and their sense of duty to do that's why i ordered the hiring of more veterans by the federal government to retired more than 200,000 so far. [applause] in our economy needs their outstanding talent and that is why we pushed hard for the tax breaks for businesses that hire unemployed veterans and wounded more years and i'm proud to say that both parties in congress came together to get that done. that's why we launched the personalized job services through the veterans program and an on-line veteran jobs bank to help veterans find jobs that need their talent.

by the wave there are any veterans here who need those services you can find about at whitehouse.gov/vet to read later this month we will hold a job fair in detroit where 12,000 more opportunities will be available to veterans. that's also why i challenge business leaders to higher 100,000 post 9/11 veterans and their spouses by the end of next year but don't forget our military families serving alongside our veterans. >> michele and joe biden, that's michele obama and joe biden just in case you're serious. you might not know which 1i was talking about. [laughter] they are leading this effort with respect to military families nationally called joining forces, the elements to

support families and veterans. so for the good news is participating more than 70,000 veterans. they've pledged to hire 175,000 more in the coming years to i want to thank honeywell not only for being an active partner in this initiative, but right here honeywell has hired 900 veterans over the past year and for employing 65 veterans of the golden valley so give them a big round of applause. [applause] this is not a space responsibility or republican response will be this is an american responsibility, an obligation that every citizen who enjoys the free on the hero's defended. as we have to meet our

obligations today the folks at honeywell are doing and as commander in chief i want all of our service members and veteran's to know if when it comes to your service and sacrifice which fought for us. you will help us keep in america on top of the 21st century. [applause] we are going to keep fighting just as you did to show just why it is that the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] kathen

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> president obama of wrapping up here in golden valley, minnesota. the president is in full campaign mode hosting six political fund-raisers here in minnesota and in chicago. they will pay as much as $50,000 to pay the to attend these events. we will have coverage of the fund-raiser in chicago at 7:ten eastern. earlier today mitt romney released a statement on the may on employment report. in part he says today's jobs report is devastating news for american workers and american families. this week has seen a cascade of one bad piece of economic news after another slowing gdp growth, plunging consumer confidence and increasing unemployment claims and now another abysmal jobs report all

stand as a harsh indictment of the president's handling of the economy. we can do so much better in america. that's why i'm running for president. ♪ ♪ ♪ estimate house budget committee chair paul ryan chaired a hearing on barriers to business development tax policy and during the hearing today, he and other committee members commented on the labor department report. week of the unemployment numbers a half-hour ago. only 69,000 jobs added in the

last month. that's about half of the 150,000 the markets were expecting. the last two months, job growth was downward by 49,000 jobs. the unemployment rate has now gone up to 8.2%. the 6% which lots of us track which is people who are looking for jobs that didn't find one, people stopped looking for a job or are in a part-time job that want a full-time job went from 14.5% of to 14.8%. it's not working. the economic policies we have today are not working. and i always try not to say what it is my political adversaries in favor of. i will let him speak for himself. but what i think we are trying to establish here is both parties have messed this up. mr. edwards did a good job of going through the half about how with good intentions, republicans and democrats had

believed that if they could just put some kind of a preference in tell-all for the selected industry, for the role, the selected company, that could things could result from that. and it's helpful to us to go back and look at the track record of this bipartisan idea that the government is smarter and better at picking winners and losers in the marketplace than the marketplace itself to be and what we have learned from this bipartisan approach is that corruption does occur. those that have the ways of washington and that usually getting the benefits and those that are out there around america working hard, slaving away creating ideas coming up with companies in their garages they're not on the inside of this. and so, we end up erecting barriers to entry that established businesses connected

businesses and sectors of businesses and that comes at the extent of tomorrow's entrepreneur. it's harder for people to rise and create new ideas and businesses, which as we have learned through the economy come through economic evidence is the greatest chance of getting people prosperity of decentralizing wealth in this country of allowing people to rise and have social mobility. and so, what we are trying to do is recognize that both parties mess this up. what's not sit around and point fingers at each other. let's recognize both parties messed it up and go back with what works is entrepreneurship, small business growth, risk-taking and yet regulations that are fair for all. regulations that to put the guardrails up so that we have transparency. we have an honest place, as we have rules of the road that apply equally to everyone. equality before the law. that is what we are trying to

reestablish. no one is suggesting that we have a dog eat dog society where it exists the powerful and connected survive at the expense of of reveals. no, what we are saying is the same rules apply to everybody to get so that you, based on your own merits, you're own god-given talent that is determined success so the goal was to try to advance the starting line is we can promote equal opportunities to people can make most of their lives that of having people picking and choosing winners in washington because what ends up happening with three republican is in the white house or democrat is in the white house or whoever is running congress is interest groups get involved and they decide how this is all done at the end of the day. that doesn't work. we have seen our friends in europe tried this and now we look at the results of that and so governor bush and mr. edwards, you've seen this book and have great experience in government. has this work of the state level, state governments have to

do this a lot. the stimulus, for the example, sent a lot of money to the states. did that work? to the 49 different job training programs the were created with good intentions and had various groups advocating for this or that job training program, does that work to actually give people the tools they need to go into getting skills so they can go on a career path they were in the industry that is gone. you know, where i live we lost four of zero factories since 2008 so all of my friends i grew up with a high school, the guys i know from my childhood, they don't have a sector that they can work in that they got their training in, and now people are trying to the back to school to get back on their feet again. does this approach work, does the job training work? and then mr. edwards, give me more a symbol of the canadian system i think it is intriguing you write about how canada actually went after a lot of the corporate welfare and cronyism. give me more anecdotes on that

because i think there's something we can learn from the canadians on this. governor rush to become. >> we have had many stimulus package is 1i was governor in the early 2000's. for some states it worked because there was chronic budget deficits and they filled the gap, and they considered that stimulative rather than changing how they do things. in the case of florida we actually took that money and used it for a one time basis to try to help create to invest in basic research, and that is i think if the proper role of government where maybe mike cato institute friend and i may disagree. there is a proper role for the government and things to build capacity, to build infrastructure and that's why we use the money for. it wasn't estimate what it in terms of an economic recovery. but we already handled our budget because we have a balanced budget requirement as almost every letter state did. we had to make tough choices.

we have to challenge awaited things and we got through the budget challenges quite well. similarly, i think many of the states did the exact same thing this last year. florida did not raise taxes the last couple of years florida has increased taxes in ferc florida has cut taxes, and they have done that -- the challenge became an opportunity. what happens in the private sector as well. when you don't have the pressure of a balanced budget requirement as you all don't have here, then it doesn't really matter. but every the jurisdiction, local and state governments have that challenge and they adjust to it i would say to use to clean energy except on a better approach would be to spend less money, but spend it on basic research that creates the destructive technologies that are market-based that will be sustainable over the long haul rather than trying to create a wholly-owned venture-capital subsidiary inside of the the

court that energy with there are winners and losers but it's not going to create an advancement of new technologies it basically protect some the cases of the company's it end up protecting companies that didn't have the best ideas come and the market then punished them and the united states government was out of pocket so a better approach would be for the government to do what it does best, which is to fund basic research, applied research to be able to create the next generation of industries but to let the market solutions be the means by which we achieve the desired result. estimate i believe in the 50 states in the laboratories of democracy, i believe in federalism, i believe we ought to get a lot of these programs out of washington and let the states figure out whether they want to do them. a job-training program, you know, we've had them since john f. kennedy's administration. they've never worked very well. the gao said they never worked very well.

let's let the states found it and do it and the states can learn from each other to see what works. .. massive deficits, overspending, wall street was downgrading its debt. so they did a series of five years of really big spending

cuts. they chopped their total federal budget 10% in just two years which would be like us cutting $400 billion out of the budget in just two years. they cannot business subsidies. they get a to the lower government. they cut defense. so they got all kinds of stuff. and it worked extremely well. the canadian economy did not go into recession with these cats. the canadian economy boomed for 15 years. even as these spending cuts dramatically drop the size of their government. so just to put a couple numbers on a, go back a couple decades. the federal government and candidate and the united states were both in 23, 24% gdp. the canadian government is about 15% of gdp. ours is a brown 23 or 24. and massively cut the size of the federal government. they decentralize their federation and it is worked extremely well. >> thank you. mr. van hollen.

>> thank you. mr. chairman. i do believe that there's a lot of agreement, but let me just start with what -- sir? that make going you. the chairman is opening remarks again talked about the obama administration crony capitalism but they continue to refer to the auto rescue. an example of an important government entity that help millions of jobs, but an example of crony capitalism. i just want to ask you, governor bush. i believe you supported as did a lot of us, not all of us, on a bipartisan basis the effort that president bush took to help rescue the financial sector, which in part precipitated the crisis. and many others believe it was also appropriate to take the actions that president obama did to help rescue the auto industry and a million jobs. did you support that effort?

>> no. >> okay. so -- [inaudible] i understand. do you agree with governor romney's position that we should have let them go bankrupt. >> they did go bankrupt. it was just in a way whether government, it was a government induced bankrupt that allowed them, for example, tax loss carry forward never under any normal bankruptcy would exist. now they don't have to pay taxes based on profits that otherwise they would have to be paying taxes on. that's the form of capitalism when the government intervenes in a very muscular kind of way. i don't believe that is appropriate. >> well, maybe i made an assumption. maybe i was wrong. did you support the rescue of wall street banks speak with you know, i've never been asked that either. i'm out of office and now you're asking. i think given the circumstances of the potential for an meltdown

that would've been hard to recover, some support was appropriate. was there for the next step of adding regulations on top of regulations, the congressman in his remarks made an interesting point, assuming that there was no regular should on the banks and financial services industries prior to dodd-frank's passage, in fact it was massive regulation. i would argue that maybe enforcement was where the problem was, not the fact that we have a deregulated financial industry. cell for a short-term solution to a problem that have global implications, i think that's probably the right thing to do. but and to take and then to add on top of this challenge that we faced, massive rules that will take you to implement that creates more uncertainty and the probability of more unintended consequences that will create a weakening economy rather than a strength anyone i think think was the wrong approach.

>> tonight at eight eastern we are featuring some of the tvs programming only seen on weekends. >> a comparison of the domestic policies of the two presidential candidates. the "national journal" posted a

forum comparing mitt romney and president obama. the panelists discussing the economy, deficit reduction and health care. they also analyzed the campaign poll numbers. from the museum here in washington, d.c. this is about 40 minutes. >> good morning. thank you very much for joining us this morning. appreciate you being here live, and we greatly appreciate those of you who are joining us live via the nationaljournal.com and tv. for those of you have a better, my name is victoria. i'm the senior vice president national journal group. it's my push to looking over this whether i think with a wonderful event. we hope we can take a very long hard look at how the two presidential nominees sharply to verge on key policy issues such as the economy come of workplace policy, foreign policy and more. it appears that president obama

and governor romney will provide the american public with a circus contrast since 1984, if not, 1964. every week in our magazine, "national journal" is going to be taking a look at the clash of ideas on policy. and an in depth look at each candidates vision for america and a broad range of public policy issues that are destined to serve help shape and define this election cycle. we will also have live events like this one lady at each candidates position, how they've evolved, shifted and changed at both the republican national convention at the democratic convention's in august and september respectively. we invite you to join us if you're down in each city. we are able to gather this morning due to the generous underwriting support of the society of human resource management, also known as churn. when we approach the idea of a series carefully comparing the candidates on the issues, the leadership immediately saw the value in it. so thank you to bob carr, my

taken into the entire team for their partnering with us on this important project. helping welcome this one is bob carr, the chief global communications and marketing officer for sherm. pop formally served as the chief human resource and strategic an officer and is a former executive director of the national bar association. welcome, bob. [applause] >> so, good morning. good morning. as most of you know, washington is a city of many intersections. both literally and figuratively. and so what we've learned is that victoria wouldn't be able to navigate many of those intersection. so again, give her a big hand for me. [applause] >> so again, i'm bob carr your i'm with sherm, and sherm is the world's largest organization of human resource professionals.

