we are eager to have states take a look at this. i mean, in pennsylvania there would be $17 billion of federal funding in the first five years coming into this state to help insure some of the lowest income, working pennsylvanians. and that seems, to me, to be a very good deal. .. >> that's all the time we have, guys. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> i've got to go to our regional office. >> and today's medal of freedom ceremony live from the white house. we'll have that on c-span2 honoring army staff sergeant ty carter. that's in about 10 minutes. and today's white house briefing pushed a little bit later than previously scheduled. set now for 3 p.m. eastern. questions about syria after the alleged chemical weapons attack near damascus last week an attack on u.n. inspectors. we will have that live on the

companion network c-span at 3:00. washington, d.c. has been hosting several events commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march on washington for jobs and freedom led by martin luther king, jr. akin 1963. that anniversary is this wednesday and another gathering is bland at the steps of the lincoln memorial. the let freedom ring ceremony will be featuring remarks by president obama. we will have live coverage of approximately 11 a.m. eastern time on our companion network c-span as well as c-span radio. ahead of wednesday's ceremony celebrating the march on washington 50 years ago, the kellogg foundation hosted an event on race in america. we'll show the entire conversation later on the networks, but here's a preview. >> i think mark raised the question, point out the voting rights is a key issue on the minds of so many people. we've seen, i guess the question i would put out is where to go next based on this? what is next?

>> the folks -- we focus right now, focus on three or four big things. we've got to get comprehensive immigration reform through. we have to get section four of the voting rights act restored. we have to raise the minimum wage and perhaps quite frankly race it-ever have before. and then folks are okasan stand your ground law's and racial profiling. and the agenda that comes after the trayvon martin tragedy and, frankly, some of the other tragedies. tragedies. those are four big ones that seem to be right in front of most folks were at that march yesterday but, of course, the part of wider range of issues that we continue to support, there is movement in pushing forward. i think we should have hope that we will in our lifetime see a real renaissance as far as the power of our movement from coast-to-coast. we're starting see it in very

splices. this year we are winning for state level battles to expand voting rights and we're losing them. the problem is that we can be winning in states and losing in states where we're losing. the challenge ultimately is to get the entire country together. norm minetta who represented san jose in congress for so long and went on to serve as treasury transportation secretary under bush, and before that clinton. tells a story about coming home -- being a young child and an older person in a community meeting standing up saying, we can never afford for there to be an anti-japanese party again. and some going to pass my head and you all put money into it and we're going to sponsor our young people to go to the republican dinner every year, the democratic dinner every year. and this punchline was usually thank god i got money for the

dinner -- democratic dinner. is pointless there are similar stories told in the black unity about men coming home from -- home from world war ii, and deciding in kenya to join the democratic republican party to push for civil rights agenda. we on the verge of having an anti-civil rights party in this country. having civil rights be a one party issue. there are still allies in the republican party are still governors were making great strides, sometimes it's take on from of action but they don't take on voting rights. we have to as a civil rights community really think deeply not just about how we build upon democracy on each other but how we, frankly, reintroduce civil rights three the republican party which, for 100 you can was a party of civil rights. in many ways. and i believe that if we and the next 50 years can get a little more sophisticated about how we

work our politics, if we in the next 50 years can be a little more inspired, quite frankly by our grandparents and lessons they understood very well, we can get back to a place where civil rights is little bit less partisan, and we can move forward and even faster than we think it's possible. i think right now have opportunity to do that with criminal justice reform. i think would've opportunities to do that with the voting rightvotingrights act. and when you do see that not as a one off sort of exception but as toehold towards getting to that place that those men and women come back from intermec has understood the th black soldiers come back from world war ii understood. civil rights has to be a universal thing in this country. universal set of values. that moment that we are closest to that after world war ii, after the the '40s and '50s, cities have even early 70 as we saw things advanced subcorpora. i think, quite frankly, the first courageous step will have

to be with us saying that will have the hope to even talk to the other side of the aisle because right now things are often, we reinforce the isolation of our own agenda in ways that may be speedy in the short term but detrimental. >> that was some of the conversation hosted by the kellogg foundation at an event on race in america. we'll show the entire conversation later on the c-span networks. >> i've been writing for years now. the proof has finally arrived in the last year or so where you have seen pc sales actually falling dramatically in the double digits, five quarters in a row, and before that it had been quite flat.

some of this had to do with the economic meltdown around the developed world, and the whole world over the last four or five years. but even as economies have recovered, the pc has peaked. when i say its peak, i don't mean it's done. i don't mean people are going to for their pcs away. i don't mean that tablets and smart phones can replace everything a laptop can do, but what's happening is that there are enough daily scenarios for which people used to grab their laptop, that are more conveniently done now on a tablet. >> "the wall street journal"'s walt mossberg looks at the future of personal technology in the first of a two-part interview tonight on "the

communicators" at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> in our original series "first ladies: influence and image" we look of the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady strength nation's first 112 years. now is moving to the modern air we will feature the first ladies in their own words. >> the building of human rights would be one of the foundations on which we would build in the world an atmosphere in which peace could roam. >> i don't think the white house completely belongs to one person. it belongs to the people of america. and i think whoever is the first lady should reserve it and enhance the and leave something there. >> season two from edith roosevelt to michelle obama live monday night including your calls, facebook comments and weeks starting september 9 at 9 eastern on c-span. >> tonight we will conclude the

encore presentation of season one of our series with first lady ida mckinley. >> and live now to the white house for c-span's coverage of today's medal of freedom ceremony honoring army staff sergeant ty carter, expected to start any moment now and again live coverage here on c-span2. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> and military leaders gathering here for the medal of honor ceremony. this is for ty carter. he was in afghanistan in 2000. he was with the army black knights true. is getting today the nation's highest military honor for killing enemy troops, keeping american soldiers supplied with ammunition and risking his own life to save an injured soldier on the battlefield who's been down by a barrage of enemy fire. that's all according to an

interview he did with npr. as we wait, watching the room filled and waiting for the medal of honor ceremony to honor ty carter and his service in the army. ♪ ♪ [inaudibl ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> c-span to live at the white house. military leaders, family, gathering for army staff sergeant ty carter's awarding of the national medal of honor, the highest, the nation's highest military honor. you just saw there a moment ago in the dark suit ashton carter. 53 members of the troupe that tried card was involved with. eight soldiers were killed, 25 injured in october 2000. that is why he is receiving this highest military honor for his

service back in 2009 in the attack in afghanistan. expecting shortly president obama to be awarding a medal of honor the army staff sergeant ty carter. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states, and dr. jill biden. ♪ ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by medal of honor recipient staff sergeant ty carter. ♪

♪ >> let us pray. almighty god, our words make rental never contain. dedicated to defending liberty, and justice for all. every generation you continuous line shed blood and shared sacrifice have borne witness to our nation's first principle, of virtue, honor and patriotism. god, our hearts are touched at the privilege of distilling the distinguished honor upon an american soldier whose actions sustained his comrades in battle. as we honor staff sergeant ty carter for his actions during the battle of kamdesh, remind us that the simple yet elegant award animated by the courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, to

deal with the depth of the page love and devotion. today, our nation is on an american soldier. give thanks to the memory of the men who fought with him that day, even as we grieve their loss, we give thanks to the strength of the families. because of among us, god, increase our faith, renew our hope that our lives can be marked by virtue, honor and patriotism. we ask and pray in your holy name, amen. >> amen. >> good afternoon, everybody. please be seated. welcome to the white house. actually, i should say welcome back. many of you joined us earlier this year when we presented a medal of honor to clinton romesha for his actions in the very same battle that we remember today. clint could not be. he's engaged in, this weekend cause that is very close to all

of our hearts, and that's ending homelessness among our veterans. but we are honored to welcome back some of the men who fought that day, in command outpost keating, members of black knight troop, a gold star families of those who gave their lives that day. as the soldiers and families will tell you, they already family forged in battle, and loss and love. so today is something of a reunion. we come together again with gratitude and pride to bestow the medal of on on a second member of this family, staff sergeant ty carter. as always can we're joined by many distinguished guests, and we welcome your. today, i want to focus on our most distant which guests, more than 40 members of ty's family.

your parents, mark, paul and stepmom barbara. your wife, shannon, who you call the ceo of your family. you are a wise man. i got the same arrangement. [laughter] your beautiful children, 14 year-old jaden, eight year old madison, in her new dress, and she was telling a me about her new room as we walked over here. and nine -month-old sierra, for whom we'll try to make this brief, because we don't know how long cheerios will last. before they came, ty said he was hoping to take his children around washington to show them the sights and the history, but jaden, matters, if you want to know what makes our country truly great, if you want to know what a true american looks like, then you don't have to look too far. you just have to look to your debt. because today he is the site we have come to see.

your dad in speier says, just like all those big monuments and memorials do. for this is a historic day. the first time in nearly half a century since the vietnam war, that we've been able to present the medal of honor the two survivors of the same battle. indeed, when we pay tribute to clint romesha earlier this year we recall that he and his team provided the cover that allowed three wounded americans and bound in a humvee to make their escape. the medal we present today, the soldier we honor, ty carter, is the story of what happened in that humvee. the story of what our troops do for each other. as some of you may recall, type -- command outpost keating was not one of the most remote outpost in afghanistan it was also one of the most vulnerable. surrounded by towering mountains. when soldiers like ty iraq, they couldn't believe it.

they said is like being in a fishbowl come easy targets for enemies in the hills above the. and as dawn broke that october morning, with ty and most of our troops still in the box, their worst fears became a reality 53 american soldiers were suddenly surrounded i more than 300 taliban fighters. the outpost was being slammed from every direction. machine gun fire, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, sniper fire. it was chaos. a blizzard of bullets and steal into which ty ran, not once or twice or even a few times, but perhaps 10 times. when doing so he displayed the essence of true heroism. not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but to urge to serve others at whatever cost. ty jumped out of bed, put on his boots and his helmet and his

kevlar vests, grabbed some ammo and he ran into bullets coming down like rain for 100m to resupply his comrades out in that humvee. when they needed more, he ran back. blasted the locks off supplies and sprint yet again dodging explosions, darting between craters, back to the humvee. the ferocious fire forced them inside, and so it was that five american soldiers, including ty and specialist mace, found themselves trapped in that humvee to the tires flat, rpg is pouring in, peppering them with shrapnel, threatening to break through the armor of their vehicle. the worst of all, taliban fighters were penetrating the camp. the choice seemed was simple, stay and die, or make a run for it. so once more, ty stepped out into the garage at along with brad larsen he lay down fire providing cover for the other three, including mace as they

dashed for safety. but in those hellish moment, one man went down and then another, and mace disappeared into the dust and smoke. back in that humvee, ty and brad held out for hours. rolling down the window just to crack taking a shot over and over, holding the line preventing the outpost from being completely overrun. ty would later say we weren't going to surrender, we're going to fight to the last round. then they saw him, their buddy, on the ground. wounded about 30 ours -- 30 yards away. when the moment was right, ty stepped out again and ran, supplying a tourniquet to one of his legs, bandaging the others, tending to his wounds, grabbing a tree branch to split his ankle. and if you're left with just one

image from that day, let it be this. ty carter bending over picking up maize, grading him in his arms and carrying him through all those bullets and getting him back to that humvee. than ty stepped out again, recovering a raider, finally making contact with the rest of the trips, and they came up with a plan. as clint romesha and his team provided cover, these three soldiers made their escape through the chaos delivering stefan to the medics. the battle was still not over. so ty returned to the fight with much of the outpost on fire, the flames bearing down on the aid station with sony would inside, ty stepped out one last time exposing himself to enemy fire, grabbed a chainsaw, cut down a burning tree, sebi the aid station and helped to rally his troops as they fought yard by yard. they push the enemy back, our soldiers we took their camp.

now, as ty says, this award is not mine alone. the battle that day, he will say, was one team in one fight, and everyone did what we could do to keep each other alive. some of these men are with us again. and i have to repeat this because they are the among the most highly decorated units of this entire war. 37 army commendation medals, 27 purple hearts, a team bronze stars for their valor. nine silver stars for the gallantry. the soldiers -- [applause]

today we also remember once more the extraordinary soldiers who gave the last full measure of devotion. some of them spent their final moments trying to rescue ty and the others in that humvee. we stand with their families who remind us how far the heartbreak ripples. five lives, widows, who honor their husbands, seven boys and girls who honor their dead, at least 17 parents, mothers and fathers, stepmoms and stepdad's who honor their son. some 18 siblings who honor their brother. long after this war is over, these families will still need our love and support for all the years to come. and i would ask the families to stand and be recognized, please.

[applause] >> finally, as we honor ty scourge on the battlefield, i want to recognize his courage in the other battle he has fought. ty has spoken openly, with honesty and extraordinary eloquence, about his struggle with post-traumatic stress.

the flashbacks, nightmares, the anxiety, the heartache that makes it sometimes almost impossible to get through a day. and he has urged us to remember another soldier from cop keating who suffered, too, who eventually lost his home life back home, and who we remember today for his service in afghanistan that day, private edward faulkner junior. at first, like a lot of troops, ty resisted seeking help, but with the support of the army, the encouragement of his commanders, and most importantly the love of shannon and the kids, ty got help. the pain of that day, i think ty understands, we can only imagine, may never fully go away. but ty stands before us as a loving husband, a devoted father, an exemplary soldier who even redeployed to afghanistan. so now he wants to help other troops in their own recovery,

and it is absolutely critical for us to work with brave young men like ty to put them in to any statement that keeps more folks from seeking help. let me say it as clearly as i can. to any of our troops or veterans are watching him struggle, look at this man. look at this soldier. look at this warrior. he's as tough as they come, and if he can find the courage and the strength to not only seek help, but to also speak out about it, to take care of himself, to stay strong, then so can you. so can you. and as you some of that strength, our nation needs to keep summoning the commitment and the resources to make sure we are there when you reach out. because nobody should ever suffer alone, and no one should ever die waiting for the mental health care that they need. that's unacceptable, and all of us have to do better than we're doing. as ty knows part of the healing

is facing the sources of pain. as we prepare for the reading of the citation i'll ask you, ty, to never forget the difference that you made on that day. because you helped turn back that fact, soldiers are alive today like your battle buddy and that humvee who said i am ty my life. because you urged, you had the urge to serve others at whatever cost, and so many army families could welcome home their own sons. and because of you, stefan's mother vanessa joins us again today is able to say ty brought stefan safety which i in the end brought in more hours on this earth. she added in the words that speak for all of us, i'm grateful to ty, more than words can describe. that's something. god bless you. ty carter and the soldiers of the black knight troop, god bless all our men and women in uniform. god bless the trendy of america.

and with that i would like to have the citation read. >> the president of the united states of america authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to specialist ty carter, united states army, for conspicuous gallantry and at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. special is ty carter, distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a scout with the bravo troop third squadron, 61st cavalry regiment fourth

infantry division during combat operations against an armed enemy in kamdesh district, afghanistan on october 3, 2009. on that one specialist carter and his comrades awakened to an attack of an estimated 300 enemy fighters occupy the high ground on all four sides of command outpost keating, employing concentrated fire from records rifles, rocket propelled grenades, antiaircraft machine guns, mortars and small arms fire. specialist carter reinforced a forward battle position, ran twice for a 100-meter college of enemy fire, to resupply ammunition and voluntarily remained there to defend the isolated position. armed with only and him -- after deadly fire on the enemy beating back the assault force and preventing the position from being overrun over the course of several hours. with complete disregard for his

own safety and in spite of his own wounds, he ran through a hail of enemy rocket propelled grenades and machine-gun fire to rescue a critically wounded comrade who had been pinned down in an exposed position. specialist carter rendered life extending first aid and carried the soldier to cover. on his own initiative, specialist carter again maneuvered through enemy fire to check on a fallen soldier and recovered the squad radio which allowed them to coordinate the evacuation with fellow soldiers. with teammates providing covering fire, specialist carter assisted in moving the wounded soldier 100m through withering enemy fire to the aid station and before returning to the fight. specialist cars heroic actions and tactical skills were critical to the defense of combat -- prevent the enemy from capturing the position and saving lives of his fellow soldiers. is extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping

with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, bravo troop third squadron 61st cavalry regiment fort -- for brigade, fourth infantry division and the united states army. [applause]

[applause] >> let us pray. god who rules the world for ever lasting, speak to our hearts when our courage fails, our site grows dim and our bodies may grow weary. of our w way of honor today, kep us resolute and steadfast to things that cannot be shaken. abounding in hope and knowing that our labor is not in vain. and deepen our faith and eternal purpose, renew in us that love which never fails, lift up your

eyes, behold beyond things which are seen in temporal, things which are unseen and eternal as we may be steadfast and loyal always. all this we pray in your blessed and holy name, amen. >> amen. >> well, thank you very much, everybody. i hope you all enjoy the reception. i want to not only think ty for once again, think is extraordinary family, thank is you know, and thank all of you are us be able to acknowledge the extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make every single day. and ty is representative of exactly the kind of people and the quality of people who are serving us. we are grateful to them. god bless you all. god bless america. thank you. [applause]

♪ ♪ >> wrapping up the medal of honor ceremony for ty carter, and if you missed any other we'll have it up on the website c-span.org. just check the video library. over on our companion network c-span, waiting for briefing to begin with secretary of state john kerry on thursday. that is live on c-span followed by today's white house briefing. that's scheduled for 3:00 eastern time, about 20 minutes or not. expecting questions about syria after the alleged chemical weapons attack in damascus last week an attack on u.n.

inspectors recently. live coverage on c-span. >> i've been writing for years now as pcs have peaked and the proof has finally arrived in the last year or so where you have seen pc sales actually falling dramatically in the double digits five quarters in a row, and before that it had been quite flat. some of this had to do with the economic meltdown around the developed world and really the whole world, over the last four or five years. but even as economies have recovered, the pc has peaked. when i say it's peaked, i don't mean it's done. i don't mean people are going to throw their pcs away. i don't mean that tablets and

smartphones, for instance, can replace everything a laptop can do. but what's happening is that there are enough daily scenarios for which people used to grab the laptop that are more conveniently done now on a tablet spent "the wall street journal"'s walt mossberg looks at the future of personal technology in the first of a two-part interview tonight on "the communicators" at eight eastern on c-span2. >> in our original series "first ladies: influence and image" we look at the public and private lives of the women who serve as first lady strength nation's first 112 years. now is moving to the modern air we will feature the first ladies in their own words. >> the building of human rights would be one of the foundations on which we would build in the world an atmosphere in which

peace could grow. >> i don't think the white house completely belongs to one person. it belongs to the people in america. and i think whoever lives in the, the first lady should enhance it and leave something of yourself there. >> season two from edith roosevelt to michelle obama live sunday night including your calls, facebook comments and suites starting september 9 at 9 eastern on c-span. and tonight we will conclude the encore presentation of season one of our series with first lady ida mckinley. >> next, the impact of sequestration on the judiciary. judge julia gibbons testified before the senate judiciary committee. she'she is the chair of the judl conference budget committee. the federal budget cuts that would reduce funding for the judiciary by $350 million, that's a 5% cut would affect judges, public defenders, court staff, jurors and security, and

2000 employees could be laid off this fiscal year or face furloughs. this is just over 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome to this hearing of the judiciary committee subcommittee on bankruptcy and the courts. i'm pleased today to be joined by my ranking member, senator jeff sessions. senator sessions has been either the chairman or ranking member of this subcommittee since 2001, with the brief exception of the two years of the 111th congress, during which time he served as ranking member of the full committee.

his experience in overseeing the judiciary to ensure its effective, efficient operation is unequaled, and i look forward to working with him as we continue that work. broadly speaking america's judiciary stands as a shining example of the genius of our founders. vested with the judicial power of the united states, our federal courts act as a check upon executive or legislative overreach and as a neutral arbiter between parties of disputes. the limitations on government set by the constitution, as well as the liberty interests reserved to the states and the people, ultimately rely on the judiciary to enforce them. when an individual is wronged or when a business dispute arises, they can turn to the courts, get a fair hearing and a just resolution, and move forward with their lives. when the federal government seeks to deprive any american of life or liberty, it is the courts, and often the federal public defenders that they employ, that make sure the government is forced to meet its burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. when the sequester was conceived, the across-the-board

federal budget cut was thought to be so dangerous, so reckless that it would force congress to responsibly confront our nation's spiraling deficits. congress has not acted, however, and the result has been an erosion of the ability of our government to do the people's business. i fear that continued, sustained, indiscriminate cuts could push us to a point of crisis. the judiciary has looked at a variety of measures to address this new budgetary reality, and very few of them come without significant pain to the individuals and businesses that rely on them. one proposal, to simply not schedule civil jury trials in the month of september, would effectively impose a 30-day uncertainty tax on every civil litigant before the courts. a judge in nebraska has threatened to dismiss so-called low priority immigration-status crimes because of a lack of adequate capacity. in new york, deep furlough cuts to the public defender's office caused the delay of the criminal trial for osama bin laden's son-in-law and former al-qaeda

spokesman sulaiman abu ghaith. in delaware, the sequester has meant lengthy employee furloughs at the clerk's office of the bankruptcy court, resulting in reduced customer service hours and the postponement of it upgrades that would aid the efficient resolution of those important cases. the cuts have not been deeper only because that office is already working with 40% fewer staff despite an increasing caseload, including many time-intensive mega cases, which are so important for the country's recovery. the delaware federal public defender's office has had to furlough its defenders 15 days this year, essentially cancelling the criminal docket every friday for the rest of the year. every day the public defenders are furloughed is another day that defendants spend in pre-trial incarceration, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than $100 per day. the defender's office has also had to sharply curtail expenditures for investigators and experts, which may be leading to a decrease in the quality of representation, leading to longer prison terms,

and more avoidable taxpayer expense. and if we don't act, the picture looks still bleaker for next year, when federal public defender's offices nationwide are scheduled to take a 23% cut. in delaware, this means one-third of the office will be laid off, but even that won't be enough, so the remaining employees will face between 26 and 60 furlough days, and funding for experts and investigations services will not be restored. fifty years ago this year, the supreme court gave real substance to the sixth amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases when, in gideon v. wainwright, it ruled that the government could not threaten indigent individuals with prison terms unless it also provided them with an attorney. the federal defender services are the embodiment of that vital legacy. the sequester is slowing the pace, increasing the cost, and potentially eroding the quality of the delivery of justice in this country. congress' disappointing inability to responsibly replace the sequester and save the courts from these draconian cuts

is eroding our fundamental constitutional rights. individuals depend on the courts to be there when they need them, to seek relief from discrimination, to resolve a complicated commercial dispute and enable the parties to stop fighting and get to work growing our economy. the irony is that cuts to the judicial branch that undermine its ability to do its job don't actually save taxpayers any money. the cases will still be adjudicated, just at a slower pace and at a higher cost. the constitution still guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel, so courts will have to appoint a greater number of panel attorneys, who, studies suggest, do the job for 10 to 30 cents more on the dollar. yes, the nation finds itself in a fiscal crisis, and every branch of government must do its part. no one disputes that. the judiciary need not be exempted, and is already working to reduce expenses by selling or renting excess office space, or cancelling unnecessary training or conferences. any expenses beyond its core mission take second priority and need to be looked at closely. all across our government. that said, we're not going to be able to solve, or even noticeably mitigate, the national fiscal crisis on the

backs of the courts. since they spend just 19 cents of every federal $100 spent. 19 cents for one whole branch of the government strikes me as a pretty good deal, particularly for branch that does its job so well. in my view the indiscriminate cuts of these sequester are truly penny-wise and pound-foolish. dr. king said that, justice too long delayed is justice denied. i worry that by delaying the delivery of justice, the sequester may be denying justice to too many americans. i look forward to the testimony today to shed greater light on what the judiciary has done, and what it would be forced to do, if congress continues to neglect its duty to responsibly replace the sequester. without i would like to invite an open, fro, ranking member, senator sessions. senator sessions? >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the financial problem that the court is facing as a result of the cuts under the budget control act. if you'll recall, we are on an

unsustainable debt course as everyone agrees. in august 2011, the controversy arose over raising the debt ceiling. we all reject the debt ceiling. and so the agreement was finally reached and passed into law, both houses supported it. the president supported it. he suggested, the president did, or his aides, to request a mechanism, and that past. so after it passed, instead of spending going up from the current 37 trillion over 10 years, which would be current law, it was projected to go up to 47 trillion over 10 years and has the reductions when into place that we would increase spending from 37 to 45 trillion. and, of course, the problem we are facing is that cuts were

directed into many areas, perhaps more heavily than it should be, in whole areas were protected from any cuts at all. so cuts were not balance. we need a balanced approach i think is what we need to a balanced approach in reduction of spending and tightening of our belt use of the courts are one of the areas that took a substantial reduction in spending. well, i don't quite understand how we are having 25, 30% cuts. it's not that much being cut. so somebody somewhere in the departments, or maybe congress, is directing certain agencies take less, more reductions and administrative courts have taken as a whole. number one. number two, i think perhaps things are not as bad as feared

because it looks to me like that the house markup for the president's request on the al see which should have already come, problems, maybe that will help. and you're asking for about 70 million more to finish this year, judge gibbons. which isn't an unreasonable request, i'll say it that way. although we certain making exceptions, we've got a lot of other agencies and departments that would like to the supplemental, too. so i would just say to you, with regard to the budget control act and the sequester, congress voted, and the american people seemed to like it come with the idea that we can reduce spending costs a little while around instead of having steady growth, and have not panicked and i know

we have stories that there's not enough copy paper in the clerk's office somewhere. well, i would say the clerk, you need a new clerk. like the school people that would require students to bring in toilet paper because they can't find enough money to do that or fix the roof. that's mismanagement to me. you've been asked though in your defense to take a reduction more rapidly than smart people would ask you to take. it's sort of an aberrational thing as part of this, and i think it's fallen pretty hard, and i'm hearing some stories i'm willing to look at. so i got just, come back to the fundamentals. from what i'm hearing, the courts in many areas are being smart. they're working hard. they're finding ways to save money without impacting the quality of justice in america. and for that you should be

saluted. if you can't maintain spending, ma you can't maintain justice at that level, we hope you will keep us informed. congress, maybe we can do something about it. but i think the title of this, what is it? sequester and justice is a bit over the top, from my perspective. i think most courts are delivering justice today just as well as they were before these cuts took place. i don't have any doubt of the. when i begin united states attorney in 1981, the first two or three years under president reagan we couldn't hire anybody. there was a total hiring freeze and none of the expenditures were cut. i don't think the government sink into the ocean. still functioned. and finally, i truly believe, with the chairman, that the strength of the american

experiences, our rule of law, the confidence that americans have that justice has done, particularly in federal court, and that people expect that and we want to make sure that that is maintained. it requires a certain amount of financial support, and i think that you have every right to come to congress and express concern that you think the level of support is so low that you're not able to maintain the minimum, you know, the standards of justice that we believe are necessary. so thank you, thank you. i think it's good to have this discussion. i'm hearing from some of my friends in alabama that they think cuts to public defenders and all are more than they should be. so i'm anxious to hear some of the debate. >> thank you, senator sessions. before we delve into witness testimony, please rise, if he would, while i administered the oath which is the custom of this

committee. please raise your right hand and repeat after me. [witnesses were sworn in] >> thank you and let the record show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. our first witness today is judge julia gibbons, judge gibbons is a judge for the sixth circuit court of appeals. she was confirmed to that's the in 2002 after serving 19 years as a district court judge for the western bishop of tennessee. she's also chair of the judicial conference of the nsa's committee on the budget, and so is well and deeply first and funding issues faced by the court and can answer i believe many of the implicit questions raised in the opening statement from both myself and senator sessions. judge gibbons, please proceed. >> chairman coons, senator sessions, members of the subcommittee, i appear before you as chair of the judicial conference committee on the budget. the judiciary very much

appreciates the invitation to discuss the financial crisis facing the courts. senator coons, i am pleased that judge is a known circuit are here today. i see judge ted mickey. there's the judge from your home state. the third circuit itself -- as rest of the judiciary but it's within the circuit coordination and efforts to address the current crisis has been stellar. i also would like to recognize judge john bates right here behind me, the new director of the administrative office of the court who comes after serving on the d.c. federal district court. the $350 million, 5% across the board sequestration cuts have been devastating for federal court operations. ..

