for more than 50 hours and that by the way includes 160 republican amendments. . it would increase competition, provide more choices, and keep insurance companies honest. both proposals offer stability and security to americans who have coverage today and for all

options to those who do not. this progress should make as hopeful, but it cannot make us complacent. it should provide the urgency to provoke the house and senate to finish their critical work on health perform before the august recess. america's nurses need us to succeed, not just the half the patients they sometimes before. if we invest in prevention, nurses will not have to treat diseases or complications that could have been avoided. if we modernize health records, we will streamline the paperwork that could take up where than one-third of the average nurse's day, freeing them to spend more time with their patients. if we make their jobs a little bit easier, we can attract and train the young nurses we need to make up a nursing shortage that is only getting worse. nurses do their part every time the check another healthy patient of the hospital. it is now time for us to do our part. i just want to be clear. we are going to get this done.

becky and i were talking in the oval office. she pointed out we need to buck up people a little bit. that is what nurses to all the time. sometimes a buck up some young president who does not know what he is doing. you look at becky and you can tell she knows what she is doing. she says it is time to buck up congress, this administration, the entire federal government to be clear that we have got to get this done. our nurses are on board. the american people are on board. is now up to us. we can do what we have done for so long and defer tough decisions for another day, or can step up and meet our responsibilities and look beyond the next news cycle and next election to the next generation, and come together to build a system that works not just for these nurses but for the patients they care for, doctors, hospitals, families, and

businesses, and for our very future as a nation. i am confident it will be done because we have a great team behind us. we will continue to talk about this for the next two-three weeks until we have a bill of to the senate and out of the house and we will reserve a few week'' rest before we come back and finally get a bill done so we can sign it right here in the rose garden. >> mr. president, the small- business says they get hammered by the house bill. can you respond? >> house democrats this week

introduced their proposed health care bill. today, members debated health care on the house floor. first up, congressman dennis kucinich of ohio. this is 15 minutes. >> americans want a quality, affordable health care. pegeen million americans are underinsured. hr3200 was still leave 50 -- 17 million americans uninsured. how is that possible? ps in place a for-profit insurance system which siphons off at least $400 billion every year which could be used to make sure all americans, not just h.r.3200 not solve the problem of other insurance. 60% of all bankruptcies in america are due to people not being able to pay hospital bills. of those, 80% are injured. people cannot afford the rising

premiums, copays, and deductibles that are the basis of insurance company profits. the only way to break the hold our system is to guarantee affordable, quality health care to all americans through universal, single payer, not- for-profit health-care system. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> without objection. >> mr. speaker, democrats should stop trying to spin the results of their economic borrowing program. despite what the obama administration has said, the 2,600,000 americans who have lost jobs since january is a clear sign that their recovery act has not done its job. instead of more rhetoric, democrats should work with republicans to put in place common-sense proposals that will rein in the west spending and focus on job creation. our economy will grow stronger again thanks to individuals and

small businesses that create the majority of jobs in this country. it will not be due to the billions in the beverly -- the government or in -- big government borrowing. we should provide relief to those who are suffering during these tough economic times. republicans have offered a plan to do just that, and we will do so without adding trillions in additional big government liberal spending an action such as the new health-care taxes that will destroy jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops, and we will never forget september 11 in the global war on terrorism. >> for what purpose as the jump in from california rice? without objection. -- the gentleman from california rise crystalline >> we have a critical role in reviewing the specific details of health care reform. access to health care is something we owe to every american family.

everyone should have coverage. everyone should have access. there is no question that we must have a comprehensive reform to our health system. critics to reform failed to get the message and only talk about rhetoric. doing nothing for a broken system is not the answer. they do not understand the fear and devastation families face with trips to the emergency room. they do not understand the ramifications of families when they received the doctor's bill or a hospital bill. families must have access to health care. never again will you have coverage being denied. never again we have to make a decision between life or job decision based on coverage. i urge my colleagues to support comprehensive health reform. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana arise? without objection.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. as it stands now, the democrat health plan = taxpayer funded abortions. let me repeat that. as it stands now, the democrat health plan equals taxpayer funded abortions. if unamended, the obama health plan restructuring will be the most massive abortion expansion since roe v wade and every insurance premium payer and every taxpayer will be forced to pay for every abortion. the taking of innocent life is not health care. i know, i am a physician. it without an abortion exclusion, this reform bill will be the platform for thrusting abortion into every aspect of health care in this country. the secretary of hhs and the so- called benefits advisory committee will determine the specific mandated services. abortion will be included in the

minimum benefits unless it is included. the democrats refuse to do that. this bill does an end run on current abortion funding restrictions by containing language -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. speaker, we have an historic opportunity to finally improve health care in america, to finally bring access and quality of care to all americans, not just a lucky few. i am so proud to support the bill introduced by the three committees and jurisdiction and to play my part in seeing us pass legislation in both the house and senate before august recess. what is great is that there is something for everyone here. there's affordable access to coverage for people who have never been insured before. there is help for seniors stuck in the party does not hold. there are consumer protections

against longstanding egregious practices by insurance companies. there is amazing investment into our healthcare workforce including physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals. there is finally an incentive to practice well as based health care instead of simply illness based disease treatment. i urge all my colleagues to join me in passing america's affordable health forces act and enacting health care reform our consistency it is our constituents so desperately need at americans deserve. i yelled back. >> for what purpose does the down and from texas rise. without objection. -- does the gentleman from texas rise. >> as we debate the best way to reform our health-care system and ensure that all americans have access to quality health care, some members of congress insist that a government run option must be included, yet in

one proposal, members of congress are curiously exempt from the public plan. for those who are convinced that government run health care will not sacrifice quality and not lead to rationing, i backed resolution saying that if a member of congress votes to support the public auction, then that member must be automatically enrolled in it. if members are convinced that the government run public option will deliver the same quality of care as a congressional health plan, they ought to be the first in line to enroll. members of congress should stop asking the american people to make sacrifices that are not willing to make themselves. i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to speak of the pressing need to fix our healthcare system. every day america's not only worry about getting well aware

they can afford to get well or stay healthy. they are not the only ones to worry. all too often, small businesses are forced to choose between coverage or layoffs. we have the most expensive health system in the world, spending almost 50% more per person on health care than the next most costly nation. yeah, we are not healthier for it. i am glad that congress and the president are working together on a plan to reform our health- care system, a plan that will reduce costs, provide choices, and guarantee affordable, quality health care for all. we must act now, for it is evident that the status quo is simply not working. i yield back. >> yesterday we had the historic introduction of our health reform act. this bill is going to fundamentally improve care for americans, for people who have insurance and also for people that do not. this legislation includes a robust public health insurance

option. the cost of health care insurance is too high for people who haven't and businesses that are paying court. the public health insurance option will be one of our most effective ways to bring the cost of insurance down. don't take my word for it. take a study by the commonwealth that shows that premiums for individuals can be reduced by 25% by the pressure put on private insurers by a public health insurance options. that is why studies show that 80% of americans want the option to purchase a public insurance option because it will lower their cost, both as individuals and as employees of businesses throughout this country who are paying far too much for health care. mr. speaker, i encourage us to take a serious look at a very important health care bill that has been introduced before us. i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia arise? without objection. >> yesterday house democratic leadership held a press conference to introduce a health

care reform legislation. as a physician who has practiced medicine for more than 30 years, i have major concerns that this plan will ultimately put of government bureaucrat between patients and their doctors and eventually lead to a one-size- fits-all health care system for the government decides what treatments are necessary for patient. when money gets tight, this leads to rationing of care and long waiting lists for patients. we have already seen the pilot for this program. you just ask the democratic governors of tennessee what has done to their state. i want to read testimony from a canadian doctor who has seen the consequences of a single payer system. what we have in canada is access to a wait list. the patients are languishing and suffering on these waitlists. patients are actually dying as they wait for care in canada. mr. speaker, this is not the sort of health care reform the american people want or need.

i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? without objection. >> has anyone ever heard the expression, the proof is in the pudding? when the private health insurance companies found out that there may not be a government auction, do you know what happened to health insurance stocks on wall street? they went through the roof. profits skyrocketed, because the health insurance companies make money off of the consumers when they do not have competition. when they are able to cut your healthcare and make profits out of the nine new health insurance, that is how the private marketplace makes money, by denying you health care. that only one to cover the healthy and well. we have the government option to guarantee the american people that they get their health care

that they pay for. republicans do not want to hear that, because they are bought and paid for by the private health care companies. we are on the side of the american people. we want to protect the people so they can get their health care, irrespective of a pre-existing health care condition. i am proud that this health care plan covers all pre-existing conditions, including mental health parity as covered by the act that was passed and signed by president bush last cycle. >> i know we have disagreements on some of these issues, and i know what the intent is of the democratic proposed health care bill. i know the intent is not to hurt the lower wage earner, but this bill that is being proposed is going to hammer employers. an 8% penalty if they do not provide health care. they are going to turn around and provide health care because the people i know are saying, we

are just hanging on. we have good workers. we do not want to lose them. if i am going to be penalized 8%, i will have to reduce their wages by the amount the health care costs. it may be a 5000 authors are $6,000, and i am begging my friends on the other side. do not take $5,000 or $6,000 from the lowest wage earner right now. do not for small businesses, and another is an extension at the low in, but smaller businesses will still have to either lay people off, pay an 8% penalty, or take wages away. do not hurt our lower wage workers. >> i would say to the american people that in many ways we are really know what the two sides are. the republican party, the party

that opposed the medicare act, that have made very clear they are not the party of no, they are the party of ignoring the middle class and those struggling to make it. the democratic party again and again has said we are going to step up to the challenges facing this country. if you believe that we are spending just the right amount, not spending too much money on health care, you are alone. we are spending trillions upon trillions of dollars more than a need to. if you think of the money people are paying out of pocket is just right, then you probably want to republic parties plan, which is to do nothing. the democratic party is saying we are born to try to solve this problem because that is what we do. the republic party does not do that. they say no, no, no. but we have a problem. if you want choice, affordability, and health care for your family, you will get it with the democratic party, not

with the republic party. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? without objection. >> the last speaker just talked about what the republicans want to do. what the democrats want to do is spend, spend, spend. i gave a little math lesson yesterday, and i would like to revisit that today. we talk about millions of dollars and we talk about billions of dollars and we talk about trillions of dollars. the more you hear those words, they just become words and you do not realize how much money that is. 1 million seconds = a little over 11 days. 1 billion seconds is 31 days and eight months. one trillion seconds is 31,710 years. if i gave you $1,000 a second,

it would take me 31.7 years to give you one trillion dollars. we are not the party of no. we are the party of doing what we can afford. the democrats are the party of throwing money at any problem that comes about with no regard and what it is costing the american taxpayer. with that ideal that my time. -- i yield back my time. >> on c-span tonight, secretary of state clinton talks about the obama administration's foreign policy. then a hearing about the security of state identification cards such as driver's licenses. later, the british members of parliament question gordon brown about the war in afghanistan during ago prime minister's questions."