we are in 140 countries, over 260,000 members around the globe and we are rather pleased at the opportunity to be part of today's program. so, we partner with a "national journal" before, i received this is a great opportunity for us to partner again. especially on this series, public policy panel discussions. today's program is the first in a series of important discussions being titled compare the candidates. this year's presidential contest will no doubt be another nail biter. if the polls are correct, the electorate remains divided on how to address the many challenges facing our country. while divided, most agree that the economy is the most important issue to the american people. and it will decide the outcome of this year's election. jobs, health care, retirement,

work flex, skill gap are just a few of the many issues that we wrestle with at shrm. these are not new and they are the key challenges that most of our members face on a day-to-day basis. from shrm's vantage point, all of these issues, of all of these issues, the most immediate concern is the skills gap. we believe that it is a barrier that keeps america from full employment. i think the "washington post" did a story yesterday that reflected that fewer than, more people between the ages of 25-54 are not working. we believe in large part it has to do with the skills gap. in fact, most of our members in telling us they're really having difficulty recruiting the kinds of people with the right skills and the right talents they need

in order to remain competitive. so in doing that as a country, in terms of dealing with the skills gap issue, we believe that it's really a critical part of the economic aspirations of this country. so, in concluding, we hope you enjoy today's discussion. and i encourage you to join us later this summer for the two of the sessions of this three-part series. we look forward to seeing many of you in the upcoming national conferences. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, bob. as our first panel is taking the stage, i just want to give information about how the event will flow this would. we have three panel discussions and i welcome you to stay for all of them. we are grateful to all our participants for joining us this far, and for the willingness to take questions from you all as

well as from our reporters and shows. to think but will use like to ask. we will have staff going to the audience with a microphone. please stand up, state your name and organization, and then ask a question. finally, for those of you that might still have them on, please silence your cell phone. our three panels today are moderated by "national journal" editorial talent. they are driven. moderate our first discussion is "national journal"'s economic correspondent jim tankersley. he's an award-winning journalist. is covered business economic and related issues for the "l.a. times," "chicago tribune," and as part of the team at the -- finalist for the pulitzer prize. our second panel will be led by adam, the deputy editor of "national journal" and is also the former senior editor at "newsweek." and was previously writing for "the new republic" and helps oversee the relaunch of their website back in the day. our final panel will be moderated by ron brownstein, our editorial director at "national

journal," a two-time finalist for the pulitzer prize for his coverage of presidential campaigns. ron writes ready for the "national journal" and for our website, and also contributes to our sister publication, "the atlantic monthly." thanks to all of them for helping lead the discussion this morning, and jim, now it is over to your. >> thanks much. i the great panel display. thanks for joining us. just quick introduction. object is executrix of concord coalition. rob dyrdek is the chairman of sonecon and a former adviser to president clinton and vice president gore and douglas holtz eating is director of the national action form. and former director of cbo. so thank you all for coming. let's dive right in. with the most important wish violence minds? jobs. let's start with you, doug. if governor romney wins this election, what could we realistically expect from him right away in terms of an immediate job creation plan?

>> i think the pressing needs are deep structural reforms. we. we need on the belt tax reforms, government reforms, immigration reforms. the governor has placed tax reform at the top of his agenda and he's taken strong positions on the entitlement forms as well. so it becomes not a question of do we understand the policy needs, but can you get as a matter of political process the job done in washington. and there i think his history of being governor of having to work with the legislature would be a real asset for him. >> once the sort of underlying economic theory that he is bringing to his plans here in terms of how to create jobs? >> is it relies on -- produce not just jobs. it isn't simply about creating more jobs. one of the striking facts as we have seen growth in the so-called recovery. so it is more than a jobs issue. it is having quality of life improvement.

i think that's going to be the top issue. >> raab, so much of what the president has talked about the last few has been the idea of economic fairness. still have way too light unemployment rate but what do you think that is policy will be different in a second term? >> i think there's a row contrast between the president and former governor romney. the proposals, or at least the areas of reform without going into the details of the actual details of the reform, that doug mentions are all good for the economy. they are all pretty distant from actual job creation, as i think doug actually suggested. and the president believes that we can target job creation much more specifically. he's done that with reductions in the payroll tax. on the theory of sound economic theory that if you want business to create more jobs in a period

of slow job creation, which we have been in for a decade come into daily, it's not just this expansion. a job creation in the 2002-2007 expansion was the slowest of any expansion up to that point in postwar era. you need to reduce the cost of business of creating those jobs. and not just reduce costs through business but reduce job creating costs here and that goes to the employer side of the payroll tax. it also goes to particular incentives that the president has tax credits, the president has proposed for small businesses that make incremental increases in jobs. ultimately, job creation depends on strong growth. strong demand, but any period in which there appeared to be

structural issues that are slowing job creation, he chooses a much more targeted approach and former governor romney. >> op, i want to talk about the commission you served on, you all talked about the sort of to part from that is facing our economy. a long-term problem of deficit that is mounting and national debt that is getting bigger and bigger every day. but the short-term problem of needing more growth and she proposed sort of a stimulate now, coupled with credible big deficit reduction leader plan. do you think either candidate has embraced that kind envision? >> not fully, no. and i think that's the real transition that has to take place you because we do have two problems. we have a short-term cyclical deficit which is quite substantial because of the depth and length of the recession. and we have, and the slow

recovery. and we have this longer-term structural deficits which has existed, preexisted before the. attitude issues get conflated. so, you know, i think you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time obviously. and it's a very difficult thing to do politically. you know, to talk about any particular from a point you of a deficit talk, if you start hinting that it's okay a very slow economy to do certain things that are targeted at my a to increase the deficit but if they will help get you over the short-term, it's okay. so long as you have a credible actor plan which is i cheat i think the more important of the two. if i were to choose between the two and say, you know, let things go for one and not for the other, i think it's much report to do something on a long-term structural deficit because that's unsustainable. where's the economy will probably take care of itself at

some point. i'm not suggesting the government should do nothing and sit back. i'm not suggesting that. but i think it's important, and i think the candidates have focused more on tactical issues in the short term than on addressing this long-term structural deficit, if we don't get that under control you can't stimulate your way out of that. you know come you can't tax cut to way out of it. you can't grow your way out of it. so i really think that some more attention from the candidates on that structural deficit. what we did on rivlin-domenici, we had a big up front stimulus package which wasn't just a payroll tax cuts. we the payroll tax holiday for a full year. very substantial. stimulus. and maybe that's not the right approach. me their other coaches, but we wanted to emphasize that you could and should be accommodating in the short term, but so long as you are having a longer-term sustainability plan.

>> doug, please go ahead spent i just want to say, i think this is a big point of contrast, which is this temporary targeted policymaking approach is not one that the government romney supports. we've had an economy growing since 2009. june 2000. is going to slowly. so the fundamental problems are not ones that will be treated by the. you need to enhance the trend rate of growth in the economy that requires tools of permanent reforms, structural problems. that will help in the near term. i think they go hand-in-hand. >> what this ignores is the mystical job creation record of the last administration. if we look at the period the end of the recession, the 2001 recession to the current period to the current period, and compare that with the comparable period after the 2001 recession, we have created 4.2 million

private sector jobs in this period, and in the comparable period, 540,000 jobs were created in 2002-2004. >> so let's keep focused on the election the because -- >> the point is, this is jess there are new structural issues with job creation, that this is not about simply the overall efficiency of the economy, that the economies capacity to create jobs, the private sector's capacity to create jobs in response to growth has changed. in fact, we know that the rate of job creation relative to growth fell by half in the last decade compared to the 1980s and 1990s. that's not because we may policy mistakes. it's because the way the economy has evolved. but the question is how do we address that?

is it simply enough to increase the efficiency of the corporate tax code? or to reduce regulations in various areas, or do we have to try to figure out why is that happening and address that directly? the president has said this is a separate problem from the overall efficiency of the economy. that's why we need targeted measures. that's why we need, and i know this is an area that doug has been very involved in, measures to slow the rate of increase in health care costs. because those are inhibiting job creation by business as well. and was a major focus of the affordable care act. >> is talk about health care. thanks for providing our first transition. well done spent always happy to help out. >> we clearly have two different visions on health care. governor romney has promised to

start working to repeal the a portal care act day one. the president wants to keep it in place. depending on what the supreme court to see. let's talk about the supreme court. how will this decision change how either candidate is going to have to govern on health care, depending on what happens? doug? >> well, i think, i think it turns out to be pretty simple. if you get the court sustaining law, no changes, you will see the president stopped talking about it. it is unpopular part of his first term and we'll see governor romney continue to argue for a better approach to dealing with our health care problems. if the court overturned the individual mandate or the whole thing, you will see president obama running on the need for better supreme court justices, not health care. and you'll see governor romney in a position of having to advocate for an alternative to the affordable care act.

>> i want to ask bob about that. how important is it that we hear from the candidates how they would constrain health care costs with or without the affordable care act, in terms of our long-term deficit process? >> there's no question when you look at spending you have a big health care programs, particularly medicare would also medicaid. that's really the long-term cost driver. social security and a modest increase, new, over the next 20 years or so, but it really is a controlling health care costs, and so it's important that it's difficult for the candidates to respond as though they know what the supreme court has to say because you know, setting out a line of apathetic as an alternatives would be rather confusing to people. but i think as soon as, presumably they've been thinking about this behind the scenes and their visors should be ready to go with a different alternative. but it's really, really

important, there are different visions. although there are certain similarities. i think, there is i think on both sides an agreement that part of the solution should be competition. you know, the private sector competition is favored, both approaches in a way, but with the obama health care plan, there's also a way of controlling cost that comes from this independent health care board that would make recommendations. so there's more government involvement in cost control that way. more direct rather than indirect. and i think that's a very fundamental debate. it's a good debate to have. slowing the cause growth, however you do, and we haven't done it yet. i mean even if the cost control mechanisms of the affordable care act work, we're still on an

uncontrollable, we are still on an unsustainable path. so it's important that both candidates still talk about their preferred way of controlling health care costs. >> rob, i want to broadway second to talk about this deficit in general. right now our borrowing costs are extraordinarily low because when not facing sort of the crisis that europe is but there is concerned that that can shoot at some point if we don't get more serious about more credible deficit reduction. at what point does the president during this campaign have to put forward a more detailed plan for deficit reduction in the second term? >> i think the president has been pretty detailed about is $4 trillion plan. $1 trillion of it is already in effect enacted by congress in discretionary caps. and cuts to discretionary programs, he is laid out $800 billion in medicare reductions over 10 years. 500 billion went to ac eight.

he has laid out one and have trillion dollars in revenue increases. and he's laid out defense cuts. which are really the savings from resolving the wars in iraq and afghanistan, as he promised in 2008. and so he has a $4 trillion program. we can argue about whether or not that is enough. i think the we a very clear debate on this, because the governor has proposed $5 trillion in additional tax cuts. a 20% cut in every personal rate and a 20% cut in the corporate rate, close the abolition of the estate tax. so that creates a different context i think for the debate over the deficit. i think the president's, the presidency detail is certainly

much greater than we have seen from other candidates. but i would certainly welcome a debate which forced both candidates to go beyond their current positions with even more detailed spent i, for one, thought we did not hear nearly enough from the details come the president in west virginia. [inaudible] .com rob raises an important question, which is governor romney is running in part on the id we need to control the deficit, but he is proposing huge tax cuts. can those things be reconciles? >> the tax rates he is proposing is the same tax rates the bulls simson, don't confuse that with a massive fiscal responsibility. the president ignored it entirely. so that characterization is just a fact. you can do a tax reform from the bowles-simpson proposed that they will look like what

governor romney's tactics are proposed, and still do deficit reduction. that's exactly the plan we need a. it is imperative to move quickly. we already have debt-to-gdp ratio's that are over 100 historically. debate growth percentage penalty of 1% a year. we are already paying the price of the enormous debt run up. if you want to get jobs and give the economy going, you do have to do with the debt problem and deal with it quickly. you mentioned the borrowing costs. we have all the characteristics of countries again trouble. lots of hidden in disguise, liabilities keep popping up. just found out the fha's banker. the governor is committed to structural reforms on entitlements and a taxes to deal with the problem because it has near-term benefits think i'll ask you the same question. when will we need to see the details on the tax loopholes? everyone is for tax reform and take it down to the hard parts.

so when do we see those are when k during that period we should see both candidates laying out what to do in their second or. is quite remarkable, we have no idea what the president promises in the second term. he hasn't said a thing. the governor has talked about medicare reform. he's talked about tax reform. he's talked about what he would do on international trade, and the president is silent. wait until we see something >> t matter is -- [inaudible] >> governor romney's position is creases over one, of overes bute

$1.5 trillion. thecrease the ineat have specified $5 trillion of additional revenue losses on top of the current levels, and says trust me, i'm going to come up with reforms that address the tax

ca>> iliko. and, so many in what we saw frm simpson-bowles and other independent groups have tried to solve this deficit problem is a mix, a mix of tax and spendinge, will they have to adopt something like that to resolve this problem? >> i think so. that would certainly be the wisest course i think politically. but, you know, the problem is you look a simpson-bowles and what rivlin-domenici did and we're working in a bentley. we really came out with the same basic approach, which was we did have to look at the long-term, look up the health care, look at social security, and on tactical media do what doug was suggesting which was broadened the base and lower the rates. that was the key in our commission to getting agreement,

was how low could you go on the rate that would attract republicans to say okay, this is a substantial reduction in rates, and so i could bring not too many people and say that we were improved in the tax code. but so long as we're doing a tax and todd reform as well to bring down the long-term spending, but the key is filling in those details. because we lowered the topic to i think it was 28%, and then we had 16% rate. we have some very specific proposals about how you would broaden the base to do that. and all too often i think that gets glossed over exactly how that would happen. we did broaden the base, lower rates but we also used some of

the for deficit reduction to we ended up with a revenue increase. that's something that has to happen. but i think that, you know, when you look ahead to say if ron is looking at the ryan budget as a model, he's got to rates, 25 and 10 i think, but, you know, to do that in a revenue route -- revenue neutral way, he would have to block the heck out of that. excluding from employer provide health care. so implemented that, it's easy to say close loopholes for the rich. okay, but once you start to do is going to be very difficult. that's why when these commissions look at it you finally figure you probably will have to have a mix of things in order to get to where you want to go. >> we have just a few minutes left before we take audience questions. number one, immigration, what can we expect from either candidate? >> nothing quickly.