between july tbfn, and the present. a 10% staffing loss over this two-year period an additional losses year end are expected. the staffing losses we believe are resulting in the slower processing of siflt and bankruptcy cases, which will impact individuals, small business, and corporations seeking to resolve the frawfort. while it might be useful to measure the impact of cuts in term of employee or program loss, ultimately the primary consequence the sequestration is not internal to the court.

instead, it is the harm to commerce, orderly and prompt resolution public safety and constitutional right raise -- raging from effective representation from counsel from criminal defendants to jury trial. indeed if funding lefts remain flat or decline the result comprises the constitutional mission of the court. i want to discuss in a little more detail two areas, public safety and effective representation by counsel. the judiciary is nearly 6,000 probation and pretrial service officers play an important role in ensuring public safety. they supervisor convicted individuals in the community after they have been released from prison, and supervisor defendants waiting trial. staffing in these offses is down 7% this july 2011. meaning less deterrence,

deduction, and response to criminal activity. and federal offenders in the community. particularly troubling are cut that have been made drug and health testing and treatment service to electronic and gps monitoring. these cuts impair our officer's ability to keep the public safe. turning to the defender program, sequestration threatens the judiciary's ability to fulfill a fundamental right guaranteed by the sixth amendment, the right to court appointed counsel for criminal defendants who lack the financial resources to hire an attorney. there are no easy answers when it comes to applying cuts to the program. cuts to the defenders, threatened delay in the progress of cases, which may violate constitutional and speedy trial mandate and may cost increase panel representation, which dries up cost. deferring panel attorney payment

pushes obligations that must be paid to appropriations for the following year, a situation not attractive to us or our appropriators. and also, make obtaining attorneys to take appointment difficult. we have been asked why we cannot transfer funds to help the defenders. while we have the authority to transfer funds, we continue have -- don't have the funding to do . we have no available surplus funding. it's been mentioned in our supplement tal appropriation request we ask for $73 million to address critical needs the court and critical defender program. we hope congress gives strong consideration to the request. as far as 2014 funding is concerned, chairman coons we received positive review about the markup of the bill in which we are -- you're a member of the subcommittee, we know. we appreciate subcommittees

making judiciary funding a priority. still, given the sharp disagreement between the white house and the senate and the house on spending matters, we're very concerned about future funding. if the funding dispute cannot be resolved and congress instead chooses to pursue a continuing resolution, we would appreciate this committee this subcommittee's support of a funding anomaly for exception that would fund us above a hard freeze in 2014. frat -- flat funding at sequestration level would exacerbate the current situation and damage the stham is a hallmark of our liberty around the world. we continue to be good stewart of the taxpayer's dollars and seek way to reduce cost as we have aggressively fur the last decade. but no amount of cost containment will offset the major reduction from sequestration.

we looked to congress to recognize our critical needs, and our function in government, our value to the democracy, by providing the funding we need to do our work. thank you. i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you, judge beginning bonnes. before i turn to the next witness. i would like to join those who are joining us and ask consent to enter a letter. and the national association of assistant united states attorney on damage to the court and administration justice caused by the sequester. our next witness is w. west allen. he serves as government relations committee. he's a partner in the las vegas office and ip lawyer who practiced extensively before federal government and pto. he's a graduate of john marshall law school in chicago.

>> welcome, please proceed. >> it's an opportunity and privilege to be with you today. my assignment here today is on behalf of not just a 16,000 lawyers who are directly interested in the federal court system. but really the people and the businesses we represent. my comments; therefore, will be directed as to the people and their right for a strong and independent american judiciary that uphold the rule of law. i know, we share that interest. it truly is, we the people. it's the ability of our court to provide fair, -- prorcht and respected. our founding fathers wisely recognize a compelling need far strong federal judiciary. establishing as a separate coequal branch of government, but independents and promptness of decision making paroled are the federal judiciary lack the

resource when properly danger the constitutional responsibility. the long stray addition of excellence in the american judiciary is in jeopardy. as an attorney who practices there regularly. i want to focus on three points. there are true economic and cost implications related to scwes translation effect our commerce, individuals, and businesses. second, the freedom-related implications to a safe society to general welfare, to the constitution's six amendment right for the accused to be represented. and finally, the crisis really is given rise to a question about our national identity and the respect for the american judiciary. that the people ordained and established as a coordinate branch of government in the expect and hope to be properly funded at all times. the first point is economic. quite simply, sequestration's greatest impact has been for

practice attorneys and clients delay in judicial proceedings. reduce public access and fewer operational hours. reduced hours of staffing, delays in judicial proceedings is common place. indeed waiting for jew dish rulings on even up to a year is not uncommon and has to be explained to clients all the time. the ever-expanding jurisdiction of courts exacerbate the problem. we note in 2012 there were 1400 per judge. the eastern district of california while the recommended number of the cases per judge should be closer to 400. immigration prosecution on our borders have increased 52.8% over levels just reported five years ago. the federal judge in the districts are simply absorbing the extra case load. there are significant delays as chairman coons you understand in bankruptcy court.

it's the busiest in the country for the chapter 11 filings. since 2012 they have increased 38%. yet, the budget has decreased their budget has cut 28% over the past three years. these changes in bankruptcy court are affecting the livelihoods of companies, employees, and property right of creditors, take holders and the most important enterprise that depend on the ability to administrate just nice a timely fashion. mr. chairman, the increasing delay and uncertainty in the federal court have an effect upon us businesses and individuals. it's simply more expensive when there are delays. the second point is the federal courts sequestration effects are having true implications for the people's right under the constitution. for general welfare having a safe secure society that is available that we don't have to worry about the criminally accused doing things whether the pretrial stages or post trial

stages that would jeopardize american public safety. like wise relate to the constitutional issue of the sixth amendment and the tradition of the sixth amendment and looking at the criminally accused and have a right to counsel. as to the issues with safety, there's a concern that probation and pretrial service officer rnts able to properly monitor the activity and whereabout of the offenders. like wise pretrial service offices are becoming understaffed, under trained and underfunded as a result of sequestration. the sixth amendment issue is well understood. i'll leave that to others. but the tradition that we have in the united states of america that regardless of who you are your ability to pay, if you are accused of a crime you have an right to a attorney regardless of your mean naps is in some instances being jeep kyesed --

jeopardized with delay. and finally my closing point that the effect of federal court are having a profound implication on our national identity and the long tradition of a strong and powerful -- i guess the right word is a strong and american judiciary. we note that the excellence of the american judiciary is truly at risk. the justice kennedy explained that the judicial excellence is cast on the sea of congressional indifference the rule of law is imparallel. we have seen it firsthand. we generally as litigators and clients have seen whether there is inadequate funding the american judiciary suffers. the complete independence of courts and justice is pee peculiarly. by adequately funding our frat --

federal court. that will sustain the people's judiciary. the american judiciary, and long tradition of excellence. thank you for your consideration. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. mr. allen, for your testimony. next i'll turn to nachmanoff. has been an assistant public defender in that office since 2002. he successfully argued the case a case dealing with assess excessive -- thank to the leadership of two of my colleagues on this committee in particular senator sessions and senator durbin. he is a graduate of the university of virginia law school where he served as notes editor on the law review. mr. nachmanoff, please proceed. >> thank you.

[inaudible] thank you, sorry. thank you for holding this hearing and providing me with the opportunity to speak on behalf of the federal community defenders. i appreciate very much the comment from you, mr. chairman, and from senator sessions and also the expressions of support and the recognition of the particular problem that federal and community defenders have and the support from judge beginning bonn -- gibb bonnes and the federal bar association and mr. allen. we appreciate the opportunity to be here. mr. chairman, you made reference to -- exactly fifty years after the case was decided. the decision that really breathed life in to the fundamental principle we all

cherish. of equal access to justice under the law. but there is a bigger irony here in some ways, that this funding crisis for federal defenders comes at the time when the government is so focused on making sure that government services provide cost efficient and quality services. because we are on the verge of being crippled and we're a model of quality and efficiency. that by reducing the staffing federal defenders ultimately the government will be spending more money indigent costs will rise. why is that? senator sessions asked about why we are being hit so hard. and the answer to that.

the department of justice decide on the priorities. the number of cases, the complexity of the cases. and where those cases are brought. we react to that. and our staffing is extremely lean. we have 90 percent of our costs are fixed. salary, benefits, and rent. my rent has almost doubled during that time. the remaining 10% of our expenses are case-related expenses. they are essential services that we provide. expert, investigation, case-related travel. we cannot do 80% of the work or even 90% of the work for our clients and meet our constitutional obligations. we cannot choose to do less if our client and spend less money in order to deal with the constitution demand. for that reason, i have to furlough employees within layoff

employees after cutting out every other expense we could including new hires. including replacement of needed equipment. including training. we work with the panel. it's a critical part of the defense system. between the two groups, federal defenders and -- lawyers we represent out% of all criminal dcheds in the frowflt. we provide support to the panel through training, through outreach. that saves money to the government. they are able to do their jobs more efficiently. as we have been cut, volt of the quester, we to furlough our employees and eliminate training. we had to cut ourselves to the bone. many defenders have already laid off staff like holly from arizona will be at 25% less staffing by october 1st. that's not the bourse we face.

federal defenders are confronted if there is flat funding and we are operating not on the marks from the house and the senate, which we are very grateful for both the senate and the house. but on a continuing resolution. we are facing eliminating up to 35% or many of our staffing. that's because the alternative is to be faced with week upon week of furlough. it in the i would be faced if i kept my staff on board furloughing for 97 days. it's simply untenable as a manager to do that to my moes employees, it's impossible for our clients without constitutional rights and speedy trial rights that must be observed. it is inappropriate for the public. the department of justice was fortunate they wereble to reallocate funds and avoid furlough. that is created imbalance. senator session you refer to balance is critical in the

court. we faced furlough and layoff. they have been protected this years. in the coming year, if we face the loss of a third of our staff, and the department of justice is funded that imbalance will be greater. i've been very proud to meet with foreign judges on a regular basis over the last several years with my u.s. attorney to discuss the rule of law and the right we afford defendants in federal court. we do that for judges who come from part of the world where rule of law is week -- weak. and i have always been proud to have the discussions and see how the judges from other part of the world have reacted and been impressed with the degree of professionalism and the our fie tal -- fidelity to the constitution. it will be harder to have that conversation with the foreign judges as i look at the prospect of laying off critical staff.

we ask for your help. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. nachmanoff. we'll proceed with five minute round of questioning. i'll begin, if i might, judge beginning bonnes. thank you for your testimony today. tell me the beginning if you might. in the 19 years of a trial court judge, can you speak about the relative importance of federal public defenders in ensuring the quality of justice and the judging which you were directly involved. >> i think there's general agreement through the judiciary and trial judges who do see the work of the federal defenders up close every day. that the federal

>> thank you for the work you have done to control cost in other areas that don't affect the personnel. there have been some critical of the judiciary building of courtroom space. i would be interesting in hearing what u yo have done to limit the footprint and the cost of court office space. in particular whether there's any policy or procedures of the gsa that makes it difficult to achieve further savings through reduction of office. >> i'll try give you the short answer, because we have been working on this problem since 2004. a couple of -- to mention a couple of earlier efforts that moved pretty quickly to current efforts.

early on we posed our own version of budget cap in each of the area of the budget. it was in a way a statement about what we were going do control the growth and costs and other areas. that was an important two for us and one we were able to meet. we also had a major risk validation program where we started doing in-house auditing or monitoring a bill that the general services administration provided us. we found many errors and overcharges with the efforts plus some other efforts like the revised management planning process, and others, we were able to, we believe, avoid cost of about $400 million in the rent area. today the a & p management --

planning process is what is used now in the court house construction estimate. today our focus has shifted toward attempt to reduce our state's footprint. we have a go of 3% reduction by 2018. obviously anything we can do accelerate that would be excellent. we are trying to move probation pretrial services off other court offices that are in lease space back to the court houses whenever feasible. we are attempting to release space. over the whole period of time, we have closed, i think, about -- we are looking for other opportunities to close entire facilities and to release space. courts are getting pretty creative about it. in my own court the library is

giving up all of the space and moving to clerk office space that was made available when we went to an automated system of filing. we all of that saved space. now problems with the gsa. we have tried to have a constructive relationship with them and we do. there are tensions inhesht in -- inherit in the system. first, we believe in many cases we're not charged in appropriate market rate for the abilities we have -- when they do construction for us, it seems to be at cost. they are not really competitive and higher than we should pay. there tend to be construction delays that further drive up the cost. with respect to this effort to release space, it's a little hard sometimes to get gsa to take the space back in a timely manner. we, of course, have to don't pay

the rent. no discretion about that. yet vent a percentage of our budget it's not subject to quest sequestration and other cuts. that's one of the reasons in a account like ours that are heavily people in rent that it is very inured see all the -- we have no way to quickly reduce our rent costs. that's one of the reason that's burden seems to fall so heavily, so fast on the personnel side of this. >> thank you, your honor. for give me. i'm out of time for my first round of questioning. i'm sorry i took all i don't your time. i warned you there was a lot of time. we will have several witnesses. senator sessions. >> i'm just reminded at the time you were appointed to the sixth circuit, eight of the 16 seats

were unfilled due to basically a systemic filibuster by a democratic colleague. they have forgotten all of that and they weren't here. it was really an extraordinary thing. somehow you got by with eight instead of the authorized 16 judges. >> i would -- we've had other shortages around sometimes and had to work our way through it and try to maintain the quality of justice at the same time. would you agree sometimes you can work your way through? >> we have worked our way through a lot of those kinds of situations, particularly with judicial vacancy. that is easier because you can really then -- because you can rely on visiting judges. we have inner circuit assignment. weapon have a lot of ways to work around that.

fewer wayses to work around staffing issues. let me ask you this. i have a difficult time, mr. chairman, of understanding exactly -- i should know this, how a sequester works. looking at the judicial branch total discretionary, total outlay-in 2007, 2012, it was $6,470,000, and in 2013 it went up a little to $6,5 48. after the sequester, it was supposed to go -- it was projected to go to that, i guess. and it dropped to 6,241. that would be about a $300

billion -- million reduction. and now is that number the number that goes to the -- [inaudible] and they distribute it? does congress mandate each one? >> of course, we have four account under sequestration. each of them had to be cut. the -- as i understand it, -- >> cut my congress or? >> i believe it's statutorily mandated we to take the cut in each account. the 5% of sequestration cut you will recall was taken not from a regularly year appropriation, but from a continuing resolution, which had already seriously jeopardizeed funding. >> which is flat. >> yes. we end up with the for the judiciary, the total is $3 50

million. we end up with the area of the budget that can't take the cut. rent would be one of them. judge's salaries, frankly, are another. >> constitutionally protected. >> constitutionally protected. we end up with a situation where, you know, our workload the defenders not just the defenders workload but the court workload is completely controlled by what comes in our doors. it's not our own choice. we don't have optional programs. we can eliminate like many part of government everything we do is constitutionally and statutorily mandated. >> right. you have the clerk's offices which have been exceedingly technologically advanced. things have been -- by computer not even cometology the filing room. you have an incredibly high percentage of cases decided by

pleas, civil and criminal. it's stunning the percentage is at 97% of locations now on disposed by guilty of pleas on trial. like wise in civil cases are very high. it seems to me that there are opportunities to continue those trends and a more efficient way. and i'm sure the clerk hate to layoff people. as time goes by if they can get by with fewer people they need to work in direction. >> they have been working in that direction. >> i think they have. i'm just raising some of the good news out there. it's not all bad. mr. nachmanoff, it could be 25% of the staff next year. i don't see how 5% reduction? funding can result in 25%

reduction staff of an was a. it sounds like to me the guy at the top are making the money and making all the cuts fall to the people doing the work. how can this be? >> i'm not -- >> can you tell me what the numbers are, say, before the sequester took place and where you expect it to go in actual outlay for your agency. >> yes, senator,ly do my best with the numbers. as a result of the intelligent control -- budget control act in 2013 the defender service account was deprived of $52 million. for our account, that was a very big number. it amounted to almost 9%. we were told of that almost halfway through the year. for us as managers on the ground, we had to implement it in a shorter amount of time.

not that the plan wasn't going happy. don't worry about it or something. now they had to do in seven months what should have been done in 12. >> as i understand. >> told you not to plan for it. >> well, we defenders, in the field get guidance wrapped -- with regard to our budget. we got interim budget as a result of continuing resolution. we represented the clients that we represent in the eastern district of virginia. we accept every case absent of conflict in the eastern district of virginia that comes around to 70 or 75% of the cases. as i'm sure you're aware, in districts where they bring -- that percentage might be lower. that's not function of turning away cases. and so we represented those clients as we were required to do, and we had to spend our

funding in order defend them a certain point, we were told that we would not have the money that was anticipated and therefore had to manage and we would still maintain our ethical obligation to our client. in my district we're currently in the midst of a multimonth death penalty trial involving alleged somali ty rant. you imagine how cost -- that left us with no choice since we were not going abandon that client and no one -- the court nor our client nor anyone else would expect us to do to make up the shortfall through layoff. we know now going to 2014 if there's another continuing resolution and there's flat funding. there's g

because we don't have enough money. we may separate them and still be obligated to pay them for four months, six months, maybe even a year depending on their eligible for severance and separation costs. if we're not going furlough our employees for weeks or months at the time which we cannot do. it's not fair and practical, it means we have to layoff people and we have do it much sooner. thank you. i wish we had more money. we're in a deep systemic problem. we're going have to deal with entitlement. with interest you're pushes about 40% on the entire

expenditure of the united states basic entitlement programs plus interest. there's a limit to what the discretion accounts can sustain. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, thank you for hosting this. thank you to the witnesses for being here. this is a matter of considerable concern. our new public defender had been a federal public defender in rhode island. mary has been in touch with what it does. the federal public defenders' office, i believe a july 22nd letter from the national -- is in the record. is that correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> good. that helps explain how this isn't a prosecutor versus public defender thing. i was a u.s. attorney. i was attorney general of my state, we want the justice system to work.

we want a viable, robust public defender on the other side that keeps case moving quickly. it's good for the system, that was the point made by the national association of assistant united states attorneys. i would like to put a letter in the record from attorney general holder, and james come, the deputy attorney general. stating among other things, a june 12 letter. we -- and defender services. bedrock institutions. so i think we have really important calls to get it right. i would -- we have this exchange earlier in the budget committee, senator sessions and i responded by what

he said to it's not -- i know the senator seeks a balance approach. it's not a balance approach if you're not going raise any revenue. it's not a balance approach when you put the well being than brick maison ahead of the solving the problem. it's not a balance approach when a company in rhode island pays a 35% tax rate at the law requires and cairn value cruise lines pay 6% fig blank blng it's not fair when apple is taking the property and pretending it exists in ireland and not united states. and dodging the american taxes that way too. there are things that can be done to not raise the tax rates in this country. but to get rid of the loophole and the essential services that have been provided to special interest in the tax code for

many decades now, and we need to be -- i don't think you could have a balanced approach if you're protecting those preserves of special interests benefit. i think you can only have a balanced approach if you are going tat across the way. and yes, there is steady growth in the federal budget. there's steady growth in the u.s. population. there's steady growth in the gdp. there's considerably more than steady growth in the senior population, and seniors take more money than they did when they were younger. they used more health care. there's estate growth in income inequality in our country. i think our target has to be get rid of the scwesser in a fair and balanced way and problems like this and problems like we heard about the budget committee this morning on the defense side can be addressed. it's really asking a lot. mr. nachmanoff, your testimony was terrific. i appreciate what you said. you don't have the slippage. you are basically an all-personnel outfit and a guy that run government offices

before i know well it can be expensive to let somebody go. you can be that money loser in the short run with the opposition. you could be in a desperate situation if we don't solve this. so i hope question find a way to work together to do this. one of the best ways to do that was simply to have the house and the senate appoint conifer rei so question do what the law ordinarily does. unfortunately the house doesn't want to do that. they don't want anybody -- conferences are public now. there was a time when you went to the back room and might have been willing to do that. they are public now. they have to definite the budget they have passed in the light of day. they don't adopt that because the budget is really extreme budget. and so we're stuck. and only get through that and get conferee appointed thing the regular order of the senate we could get rid of the sequester and find reasonable way farred.

i thank you for holding the hearing and bringing this piece of the problem to everyone's attention, and with five seconds left, i guess i'm close. thanks. >> thank you, senator white house. >> welcome to the hearing today his outreach to me that help inspire me to hold the hearing. there are letters for the record from federal public offenders from each judicial district within the third district detailing the impact of sequester on the offices. i would like to turn to senator klobchar. >> thank you, chairman. i note we have a previous chairman of the subcommittee. because we really do believe we need functioning court systems. sectorses and our work together when i chaired the subcommittee. i also want to thank you for

your testimony turn to a few other issues on the public safety front and actually the business front about why we need to have functioning courts and i come from a background as a prosecutor. i testified in some letters in to the legislature supporting the public defender's budget and the prosecutor in minnesota. because i always believe we were minister of justice and we if our job best when we had worthy opponent. it was hard to figure out the fact sometimes unless we had a good defense lawyer on the other side. so we're able to maybe gate better result if we knew every fact. if there was a trust in someone who could a good job we get better result. i want to thank you for that. i was curious, mr. allen, we're working hard on passing forum. we are holding a hearing next week on further issues that develop that. we are trying to move the cases through faster. could you talk about the effect on businesses.