>> on tomorrow's "washington journal," we will talk with senator john koran about supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor or. a look at detroit's economy with mayor dave bing, and congressman jim jordan will discuss merrill lynch pose a takeover by bank of america and how federal tarp funds for use to finance the deal. you can watch "washington journal" and call in starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> secretary of state hillary clinton today delivered a wide- ranging speech on the obama administration approach to u.s. foreign policy. the speech on so-called smart power included statements on iran, the middle east, north korea, and the war in afghanistan. from the council on foreign relations in washington, this is an hour 15 minutes. [applause]

>> good afternoon. i am the president of the council on foreign relations, and i want to welcome our members and guests who are here in this magnificent new washington, d.c building. i also want to welcome the many other people who may be listening to are watching this event on any number of mechanical devices that i, for one, am unable to operate. for those of you are not familiar with us, the council on for relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, dedicated to increasing understanding of the world and foreign policy choices facing the united states. we meet here just a few days before the obama administration marks the completion of its first six months in office. we will also soon commemorate

the eighth anniversary of 9/11, and a few months after that, the 20 the anniversary of 11/9, the day that the berlin wall crumbled, symbolizing the end of the cold war. the past two decades have made clear that the end of that dangerous geopolitical era did not usher in an age of perpetual peace. anyone doubting this need only contemplate the in box of president obama and those who work for him, some of whom we are fortunate to have with us today. against the backdrop of unprecedented economic difficulties, the u.s. must contend with the particular challenges posed by north korea, afghanistan, pakistan, iran, iraq, the millies, honduras, just to name a few. there are of the world what challenges, climate change, poverty, protectionism, health,

terrorism, and nonproliferation. making it even more difficult is the reality that american resources are stretched and there is a substantial gap between this year's challenges and the capacities of existing regional and global institutions. this is the context in which today speaker, hillary rodham clinton, goes to work each and every day. hillary clinton is the 67th secretary of state of the united states. in addition to thomas jefferson, james madison, james monroe, john quincy adams, dean acheson, and henry kissinger, her illustrious predecessors all include able parker, and bainbridge colby. she is the 27 secretary of state

to have shared the u.s. senate, the 15th from the great state of new york, the third woman, and the first former first lady. while i am citing statistics, of ottawa also mentioned it is i thought i would also mention that no less than six secretaries of state have gone on to be president. [applause] [laughter] secretary clayton, it is a pleasure and honor to welcome your to the council on foreign relations. madam secretary, i trust you will not take it the wrong way when i say, break a leg. [applause] >> thank you very much, richard. i am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. i have been often to the mother

ship in new york city, but it is good to have an outpost of the council by here down the street from the state department. we get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean i do not have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future. richard just gave what could be described as a mini-version of my remarks in talking about the issues that confront us. i look out this audience filled with friends and colleagues and people who have served in prior administrations. there is never a time when the in boxes not full. shortly before i started at the state department, a former secretary of state called me with this advice. do not try to do too much. it seemed like a wise admonition, if only it were possible. the international agenda today is unforgiving.

two wars, conflict in the middle east, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease and a widening gap between the rich and the pork. all of these challenges affect american security and prosperity, and they all threaten global stability and progress. what they are not reason to despair about the future. the same forces that compound our problems, economic interdependence, open borders, and the speedy movement of the information, capital goods, services, and people are also part of the solution. with more states facing common challenges, we have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise american leadership to solve problems in concert with others. that is the heart of america's mission in the world today.

some see the rise of other nations and our economic troubles here at home as signs that american power has waned. others simply do not trust us to leave. that view america as an unaccountable power, too quick to impose its will at the expense of their interests and our principles, but they are wrong. the question is not whether our nation can or should lead, but how it will leave it in the 21st century. rigid ideologies and old formulas do not apply. we need a new mindset about how america will use its power to safeguard our nation, expand shared prosperity, and help more people in more places live up to their god-given potential. president obama has led us to think outside the usual boundaries. he has launched a new era of engagement based on common interests, shared by use, and mutual respect.

going forward, capitalizing on america's unique strengths, we must advance those interested in partnership and promote universal values through the power of our example and the empowerment of people. in this way, we can forge a global consensus required to defeat the threats, manage the dangers, and seize the opportunities of the 21st century. america will always be a world leader. as long as we remain true to our ideals and embrace strategies that match the times. so we will exercise american leadership to build partnerships and solve problems that no nation can solve on its own. we will pursue policies to mobilize more partners and deliver results. first, let me say that while the ideas that shape our foreign policy are critically important, this, for me, is not simply an intellectual exercise. for over 16 years, i have had

the chance, the privilege, to represent our country overseas as first lady, as a senator, and now secretary of state. i have seen the bellies of starving children, girls sold it to human trafficking, a man dying of untreatable diseases, women denied the right to own property or vote, and young people without schooling or jobs, gripped by a sense of futility about their futures. i have also seen how hope, hard work, and ingenuity can overcome the longest of august. for almost 36 years, i have worked as an advocate for children, women, and families here at home. i have travelled across our country listening to every day concerns of our citizens. i have met parents struggling to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages, cover their children's college tuition, and afford health care. all that i have done and seen

has convinced me that our foreign policy must produce results for people. the laid-off autoworkers in detroit his future will depend on global economic recovery, the former are small business owner in the developing world whose lack of opportunity can drive political instability and economic stagnation, the families whose loved ones are risking their lives for our country in iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere, children in every land who deserve and brighter future. these are the people, hundreds of millions of them here in america and billions around the world, whose lives and experiences, hopes and dreams, must inform the decisions we take and the actions that follow. these are the people who inspire me and my colleagues and the work that we try to do every day. in approaching our foreign

policy priorities, we have to deal with urgent, the important, and the long term all at once. even as we are forced to multitask, a very gender related term, we must have priorities, which president obama has outlined in speeches from prague to cairo, from moscow agra. we must build a world free of the threat of nuclear weapons. we want to isolate and the terrorists while reaching out to muslims around the world. we want to encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the middle east. we want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs.

we want to combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean energy future. we want to support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights and deliver results for their people. we intend to stand up for human rights everywhere. liberty, democracy, justice, an opportunity under life our priorities. some accuse us of using these ideals to justify actions that contradict the very meaning. others say we are too often condescending and imperialistic, seeking only to expand our power at the expense of others. yes, these perceptions have fed anti-americanism, but they do not reflect who we are. no doubt, we lost some ground in recent years, but the damage is temporary. it is kind of like my elbow, it is getting better every day. whether in latin america or

lebanon, iran or liberia, those who are inspired by democracy, who understand that democracy is about more than just elections, that must also protect minority rights, develop strong, he, but an, an independent judiciary, legislators, an executive agencies, and commit for democracy to deliver results, these are the people who will find that americans are their friends, not adversaries. as president obama made clear last week in ghana, this administration will stand for accountable and transparent governance and support those who work to build democratic institutions wherever they live. our approach to foreign policy must reflect a world as it is, not as it used to be. it does not make sense to adapt a 19th century concert of powers or a 20 a sentry balance of power strategy. we cannot go back to cold war

containment or unilateralism. today we must acknowledge to inescapable facts that defined our world. first, no nation can be the world's challenges alone. the issues are too complex. too many players are competing for influence from rising powers to corporations to criminal cartels. from state-controlled media and to individuals using twitter. second, most haitians worry about the same global threats, from nonproliferation to fighting ceased to counter terrorism, but also face a very real obstacles to for reasons of history, geography, ideology and inertia, they face these obstacles and stand in a way of turning commonality of interest into common action. he's two fax demand a different global architecture, one in which states have incentives to cooperate in live up to their responsibilities as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines.

we will exercise american leadership to overcome what foreign policy experts call collective action problems and what i call obstacles to cooperation. just as no nation can meet these challenges alone, no challenge can be met without america. here is how we will do it. we will work through existing institutions and reform them, but we will go further. we will use our power to convene, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving . we believe this approach will advance our interest by uniting the verse partners around common concerns. it will make it more difficult for others to abuse their power and will offer a place at the table to any nation, group, or citizen willing to shoulder a fair share of the burden. in short, we will leave by

inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multipolar world and toward a multiparty world. we know this approach is not a panacea. we will remain clear eyed about our purpose. not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values and interests. some will actively seek to undermine our efforts. in those cases, our partnerships can become our coalitions to the strain or deter those negative actions. to these foes and would be foes, let me say, our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. we will not hesitate to defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people, vigorously, and when necessary, with the world's strongest military.

