-- an event in one country over the course of five hours. you touched on one, the conficker worm. we have that industry group, an unofficial group that came together in the private sector to deal with the real threat. .

>> if you are infected by kindficker, there are no messages. that advertised software you could purchase online, enter your credit card information, and download the software. other software did not disable a virus. installed more malicious software and the job is not even more difficult. as a sobering side note, last month we identified at least 300 identifying -- medical devices that were infected with conficker. the manufacturer or the hospitals had no idea. when we call them, they were shocked.

they are often found in or near it i see you facilities. they are connected to reject near icu facilities. they were connected at some stage to the internet, because they were infected. we run systems that those devices will connect to. we are doing our best. we are told that because of fda rules, 90 days notice was required before the systems could be modified to remove the infections and vulnerabilities. in some cases, there can be a disconnect between government rules, which are meant to protect consumers, and today's cyber threats, which sometimes results in entering and delaying the ability to fix problems in the medical system.

based on my long experience, one of the most important areas for congress to concentrate on is improving the communication but between the public and private sectors and across the sectors. the department of homeland security access a liaison between the public and private sectors. it is a woefully understaffed and underfunded for the enormous task that is put before it. i would like to see more focus collaboration, as dan had mentioned, and in summary, we face enormous threats from more parts of cyberspace. beyond the normal traditional resources, we need to concentrate on improving the collaboration between industry and government. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address you and the rest of the committee, and i am happy to answer any questions.

>> our next witness is larry clinton. his organization represents corporate security interests and provides a forum for information sharing on security issues. he is a member of the gao's expert panel that makes recommendations to the obama administration on security issues. >> thank you for inviting us to have this hearing. we are delighted to participate. virtually our entire economy, our defense system, depends on the electronic medication systems that are extremely vulnerable and under constant attack. the vast majority of the systems are owned and operated by the private sector. unfortunately, virtually all the economic incentives regarding cyber security favor the attackers. the area to defend is virtually a -- limitless. defense is difficult to coordinate an expensive compared

to the return on investment. the good news is that we know a great deal about how to prevent and stop these attacks. the bad news is, we are just not doing it. price waterhouse coopers study of over 1000 companies found that those who follow the industry best practices could prevent almost -- and almost entirely mitigate the attacks against him. the 2008 date of age in the database breach report studied and concluded that 87% of the bridges could of been avoided if reasonable and identifiable security practices had been followed. the chief of intermission assurance for the cia has stated publicly that most of the tax he sees are not that sophisticated, and 90% of them could be protected with due diligence. we cannot solve problems by attempting to adapt 19th century models to a 21st century problem. a common theme from some policy

makers who are new to the cyber security problem tend to say if industry will not do this on their own, we will just have to regulate them. internet security alliance believes that such approach is shortsighted and does not reflect an understanding of the new breed technologies created by the internet. the regulatory mandates are best designed to combat corporate malfeasance, and that is not the problem with internet security. it would only reach to our national borders, and this is an international problem. tit would put us at a competitie disadvantage in the global marketplace. specific regulations would be too static to the technology, and the threat factors constantly change. regulations are often subject to political pressure. we need a better system, a 21st

century system. there are signs that the obama administration understands the need for a modern approach to cyber security and appreciates the economic issues as much as the technical ones. obama's -- miss hathaway did provide a preview a week ago and silicon valley. among the specifics from the report she shared was acceptance of the principle that "previous attempts to deal with cyber security and isolation have failed, in no small part because cyber security only succeed in the context of broader economic progress, in particular, the need for government to work with the private sector to improve market incentives." this is a significant departure from the previous administration's view, which was that the market would emerge spontaneously to address these problems. that did not happen. ms. hathaway is correct.

we need to improve market incentives. consistent with this view, the internet security alliance asked congress to enact the cybersex act, and affirmative and contemporary -- cyber safety act. we suggest the government's role is not to prescribe mandatory regulation, but to provide market incentives for the private sector entities to adopt the security practices and standards and technologies that have already been empirically demonstrate to work. there are a wide range of incentives being used in various sectors of the economy such as insurance, awards programs, sba loans, etc. we are suggesting that these should now be applied to cyber security. it can serve as a qualifying set for standards and practices.

the government could then fund research, with the sole criteria being there effectiveness. private sector entities that can demonstrate compliance with standards and practices would be deemed effective and qualify for the incentives. we are attempting to change the economics of cyber security by constructing a market that makes prioritization want to continually invest in cyber security in their own economic self-interest. only then can we create a sustainable and evolving system of cyber security that we need. the purpose of this system is to defend the national securities interest, and thus, it is worth the modest investment that the government had to make in order to buy the incentives. the present research and expert testimony shows that by motivating the adoption of the prices already demonstrated to work, the vast majority of the problems we are experiencing

would be quickly addressed. however, there is a small but critical 10%-15% of a tax that would not be addressed in this fashion. my report goes into some detail on these problems in the supply chain, incongruity with laws written in the 1980's, and the need to change from protecting the instruments like the computers to protecting the data itself. all of these will require more work than we are proposing with the cyber safety act. thank you, mr. chairman. >> our final panelists before we begin questions is a senior counsel and director of project on freedom security and technology at the center for democracy and technology. he has been bringing together broad coalitions from across the spectrum.

you recognized for five minutes. >> it is a pleasure to testify today on behalf of cdt, a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to keeping the innovation up -- the internet open, innovative, and free. cyber security policies should distinguish between government systems and systems that are owned and operated by the private sector. the policy toward government systems can be much more prescriptive, more top down. congress should also distinguish between elements of the critical infrastructure operated by the private sector that primarily support free speech and those that do not.

as an example, measures that might be appropriate for securing the control systems of a pipeline might not be right for securing the internet. it might be wise, for example, to require a particular kind of authentication of users of an information system that controls the pipeline. but it might not be wise to require that same kind of authentication for a computer user in the privacy of their own home while their surfing the internet. the characteristics that have made the internet successful, openness, decentralization, user control, things that you mentioned in your opening statement, mr. chairman, these things can be put at risk if heavy-handed cyber security policies are applied to all critical infrastructure. this subcommittee could make protection of these attributes part of its cyber security mission. it is also important to assure

that cyber security measures do not result in a governmental entity monitoring private communications networks for intrusions. not entering the systems is the job of private sector communications providers -- monitoring the systems. they already do this. the government can help them do a better job. it can help them develop tools that allow communications providers to monitor for intrusions in the least intrusive way. but it should not be in the business of monitoring private networks itself. nor should the government be in the business of shutting down internet traffic to compromise critical infrastructure information systems in the private sector. while some have proposed giving the president this extraordinary power over all critical infrastructures, we believed it should extend only to governmental systems. such authority applied to

private systems would empower the president to coerce unwise, even illegal activity. to our knowledge, no circumstances yet arisen that would justify a presidential order to cut off internet traffic to a private, critical system when the operators of the system think it should not be cut off. we also urge you to address to overarching, recurring cyber security policy problems. the first, excessive secrecy. the subcommittee should work to improve the transparency of the cyber security program. transparency builds trust with the private sector, and that is essential to foster its cooperation. it also enhances public understanding of the nature and justification for any impact on users of cyber security measures. transparency also promotes essential accountability.