if you have slowed down court proceedings when you try to get through litigation and things that promote innovation? >> i would be happy to, senator. there's no question on the civil society -- side we somewhat take a backseat the criminal docket has to be heard. for the civil side, we tend to wait patiently. i can say unequivocally. >> i don't know if it's patiently. >> we do the best we can. there's no question especially with pat encases it's a separate issue outside the purview of this committee. they are almost own use on judicial court that and they take up so much time. they often get pushed to the back burner. when i mention there are motions that may be pepping for six months, they often content to be the patent cases. as we frequently find ourselves discussing with clients large corporations why justice in a sense can't be done. for example, i have right now

cases where there are pending motions for injunkive protection. federal government is the right jurisdiction to ask that things be stayed in a certain place and things not change. there's an injunction in place to protect the property. it takes time. you go for an emergency assistance or you need something before trial for, you might not have the protection for six months or eight months. it's difficult at times to express to clients twhoopped american justice. it's clear the domain name has been taken in essence of -- why can't we get back. the simple answer is because the court have a tall stack of motions on their desk we have to wait our turn. that as the senator sessions

noted. there's other agencies that are grappling for federal dollars. what is significant here is that unlike other government agencies, scrambling for the scarce federal dollar the american judiciary is a third branch of the people's form of government. in fact the justice roberts noted for every taxpayer dollar, there is only two tenths of one penny this funds one-third of our united states government. that's a staggering efficient efficient they're able to do that. that's the reason i express that concern to people instituted the federal system it had three core branches of government. the congress is entrusted with the safekeeping of americans judiciary. and we're at the point when the one-third of the united states government is they are suffering

under the reality that motions may take six months. and that honestly -- >> right. i look at my state. we have thriving cheaps. each employee has a patent. i see the trial lawyer lawsuit which are important to not just that, but just that natural work of doing business involving from time to time litigation. over many things and we center to make sure it's functioning as we look at the future here. my second question from you has been touched on other senators, mr. nachmanoff, is probably one of the most serious impact of the cut on the federal government is the delay when you pointed out by mr. allen in judicial proceedings. and the 0 bit in the "new york

times" highlighted in april a major terrorism trial in new york city handled by the federal defenders was postponed until january after lawyers told the court the budget cut left them short to effectively litigate the case. your office requested similar postponement. do you see it going around the country specifically as i talked about. we need to have the justice department function function. what will be the -- due to sequestration cuts. >> thank you for the question, senator. >> i come from the roble rocket docket which prides its on -- but there's no doubt that around the country that example from new york is not unique. there are many places where cases have been delayed in my district as a result of the impact of furlough and layoff

from sequester we have had for the first time decline the cases. we have declined five cases. those cases have automatic -- all been resource intensive in serious cases. those are the source of case the the federal 0 defenders should be taking. we death eligible cases, harm's export patrol cases. those cases still need lawyer and those lawyers now will be appointed from the cja panel. i agree with judge gibsons many lawyers and federal defenders play an important role in supporting the lawyers. but the fact of the matter is, that is we do the work especially on the big cases. most efficiently and most cost cost-effectively. we have the constitutional ability and the expertise to do that. and what we see is not just delays in the system already, but we see cost rising. and as things move forward, those costs will rise

dramatically as defenders will be forced to take fewers cases because there will be fewer of us. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator klobchar. as a followup to the point, i ask consent to enter to the record a federal public defngders fact sheet. it cost about 71% as much as comparable representation by an appointed cja panel attorney. if i might, judge gibb bonnes, one other point. the conference has the authority to reallocate the money one to the other. and jute dish area dealt with fiscal crisis by delaying payment to panel attorney so not as to threaten the functioning to the offices. >> as you probably know, for

'13, the executive committee is the judicial conference is the entry within the jew judiciary that makes the decision about the spending plan and the financial plan. it's not a part of our work, of course we are priefe to and on occasion asked for input. this year after receiving a great deal of input from many different sources throughout the judiciary, the executive committee did decide to defer panel payments for fifteen days. that same sort of decision will have to be made how to handle the cut and the defenders account for 2014, if there's not an if there's not a budget in place by october 1. the decision will have to be made once again. some of the things that the executive committee will consider are of course the

impact that defender program. the impact likely to occur if deferral are not made. the undesirability of pushing obligations that must be paid in to a new appropriations -- the we would like to be able to live, our means for a given year. not good from our appropriators' standpoint. these either. but then you have the overall interplay between the two parts of that account. the -- as defenders are larder pressed, it's very likely we have already seen rises in panel representations, that makes the panel cost very hard to control because you're not operating on historical data anymore. you're operating based on a

situation that is occurring right before you. so it's a very hard decision that the executive committee will have to make in terms of what to do to the defender. it's considered some other operations. things like cutting the vowture by a certain percent. they explored whether or not the judicial conference has the authority to reduce hourly rate for panel attorneys. we're very -- very reluctant to do that in the past. we worked hard to get it right. it's frankly hardly adequate. and so it just a lot of complicated considerations. but, yes, everything will be considered, i'm sure. >> thank you, your honor. mr. nachmanoff, how, if you would, go a little more detail how you struggled to deal with the mandate to cut costs when frankly federal prosecutors not defenders determine your workload, and when personnel are

such a large driver of your total budget. >> yes, in this fiscal year we have undertaken all of the cost-cutting measures that i've talked about previously which is before going furlough and layoffs, we try eliminate every other area that we could, which is a very narrow band of costs. we wept back and renegotiated expert rates nap is in the face of experts that are paid by the government sometimes twice or three times as much. we are concerned for quality. my employees understood that one thing we were not going do was comprise on the representation that we gave to our clients. and so after cutting training, cutting travel, renegotiating, and discounting fees to experts, we were left with still asking people to forego salary. that includes me and every other employee within my office. that's been true of many other defenders around the country.

but even that was not enough. and we had three people take early retirement, we had a combined 80 years of experience of federal service. we lost tremendous institutional knowledge with their retirement. i laid off an employee, and i had a military reservist who volunteered to go on active duty to assist our office. we have tremendously dedicated staff. that's true of defenders around the country, and they will do whatever it takes to defend our clients and protect this program. but they can't do it if i have to layoff 25, 30, 40% of them. >> thank you, nachmanoff. >> senator sessions. >> i don't think you should have to layoff that many. if this were a large national public -- private corporation, they would recognize when one of their branches is facing a crisis and workload and several big cases and demand more time and they

would reassign to it. i think. i just talked to a person who said their company, national company they said their company you're not hiring anybody until gdp grows faster than 2% and vacancies are not being filled. companies are doing it all over the world. the department of justice, the administrative office of courts are not above that. we don't have the money to run the government. we're not going just keep raising taxes every time. that's the problem we've got. it's very serious. i hope -- i want to find out more about the public defenders. i think your hit have been pretty aggressive. i've heard from a number of sources. maybe we can deal with that. judge gibb gibbons somehow managed their own building rental space. and they're very, very happy

with it. and against a is not in the picture. they believe it's saved money, and the court is happy with it. have you discussed that? >> we have tried hard to do that whatever we can get in a situation to do it. we even made efforts a number of years ago to extra candidate ourselves completely from gsa are. we were unsuccessful. and so we have -- i congratulate the court of birmingham to get to a that point. >> they came to a point of extending it. there was some concern about it. i studied it and thought they were exactly correct. we were able to maintain that, and there was no doubt that every judge --

absolutely confidence it saved money and things ran better. it would promote good government. we haven't been to be gleet yet. i don't know where the cases are nationwide in recent weeks. we looked at gun prosecution. they have, dropping. i looked at the bank fraud case. they're not up, actually down a little bit over the last x number of years. as i said the number of cases actually gone to trial is -- because that's been going on for a decade or more. those are remarkably low. you have situations such years the d.c. circuit which has a u loest case load in the country. our colleagues seem dorm fail vacancy on that circuit which

their case load per judge is less than half of the national average. and so there may be yet some places that we could save some money. while at the same time some district courts and circuit courts may be at the -- >> if i could just briefly address how we take that in to account. we take -- there are a lot of we have work formula measurements that determine or provide go dance on the number of staff that particular court needs. and they respond to changes in filings. it's not like we are constantly building up a higher and higher number. >> but your staff may be but we, in congress, set the number of judges. >> that's absolutely true. on the other hand, our recommendations to you are also based on filings and change over

time. but for staff within the courts, our clerk's office employees in district bankruptcy, appellate court, our probation and pretrial services officers. the number of those we need are responsive among other things to filings and do change as the formula are repeatedly applied. we are actually going in the -- we have got some methodology we have been using for determining resource needs in the defender offices. but our judicial resources committee is undertaking a work measurement assessment of the defender offices to try to gain a better handle on where the resources ought to be allocated within those offices. it's going take a couple of years to get it done. but we're moving in that direction. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your courtesy, and your excellent leadership. we are glad to have you here.

you set a good example for us. now we ought to conduct our business. i would conclude with saying i got elected as attorney general in 1994. my predecessor, one reason i got he couldn't pay the electronic candidate bill. that came out in october. but we had a -- crisis when i got elected. and he had hired a large number of people outside the merit system, and it amounded to a third of the office. we were $5 million short on a $15 million budget, and so i terminated a third of the you young ones. we reorganized, we closed, we got rid of automobile, reorganized in the office. one senior person said i hate to admit it i'm doing more and enjoying more.

we are putting people to work and they still haven't gotten back to that number today, 18 years ago. we think we can't do things more efficiently and more productively. my experience is sometimes question surprise ourselves when we have to make fundamental changes and create efficiency. i do believe that chiefs justice and most of our judiciary does believe that inefficiency are working in that regard. ..

>> and then there's a steady increase in funding for the next eight years or so of the cycle. ultimately, depending on congress. but next year's going to be a tight year, so i'm glad to hear your concerns. >> thank you, senator sessions. i might ask, i have one orr two more questions that i'll go to, and before i return to asking a few questions, i'll ask consent to enter into the record, there's a series of articles from the ap, the hill, new york times, and apparently an article from the federal bar association

as well as a letter delivered today by a group called justice at stake. judge gibbons, if i could just one last question for you. when making the decisions about where to cut, how does the judicial conference weigh the needs of article iii judges against the needs of article i judges such as the bankruptcy courts which, as was noteed, play a particularly important role in delaware or the federal services? how are those weighed? >> well, no one area receives more weight than another area. i mean, it's very much -- our process, our processes of asking for money are highly governed by -- heavily guided is a better word, by our ways of assessing our needs and our process of executing the budget, allocating the money to the courts, is also governed by various formulas and allotments. but there's nothing in the system that, for example, values

the work of an article iii judge more than the work of an article i judge. nor is there anything that values a clerk's office more than a federal defender's office. the system is just not set up in that way. and i feel, i feel as confident of this decision making process as i do of any decision making process within the judiciary in terms of its ability to take all the needs, the interest of the courts, the interest of the users of the courts, the public interest generally, all of those things into account and do the best job we can of making a fair and equitable and prudent distribution of the limited resources. you know, we really feel, as i've said before, that we've done a really good job of our

management. we've been looking at things afresh all along, as senator sessions mentioned, all along. true workload fluctuates, our courts are staffed right now at 1999 levels. there have been fluctuations in filings during that time, but the workload overall during that period has increased far more than our staffing has increased when you look at where we are today. >> thank you. if i could, mr. allen, just two quick questions. we've heard testimony today that sequestration has limited the judiciary's ability to upgrade and maintain its information technology system. senator session referenced the dramatic change in the number of cases that are filed online and the amount of management that's being done online. but it's also an area where there's been reductions. so help me understand, if you would, how current deficiencies this the court's i.t. systems affect your clients' ability to get swift and reasonable resolution.

and second, if the courts run out of money for civil jury fees next year, what would that mean for your clients and for the reasonable and timely resolution of their cases? >> thank you, senator. the first issue, i.t., is a significant one. as senator sessions noted, will has been progress over the last decade or so to update our system where most filings in federal court are using the pacer system, and those pleadings are done electronically. the problem we've seen already over the first decade or so of the system is it's quickly become somewhat outdated. there are limitations on how large equipments can be. there are many courts that require and ask that we still submit actual hard copies of documents. those issues are, i think, being addressed, but there are some limitations x this is no plan -- and there's no plan in place to update or improve the situation that we can see from the civil side. likewise, in federal courts identify seen courtrooms across the country where you'll have

whether it's sophisticated systems for displaying exhibits or other technological advances, if you will, that are discarded because they simply aren't working, or there aren't the personnel to have the time to fix them for a court proceeding. and what we see is you're supposed to have one or two i.t.ers knell for a courtroom that are overworked and, in fact, i think this is possible likelihood that we'll see a lot of transition in that position, which means you have someone new coming on. i definitely have seen a loss of some of the resources of the courts being made available to civil practitioners. to the second issue of jury, civil jury fees, if the money is not there and civil juries, in essence, temporarily go away, that raises the issue we talked about reevesly which is justice delayed is justice denied. and for large corporations and other individuals in particular, when you have a dispute that can only be resolved by the federal court, that is the forum under

the united states government to go and resolve an issue. it is exceedingly difficult to have no time frame as to when that dispute will be resolved, whether it's at tent holder who doesn't know for how long they'll have to wait to get royalties and expensive to keep litigation going. that becomes a real economic issue for clients anders knell. and the idea -- personnel. and the idea that civil jury trials may actually go away or at least temporarily, it's further delays. for example, you may have spent all this money to pay for lawyers and witnesses to be there, and suddenly the courts have to say not this week, not next month. and that ongoing delay causes real resources to have to be spent by corporations, and they don't have a way of planning. it's become a true crises. >> thank you, mr. allen. frankly, my concern is that those delays also further drive the acceleration of the use of arbitration rather than federal courts which has its own problems, the lack of a development of decisional law

and the sort of privatization of our federal court system that's happening through an increasing turn to arbitration. i think the longer delays there are, the more that happens. there's a whole range of consequences here, human justice and system wide that we've been discussing. i'd like to welcome senator durbin for his round of questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i apologize for being late and will just ask a few questions. first, by way of introduction, terence mccarthy, defender emeritus of the federal defend or program for the northern district of illinois, has been a close friend for many years, and he's written me a lengthy letter about the impact of sequestration on his program where a third of their 40 attorneys are going to be furloughed in some form and unable to be part of this process. and he asked me to come to this hearing, and it's particularly because of his letter that i wanted to make a oipt of coming even at the end of it. judge gibbons, given the fact that u.s. attorneys already have

more resources available to them, is sequestration increasing the gap in resource parity to a point that calls into question whether indigent defendants are getting full due process and an adequate defense under the law in i ask you this, i guess, on the 50th anniversary of gideon. >> certainly, we are, we're threatening to get to that point. and the problem is made particularly acute. i mean, this year, '13, has been a very difficult one for the defenders. when you use figures like the one-third, they're having to plan based on the possibility -- perhaps some would say even the probability -- of flat funding or even declining funding for '14. they must make their decisions now so they won't be caught as they were in the '13 fiscal year midway through the year having to make very dramatic

adjustments. so i think when you get to the point when you have a very small staff, as these offices do, where you have attorneys who are a big chunk of the staff, when there are not too many alternative ways for an attorney to do his or her work, i mean, you have to prepare the case, you have to talk to the climate, you have to go to court. i don't know of any other options. we haven't -- i don't know too many courts that have said attendance is optional. and so when you have that little flexibility, you have constrained funding, and you have unpredictability. it's a scenario that can result very quickly in the dismantling of a system that has really been a source of pride for the judicial system. >> so, mr. knackmanoff, should

the defenders' budgets be calibrated to the department of justice budget? that is, an increase in funding for doj means more cases are going to be brought in federal court? >> >> that's an excellent question, senator, thank you. and there's no doubt that the function of federal defenders is tied inextricably to the charging decisions and funding of the department of justice. and this suffering that we have endured this year and the suffering that we'll endure next year has to be seen in the context of what's going to happen with the department of justice. the senate appropriations committee last week approved an increase for the department of justice including u.s. attorneys, our direct counterparts. the approval was for a $2 billion budget, $79 million increase. and the statement was for the purpose of bringing more cases. and be so we can expect that the department of justice will bring more cases in a place like the northern district of illinois, and i am humbled to be associated in any way with

mr. mccarthy who is a giant and a rebelling jend of the federal -- legend of the federal defender program. and this is an office that goes back to 1965. the notion that that office is facing potentially laying off a third of its staff is unconscionable. and it is directly tied to what will happen in the u.s. attorneys' office in the northern district of illinois where they have 152 federal prosecutors to 19 federal defenders. if carol brook is required to lay off staff, that ratio will be even more out of whack. it will be more imbalanced. and we have to ask ourselves, can we have a fair system of justice? it pay well be that thinking about the appropriations -- it may well be that thinking about the appropriations for the department of justice in the context of what the defender services accounts needs would be a very wise thing to do. >> and it, obviously, can lead to justice delayed and justice denied, as i see it, in terms of

trying to sync up the resources while we diminish the defender resources. i might just add i had breakfast with the chairman of the legal services corporation, john levy. two million civil, indigent civil defendants appeared in court in the state of new york last year seeking an attorney, and this was no one. they went unrepresented. now, i know it's a different standard with gideon and the like, but it calls into question many things. first, our budgeting. and second, i really believe it's a call to arms to the profession to step up in a lot of areas here, in particular in legal services side, but even in our conversation. i'd like to ask, if i can, judge gibbons, we've got a special challenge many chicago. violet crime -- violent crime is on the rise, and i talked about some legislation to deal with gun tracing and things like that. i'm concerned as i review your testimony that sequestration is forcing reductions in staff and

resources in federal pretrial services and also probation offices. am i right to be concerned that these reductions may lead to potentially violent individuals walking the streets of by city of chicago without adequate supervision? >> you're quite right to be concerned. you know, the term probation officer sounds kind of harmful, but these are law enforcement officers who have come to supervise increasingly dangerous criminal defendants over the years. there are various methodologies for assessing risk factors, and they continue to rise dramatically. our officers in 2012 supervised 187,911 defendant -- 311 defendants. that's expected to rise to 191,000 by '14.

a number of them are extremely violent. we're already down by about 7% of our staff in those offices. to the extent that we further hues make cuts in those areas, we have fewer officers to supervise increasingly larger numbers of people. particularly of concern in that account is we have also had the cut 20% of what's called the law enforcement account which funds drug treatment and mental health, drug treatment and testing, mental health treatment and electronic monitoring, gps location monitoring. so we have, we have had to really seriously compromise some of our funds that go toward keeping the folks we supervise out of further trouble to the

extent we can. we have had to completely zero out funds for what's called second chance funding which provides things like transitional housing, assistance with getting jobs. we just can't do that anymore. yes, this is a public safety risk throughout the country. >> i'm just going to close by saying i went to we yore ya, illinois -- peoria, illinois, which is a basic midwestern, mid-sized city where they are dealing with crime by calling if all of those on probation and parole for face-to-face be meetings and saywe know you're out there. we're not only telling you we're watching you, we're also telling you here's a person that will help you get the education, training and job you need and here's her cell phone number. it had a dramatic impact. we're going in the opposite direction here. we're putting fewer people in those capacities to try to find

transition life, transition opportunities for people who really need an alternative in their lives at this moment. so i'm troubled by what it means in terms of the crime rates in illinois and around our nation. and i thank you all for your testimony. senator coons, thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you very much, senator durbin, for bringing your broad experience and personal commitment to this issue and so many others facing us as we wrestle with the budget challenges and the justice challenges that face our country. how we solve our budget challenges has real implications for how we also continue to deliver are on our fundamental equipment to justice. i just sort of wanted to ask in conclusion, there's been some comments made by senators here today, they're just incredulous that it's factually only that there can be defender offices facing in the coming year a reduction of staff by as much as a third. if i heard correctly, judge

gibbons at the outset said there's a roughly thousand-position reduction in the defenders' service nationwide. some through attrition, some through layoffs. and be it seems like there might be a greater reduction going forward. and i've also either read about or heard today about senior defenders either taking early retirement, or in one case i believe firing themself in order to avoid more significant cuts for junior staff who were really not in a position to take those costs. and i believe you testified earlier to a reservist going to active duty. how does the loss of human capital, of institutional knowledge, of capability affect the ability of the federal defender service to continue its representation? and how is it only that you, amongst all the different functions that we're talking about here within the courts, could be facing a further cut of 23%? just walk me through that, if you would. >> sure. i think with regard to the thousand-person layoff, that was

referenced to the court staff in general. >> court staff broadly across all -- >> but federal -- >> okay. >> but federal defenders are facing devastation in the coming year, and that's because if we continue with a continuing resolution of flat funding and we have the deferments of panel payments that are due next year and depending on the decisions about the allocation of resources, federal defenders will be bearing the budget of the shortfall. and because we have so many fixed costs, it is going to result in these massive heavies. when you add in what i described regarding severance and lump sum payments for annual leave and unemployment, it's even harder for defenders to manage those budgets. so there's no question that the core value of the federal defender program is imperilled in this year. and i appreciated that senator sessions mentioned that next year, in 2014, it will be difficult and maybe things will get better. for federal defenders, it will be impossible to put the system

back together again exactly for the reason that you've articulated. and as senator durbin referred to the great terry mccarthy who is now defender emeritus, there are many people like him in the system who have years of experience who are admired by the judgements in their courts -- the judges in their courts and by prosecutors and the court can personnel for their integrity and their expertise. we have lost several defenders -- steve noel in the southern district of ohio did terminate himself in order to reserve staff. and other defenders have announced early retirement or that they will be leaving. i have no doubt that that will increase. and it's not just the defenders, the leaders of the office. it is the rank and file, the lawyers who go into court every day. st the support staff, the investigators, the paralegals, those who allow us to do the job that meet our constitutional requirements. and if we lose whether it's 25% or 30% or 40% of our staff with

our program which is very small, that will be a loss that is permanent. and so to rebuild will not involve simply calling them up and asking them to come back. we will have lost institutional knowledge and expertise that can never be recovered. and that would be be a tremendous tragedy. not just for our clients, but for the swire court system. >> well, thank you. thank you, mr. knackmanoff. thank you, mr. allen, and and thank you, your honor, judge gibbons. i am grateful for your testimony here today. if i understand in summary what we've heard, it's that our current trajectory of how the sequester is being implemented in the federal court system is doing real harm. it's delaying timely and responsible resolution of civil cases, it's significantly reducing the staff available to both article iii and article i judges and to their, good operation of their courts. and in particular it's imposing anen reasonable and a last b

deny an unreasonable and a lasting impact on the federal public defender service. it is penny wise and pound foolish was we're placing seasoned senior public defenders where panel attorneys may, in fact, cost us more in the short term. and as you detailed, laying people off may actually cost more in the long term. so i leave this hearing today deeply concerned about how the sequester is impacting justice in the united states, grateful for the attendance of my colleagues and hopeful that we can find some resolution if not to the broader challenges of the budget and replacing sequester -- something i really hope we will do -- but in a more focused way to dealing with the specific issues of the judiciary and america's system of justice as you've raised it today. so i'd also like to thank the many interested stakeholders who have submitted testimony for the record which i've previously mentioned, and it is my hope that congress will take to heart the unique role of the judiciary and the public defenders in our

system of government. we have to make sure we provide sufficient funding to enable the judiciary, a separate branch, to fulfill its important constitutional duty. with that, the record will remain open for a week for any members who wish to submit additional testimony or questions on this topic, and i am hereby adjourning. thank you. >> thank you very much for the opportunity, senator. >> thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> and earlier today turning to syria, secretary of state john kerry spoke about syria. he said there was undeniable evidence of a large scale chemical weapons attack there. the associated press reports officials say president obama has not decided how to respond, but that the u.s. is working with its allies in europe to lay the groundwork for a more ayes, sirrive response to -- aggressive response to the syrian civil war. the secretary's remarks you can watch in their spity online. we have them at the c-span video library, that's c-span.org. house armed services committee chairman buck mckeon saying, quote: i expect the commander in chief would consult with congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available

to him, and in the statement also saying, quote: drawing red lines before you know what you are willing to do to back them up is folly, but now that american credibility is on the line, the president cannot fail to act decisively. >> i've been writing for years now the pc has peaked. and the proof has finally arrived in the last year or so where you've seen pc sales actually falling dramatically, in the double digits five quarters in a row. and before that it had been quite flat. some of this had to do with the economic meltdown around the developed world and really the whole world over the last four or five years, but even as economies have recovered, the pc has peaked.

