in a few moments on "the communicators" matthew polka ceo of the american cable association talks about getting high-speed broadband internet access and rural areas. the aca represents 900 smaller cable operators with 8 million subscribers. and a half an hour a look at how changing voter demographics in the suburbs could affect political campaigns and elections. >> host: this week on "the

communicators" we welcome back the president and ceo of the american cable association matthew polka. mr. polka what is the american cable association? >> guest: the american cable association is unique in is unique and effectively is unique in effect that we represent smaller cable operators across the country. everyone asked me are there still cable operators left and in fact there are nearly 900 smaller markets and rural areas in every corner you can imagine and rural areas small towns and small markets. many of them are competitive providing competitive services against some of the largest providers today. what is great about the smaller companies it's a terrific story because they are providing high-speed broadband and very rural areas that desperately need rural broadband service in addition to phone in audio service. these are the members we represent. they are smaller and independent which means they are not affiliated with larger context on pennies or larger providers and what we do is we provide here in washington d.c. for the federal communications

commission before congress than any other agency here in washington d.c. that deals with telecommunications issues that have an impact on smaller companies. we are there voice for the independent cable operator. >> host: so 7 million households. >> guest: 7.5 million in all 50 states are many territories as well throughout the country in the world so it's quite nice to see independent entrepreneurial pioneers that are still out there in small markets and rural areas doing exactly with the same pioneers did in this industry was wounded 50 or 60 years ago. >> host: mr. polka you open up a a by talking about broadband. has broadband become more important? >> guest: broadband is the service for not only are members but when you look at the cable industry in general the cable industry has done such a tremendous job of deploying broadband all over. urban areas small markets rural areas and it really has made the

difference and as we look ahead we see that our members businesses and their future really is a broadband business. when you look at the services they provide. today we provide voice and video internet services as well but more broadband is really the key. in and most of our members areas they say that the speed and capacity and the demand for broadband in the markets is doubling every two years. so it becomes a really important issue for us as smaller providers that are providing that broadband service when we look at the washington perspective and how washington continues to regulate smaller business. that is essentially what we are. we are smaller businesses looking for regulations that actually work and a lower members to flourish as opposed to being overly regulated which has a higher cost per subscriber. >> host: during our conversation this week is lynn stanton senior editor of telecommunications reported.

>> guest: that you have been critical of the way the fcc is distributing universal service support funds for high cost low population density areas. what's in particular about the way they are handing out this money seems to you to be a problem? >> guest: it's not just the fcc. when you go back as berkeley and look at a number of programs that were designed to deploy broadband in rural areas pro-bands which we actually support whether its programs through the rural utility services the u.s. department of agriculture and other programs. the problem is not the goal to get broadband into rural areas. the problem is how those programs are implemented. each one of those programs particularly starting with the u.s. looking back at the stimulus funds were designed to be technology neutral meaning that anybody could take advantage of those programs but when it came time to implementation the rules that were used to implement those programs were essentially the traditional rules the funding

agencies had use for decades which favored favored one astray over another's our members didn't have access to the funds. when we look now but the fcc is doing with universal service many of the same potential problems exist which is our members as our members as i said if gone out with their own private equity sweat equity blood sweat and tears to deploy broadband in rural areas and now they face a situation like we have seen before aware taxpayer funds are being used to be given to other potential competitors to overbuild them. we think that there's a problem with any implementation that allows for that kind of use of taxpayer funds to overbuild broadband cable phone system that already exist through private capital. that is what we are concerned about with the fcc program as they renew and reform universal service. actually the fcc has been very understanding of our concerns here as we look at the challenge process they are developing for

these funds. essentially the problem is still the same. the money was going to go to large price capped companies. $10 billion over five years to be used in areas that are underserved and potentially underserved. well while in many of those underserved areas quote unquote our members are providing right band at higher speeds than exists under what would be the current plan. what we want to do is establish a process by where our members can challenge what is occurring through that process so that if they are there providing broadband they can ensure to the challenge process that funding does not occur in those areas. that is really the issue is implementation to ensure that money is used as intended to give broadband where it isn't but not to be used to allow for overbuild where members are providing broadband service today. >> guest: don't your member

service areas show up on the national broadband map? >> guest: they do although that's developing. through this whole process only go back to 2009 in and before we did things backwards where the map is the last piece of the puzzle before we got money out and established a process and developed a map. that is improving and our members are very effectively working very hard with their state organizations that are responsible for the national broad band map as well as the fcc to get their information into that map and we are very pleased that this dscc looks at the funding of the connect america found that the national broadband map will be central to their decisions in terms of where funding might be appropriate. but this is what we do appreciate what the fcc has done. they will create the challenge process where even if there is an information specifically on that map and a company that potentially could be harmed by way of this funding will be able to challenge that process by demonstrating they are providing broadband in an area where an application might be pending.

>> guest: you have also been supported by think of the rate and there might be some changes i think you said? >> guest: as far as the rate goes we are supportive of this. obviously the more we can get right band out into schools and libraries and other places like that it's very important so we do support those programs. for our members is always again the question of how are the funds just debated? i are issue there is cam our members be an effective part of that process as opposed to being on the outside? >> think with this program and the ideas behind it that our members will be able to greatly take advantage of that program going forward. >> guest: in moving to broadband support? >> guest: that's exactly right. definitely the idea of a program that we support and want to see flourishing in our markets. >> guest: is mostly up to the

schools or school districts and who ends up getting the contracts to provide services because the money hasn't been making it to the kinds of services that your members offer that is the problem? >> guest: i think that's part of it. i think for our members that sometimes awareness. there are multiple providers in a marketplace that actually might be able to provide something more cost-effective within the means that the schools have. one of the issues i think our members have faced is just the traditional bias towards particular providers of services as opposed to a full technology neutral class of companies and what we want to insurers want to insures that our members have an equal shot at working with the schools to provide those services. >> host: mr. polka was the 2009 stimulus important? >> guest: well, it was and again as i pointed out we sort of did things backwards when you look at the stimulus.

to have $7 billion of funding available through u.s. and ntia in the commerce department was important but again our members were not able to access those funds specifically because of how the funds were implemented and how the application process occurred. consequently we were more on the defensive side of the issue as opposed to the offense of side meaning that we could actually get funds that we could use to deploy broadband. are concerned there was one of ensuring that those funds were not used to provide an overbuild to the existing broadband services compared to actually using those funds to deploy broadband. unfortunately i think that there was particularly now as congress is looking at this issue and certainly part of the fcc process they are mindful of the fact that there was a good hit of waste and abuse in this program when you look at a number of programs across the country where there were cost overruns or programs that were

not completed and money that was given back to the government. unfortunately i don't think the intent of the stimulus was met and from our perspective we had a number of situations where members did have to fight over builds and unfortunately because it was such a demand and such a movement to get this money out the door that process to challenge it wasn't very good so our members consequently despite the fact that they put evidence on the table to say we are providing broadband service in these areas where you are funding no one listens. that's unfortunate. >> host: on the other side of the question what is the future of video services? >> guest: that's a very good question. when you look at many of the problems that are occurring in the marketplace today as i said our members businesses have focused ahead on broadband. the services we provide are going to be broadband based. consumers are going to want to

consume more of video through broadband and her on line services as we see now. in fact we have many members that are actually engaging in allowing their customers to see more on line viewing if they have a broadband plan. the issue of video business and where that goes conk i think you would probably have to ask the big content companies about that because they are the ones that are driving the business today. from our members prospectively believe the video marketplace is broke and. as you can look at any number of disputes that are occurring today in the news whether it's cbs time warner are any number of disputes -- in fact i saw something the other day of where amc was claiming several smaller cable operators were going to be dropped from some of their services because the smaller cable operators were not agreeing to the prices and it all comes down to consolidation and bundling. it really does and unfortunately

consumers are starting to move more towards on line viewing because they say i don't have a choice choice as a cable or satellite subscriber and i want more choice. we as cable and broadband providers want to give consumers those choices so we are trying to work with them and give them the choice is that they want. it's a huge issue and one that's not resolved. it's only getting worse and frankly i can tie this all the way back to 1992 when congress first implemented the retransmission consent rules and i can draw a line from bad to the beginning of the consolidation with a networking and programming business to now where we have a situation that exists where these four major content companies across the country tie in bundle services. they pay exorbitant amounts for the right to provide sports and that every consumer has to pay for whether they watch it or not. our members tell us that only about 30% of their customers are real sports fans that are doubly hard fans.

37% could take it or leave it it in effect they tell us why would have to take all all of this content? it is a problem that is continuing. many predicted that the video industry the way it is today with wholesale programmers content companies selling to cable and satellite operators in my view when that happens there will only be one party to blame and that is those that own the content because they are the ones who are creating the massive bundles that we have two take today in our competitive environments and the consumers are beginning to really revolt against not only because of price increases but also because of lack of choice. >> host: so what about senator mccain's à la carte bill? how does that sit with your members? >> guest: senator mccain is certainly been a champion and someone who is wanted to get more choice to consumers. we in fact have been an organization that has supported more choice going back to rulemaking with the fcc in 2008.

they looked at the wholesale programming model and basically we said in response to center mccain's bill is number one we appreciate the dialogue. we are glad that he was bold enough to say look i think it's time that we as a congress look at this and interestingly enough we thank senator blumenthal from connecticut who sponsored that will pit i think that's really important for the congress to have a dialogue about those issues right now. but we look at that bill and say even though you would like us to provide a choice which we would like to provide, we can't because the companies that own the content refused to give us the ability to provide the choice to consumers. even if it were mandated and even as in senator mccain's bill that were an incentive to provide it on an à la carte basis we can't because we don't control their rights. what we have said and what our members have said that they could do today if given the

ability to do so is to provide services on more of a. level as it occurs i believe in canada and in some other cases where you take certain genres of programming and allow people to buy the genre's of programming that they would like. we supported that back in 2008 during the rulemaking that chairman martin institute at the time and is said said of our members have more flexibility to provide services more akin to what their customers are telling them that they would like than we could probably find some middle ground. the fact of the matter is the content companies whether it's, nbcu or viacom or fox nbc espn they will not let us carry their programming other than essentially on the expanded service and consequently everything that consumers have to take him pay for whether they

wanted or not. that is really their choice. take it or not and as we see going forward that is a choice that consumers are making and starting to make a lot more often is i won't take it. i will look for some over the the top solution. maybe i'll just get broadband and get the video services that i want on line not by someone else's dictator choice but i think we are going to see more of that which underscores our members important continuing to provide regulation on those services so we can provide the level of service that is required in those the smaller markets in rural areas. >> guest: to get that flexibility would you or would you not be in favor of congressional action to force programmers to sell their channels not bundling one channel with another and making that a contractual mandate on

you? >> guest: we certainly would like that flexibility. i am not sure it will ever reach that point where there might be language to that effect but the fact is consumers are already moving on their own. so we as broadband providers want to help to give consumers that choice if they want. we have many of our members today that have considered instituting and building video on demand. very expensive. lots of equipment new boxes etc. where others are saying why would i do that? now when i have an opportunity to give consumers more of what they want through my broadband plan where through their broadband plan they can give consumers the ability to do netflix hulu amazon etc. and i think we we are going to see moe of that as consumers look on their own and again the consumers in the marketplace in that regard are so far beyond

where we are today from a policy perspective that we are trying to meet the demand of our customers while at the same time we try to work for a reasonable solution in washington where those are available. >> guest: there was a proposal that would basically deregulate the entire negotiating position between cable companies and broadcasters by giving rid of must carry and things like that. is that something that would -- >> guest: well it certainly makes sense. every five years congress has to reauthorize the satellite at the bill that gives the satellite companies the ability to carry out of market stations into some limited areas. congress is very concerned about that because every five years if they don't we authorize it over a million people could lose access to television services. they don't want to see that happen so they engage and a