this is not an option we seek, nor is it a threat. it is a promise to all americans. building the architecture of global cooperation requires us to devise the right policies and use the right tools. i speak often of smart power, because it is so central to our thinking and our decision making. it means the intelligent use of all means at our disposal, including our ability to convene and connect. it means our capacity for innovation and the ability and credibility of our new president and his team. he also means the application of old-fashioned common sense and policy-making. it is a blend of principal and pragmatism. smart power translates into specific policy approaches in five areas. first, we intend to updating create vehicles for cooperation with our partners. second, we will pursue principle engagement with those who disagree with us. third, we will elevate development as a court pillar of

american power. fourth, will integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas, and fifth, we will leverage key sources of american power, including our economic strength and the power of our example. our first approach is to build a stronger mechanisms of cooperation with our historic allies, with emerging powers and multilateral institutions and to pursue that cooperation in a pragmatic and principled way. we do not see those as in opposition, but as complementary. we have started by reinvigorating our bedrock alliances, which did fray in recent years. in europe that means improve bilateral relationships and a revitalized natal. nato is the greatest alliance in history, but it was built for the cold war. the new nato is a democratic community of nearly 1 billion people, stretching from the baltics in the east to last in the west. we are working to update its

strategic concept so it is of active in this century as it was in last. we are working with 33 allies, japan and korea, australia, thailand, and the philippines and other partners to strengthen our bilateral relationships as well as transpacific institutions. we are both trans-atlantic and trans-pacific. we will put special emphasis on encouraging emerging global power, china, india, russia, brazil, church -- turkey, indonesia, and south africa. i want to underscore the importance of this task and my personal commitment to it. these are vital to achieving solutions to the shared problems and advancing our priorities. with the states, we will stand firm on our principles, even as we see common ground. this week i will travel to india

where external affairs minister and i will let out a broad based agenda that calls for at an approach to our bilateral relationship. later this month, secretary geithner and i will lead our strategic economic dialogue with china. it will cover the range of strategic challenges we face together. in the fall, will travel to russia to events that by national commission. the fact of these and other meetings doesn't guarantee results, but they set in motion processes and relationships that will why not avenues of cooperation and narrow the areas of disagreement. we know that progress will not likely come quickly or without bumps in the road, but we are determined to begin and stay on this path. our global and regional institutions were built for a world that has been transformed, so they must be transformed and

reformed. as the president said, following the recent g8 meeting in italy, we are seeking institutions that combine the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness, from the un to the world bank', all of these ad other institutions have a role to play. their continued vitality and relevance depend on their legitimacy and represented as. and the ability of their members to act swiftly and responsibly when problems arise. we also will reach out beyond governments. we believe partnerships with people play a critical role and our 21st century statecraft. president obama's cairo speech is a powerful example of communicating directly with people from the bottom up. we are following up with a comprehensive agenda of educational exchanges, have not

reached, an entrepreneurial ventures. i look for opportunities to engage with citizens, whether at a town hall in baghdad are appearing on local popular television shows the regionwide and young audience, are meeting with democracy activists or students. i have appointed special on voice to focus on number of specific challenges, including the first ambassador for global women's issues and an ambassador to build new public-private partnerships and engage diaspora communities in the u.s. to increase opportunities in their native lands. we are working with the state department to ensure that we are using the most innovative technologies to speak and listen across borders, not only to keep technology and going, but to widen opportunities for those who are too often left on the margins. reaching out directly to people will encourage them to embrace cooperation with us.

it makes our partnerships with their governments stronger and more durable. we have also begun to adopt a more flexible posture with our partners. we will not agree on every issue. standing firm on our principles should not prevent us from working together where recant. we will not tell our partners to take-it-or-leave-it, nor will we insist they are either with us against us. in today's world, that is global malpractice. north korea is a case in point. we have invested a significant amount of diplomatic resources to achieve security council consensus in response to north korea's provocative actions. i spoke numerous times my counterparts in japan, south korea, russia, and china, drawing out their concerns and making our principles clear and seeking a path forward. the short-term results were two unanimous security council resolutions with real teeth and consequences for north korea.

the follow on, active in baughman of china, russia, and india in persuading others to comply with the resolutions. the long-term result will be a tougher joint effort for the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the korean peninsula. cultivating these partnerships takes time and patience. it also takes persistence. that does not mean procrastinating on urgent project on urgent issues, nor does it justify delaying efforts that may take years to bear fruit. max weber said politics is a long and slow boring of hardboards. it takes both passion and perspective. prospective dictates passion and patience, and passion keeps us from not finding excuses to do nothing. i am aware that time alone does not heal all wounds.

consider the palestinian-israeli conflict. that is why we wasted no time in starting an intensive effort on day one to realize the rights of palestinians and israelis to live in peace and security in two states, which is in america's interest in the worlds. we have been working with the israelis to deal with the issues of sediments, to ease the living conditions of palestinians and create circumstances that can leak to the establishment of a bible palestinian state. for the last few decades, american and ministrations help and assistance is inconsistent positions on the settlement issue. we recognize that these decisions are politically challenging, and we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the united states or israel alone. ending the conflict requires action on all sides. the palestinians have the responsibility to improve and

extend the positive actions are taken on security, to act forcefully against incitement, and to refrain from any action that would make a meaningful negotiations less likely. arab states have a responsibility to support the palestinian authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with israel and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and except israel's place in the region. the saudi peace proposal supported by more than 20 nations was a positive step, but we believe that more is needed. we are asking those who embraced the proposal to take meaningful steps now. on horse and dog and king hussein's crossed important threshold -- anwar sadat. that paved the way for lasting in agreements.

the arab states could have the same impact. i say to all sides, sending messages to -- up peace is not enough. you must also act against the cultures of hate, and tolerance, and disrespect that perpetuate conflict. our second policy approach is to lead with the policy, even in cases of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. we believe that doing so advances our interests and possess and a better position to lead with our other partners. we cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage, yet some suggest this is a sign of nicety or acquiescence to these countries repression of their own people. i believe that is wrong. as long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take off the table. negotiations can provide insight into regimes calculations and the possibility that a regime

will eventually alter its behavior in exchange for the benefits of acceptance into the international community. libya is one such example. exhausting the option for dialogue is also more likely to make our partners more willing to exert pressure should persuasion failed. with this in mind, i want to set a few words about iran. we watched the energy of iran's election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the iranian people, and then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign journalists and nationals and expelling them and cutting off access to technology. as weak and our g8 partners have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable. we know very well what we inherited with iran, because we deal with that inheritance every day. we know that refusing to deal with the islamic republic has not succeeded in altering the

iranian march toward nuclear weapon, reducing iranian support for terror, or improving iran's treatment of its own citizens. neither the president nor i have any illusions that dialogue with the islamic republic will guarantee success of any kind. the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. but we also understand the importance of offering to engage iran and giving its readers a clear choice, whether to join the international community as a response a whim of member of -- as a responsible member, are continuing down a path toward isolation. direct talks prevent the best if you provide the best vehicle for presenting that choice. that is why we offer them an unmistakable opportunity. iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we are determined to prevent that, but it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it

reestablish this confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes. iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. it can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. the choice is clear. we remain ready to engage with iran, but the time for action is now. the opportunity will not remain open indefinitely. our third policy approach and a personal priority for me as secretary is to elevate and integrate development as a corporal or of american power. we advance our security, our prosperity and now is by improving the material conditions of people's lives around a world. these efforts led the groundwork for greater global cooperation by building the capacity of partners in tackling shared problems from the ground up. a central purpose of the

quadrennial diplomacy and development review that i announced last week is to explore how to effectively design, fun, and implement development and foreign assistance as part of a broader foreign policy. let's face it, we have devoted a smaller percentage of our government budget to development that almost any other advanced country, and too little of what we have spent has contributed to genuine and lasting progress. too much of the money has never reached its intended target, but stayed here in america to pay salaries or fund overhead in contracts. i am committed to more partnerships with ngo's, but i want more our tax dollars to be used effectively and to deliver tangible results. as we see more agile and creative partnerships for development, we will focus on country driven solutions such as those we are launching with haiti and on recovery and sustainable development and with african states on global ron

kirk. these initiatives must not be designed to help countries scrape by. they are a tool to help countries stand on their own. our development agenda will also focus on women as drivers of economic growth and social stability. women have long comprised the majority of the world's unhealthy, and school, and underfed. they are also the bulk of the world's poor. the global recession has had a disproportionate effect on women and girls, which in turn has repercussions on families, communities, and even regions. until women around the world are accorded their rights and afforded the opportunity of education, health care, and gainful employment, global progress and prosperity will have its own glass ceiling. our fourth approach is to ensure that our civilian and military efforts operate in a coordinated and complementary fashion where we are engaged in conflict. this is the core of our strategy

in afghanistan and iraq, where we are integrating our efforts with international partners. in afghanistan and pakistan, our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately to defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies and to prevent their return to either country. yet americans often ask, why do we ask our young men and women to risk their lives in afghanistan, when al qaeda's leadership is in neighboring pakistan? the question deserves a good answer. we and our allies fight in afghanistan because the taliban protect al qaeda and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. to eliminate al qaeda, we must also fight the taliban. we understand that not all those who fight with the taliban support al qaeda or believe in the extremist policies that the taliban pursued when in power.