the second overarching problem is improving information sharing between the private sector and the government's. starting with the right questions about information sharing will help in settling on the right answers. exactly what information held by the private-sector has not been shared with the government when it was specifically requested? what reasons were given for the decision not to share? why aren't existing information sharing structures -- why are existing information sharing structures falling short, and what additional more rigid market incentives would encourage the private sector to share information solutions? generally, as you approach these and other cyber security problems, we urge you to favor market-based measures over mandates, and we ask that you consider carefully the impact on the internet of measures proposed for securing all

critical infrastructure systems. thank you. >> i would like to begin a conversation looking first, as much as we can do in english, how the big stories of the they have emerged. when we read in "the wall street journal " that computer spies have reached a fighter jet project, when "the new york times" reports that a spy system loops computers in 100 the countries, what we threw a little bit of how we suspect these things have happened -- what me through a little bit of it. why is that the cat is a few steps behind the mouse in these instances. what me through why this is more complicated than simply saying let's just close and back doors and solve this problem.

>> i would say there tend to be two main ways that attacker seem to be getting in. the first weight is that the software that is exposed on the web for remote access, remote management or data collection, while operating systems have gotten significantly more secure over the last few years, the actual software that is exposed thames to be homegrown and very poorly audited. -- tends to be home run. a common technique is known as sequel injection, where they actually communicate with the web front end and messages are sent to the database back in. the messages are insufficiently sanitized or cleaned, and the database is caused to run arbitrary attacker software. that is the most common implementation flaw.

the other method is what are referred to earlier when i was talking about authentication techniques. according to the rise in business report, over four out of 10 of the times where they saw an actual compromise occur, that actually found that there was remote management, specifically for third-party vendors using passwords that were either unknown or could be easily guessed. we do not have the exact details, or i do not have the exact details on how the joint strike fighter data was lost. in terms of what is lost from the server side, you will see their compromises on the website or compromises on remote management for default passwords. a third case that should be brought up is that we do have issues with actual desktops and browsers themselves where individual desktop in an organization will be compromised through the web browser for what

is called a drive by download. that will cause the individual host to be a jumping off point for the attacker to attack other assets within the organization. >> that leads us to mr. clinton's testimony that if you know these things, if an overwhelming number of the attacks happened in a certain prescribed way, and if there were certain steps you can take to protect yourself, and his testimony was that 80% to 90%, is this a problem that you have people being sloppy, and what we are looking at is ways to make them be less sloppy? is that a fair summary of that portion of your testimony? >> in part. i would not say that it is necessarily people being sloppy, but there is some sloppiness in bulk.

i would go up a level. i would never dream of getting into a technical discussion with my colleague. i would operate at a different level. he can tell you in great detail why a particular attack happened. but once we plug the hole, the attacker is going to move to another hole. all we can patch various holes in the internet, they will continue to find new holes. but we have to do in our community is change the system. we have to change the economics of it. the reason we do not have all these things patched in the first place is because users to not like security. it makes it harder to use. it costs money. businesses do not like it. what we have to do is change the system so that instead of people trying to view cyber security as a cost center or a bother, they have to view it as something they want to do, so that we can

change the economic dynamics of it. that is what we are arguing for. it is certainly true that if we had the right incentives, people could quickly and easily, according to the research and the cia, could reasonably mitigate enormous percentage this, i am not sure if it is really 9%, it would be an enormous advantage, and we would have to do it on a continuing basis. once we put in -- once we implemented all the best prices -- practices that the verizon study suggest, we would have to continue to work on that system because the attackers will go after others. we have to do this on an ongoing basis, because the system continually grows and changes.

>> doesn't this face the conflict that it is in googles interest to patch things that attack googled. it is in horizons interest -- rise in interest to attack things that attack verizon. where does the systematic conversation happened? he raises concerns about the government entering into the field, but worse to that conversation happened? what is the recommendation of the witnesses on that front? >> too much of this discussion happens in the context of how we apply more pressure to people, how can we force them or incentivize them? i don't enough of the discussion happens around how can we reduce the cost of delivering a secure solution? users do not like security because security is too expensive and too difficult to deploy. some of the most expensive

failed systems in the world have been systems that have attempted to do cryptograph agley inserted authentication. a major role that government can play is in giving all companies, mobil, verizon, microsoft, giving us all one shared base that we can start building trust on. the departure of commerce is doing an enormous amounts of painful and thankless work to get something that can actually work with the central root of trust. the advantage is not just that we fix dns, it is that we take so much in security technology to make this stuff inexpensive enough so that it is something that can actually be deployed. people want security, but the water systems to work after, and they do not want the cost to explode.

-- they want their systems to work. >> i would agree with what he says, but to get to your broader issue of how we get everybody to do this, it is because everybody has to see some sort of benefit to doing it. the problem we have, this is a joint system. the vulnerability is distributed. they may be trying to get to china, for example, are trying to get to the pentagon. they do not attack the pentagon directly. that attack raytheon's subcontractors, and three that they get in. we have to get to the subcontractor. we can tell them to enforce a on the subcontractor.

raytheon attempts to do that, and a subcontractor says sorry, it is not worth it for me. this is like 5% of my business. i am not going to change overnight inter security system. what we are advocating is to have an incentive in place, and insurance benefits or something so that the subcontractor now wants to keep his or her security completely up-to-date, so we have an incentive for raytheon and an incentive for the subcontractor, maybe the ability to get an sba loan or lower insurance rates. we need a systemwide set of incentives. they will be different for different people. it is not a one-size-fits-all world. we have to stop thinking of it that way. we need a network of incentives to address a network of security issues. >> it is puzzling that we need

to offer incentives for the government contractor of raytheon to do what is intuitive, which is to not share terabytes of information on the internet with hackers. i am not quite sure -- it strikes me that if this gets back to the question -- how do you make sure that the silos of security extend and are systematic? >> there are a couple of fundamental things to think about. we talk about incentives. when it comes to incentives, one of the key things i find when i talk to large corporations that have issues is that they say what is in it for me? the incentives will be different, but as long as you

can show some on what is in it for them. one of the problems we have now, the issues affect so many parts of the world that people say, why would i step up and fix my part of a problem if other people are not fixing their part of the problem? someone else will do it. it seems to be a driving theme in most of the meetings i end up having. until i can point out how it affects someone specifically, they say it is not our problem. the second thing is that the bad guys are as good as we are. one of the problems we are facing is that the people behind most of these attacks are as good as we are, if not better. it almost seems like the bad guys are us. the level of sophistication of things that we see, for example with conficker, using state of

the art techniques. if i was a university professor braiding it, it would have a very high grade. they have done everything right. if you go to the typical government contractor, there are 50,000 or 60,000 people the bald -- involved in software development. there does not seem to be enough incentive overall for the companies to take a holistic approach until you see the front page of the newspaper, and then finally everyone likes of. -- then finally everyone wakes up. someone works at finding the problem, and they worked their way through breaking into a system, including usual social

