am the private sector representatives here today. i represent a fortune 500 company with corporate security department. we actually do a lot with law enforcement. we have capabilities with our own corporation. i think this case is a good illustration of how it could come to pass. we would have offered him a red card so he gets 5% off on his purchase. >> i gave you a set up, did i not? >> in all seriousness, we do have a working relationship often with the law enforcement community a local and national levels. target has embarked program where we purposely developed it. these relationships enable us to become aware of information they might need feedback on. in a case like this, we might find out from a local law enforcement center or from the

fbi out of the sea on her --, be on the lookout for. he there at headquarters are out on the field we would begin surveying day tab because we will track inventory data. we can pull video from around the country. both inside the store and outside. we actually can go out to our peers and other retailers and ask them if they have seen such behavior, too. it is not just within the target environment. if we trip that wire, we can pick up the phone and call law enforcement and notify them. >> would you call local law enforcement or the fbi? >> it deepens and the situation and what is being asked for us to do. most often than not it is at a local level. >> a uncall the local police. seeing as you now -- so you

would call the local police. the phone call comes into the local police. let's just say there is another aspect. it comes into the local police. then what happens? cox there is 18,000 law- enforcement agencies in the country. target has an excellent working relationship and many other organizations and companies throughout the country. the other good news is law enforcement is part of the security enterprise, the national intelligence enterprise. they know the communities. they know when criminal activity is afoot. if they got the call from a target store employee, they will be armed with information. it will have been socialized to what counter-terrorism is about the acquisition of material. the hydrogen peroxide is part of the material.

under that set of circumstances, i am quite confident one of two things will have occurred. they would have called the fusion center directly or they would have called to expand on that. if they want the national network affusion center route, there would have called the fusion center once again because of the efforts of ina, th fbi, they have the connectivity, both classified and unclassified level to receive the documents and to receive the products that an inmate from the intelligence community overseas about how the devices are made, what the components of the go into them. they also would be informed as it relates to what to look for. a good analyst said would know that could be terrorist related. they will notify the jttf.

it has happened in not only these incidents but over the past three years. unfortunately there has been an uptick in domestic base to incidents. the relationship is very good. it does not stop there. it gets to the intelligence community. the only people not sitting on this side is the cia for the intelligence community to get it up to them and conversely, a lot of affirmation passes down. that is basically what will happen. relationships and the passing of the information. >> of the police chief of denver is a little bit worried about what he has heard from target. he called the head of the field office in denver and says, i have this problem. and what happens? >> make sure you don't tell him, i do not have a white shirt on. the fbi can dress down

occasionally. we do a lot of things. people have to remember, we are just like you out there. we are trying to balance civil rights and civil liberties. what we do each and every time is the least intrusiveness. depending upon what the threat is, if you are talking about somebody coming in and purchasing hydrogen peroxide, then there are certain activities that we do -- checking open source records whether they have a prior record. signage their numbers are affiliated with anyone else who may have an open investigation. also doing checks with the other members of the intelligence community. >> would you check to see if they travel to pakistan or afghanistan? >> absolutely. when people talk about the fbi's

jttf, it is our jttf. on every single jtf since 2001 we went from 35 to 104. there are members of the nsa, the cia, state police, local police, you make it. they are members of the task force. we cannot do it without them. i think we got a lot smarter involving the private sector. i do not think we pay less attention to the before and bringing them into -- i do not think we paid enough attention to bringing them in before. >> us talk about interpol. for the sake of making it easy to go down the line. here is something you tell me about interpol before we had this session. interpol is not like jason bourne, which i thought it was. i thought there were people crashing through windows.

i thought you could do the jason bourne stuff. can you explain a little better what interpol as? >> absolutely. i think interpol is -- there is a lot of confusion about interpol. basically the u. and of police. it is made up of the national police agency's. in the united states it is a little more complicated. it is very important. i think a lot of this forum has been on the classified side and how information has been shared and better between the fbi and military cia. i remember charlie allen saying many times, the real intelligence gatherers are the police on the streets and people making arrests every day that will flip the individual into cooperating on a case and tell the fbi and others on their case.

i think there is some real creative people a in the audience. people that believe sharing information and working together, they have been supportive of interpol. police intelligence, two countries and national police agencies. back when a lot people in this room, it does not this way. when we were younger, and lot of things were done by fax. technology has made interpol more relevant. we have the lost stolen travel document with interval -- with interpol. >> would he have popped up on the interpol database? >> if the fbi wanted him on

there. >> he would not have in that case because -- for a red notice, that is an arrest warrant recognized by interpol members. there are other blue-chip notices and other neck -- mechanisms. he specifically -- we were tipped off. he would have been in the databases they have. >> the way they basically found was the interception of an e- mail. they did not have someone who said something. what was interesting about the case is that he created tatt, an explosive, from this hair dye. then he drove across the country from denver to new york. and the fbi was concerned that

he decided not to fly. so maybe there was something in the car they were worried about. i do not know if you know this or not the my understanding was on his cross-country journey, he was talking very fast. he got pulled over several times by police and getting tickets for dropping so fast. this was again this coordination think we're talking about. the people who pull them over, did they know why he was being pulled over? but it is my understanding he was intentionally pulled over to collect information in cooperation with the fbi. if it was a happenchance pullover and he was speeding, those troopers are well informed as it relates to seeing a wire. i'm quite confident they are well-informed to report that information to the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiative or to the jttf.

>> let's say hypothetically that they did not know. the mechanism that exists as soon as a case is developed, that person is to -- goes into the known and suspected terrorist file. any police officer out there is going to know when they stop and individual. then he has a contact number to come back to. >> the fact they stop him a couple of times and gave him a couple of tickets, that is one of my favorite parts. i am out of new york and there was another aspect that maybe you can answer. he has this explosive in the suitcase in the trunk of his car and he is pulled over by law enforcement and a search is car and they miss the explosives. how did that happen?

[laughter] >> they are all looking at me. >> in all of these cases, we are all organizations and human beings. so the new -- they knew. they made the stop and it did not find it. there were a couple of aubrey -- of other bombs. there are bumps in every case. they knew and they did their best but it was difficult to detect. in fairness to the police officers, they were not try to make it obvious. that was some of the direction that was given. it was later found, as you know. in this type of case, it was very fast moving. when we initially found out, around september 6 or seventh, to his arrest, it ended up being

the 18th. so you can imagine very quickly the number of techniques. one of the things as how the fbi has changed and director smaller and others have really -- director muller and others have really transformed the agency. we are looking at it as an intelligence collection. it was not to put him in jail. we want to find out everything we can about him. who is the connected with? who are his facilitators? what is he trying to do? at the same time working with the department of justice, they are with us from day 0. we want to preserve the ability to disrupt them, possibly prosecuting them and putting them in jail. that is the biggest thing. people do not recognize -- field

intelligence groups, it is about being intelligent and attractive base. i think we have been extremely successful doing that. >> if i may, being in law enforcement for 32 years, you do miss things unfortunately. but the system worked here in this case. not only did that information in record speed get into the hands of jim davis, the sac in denver, and then share with the chief dan oates but also commissioner kelly. i saw commissioner kelly earlier here today. that would not have happened on the 9/11 -- september 10th of 2001. but it is now. demint -- the information is being passed. people are aware. it is a total good news story progresses it is. .

>> this is a nice way to go to you and talk about the coordination. you have been involved the fbi for a long time. you heard the story. can you talk a little bit about how this is working together? >> most of the time, it worked very well. occasionally it does not. that is when we hear the call failure of imagination. in today's world, that is what people are doing. looking out in advance, projecting what could happen and what would we do about it in what you recognize it? -- and would you recognize it? it is what we do with the lucky break that matters. in today's world of technological advances, we are still behind the curve somewhat. sometimes our system did not follow up and to the way we

would like them to. but we are working on it. that is important, too. >> i wanted to say one other thing about this case. from every reporter's perspective. we are good at listening to voices. the way that i knew this was a very serious case with the tightness in everybody's voice when i was asking questions, whether in the intelligence community or the fbi. you could tell this was a serious case. and it was fast moving. i think that is the reason why you could tell it was such a serious case. a wanted to move on a little bit of talk about a domestic case and go down the line and talk about how it would be difficult -- if it were domestic. the was a young man who was at texas tech and he came to the united states, he is saudi, he came under a student visa. at the end of last month, he was

found guilty of trying to produce a weapon of mass destruction. they found chemical and precursors and things in his apartment near some town in texas. i cannot remember where. lovick. [laughter] let's see if i can recover from that one. >> i am not answering any more questions. [laughter] >> he was going to build a bomb and one of the targets he thought about was president bush's home. this was found in an accidental way.

he had these chemicals shipped to his apartment. the dax dropped them off at the local carrier. the local carrier happened to look at the address and solve all these chemicals were going to residents. the local carrier had a rule that it would not ship these things to a residence. it could only be to a business or a school. this is an example private- sector stepping in. i do not know if you want to talk about that. >> just briefly. the fact that it would be the same for the private sector. homegrown, we are more dependent on citizens of the private sector. he will not ship communications -- you will not ship made it -- these points are not happening. i look at it as citizens that

before doing their duty, seeing suspicious behavior and reporting it to the right people. >> the chemical company called local police -- the shipping company called local police? >> possibly or the jttf. the missing piece here would be the intelligence community. the intelligence community is a great role in informing on tactics and procedures, whether it be domestic base or foreign base. for law enforcement, it would not be handled any differently it would get the receipt of the reporting whether it be from a target or a shipper chemical local law enforcement. they will be informed to notify the fusion center. the one thing i did not mention is the value added of what the fusion center has as it relates to the information sets. whether or not it is a blotter

or active investigation or deconfliction. when there is an act against -- investigation against the target, if you put that individual's name, it will identify that person is already under investigation by another agency. to think about what a local officer trouper encounters each day, whether domestic. the opportunity they have to review that. that is important as it relates to the value added coming out of the fusion center. you used the word lokke to read in my career -- the word luck. in my career, people say you were really lucky. no, you are not lucky. it is based in your training, out there stopping cars. but has nothing to do with that. it is the system.

that's it -- that shipping company having the processes in place or the general public sang something is not right here. at that has been there much too long. and knowing to call local law enforcement and local law enforcement -- knowing to call the jttf. sometimes a lot of these chemicals are also used to manufacture narcotics. that also helps out the dea. so those relationships, it is not only benefiting ct but general crime. >> there were two companies involved. there was the carolina biological supply that contacted rre in greensboro than conaway trucking in texas that contacted the police department there. >> he was already on the radar screens by the time the --

>> they happen within a day of each other. we were also tip of -- tipped off from another foreign agency. we talk about these layers, that is what works. we talked about general adult -- general alexander and his folks are doing. then you have what dhs is doing on the borders of hardening the target. then another layer. then appear with the jttf -- then the bureau with the jttf. it is other agency help you, would he have shown -- showed up on interpol? >> it depends if the agency contacted interpol. >> it is possible. most of the countries in the interpol do not have a classified system. they do not have the complex communications systems we do. the only way they can

communicate is through interpol sometimes. or to the attache in that country. >> the legal attache. >> will coordinate that with the fbi. there are eight divisions in interpol. one of domestic counter- terrorism division. we have that connection. those leads, and -- those leads come in and it is close coordination. >> when you hear these case studies and you hear how everybody is working together, how different is this from the fbi you know? >> it was not that different. i heard last night something that up and -- i should address. there was a time when it was thought the fbi was all take and

no give. when i came on board in 1978, the ex agents society was having a convention and they wanted to do something for the fbi decide the integrity statute they donated. they had a quotation on the wall from dead girl over and asked me to select one. the quotes ran heavily on law and order and defensive type comments. the one i selected became truly i think the spirit of the fbi. if you ever go there in the courtyard, you will see in large letters -- the key to effective law enforcement is cooperation at all levels of government and

with the support and understanding of the american people. i think that is the direction in which we are going. after september 11, the problem of need to know shifted to need to share. at the the fbi got into that spirit as it became an effective law enforcement but intel is averaging -- but intelligencve gathering. we talk about first responders. state and local have to be there when the problem arises or when the first explosion occurs. if they are engaged in a community oriented policing as i hope most of them are these days, the chances are the public will be as equally responsive and identify suspicious activities. they will do as we have been encouraging to do -- see something, say something. that is very important to our

welfare and safety today. i think the american people are responding. through these combinations of relationships with the american people and with the local law enforcement and issues and sharing of experience and the ability to transmit that information not only accurately but quickly improperly out that to the field where it can be of value is one of the most remarkable changes i have seen in the last 30 years. >> anybody have something to add to that? but i want to recognize judge webb. it is an honor to be up here with him. >> i am often asked why the private sector charges involve a public safety our counter- terrorism. as citizens of this country, we have a duty. we might have different skills sets for expertise but we have

the same mission -- to protect this country. the simple way i look at it is if i'm walking to my house and my neighbor's house is on fire, i do not just keep walking because i'm not a fireman. i do something. i think that is where the private sector could be part of that do something also, whether it is citizens or businesses. we have to look at them as a partner in this and a force multiplier. i go back to 9/11. i was in minneapolis when that occurred. we were in disarray like most of us in this room. but what i find most fascinating is that morning, flight 93, the first group to act against those acting against us were citizens.

i think we have to keep that in the forefront of all things we do, whether it is in the business sector, or private citizens. it is part of what makes this country what it is. >> and acted only hours after it first happened? what they got intelligence -- >> they got intelligence as they did it and it took down the bad guys before the u.s. government knew what was going on. [applause] >> i almost want to end it there. if we could shift gears a bit. we were supposed to talk about what more can be done to keep the home and safe. in particular, the threat is changing. there seems to be a new threat emanating from iraq with al qaeda and iraq also leader saying he wanted to target the u.s. which is new.

there is still a threat in yemen. if we could go down the line quickly, could you talk about what you think can be done to keep all lance zipper as the threat is safer -- keep the homeland safer as the threat is changing? >> with the private sector has brought to the table paul 9/11 is resiliency. we have done much to deal with what can we do as a business to protect our people, to recover businesses, help our communities? my team was with fema nearby in colorado springs looking at what else the to do in the public sector. we do this about tornadoes and natural disasters but it is the same impact with the terrorist act. what is often missing from the public side is because the view

is not on my watch. our view is if it does happen, what can we do to get this country back up and running, our businesses up and running, our communities? it is along the lines of the british business as usual. that is the model we study. ira terrorism. that is what i think the private sector is much better at today than it ever was. it helps supplement government efforts. >> i think we are at a very critical part. over 10 years after september 11 as relates to the economy, the economy is declining. there has been a significant amount of layoff for local, state, tribal law enforcement. my agency had the high watermark of about 5000. they are at about 43 hunter right now. couple that with the grants and

how they have been cut dramatically. it cannot be done at the expense of national security. all the progress that has been made and the need to not that back on where we have been headed, we need to keep moving forward. strength and the processes. a lot of this is based on trust and personal relationships that have developed. in need to be institutionalized. -- it neesd to be institutionalized. there are a lot of high level folks here. i did not know what dod and the iec did until i spent about four and a half years within the intelligence community, most recently with an ina. i was thoroughly impressed about the analysts, the amount of time and work and effort they put into it and also i know that the ice and dod recognize and appreciate what they have here

domestically. that needs to continue to grow and be enhanced. it is not -- it is also cyber and what is happening with the gangs and narcotics and the threat that you have spoken about. keep that information coming and recognize that law enforcement is very mature, they know how to do things. they know how to investigate. they can be trusted. they have clearances. they now know how to store it. so trust that and build that trust and institutionalize it. >> you are trying to do something in a environment of shrinking resources. how do you protect the homeland better when you have less resources? >> like all of my counterparts, we look for a patient sees. ways to do things better. we look for ways to do things differently. we live to leverage other agencies, the private sector

more effectively. i think we -- we are all living in a fascinating time. there are so many things going on around the world and it does affect the united states. we have to remember that. i think that red has become much more -- the threat has become much more difficult, much more diversified to detect. they did a phenomenal job desecrating al qaeda but the threat has changed and evolved. it is becoming more difficult which goes to really the next point. i think the dni realizes the importance of the domestic intelligence architecture. i think for many years, we ignore that. he is really taking an active role in that and figuring out how these agencies fit together.

he recently designated 12 of the fbi offices as dni reps domestically. that is part of the efficiency i was talking about. how to the coordinate activities -- how do we coordinate activities and do them with less? >> to echo everyone's comments, partnership is a crucial thing. everybody talks about a partnership but i want to echo the judge. after september 11, i was in new york. i got a call, got together with a group of people to work on a mixed agency. he did not care if it was f.b.i.. he wanted people to get things in -- done quickly. >> that is special agent in charge. >> i am sorry. i worry that we have come so far along in sharing information but i think as we get further

away from september 11, i did not want to get back. i believe that sometimes the system the way agencies have compete -- to compete for funds especially when resources are shrinking, it has a negative affect. it does not encourage sharing of information. we are supporting everybody. when agencies have to battle for resources, that makes it very difficult. it would also affect them and pulling off of task forces like interpol with the need to be because the resources they have to prioritize where there are -- where people are going to go. that is my concern going forward. >> judge webster, where do you think we need to go? we need to do as john says, to get better at all of the things we are doing right.

to anticipate what our problems may be and to have the no more failures ever imagination. we hope we can anticipate it. the importance of having the support and understanding of the american people is something we do keep it until our minds but we have to work hard at it. in our country, there is something different. we believe that we must do the work that the american people expect of us and the way that the constitution demands of us. sometimes that is tough. we have a lot of things we could do that might theoretically produce an answer, create a

confession, do something else to wage a war but the important thing is that we behave in a way that earns the trust of the american people and in the end is far more affected than law enforcement and intelligence principled than some of the other extreme measures that will take place until other countries. that is the challenge we face in the future. to not forget who we are and what we are. to be better at what we are and what we do than anyone else in protecting in keeping save the people in this country. >> i was hoping we could open it up to questions now. the gentleman here. >> i want to thank all of you for your service and agree with the spirit of cooperation you gentlemen are promoting. no single agency department has all the tools needed.

going forward, we have some great tools that the place since september 11. we track large sums of money that travel throughout the financial system. we track chemicals now better than we do before. how to attract 6000 rounds of ammunition purchased on the internet as we saw recently? >> i should have asked that question. look at everybody looking at you judge. >> there is no tracking, no national database of weaponry or bullets. i'm not going to give an opinion or get in trouble with those 18,000 sheets in the country. suffice to say, at a state level, they do a good job as a

relate to cataloging weapons at purchasing and things of that nature. but there is no national system. that is why -- firearms are a dealer distributor. it is public. what is suspicious activity. what constitutes suspicious activity? law enforcement, they know all about that. they are held accountable to it. there is no notion of doing that. they are too busy going from complete to complaint and if somebody may, there are significant consequences to that. law enforcement take that very importantly. sorry for digressing. >> you talk about some policy issues which obviously some of

us did not want to comment on because of our positions but it gets down to the internet. i wish i had mentioned it before. technology. we all are up in a generation where the computer was introduced to us in some part -- point of our lives. it started at the very beginning. we need to do a better job with technology, principal. we have got to get better at doing that. we have to be able to detect the good and evil. it will be good -- through advanced technology. >> there is some weapons chasing internationally led by atf. there is some international domestic. there are some on weapons that are used in crimes overseas to

track them. >> director, you may be one of the few people who can express an opinion about this. do you think there should be a way to track huge amounts of ammunition at purchase all at once? >> consistent with what i said before about the rights of american citizens and others in our country, i think that the problem we identified particularly in the fort hood massacre, i cannot discuss it because that is part of the portions of the report, except to say that this capacity to gather data is huge. and massive. the problem is making sure that it can be sorted, filed an available and disseminated. in an effective way. >> and seen in time.