when i say it's peaked, i don't mean it's done. i don't mean people are going to throw their pcs away. i don't mean that tablets and smartphones, for instance, can replace everything a laptop can do. but what's happening is that there are enough daily scenarios for which people used to grab their laptop that are more conveniently done thousand on a tablet. -- now on a tablet. >> walt mossberg looks at the future of personal technology in the first of a two-part interview tonight on "the communicators" at 8 eastern on c-span2. >> in our original series "first ladies: influence and image," we've looked at the public and private lives of the women that have served as first lady. now as we move into the modern era, we'll feature the first

ladies in their own words. >> the building of human rights would be one of the foundation stones on which we would build in the world an atmosphere in which peace could grow. >> i don't think the white house can completely belong to one person. it belongs to the people of hurricane. and i think whoever lives in it, the first lady, should preserve its traditions and enhance it and leave something of herself there. >> season two of "first ladies" from edith roosevelt to michelle obama live monday nights including calls, facebook comments and tweets starting on september 9th at 9 eastern on c-span. and tonight we'll conclude season one of our series with first lady ida mckinley. >> next, a hook at how to be better prepared for disasters with officials from the homeland security department and fema and a resident of joplin, missouri. they spoke at the center for

strategic and international studies, and their conversation was just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you, stephanie, and my colleagues up here and all of you for welcoming back to an old home, center for strategic can international studies, one of the greatest think tanks in america and, possibly, the world. i'm not biased. i see some familiar faces. one of the things that's great about csis compared to my new job at homeland security is how close it is to starbucks be. [laughter] when secretary napolitano's team called me to offer the position and to be on her team, i thought long and hard about it because, you know, homeland security, it's a tough mission. it's 24/7, you're playing defense, it's a great challenge, a lot of responsibility. and a difficult organization, new organization. and i had just moved up to the northern part of d.c., and my

commute to csis became almost an hour with double buses and things like that. and when she offered the job, i said this is a really hard decision. and then i thought about it, a ten minute commute, that's good. and i said, yes. and then after saying, yes, i realized there was no starbucks up there, so i'm glad to be back here, and i'll be going to starbucks after this discussion. anyway, we're here to talk about resilience, and a lot of, a lot of folks -- we use that term, we hear the term frequently. it's got the -- got a lot of familiarity, but the question is what does it mean and how do we use it in a policy sense. what is resilience, and how do each of us become more resilient? how do your communities become more resilient? this is a challenge we faced at the beginning of the obama administration, and, you know, from are a policy perspective you want to have your vision, you want to have your strategy and policy, and you want to have

your organization to move that forward and your programs to follow. and that's, in fact, what we did. and i'll tell you, you know, we set out the national security strategy puts out the four key pillars of national security strategy. it includes defense, diplomacy, development and security and resilience of the homeland. so resilience is in there, it's in the quadrennial review. it's one of the five missions that we to to moted to accomplish -- promoted to accomplish homeland security. homeland security, we have to prevent terrorism, secure our borders, administer our immigration laws, and the my beth one, insuring resilience against all hazards. and so we've put the framework out there, and the question is what are the policies and programs to do that, what are the organizations to do that. well, the president in his first directive created a resilience director on the national security staff. that was, that was critically

important and integrated that. the president -- actually, bush created that as well. and then, second, at the department of homeland security we created a resilience integration team so that all the different parts come together. but it turns out that even with the standards that we've developed, the grants that we put in place, the programs we put in place, it's still hard to do. ..

but it's another thing to be inspired by an understand resilience. that's what i want to talk about today. modeling resilience and why we created the national resilience award. this the first ever of its kind. i had the privilege of joining and standing with the people of joplin this past may at the second anniversary, i guess of the tornado -- the devastating tornado that came through there, and the people of joplin understand too well how difficult it is to be resilient. they are a model of resilience. as a testament of their strength and generosity, and purpose we -- the secretary announced and honored the people of joplin

with the first ever national resilience award. let me tell you a little bit about the reward. rick, a british-american dual citizens fought in vietnam, decorated hero in both countries, and lived his life in america, american citizens, security expert, and worked for morgan stanley was a bit of a character. everybody who knows him loved him, and he back in the '90s, before the '93 bombing of the world trade center was worried about that, and petitioned a number of experts and officials to improve security in the world trade center. that bombing happened and ever

since then he made point of preparing his organization for future disasters. and he had them drill every month and had different folks going stairwell and running up-and-down there and would be throughout with the bull horn coaching them along. everyone intha laughed at it. he was always character in doing this. he got them prepared. on 9/11, every morgan stanley employee survived, evacuated, largely because of their drilling and his efforts. all but five survived the attack. the five who did not survive was rick and four his security partners who went up the second tower to help others when the second tower fell. and so in the -- the award was created in his memory. he's a person of great character

and conviction and model for preparednd and resilience, and so this national award -- we want to use it as way of helping build a more secure and resilient nation. the -- it reads as follow. it's for superior leadership by a nongovernmental organization who highlight the quality and achievement of rick emphasizing leadership and effect i have preparation response and recovery in the face of disasters. if you know what happened to joplin, small town. hundreds of people lost their lives. tremendous devastation, but the community pulled together in an almost ad hoc way. jane gauge, who is here today. heshe was the chair of the

citizens advisory recovery team. they recognized on their own they could pull together and build and rebuild better and more secure and resilient community. they did so in ways that are pretty remarkable. for those of you that know disaster e recovery and response some of the most challenging parts are housing and schools and all of those things existed in joplin, and what was remarkable is that -- is they choose and focused largely on getting the students back to school. it happened in may of 2011, and 87 days after the tornado hit on august 17th, when the students had to return in the fall to their schools, the community worked together and found a we

to get all of those students back and business was as usual on day one of school for all of the students of joplin. a remarkable achievement. it goes beyond that. the debris removal, the planning, the vision, and this was done in partnership with the federal family. fema was there. 820 employees were working there on the recovery. i talked to jane yesterday. every one of the citizen who were dislocated in their homes are back in their home. if you know how difficult that accomplishment is. the people of joplin should be commended. so this is a model of recovery. a model of resilience. there are many models across the cub, we want to just be to be tell the story and so that others can learn. in fact, that's what happens. citizens of joplin have been to

be help citizens in moore, oklahoma. two years, almost to the day of the joplin disaster had the devastating tornado come through moore, and i don't know if jane is going talk about it today, but she's got a wonderful project she's working on right now. are you going talk about that? i'll just mention it. so maybe get her to talk about it. but the the stories of people of joplin and the learning that took place there is one that we should embrace and learn. she's helping to pull it together. i won't say more than that. you can talk about that. it was a great honor for the secretary of homeland security, for myself, the department of homeland security to give the first-ever award to jane and the citizens of joplin. recognizing their contributions in the aftermath of the

devastating tornado from 2007. what i wanted to leave behind with you as a point of departure is the question of how we continue to build a more resilient nation. we are working -- the report came out this week and you'll see tremendous recommendations about how we build in resill -- resilience. how we build in the ability to withstand the disruption such of the floods of sandy. we can do that with fortified standard. you'll hear a little bit about it today. you'll possibly hear about the program that we're piloting called "resilient start "which is a notion that, you know, you can have a choice about which house you buy, and you can buy the house that is built to the fortified standard, and know there will be better in term of the facing of disasters than

others. you need to have the concept there like energy star. we'll talk about that. we can, as a nation, become more resilient. we have to do it person by person, family by family, community by community. jane here to talk a little bit about the citizen of joplin in that community. which is a model of resilience why we are proud to give them the first-ever resilience award. the next will be awarded in september. thank you, jane, for letting us honor you, your citizens, and colleagues. i'll turn it over to jane. thank you for your time and attention today. [applause] tiers of -- first of all, i would like to say everybody works hard in joplin, not just me. i'm certainly the just the representative here. unlike the other people on the

panel i don't have any credential related to resilience. i'm a small business woman who runs a -- i have the practical experience of what happened? joplin. take that with i have one set of experience, it seem the like i have a lot of it. and in term of rigorous -- what he if in comparison to what i did in joplin which is fate at a time a lot of meetings and herd a lot of cats it's nothing in comparison. but i will tell you i think we have made some really great progress in joplin as a result of the tornado. to the five seconds statistical mark, 161 lives lost, 18,000 cars destroyed, 7500 buildings damaged, 4,000 of those destroyed. 3 million cubic yards of debris

removed. larger than the world trade center disaster. we had a lot of damage in a short amount of time. it went through a older section of town and across the town. when the winds were the highest speed over 200 miles per hour it was moving at the slowest. i can tell you i went and stand and not see anything taller than i was for a long time. any picture you see is to the kind of fled to nothing in comparison to what is like that stand on the ground. fema region seven long-term recovery arrived about week after the tornado. the team lead by steve castner suggested to the public officials in joplin it would be good if the citizen had a role in the recovery. everyone was busy. it was not on the list of priority for the city managers and the fire chief and police force and everyone else, so they gave that role to citizen, and

they asked a bunch of us to come together. i would have done they asked of me that night. everyone who lifed in joplin wanted to help. with the help, we formed the citizens advisory recovery team. what it was was a group of citizen that got together to imagine what joplin could be like after the disaster. we had our first meeting on june 30th, which was my birthday. i was willing to give up my birthday to come to the public input meeting. or the citizens meeting. with twelve dais later we held the first public input meeting. we had about 350 people come that night. out of the 350 people, i saw a nurse who had had taken care of me at the hospital two months before and found her dog in a kitchen cabinet when her house was destroyed. i looked around and saw a man i knew that was a care giver of three disabled men where all of them died nap night was a way to give citizens an opportunity to

stop looking around and start looking ahead. and so we asked for their input in the most basic of ways. it was with sticky notes we up on boards around the room. and we ended up that night with 1500 pieces of separate input, and with the help of fema we turn that to a booklet we distributed everywhere to raise awareness of recovery issues. -- to help us take the input we received and go oned priorities. a month after that we had another public input meeting and said this is what we think and help us choose priority. we voted with dots on board and another public input meeting and started to work from there. when i first became the chairman, i couldn't understand why the fema people wanted to take me to lunch every other day. i thought i have other work to do. i started to understand it.

they gave me a book to read called "the fema." the long-term self-help recovery guide. i probably didn't read it until three weeks later and on a back porch. i understood the process we should work our way through, with that we were able to make real progress. so we developed a set of priorities, i went back to the public again for conformation we were on the right track, we presented it to our city council, and they accepted it. but we didn't stop there. we formed an implementation task force, and for all of you government-types it gave me another set of initial. i became the chairman of the cartcis. it became me more impressive in your eyes. [laughter] we brought another government word i know now stakeholders to the stable. we brought school board, we brought city council, we brought the chamber. we assigned all of the

priorities tout each of those groups and tried to set a time line. after we worked on the strategy for those next steps, we got all of those together in one meeting. for us, which was pretty historic that everybody would be at the same place for a regularly scnged meeting. i presented the implementation task force suggestions and ideas and every group adopted those. by de facto we have the long-term recovery plan for joplin. it's amaze that it came, in my opinion, not the top down but the bottom up. it came from a set of sticky notes. from that day we developed a plan that become really the bellwether for everything that happens in joplin. related to recovery. have we come a long way, yes. we won't have our high school at 11th and 12th graders meet in a shopping mall in a abandoned big box store. our middle coolers meet in an industrial park in a shell

building. we have kind of a lego built hospital for one of the hospitals. it won't be completed until 2015. the school not until 2014. we have a lot of projects on the table but we have a long way to go. i think what made us unique is that in the days before the tornado, if you asked how to be resilient ready, it's that we knew each other. i stepped to the meeting that night of thirty people or so, there wasn't a person around the room i couldn't name. we worked together many times. we trusted each other. it wasn't our first introduction. and that lead us a long way down the path, and as my role it's good for me. i don't have a dog in the fight. i don't get paid by anybody. i don't have any allegiance to any group of citizens. that's a great position to be in, from my perspective. it lets me communicate with the other groups. everyone tells me they're issues. sometimes i'm switzerland?

joplin. and that i'm able to provide the input in the background for them. we're going it a long way. i'm happy to answer any questions we have. i hope you'll visit us someday in joplin. i think we're a great place to visit. maybe some of you will maybe even want to move there someday. if you come, come to the house for dinner and we'll talk all of it over, and you'll see what we've been doing. with that, i'll turn it to someone who knows more about resilience than i do. >> i actually challenge that last statement strongly. i like very much, as much of parking lot -- i like the placement of my comments in this conversation space. because what you have done so nicely is paint picture -- a very rich picture both of the deep challenges facing the devastating community, and the

sources of strength by which that community came together to deal with the challenges. it's incredibly impressive and incredibly instructive. i think you'll hear as i start to try to sketch some of the connective tissue between that very tangible set of images you just conveyed to all of us, and the broad picture of national policy that david leadoff with. that's the space that i would like to try to work in for a couple of minutes. talk about how are we taking the policy concept that david referenced in the national security strategy, and the homeland security review, presidential policy districtive aid on national preparedness and apply the concept in ways that help more communities that face the unfortunate circumstance deal with them in ways akin to have you --

how you have in joplin. the clear reminder in business of disaster management it's easy to get lost in the language. we talk about mission support function we talk about debris removal and funding heck -- mechanism and the project work sheet and the language. it masks us from what is really at the center which is people. that disaster and management -- disaster management is fundamentally about people. it's inherently a social process, if any, we are not careful, we can lose sight of that, and get in their own way very easily in term of how we foster building capability to withstand to recover from, and adapt from crises. so at me faa, we have tried to take the cost of resilience as an opportunity look in the the mirror at ourself and field of

practice. and not do that on our own but make that a collective conversation and collective reevaluation. i was raised by two psychologists, which explains most of what is wrong with me. [laughter] and that it's a long list that none of you would like to hear about, but i did get at least one valuable lesson out of that, which is take any mement of change as an opportunity step back. question underlying asupervision. the first set of things we begin to do have the conversation and colleagues across the enterprise. this is a distributed field of practice. no one really work for anyone. it em compasses virtually ere agency and every level of government. all sorts of players across the private industry space, the nongovernmental space. the civic organization and the

public. it's a wide soil and water assessment tool of partner of players of actors. and we began by stepping back and asking foundational questions. what does mean? what does success really look like? what do communities that have coped with crisis what are their story and lessons have to tell us? the multinational work that was referenced earlier was built around the comparative analysis trying to derive comparative themes that can be useful from a policy making standpoint. to spare you 18-months of process in the metal of that, what it distilled down to is really a doctoral reframing. in some people's view a new approach. in other people's view back to our roots and basics. regardless, a set of principles we can use to keep us grounded

in that first order of recognition that it's all about people, and about what will most effect i havively support people moving through very challenging times. so the principles are pretty simple, and i'll spend couple of minutes talking about them and talk about some of the things that we have within trying to do to shift our practice as an agency, but also as a field to support those principles. the first is almost self-evident. except it's not in too many circumstance. it's understand and meet the actual needs of the entire community. there are heavy -- that creep in to planning rooms, we tend to plan for the set of needs we're familiar with whoever we're at the table. so this is very much about stepping back and making sure that all the voices are in fact at the table. that full understanding of how the communities really work. how social activity is organized

and community on ab every day basis. who are the underrepresented voices and groups are in those processes, and what a specific challenges and needs are they may have and how it can be brought to the process and consideration in an important way. the best analogy that i've heard come out of that is communities are like dna. it's that complex. and what is more, unlike -- dna they're not at all static. they are constantly shifting and changing. we each participate in many different communities in our lives. community of practice, community of interest, community of faith, family networks, geographic community, occasionally communities of circumstance, and yet all of those represent important heck ni.s, avenues, and opportunities. the second is acknowledging that complexity, the importance of engaging and empowering all part of the community. and thinking specifically about crossing sectors.

about how this scratches across not just the governmental sector, but the public and private sector and the civic sector as well. what go we do to set conditions in a way that enable and support emergent action. cad will itic leadership at the local level. a brilliant example of which is to sitting to i had left supports that. sees that when it's happening. it's lams happening. the real challenge ends up being will it happen in productive conversation with government or an opposition to what government is doing. we have plenty of examples of both. with very different pathways on the back ends of disasters. seek out opportunity build trust and let public participation first lady setting priority. again, such a wonderful illustration in joplin. and the last is helpful to think

about the social environment in ways akin to think about how we think about the environment. we are comfortable about conversation how we strengthen resilience in our infrastructure system or think about risk production to physical infrastructure. and yet what we would propose is that is exactly how we need to think about the social environment. we need to seek out strengthen and support pillar of strength in our community on an every day basis. to disaster management that focuses on strengthening and adapting those institutions. those point of strength. on a day by basis.

then that tbowld cuss on governmental action will deliver alone. and that's really the core premise behind all of this. the disasters do not represent challenges of government. they represent challenges to society. and society is more than government. much, much more than government. government comprises 10% of the work force. a capability base is so mucher broader outside bhap are we doing to find ways to productively engage that capability either through direct action but more often through enabling the action of others and working to support it. working with it. so. things that we have underway just to close this out so that you don't leave this conversation thinking that it's all theory and no practice, and in no particular order, but for the past four years we have aggressively been rebuilding our relationship to as many players, engaging new players in new

ways. we have private sector participation in our own operation center, engagement on a host of issues. that we never could have contemplated in year's past. working with broad range of organizations with whom we didn't previously have working relationship. and working tightly with nongovernmental organizations. voluntary organizations, active and disaster, et. cetera in a number of ways as well. we launched a community resilience -- and the los angeles emergency preparedness foundation. very little money to run a national challenge to -- tremendous response. we had well over 3,000 applications from across the country.

the project under the program are underway now. most recently developing a real emphasis in our messaging to the public and engagement to the public and preparedness and shift in focus and language and framing. moving beyond the considerable progress made in building awareness to focusing on building action and motivating behavioral change. the frame for that is thinking about it as a prepare-thon. how do we get people to take an action. taking one action increases the likelihood they'll take one more action. so that include a wide range of activity and you'll all see that new messaging and that new approach unveil as we move to national preparedness month, but a real embodiment to some of the principles we've been talking about before. so i'll maybe leave with a few simp truths and then turn to my colleague to my right and the opportunity for discussion.

almost all the public is the true first responders on scene. almost always first and foremost neighbors helping neighbors, bystanders helping each other. the disaster is one variable in the equation. the disaster interact with the social environment, the underlying social conditions, the same way it interacts with the fiscal environment. we may think about how we work with those conditions and who is working on issues in that space socially on an everyday basis. successful recovery is organic. that's another word that i would use to describe the story that james told nap is a story of organically driven recovery. priority setting, et. cetera, but organic from within. again, this is all a social process. if we do not embrace these truths and think about what it

means to administrate programs in the context of them to provide support in times of need in a recognition of them we will never make real progress in building resilience. thank you. turn to debra. >> thank you. and congratulations to jane in terms of winning this important award. for those of you who hadn't previously heard of rick, i would encourage you to read "the unthinkable" how people survive disasters. it's a fascinating book overall. there's a chapter that is devoted to him, and the work he did certainly on that day when he lost his life. but also in terms 77 anticipation and preparation nap is such a theme, i think of what we're here about and certainly your work really doesn't compare to his but it's vitally important, and, you know, certainly a model for us to go forward. so congratulations on that.

i'm with the insurance institute for business and home safety. an organization that supported by the insurance and reinsurance policy organizations and we do engineering physical testing, scientific test with and communications that is directed at making individuals and businesses better prepared for a variety of events that may come their way. when we say disaster, it could be a national disaster. it could be a fire in their building. it's a disaster that affects you is sort of the way we look at things. i was reading the hurricane sandy recovery report earlier this week, there was an interesting phrase i thought described ibhs quite nicely. it wasn't intended to do that. promoting resilient building through innovative idea and thorough understanding of current and future risk. we like to think that's what we do. actually the hurricane sandy report said rebuilding. insofar as we would like to get the point where we don't need do

rebuilding because we build right the first way, i would like to focus a little bit more directly on that. i usually have some razzle-dazzle video and they should get in to what we do. the format here didn't allow that. you are stuck with me. but i'm going to talk a little bit about the razz razzle-dazzle that we do and what we're trying to accomplish. we have a brand new research center, i guess it's 30 9-anniversary. we blow down buildings and burn buildings and we dell huge building and apply hail to buildings, and the idea is to better understand vulnerability and to identify ways to do better in the future. when we built that facility, we realized if we had this scientific center in the middle of nowhere. believe me, it's the mimgd of no why where and no one knew about it. we would be educating ourselves

but wouldn't be making a difference. so we developed what we set up a time with three-year strategic plan. i think we quickly realize it's a three-stage strategic plan. how do we take the research and change society. make it more resilient? the first step getting people to pay attention what we're doing. thank you all for paying attention. on a wroader -- broader scheme, we do a lot of communication and video that captures -- debts on tv a lot. people say wow, that's something. and getting them to change their mind to want to make changes that make them more resilient fop want to have a stronger roof instead of a granite counter top. ultimately to use the individuals to transform society so we as a society accomplish the things that you're trying to do. so that is sort of the plan president of i'm going talk about a little bit later. we at ibhs have a circle of influence.

we take research and lab in the field. we try to transform that through communications and ultimate matily to come up with better building codes, people who want to go above building codes, and the mention meat of the fort -- fortified program. that's a follow voluntary people make people want it. come up with better technical standards and provide the appropriate incentive to people have the means to make the changes they want to make. i'm going to ask a little bit about insurance. we're not really -- we're insurance-sported organization. we really deal on the disasters preparation and safety a tsh arena. what is the insurance implication of the work we're doing. we're trying to come up with stronger relationships between theory and reality response insurance companies can do a better of job of understanding the risk of the policy holders face. helping them to reduce the risk, and pricing accordingly so people are rewarded for making

the right choices. we try to improve modeling so modelers do a better job of understanding risk. we're trying to reduce losses. we talk in insurance terms about the low severity, but high frequency event, the small events that happen a lot. all the way down to the ones that don't happen very often but severe. the hurricane sandy, the hurricane katrina, the joplin tornado. we try to reduce losses for all of those type of events. and ultimately to focus on the priority of what the things causing property loss and causing people to be displaced from their homes and business z to shut down. and for us that means getting the roof right. because roofs are implicated in a huge number of losses both to the property and the stuff that is inside and the people that are inside. and so a lot of testing that we're doing is really focusing on that. we're here in washington.

we have to talk a little bit about politics. we like to think about the bipartisan benefit of mitigation, and i've been at ibhs for about five years. during that time, there's certainly has been a switch in the house. there's been a switch in to the way the politics we're dealing with these things. and, you know, first we thought about 2009, which really in washington what are the resident themes? we talk about mitigation being the 99% solution. i don't think they were quite talking about 99% because it helps everybody. vulnerable populations especially. being helped by things you can do by better standards, and codes. how building green and building strong. then, of course, we a little bit of a switch in the house. there was a little bit of change in tone. so we wanted to still talk about the issues in ways that made sense to the people who are make the decisions.