[laughter] spent i think the president will try again for broad immigration from as he has in the past. whether or not we can pass it to congress, it's pretty doubtful. >> education, governor romney has a very interesting different kind of education plan. is that something we can expect to see movie if you went? >> yes, i think that is an imperative. education and health care are two large sections of the economy that underperform and cost us a nose out of money. they're part of the structural problems. >> what about the president? >> i think the president has focused as he said on expanding access to college education, to higher education, as well as the continuing reforms for associated with the funding of no child left behind. >> the housing market, any chance that we see a change in policy on housing in this next term?

>> well, the president has been trying to move step-by-step towards a series of supports for people in danger of losing their homes. i think this is a critically important policy. it's very, very difficult politically. i hope that the election outcome will give them the basis to go further than he has, but it is certainly a sharp contrast with the governor. >> i don't think you'll see a large federal housing policy because the reality is we have 300 on housing markets that are very different states of health, and it is much better to avoid a one size fits all policy. those have harmed the housing recovery so far spent climate change, do we spent to see anything from either candidate? >> i don't see that as either a top priority when we need economic growth.

so if you rank the policy issue want to push, you can't do this spent i think the president is reelected, i think this would be kind of a sleeper issue. not speaking for him or the white house, but the fact is the epa is on a regulatory schedule, and next year the regulations require significant restructuring is on greenhouse gas emissions. and i think that will create a new debate of what's the alternative to epa regulation. perhaps will finally get a good discussion of a carbon-based tax spent i know that is an area where you agree. last question and they will go to the audience. was the most important domestic issue he don't get the candidates talking about enough? >> social security. i mean, i'm not saying that is the most important issue but i mean it's the one that you're

actually no discussion about except it's off the table. >> let's open it up to the audience but if you have a question please raise your hand and our folks with the microphones will find you. we have time for just a couple. go ahead. >> i'm with indian new policy institute. college of talked at length about the constraints on job creation and job growth. so this question concerns something that brought a earlier, and that is the skills can pick right now you 39 people out of work, a lot of in seeing their jobs permanently leaving america. the cbo at the end of last year noted that about half a percentage point of unemployment is due to the skills get but so is clear the workforce needs an upgrade, so which candidate offers the best vision for this kind of thing? >> i would have answered your question, would have been lifetime learning from jobless training. it's clear that this recession

has harmed the careers of workers to do. the late dash the wage losses exceed all others to largely concentrate on young workers. there's not anywhere in the debate, a strategy about getting them back with the skills they need. and all the research evidence is their careers will be harmed and some of them may never return to the labor force. spent i agree. is a very serious issue. as senator, the president supported an initiative that would provide grants to community colleges to keep their computer labs open and staffed in the evenings and weekends for anyone, any american adult to walk in and get free instruction in i.t. skills, which i think is a very good place to begin. he hasn't pushed that as president i would love to see that. i think this is an increasingly important issue, and i think

whoever is president will see a real discussion of eight and 2013. >> let me add quickly, i think it's important to talk about deficit reduction. i think it's also important to talk about economic growth. there's got to be something positive as well as, a can't all be cuts and raise taxes and cut things. i think we have to talk about a growth agenda as well. >> that's part of the invested growth as well. time for one more over here. >> you said to stand up so i will stand down. on charlie, d.c. and the presidential race includes an incumbent who is black, and possibly a presidential race that might have a vice president who is hispanic. it includes a comment by the

cover story on the "time" magazine, that hispanics will elect the next president of the united states. and certainly a key issue deals with the war on women, as it is described. we have on the panels 12 people, all of whom are white and male. can we conclude that "national journal" does not value the views and the expertise -- these guys are -- >> the last panel i did was all women. so while i appreciate come while i appreciate the question, i certainly disagree with your characterization. but i think that you bring up an important question that you're not asking, which is how will either of these candidates -- [inaudible] >> no, i think you asked a question and i am answering it for you.

which is the "national journal" certainly value the i would be curious to hear from our panel how they think the president and candidates would govern on the domestic social issues that seem to have been so important in the discussion of quote war on women over the last few months. gentlemen. [inaudible] >> no, sir. thank you. spent i'm going to say, i don't know how many of you in the audience were here for the last panel where we had -- [inaudible] is it wise that the "national journal" give us a panel back and talk about issues of significant knowledge, other than 12 white males? >> sir, we appreciate your question. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> can we answer the question of how the candidates would govern on social issues? particularly the issue of, say,

abortion and contraception that dominate sort headlines over the last few months. >> certainly i think what we see from governor romney is a real emphasis on the things we actually share in terms of hispanic aspirations for economic success. women have been harmed in this recession, and religious freedoms where i do think there's been some oversight by the president and i think he would avoid it. >> well, i think the president would continue to govern based on the principle that we respect religious organizations, but we also respect the rights of women to have access to contraception in their insurance policies. and that employers do not have the right to tell women that they cannot get that through their insurance policies, unless they are a church, and you know

i think, i think it's a very clear distinction between the governor and the president. and one that i suspect both sides seem quite comfortable with. >> let me say briefly on the subject, one of the things about the unsustainability of the current situation and the dynamic of the budget is that the programs that gets quasar the domestic discretionary programs. and you can just look at what's happening now. that's what the fight is about. those are the easy targets but if you look at the rejection, that part of the budget gets squeezed in nothing but a steady federal makes investments in the workforce and in children and in basic science and research, things that will help grow the economy, that's the part of the budget that is just under the gun and is getting killed right now. when we focus on deficit reduction, that's the way to a. >> and this is another area of contrast to the president has

proposed increases in these areas, in the context of larger tax reduction. the rhine budget would cut education 20%, would cut job corporate training 20%, which cut research and development 20%. now, the governor has not committed himself to those details, but that is the position at least of the congressional republic. >> that's a non sequitur. the key here is -- [talking over each other] >> there's been no leadership on entitlement programs. [inaudible] >> unless we get serious whiteout leadership and, and that's what it takes, social security, medicare, medicaid under control, it won't matter who is president. >> thank you so much for your time. thank you all for your attention that i'd like to turn over now to adam krishnan, that the editor of the national magazine. thank you all so much. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] federal reserve chairman 490 taught cases of classes at george washington university earlier this year. what's behind the current economic crash and recovery. we are showing you his last class this afternoon at 6:45 p.m. when he talks about the steps the federal reserve has taken and impact of new regulation. coming up at 8 p.m. eastern we're featuring some of the tds programming only seen on weekends. >> back now to the "national journal" for discussion on the presidential candidates and their foreign policy perspective. this is about 40 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. thank you for a good panel. [inaudible] i will briefly introduce our panel. on the far end -- [inaudible] next to him is richard danzig, an adviser to the president is campaigning 2008. and is now the chairman for the center for a new american security. and to my right is eliot cohen, who was in the state department of --

[inaudible] spin now a special adviser to governor romney. and is the structure of strategic studies program at the school of international studies at hopkins. so -- >> i will state that we should described elliott as an affiliate wise man. [laughter] >> so jim, i will start with you. do you think that there's any cause for hope that politics can or should or ever have stopped at the water's edge the? [inaudible] that is more the exception than the rule. if you look over the history of the united states going back to one of the first contested elections of 7096. foreign policy is something that americans fought over. i think if you were to ask harry truman and dean acheson over henry kissinger or ronald reagan, or george shultz, where the politics is nasty in foreign

policy, they would say it certainly is. >> let me start with you your what you think has been the most surprising thing that the president has in his foreign policy that you wouldn't expect to see? >> i think the most striking thing that i would have expected, but that has gone further than i anticipated, that is the evidence of skill with which the president has used force. it's an administration that i think is striking for its use of law tools for national security and foreign policy. but the tendency for any given leader is to air in one direction or another. this president i think is striking in his pursuit of peace and his use of diplomatic and coalition and other strategies, but his willingness in key situations where american interests, to commit to military

force. the bin laden rate is most dramatic of this. >> that's trish i thought to be a democratic way district how do you think that will play politically? >> this election is interesting in one important respect. it's traditionally democrats are in for president are running, weak on foreign policy. the issue which they are perceived to have done a lot of work. look at the public opinion polls, the issue that president obama does the best on is foreign policy, particularly on counterterrorism excellent that since that sense is operated to his position of strength the the bad news of course is that foreign policy is not a very high priority for most americans today. if you look at the question asked by gallup what's most important problem facing the united states, the answer that the american people overwhelmingly, our domestic issues. jobs and economy, social street, health care in issues like the.

so the president may be operating from a strong position in the previous democratic, but it may not help him all that much think that i comment on that? i don't want to monopolize here but i do think it's an interesting phenomenon when i joined the obama campaign in 2007, it was very obvious everybody that the presidential election was about security. iraq was the dominant issue. it was the primary position or president obama platform. and it turned out to be about the economy. what jim says is absolutely right. what i do think is striking the man every thinks this is about economy, it may turn out to be about security and in because so making that happen between now and the fall. >> do you want to respond to that? >> there are a bunch of things i would want to respond to. i agree with my friend rich got a lot of things can happen between now and fall. pakistan with an economic issue which is will happen in europe

and how that spills over the largely although not entirely economic consequences here. foreign policy played some sort of role in the last election, whatever they don't think that was really what was a determinative in that case. i think iraq was already well on the project tree to wear it more of us into the. i think it will be, not surprising, i have a lower opinion of the obama administration's foreign policy record than richard does. but i think a lot of the really difficult issues have basically been pushed out. so things like iran, where despite sanctions and all that sort of stuff, the fact is many centrifuges, more nuclear materials than ahead, enriching to a higher level. they will be hard decisions that will have to be faced. there will be big things that are going to happen in europe. i think or in relations with

china. all these are the. i would also, by the way, the terrorism issue. again, i would disagree with richard. i think this administration is focused very much on one tool, which is killing individuals. including american citizens. in some cases. and although that is a reasonable tool to use, i think it runs the risk of narrow and the nature of the problem that we face. and i also think that the administration has paid quite substantial mistake by insisting as the president counterterrorism adviser did at a speech at my school. there's no collateral damage. this is a costless counterterrorism policy. it's not. again, let me make it very clear i'm in favor of killing the people who really need killing, but we should not fool ourselves of complete success. >> so how would governor romney

do think as president take on constraints in a narrow the problems the? there's no question in my mind that governor romney if he were president romney would use force. i think president romney would also be i think rather more focused on what used to be called the war a -- the war of ideas. in terms of trying to counterradicalization. the administration has done it but i should say in a fairly halfhearted way. there's been some improvements recently in terms of standing up for his activities. but most of the emphasis has just been on killing individuals and hoping that you can destroy al qaeda that existed on september 10. and first i don't think you can do that, but in any case the problem hasn't so much metastasize. you can see that now in yemen and somalia, in other parts of the middle east. so i think these problems, they are extremely difficult.

they are going to loom ahead and have not been resolved by the obama administration. >> which seems to be ascribing an abstract a series of events in afghanistan where they turn from counterinsurgency which might not be -- i mean, do you think rich, that that's the prudent most practical course? >> what's so striking about afghanistan is precisely an example of the opposite of what elliott was saying with respect to the difference between this administration and for example, the predecessor administration. afghanistan was widely observed, ignored in the main by the bush administration. when we came in, central programs like, for example, the training of the afghan national police, training village were understaffed by 50%. the president came to grips with it, great clarity and maybe

campaign progress. he did that. and then he established a very clear policy, definitive guideline, the opposite of the phenomenon of the decisions and what about broader and social -- >> it's very dramatic investment in the. i think there is when for disagreement. i think eliot makes a reasonable point in arguing for more counterradicalization programs. as far as i know, governor romney has not begun to reflect on. but it is basically a program if you look at the work that ambassador holbrooke opened up before he died, and then the state department is caring on. so very substantial set of activity associated with building institutions from influence population, et cetera. end and incredibly of credibility of the president himself in the vast reaches of

the world of credibility that was very low under the second president bush. i think a powerful program. >> a couple responses. first on popularity. if you look at the pew research poll, it really is not the case we have gotten this tremendous bump up in popular, particularly -- that is partly because of things like -- afghans eyesight is very different take. i spent a lot of time in afghanistan. and i think there are a couple of points that need to be made. one of which is that the good that was done by the increase in resources, including troops cut by the way, all of which you can put an end by this ministration predecessor. i was part of -- object. >> biplane, when the military talks plan, as you know, it's true to that. a lot of logistical infrastructure, the preparing of

units, the training of units, this was all under way. i was part of that so i know that. i give the president credit for having continue it. but the thing the president did, which ended up being tremendously destructive in terms of our afghan policy, was in his west point speech making it clear that we were getting out. and that, you know, the afghan people are in many ways much more sophisticated than we think it that message got through to everybody there, including the goat herders outside kandahar. and it incentivized bad behavior by everybody. by our friends, by our enemies, by neutrals, by the pakistanis. and a basic understanding is yes the americans surged i themselves sometimes, but they are out of your. and i don't think you can explain the pakistani behavior, including this latest throwing a doctor who helped bin laden in jail for 30 years without understanding they know we're leaving spent in terms of

position of strength, what is the difference between governor, president romney's foreign policy and president bush's? >> do you know what i think the biggest difference is? this will take away from the discussion about counterterrorism in afghanistan, the big difference, which is why we'll have to sign up as one of his advisers, i believe president obama came in with the belief the would you begin in foreign policy is by reaching out to your enemies. ..