>> yes, i absolutely. the more we collect, the more challenging the issue of identifying something unusual and acting on it. >> those of you who do not know, debt webster released a report looking at the fort hood shooting -- judge webster released a report looking at the four parachuting. it came out last week. what was the most surprising thing in putting together the report to you that you can tell us? >> probably what i just said what i think the surprising thing to me was that the system that was designed with a joint task forcing by bringing in agents from other departments to have responsibilities to guide and help result in -- there were

to field offices with different views. one trekking in very bad guy in yemen, passing to another field office with the discretion to do with it what they wanted about an american soldier and officer communicating with one of these very bad guys. the and nurture that occurred because of differences about what to do about it -- the inertia that occurred because of differences about what to do about it. not a clear policy at the time about how to resolve that this agreement. in a way that might have anticipated an opportunity to prevent or head off a bad thing. that was the surprise to me. the joint task force system was supposed to enhance our

capabilities and not create in our shop. but it was not the fault of the task force officer. he made mistakes but it was not the fault of the other individuals. it was the lack of a clear policy which made sure you could resolve the problem quickly. in other words, taken upstairs. >> and judge webster and his folks did a fantastic job on that report. i have read it several times. we made mistakes, there is no question about that what we try to do is learn from those mistakes. he made 18 recommendations. i believe they were all adopted. and we are going to get better. >> question and terms of the

evolving threats. u.s. officials recorded last week that the bulgarian suicide bombing had all the hallmarks of a hezbollah aspiration -- operation. how concerned is the bureau right now that hezbollah operatives and to the united states may be taking on expanded roles going into legal operations like this? are you taking any steps to monitor it? >> yes and yes. without question, not only bulgaria but if you recall the plot to kill the u.s. saudi ambassador. the related to the iodc in proxy with iran and hezbollah.

speaking from open source and other things, there is a change in the threat without question. we are looking at at that and are in talks with that. >> how about the lady in the striped in the back? >> there are two conflicting dialogues i see in the press right now. one is the sea something, do something or something, report it. the citizens are on the front lines. and we understand our neighborhoods best and therefore we can be good judges of what is unusual. on the other hand, even though there is an increased concern for a homeland radicalization,

there seems to be an effort to make sure there is no bias and therefore to downplay homegrown radicalization. how to you balance those two? >> do you think your downplaying radicalization? >> i think there are a couple of things going on here. i am not sure what you meant when you used the term biased. i think we are much like a neighborhood watch and everyone else -- like everyone else, we are looking for behaviors that are not normal. as far as homegrown extremism, i think everyone appear is well aware of the current threat that exists.

we meet on a monthly basis on combating violent extremism related to the homeland. and in other ways. what are other ways and techniques we can stop that before it even begins? before they go through that complete radicalization process and move into mobilization? on the bias side, i cannot think there is bias. when you notice something, you try to report it. it goes to the program level, what the local police for sheriff or who ever is responsible. >> i think what i am referring to was there is a reluctance to identify the fact that there might be a religious theology that serves as the basis for the radicalization and in certain

circles, there seems to be a reluctance to identify the use of a religion in the radicalization process. >> i would say if you look over the centuries, radicalization is not limited to, i think you are referring to is mom, it is not just as long. christianity has had its share of that extremism. whatever you want to call that. this is the greatest country in the world. it is those elements with and religion that adopt and etiology that is not really the religion. it is extremism. there is no bias there. anyone who is doing that, i did not care what religion you are practicing, if you are talking about killing and murdering people, we will get you. >> this is a very small group of

the muslim population. we tend to make sweeping generalizations about islam and we should not. there are a lot of muslims in this country who are as horrified as non muslims. >> from state and local perspective, it is based on a criminal predicate. you are targeting an individual who is reasonably suspicious or probable cause or reasonable indicative of criminal activity. did you take it where it goes. after you complete that trouble, there could be something that led to that person doing what they did. i think that it's it. >> we have time for one last question. >> question about major hassan.

the gaps seem to be -- why didn't they involve the military? they had clear communication with the sheik in yemen. this was just recent. i did not understand what they did not alert the military. >> i can answer that question. the task force member who opposed scoreboard was from the military. >> they had argument that it would affect his career but of course there were methods by which an interview could have occurred.

the defense department was aware of him and was aware of both good reports and not so good reports about him. there was no leptin to let the defense department about it -- there was no reluctance to let the defense department know about it. was right after 9/11, one of the big things that concerned everyone is people not talking to each other. but we have seen at least in these two cases is that while this might not be a perfect system, it is, a long way in 10 years. if you could thank >> we will hear about the role of the white house and counterterrorism in just a few moments. but first a brief look at c-span2 is scheduled later today.

all this week each day at 6 p.m. they will look back at some of the year's luncheon speakers from the national press club. each day at 7:00 we will fault those speakers with past q&a interviews focus on the u.s. military. tonight, kirk lippold, former commanding officer of the uss cole discusses his book front burner recounting the events around october 2000 attack in yemen. tonight at 8:00 on the campus of dartmouth college and help supply the calvin coolidge foundation former governor howard dean along with a panel of economists discussed would advise president coolidge might offer to the two candidates now running for president. >> returning now to the aspen institute security forum in colorado last month. next up, a panel of national

security officials for bush and the obama administration talk about the role of the white house in counterterrorism and national security. [inaudible conversations] >> all right, everyone. we're going to get started now.t this next panel will focus on the white house role in counterterrorism. mo moderating his michael crowley. michael is a senior correspondent for time. writes e obama administration and national security issues. he wrote about foreign-policy for the new republic. he has also written for new york magazine, gq, slate, and the new york times magazine. his major articles in recent years have included profile of a white house counter-terrorism chief john brennan, former defense secretary robert gates, and efforts to combat the risk

of nuclear terrorism. michael. >> thank you. i am going to briefly introduce our panelists. ken to my left spent two tickets in federal law enforcement and homeland security, including general counsel to the fbi and chief of staff to robert mona. as the united states attorney and that the first assistant attorney general for national security. he became homeland security adviser to george bush in 2008. juan was that the assistant to the president for combating terrorism from 2005 until 2009. he served as assistant secretary of treasury for terrorist financing and financial crimes where he led the global hunt for saddam hussein's assets. quinten is one of the country's top experts on muslim communities, and radicalization. he has been senior director for community partnerships on the white house's national security

staff, focus on building partnerships between the federal government and local communities, including partnerships to counter violent extremism. he served at the white house's senior director for global engagement. he said it is lyme -- islan in cairo. ken, why don't i start with you? an open-ended question. we talked in the last couple of days about so many different parts of the federal government with responsibilities for counter-terrorism. the white house is the hub of the wheel. have you ordinate and absorb the information -- how do you coordinate and absorb the information and action? can you talk about the managerial challenge of that in your role? what is the best role for the

white house that straddles the balance between being overwhelmed by all the external apparatus but also not micromanaging it at the same time? >> good question. it brings the discussion we are going to have here today. in terms of the best balance, i think we explore that three different situations. we will go through various unbearable to get to what we think is the best balance. the issue that our parliament is made of a number of different departments and agencies, -- that our government is made up of a number of different departments and agencies. in counter-terrorism, it depends on contributions from each of these departments and agencies. how does the white house which ultimately has to make the critical decisions get that input, get the consensus among

the cabinet officers and translate that into decisions? and operational policy? in terms of policy, the concept put it into place when i was -- in 1947 when you have a council comprised of cabinet officers to get together and make basil -- and make recommendations to the president. that functions right -- quite well. the question is how does that concept work when you have operational decisions that need be made? and decisions that need minute by minute decision making? they have to be made at the highest law will by the president. that is the gray area. that is with the balance constantly need to do recalibrate it.

-- that is where the balance is and it compton the need to be read calibrated. -- and it constantly needs to be recalibrated. there are a variety of considerations that go into that. you do not want to nuclear terror -- cabinet officers -- want to neuter your cabinet officers. counter-terrorism is one of the primary concerns of the country. the president needs to take an active role and the critical decisions about policy and operations. he needs to be at the table. that is the cost of balance. the short answer is there are some decisions, like the osama bin laden rate. you need a president to say go. other decisions are lower down

and you have to decide case by case. >> do you have a sense of how the obama administration is handling that talented not drawing the president in too deeply but making sure he is there at the right time for the key decisions? >> i can speak from my experience and give an assessment of what i am doing. i think ken has it right. there is an inherent dynamic tension within the white house between the classic role which is to set strategy and policy and ensure coordination among all the elements of the government that have a role and then the flip side which is how deeply do you get involved in operations? that is the balance that is constantly being drawn on each and every case. no cases like another. the ubl rate and now the famous photo with all the principles facing the screen watching is emblematic of the fact that that

was essentially driven this is in making process -- decision making process. it is the quintessential white house involvement in the case. we were going through a strategic stretch review and a core element of that review for two years was not just what will our strategy be and how the we do with the ideology but who was in charge? i remember secretary rums felt coming to the meeting saying on whom depend the robe? who is in charge of counter terrorism. the complicated issues the government has to deal with that affect multiple departments, the answer is the president. it is only at the white house that diplomatic authority sets.

law enforcement authorities said. intelligence collection. in a way, it is not an easy answer because it creates a dynamic tension of whether the white house becomes operational. it is inherent in this complicated issues. it is not just the work of the fbi but health and human services. it is only at the white house record intact. >> give us a one minute summary of what it is you do. a lot of people might not be familiar with it. the macon talk about how it fits into the larger picture here. >> be set at a new office at the white house and is to help the department effectively collaborate with the private sector has decided.

and the tools and capabilities that lie outside the government. dealing with complex issues, we need to make sure we are working across sectors leveraging the expertise in a collaborative way to maximize the impact. to those inside and outside government, it is not easy to read we have all sorts of rules and regulations that could make a very challenging. our job right now is to make sure we start to move those obstacles. we apply that partnership model to include human trafficking encountering violent extremism. it might be interesting to talk about how -- what this tells us about thinking about counter- terrorism, particularly at the

white house. this is a field that took a while to get off the ground. can you talk about how it has matured over the past few years and what it says about long-term thinking about what counter- terrorism is at the white house? >> juan and i worked together. it would be interesting to hear his view on this but for me, post 9/11, it was a lot of data gathering and trying to connect the dots and figure out the threat. it was a bit on the preventative side, figure out how we stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place. at the burial push on that happened after 7/7, the attacks on the transit system in london. the president have a visceral reaction of what is happened?

we had a couple individuals who were to drinking citizens of the u.k. who just killed their fellow citizens. on the analytic side, that is when programs in terms of assessing how people are radicalize to place, how you build programs to counter violent extremism been over the last five to 12 years, that has become programming into actual action. >> i know someone who was talked a lot about the muslim community, john brennan. he puts a high priority on it. he is the white house counter- terrorism adviser. i thought we might talk about what that job looks like right now and what he is doing. what strikes me in looking at how the white house operates

right now is his extreme close to the president. not just physical proximity. but it is clearly have a great relationship. the president has a lot of trust in him. he also has a broad portfolio which began talks about. can he talk about how that role has evolved and how you see it working right now and whether it is working well? >> those positions, adviser to the president's, national security adviser, their role evolved and changes depending on the person and situation and what the president wants. kissinger and nixon driving form policy for a number of years when he was national security adviser. john has earned the trust.

he is a true professional. 30 years in the intelligence committee. the man has tremendous experience on intelligence matters and counter-terrorism matters. he is the driver for those issues. the question is can he -- you have not only counter-terrorism but you also have homeland security. port security, pandemic flu and critical infrastructure protection at all of these issues that relate to hardening of the homeland and protecting against threats, but the man made a natural, that is an area of intense focus since 9/11 and katrina. that portfolio is under john. when we were in palce, the

president established the homeland security council adviser and our staff. that's exist as a matter of law but john -- you have all that in the same staff as those focusing on foreign policy in africa and that kind of thing. that made sense because of the overlap between the homeland security adviser in national security advisers paul -- portfolio. the way we handled it -- juan vo me.eported to hadley and they all for that for good reason. but it means john is handling the whole raft of issues, all of which are critical. when hurricane happens, you have to drop everything to deal with that. that is tough for one person. >> is it too much? >> in some ways it is.

it is too much for one person. ken have to do with it before him. these are here. he has gained so much prominence that he has to be careful i think the white house in general, goes back to the tension, has to be careful about the white house become the center of everything. the white house being the center of operations, center of diplomacy on these issues. we just saw for example, john standing next to people caringex official. now as result of their investigation into what's the purportedly the hezbollah iran attacks on the bus that killed the citizens. that's a challenge because citiz. and that's a challenge, because

john is incredibly effective, and having a white house engaged is important. but it has the character to what ken mentioned earlier, to diminish others in the government. because if you have foreign officials knows it's the white house that makes the decision. only the white house that they deal with, and there is a real tough balance there. you want to be effective. you want to be out there and working well with the president, and for the president. but the reality is you have to balance that with not to being too operational and too in the entirety of the government. >> right, and there is an upside and john is a de facto to yemen, he's visited the country eight times. and for a region where the overwhelm top issue is

counterterrorism and to have someone take that lead role. >> couldn't agree more and john worked with the yemen and working with saudi arabia, and we did a lot of work on counterterrorism financing. and she helped lead and was the voice for president bush. you are right and in regimes and countries that are used of high-level head of state, head of state communication to get it done that, is effective. it starts to be problematic if it's a pervasive situation that it works. that's a challenge that the white house will have. >> quintan, can you talk about an effective system, and have you seen a relationship get stronger as they have been through crises together?

can you offer reflection from the inside of that. >> i do, and john is absolutely amazing, and i don't say that just because i work with him. and i emphasize that john doesn't operate alone. he's brought in amazing senior directors across components of the national security staff to help him think through the various issues. and john is the first to point to people and give them the credit. they are amazing patriots and specialists on the wealth of issues that john covers. >> and on the issue that you work on, as i mentioned, it seems he's put a public emphasis on that. do you feel he gets it? and do you feel like you have real ability to do what you need to do as a result of that? >> john, again, he's had so much

experience on not just al-qaeda related issues and the middle east. speaks arabic, and when he speaks to muslim audiences, he creates that empathetic link with the islamic. and for me to drive the counterterrorism agenda, it's useful to have someone that is incredible efficiency in the topic. you don't have to worry about getting them up to speed. it's about pushing the envelope and getting the programs running. >> yeah, i remember in the interview and going to the desert and going to the tents and roasting goats and sing songs all night. he knows the culture of the region, and that must be a real

asset. the president is clearly the most interesting figure here. and we should talk about the presidential role in counterterrorism. it seems from the outside to have been growing and growing. and in particular the first thing that comes to mind is the discussion is president obama's role in what is called the killist. approving specific targets for drone strikes. and use that as a case study and to talk about how engaged the president should be. and some say maybe too much involvement. that we might not want the president to take that level. start on a more general level, talk about the way that the systems reach the president's desk. is it a good system now? do you guys have a sense that

other windows of government and he's not asked to make too many decisions too frequently. do you think it's working well at this moment? >> i will start with that one, and like the relationship with the security advisor, it develops with that role. after 9/11, president bush was his declarian call to the country and to prevent the next 9/11. he poured himself into that and had a briefing every morning. and the director of the f.b.i. in his office for four or five years. and that was because he was informed about the threat and what we were doing to meet that threat and what is bubbling at

that time. and he did to enforce action, he knew when the attorney general came back and told people that president is on this issue and this threat, that, that forced action. and recognized it was important in the years after 9/11 trying to rebuild this infrastructure. and we are doing better against al-qaeda than back then. the point is there is different agendas than the one making the decision. and the same token, you want the president to make that decision. as for covert action. he's got to make that decision. you don't want the president to make that decision and get counterterrorism 101 before that. you want them sitting in the room with officials on a regular

basis, and observing this to have contacts making these decisions. i was glad to hear what matt olsen was talking about with the weekly meetings. it's very important for the president to be fully up to speed and engaged to make these decisions. >> what was your reaction to the stories like it, such bracing some less for the officials in this room but for average americans embracing involvement in the life and death situations. >> i won't speak to the specifics of the story but ken highlights the situation. there is a danger of having a white house or president serving as the final arbritor on all key

decisions. but it becomes rutinized that the president is using the authority through the cabinet and legislation to the relevant chain of command. the military to the chain of defense has the ability to execute certain targets. and cia has the authority to delegate to the president. and so on down the line to the cabinet. there is something healthy about delegating the standard dimensions of operation. and the concentration for the house to ensure not only is that being done well, but what gets to the president is what needs to get to the president. but you are not overwhelming the president with day-to-day

decisions. one thing that should be added to the tension and not forgotten is the political tension around the decisions. each and every decision revolves around counterterrorism could be relevant or explosive. depending if the operation doesn't go well or an oversight. and that's a tendency for the white house to pull the decision up to be careful of how it's executed. and part of political pressure and media tension and the white house has to resist that temptation. to suck everything in and make all the decisions. >> right and as we saw in the case, the circumstances of the interrogation became very politically explosive for weeks. >> exactly. >> and there was some evidence in polling that it played a role

in scott brown's victory in massachusetts. in that special election there was a concern about terrorism that people contributed to that. that was an excellent point. >> can i comment on that, there was the discussion in the agencies of what to do. but a bit failure not to have the policies and procedures in place and understood beforehand. so when you captured this guy and he entered. it wasn't just business as usual. everyone understood what their responsibilities what needed to be kicked up to the staff or the president. i attribute that to less than perfect stratigizing on the front end as what a terrorism

that arrive on the shore. >> don't forget the element of leadership, and it's important for the bureaucracy of those seeking the counterterrorism, he will make the tough decisions. he's strong. that's the laden decision, and knew he had that decision. because the president was decisive. and that image of a decisive leader that, is willing to take the tough decisions and that prevades the bureaucracy. and sends a strong message and encourages people to have an opinion. >> that's a good point. >> i won't ask you to assist to the target list of the president. and clear you don't want to go there. and having mentioned about drones and your perspective on

the drone campaign and the counterterrorism operation generally. and what the blow-back effect we may see. and how does that affect your work particularly in the issue of drones. and we may have seen in the cases and the drone campaign was cited as a factor to kill americans. our drones a significant problem when it comes to the challenge of counter radicalization? how much do you think about that? how much do you think about that? >> al-qaeda is looking to tap into anger against the united states. they will take absolutely any issue that they think plays into a narrative of war with islam. and whether this issue or someone that effects another area. they are trying to wrap it up.

