i want to talk for about 15 or 20 minutes and i'd like to start with much of what the nypd and how it changed my internal compass. it was a strange occurrence i had with a young man that's in the book. in at like to delve into the but in some of the secret service years and some of the but met

with and how just that it could be an incredible experience. i want to leave it with my sense of i guess we could call it frustration and the reason i left and this battle, friction i had between my experiences with really good people and what it saw as an institutional problem with the government and the failure, to do even the easy things well in the recent i walked away. but starting with my police experience i never wanted to be a police officer. i wanted to go to medical school. i wanted to be a doctor. i took the mcats not too long ago actually. i was watching grey's anatomy with my wife and i said i think i'm going to take the mcats. she said nobody just think they're going to take the mcats. i said i'm going to. unfortunately, i didn't get in but that's a whole other story. i never wanted to be a police officer but i talk about in the opening of the book of childhood, and they don't mean this to be a sob story by any stretch, i think stars make us

who we are. i worship every lump in those scars. they really made me who i am today and it enabled me to see if there is real evil in the world and yet i think that sometimes a perspective on the liberal left that gets lost. if you don't understand it, it's very difficult to find a policy prescription. we had a household that had been ravaged by a bad divorce, some income problems and a family member who thought that child abuse, physical abuse was an appropriate outlet for his internal rage. and when you're a young kid witnessing that, it's tough. you feel about as helpless as you've ever felt in your life. when you were a nine year old, 10 year old and you're watching this happen and you know there's nothing you can do, it's disturbing. and i found peace and just

serenity only in the police officers when they would show up. it seemed to be the only thing this individual and her life that caused all this paint was afraid of. nothing else. there was really no man or woman that scared him except for the blue uniform. and i remember thinking that one night, i document it in the book when it really have gotten chaotic and out of control, i remember seeing a police officer show up and saying, wow, like what a job. you are meeting people and world's are colliding at their absolute lowest. that for me was the lowest it gotten. the pain if it was incredible and you have the ability to turn it around like that. and i thought i've got to at least try it. so that's what led me to the new york city police department. of course, started an idealist but i think we all do in law enforcement, and i tell the story in the book about being on

the street one night and i'm doing a 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. shift. it's quite busy. we had t-shirts made up, a radio station in new york 1010 wins, it's kind of a news station. that an expression, you give us 10 minutes, we'll give you were. my precinct was east new york brooklyn, very busy. there was a drug war going on between, a lot of the different rival projects in the neighborhood kind of like turf war. there was something like 300 homicides a year before i had gotten there. put that in perspective, 300 homicides. the entire city of baltimore last year at 200. this was one of 78 precincts. so it was an extremely tough area and it really was a rude awakening for a young 20 your, especially a young 20 year old idealist who thought he could

change the world in one fell swoop. it was tough. i was standing on the on one night and i saw this young kid who why it seemed quite agree. i don't know how old he was. and may have been 10, 11. needless to say he should not have been out on the street at the time of night i was out on the street, probably midnight or 1 a.m. for some reason i struck up a conversation with him and i remember saying to him, what do you want to do when you grow up? and he looked at me quizzically as if the question that really baffled him, like he never thought about what to do and what that really meant. he clearly didn't have an answer. what you want to do? do want to be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer? what's your job? how do you want to make money? and he said to me, he said i want to be like a seat. and i thought, jay-z? at the time, j.c. was an up-and-coming rapper in new york in the area. was as famous as he was today and i thought, okay, he wants to

be cheesy. and he said to me, not jay-z. i want to be a-z. for a second i had to think about and i thought a-z, a-z was one of his local drug dealer kids who was a real punk a once in while he would put on a performance in the little like atrium like open area in the middle of the housing projects. and it occurred to me, is really almost a transformative moment that his america was not ours. there's a question about it. he did not only not want to be jay-z, he wanted to be a-z. that to me was staggering. one, i was almost okay with. and i could not get this kid out of my mind. i remember, it was a long commute home. i lived right over the hill as they say, cypress hill. and i couldn't get them out of my head. thinking how is it that this part of new york centrally

located, it was probably no more than 20 minutes from manhattan, right off the belt parkway, right off the jackie robinson parkway, you know the area i'm talking about? it could not be more geographically suited economic growth. what is wrong? i mean, the big question not why are there potholes in the street? why is there an elegant grand larceny auto number in this precinct? what is wrong with this particular area? it seemed to me that no one could answer the question. what, getting nuclear bomb go off your? it didn't make any sense. this kid was no different come,t didn't seem when you got in a conversation, than i was when i was nine or 10. yet his america wasn't mine. the idea of being a doctor are writing a book, an engineer had