or columbia, developing new kinds of relationships with countries like india and then you proceed to deal with your opponents. i think that is a fundamental philosophical difference in how the two men approach foreign-policy. >> just observe what happened here. eliot is a clear thinker and started by observing in his view the obama administration failed to come equipped with things, constantly deferred them to the future and as the discussion proceeded and we focused on some concrete examples involving afghanistan where the bush administration was seven years into afghanistan and planning to do things in the future and the obama does ration dennis ration ashley did them. >> the president says we are

going to leave afghanistan and here's the timetable. that is coming to grips with it so that the whole tenor of discussion runs counter to the proposition. in terms of the desirability of establishing the deadline in afghanistan, realistically if you want to get from a war that is costly to america to a position in which the afghanis. you need to establish some deadlines. unique open-ended. was a ppip them if ever been closer to the the u.s. israeli relations.

we worked very closely with regard to the iran issue and the issue of sanctions is a remarkable example of rallying our allies and their friends to put a chokehold an and affect on the iranians. via strangling their program. will it be success is in the world but is it that alternative? it is for every president lectured make an affirmative decision to make plans with me beacon talk about the election, about the reactive component of foreign-policy and how that can affect the president's policy and also afghanistan's pope? >> the interesting thing is you think about campaigns, but goals and aspirations. governing is about choosing and facing up to rip you when you're in the campaign trail one of the things you are left to do is you get to wish away all of the constraints and make it difficult to actually get policy enacted. you are engaged more in position taking than in policymaking.

once you're in office you can no longer assume a way all of the things that make it very difficult and which is interesting if you listen, as they listen to richard eliot emphasize the discretionary element of the president he brings to any situation. from my vantage point i am struck by the structural constraints and manipulability to get things done. the reason you have problems in afghanistan and problems in north korea and iran, it is because they are incredibly complex and the leverage is not limited and in many cases even though other powers are weaker than you are, they still have the ability to inflict unacceptable costs or challenges on you. that is the big question that we have not talked about yet, china and what is the u.s. policy going to be on china going forward. that will depend upon the assessment of where china is going, where china's vulnerable

to pressure and also real questions as to defense which you can mobilize the united states. those are the big questions and it's not clear either candidate has really answered that her ghosts be i take jim's point and i think it's right, and i think there is another asymmetry which will happen in this campaign. on the one hand you have an organization with a couple hundred people plus some part-timers and the other hand you have resources the federal government including the department of state, the pentagon the intelligence community and all that so the question is when you're making a choice what you look at and i think what you look at is fundamental predispositions about how they view the world and how they approach things, and their leadership styles. i agree with jim, a lot of foreign-policy is the stuff that comes in over the transit and that you have to react to and in a matter of predisposition and not surprisingly i am much more

in favor of governor romney. you get these revealing little moments like when the president asks mr. medvedev to pass the word to president putin, don't worry in the next term i will be more flexible. it's just a terrible kind of message to send particularly to vladimir putin. i think it is a revealing moment. for the rest i agree with jim. their structural constraints and there will be all kinds of surprises. >> if you like the message governor spending if we can talk about specific places and problems for a minute, how do you think president romney is going to be able to keep iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the way that the president has? >> i think again, first we have to start with the facts on the ground. again and maybe i'm disagreeing a little bit with jim, i think there are these long elements of continuity, sanctions against iran and have been building up

over a period of time. there has been a coalition in place. the fact of the matter is, it's not working. it is not working or at least it's not working fast enough. i mention they have doubled the numbers in spending. so there's all that. i think a lot of it is going to come down to whether you are credible about the threats of the use of force because that is the only thing i believe that would cause the iranians to stop. and you know, in a recent speech by the supreme leader, i don't think they take our krissah for seriously. >> do you believe the administration should have used force before this? >> i don't know. i don't know. all i know is we we we are at believe getting to the point where that decision -- where either the iranians will be so convinced that this is going to come hit them, that they will give up or we are going to have to face a very

difficult choice. and you know, look, we have had at least according to the public prints, but the administration sources, an attempt to assassinate the saudi ambassador in the united states. >> wouldn't hesitate to make that difficult choice. >> no, i think, i think president romney could make very difficult choices. if he had to, but my point is, my point is if we have a chance of doing this without force, which is absolutely the preference, the iranians have to believe that there is an alternative. we just had again according to the public prints, a iranian attempt to assassinate eminent american ambassador, in azerbaijan. i haven't detected any reaction on the part of the which i've i were an iranian would make me worried. >> in terms of the

administration trying to -- changing to syria a little bit. the president delivered a very moving holocaust speech in which he said quote preventing mass atrocity is a core interest. hula and the murder of women and children in 100 people there, what is the problem and does that represent a national security failure to set this as a priority not do anything about a? >> let me speak to that. i just want to make one comment on iran. the sanctions, four rounds of sanctions, wreaking havoc on the iranian economy, clearly pushing the iranians to the negotiating table is an absolutely critical set of steps and i don't hear eliot disagreeing with it. it's an remarkable achievement and runs counter to the romney instinct about the world consisting of enemies. talk about revealing moments, how about russia is our number-one geopolitical enemy.

as colin powell, think a minute mitt before you say these kinds of things. this is a revealing indication of the blasting white view of the world these to have so when it comes to serious just as with iran we needed to have cooperation of russia and china and other major nations in order to make sanctions work. so it is with respect to syria. to move forward you have got to achieve a measure of international coalition, and we have persistence in this context and to a lesser extent chinese resistant. it's a process of pulling tug to take some time and i think the is right to -- american vital interests have to be involved and you have to be reasonably sure that you can if be effective before resorting to something like this. the effect is to pump up russian supplies and arms to assad and create a world in which you have got an iranian surrogate working in the region evolves into civil

war, that is not a good use. >> actually i do think this is pretty revealing of the difference between the two administrations, and administration and a potential administration. the obama administration starts out with a missed field reset button as it turned out that the secretary gave to mr. lavrov and what have we gotten in terms of that? the russians have been obstructive on iran. the russians have been obstructive and will continue to be obstructive on syria. the russian chief of general staff presents a preemptive attack on missile defense sites in europe to which by the way we don't react. russian military doctrine identifies us as their chief opponent, and in return president obama's instinct is to say, please tell vladimir i will be more -- in my second term. >> do you agree with his remark? >> i agree.

here is what i agree with. i agree that russia is on the whole opposed to american interest, that the putin regime, which is an ugly regime, and ugly regime and we don't talk much about its ugliness, and it is getting uglier, is not our friend and many ways hostile to us. and i think it's important to identify the people who are hostile. >> very short on time and i also want to talk about governing so i want to ask jim, first and second term -- reagan tears down the wall and clinton and bush are engaged in all of this. what you think a second term for obama might mean in terms of mid-course correction? >> let me know that nixon remove troops from china. he escalated the war off the books. just to be careful there.

unaffiliated people -- careful predicting second terms because the president can surprise you but i think clearly this set of issues that obama is going to phaser the issues we are talking about. is going to be iran and it's going to be north korea. but let me offer a threat given this is a panel focused on comparing candidates. i actually think they are more alike than they are different and for me while they may not be in the same zip code on foreign policy they are largely in the same area code and on many of the issues, while the rhetoric is different and the imperative for the campaign are to criticize the other guy and talk about his shortcomings, traditionally democrats railed the republicans are reckless and republicans accuse democrats of being spec was. i think there is going to be more continuity not just because

the structural demands of the situation but because of the underlying ideology is not that different. we are not talking about a republican nominee like ron paul with a different worldview but if you want to go back. what eliot says eliot says is quite right. in pulp not just the quality of the cards you're dealt. it is how well you play those cards and obviously what i hear the governor saying is he can play those cards better. >> i want to do rapid fire very quickly. what do you think is the most important foreign-policy decision the next president will face? >> solely of use of force, solely sending men and women into harm's way. it's always taking the risk associated with force and what it means. and i agree with that. in the near term i think the

presenting issue perhaps when the president is inaugurated is iran and particularly also the involvement of our israeli allied and its own convictions with respect to what it can do. >> iran is the most important near-term challenge. >> if we can open it up for questions. does anybody have questions? >> if you wouldn't mind standing up and we have got a mic right here for you. >> matt benjamin. dr. cohen you said important for romney would be countering radicalization and yet republicans have been for romney especially calling on obama to be even more supportive of israel and if you could reconcile those two? >> again it's an interesting difference between the two presidents. if you look at where president obama came in, he came in with a

tired view that a lot of people have which is the heart of the middle east problem is the arab-israeli conflict and therefore i have to solve it and it will be an unsolvable problem. that is not what is going on in the arab spring or tumulty or upheaval or storm. i don't think we quite know what it is and i think governor romney has been much better in let's take those extraordinary developments on their own terms and wrestle with them, which is what we are going to have to do and i agree with one of the points, actually i agree with many of the points you made, one of which is where to recognize the limits of our control and our influence but you know, i don't think that by sort of standing back on say syria that we have really helped ourselves in this area and that is why i think the governor's right to be more forward-leaning than the administration has been. >> if i could follow-up. with all the stipulations of

israel is a long democracy and a hostile region and besieged by gaza, don't you think a status agreement has to involve a curtailment of federalism for the president to implement to stop that? >> i'm not going to try to lay out my personal plan for an piece. what i will say is what had been the circumstances in which the israelis have told back? and gaza which was done by a right-wing government. it is then when they have had personal confidence in the president of the united states and although yes as a administration has delivered military aid is simply not true that the senior israeli leadership has a lot of trust in president obama. that is just a fact. >> could i just comment on first society of control in

limitations in how personality matters? i agree with jim and eliot but much is constrained. but personality clearly matters. the decision about afghanistan and iraq are emanations of his own judgment and represent i think very important indications of a personal involvement that matters. when you look at the decision on the raid on bin laden in pakistan, the recommendations coming from your advisers are divided in many respects and when a tough decision is made, it has a railed chance of failure and the president made that decision and it made a correct one. personality really does matter in this context. i'm not sure governor romney really begins to understand this. i mentioned the russian geostrategic, the number one threat. here's another one, if i'm president i would listen to my general. among other things eliot cohen has written a wonderful book

about how generals have to make decisions. >> we have to teach -- keep taking pressed -- question. >> he didn't say i'm going to do what my generals tell me to do but i think it's pretty clear and in fact again and you can look at david sanger's recent story in "the new york times" that to some extent senior military leaders were not articulate heard in the most recent decision-making because i know general officer in the united states military who likes to see troops withdrawing from afghanistan in the middle of the fighting season. eliot it makes no sense. >> classic romney, but listen to my generals. what is it mean? if it just means i hear them of course president obama does that. he is implying something else about committing himself to it and what is he implying is he will follow military advice. >> i am sorry, you know that is not how he thinks about it. governor romney --

this is somebody who has spent his entire career listening to experts about all kinds of things, and then making up decisions about whether they are right or wrong. something that very much has his own clear views which you can find in this book that he wrote himself, and that is i think where you go but the idea that this guy would be a pawn of anybody, then the advisor, military or civilian, is just not true. >> let's take one more question. right here on and. >> i just want to know -- >> hi. i wanted to know a few guys can expand on on a relationship with latin america and how you will tackle free trade agreement. >> if i could, and governor romney has talked a lot about it

and again this is actually a case where we know a concrete issue. governor romney from the beginning is in favor of getting the free trade agreement with colombia through congress. in it are to being cooked in the previous administration. he was pushing it and pushing similar arrangements with other latin american countries. this administration delayed three years and finally approving a free-trade agreement with an extremely important ally of ours. it makes no sense. >> first of all the administration has been very energetic and forthright on trade in the latin american context. the transpacific partnership an initiative developed by the administration which involves the west coast to latin america and the eastern part of asia is i think a remarkable initiative that will lead to expansion of free trade throughout the area. the colombia free trade pact and the other two -- free-trade pacts have had all kinds of