and when al-qaeda is trying to radicalize and these issues, sometimes they are making stuff up. and not always a political issue they are going after. and in 2002 it was open and in london and u.k., there was a group outside of tubestop and they were handing out pamphlets of images of babies that were dead. it would make you sick to your stomach, and on the top it read, this is what americans are doing in iraq. i looked at the images and obviously the americans were not doing this in iraq. and i asked where this coming from, it was images of the chemical attack of osama bin

laden by the kurks. and they are creative of pulling these issues and threading them into that single narrative. >> sigh -- i think i want to come back to the topic you raised of the president's public role. i know you are not communication professionals per se. but there was a really interesting conversation in one of the panels yesterday about the question of resilience. and the psychology of the country. whether americans are still fully braced for what is likely to come. we had a fairly fortunate reign in the last years, but we know we will get hit again. have you thought about the evolution of the way that the two presidents since 9/11 have

talked about successful terr terrorism attacks. and what the white balance is? whether we found it? whether we are still working towards it? what is appropriate and what is not being said that needs to be said. ken, you want to try that. >> yeah, if you look at 9/11, and first you had president bush and his message was one of clarity and strength. we will stand up to the bad guys and find them and bring justice to them. and that was appropriate for the time. the american people were reeling after seeing 3,000 of our country people killed. and iconic buildings before our eyes. and we wanted strength and resolve. and with a lot of values at stake. privacy and security and everything in between. and you can't capture that in a

sound byte. which is what you need to feel the accomplishment of the people. and how much can you say not to defend our partners this way and privacy rights this way. and all you have to do but messaging wise you have to think about that. we have seen the strong messaging right after 9/11. and as time went by, we went past the first years of 9/11 and more talk about the nuances. i think the messaging in this administration is not that different from the last. the president made it clear in his first speech in the archives we are at war with al-qaeda. and their affiliates. so they are taking their gloves off like the bush administration

did messaging wise. >> but the war on terror has largely been retired. >> they are not using that term, and it had its place. but that seemed to suggest to people that were not adversaries but maybe were because of religion. but one of the changes we did see message wise after 9/11 was outreach to the muslim world. and that started after 9/11 when president bush went out and there was a focused effort on that after president obama came in. that helped with the muslim world and with the outreach to the foreign partners in general. and that messaging is important even though the policies have changed that much. >> did you have a reaction that the president didn't come back. he was in hawai'i the day of the

christmas-day bombing, and not making a show of it. didn't come back from vacation and brendon was there with a tie. and in hawai'i and in a full suit. what did you think of that? and again it seems to me there is some effort to lower the temperature a bit in the way we talk about these things. does that make sense? >> i actually like that quite a bit. that the president wasn't jumping because al-qaeda said boo. i think that's very important in preserving the dignity of the presidency and the sense of american power. we are not going to let these terrorists around the world dictate where the president travels. the key thing is that we respond appropriately. i have no qualms with that at all. and i think it's appropriate. and looking back to president

bush's term. he would often say to us, look, it's our job to worry about the worse-case scenarios and the threats. and we started every day reviewing the threats and end the night reviewing the threats. and he said it's not the job of the citizenry but our job, and not to grandize the enemy. or to give them motivation. i will give you one example where there was quite poignant. this was the rescue of the three hostages in columbia. and a daring operation, and i would ask them to put on top of the list to get at the americans and other hostages. the president was central to some of that decision making. but he didn't appear at the airport when the hostages

returned and had a quiet ceremony. and part of that was not to give the fork and the hostage takers the gratitude of knowing the issues and the suffering they caused was reaching the heights of the white house. he did that quietly. and i think that's important. one quick point on resilience. i think it's hard for the president to talk about it, the political costs are so high, look, we are going to get hit. i appreciate secretary talking about this, and that's the kind of conversation that has to come from the ground up. from the ground up you will change the political discourse. and it's the state and local authorities that will have to deal with the fall out and resilience. and to see something and say something, that strategy needs to be evolved down. the mayors and the police chiefs have to be the face of that as

the president or homeland security. >> quintan, how significant is the phrase of what you do. and from the government, when john brendan sends a speech, does that get noticed and trickled down? >> absolutely, i think that the president was the first state of the union speech to speak to the muslim americans. and their role in helping to keep the country safe. their cooperation with law enforcement to disrupt plots in the united states. and taking up ken's point. the shift away from the war on terror, which is this broad n

neblis concept. and that allowed us to focus some of our relationships, in particular with muslim communities around the world on non-terrorist relationships. because it shows we have diverse relationships. and concerned about the same challenges. i think that in turn has given us entry to a lot of conversations we can have about an array of issues that we previously struggled to have. >> the war on terrorism is interesting, it's a good illustration of 9/11. it was a crisis and we reacted strongly. and there is fine-tuning to be done along the way, and that happens over time. and the war on terror is a good

illustration. there was a reason for that term, what do we do to mobilize this, and what happened in world war ii taking on the two greatest powers in the world and destroying them. because there was a war. the war on drugs, take on the drugs. that terminology has force in it. it had real values the years after 9/11. and it can be moderated. it's a good example and why would you use that term. and there was a reason initially and now outlived the usefulness. >> can i be a contrarian on this, i think that the war on terrorism is valuable. and it was a neblish type of

tactic, and not just channeling the power. but saying in the 21st century we can no longer accept the notion that there is legitimacy to terror. that there is any cause that allows a group or individual to allow violence to civilians for whatever purpose. that was driving the war on terror. and one challenge as we think through post-10 years and bin laden and 9/11, what are we battling. but terrorism is still out there and comes in different forms. and raises legal and policy questions. i agree that constraining the language helps. but it does a disservice of what is the future, and what is

relevant for now and beyond. i am not sure that the war on terror works nor that the warra al-qaeda describes it either. >> can you talk about progress, and what we are confronting when you look at counter radic radicalization in this country, and there is concern of lone wolf phenomena that will get worse. do you see signs that make you feel hopeful that we are getting our arms around it? or a random thing to have limited ability to control specific to the work you are doing, give us a sense of how hopeful. hopefully you have an optimistic view of this. >> i think we have made a lot of progress in the last years in particular. speaking back to the issue of

the white house's role and all of this. we were stitching together departments and agencies that each could tackle this from a different perspective. a lot of departments and agencies had not thought about their implications of counterterrorism, such as the extremism. and that is something that the white house helped drive in the partners, that "a," they had a role to play. and that we were not asking them to take their nonsecurity-related programs and securityize them. that was one change on our end. we developed a strategy that was released last august. and a 22-page plan that laid out actions and these are

implemented. and our recognition is that a lot of this work has to be done by communities themselves. radicalization takes place at local levels. we don't see where al-qaeda sends out a message and people come in groves. it tends to be in local locations with community leaders and law enforcement and they have expertise in relationships. and a better capability to work with people on the ground. and another positive sign is watching law enforcement in particular stepping up and taking on this mission in an exceptional way. and our role is how to support them. and in al-qaeda you have increasing mobilization by the muslim community itself. one challenge in europe was a prominent state of the nile that

anything was happening in the communities. and this made it challenging for the governments to figure how to tackle this. if the community is targeted by the recruiters and doesn't feel like any sort of problem. we have seen examples of muslim-american leaders taking on it themselves. and then coming to government, we want your help. it's no longer a process that we are driving this alone from the federal government. we are seeing increasing signs where the community themselves are getting active. and then reaching out to us to work with you in a manner. >> that is encouraging. one topic we can spend the entire panel on. and i want to touch on it briefly. juan, it seems that the white house is kind of muttling through the legal authority for

the counterterrorism action now. jane harmon said, and i hope i am quoting her correctly. that the authorization of military force past 9/11 is the basis for what we are doing. and for term is that is short term framework. and now expanded across the world in north africa and has a relationship to the original text. the white house is trying to struggle with this. can you talk about that challenge, and do you think it's time for congress to provide explicit guidance? >> jane is right here. >> did i get it right? >> michael, it's a great question, the debate about whether or not you need authorization to update is

important. the 2001 program is the christmas tree that we dangle all the things we do for the war on terror. the right of self-defense to retain and interrogate and to target our killers. but that was a document that was driven by 9/11. it was a reaction to 9/11, and the perpetrators of 9/11 and al-qaeda. and it's long overdue beyond the lens of al-qaeda. but an open-odds debate about what is our contention policy for the long term. they have asked for a tribunal for a head. and that's a serious question, do we target this to these

leaders, and perhaps we should. but we haven't had that debate. the changing nature of the threat itself, you have a different al-qaeda. and hesbollah and the debate. i would challenge the president in may, 2009, pledged to go to congress to deal with long term terrorism. it hasn't happened. the responsibility on the hill to do this? i think realistically it won't happen this term. but it's a serious debate of what we are facing and the threats. >> there is a panel tomorrow that looks at the legal issues. people can dive deeper then. why don't we take some

questions. >> richard from the united nations. very interested to hear about the country's extremism initiatives. so many things you can do in so many parts of the world. how do you set your priorities and measure the impact? >> that's a really good question, and there has been an evolution in the way we approached this issue. in the early days when we started working on count counterterrorism and it was regional and counter messaging. and some problematics of development and other capabilities and tools. but over time we realized that the threat of violent radicalizati radicalization, we saw hot-spots

where you had people engaged in recruit amement and he had a wi known case with people going into spain and to fight into iraq. >> and eastern libya. >> eastern libya as well. the advantage for us, we have moved to a much more surgical nuance approach. once we identity a hot-spot radicalization, we move to that community. we understand who are the key motivators and the violators and the radicalization that appears. and those leading where they are able to plan whole government resources to target those specific locations. with just about every tool that we have. it's no longer one intelligence

agency doing it. it's state department with doe and department of education appropriate, and what we are finding now is that the impact is more robust. when you focus on a much tighter area, it's easier to know your impact and to control for other factors that may have something do with the radicalization process. >> josh from the national security initiative. it seems with drone strikes and more military emphasis on the war on terrorism, still years after 9/11, one that we are missing is an international law component. i think there is frustration

with law enforcement and there is no mechanism overseas for arresting terrorists through the law enforcement community. i wondered what you thought about that. and part of obama's signing of t the radicalization act. >> i would disagree, and we have fought in iraq. but i would disagree. i think that if sean joyce were back in here from the f.b.i., he would talk about the robust international relationships they have built. and not just the f.b.i. but the department of homeland security are not just relationships but posted abroad. the idea of pushing borders out have lead to key ports of exit and entry. so i don't agree. and you see what is interesting

of the threats and tied with west africa. and the al-qaeda group tied to drug trafficking. you have agencies like the dea getting involved internationally. and if you look, and josh you know this, over the past two years dea has done remarkable work in bringing justice in new york taliban traffickers, luring them out of new york and other places. and including victor booth. i would disagree with the premise, i think there is robust information sharing. how you deal with long-term information for dangerous terrorists. for whom you don't have evidence in any court, that's the real

co co condundrum and the problem of the administration of dealing with these long-term threats. >> hi, david, i worked with ken and juan in the bush white house. there are many issues that are urgent. some of them are very important. some of them are not important at all in the grand scheme of things. but those nonimportant, urgent issues can assume an enormous amount of staff time and energy. ken and juan, as you look back on your time, what encouragement do you have to members the government to maximize and being strategic. and focusing on what really matters and not getting

distracted from the overall ability to serve the president and the american people effectively. thank you. >> you put your finger on an interesting point, because you lived it and saw it. david is homeland security council, everything of homeland security came through him. and someone to calibrate as a bureaucratic anywhere. you are trying to calibrate of the urgent things that you have to deal with then and there. and there are long-term strategic problems that need to be made. and the danger is those get drowned out because you are dealing with the fires. and the second issue, this is where you are going, dave, you do the bureaucratic churn. and i think of a couple of examples. for instance, dealing with the bio-threat. in the bush administration we spent a lot of time to deal with

the bio-threat of weapons of mass destruction. it was a real concern. the graham mission has banged that drum. because we were not prepared to deal with that. and because it wasn't intermediate and nothing on the horiz horizon, it took a while to get that action. if there is one answer and as security advisory or president, you make sure you have good people around you. because that security advisor will get pulled away on the crisis de jure, and you need someone to mind the shop. >> real quickly. >> i think trust in the

professionals in the departments and agencies who are charged with the issues that are critical. there is another example, it's a category of activities that you are not sure if it's important until you run it through. and the white house can't ignore it. the best example is one i was personally involved in, october 2005. and a detector goes off, and the problem was that the department of energy had just put in the monitor. we didn't have the full system in place. we didn't have the cameras or the tracking system, and didn't know what the heck caused it. and for two weeks straight out of the white house, we were coordinating the efforts of the infrastructure to figure out what caused that alarm. we had riddled it down to 17 ships and five ships and two of them were headed to new york. we had no idea what was on it,

and no idea if it was real or not. and at the end of the day it was scrap metal. but we didn't know until we boarded all ships and it took two weeks of our time nonstop. >> quickly. >> as a vietnam vet, going back to a president picking targets, everyone is familiar with president johnson picking targets in vietnam. now the critique is that he missed the big picture. and now we have president obama picking targets in satir and spending time on kill lists. and no surge put forward by the administration, it had a military surge. but not political surge to bring

this watch to a reasonable conclusion. do you have comments on president obama's involvement in the kill list? >> i don't know about his involvement or noninvolvement on the kill list. but to your point what is the administration doing to try to bring this war to an end. by use of drone attacks they are having that impact. because of everything that has been done since 9/11 and including the drones recently. >> and one closing thought on the future of counterterrorism, do did you feel there is an increasing side of your work, the nonconetic side of it. is that more of the future of this field? >> i hope so, i think it's tied through the success of the mechanisms and the means. and back to a point that juan was imitating.

and the sides is important of the groups we aare facing domestically and abroad is prone to change. if you talk to the law enforcements about the extremism types that are concerned about. it's violent supremacy groups and targeting law enforcement. we try to make sure that it's a broad approach to different threats. >> tha

poster by the council to which

i actually think however revenue is in a fiscal clefts and everybody in washington but i tell you why. there's no chance reared in to go back to the clinton tax rates unless we do that and we need to go back to the clinton tax rates. secondly, there's no chance you're going to cut the defense budget unless we do that and we need to cut the defense budget. it hasn't really been cut in 30 years. yet there are going to be painful things for those of some progress of sight in the recession according to the congressional budget office is a non-partisan people in the country to get the budget. and we will see a 1.3% decline for the two consecutive quarters and then 2.3% increase over the year is a very tough price. it's going to be an agreement in washington these are -- we need

to do these things. we cannot go on with the kind of deficits we have. people have been saying that since the collision was put together. it was a long time ago with the exception of bill clinton and gore's regime got worse and worse and worse. we cannot afford. the reason i was running the state are adopted all fiscal changes and all these others environmental is because we had a stable but and these were not treated as a time expenditures they're going to go with magically and when we raise the expense is the taxes and expenses and we also laid a framework for a gradual expansion to the role of things that i thought needed to be done particularly for the children. you can't do that if you don't care where the money comes from. you can only do that if you have a base of the fiscal responsibility to pay attention so that when you do these things the programs are sustainable.

i think that's important and we cannot continue to run these kind of deficits and i don't think anything is when to get some of the car running this agreement because i don't blame the democrats for this. they are not going to continue and there is a tax break while we are cutting social security and medicare. >> held a discussion tuesday on the defense department role in domestic disasters. panelists and putting the defense department's assistant secretary for homeland defense paul stockton talks about how the department authorities and law enforcement and emergencies ranging from hurricane response to wildfires and other disasters. >> good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation and the louis linen auditorium. we of course welcome those the join us on all of these occasions on the heritage

website. we are pleased to welcome those also joining us over c-span this year. we would ask everyone in house to make sure that your cell phone seven turned off as we prepare to begin for everyone's benefit if course we will post the program on the heritage website within 24 hours for your future reference. our internet viewers are always welcome to send questions or comments throughout the proceedings. simply e-mail us at speaker@heritage.org. hosting our discussion today is stephen focusing on several security as well as defense support to civil authorities. he served america for three decades as an army special forces officer and top pentagon officials. has led a special forces and deployments to eastern africa, asia and the persian gulf. he also assumed duty is military

assistance to the secretary donald rumsfeld and worked daily with the secretary for five and a half years. upon retirement for the army, continued as the pentagon as the deputy assistant secretary of defense, homeland defense and america's security affairs. prior to joining us here at heritage, he was the lead consultant to ibm on cybersecurity policy. please try me in welcoming my colleague. steve? [applause] >> i want to thank everyone for being here on a rainy day in washington, and to discuss the cherry topics of when the next catastrophe strikes. unfortunately, we always face that. there is always going to be in next event that is going to occur and the only thing we can do is to see how well we are prepared to address that. we have three speakers this morning who actually are an

ideal route to make that discussion real for all of us. this is by the way the first of the events we have this week for our homeland security 2012 week and this is an excellent vehicle to kickoff that series of panels. the speakers are going to speak for about ten minutes apiece and reorder we are great start with admiral johnson and then go to assistant secretary stockton and then last wrap up with jim carroll vana to -- garrifano. i'm going to turn them loose and of the serbs to go over the ten minutes i will jump up to the podium and they will realize that something is afoot. otherwise i will just stay in my seat and enjoy their comments along with everyone else. normally when you do these it gets tough to introduce people but with this particular group, it's actually pretty easy for me

to make it beginning with vice admiral harvey johnson, jr., the the cut. admiral johnson is one of my heroes to be honest with you. he spent 35 years in the united states coast guard these are kind of some of my favorites. they are some amazing people to work with because they are so oriented on getting the job done. admiral johnson is a beautiful example of that. in addition to his 35 years in the postcard he spent three very busy years as a deputy administrator and chief operation officer of fema, and i like to say he is one of the people that put the m management back into fema mant kim to disasters because he did actually do that and i know that because i was usually on the other side of a dtc on wildfires figuring out how at that point

the dod was going to support his efforts. in addition to doing that, admiral johnson has been the commander of the post to the coastguard, the assistant commandant for operations capability and the assistant commandant for operational plans and policy. he's kind of a go to and he did that for many years. he is presently working as a vice president for the systems but when we invited him to this event he told me he thoroughly enjoys his job in the private sector right now. he's actually very excited to come back to have a discussion about something that he poured so much of his life into which is supporting this country when it is at rest. next, we will have the man responsible right now for these things for the part of defense the honorable paul stockton who is the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, and america's said security

affairs. he owns our hemisphere for the department of defense and in that role he is responsible for all homeland defense activities for dod which includes defense critical infrastructure program, defense support of civil authorities, domestic crisis management and then he deals with all of the countries in the western hemisphere from a policy standpoint. he established his bonus season this area by working out at the naval postgraduate school for a long time. i was the benefit of the program that he established out there. i got to go out and teach several times, and it is a -- it said so standard for homeland security education in our country and it is catered to the chiefs of police, chiefs of fire departments and the people on

the ground of dealing with those issues every day, and it is quite a wonderful program and frankly, they still talk very fondly about you during your time as the director of that program. assistant secretary stockton is also a co-editor of homeland security, graduate taxed in the subject and is on the editorial review board of homeland security affairs and quarterly journal, and she is the guy in the seat today from the department of defense dealing with these issues and then lastly we will wrap up with my boss and also might was made from the united states military academy, dr. jim garifano, the acting director of the katherine and shelby davis institute for international studies. he is a career army officer who ended his career, wrapped up his career, didn't in did come he was doing pretty well actually.