never even occurred to him. and i thought that there's something going on here i have to have some role in changing, and it really sparked an interest, not particularly in politics as we would think in political races and candidates, but it sparked an interest in me in ideology, liberal versus conservative, libertarian versus green, economic ideology, austrian school versus chicago school. but there's got to be an answer and what her answer there, clearly wasn't implemented here. and that we did and i would dig and i started out and that eventually how i found the secret service. i was reading a book, mine hunter and was going to go in the fbi after that, mine hunter was about the profiling program and i was in graduate school at the time studying moral psychology and i found that fascinating but i was explained to this woman i was running next unequivocal happen to be a police officer one day who had worked with work with the secret

service and i was fascinated by the politics of it and ideology and she said i would think you need to check out the secret service. looking back to be fair, and self-critical which i think it's important, it was probably the wrong call. i should not have enmeshed myself in a political process that a new was watering a seed that was only going to grow and then sprout a tree that was going to the concrete. i just didn't expect it to really become part of me as a kid. i thought politics, economic ideology would be secondary interest, and it wasn't. but i found the secret service and i loved the job. i city people all the time it's the closest thing to being famous without anybody know who you are. there's none of the downtime but you get to live this life and be part of government at the absolute highest levels. it was an incredible experience. ian who is sitting right over there, i worked with him quite a bit at the prudential center,

the devils? that was fun when jon corzine was trying to get reelected and he lost to the sky you may have heard of, chris christie. i need is going to lose because we tried to fill the stadium. i think the thuggery to 20,000 people and what do they get about eight? i said this guy is going to lose that. i was right. but i found it incredible in the secret service because i kept thinking what is wrong here? what happened in the 75 precinct? i kept thinking is a government? is a government? i was fascinated in the secret service having worked with people literally from the white house on down to an administrative assistant in hhs summer because the secret service is an interesting topic you're always traveling visiting people, they bring in temporary staffers but everybody was so terrific to work with. so i thought it can't be a matter of personal incompetence. the men and women of the service, the staffing worked with they would work eight in

the morning to midnight every night for no overtime at all and no one ever complained about it. it just wasn't the job. the mission was clear. i went to afghanistan with president obama, and i remember looking in the face of the delta force operator who is going to meet the president, and this is my one knock. this delta force and he has that 1000-mile stare. you could tell, e.g. tap in and download his brain he had some stores them something abroad wouldn't tell you but they would've been fascinating. this staffer was slightly out of touch came over to me and i remember, we were at bagram air force base in the middle of an war zone. and you said you think you could ask the guy to leave his weapons outside. i thought, yo you're asking. like there's no way i'm doing that. he didn't ask them. he wound up going in but i

remember meeting the delta force guy and talking to them. these men and women, electric, administrative people, special agent, fascinating folks. what's going wrong? time went on and i just got more and more disconnected from what i felt in my case was a parasitic lifestyle. and i don't mean that in any qualitative way as reflection on government work. strictly personal. i looked around at my neighbors. i believe we still are but we are a really bad recession at the time, and i was suffered no ill consequences at all. not that it. gas prices went up, i had a government gas card, a government car, my salary went up every year. there were no inflation adjustments unless they went up and i felt like i had no skin in the game your and i thought in the country, like we have, isn't it odd that when you go and when

you see our immigrant population, i always thought of this gentleman i met going to subway store in the secret service training center, came in from pakistan with nothing and was now making six figures randomly decide to open up a subway restaurant, that we are not risktakers anymore. we've almost fallen into a middle-class apathy and we left the country just kind of slowly dissipate around us, and not only do we not do, people ask me all the time in politics, what can we do? i say you're asking the wrong questions. right question is what are you doing now? there are people who asking that question, i say hoosier congressman? they have no idea. think about the apathy that is spread in the country. in a midterm election it's not them, for up to 15% of the people not to even vote. and i thought, i can't. i can't do that. i'm sorry, i would rather die poor.

and my wife and i had a long prolonged conversation because i do have, i had one daughter at the time, i have to know what very real consequences to me leaving. so after about five or six month of having this conversation i remember my wife, we were going down to cinco de mayo party in my cul-de-sac. she turned in issues that are not going to talk you out of this, am i? and i said no. she said, okay, do it. go ahead and resign. so i drove him that monday and quickly resigned. but on the way and she told me by the way, do you know why i was sick last night? i said no. she said it's because i'm pregnant. it had been ages. so i thought they d do have a price of putting off things, don't they? i told the boss by wife was pretty, i was designing. he was a good guy. he thought i was nuts. i walked out and the to have a t door in the secret service to get ballistic rounds, really heavy steel door. when it slammed it would really

rock the whole building. amazing but when i walked out of that door slammed, it was the loudest sound i've ever heard. it's still kind of echoes because i knew that was the last time that door whatever shot. and i walk away. and jump in the longest of long shot united states senate races potentially in american history. did it started with two donors, me and my dad, worked out kind of well and i don't want to get into the politics of the race. we eventually lost but it was an incredible experience. it built a lot of character in me and taught me a lot about the system, but i thought i'd only seen having been through three presidential elections. i thought this was all old hat but i did learn a lot about the process. folks, it's the process that's broken. when i say the process, i don't only mean what traditionally i think the general public sees when i say you've been sold out. all of you have been sold out.