difficulty in congress. the president has invested in a personal relationship with the present of verso which is exemplary of some of the ways in which personality in these contexts matter and you just can't listen to your experts etc. and i think there are real rewards. the colombia ration should be stronger than it's ever been. it's been a very successful example of cooperation on security as well as trade. >> i think we have time for one more question. all the way in the back there. sorry, do i see a hand? for the audience at home. >> thank you. i would just like to ask the panel their comments on the respective candidates, africa policy, policies and how you might see an obama administration's policy things

policy towards africa which the campaign hasn't been too vociferous on that. thanks. >> i'm afraid you got me. i have not paid attention to the africa policy announcements. it has been stated a number of times. a campaign not like great britain where you have a shadow government. i think you know the kinds of principles that governor romney would be in favor of which would need you know, openness, free trade, human rights, and strengthening relationships. i don't know to be perfectly honest, that is a stark divide between how he views african help president obama views africa. >> one comment on the general principle someone comment on africa. the general principle i see in the romney campaign is an inclination to defy the world

between enemies and friends and to think that lots of bluster is a very good thing. my view is this at administration has shown that you don't receive successfully that way. you proceed successfully by engaging people across the whole free mark but acting with force when required or with compulsion and means like the sanctions in iran that don't involve physical force but involve other means. with regard to africa, there is an example of this in the way we have rallied the organization of african unity to try and be active in sudan, very imperfect and bad results in many dimensions but better results than if we directly intervened. the administration has also moved towards an agricultural policy in africa in terms of enriching ricultural investments but i think it's at the very core of our modern

understanding of development, development lead by agricultural things first and foremost and eliot questions the degree of which they president's popular in the world at large and how that transfers to the u.s.. you see the adulation among other places south africa for president obama. i think it's a powerful force for america. >> before a pitch to mike colley, editorial director, please give a round of applause for gem, and rich and eliot. [applause] on what is behind the current economic crash and recovery. we are showing you his last class this afternoon at 6:45 where he talks about the steps the federal reserve is taken and the impact of new regulation. coming up at 8:00 eastern we are

featuring some of the booktv's programming only seen on weekends on c-span2. republicans, democrats and the obamas administration are in agreement and rejecting a new international proposal giving the united nations organizational control of the internet. the house energy and commerce subcommittee and committee kitchens held a hearing yesterday on the upcoming meeting over internet regulations at the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai, happening this december. this hearing is about two hours, 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. i want to welcome our witnesses and appreciate their testimony today. this is a subcommittee and committee keeshan said technology in their hearing on international proposals to regulate the internet. nations from across the globe will meet at a united nations forum in dubai at the end of this year and if we are not vigilant, just might break the internet by subjecting it to an international regulatory regime designed for old-fashioned telephone service. the internet is the single largest engine of global change since the printing press. from its humble roots as a network computer use for the department of defense projects the internet grew to include research institutions, services and the public generally. it was once the government relinquished its grip on the internet that it began growing exponentially, involved -- evolving into the network of networks that we all participate in today. with this expansion came the

recognition that the organizational structure must evolve as well. functions that have previously been managed by and for the united states government like network addressing, domain name administration, were spun off to private sector entities that could be more responsive to the rapid changes in the internet. non-governmental institutions now manage the internet's core functions within private sector. this prevents government or non-governmental actors from controlling the design of the network or the content it carries. the multi-stakeholder model provides flexibility enabling the internet to evolve quickly. in this evolution continues at a staggering pace. cisco estimates by 2016 roughly 45% of the world's population will internet users. there will be more than 18.9 billion network connections and the average speed of mobile broadband will be four times faster than it is today.

weakening the multi-stakeholder model threatens the internet. harming its ability to spread posterity and freedom. yet this december the world at the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai, the 193 member countries, the united nations international telecommunications union will consider expanding the ipu jurisdiction to the internet replacing the multi-stakeholder model that deserves the internet and the world so well. they will also consider imposing economic regulations on the internet. the ipu was originally born in 19 sick -- 1865 to governor the telegraph. the ipu was up dated his charter in 1988 adopting the international telecommunication's regulation but even then communications world was dominated by voice telepathy. it was in that world that the ipu developed settlement rates at which service providers compensated each other for exchanging phone traffic across national borders. the end result was high

international call rates, the transfer of money to telephone companies run by foreign governments. it would be inappropriate to apply regulatory schemes develop for developed for the 1980s telephone networks to a diverse internet. internet. saturated atari regime ignores the reality of the architecture of the internet unlike traditional telephony where koska beasley track. the networks that comprise the internet may not adhere to political boundaries. the diversity of the networks make up the modern internet in the implementation of an international regulatory regime would quickly become so complex as to be unmanageable. we also live in a far more competitive world, making such economic regulations not only unnecessary but also counterproductive. the internet has prospered under the multi-stakeholder model is and the heavy-handed government regulation. that model has enabled the internet that creates jobs brings a literal world of information to your fingertips allow small businesses around the world to have a global

reach, drives investment in innovation and has even started a revolution or two. with the u.s. delegation, a verge they have administration to continue the united states amendment to the internet's collaborative governing structure to reject international efforts to bring the internet under government control. with that i yield the remainder of my time to vice chairman of subcommittee. >> thank you as chairman and i believe the bottom-up stakeholder approach model has actually allowed economic development and prosperity at all levels of the economy around the world. therefore, when i hear comments from prime minister vladimir putin saying that international control over the internet is one of the stated goals. we cannot allow this to happen. this will diminish economic prosperity. this conference is about telephone and should not

encroach into any discussions into regulation of the internet, whether it is disguised by phone numbers or ip addresses or cybersecurity. so i want to put those on notice from russia or from china or other countries that when it comes to regulating the internet, the answer is no. >> the gentleman's time has expired and i now recognize the distinguished ranking democrat on the subcommittee ms. eshoo, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and good morning to everyone. and thank you for having me this important hearing. the internet continues to grow and to flourish thanks to its open structure and its multi-stakeholder approach to governing. this is healthy. we have seen it. we have worked hard to make sure

that we have the atmosphere for. it is one of the great sources of pride to our nation. the role that the government originally played, how it went out into the or and it is one of the great success stories of american history. and i am very proud that so much of it resides in my district. according to a recent study commissioned by the new democratic network and the nci, the new policy institute, every 10% increase in the adoption of 3g or 4g wireless technology has the potential to add more than 230,000 jobs to our national economy. at the world conference on international committee keeshan prepares to meet later this year to review proposals that could actually radically alter the

internet's teacher does more than fitting for her subcommittee subcommittee to convene this hearing to hear from some of our nation's leading experts and you are all a source of pride to us from the public and private sectors. the internet has advanced rapidly and with it about a quarter of a century ago. i guess they don't meet that often. we have gone from dial-up modems to high-speed internet powered by fiberoptic. with this dramatic boost in speed, consumers today can experience high-definition video, social networking, videoconferencing and much more without regard to where this content is hosted in the world. i think that is the way it should be. there's no question there are real threats facing the internet continued growth and stability. our three hearings held earlier

this year are evidence of such vulnerability but international proposals imposing new mandated roaming rates or termination charges for data traffic are a fundamental departure from the international telecommunication regulations adopted in 1988. beyond just imposing new regulations on how internet traffic is handled, several nations are stuck on asserting is intergovernmental control. now we have had some real battles here on the issue of net neutrality. is seems to me we are calling on the international community for hands-off, an international net neutrality as it where when it comes to the internet. balkanizing the internet would and could bring about censorship and make that the norm.

the decisions taken in dubai in december have the potential to put government hands up on the net. i think we can all agree that the adoption of this proposal is a very serious threat to the transparent and open internet as we know it today. this is reflected in the bipartisan resolutions that i joined my colleagues in introducing yesterday and today's hearing along with the bipartisan internet cosponsoring next week or an opportunity to discuss these issues and send a strong message that intergovernmental controls over the internet will uproot these innovations, openness and transparency enjoyed a nearly 2.3 billion users around the world and we want to keep it that way. we want that to double. we wanted to quadruple. we wanted to keep growing. it seems to me that while we have discussed today is a great

great importance. but i also think we need to inoculate other countries with the idea that will help take them away from where they are now. i don't think this can be america against the rest of the world. i think we need to form coalitions around the ideas that work and that they too can share in what we now is one of the most exciting inventions and adventures of not only the last century but this one as well. i think i have one second left so i don't have any time to yield to ms. matsui and i apologize. >> the gentlelady's time is expired and i now recognize the gentleman of the full committee the gentleman from michigan mr. upton for five minutes purpose the international committee will meet in december to decide whether to regulate the internet under rules designed for the 1980 era,

telephone networks. on the table is supposed to expand the jurisdiction of the u.n. telecommunications union to cover the internet moving away from the current multi-stakeholder governance model that is fostered the modern internet. also at issue is whether to impose great regulation on the exchange of internet traffic across national borders. both of these are terrible ideas. and a time of economic uncertainty and turmoil the internet does remain a job creation and fosters innovation, brings the folks of the worlds together anyways, drives global discussion of important social matters. the internet has become this economic and social juggernaut not because government actors will continue to do so but because the government took a step back and let the private sector drive its evolution. the nonregulatory multi-stakeholder model allows the internet community to guide its evolution and is rebutted the flexibility the internet needs to flourish as the demands

placed on ago. the international settlement of rates regime were designed around old-fashioned telephone networks and services when there was less competition. the internet is a different technology and this is a different era. international inventory intrusion into the internet would have disastrous results not only for the u.s. by folks around the world so i would strongly urge that administration to continue u.s. support for the multi-stakeholder model leading up to the divide meeting this december and i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. bono mack. >> a tank of a chairman. as the u.s. prepares to take part of the world conference on international telecommunication's in dubai we need to provide a coalition -- delegation with a clear mandate. the new treaty on internet governance will be debated. most worrisome to me are efforts by some countries to provide you and with unprecedented new authority over the management of the internet.

to prevent this from happening i've introduced house and current resolution 127. i'd like to thank my co-sponsors chairman upton, ranking member waxman comes the, subcommittee chairmen walden and ranking subcommittee member eshoo for their strong support in this effort are going many ways this is a reference on the future of the internet. for nearly a decade the u.n. has been angling quietly to become the epicenter of internet governance. are resolutions of up to keep the internet free from government control and prevent russia, china and india as well as other nations from proceeding into giving the u.n. unprecedented power over web content and infrastructure. if this power grab is successful and concerned the next arab spring will instead become a russia winter where free speech is chilled and not encourage in the internet becomes the wasteland of unfilled hopes, dreams and opportunities. we simply cannot let that happen. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back.

>> i recognize mr. stearns. >> thank you mr. chairman. following up with your comments chairman upton about the monopolies from the 19th century which we don't want to go back to come as they're been in this room who thinks the united nations could competently manage the internet? please raise your hands. i don't think there's anybody that does an effect i think all the witnesses will testify this morning that we must maintain the current multi-stakeholder decentralized approach and itu which is the international telecommunication's union is a part of the united nations and would require other countries to fund and build out the industry in the case of networks and give them full jurisdiction. i again don't believe we want to punt this to the u.n.. these approaches constitute a frontal attack on the approach we have presently so i want to promote the unified bipartisan message against international regulation on the internet and that is why we are here today and i want to emphasize today that such an approach that we

see from others is a nonstarter for the united states. >> i now recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, ms. blackburn. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome to our witnesses. we are glad that you are here in this room but i have no doubt that all around the world, people are screaming -- streaming this hearing because they want to see what our posture and this is going to be and i think as you have heard, there is agreement on both sides of the aisle that giving authority to an international governing body would put our nation's sovereignty at risk. we are concerned about that and i think that the obama administration should be commended for helping support this power grab and i think we also need to realize that this is one of those areas where concerns we have had about this administration's effort to undermine our efforts, congressman's efforts in this developing fight against

international regulatory schemes over the internet. this administration moved forward with regulations over the management of internet networks here in the united states. we are going to continue to work to reign in the regulatory explosion at the fcc. now is time to execute a serious game plan that deals with those who put international politics ahead of an open and prosperous internet. we may have our differences on domestic telecommunication's policy but having those policies decided at the international level would be the worst thing that could happen for the future of the internet. again, welcome to everyone and i appreciate your time. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman for holding this hearing. it's an important hearing as we look down the road to our international conference where some of the proposals would

fundamentally alter the way the internet operates, undermining the decentralized multi-stakeholder approach into governance. as we will hear from our witnesses today, people can also sense from the opening statements, there is a strong bipartisan consensus durrell peaden administration in congress that we must resist efforts by some countries to impose a top-down command and control management regime on the internet. this bipartisan consensus is reflected in h. con rezwan 27, and resolution introduced yesterday by chair bono mack and cosponsored by chairman upton, myself, chairmen walden and ranking member eshoo. simply put this resolution affirms that democrats and