as a speechwriter for the chief of staff for the army and was also the executive editor for the joint forces quarterly. he teaches pretty regularly and is one of the most energetic thinkers that i've ever had the opportunity to work with. you get e-mails from the all every day of the weekend and tell them have you seen this? she is an ideal guide to wrap up the formal part of the presentations because his breath of thought is quite wide. with that i'm going to ask admiral johnson to begin and go ten minutes apiece with each of them and then to q&a and when we get to the q&a if i don't hear a question at the end of a second sentence i'm going to ask you to stop because we have a bunch of folks here and we will start right now. admiral?

let me start from an operational perspective as we pull levers of power and policy in washington, d.c.. many of whom would never have expected they would be the recipient of federal emergency support. on tuesday september 1st 2008, hurricane gustav, the first large one since hurricane katrina was had it right to new orleans. it was almost a replicate of katrina. category four, 170 miles to new orleans. if you recall that the biggest element of the sastre goes as no evin recusation evacuation and a very active with governor jim ball the ghost town before hurricane gustav i arrived and it didn't happen for several tell you did to people evacuated

but there are always some that need a firm of assistance to the for 35,000 people that needed some form of assistance to get out of new orleans. 5,000 of those were evacuated by air and went to cities and knocks the wind louisville kentucky, little rock arkansas and, the world could we bring in a fare plans into the airport and new orleans and get those people on their way? it was only done by trans, and they did an amazing job of coordinating with the airlines to find the excess aircraft that were not really available as the economy turned tight the number of aircraft on the ground to the commercial aircraft waiting for the assignment is almost zero. no one could have pulled that off other than trans comm. at the other end of the state, it's more difficult to evacuate by ambulance there were about 66 patients who were critical care. fees for doctors making life-and-death decisions save their life or might they die by the process of the speculation.

i remember being on the phone with the general webster at north, plugged into a commander on the deck in louisiana passed the point in which the wind should be here raised about a level which the aircraft should have taken off 30 minutes before waiting for the last ambulance to arrive so when they were met by critical care air transport teams, ten of the teams over three different aircraft evacuated over 66 small number one of the 66 survived by the way, but transport out of louisiana and transport fact. very likely could have died had they stayed in that hospital and lost power and care for an extended period of time. just 12 days later, this is quite a hurricane season and we ought to hurricane ike and hannah before a category four storm was headed right for the channel. talk about a complex task murphy

to the catastrophe. had that picked the track and gone right up the houston ship channel with all the refineries along the ship channel that could have had devastating effects on our entire economy. that hurricane jogged to the right, and what they did, the aftereffects destroyed galveston island for the second time in the last 100 years. it was almost inaccessible, and where there was little management of evacuation and return in louisiana for hurricane gustav, they were really honest like light on rice in terms of galveston keeping people off the island. the government was just about decimated of the st. louis hotel and accessible to the island, and when overall are we going to take the first steps to recover the island? well, fortunately, in our discussions the uss, a class into the assault ship departed hampton road under the prospect

of the hurricane would strike the galveston island. on the 18th of september, the mayor arrived back in galveston aboard the road and basically on to nassau and then they came in with two doctors with three, thousand sailors and marines, and it provided medical care, 17,000 bales and they were credited with reopening the airport and opening the court which they had done their job they departed but the recovery would have been extended for an enormous number of days had they not been able to get the airport for which others were delivered. those are examples within 12 days of each other that took a long time to coordinate. it was through learning lessons through hurricane katrina we were able to engage policy formulation and engage leaders. the general out in the north

calm since the secretary mikhail both secretaries involved in securing chertoff, and number of players it wasn't like on the first of september. it's months and years in advance of that to plan the policies to do the exercises to develop the key devotee gaps and resources to respond to those types of disasters. there were mission assignments but for the assignments took weeks to conclude we had 26 restricted mission assignments default after katrina where we had already gone through the dhs and the dod policy approval system so that in fact forces could be activated much more quickly. we've been out in the quarter before we started. the american public has begun to expect overwhelming force delivered almost instantaneously. and of course physics won't allow that for all the activase and of the referred to the reserve forces class should from hampton to galveston to activate

the air rescue teams but absent a short amount of time we were able to put forces in place very, very quickly. from my perspective there is a natural disaster or some complex catastrophe that we've talked about in a couple of minutes, the nation relies on the dod support of dhs. they have a huge check but not with operational capabilities and the disaster approaches the country either instantly or through a plan sunday is of a notice is an expectation we can reach across to the pentagon and find those forces in place. there are no other agencies and the government like the dhs and dod who do any sort of low probability high consequence planning. no one else takes a look at what the stereo's might be or allocate the resources that could respond to the disaster. we are actually exercising the plans and learn lessons and tighten up those plans.

no other capital in the government exists to do that. no one has a level of readiness that we see coming in the dhs and its components and in dod everyone can talk a good game but when the rubber hits the road it comes back to very few agencies capable of actually responding. my view any dimunation of capabilities of a chilling effect on the national preparedness to respond to these types of disasters. reductions in the forces will raise the choices as now how do we respond? weld dod response? i'm sure they will. but what kind of time deily? what kind of capacities and how can we be? i'm quite concerned to see the sequestration and other events that might hamper the capability that we've come to expect from the department of defense and dhs. thank you. >> mr. secretary? >> first things to heritage for hosting this important discussion. thanks to my colleagues to the table for your service to the

nation and uniform and thanks to all the women and men serving abroad and at home on the front lines to preserve the nation's security. i want to talk to you about the understanding we have now of the problem set. what would constitute a complex catastrophe building on your argument here? i got a big wake-up call thanks to fema in the national level 11 exercise. as some of you know, that exercise was built around a scenario of a 7.7 seismic event, an earthquake occurring on the new madrid fault along the mississippi river just as occurred in 1812, and just as it could occur any moment today. that scenario would have produced destruction on a scale but differ from hurricane katrina into important

dimensions. first of all on a quantitative scale, it would have many, many more casualties. over a much wider geographical area and occurred even in the terrible catastrophe of hurricane katrina. so, in a quantitative scale much greater devastation. but there is a second dimension and i believe it is even more important, and that this the qualitative difference between hurricane katrina and the national 11 exercise. in the department of energy and other partners of ours determined that a seismic event of that scale produced a long-term loss of power, long term loss of electric power from weeks to months over a multistate region. hurricane katrina much less disruptive in that regard. in le in the unimagined the cascading the infrastructure build flow from the loss of

electric power over a multistate region for weeks to months to the gas stations are not going to work because every gas pump guns on electricity. water has got to be in short supply coming into the aquifer is 300 feet below the surface of the city. electricity brings back bad water so citizens can drink it and so firefighters have progressed water to put out their reaching durbin wild fires that would be creating conflagration in the city of memphis. we would have a situation here that looked much more challenging even than the terrible tragedy of hurricane katrina. that is the problem we are looking at. and jim, let me thank you for the strong analysis that you've provided. looking at also the lessons learned from fukushima de retial de converter that we might have to operate and the additional difficulties the would provide

for providing defense support for the civil authorities. the dod is always going to be in support of civil authorities in these kind of activities. the big challenge is how can we be better positioned to do so. there are activities we have under way to strengthen that preparedness both under the leadership of secretary defense leon panetta. the first i would like to talk about is getting ready for the devastating effect of such an event before it occurs and building resilience against it. especially in this realm of failing critical infrastructure because of course in the lne 11 and other areas we can imagine putting a cyberattack that took down the functioning of the electric power grid or a solar event, any deal would create this large scale cascading skill of infrastructure our responsibility in the department of defense is to ensure that we can still execute the core

missions of the department of the president of science to us even if critical infrastructure goes down that we don't know it is owned by the private sector. the challenge that we have is assuring the measure measurements in the department of defense. we have a new strategy to do so takes into account the need to build resilience not only within the dod installations and facilities, critical to executing our fighting missions, but also understanding that the dod ultimately depends on all of the private sector critical infrastructure that allows the defense industrial base to function that allows our work force that lives largely outside of the perimeter of the basis to get to work to serve the nation we need to not only to continue to strengthen the mission as rinse inside of the facilities but look far beyond those facilities, and partner together

with dhs, the department of energy, all of the lead federal agencies, and especially partner with industry to build resilience in the electric power grid and prepare against bill resilience against the cascading dillinger of critical infrastructure bill would undermine the devotee, the responsibility that we have in the department of defense to be able to execute our core missions no matter what. second initiatives that we have under way is, steve, as you pointed out, it's not a question of if a complex catastrophe is right to strike. the question is when. we need to continue to improve our business practices and capacity to provide support to civil authorities when the call comes. as you so readily defined as a core responsibility in the department to provide support for the civil authorities when we get the request.

that's a commitment that we take very, very seriously as you know. secretary leon panetta recently approved an initiative of the complex catastrophe that is going to enable us to bring all dod capabilities to bear in support of civil authorities. from all components of the total force so that we can be faster and more effective in meeting the life-saving and sustaining requirements that we are going to get from fema or whatever federal agencies giving us those requirements. in the past we haven't been able to utilize the title tin reserves even though they have terrific engineering and medical capabilities. we haven't done enough to imagine how the skills of our regular infantry personnel might be double to apply and extremists at a time when american lives are at stake.

we have a broad range of initiatives that northern command and the pacific command are going to be leaving now to figure out how to better take advantage of the total force to save lives when a complex catastrophe to the coup de tester de strikes. we are looking to all of you for assistance in this effort. we are reaching out of course to fema and all of our partners because we will always be in support, but again to be able to prepare to gather under fema's leadership with industry, with faith based organizations and other ngos, with everybody who is going to be a will to partner together to save lives let's figure out how to continue to improve that today so that when the inevitable happens we would be better prepared. thank you. saxby for mr. secretary. >> so, i think a really legitimate question is why are we talking about this? i don't naturally anybody else in washington or almost anywhere in the country that is

discussing this and we couldn't think of a clever way to type in the olympics, but ironically the review actually were paying attention to the news, they're has been lots of news this summer that would say this is something we ought to be talking about people in india lost power which i hope there's nobody in india watching it is not a big deal because most large swaths of the population were heavily dependent upon electricity and the use of power outages and people with generators go without already 600 million the head of - 600 million people than convenient. if we had an outage on that scale in the united states the population is 300 million would be an absolute complete catastrophe because we are unlike the population is completely and totally dependent on an electrical power so the

irony is when you think about large complex catastrophes that modern societies with all these interlocking systems and technologies would be much more fragile and much more at risk and a large scale catastrophes than society's ladder actually for lack of a better term more basic. so ironically that isn't what the evidence shows. the studies i've looked at a technologically sophisticated or highly what we call developed countries are actually more resilient. why is that? is because they are still left and we have these enormous capacities they actually do we ground much more quickly in many ways it is in many ways from what did by the reports that we did looking at the responsive disaster in japan if which you

scaled that back to the united states would really be something much bigger than katrina the nuclear incident almost simultaneously. and japan actually did pretty resilient. so, when you have deprivation or large-scale failure in a highly developed society, it really is your fault. because the capacity is there to recover and what we saw in katrina and i think in many ways in the shortfalls of the japanese response it is the failure to use the capacity that you have in an efficient and effective manner that makes a difference. >> and that's where the subject becomes a thing so vitally important because the military capacity that you can bring in three large steel complex contingency makes the difference in terms of efficiency in the speed of recovery.

in many cases he would likely recover the way it would just take longer there to more casualties. to get back in the game faster the military is, of the few things you can throw at the society which actually allows you to ratchet up that much more quickly resolve the japanese defenses were normally important as is the u.s. military assistance that deployed in japan. uzi why is that? in many respects there may be some technical capabilities and dhaka weapons of mass destruction on the ray knowledgeable and chemical issues and even then there is nothing that you couldn't have on a civilian capacity but couldn't bring the same thing to the table. well, when you look at one of the worst things you can do in a disaster that helps survivors, help people find survivors because those people are competitors for food and water

and buildings and everything else. as a communicative york year to help, you have to actually be able to help, and whether you are a state based organization or fema or the coast guard there are three characteristics and there are kind of always the same. one is accountability, which broadly speaking nation wherever the is and who is working for you and be able to control them and have account of the land trust them if they are all going to do right thing. it's a big deal, right? the second one is sustainability. you send somebody in to help you don't want to be taking food away from the survivor to feed the responder. whereas we actually saw in katrina we can't put the survivor in the hotel room because the responders have all of the hotel rooms because they are here to help. so the system is a big issue and then the first kind of reliability. who is paying if somebody gets injured his right to take care of that. so these are things that we've really kind of struggle with when we look at volunteer

response because normally we are always. but one of the great things about the military responders are those are the questions you can pretty much forget about when the military shows up they will have accountability, you know, they are going to sustain themselves. you know, and you don't have to worry about who is free to pay for everything else. this is a package of resources in terms of the capacity and the technical skill that's pretty dependable. now, it's not a panacea for all problems. it's not come again i think we all agree on this it's not the military is right to walk in and take over, but in terms of helping the modern society in order to get a jump-start back to where it was, this is really one of the most important assets you can bring to the table. so, that's why i think it really is a very, very important discussion always to have when we talk about prepare does and resiliency. with that, how about another heritage report. there is a paper that was done to us by paul, actually paul's

predecessor who was the secretary for homeland defense. so, we asked paul to go through and i think that he did a great assessment of evaluating where we are today. he raises some concerns, which i think are valid. he has summer conditions to which i think also very important. but, why i think it is important to have this discussion is exactly where we live in the future is really going to be dependent upon what the defense department's budget is. the lesson from vietnam, there's many lessons from vietnam, but one of them is, you know, regardless of what you think about what we should have done in iraq, what we should do in afghanistan, everybody probably regardless of what side of the debates we are gone, they probably wish that we would have

done the counterinsurgency mission better at the beginning of the front end. well, in large part that didn't happen because after vietnam, when we looked at the declining budgets in the enforcement in the 1970's, having really struggled with learning the counter insurgency in vietnam and figuring out how to do that, you know, we just said we are not going to do that again. and we've urged the experience, the capably to train, all of the learning. and i know that. steve and i were commissioned and that military. so, part of the reason we did that is not just because of the sustained of the vietnam and not wanting to ever do counterinsurgency again. it was because we were going into a hollow force period and the military couldn't do anything so we were going to do the things we thought were really important. and basically, anything that wasn't about fighting in the gatt pretty much fell off the table, right. but the reality was is, you know, the u.s. military is always going to serve its nation, and many different capacities. and, you always want a big swiss

army knife and you can always say i just want to put the blade in the life of the reality is you were going to do these other missions whether you want to or not and if you are not prepared for them, resource, trained and equipped to do then you're going to do them poorly at least until you catch on. .. what's to fall off the table. it was very difficult, and steve can talk about this and paul and

the many missions we very it defense department to get today, this is a core mission as well. even though it was stated in stated in the strategy, stated in all the defense reports, when it comes to the thinged at the end of the day, if there's not enough resources to go around at the end the day, something is going to get cut. if history is any indication, this mission is going to get cut. we're not go to have the robustness we need to do that. you would say how big of a deal is that? i'll end on this. before we got to the current unpleasantness, based -- what do you think about the third infantry division, if you naibt the third infran infantry

division between 1930s we used them about three times. we used them for a year or so in korea. we used part of it for a day and a half in the iraq war. we had the division sitting around many tens of thousands of people for a century and we only use them about three years. nobody said there's not a very good investment. people realize you have the military forces there, when the nation has needs them they need to respond. we can have catastrophic defense forts, we may not use them a lot, when have a complex catastrophe in the country, we want them to get it right the first time. and the price preparedness is maintaining and sustaining those forces when we're not thinking about the problem. not thinking about it when the problem shows up. that is a strategic challenge that this country and whoever the next administration is is

going to face in the years ahead. if we -- the answer isn't well -- the abilities is we need a robust defense that can meet all exhibition. if we cherry pick about which missions we need, you know how that one is going to end. thank you. thanks. >> all right we're going do the q and a. all of you prepare. i'm going exercise my prerogative and ask the first question. it's no fair answering yes or no. i'll tell you that ahead of time. the question is, is the nation today ready for the next big catastrophe? and not just dod but the nation? and i'll throw an extra piece in as dhs -- i'm not asking do you pick on dhs is dhs ready to face that next catastrophe with

potentially diminished dod help? who would like to go first? >> well, i have to say that, you know, after katrina secretary that pee janet napolitano always asked are you ready? the answer is yes. you think jeez, what did i just think. when you think about the total consequences, it's enormous. i think that at this point in terms of planning repyredness and coordination and relationship between dhs and the defendant -- department of defense that has grown in terms of secretary stockton. i think the forces there to make a response when it totally judged adequate and timely. the nature of the response goes broader than the war a few years ago.

i think again states have been heavily impacted by their budget. and they're looking for not federal level. concern about the hollow force and capability to say yes and mean it in terms of a certainly of the complex catastrophe. >> my answer is yes, we're ready today. but i think a lot of the credit for that goes outside of the pentagon. administrate fema, the governors of the nation who have lead the charge in making sure that we have unity of effort between federal and state military forces that is so important. it's hard to exaggerate and agree to which that's going to enable rapid more effective life saving in an environment like katrina. i think we're dead i did today. the credit deserves to apply to

other folks outside of my organization. within my organization, within the pent pentagon, we're mindful of the opportunity for further progress and with secretary panetta's leadership we're going press guard aggressively. >> i would say it's a wrong question. so i would say we're not as ready as we should be ten years after 9/11. i say that not because things fema or dod has done. i would have hoped that in terms of integrated planning, and at the local, state, federal level we wrp a lot further down the road. we had much more ambitious plans in terms of being able to plan across federal -- that didn't get as far as we hoped it had gone. and, you know, you always show up with what you have. it's a crime when you can't be as efficient as what you have when you have.

and i think we lost a lot of that momentum, i think part is because the states became -- we didn't think about this at the front end there would be periods when the states are going to be flushed and a lot of resources at this and periods when they're not. and try to put more back on the federal table. we didn't plan for a kind of sustain -- a system that was going to be sustainable in periods when we were employee throwing a lot of money at the problem and periods when we weren't thoughing a lot of money at the problem. i thought we should be further on as we have. a got example is integrating the reserves into the response. and, you know, the debate, you know, back and forth between the governors. it's hard to believe it took us that long. so i think shame on us for not being further down the road. and then my concern is not so much the answer today but the answer, you know, a couple of

years from now. what happens if we're a couple of years from now and we continue not make the progress in terms of the integrated state and local federal response and we have diminished dod resources. will that look a lot like september 10st 2001 as opposed to where we should be. okay. let's start with the gentn back there. please, identify yourself and ask the question. >> matt, the national emergency management association. thank you for putting this panel together. secretary stockton, the cyber attack can demonstrate a lot of the consequences you outlined from the hurricane, there's a more defined, beginning and end. we can see it, and feel it what kind of involved involvement did dod have address the cyber

threat versus a more traditional kind of hazard? >> nle12, the department of defense played an important role in support of the department of homeland security. the federal lead for ensuring that businesses get the support they need for preenings of critical infrastructure against attack. it's an important support role that we played. and we're going welcome an opportunity to continue to extent the support in the future. while i have you here, matt, let me thank fema for everything that emergency managers are doing in the question to help answer the question that steve first gave us. to be better prepared. i'm looking toward to going to the convention in seattle shortly i will be going to the convention for the national guard association of the united states. when you talking about who deserves the praise for

strengthening our preparedness, the national guard is at the top of the list. [inaudible] thank you. ray wall tear. heritage foundation. directed to admiral johnson, obviously catastrophe are not going stop at national orders. we have to potential partners in canada and mexico. just the sort of what sort of where are we in sort of disaster catastrophe management planning and relationships with mexico and canada? >> i'm going to help answer the question. you made an point in the study we have one grid between canada and the mexico. we share the connect anticipator western power is system is dopily integrated.