you've been sold out in less you have the money or a block of voters that you can influence that you can move a representative in your direction. they have no interest in you. but you've been sold out internally i intro interests that have taken precedence over taxpayer interest. i'll give you in a couple. you may say to yourself, i know i did, and if you don't you should, why do we have all of these different law enforcement agencies, this alphabet soup? why? does anybody have a commonsense answer? i've never heard one and i would think about over and over again, why do every secret service and fbi? the cia but a dia? is how the system works. here's where the assignment needs to be sound because as the bureaucracy grows, what happens is when everybody is responsible for something, the tragedy of the, nobody is. that's the get a situation like

benghazi where they ultimately admit openly the accountability review boards that we didn't know, it went through the bureaucracy, as if that's just some state, not real people. here's the way it works. the reason people in specific action don't want to give up responsibility for whatever it may be, let's say it's a bank fraud or credit card fraud, is because there's no power in the government. there's only power in no. when -- when i consider as a federal agent and i have jurisdiction over a crime unique investigated in the private sector, you need to come to me because i have monopoly power over the period there's no private police force. so it's in my best interest to maintain that relationship because you have the private money. when i leave, believe me, i'm going to ask you for repayment. if i give up whatever that may be, frank fraud, there's money

interest in everything, i now lose my ankle when i retire. it's not during her time in the government when you make money, it's when you leave. it's the dreaded carousel that's causing the problem. it's the very same problem when it comes to the lobby site. it's the money insurance that can buy off specific aspects of her, that it controlled everything, including policy. very really does your representative actually represent you. the process is very simple. you get a pack, the pac donates to me, you get access can you do to make a case. if i don't think you'll be catastrophic for me and i can put up a smokescreen, i'm going to go out and vote for that piece of legislation assume you continue to support me later on and on my campaign to control but not on the preservation of by context in the private sector internally but about maintaining access to the private sector later on when either i leave congress or whatever it may be in making access to that money pool. folks, it's an extremely

pernicious problem because again as this bureaucracy grows, what you think is a sandwiching of layers where upper management and political appointees love it because it allows them to absorb the blow of a bad decision by blame it on a bureaucracy in the american people just come to accept. imagine if we did that in the private sector. if apple, everybody has an iphone, or apple, i love apple. but if god forbid apple were to launch a product, the product was to fill catastrophic community in decision-making trees where at some point i assure you everybody would be held accountable. i don't know if they would get fired, maybe a pay cut, may be moved, maybe nothing. maybe they would come back with a winner next time but you see know that in the government and it's just accept it. i wrote in the last three chapters of the book as kind of a foil to the earlier chapters telling about my experience with some good people in government, i wrote about the boston

bombing, benghazi and "fast and furious" as examples of what i just told you. think about the boston bombing. you can put yourself on google alert, simpson, dan bongino, you will get in a millisecond an e-mail if your name appears on the internet. amazing, isn't? think about ages ago you would have to go to the libra, newspapers. but in the federal government we had one of the tsarnaev brothers that traveled to kazakhstan and back was in the fbi terrorist information database. he so-called teamed to use jenna follows words, the treasury department says that nobody thought there's anything wrong. or nobody followed up an appropriate manner. does that not strike you as on to? in a government that spends trillions of dollars no one thought there's anything wrong

with that? folks, if it was a private sector, jobs would be a stay, salaries would be a stay, promotions would be at stake but yet nothing happened. and i assure you it is not a reflection of the people who act as our federal agents. i promise you, i've never met one if they saw situation like that wouldn't run with it if they could stop an active terrorist attack. but no one thinks anything of it because as a proxy growth, it gets worse and worse. once the byproduct? lazy bureaucratic efforts to stop what they can't stop through commonsense reform. vis-à-vis the innocent. let's just do blanket surveillance at this point rather than looking at why do we have all these federal agencies? i bring up another example at the end of the book, and quoting the accountability board that reviews the benghazi situation where the clue stick have the manpower problem, and i contrast

that with the raid, on the gibson guitar doctor. imported wood from indonesia or whatever it may be. think about this. you have u.s. government inc., right? they have a situation in benghazi in an active conflict so, no question about that. documented request for security over and over and over again. the arb comes out and says, well, there's a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of manpower problem. yet it doesn't anyone or strike them as odd that we have enough guys to go raid the gibson guitar factory over imported wood. priorities? are those really our priorities? so it's easy to complain. suggestion going forward and then i would like to take your questions. if we were to streamline these federal agencies and intelligence operation, and internal affairs investigation type operations, and one federal