a realized mitigation also encourages personal responsibility. fiscal restraint over the long-term, and a dollar now save a lot of money later. and the concept of generation equity. we're doing this for our children and grandchildren so they don't inherit shoddy buildings and the costs associated with it. we had the themes and we realized, you know, there's levers that unit it. what about first responder safety bhop is against first responders ?eaft nobody. who is against economic growth? nobody. who is against leveraging federal investment? nobody. so it really does all work together. we have to find the right words for the right audiences and deal with the right political pressure so question transform our society as we indicated. so what are some of the public policy implications? the work that we do showing it so publicly we think provides better credibility so when we're

fighting for better codes and standard we have really the oomph to do it. no one will question it. a lot of guidelines are being adopted by federal, locate, and state agencies. we have seen it with a number of dhs programs in the gulf in particular. our fortified standard is being was incorporated in terms of some of the grant money going there, and public/private partnership which were referenced more specifically the reference was made to the combination of the ibh task fortified standard and the dhs resilience. that's another type of example. not at the local level but hopefully trickling down to the local level of the public private public/private partnership. as i mentioned going green and building strong. we're dealing with risk today and risk as we tapet might happen in the future. i'm going stop so we have time for questions. thank you all for listening to

me and not just watching my video. thank you. >> i would like that thank thank our panelists. it's amazing to me in forums like this. i sit here which is the deep thinking think tank and we like to stake step back. a lot have prior governor service. we sit here then when come to events like this i'm so inspired to hear about the wealthy of experience and the perspectives that you all bring. i also would like to add my congratulations to jane and the city of joplin for this award, but, you know, in the last say 18 months, csi is has had the family foundation on community resilience theory. one thick i noticed recurring themes are innovation, public/private partnership and so, you know, i was glad the chamber commerce involved in the -- but in addition, you know, talking about legislative reform and think about the homeowner

protection character is in the house right now. looking at things about standards, and taking models and taking them a step further. innovation, public/private partnership and reform. i think belong at this. at the end of the day it's about the community. today i would like to make it about this community. i'm not going do ask any questions. the way we structure the q & a because we have ten to fifteen minutes. i ask people to raise their hand, someone will bring you a mic. we're going take three questions at the time. do we have any people with questions? i wouldn't like to come to the jebt lman in the floral shirt first. it's an awesome shirt, please, sir. >> yes, [inaudible] live through -- [inaudible] some years ago, and the people of miami made a saint out of -- [inaudible] you were absolutely fabulous. then comes katrina and we have a disaster. joplin --

is there something that happened some kind of evolution in those years that have brought it back to being effective? >> thank you. i would like to direct that question to david. there's a gentleman in the ball cap up here, please. >> i'm andre, and i'm the partner and chief representative in vietnam for the internet transfer company. [inaudible] vehicle and we're -- [inaudible] and we want to fund it as we get a prototype funded by public/private partnerships, and i want to say one of the things i admire about your presentation is the rigor of now analyzing independent variable that bear on the equation, and so could you just give an example of

public/private partnership arrangement has worked for you in one of these situations. >> thank you. i might ask jane to address that question give your experience. there's a gentleman in the back of the room, please. >> robert international investor. my question concerns -- sin we are talking about the gamete of natural disasters and even terrorism. why in some instances, notably 9/11 and even most recently at the boston bombing there was an immediate step up to have dr for the victim and victim's family. i don't any such call for natural disasters very often. it seems to me that the suffering is every bit as great. i wonder if you could talk about the effectivenesses. if any of you get engaged in that, and whether it makes sense that it be delved out in more

uniform matter. >> thank you. i'll actually ask all you to focus on that briefly. for the first question, david. so the short answer is there's a lot that has changed over the trajectory. the agency has changed considerably as has the field of practice from the early '90s when andrew hit in florida through katrina in 2005, and yet again to today. we have seen huge changes on a couple of indications over that trajectory. huge changes at fema in term of fema's size and capability base and et. cetera, and also importantly at the state level and local level in emergency management organization at the levels. and a real evolution in focus. in the early '90s you were really coming out of the civil definitely area. the principle area of emphasis and moving to a time we were focus more heavily on natural disasters and andrew being one

of the key things to catapult that. then with 9/11, you see the introduction of terrorism to the picture, in a new way, by no means the first experience with it. and the creation of the department of homeland security and fema's incorporation in to it, and post katrina very significant set of reform yet again in the reform act. there's no single answer picture expept to stay shifted over time as has focus and the the investment in capability within the field. you have a networking system that is working when you talk about different kind of events affecting different area of the country. they are inherently power. the reserve to the people and state. and the constitution you are operating through and in support of different infrastructure setups in each of those states and those all come to bear as

well. i feel that's not a great answer for you, but i'll leave it at that. >> jane, if you could talk about at public/private partnership you experienced in joplin. >> for, for the sake the -- i shared mdrt. and so we realized it is certainly imrond our capacity to recover joplin with the resources that we had within the cities. so we can contracted with the master developer to look at innovative ways we can could bring together public and private partnership. the one that come to bear at least to date we had an outdated library that wasn't in the recovery done db zone, but felt like we needed to move it there to increase the size and increase the people ability -- able to get it. what we did is work with the master developers and also the economic development of administration and so we're about to build a combination

first run movie theater and library in the same building the library on the first floor the movie theater on the top floor. we had $40 million from eda to see the project then we the re of the money raised locally through private development to make it happen. >> that's fantastic. i personally in d.c. would like to have a library/movie theater. if ever you want to move to d.c. your command of acronyms will make you fit in. >> thank you. >> does anyone want to take a stab at company suggestion and in the aftermath. i might actually ask debra to give your perspective on -- i know you're, you know, sponsored by insurance industry. so this is a topic you probably are overly familiar with. >> not really with respect to -- it's an excellent question, and we are a humane society, and we always want to alleviate

suffering when we can. and this is just a personal view, this is not an area where ibhs deals with. i know one of the challenges we also face. i read some of the work that was done at resources for the future how do you balance post disasters alleviation? you know, the different type of aid. again not providing incentive for preparation, and i think in the case of 9/11 or the marathon bombing it's not an issue. there isn't, these are people for the most part we're talking about severe injuries or death. people away from their homes at the time, and you don't really run in to the same issues that you have when you talk about an event that results in property damage certainly in the case of joplin, loss of life, injuries, but i think it gets a little bit more complicated with some of

these natural disasters, because they bring in other dimensions. that's, you know, you excellent question and i'm trying to answer it. i don't know if that's the right answer, but so you look at the two event you mentioned, and -- [inaudible] well, you know, in a tremendous amount of aid went out to katrina in a variety of ways. it took a lot longer and more sustained, you know, recovery. i would like to use that term for recovery and progress. i think it's probably the right term. but i think that when you have a natural disaster, over a wider spread area, it does bring an additional dimension. it makes us less humane as an society, i think it is not quite as concentrated. please disagree with me, other panelists, if you think i have

gotten it wrong. the nuance i add there different legal program work. and i bring in deepwater horizon as another example of a different legal framework. in the case of terrorism and the cases of natural disasters, decorations have been made by the president and in the cases of terrorist attack. there is support provided under a different set of mechanisms. but they are different legal framework, they are different legal distinction. the claims filed under deepwater hires. the first order of payment is the responsible party. that's a legal framework set up in that context. it's a there is individual assistance provided to qualifying homeowners and survivors, and there are over means of support but those are different mechanisms. the thing i wouldn't lose sight of; however, that cuts across all of those.

there's huge broad based grassroots support. the overwhelming majority of financial aid in the aftermath of the triple disaster in japan was private citizen and ngo. and you see that same effect happening here. look at the huge sum of money that came through private donations and ngo networks in different ways in each of those events that i just referenced. then most recently the crowd source funding support which is a new very small dollar amount by comparison. a new phenomena in the way support is the word i would give is provided to effective populations. [inaudible] >> i do think there are some victims who really are, you know, tornadoes whenever it might be who don't have their

needs fully addressed. >> thank you, sir. i think when we talk about public/private partnership we shouldn't forget the role of ngo and philanthropic organizations. after hurricane sandy was significant. and it's something that i think as we look to the future how to capture the goodnd that comes from new version of philanthropy and crowd sources will be key. i'm going ask jane to think about a good example of an ongoing project they're undertaking in joplin to maybe gave sense how they're moving forward. i would like her phrase of not look around but look forward. i think that was useful. before she goes in to that, i would like that ask if any of you have further questions. if we get -- the lady back there and this woman up here and we can have them after. thank. >> my name is abby and i work with interaction, which is a coalition of international -- us-base international

humanitarian assistance and development ngo, and thank you all for your presentation and what struck me a lot about your definition of resilience is that everyone had a different definition particularly within the government, if you look at usaid they have a different diff in addition of what they would say resilience is bringing me to my question is that in the international arena, among ingo, we talk about resilience as the ability for people absorb shocks and stresses without huge interruptions in their livelihood. so really addressing those underlying risk factors that cause people to be less resilient. whether it's the procurious living situation, their employment, the social and networks and ability to reach out to them. so a lot of what you're talking about what i heard today is

preparedness and recovery but not addressing those underlying risk factor that make people less resilient to disasters or any conflict or anything like that. i was wondering how any of you looking at the underlying risk factors to really build the resilience of people to absorb the shocks. >> perhaps debra has thoughts on that. lady up front, please. >> i'm kathleen cook, a former cnn correspondent and author of "rising from katrina: how my mississippi hometown lost it all what mattered." i want to ask a brief question. how do you get cities to be willing to invest in resilience in the tough times in something that might happen. preparing for the possible when they are dealing with so many

presses issues right now, again, the economy, crime,th. >> thank you. i would like jane first to lead off about a project might be working on. >> david mentioned that i'm working on a project, i have been because we have been so blessed in joplin and certainly not become experts by any mean. i think we have a set of practical experience. i've collected so far about 40 essays from people across all sector of joplin who are vod -- involved in recovery from the hospital chief to the city manager to the superintendent of schools about what we learn in the first year we think are lessons can pass on what we wish wed had known. the more i publicly state my goal the more it has to happen. i'm hoping i'll be done with it by the end of september and able to give it out to anyone in a way that is interested in a community organization. in terms of the investing in

resilience. that's a hard question to answer from our perspective. we need money in every sector for so many things right now. it's hard give give out. ly say fema and the insurance companies help us in getting back to where we were, but not to where we want to be. and so, you know, even in joplin with the tight times we've been experiencing with the tornado we passed a $62 million bond issue to invest in our ourselves and safer and more resilient school that had a different face than before. >> i think i would add when you look at involving cities and helping them make investment. it's a tough fiscal environment for them. there are organizations like the center for disaster philanthropy which tries to help donors target their donations and time, effort, money more effectively. but the question of getting cities and federal government too and david may be able to speak to this. in term of investing in i are

sill yent sincerity however it might be defined. if i could actually on the question, the second question, david, if you can talk little bit how fema finds resimilar yens and the role of jurched -- underlying factor. >> i would be happy to. maybe i'll use that to lead to the other question as well. so i think the definition issue is a bit of a red herring. everything you describe definitionly is compatible with how we're thinking about it. with me it's like prosperity. every one of us define prosperity slightly differently. we can appreciate the value of it and have aspiration with respect to it. i think the important thing is not so much quibbling over the specific language, because the phrase the term shows up in different ways in many different field. physical sciences, biological sciences, et. think about, again, that application. this is where your point about

theunder lying risk factor. when you heard me speak about underlying organization or you speak about the phrase i forget you use the environment how we adjust building the approaches in ways they will better withstand. those are all about addressing the underlying risk factor. that's what is being targeted exactly. i apologize for speaking for you if you were going say that. the -- but, i think that is inherently it. what is going on beneath the surface that the internet may interact with the do main and the social domain. what are the opportunity for intervention in manners that can build the capacity of that community, of that system to withthanked shock to rapidly recover from it, and adapt going forward. and so tremendous parallels in the international development space as well. for me the answer to the second

question is i don't think you try to market them -- you think about the area we are already focusing on. what are the things we are investing in. what are the problems we're working on? i had a great discussion, this was philanthropic side but with the community foundation there was two foundations meeting and i was a bystander in the discussion, and one was saying we want to make an investment in your organization to run an initiative on resilience. the other was saying our plate is full. our focus here is on housing security and food security.

we don't have room for anything else. and i'm sit here saying you just described two of the biggest challenges in crisis. these are not mutually exclusive. it's about how we tackle food and security issues in a way that pay dividend in the time of crisis. >> debra, if i could turn to you. while you're blowing houses down, how do you think that helps resilience in term of the underlying factor? >> let me answer that from the context two of the questionses and the question about vulnerable population. that's something we think a lot about in the context of blowing downs houses. that's one of the reasons we're strong supporters of the buildings codes. they are egg will story requirement for the people who can't demand more, and there needs to be a basic life safety standard in place including -- which doesn't have a state-wide building code.

the other interesting thing as far as the vulnerable population space is concern is one of our greatest partner. i'm pleased to say in habitat for humanity. they are understanding that the benefit are going code plus, and insurance companies individually have funded a number of habitat houses. we worked with them in term of our standards, because this isn't about sort of wealthy people have safe houses and people who don't have that kind of economic means are living in the kinds of things that are going to blow away. has been at a time has been effective in term of new construction, retrofit. they have been in the gulf. i'm not sure if they've been in joplin. ..

it's making people really understand why it matters. it's making sure that if they want to do that, if a homeowner or a business owner, the you provide them enough incentives that they can sort of make-work from high-cost benefit perspective and ultimately dealing with the politics. one of my very favorite people in the disaster is howard at wharton. he has another acronym.

after get the letters. you will have to tell me what they are after i say it. not in my term of office. that is something that we really need to get around, whether it's local politics domestic politics, guys in congress, you have to put the investment in, understand the difference between a first dollar investment and a long-term investment -- long-term savings. at the local level we really need to make sure that the people, by the people wanting it, once yet captured their hearts and minds, then make it clear that this is of value. you cannot short shifted and think that over the long term you will get paid. the wins will come and it's all going to fall down. >> thank you all. we have gone a few minutes over. i hope you agree that it was time well spent. congratulations to the citizens of joplin. thank you all for being here. please join me in a round of applause for our panelists. [applause]

thank you all. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> turning now to the debt ceiling, treasury secretary notified congress today that the u.s. government will hit its borrowing limit in mid october. he sent a letter to the house speaker urging lawmakers to reach a budget deal before then and to raise the borrowing limit. at the white house today spokesman jay carney was asked about the debt ceiling during today's briefing. >> the treasury department is just now saying that the debt ceiling is going to be reached in mid october. does that change your budget

calculations, do you anticipate a budget agreement? do you still want to get -- >> anything obviously related to the debt ceiling and issues like that, i would refer you to the treasury department. i believe you're referring to something secretary louis but out. let me reiterate what our position is commanded is unequivocal. we will not negotiate with republicans in congress over congress's response ability to pay the bills that congress has racked up. it is the responsibility of congress to maintain the full faith and credit of the united states. we have never defaulted, and we must never default. that is our position, 100 percent, full stock. obviously we are going to be dealing with congress on the need to find the government.

the president has put forward a clear, compromise proposal, brought compromise proposal that would reduce debt significantly, including through savings in our entitlement programs in a balanced way. we continue to await a response from the proposal, to that proposal, which has been on the table now for many months. congress has basically two responsibilities. it has to pay its bills commanded has to vote on a budget. we hope that congress fulfills those two basic responsibilities. >> the top democrat on the house ways and means committee said it would just nine legislative days kern is scheduled in september, republicans must return to congress prepared to move beyond the kind of brinksmanship that undermine our economic recovery two years ago. it is time for republicans to do the right thing, not the far right thing and put the american economy first. that, again, from the democratic

representative of michigan. >> i have been writing for years now. the proof has finally arrived in the last year or so were you have seen pc sales actually falling dramatically in the double digits five quarters in a row. and before that it had been quite flat. some of this had to do with the economic meltdown around the developed world over the last for five years, but even as economies have recovered, the pc has peaked. when i say it is peaches and i

don't mean it is done. i don't mean people are going to throw the pcs away. i don't mean that tablets and smart phones, for instance, can replace everything that a laptop and do. but what is happening is that there are enough daily scenarios for which people use to grab the laptop that are more conveniently down now on a tablet. >> the "wall street journal" looks at the future of personal technology in the first of a 2-part interview tonight on the communicators that it:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the foundation for the defense of democracy held discussions recently on the current state of al qaeda and its affiliates. we heard from the daily beast journalist and though long word journal editor thomas joscelyn. he warned of blurring lines

between the muslim brotherhood in egypt and al qaeda and what that could mean for u.s. counter-terrorism efforts. this runs about 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> i think we will get started. it's 12:00. we have a full house. good afternoon. welcome. i'm clifford may, the president of the foundation for the defense of democracy, and i'm pleased to welcome you to this discussion on al qaeda. we look forward to hearing from the senior national security correspondent for newsweek and the daily beast. just the daily beast. of course, my colleague, thomas joscelyn, senior fellow, if you haven't read i highly commend to you. just a word on ftd, most of you

are probably familiar with the organization. we like to say that we start with principles and focus on research and policy and try to achieve real progress. those who are affiliated in various capacities don't agree on everything. we like to have good, solid debates. we do it all the time around here, but we have some basic fundamental points. among them would be that nobody should be denied basic human rights, including freedom of religion, speech, assembly, no one should be discriminated on the basis of race or religion or gender or creed. free and democratic nations have a right to defend themselves and really an obligation to defend one another. we think that terrorism, which should be simply to find as violence against civilians for political purposes is always wrong. there are no circumstances that it should be condoned. on today's topic. over the past year or so influential respected voices

within the foreign policy and national security community have asserted that al qaeda is defeated, on the path to the feet, on its heels and has been decimated. those assertions of been called into question any number of times. certainly tom and bill half, eli cass, but most vividly and most recently those assertions about the feed of al qaeda and the mice were called into question by the u.s. government's decision to close 22 diplomatic facilities in 17 different countries across north africa and the middle east and parts of asia. eland is colleagues shared. the reported that the reason for the closure was intercepted communications among more than 20 al qaeda operatives in far-flung locations. the report noted that this conversation, this communication

was apparently led by the number one al qaeda in the conversation was messier who heads al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and was recently named al qaeda general manager. tom joscelyn and others have followed these issues closely u.s. report. what does this tell us about the state of al qaeda today, both its periphery and a score? i am going to start by asking eli to grapple with that question for just a few minutes. then i am going to us moderate -- take moderator's prerogative. it so thank you, again, for being here. and of this session is on the record or turn them to vibrate. thank you.

>> first of all, thank you so much for having me. i should say that as we speak there will be a new story for josh and i and the communication. i can say now a little more detail about what exactly happened. earlier this summer yemeni authorities with the help of u.s. intelligence was able to apprehend a carrier from al qaeda as he was uploading minutes to what appeared to be a very important business meeting of al qaeda council and its affiliates. when he was identified from that communication, he was basically discovered, a kind of treasure trove, a recording of a 7-hour remote internet conference. this included video, voice, as well as chat. it opened with the message. he basically said his assessment strategically of the united

states was a similar position to the soviet union in 1989 and it was important to take advantage of this. then he announced a big promotion for the head of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and the human abilities of al qaeda. and then from that seven hours see them pretty much disappears and comes back at various points. there is some debate as to whether or not he was participating directly or giving the video in real time to a carrier as he was monitoring of remotely. certainly most of what we understand about the internet and communications security is that they would not be on line in this kind of direct communication. however, as i say, debate with the intelligence community. there are many who believe they have this video of him addressing these things. at the end he was indeed in the conversation.

i think it's an important point. i would also point out that they ask why you would report these details. well, our sources said made it clear that when the news outlets reported the communication it was enough confirmation for al qaeda to walk back. we left us some details. we reported more of them, but at this point i think we believe, especially since our sources were giving us disinformation that it was an important story to help explain the current context. now, on your broader point, which is i think it is a tough one. you cannot argue with the fact that u.s. special operations forces in 2011 found a summit in london and killed him. that was a huge blow to the organization. i would point out that in the years leading into that there were a lot of analysts to believe that he was out of touch , something of a figurehead and did not play a day-to-day

role in an organization that had involved its affiliates. and one of the stories i remember writing after that great he played a pretty important role, managing this organization that has all this various the fillets and aspiring affiliate's in beaver sort of in the same now. no doubt about it, a lot of senior leaders because of a very effective and lethal drawn more. and that happens. however, they have adapted. he is shown that he has the ability to manage and delegate and in that respect at least be shut down all these indices and the threat of it is significant, but that shows that while there have been victories, al qaeda -- at least the threat of al qaeda is far from over at this point. >> and don't need to ask you questions, but i do want you to elaborate a bit on this concept.

there was the idea that al qaeda was defeated, dead, which we heard, again, from prominent voices. then there was the second theory that it is not dead, but the corps is so diminished that it cannot operate. there is just the periphery, just these little satellite organizations that do not have a lot of clout. that is called into question. it appears that the corps has been, despite the strong war which has been effective, able to remain fairly robust and in control and fairly powerful in addition to the periphery. so address that. by the way, perhaps address a little bit as well how it is that so many very smart people have been so wrong on this issue . >> thanks. if you all leave here sick today, i'm to blame. among the the weather, so i apologize in advance. the perils of having a three year-old and a 1-year-old to a tract every virus in the tristate area. apologize in advance.

well, the whole core and affiliate distinction, that whole idea is something we have been knocking down for months before. i testified before congress saying that this is not something that has been well-defined. the idea of the core is not even well defined. you don't find u.s. officials define with any precision are saying exactly who is and is not in the core. vaguely refers to the overall al qaeda leader and the advisory councils and advisory sort of plea tenants that are immediately around him in pakistan and afghanistan. however, if you start to think about it for a second you realize that al qaeda is not so stupid as to keep all of their core members in one location. they're not going to sit there and wait for us to draw on them to death. there will disperse their assets. in the first example i provide is a counterpoint to the whole hard-line distinction between core and the phillies was, in fact, the head of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. well, appointed to the general

manager position which is quite clearly a core function. he is not in afghanistan or pakistan. he is in human. and so you look at that position and what it does. i know we will talk about them more and a second, but that is an important position. somebody who has -- according to the few documents we have seen, of very important role in managing the international operations. sutcliffe asked me to try and talk about why so many people got it wrong. when you look back to the history across partisan lines going back to the bush ministration, you can find they consistently get it wrong. i think a big reason for that is that we define it pretty nearly as serve of the terrorist threat against us in the west which is principally what we are concerned about even though that is not really their strategic objective. attacking us or the west is sort

of a tactic in a broader ban. when you look at their literature, their throughout time, they believe and define themselves as political revolutionaries. they want political power for themselves and the greater middle east. and at times it looks completely absurd when you look at the chessboard of what is going on. other times they have more success than we give them credit for. that is principally what they are about. we would argue that basically it this point in history they have made some remarkable gains in that way. if you think about it, al qaeda did not have a small army in syria. they do today. it did not have to force the french to intervene in mali to kick them out. earlier this year they did. al qaeda did not have a thriving islamic state. they do today. it is actually challenging the government and spreading terror. you can go on and on like this. yemen with a challenge for territory.

pushed back. are in somalia. they haven't established a village. so the bottom line is when you look at the broader picture and the political game that al qaeda and its affiliates are playing, it is a cohesive international challenge, not something that the complete connect the dots with and say that this group is not really al qaeda. there clearly loyal to al qaeda senior leaders and there clearly is advancing in the fighting 40 a strategic goals. that is basically when you ask why it is that i think some many analysts of gotten it wrong, the focuses narrowly on this idea that they are this group of super terrorists in pakistan and afghanistan planning this plot against us. and not part of that and they're not really furthering the al qaeda objective spivvy everything we have seen says that is wrong. you can see that most of the al qaeda assets through the years had been devoted to other things >> just a few questions. all-star with this.

i was recently on both boxers show. one of the people who has maintained and continues to maintain that al qaeda is defeated. severely diminished. and in support of that argument he would say, look, on september 113,000 americans were killed. they have not done anything like that again. therefore they're not the organization they once were. therefore my thesis remains correct. >> i think you're seeing it evolves a little bit. he basically defined al qaeda the way adjusted. the principal strategic goal is actually fighting to establish the islamic state elsewhere. if that is the principal strategic goal, and it is, it is indisputable. it is true because if you think about it, think about the massive amount of effort that has been spent the trend is

representative the plots against this, not just in the united states the border and the world. it is taken all of that to contain another attack. i would say what is interesting, you think about it and their inability icaria something like that again because we raised a defenses, sometimes clumsily, but sometimes necessarily. even september 11th they had problems executing. and we were asleep some of their operatives were detained earmarked. they ran into all sorts of issues. in other words, it's not an easy thing to carry out this style of mass casualty attack. if we set the bar there and say that because they're not it will to carry another attack they're done, i think that ignores some much of the picture, the evolving threats. >> new question?