-- including using social engineering. one of the major reinspection factors we see now is people clean their machines, but before they do that, the copy their key documents, clean the system and then plug the dawn of back end, and they get reject love but dongle back in, and they get reinfected. the second way is, a lot of attacks are not the reason result -- not results of a determined attack. we do not even know in many cases health systems got infected because that theoretically are not connected to the internet. they are able to look at the net result of the vacuum cleaner.

there are over 4 million machines currently infected with conficker. we do not work we do we do not know where all of the mark. if someone wanted to, all the would have to do is use it as a giant search engine, saying show me any document that has the word nuclear, the word blueprint, the word trigger. all they have to do is sit back and wait. over the course of a short time, those four million machines will look at their local drives, and even though many are sitting behind corporate firewall, they will examine all the shared drives. there are basically no different than a human sitting behind a computer that is infected. they will examine all the documents, looking for that word. somewhere in the world they will

find the right set of documents and absorb those, send them back to the miscreant, and before you know it, we have the front page of "the wall street journal." >> the bad guys in a fighter jet incident did not get the best information. they did not get the most sensitive information. that was on a separate system. maybe one answer is that at the time of procurement, the government better describes what has to be on a certain system that is not connected to the internet. procurement can be a very powerful tool in your war chest for dealing with this problem. another thing to think about is that raytheon is probably protecting its systems in the way that it thinks is most appropriate. it has people whose job is to do that, and they are acting in the way they think is best.

if the government believes they should be acting a different way, that additional security measures should be in place, then it should be up to the government to pay for those additional measures, and the compensation could be through credits or it could be through a procurer provision, so that you get extra money if you take extra steps. raytheon may not have protected that subsidiary in the same way that it protected were sensitive systems. its biggest contract, maybe the contract pays for such protections. >> let me use that as a jumping off point to some of the other threats. can you talk about the danger of expanding the use of smart metering on our electric grid

and the vulnerability that extends to the notion that our electric grid might be vulnerable? some of our colleagues in the energy and commerce committee talked about the power to regulate these things further. let's think about not the challenges of the past, but some of the things we might be vulnerable to. the electric grid is not susceptible to an attack because it is by and large not attached to the internet. is it a source of concern to members of the panel that our energy infrastructure might be susceptible to attack? >> there is an old joke from the nsa which is that all networks are connected, it is just a matter of how fast. the energy industry is completely different than the rest of technology, and on the other hand, no different at all. the 1990's saw a tremendous

increase in our use of competing information technologies to make work more efficient. the energy industry has not been immune from that. one of the technologies we have seen spreading in recent design has been an ability for the actual power meters to communicate with one another, for them to create a peer to peer mesh as 1 meter speaks to another meter. this technology is being done by people who have not had to deal with the last 10 years of attacks. on analysis, we have seen these meters able to be compromised remotely. where we are today with the energy industry, there is a lot of information systems, a lot of gear that has trouble dealing with attackers today. the only thing preventing widespread attack is a lack of

connectivity, with connectivity growing more and more. that is a temporary thing. the future of widespread meter to mere communication, based on the evidence i have seen, does have me concerned. i would like to see more security for those meters. >> are there steps that can be taken, or is the technology of the smart read too new to have best practices in this field? -- the smart grid. >> i think we know how to make secure devices. the problem is that the devices as they have been made have not been made with that knowledge. this would be the sort of thing that certification an independent evaluation would improve. we know how to do it, it is just the devices tend to fall over when we test them.

>> one of the biggest problems we face is that the internet was never designed to do the things is doing today. there are control systems, systems that were never designed to be on the open internet, but the open internet, one of the great values is the fact that allowed you to communicate fairly cheaply and easily with other computing devices. traditionally we use point to point connections. there are home on a true devices for people who have medical conditions that traditionally made use of a dial up line and modem to communicate back to a doctor's office or hospital. people realized rapidly that if you make use of the internet, the existing cable or dsl connection, you could have faster, more reliable connectivity. so the devices were moved onto

the open internet without understanding that at that point, the security requirements were different. the same thing has happened in the power industry. the power industry devices are being developed by people who are in the computing industry, so they develop devices that are used to close network. by its very nature, those home devices, the smart meters, are going to have to rely -- if they make use of the technology of point to point secure connections, or the same techniques that existed in the phone industry, there would not be an issue. but there is a disconnect between them, perhaps an educational issue, where you have the wrong groups of people getting the right training. as dan mentioned, we know that security is an issue, but the people who build the devices do not think about security first.

they think about functionality first. security is an afterthought, and it should be embedded in the system. >> i agree with them both with regard to the fact that we can build more secure devices. they will be more expensive, but the point i want to add is that we also have to operate the systems better. the single biggest vulnerability that we have is not technical at all. it is the insider threat. depending on which study read, one-third to one-half of the problems we have our people on the inside. these are people with keys to the technology. it could have the becks if you can have the best technology in the world, but if your id guy wants to come into the system, he can do it.

we not only need to have good technology, we need to have incentives for people to want to use the technology. the problem involves technology, human resources, economy, legal compliance, a variety of things. it will not be fixed when someone comes up with the new device. >> i think we should touch on the conficker. who would be best to tell us what is the state of play with conficker right now, whether it is something that people should still be concerned about, and more troubling, why is it that we literally have a code right there in front of us, and it is

such a vexing issue, what is it doing? it seems to me there has to be someone who can read that who is at least as smart as the guy who wrote it, and say it is going to turn all our microwaves on, or something. as best you can, where does it stand? are we learning anything, and just give us an update on where we are with that. >> not a problem. east to be that if someone wrote malicious software, you could analyze it and tear it apart and figure out exactly what it was and what was going to do. that is how things used to be. the new generation of attacks are not about it does what it does and cannot do anything more. the new generation of attacks

are all very much about go back to the attacker and find out, what would you like? would you like me to search for documents or updates? anything you can possibly imagine. that has made things difficult. conficker is possibly the single most analyzed piece of software in the last 10 years, but we cannot tell you everything is going to do. we do not know, because the attackers have not issued the commands were released the actual software in a general sense. it always goes and retrieves updates. what made conficker special is that it is actively being maintained, and actively defending against the security community's efforts. it does not mean the security community has been lost and unable to do anything about it. we have had months of

constricting its ability to manage itself to the public- private partnership of the conficker working group. the update strategy was tightly constrained. on april 1 they moved from the defense is that work successful in february and march to what were unable to defend against in april. in technical terms, they move from using 250 domain names a day to 50,000 domain names a day, which would be too difficult to block. the state of play as it is today is, we have very, very good tool for quickly scanning networks, identifying where conficker is so that it can be quickly cleaned. in order to actually get rid of conficker, it was never about how to pressure people into doing it, because pressure will

only go so far. it was how we make it less expensive, less difficult and time intensive, to actually find this on networks. since just before april 1, we have had fantastic tools for sweeping networks to find it. now it is just a matter of people running those tools and cleaning it of their networks. there are a few million note is, but it is going down every day. >> you said that conficker had the ability to go to 50,000 with an order. are you now closing more doors and is opening day by day? >> i will say that i do not think we will be able to stop the conficker authors from sending updates. i think we will always be able to detect infected host. the authors are doing a lot to