law-enforcement operation segmented into different divisions kind of like the nypd had. you could have crosstraining, you can move people around and take advantage of economies of scale and scope everything the private sector does. you could streamline, promote faster, promotion rules everything from promotion this could all be economize. we could save tons of money and at the same time reality manpower to its priorities like that. we can't do that now. even in the secret service when we need people we have to put that request to other agencies, goes through these big channels and ways all kinds of money just to get a guy with a gun to show up. we wouldn't have to do any of that. we could start to prioritize terrorism first, organized crime second, whatever it may be a reality manpower efficiently and not have to worry bout six agent breaking into gibson guitar to bust up and imported wood ring on our embassy in benghazi has no security. i find that unforgivable and i think in a private sector with

the profit motive and immodest incentivize and create greater productivity i think we could fix it, but we don't have that in the government because remember what i said. the economic interest is always for you to continue to retain as much power as you can because there's no power in yes. there is only power in me as a government official with a monopoly over the investigation to be able to tell you know. and you need me. and when i create a need, i create a request later on. it will be my request for you. we can fix it though and i think it's going to take some good passionate people going forward. and i think it's going to take more people to speak out. there is i think right now there's a crisis of into the leadership. i think people during a recession are afraid to leave by speak to people all the time on my cell phone on the inside who are just a as frustrated as i a, whether from the military or

anywhere else, and i think it will take just a tidal wave of people speaking out to really create some effect a change. so i appreciate your listening, and i would love to take your questions, and for those of you who read the book, i appreciate it. if you'd like to read later on i think you'll see what i'm talking but in the last few chapters, so thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, dan. we will take questions. wait for the mic phone and identify yourself as a courtesy to our guest. do we have a question? i knew we would. >> citizens at large. do you think that part of the problem is a risk aversion in our culture that whenever there's some tragedy of violent nature, multimillion lawsuits come out of it from the victims, families of the victims. everyone feels obliged to

maximize security so that god forbid if something does happen i have x, y and z people watching out and nothing happens. think about during the civil war the enemy was just across the river. lincoln was in an open house in the middle at the afternoon. during world war ii, the one with the japanese and italians and germans and yet the city function, wasn't in a lockdown anywhere near like it is now. it seems we are trying to prevent any sort of violence i think almost like we are -- you think that kind of mentality may be part of the problems to? i do but i think we're in a much different environment than we were back then. and i think it's a function of technology, the ability right now to spread a dirty bomb, the power of explosives growing exponentially, the access to weapons, nontraditional weapons, and, frankly, this social

modeling effect. before i went into the secret service, i was a graduate student fast and by psychology, and social modeling, the ability to watch what another human being does and replicate the behavior itself is almost a unique, uniquely human behavior. why do i say that? because you see things like the school shooting. there's no question in my mind that the growth in the sad tragic phenomenon is the result of press coverage of the actual event which is greater in a 24 hour news cycle with blogging, 24 hour in a, facebook and the ability to tweak. remember when we had bin laden in pakistan, there was a gentleman who lived there in pakistan who tweeted at the door helicopters overhead before the even landed. so in a 24 hour culture right now, saturated with information worldwide come any tragic event has the capacity to set off almost a proliferation cascade of new tragic events trying to replicate it.

to your first point, are we a little hypersensitive? yes. but secondly i would say the environment is definitely much different. to add to that, again i write in the book that the environment for terrorism and counterterrorism specifically has become very dangerous because i use the business model, the traditional model of terrorists was a franchise model. it was a so, al-qaeda inc. op-ed in, think of it like a mcdonald's. you buy a mcdonald's as a franchisee, your and al-qaeda franchisee. want him to do project by the burgers and material and take your orders from mcdonald's central. but you take them to operate or own store but you really don't. you are following and al-qaeda we call propaganda. mcdonald's we call it marketing, right? it's no different. you're trying to influence behavior. that's franchise model was dangerous, but it was not as dangers as the model we are in now, the sole provider model.