today we and our afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the taliban who renounces al qaeda, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the afghan constitution. to achieve our goals, president obama is sending an additional 17,000 troops and 4000 military trainers to afghanistan. equally important, we are sending hundreds of direct our american civilians to lead a new effort to strengthen the afghan government, help rebuild the once vibrant agricultural sector, create jobs, encourage the rule of law, expand opportunities for women, and train the afghan police. no one should doubt our commitment to afghanistan and its people, but it is the afghan people themselves who will determine their own future. as we proceed, we must not forget that success and a dentist and also requires close cooperation from neighboring

pakistan, which i will visit this fall. pakistan is under intense pressure from extremist groups. trilateral cooperation has built confidence and yielded progress on a number of policy fronts. our national security as well as the future of afghanistan depends on a stable and economically viable pakistan. we applaud the new pakistan determination to deal with the militants to threaten their democracy and are shared security. in iraq, where bolstering our diplomacy and development programs while we implement a responsible withdrawal of our troops. last month, are combat troops successfully redeploy from towns and cities. our principal focus is shifting from security issues to civilian efforts to promote a rocky capacity, supporting the work of the iraqi ministries and aiding in their efforts to achieve national unity. we are developing a long-term

economic and political relationship as outlined by the u.s.-iraq strategic framework agreement. this forms the basis of our future agreement with iraq and the iraqi people. i look forward to discussing it with the prime minister when it comes to washington next week. our fifth approach is to shore up sources of our influence including economic strength and the power of our example. we renewed our values by prohibiting torture and beginning to close the guantanamo bay detention facility. we have been straightforward about her own measure of responsibility. for problems like drug trafficking in mexico and global type -- global climate change. when i knowledge about -- the obvious -- our capacity to take responsibility and our willingness to change in do the right thing are hallmarks of our

greatness as a nation and strategic assets that can help us for coalitions in the service of our interests. that is certainly true when it comes to keep priorities like non-proliferation and climate change. obama is committed to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons and a series of concrete steps to reduce the threat and spread of these weapons, including working with the senate, taking on greater responsibility within the nonproliferation treaty framer, and convening the world's leaders here in washington next year for a nuclear summit. now we must urge others to take practical steps to advance our shared nonproliferation agenda. our administration is also committed to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with a plan that will dramatically change the way we produce, consume, and conserve energy. in the process, sparked an explosion of new investment and

millions of jobs. now we must urge every other nation to meet its obligations and seize the opportunities of a clean energy future. we are restoring our economy at home to enhance our strength and capacity abroad, especially at this time of economic turmoil. this is not a traditional priority for a secretary of state, but i vigorously support american recovery and growth as a pillar of our global leadership. i am committed to restoring a significant role for the state department within a whole of government approach to economic policy-making. we will work to ensure that our economic trade and investment, debt forgiveness, technical assistance, decent or practices, support our foreign policy objectives. and coupled with the sound development effort, our economic outreach can give us a better form of globalization, reducing the bitter opposition of recent years and lifting

millions more out of poverty. finally, i am determined to ensure that the men and women of our foreign and civil service have the resources they need to implement our priorities effectively and safely. that is why i appointed for the first time a deputy secretary for management and resources. it is why we worked so hard to secure additional funding for state and usaid. it is why we put ourselves on a path to double for assistance over the next few years and why we are implementing a plan to dramatically increase the number of diplomats and development experts. .

we must tackle the urgent, important, and long term at once. we are witness to and makers of significant change. we cannot and should not be passive observers. we are determined to channel the current of a change, free of violent extremism, poverty, and abuses of human rights. above all, a world in which more people and places can live up to their god-given potential. the architecture we seek to build willet bans all these goals using our power not to dominate, but to solve problems. this is the architecture of progress for the nation's and america. we have it within our power to

start the world over again. today in a new era, we are called upon to use that power. i believe we have the right strategy, the right priority, policies, president, and we have the american people, differs, committed, and open to the future. all we have to do is deliver. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you for delivering a truly comprehensive speech that was brought in the. thank you for that. i'm going to go straight to our membership and let them ask some

questions. i asked them only to wait for a microphone and keep their questions that brief as they can be so we can get as many in as possible to lead this know your name and affiliation when we -- as possible. just let us know your name and affiliation when we colonia. this is where i alienate 70% of our membership. >> in 1999, i saw you with president clinton. there was a great deal of hope. do you think by 2010 you have a piece agreement with the palestiniansi)and can he say something about this? >> i well remember that occasion in gaza and the hope that was generated. i still carry that hope very

much with me both personally and on behalf of the position i now hold. it is one of the reasons why i urge the president to appoint a skilled negotiator. george mitchell greedily expected -- accepted. we have been working nonstop to said that the conditions for such negotiations. as i said in my speech, we do not think it is just irresponsibility of the israelis or palestinians. we expect the entire region to assist us by stepping up and making clear that they are truly going to support the two state solution. we intend to pursue our efforts as vigorously as we possibly can. i am not going to make any predictions, but i can only tell you that our commitment is deep

and durable. i do not easily discouraged. i do not want anybody else to, because this is a very difficult undertaking especially because of the 10-year speech where where where in gaza and where we are in 2009. i have been heartened by what i have seen in the last six months. with respect to syria, we have made it very clear it to the syrians that we do want engagement but we expected to be reciprocal and there are certain actions we would like to see the syrians take as we begin to explore this with them. i think syria is a critical player in whatever we do in the middle east. i am hoping that the syrian population of where they should

be puzzling with respect to their relationship to iran and extremist activity will be changing. we want to perce -- to pursue a two-way engagement that will benefit both us and the larger region. >> you mentioned in your speech the potential of palestinian authority. you did not mention specifically hamas. do you see any conceivable situation where it at hamas to play a role? >> right now we are firmly committed to the principles. we have made it clear both publicly and privately through all kinds of pronouncements that we would expect hamas to recognize israel and renounce violence and agree to abide by prior agreement, and we have been very pleased that the corps

said members have stood a very firm with this. in the efforts to try to work out a unity of government between the palestinian authority and hamas, the palestinian authority have stood firmly because they are committed to a two-stage solution, which hamas has not committed to. what we want to do is to get the negotiations going between the israelis and the palestinian authority. as i said with respect to the taliban, those who are willing to lay down arms and renounced al qaeda and participate in a society that is free and open, and they are welcome. i think that is true for people in other organizations who may realize that rejection is them and resistance has not really given them or their children the future they could hope for. i am very committed to working

to encourage as many people as possible to be part of the two state solution, but there are certain entry requirements that have to be made. >> i wondered if you could elaborate a little on the administration's willingness to engage with iran at this time? have there been any response from the iranian government to the letter that was sent in may? if the i iranians should show interest in engagement, what did the stone wall? how long could this go on if there was absolutely no give it? finally, could you clarify joke -- president -- vice-president biden's remarks -- have there been any lights given to israel that the attacks on iran?

>> those of three questions. [laughter] we are well aware that the situation after the election puts a different complexion on both the iranian government -- we really do not know what their intentions might be at this time we are very troubled by a the repressive actions that they took in the aftermath of their election, as well electoral irregularities. as i said, we have no path that has opened up right now. we have made it clear that there is a choice for the iranian government to make. we will wait and see how l.a. decide.

-- and see how they decide whether it is worth pursuing. if they pursue it, we have made it clear that this is not an open-ended engagement. this is not a door that stays open and no matter what happens. until there is some decision on their part, we really will not know what to expect. with respect to the vice president's remarks, the present in the white house clarify those the next day. but we now have a two-part in a three part question. -- >> we now have a two-part a three part question. please limit them to one part. >> thank you. it is nice to see you. i last saw you in colombo when you are first lady. but i remember that. >> you are about to go to india. i want to ask about what you

expect to get out of the tripper do a lot of it will be on the bilateral side. i wanted to ask if he could focus on the global part of your agenda. are there issues where you see a real prospect of working together with india or are there others that are tougher? >> we are delighted that our two countries will be engaging in a very broad, comprehensive dialogue. it is the most wide-ranging that i think has ever been put on the table between india and the united states. it has six pillars to it. one is born policy and strategic challenges along with other matters like health and education and agriculture. i do not want to prejudge, but it is clear that everything is on the table to discuss.

we believe india has a tremendous opportunity and a growing responsibility which they acknowledge. they need to play not as a regional role, but a global one. holley choose to define that -- how they choose to define that we will explore in depth during the discussion. there are a number of areas where we would welcome indian leadership and involvement that are difficult. there is nothing easy about non- proliferation. it is a very difficult issue, but we want to look at new ways for global and regional regimes on weapons of mass destruction, particular nuclear. we are very interested in the role that india sees for itself in the immediate area you mentioned sri lanka.