try to defend themselves from being found and caught. it appears a matter what they do, we can always find them, so we can determine we need to clear them. >> in terms of this being the new state of the art in these things, are other hackers and other troublemakers able to look at the conficker virus and say that is a cool way or a troublesome way for us to do our business in the future? is there out in the world now this new model that means the cat and mouse game will extend to other hackers who will use the same device? >> honestly, i think that is a fair statement of the situation. one person has gone ahead and taken a lot of the worst practices in demonstrated how you make something that actually can have and it of the

able and sustainable advantage. i think we will see more things of that type. >> there is an interesting thing c to thing conficker and april 1. most people saw april 1 as the day when it would suddenly erupt. it was going to be like y2k. we knew that a first represented one thing only, which was a change in the mechanism thatconficker was going to make use of. up until then, we had been able to control the spread of it. the change the methods on april 1. on april 8, it went to conficker e. it updated to a new mechanism for spreading in communicating. the second thing it did was that

it enabled the download of another piece of software. it enabled the download and installation of that, with some very instinct pieces to it. we do not know if it is the same authors of conficker, but it is clear that these are businessmen. it downloaded it for two weeks only. it is almost as if they rented the use of conficker, and deleted it after two weeks. on may 3 or may 5, any installations of weledec were deleted. the cryptography that is used in

authenticating between the comptroller and these machines is so sophisticated, it did not exist in the public. it was submitted for the new cryptography that would be authorized for the government networks in 2013. they have used this five weeks after that submission. it uses a level of cryptography that as far as we know in the private world, there are not enough computing cycles to be able to crack that in any way. it is being used to authenticate the updates. we can see the software and know the machines are infected. all we cannot do is just act as if we are the comptroller and tell the worm to disable itself.

the worm does not listen to us because we do not have the right signature. they are doing a much better job with cryptography and we are. >> this is detective work, but is one of the emerging theories of theconficker is is is a distribution device for other hackers? they can rent it out for two weeks and then go and rented out to someone else for the next two weeks, and this is just the way it gets around? >> it is all about monica station, what they can do to make money from their millions of infected nodes. in this case, they have made money by renting it to other people who have their own strategies. there is no reason that conficker does to one company is

the same thing it does to another company. >> is an operating system. >> it is a remote control mechanism. you can make one host do one thing and another one do another thing. >> i just want to touch on to more potential horrors of the future, if not the present. one is the proliferation of mobile computing devices, cellular and wireless devices. is there a reason why we have not seen, and maybe we have, a wide scale hacking of those devices? war of the communications is now going to hand-held devices. -- more of the communications. is this the next frontier of cyber warfare?

are there reasons why it is less able to do it because the technology is not as sophisticated as a network? tell me if there is reason to believe that that could be a vulnerability in the future. >> mobile phones have become operating systems. there are quite a bit more complex than the computers were using back in the 1990's. the reason we have not seen attacks against them in significant count us for is not because they are more secure. any engineer who has taken a look has certainly found themselves concerned. the bad guys figure things out, but not immediately. we are basically enjoying something of a time lag between when there is awareness of there being a problem and when the attackers have built up the expertise to be able to exploit it. this will change over the years,

mainly because at the end of the day, all the things we have managed to clean up in operating systems, not all of them have made it into the mobile phones at this time. that is just the reality. >> mr. clinton, do you see this sense of the infrastructure limitations and vulnerability is being addressed? one reason -- there is a finite number of wireless carriers and technological pinch points. does this seem like the industry on the wireless side has taken these best practices and done what you described as the need -- that attacks can be permitted if use best practices? >> i really do not know if i could say that about the wireless industry, although generally, the major carriers do a pretty good job.

the core problem, as i enter stand it, it is as i understand it, is that the internet is inherently insecure. the core protocols the internet were built on were built 35 years ago. nobody was thinking of security. that is why we have a patch system to solve these problems. as long as we are using this core protocols, basically the same ones we use and a mobile systems, they will be in secured, too. the only thing i would add here is, i think we need to be careful. by focusing just on high-profile issues profileconficker.

i will sometimes go out and find people say that i heard about the love bug and blaster. i do not hear as much about those things anymore. i guess you guys all that. of course, that is not the case at all. we moved from an era where the hackers are focused on large scale, public demonstrations of their ability to an era where we are now focused on designer malware, and the goal is not to show what you can do, is to steal money. we are not sure how much stuff is really out there. along with the problem of extortion, people are simply buying silence. i would caution against just thinking if we can ifconficker, we have solved it.

it is harder than that. >> there is at least one platform, one mobile platform that has been paranoid for years and years. the blackberry research in motion people have really worked to build a secure a mobile platform. at least in that case, i can say people have looked at. their stuff is pretty good. some people shrug their shoulders at the obama-berry controversy. it is not like he is the first person to put sensitive information into their blackberry. >> you do not do consulting work for blackberry, do you? >> no. >> one thing to remember is that the mobile devices used to the telephones, but they are now becoming much more of a computing platform. all the operating system itself

-- we go after microsoft a lot, in terms of their operating system. that is not necessarily where the problem is. it is the applications that people download and use on those devices. we are beginning to see a move toward mobile payments, for example. one thing you have to be very careful about, when we look at those applications, they are on top of the operating system. they have to be looked at on their own, because you can have the most secure platform you want. if you have an application that enables problems, it does not matter how good the operating system is. the application itself will be insecure, and that is where most of the problems we see today are coming from. do not think of it as a wireless device. it is nothing more than an existing computer that happens to use a wireless network. it is just as vulnerable and has to be looked at very careful, in the same ways we do regular computing devices.

>> on the challenges we face, how do we know that a router manufactured in china does not have some listing ability built into it for chinese government officials, or some computer chip does not have a circuit switched that permits anything on that computer to be listened to? how do we know that hacking in is not the issue, that building in might not be the issue? >> we are very concerned with this problem. my organization started three years ago in conjunction with our partners to take a look at exactly this problem. basically, we have come to the opinion that we need to learn

how to build secure systems, understanding that some of the parts may be insecure. we did an official -- additional piece of work to move towards developing a frame work so that we can put in an extended system of protections, so that we can secure the i t supply chain that is inherently globalized and is going to be built in part by people who we do not know. they did not have a social security system in india. we think by using a fairly systemic framework, we can put in a system where we can change the economics so that we can

make it in our best interest and our suppliers best interest to understand that it is in their best interest to keep these systems truly supplied in a secure fashion, rather than allow them to be counterfeited. one thing i would say in addition to this is that we try to take a risk management approach to this. while we are worried about the supply chain, this is a problem that is generally not a big problem for industry. the reason is, it is usually easier and less costly if you are going to attack bank of america to attack it for software of one of these traditional hacks. is much harder to do it through the supply chain attack by putting something in the computer. however, from the government's perspective, this is an extremely serious problem,

because if a weapons system could be infected through a manufactured attack, you cannot detect it. you do not get rid of it when the software is there, and it is absolutely possible to put in a back door or trojan horse, a logic bomb that will stay there and not be activated until we launch a weapon system, and then the weapon system could either not work or turn around and go against us. it is a very serious problem. if you are a nation state and your thinking of weapons of mass destructions, then a supply chain attack could become very attractive to you, much more than just trying to steal credit card information. >> it is easier to do it not on the supply chain. if your china and you have a lot of manufacturing going on within your boundaries and you have the ability to manipulate branch

managers or what not, could it also be a source for our counter efforts? one thing we have that the rest of the world in these is the technological expertise. . .

one of the things that is a good thing about the globalized economy is that it is frankly not in china's interest to have a lack of confidence on the internet or to undermine the american economy. they are big investors in the american economy. that is not in their interest to do that. the framework that we have suggested these to be developed. >> if i were to manufacture a browder that had a piece of code or something built into it and you had enough time to look at it, did you find it?