we need to do this with more than just the united states. north america energy reliability corporation does include canada as well as the united states a small portion of mexico as well. it we need to be prepared for collaborative efforts with mexico and with canada. >> can can nadya is open queue peer. >> the joint board of defense between the united states and canada, the president and ceo of the north america energy reliability corporation, the umm bella industry organization for dealing with resilience he was the keynote speaking we're taking it on as featured effort as part of our collaborative work with canada not only between the two defense establishments with public safety canada and the department of homeland security and energy because of participates. they are in the lead.

industry partnerships, voluntary collaboration with industry absolutely vital in the regard. jim? >> i think it's a important point. you can't talk about the resilient sei of the electricity grid unless you're having a u.s.-can canada discussion. one area it's not worth having a conversation talking about the u.s. grid. in many ways cyber is another. to pretended there's a border between the u.s. and canada. sibber is a goal. but the u.s. and canada systems are linked, having the discussion about that doesn't make a lot of sense. when you talk about many public health issues in particular epidemics, u.s. canada mexico discussion that doesn't includes all three doesn't make a lot of sense either. those are things we ought to think in e terms of our response in how we're going resilient sei

more broadly. it doesn't make any sense to have the conversation. the other issue e brought up an important issue which we saw we got a glimmer of katrina. the u.s. capacity to accept foreign assistance which is something that we don't think about we're because we're helping others and not taking assistance. if you're not -- if you don't have the plugs to bring assistance in. we saw this in japan, there's culture issues, list call issues, again, in these modern complex societies with the enormous catch, you can bounce back more quickly and the bounce back is based on the efficiency of your ability to put resources to solve the problem quickly and foreign assistance in some cases in a technical sense but in a large complex catastrophe that can be quantity, if you don't have a system in place before the catastrophe, it's very, very difficult.

and this is something that, you know, -- we actually were very -- i'd always thought highly of the japanese emergency system. there was glaring shortfalls particularly their ability to receive response. i think it's fair to say we probably haven't come as far as we should be able to come in terms of accepting foreign aid. that's something that should be done more. do we do -- have you ever we done a major exercise where people come here? >> that was an important component of an nle11, we're able to exercise that and let me pour a little gasoline on the fire there. we discovered back then in terms of credentialing and people conducting urban search and

rescue from abroad are ways we can understand. we identified important opportunities for progress, jim, we're continuing to work that now. we are better off than we were. this is an area, again, we need to be better than we. there's an opportunity, i think i cross the we shall hemispheres now to ensure that from a hemispheric perspective, the united states, haiti, or some other nation needs substantial assistance from abroad. we built that system in advance in order to provide for the flow more expeditionly than we've been able to. we will be pushing if that are at the upcoming defense ministers in urgray in october. [inaudible] rather than fema go alone in focuses on natural disasters and canada and mexico we rinked up with north come and found our issues were interlinked and

issue were more daily and continuous between the countries and mexico. fema is linked tightly with them in a more complex set of relationships. and i appreciate the question about thins coming in. we certainly are awfully proud of the deployable rescue teams. the teams? japan are short. there's other teams around the country, dave spent a lot of anytime russia and other places that have deployable. the description accurate to the five states for the eleventh of time they would be dehabilitate by the serious earthquake. so those issues are not new issues, but they're ones that, of course, you know, fit in along with the pace of capabilities. >> thanks.

hi, heritage foundation. my question is primarily for secretary stockton. it's a variation of the last question. are we prepared for the emp attack either from an adversary i are or the suns solar storm. what is dod doing specifically to the extent you can talk about it to the address the threat? >> we take those challenges very, very seriously. there a little bit different, they signature of emp is different than we would anticipate from a large scale solar event. the white house and the administration has been leading the charge to strengthen it against a solar event. recurrence of the caring ton event could have devastating effects. engineers sometimes disagree about the degree to which those effects would be long listing. we need to be prepared for these

kind of deinstructive effects on the power grid. it's an opportunity from dod perspective my responsibility is to ensure the department can execute the missions that the president assigns to us and we need to account for the risk that either through emp or solar event there could be destruction not only to dod electric systems but to the broader critical infrastructure on which we ultimately depend. so it's a big challenge, it's a challenge where the lead federal agencies are going to need to continue to assist us and outreach to industry, again, absolutely vital in this regard. and industry is a willing partner this. they realize this is a challenge, and we're working together in collaborative mechanisms in order to build a shared approach to the event so we can assist industry in

developing a design basis for the grid of the future. not only takes into account the traditional threat factors, there are well sufficient to handle. new threat factors including cyber threats, and including a better understanding now of solar events at emp. >> yeah. for folks maybe somebody -- just explain for folks who may not be particular. emp is -- could be released from among other things in nuclear burst. and nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere. instead of that energy going right into the ground it would probably gain out and anything it would be attracted to antenna. everything from cell towers to satellites to the electrical grid. and part of the -- [inaudible] depending on the location of the weapon an the altitude and the

size of it, about the range of destruction it can possibly do in terms of knocking out infrastructure and that kind of thing. loss things like major pieces of the grid you would have to replace parts which could take months and years. you have large portions of the popular without the power. solar event is the natch railing able go that. we continually have solar flares. we have large scale solar events we haven't seen on the scale since carrieton was the astronomer that spotted the one in the mid 19th virtual. we e haven't had one since the world has been electricity fied. we're about that. if '02 interested in that there's work in the national signs foundation. there was also a commission congressional commission on the effect of electromag metic if

you're not familiar with those you can get more information on that. >> other questions? [inaudible conversations] people online are listening and like for the if they go back and see it later. >> yeah. i'm sorry. >> lieutenant -- [inaudible] from center for applied strategic learning. secretary stockton, thank you all for being here, sir, thank you for coming and participating. with regard to the military response and dod's ability to support any kind of civil event, what are you most afraid of in the military's ability to respond and do it in an effective way to where the public is satisfied with that response in i don't mean in such of a loss of life one but in what kind of event most scares

you? what kind of event really makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up? when you have to look at what our ability is as a military force to respond to that? >> that's an easy one. i invite my colleagues. precisely the complex catastrophe scenario that i've described from any hazard. the risk of cascading failure of critical infrastructure in ways we might not even understand fullying in the event occurred, that is what keeps me up at night. and the opportunity to strengthen preparedness against an event that would involve the large scale very long-term loss of electric power. i know that we're working very hard with the defense logistics agency on the other partners to ensure there's sufficient fuel for backup generators to sustain

critical operations. but if you look around the nation, many emergency operate centers other critical facility sents, hospitals, a full 48 hours maybe even more fuel stored on site. and our scale out age of weeks to months our ability to maintain backup generating capacity. that's an issue. we need to know more about single points of failure we imagine we have redundancy in systems that actually breaks down because we have single points of failure. there's a lot of work still to be done here. we're ready today to do a good job. but keeps me up at night the gap between where we are today and where i'd like to be if we can sustain progress under these new initiatives. >> i have to think about a event. the nation [inaudible] ready for natural disaster.

we have done it before, we have seen it again. we had 211 different mission assign thes in dod over the last decade. they happen about three four years. i think some of it could be become an that kind of cycle. again to think about spaces is our country that wouldn't be useful again. look e prepareness people might expect to cur. the things they don't expect to occur. the nation is unprepared and uneducated in a bit of -- [inaudible] that we haven't had before. i agree you have to focus on the large scale catastrophic. the thing that can start the heart beat of america. the nation can handled anything other than that. a couple of thoughts.

there was a time factor which is a one hour, 72 hours. if you're critically injury you have an hour to get somebody. if you don't get to them in an hour. they're dead. if somebody is not totally critical injured they're vulnerable in the 72 hour window, water, exposure that kind of thing. if they can live past 72 hours unless we're talking weeks and months you can get to them, it's not a big deal. in terms of saving lots of lives early on, you can type windows in there, an hour and 72 hours. that's one thing to think about. the second thing is legacy. we see it again and again. turns out to be value lad. a lot of times people don't need help. a lot of times people can take care of themselves. they need feel things are can be okay. if people feel that there's a structure there, government is going to eventually be back, somebody is going to eventually

turn the gas station on again. there's a notion about the stress levels much lower and the fear factors is lower, and many ways people go and take care of things. right. you don't actually have to do anything. people have to believe somebody is going to take care of things. part of the reason that we lost quay katrina wasn't because of the 72 hour problem. nobody was dying. it was perception that nobody was in control and things were falling apart. right. and when you saw the military intervention in many buys, the military intervention was less about bringing capacity and logistics somebody is in charge there. great, i feel better about things. and that's one of the reasonings. you have the timeline issue. the legacy issue is very important. everybody [inaudible] it's true. we don't want the military to take over. the military is not the answer. they don't have the capacity to do peferg. e everything.

calm and restorative power it's very important. it's not -- you know, it's funny, not to go on. they did the whole thing on -- they asked people perception what is big disaster look like. you know what they described? they described what they see in the movies. a bunch of military guys showing up with bayonets and gas masks. i never understand it. it's scary looking. the reality is. that's not the military does in most disasters. that's not what people see in large scale disasters. it's nots a scene of, you know, out of the "siege" or something else. they're happy they are there. they bring normalcy to the environment.

they bring a restoring set of normalcy. that's important. so it's the will get -- and when you scale those problems, to the large complex catastrophe that we talk about, that is big, big challenge a huge challenge and it's going to be very, very difficult for dod get it right. i want to put one other point on the table. we talked about use of the arm forces and we talk about dod and dod we forget there's an armed force in the department of homeland security. that's coast guard. their assets are more vital and important. we have to work attribute as well. one small example. we're going to decrees the national security cutters. these are the ships they have. among the national security measures they can perform is it

may be one of the best command and control access you have in the environment. most large scare population centers are near water. that's helpful. when you in a sea environment you may not be able to base the operation you may have a base from the water. these are critical platforms and the fact that we're buying that deeply worries me. a larger scale you have to have the capacity and it has to be ready to go before the kinds of things we talk about happening. otherwise it looks like new tv show of revolution. and the remaining red dop is an emp attack from the north koreans. >> [inaudible] will each of you will willing to share your experience in partner -- [inaudible]

it's very important. and if you actually looked at the results from katrina, for example, and you look at the surveys, people that got assistance, the highest rated assistance they got from was faith-based organizations. part of because they're known, closest to the community. they understand everything else. the other critical role of faith based leader. it would be very important in the large scale complex catastrophe. faith based leader are good at collaborative decision making and clab tiff things. one of the real problems you face in a large scale catastrophic disaster we saw for example in the oil spill saw it in katrina, once you get true the immediate issues of, okay, we're all going die or not. there's a question of what is

the community going to look like. that's a stressful difficult, hard thing to work through. kansas is a good example. kind of a good microexample. one of the real skills of recovery is the community decides it's not just about -- we're going go to go from here. and faith base leader have an important role to play. as collaborative leaders in the community, they have a high degree of trust, they are very well placed to serve bring the stakeholders together decide where go we go from here. >> i think it's an excellent question. we focus as an operator we focus on so much what the response is. an the response is over, it's like fallen off a cliff to focus on them. awful lot less attention almost as a matter of fact are you

are. what lasts longer. the natural disaster short amount of time. focus energy on the response and long time on recovery. and one of the values faith based organization which we have a strong -- fema is they're there are if the duration. they're consistency, their em pa think, the resources they bring to bear is right down to the individual americans who really need assistance and have been overwhelmed by many different aspects of the disaster. so, you know, whether it's the baptist kitchen, catholic charities, just the range of faith based organization is important. they get a lot less attention, but i think the value they bring every day is great. >> totally concur. i'll take -- i actually had to convene a meeting i was between

dhs, fema, with faith based organizations. and it was interesting was beefs there because there was a couple of guys on the government side who said they'll show up for a hurricane if a nuke goes up. they're not going to show off. and we explained to them, yes they will. these organizations, they're there to make sack foys to help people. they will show up. and it's really incumbent on the different of the government to harn that. you don't want them showing up for the first time. it wastes their assets and peoples those people at risk. there has to be precrisis coordination with the organization in large measure that's occurring now because we all have learned the importance of that sector of the response community. >> all right. another question?

this gentleman here and the one in the back row. >> browne with congressional research service. this is for paul. what impact, if any, at all does the revision for the national response and the disaster mitigation firm [inaudible]

different situation. here in the department of defense. that is all there are some predictable hazards outs there like new madrid we need to make sure we have enormous flexibility so when we are taking by surprise we have the ability to have capabilities that can be brought to bear no matter what. and that kind of automate prescripted approach will only get you so far. it's useful for the minnesota evacuatessings as they march to the undefeated super bowl. here in the department of defense, we need to not only be

prepared for predictable event but also strategic surprise. >> has anybody ever told you hope is not a plan. [laughter] >> certainly. >> [inaudible] from the fema perspective in terms of -- [inaudible] >> i think there's two things pop to mind. first was in logistics. in logistics the fema approach used to be metal mountain. how much stuff can you spend somewhere? it didn't matter who was was sending stuff we found for example whether water, rice, we could be competing with other providers and how can we all go to the same sources to bring the same thing. of course the prices go up. it was a zoo. i think the lo ghostics system in fema, i think it is phenomena how they can coordinate, plan, prepox, the work they do with

dla approach and how to bring that to a u.s. disarser. even now, one thing that made things craig it doing to build what we did on fema is reach out to the private sector. we open up an i.c.e. station right in front of the walmart. craig said a great job with how can we work together to hazen the pace of response? and then the second thing is the model transcome for we needed to think about evacuating the city of new orleans. it didn't happen in a week. that was done by months and months of planning. we buses and trains and airplanes and how do estimate the number of people who can get out on their own. and how many estimate have no vehicle and would need assistance. i think we did a great job of modeling that out. when i mention 33,000 people needed tax. our estimate initially was 45. we didn't plan for 2 million people. the model aircraft where they

can go to and how they can get back in time to pick up another load of people. a train how far a train can go before it can return and pick up another group of people. all that was done by doing modeling. i think to the extent we can forecast those kinds much specific events we do pretty well. to the extent that we can, you know, forecast -- there are models national weather service. the size disaster. what the flood map program in fema. what would it look like for the definitely heights of elevation for search. how far will it go. all those are modeled out in advance. i think more than meets the eye. there's an awful lot of work that goes into planning for the natural disaster. we look at forces the dod bring to bear and the time frame. all has been planned in advance. there's modeling and simulation than you expect to makes better prepared as a nation. >> talking about what [inaudible] in terms of anticipate story

response. >> it would be a pleasure. closest partnership with the department of homeland security we have been working together with fema and the fema regions in order to anticipate the kinds of challenges that really are predictable. in a couple of emergency room respects first of all in some parts of the nation, natural hazards again, we're waiting for them to happen. cascade ya fault, my home area, san francisco bay area, the hayward fault. we have predibilitible events that we need to be anticipating and planning together with fema and dhs and the coast guard where the sea born support is going to be vital as jim pointed out. there's another opportunity for progress we're working very hard under administrate few gaits leadership. that is to look at large population centers and imagine regardless what the source of the catastrophe is, question

begin to plan more effectively for the kinds of large scale, life saving and life sustaining resources that are going to be required just based on population size and the threats they are going to face. that's ensure that we can get those life safing capabilities there fast. let's go fast, let's go big, and let's go smart. that's administrate's monetary. we're working very closely with secretary janet napolitano and the entire federal, state, and local team to make it happen. again, strong leadership from the governors and above all, the state national guards who are so closely connected with the communities, who are tight with the public safety organizations in their locality. we're going it make progress anticipating these disasters and why i'm grateful to general for leading the charge. >> okay. questions? this gentleman here.

>> john from [inaudible] i was wondering what sort of challenging exist in sharing information between the federal, state, local and international level particularly geospatial information and how can industry continue to assist in these sharing efforts? >> right off the bat, i'd say hearing a question for that. suppose a lot of people expect it is bad. and how can we talk about take something bad and make it better? i think in my experience in fema, special information almost on the leading edge. i don't think we used it before. talking about modeling and looking at storm search and the access to agree owe spatial information to see the extent of damage. california wild fires fly different sort of military aircraft up and down the

california coast with the looking in to the fire. studying the maps and real time down to the fire chief planning how they are go to deploy the forces. in the moment. not in the moment but like right now. there's, i think, craig, i think fema just expanded that with technology that rapid availability geospatial information and all of that is instantly shared in joint field office at gfo and the governor has represented us right there. we are state coordinate office. i think the information sharing is better than most people expect. there is a red citiness almost a desire by the dod forces to bring to bear in the disaster. i think we have made leaps and bounds over the last couple of years in declassifying make it available ready available whoever needs. not only federal very rapidly. >> i just kick -- when the

present director of national intelligence general clapper when was the director of the national geospatial intelligence agency he establishes teams that provide unclassified geospatial data. they make map out of the picture and send the big high speed trailer and find the incident command and say we're working for you sir, what do you need? they start downloading more stuff than anybody can consume. >> there's a room between the hours for that. and again, fema is not a large organization. when a disaster strikes, it's people come in and it's staffed by nga and the administrator of fema and the administrator have total cess to what's available classified and unclassified. what make make a difference in the response. i think it extends internationally as well. >> the yes man back there and get the last question. >> steve.

army war college fellow with csi director to the secretary imb sir. you test on the national guard and then the army reserve capabilities is there any traction on the idea to merge the two reserve components to maximize that title 32 capabilities in these? >> my personal view is that there is no need for such a merger. but we need to do is strengthen the procedure we have to provide for the mobilization of the title 10 reserve for a notice natural hazard. thank to the leadership of the governors, the 2012 national defense authorization act, if any, has given us the opportunity to act the terrific capabilities of the title 10 reserve for a natural redisasters. we are pedal to the medal in the department of defense to ensure when the real hurricane season

begins, ie from craig, the college football season heats up, we'll be able to access the tight 10 reserve in the community so they can serve effectively. these lot kinds of challenges we're working on very quickly now to meet as opposed to looking at the bigger picture questions that think might be something to -- look at the the future. today we can provide greater capability through other approaches. >> can you talk about the dual . >> sure. >> be a pleasure to. >> like i'm your straight man here. >> and again, a lot of people including those at the table helping for a long time to make this possible. one of the lessons learned, harvey can emphasize from katrina there wasn't adequate coordination between state military forces, state national guards, under the command of their governors. and the federal military force that came in at the question of

the governors. through fema. and we need to do a better job of making sure those forces can operate in a seemless fashion but still recognize that under the constitution, the governors are the commander in chief of the senate military forces. well, statement, the president is the commander in chief of federal military forces. how can we provide for unity of effort? despite the separateness of those chains of command we need to maintain. the breakthrough, again, thanks to the governors, is to have an officer, a general office almost always a national guard officer who simultaneously serve in both duty statuses. federal and state. as jim said, wear two hats. a state hat, for forwarding up the chain of command command to

the government and one up to the president in his role adds commander in chief and provide for the unit to i effort the close coordination between state and military forces that was so notably absent in the event of katrina and was so beneficial last year in hurricane irene. >> can i throw in a plug. our lead analysis jessica is has done a lot of work which is the capability of the state defense forces. the constitutional authorizes the state to have a militia. everyone recognize the state component of national guard as also the militia of the state but 27, you know, what's the number? i lost count. [inaudible] >> all right under thirty states have additional state defense forces that are volunteers that are organized urngd the state equipped by the state, and basically follow whatever the

constitution and the laws of the state require. so these state are another asset which are also are i think are very important. diswreses on the website is going to a survey of the capabilities some of them are extraordinary. texas is a good example. california is a good example. they provide not just a backstop to the state guard, but also provide additional capabilities i think they're an important piece of the equation often gets forget on the table. and something that deserves a lot more attention. >> okay. right there in the corner. >> mark, homeland security defense business counsel. i can't think heritage enough for putting this on. this discussion is essential. we don't talk about it enough. there is a conflict. i want to get your thoughts thoughts on decon flix. the nature of the think tank that issues that jim and steve are going over in terms of the things that have to be aware.

the priority it is and the -- people human component of technology component that to a certain extent army both represents in privateer sector and secretary stockton has to do on a day-to-day basis. the decon flix, how do we pay for it? >> how do we get our budgets in line if time of tightening a the the state level, the private sec foras well as the federal level to make sure that the priorities stay in focus. are we going forward catching what we can and reacting as harvey was talking about. or is there even any room for proa, in the nature of the budget situation that we're at our country and each state and company is? >> that's a political question. [laughter] the answer is easy. congress should enact the president's budget request.