what are the military implications of decisions that india is making going forward? the economic actions that india is taking. they weathered the beginning of the recession better than many others. the congress party made a number of important campaign promises to the poor, particularly the world's poor. when i am there, i will visit the first lead certified building to talk about climate change and clean energy. india and china have understandable questions about what role they should be expected to play in any kind of new global climate change regime. todd stern will be with me. it is our hope that we can, through dialogue, come up with some win/win a purchase. this building is a perfect

example of what he india will be capable of doing. i will be visiting and agricultural facility, because india is really hoping to continue to expand agricultural productivity but then they have to create an infrastructure. that is the market. we have to have roads and storage in refrigeration facilities. i think this is an extremely rich area. i am excited. i am very much looking forward to my meetings with the prime minister and with minister krishna we are going to do everything we can to broaden our situation. >> you mentioned todd stern and senator mitchell. do any members of your staff want to ask a question? [laughter]

i wanted to -- in the back. i see you in the third to last row. i cannot see to it is. >> there have been reports that in the discussions between george mitchell and the israeli defense minister that on a certain number of settlements have already begun with construction, that there was some agreement to allow the construction of these houses to go forward. can you confirm that? >> i am certainly not going to step on the negotiations in any way. i think any decisions that are made will be announced officially. it is only fair to the israeli government as well as to our own

that we wait until decisions have been made. >> i wanted to ask you to talk more about the quadrennial diplomacy review. if i understand from your speech, in many ways, it is more complicated because of the numbers of departments and agencies that have a stake in the process. can you talk more about how you envisioning that happening? >> i some of the armed services committee for six years. -- certification on the armed services committee for six years. it seems to me the review was a very important discipline and 12 for the defense apartment. it forms the defense department and makes it take a look at itself and its priorities and means to achieve them. i thought it was one of the many

reasons why defense had increasingly taken a paramount position in our foreign policy. among the many steps that we are taking, i decided we would do the first ever quadrennial development review. i think it requires us to think hard about what it is we are trying to achieve, to be as specific as possible, to match us with the resources we need, to justify what we believe we are doing. especially in a global economic downturn, i feel a real responsibility to be able to explain to people who are not currently employed or hanging on by their fingernails, why am i asking for more money for something called the diplomacy and development? i am not asking for the money to build tanks or airplanes. i am asking to send people to

represent the united states, to engage in negotiations. i am asking to send experts into the field who can work with other nations, and chief sustainable results for investment we make. we believe the standard of living helps sowed the seeds of stability and hopefully democracy. we have to make that case. we have embarked upon this. i think it is extremely complicated. i have no illusions about that. it is also something where we have to coordinate with a number of other agencies. defense it does work that is called diplomacy and development. treasury is certainly in gauge. you have the usda. you can go down the abyss. we want to -- you can go down

the list. we want to explain the entire government approach. we will be working with the white house to bring together all the other stakeholders in the diplomacy and development. it will not surprise you to learn that i am also deep into discussions both with the pentagon and with the congress about bringing back some of the authorities and some of the money that went with them that has been used by the military for diplomacy and development. the migration of those authorities and those resources is one of the many reasons why the state department and usaid have had a more challenging time than usual. this is both a policy tool as well as an attempt to explain and justify what is we believe we can accomplish. i want it institutionalized. howard berman put it into

legislation. it is not just a one-shot deal. it will require the same level of rigor and analysis every four years. >> all the way in the back there. >> i have a question about the dividend after being received by the administration. many of our nato allies welcomed the shift in strategy and recommitment that you put forward, but the response at the struck spurred -- strasbourg side has been not as highly looked up. we fear some allies are hiding behind the complaint that they have not seen the full development of the civil side

of the administration strategy. where do you see the third and second payments coming from? from our allies? >> i agree that it was a down payment. i was more impressed by what we thought then some more, because i know how difficult it was to make a convincing case to allies who felt like they had manbebeen shut out of the process or that their contributions are not appreciated. we had a lot of catch-up work to do. it was part of our overall strategic review. richard holbrooke is here. he is put together a team internationally and in the inter agency. we had discussions with our

allies and with others to want to play a part in promoting the strategy that the president put forward. it is challenging because of the global economic crisis that everybody is facing. it is also difficult in our own country to understand. you have been there for nearly eight years and now you are at the more troops and you are asking for more funding and you are going to send more civilians. we have to answer these questions and our own country. use all wear prime minister brown you -- you saw where prime minister brown lost eight soldiers. the government went out and began talking about why it was important to stand with the united states and others in afghanistan. they got a more positive response of than people anticipated because you have to be willing to try to paint a

picture of where you are going. on the civilian side, this has been one of the areas that my deputy for resource management, working with paul burke and his team -- kohlberg -- holbrooke, and his team -- we have limited the areas that united states is going to focus on. you heard me say agriculture. 70% of the people of afghanistan live in rural areas. afghanistan used to be a garden of central asia. because of the soviet invasion and the resistance to that's and the warlords, we now see it so eroded and drive and the whole

agricultural base has to be reinvigorated. we are focused on that. we are working with our allies so that they will focus on areas that we are not able to any longer. this is very complicated. the whole idea of is to be able to clear and cold, which is what -- is -- the whole idea is to be able to clean air and hold and see life return. then we want to go in and work with local people. we will be focusing on the local police force and agriculture. we will also focus on women's roles and opportunities. i am not here to say we know exactly everything to do and all our allies will come through, but i am encouraged by those who

kill the political pressure and economic pressure to -- who feel the political and economic pressure. i think we have put together something which has a direct relationship to the strategy that we are now following. >> after the easy questions, let me ask you one a tad more challenging. the previous presidents from carter to clinton sought to reach out to iran. every president has had that experience. i ran for 20 years has been under various treaties. if iran fails to respond positively to these initiatives and if our friends and allies are unprepared to consequence sanctions, what happens?

president obama said that the u.s. would not be willing to see iran with a nuclear weapon. i would have just the question -- if the other actors do not work, is the administration prepared to live with a nuclear iran or not? >> as i said in my speech, we have consistently stated that we do not accept a nuclear arms iran. we think it is a great threat to the region and beyond. as you might guess, i'm not one to negotiate with iran sitting here. in those negotiations i have been a part to as a lawyer or as a senator or other capacities, i think if you have a clear set of

objectives and you begin the process, you have a better idea of what might be possible. we have no illusions about this. i believe the absence of the united states for much of the eight years was a mistake. i think we outsourced our policy to a run -- to iran and it did not work. that is how i feel. i want to be in the middle of it to be able to make our own judgments to figure out what we know and do not know and then to be in a stronger position. i think part of the attractiveness of engagement, direct engagement, is not only to make your own judgments but to also demonstrate to others that we have done so. we need to make clear thawhat kd

of reaction we have gotten, which i think lays the groundwork for concerted action. certainly in the last six months in our efforts in talking with other partners, i have noticed a turn in attitude by some. there is a recognition that it is not just the united states that should be concerned about what iran is doing, but there are implications for others who are much closer than we are to iran. i think our policy is one that we believe makes the most sense for our interest and we intend to pursue it. the obviously have exit along the way depending on the consequences of the discussion. >> we probably have time for one last question. >> good to see you.

here comes a microphone. >> i want to ask you to expense -- expand on the government's approach to issues. in any reference to free trade agreements. exports of one to be part of the recovery plan. what role do you see for yourself in the state department in terms of commercial advocacy? >> commercial advocacy is part of our list of responsibilities as you know. i take it seriously. i would like to take a step back and look at the broader picture of the state department's role in economic aspects of foreign policy. from my perspective, a trait is a foreign-policy tool as well as an economic one.

we are in the middle of looking hard at our trade policy, trying to determine how we can be more effective in making the case to the congress and american people about trade and also making it clear to the rest of the world that we are a trading nation. we want to be. we are at a time when the economic implications for policy are now very heavily -- foreign policy and of very heavily seen as the intersection of nations. the g-20 is assuming greater importance. it started in 1998 as a result of the asian financial crisis it has stayed as a player because it serves a very useful purpose. if you have people at the table who before were not welcome or even thought of in the same breath as the united states or great britain or someone else. i think that the role of the

economic agenda in the state department need to be strengthened. we work closely with treasury. we work close to -- closely with the economic department. david works with larry summers in the white house. he does went to pakistan for us to do an assessment of pakistan's capacity to meet the imf requirements. was that an economic analysis? was that a strategic analysis? security? political? i would argue it is all of that. why would we say we would not be part of the economic mix when it is critical with how we are dealing with other countries? part of the reason that i work to have our dialogue with china be inclusive and comprehensive is because strategic and economic concerns cannot be divorced.

on all of these issues, the state department has to play a role and the economic front. we are working very legally with everybody. obviously, you have different perspectives. there is a recognition inside this administration that is is an all hands on deck government time. everybody is being required to get up and do your part in redefine what it is an expanded so you can be the most effective player as possible. i think this is part of our responsibility. >> what has most struck you about this? what surprised you the most? >> i am really impressed by the quality people but i work with and both the state department theusaid, just the level of passion and commitment and willingness to work long hours.

you know that from your own experience. there is the excitement of being part of a new administration which has meant so much to so many people around the world and has certainly cause people to rethink who we are as americans and maybe give us a break, cut us some slack and let this get organized and going. i still think it is hard to justify not having a government in place after six months of starting. [applause] we are trying to get their political leaders in place to work with our very dedicated foreign service and civil service employees, but we are still not there yet. i have no idea when i was in the senate asking a million questions of every nominee how shortsighted that was. [laughter] it is amazing. the other thing i did not realize is that when all else fails, there was a problem that

had a form policy application, write a letter when you are in the congress. in my eight years i proudly wrote hundreds of letters. now i have to read them. it depends on what cited the table you are sitting. it has been a real privilege and honor. i think we are making a difference. we are going to work as hard as we can to translate into the results that the american people deserve. >> everybody here wishes you a safe trip to india. it was a real pleasure to have you here today. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> up next, a hearing about the security of state and vacation cards such as driver's licenses. british members of parliament? gordon brown about the war in afghanistan. the senate confirmation hearing for it to president obama as nominees -- obama's nominees.