>> it would be difficult could tell attacks at the level where the actual hardware has been corrupted in the first place are very very difficult to find. the researchers that mr. clinton spoke about have done some preliminary work attempting to detect the actual back doors. at the level where it is built into the circuitry, it is difficult to find. what is not difficult it is if you are the one doing the baking, you can make a hardware that no matter what software is on top you can get into that operating system. whatever of chrysostom or software, if you control this software and the logic, you can make a back door and you can control the system. all lot of the development of

both hardware and secure software happens outside of the u.s., china, india, taiwan, so one. that is the reality of the market as it is today. >> that sounds like a pretty frightening conclusion. let's start to end the conversation by talking about the conflict that is going on within the obama white house about who should be in charge of this. it seems to me that there seems to be sufficient risk that we do want to give the tools to government to be able to if there is too big growth or too quickly to a weapon system that might be used against us, there needs to be some check on the basic ethos of the internet being a democratized

organization. some have taken that to the extent to say that the supervisory and government agencies that are the top of the organizational chart should be in intelligence or defense. what do you say? >> we don't think that that is the right approach. there are a few reasons. the agency we are talking about is a national security agency, for the most part. nsa has a role in protecting classified military systems. it is not necessarily the case and probably isn't the case that they would be the best entity to protect a private system that is not in the classified ground or in the defense rom. -- that is not in the classified realm or the defense realm. if i'm working for microsoft, i

might know my system is better than anyone else would. the fact that to the nsa has penetrated other systems abroad does not necessarily make it the best to protect systems. they wear two hats. those different roles tug in opposite directions in cyber security. they are charged with breaking the codes of foreign governments and penetrating their systems, finding vulnerability is. if they were giving a lead role inside the security or cyber systems, that would conflict with the need to patch up systems that are being used in the u.s.. that is sometimes the same system. if -- >> meaning that you would not want to tip off a foreign power that you have cut found to this.

>>-- that you have found this? >> if you find is the vulnerability in the same software on our system, that is a difficult thing for them to handle. that makes them a problematic leader. the head of the nsa said that they don't want this role. they don't want to be doing this. >> i think that there was some element of kabuki dance the men on their. -- dance going on there. there has not been the appointment of a chief technology officer yet into one of the reasons is that they are legitimately hung up on this. is there a need to have all of

these agencies under one umbrella? is that our statement or our desire? there is a statement by people that have looked at this is that there is too much into agency back and forth. do you have any advice to offer the president? >> first of all, we generally stay away from this. we are always telling the government not to micromanage us. one of my board members would answer this metaphorically by saying that if the cyber system where a soldier on the battlefield with an open wound and the intelligence committee was the doctor, the intelligence

committee's approach would be to look into the wound and say, why isn't that interesting? we need people who are going to fix it, not try to exploit the vulnerability. the one piece of advised that we would offer to the administration is regardless of whether you look into this person at the department of commerce such as the senate bill would suggest or where d chess is, the important thing is not where it sits but where you have a an individual organization that has actual control. whether you look a-- whether yot this as the department of commerce or the senate bill or suggest to was the head of such as dhs.

it is less important to us where that person sits but we think it should be somewhere in the white house structure but that that person have the ability to do the ordination among things. we think that the government role is to get the house of the government in order rather than try to figure out how to deal with the private sector which is why i think that the model we have suggested is something we would suggest the committee looked at. >> there is a scenario that i think has been useful for explaining the scale of the problem that we have. consider a situation where a major top-10 website is broken into, not directly but through their advertising network, this is made to deliver an exploit for the adobe acrobat document software. the documents are loaded and they cause code execution and it loads up a bot net.

it sends banking credentials to the attacker and floods various web sites with militias traffic in a desire to force an extortion attempt to be successful. -- with malicious traffic in a desire to force an extortion. whose fault is this? the fault of the user, the web site, the greater of the software, the bank, the advertiser, the people who pay the prices? the fault is the bad guy and everyone else has a natural alliance against that bad guy. the problems that we are trying to solve our smeared across company boundaries, individual boundaries, across the public private boundary.

i agree with what has been said earlier, i don't think i'm qualified to know who or where there should be authority. they're actually does need to be a coordinating authority across all of these actors to guide the active partnership towards actually fixing the scale of problems that we face today. >> from my point of view, i come from the peak side of the house and we don't play in politics. -- i come from the geek side of the house. we need to acknowledge there is an issue which is what the white house has done, the other hearings that have been heard at this hearing. the fact that we're having this

hearing is remarkable to us in the technical world. this kind of thing would not have been seen in 8 or nine years ago unless we were involved in something else. it is important that there are hearings about it and acknowledge that there is a problem. also that everyone has a part to play in it. private industry, the government. someone has to make a decision when there is a problem. we need to make sure that we get together and talk about the problems and recognize them. we are all united against an enemy. the enemy might not be the bad guy. nation states represent problems for us. these threats are just as large and might be just as damaging if not more damaging. there are some organizations that don't care about the financial impact or being able to download the plans for the joint strike fighter.

they want to oversee the complete destruction of the u.s. and that matters. we have to work together with all the stakeholders, people on the policy and technical side, people on the business side, to try to recognize the problems and to be able to find solutions and build the solutions. as long as we're doing that, on the technical side we are happy. >> where the work is located will have an impact on industry participation. from our perspective, from what we have seen talking to key players in industry is that one of the things that concerns them is that the program has not been transparent enough. if they share information, they don't know where it goes, they don't know how it will be used.

there is this natural tendency to hold back and think about what happens next. where the program is located impacts transparency. so far, this has been lacking. from our perspective, it makes sense to have a coordinating body at the white house to do some policy work and to set budgets. operations, they need to be at a lower level. dhs is a natural place for a lot of this work. >> perhaps. i think that there is a concern that this is generally part of a larger conversation about how you foster all that comes from the internet, good and bad. we have resisted the temptation

to be heavy-handed plenty of times before. as the internet amerced and there were dirty pictures and hateful speech and these other types of things, sometimes you have gotten it right and sometimes we have got it wrong. sometimes we lurch back and forth. let's try to keep our hands on. one of the things that we are wrestling with is that you want to keep the hands off and you don't want to create a situation where you give too much authority to agency that is used to collect information not disseminating it. you want to have a situation where we acknowledge that this represents a bonafide national security threat to whom do you give the authority to do what? do you give the president or the national security administration the authority to start

experimenting with a second two of the internet. these are what we will use only to plug in high vulnerability or important things like the electric grid. i think that one of the things that you gentlemen have been helpful in shedding light on is that we really are going to have another one of these headlines. i think that we do need to be cautious. we go through our cycles in american civic life where we see a couple of people getting bitten by sharks and suddenly there is an explosion a sharp rise going on. there have been tens of thousands of attacks going on during these hearings. the new york police department says it gets a tax 70,000 times a day. we have to make sure that we don't allow the tail to wag the dog. we want to be thoughtful about it.