>> the question. okay. this puzzles a lot of people. we have the events taking place right now i need it. his brother arrested. you have al qaeda, what may be a small army. a few hundred to a few thousand. talk little bit about at this point if you would because i think it is confusing, the current state of the relationship between the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda, the various muslim brotherhood organizations and the various al qaeda groups. >> okay. that was the end of the more radical his senate version and a lot of ways. many of those people fled. and the muslim brothers did that emerged was one that was very much accommodationist with the state. if there were allowed to

organize openly. and they became a big part of the fabric of egyptian civil society. when i lived in agent in 2005 and 2006 the big story was that the muslim brotherhood member for the first time was the president of the american university in cairo. in charge of the medical association, the association of newspaper journalists. so this really represents an important distinction. a thinkpad islamists believe that over time they could accomplish the goal of having an islamic republic by participating directly in politics. and for this there were scorned by the egyptian islamic. later by a member of the egyptian islamic jihad in self pity this famous exchange. an egyptian jail and eventually

recanted a lot of his support for terrorism. a famous line. the facts machine that you used to electrocute when you were tortured. and so there is this long standing disagreement. we have to say is a right now backing of the events as they transpire, one can argue he won an election and the military still remove you from power and is making martyrs of your followers. perhaps that could be a very -- you should have followed our path. and i think that the current events right now an agent who

run the risk half of driving how the muslim brotherhood back to where there were and middle of the 20th century which was an underground organization capable of terrorism. potentially in some ways replenishing the ideological ranks of the more radical. >> this is a whole other panel. the answer varies from country to country. in some cases you confined muslim brotherhood elements to a very accommodationist. there is all back story of the evolution of many of the senior terrorists and where they come from. a lot of them are rooted in the brotherhood. a very complex and big topic. the bottom line is you mentioned this is a good example. a guy who criticizes the brotherhood's mature gains in egypt on the premise that this was not sure real law. critical and yet another time

c.s. dial back his rhetoric and is now one to the side against the brothers. >> a political party. kind of a big deal to have al qaeda participating. >> well, and i did and unfortunately. basically smart enough to play the tactical game. that's right. >> it's dangerous to draw broad conclusions. i think that the simple conclusion is that the alliances and rivalries are much more fluid than we would think. they're is a lot less sentimentality. >> i think there is very glad -- bad blood. i know. they're is a sense from the people, the illegal islamist parties. the muslim brotherhood not only were sellouts but collaboration.

he talks about the cooperation. especially when there were waves of terror threats. >> one are two more questions. anagoge you. signal me if you want to ask a question and someone will come by with the microphone. >> it's interesting. they're is a whole history. the bitter harvest. some very nature of things, but it's interesting to track his rhetoric over time. one of the things he did last year was released this video where he was basically saying that al qaeda can coexist. according to my sources he was reading excerpts from one of the diaries of osama bin lot about how there was this disagreement between the brotherhood and that he had his own extremists. over time they came to an accommodation. he tapped back on his rhetoric.

critical of their participation. but the baker plan is this one document. he basically was reiterating the old kgb saying, the world is going our way. he saw lot of hope. people were attacking their way across the poster of stern world which was something that i think it's been discounted ron the numerous times. >> is it also fair to say that i think of as james clapper it talked about the muslim brotherhood of issuing violence with suggests that they find buys repugnant. would you agree that that has been a confusion? the idea because you're not participating in dallas today you renounce violence as a basis of principle. >> that's where it gets more complicated.

they renounce violence inside egypt, but they did not renounce violence through how moss. took part in the suicide bombing in the 1990's. did not renounce violence, the senior sheikh's condemning violence against american soldiers be reaping the cruelest their brother of figures, supporters of al qaeda. >> anything he says. he is not renounce violence. regarding the shake, the muslim brotherhood central leader. everyone knows he does not renounce violence. >> that said, think it's significant that you have to take into account the evolution of the muslim brotherhood and the latter part of the 20th-century and it is an important distinction considering that for most of the

20th-century there were a major violent threat. >> let me just drill down on this a little bit. amid talk about the egyptian muslim brotherhood renouncing violence, what week and just said it seems to me, the new york times ran an op-ed talking about the peaceful protesters. i'm sure there were some peaceful protesters. there were others who were carrying machine guns with automatic weapons. >> and trying to unwind. >> there's so much -- i mean, some much incentive to basically bring to time by various groups. it's tough to tell what is it does not come in and of egypt at this point. it's just a bloody mess. >> another question, signal of you want to start testing your own questions. on the conference call for want of a better word, once was was

it a high-tech? is this something where you say he had his eye to get command in explain. was it really -- >> hassan and lot. is in charge of the kind of tentacle committee. they have engineers, their on encryption software. they have created a proprietary technology that allows them to have these kinds of remote conferences. is pretty amazing stuff. and they also have an internet. not only forms of we know about. but they also have other sites that are more hidden. pass for protection that allows people to communicate with the mother ship, if you well.

they still use careers. constantly aware of internet security. no one is allowed to use any kind of wireless broadcasting. they know a lot about american intelligence capabilities. they have developed some pretty expensive technology. >> mentioned the as a new piece just now concurrent with this panel. i think i was every bit to understand better the situation of with the technology involves. when it first reported this is a conference call people were saying it can't be a conference conscious thinking in terms of normal american business conference calls we heard the same thing that this was a very complicated high-tech @booktv i understand why there were using that phrase. it mimics that. but you can look at other reporting and tell the basically the most important point about

all of this to my mind is the he is in touch with not just one guy in human. a couple dozen or so senior operatives and the tenants around the globe through this will form. that is not somebody you is disassociated from the global al qaeda network the someone who is very much involved. >> in utilizing whether any groups that kind of surprised you? any groups that we should be thinking about? >> a collection in the sinai. i have written about it in your written baena for while. i think it's significant the they're not formally considered an affiliate. >> the one thing no one say about that doe is they have all process for who is formally affiliated and u.s. and . they withheld their formal allegiance.

those of france and syria. there is the sole candidate play for their own reasons. >> out their differences? think there are, but sophistication? in nigeria. >> year. >> disagreements that have voiced among these different groups in terms of where they should be? strategically, tactically. >> the classic example of the affiliate's disagreement with the core is al qaeda. so incredibly sadistic and almost pornographic a violent campaign. and they recognize it.

he scolding him for continuing on. he appears as a loose cannon. of course, the big organizations , it does not mean there is unanimity. but i do think it shows that there are kind of protocols and not just in terms of communication. particle for what -- when you establish a new kind of brand, what community have. how you should look at enforcing islamic law and punishing people who violated. this is all stuff that is basically out there, sort of a model. some people say that's the franchise model. yeah basic instruction in the go ahead and do yourself, but there's still a big organization . >> had begun the questions. if not will continue to ask my own. just wait for it. if you would, identify yourself.

>> it afternoon. the like to hear a bit more. we see a little bit of a shift back. obviously shifting more when osama blonde took over. all we see now, they can together. we see a shift toward a new approach. quite a bit about technology. cyber security issue. hallett affect the u.s.?

>> a market shift. the big analytical mistake is to think that that is not part of the global alliance. then it al qaeda manager instituted a political platform. basically this was their attempt to solve every brand themselves in the post their spring world to say that we can provide government and basic services and start basically adopting parts of the hezbollah or moss model where we will build up our own governing model. in fact, the associated press recently came out with letters talking about west. his prime focus was out is to build an islamic state. well, concurrently as he's doing that, as he is involving politically, the trying to figure and a new way for, they are concurrent with that

watching plots against us. in fact, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula becomes one of the key affiliates leading the charge is the u.s. homeland. the basic fare able to walk and chew gum at the same time. analysts say if you look country by country you can see even with syrian, with corruption north africa, you can see much more of this where try to provide basic level services to people who have engrained themselves in the community and provide themselves as an alternative model to the existing. >> i would say that it is significant that you saw the participation of groups that were clearly in sympathy with the al qaeda ideology. and as i think i said earlier, i think that the participation in egyptian politics probably is coming to an end before our eyes we see the various arrests.

i would imagine that this could lead to a reassessment of that. i don't think that he in any way according to this latest information with the u.s. government is receiving is going to dial back the terrorism side of things. i think they're walking in chewing gum of the same time. >> other questions? >> i'll ask some more. we have been tough on the community, national security community in terms of the conventional wisdom. we give credit where due. and the commission was pretty good on many of these. kind of foresaw lot of what is happening. >> there are some really good passages where we were acting out today like the affiliate's are sort of something that al

qaeda stumbled upon. just happened upon the spirit and certainly not all were preplanned. there were not launched according to some macro plan that they got down every little micro level. however, it has been a long part of their strategy, going back to the early 1990's and even the founding minutes, basically so the seats. a very good language about how he saw himself in the natural and the idea was that he would lead the islamic army. it would bring in all these other groups that they did not need to control and every last detail bill would basically spread the ideology platform and operational ties to these groups across a huge array of countries. it's amazing gone back. i had the list in my congressional testimony recently. the commission identified all of these countries. it's staggering. it's staggering. from north africa all the way through into the middle east to reassess some of these groups,

some of what we are describing as part of a long-term plan that they've had for establishing a presence in these nations. that sort of has lacked and waned and an epson down spivvy is something that the thought about for a long time and goes to the heart of the idea that the al qaeda court, some firm line. i think that's not true. >> many big organizations, elements of the intelligence community are very alarmed. they have operational control. and a lot of times i would just say that it depends very much on what the white house at any given moment thanks. but you really get anything that is reaching a kind of across the board consensus that is working a -- worth anything. national intelligence estimates are largely worthless because it's sort of downtown everything

pretty obvious like common aphorism to don't really tell us anything. and in the world of intelligence analysis their people a confined percentages. what they think is going to happen. it's a pretty complicated thing. they're pretty vigorous disagreements. >> two quick things. al qaeda does not have a bunch of on of times. their i human organization. there are all sorts of commander said on fallen line and do their own thing, but still does not take away from what i think overall is a cohesive international challenge. one of the points i make is al qaeda is an organization that has been able to tolerate significant dissent. there were members of the management council of al qaeda you disagreed with the decision to launch the attacks. that did not force them out of the ranks.

they continue to be al qaeda, but that's the type of organization. they're is a large degree of coordination and cohesiveness, but it doesn't mean that there necessarily point to agree with every decision. >> right. getting back to when i was saying, at the end of the day they're is a narrative, often oversimplified, that will be embraced by the president, his top national security visors, members of congress. based on that understanding in narrative of what we face are don't face and how serious it is and was motivated by, on that basis the policies and response will be formulated. the narrative is incorrect, if it misunderstands the situation, chances are the policies will be flawed as well. >> so far will we have seen with obama -- this is the line taken up with, president obama talks

like a comparative religion professor and acts like a blackwater executive. in the sense that he has really pushed a lot of low war and expanded a lot of the global war and terror, but he has done it through secret and classified operation. ..

just as you can expand it, you can also take it away and not have a bunch of the debate either. so there's a lot of trust right now in the executive branch. maybe there has to be. i'm not saying i know the answer here. but the way that obama has approached this is actually done quite a bit in a lot of these places, including somalia and all over. but he's made it appear that the war is winding down. he's taking credit for symbolism. the question has will that translate into ultimate winding down the secret operations he continues. >> i think what you're saying is true. however, he's doing this in a peer characteristic paradigm. the big debate here for fighting was sort of counterterrorism

versus counterterrorism. that was the big debate. but obama has done -- what happened was obama has gone back and forth. he burst that were going to get out of iraq, but world that going to do so for 18 months and never going to pull out and he knows it's going to happen after that. over time it's been this large build up, where he put our counterterrorism racket. this is not a political and because i can point to the stakes in the bush administration, too. if you look at the history of iraq, for example, you can see where this has failed. go back to 2010 and senior generals in iraq, who are saying that decimated their leadership. we fight them out. two thirds of the leaders are gone. al qaeda and iraq are on the ropes. a year later, u.s. forces pull out of iraq. what happens? al qaeda and iraq sponsor lurcher affiliate in syria,

grows in the islamic state of iraq and is now challenging for territory, controlling parts of the area and has doubled from early 2012 to october 2012 in terms of number of attacks per week and is exploded in violence. so that appear counterterrorism model, you can say we've got all these leaders. but they were able to regenerate because we are constantly thinking in terms of the top-down hierarchy and knock off the top of it. that's my big fear in all of this is we are now going back to a bottle that gets incredibly complicated from there. i don't know the answer. all these partnership gets incredibly complicated. i'm in gnostic when it comes to these countries because at all claim to know everything. i noticed noticed hesitation all bases we've seen sort of the attack pics before and that's why i'm worried. >> i don't have a bigger opinion on that except a

counterinsurgency requires a lot of people on the ground. it requires a lot of attention. the united states has the will? doesn't have the resources to do that kind of counterinsurgency operations that portrays these other places. at this point politically my senses and there is no. i don't know that a counterinsurgency option is a real option. >> is two separate subjects here. one is whether or not you understand what going on in iraq and you understand iraq is not a war that can be wound down, the rather you defeat al qaeda they are in grass is going to go back. he remained there for sometime if you want to establish, if you want to prevent the rebirth of al qaeda in iraq. and once you decide we don't want al qaeda to reemerge in iraq, the question is what you do about it?

the first thing is understanding there will be a threat they are if we leave. are we okay with that or do we think this a war in afghanistan the affiliates all over the place and overseas contingency operations that we have to deal with. that's what the narrative understanding of the situation is vital to the formulation of policies. >> it should be a vibrant debate about how to address all these things. there's not a large appetite for large-scale coin operations. the thing i would say is our enemy gets a say in this way. they are defining how they want to move forward. if we keep defining the merrily as terrorists can we keep thinking of senior commanders here and there. i'm telling you if you remember nothing else that i say today, i nearly put my history here that they're not just terrorists. their political revolutionaries and most of their assets are put into a quiet night throughout the world.

>> their political ideology i think is largely reject it by most in the muslim world. the evidence of this, and i'm very skeptical of polls in the middle east, but the evidence of this is they have to have violent thugs enforcing monistic sharia law in the areas they've taken over. so if this is a popular idea, i'd like to live in a world with celery and carrots are segregated in the market, with the quran wishes, kind of stuff they were doing in iraq at least. then they wouldn't need to cut off the hands. >> i think that misstates it. part of the reason i define it this way is because the d.c. the muslim populations in each of these pennies to turn against them. in such non-nematic rejection by were able to take over the french intervention.

they still did it. they control parts of libya in northern sinai. they took over large parts of yemen since 2009. the u.n. report that came on in july said they still controlled large parts of central somalia. the point is they are not the most popular brand in the whole muslim world and there's this huge potential problem for that that is a huge problem occurring for large portions of the population. the problem is despite that, they are still able to keep coming forward and that's the problem. >> i don't think they're going to hold onto to many factors. >> they do it in a remote area. >> question that there. >> branca to look on the center progress. how do you see the affiliates and its position vis-à-vis iran

over the last 10 years? quite obviously in iraq in syria in opposition to it as again maybe some indifferent. similarly, how do you see do you see a ramekin at this step because we often discuss it from the u.s. resolution. it's a very complicated gameplay not of the middle east than that but she her thought on how their ideology has been adopted. >> were going to your question about how iran is looking on all this in the rivalry and collaboration in al qaeda. >> a couple of data points. al qaeda leaders fled to pakistan from afghanistan after 9/11 and some of them fled to remand, including family members of those that were here he and bin laden. i believe that the arrangement was somewhat like a medieval hostage, which was a wrong i don't think it's going to collaborate in a strategic level on the way they collaborate with

the bat this in syria but there ran. but having the leverage that they did, i think it was an insurance policy against al qaeda turning against elements of their own population or provoking the bluish population or the sunnis in iran in these debates. certainly in the 1990s, there were the taliban diplomat said it was a pretty important -- pretty big deal. iran after 9/11 did cooperate at times, although they did other stuff, too with the u.s. in afghanistan after 9/11. but that said, you can also see their like to rival cartels or two rival mafias, but they have adventures in making sure that the fbi is weak in that sense. it's possible they can be competitors. they certainly are theologically different. al qaeda considers it to be very

much a deviation of the true faith. that said, i think that they have and they can cooperate when they have an advantage of doing so. there were some degree of cooperation in iraq and so it's kind of on-again, off-again. >> this is one of those questioned said they could do so will not appear discuss. the bottom line is right now if you look at taxes, syria is huge disagreement between the two. it's a huge major problem, even bigger wedge between the two. you see coming out of al qaeda senior leaders coming the one thing i would say about this, which is i really marvel that since the early 1990s when i go back through history is how many times iran has managed to put aside their differences and they exist in their proxy ever

ran. iran has managed to work with them in a variety of ways. in that regard when it should stand things is the treasury department state departments his designations about what the actual dealer agreement between al qaeda and iran looks like today. the department highlights the secret deal between iran and al qaeda. december 2011th issued a $10 million reward for the head of the al qaeda network in iran. in february 2012 the treasury department came out with the designation of the ministry of intelligence security, saying they been providing support to al qaeda. october 2012, another destination helps out and there is a network insider ramapo qaeda, today let a guy who had

knowledge of 9/11. they are facilitating operations to the middle east. it's one of those things you puzzle out what you see the differences in so many ways the networks exist on iranian soil. i don't have time today, but there's a whole history here of collusion between the two despite their differences, which is a fascinating thing to explore. >> heritage foundation. if i may follow-up by mirroring mirroring and question. if we see fighting iranian proxies in the area, at what point were going to witness this blog turn but we've made a conflict between the sunni extremists in the iranian state or its satellites? the second question is a little bit out of area. winter olympics and the

statement by the head of the emirates but it's a fair target and also recalling his earlier commitment to attack civilians and the russian territory. amaro stated his allegiances supported al qaeda many times. his rhetoric is very much along the lines of this alethea's bomb. to what extent do you see al qaeda marbleized and its resources and this is a real threat according to what you see reported? thank you. >> i don't know. >> i think it was in the olympics, security services flag

somebody was training in shabbat and you implants and terrorist acts near cabal in that regard. when you look at the international hydrocarbon is always potential for events to come out of operational resources devoted to it. it's always a potential buyer. to bigger question about strategic differences, you know, it's interesting backtracks in rhetoric that's come out of all the way harry's brother and others who would dare calling for attacks insatiate and controlled states because of what's going on in syria. there are parties in baluchistan and elsewhere, which to me look like we may be in the al qaeda sphere, chips were the anti-iranian card. the thing i would say about this is to go back to how these relationships about is fascinating to watch out in 1998 iran is on the verge of war and mass are sharif and yet they came to a deal before 9/11.

this guy down in guantánamo actually was dispatched by mullah omar to cooperate. that type of thing happens. these guys are going to put aside deep animosity and hatred when it comes to areas where they collude. the big problem i have is we don't know when it's going to tip. it could be they have disagreements and one third of the board, but agreements in the other two thirds. you never know. other questions appear? >> let me ask this one. everyone of these al qaeda affiliates has to be funded. to what extent does al qaeda core arrange for funding for the buck around >> you have to kick the affiliate with the local mafia career with the godfather.

and now, and a number of things al qaeda things al qaeda implicated including drug trafficking from afghanistan. so they are criminal organizations. they have a way of making money when its feet. >> the taliban doesn't sequester. >> exactly. it changes from area to area how they operate. they do a lot of criminal at mideastern kidnappings to drug dealing, cigarette, who launched the attack in january on the algerian oil facility and eli did some reporting on actually was the commander of benghazi during abu ghraib. he was not as mr. barbaro for all the cigarette smuggling. >> i want to dig more into syria with the most important fighting for us besides is an al qaeda

affiliated service, but there's two. news to and of course al qaeda in iraq -- >> the islamic state of iraq. >> they are in fairly vigorous competition. talk about how that plays out. >> well, you're right. there are leadership disagreements between the two that trickles down the ranks. one of the interesting things again is our model of al qaeda is not unheard of for these types of rivalries that occur throughout the organization. this is a pretty intense one and manifest this way in ways that are relatively new for the rebuke of time and all salieri. however, when you look operationally, their differences of coors, but they still fight against common enemies in the kurds and others. it's not something where they

turn the guns on each other. they keep their guns pointed on mutual enemies. >> what about the al qaeda forces? >> its total black box as far as i'm concerned. and the syrian muslim brotherhood was some of the leaders have been known to have ties to al qaeda. they basically evolved into the leadership of al qaeda is homburg for 9/11 or the leadership of al qaeda in spain. all the leaders were once muslim brothers. again minute detail, i'm not saying i'll see muslim brotherhood or i just don't know what they are today. >> are several divisions also at the most brotherhood -- [inaudible] i'm not sure i've got it all right.

[inaudible] >> i'll ask if there's any final questions from you. if not i will think about what we should've talked about and should have asked >> my question is about joint resolution in 2001. [inaudible] >> authorization for the use of military force. >> and not give the president a broader authority to use force against any nation, individuals pass the 9/11 attack. from then on, for the past more than a decade, of course any terrorists going to be involved.

so now it's time to deal this. >> i read a piece about this for reason magazine a few years back. my view is that there is a risk that the war on terror could become permanent if you never revisit the question of what is the extraordinary powers, the government used to fight terrorists? it's a fairly long war and it's not like they invented these threats. they i having global war and the just war like that. i think it's a very good question. the courts have rules over the years that the original aui math when applied to affiliated al qaeda groups. don't hold me to this. i'm pretty sure was expanded in one of the defense authorization bills president signed in 2011 or 2012 to include some of these

groups at various federal courts have ruled because it would be counted under that resolution. listen, there's a huge problem, not to get too far off topic, but when you look in my view about the nsa disclosures we learn about is if you don't have members of congress and the u.s. american people know about what the government is doing in the kinds of extraordinary powers to make the country safe, then you do risk the census will be the permanent war that will never end and you will never be get the national security bureaucracy. that said, the idea that if you like to say we should repeal that aui math, they know to be seen there is currently a lawyer. thompson of the enemy gets a vote and they're still at war

with us. that's kind of where and not. >> i'm pretty sure president obama suggested before the closing of the diplomatic outposts at the authorization for the use of military force should consider repealing it. or modifying it. the idea of repealing it would be based on the narrative that the war is winding down, that al qaeda has been defeated. if we agree that narrative is correct, then we agree there's authorization for the u.s. to fight that war unless the u.s. is going to say we are not fighting the war anymore. >> i think it's right. it's one of those things that can be and should be properly debated. i'm going with the scope of what the war is and what authority do want to give the president and executive ranch for sure. one argument i've seen out there

is this idea that the rhetoric is not helpful which is the idea that al qaeda is the organization attacked us on 9/11 for his former self and therefore the logical implication that the aui methods based on reaction. if that organization is defeated, and therefore would no longer need the aumf. i think that is not consistent with the real threat environment. for choosing our time and how attacks manifest themselves against death, yes they haven't been successful, but back in 2009 there was a series out against new york city subways that was launched by al qaeda that didn't involve a specific actor and 9/11, but it was al qaeda. may 2010 with pakistan where al qaeda tries to blow up airplanes in mid-202010 they trade in meat bombs in times square and then go on and on. the point is the current threat

stream is not simply narrowly defined as the few actors in pakistan. it's manifesting itself in different ways. >> right back here. >> graduate of american university. you guys mention the success of the drug program in targeting al qaeda. could you talk about the recent statement about the drone program, the signature strikes and who we are going after? >> you know, what we know about signature strikes as they are precise. you don't know that a person is going to be there and usually at war you never have exact intelligence. but there's something very disturbing about the u.s., the idea that david e. for the

first-year oboe future would have drove some of these countries than we are going to occasionally see these organizations. when the technology was developed in the last decade and the targeting was developed, the ability to pinpoint in nanoseconds various kinds of targets, it really did turn the tide of war in iraq. it was very significant breakthrough. i don't think without much of a conversation about what it means to do that. what does it mean if we do it for 20 years and will eventually -- either at the implications of having a permanent drone present site pakistan that would make may be potential as radicalize others could usually resist that analysis is the radicalization process is pretty detailed and they become a suicide on our terrace. it's not because they cite television show. it certainly creates the

environment where we have political environment in pakistan right now, which hates the united states. that's significant about whether they will allow services to cooperate. or whether elements of armed services and intelligence services will actually be on al qaeda side because they have more sympathy for the islamist. i think that is significant. >> i've been all hairy, do you think there are elements over the intelligence bureaucracy. >> pakistan? member. >> another question that needs its own panel. >> deal that they haven't they as i think it was in june, the commission report was leaked. this is the official pakistan investigating the amounts present in pakistan. backup that report was fascinated because of the basically says was in pakistan by the way journalists who's going write for, two weeks before he was going to write for

us was kidnapped and tortured to death for asking these questions. he was a shady character of complicated guy, but someone we knew had ties to these types of folks. so it's a very dangerous environment to ask these questions. get this commission did. exactly what they said was we can answer them because we don't have the cooperation we need. however, there's this whole culture of pakistan were all bsg hottest groups that were either created or found a were sponsored by the establishment on the one hand also have ties and relationships to al qaeda on the other. this bill will inside pakistan makes it easy to sort of have the senior figures hiding in various different areas. it becomes a large complex topic about who knows why. the bottom line is the environment is permissive. >> in the 1980s, the united states how was funded and built up the isi, military

intelligence of pakistan in order to be of type length for the mujahedin and other fighters against the soviet union in afghanistan. a lot of cia veterans of that era still believe the guys in charge of the time were good american allies. now it's been shot many of those people took al qaeda side in the current situation more than 30 years later. and so, the u.s. in the last decade began creating an element within the isi that was supposed to be the guys who are going to be on our side. there were questions about whether they turned. so these things have the history and i just think it's almost inevitable that when you do something in the name of counterterrorism for the case of the afghanistan war, an important part of the soviet

union. but their implications of that down the line. the u.s. help kind of create and certainly pakistan in the military as well. not all of the u.s. i think in a lot of cases these organizations, you don't buy anybody. you only rent them. >> the best example of that is the haqqani network, who were allies. there was a great reason to they came out, the nexus of global jihad. i forget the exact title. a good book by don bassler and dickie brown, which talks about the fact of the haqqani network with other allied support against the soviets were explicitly in a propaganda in the region open the global jihad is in basically endorsing the message they were so pushing forward. >> s., over there.

the microphone coming your way. >> thank you. join our hair the council committee. i want some clarification on the question of the administration narrative. i am hearing you say that, and i understand that important to pass the narrative as accurate, but i'm also hearing you say that the narrative does not necessarily match with going on in terms of conduct discourtesy group worries. so the clarification i am looking for is do you think that we have two separate narratives, one for the general public that if they do not and things are winding down and we've made significant progress and one for the administration itself is the real story. where do you think that -- it just seems like there's a disconnect and i was wondering if you could address that. >> i think therea

disconnect. but it's not exact. they've also moderated but they say publicly, too. there was a period where they didn't acknowledge al qaeda in the arabian payment is a serious threat. the christmas day bomber they realize is a major problem and you start to hear frederick and things are done secretly. it's not always necessarily a claim point. i would say that generally they have political credit. schilling did not miss a major big hurry. i don't want to say that is not insignificant. they often say and jay carney will say we think that al qaeda core is deafening and ended this way. as i said, i think that it's easy to expand. it's also easy to wind down a secret war.