>> thanks. >> i don't know if in my current role. i'm a private sector i'm not really going talk that much about the federal budget. what i would say is i appreciate both jim's comments and secretary stockton about the coast gourd. i have to say when i mention that, my blood goes faster. i've lead you all far east. join me in singing. but i'm concerned about our ghost card. when you talk about time legacy response to a disaster the coast guard is there instantly. they're there every day. and the coast guard has ships that are the oldest ships in the world in terms of the size of the navy, we have ships that when i graduated the coast guard in 1965, some were old them. think how would i feel. the national security and the coast guard is imperil. i think about it every day what

can be done to help them. that's service think about these issues. i hope you include them. >> this that's is the force i worry about the most in terms modernization and future capacity. >> so look, i think this goes back to the my comments before about very wealthy nations being much more capability dealing with large-scale disaster. we have the largest economy in the world. rea rich, powerful nation. our problems are policy that we put in place. all right. so not put in a plug for heritage. we did a competition with several other think tanks. we did long range budget plan. it doesn't raise taxes. it leaves every class american better off than they are now. it balance the budget in ten years. it cuts into the deficit and fully defense and homeland security for decades.

most not an exercise. the plan was scored by cbo. it's perfectly legitimate. these are choices we make. what we have done is really force guys like paul into the worst of all possibility words. we have not taken the missions off the table. we are not adequately resources them. and they are going to make suboptimal decisions that is going to love somebody short because you cannot a. doesn't get you there. the kinds of problems on the scale we're talking about regardless of how many hours a day paul works on the wisdom of our -- if you don't resource the missions adequately, they're not going get done. we're only going to be able to resource the -- then we no matter how smart we are and how

hard paul works at the end day, the nation is going to come up short. >> all right. gentleman? i'm going give you one minute each to make any concluding remarks you want to make. then we're going to -- i yield my time to the secretary. >> i'll make it short and sweet. thanks to the heritage foundation your sustained focus object important issues, and for the opportunity to share perspectives looking forward. >> i appreciate the forum. i think this is a vitally important issue. i'm glad you're here and others are here to give focus to it. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, i think you have seen a lot of candor, a lot of openness and a lot of of really important thought that has gone into the remarks this morning. paul is the one still sitting in the seat with the tough job. and we all lift him and his

people up. i tell you, i worked insha shop. it's not a lot of politics. it's about helping america get the most basic way possible in helping our neighbors as well. and i would like to ask you to join me in thanking the panel for their remarks. [applause] and tomorrow at 11 in the same room we'll have another panel with the former secretary of homeland defense and america security affairs. paul mchail and the former deputy commander of north come and former director of the national guard bureau will be discussing the price every state must pay the effect sequestration on the national guard which has been bhengsed national guard is a critical piece of our home land security and homeland defense. we hope you can join us at 11:00

tomorrow. thanks. [inaudible conversations] a look at c-span 2 afternoon schedule. each day at 6:00 p.m. eastern we look at back some of the year luncheon speeches from the national press club. ceo doug parablinger talk abouts trends in the airline business and his effort to merge his company with the american airlines. thursday veteran meteorologist jim. and friday film maker ken burn on his documentary on probix. each day at 7:00 it's interviews with the u.s. military. recounting the event surrounding

the october 2000 attack and refueling top in yemen. a look at the presidential candidates today. republican nominee romney is holding several fundraisers in north carolina. alabama and has no jom camera events scheduled. president obama is wrapping up the last day of his three-day bus tour through the state of iowa by campaigning with the first lady mop. coming. this afternoon we'll have live coverage over on c-span as they speak to supporters in daven port. next week at wall street perspective on the new republican ticket. how republicans should approach the pending fiscal cliff. from today's washington journal this is 40 minutes. >> host: we turn to wall street's perspective on campaign 2012 with economic expert and host of cnbc kudlow report larry

kudlow. glad to have you on the washington journal this morning. i want to start by getting your thought on paul ryan joining the republican ticket over the weekend. >> caller: well, of course you're talking to a big fan of paul ryan. he ha is an old friend much mine going back i don't know over twenty years. when we were all power america. he was a mentor of mine and paul ryan. paul is from the free market supplied by school economic growth and economic incentives so aim. i'm an old region guy. i was very pleased to see ryan put on the ticket m i think i had already already a lot of energy into it. i think he's going help the discourse on the key issues the size of government how to growth the economy. what to do. i'm happy with it. >> he's been described as a budget hawk. what you like best about the pick? what does he bring the most

romney? >> guest: well, you know, i think his knowledge base is absolutely spectacular. i think there are very few people in public life that know the budget and tax issues as well as paul ryan. that includes the tight element issuings. we're going bankrupt in terms of entitle element in 25 years. .. >> we've got to make it hospitable for entrepreneurs, businesses. we got to have a corporate tax code that's much more competitive.

i think ryan gets all of that. he's a growth guy, and what we need right now is growth and jobs and we've got to get this country moving again. >> host: you named paul ryan the conservative man of the year for events at the end of 2011 and described him having an old-fashioned american vision. what do you mean by that? >> guest: well, you know, paul wants america first. paul is old-fashioned, believing in the american idea as he calls it. he believes in american exceptionalism. he wants us to advance to our fullest potential. i think what you're seeing here is a different model than the one we have in washington. there's going to be a big choice in contrast in this election. ryan and romney for that matter want free enterprise and entrepreneurship, rewarding success. mr. obama, president obama, on the other hand, is a big government man. he's redistribution guy.

he seems to have cash dispersions on business and small business and the statements if you succeed you don't get credit for it. things of that sort. there's a contrast. ryan is old-fashioned. he's basically saying you should keep more of what you earn. you should invent. you should innovate. you should be entrepreneurial, and most of all, america's got to be number one. we are inn exceptional country. i happen to subscribe to those views, and i think ryan is dead right. >> host: we are talking to larry ku l -- kudlow. if you want to ask a question, call us on the republican line 202-737-002. democratic line 202-737-001, and inexcellents 202-628-0205.

any concerns about ryan on the ticket? what is your biggest fear when it comes to paul ryan's views in the campaign? >> guest: well, i don't really have any fears. i mean, i just think the guy is first rate, and as i said earlier, he's already reenergized, and mitt romney best i can tell. >> host: him being on the ticket put medicare at the forefront of the race and lose focus on jobs? i mean, we've seen at least that attempt this week by democrats so far. >> guest: well, i think democrats will try a traditional mediscare which is regrettable because the country needs an honest discussion of the football problems and the -- financial problems and health problems and delivery problems. that's too bad. those tactics do not stop an intelligent discussion and ryan

and romney together have plenty of time to keep their eye on the ball, which is a poorly performing economy and how to make it better in terms of tax and spending and entitlement reform. yeah, i think there's a big battle over medicare. i think you're right. there's throws on both sides. fine with that. let's have it out. let's have a discussion on how to make the whole health care system more efficient, exempt the people already in the system, 55 and over, fine, but those moving up, give them the choice. put some competition, insurance plans competing with each other. competition and free markets in every other aspect of american industry and economy have been the most competitive and lowest cost. it's a tough debate this year. let's have it. high time we did.

>> host: i want your reaction wrote in the "new york times" this week called "everything wall street should know about ryan." one of the graphs in there notes mr. ryan buck the conventional wall street wisdom and dealing with the debt ceiling. many investment managers ring their hands over the uncertainty of the fiscal cliff, and mr. ryan said he was proposed to let the government default on debt for several days if it forces democrats to accept deeper cuts. your cut on whether that's the right way and whether wall street think that's the right way to deal with the fiscal cliff. >> guest: i personally did not agree with ryan's position on that. there's a few other republican leaders who took that view. i used to work at wall street and covered that beat for many years. i don't like to play with fire. i don't think -- i mean, losing

our credit rating slightly, to me, was not a good thing. i'd like to see that not happen again, deferring obligations for a couple three days was not something i favored, and i expressed disapproval to paul and some others on that very subject. patrick from florida, you are on with larry. >> caller: yes, i must say mr. kullow is the typical guest on c-span. he had a political appointee job 30 years ago for a president who raised taxes, tripled the national debt. he talks about big government except that fdic went from $40,000 to $250,000 over 30 years. he talks about medical reform. we elected governor scott here

that his company he ran that got bankrupted by the government because it was charged a $1.5 billion fine for ripping off the medicaid system and kudlow and all of these other republicans that love to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse has nothing to say about him. >> host: giving you a chance to respond. you make no bones about your political view points. >> guest: i'm not sure what the question was. was there a question in there? i'm not going to speak to governor scott's business affairs. he's been a very good governor. i thought i heard about the fdic guarantees being raised under sheila in the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. i thought that was an appropriate move to increase the deposit. in fact, i'm -- i doamplet like bailouts, but in the middle of crisis, signal savers and large savers, we need it to patch up

the financial system if only temporarily. i don't see what the big problem was. ronald reagan lowered marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% launching the greatest economic boom in american history, and bill clinton, i might add, always felt clintonfuls a good economic president bumping up the income tax, but bumped down the capital gains tax consistent with supply side economics. i don't know what the caller's talking about. it sounds grouchy this me this morning. nothing's perfect in life. i can't speak to governor scott's business career. >> host: you talk about reagan, want to get you to explain your recent column about the reagan in romney and where you say that you believe that romney is perhaps the most candid, most like rage p. >> guest: yes.

i think romney is the most fiscally conservative bearer since reagan. i think romney's positions on a 20% supply side tax cut across the board on targeting government spending to get it down from 24% gdp to 20 #% which could mean several trillion dollars lower spending, is a growth system of 4% is right. we should have had that target this period. the idea of creating 300,000 new jobs a month, which might come to something like 12 million jobs in four years, they are excellent targets. unleashing energy resources and going towards a more free market choice when it comes to welcome so, yes, i think romney's conservative, and that's why i was not terribly surprised he appointed paul ryan to the ticket as vice president because ryan holes many of the same views, and when i look back, meaning no disrespect to

republican candidates and presidents who are good friends of mine, funls, i find romney's platform the most conservative since ronald reagan and essentially this. he wants to restore economic incentives for growth, limit the size of government, and he wants to use market forces rather than the government command and control, and that is very much to my liking. >> host: let's go to ron on the republican line this morning from stillwater, florida. ron, you're on with larry kudlow. >> caller: yeah, i don't necessarily agree with everything that the republicans are doing, but a lot of stuff that obama's doing really scares the heck out of me. i feel that he is pushing us towards being a part of one world government, and even some of his speeches he has stated he wants us to be a part of the one world government so i think they are trying to create an artificial cliff and failure of our economy to push us so that

we will become a part of the one world government. >> host: your thoughts? >> guest: well, what i gather from that, i'm not sure i understand one world government, but i will just say this, personally, and i've had some foreign policy experience down through the years. i think the united states must always act in its own self-interest. it's own national security interests. we are obviously important players in the united nations, but we should not be held back. the u.n. doesn't dominate american interests. we must always act where we see fit to act, and if that's what the man means by "one world got" i suppose i might agree. we're involved in the imf, the world bank, world court, in all of those things, but we must always act in our self-interest based on our constitutional principles, that's the key point. >> host: barbara on the

democratic line this morning from missouri. barbara, you're on with larry. >> caller: good morning. what i would like to ask mr. kudlow, can he explain how romney-ryan republicans in general seem to not be concerned about the human side of our government? it's all about the money. how in the world can ryan, having been in the congress for all of the years we racked up this condition we're in, now be the one who's going to bring us out of it? let us be honest. the people and they don't care about poor people. this government is not just about a budget, and i don't think they know anything about budgets. why did we go 12 years ago from being great to now being in the tanks? >> host: mr. kudlow. >> guest: tough questions, but good questions. again, ryan rose to position of prominence as head of the budget committee a few years ago. he, you know, he was a back bencher, and i don't think he

deserves credit or blame for what happened going back ten yearses. he's been a house member 14 # years, but he rose to prominence just in the last couple of years, and i think he's put together a very strong budget. i think he's put together strong budget restraint trying to hold back spending and deficits. you know, i think that he's absolutely on the right track. it may not be perfect. things never are. he's on the right track for limited government, and if he calls it the debt bomb is out there, and we've got to deal with the debt bomb. we're on the verge of bankruptcy. regarding the what the caller was saying, look, i think people in washington understand the human cost, okay, but the human cost has to be measured in many

different ways. ask yourself if you want prosperity, if you want to ameal uate poverty, help those who are not rich or well off, what's the best way to do it? flood the country with more and more government spending? is it to create more government dependency? is it to create more food stamps? is it to create more welfare and take the work requirements off of welfare, one of the great achievements unfortunately unwound? is that how to do it? do we want a government welfare dependent country where 55% of the households get federal transfer payments, or do we want to create opportunities for people to act with responsibility in their own independent ways, go to business, become entrepreneurs, go out, get a job, and stand up for themselves? there's competing visions here. the fact that the government may

be going bankrupt and cut back on transfer programs and trim entitlements does not necessarily mean that the policymakers involved don't care for people. you have to ask yourself is the big government experiment working? i submit it is not working. i felt, and i believe this from my heart, that the reagan years and the clinton years from the 80s and 90s, the era of big government was over, the era of personal responsibility and business entrepreneurship has taken hold, and we had a fabulous 20-year period of prosperity creating almost 50 million new jobs and eventually widdled down the budget deficit. that was a good time. i don't like this government dependency happening now. i'll be honest with you. i see record -- >> host: who is to --

[inaudible] >> guest: i hate to come up here and assign blame. you gave me the platform, but, look, it's not secret i don't agree with president obama. like most people, and i had dinner with him when he first came in. he's a wonderful man, family man, it's not personal, but i don't agree with his policies, which in my opinion, just my own view, he is more intent on creating greater and greater government dependency with more and more government transfer payments than other form of assistance. i think president obama created a very poor psychology or environment for business and entrepreneurs. he always seems to be taking whacks at businesses and their achievements, and at the same time, he always wants to spend more money on transfer payments. i think he represents a change. i think he represents a change from president clinton who was a moderate, almost conservative

democrat, and obama is moving the party to the left costing not just financially, but politically when the election comes around. >> host: talking change from the clinton years, blame to be assigned for the eight bush years talking about the change in deaf silts and that sort of thing. >> guest: bush made mistakes. bush had good and bad, but mr. bush, and i said this to him personally in a number of interviews, and he's a friend, and i basically loved the guy while i didn't like entitlements or the drug entitlement, it was not paid for, the idea was okay, but it was not paid for, and i thought he spent too much money on education. i thought he put too much federal authority into education. i did like bush's lower marginal tax rates in 2003 helping launch four or five year booms, and he

inherited 9/11, difficult things, and the bush tried to reform fannie mae and freddie mack. i give him credit for doing so. it's a complicated malter. i never really blamed bush for that. he did, for belter or worse, conservatives disagree on that, bush and the treasury man, hank paulson, who put together the rescue package for the banks. that was done in 2008 while bush was still president. president obama subsequently built on that for better or worse, but bush is very much a mixed bag. before the financial collapse, the deficit was 1.5% gdp. unfortunately, the financial collapse blew it out of the water. there's a mixed record on bush. i'll be the first to admit that. >> host: back to the 20 # 12 race from twitter. do you feel mitt romney should provide additional tax returns?

why or why not? >> guest: well, you know, i have no trouble if governor romney provided additional tax returns. let it all hang out. i think the remarks by by reid saying romney didn't pay taxes in ten years. that's without fact. it's another slur, smear, and it's stupid, and he has no facts, and it's the lowest form of politics. i error on the side of transparency. there's no trouble with that. >> host: dallas, texas this morning, bob, you're on with larry. >> caller: i'm a liberal. i'm calling on the independent line, and i believe in the liberal law and beliefs. your guest refers to social security as an entitlement.

i pay. i'm eligible for social security by paying into it. they talk -- i pay 100% of my salary, my income, goes towards social security. unlike your guest who pays a certain amount, the first $100,000 of his, i'm sure, large, you know, salary or income, but i don't understand why they continue to refer to it as an entitlement. of course it's going to go off the cliff. they keep on talking about it going bad. if we continue to do away with jobs by offshoring them, doing away with them, and we only have ceos and wealthy individuals who, like i say, only pay social security on a certain amount. >> host: larry? >> guest: i'm to not sure -- look, social security has become entitlement rather than a straight insurance plan. the caller's right.