>> on tomorrows "washington journal" we will talk to john cornyn about supreme court nominees. congressman jim jordan will discuss at merrill lynch's takeover by bank of america. you can watch: " washington journal" starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearing for sonia sotomayor continues this week on c-span3 and on the web at c- span.org. we will replay the proceedings weeknight on c-span [applause] -- c-span2. toward the supreme court on c- span. -- tour the supreme court on c- span. >> now senate hearing on the id

act which seeks to establish minimum requirements for state issued id cards. joe lieberman had the committee. this is 2.5 hours. >> this morning and welcome to this hearing where we will review the steps that the united states government has taken and that we may ultimately take to achieve the important national goal of keeping a fraudulent state edification cards and drivers' licenses out to the hands of terrorists and criminals. i would like to welcome secretary peloton no and our

other witnesses on the second panel and thank you for all the work you have done on this very important matter. i always kick myself when i say i told you so, but i am about to say that i'm not surprised we are here today. when congress adopted the so- called real ie.d. act without hearings of any kind or any formal public vetting, it replaced a process for developing federal edification requirements that senator collins and i had made part of the intelligence reform act of 2004, the so-called 9/11 commission legislation. center: denied to very seriously

the finding of the 9/11 commission. "all but one of the 911 hijackers acquired some form of u.s. and identification documents, some by fraud. at questions of these forms would have assisted them importing commercial flights in renting cars and other necessary activities." in the 9/11 commission, it went on to appeal to the federal government to of a " set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses." with that in mind, we therefore included in the 9/11 legislation of 2004 a requirement that the federal government establish a negotiated rulemaking committee composed of subject matter experts and stakeholders including representatives of the state governments to propose

workable identification security standards. then came the real identification act of 2005. it was submitted as an amendment to supplemental appropriations legislation. though i thought some of the parts of the act and the intentions were good, i opposed it because it ultimately laid out a very prescriptive that and expensive process. history has played this out and that is why we are here today, if i may rub it in a little bit. i really believe that if our original 9/11 commission legislation had been left intact and the rulemaking process had begun, negotiations with the state and had not been

repealed, we would have millions more security at indications today in some of being involved in a debate. -- instead of being involved in the debate. some states are working to implement real i.d., but the fact is that the legislatures of 13 states have passed laws prohibiting their state from complying with real i.d. several other states are considering some legislation. at the risk that their state identification documents will not be accepted by the federal government, for instance from boarding a plane, that is the dilemma and the crisis that brings us here today. we try to answer the question of what kind of changes do real i.d. need to find a workable solution. we cannot let the -- we want to

assure that what we consider to be good is not diluted so that we any way compromise our homeland security. i think we can achieve of both. today we are going to discuss bipartisan legislation sponsored by a number of members of this committee. this reforms are real i.d. in canada and to make it work as intended while trying to ease the strain on our overburdened and underfunded state governments. it retains part of real i.d., such as the requirement of a digital photograph and signature in machine readable coating on state issued id cards. they will still need to verify an applicant's social security number by checking federal immigration and social security databases. the states would be given more

flexibility in issuing the new edification cards while staying with in the real i.d. timetable. if the past, states must be fully compliant with it before the current real i.d deadline of 2017. that is important to all of us. any acceptable solution must really work with in an existing time table and not delay increase personal identification security. it does eliminate a requirement that motor vehicle department check the validity of some documents such as birth to reduce birth documents. i know this changes some concern. a one to discuss with their witnesses and see if those concerns are justified. it also strengthens privacy protections to prevent the

unauthorized taxes and sharing of information and to require a public notice of privacy policies for individuals to correct their records. let me thank you for the efforts that gm may to come up with a plan that can work will not losing sight of the very direct statement of the 9/11 commissioner warning us that "for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons." i still do have some concerns that i want to explore with our witnesses today. bottom line, in aged terrorism, reliable personal edification is important and urgent. i hope that this hearing will enable us to move forward and

mark up legislation in this committee on this matter in the very near future. @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ >> in examining how terrorists were able to attack our country, the commission found that all but one of the 19 terrorists used drivers licenses to board the planes that were then used as weapons in the attacks that killed nearly 3000 people. if they recognize that easily obtain a driver's licenses were security vulnerability. as the chairman has said, the words that i to remember are the commissions were saying that for terrorists, travel documents are

as important as weapons. to address this vulnerability, and the commission recommended that the federal government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and other sources of identification, party dearly driver's licenses which have proven to be vital to the hijackers ability to carry out . we had well thought out provisions in the intelligence reform of 2004. it established a collaborative committee comprised of federal and state officials, technology experts, and privacy advocates, to develop these secure and a

vacation standards. the work of this committee was well under way in 2005 when regrettably the house of representatives repealed our provisions of by slipping the real i.d. act into an urgent war funding bill. i use the word "slipping" advisedly, because in the senate, there were no hearings. there was no debate. there was no vote. this was a take-it-or-leave-it vote on the entire war supplemental. for more than two years, states were left to contemplate the enormity of the task of reissuing new licenses to all drivers by may 2008.

they waited for the homeland department to issue regulations that would tell them how to achieve that requirement. the state waited and waited and waited. january 29, 2000 a, a final rule was issued, leaving the states just 103 days until the may 112008 compliance deadline. complicating the problem, states had little room for the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would cost to implement the new regulation. there was a faltering economy that only worsened the financial strain. another problem was that the key information technology system necessary to implement the law efficiently or not readily available.

although identity theft cost the economy billions of dollars and causes much distressed to victims, the department's regulations fail to address critical privacy issues created by the interconnected data besses -- databases amended by the law. with these problems, numerous states protested a real i.d. or even outright refusing to implement the law. i worked to persuade the department to provide states with an additional 18 months to meet the real i.d. deadline, giving us all kinds of time to revisit the issue. the edification that we are discussing is one intend to resolve these problems. it refines rather than repeals the law and its target areas where the lock impose unreasonable and costly burden,

failed to protect the privacy and interest of our citizens, and mandated technological solutions that may not be practical. one example of these refinements sit in the bill's approach to ensuring that each person possesses only one valid license from one state at any one time. to meet this goal, real i.d. would have mandated and information sharing system that may not be technically feasible or governed by the basic privacy protection. instead of scrapping the system, it would preserve and funded a pilot program to test the necessary technology and to permit a careful examination of privacy concerns. this makes a great deal of sense. nonetheless, i recognize the concerns of those who fear that this bill in addressing the

problems may have unintended consequences. drivers' licenses can be the keys to the kingdom on terrorists bent on death and destruction. they need to make sure that licenses are tamperproof and issued only to people whose identity and the legal status can be verified. certain language in the past may undermine that goal because it would not allow gsa to prevent a passenger from boarding a plane based solely on the fact that he or she does not have a compliant license this provision would eliminate an important incentive for states to adopt federal standards and put in words some restrictions.

officials believe a passenger without a compliant license should not be permitted to board a plane. as we examine this legislation, my primary concern is whether these provisions are moving toward the security goals set by the 9/11 commission five years ago while accommodating the legitimate concerns of states and privacy experts. thank you. >> thank you. >> we can make an opening statement if you like based on the extent of work. i want to thank you for all these hearings to further

explore the ramifications of real i.d. on states, security, and privacy as well as the proposal that i borrowed from other members and look forward to fix real i.d. at this time, may i at happy birthday to our friend, senator boyne event. >> happy birthday. >> happy birthday. >> i have been a longtime opponent due to concerns about protecting individuals privacy as well as the state's inability to the element in burda some -- eight burdensome program. i want to share the information with every department.

this effectively would create a national debt of base containing massive -- data base containing massive amounts of personal information. it became clear that it was simply not workable. some of the data systems do not yet exist, because so many states have balked at the high costs and privacy implications of creating such a system. if a real i.d. is implemented, these databases the provide one- stop shopping for identity peace. it becomes the back. for identity theives. we must act to fix real i .d. states cannot afford the $4 billion it would take to implement this for their over a dozen states have already reduced to comply and several

more are behind them. there will only be a system for edification security, which means no real security at all. the bill i am proposing is 1261, providing for additional security in state edification act of 2009 -- state identification act of 2009. i worked closely with the state holders, many of whom were here today, representing a wide range of views. the past i.d. act does exactly what the 9/11 commission recommended.

it sits strong security stance is for the issuing of advocation card and driver's licenses. what it does not do is go far beyond that recommendation by requiring the collection of american's personal affirmation and storing it in a centralized depository accessible by any state at the dmv. one of the most important abilities the removal of the mandate that states share all of their driver's licenses with the other states. this is a clear threat to the privacy of all americans purslane formation and pose a greater is for identification that span fraud and raise. the bill requires state to protect electronic information.

for the first time, any machine readable data stored on the card and driver's license in stores is only used for its intended purpose. another change a want to highlight is the clarification of americans right to travel on commercial aircraft and to enter federal buildings. the current law restricts these rights by requiring an id compliant to board a commercial aircraft and to enter federal buildings. in this country, we have the right to travel and petition the government. americans should not be denied boarding an aircraft or entry into most federal buildings solely because they have lost or do not have their identification.

in these to be resolved through additional security screening or other increase. as is currently the policy, as important as -- what and where do what is as important is what would not change. individuals will need to prove that they are lawfully residents of the united states. individuals will only be allowed to have one complied dedication to be used for official purposes. individuals would need to present documents to obtain a compliant license. this bill does not address all of my concerns. i know that others are disappointed, but it does not address all of their concerns.

the reality we face is that unless in the years it will be required to comply with a lot of this overly burdensome and unworkable. we cannot let perfect the enemy of the good, especially when we are working to address this seriously flawed law already on the books. the department of homeland security and national conference of state legislation and several law enforcement organizations have this. i hope we will enact this and provide some clarity to state facing real i.d. implementation deadlines. michael raines to protect the security needs. my goal remains to protect the security and rights of all americans. i work closely with homeland

security to make sure that individual rights. i thank you for agreeing to hold this hearing. i ask this be included in the hearings records. >> thank you. happy birthday. i do know your age, but i am prepared to save you look younger than you are. >> i will hire you. i bet i am right. you did not have to disclose anything. i have a problem is they have to do an amendment. i will make it grow brief. thank you very enough to dick thank you very much for the work that you put in. . .

this is a bill that i support. we worked to provide technical assistance in its drafting so that the approach that past id takes to fix real id is one that

i support. i think it makes sense. this is an important piece of national security legislation that helps to fill the recommendation that the federal government said security standards for drivers licenses. the first attempt to do the real id act waneeds to be fixed. the states agree that this program is too rigid and needlessly expensive in mandating house states meet their goals. as you noted, chairman lieberman, 13 states have actually enacted legislation barring themselves from implementing real id. we cannot have national

standards for drivers licenses when the states themselves refuse to participate. the practical problem with real id is one of timeliness. under real id < states are required to attest that they are implementing a real id for their drivers' licenses so that they can be accepted for things like boarding a plane. no state will have issued a real id complaint identification document. no state will have this document. >> that means that assuming nothing else happens in between it is under the law, the driver's licenses issued by the states would not be expected by tsa to gain passage?