it is much easier than if you had more input from congress in an open and public debate. >> my main concern is they may believe to a leisure center were getting credit for the public narrative can a sort of obama's national defense university speech in may. the reason i'm worried about that is because that's how you get caught flat-footed. you start to believe things winding down and after-the-fact to respond to al qaeda after it's obvious to the u.s. homeland. before then there were a threat. you should be up to see that. it's that tactical running around. i think the main problem i have the fantasy basically start communicating the american people at this ideological challenges both whereas some of the terror network looks like and what they are doing in a way that does support to do what we need to do long-term. that is my main fear. >> i will just make one point

from the historical perspective that in 1943 roosevelt and churchill got together and they could see at that point they were going to defeat the german japanese and italian militaries. they made a decision clearly to talk about is that they were not going to try to defeat. they have no intention to defeat or destroy populations of germany, japan and italy. what they decided they needed to do was to destroy and defeat what they called the philosophies, which we call the ideologies today that had animated -- that was responsible for what we know as world war ii. we have not -- i'm afraid when we talk about that extremists him and we don't grapple with the ideologies that are behind the regimes in the movements and groups that are attacking the west. we are not taking up that task, which is discrediting the legitimizing of those

ideologies. by the way, we continued long after the work to delegitimize and discredit those ideologies they remained in germany and japan for a very long time. some would say what to fard delegitimizing to the point where very few university students nowadays study fascist ideology to tell you what a fascist ideology is, what its components are. they may know communism, but they probably would know fascism. by speaking about extremism as if it were rational rather than what i get as, which is a very coherent ideology that aims on conquest and said edition of other peoples, we are missing an important component in any war effort. >> i'll just say this. here's how i look at it. at one point president bush came on suddenly killed or captured three quarters of al qaeda's senior leaders. so the implication was to look at the heels, they're almost

done. to the hearsay to to president obama says that killed or captured three quarters of al qaeda's senior leaders that we still talk about al qaeda in the thread. to my mind it's because it's mystifying. for a lot of reasons. people returned to the battlefield and we let go to people who never properly defined with the rosier cassation is like in the first place and never properly defined the scope of the ideology. if you don't find it correctly, we can all sorts of disagreements and i think that's healthy. unless you properly defined define what it looks like, you're leaving yourself up but it. >> okay, there's the question back there. >> thank you. i'm at the middle east forum. i had a question. shouldn't there be some sort of

investigation or something similar to define the relationship between the muslim brotherhood, especially i reported on fox news last week that egyptian security forces announced the name of the assassin of ambassador chris stevens and whether that is true or not, it is definitely worth an investigation. and the possibilities of a serious connection between the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda, especially all somewhat hairy with three videos in the past few weeks, where he almost had genocide against egyptians and military towards christians and infidels. at the same time, he announced

his full support for the muslim brotherhood organization and he also stated that osama bin laden himself is a member of the organization and he only left because of logistic issues regarding diplomatic embarrassment that came to be associated with bin laden. there are numerous evidence. also, we have evidence the blind chase on the dissertation he wrote in the 70s. he stated that he was actually writing the theological foundations for al qaeda's organization. until this day, he is considered the spiritual leader of the muslim brotherhood and mohammed morrissey tried to beat him. there is numerous evidence to a certain kind of relationship that we would be out to define it. the possibility of designating muslim brotherhood and an

international terrorist organization should definitely in my opinion be out there. >> blessed to have your opinions on some of that. >> well, i mean this is a large topic. when you talk about the blind shake, he is not the spiritual guide. his work has brought me up. president morris expressed his hope the speech, journeys of macro speech that is sort of a popular sentiment we've seen throughout egypt and it is disturbing in itself that that's popular. i think you have to be careful about who is sort of evidence of collusion and who was in. after 9/11, one of the first financiers as designated by the bush administration is a senior muslim brotherhood, which was elicited by the u.n. and the u.s. there is a documentary by two "newsweek" journalists back in

the day about the whole brotherhood and the continuum between the brotherhood and al qaeda. it's a very complex topic that manifests in different ways. i'm all for investigating just about anything. this basically fine by me. it's a very large complex topic in terms of who's good strong evidence. >> i think there is a difference -- we may see the blurring of it as i said before. we've got to look at what's happening in egypt right now. that is historically and recently there's a difference between egyptian muslim brotherhood and what they do about a think versus the al qaeda approach of things. we can talk about that and shannon also say there's some commonality set time in terms of political goals. also not in terms of the muslim brotherhood in its own way has been more accommodating than al qaeda.

>> of one of his last letters he ever wrote, osama bin laden referred to the muslim brotherhood as they have solution. he was pleased that he thought the new islamist regimes of the post-arab street world with better opportunities for al qaeda or proselytization of getting new recruits. i have solution is not a zero solution, but it's not a full solution either. that sums up how they see things. there's differences but also commonality. >> okay. [inaudible] >> i think trying to tie the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda together is not a requisite for recognizing the muslim brotherhood. to really take a solid look at it, the qatar taken over with mohammed selection a supreme guide and evidence that was clearly stated the anniversary a

few months later, certainly settle in the way it was presented, but another critical call. what are your thoughts? >> akamai and much are pessimistic about the brotherhood than some folks in d.c. i think when i revered rhetoric of the supreme guide level in their leadership in who they are and how these things work i don't find them to be a peaceful organization. i think that's a tactical decision on their part with the nietzsche. i can point to many instances with a decent port locally or otherwise violence. that said, eli is general point about the political distinction, we don't want to wash that away and get this reductionist narrative that they are all qaeda when they're clearly not. to your point there is an independent sort of analysis to be done on the brotherhood and when it's dry days and isn't is right. >> i think since 1991 there was

a slogan. one man, one vote, one time in the algerian state with american blessings crushed what they believe is the potential for islamist political takeover of their country to lead to an insurgency for the resident 1990s that was very bloody. you know, i nietzsche i'm not prepared to make judgments at this point because we really have to see how a lot of it plays out. they're still there that we don't entirely know. it's fair to say that there was an effort, a clear effort to consolidate power to put his people and security administrators to basically railroad, to push out any other dissent from the constitution writing process to endorse changes. i mean, there's a series of things morrissey did before the q. that were disturbing and led

at least -- it is fair to say there was a real danger he would become the muslim mubarak. so, in a certain sense you could say al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood are not the same. they are distinctions, but nonetheless muslim brotherhood ideology is maybe not compatible as many of us hope including tear week ramadan and many people in the open society. i'm not open to judge in way in one way or the other bad money to need to give you political islam is not compatible with the society, even if the proponents of the political islam have renounced darius. >> i think both of you -- what you are saying is there's an analytical danger. one is you can plate all groups. the other is she began to make distinctions and you engage in the wishful thinking that since

they are distinct there must be some that are not just pragmatic, but moderate. we can engage with them. if we'll engage with them, we can have a reasonable relationship with them. none of that is necessarily true. you can distinguish, understand differences without believing you necessarily have an opportunity for engagement. >> yeah, it needs to be a very granular assessment of each of the different groups and how they operate. june issue right now is a fascinating law nation where you have the government, the offshoot of the brotherhood and sort of a standoff with all qaeda like organizations and it's a very interesting tension there. at the same time, there's also areas where it's not really clear. you just have every situation and you have to be very careful. ..

you hear the different versions. there's something fundamentally wrong. if you hear the argument over time there's something wrong with the argument. it doesn't make any sense. it keeps propping up over and over again. i think part is that 9/11 exposed sort of a deep ignorance that we have as a society. not only the organization but the ideology and everything that is related to it. i don't think it's necessarily cured. i think there's still a large gap in our unking of all of

this. and to the broader point, you know, eli is right there are many, many muslims who are reject al-qaedaism and sort of has a big time flaw with at love muslims reject sort of that rule it happened over and over again. the problem i have is that i don't believe in political determinism. i think that history moves on a razor's edge. things evolve in ways you don't necessarily expect. this organization and the ideology are revolutionary. they are putting most of the asset around the globe to fight acquire political power as they have done all along. they very much in the game. when you talk about big picture strategy for the united states of america. it's true that not every operative and targeting us today. however that doesn't mean there's enough to target us tomorrow. as we have seen over and over again that's been the case. >> one factor that hasn't come up with the discussion the united states has gotten better

at terrorism. i don't have an answer to this. and i think we have seen with the policy of obama that continued a lot of thingses that bush did, it's reflecting that political reality. the question, i think, for us in this room and for us as american citizens is to say, you know, it's kind of bleak to think that the united states has to operate drones and have shady partnerships in places like yemen. it's hard work. it's costly. it doesn't necessarily how we like to ideal ourselves as a nation. would we be willing to accept a certain inevitability as i think europeans in 1970 have. there will be terrorist attacks from time to time.

and it's not the end of the world. this is what i think janet napolitano when she was department of homeland security when she was in charge talked about the idea of resilience. i'm not saying that we should stheap as reality. but it is something that i think has to come up, because on the one hand, everybody agrees if you say would you accept accept another terrible mass casualty attack. of course not everybody wants to prevent that. what if it means, you know, having lot of powerful nsa and drone wars and operations and the other things that beginning to see some people saying they don't like either, and so we haven't been able to -- i think the side that wants to talk about scaling back the war on terror at this point should talk about the idea it's not a false choice, quote obama from his natural archive speech between liberty and security. it's a very real choice. and we should come terms with

that. i think liberty -- and how much terrorism and willing to accept inflicted on you would be a great other panel for us. i think we had a little bit of a -- [inaudible] i think sometimes we treat the conversation like we are children and we want to believe that we can have everything. we can't. and like democracy, you know, terrorism, you know, smaller government. i share many worries. i'm i don't know enough what is going on to give you a firm answer. i have a ambiguity really -- guttural reaction.

it is -- there is something to be there will a conversation to be there. i say, you know, when you have the conversation you shouldn't threat. i adopt think eli is doing it. i think some people are defining the current threat environment and how thing are evolving around the globe with the impetus to wrap it up. they want to clear in to it. and there's this danger you go too far in the thinking in that and think it's over with because i don't want to deal with it anymore. the bottom line. we covered a lot of ground but obviously there's a lot of ground we could cover. let me ask you to thank our two panelists very much. [applause] thank you all for coming. i hope to see you again very soon. thank you. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] turning to syria secretary of state spoke earlier today. he said there was undeniable evidence of a large-scale weapons attack in syria. they say president obama hasn't decided how to respond. the u.s. is working with the allies in europe to lay the dwrownd work for a more a aggressive response to the sieve began civil war. you can see the secretary's remarking online. we have them at the c-span video library. the chair of the house armed service committee released a statement. he said, quote, i expect the changed -- commander in chief would consult with congress in the days ahead as he considers the option available to him. he said in a statement that

drawing redlines before you know what you're willing to back them up is falling but now that american credibility is on the line. the president cannot fail to act decisively. we'll continue to follow the story on the c-span networks. >> i've been writing for years now. and the proof has finally arrived in the last year or so you have seen pc sales falling dramatically in the double digits five quarters in a row. before that it was quite flat. some of this had to do with the economic meltdown around the developed world. over the last four or five years. even as the economies recovered, the pc has peaked.

when i say it's peaked, i don't mean it's done. i don't mean people are going throw thundershower pc away. i don't mean that tablets, smartphones can replace everything. a laptop can do. but what is happening there are enough scenarios where which people used to grab their laptop that are more conveniently done now on a tablet. >> the "the wall street journal" looks at the future of personal technology. and the first of a two-part interview tonight on the ""the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. more now from the "washington journal" spotlight on magazines. this next segment is focused on journalists jay nordlinger and the recent piece on canadian prime minister stephen harper.

>> host: he's the senior editor for national review and author of the piece in a recent magazine leader of the west, the "leader of the west: the progress of steven harper." mr. nordlinger, thank you for being part of a weekly spotlight on magazines here. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> host: magazine theories sounds pretty grand. >> guest: it's actually -- i'll try to live up to it. >> host: you choose to highlight the prime minister of canada for your recent cover story. why pay attention to stephen harper? >> guest: that's a good question. i myself am a little bit of guilty of ignoring canada. it's so big and so close. i lived in new york many years, friem began, i'm practically canadian or part canadian. stephen harper is an interesting guy. he kept getting my attention over the years and the attention of other american. he's been in office far long time. he was elected in '06.

he's still unknown to a great many of us. i want to write him up. he's an interesting fellow. he's done interesting things in canada. so when you decide you open up the piece, you talk about the upcoming c pack meeting take place this week in washington. you talk about he was invited to come to the meeting. he declined. this other stories surfaced over the last couple of dais who has been invited and why not. why is it important start off with, in your opinion? >> guest: frankly. it was new. it was recent. it was a book. that's why i started off with it. and also, some canadian conservatives are a little bit squeamish about associated with american conservatives like me. we continue have a very good reputation in the canadian press. i'm not sure we have a better reputation in our own press. but it would been strange for prime minister harper to speak at the partisan gathering on foreign soil nap is true.

but c pac, as i understand it, invited a couple of head of state or government. one was harper another was netanyahu. neither is attending. they have other things to do. who are the other conservative heads of government or state of the world? well, there's cameron in britain, and merkel in germany. as mr. harper is concerned whab makes him conservative and how does it compare to our idea of conservative in the united states? >> guest: he is about as conservative as a cad began leader can get. i think he's governing as right ward as possible in the country. he is certainly an hardened head reagan identity. he was a great fan of the william f. buckley, jr.

an important figure in this country. he's had to governor in a fairly measured way. he is deal, with i think with a left of center of environment. getting less so all the time. he's inching canada to the right, and if you will, some people think awakening can data's conservative inticket. the way he put it is he and his party are painting region of canada blue that haven't been blue in a long time. they do their color a different way up north. we have called our blue states left leaning and the red states right-leaning. and it's the opposite up there. they have the natural colors up there for a very long time. certainly in western civilization blue has been em beliematic of the right and red has been emblematic of the right. how did they respond to him when he was chosen prime minister. how do they respond to him today?

>> guest: well, he began with a minority government. they have parliament democracy up there. and he, again, established the minority government in '08. elected in '06 for the first time and '08 the conservatives are re-elected in a way the parliament system is a bit murky to presidential guys like this. they is a majority in the -- it's the first in some time. and doing some bold things. i was interested to see that forbe magazine rated canada the most favorable environment for business of all the g8 countries, i believe. they are number five in the entire world on that ranking. just behind singapore. that's pretty impressive. that is something fairly new for canada. at love us used to think of it as a that dope began state. a country in image. a social welfare, a social

democratic state. and harper and his party are different. he's bold there. very strong. takes a strong stance against iran. the canadian had to close the embassy in teheran. they were worried it would be sacked. he's willing to stand up to a majority of the u.n. canada was denied a seat on the security counsel which is quite strange. can can is always prominent in the u.n. harper is pro israel. at love people don't like that. he recently opened an office for religious freedom and so on inspect is why he got my attention. he is a different kind of canadian leader, i think. and harper is something new under the sun. here in the united he might be considered something of a moderate republican but in canadian terms he's a bit of a winger. a profile, the prime minister of canada stephen harper. written by our guest of national

review. you can ask him questions. 202 we set aside a line for the canadian viewers. if you want to give your first-hand experience or what have you of from harper. you can call 1202-585-3883. you can reach out on twitter at c-span. we see mr. harper on the monitor here as he comes to america and had a change to meet with the president? >> guest: yes. i discuss with some people close to the situation the relationship between harper and obama. i'm told that it's cordial but business-like. the great many sticky issues between the united states and canada.

the stickiest is probably the keystone pipeline. i'm sure you've had a lot on your show about that. it's the pipeline that would run from alberta, which is in a way harper's home province, down to the united and the president hasn't okayed that. that's quite a contention issue between the two countries right now. >> host: mr. harper's take on the keystone pipeline? >> guest: it's all for it. he thinks it would be good for canadian and american. he think it's safe and do able. give us better, cheaper energy, provide employment, and if americans don't take it, chinese and others will. >> host: could you give us a sense of his rise to power. what he did before and i guess some of the quality he brings to the table as prime minister? >> guest: sure. he is a bit of an intellectual. he's an economist. the conservativist in the wilderness for many, many years. they're a coupled party or a few parties. the conservatives were badly

splintered and harper lead the effort to unit them and get them back on their feet. and finally they beat the liberals with the capital l in '06. the liberals conrad black the historian pointed it out. the liberals have been the most dominant party in any democracy for a long time. if you count starting 1896 they were in power for 80 out of 110 years. that's a lot. harper broke that. he broke the ice, so to speak. and soon the prepare shift in 2006. he's a low-key pragmatic candy guy. he's said to be without charisma. there's an old cliche in politics about the charisma of politics. we had it over the years. he's low key. some people say boring. he's re-- routinely compared to an accountant. i don't know why they get a bad rap. he gets things done.

he has not just a pragmatic discreet. i think he has high deal and strong principle. he has a sharp understanding of what is possible. and the people in canada were shocked a few years ago, many people were shocked when he took the stage at the gala concert to sang a beatle song. that was said to be his really letting his hair down and going wild. i watched the video of that as one can on youtube, frankly, he's sort of button and subdued and charming, i think. he disarms his opponents. go to youtube and see the debate. the question time. they have it in canada as britain. see it on youtube, you will see his opponent the leader of the left party flailing away. typical politician style with brutal rhetoric. he's out to respond in a

patient, weary, matter-of-fact way. i believe he's quite effective as you can tell i'm a fan. maybe it's easier to be a fan from a i broad and close at home. >> host: here is tony from oakland, new mexico. the democrat line. good morning. go ahead. >> caller: hi, good morning. i'm curious as to -- >> host: keep going, tony. go ahead. i think tony is gone. so curiosity killed the cat. head of state canada, by the way, is queen elizabeth the government we've been talk abouting. that's the prime minister stephen harper. and the cabinet the federal ministry chosen by the african-american. how would you rate mr. harper's relations with his cabinet?

they are a team of comrades and allies. there's a man named jason is an intelligent man and combination of intellectual at politico as harper himself. it's interesting that he pointed the queen canadian head of state. harper likes to point out too. it's something that hasn't been said at the highest level of canada in a long time, i gather. he did something relatively controversial. he rear toed the -- restored the old name to the military service. we have the royal air force and the royal canadian navy. and he did that, i think, a lot of veterans wanted it. he wanted to remind people of the pretty proud military history. some of the things are symbolic. for example, with you first entered office you reverse the policy of the previous government of lowering flags

every time there was a death or casual any afghanistan. his view was we have remember remember ran day for that. it lets people know there's a new sheriff in town. he stressed this. the english language common law, trial by jury, free economy, property right and so on. there's another indication of a new sheriff in town. >> host: downgt independent line. go ahead. >> caller: hi, i wonder what your thoughts were about the fact the national health care. and that is a basis of a lot of help for -- [inaudible]

and so the national health care where does he stand on that? >> guest: in canada you must support national health care stindz the way you support mother hood and apple pie in the united. it's part of the fabric. now i believe it's untouchable and privatization is unthinkable politically. a lot of people want aless frigid system, more choices for both doctors and patients. harper hasn't moved on that. he has other fish to fry. he's a pragmatic seller. i get lot of opinions from canadians on canadian health care. whey hear most often is this. this seems to be a consensus view among at least people i talk to when needs are regular routine the system works very well inspect a crunch, a lot of people who can afford it z cross the boarder to the south.

less wait and so on. there are certainly pluses and minus. >> host: jay nordlinger joining us. can you have a chance to talk to mr. harper himself? >> guest: i didn't. i didn't. he declined. i talked to the people around him. he was a little bit miffed as any journalist would be. i guess i have a high sense of my own -- he said no thank you. as pointed out he gives relatively few interviews even to canadian publications, why should he give one to national review in new york? that's certainly a point. he's a careful fellow and a friend of mine a canadian-born author told me for him, and for other such politicians when it's not gnu necessary to speak it's necessary not to speak. he's a very, very displinned fellow otherwise he couldn't have remained on top for the years now. >> host: ralph in battle

creek, michigan, dmiek -- democratic line. >> caller: i have been trying to call the controversy. what i'm reading it's exceedingly dirty. it's expensive to mind. the figure i heard it takes three barrel of water to get one barrel of this tar sands goop. i guess it's tar it's goopy and low-quality and has lot of cul for in it. it has heavy metals in it. it's toxic you have all the ponds of water. >> host: thanks. >> guest: i'm sorry, sir, you're out of my field. i'm afraid. i can't pretended to answer wisely. i gate lot of environmental opinion in various sources. that i don't know about. forgive me.

i want to make a point about mr. harper. i think he's lucky i watt we is and where he's at. we inherited a strong economy from the liberals, and i also think that the liberals also were quite responsible in not getting us involved in iraq and getting canada involved in iraq, and i also talk about afghanistan that's article continuation of a policy established. so i don't really think that -- i think you are overestimating him. i think he inherited a good situation, and i think he's basically just maintained it. >> host: mr. nordlinger? glig agree with some of what the caller said. i have it in my piece. canada was in dire straights in the 1990s. they were a basic case.

probably a laughing stock economically. and the liberals came to grips with the problem, and did some very hard things. fobbing some hard steps to take. got financing under control. started reducing the government. harper continued that. it's quite right. he in other things is the lowest tax burden since about 1960. corporate taxes 15%. the federal corporate tax. that's pretty good. that is what makes canada very attractive for business all over the world. but the caller is quite right that the economic reform began under the liberal party. it's true. they sobered up i think more than we have down here in the united states. >> host: you write in your piece they had the election october nine months after the election that brought harper and the disoaft power, they, again by a bigger margin. can you expand on that?

>> guest: yes. he said he keeps taking regions blue which is the conservative color. i think people have begun up there to trust the conservatives with power, and the liberal capital l has been broken for now. liberals aren't even the official opposition. that's another left ward party. and so harper is an gradualist. he has a leader quality, of course. he doesn't move the public a lot farther than they're willing to go. he likes to -- i think the way he and his people put it they awakingen the common sense gene in the canadian people. the canadians are really part of an glow american civilization. for a long time they resembled scandinavian.

and the liberal a different heritage for canada and very often stresses canada's -- the government was put out of video and i'm a canadian. a free canadian. i have a right to select my own government. and so on. as well as a softer kind of socialist. i remember that -- "the dictator" of cuba jimmy carter was too. that's where carter and castro had the semifamous talk. that's pretty far afield. i'm sorry for that wandering.