republicans both want the administration to continue advancing our national commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance and an open internet. we have to distinguish panels of witnesses today who have a long history of working on this issue. i want to welcome ambassador and phil verveer who will be the leading negotiator on the treaty known as the international telecommunications regulation at the conference on telecommunication's in december and i believe ambassador verveer's experience in communications and antitrust law will serve the u.s. position well and we are pleased to have commissioner rob mcdowell back to our verveer he. he has been focused on this issue for some time, expressing a strong leadership position and we are pleased to have them with us. our second panel is also highly experience, former ambassador

david gros and sally wentworth. both served in the previous administration with distinction and have significant experience with communication technology sectors and i want to welcome you -- dr. cerf who will provide a unique perspective about how some of the proposed threaten security and stability of the internet. we all the current and past administrations deserve credit sure internet remains a tool for global dissemination of ideas and information and commerce. and there is no daylight between house democrats and house republicans or the administration on this issue. while i am largely focused on the upcoming conference we should not lose sight of the fact that the push for more

centralized control over the internet is occurring through other international venues as well. mr. chairman i want to yield the balance of my time to ms. matsui so she can give an opening statement. >> thank you ranking member for yielding me time and i also want to welcome ambassador verveer incorporated commissioner mcdowell for joining us today. as we know in today's global economy with well over 2 billion users, the internet has become a necessity and not a luxury. and that is why i believe that a free, transparent and open internet must continue. the current multi-stakeholder approaches allow the internet to flourish here in the u.s. and around the world. any international authority over the internet is troublesome particularly if those efforts are being led by countries where censorship is the norm. i agree with many of our witnesses that it would harm efforts to combat cyberattacks,

decrease adoption innovation of the latest technology and interfere with many from -- fundamental principles that allow the internet to be an ecosystem for innovation and growth. i am also pleased that the administration understands these concerns and believes such an international mandate would simply not work. we need to continue to promote innovation and openness of the internet around the globe. i believe it is a multi-stakeholder approach and it must continue. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> i yield back my time. >> the gentleman gilds back his time so now we proceed to the witnesses. we are delighted to have you both here and ambassador verveer deputy assistant secretary of state in u.s. cordon for information policy. we welcome you and commissioner robert mcdowell from the federal communications

commission we welcome you back and ambassador verveer thank you for being with us. we look forward to your testimony. if you can pull that might close so we will all be able to hear. you need to push the little button. >> chairmen walden, ranking member eshoo and members of the subcommittee, thank you or this opportunity. i'm particularly pleased to appear with my friend commissioner robert and towel and i'm very happy the subcommittee will hear later from my friend a distinguished predecessor ambassador david rose and sally wentworth who played a significant role in internet governance matter during her service at the state department and of course from vincent cerf without whom we would not have the internet at all. governments of me proposes to change today's successful approach to internet governments. typically these proposals involve the united nations and one of its many manifestations including the general assembly, the commission on science and technology for development and

the international telecommunications union. thethe u.s. government and othes have successfully oppose these proposals but it is important to recognize that this will be a continuing debate. from the privatization of the internet in the mid-1990s the united states has been committed to a multi-stakeholder approach to its governance and that it's been true from one administration to another. it represents a policy that with thorough does not too strong to say with unanimous support. the president said in a government or a regions rely upn specialized institutions in which the internet society, the ietf and the world wide web consortium are important examples. they are noteworthy for two things. the first is their expertise, inclusivity and openness. the second is the remarkable success that they have achieved. this is one of the reasons we wish to preserve these institutions as they and simmons of internet governance.

they work and they work remarkably well. there are two other reasons underlying our commitment in preventing the internet from falling subject to intergovernmental controls. first, it inevitably would diminish the dynamism that is one of the internet's greatest strengths. the existing arrangement for the internet to evolve organically in response to changes in technology, business practice and consumer behavior. for reasons that cannot be overcome intergovernmental controls with event this. second, intergovernmental controls could be included in censorship and repression. the united states is deeply committed to freedom of expression and the free flow of information. we appreciate that some nations do not share these commitments. we particularly wish to preclude in developments that threaten to reduce internet freedom that will impair freedom of expression and assembly or association on line. an alternative to intergovernmental controls, the

united states encourages governments to adopt multi-stakeholder transparent and decentralized approaches. last year's high-level ministerial at the oecd both exemplified and codified this approach. now with respect to the world conference on international telecommunications, in december representatives from 193 nations will gather to consider revisions to the telecommunications regulations. there was concerned that they would be a battle over investing in i.t. with explicit governance authority and that the conference participants would be confronted, confronting stand-alone draft text proposing internet governance provisions. and responds the united states advance using the existing itr as a basis for its treaty negotiations. i'm pleased to say that the majority of the members have agreed with us in this regard. the existing itr's have been

accepted as a framework for negotiations. there are no pending proposals with direct and turn governance authority and status bar traditional telecom issues such as roaming and fraud that mention the pension have taken center stage. the state department's preparation have been in progress for about 18 months. on an ongoing basis we host the international telecommunication's advisory committee, a forum open to all interested parties to review and advise on the regional and national contributions as they are submitted. earlier this month we established our core delegation consisting of u.s. government officials. in september we will complete the delegation with the addition of private-sector members. earlier this week the president advise the senate of his selection of terry cramer of california is the united states head of delegation and of his intention to confer ambassadorial mr. cramer in connection with this assignment.

a great deal of preparatory work has been done in a great deal more remains to be done. in our work the united states has a significant advantage of unanimity of purpose. we benefit from the fact that government officials of both parties, civil society and the corporate sector all are committed to the preservation of the multi-stakeholder model and the resolution which was introduced this week and which has been mentioned today is a very important contribution to showing that unanimity. we look forward to continuing to work with the congress as we approach matters that involve the internet governance. i greatly appreciate the opportunity you are providing what this hearing to affirm the continuing value of our pressure and in a governance, not just u.s. didn't -- citizens but everyone in the world. i would be very pleased to respond to any questions you might have. >> thank you mr. investor and we appreciate the work you put into your testimony in the work you are doing for a country. we turn now to commission

mcdowell. appreciate you being here in your loud and clear voice on this issue as well so please come and we welcome your son as well. do you want to introduce your special assistant there today? >> one of my many supervisors, mr. chairman my oldest son griffin is 12 and this is his first day of summer vacation but he wanted to see how his tax dollars were being spent. [laughter] >> you brought them up here for that? >> he will join us at the conference at the conclusion. thank you to the members of subcommittee purpose of pleasure to be here today in an extreme honor to be seated next to my friend and colleague ambassador verveer as well as before the next panel, good friend as well dr. cerf. they are going to be outstanding witnesses. first, please let me allowed to dispense quickly and emphatically any doubts internationally about the

bipartisan resolve of the united states to resist efforts to expand the i.t.'s authority over internet matters. summa i.t. officials has dismissed their concerns over this issue as mere election-year policies and nothing could be further from the truth as evidenced by ambassador verveer's testimony as well as recent statements from the white house, executive branch agencies, democratic and republican members of congress, my friend and colleague at the fcc chairman julius genachowski. we are unified on the substantive arguments and always have been. second, it is important due due to find the challenge before us. the threats are real, and not imagined although they admittedly sound like works of fiction sometimes. for many years now, scores of countries led by china, russia, iran, saudi arabia, but many

many others have pushed forward as vladimir putin said almost a year ago, international control of the internet through the ipu. i have tried to find a more concise way to express this issue, but i can't seem to improve on mr. putin's crystallization of the effort that has been afoot for quite some time. more important a think we should take mr. putin's design very seriously. six months to separate us from there we negotiate up in 1980 treaty that led to inflating the internet from economic and technical regulation. what proponents of internet freedom do or don't do between now and then will determine the fate of the net and affect global economic growth as well as determine whether political liberty can proliferate. during the treaty negotiations, the most lethal threat to internet freedom may not, from a full frontal assault, but through insidious and seemingly

innocuouexpansions of intergovernmental powers. this effort is already underway. while influential i.t. member states to put forth proposals calling for overt legal expansion to the united nations i.t. authority over the net, ipu officials have publicly declared that the itu does not intend to regulate internet governance while also saying that any regulations should he of the light touch variety. but which is it? it is not possible to insulate the internet from new rules while also establishing a light touch regulatory regime. either a new legal paradigm will emerge in december or it won't. the choice is binary. additionally as a threshold matter it is curious that iq officials have been opining on the outcome of the treaty negotiations. the i.t. member states determined to save anymore

rules, not i.t. leadership or staff. remain hopeful that the diplomatic process will not be subverted in this regard. as a matter process and substance, patience and persistence, incrementalism is the net's most dangerous enemy and incrementalism is the tactical hallmark of many countries pushing the pro-is in member states have been discussing intellectual phone numbering crisis. it seems that the world may be running out of phone numbers over which the i.t. does have some jurisdiction. today many phone numbers are used for voice-over internet protocol services such as skype or google voice. to function him partly the software supporting the services translate traditional phone numbers into ip or internet addresses. the russian federation is proposed the itu be given jurisdiction over ip addresses to remedy this phone number shortage.

what is left unsaid however is that potential iq jurisdiction over ip addresses would enable it to regulate internet services and devices. i.t. addresses are a fundamental and essential component to the inner workings of the net. taking their administration away from the bottom-up non-governmental multi-stakeholder model and placing it into the hands of international bureaucrats would be the greatest missed kho other efforts to expand the iq reach into the internet are seemingly small and are tectonic in scope. take for example the air of mission from february that would change the rules definition of teleto medication is to include processing or computer functioning. this change would essentially swallow the internet functions as only a tiny added to existing rules.

.. for information security to, quote, mandate international norms and rules standardizing behavior of countries concerning information and cyberspace. does anyone here today believe these countries proposals would

encourage continued proliferation of an open and freedom enhancing internet? or would such construct make it easier for authoritarian regimes to identify and silence publishable -- political dissidents? these may not be part of the wicked negotiations at least not yet, but they give a sense where some of the i team member states would like member states would like to go. other proposals include universal service fund. telecom companies use international mandate to charge sir web destinations on occurred click basis to fund built out of broadbanda per click basis to fund built out of broadband infrastructure across the globe. google and netflix a mentioned as sources of funding. the u.s. and like-minded proponents of internet freedom

and prosperity across the globe should resist efforts to expand the powers of intergovernmental bodies over the internets even in the smallest of ways. my supplemental statement and analysis in more detail, such a scenario would be devastating to economic activity and political freedom but it would hurt the developing world that the most. >> we appreciate your testimony before the subcommittee. ambassador verveer leaders will you wrote the secretary of commerce, white house chief technology officer, you said, quote, centralized control over the internet through a top-down government approach would make political deal makers rather than innovators and experts in charge of the future of the internet. this would slow the pace of innovation, hamper economic development and lead to unprecedented control over what

people can say and do on line. would you elaborate on that statement and perhaps you might make that statement or two. >> i would be glad to. basically the anxiety we have about top-down arrangements involve the economic performance of the internet in terms of its dynamism and its ability to react to opportunities and technology changes to present business models and changes in consumer behavior might present. we also are very concerned about whether or not top-down intergovernmental controls would aid in censorship. it would aid any particular country that is concerned about the content that goes into this country that crosses its borders. whether or not these kinds of changes might permit it, entitled to the aid of other

countries in terms of preventing unwanted content. so we believe for reasons of economics and also reasons of political, cultural and social value of the internet is ought to be operating as it is today. >> mr. mcdowell, any comment? >> the joint blood posts by the department of commerce investor verveer was excellent. i can't improve on his answer. the opening remarks, it is great. >> according to communications daily today, public knowledge has said, quote, we have to be careful not to hold up multi stakeholderism as -- the u.s. government has to serve as a backstop to these efforts.

the agree? >> to answer your question correctly, no. we need to reinforce the multi stakeholder model. >> ambassador verveer? >> i think we agree once again that we want very much to keep the multi stakeholder model as of basis for which on which we engage in internet governance. >> it seems commissioner mcdowell r&d is an attempt -- the old-fashioned telephone service? certainly feels like that to some of us? >> yes and then some with regulation of content and applications which would go well beyond the old phone service regulation. >> i guess i would add it is important to understand these contributions that come in are things that have the kinds of implications in many instances

that commissioner mcdowell mentioned in his testimony but a lot of them are motivated or principally motivated by an effort to preserve or reinstate the kinds of arrangements that existed under the days of voice great international telephone service. these are possibly in many instances sincerely presented, not intending any more than that for the reason the commissioner mentioned, these are probably also mistaken in terms of efforts to purchase the regulation. >> i would like your testimony. it was very well done and raises some of these points how in cities they can be and look as if they are not problem creating. what do you see is most troubling to small changes that have been proposed?