>> that is correct, not without additional screening. one can only contemplate the inconvenience in airline travel that could occur if everyone has to go through additional screening because they don't have a real oddity compliant driver's license. >> the secondary screening, if for some reason you forget your license, fell 1/2 to happen to everyone? >> that is correct. that is why i am appreciative of the committee scheduling this hearing today and is moving forward. i am very pleased to be sitting next to jim douglas, the republican governor of vermont. he is the incoming chair of the national governors' association. he will hear why it law-

enforcement supports this. we get to the fundamental reason why we have these lost in the first place. we go back to the 9/11 commission report. we need secure identification to support potential terrorist. law-enforcement knees to have confidence that a card holder is who they claim to be. as the 9/11 commission report said, the terrorist travel documents are just as important as weapons. statethe system is too open to . national standards are necessary but they are embodied in both in real id and in pass id > this can give another tool that we need.

hathere are lots of similarities between the two programs. the main similarities are the requirements for physical security of a driver's license production. the premises must be secure, and background check must be conducted. there must be fraudulent document training given to all employees involved in the process. the requirement to show past identification. noncompliant identifications with no longer be automatically expected to board planes coming in during nuclear plants, government buildings and the like. -- to board planes, injuring at nuclear plants have -- entering nuclear plants, at government

buildings and the like. the requirement for electronic security numbers remains. the differences. why is this easier to implement from the state perspective? first, this eliminates the blanket requirement to use untested technology is for electronic verification of any and all source documents. states have to validate documents that they can pursue different ways to reach that standard. second, they are required to electronically verify social security through the databases. unlike real id, they are accepted from paying the fee for doing those checks. there is greater flexibility under pass id in terms of how

you read in role existing drivers license holders. -- how you read ireenroll existing drivers. we give the stakes out flexibility on how to do the enrollment so long as everything is complete. in terms of differences, as has been noted by the senator, pass id contain specific assurances that privacy advocates have sought for the protection of the information that is garnered in the process. these differences which are designed to make the goal of the real ied a reachable goal and

designed to meet the recommendations of the 9/11 report. this makes it a bill that if passed and implemented will fix a bill that was flawed from the outset. thank you, mr. chairman. thanks. >> thank you. [inaudible] because that is what we need to do. we need to reevaluate this

because it is not working. we need to come up with some solutions. the past several years at our meetings, we have been talking about this. all of the conversations seemed to end with a great deal of frustration. governors are frustrated because every governor is a security governor. they want his or her state to issue licenses. every governor wants government to work. every governor is vividly aware of what happened on 9/11. as you have noted, mr. chairman, in your opening comments, the two of you crafted a negotiated rulemaking process as part of the intelligence reform act and this was designed to bring all parties to the table to craft meaningful standards for drivers license. ironically, if that had been left in place, we would not be having the discussion. the negotiated rulemaking was replaced by real id.

as of yesterday, 13 states have enacted laws in regards to its implementation. the system's only work if people want to use them. many states have said no. i'm committed to providing the people of my state with a driver's license that is accurate and secure. while the objectives are laudable, the law represents an unfunded mandate that fails to make us more secure. i believe we need a better mousetrap. pass i.t. provides a solution. i want to thank the senator for introducing it. -- pass i.td provides the solution.

pass id addresses one of the largest concerns, how to allow states to come into compliance with a workable national standard. the pass id act was written how the original act should have been, with states, homeland security, interested parties the table. i am proud to offer my endorsement of the bill. we to understand the integrity of security. we are working towards compliance with the law. we are one of the states that is not resisting. we are doing everything we can to comply. real idea poses significant challenges for implementation. pass id would require some real

challenges in the way we issue licenses. it is cost effective and it makes it in much better alternative. there are significant challenges in developing the electronic systems that pass id requires. frankly, a good deal of data about whether they will be ready on time. we want to begin fully complaints license issuance -- compliance license issuance. we feel that we can achieve the same level of security and do it sooner under pass id. [inaudible] [no audio]

[no audio] but browpass id would cost to sd about $2 billion. this strengthens privacy protection, requires protections for the personal dedication that is collected and stored in databases or programs. it requires states to establish safeguards against unauthorized access and use of such information as well as to have card holders correct their own information. one aspect that we appreciate is

the bill's explicit recognition of the enhanced drivers licenses. since we are close to the canadian province of quebec, we appreciate having is a jerk border. i have my enhanced drivers license. -- we appreciate having incorrect to cross the border. i appreciate the work of the homeland security department in facilitating our approval of this document. businesses retain jobs and grow because [inaudible] vermont businesses retain jobs and grow because of opportunities to sell johnson services. the u.s. shares the largest bilateral issue ship witrelatio.

this is one of the busiest. a free and open border for vermont manufacturers is more crucial than ever. this cannot be understated. our economic, environmental, and cultural relationship with quebec is of paramount importance. there is the ease of porter travel which is important to our economy and the relationship with canada. governors have consistently offered constructive suggestions. we want to implement a statutory or regulatory changes to make it feasible and cost-effective and we have called on the federal government to fund it by offering support to meet federal standards. i believe that this represents the kind of common sense solutions that governors have

long sought t pt. we want to increase the integrity of all systems. i want to highlight the critical deadline that is facing us, all states must meet 18 specific requirements to be deemed materially complaint. with a quarter of states legally prohibited from meeting these requirements and almost every state unlikely to achieve compliance by year end, we really need to address these challenges if we are going to continue to have the access to our borders and to our transportation infrastructure that we all seek. i urge your support and passage of this legislation and i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the nation's governors.

we will work to address any issues that may remain. >> thank you. we will start with a seven minute round of questions. for those that do not live in states that have them, and give us a report of how you use them. >> as you pull up to the border, you roll down the window and there is a screen that is very close to the driver side of the vehicle. it is like ordering something at a fast-food restaurant. you hold the card of to the screen and then the information goes to the border agent so that he or she has that readily available without having to take the document manually which is what happens now. there have been some concerns about the security of these documents and we provide little security envelopes makthat

cannot be read. >> i mentioned in my opening statement that i was grateful for the work that has been done by the two of you. i have some continuing concerns and i want to ask you a question or two about this. i worry that the identity verification procedure may have been weakened. i have heard that from some critics and it will wind up, this is back where we were before 9/11 when state authorities could except an identity document without checking the validity. the license itself would be valid but the identity documents on which it was based or not and as we know, a number of the 9/11

terrorist used source documents to give valid state id which allow them to travel in and out of the u.s. if pass id becomes law, will the next group of terrorists planning an attack be able to ease aid the loss in the same way. >> you cannot assume this sets a greater security standard. this is how doa, it is not being done by many states. i want to clarify, it is true that no state will have a real

id compliant document. the only exception will be if this date comes to me and certify that they're willing to comply and are making material progress. they would be able to get an extension. if you have 12 states covering 40 million people in addition to missouri, they are barred from speaking about an extension. this keeps you and extent of the problem. -- this gives you an extent of the problem. [no audio] there are a variety of ways that a state can do this.

they are required to electronically verify the lawful status with the information that we have. >> this would be the social security information. >> that would be added. the third thing, this is different from the pre 9/11 world, your driver's license can only be issued for a time that is consistent with your immigration status. in other words, this would be the driver's license which would be issued for the time that your lawful status is established.

that status would have picked up some of the 9/11 hijackers. >> that is helpful. let me ask you the other part of this. there's concern about eliminating the provisions and realizing that mandate information sharing among states and transfers through the pass id legislation to a voluntary pilot program. the 9/11 hijackers held multiple identification from multiple states. aboumany different types of criminals can exploit this lack of information sharing. they exploit the failure to share information.

tell us about why this change was made and why cannot to share information. >> there is concern about privacy as we look at these issues. there is real concern about this national database among all the states. so, with some knee states decline in supply and with concerns about the flow of the information around the country -- with so many states declining in supply and concerns about the flow of reformation, i think it makes some sense. >> is the privacy concern that to the more people have access to more data, there are more

violations of privacy rights? >> that this correct. there are many concerns that come up in various context with respect to privacy. i did not believe that there was really a need for a privacy sleeve on our enhanced drivers licenses. to satisfy those who are concerned about the electronic capture of information, some might be there. they are trying to find a middle ground between access to information that is necessary and the right to privacy with the american people. >> this is a classical case of our responsibility to waive those privacy concerns.

some can have a license in and other state and this has been compromised. i presume there is a cost concern. >> mr. chair, there is a significant cost concern. a centralized time would have to be created. the ease of infiltration of a hub, if there was some place for all the information was collected. you would assume that all these things can happen with this that of a finger. in fact, technically, some of these things are very very difficult. that is why under pass id, we

continued with the mississippi pilot projects. as we move forward, there may indeed be cost-effective solutions to some of those issues that have been raised by the state. as we stand right now, we really don't have the capacity to say that we are going to have in one place ec electronic verification of every type of license. >> i would like to work with you to see if there is some way that we can strengthen this section of pass id without going over the tipping point where we continue to encourage the states not to comply because we obviously need them to comply. >> all of us are concerned about the looming deadline in the current law and the ability of

states to comply with the law. under the previous administration and indeed in the current regulation, there is some material compliance standards that the department of homeland security uses to assess whether or not a state is compliant. i remember distinctly that secretary chertoff told me that vermont was unexampled the of the state that is immaterial compliance.