process to review and reauthorize an update the bill based on market conditions. we in the cable industry operate under a law that was passed in 1992, hasn't been looked at once in 21 years as well as regulations that extend far before that that i've also never been updated that continue to give content companies like broadcast stations exclusive markets that gives them the ability to prevent competition and basically allows the same kind of consolidation that we have continued to see since 1992 to get the large content companies programming companies even more leverage over the cable dial. we think it certainly makes sense for there to be an ongoing review. congressmcongressm an scalise from louisiana introduced his bill along with senator demint at the time that would provide a sunset of cable regulation and cable was to require congress to

actually look at these laws to say what works and what doesn't? the marketplace is moving so fast it's our job as regulators to try to stay on top of this as best we can. they think that makes it great but it sounds for congress to actually do the work to review its laws and is one of the things we are suggesting in this current reauthorization of the satellite bill. we hope that more members will consider that review that is needed for the 92 act whether it's part of the satellite reauthorization whether there are specific amendment to related to the cable act as part of the satellite will or an agreement that there needs to be broader reform down the line where process could be started that actually could look at sunsetting some of these old regulations like retransmission consent and must carry and some of these others that continue to force the costs onto the consumer. we think sunsetting makes a good idea -- it's a good idea and something more members will think about is

the process goes forward. >> host: matthew polka have your customers been losing video? >> guest: there has been lost no question as we have seen across the country more cord cutting in general. that is sort of the bad news and the good news is that our members of broadband providers which is where many customers are going to underscoring the continued need for members to provide a more road bust -- robust broadband services demanded by consumers and smaller markets so yes we are seeing some fallout. it still remains a strong product but definitely it's one that is gaining pressure because of all of the problems i mentioned before in the programming marketplace that continues to force content onto the bundle at greater cost. when we look at what's happening particular what's happening particular you on this board side of things sports is

outrageously expensive and now with the addition of fox creating its own competitor with espn and nbc sports wants to do that as well basically what it means is you now have three very large competitors for the most expensive programming out there for the rights whether it's golf club all baseball you name it and that's all coming to roost as these companies compete for the rights to carry that pro-cramming and then turn around and say how i will get paid is turn around and send this down to every subscriber that takes cable or satellite and that is the problem. many members will tell you of their entire programming budget in terms of the channels that they pay for on a monthly basis you can look at maybe five or six of them and in their lineup five or six sports channels account for 50% of the programming costs are more investors compared to maybe another 150. there is a problem out there. there is good news from our perspective it's the fact that

these deals are not going without notice. certainly congress in hearing after hearing over the past few years have noted the rise of sports costs and how that's affecting consumers who have no choice. some members of congress have focused on the antitrust exemption which gives them greater leverage when it comes to negotiating sports rights that ultimately consumers pay. there is certainly awareness and i think a greater light being shone on these problems but more definitely needs to be done in the area of choice and again i think that comes to where we are talking about today trying to give our customers more broadband choices as well as congress and the fcc looking at imposing their thoughts where they can to try to give more choices. >> guest: you spoke of both the cost going up and also earlier you spoke about consumers wanting choice.

do you think one or the other is a greater driver in the fact that it's a real phenomenon? >> guest: choice for sure. we all would like to choose. it pays to shop. everyone likes the idea that i want to pay for what i want to consume. i don't like being told what i have to consume. certainly in the video marketplace today that is the problem because it's the bundle of program. cost is certainly an issue. i know the story now is a year or so ago but i saw a story in one of the trade publications that said in the not-too-distant future the cost of cable, regular cable service could cost $200 a month which the basic level of service is not all the added services so we are reaching a point where cost is increasing exponentially it seems as well as the lack of choice in the choice decreasing.

i think choice is driving more the over-the-top viewing today but cost certainly has an impact when i look at my children 23 and 19, these are kids that the only reason they have cable is basically because of me because of dead amiable to provided to them and i'm happy to do that for them but as they make choices and as their friends and colleagues make choices they will be looking at what can i get from my broadband experience? i have got ultimate choice there. i can choose where to go with my on line connection to watch what i want to watch under the edge edge -- device i want to watch when i want to watch it and that is a good driver for the younger generation and something we have to take into account as we in the cable business look at our future as a broadband business. >> host: matthew polka very quickly a want to ask you about the new fcc members that may be coming in in the fall if they

are approved by the senate. >> guest: i think they are excellent choices for sure. mr. cuyler because of his background and industry will be a help. i do not think as many have said that somehow that is going to provide one industry a leg up over another. i found him all of the commissioners as well as the staff to be fair and objective and to look at issues from all sides. i certainly expect that with mr. cuyler and mr. o'reilly as well. someone who has worked in the house in the senate on telecom issues involved in virtually every telecom issue. it's been reason for sure and do spend a lot of time in background and history. i think they are great choices and i'm looking for the opportunity to work with the full commission. at the same time truly appreciate what acting chairwoman clyburn has done to come in at a difficult time and to keep a commission moving

forward when there is this transition. she and her team have done a tremendous job and they have been very sensitive than the rulemaking and the concerns of our members which again is something that you particularly advocate in every rulemaking about the unique impact of regulations on smaller providers because we have fewer customers and consequently any regulation has a higher cost per customer. as you know these regulations are unfunded. you'd have to basically pay for whatever technology requirement there may be etc. but she has been sensitive to our members and i expect that will be something they'll continue. >> host: 's the final question comes from lynn stanton. >> guest: broadcast programming -- do your members view aereo as a competitor or as a business model for a way to get away from new trends? >> guest: initially i think we

would say it wasn't a threat and it still is to some degree but as prices continue to increase year after year round after round our members look at a company like aereo as a company that is breaking the mold that is really trying to provide a new technology to give consumers something that they want at a reduced price or a competitive price which does exist today. the current model, the broadcaster calls the shots and sets the price. take it or leave it, no choice. we as a cable operator have no choice to get a lower cost out of the market or anywhere else. aereo comes in as disruptive technology and i love that term because of disrupting the current model which i think is a great thing technology is doing and frankly provides consumers potentially a new way to receive signals.

imagine that free over the air as intended and still available today. we look at companies like aereo as well as other providers as potential partners as potential companies that we could maybe joint venture with to provide our customers know more choices based on the broad bed services we provide. >> host: that is matthew polka president and ceo of the american cable association and sub tree of telecommunications reports. this has been "the communicators" on c-span.

we are at prospect garden in princeton new jersey. this is the gardener ellen wilson originally designed when she was a resident of prospect house. when ellen wilson was in the white house she brings the white house gardener back here to this garden at prospect house and she says to the white house gardener

lets re-create the rows of the section of this garden at the white house and of course this becomes a famous rose garden at the white house. ellen tragically doesn't like to see the rose garden completed however. she is dying in the summer of 1914. she is wheeled out into the space outside in her wheelchair and she watches as the gardener works but doesn't live to see the completion of this vision she had for roses blooming at the white house. nexa forum on how changing voter demographics in the suburbs could affect elections. from american university in washington d.c. this is an hour and a half. >> my name is john.

i'm the assistant director of the washington institute for public affairs research. we are one of the sponsoring groups here today. washington affairs public research is the gateway the research faculty and the outside world. we help fund projects, research projects and we help faculty work on their ideas and we like to share the fruits of those ideas with the public at large. i guess this would be an example of just what that is. we are delighted -- by the way john gould is the director that program three he is my boss and he is here today. want to read nice him. outside the pleasure of having the cosponsorship of the presidential studies directed by jim ferber and one-eyed panelists at is affiliated with him. we are delighted to both co-sponsor this event for you. now, overall i think the best way to describe what we are trying to do today, that this is

a big public briefing than this fine room. it's really about the school of public affairs. you've the students are from here at least most of you and many of the faculty members are from the school. this'll be the first in a series of what we think will be entertaining and enlightening discussions for your involvement and the research we do here. there is really no one more important that to tell you about the story than the person who has encouraged this from the get-go trade when i met the new dean and she's been here for year and a half she continues to talk about how proud she is at the high-impact research done at the school. there is no one better trench to secession than the dean of the school of public affairs a scholar in her own right, barbara ron sachs. barbara. [applause] >> thank you john and i want to start out by complementing john

gould and john yankee and the work of my group as well as the sponsorship of the center for congressional and presidential studies. jim ferber's group rings a great deal of knowledge and expertise to this and of course has been busy trying to create these ratings for us. these briefings are very important to the school of public affairs. they are important because they are an opportunity for us to bring experts from d.c. to campus to our students but it's also a chance for us to showcase our faculty and the research being done on campus about important pressing issues of the day. we are going to be talking about fragmentation of little discourse. we are going to be talking about shifting suburbs and where the voting emphasis tends to be these days. all of this is important for us to understand current politics.

current politics have become -- you just need to look at the morning newspapers, increasingly fragmented and we as a country are facing important issues that are going to have serious economic impact. we are facing in the next few weeks we are facing important challenges over whether the government is going to continue to be operating after october 1. we are facing an issue of a crisis about whether we will have approval for extending the debt ceiling. both of those can affect significantly the rejection of how effective the united states is and how effective our federal government is what kind of health we have is the political community. the underlying dynamics of those kinds of contentious debates are going to be explained to us today. it is rooted in our politics. we are going to find out what that is and we are going to find

out what we can do about it. it's really related to complicated shifting demographics, complicated economics and geographic shifts we are having. i ask you to join me please and welcoming the panel and welcoming our distinguished guests and also welcoming the c-span viewers out there. [applause] >> thank you again barbara. in many ways this is the fruits of the work that you and the faculty of done for this past year in identifying key directions for the school so we are delighted to bring this panel to you. i want to briefly introduce the panelists. you have before you to have the best pollsters around from the best organizations around. mike bloomfield from the mellman group. i would say how would you put that, a left-leaning political organization?