>> the arab states proposal is very troubling. a small definition change, all of a sudden swallows the internet that expands the i t jurisdiction tremendously. it could be something that comes through the phone numbering issue or some other issue. every week there's a new issue or a new angle or new front that opens of a new argument that is tested so it could be any number. >> all right. i have no further questions. i will turn to ranking member of the subcommittee, miss eshoo. >> thank you ambassador verveer and commissioner mcdowell, thank you not only for being here but for your very strong, knowledgeable voices and advocates on this issue as well. ambassador verveer leaders

believe mentioned many other governments joined with the united states in pursuing an outcome that would limit the i t u's involvement in internet governance. can you tell us the extent of this collaboration and how are other governments working with the u.s. to achieve the goal because it seems to me that we have a lot of people, lot of countries, nation states, that let me put it in a more positive way, don't share our view of the internet and how it operates and how it could continue to operate. how is our coalition doing? if you do a little bit of a dive on telling us where you think we are with other countries which is so important and i would like commissioner mcdowell to give us a wicked 101, how many are going

to vote? is there a time frame around this? a discussion that begin this year and extends for the next 24 years? the last time they met was a quarter of a century ago. i think maybe the committee, maybe some already know. i am not sure i understand how the i.t.u. is actually going to work when we show up. you could handle that one. let's go to ambassador verveer first. >> representative eshoo, the printable activities in terms of preparation for the conference are being undertaken in regional groupings which six. our regional grouping of the americas involves the europeans operate under something called set and the asia/pacific area there's the telecommuter the among other places. i think it is a fair summary

that in those three regions you have a largely consistent set of views how we should proceed. that is to say we don't want to see the treaty conference become the occasion for any kind of intergovernmental control of the internet. we will in our preparations with the leadership of our new delegation, gary kramer, engage in a great many biological discussions by analogy and the reason we conclude radio conference or head of delegation and our deputy head of delegation, engaged in 50 bilateral discussions with leading up to the conference itself. we are very actively engaged in discussions with friends and those with different opinions and that will continue on to the

conference. >> where would you say we are? is there still a split? still a consensus that comes around more? our view that there are other views on this? and other regions you just mentioned? >> one way to describe the state of the activities at this point is to think of this conference as potentially having involved two tracks. the first track would have been an effort at direct regulation of the internet. something that was a source of concern a year or more ago but less a source of concern now. the only really direct effort that i am aware of to accomplish that was a proposal by the russian federation to create a framework, entirely new framework for negotiation of regulations. that effort has been turned back successfully.

>> very good news. i want to get to commissioner mcdowell. >> when it comes to the process i will leave that to the department of state which takes the lead in these negotiations. >> i they votes? >> there are 193 member states in the i.t.u.. there is no veto power. doesn't matter how many people live in a country. the tiniest of countries -- [talking over each other] >> every 24 years -- [laughter] >> i will say out of the bicameral -- >> i know. >> dirksen senate office building 4 years is active but on the other hand this is almost an annual issue. some other conference that is not several conferences per year so the i.t.u. -- the world communication conference the investor talked about last january and february but we need to look beyond december. i want to make sure everybody

listening understands this is just the latest in yet in this drama. we have to remain vigilant for years to come. there will be more possibilities for treating negotiations in 2013-14-15 and on out. >> thank you. >> thank you. i recognize myself for questions. mr. upton was supposed to be next the sins he is not here on will take his time. mr -- or is it ambassador? verveer. trying to get more up to speed on this, i am concerned about the secretary general and his relationships with russia and vladimir putin and couple that relationship with vladimir

putin's comments where he is very blunt about his desire to regulate the internet and take control of the internet. so i ask you, is that an unfounded concern or fear that i have as its relationship when the secretary general of the i.t.u. has this relationship? is it unfounded? is this relationship concern? what steps are we taking to be able to counterbalance that relationship? >> my view is the secretary general is in fact very effective and hon. international civil servant elected to this position and reelected unanimously at the last go around. he is very well-respected. he has been very affective and i don't personally have any

serious misgivings about his ability to be fair or helpful in terms of helping to see that the conference and the ongoing activities commissioner mcdowell mentioned take place. he is a man who has a strong and personal connection with the united states. she lived here 12 years and has family here. two of his children a u.s. citizens. i believe resident here. he exemplifies i believe very decent international civil servants in what is of very important and complicated job. he has to attend to legitimate needs and requirements of the united states but also the russian federation, china and every other country in the world. i don't think we need to have anxieties about his integrity. >> one question was integrity

but maybe his beliefs were close to what prime minister vladimir putin express. gee you have any concerns or fears about the relationship? >> this puts us behind the 8 ball so to speak to. >> ambassador verveer's analysis at face value. what is more important than looking at his background is looking at public statements on these issues which i cited in my testimony. they speak for themselves. i don't know, ambassador verveer, sin to be ambassadooon kramer, will you walk through a

level of confidence in mr. kramer and preparations to draw a hard line? >> mr. kramer is a retired senior executive who had worked very extensively particularly in the wireless business. his career involved very significant service initially in pacific telesis which spun out its wireless business which he eventually was acquired by vodafone. mr. kramer during almost all this time followed the progression of the company and the assets that were sold. spent a good many years of his career as a senior executive for vodafone. he spent five years in the united kingdom and in the netherlands and got involved in vodafone's international activities. a number of executives--has been a member of the executive committee g s m association

which is the largest international wireless association. spend some time since his retirement teaching at the harvard business school and he is about to undertake teaching assignments at the business school. he is a man of considerable experience in the international communications arena. it will prove to be something valuable from our point of view. we are embarking -- >> my time is expired but i am concerned about whether the learning curve in the few months before the december conference and i will let somebody asked that question. at this time i recognize mr. markey. >> thank you. [inaudible]

>> the inventor of the world wide web urge us to, quote, make sure the web itself is a blank sheet, a blank canvas, something that does not constrain the innovation. the wonderful thing about the internet, no one needs to ask permission to innovate, to get their voice heard, to launch a new service or a business enterprise. that is the magic of the internet. the internet is the most level playing field for commercial opportunity ever invented. it is the most successful communication and commercial medium in history. it is the lifeblood of the world economy. last week, someone who is going to testify on the second panel and was hired by brad peck -- a

--branek and newman to develop a package switch which became known as the internet, he wrote last thursday in the new york times the decisions taken in dubai in december have the potential to put government handcuffs on the net to prevent that to keep the internet open and free for the next generation. we need to prevent a fundamental shift in how the internet is governed. do you think that happen? ambassador verveer? >> i think it could happen but it is very unlikely to happen. one reason it is unlikely as many countries are very alert to the concerns tim mentioned in the hearing in 2007. the internet is enormously valuable to everyone in the world and it is a fair surmise that almost all the countries will be anxious not to do

anything that might damage it and of course a large part of the effort we are going to and continue to make is to point out there are things that could damage it. >> what is the motivation your opinion behind what china or russia might seek to accomplish if they were successful in what they had been proposing? >> both of those countries have a concept called information security, the concept that information security is what we would call cybersecurity and physical protection of their networks and goes beyond that to address content they regard as an unwanted. as much as anything else, motivation that russia and china have involve regime stability and regime preservation which for them involves preventing unwanted content from being made available in their countries.

>> how do you view this threat from the china and russia and others that speak to >> reporter: regimes, stability and can all we pursue it with international control. >> for those offering such ideas that are authoritarian, and their vision of the internet, and -- a variety of motivations to member states, might be purely economic, state-owned, telephone companies charging web information on a per click basis, economic incentive and china and russia and other authoritarian regimes is to snuff out political dissent. >> we had to have a hearing in 1987 when the federal

communications commission was considering a proposal that would have per minute charges on the screen and all you can eat kind we bat bacin 1987 so we could have this chaotic uncontrollable system that ultimately developed. >> mr. ambassador, are you gratified by the response you are receiving by their alignment with the united states in resisting these proposals coming from totalitarian states? >> by and large we are gratified by the responses we have seen. a significant number of our allies are prepared to step up to propose what we regard as a fundamentally bad idea and very confident that if we have the opportunity to continue these discussions we are likely to end

up with what we will all find -- speech -- >> because they agree with us that the intervention >> reporter: this chaotic nature? >> they do agree with it. the value of the internet as a mechanism for economic and broader improvements. >> t want to list countries that agree with us? >> we find a good deal of support from japan in terms of a variety in the age of pacific telecom unity and a good deal of support from not only canada and mexico but other countries in our hemisphere in terms of some proposals that we make. many european countries are very well aligned with us in terms of the issues and values we think are most important in terms of preserving so we see not very

substantial support for the broad views we have about the internet which is not to say that this is resolved. a great deal of work needs to be done. probably end in the indefinite future. >> congratulations to the obama administration. >> you're recognized for five minute, mr. stearns. >> with 193 countries meeting in dubai mr. markey touched on this. how many votes are we short of having the majority to support our position exactly? >> i don't think we have a counter. it is important -- >> you don't know? we have a with hear their reno's before any vote the take and what is happening. [talking over each other] >> i get a little concerned when you don't even know. we are nine votes short. is that an accurate representation? >> no. >> is it more?

>> if i could explain, the conference will follow the i.t.u. tradition this -- >> at csn bell. will there be a vote in dubai by 193 countries? >> very unlikely. >> so we don't have to worry about who is for this and who is against it. >> we do have to worry about that. first it is important to understand there will be many different contributions. >> do they work on consensus -- a sort of silent consensus and move forward without a vote? >> that is what happens. >> there will be a vote but it will be a vote secretly to a consensus and based on that report will be written and that report will be issued and that

will be the heartfelt answer to the dubai conference. is that the estimation what will happen? >> there will be negotiations over individual proposals in terms of international telecommunications regulations. those negotiations will yield presumably some agreement on words and phrasess in terms of regulation. not to change them. >> so we as legislators have an understanding can you give me today how many votes we are short of a consensus? >> a cannot tell you. >> ten votes short? can't you give me a broad brush? >> i am sorry to say is impossible. >> mr. mcdowell? any comments on this? you might suggest what as a legislator i and my fellow colleagues can do based upon this consensus where there appears we aren't nine votes short?

>> going back to the dialogue with congressman markey is not an issue of the united states. we need to cultivate allies in the developing world. they have the most to gain from an unfettered internet and the most to lose if this goes forward. that is where we need to be whipping up the votes. >> is there anything that the sec is doing right now that would impact this i.t.u.? >> we have an international bureau that works closely with the state department and they are busy working with members states throughout the world. >> you mentioned in your extended testimony the potential outcome of a vulcanize internet for a regulation nation's successful in december. can you expand on this and what would be the consequences for the united states and other countries? >> by the way i might suggest to the committee we may be do a post wicket hearing at some point maybe next year to see how things went next year and what

will happen in the future. what i mean by vulcanized internet would be are there going to be countries that would opt out of the current multi stakeholder model? and choose this top-down regulatory regime? in which case the internet is a network of networks without bords and would create an engineering morass. at a minimum this creates chaos and confusion and economic uncertainty that always leads to increased costs which are always passed on to the consumers. that at a minimum. at a maximum, we would see a wilting of borrow for asian -- proliferation of prosperity abroad have also innovation be snuffed out in the cradle and we will never know what innovation does not come to fruition. the great thing about the internet is access to a computer and internet connection to create the next great facebook.

that could come from the developing world. >> russia and china. one of the other top three four countries that want to put this under the un auspices? >> we see substantial efforts on the part of iran to do that. there are certain arab states. >> can you name the arab states? >> egypt? >> egypt has taken some positions but not complete steps in that direction. there have been efforts. >> to nita? >> i don't believe i would put tunisia -- >> saudi arabia? >> saudi arabia as with egypt has taken positions -- >> fair to say most of the mideast countries other than israel are supporting this? is that a fair statement? >> we see support from some of

the arab states but i think the thing that is critically important to understand is in terms of genuinely hard-line opponents to the arrangements as we see them today that they tend to be states that we have already mentioned that otherwise there are subtleties and nuances that are substantial in terms of -- >> my time is expired. just a coincidence or ironic that with the arabs spring a lot of countries seem to want to put it into a monopoly type of operation. >> thank you. the gentlelady from california, miss matsui is recognized for five minute. >> ambassador verveer, i want to talk about the wickets. you mentioned that the i t rs have not been advised sins 1988 which is 25 years ago and a lot has happened in 25 years.

the comparison is worse than the tortoise and the hair. more like we are at work speed right now. why did the i.t.u. beside to examine the i t rs now? do you anticipate that they will want to examine again shortly? is there a schedule to do this? >> first, it is important to understand there has been pressure to reexamine the i t r as. it has existed for many years. the united states has taken the view over the years that it wasn't really necessary to do this but finally in 2006 the overall decision was made that it would happen this year. the idea behind that more than any other is something that has been made plain that this hearing which is the world has changed so dramatically that it seemed to like it was time to review the i t rs.