i'll tell you why. the franchise model of care left a lot of breadcrumbs. i worked a lot of these cases on long island. one event i mentioned in the book. i talk about them i couldn't even get information on my own case an fbi. it was absurd to it was my investigation. and i thought this is insane. i can carry a gun on air force one. i can't get information on the guy i'm investing from another federal agency. what you see right there, it doesn't leave the breadcrumbs. when you look at the situation like 9/11 and i don't mean this qualitatively but the spectacular nature of the attack, u.s. flight schools, multiple training sessions, multiple contacts which always led, left a breadcrumb behind. you are not seeing that now. the tsarnaev brothers were very much so provided. had very little contact at all with what you would consider core al-qaeda, al-qaeda center, if any. what he did is they went to the

internet which is a twin of our propaganda machine if you are seeking it out, saw inspire magazine, a couple pressure group and took upon themselves to grea create this bomb and sht down an entire city. i would argue the facts although not as spectacular in the tragic sense as 9/11, were nearly as devastating. and those sole provider terrorists out there do not leave the breadcrumbs. what are you going to do, watch every american internet traffic? you can do that in lifetime. we are in a different environment but i agree where hypersensitive and i think it's largely a reflection i'm fortunate of political correctness as well. i'm a libertarian at heart. i believe every man and woman on this our of is a child of god, but if someone says to me, you are looking for a green male who is 6'6" and missing his left finger, that's who i want to go

after. i use these absurd physical characteristics because insert another random culture, creed, religion, everyone gets offended as if you did something wrong and law enforcement just because i may be looking for someone who i now attends a certain religious facility doesn't mean anything as a law-enforcement officer against a particular -- we're just following the trip and i think it becomes even more dangerous now because you get blanket surveillance in the case of the nsa which i disagree fundamentally. is a silly way to do and also blanket screening, which is absurd. i mean, really? how much time you going pashtun you realize the economic productivity lost every year to screen 999 out of 1000 people who won't even have a nail clipper on that? it's a waste. i hope -- if i'm is different and you are right on both.

[inaudible] >> from this point of view, you're absolutely right, only i want to ask all over the world -- all humanity, it is not for united states. [inaudible] i can do this service. for you it is open letter. it is attachment. i ask you to support me. if you view this in the united

states, muscular reality, must be the happiest nation on the planet, if continue to lead in the way political weight, constitutional way. we did help? know. spin if you're not going to get an argument from me on that one. i am certainly an avid constitutional conservative with a strong libertarian bent. if you don't have a process, if you don't have the deadly through a set of rules you have nothing but chaos. nothing to argue otherwise. yes, it's a global fight but i can only argue from my perspective within the secret service. i wasn't subject to global rules. i think there's some that use a heavy-handed approach globally that aren't limited by the rules we have in this country that actually have a blowback effect and makes the environment even worse. i don't mean that, not talking about from a military perspective because i know that mean has taken on a different meaning from some.

having traveled around the world as a secret service agent i think some the tactics are extremely ineffective and only one integrating internal propaganda later on when a situation could have been handled far differently. sometimes in law enforcement honey works a lot better than vinegar. just in my experience. >> merry christmas to all. >> merry christmas. >> i have a two-part question. first of all, as an active secret service agent, i know you're a former, but while on active duty, may i ask why did you not specifically attend to i believe which is the real crux of all of the problems and issues that you mentioned, which is article ii, section one of the united states constitution, which deals with the qualifications of the president? and if i may just quote, no person except a natural born

citizen or a citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be president, and, of course, there are qualifications. so may i ask why did you not deal with the greatest threat, the threat being a threat out as an officer and the threat is domestic threat and also international threat to america because right now we do have it unconstitutionally, unconstitutional president, and that poses the greatest threat, not only in america but throughout the world. and then i have -- >> hold on. that's a lot of part one before you get to part two. [laughter] unfortunately it's not true. listen, the president of the united states was born, i have nothing else to say, the president was born in the united

states. [inaudible] >> i can't argue with you about that so you will have -- >> do we have another question? [inaudible] >> i understand you're running for congress again next can you talk about sort of why you want to get into the body that only has a 9% approval rating and what you think you can do to help them out a little bit stiff as well, i can get too into it, but just talk generally about congressional approval ratings, congress is kind of funny when people tell you 9% of the brittney because we ask them about their individual congressmen, i think he's great. if they know who it is. it's kind of funny. you ask people sometimes, there's always, i don't isolate in the district that i'm running it i will eventually, but i will say to people, does that bother you? they say not really. what district are you in?

they will say i don't know. people when you talk about congress talk about it like it's some cloud, this fog like it's not made of real people when you get to the real people they just like the congressman. this year may be different but i think your analysis and your numbers are not off. i think that's largely a function of a lot of policy decisions by this admission nation and people's attachment to. i think when you get a letter in the mail that slaps you in the face of this is you've lost your health care, it makes it very real for a lot of people really fast. a lot of policy decisions don't have that affect. when you think it's something like taxes, with the income tax, you should check bigger next year that was the issue ?-que?-que x something like getting a health care letter saved by nl for policy, kind of hurts them. to enter the larger question why i would choose to get involved,