a democrat. i was being kinder or more software. mike we are delighted you could be here representing the mellman group and we have on the other side of us bill mcinturff who works with -- i was going to say the right side up but i will say republican oriented who will look at this data we have today and in between them is elizabeth williamson who happens to be a cowriter of "the wall street journal" with our project your dante chinni. we will also share what she has been doing and i mentioned earlier -- lowden county recently. joining them will be antoine yoshinaka who is a colleague of mine in the department of government in the school of public affairs. yoshinaka is doing a work on reducer singh and will share his insight into data that is unfolding. one of the first faculty members i met when i came to campus was

the gentleman to my immediate left a rather unusual member of the faculty since he is not a social scientists. almost all of the scholars in and the school of public affairs are usually political scientists and some economists. there are a few lawyers in there too but dante is a journalist, an active journalist and show we say he is a mentor. the thing that makes dante unique is that he has the head or the brain of a social scientist that he is has the heart of the journalists. >> he is good at math. >> and he is good at math. for a journalist unusual, right quick's a few years ago he invented something you may be familiar with called patchwork nation. instead of looking at states he began to look at counties as the units that are the most interesting and perhaps the most fundamental and understanding where the country is moving not just politically but in the

whole realm of things. we are delighted that dante has a fall that project into something we now call the new american committees project-based right here at the school of public affairs at american university. in talking to dante about this early on many of us thought wow there is some interesting stuff in here. we should get into it. we should share it and the development of this panel and the development of what dante chinni journalist and social scientist will now tell us about the american communities project dante. [applause] >> thank you john and thank you dean and thank you all for coming today. i know it may then hard to get up after -- but life goes on and so we are all here. what i want to do quickly as offer a brief overview of what

the acp is the american communities project and how it works and what you can do with it and then i want to swing and talk about -- the acp was born out of my frustration with red and blue america. red and blue america are fine for understanding scorekeeping. we essentially have two teams in america a regimen of blue team. we have have to fill the map sin. the problem with the maps is that they become shorthand definitions for the country and i think they miss the point. you have the 2004 kerry bush map on the left and put it his evolved into her wet it did devolve into for a lot of people when the united states and i think we have to have a way of keeping score but that map misses a lot of nuance. it really misses the red parts of new york and the blue parts of texas but it also misses the

differences between different kinds. there is a difference between an inner-city democratic community and the college town. there's a difference between rural of prescott and suburban minneapolis. these places are different and this really does that a huge disservice. the other way we like to talk about politics when we talk about demographics. i like talking about demographics to talking about men women african-americans and hispanics. i write about this data often. i like it. my problem with it has always been that it takes these people and it disassociates them from place to much so this woman who is 20 something and lives in new york and likes to go to a lot of the clubs that i used to go to looks the same as this woman who lives in rural kansas and has four kids. in response to these two different ways of looking at america is solely at demographic

system and a system based really on units of geography and whether they are democratic or republican we came up with the american committees project. what we did is we basically took scores of demographic datasets and we looked at them across every county in the country. we used a clustering technique to identify different kinds of communities in america. if you look at this map you will see some are regional. you will see some along the south and you will see the southeast in the southwest and a big chunk around utah. you see the purple areas but some are really not so much about regions as they are about suburban and urban culture and metropolitan culture. you see those pop up around -- pink and orange around detroit chicago minneapolis and a bit of it in denver and dca it really along the east coast. these places, this is a

different kind of place of america. it's not about a region so much as a mindset and that is what we are going to talk a little bit about today. when you take this map and you look at it in terms of the sheer data of this is what the numbers look like. 15 different types of communities in america and these are the numbers of counties for each of the population for each. what we are going to do today, we are going to talk about the excerpts and the big cities in the suburbs around them and they urban suburbs. the big cities are by and large the county's in what we think of as -- and urban suburbs are the densely popular suburban areas mostly set immediately next to those vague cities. the middle suburbs are based primarily in the rust belt and the midwest. they are suburban cities but they're fundamentally different.

they are less educated and slightly open in the excerpts. it's the next ring out after looking at an urban area. what does this tell us? so what. what does this all mean? what this means is it gives you a different way of looking at all data. you go where the person came from and this includes census data employment data and anything about culture. polling data about what people watch what they read. you can use this to filter the numbers and look at it in a different way. what we are going to do right now is look at what it means for the 2012 election because it is this in looking at the results from 2012. these are the 2012 exit polls. this is what happened with the massive exit poll taken the night of election and they break them down and when they break them down this is what it looks like.

barack obama wins huge in urban areas and wins huge in rural area send romney wins in the suburbs. i think the problem with this breakdown is that the united states is much more complicated than having cities suburbs in rural areas. you met -- miss a lot when you look at it this way and when the acp breaks down the data it looks like this. obama still wins huge in the big cities obviously. romney wins huge indie exurbs areas and metropolitan area. the thing that is really telling in these numbers and i will show you why in a second is the urban suburbs. these are really suburban america. when you define it this wastes a 16-point win is a pretty piquant but it's even more telling when you look at what has happened since 2000. i hope you can see these. this over here on the top these

are the democratic candidates in the red lines are republican candidates. in 2000 george w. bush won the election but nearly lost -- he won the exurban areas by 19 points. in 2012 lost by a substantial margin 5 million votes. he still won the exurbs by 18 points. he only did one percentage point worse than george w. bush. the big change has come and with what is happening in the big cities and particularly these urban suburbs are very interestiinteresti ng to me because what happened was al gore did win the urban suburbs by 11 percentage points in 2000 that barack obama won them by 16 percentage points in 2012 and that is in the year where he had people unhappy with the economic direction of of the country unhappy with the direction of the country as a whole and this suggests that something is going

on. i will say the urban suburbs obama beat romney by 5 million votes in those places which is what he won the election by. there are all sorts of other things going on in different communities around the country but that gap is very significant. so what's going on in these places? why are the suburbs different? i think they are different than we imagine them and they become more different over the past 10 years or so. this is just looking at really income and poverty in america using these four types. the thing that is interesting about these numbers is in c. the urban suburbs are the wealthieswealthies t and they hold the most wealthy people. more income of 200,000 above than any other type definitely of these four types but you see the number behind them of the big city areas. the exurbs are close and you can see the big cities and the urban suburbs are not as far apart in

the area as you might think they are. i think a lot of people might assume the suburbs are more like the exurbs but in terms of big wealth and in some ways bigger earners they are more like the cities. the other thing that's interesting when you look at poverty the big cities obviously have the highest poverty. we all know what urban poverty is like. we see it in a lot of cities but the thing is interesting is the urban suburbs they are five points back or 17% versus 12% but they are higher than the exurbs. these urban suburbs are places where you have poverty and you have high wealth at the same time. the other thing that is interesting when you look the median household income they urban suburbs are the wealthiest. that means barack obama out of all the types that i look at in the american communities project , they're the wealthiest in the country. using this breakdown barack obama won the wealthiest or the highest median household income counties in the country by 16

percentage points. i think that is counterintuitive for a lot of people and to suggest there something different going on in these places than we thought. one thing that has been going on really quickly is demographic shifts. when you look at these numbers here the white population and these are numbers from 202,011. the white population urban suburbs has dropped four percentage points and is dropped everywhere but the interesting thing in the urban burbs it's now between -- there's now a a nine percentage point divide in terms of the percentage of white population. there was a 14 percentage point difference and now there is only a nine percentage point difference. that is those big cities. these big cities and counties have actually grown wider in some ways. the other thing that is different as the hispanic population.

the hispanic population with the urban burbs, what happened in 2000 the hispanic population was roughly equal to the u.s. number. it was 12.5 neshell in 12.7 in the urban burbs. in the last 10 years the urban burbs have accelerated in and their percentage point higher than the national average so while the country is grown more hispanic the urban burbs in particular have grown more hispanic. i think when you look at as i look at with bills numbers often and you always see there's a big hispanic divide. they lean democratic. i want to talk about one more shift and i will turn it over to antoine. consumer culture i think is really undervalued as a measure of what's going on in the country. we work with experian. i have access to all of

experion's data. they have basically 10,000 surveys. every month they are coming in and ask people everything from political preference to the soap they buy to the coffee they drink and with that data they create -- they can tell you places that overrepresented liberals are up under represent for conservatives or vice versa. when you look at starbucks the average store you get equal amounts of liberals and conservatives it would be 100 for each. starbucks over indexes heavily. it's 140 versus the conservative index of 91. when you look at the starbucks in these communities there are far more in the urban suburbs. i broke this out for 100,000 population and there's a nice scaring effect in the big cities it's about 5.5 starbucks and 4.4 starbucks for every 100,000

people in the exurbs 3.4 starbucks per every 100,000. you can see when you talk about the increases in the number of stores between 2008 and 2013 is a urban burbs have seen far more. they have seen -- what does this mean? what it means is consumer culture while we might make fun of it it's not really culture i guess but it is in that really defines these places. when you look at the kind of stores that are in them and the kinds of retail experience is that people have it ultimately reshapes their view of reality. they are trending more democratic and what all these numbers mean over time is these places are shifting democratic and it's going to become increasingly a problem for republicans if they can't reach these people. they need to find a way to reach these people. they are shifting democratdemocratic than republican state to find a way

to basically reach them again. the line used to be between the cities that were democratic and the exurbs that were republican and the suburbs were in the battleground. what is happening the past 12 years as the suburbs have increasingly shifted democratic and over the long-term that is is -- and with that i will turn it over to antoine. [applause] >> my name is antoine yoshinaka and i'm her fester in the department. i guess i am the token professor on the panel today. i'll keep my comments relatively brief but before you get into it i just want to touch on three big themes that i'm going to talk about today. the first one is obviously this country has been growing quite a bit lately. the growth is not equal everywhere. there are areas that are growing at a faster rate than others and what i want to show you today is

that the areas that are providing the most growth in the country are areas where the democrats are doing increasingly well. conversely where democrats have been doing not so well in the last 10 years are areas that are not growing very fast and are not -- some of them are not growing at all so for the republicans in the room i think that something that you really want to understand, to see where the demographic shifts are occurring and where the political shifts are occurring. number two i think building upon what dante said it's important to understand that this category known as suburbs really masks very important garage and 80 and urban suburbs. the third point is to show you some data to suggest that some of his bifurcation between urban suburbs and the rest is really a recent phenomenon talking about

the last 10 years or so. the date i'm going to show you today will speak to those three. first of all this is the first graph that looks at the breakdown by county type. there are 15 county types where barack obama in 2012 did better. you see at the bottom there these are the big cities. this is where obviously al gore won the big cities by 20 points. obama won the big cities by 30 points. he did considerably better in the big cities. he did better also in college towns hispanic centers and on the other hand he did poorly relative to gore and the evangelical areas of the country the working class areas of the country. now, just looking at this first graph what we don't know is how much growth these various areas

have sustained over the last decades. so you see here on the right, those are areas that provide the most growth in this country. that's about 60% of the growth in the last 10 years, little bit more than 60% comes from big cities urban suburbs and exurbs. if you look those are three areas where barack obama did considerably better than al gore especially the big cities by 10 percentage points in the urban suburbs by six percentage points and also he actually did better than al gore did in exurbs. he still lost the exurbs by big margin but the point is it is trending a tiny bit toward the democratic party. now you see this.see this.that is it zero quicksilver to the middle suburbs. those are areas where they actually haven't grown as much as the other areas and where obama and gore did equally about

the same. those are the areas that you could look compared to the 2000 election in 2012 and you can see that barack obama did much worse than al gore did. those are areas that are not growing a lot and that are not providing much of the growth in this country. the event of an area is growing a lot if we are talking about small numbers ultimately much of the growth is not going to be in these areas so lbs working class and evangelical hubs, sure barack obama lost these and did rather poorly but this is not where the country is going. the three areas on the right the big cities and the exurbs, those areas together represent about 175 million americans and those three areas alone whereas evangelical hubs are about 12 million.

working-class countries about 8 million or so and lbs enclaves about 3 million. those red dots about 25 million americans where's the three blue dots on the upper right are 175 million americans. so let's look at what has happened looking at one issue. we pick one issue and there are obviously many issues that are important. they let it and in any given election but we will stick with this one which is global warming. every election there's usually a question on surveys that ask voters do you think that local warming is in this case a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem and there's also been not a very serious problem or not a problem at all. if you combine the very serious and somewhat serious problem you can see a clear divide between folks who live in the big cities in the urban suburbs. 70% think that local warming is

either very serious or somewhat serious. then you move on to the middle suburbs and the exurbs work somewhere around 55% of americans who think that global warming is a big problem. that is about a 15-point gap. if you go back just six years ago or seven years ago in 2006, on the left the same question about global warming. you see the breakdown between the four categories. ..

that would be an example of an urban suburbs and have people who live in the county are probably much more like folks who live in d.c. rather than folks who live further out outside of the d.c. area. so before i turn the microphone over i wanted to leave you with two questions that this raises, i think, that this research raises. we do not have an answer yet. one is that we don't know yet whether this is an obama effect for a party effect. so in 2014 and in 2016, once barack obama is off the ballot, will these trends continue or will they revert back to the pre-obama error? that is obviously something we

cannot answer right now. the second one is if it is true that urban suburbs are changing, the natural question that emerges from that is whether it is changing here because new people moving in and bringing with them a different set of ideological preferences and issue preferences. they're looking at the political landscape, looking a politics of the national level. so i leave you with those questions and turn the microphone over to elizabeth. >> i suggest we throw it open. >> the same thing. what we are going to do now is take it -- that the panel take a look.

the three of you. you could start this, if you wish to, to take a look away your reactions are to this and anyone else on the panel to kind of take a look at it. i could say. will talk about it. is it elena to the rural parts of accounting, place called the blue mosque, as far west as you can go. these to be pretty much cattle and truck farms and horse country and pickup trucks and small towns. a newmont art festival was there and when looking at the parking lot there were far more bmws than pickup trucks. obviously a lot of the people that were there came from the eastern part of the county, like yours truly, but it was coming to me, a symbol of what is happening there and what is happening over the past ten years. that is your kickoff.