your testimony has been instructive. this is something that has been clear, whether it is some role for the fcc, we were created and frankly have a history of dealing with these issues looking at not only security side of the commerce side, the energy. if you look at what we have talked about, the internet itself, interstate commerce, energy issues, commerce and the like, this will be the committee where a lot of these things are going to get discussed even further. before i recess, i want to offer some things that have helped in addition. if there's anything you would like that ad, we will certainly be happy to take you. i would like to thank my staff, my friends on the minority side.

all of my colleagues as well as the chairman it has been very actively involved in these issues. thank you for your testimony and this adjourns the hearing. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> earlier this week, gene taylor held a town meeting. many of the questions were about health care. he was asked about veterans' issues and hurricane katrina cleanup. you can see the entire meeting tonight 830 eastern here on c- span. -- 8:30 eastern here on c-span. we will have robert frank, gretchen peters, and eduardo

galeano. >> this fall, entered the home to the highest court. from the grand public court to those only accessible by the nine justices. "the supreme court," on c-span. >> now an event with the education secretary. he spoke at an event for administration, teachers, educators. >> i am pleased to have the opportunity to al represent him. he was nominated by barack obama and confirmed by the u.s. senate. as you listen to him talk about reforms, it will become apparent

why the president selected arne duncan to lead this transformation. he served as the chief executive officer of the chicago public schools, becoming the longest serving big city education's superintendent in the nation. as ceo, his mandate was to raise education standards and performance, improve teacher and principal quality, increase learning options. in seven and a half years, he united education reformers, teachers, principals, business stakeholders behind an aggressive education reform agenda that included opening over 100 new schools, expanding after-school and summer learning programs, closing down underperforming schools, increasing early childhood and college access, dramatically

boosting the caliber of teachers, building public- private partnerships are around a variety of education initiatives. in other words, he brought to the department experience in implementing all of the reforms and the president's agenda. not only iimplementing but success. his biography the telesis successes. in addition to his experience running a nonprofit education foundation and working with the team to start a new elementary school built around a financial literacy curriculum. what you don't get from reading his biography is his passion for doing what is right for kids and the urgency he feels about the time for reform. i have observed both of these on numerous occasions beginning with the staff meeting that he held at the department.

i remember walking into the auditorium and seeing emblazoned on the screen "call me arne." he said he was honored to have us as partners. he said that he had much to learn from us and much to contribute based on his experience. he talked about the president's agenda and our role in its implementation. he shared his belief that education reform starts locally in classrooms, schools, districts and states and that his role is to encourage, reward and support the innovations and progress that takes place at the state and local level. he talked about pockets of excellence and how he wants to scale up best practices. he challenged us to make the department of education become an engine of innovation. he also talked about the importance of working with our

external partners. he talked to community leaders about what is working and what is not. he has met numerous times and conducted numerous conference calls with stakeholders to share information and listen. he sent a leader to the school officers urging them to have state policies and guidelines. he wants to hear from you will hear us here this morning.

please give a warm welcome to arne duncan. [applause] >> thank you so much and good morning. i was looking at the theme of your conference. dealing with education in changing times. that is fascinating. this is a time of real crisis. never have we been under more financial stress than we are today. rahm emanuel says to never wasted good crisis. sometimes, that is the only time that we can break through and get the kinds of reforms that we need as a country. we are ready to pinpoint. to me, this is absolutely a test

of leadership. -- we are at a to pinpoitipping. in some places, due to the magnitude of the crisis and due to a lack of strong leadership, people are kind of paralyzed. they don't know where to go. people are using this to push dramatic reforms. this is really a test of all of us, a test of our mettle as leaders. when things are tough, do you frees up or do you use this as a way to break through? -- do you freeze up. we will be judged by how we use this time. for all of the tremendous crisis that we know we have, it is unprecedented opportunity, over

$100 billion for education. i don't know how many of you have walked into a department and had your budget almost doubled. i was excited even before those possibilities. there is a chance to do something. what do we want to do with that money? we want to save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs around the country. this is a situation we have to make dramatically better. we have seen social workers and counselors and librarians laid off. we cannot afford to take a step backwards. we are convinced that starting this fall, there will be hundreds of thousands of teachers teaching in classrooms helping students who would not have been there if not for the recovery package. if all we do is save jobs, we miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to drive reform. we have to get dramatically

better. we have students who are seeking world-class educations. we know our dropout rate for everyone, particularly students with disabilities, is unacceptably high. we know the stakes have never been higher. those students that drop out are condemned to social failure. how do we use this time of crisis, time of opportunity to take our country to a new level? the president has really challenged us, he has said that we have lost our way. we used to lead the world in the percent of college and high- school graduates. we have been flat mining over the past two decades. we are paying the price for that. -- we have been flat mlining over the past two decades. the dividing line is more about the educational opportunity than

about race and class. if people can go to schools, they will fulfill their dreams. children that don't have an opportunity to get a good education, they will struggle. we have this huge opportunity with this crisis and a chance to drive a very strong reform message that we cannot afford to let this moment slip. what we fundamentally believe is that every single child in our country, regardless of this bill become a race, ethnicity or economic situation has the right to a world-class education. -- regardless of race, ethnicity, or economic situation. we want to give everyone a chance. because of the progress made under the ida and ada, parents that have a child with a

disability have expectations that their children will graduate. students with disabilities the day, both those that graduate and those that will start school, are members of a new generation of americans with disabilities growing up with the expectations of excellent academic achievement, employment, and the ability to get back to others. this process is attributable to the hard work and passion and perseverance of parents who work hard to make sure their children had the opportunities they deserve. to our state directors of special education, we are looking for better ways to make sure we can educate our children and prepare them for the world once they leave our schools. today, i wanted talks about our overall education agenda which some argue it is too ambitious.

we have to start with early childhood education. if we get our children off to a great start, they will have a world of opportunity. if we don't put those in place, we will constantly play catch-up. we need to make sure all of our children hit kindergarten with a literacy skills intact. we have to make sure that we engage parents. this parent community has been more engaged and the larger parental community can learn so much from your advocacy and your commitment and hard work. we need to make sure that parents are we to their children and turning up the televisions and they are actively engaged. -- are reading to their children and turning off the televisions. we have unprecedented resources. north of $5 billion to dramatically improve access, to make sure every child has a

chance to go to an early childhood program and to improve quality dramatically. if all we're doing is babysitting, that will not get us where we need to go. if we can do all those things, dramatically improved access, push quality, we think this will pay tremendous dividends in terms of dollars returned to the community but most importantly the fulfillment of the potential. we have to work very very hard on our agenda. our drop out rate is 30% of around the country and this is unacceptably high. lots of positive trends in the right direction. i've met with all of the governors and state school chiefs and i've asked them to have satisfied with their graduation rate -- who is satisfied with the graduation rate? we have a long long way to go. we are pushing a very strong agenda and we have some resources, $70 billion. how do we want to get better?