was it plato who said you should get involved in politics, you're destined to be ruled by people less within yourself. i ask you, let me turn the question back, what do you do? really, all of you in this room. we are all complainers. i am. i don't mean that in a bad way but what are you doing? i'm not challenge you, i'm just saying, what are you doing? the world is changed by action, not by talk. talk motivates action. action is what changes the world. and again i go back to the question before. i get all the time what can we do? what can we do? what are you doing now? nothing. what do you mean, nothing? you are just letting this happen? so if you don't get involved and take a risk like that pakistani subway owner i met who came here with nothing, not a dime, didn't even speak english and figured out the grid country on earth to make money, what are you doing to change the process to make it

a better tomorrow? when you look at the most effective politicians over time, they want the people who told you a table yesterday was. they told you to plan and the action plan for a better tomorrow. i think i have an obligation for people whose tags are supported a very nice lifestyle when i was within the secret service. i have an obligation to give you something back. believe me when i tell you, the financial penalty of my decision was long lasting. if you think you're going to make any money in books, i've got bad news for you, you are not. right one because of the ideological mission, use it as a vehicle for your cause, whatever it may be that if you think you're going to write a book and get rich and make back the three main color dollars i left behinu are out of your mind. i did this because you really believe in it. we are the chris couch on earth. it takes people of action, not just coughing up and doing something spent let me ask you one last question. we understand a lot of

washington is victims, not just in the protection and defending of, your proposal to put some of those together and have a different tree of responsibility, i understand, but how does that cross with your libertarian do? would you not decentralizing too much power in places as opposed to having some of this check and balance that some of these may for our benefit give us? >> power is already centralized. there's already monopoly power over specific things. to break up that monopoly power, how do you an example. let's just use, i love the secret service because that's what was, let's say you're a bank executive. you don't want to pay millions of dollars a year for fraud investigation special in the secret service and taxpayer dollars can do it for free. if i may have monopoly power over bank fraud which we didn't do, the fbi gets involved as well but relatively monopoly

power, monopolistic, again there is no power in me saying yes. i have to make you come to me. used as example with the nypd which was one large centralized law enforcement operation, very few other operations in new york at any power at all. the shares do a lot of towing. they don't get involved in law enforcement that if i put you in the nypd, officer jones and the need you to help me out and use it, i'm not going to do, you have to monopoly over the that all. i just go and sit officer jones wouldn't help, officer simpson? if not there is endless avenues for you to go to. and endless plasticity. so i would argue strongly there is already monopoly power and centralizing it bureaucratically doesn't necessarily centralize the power. it enables people different avenues. i know it's hard to swallow but when you see it from the inside, the redundancy is absurd. i remember a story literally the

same building, i won't say who but the same building, there were two federal agencies. one had four or five distinct separate entity offices, they couldn't fill them. they were knocking -- there was another agency that needed the space. they went out and rented another office instead of just moving upstairs. you start to scratch your head. you say this is insane. it's the hold milton friedman three, whenever people spend other peoples money on other people, neither kostner quality will ever matter. it's true. i would read other people spend other peoples money on themselves, at least the quality matters is not the cost, right? so i'm spending your money on something and as for me, i'm going to go buy the best suit i can find. really, at least where incentivizing quality but when you spend taxpayer money on other people, the quality doesn't matter either and i take it ridiculous decision-making like multiply by thousand the if

you don't think there's waste and a budget, folks, it's absurd how much waste in the budget, literally absurd. and if i could add one more thing on that. on the other front because i mentioned the segmentation of federal law enforcement agencies but the other side i didn't get into too much. lobby front which is, blogging has been going on for eons. nothing new. but the source of all of our problems there is the tax code. if i can give you a tax break because you make a gray suit and i've never tax break to a great -- a gray suit, not given to lucid company, i've given you a competitive advantage in the field you don't have. you pay me back with donate to the back which my campaign and keeps me empower, do you realize the distortion effects rippling through the economy? multiply that one transaction times thousands and thousands,

over decades. think about how many value these judgments were made because the pricing of the product is wrong because me as a politician could give you a tax break. it's no small item. why do you think the left fights so viciously against the flight and fair tax? because it's unfair or unflagged? no. they fight it so badly because again there is no power in yes. and when everything is a yes can you pay 50%, you pay 15% in uk 15%, it doesn't matter, everything is a yes. all of a sudden i am powerless. that's the best thing i could ever do for you is to leave the job much more powerless than when i came in. this is supposed to be a representative government. that was the idea. [applause] >> as mentioned we do have a few copies of our authors book here with us today, "life inside the

bubble" and, of course, is available readily on amazon.com and in bookstores in your. we appreciate your kind attendants today. i'm sure dan would be glad to continue the conversation after we adjourned. thank you. [applause] >> tonight will have more booktv in prime time with books about espionage. spent a white house official talks with efforts to get north korea from declaring a nuclear weapon. live coverage of discussion about safety laws and a look at