the i t rs are only nine pages long and say do have a great many famous that continue to be of value that could and should be preserved. there is no schedule beyond this upcoming conference to revisit them on any regular basis. there have been some contributions or proposals that suggest that that might be valuable but this is not something that has achieved a great deal of momentum. >> once discussion begins as it has, and the country because of recent history has become involved in the internet and seeing the positives as well as the negatives as far as some of these countries that really looked towards censorship, is it possible this will be a continuing process and we should be on alert now that this

collaboration must continue because as we know, technology just keeps rapidly expanding and we are not sure what the next big thing is. is there an opportunity--a multi stakeholder process -- to open it up more? the itr process to non-governmental stakeholders which -- do you agree on that and how can the u.s. government advocate for greater transparency in this process sins that to me is for the other countries? >> it is certainly true that there has been criticism and i think it has been legitimate criticism about the ability of the non members of the i.t.u. to be aware of the deliberations and be aware what is taking place in terms of preparation

for this conference and more broadly. we are prepared through the i.t.u. council on good efforts of dick baird who has been a representative on the council for many years to propose to the council that its report which is an important document in the scheme of things that its report in preparation for the wicket be generally available. it would be useful if we could find more ways that the united states often makes bleaker still to have more of the i.t.u.'s documents more widely available to all of the interested stakeholders. >> i would think -- this is a question for both ambassador verveer and commissioner mcdowell there should be more of a process for knowledge

increased in the united states -- we take the internet for granted and we see the arabs spring affected the country. to a great degree we forget that what would happen if -- let's say the worst happened, this scenario that things would close down. i am curious, what would happen if the worst happened? what would happen if this country, with those resolutions immediately become law? what steps could the u.s. take to limit participation in the treaty? i want to know what would happen if either of you can answer that. >> this is a very important point that you have raised and i'm glad you have. first it would be conventional. we assuredly will take a broad reservation from whatever is

agreed at the conference and virtually every other country will do the same thing so you will have countries agreeing that they will abide by the provisions of the treaty unless for some reason they won't and typically the reason will be extraordinarily broad. that is one thing. the second thing that is important to understand is there's no enforcement mechanism associated with this. these are predatory as many other aspects of international law are. it is not reasonable to assume that if something will ruin us for some reason was to be adopted as the particular regulation that you would see countries interested in enforcing that regulation. only the countries would be able to enforce. no other way for it to be done. this conference and all these are extraordinarily important in terms of establishing norms and expectations and finding health

with respect to bose commercial activities and free flow of information. they are very different from the law that congress might adopt that would be subject to all the critical enforcement mechanisms. >> running out of time the commissioner mcdowell, can you add to this? >> i don't think i could say it better than he did. >> thank you very much. >> be gentlelady from 7 california mary bono mack. >> thank you for your testimony. certainly didn't miss work. you feel strongly and what i like is i agree with everything you said. to make them agree with you more than they do. i will do my best to get out of you all little explanation as doris matsui was saying. i started talking about this

over a year ago and people use me as having a tinfoil had on my head and creating an issue that wasn't very real but if you could talk about a little bit about -- we clearly understand the arabs spring and what this means and the internet is the biggest fool for freedom mankind has ever seen. taking that aside can you talk a little about the proposal and how it would impact u.s. business and what it means for the bottom line for business should this occur. >> to both of you. >> thank you for your leadership. there were a lot of folks who questioned whether this was real, at a minimum it creates uncertainty and drives up costs and that alone could be damaging. let's take an example. harvard and mit announced they will offer courses online for

free. the concept of the applications on the net could be put at risk if costs are raised. ultimately consumers pay for those costs one way or the other. they pay for increased costs due to regulation. at a maximum you would have a bifurcated internet, cross border technologies such as cloud computing which is becoming essentials to creating efficiency and bring in more value to consumers and raising living standards ultimately. that could be jeopardized as it becomes harder to figure out how do you engineer these technologies are cross borders when the internet didn't have to worry about that as much. >> thank you. >> i certainly would agree with the commissioner on that and i think it is perfectly fair to observe that the free flow of information including the free flow of commercial information

is something that studies have cited this morning, indicate has added immeasurably to the world's wealth. we are very anxious that nothing would inhibit that. there have been some suggestions made by some countries that we ought to have a per click charge if you will, content providers ought to contribute to of the cost of transmission companies for concluding traffic. there are a variety of reasons why that seems to was not to be above it at all. you can see what could turn out to be marginal impositions on the internet would interfere with commercial value and we are anxious to avoid that. >> would you speak a little bit? in your testimony mentioned proposals under consideration that would allow government to

restrict content and monitor internet users. can you speak about how the u.s. is working to prevent countries from censoring the internet? >> we are very anxious as you might imagine to overcome any suggestions that there are content related restrictions. the suggestions of this kind come as commissioner mcdowell mentioned in his testimony not even especially in the context of wicket but in other forums as well. they tend to come from countries -- it is easy to say nondemocratic traditions, and as a result, on the one hand we are dealing with what are almost certainly sins sir believes that stability is very important. that there are in fact

objectionable from a political perspective or other cultural perspectives there's such a thing as material so objectionable it ought to be excluded. that said we obviously disagree with that and we particularly disagreed about political speech. russia and china and uzbek costanza that made in the context of the united nations. >> my time is up. i think you for your hard work. change thank you for your resolution. >> i had a tin foil hat. >> this time it was legitimate, necessary and i am proud of the work you have done with henry waxman to make it bipartisan.

we are all in agreement on this one. mr. dingell. >> thank you. i appreciate your courtesy. first, i would like to welcome my old friend ambassador verveer who is a friend and resource to this committee and bureau chief with three bureaux of fcc in the 70s and served the department of justice before that. welcome. i look forward to our exchange. and of course commissioner mcdowell we appreciate your service and thank you for being here this morning. you're wise counsel has been helpful on many occasions. to both questions this is the yes or no answer. is it true that some members of the i.t.u. made proposed revisions in the itrs that set out prescriptive international regulations for issues such as internet privacy and

cybersecurity, yes or no? >> yes. >> to both witnesses do you believe it is wise for the united states to exceed to international standards on internet matters not settled definitively? that is privacy and cybersecurity? yes or no? >> it is unwise for us to get too far in front of the overall consensus. >> you find that to be a bit rushing things? >> i can't recall if it should be yes or no but it would be a bad idea. >> i don't like to do that but we have a lot of ground to cover. to again both of our witnesses are and stand some countries like russia and china believe that, quote, policy authority for internet related public issues this sovereign rights of

states and not multi stakeholders. is that correct? yes or no? >> that is correct. >> that is their position? is that the question? as i understand their position yes. >> do you agree with that position? >> we don't. know. >> in your collective opinion, is it wise to maintain international -- international multi stakeholder regulatory process that more closely resembles the administrative procedure models that we use in the united states as opposed to what china and russia propose? yes or no? >> yes. >> if i understand the question correctly i would not one day legal paradigm put in place from the multi stakeholder model. there are some words i am not sure i understand completely but i want to make that point clear.

>> we are set on these matters. sins you are both here are like toce you are both here are like to ask about unrelated matters. the sec is allowed to conduct an incentive option in which television broadcasters can elect to return their licences in return for a portion of the auction revenues. that legislation includes the amendment offered by mr. bill gray and i, directing the fcc to coordinate with canadian and mexican authorities so that consumers and particularly those in border regions won't lose access to television signals when the incentive auction is over. mr. ambassador, would you please bring the subcommittee up to speed on where things stand with

canada and mexico with respect to this very important matter particularly to my constituents particularly as there are no additional frequencies available or displaced stations in my hometown of detroit if the television band is repacked. i ask you to be briefed on this and maybe you would submit some additional comments to the record. >> there are treaty obligations we have with canada that are designed to protect the broadcasters on both sides of the border. this is a problem not just in the area of the freud but also new york state. >> also in washington and montana along the borders and -- of minnesota and oregon and other places too. >> likewise on the mexican border. these are things that have to be worked out and have been worked out by agreement.

in addition is the mentioned no one can be disadvantaged if they choose to broadcast. do complicated engineering matter. to permit any particular changes in the status along the border region with the treaty and the statutory obligations obviously will be observed. >> commissioner mcdowell, you are working on this at the commission. can you assure me of the commission's commitment to full transparency on this matter, yes or no? >> yes. can speak for the chairman. >> i am comfortable you engage in full transparency. i am less comfortable about some of the other folks. i have recognized for you to speak for yourself, are you comfortable that everybody else

at the commission shares your good will on this matter? >> i certainly hope so. >> i do too. i am a little like the fellow walking down the street and ask him are you an office or a pessimist and he said i am an optimist. why are you frowning? because i am not sure my optimism is justified. >> nice one. thank you, mr. dingell. we recognize the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you for being here. mr. ambassador, a couple of questions for you. when was the last time the state department published a notice of an official meeting to prepare for the wicked 12? >> i am not sure when we did. we understand we have an obligation to publish notices in

connection with what we call our icac meetings. >> let me help you out with that a little bit because the last notice i could find was january 11th. that was the last public notice but from what i have been able to find out, the state department is holding regular meetings of interested stakeholders' on a regular basis and you have done this all year long to prepare for the conference. isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> is your staff holding regular conference calls and managing a list serve for stakeholders to circulate position papers and ideas to informed the u.s. delegation in advance of the wicked 12 preparatory meetings? >> that is also correct.

>> first of all how view get on the list serve so that you are aware what is going on and secondly, how can my constituents that are not just the largest and wealthiest companies on the internet or the intellectual elite participate in the process if there is no way for them to know how to participate in that process or when the meetings are going to take place or how to get involved? how do we advise them on this? >> you are raising a very legitimate, important question. the notices that were made if i am understanding recollection of the device we got from lawyers at the state department is we could notice or provide a general notice as a legal matter for these regular meetings. it is easy to get on the list but you have to know who to

contact if that is something that is obscure from the standpoint of the public record. anyone who wishes to be on the lists -- >> i would like to make certain that we take care of this because this was going to be the most transparent administration in history and here we get to an issue that is very important to a lot of my constituents and they feel blocked out of this process. commissioner mcdowell, you have been an outspoken critic of wicked 12 and appreciate your efforts. let me ask you this. you have been to nashville and we have a town hall in nashville. you know i have got a lot of constituents who want to participate in this process and they are very concerned about what international control of the internet would do to them and do to their livelihood.

how do we -- how do we go about this if the fcc doesn't have an open docket for comment? don't you think that would be a good idea to have an open docket? these small business operators would be invited into for a comment and i know that at one point there was one but there doesn't seem to be now. the early 2010 -- there was an open market. tell me how we go about fixing that. >> the best vehicle for that would be a notice of inquiry that the fcc could open up and what they should be doing in support of the state department, taking the lead on with it 12. >> that sounds good. let me ask you this.

one of these things as i looked at this issue with the docket to one of the things that concerns me is that the fcc still does have an open proceeding to reclassify internet services and telecom service. so tell me this. how is that open proceedings different from the proposals in front of the i.t.u. and shouldn't we close that docket immediately? >> yes we should. i have been very public about that for many years as well as the original proceeding. it sends the wrong signal internationally and i think it should be closed as soon as possible. >> thank you for that. my time has expired and i thank you for the time and the question. >> thank you. gentlelady from the virgin islands. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome the commissioner and the ambassador and thank you for your testimony.

really great to have such bipartisan support on this important issue. i thank the chairman and ranking member for having this hearing as we approach the w. they i t. i'm not sure all the questions that have been asked have been asked. my colleague usually says not everyone has asked them. scare is a need for greater transparency can be accomplished without regulation that happens to be open access to that? >> if i understood your question correctly about the desireability of greater transparency in the i.t.u. process the answer from my point of view is that would be desirable and we recommended various measures although lines over the years and seen some of

them come to fruition and some not. there are steps we can and do take in the u.s. to try to aid non i.t.u. members to understand what is going on in terms of making materials available that are available to us as a member of the i.t.u.. as i mentioned earlier proposing a specific instance of which that the council report which will be the critical documents for the most critical document going forward should be made public wants it is in fact issued following council working group session in the next several weeks. >> do you have anything to add, commissioner? >> i have nothing further to and except i have heard time and time again from civil society think tanks and ethics groups that they are concerned about the opaque nature of the i.t.u.

that generates revenue from having civil society groups, non-voting member states join -- and you get certain documents. i found from my office to get some i.t.u. documents, you have to know somebody and i am part of the u.s. government. i do think this is something i.t.u. needs to work on and i have every faith and ambassador verveer and the incoming ambassador to address that issue. >> a follow-up to what you just said. there are some recommendations in the testimony from the second panel that i.t.u. should have some non-governmental voting members. is that something you would agree should