there are a couple of reform pieces we are looking for. we want to raise the bar in terms of high standards, or be ready, international benchmark standards. in too many states, we have 50 different goalposts, 50 different benchmarks and many will tell me down those standards. -- we will dumb-down those standards. we want people to be successful. those children who are meeting the standards are barely able to graduate from high school and they are under prepared to go to college. we have 46 days to come up with benchmark standards. the unions on board, the business are in this. everyone is working together.

we want everyone to be at that table to make sure the standards are being developed better. as we move forward, we want to be thoughtful. this is difficult work we want everything to be possible. we want everything to be ready for every single child. a few years ago, you cannot talk about these things. these tough federal standards. these are not national standards. they should be international benchmark standards, our children should be able to compete with the best and brightest, not just here. in the and china is the competition. we want to make sure that states as an everything they can -- are doing everything they can to meet these much higher levels. how do we boost teacher quality?

the biggest determinant of success is the race, class, it is the quality of the teachers. in fiscal years 07, 57% of students with disabilities spend 80% or more of their time in regular education classrooms. how to make sure not just special education children but every teacher can be a teacher of special needs? how do we help with massive development to make sure that we're not putting children in the basements every morany more? how do we do a job now burning out our teachers? we know how tough that work is, how overwhelming that paperwork is. we know that the turnover is way too high. the loss for our students is incalculable. how do we change that and provide better professional development and better mentoring? how do we reduce the paperwork.

how do we be more credit in creating incentives for our best teachers? had we make sure that our best teachers are going to historically underserved communities? -- how do we make sure that our best teachers are going to historically underserved communities? i would like to focus on the opportunity gap. i'm convinced of children that have been underserved have the best and brightest teachers and principals working with them. we have to work very very hard there. how do we turn around are struggling schools? i challenge states and districts to think not about the 99% schools, i put schools and three categories. our best schools around the country are world class. we should be learning and replicating from them and sharing best practices. we have a set of schools that are improving every day so we need to be supporting the growth.

let's talk about the bottom 1%. those schools, and fortunate students are falling farther and farther behind. those schools that are "drop off factories" where 70% of the students are not graduating. -- those schools that are "dropout factories." i think we know what we have needed to do but we have lacked the political will. we need to think differently about this. if every year, we took the bottom 1% of the schools and we fundamentally change what was going on, if we did this three years in a row, we would eliminate the bottom piece of our educational portfolio. i'm convinced that we would end poverty and social failure due to a lack of good results. we as educators have been part of the problem of perpetuating

poverty and social failure. how we think about comprehensive data systems to really linked students to teachers, to link teachers to schools of education. how do we monitor progress throughout a student's academic career, through each academic year, so that teachers and principals know what is working for students and know what is not working and can then just instruction. -- can adjust instruction. some of our best teachers talk about how this transforms the craft. had we make this the norm rather than the exception? -- how do we make this the norm? our goal is to dramatically reduce the dropout rate, dramatically increase the education rate, make sure that

many more students are academic the prepared to go on to college. the higher education act was reauthorize last year and with it came an important new provision. for the first time, eligibility for federal pell grants, supplemental education, work study funds would be including students that have an election will disabilities. we are working on developing regulations for this law which will be posted for public comment. as part of the stimulus, over $30 billion in new money for college, increased telegrams, were steady, parking lots, trying to do loan forgiveness so that people who graduate and want to come back our work in the public sector and they will not be burdened by huge loans. i worry about this a lot. the time for the college has never been more important and never more expensive. i were not just about the

juniors and seniors, i worry about those children that have the dream where mom or dad loses their job and then they have to put their dreams on hold. -- i worry not just the juniors and seniors. we want students to know that if they work hard, they will have an opportunity to take the next that. one time, north of $12 billion in funds gives us an unprecedented ability to think about how we dramatically improve the outcomes of students with disabilities. we are encouraging lea's to develop strategies that are consistent with the reform goals. we need schoolwide reform initiatives that are designed to improve the learning outcomes of all students.

i think if we can use a massive influx of one time dollars to help every teacher to become a great teacher, the benefits, the dividends will far outlast when those last dollars are spent. not only to we have the formula base, the money going out north of $100 billion, we have unprecedented discretionary dollars. we want to have states that are willing to push the states that are willing to take the next that. we have six and a $50 million to raise district and nonprofits. this will close the achievement gap and they are raising the bar. before i came to washington, i did not think all of the good

ideas came out of washington. the best ideas will come from you who are driving change. you need the opportunity to take the unprecedented resources and take responsibility for what is one on around the country. think about if we can scale up our best practices. we do the right thing and provide the right set of opportunities. we talk about the safety and restrain.

at a minimum, our children have to be kept safe. i pledge to you that we will watch this very very closely. this has been way too wide open and force with the cost to some students has been devastating and tragic. as we go forward to the next school year, we will watch this fairy closely. we have asked every state to send their opinions to us. we want some transparency around us. we want to share best practices. we want to speed up the learning curve very quickly said the kinds of tragedies we have9 sen will never happen again. [applause]

we are thinking about no child left behind reauthorization. we have no name for this. what we have is a real opportunity here, we can fix some things. we are travelling the country. we will hit every single state to talk to parents or stakeholders and children and teachers. if we go rural, urban, suburban. the common themes are very very

profound. the challenges that we face are all very similar. this is something that we will do every year. i asked you to please come to those hearings, come to those meetings. we want to be very very thoughtful. wali want to have people think about the opportunity. i don't think you have ever seen a president who despite two wars, week after week, keeps coming back to education, keeps

coming back to education. this is not like an intellectual battle, this comes from the heart. neither one of them is born with a silver spoon in their mouth. both of them came from humble beginnings. they know what it means to receive a great education. for all the problems that we face, you never have this understanding again. i want us to think clabber the lovely -- i want us to think collaboratively. i want us to think about the way to improve the outcome for children. if we can do this, this would change education for the next couple of decades. that is the goal. this money will be gone in the next two or three years.