>> okay. yes. i am not sure how many folks in the room are from the d.c. region or if you are from elsewhere in the united states, but the county is the wealthiest county according to last census in the nation. the d.c. area has aided the ten richest counties in the country. what you're seeing is a place that used to be just this green expanse of rural americana turning into some of the urban suburbs it is interesting is the of this plays out on the ground because in cities like leesburg which is the capitol, it is a colonial town that grew up in in 1768. it was founded. and it first started to sprout into mick mansions and big box

stores and malls and a good shopping centers, office parks. now what's happening is that whole landscape is changing because they're is a glidepath of brains and money coming down from the city and also from the dallas technology corridor, and those people want to live loud, but their characteristics are a lot different than the people who were living there when this whole process got underway about 15 years ago. that is that they are younger, more highly educated, more affluent, and they don't just come from d.c. or some other suburbs in the d.c. region. they come from all over the nation because they are drawn by a government function, a government contracting, the think tank, the research centers, the university's. what they want is not a picket fence. will we really want is to of

lives over retail. they want to walk to transit. they want to live the way they lived at the college center that they came from or the urban, the city that became from. this has really changed. is these guys are describing, it has changed the politics as well. they tend to be more democratic voters. an entirely republican nasty in 15 years ago. so you see dual pressures. the demographic pressure and the political changes that that creates. in d.c. the influx of a totally demographic, different type of individual and the pressure that places, the tax base the development it. that's a really fascinating phenomenon that is absolutely not exclusive to loudon. it happens all over the region. and that is what is driving this sort of slow shift that is happening in the urban suburbs,

the growing communities in the country. >> bill, michael. >> yes. >> push the mike. >> well, here is a little perspective. thank you for being here. a lot of different folks through the years. just terrific programs. in 2004 george bush carried 98 of the 100 fastest-growing counties, and so after the 2004 election, the debate was about the substantial problem facing the democratic party because the fastest-growing parts of the country, 90 out of 100 is beyond margin of error. and of course we have had the great recession since then. and those recessions have changed with counties. suddenly dante and his partners have done a lot of work. but it is a cautionary tale. it is a cautionary tale, and

over my long career i look at long-term kind of party change meeting whether not there is alignment. and i have been asked to do this at different times in my career. and every time there is predicted realignment, i keep saying, too many independents. and those are conflicting views that kind of restrictive long-term realignment. but this work is important. end, of course, the other thing about dated -- and this is what is so powerful about the data set being created. you can add test data. one thing i am very curious about is, for example -- and this is why the exit poll is such a powerful data base. it would be powerful within sight the exit poll to look at white and just what's in these kind of urban counties. my speculation would be the

white vote did not save that much. or watching was the most important story in this country politically. the growth of the latino population of the voting%. and when your seeing here in the chart is that the urban counties tip to below 70%. this pressure was happening in other counties. this is less of a shift. the latino population is like african americans were pre obama

you have a lot of places where the latino population is like 25 percent of all population. it's 21 percent of adults because they have so many kids, and that 21 percent of adults, 18 percent of registered voters, and 16 percent turnout. those kids are going to rapidly as the voters' demand will start voting at the same or higher rates, and then we will see is the latino% will start mirroring instantly the% of registration, ten or 12 years the% of the population, and when that happens, the republicans cannot lose through -- 3-1. the republican vote in this election, the republicans won the republican vote by the highest margins insidious a loss by four points. so, you know, i think what you're watching year is a database that provides really power to look at and answered

those kind of questions. it's a very powerful tool. the last foot point it is hard to use in polling because these are pretty low for a national survey. tells us to use a lot of merged data and pay gated to be able to apply this to a quick or analytical terms. >> okay. want to make a couple of points. the presentation. a little bit of what bill said. first, we see in the data. there are two things the we are looking after my see as the challenges going forward. this looking at political demography. there are shifts in population whereas, battle or a change in the hearts and minds. antoine mentioned this a little bit. we will get to it in the second. from a practical political perspective, doing what i do in

bill does, trying to at the base level, left with the candid it's, what is the stated tell us, what are we seeing is the challenge? so as -- red is it is over and over -- and i will not recite the statistics, but these different suburbs are growing in a way that is good for democrats, increase in minority percentage followed by connected to, increasing poverty, and generally seeing more democrats there. at the same time, the question is, as we see or as we look at the battle for hearts and minds, the idea of what the issue, we wonder, is this is because democrats are moving from the urban areas, other areas, and making this more democratic? is there really something happening there? i would pose, and i hope it is the case that there is. the climate change difference is what has become a big split in society.

and i don't mean to sound partisan, a democrat saying we have to trust in science. republicans having a different view on that. climate changes one good bellwether of that. humans and devolution and a lot of other things. climate changes something where we are still in the middle. even in the suburbs. it is not a high priority issue. a lot of people are agreeing with the need to act. they don't put it at the top of their agenda. move across the country. here, the suburbs were leading indicator. so my hope, as i said, and the question, democrats have an edge in the suburbs or is it actually a more fertile ground for us to go out and change minds that are not necessarily -- independence that a book parties, even in the suburbs, but are they more open to our arguments? speaking as someone who does try to elect candidates, figuring out how we can use this data, in

my case, to elect democrats. one of the things that is interesting about politics compared to this very detailed view is that despite all you hear about all of the different types of communications, there are still two basic ways to communicate. the first message is figuring out what to say. the next is how we get that message out. how do we communicate with people? we don't want to find out. even the obama campaign at some point have limited resources. they're trying to do it as efficiently as possible. a first way we look at this, media markets. not only bigger than the suburbs, but if you look around. i don't know how well you know vet b.c. media market, but prince william kenny -- of north to not only pg county, but montgomery and many, many counties that are very different and we are spending our dollars we're saying, okay, how can we go to that entire broad swath. cable and other things give us

out virginities to go a little more granular early, but still, it is a different way of looking at things. almost the opposite of what we would like to do which is what is stated as to give as the individual had. that is the other trend and communication. micro targeting our modeling. there we are doing something to cut across all of these counties. we are not saying that we want to look at montgomery county or orange county california or whenever county is. all we're saying is we are modeling or micro targeting. five people in our rural county who fit our model of who we need to persuade, we will have males go to them. a good thing that it still melts -- works, believe it and not. especially now where we can do e-mail and internet some people are getting web ads depending upon where they live to be down to zip code. there are other ways to communicate to put ice on of the bid, in some way, beyond this.

and not beyond is better, meaning we are dealing in something different than just counties. and then the question is, the value. well, we need political demography. it is that being we do it in every campaign even though i said there were limitations. the art of putting people in boxes did not want to be an. we know that the person and i think will install the track to county, republican in a conservative, though it is not like being called a right winger or part of the tractor county vote. i know that. some people probably are proud of it, but they don't like being called part of the tractor vote. it puts them into that group. just like people say in montgomery county, they don't like being called the la table low vote even though it may very well be true.

i think that this is very, very useful because it helps us explain what is happening and definitely is the best way that i have seen to examine what is happening. >> reactions? >> well, first thing is, the exit polls, i am trying to get that data. i was talking about trying to do this, but it needs to be. the problem as if it is broken out, the only tagger and it is urban, suburban, rural, i don't think it is terribly useful. if we can get it broken-down comet we can see the question you're asking. i wonder about that as well. i think the white vote may have moved since 2004 in particular. >> yes, but here is what i don't get. all of the exit files have of the number of the precinct that collected the exit poll. so collecting and tagging would

not be that hard. so there is a geographic tagged that may not be -- take a conversion, but it is not that hard. and they're is a little bit of issue about 2012 in terms of the data. there has been some emotion. anyway. that will be cleared up. when it does, i think this is a very solvable problem because they know exactly where the precinct was where the data was collected. >> go ahead. >> you know, one that we focused on for a second. a place where this was really playing out. this change is playing out. but really all state of virginia is a really cool example of this tester now with the governor's race there. the on the competitive race in the nation this year. it is sort of, you know, a

battleground, purple state. both parties want it, and they're trying to test out, you know, what is in play. why has viejo gone from conservative to leaning democrat. what is it? is it the composition of the people? is it the fact that the national party verses the local interest are deviant? i talked to tom davis who was in the 11th district which includes fairfax county, and that is a county where this whole urbanization process is largely complete. he managed to win seven terms. he even won by six percentage in 2006, which was a democratic sweep year in congress, just by focusing on local concerns. and what he was explaining to me was a republican in name only is what you have to be to be a republican and win in these urbanized areas. you have to focus on local

concerns. bill was mentioning the hispanic immigrant population which is large. so he focused on things that were of interest to his salvadorean constituents, history and constituents. he backed the caribbean free-trade agreement which you would do as a republican anyway, but the really focused on a throwing his congressional weight behind local projects to the point where he was pretty roundly criticized for some other things, the remarks and the direct spending that he did it while the congressman, but what he points out is that the national party has lost its way in a state like virginia because they're focusing on divisive social issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, educational vouchers, things like that where people on the ground in counties like fairfax are saying that is not my interest. i have to drive an hour and have to get to work every day. what are you going to do about the roads? with kind of funding while you free up? will we get that silver lining out in northern virginia, or you

going to block it? that is what is interesting. just on the silver line you can sort of see this interesting divide because you have could generally opposing this second phase which would link loudon with the rest of us here in washington, and you have mccall backing it. why? maybe one reason would be because those are his people, the people who want to be on the silver line and want to use it to get in. could generally, you know, this is something where the people who are out there and are voting reliably and consistently for the republican party are people did not tend to want to live near transport, public transport and to not tend to use it as much. >> two more quick points. >> glad. >> something michael said. and a lot of people have said this. the idea that getting the county, as a journalist, 50,000.

it's extremely difficult to do. we can learn a lot through them. the other point i make is micro targeting, getting down to the individual level. i would argue that in most cases they don't really matter that much because no one is going to -- that raises the presence here. you can't turn out and target them. it is not that big deal. to me geography matters because it is true that if you are migratory people, even three in my -- e-mail you're going to target people that are in line with your point of view. the thing is what has happened is the way the country has split up people tend more and more to live around people like him. so when you are targeting is like a lot of talk to target these hundred people in montgomery county. i need them, these thousand people.

they're all going to live -- i think, but i don't know. they increasingly all live near each other. my answer to this was always that the most liberal person in america may live in the middle of rural nebraska. does not really matter. to any matters in a live around people like you. you live around people when they're like you. you tend to talk and you tend to see the world more through their eyes. you -- one of the reasons he chose to live there. you just live there because you wanted the same kinds of things. one thing really quick, what is driving change, people moving in . it is impossible to measure that. my guesses some people leave. they are persuaded both the fall in line with the dominant culture. >> a comment after this one.

republican are democrats, this is ready year. all of you have questions, please start standing right there. we will go to questions right after. >> thank you. i agree with bill when you said that we have to be careful what it to characterize this. i certainly -- i never mentioned real. i don't think the dante did either. the phenomenon where first of all and political science, social scientists are thumbing their nose at this concept. it is true. it is like a recession. you will know 30 years from now whether this was a real alignment ton firmer not. i wanted to say one thing. if you looked at the election

results nationwide of the last decade, did it in half, the margins are very different. bush versus gore was close. historical standards. the landslide election, it was actually not such a landslide. again. and so when we are dealing with small the changes of one to two to three percentage points from one election to the next, small changes of the community levels nationwide in big cities are urban suburbs, that's magnified. plus a 5050.