we pay into it. he pays into it. i pay into it, but the benefit over the years, particularly the cost of living adjustments have grown faster than the work force has been able to put in funds to finance it. that's the problem with social security. i think it's in better shape than medicare, but i feel it's going to be in trouble. i actually believe on social security that we can grow our way out of it. i've looked at the numbers. not everybody agrees with me. rather than harsh cut backs and benefits, i think if the american economy grew at 3.5% to 4% for the next, i don't know, 10 #-20 years or some such thing, we'd have enough revenues to cover social security, provided we don't add new benefits. addition of new benefits has been the killer over the last few decades. i don't think that's the case with medicare where there has to be trimming. with social security, that could

healthier. the issue there, i don't know whether it's coming up in the campaign, but why should younger people have an option? if they want to invest their money, it's their savings, into a government account that yields 4% a year or thereabouts, but there's no lock box because the surplus is turned to the treasury and federal government for spending, your money is spent, and you get an iou for that and the yield on that iou is 4%, why shouldn't you have the option of creating your own portfolio, of stocks, bonds, guaranteed banking thes, international -- bank accounts, international investments like members of congress, why shouldn't everybody have that option? they can choose to reject the option and stay in the traditional system or go out and have choice and have the same investment men knews that order their -- menus that ordinary people do in

private life and government people do? why shouldn't that option be made available? i don't get that? >> host: question over e-mail for you this morning. deb writes in, morning larry, i know you agree we need the debt and deficit in order and cliff jumping causes a small hiccup in gdp, but offset by benefits. we can get to 20% gdp spending, and then all we need to do is match 20% gdp taxes to be in balance. hour do we get the debt paid down and deal with rising interest caused by interest rates? we can't keep rates down forever. >> guest: there's a lot of truth in all of that. it's tough issues. let me just say first of all i come back to my montra of economic growth and tax incentives. i want to really unlock the forces of entrepreneurship in the country. they have been stifled in recent

years. growth solves problems. second, we are going to have to go through every account in the federal government. there is waste, fraud, abuse. there are programs we do not need. there are programs maybe entire cabinet agencies we no longer need in the modern high technology age. >> host: what's the first ones you get rid of? >> guest: put a knife through the commerce department, the labor department. i frankly would want to push the education department as much to the localities as, you know, let the local states and cities run the education system. i think the energy department has just gotten way too far. i think the interior department, and i used to be an associate director of omb, and that was 30 years ago, but i'm saying today, in the modern high-tech era, there's some -- so many things to be done in a

small way without a federal government. mitt romney, the ultimate turn around guy. he knows how to do this. romney, you know, taking over sick companies and turning them around best he can. we have a sick company right now. it's called usa government inc and it needs to be turnedded around which is why i'm in favor of governor romney because he has the skill set to do this. we have to root out unnecessary spending besides dealing with the entitlements and so forth. i think the goals of achievable. 20% of gdp is achievable, and if the economy grows at 4%, the romney target, it's an ambitious goal, but not unrealistic, revenues pick up as a share of gdp. whether they are up to 20%, i don't know, but the revenues will pick up. >> host: talking with larry kudlow of cnbc's kudlow's report. contrary to what supply ciders

say, people who make a lot of money are not necessarily job creators. job creators don't create jobs because they get a tax break. if you want to reward people for creating jobs, do it for jobs that are created. goods and services sold when there's demand. your response, sir? >> guest: if i understand it, to me, the role of investors is first and foremost to make a profit. first and foremost to get a high rate of return. they give their capital, and they give it to a venture to get a high rate of return which competes with stocks and bonds and china and brazil and europe and so forth and so on. that's really what the name of the game is. here's what a lot of people don't understand. without profits, you can't create jobs. this is something president obama doesn't understand. a successful business is a

profitable business, and a profitable, successful business will be an expanding business that creates jobs as it expands, okay? if apple and microsoft and google were not profitable, they could not create these thousands and thousands and thousands of new jobs. the role of profits in our society is malign and misunderstood by so many politicians in washington, d.c.. i think it's crazy. the idea that we should invest only to create jobs, that doesn't make any sense. they are intermediate points along the way. you have to have the capital. you got to have the profitability success. from that, comes a vision of expansion, and from that comes new jobs. you can't just say i'm going to invest in a new job. what about the rest of the business? if the rest of the business is folding, what good is a job tax credit for example for one year put up by this administration and which failed utterly. profits are the key to the

capitalist system. they make the engine run inside the free market, and that's what creates jobs. >> host: john, republican line from portland, oregon. john, you're on with larry. >> caller: yes, well, thank you, larry. i watch your show all the -- every day, and in oregon, here, the july job report came out yesterday going from 8 #.5 to 8.7. all the jobs are -- all the big industry is leaving the united states, and i don't understand the obama mind set driving jobs awe with big industry. in oregon here, we've had several big industries that have just left. don't you think that they should give some incentives to bring

these jobs back? thank you. >> guest: lower the corporate tax rate, sir. lower the corporate tax rate. there's probably no one other single more important idea than making our taxes as competitive as taxes around the world. i don't want to dismiss regulatory burdens which play a role, but international capital or let me say this -- capital, which is mobile, moves, goes where it's most welcomed, the global race for capital, whichever country is most hospitable in the treatment of capital will get the companies and get the jobs. our corporate tax rate at 40% roughly is the highest in the world. in my opinion, president and the congress should have loweredded the corporate tax rate immediately in 2009 as the recovery measure.

it was one of the single biggest mistakes. instead of spending a trillion dollars on hopeless government stimulus which never worked, we should have lowered the business tax rate immediately, bring the business home, give them higher after tax rates of return, provide new insendives. i'm a free trader. i want the most efficient production of goods and services for countries that do it, some produce better here, some better there, but the corporate tax rate would have made a huge difference. it's still today would make a huge difference. i favor romney because he talks about it all the time. the president sometimes talks about corporate tax reform, but he wants to penalize firms operating overseas. he does not understand firms operating overseas should not be double taxed, and, b, have huge headquarter operations here. if you start overseas, you have administrative headquarters that

create jobs. he doesn't understand the integration of the world economy or understand the tax incentive model and there's other issues, too, about the national labor relations board and so forth on the regulatory side, but the corporate tax would be a huge improvement in my judgment, make america more competitive, keep jobs here, and grow the economy. >> host: the caller brought up the jobs report. talk about the national jobs report that came out earlier this month. your take on it? >> guest: yeah, well, at least we did create some jobs. what was it? 160 # ,000 jobs? better than expectations, but, look, we're in an anemic jobs recovery out there. the joint economic committee calculated this is the lowest economic in jobs recovery in the modern era, since 1947. that's from the joint economic committee. you're running about 150,000 jobs a month if you go back 12 months. we have to double that. that's way too low.

the unemployment rate at 8.3% is too high. you can measure unemployment differently, but if you include discouraged workers and so forth, that's as high as 15%. we're in trouble with this. we thought we had, and i say this objectively as an economist, it looked like what december, january, february, turn of last year, we were going better gun, 225,000, 250,000, and that seems to have stopped. it's the third time we've had a false start in jobs, and i think it's because short term stimuli fade away. the other thing to deal with right nor, i don't care if you're democratic or republican, but it's the fiscal cliff, primarily a tax cliff that may also be a defense spending cliff, but, look, if the bush tax cuts expire, that's going to take about $400 billion out of the economy, and it's also going

to reduce insentives to grow, marginal incentives to grow. congressional budget office thinks that creates a recession next year. people think it's already impacting this year's economy. firms are already pulling back because they don't know what the tax situation will be. on the spending side, even though i'm a limited government spending cutter, defense taken $500 billion is a trillion dollars sequester. trillion dollar automatic spending cut. half of that comes from defense. that's nuts. defense is not half the budget. we are risking our national security posture. we are also risking all of these big defense companies and aerospace companies and weapons companies and all of the rest of it already pulling back because they think the federal money will dry up. this stuff is adversely affecting the economy right now. the fiscal cliff should have been attended to, if you ask me,

congress should not have gone on a break until they fixed the fiscal cliff. it's damaging the economy. >> host: what do you think will happen with what congress will do when they get back and look to address this? >> guest: well, that's one hell of a good question. i'm not sure i know the answer to that question. what i hope will happen, what i hope will happen, is that the tax cuts will be extended in their entirety for a year, and in that year, the congress, may be a new congress, a new administration, can figure out individual and corporate tax reforms. lower the rate, broaden the base, get rid of exceptions we don't need. i'd like to see that, and i'd like to see a more comprehensive approach to budgets, and i'd like to see a big fix. you know, i think that's one of the themes that really has not surfaced yet in this presidential campaign. we need a big fix, and it's going to have many pieces in it,

and in some sense, simpson-bowles was the first outline of the big fix on tax reform and limited spending and entitlement reform. we need something like that, a deal is going to have to be cut, a deal that i hope is pro-growth and will help this country move forward keeping us out ever bankruptcy. i'll be honest with you. one of reasons i like romney is i think he is at home and adept with making those kinds of financial deals. he's a numberings guy. he's -- he's a numbers guy. he had a lot of experience with private deals like that. i think we have to have a large deal to deal with some of these various pieces. is that coming, john? i don't know the answer. you tell me. that's a political question, and i'm not sure i know the answer. >> host: maybe john from lieuville, kentucky knows.

john, you're on. >> caller: yes, up like somebody else, i'm not sure about the answers either. what worries me is i think the political consultance ruined both parties and ruined the lobbyists. we have to cut stuff. i have rental properties. there's people in the properties that get medicaid, they buy the pain pills that costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars, but on the other side, republicans never talk about medical costs, overcharge the hell out of people. doctors want to test, test, test. neither side wants to give. here's my thing on ryan's plan. my brother owns a liquor store and earns $350,000 a year. why do the people 55 and younger have to suffer? if it's a good plan, implement it for everybody. the older people, they feel they paid into medicare, and the

people, i tell you what's scary, they just don't make that damn much money. it's a mess. i think the whole darn thing is a mess, and honest to god, i don't want to be a part of it. >> host: do you want to respond? >> guest: well, just a couple things. you know, 55 and older, that's funny, it's an arbitrary political line in the sand, isn't it? that's how i look at it. by 55, you've paid the dues in medicare, not all your dues, i mean, you got ten more years to pay, but for some reason, that's the way the bills have been constructed, and the political class says to you, okay, we're not going to mess with you. don't worry about it. we're not going to mess with you. that strikes me as more politics than policy, but whatever. i just -- i'm not an expert in every facet of health care. generically as a free market guy, i want to see as much competition, as much consumer

choice, like to see as much patient choice as possible in any plan. i'd like to see interstate insurance options. i think that's really what would help competition quite a bit. i want to see the individual get some kind of tax credit that he or her can then use to shop around for the most efficient insurance plan. you want the cadillac, the oldsmobile, chevy, whatever. i want you to have choice and government run it as little as possible and try the principles of free markets and free enterprise to fix health care. it fixed every other darn part of the economy, have it fix that. that's any generic point. >> host: in the few minutes left year, go back to a subject talked about in the first segment of "washington journal" today, how good the press is doing in covering issues of the campaign. liz writes on twitter, how good of a job is the press doing in

educating the public on how the economy works? >> guest: well, look, i have my quarrels with the press, but i don't like to blame the press. the press is a very broad generic term. you got conservative media. you've got liberal media. you got guys someplace in between. you got your newspapers, websites, your blogs, radio shows. i'm blessed to have a television show on cnbc, a three hour radio show nationwide on saturday, i'm a blogger and columnist. there's a large menu of communications today that i don't -- i may disagree with certain analysis, my liberal friends write a column and i disagree with it, but i think you got a real menu to decide what's right and what's wrong, and it's up toll individual to decide what they prefer and what they don't prefer. that's where i come in. i don't like condemnations of

the press although there's a lot of stupid things out there. i don't like blanket condemnations. >> host: thank you for joining us today. that's all the time we have in this segment. >> guest: all right. thanks for having me, i appreciate it. >> how smart phone apps are used to monitor patients' health and what that means for medical care. this is an hour and 45 minutes.

>> i'm with health reform, and on behalf of the center rockefeller and board of directors, welcome to the program about patient generated health information, potential for making the health system function more efficiently and in a more consumer friendly way. we'll be hearing about a bunch of, i guess you'd call it gee-whiz technology, devices and processes to transmit your weight, glucose level to the electronic health record where your physician can use it to monitor your condition, and we'll hear about some of the potential advantages of that technology, challenges that those advances are encountering and what might be done about them. we're pleased to have two partners today in sponsoring the briefing. one is the robert wood johnson foundation, helping americans enjoy healthier lives and get care they need for 40 years,

somewhere in my brief, i have a button that i meant to wear, and thanks very much to brian quinn and help in thinking the program through and pulling it together. you'll hear from steve in a moment. the other co-sponsor is the bipartisan policy center. a 5-year-old project of four former senate majority leaders, two from each party, which is, i think, only dc based think tank that promotes bipartisanship with health care as a main focus area. we're pleased to have them co-moderating the day's discussion chairing the health initiative, and i want to turn to janet at this point. [inaudible conversations] >> well, thank you, and it's a great pleasure to be here today,

and to be talking about something that is very important to us at the health it initiative at the bipartisan policy center. as ed mentioned, we were established back in 2007 by former senate majority leaders, and we focus on a broad range of issue, one being health care, and where we're particularly interested in the discussion today because we're talking about how one could more effectively engage consumers and patients in their health and health care using electronic tools. something we focused a lot on in a recently released report of the task force on diverly system reform and health it, you know, we're experiencing a number of pressures in the health care system today between rising health care costs, uneven quality, eroding coverage, and clearly, when you look at all of the rapidly emerging initiatives

moving across the country whether sponsored by the federal government, states, or even a number of private sector health plans and providers, all of them have a key goal of activating, engaging at a much higher level, consumers and patients in their health care, and we've got a tremendous opportunity to leverage electronic tools, mobile technologies, online tools to make that happen. in fact, and what we're going to talk about today, a number of consumers as we found, and there's been a great deal of research in the area, would really like to use a smart phone or pda to monitor their health if they were able to access their medical records and also not only download information, but also push information to their clinicians and care teams. physicians, too, some of the research indicates there there n

article published over the last couple years while 64% of physicians never used an electronic report, 62% are willing to try. we're seeing interest in the area, and, in fact, stage two of meaningful use actually, there's a proposed rule that's out there right now, and it actually has a number of key requirements proposed around further engaging patients in their health and health care using e-health tools like the ones we'll talk about today. in keying up the discussion, there's some key areas we want to explore to make exciting things we're hearing about in the panel today move forward in a more accelerated pace. the first is, and i'm looking forward to hearing some of the

presentations around -- between policy and market action andically -- and clinicians. this is a new thing, how to continue to support and educate and help transition to the new ways of providing care and interacting with patients. i know devin, to my left, and joy are going to talk about any clarification needed to policy issues and privacy, maybe a little bit about security one of the key things we're hearing, and i don't know if we'll get to it today, but about the need to aloin incentives further to ensure this happens, and then, of course, continuing to build awareness among consumers and assuring that nobody, no one gets left behind due to access to the technologies and the like. the one, and i didn't put it on the slide here for folks, but there's technical issues that would also need to be figured

out. i know we've got a policy audience, but something called data providence. what is that? if you talk to the folks who use records as they deliver care, particularly clinicians figuring out if i got different sets of data, where did it come from so i have a better understanding of the sources, particular data sets, to help me deliver better care, but with that, ed, those are my comments, and i look forward to hearing the discussions of the panel. >> terrific, thank you very much, janet. before we introduce the panel, i want to go through the logistical checklist if i can. there's a web cast and a podcast available sometime tomorrow on kff.org, the website of the kaiser family foundation, to whom we are grateful for providing that service, and then in a few days, you can view a

transcript of today's discussion at our website, allhealth.org. c-span is broadcasting this briefing live right now, and probably in 2 # a.m. reruns so you can catch it later on this week. if you are watching us on c-span right now, and you have access to a computer, you can go to our website, allhealth.org, and if you punch up this briefing available on our home page, you can follow along with the powerpoint slide presentations that the speakers will be using. there are green question cards in your pacts that you can use to address a question to any or all of our panel, and there's a blue evaluation form which we hope you fill out before we leave so we can improve the briefings as we go along.

oh, one other announcement. this and pardon my terminology if it's not right, but this briefing is being tweeted with the hash tag patient info. it was up on the general slide. it will be back up there once the slide presentations are done, and you can feel free to retweet or whatever it is that one does with tweets. [laughter] now, we have a terrific panel. as i said, i wanted to particularly thank steve downs and his colleagues at the foundations for helping to do that, and only fittingly turn first to steve downs. he's the chief technology and information officer at rwj making sure the foundation's technology strategy's in line with the lest of its -- rest of its program activity. here's the director of project

health design, front and center in today's conversation. steve, thank you for being with us. >> thank you very much and good afternoon. key development here, health is becoming digitized, and notice i said "health," and not "health care," and i think we understand health care, the care we get in hospitals and doctor's offices, that's digitized as well through the adoption of electronic health records. health is what happens when you're not at those places. that's your day-to-day experience, and it's increasingly understood as -- excuse me -- as being a function of the environment in which you live, work, learn, and play, and the decisions you make and the behaviors you take on in the context of that environment. increasingly, we now have technology that can really open a window on to that day-to-day experience that drives your health department. there are two key drivers of

this, two technology drivers. the first is the smart phone. the way i'm going to illustrate this is through an example of a company called ginger io using data on your phones, the logs of the your calls, texts, data showing how you move, and your gps data showing where you're been. they are able to analyze the data and develop what they call a behavioral signature about you. it's important in the case of mental health because you may have a bhaiferl signature, and they look at deviations from that and say, perhaps, if you are prone to depression, you could be sliding into depressive episodely analyzing data, and you have to do nothing. i want to stress for everybody out there, it's not a secret experiment on your iphone right now. we concept patients, controlled studies.