>> host: debby on the republican line. hello. >> caller: hi. i'm not sure the guest is really timely for us. i was just yesterday talking to a friend in monitor owe that is a chartered accountant. we're dual citizens. we can live in canada or the u.s. after getting our income taxes back this year, advice from our cpa we're thinking about returning to canada. the tax rates are fairly equal now. canada doesn't have the debt. they are sitting on a pile of natural resources. i was just wondering what your guest thinks of the future of dan is going to be like. >> guest: well, i will say this. the federal picture is rather reaganized never lower taxes and fewer taxes and less and less regulation and so on. a lot depends on the province.

some are more blue in canadian or american terms and more red, for example, quebec and ontario have different policies fromlet say the western states. the maritime provinces the provinces in the far east. they are different too. they are liberalizing in the old that is getting less states it depend where you live in canada. the trends are right ward or older kind of liberalism. that is mauler government, greater personal freedom. it got my attention when harper's canada was one of nine members of the united nations to vote against an increased status for the plo in that body.

czechoslovakia republican and a handful of other nations. that was another thick that harper did that got my attention. not very popular with canada'slet say permanent foreign policy establishment. toronto is next -- you're on. >> caller: yes. [inaudible] the prime minister of canada -- he took the country in a financial good standing and -- [inaudible] one of the things that was regarded as -- [inaudible]

>> guest: yes, after the recession in '08 and '09 there was deficit spending in canada. it's true. according to people who know out of the things has emerged in a stronger position than the other

equivalent countries g8. there is a deficit there. they expect it to be gone by 2015. it should be pretty easy. they believe the previous government and entered to the protocol and joined it. the kyoto property could was not good for numbering. -- he did that. i myself consider that bold and smart. of course plenty of others squawked. and as for the keystone pipeline, i certainly not an expert. we should listen to a range of opinions and decide what sound

most authorityive to us. and i believe that the keystone pipeline accepted with gratitude a long time ago. [inaudible] >> caller: two-part question. it might sound like there might be some parallel to harper and reagan, if you can touch on that. also, it appears could be a model or metaphor for some of the folks in washington, d.c., on the hill and both in the white house to bring some adult conversations we're facing in the issues in this country. on the reagan issue. you could strain this analogy as you could any analogy, i guess.

harper lead the conservatives out of the wilderness in the political respectability and political power in canada. you could say the same of reagan in the united. has he impone as far of the rage someone he was part of the reagan achievement sometimes. i remind people and they remind me. reagan succeeded in slowing the rate of growth of the government. government grew bigger and bigger in his time. his achievement domestically, at least in the sphere of size and government was to slow the rate of growth. and in his time was just about the way he could manage. i was thinking the next question

had to do with what american politicians can learn from harper. a part is the style, which is of course personal individual to everyone. style, flavor, feeling. he is, as i said, a low-key guy. remember the great word in american politics. i guess it's still used now and threaten. nonthreatening. he's a nonthreatening conservative. he doesn't make those that disagree with him break out in hive. the press can be hostile against him. he uses the style, i don't think it's calculated. but certainly help him in governing. he doesn't scare the horses too much. he is pretty mild-mannerrered fellow. the response to him is not necessarily inflamed. i think a good bit of this is personal.

and that cliche of politics is the art of possible. harper understanding this, but of course some of the greatest politicians do is expand the notion of possibility. maybe people are willing to go in a direction they didn't think they wanted to go in. from my advantage, which is maybe not a good advantage in new york liking up in canada harper is doing just about as much as he can in order to further illustrate the concern of ideal conservative and in canada. but there are conservatives in dan who think he could be bolder and could be doing more. it's a matter of how you base --

[inaudible] >> caller: we have a prime minister that is got in with a little over 30% of the votes. base order the parliament delivers the -- [inaudible] got in with the they weren't able to get the majority. it's a different system. if you have a president with the majority, but he has problems with the house. he can push through the bills without any resistance because nobody can hold him down. that's my point, really. >> host: mr. nordlinger? >> guest: he's in a -- position after duominorty governments he's in a majority government. and so there a lot of heads of

government in state that envy that. it's going for sure. itst it's been a long time coming for the conservatives. of course, these politicians are held accountable in polls. regular interval. they seem irregular here. they serve for six years and the elections are staggered. all very predictable. it's different in the parliament countries in the great many of the world. i kind of like our system. it's neat, clear, and orderly. there's something i must say as a political journalist. there's something exciting about following and reporting on the system with parliament democracy. there's all sort of jockeying and shifting and all sort of tactic we wouldn't necessarily have here. to me, i'm not sure the candidates very often describe as entertaining but i find

parliament politics including in dan quite entertaining. and i also think that question time, i think it might be -- question time the prime minister has to face questionses from the opposition in parliament. that -- to my mind maybe i'm a bit of a nerd about this. it's good television. >> host: a statement from marry before we got next call. thank you. of course here in michigan, we're next to you. [inaudible] as i look at the great lake here i realize the boundary is 50 miles per hour away which is awesome. we share a lot of things.

you have to admit you have a strong kind of an i thinkly brother down here. as far as deafen goes. you really don't have to spend a lot of money. you know deep down nobody would mess with canada. we wouldn't allow an outside force to mess with mexico. it's not knocking with you. you have some beautiful ships. and you have helped out. we appreciate that. they're more somehow than really go. >> guest: i'm an american. i'm in fact from michigan and have written this piece about canada. canada has made major contributions certainly in international conflicts and two world wars, korea and so on.

massively increased defense spend. he said that it's part of dan's making a meaningful contribution to the world. at the same time the caller is quite right. the united states is the close -- not just here on the north -- not just canada and -- that's been fry for a long time. i would like to. i may years ago when i was hanging around there. that's my home state. i worked at golf courses. we have a lot of canadian players. they come in. once awhile they try to use their, you know, pretty canadian money. the multicolored canadian money. it was almost not like real

money. often they want to spend the dollars at par. equivalent with the american dollar. we would laugh at them. the whole idea was ludicrous. who is laughing now? the last i checked the canadian dollar is worth more than the u.s. bay hair. they're basically even. that to me was very sobering and indicating a flip in positions. and i noted this to a canadian intellectual at "politico" when i was preparing my piece on harper. that's a sour -- source of pride for us. if hurt our export and the matter of currency policy and currency affairs. >> host: we are about to go to the house of representatives. here is susan from the democrat line. >> caller: good morning. i was able to visit toronto --

it's beautiful there. what i understand there americans are not allowed to move to can canada. they stop us at the border and don't want us. i kind of sent us. they should billed their own refinery in alberta, canada. because it's not good for us and not create permanent jobs. >> guest: i'm afraid i don't know about it. i will say this about c-span. i hear america singing and hear all sorts of songs. we can't agree with all of them. it's a word wonderous thing.

it's a story of anthony who was our longest serving mayor in rhode island history. one of the more colorful mayors. he was part huey long and part tony spron know. he was lovable who helped transfort form the city to a city that was rated one of american's most livable by a number of publications and he also presided over a breadth taking array of corruptions over three different records that ultimately landed in federal prison.

and he was really rude -- he was the embodiment of american politics the good and the bad. and he reflected providence, which as one of america's oldest cities to me really em boys the political story. he grew up in kind of a in a privileged background for an italian-american. he grew up in the silver lake neighborhood of providence and the italian enclave. he went to moses browne, a private school near brown university, and he became a lawyer. he became a prosecutor. prosecuted mobsters. he became republican and

democratic irish city. than he ran for mayor in the 19 70s. 1974. he basically upset the providence the democratic machine and became this italian-american republican mayor. he attracted the attention of the white house. ford was taken with him. he saw him as a way to em embody what the republicans were trying to capture. a vote that went democratic. buddy had a featured role of speaking at the national convention. he was a guy that was seen as potentially going places. he was tblib and articulate. he was a champion of cities and urban renewal. some people said he could be a potential vice president candidate or at least go to the senate where we he could have a lock career. problems ensued.

ford lost the election, and he went on to become mayor to get the corruption. there was as massive investigation in the early 19 80s. he stealing manhole covers and stealing city asphalt, cutting all kinds of crooked deals and private owners and that sort of thing. then over massive corruption and several people in the administration went prison. they never got to him because the top aid never ratted him out. he tboant prison instead himself. buddy was caught up in a personal marital dispute. he went through a nasty divorce. he basically suspected the businessman who was a friend of with him and invited the man to his house held the man prisoner for several hours. tortured him with a lit

cigarette, try to hit him with a fireplace log. threw an ashtray at him and ultimately charged with assault in that episode that forced his resignation in 1984. that seemed like that was the end of a once-promising political career. it was only the first act. he spent the next six year on talk radio. a poop already talk show host in 1990 he ran for mayor again with the slogan he never stopped caring. and the "the wall street journal" called the political comeback the envy of nixon. in 1990 he was elected in a three-way race by about a few hundred votes and came back and this is the '90s when providence was undergoing a remarkable renaissance. rivers were being moved. concrete was being ripped up. the water fire display on the river and the beauty of the architecture. buddy was a champion of that.

he became a hot mayor. and thing were going very well for him. the fbi found the -- he wore a wire had a hidden camera in the handle of the briefcase and taped taking bribe at city call. it became known as federal fbi case. it was lead by ab fbi agent originally from mississippi. he lead the investigation that ultimately resulted in the conviction. after an epic two-month trial, in a city where people say you never will get people convict him. and a city where buddy went to prison, with the voters --

when buddy was minutessed by the judge the judge talked about how he was really two people. dr. jekyll and mr. hyde. buddy said privately to a friend later how come i didn't get two f-ing paychecks. he was convicted of racketeering conspiracy. being knowing about it but not actually being physically involved in of the underlying acts. and buddy kind of framed it as what was i convicted of? being the mayor. some of the jurors felt otherwise. he was the guy who knew how to keep himself insulated like a mob boss he prosecuted ironically. he was able to stay occupy the direct line. he knew everything that was going on. he was the kind of guy one juror told me how many roles of toilet paper there were in city hall. buddy said it was part of the

aura he kind of conveyed that fear in people that he knew everything. but he really didn't. that was does defense but ultimately didn't play on on the the jury and appeal and went to prison and relinquished his famous toupee or what he called the dead squirrel. he did time, came out and went to the talk radio and on a local radio station. but it's interesting providence has a changed a lot. i think he wept from being a relevant political figure to more like the quaint uncle whom you have around at holiday. most of the people in providence who live here when you get out of prison didn't live here when he went to prison. it says something about the remarkable transformation of the city. there's a lot of young voters, we have a strong gay population, a lot of latinos. the city has really changed in the succession the mayor that followed him was the first

openly-gay mayor. the mayor who followed him who is in office now is the city's first hispanic mayor and reflecting that growing population. i compare him to huey long in the sense that he? they were both charismatic figure. they were politician who were loved inspite of the flaw and corruption that went on. had a real population evangelical fervor about them that spoke to the ability to be successful on a larger stage. long was seen as a potential presidential candidate. buddy, as audacious as it seems, such a small city was seen as somebody can be a national figure in washington. and one of his point of view -- pivotal moment he was in the first term of mayor. there was a u.s. senate seat that opened up in rhode island.

he thought about whether he should run or not. he wound up being outmaneuvered. a lot of people feel it was a turning point. he spoke at republican national convention at 1976 and 1980. he went out, it was funny before the election and met with pitched hissments as potential running mate for reagan. while he was throughout he went to palm springs and visited jerry ford who was good friends with him when he was president. while there he got invited to have dinner at frank sin gnat that's house. he's having dinner at frank senate that's house.

we had an interesting relationship as i wrote the boob. the one thing about buddy that two things that matter to him are power and control and of course money. and he didn't have the control over the book and didn't get the money. he couldn't control his legacy and he didn't like some of the negative things i found. i try to be fair. there are two sides of the coin and that makes him compelling. he wanted to write his own book and later did a few years ago called "politics and pasta." i'm not going talk you about my inside story and how are you going to write a --

i remember he called know his office a month before he wept to prison. it was the final day in office. it was a summer afternoon, quiet, and as i'm there he starts to say howsht you revoke your contract with random house. we write a book together. how much are you getting? i said i'm not getting that much. i'm getting enough to make it fair. and, you know, it's really about more than money to me. it's about doing a good -- telling a good story. and buddy looked at me and said why isn't it about money. how can you sell yourself so cheap? at that point a thunderstorms started to play out over city hall. there was a loud crash of thunder and buddy said. telling the book i think says the american politics is a blood sport. it's entertaining. buddy had a saying when he was

first elected mayor, he was the republican candidate. he was championed by kind of the upper crust liberal sense that lived up on the upper side of providence around brown university. they were the elite and didn't need anything from city hall. they were looking for good government and buddy had -- even though he was the champion he had a saying good government will only get you good government. when you come down from college hill and cross the providence river you have to cut deal and do things like that to get things done. when he came in as mayor the first time, remember, he was a republican in a city that hasn't elected a republican since the great depression. he was the first italian-american mayor that was ruled by irish democrats for decades. he had a city council that was committed to his destruction just like the republican congress was committed to barack obama's downfall in the first

term. he had the work with those guys. he did work with them. he outlasted them and outmaneuvered him. they refuse to there was a famous massacre they called it the city council had a meeting and didn't have a quorum there were three members who were arrested or indicted or convicted of various crime such as insurance fraud and fixing races at the local track. and buddy used that to kind of engineer a cue when he took over the city council and the l.a. thyme came to down and did a feature. he said that in the general population something like one in 10,000 on the providence city council it's one in eight. the gene yous of buddy was that he could connect with people had charm and charisma and he would walk to a room if there were 100

people there he would go to the one that hated him and try win the person over. i remember being a young reporter not covering city hall. i was in another reporter's backyard cookout in the summer. we were sitting around the backyard and buddy pulls up in the lam seen. he shows up at the party. it wasn't just a politician making a token appearance. he was there for hour. he was one of the last to leave. he was the champion of city of providence. the city was a downtrodden city. he would, you know, go on national tv, go on the don show and sing the city's praises. people loved him. we always had corruption. it predates buddy it will post date him. at least he made us feel good about ourselves and helped put

providence back on the map passenger's side that's why people loved him. in a few moments on ""the communicators." personal technology consult assistant for the "the wall street journal." ..

>> guest: absolutely not. technology is always changing and always coming up technology companies coming up with something new and there are new technology companies oftentimes incubating. a lot of them are in what we call stealth mode. we don't even know who they are. >> host: i guess i asked that because the last couple of years we have had an explosion of smartphones. we have had tablets come on line what is out there? >> guest: well, first of all that vast numbers of people especially in the less developed countries that even in the developed countries who don't own a smartphone and certainly

there are vast numbers that don't own a tablet and to give you a rough example apple which leads in the tablet market has sold somewhere around 160 million ipads since 2010. that's a remarkable achievement and for people who don't -- on apple stock and i don't own any stock in these companies, that makes them very happy but even 160 million ipads then even if you had android tablets, it's a small fraction of people that could own a tablet especially if the prices come down. so you know there has been a lot of talk about the difficulty of innovating the smartphone space and we have seen a couple of

iterations by apple and samsung that haven't big -- had a giant jumps and innovation. this often happens but i think there has been much more to do with the smartphone and just to give you one example, the less you have to pull the phone out of your purse or your pocket and the less you have to hit icon buttons no matter how ingeniously designed they are, the more convenient and kind of natural the process will seem. and so there is a lot of work going on. voice recognition and water called wearable google classes. a good example, things you wear

on your wrist. i'm not talking about the fitness meters that are out there but something beyond that that would tie into the cell phone or smartphone sitting in your pocket or purse and the plot allow you to do things. also staying on the smartphone for a minute and that's hardly the only area of technology but giving it more capabilities and more intelligence in a way that is easier to use so making a smart on that is aware to some extent not in a human sense but aware of its surroundings, where what's going on. today for instance hola is announcing a new smartphone that automatically adjusts its

function when it senses that it's in a moving car, for when it senses that it's in your pants pocket. it will shut down the screen and other functions to save batteries and you turn down the screen on a table or your pocket. you can pull it out of your pocket and just by twisting your wrist you can turn the camera on even before you unlock the phone or press any button of any kind or an icon and so, those are you no examples of something that i think could get much bigger which is phone tablets wearable devices, using their sensors. gyroscopes and then new kinds of sensors that can detect body

heat or body motion and that sort of thing. we have a lot of going on in technology. >> host: who is developing the sensors? >> guest: i don't know the names of the companies. obviously the customers for the sensors are, many of them are well-known. apple buys a lot of sensors. if you have an iphone, there are a whole bunch of sensors than there. you could have a samsung galaxy phone and there are a whole bunch of sensors in and there and then there are all these people making medical devices or fitness devices that are using various new types of sensors. so, there is just a ton going on. at the same time you are right some things are plateauing or even declining. the pc. i have been writing for years

now and the proof has finally arrived in the last year or so where you have seen pc sales actually falling dramatically in the double digits for five quarters in a row and before that it had been quite flat. some of this had to do with the economic meltdown around the developed world and the whole world over the last four or five years. but since it recovered the pc has peaked. when i say it has peaked i dealt mean it's done. i don't mean people should throw their pcs away. i dealt mean that tablets and smartphones can replace everything that a laptop can do, but what is happening is that

there are enough at least scenarios for which people used to grab their laptop and are more conveniently done now on a tablet especially a tablet but also a smartphone. people find their actual daily use of their laptop has declined they still haul it out for things that a tablet and smartphones don't do very well like for instance creating a complicated spreadsheet or you're not going to write a novel probably on an ipad over the keyboard but people are finding they use them unless and as they use them less, it needs they feel like directing their money toward one of these other devices and not replacing a laptop.

so that is what i mean by peaking and that is what most of the experts mean by peaking. and yeah so some technologies plateau. right now on think they're there is somewhat of a plateau and smartphones though i don't think it will last very long. it's not so much sales as it is innovation but as i just explained with the kind of self-awareness thing i think we are going to see a bunch of that but i think that's going to keep going and then other things get replaced or decline or become less important in the life of somebody who depends on technology and the pc is an example of that. >> host: how is the blackberry doing? >> guest: i don't know what the sales are. for those that don't know which to explain blackberries which i think most people is in a lot of trouble.

a lot of revolutions set off by the iphone. very tied to the corporate i.t. departments which themselves lost a lot of power. blackberry changed its leadership, changed its entire operating system and platform and brought out what is called the z10 and that is all touch phone directly competitive with the iphone and android phones like the samsung. that has not done very well. the other one was called the q. 10, same software, same functionality. it looks more like a regular traditional library with the physical keyboard and that has been out i want to say two months or less and i don't know

the sales numbers on that. my guess is that we'll do pretty well in the first sales order or to because there is a pent-up demand among people mostly black or users who like this keyboard and this is a much more modern the software has a much more modern software base than the old blackberries so they can use the physical keyboard and not feel so behind the android and iphone friends they may have. but i think the company's belief was that there was a finite number of those and that is why they had to bring out the other type of phone which is more directly similar to the iphone and android phone. so i don't know. i'm guessg it will do pretty

well in the first quarter. >> host: have you reviewed the c. 10 and how does it compare? the. >> guest: i reviewed the z10. a colleague and i reviewing partner katie barrette works with me here in our office. we reviewed the q10. i thought the z10 was okay and it had a couple of interesting features but black hairy windows phone which is another platform where most of the phones are made by nokia, they are in a difficult situation because they have gotten started at least in this new generation post-iphone of smartphones. they got started late and it's been difficult for them to attract the variety and certainly the important apps

that i think people are looking for it. so there we allocation for battle number three and it's a tough situation. not that the phones are terrible or anything like that. the windows phone is really got a quite nice user interface and carefully thought through. the nokia phone hardware built around it has for the most part in pretty good. but they haven't been able to track and applelike instagram and of course this changes day by day so what i'm telling you right now might have changed by the time people see the show. last time i checked they didn't have instagram and i don't think

it's on the blackberry. it might be but that is just one example. and then new apps come out all the time. when app developers whether they are a small shop of five people or a big company with an app development team, you know these folks have limited resources. they have to prioritize what they do and they are looking for the platform where they can also monetize their app as quickly as they can and they continually go to apple and android. it's a chore for blackberry and for microsoft to go with their platform. >> host: are apps for apple and android devices on par now? >> guest: they are more on par

until maybe the last nine months to a year. i think they were a large number of apps. the very same app would just be nicer and richer on ios which is the iphone then they were on android. i think that there is a lot more parity. i still think of the ids 1 million apps on those of those app stores you were going to find a greater number that are higher-quality on the apple side and a lesser number that are of the same quality. you are also going to find a lot more malware with viruses or other kinds of malicious software. there's a reason for that i can't explain it on the quality issue i think the app is closing and certainly the numbers of

apps. android may have had more apps than apple. >> host: why the malware on the android? >> guest: well, there are probably some technical under the hood issues that i don't understand. i'm not an engineer but i know that one big issue is the android app star -- app store, you can submit an app and it doesn't review it so it's easier to slip things in. apple famously carried all the apps in their store and they get criticized by some people who believe you shouldn't make any choices when you offer. everything should be allowed. apple just says, i think the number is 2% or 3% of the apps that are submitted to us and i think that's true but one of

their criteria is that the project the ones that are carrying malware. they are not perfect but they are pretty good. i don't think there is significant malware on the iphone. there have been estimates i have seen that as many as 60% of the apps on the android store carries some amount of nowhere. now i'm not endorsing that number but i have seen estimates like that you doesn't mean those apps get downloaded a lot compared to the ones that are safe and popular. i mean you know a person there is no malware on the facebook app. i present there is no malware in the twitter app and the instagram apple or whatever or the various games that are frequently downloaded on both platforms.

so even if that 60% number were true it wouldn't be that a certain percentage have malware that google is where this and they understand the risks and they will yank apps after-the-fact if they learn that they are in some way a problem. but they don't carry it beforehand and apple does. some people are drawn to apple for what it does and some people are drawn to android. there are many reasons but some people are drawn to android for that reason. >> host: walt mossberg of "the wall street journal" what do you use? >> guest: well i am not a good example because due to my job right now i am sitting here with a brand-new android phone. it was just announced today the one by motorola called the moto

x. >> host: it looks like a normal phone. >> guest: it has a number of interesting features. as i was saying it has the ability to sense certain things about location and movement and then i also have the iphone 5. i am always using multiple devices. i personally own iphones in a couple of ipads in a couple of google android tablets and a couple of android phones. so i tried to use what i like the best and what works the best for me but as a practical matter i owned three or four windows computers three of four macs. i have a roku and and an apple

tea and a chromecast which is the newest device. >> host: speaking of rich we have reporters that cover technology and if they had any questions for you -- one of the questions was about chromecast and this reporter says she recently reviewed and recommended googles new chromecast product. how will chromecast change television viewing? >> guest: we have to back up and explain what we are talking about. i don't think we can assume everyone knows what chromecast is. the tax industry -- tech industry in general and especially apple and google and microsoft and a few companies have been trying to change television. they have changed phones and they have changed the music industry and have changed lots of things.

television has been part of that that frustrates these guys said they regard it as really pretty backward. if you think about it, you carry around one of these devices and we look at how these works and then how your tv works. you try to go to the menu on your t. believe -- tv and change something and it's really quite limited. even if the tv is new and even if it has a so-called smart feed functionality. so the technology guys will try to reinvent tv. the problem is that there are two problems. the biggest problem is you can build a tv but what they really want to do is change the content that is coming into the tv and they wanted equalized the internet content like netflix or

hulu or itunes content or amazon content. they want to make that another choice along with c-span and nbc and you know hbo or whatever else you are getting from your cable company. the media companies are not crazy about that so there has been a lot of friction there. the second problem is if you build a tv and let's say you build a revolutionary tv that was much easier to use, took some of the lessons from these devices or even you know integrated with all of your other devices which is all perfectly possible, that you have built a device in the tv that people really don't replace more than every, i forgot the number but it's seven or eight years that people keep tvs and then replace them. like phones that a lot of people

replace after a couple of years. it's not as good of the business in some respects for these companies so that's the backdrop. to try to change tv. the way they have so far been doing it has been by building a box. plug into the tv and there is apple tv. they have sold about 13 million of those. it just makes it one of their very smallest products. they have sold about 13 million the interestiinteresti ng thing about that number is about half of those were sold over the last year or so i think if i'm not mistaken. so it has accelerated. roku which is a competitor sold about 5 million of the similar box and these boxes what they do is bring content that is not coming from the cable companies.

these are not a cable box. internet content to your tv so netflix is a great example and youtube is a great example. itunes and amazon, whatever. google tried that. they tried something called google tv which they did the software and a couple of other companies did the hardware and it was a failure. i gave a quite a bad review. it was kind of a mishmash. chromecast is google's second attempt in what it is is, it says you know what? we are not going to build a complicated walks that goes on the tv. we are not going to put content streaming into that box. we are just going to make a little thing that looks like a usb flash drive and plug it into a port and i poured which is a common, the common poured on the back of hdtv's and there is a wire you use to plug in the

power and whether you have the android phone or whether you have an iphone or a tablet you will see the light pop up that will let you just being whatever you would be watching on the phone or tablet onto the tv screen. and that is the new product came out with. it costs $35. apple for several years has had a similar thing. if you happen to own an apple tv in addition to the programming that is on the apple tv built into major league a's fall, itunes bodo something site that you've been able to use the technology of theirs called airplay. it does the same thing. when the light is green i am watching a video or an audio or music and hit that and it wirelessly beams into the tv.

apple had that and google has it with chromecast. the pros and cons are kind of inverse to each other. the positive on apple airplay system is that it works with thousands of apps and apps or play icons that works on too many apps to even go into. you can sit down and sort through all of your photos on the tv screen with no wires. the downside on the apple product system is it only works with apple products so if you have an iphone and ipad or a mac it will work. if you have a windows computer airplay doesn't work even if you own an apple tv. on the qualm cast that just came

out it works across platforms. it doesn't only work with googles android operating system devices. it works with apple devices and on the windows computers are -- computer or mac with local browser called chrome it will work with that say you have a windows laptop in the chrome browser and you want to go to the youtube site and you want to watch a youtube video on your ice cream it will work. google is a cross-platform and apple not an uncommon thing. and then the downside is chromecast so far only works with a handful of apps. on android devices it works with four apps out of a million that works with and they are important apps for video so it works with netflix and youtube which google owns and then googles own video and music

apps. it's really only app that google does on. on the iphone it works with netflix and youtube. and in my tests the reason i gave it a good review was it works. i tried it on an old tv and an old hdtv and a newer one. i tried it on apple products and android products and windows laptops and it just worked. the challenge for google is to get more companies to sign on and add that chromecast icon to their apps and the challenge for apple might be to open it up to other companies. >> host: we are talking on "the communicators" with supple and personal technology columnist for "the wall street journal".

secretary of stateohkerry said today that chemical attacks in syria were quote undeniable and such action would not be without consequences. you can watch his entire statement on line at c-span.org. here is some of what he said. >> for the last several days president obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in syria and today i want to provide an update on our efforts. as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons. what we saw in syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. it defines and a code of morality. let me be clear. the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity.

by any standard it's inexcusable that despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured it is undeniable. the meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in syria itself. that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. this is about the large-scale indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all. conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else. there is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. there is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken me just apps to eradicate these weapons. there was a reason why president obama has made it such a priority to