>> please tell us to your? >> i am an undergraduate student. the turnout in the suburban for urban areas, possibly could be obama. given the growing population are we seeing an increase in voter turnout or people just changing the way the vote. >> i have not compared turnout. i would be careful of any comments of any kind. >> we use that excessively.

we looked at those counties as a percent of the total vote and it is strikingly consistent. so that uc -- you can say, okay. guess what, and response of these counties it turns out. so although the overall vote dropped by a few million people, the composition by county did not which is one of the major findings to me. how it was compared to eight compared to four in terms of the use of this kind of county bay starting system. >> looking at the date it, absolutely correct that the composition of the electorate has not changed that much even know if you look at different subgroups, for example, use turn out went up by a significant

margin. that doesn't really change the make of of the electorate all that much. and having said this in recent years would you have seen is a greater mobilization of racial minorities which might be slightly and obama effect, but the last election was the first election with an african american turn out higher than white. if i'm not mistaken. whether that persistence, i suspect it might not. that is something that certainly we have seen too much of. >> question on this side. >> i am an assistant professor in the school of public policy. i think both of you waste for individual data.

there is the national suburban poll conducted by the national center of solicitors conducted every a year. i would be happy to talk with you after this. >> hello. i am a fourth year under arrest in. my question, i have to. the first one in the data that was presented, i think it was inferring that with the increase of hispanic people, that was going toward the democratic party loan. is that the case? was under the influence that the latino vote, because of religious belief, they often voted for the republican party or is it because of the republican stance of immigration. if they get the minority vote i

think that is an importunate. so mr. bloomfield and for you guys to help people get elected, what suggestions or advice would you give to the republican party reid ran themselves so they can get young, black women. >> mike will not offer any help. >> it is unfortunate, but i don't think there is much. nothing there is. there is an historic split that occurred over time. and if you look at the number of issues about the role of government versus republicans, there is not a match. and i think at the margins there is stuff that you can do, but i don't think, you know, when

you're writing campaigns for a living it's difficult. michael and others can correct me. down to 27% in 7327. that is an unsustainable margin. so if the latino vote drifted away of the african-american vote you cannot have -- whites have dropped two points since '88. i was talking about how the that chino vote will agent. so some of that can speak to immigration, but if you -- there are other splits between latinos based on country of origin, how long have been in the country, how well they speak spanish or not, their level of acclamation. but as a party their is a fundamental -- there is this fundamental sort of umbrella which is, does it make you -- do

you seem to be welcome in that party? you can have a policy debate and a way that makes people feel welcome. you can have a policy debate that makes people feel excluded. to the extent that people feel excluded, it does not matter where else you agree. there is governor georgia. we tested a bunch of commercials . detest republican commercials, a topic of immigration, we look to some stuff car running republican primaries. we looked at the governor of produce tough. he added that commercial worry said, you have to obey the law. but this state wants to open -- offer you a welcome and open hand and a welcoming.

and the difference was massive in terms of how people reacted to that spot. and as a party i'm just saying, that has to be a challenge. also just means as republicans, by the way, more latino candidates. you have to bill the state legislative in a lot of other folks who are part of your party and culture, and you have to have candid it's a learned to speak spanish. and the last thing is @booktv this is the trouble -- we have had to cycles. you wake up. let's talk to latinos. there are five months left. you cannot start that effort with five months left in the campaign. has to be an ongoing part of what you do or it is not successful. >> to the point of what is bill is talking about, lot of

reporting for the american community project record nation to my communities that i went to and spend time talking to people . there is a divide. it is not just something you are seeing at the top of the republican party. when you get to places that are much more conservative, there is anxiety about immigration. i went to a southern communities , southwestern part of missouri which is a big conclave. the assembly of god is based around there, the church. and they brought up to me. i just said, let's talk about your community, and several people brought of immigration to me. and it came out. the issue was, i don't like that they are printed in spanish. what's up with that? there's a problem that runs deep through the party. it is not -- the establishment a sense a lot to do it down

further. >> another question over here. >> i am a graduate student at george bush in university i am interested in the starbucks theory. thomas friedman, the olive tree, the cold march theory. two nations that have simultaneously at mcdonald's have never engaged in a war against one another which suggests something about an economic resolve, the consumer is more interested in a certain service, doesn't the starbucks. per 100,000 occupants, does that suggest something about political consumer preferences as well? >> this is an area of great interest to me. i have access to all of the state with chun to starting to figure what to do with. it is a massive catalog of stuff . and to me what happened with the consumer preferences is, what it

has done is create communities that are more and more like terrariums because of niece marketing. the guy you open this door the other starbucks goes their work wholefoods, you look at the data , it is clear what is going on. the trend the index. 186 for liberals and like 80 something for conservatives. so what has happened disney's marketing has become adept at saying i need to maximize my profits, the people the shot to my store. and other stores that are like that, the same people clustered around it and you end up creating in effect that i think is something like a little terrarium.

one a certain kind of thing. we live where we live because that is what we want. and that is great as a consumer, terrific as a consumer all of these target areas. and that's wonderful, but what it also means, maybe a little different for me. for other people what it means is it creates blindness. this consumer culture is helping to create blinders that really makes it more and more difficult to see people that don't live like you. and just quickly. ultimately that becomes detrimental for the functioning of american democracy. the consumer world, just making it more and more problematic. >> elizabeth. >> i have an example i was

covering the environment for a time and wrote about how rock fish in the chesapeake bay had developed a disease that was killing them. all of the experts said we have no evidence to show that this affects the quality of the fish, al edible, whether it is toxic. the next day then governor of maryland called up rock fish eating lunch in the governor's mansion to show i love this. there were up in arms and people were upset. wholefoods with the other way. the tech of the fish of the store. you could argue that it was a reaction to the quality of the food or reaction to the politics of the consumer who shot sell food. and the republicans of the

maryland among no waterman and the fisherman and the people in the industry there were furious. they demonstrated that they wanted this. and whole foods in upper northwest same rihanna. rihanna. >> another question here. go ahead. >> i am a graduate student. talking about trying to predict both voter share in terms of demographic variability, the increase in the latino population, but the obama affect . and so to you refer to the obama effect and trying to predict what it is. this an aberration.

>> it is very hard to transfer personal popularity to any other candidate that is not about obama but anyone from either party. what his legacy vote is worth is even harder to figure out because you're going to talk about what will happen next year so. he was an extraordinarily strong candid in 2008 and then ran a strong race, did well in 2012. a lot of that has been the democratic party has been

stronger. hard to say you're going to have a realignment. the exact opposite direction. in general. random suburban counties. and the vote, when bill clinton was here, bush was here, for democrats. when obama wins, he puts it up here again. the effect of following the national popularity. the national fortunes of the overall party. it is hard to predict right now. >> a question on this side. >> got it. >> it is an important story. part of what to look at this the% of the elector.

and so we head to cycles where there was consensus on levels of turnout. that may be a consequence of the president's. it is a point. we are talking about point. my party can be somewhat resistant. longer term trends. the bigger part of the electorate. a bigger part of the electorate. and you're totally kidding yourself if you think this is a function of barack obama. this is dynamics of the country will continue. the second thing is to all sorts of people, most of the political status is based on a certain amount of money. and all of this mechanical stuff is based on this big presidential race. well, the last race was two to

$4 billion. had we measure that? the "wall street journal," if you live in a swing state we ask you in 2004, have you been contacted by a presidential race , 32%. 2004 was like exceptional. that was the hugest race ever. 2008 it was like 50. this year, october, 73%. so if you're living in a swing state, three of four people said been contacted personally. why? because the money went out. so my other point is, we think about in terms of composition of the electorate, it's going to be radically changed, $2 billion. so underlying demographic changes are what drives the composition, not interesting the electorate. $2 billion. that's how big the voters.

>> just to point out quickly. states that are not paddled. texas' big state. the turnout is very low. that's because they look like they don't really consider -- bid of the votes matter. the turnout numbers that uc and the demographics, these numbers will change if the state starts to become employed because of a demographic shift. quick change in what the vote looks like it is a turn at changes. the other thing really quickly, nobly and realignments either. and when that and once that it was voodoo. i'll believe it either. i don't think these numbers show that the suburbs are gone for republicans. but what they think they do show is that it requires a change in tax. >> we will be patchy. >> you back.

>> my name is the chip. another graduate student from the school of public affairs. as one to ask about how the focus on social conservatism and the republican party definitely is alienating voters. i'm wondering if you think that the republican party is shifting more libertarian, where is a shifting? if it does shift in the future, where will those ultra-conservative, socially conservative voters go? >> not the topic of the panel. sunshine biscuits answering it. no tickets but the panel is dealing with here. >> the previous question. >> just really quick regarding turnout. that's one area. if you were to stack every political science study on turnout, you would probably go to the moon and back a couple of

times between a quite a bit about turnout. some of the recent studies on turnout show that it is a habitual behavior. once you get them to vote, especially at an early age. that behavior then tends to perpetuate itself. so if it's true that a ball was able to mobilize, we know it's true. college-age and it handles well would expect future elections to steer refracts of that and some of the mobilization among populations that traditionally have not voted that such a high rate. >> going back to virginia which is my joslyn the.

it's seen as a sort of national test of who will carry the message in 2016, who has an edge. but that spending there is really remarkable for his gubernatorial race because you have mccall is brought in $19 million originally 12 and a half. of those numbers, only about one-quarter of that from mccall and a third for kitchen nellie. it's actually from virginia. it's on national money, all super pac money and people to see virginia as a microcosm of the united states and see which way they can pull a race that will be decided by turnout. >> i don't like to leave the question hanging at the panel cannot answer. we did not take -- talk about the makeup, but to the lady who has the question of where social conservative is going coming here's one way of looking at it

just as a citizen thinking about it. a great politician, but francis of a sudden decided it just might be healthy to begin thinking about the effects of social justice, poverty, things that bring a flock together. as opposed to some of the other things that seem to be moving the fall apart. it seems to be social conservatives that have a lot to share with other people in the electorate when they move away from some of the hot-button issues. for republicans there may be a lesson to that. >> any of the questions? >> my name is john. i'm an ex suburban voter -- >> recovering. >> in terms of geography, what about factors aside from messaging, factors such tests gerrymandering districts, as

dante said, does that make it easier to, in essence, restructure voting so that you could have what happened in 2012 where more voters, i think, voted democratic for a house, the house is overwhelmingly republican. can that be a forgoing function. on the other side that also makes it easier in terms of voter suppression tactics were you can use structural factors to affect the election. >> the focus on messaging is interesting. sometimes you get the republicans associated knowing how to play the structure. the democrats, in essence, playing football and baseball field. and leaving an open so you end up with more voters some rooting for one party.