it's done carefully. it gives a sense of the power of the data available on your smart phone and what can be done with that. second example to use because the second driver is about censors. this is a company called green goose which takes tiny wireless censors, little ones, and packages them in little stickers to slap on everyday household objects and you can have competitions with who does better brushing their teeth. this is an example of the creative and very inexpensive things to do with what will be powerful sensors. we're seeing this play out initially most in the fitness tracking industry. examples up there are fitbit, a small device, size of your thumb, goes in your pocket, tracks your activity throughout the day, the calories burned, put it on a wristband at night,

and it tells you how well you slept. there's the wifi scale. step on it, and you automatically log your weight, and god for bid, you can tweet it as well that way. [laughter] you can track your runs with run keepers. strap the phone to the arm, go for a jog, and it shows where you went, how fast and how far it was. you can put on a wireless heart monitor while you do it. the next time you see your doctor and asks if you are exercising, you can say more than, oh, yeah, you know, i'm trying. in fact, you can actually pull out charts of everywhere you've run, how far you've gone, how often you do it, how fast you've run, and for extra credit, how fast your heart beats when you run that far that fast. don't try this at home. i don't recommend right now you go to the doctor and do this. the truth is they probably don't need to know all details, but

the key point here what used to be a vague inprecise answer to a question about your health is answered with great precision. it's not just limited to fitness now. you're seeing trackers that relate to your mood, diet, your sleep, and many indicators and drivers of health. the big question in all of this is does having access to all of that fine grain data really matter? that's the question that we've been trying to answer in project health design, which is a, as i mentioned, a program of the report wood johnson foundation pioneer portfolio run by my colleague out of the university of winsconsin. in that program, we funded five teams to work with real patients, real clinicians to collect what we call observations of daily living or odl's, and think of odl as the

measurement, the data sorted with your day-to-day health ?eerns. data on moods, sleep, diet, exercise, stress level, pain, the meds you actually take opposed to that you're prescribed and so forth. in these studies, what we've done is the teams created apps and services for patientings to be able to capture and store these odls and then provide feedback to the patients on the data within them, and then, and this is something we'll talk more about today is the tricky part of then integrating that into clinical care processes, bringing that data into the doctor's office and so on. we have five teams working with very different populations, very different conditions. breathe easy, which steve is here to talk about, worked with low income adult populations with asthma and typically mental health challenges like anxiety

and depression as well. chronology.md, a project for people with crones disease using activity for sleep tracking, the scale for weight, and then a special app on ipads for recording things liked mood, stress, energy level, and actually just a journal to record subjective thoughts about how you are feeling. what they would do is these datas are charted and they bring them in the doctor's office and discuss them with the doctors and see how the treatments are progressing. dwell sense is a project working with seniors at risk of cognitive decline. what this illustrates is the power of sensors looking at three daily routine tasks. making phone calls, taking medications, and making coffee. they put sensors on them, and they look for patterns that show

people have a little bit more confusion about completing tasks. they make mistakes or take longer to do them. see if you can start to notice the on set or progression of cognitive decline. there's a project that works with infants who are born prematurely, who spent time in neonatal intensive care unit, to come home, and have their parents track progress about the babies, and things like number of diaper changes, weight, and also look at things like are the parents doing bonding activities with those children? also looking at the parents sort of well-being. what's their mood day-to-day? anyone who experienced parenthood for the first weeks or so know it's a pretty intense time, and you have to watch your own health department during that. the last one is in touch which works with young women, teens, and young adults who are obese and suffering from depression.

they had a mobile app where they could record information about their diet, their activities, a little of their social activity, and also their mood as well. they would review the data with health coaches who of would give them foodback on how they are doing. i want to emphasize a couple things about these projects. first of all, it's that they -- we're talking about parties with serious health challenges, and they are all tough diseases, and as seen in a number of examples, there's conditions as well, like asthma and depression, an for example. they are high cost to the system because of the complications of their conditions. these are also not typically sort of affluent tech savvy patients. they are have low income backgrounds and had little familiarity with the technology that they were using in the projects.

the projects are just wrapping up and evaluations have not been completed. we don't have hard clear findings of that, but i can share preliminary observations seen in the experiences of those projects. first is the question of would people actually do this? would people track their mood or diet using mobile devices or other ways? the answer is by and large, yes. certainly, not everybody, and not everybody who did would track it all the time, but we saw a substantial number of people who really put in enough effort of tracking to gain value from it. there's direct feedback to parties who made a difference, and they show their day-to-day medication appearance and when they take the pills and if they have been, and brought real insight to patients who said, i

thought i was doing well, but i look at this, and i'm not. i have 20 adjust my routines and do well. there's cases in the in-touch project where people who track diets regularly started to make real changes in the diets and other habit changes as well, and they started really, actually in some cases, lost quite a bit of weight. there's definite examples of information making a difference in treatment. steve will talk about examples from the breathe easy project, but there's one from the chronology md project to share because it's a great example. this is a quote from a patient, and who actually first writes is there a way to extend the study? says, quote, "i'm finding this very useful. i've used this data with other doctors outside the study, and as a result, they are sharing the data with other doctors and changed the meds i was on. as a result of the med change, my quality of life has gone up, weight from 112 to 119 pounds.

i am not vomiting daily." this is a really good example of how a little bit of information, this day-to-day information makes a difference not only in treatment, but that that change in treatment makes a change in the person's health. this represents a real challenge to the system. we all know that doctors are extremely busy and the current mode of practice does not make it easy to add in extra time to review the data. ..

the small studies with don, early studies be done are showing real promise not just the typically tech savvy affluent patient. and is often the case with technologyike innovation, the policy environment, policy context around which they play out, was not developed with these innovations in mind, so we have to take a look at that. and another chewable address that and deven will address that i hope that the conversation we have. >> thank you very much. and indeed come to speak keen in practicing medicine, we now turn to dr. stephen rothemich, an associate professor of family medicine at virginia commonwealth university in michigan. and he's codirector of the three tc project that stephen downs

was talking about, that is wrong with the help of the folks that cu, using advanced technology for caring for patients with asthma. dr. rothemich codirects the practice-based research networks and were very happy to have ufs speared >> thank you. good afternoon. i know the clinical investigator on this project, but i want to be sure to acknowledge dr. of the cd on the right side. she is the lead investigator of the entire project and she works at rti is a leading researcher in user centered design, very important part of developing this path. i also want to reinforce wet steve downs said about the variety of projects because frankly, we have more clinical integration than some of the

projects, but a lot less with the physical sensors and they elect tronic passives application data. most of our data collection did require patients to does. but with that, we move on to the next slide. good. i'm going to talk first about the app and then go back to the patience and what we saw. so, the patients and their project entered their data on the entry smartphone. so i've got a variety of screenshots there for you. if you look at the one on the left, into your daily data. this is where the subject with asthma would go on a daily basis to answer a series of questions that we negotiated between patients and clinicians as being the one that tracks the study. those include the use of controller medications that they were on web companies of rescue

medication and why they had to use a comment or peak flow readings, a measure of how well they are able to move air. exposure to asthma triggers, mood, anxiety, sleep, exercise, tobacco use if they smoke and whether asthma limited activities and my symptoms they have. in terms of users express their check boxes, radio buttons, places to check the numbers and this is the basic process they would do. the next couple of icons on that last screen enter rescue mask on the peak flow data that is subject reduced in the date they wanted to report additional, otherwise they can wait until the next day and entered those. another important, worth his dashboard. so i'm going to talk about the clinician dashboard in just a minute, that the same data was viewable by the patient for the information they had entered in

their sub force. okay, this is a screenshot of a clinician dashboard. this is what clinicians use in the essay. it was web-based. they use this on a laptop or desktop videos to access electronic medical record in their practice. i want to point out a couple things to you because they know it's a little harder to read because it's not the full screen size. but at the top of the screen you noticed a green, yellow and red bar. those are where we display the peak flow reading. and we used the national asthma guidelines numbers that 80% or better at the peak flow being green where it should be. if it is less than 50% of what it should be, that is red, a danger zone but definitely require some action and i'm

usually yellow is in the middle for that. love that is green and red dots. let me explain what those are. what we did is the other odl as we decided to display on the dashboard. it's going out of their their control are nice, asthma triggers, anxiety,, sleep, smoking and asthma symptoms. we try to make this as easy as he could for clinicians and sacred and good, red bad. so green as they desired example. you are not exposed to asthma triggers today. you did not have symptoms and read you had to use a rescue inhaler today. you had asthma symptoms are you smoked. so that is what the clinicians looked at. now i'm going to get back to talking about the setting and the patients. i wanted to be sure to mention that before we did a six-month evaluation, there is a whole series of steps with user

centered design process in terms of having focus groups of patients and clinicians and mockups to improve what we had done, go back to them and see if we could get it right before we actually feel bad. so what the patient, we actually studied this in dirty patients with moderate to severe asthma. recently picked that is patients with mild asthma might not an essay from the app. there's not much going on but we would actually see. we also did this study into inner-city says that influence is patients we work with, predominately black women. 24 of the 30 have low income. 18 of the 30 have low educational attainment as well. and why that group? welcome in this group is more challenging to do this kind of work. so if we can get folks who may have -- you might expect would have a harder time doing this, to do it successfully, than

probably anyone can. so they entered their sub for data at a time of their choice. they got a text message if they forgot a niche was given a smartphone with phone and data service during this evaluation period. two of the subjects had a smartphone already and not all of them i don't think had problems. so the practices i mention her to inner-city crack says in the same electronic records. 13 positions, seven nurses and we did this, which is typically how we practice. so once a week, with the nurses would do, they would've a protocol to look at the dashboard data and determine whether there is actionable information that needed to be escalated to address. and we've focused principally on

deep flow, whether or not they were using the controllecontrolle r medicine, whether they had to use rescue that if anybody they having sent tens. some of the other ones we looked at, lake sleep, but we weren't as clear, but the practices are paid $500 per subject to monitor the patient for six months. we model data in the way they reimburse them for their time for doing network the way the insurance company would probably call that disease management would probably not talk about medical home payments perhaps. okay, so this first example -- i have two will show you. the first one here is an exciting one. this is a young, relatively healthy person whose biggest health person besides their asthma is that they smoke. this patient had actually collapsed to show you six-month of the odl did as you can see

the pattern and peak flows. it makes it hard to read this nice red and green button at the bottom, but honestly the peak flow here. you notice a subject at the beginning said he was bright yellow most of the time. the nurse message that position about the continued pattern of days and before it starts to go up into the yellow, the clinician who it not been successful getting the patient to come in for an office visit sunoco headstart this person to control their medicine because obviously they need one. i was called in and the nurse talked to the person that had to use it. about a week later, after the peak flows up into the yellow green zone, pretty much standard the rest of the time. not just these numbers, but also if you look at the second row of rescue man's in the last row of asthma symptoms at the bottom, you'll see there's last rescue

net use in fewer days of asthma symptoms in the second three months of the study after they got on the control meds. those of you looking at the control meds grow and is read all the way across, but we be set aside, if you are none the control of the medicine at the beginning, you did ask that question to mr. that that room is not relevant for this subject. but that was exciting. the greenback was up there is probably either a typo or somebody collected their peak flow of cost. much higher than it is. okay, this is the second one i want to attack about. this is a much more challenging patient. this is a subject in their early 50s, comorbid, chronic pain, all three of those in the population and some pain and they have lupus as well. this is two months worth of data as you can see the stars and

accept a little bit better. when we started collecting data on this patient, all of these numbers were actually in the red sound and the reason they look better than that now is the primary care physician caring for this patient and i made a decision that obviously are predicted peak flow, a formula based one was not accurate for this subject and use the actual best readings they have done to kind of reset the peak flows come which moves them up into green. if you look at those 300 comments not a really good number. so what happened with the subject as the nurse observed a lower peak flows, patterns of math can use the control of medicine rate coming at the accuse rescue medicine every day. they have asthma symptoms every day. the clinician in this case decided to watery pulmonary function test, which is more -- a much fancier tests of the peak flow that the patients did. what they found is this is not reversible. asthma is supposed to be

reversible as the disease. you get albuterol and see better numbers. so the diagnosis of a different lung condition, chronic obstructive -- copd was entertained by this commission can even of the patient does not smoke, they were referred to it pulmonology specialists. the pulmonologist at my task, decided indeed this was asthma, just severe refract re-asthma and this is a candidate for a monthly immunotherapy drugs that we don't administer an ipaq days. only a specialty base care situation. this patient had not started this at the beginning. so if you go to the last library quickly. sorry five-minute overtime. we did separate patient and clinician forums at the end of the study. these are a few things that we've learned at this point. patients found easy to use. the reported date enjoyed the

odl and they understood their asthma triggers that her. they could actually do this and frankly surprised me how well they could do this. the clinicians were not overwhelmed and i was good news because we were a little bit worried about how that would go. they reported that it indeed provided clinically useful information. there were education opportunities. a couple of patients had their controller medicine rest demand and a pattern of these are not exactly opposite to misunderstand how to use them and i was corrected by nurses over the phone. we have have patients that their p. escalated, sometimes between her without this is for abby says that we had as a nation diagnosis changed. we had three subjects to retype dosed with copd and one changed back to severe refractory asthma. >> very good. thank you very much, steve.

>> you're welcome. >> you've heard a couple of very interesting presentations about some of these technologies work in the real world. and now are going to turn to a couple folks who know an awful lot about the policy implications are starting to use these technologies. and we need to start with deven mcgraw come as rector of the health privacy project for center for democracy and technology, where she works on ensuring individual privacy as electronic health information is shared electronically. she was also on the health information technology policy committee said a better stimulus law. so we're very pleased to have deven mcgraw with us this afternoon. >> recommit thank you, added. so i do a lot of work on price and security, but with respect to help design, i took on book

is a bit of a new role for me. i teamed up with a law firm to be paradise is legal and regulatory assurance team for the project held, to go this is and kind of navigating the lives that would apply to the projects as they were doing them and providing them with a path forward for where they wanted to go, but also to surface some of the bigger policy implications that really a rose out of the projects collectively as well as individually. and it's exciting to have an opportunity to think about these issues in an underground implementation way and see really where the rubber meets the road. so we started with the greenpeace by providing them with legal memos and thankfully my colleagues handled this aspect of it. you know, just down come the

nitty-gritty come you've got five grantees in three different states. and all of them subject to the health insurance affordability and accountability act was around privacy and security. most of you know that. so how does have to apply to these projects? how to save a plain terms of moving forward? but in addition to the concerns about basic compliance with the law, each of the grantees very early on in the projects identified cerda three buckets of concern that they have from a policy standpoint. one b. and security for the mobile tools that the patients were going to be using in each of these projects. we welcome or two down in the weeds about security and mobile devices, that many of you know that mobile devices often are not as secure as other forms of computer communication.

sometimes you can buy and purchase features that will make your mobile tools more secure, but most people don't tend to use them as often difficult to figure out how to do that. there were also some concerns raised about potential professional and this liability by the clinicians for the potential to be receiving all of this data from their patients. what if they didn't see something in the data and what they may say i'm over that means from a professional liability standpoint? and then, as i'll explain in a minute, you know, had better as a privacy and security policy regime doesn't apply to all health data. it covers some data some of the time, banal all health data all the time, so given some of the data was collect data and stored in environments that were not covered by hippa, what was that for the patients? is heard primarily serviced by

the project sponsors, but really on behalf of the people they were asking to participate in these projects. an overarching theme is important to stress from the very beginning as these arrangements are very unique and innovative, that they can be done and is legal and policy concerns that were surfaced from the very beginning, there were plans for managing them is certainly from a legal stand point, i'll could be done in compliance with the law. so as i mentioned earlier, you know, really hippa apply to the data in these projects when it's handled by the health care providers. so when the data came in to the dashboard and the clinicians but added, that data would be covered by the hippa security rules. when patients participate in projects are entering the data into their mobile devices, the data was not covered by hippa.

so you had a regime with a certain set of rules to apply for part of the project like maybe half the project or 40%, but the other part would not necessarily be covered by clear or lasting clear rules here. but if you start entering data in a mobile app, you need to read the privacy policy to determine what the data sharing tools are better going to apply to that data on those promises can be a force by the federal trade commission. that is not the same as having a comprehensive set of rules about how the data can and cannot be used. there may be state laws apply. again can we grantees, three in california and two into other states. sometimes the application of laws is different in terms of who they apply to. even at the state law, there is

typically a regime where all health data to matter who holds it is subject to some sort of protection. you scream to was only responsible for complying with its own state law. we did have a project that involved minors, the intouch project and adolescents and struggling with weight issues and sometimes mental health issues. estate loughran provides a big role in determining who can access the data in place protections around that data in the case of that project which is in california, there is strong praise for minors to be able to direct and control the wrong data when it is a help system. those rules are not as applicable out by the health care system. one thing incredibly helpful and each project is not all of the institutions involved treated

this as a research project which meant it was subject to internal review participants are consenting to the project him as if they really understood what was going on, how data is used and collected and that always has been present when you talk about consumers using off-the-shelf project. it created moments of transparent tape and education for patients that we don't always have. i'm trim would we talk about use of tools and a commercial space. so as these projects are wrapping up, we are trying to take the experience of the project files designed grantees and managing these critical policy issues and turn them into papers that can help inform others who might engage in similar projects. the first paper was about mobile device security and it's actually been published in the

journal of health information management in the summer issue and there's a copy in your pocket and is also available online. here again from a mobile tools are being used either patient. so many security devices and policy recommendations you might mandate using a provider context when you're talking about patient using these tools and making sure they're able to utilize them in a comfortable way to mentor the data, you might have a different equation. for example if you say you have an ability to password protect your device, but you can't take patience passwords. so the extent to which they use password protections is up to them. another example is where the green team within the capability of being able to remotely wipe the device of data as if there were lost or stolen.

that is something that the patient is healed was not impactful to them, but gives them a level of comfort if the device is lost or stolen in at least one of the projects that there is a device that was last and would wipe the data off of the device so it couldn't be accessed by persons not authorized to see it. the paper includes a number of best practices. again, but to the hippa rule, but it is really rounder this journey will didn't necessarily apply and provides a set of best practices. a second paper that we have a draft in seeking to a published and touted professional concerns can manage client essentially are sort of two overarching themes. one is that they start out idea of a potential strain that the provider would be able to manage did not happen in any of these

projects. they were very carefully thought through as mr. rothemich mentioned about what would be collected, who is going to look at it, how often. not in any project of the data automatically get dumped into the electronic health record without decisions made about why data, when, how, very careful planning on that part. so as a result, there really was a level of comfort that clinicians participated in all the projects as well as all the patients in terms of the expectations are very clear and people start to them. we perceive that to be very important. there's not a lot of case law. as you can imagine these are the types of arrangements and in terms of looking at ways to manage concerns by providers, it

is absolutely doable, but she have to be willing to put the time into having this discussion and having those understandings be very clear among both providers and their patients. in the last paper were looking at is the issue -- deals with the issue with your privacy protections for one part of this equation and we don't have the necessarily for the other part of the equation. what does that mean an environment were returning to encourage patient to use these tools and a more robust way, particularly where they are outside of a research project where you have this built-in opportunities to talk to people about what this means for them, with the potential risks are potential benefits and they can make decisions accordingly. what does that mean for policy going forward? that is the paper were actually trying to write azeris eat right now. were working on that. so i think that's all i have to say about that. but i'll be here to answer

questions about how we dealt with issues in the projects. >> thank you so much. pass that down. turn finally to joy pritts committee regional chief privacy officer in the office at the hhs office of national coordinator, otherwise known as the onc. she's been at that poster to enough years. we've asked her to tell us about not only about privacy concerns, but also the generated data more general. thank you for being with us particularly on the short notice you got to be part of the event. >> thank you for having us. before i start, i want to explain a little bit you were not happy with their office. as the author says the

information technology. it was formally created in a high-tech bill and it is, which is part of the economic recovery act. our office is designed to incentivize people to adopt health information technology and health information exchange. so it is a somewhat -- it is a unique office in that department because it really is totally focused on health information technology in exchange. but hhs as a whole has a real interest in putting the patient not to center. anybody who has read the affordable care act knows that hhs and this congress, the congress on a draft of the affordable care act but the patient and the center. we are going to follow the patient had, not just an isolated event care.

and as that, it's the patient be a partner in their care. they are the ones who have a lot of information as everybody is said about what their everyday life is like and how that impacts their care. most care as you all know doesn't take place within a clinical setting. it actually takes place outside the clinic in though it's really important that we know what is happening outside that environment. people who are engaged in their own care demonstrate better health outcomes. and i think all of these projects that are being run by project helped design demonstrate that it's a challenge to get people engaged. people have a lot of other things on their plate to do. they also face a lot of, i would say, cultural challenges and becoming more involved in their he