the u.s. relationship with every countries in the persian gulf. >> thursday night we will talk with two u.s. senators about their personal lives, careers and some interesting facts about the need. send a heidi heitkamp tells us how her name went from mary catherine the heidi. spent i grew up in a very small catholic community and when i was growing up, the two classes, whether was first and second or third and fourth were all in the same classroom and at that time a really small group of girls, a lot of married, and mary beth and she was betsy and america and and she was marianne and mary jo who was mazie. been a mary kay -- mary catherine. my best friend's name was kathy, and so she decided in third grade that she would rename me, so she was rations reader and had already read hundreds of

books i think by the time she was in third grade and heidi was one of her favorite books that she was thought it was great and she gave me the name id and its stock spent we will talk with senator johnson on how his grandfather changed the family name. >> with my grandfather and great-uncle came over from norway in 1906 and when they got to ellis island, they did no english with exceptions because the words out what and call for which they learn on the way over. but they're asked by the immigration officials to change the name because they thought it would be too difficult to spell and pronounce for people in this country and their name in norway was yeltsin. when they got to ellis island to ask them to change event. they picked the name of the farm where they lived which was called the thune farm. my grandfather was nikolai and he became make thune. they got to ellis island and had a sponsor in the code and the cable to work on the railroads.

>> american profile interviews thursday night starting at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span reader in c-span.org. >> on friday the national security council's korea director talks about the effort to keep north korea from developing nuclear weapons including diplomatic cooperation with china. he spoke of the institute of korean american studies for just over one hour. >> thank you, jane. is quite ironic, i'm glad you mentioned the fact that i was here four years ago and people remember four years ago to the day was snowmageddon. and i actually got stuck on my way home for about an hour in the snow taking a back alley down somewhere in washington, d.c. and i will never forget the opportunity. the other interesting thing was that time, it was a very slow

news weekend and so this presentation got repeated coverage. and people have nothing else to do is stay home and watch a relatively boring, unexceptional speech at the time on the north korean nuclear program. i came as intelligence analyst at the time and they come in a more difficult as as a policymaker. i sold my comments within the policy domain and resisted temptation. to get into and over analytical piece. there's an old adage that goes, you don't know where you're going until you know where you've been. a close cousin of those who don't when the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. when you do with a difficult issue like north korea, you face a challenge of having a set of policy direction and define a set of guidance principle to undergird the day-to-day decisions. the truth of this, becomes strikingly clear. not to long ago i used the expression predictably

unpredictable in describing john young's use of surprise as so ingrained in the diplomatic playbook, as to really no longer be surprising -- pyongyang. so let me today suggest that for the policymaker, north korea may be termed transparently locate, transparently okay. north korea isn't accurate -- use mystique and surprise diplomatic force multiplier's arm now so established as we no longer particularly mysterious. i went and dug through my open source archives to find the 1990 pashtun 19 and commentary on the revolutionary exploits of kim jong-il, which termed his political skills and leadership as being mysterious beyond imagination. adding it's no accident that even the enemies call the generals experience political art, unpredictable and

legendary. i would assert that after 20 years of diplomacy of the dprk and '40s before that of sustained interaction, when people forget when you look at the history of u.s.-dprk interaction, 40 years of sustained interaction up to that point to the mechanisms of the military armistice commission in our day-to-day interaction with north koreans in pyongyang that we've amassed sufficient empirical evidence cannot be backloaded by sub prize, blinded by so-called black goals. today would like to take a bit of a retrospective look as we examine the future of north korea in our policy within the context of where we've been and how that impacts the fundamental principles of our policy in the direction it will have in the future. in the early 1990s when we first embarked on the most sustained interaction with north korea following the armistice,

and outside the confines of pyongyang, there's not much to look back on as her diplomats export possible ways ahead for the dprk. we had no negotiating records. we had no test of pyongyang's reliability and dependability to live up to agreement with the united states. so at this time this wanted moving forward with what would become the agreed framework, not on blind hope, not on faith but on what might be called exploratory confidence building principles, or a test thereof. as you remember the agreed framework in 1994 came about following concerns over inconsistencies between north korea's nuclear activities as they declared to the iaea in 1982, and the results of the iaea inspections once the inspectors got on the ground. and the intent of the agreed framework was to bring a halt to the production of fissile

material and to the iaea inspections resolve the differences between the north korean declaration of 90 grams or so of plutonium attained through reprocessing of what they claim to be a handful of damaged fuel rods, the data of the initial iaea inspections at the town and, of course, estimates by analysts and observers at north korea may have action produced enough plutonium for at least a weapon. but more fundamentally than what its immediate judges were, the agreed framework represent an objective, confidence could be built between the two adversaries. what i would say is a critical point of confluence of three major strategic arcs in history of north korea. the first would be the emergence of north korea's demonstrated attempt, demonstrated intent and ability to produce fissile material and produce, and pursue nuclear capability. the second part being the power