>> i would say some of this is not strategy. it may be a lack of strategy, but just the idea that democrats unfortunately have lost the elections that we have toward redistricting. bad years, just like we head 2010, the same thing happened a decade before, and that gives us the districts which we don't like and the republicans put together. and what they do is, one of the key things, you asked about the idea to reaching out to minority voters. one of the things that happens, while republicans are not always reaching out naturally is because they have packed all of the black voters and minority voters in general and to a district where the democrats could have that one district and tried so when of all the others. so yes is truly a change in messaging. i mean, for them it's just puts us and how much more outside the urban area and suburban and

exurban areas. when you look to some of these they're not like montgomery county red that county in atlanta and georgia or cobb county is not like looking at montgomery or alexandria. he's a very different areas. those suburban. and it's just it's harder and harder for us. but it does push us to have a message that is a little bit farther reaching. >> quickly, just on the difference between republicans and house, just the makeup of the constituencies. elected to sexually. the 113th congress -- and this is looking at hispanic. the hispanic population of republican districts is about 12 and a half%. that is the constituency. democratic districts, 22 half percent. and if you just use those numbers, of things make it what it is, but that hispanic population and the republican districts meers the united

states circa 1994. that democratic district, that is what america is supposed to look like. so there really are representing very different constituencies right now because of the way the districts were drawn. both sides began the trend is much as they can, but the republicans have been in a position to draw the district they're want and have done a good job of it. >> that is an exciting contrast to 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's. i wrote an article using the outline from the baseball movie, there's no crying in redistricting. we had two generations of districts where republicans would give 48, 49 percent of the vote and 49% of the seat. during the reagan sweet, republicans essentially had 49 percent of the vote and 44 percent of the district. there was about a gap of five. that is what happened.

that 2010 redistricting, we have so many republican governors and legislatures. but in some ways this crosses parties mean that we have all those decades were rehab democrats to the same thing. this is where members of congress sharon interest riches even the most partisan district possible. as someone who has worked in redistricting for a large part of my career, the trouble is that if you go to the average member of congress and say you can have this partisan see for you or be a good soldier for the party they say, well thanks for my better partisan seat. and so we come back to both types of districts. what also means, and this is a public policy consequence, we have no come padded seats to speak of by any historic standard. right now we have 26 seats where a person got elected. when i started during the reagan year we literally went through seats like that.

we've gone from 100 to 26. so what it means -- and this happens on both sides. the average member of congress is acting rationally. adeline not as a primary? if you had court drawn seats and you can drossy snow incredibly persuasively. cordray seats are done by mutual political criteria and we woke up with wonder and 50, 200 competitive seats to many congress would be different. the number that congress will be looking for. and so this is something both party share in terms of wanting to keep what they had, but it has an extraordinary public policy consequences and regain the public policy consequence of rational acting which is always a program both sides. as majority minority seats elect very, very liberal democrats to -- and by the way, when people

say gee, you know, your party as i represent this, you should look at the district they represent. they are very effective. most people for what their district believes, so the democratic members, but the democratic members, the majority minority seats. my former life, she helped write the constitution. and republicans and democrats, train all these people. there were very excited, the first election, the first years in the parliamentary system. so the delegation flew back. hey, how's it going? it's great. and we are excited. we only have one question. what's that? welcome are we supposed to vote for what we think is right or what the people elected us want? in the american delegation broke out laughing and said, okay, well, that will be the next chapter of the federalist paper written in romania. good luck.

as the point i'm saying. it looks to me like we have paralysis. it is because we have effective members of congress who are in fact representing their districts. we have just run them to be partisan. >> if i may, i mean, the statistics this is the democrats got more households than seats, there is percentage. we often mentioned it as a sign of the system is unfair. i have this -- that number is more less meaningless. we have 435 individual actions. so that allegation of votes of the local level, to say the democrats get fewer votes or more votes and fewer seats, part of that is simply a function of the fact that if you were chair race seats for most competitive to lease competitive, most of the lopsided seats of democratic

seats. the seats that are one with literally 80 to 90 percent, sometimes 100 percent of the vote tend to be democratic. seats for republicans don't feel the candidate. you get this lopsided distribution read democrat can wrap -- rack of millions and millions of votes in both districts and have no competition in the few that are competitive, some are red, some are blue. once you aggregate those, that's simply a function of the fact that a lot of the noncompetitive seats have been the the democratic seats. woodman use the national vote as an indication of the national mood of the country. would you have a four under and 35 local elections. >> almost the time. before we have closing statements here, was there anybody you want to say something that has not had a chance? is there a final question from

anyone? we start out asking questions about the electorate and how it is changing in a gun in at least one answer to the question about why the government may shutdown. because we have partisan-drawn districts in which members of voting the way the members wanted to. if they don't agree is because that is what the constituents want. it seems to me that is an interesting question to probe that another time, perhaps on redistricting and partisanship, but nevertheless to my would like to think bill mcintuff, elizabeth williamson, michael bloomfield, antoine yoshinaka, and dane chinni for this presentation about suburbia. [applause] >> thank you all. everybody can go. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> senators return to the capitol tomorrow to begin consideration of i house plan bill to fund the federal behrman past september 30th. the bill contains language proposing to defund the health care law. still wrapping up work today, majority leader harry reid took action to set up a test vote on the measure for wednesday. the senate is expected to focus most of his time this week on that bill. ..

>> a number of events on health care. hosted by america's health insurance plans and the host of medicare and medicaid on medicare and medicaid policies at 8:45 a.m. eastern. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3 come in, the senate health committee looks at how helped related infections affect the economy. also, we are live at 1130 eastern time for a kaiser family foundation forum about how families in nevada and oregon are dealing with the health insurance exchanges. >> since 1998, c-span2's booktv has shown over 40,000 hours of programming with top nonfiction authors, including bob woodward.

>> he preemptively helped us and i was horrified. and then i was delighted. >> i always felt that people are different in real life. so the artist goes to medication, that if i can create something that is so moving and that permits the kind of distance that you need from what is painful, people will understand and understanding is basically what is fundamental. >> but the point is that no argument is given to that effect. none of the facts are considered and this is regarded as one of the half-dozen cases where it entails the just use of military force. >> we are the only nation

devoted to nonfiction books throughout the fall. we are marking 50 years of booktv on c-span2. >> next, a house foreign affairs committee hearing on the attacks of the u.s. consulate of benghazi, libya, that killed four americans last year. patrick kennedy testified about added embassy security that was put in place since the report on the attack was issued last december. this is a little more than two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> this hearing of the committee will come to order at this time. since september 11, 2012, the committee has been focused on the tragedy in benghazi, libya, where terrorists killed four americans that day, including our ambassador. the first ambassador, the u.s.

ambassador that was killed in line of duty since 1979. the focus of today's hearing, which is our fourth hearing, is the troubling lack of accountability that we have seen within the state department since that time. the bottom line is that over one year later, no state department personnel have been held accountable for the department sellier to protect the benghazi consulate and the u.s. personnel there. not one. as we know, there were so many things wrong with the state department's decision-making before the fatal attack. in the face of a glaring need with violence in benghazi mountain, critical security requests from the field were denied at state. the department was asleep and this led them to find, in their

words, systemic failures in leadership and management efficiencies at the senior levels, within two state department bureaus. but no state department personnel has been fired or even discipline. no one has missed a paycheck. accountability can be painful and those making bad decisions may have long an otherwise great records. but the department cannot have a culture of accountability, which is what any well functioning organization needs. which is essential to protecting its personnel, if no one, literally no one, is held accountable for the mismanagement and poor leadership that the arb identified. now let's take a look at us. the arb failed to interview the

secretary of state and cap responsibility at this statement content assistant secretary level. for officials have in place on administrative leave. for violating state department personnel frd they proceeded to take action for the of individuals and finally for officials on paid leave were reinstated and reassign them to unspecified positions at this review's conclusions while at least one individual connected with this received a promotion. i wish i understood it, but i just don't see the level of accountability that benghazi wants. indeed, that benghazi demands. meanwhile, not one terrorist perpetrator has been captured.

not one terrorist purpose perpetrator has been captured. no one has said that that is a highest priority. the terrorist threat in much of the world unfortunately is only increasing. u.s. facilities are obviously a tempting target. the state department with this committee's encouragement has undertaken some important embassy security reforms. we have put many of those reforms into legislation passed out of the committee, which also authorizes the administration's full funding request for embassy security. but no money will overcome poor management and poor management is a given during accountability. i will ask them all, are you comfortable with this process that has no state department official being held accountable in any meaningful way.

other committees are working on other aspects of benghazi. many questions have been answered. this committee will focus on accountability including legislation to informed accountability review review board processor that is clearly independence and future secretaries of state of either party cannot stack the deck. i would hope to have bipartisan support for that. so before that we should ask the difficult questions. but work away with what will we do the most productive outcome, that is learning from mistakes and improving the security of diplomatic personnel. many, by the way, threatening surroundings. that is a committee goldeneye know that we can all agree upon, and i will now turn to the ranking member dingell for his opening statement. >> thank you, his church

thank you for this bipartisan way that you work over the committee and we work together in a bipartisan way. unlike some of our committees, we have members that consistently work with the quorum. despite the strong feelings that many of us have, different opinions on both sides of the aisle. always agree that the work of brave americans on benghazi during september 11, 2012, was a terrible tragedy in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. secretary clinton convened an accountability review board ordered arb to determine what was wrong and make recommendations that are diplomatic posts. among those chosen, admiral mike mullen, with his impeccable reputation and unparalleled experience.

and his reports that made last december showing that there were failures at senior levels within tuberose at the state department. that led to an adequate secretary black and benghazi. secretary clinton accepted all of the recommendations of the arb. the state department is implementing or is in the process of implementing all of the recommendations and we support the work of the arb. as well as the efforts of the state department. we introduce the this is noncontroversial legislation, much of which was incorporated into the state department authorization bill that the committee recently passed, to help improve diplomatic security planning, strength and physical security and enhanced security training. mr. chairman, are committee has a responsibility to ensure that our brave distal bats have the

-- brave diplomats have a security that they deserve. there is a certain amount of risk inherent in these occupations and that effective diplomacy cannot be conducted from behind the walls of the fortress. let me say this. barack obama and hillary clinton are normal are responsible for what happened in benghazi than what george bush was responsible for on 9/11, and there are lots of things to be considered all the way around. but i think that we shouldn't point fingers. we should try to get to the bottom of it hopefully in a nonpolitical way. i look forward to hearing from our distinguished witness and the secretary of state, patrick kennedy, for whom i have tremendous respect, on how we should best manage and mitigate

risks in our diplomatic posts around the world. i would like to hear from him about the progress made and the implementing of recommendations of the arb and about the department's decision regarding employment status of the for state department officials identified in the arb. i would like to reiterate my hope in closing, that we can manage a high level of stability in the discussions today and that we do not engage in gotcha politics like so many do. >> thank you, mr. engle. patrick kennedy is responsible for the people, resources, facilities, technology, operations, counselor of sailors and security for the department of state operations and is the secretary's principle of advisors on management issues. ambassador kennedy, we welcome you. without objection, the witnesses prepared statements will be made part of the record.