i am surprised to hear the secretary research this morning that no state has been complied with real id. governor, do you consider vermont to be in compliance? >> i do, but there are 18 benchmarks that we have to meet and even a state like me is not going to be able to meet all of these benchmarks because of the requirement for the national data bases that are not yet up and running. now, we are. we are going to find it virtually impossible to meet all of these deadlines by the end of the year. that is why the urgency that the secretary noted is critical. >> which is an excellent point. this is the reason why we are

here today. i do not want to leave the impression that there has been no progress in this area, that states are completely unable to make improvements in their security when virtually every state has taken steps to make sure that we are giving licenses only to people who are lawfully in this country. my state was one that did not have that requirement, we have examples of people who are here illegaillegally. this is fraught with problems.

we don't want to have people going on airplanes without the proper license. they want to avoid problems for the residence in for the airplanes but this bill would appear to undermine that incentives by including specific language that prohibits federal security officials at airports from the nine and a passenger access to a plane solely on that basis -- from denying a passenger access to a plane solely on that basis. if the individual shows up at the airport without sufficient identification, they do that every day. that is very different from

putting specific language into law that tells states that they are not going to be inconveniencing their residence as much if they don't have a compliant aideed. i find that troubling. are you concerned that this provision -- first, let me ask you, do you support that provision? >> senator, i think what would happen under that provision is basically what would happen without that provision. in other words, tsa's would suggest someone to additional screening if they showed up

with a document that was not compliant. it would not be an automatic situation where you cannot board. other things would have to be ascertained. >> do you think that there should be language like that in the bill? >> here is the issue, let's say that the individual does not have to the id that is now allowed, they say that this cannot be the basis for keeping the individual out of the airplane. the security officials belief that that individual should not board the plane.

i think that you are creating a situation where that security official is going to feel they have no choice but to lead to the individual board the plane. >> we can explore with you between now and marked up of the bill. i want to go back to the fact that with a language or without a leg whicthe language, to appet a document, some additional information will need to be done before you board the plane. >> i hope that this is an issue that we will look further out. i support many of the provisions and i commend all of those, including my own staff,

who have worked so hard to come up with a system that is less expensive, gives more protection to privacy concerns i do want to make sure that we are not creating unintended consequences that puts us in a terrible situation. thank you. >> thank you, senator. we will make sure that your concerns are reflected in the markup. >> thank you very much. as you know, through your previous role as the governor of arizona, in 2007, we just issued for compliance with the real id aact.

this would be granted another extension but only if they were able to prove the benchmarks by december 31st, 2009. this was raised by the governor. hwhat will the department of homeland security do if congress does not add to this year? >> you have asked that question which is between a rock and a hard place.

people would be highly inconvenience and then this would be contrasted with the other affects. if all i do is enact another universal extension, we are not getting to where we need to be because the whole goal here is to begin reaching the goal of the 9/11 commission which is to have a secure form of identification. hezbollah on the books went out for all the reasons that you described earlier -- if the law on the books went out for all of the reasons the described earlier, we will not be getting to the security goal that we were looking for. under the law, we would be able

to enforce and to the standard that we want to reach. >> thank you. i know this is difficult. thank you for your response. one of the problems has been an adequate funding. states cannot afford to foot the bill. has the department of homeland security issued grants to states to offset these costs? the written testimony for the next panel states that the

federal government should insist should give higher priority to driver's license security rather than state level homeland security priorities. my question to you is, would you like to address from your experience as a governor the financial burden of real id in its current form? also whether states are not properly prioritizing their homeland security funds. >> i feel good about the privatization. you might want to ask other states to respond to that. there is a great deal of accountability when they received those resources. we believe that we have deployed them responsibly, we were audited by the federal government. we have done a good job and do

you have identified one of the key concerns that all states have, especially in this challenging climate. we are facing tremendous pressure, to balance our budget, to meet the legitimate needs of the people that we serve. you have heard stories about dramatic service curtailments that states are facing because of the fiscal and economic crisis. there is an additional responsibility and this means that something has to give in terms of state finances. when drivers license were first issued, it has been an exclusive state issue. states have decided how to do it. now the federal government has imposed some requirements. it is fair that this not be an unfunded mandate. i appreciate the resources that

might have been proposed, a more cost-effective approach. this is half as costly as what is in the law. >> thank you very much for your response. secretary napolitano, pass id requires it to be implemented within nine months after the bill is enacted. some have expressed concern that the department cannot meet the deadline although substantial portions of the regulations could be used to craft regulations. my question is, do you believe that the department would be able to meet this deadline?

>> it will be tight and tough but we believe we can, as you yourself noted. we are not starting from scratch because this his highest a fixed to real i.t. -- because this is a fix to real id > we can get regulation out prior to the effective date. the past time line will end up with full implementation. >> it has been said that pass id allows states to rubberstamp

applicant source documents. i want to point out that this does in fact require a social security numbers, can you speak to any concerns that you have with the other verification requirements such as the birth certificate being verified using the electronic verification? as you noted, some event is the same as they are in terms of the verification of those source documents. that should give alamancelementf belief that they will be as strong as they were under the current law. in our national databases such as vital records or the passport to verification database or the driver's license information

sharing one are not available. this does not give anyone a sense of security. >> madam secretary, can you speak on the efforts to verify our bird certificates. >> i can but those are more properly answered by the department of state.

i believe that 13 states are participating in this. i did not know the schedule for the full implementation of purchase and a delegation. -- birth certificate identification. >> this helps to achieve the goal of the driver's license that we can hand from a security point of view. governor, as these databases, board, i am sure that you and of for governors are quick to take advantage of them. -- and other governors are going to take advantage of them. >> this is quite a process to

get all of the day that entered in the form that can be accessed in a consistent way. some of our records are in a different media from 1950 until 1980. we are working at it. we are doing everything we can to comply and it is so onerous that we're not going to meet the benchmarks. we will take advantage of what is available skyhoo. >> senator burris, welcome. >> i'm trying to figure out where to start on this issue. i am holding up here my driver's license and in illinois id card.

i use this to go through airport security. if a person does not drop, understand that we are seeking to do this based on driver's licenses. is that correct? >> under both bills, when they use the word drivers' licenses they also include with in neany identification -- they also include any identification used to get a driver's license. >> the person is 14 or 15 years old, they should have some idea.

the pass id which also encompasses some eye to the vacation from the states. why can't we have had a natural id. >> they don't have the burden of trying to processed this. if you do what you are talking about doing, you're probably have to get to the airport three or four hours earlier. i see a big problem coming this would hamper air travel. i'm wondering if there's something where the verification can be done with a national id rather than a state id.

>> i don't know about the possibility of a national id. there are a lot of pros and cons on that approach. we are not taking that kind is a fight nor are we seeking that. what we are seeking is a fix to real id so we don't have to make the choice between enforcing the law that congress has passed and creating what could be the minimum amount of confusion. >> we're hoping that we can get pass id. we might want to take another step further. to put this burden on a tea as a worker, would they go through now is unconscionable.

we're trying to make it acceptable to the traveling public. i left home the other day and i did not have my id with me. the process that i had to go through to get on an airplane and everyone you meet in chicago. i am not a stranger. what would happen to someone who showed up without their id. i am sure there is a process. i had to verify all kinds of information and they knew me. the staff is doing their job. they put me through every thing. i did not complain. i don't want anyone else getting on the plane that has not been properly identified. that is not the argument.

i'm just wondering what we're going to put on the gsa screener -- tsa screener. are we taking this into consideration? >> sir, i would say with pass id which will indicate that a license or an identification card is compliant, if we start now to make some more straight forward and simplified for the process. my job as the secretary of home and security is to take the recommendations and to implement them and to move us towards

implementation which would give us a greater safety and security in our country. as we move forward, we have some of these practical and pragmatic problems. it is not a surprise that these problems need to be fixed for a worker at an airport, making more straightforward what kind of like the is acceptable. they indicate this. this should help us reach our 9/11 goals. >> i just had a couple of grandchildren born and they had a social security number. i'm wondering that if we look at

and until we look at this that would keep the edification of the americans, do we have any studies in reference to this -- key to the identification of americans, do we have any studies in reference to this? the you have any knowledge of this? >-- do you have any knowledge of this? >> i think the urgency of getting something done before the end of this calendar year is such that we should all work together and find some

consensus as this process is done without getting into an area which is difficult -- >> i'm thinking about the long run. this will not be as secure as we think it is. how secure is this going to be? i hope that we can to get to a higher level without to the invasion of privacy. the transfer, dealing with illinois, ohio, it is a different issue on how they issue theirs.

is this what would be the standard? >> it would be something like that to make sure that this is compliant. it would be very easy to observe. >> that could be counterfeited as well as any other documents. after you get the documentation, other people can enter information. you can get a start. >> we would be more than happy to brief you and your staff on other protections that are built into the documents to inhibit forgery, false i.d. and other things that will be built into

drivers' licenses to make them more difficult to manufacture. it is never 100% but it is much more difficult than years past. >> thank you, senator burris. i want to challenge each of us to work together. thank you both very much.

i will now call the second panel. >> thank you for your patience. we appreciate that you are here. we will begin with some george baker. secretary baker has occupied a role in a new department. we are quite regularly hearing

from former executives of the department of defense tenderly have the experience and continue the interest based on the experience and it has a lot to offer. you are doing this as well as any of this first generation. i really thank you for your continuing interest. >> i feel very strongly about making the department of homeland security a success. in any way that i can, i am delighted to. mr. chairman, it is a pleasure to be here. i would place four