transition that we were witnessing between kim il-sung and kim jong-il, the first of its kind in north korea. and then finally the third arc being the emergence of a post cold war world in north koreas existence within the post-cold war world. in other words, the north nuclear ambitions were becoming clearer. its internal situation was in transition, and its external environment was drastically changed, aggressiveness, vulnerability and uncertainty all intersected at one time. the agreed framework halted plutonium production for nine years which is no small achievement. but what when unchanged or north korea's nuclear ambitions, something we know in retrospect. north korea during the agreed framework never allowed access to the facilities necessary to resolve the plutonium inventory discrepancy. it continued to design and test high explosives during the

duration of the agreed framework and by the end of the 1990s, north korea appears to have become, appears to have pursued a uranium enrichment program undeclared. the 2000s meanwhile, witnessed the advent of the six-party era, an aggressive and sustained diplomatic effort went into finding a way to create a framework for moving to complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearization and the looming this will be captured in the september 19, 2005 joint statement. of course during these talks despite the fact that talks were underway, a five-megawatt reactor continue to run, north korea conducted to be processing runs during the time of the six-party talks, one in 2003 and in 2005. north korea advanced its nuclear turned first lady clinton was pursuing one in october 2003 and then by showing in 2004 metallized plutonium.

and, of course, september 28, 2004 announcing its weaponization. even with a joint statement adoption in 2005 north korea went on to launch a missile in july 2006 and, of course, conducted its first nuclear test in october of 2006. we all remember the destruction of the going gaga would eventually come in june 2008, and a port and a symbol of the progress that would be made under six-party talks on disablement and dismemberment, particularly under the februar february 13, 2007 initial actions with imitation of the joint statement statement. and the october 32007 -- october 132007 statement covering second phase action of the joint statement. yet left unaddressed in all this was the issue of getting north korea to discuss its continued undeclared uranium enrichment activities, or how we would get

the verification necessary to address the remaining questions concerning the north's plutonium enrichment program. some of this is old history, but this retrospective work is valuable because it provides the context within which the administration views the north korean nuclear issue when it inherited it upon taking office in 2009. as you remember the president took office willing to extend his hand to countries like north korea as they would be willing to unclench their this. but within weeks after the inauguration of president obama, pyongyang began preparations for ballistic missile test. and united nations could count respond to the april 5 launch with the presence of state, north korea proceeded to conduct a nuclear test on may 25, again just months after the obama administered in took office.

the second nuclear test had a profound impact on those people who are otherwise in kind to believe pyongyang's nuclear ambitions were no more than some high-tech way to grab the attention of the united states. the seriousness with which the world viewed pyongyang's actions and its intentions were evidence industry council adoption of the u.n. security council resolution 1874 on june 12. international consensus grew on the need to impede the growth of north korea's wmd program and inflict a cost on that program with strong enforcement mechanisms complement and the u.n. security council resolution 1718. together, these two resolutions clearly and unequivocally required to north korea to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program which would include the conduct of launches, that include ballistic missile technology,

resolution 1874 demanded a dprk not conduct any further nuclear tests or any launch using ballistic missile technology, and called on north korea to denuclearize. after and counting in 2009 as as the diplomatic dust had begun to settle, special representatives for north korea policy steve bosworth made a trip to pyongyang in an effort to get some type of dialogue jumpstarted with a dprk. a few months later north korea again took an action that figuratively sank the prospects for resumed talks, and literally sank the rocket corvette in 2010 but after demonstrate to the world injuring enrichment capability on november 12, as steve bosworth and i were going through the region, we went to seoul, tokyo, then beijing to brief are sick -- r. six-party

talk programs on the program, some 45 or six minutes after we flew over the island, yongbyon island was shelled by the north koreans. so 2011 came upon us after the dust had settled from 2010 provocations we embarked on a guard effort to test north korea's willingness to engage in negotiations, once again another test to see whether the north koreans could engage in negotiations with a seriousness of purpose. in close consultation with our partners, we cautiously began in 2011 to engage north korea in a series of meetings designed primer to bring a halt to its nuclear programs and missile launches, and in our efforts to restart the six-party talks create an environment conducive to such talks.

after three sets of meetings, one in new york, july 2011, 1 in geneva in october and one in february after a short hiatus followed a december death of kim jong-il, we came to an understanding with north korea that would soon be called -- the federal 29th understanding, and understanding that we would pursue a path of confidence building, mutual confidence-building measures which would begin with the north holding its missile launches and nuclear activities and would be restricted by conference the measures on our own, and yet again, barely two weeks after this test in essence was administered, north korea announced it would proceed with a self-proclaimed satellite launch in clear violation, not only of united nations security counsel resolution banning such launches using ballistic missile technology, but clearly a violation of the understanding that we had. in retrospect,e