and the witnesses will have five days for extraneous materials and questions to submit to the record. i would like to remind everyone that today's hearing is part of this committees continuing investigation and review on these matters. thus any willful misrepresentation or false statement by a witness as a criminal offense under 18 u.s. code section 1001. indeed, that is the case at all of our hearings and i look forward to the exchange of our proceedings today and ambassador kennedy, please summarize your remarks at this time. >> thank you very much. chairman royce, distinguished members. thank you for allowing me to testify about september 11, 2012, and benghazi, libya. we maintain a robust position many and challenging security

environment. just about every day we work by constantly assessing threats and all of the discussions on security over the past year. one strong point of agreement is that america needs to have a robust presence abroad to advance our national security interests, even in dangerous places. the department fights terrorism, enhances the rule of law, and promotes fair trade. these myriad of activities are often accomplished by the whole of the united states government. over 30 different united states government agencies have a presence overseas that the state department managers and secures. almost as long as the united states, the stennett and transcendent diplomats have been those that seek to do us harm. the attacks and benghazi in september were tragic for the families and loved ones of these four patriots in the state and in our nation. as the president has made clear,

the united states is committing to bringing the perpetrators to justice. we are also committed to taking necessary steps to prevent such tragedies in the future. while we can never a lemonade all risks, our constant goal to mitigate risks to the maximum extent possible. as described in my written statement, we have two major security programs, physical security upgrades and construction of new facilities by the bureau of overseas building operations, and technical, physical, procedural programs implemented by the bureau of diplomatic security. following the september attacks, president obama and secretary clinton immediately called the state department to review and improve security. with the assistant department of defense and deploy interagency security assessment teams to 19 high-threat posts to identify security improvements that could be enhanced and implemented both in the near and long term. the statute of independent accountability review board was

convened. in december 19, 2012, the arb presented its findings to secretary of state. we are working diligently with defense and others to implement those that remain. those that require more time and resources, such as deploying the full contingent of security guards. of note, the department is already creating a deputy assistant secretary at high-threat posts that is responsible for focusing attention on those particular locations. ensuring all high-threat posts have adequate safety equipment designed in a intensive alert that will begin next month. we were are in reinforcing throughout the department's workforce the predicate that security is everyone's responsibility. over the past year we have been working with defense to establish 35 additional marine security guard detachment to increase the size of the existing marine security guard

detachment and establish a rapid augmentation force and chronicle to add additional billions to post as the situation warrants. following the efforts in the autumn of 2012, in the arb report, the department requested $1.4 billion to be transferred from one account to another for increased security proposal. congress wanted this request for which we are deeply grateful. these are being used to provide facilities for the marine guard attachments as well as embassies constructions and renovations. we have also began the recruitmerecruitme nt of 151 diplomatic security personnel and 113 are even higher. we have made implementing the recommendations a priority so that we can better prevent some of the tragedies in the future. that is what we are focused on in the state department. and this is your priority as well. the unfortunate fact is that our

facilities and diplomats will face attacks again if they just did last week in afghanistan. since the tragic attacks in benghazi, the threats and attacks has not diminished. we are doing everything we can to deter and mitigate the effectiveness of any attack. but we will not come even with the most willing governments be our partners, ever stop terrorists from mounting attacks against us in all cases. and we must continue to operate in places where host governments may not always be as willing or capable of filling a fully defending task as we would wish. but the risks are greater than if we would withdraw then putting it military personnel on the frontline of our military space. i appreciate the interest in benghazi from security to augmentation to accountability and i'm here to answer questions today. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ambassador.

i would like to focus on the benghazi accountability review board. i think the administration likes to characterize that as an independent board. but wasn't that board, was it really independent claim? because the board selected for the five members, the chairman of the board, ambassador pickard, has told staff that lois, with with recommendations, would serve with him on the board? is that correct? you asked ambassador pickering for his recommendations on who would serve on the arb board? >> yes, that is correct, sir. so you have also asked about staffing the board, and the investigation. did you in fact, supervised the assignment of state employees to

assist? >> i had absolutely nothing to do with the assignment of staff to the board, sir. absolutely nothing. >> i thank you. so here is a concern that we have in terms of the way that it is fact. it will conduct an investigation demands that there be sensible limitations on who can serve as an investigator. the benghazi arb members had very close working relationships with those officials that they were charged with investigating. consider, i think, these points. the assistant secretary elizabeth jones, not only working with ambassadambassad or pickering at the state department, but also served with him on to nonprofit boards. the arb's lead staffer, known as the executive director, that

previously served as chief of staff to deputy secretary william burns and had worked closely with a number of senior department officials. these relationships can affect partiality. and many state department employees, including some who have testified before this congress have questioned the arb's ability to conduct a truly unbiased investigation. the macros to the question as to whether this was an independent report the other question is the way it has been packaged. packaged as independent. i think that in light of these facts, it is important going

forward given the department's lack of accountability that we will change the procedure for the arb, so that in fact we have independent voices on it. otherwise you undermine the credible claims and you create an environment that is to clublike. and i think that the legislation that we have put forward will change that. it will change the observation and support and opposition to measure what we are proposing in order to change the way the way are conducting this in the future. >> mr. chairman, i believe that this was an independent investigation.

if one reads, as i know you have, the very hard-hitting and very critical comments of the accountability review board, as you noted in your opening statement, it is hard for me to accept the fact that this was stacked as a state department favorable board when they rendered the very critical opinions that they did read it. three members of the board, mr. chairman, had no relationship at all with the state department they were working with the democrats over this period of time. it is impossible to find someone with state department senior expertise that could be a member of the board with the gravity and someone with many years of experience who have not worked.

>> may i interrupt you just for a moment here. we are here today, because at the end of the day, no one is held accountable. it is contradictory to the thesis that you are advancing here. no one is held accountable. >> mr. chairman, i respectfully disagree about the subject of accountability. four employees of the state department were relieved of their senior positions as assistant secretary order deputy assistant secretary, no longer holding the senior positions, i submit respectively, mr. chairman, that accountability includes being relieved from your job and assign to other positions and to me, that is serious accountability. >> no one missed a paycheck. no one has been held accountable

and the board did not take this to the upper levels of management were clearly those who have observed from the outside, when these decisions were made, that is why we are here, is in order to try to change the system in which you have a hand and you suggest who does the investigation. it would be far wiser, and this is one of the most frustrating parts of being part of the state department. we went for years without the appointment internally of an investigator that would take on this responsibility. in this process and they choose what is going to do the investigation and you move people from one position to

another. they are on a paycheck, on the clock, whether they are working or not through all of this. and there is no accountability in the process from our perspective. the idea that no one is held accountable at the end of the day is the problem and reassignment just doesn't cut it in terms of addressing that issue. >> we are going to go to mr. engle. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am more concerned with presenting another benghazi attack in the future rather than worrying about who was brought to justice, so to speak, for what they did or did not do.

i want to make sure that we do everything that we can so that the state department, led by secretary clinton and now secretary john kerry, has put forward a lot of effort to how it plans and provides resources with diplomatic security over the past year. the bottom line is the state department doing a better job in your opinion, protecting and serving around the world in dangerous locations and it was a year ago and explained what have you learned, including things were problematic. what have we learned from our benghazi experience that cannot be repeated today because we have made changes? >> congressman, i think that one of the things that the accountability board call to our attention, which was very critical, was a question for the state department and the focus of security, only in security,

and extends to all elements of this it is security that is everyone's response about it. as the accountability review board put in turn pointed out, we have taken steps they are to assigning diplomatic security agents to brief the assistant secretaries everyday to be part of this for the regional offices and morning staff meetings and officers from all the regional areas that attend the diplomatic security directors morning briefings and it lays out all of the security issues that we were facing in this world. we have appointed a deputy system secretary and diplomatic security for high-threat posts so that we can focus specifically on those posts that are particularly endangered, so to speak, because of the world of events in that part of the

world. that is obviously not a static situation, the world conditions change and our focus here has to be changed. so we have also built-in institutional program so that regular review of what is the highest post, so that we can change our focus as the situation requires. thank you to this congress, we have achieved additional funding levels and we have already deployed a number of security guard detachments in these. we are working to increase the number of marine security guards and we have enhanced our training programs as well and i think that there was a bill that was wronged by the accountability review board and the state department is taking many and varied steps to improve what we are doing and many of those activities are already in place. >> the panel called for the

support and reopening the post and legislation which i introduced, which was included in the authorization bill, and it reflects this procedure. can you tell us a little bit about this? >> it is clear that when you are going to open a post in endangered area, it requires logistics and construction. these multi-faceted systems have already had been established and it is working on the situation, for example, and should we have to go back into syria at some point. he already stood up and is working on that question.

>> let me ask you one final question. on the written testimony, completed by the best practices led by the former head of the secret service, mark sullivan, one of those recommendations is that the diplomatic security bureau be part of diplomatic security and a similar change was approved, former secretary of state madeleine albright. however, changes were not made. we think about this and a new undersecretary is not created with the assistant secretary and reports directed to the secretary? >> well, the assistant secretaries report, while given the demands on the secretary of state's time, which was not evident, there are a number of undersecretaries in the state department who have assisted the

state department and various channels, whether they be international, political affairs, economic affairs, arms control, security. the undersecretaries in my humble opinion have formed an important assistance function to the secretary in order that he or she has the right amount of time to focus on the most critical issues. we are still reviewing the results of some of the best practices. but i might make one comment on the rationale for the current structure in the state department. security is not just the responsibility, but it needs security response ability and instruction and medical support and telecommunications. it needs training. it needs logistics. he needs the right kind of recruiting tools. all of those activities are

carried on under the auspices of the undersecretary for management form the platform to provide a robust security approach. i believe that it is important it they are, on behalf of the secretary of state, a coroner. that is the department has organized itself as it has, that we will be looking at the recommendations of the panel, that that is the reason why the booz allen hamilton report, which was really one on intelligence, when it said and undersecretary would've also taken the bureau of intelligence and research and the counterterrorism office and diplomatic security and put it all into one. thank you. >> going to ileana ros-lehtinen from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is indeed prophetic but still no one has been held accountable for the disastrous decisions that were made at the state

department before and during and after this terrorist attack. the state continues to shuffle the deck chairs and employee officials that were part of the management deficiencies in systematic failures that were tragically made. earlier this year, two senior officials resigned over the irs scandal. yet no one has resigned and no one has been fired at state for the misguided decisions related to september 11, 2012 terrorist attacks. this is unacceptable and it is appalling. the administration is asking us to trust it when they are saying that we are doing everything we can to hold people accountable for their prophetic roles in this tragedy. >> this is the same administration who deliberately politicize the talking points, set up a false narrative, deny

that this is a terrorist attack and attributed blame. secretary leon panetta has said that there is excellent condition with president obama during the night of the attack. and in this time of great need, was the president missing in action? the white house has failed to answer the question of where the president was and what he was doing during the attack and why he failed to call for military backup. greg hicks, for former deputy chief testified that the administration gave a the stand down order to prevent a rescue team from going into benghazi to help. who gave that stand down order? and tenniel tell me, was this secretary panetta, secretary clinton, and did anyone provide assistance or lift a finger? libya was a high-threat post,

and it should've made continued security request of our personnel and urgent priorities within the department and those requests should have been granted immediately. it was not a question of funding or capabilities but these requests were not granted because people fail to do their job. what assurances can you give us that another high-threat post as we speak is not currently were urgently asking for additional security or additional support and that they are being ignored as well? what protocols are now in place to prevent those from happening again? the arb recommended that the state establish outside independent experts with experience and high risks high threat areas to identify best practices and evaluate u.s. security platforms. what are those recommendations? in january, i asked the secretary, secretary clinton, for an itemized funding layout and justification of how the

department was going to enforce and implement, and she said, all of the 64 recommendations from the arb. i have not received that detailed report. this summer, as we know, the department closed over 20 embassies and consulates in the middle east and north ara. we should condition to host nations on their full cooperation with the u.s. and implementing a plan that will protect our foreign service officers and ambassadors overseas. so i ask you, sir, what about the stand down order it and what was the coordination between the white house and secretary clinton and secretary panetta, and what about the implementation of the recommendations? which is r64. >> thank you very much. i hesitate to speak for the president of the united states. but what i have been briefed on

is that this is what the white house has outlined. as soon as the president learned the attack on our temporary admission facility in benghazi, he acted to ensure that our military and national security staff could secure and assist our embassies around the globe and reinforce us. >> can you answer who gave the stand down order? you have any information? >> what about the coordination? >> there was no stand down. >> thank you. what about the ordination of the department of state and the white house and secretary panetta? >> there was coordination. the call came in about 3:45 p.m. in the afternoon, washington time. >> who decided that there was no reason to help or they had no capabilities are they had no resources to help? >> u.s. military was put on alert. a fast marine platoon from one location --

>> how long did this firefight and terrorist attack take place? >> the attack on a temporary admission facility -- >> blessed eight hours? >> the attack on the facility was about one hour and then there was about a six-hour six hour lag and then there was about a 15 minute second -- >> so seven hours plus. >> the nearest u.s. military force was in djibouti. >> when the distances -- >> the distance is about from washington to dallas. >> so it would've been impossible? >> yes. >> seven plus hours? >> guest. >> that is the message that we are sending to our embassies? when you are in trouble, in the 1930s, that's what is happening, we can't get to you?

>> no, congresswoman, we have been working with the department of defense. there are only so many installations around the world and the distances for those installations, the reason why that is relevant and important, those who are request in increasing the funding -- >> thank you very much. as you have pointed out, this is not a problem of funding and every witness has said it. it was not a problem of lack of funding. it is a problem of lack of resolve to do something about the problem that lasted more than seven hours. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we go now to mr. gregory meeks. >> thank you, sir. all that we have heard with mr. kennedy and everything that we have just heard, the arb has covered it. so here we go again with the same question and the same thing

again. we were cut off, with something else that you want to say and you have heard these questions a thousand times and people just don't want to know the correct answers. but if there is is something of the one-two at on add on to that, please do so. >> thank you. i would like to cover the funding question, if i could. the accountability review board was correct about funding, but there are two types of funding. there is sort of micro-funding and macro funding. the state department responded to every single one of the requests for increased security enhancements in benghazi. i'd be glad to submit for the record a list of all these security enhancements that we put into place in benghazi. alarm systems, cameras, barbed wire, making sure that bomb laden vehicles could not crash. all of the micro-enhancements

for benghazi that they requested were attended to. then there was the macro question, congressman, and that is that the best defense is to instruct the new facility is that you will provide us additional funds for. subsequent to the attack on benghazi, there was a major attack on a compound in tunisia and a major attack on the compound in cartoons. those buildings held out and not a single american was killed or injured for over eight hours until nation security forces mobilized to defend us. those buildings in tunisia were the new modern buildings that we have had the assistance and the funding to build. but it's just that on a macro sense because of the increase of the value of the dollar and inflation worldwide, the program that we started after nairobi,

we were building eight embassies a year because of the decrease in funding. thanks to your health, the funding is now back up to eight. >> danger. this is try to move forward. this hearing is about moving forward are talking about how to make sure that we support this in the a way. as we continue to implement the recommendations, a number of diplomats seem to be worried about some of the protocols that may inhibit or limit their ability to engage with the local community and reach out to key contacts and established much-needed relationships to do our jobs well. how can we balance the need for more security proportions and including protect the jobs? >> that is something that the state department works hard on. there are a number of articles in the popular press that describe fortress embassies. those that are unavailable to

the local populace. i think they have actually the purpose and operating style of an embassy and other agencies, and some agencies have brought that absolutely backwards. we do not, we do not demand that people come to see us in our homes. we go to their homes and we go to the foreign ministry, we go to the ministry of education and we visit the journalists. our people go out all the time. but if there is a crisis brewing in a country that comes up overnight, what we need is a place that our diplomats can, in effect, hunker down and and those are the new embassy compounds that we have been building with this money. this includes the additional armored vehicles that will continue to allow us to have a

faith-based. >> we have changed, we have to work with host governments. have we implemented any new procedures because they have some responsibility for security as well. especially how we mitigate this ongoing conflict or instability. >> work very closely and that is one of the principal responsibilities of a regional security officers. they also have a number of programs that train local host nations, the state department also has, under the assistance program, training programs, between the bureau of diplomatic security and what it brings for our national police leaders to the united states for training. so this partnership is ongoing and we are working to enhance it.

>> thank you, senator. >> we go on now to mr. smith from new jersey. >> let me ask you a few questions, if i could. were you or secretary clinton aware of the need for compelling security? and this includes the repeated denial of security requests that led to the nairobi embassy being bombed as well as others. we repeatedly asked for assistance and did not get it. the arb did not interview at madeleine albright, but it did interview you because you were an assistant secretary at the time. it seems that we stopped at the assistant secretary level when people needed to be held for responsible accounting of what they did or did not do. i ask the secretary of state very straightforward question and she said the information did not come to her attention based

on security needs. is that true? did you know about any of the requests to any needs, whether it's cables, conversations, about the request for this and others of the embassy for more security? were you unaware of it? >> congressman, except for one request which i will talk about in a second, all of the requests on behalf of of the temporary mission facility was mad. they asked for funding for concrete jersey barriers to increase the printer. they asked for arms to make sure that cars do not crash through the gate and increased compound waiting. >> who knew about this? that's my only question. but who knew about it? >> these requests, since they were all met, i believe i was generally aware --

>> so there were no request that went unanswered? >> except for one. a request that was debated about whether we should direct massive guard towers. >> is the secretary of state know about that? >> no, because the requests were being met. >> let me just ask you, why wasn't the senior staff and secretary of state interviewed by the arb? >> that is a question that -- >> did you convey it in e-mails or anything else? in any way? >> other than the reference of talked to ambassador pickering after he had been set. >> there were press reports that i was never interviewed and that is categorically false and i was formally interviewed. >> are you listed on the list? >> yes. >> the deployment is of 14 straight who made that decision

not to deploy? was the request made? >> i was asked did i, as the management official of the state department, need them to be deployed. i said no for two reasons. the first is that by the time it is not a military response but a command and control airplane. the kind that we could send to nairobi. >> did you troubadour tonight? >> the decision is an interagency decision and i i was simply asked, do i need the capabilities -- do i need the capabilities. since it did not bring any assets they are, it was based in the u.s. and would have taken at least 16 or 18 hours. >> now, why was this security team standing down after the attack began? who made that decision? >> i am not aware of any cia

security being able to stand on. >> so no assets in close proximity were deployed and now the murdered ambassador? >> there was no standdown order. there was never a standdown orders. >> order. >> let me ask you a question. how many benghazi's were forced to sign nondisclosure agreements? >> the state department does not tell people to sign nondisclosure agreements. >> are you aware of nondisclosure agreements and how many there are? >> i am not aware of any nondisclosure agreement. >> access to them has been very difficult. >> one benghazi survivor was seriously injured in the second attack and is still in the hospital. the other four have resumed duties around the world. >> with regards to those, and the chairman has eloquently

stated. four people get censored. they apparently keep receiving a full pay for a vacation. you know, it appears that there was that famous scene in the fictional clear and present danger where the president and the john clancy novel, people at a lower level take the head. other people who are in the know or should have been in the know should have been in every interview. how we respond that? we are concerned that the lessons learned in that we actually wrote a bot to beef up our insecurity and it is law. and yet we still have one where we haven't learned more than a dozen years later the very people that should be held accountable for not even interviewed and that is appalling. >> there are several questions

but i will try to take them in sequence. you ask about accountability and with respect to the four individuals, they were held accountable by relieving them of their position. one of them actually resigned as assistant secretary for diplomatic security. >> where did they were? whether they do? did they go home? did they come to the department everyday? >> it is what i believe is an essential element of american fairness that i noticed committee fully supports because i see many of the legislation pieces that you have authored. they say that a person is entitled to review and what secretary john kerry was -- >> one at a time. >> did they themselves initiate a review? >> not that i'm aware of, sir.

>> going to mr. jerry conley of virginia. >> before it the stops ticking, the same amount of time please. i also want to talk about the thoughtful statement that he made. it is quite correct. we are trying to make sure we understand what happened and prevent this occurrence. and i have been involved in this political game in this town for a long time. i was on the senate committee staff when the tragedy occurred were in and the feeble up not once but twice. i don't remember people calling for this, i don't remember a arb review of what happened although there should've been won. we understand that that is a national tragedy and we came together.

>> i wish my colleagues would set the tone of this hearing, mr. chairman. i thank you for doing so. >> i would ask unanimous consent that my full consent be entered into the record. >> i thank the chair. part of that is a statement called fact versus fiction prepared by the reform committee staff. it lays out many of the commonly repeated accusations about benghazi that just aren't true. and so mr. ambassador, my good friend from florida would have us believe that money played absolutely no role in the decision about security and allocations around the world. >> that is not my statement, those are the witnesses testimony. and the report as well. >> she and i were actually at this briefing together. i put that question together.

and he most certainly did acknowledge that of course money plays a role. sometimes when people say it's not about money, it is about money. >> in fiscal year 2011, this congress cut $327 million and this is part of security and maintenance. >> i believe so -- >> the following fiscal year, $327 million. >> is that request? >> i believe that that is the correct amount. >> and then it caught 145 million. >> we came to our saddens and restored some of those claims and gave the state department more flexibility in the end. is that correct?

>> thank you, mr. secretary. the idea that money doesn't play a role is simply not true. >> the chairman indicated in his opening statement, and he is right about this that i think all of us are a little troubled about that. but he is also talking about this and i deeply respect the chairman of this committee, and including implicit criticism the did with the previous administration could not do. and the tragedy of 9/11, the memorial of which we just remembered. but what is the status of the benghazi follow the you can share with us? are we going to hold this within the state department? how about accountability for the terrorists who perpetrated this heinous crime? >> and engineered the death of

our fellow americans? >> is the president and secretary has said, we are engaged in every effort to bring the terrorists to justice and this is under the preview of the fbi assisted by the state department and from the briefings that i have received, which unfortunately i cannot go into in great detail in this setting. the fbi and others are engaged in a full-court press on us. no one is leaving any stone unturned to bring these individuals to justice. >> what about libyan security? part of the problem on that terrible day was frankly libyan security and the responsibility of the host government kind of being dissolved. so what is the status of that? >> the state department and the department of defense are working with the government of libya to get them a security

force that is capable of doing mastering the job that they are required to do. but in the interim. matter of time, we have reinforced our embassy in tripoli with a significant number of state and state department personnel in a significant number of military personnel who were on the scene especially because of the security situation there, there is nothing that we could do at the moment to mitigate the security risk of a re-opened presents their, sir. >> mr. chairman, with respect to the arb, in your opinion, this was a rigorous and hard-hitting report. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> is there anything with respect to the recommendations and findings that the state

department is not following up on the not trying to implement? >> no, sir, we are working through every single one. there are 20 to 29 recommendations. and the representative from florida indicated that we have broken up into 64 separate tasks to manage the process as efficiently as possible. and we are working through them and have completed many of them, others take time because they involve construction order other matters. but there is nothing that we are lagging on. >> by the way, this issue about whether an order was given to standdown the u.s. military, so that preventing the military from responding, i've heard you say several times not true, no such order was ever given. i would just like to make a point for the record and that it

issued a press release from the majority staff that said in his testimony, gibson said he clarified his actions during the attack. contrary to news reports, gibson was not ordered to stand down by higher hard command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces is unturned. >> that statement has been corroborated by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey has testified have testified that there was no stand down order given. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. comley. we go now to mr. rohrabacher. >> before my time starts -- >> may i suggest that members on the democratic and republican side kept copious notes here.

we know exactly how much time everyone has gone over and was dead even. because we have a lot of freshmen on this committee we are now going to want everyone to five minutes. mid nied at the people who murdered the people. full-court press means. about funding. with