if we can use these resources and the time of crisis, they will use the next four decades. this is a tall order, ambitious and a challenge. we would like to do this as a rule. thank you and i will take any questions that you have. [applause] i think we have a couple of microphones here. come right up. >> thank you very much, i

appreciate everything that you had to say. you are preaching to the choir. i'm from missouri. the state department is with you on everything that you said. i do have a question with you, we were one of six states that were selected to participate in the system, the state implementation of evidence-based practices. we have had the inactive list because of this and i'm wondering, i would encourage you to look at the best practices list. we hoped that with the change in administration, we would be able to move to active and unfortunately, that did not

happen and there was no money put behind that at all. the reason we were selected as because of the work we've done with systems change in missouri. we have lots of financial problems and human resource problems. >> i don't have an easy answer for you, i will say regardless of that grant, think about $4 billion at the top, think about 600 billion in an innovation fund, this is an unprecedented reform. >> unless those requirements and regulations change from we have been hearing about, that will exclude us also. there are some real issues with those requirements and i know those are out for comment and we will have to see what they are. from what you say, what you are about is as system change, if we have states that are already in the process, we need the extra

funding. not a lot of funding, just a little. >> thank you for the hard work. >> i am with apparent trading and information center. i thank you and i am excited to hear everything that you said. i appreciate your comments about children being safe. 160,000 children stay home from school every day because they have been bullied and in georgia and massachusetts, two 11-year-old boys committed suicide in the past couple of months. i'm wondering what you might be doing in terms of helping

children in this country you are being bullied. >> if those students are not safe, they are not fed, we are really kidding ourselves. in terms of safety and drug-free work, we brought in a man named kenkevin jennings. this work is personal for many of these people. one of them was a student at the said that she could not get to college and she got a ph.d. from ucla.

kevin jennings overcame some are six situations to go on to be successful. -- some difficult situations to go on to be successful. there are people who have been on the receiving end and where this is very very personal. i look forward to their leadership to help us really think about a comprehensive approach to make sure that every child, not just in school, but to and from school, we have to make sure that our schools are safe. we are trying to build a team of people where this is not as a job but an act of passion. >> thank you very much. >> good morning, mr. secretary. i'm from new mexico, i have two children with disabilities.

they have graduated from college. we halneed highly qualified instructors. transparency and partnership with all state partners. i really believe this can make a difference, just those three things. if you can help that happen, i would be very grateful. >> i could not agree more. i know your children would not have made it. it would have been very hard. how do we stop being the enemy. we want to make sure that stories like your children become the norm rather than the

exception. i cannot be more pleased. thank you very much. [applause] >> i will take these last two questions and that i have to go. >> i am the state director of special education of north carolina. i want to thank you for being here, i want to thank you for your vision. i want to challenge you to keep that fission and to think differently. we've talked about different shi'a instruction and decrease in the dropout rate. when i returned to north carolina, i had an article that our peer review has negated our alternate assessments. oevery child that we teach is nt

the same. the children's test scores are not going to count because of the peer review process. i believe this is about the second or third time we have been through this, we're trying to get a rigorous assessment. we can assess the children that are disabled. i encourage you to keep that vision and think differently. >> i am sorry this has been a tough one. it is easy to talk about a complex one to get right.

i will look about them and decide which one to focus on. >> thank you, i would encourage you to a look at us as stakeholders. >> thank you, we had a great visit in your state yesterday. >> i represent a number of groups but i will ask my question on behalf of the national alliance of organizations. this is under related properties. you have had a question about bollingbullying. one of the things we're concerned about is that we have seen a huge number of positions being cut and you allude to this

in your comments. we are not retaining wall of the therapists. i don't want to put you on the spot but i wonder what the leadership in the department will do to make sure that local school districts have the means and understand the necessity for not keeping these people on board. >> these are great questions. this is a really hard one that i worry a law about in many places, those ratios are far out of whack. if they skyrocket, i think the impact on the children and the school climate will be tough. i ran a district for seven years and it was underfunded. every year, i had to make difficult cuts.

i understand the tremendous difficulty that school districts and states are under right now. there's not an easy answer. we have a hundred billion dollars on the table. the cuts go beyond that. my only rule of thumb is to try to make those cuts that were for this from the classroom and to everything you could to protect classrooms. some states are in an okay situation, some are in a tremendous situation. when times are tough, it forces you to prioritize. we are urging people to be thoughtful about what they're doing.

easier said than done. the more folks there thinking long-term. we are hoping that the economy will bounce back. if we can hang in there for the short time, we will be in a very different spot i hope as the country. our worry about those cuts happening and they worry about the impact on children. -- i worry about those cuts. thank you very much and thank you for your time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

. .

eduardo galeano, who wrote marilyn berger -- marilyn ber"marist." >> how is c-span funded? >> probably donations. >> i want to say for me, from my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative -- no government mandate, no government monday. >> don hewitt, the cbs is man who produced "60 minutes was ", died today. his death came a month after that a fellow cbs newsman,

walter cronkite. we sat down in 2001 to talk about his memoir, "tell me a story: 50 years and 60 minutes in television." >> don hewitt, why did you call your book "tell me a story?" >> because i see spectacular footage and great characters and i say, this is terrific. what is the story? tell me a story that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. i don't know why anybody else does that. but no one seems to. >> you know what is in your on book. if this book was on your desk for a "60 minutes" show, which story is the best or for television? >> probably ballpark -- barbara

walters. a good story for television? sinatra. he threatened to kill me. he came to new york -- first of all, i was trying to get him to sit down and do an hour. and he said, no, he doesn't do that. one day i get a call from a tim mahoney who is his press agent. he said that they would like to come to new york and talk. miki was sinatra's lawyer. he was also the lawyer for desilu, so he had some connection to cbs. and it was always low-key. -- fred friendly. >> he was the president of cbs. there were three conditions.

no questions about the mafia, gambling, or the place where he tried to get a des moines license. and we said, forget it. we will not do it with ground rules. they get up and they left. a week later, i get caught, honey, come on out here, sinatra was to meet you. they gave up their ground rules and what to play by our rules. i went out to sea sinatra. i never had met the man. i walk into his office, which is six times as big as our studio. he was kind of spotty. we want? i like to do a documentary about you. why? i know, like hubert humphrey and jonas salk and willie mays, you are part of the times that you live in, the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960. he warmed up to me. i said, now i'm going to start

selling. you know, frank -- i did not even know him -- people of my generation remember who they were and where they were by what frank and -- by what the net -- frank sinatra song was popular at the time. he said, will you pay me? i said, you don't have enough money to buy a documentary about yourself. cbs money isn't enough. what we call it a wash? he said, how do i know that i can trust you? i said, i am going ask you sit in a seat all -- opposite walter cronkite. this is my shining moment. how i thought of it, i did not know. that is the same seat that

eisenhower, jack kennedy, and lyndon johnson sat and. if you don't think you're big enough to sit in that seat, i would not do it, if i were you. he grinned. he said, i am recording tomorrow night. if you want to start then? i said, i'll be there. i call the cameraman. what in hell is united? he said, it's a big recording studio. i said, like it. we're going to records sinatra there. he arrived with mia farrow, a big limousine comes out, the cut is over the shoulder. i go, oh, my god. he's going to do the album cover. he was delicious. all the clips -- it was frank

sinatra, man on the album cover. and i thought that this was great. they could not be better. we should him -- week shoot him doing the album, which is pretty good stuff. if you have a time capsule, that's one of the things you put into it. we got along great with him. he played for the convicts. without this gerald and count basie, and i'm thinking, i have fallen into something. this is big stuff. i am in the journalism business and i'm impressed with ed murrow. i'm running around with count basie and ella fitzgerald. we leave the penitentiary and, back to get his plane. on the way he says to me, "we're

not gonna be far from arlington, are we?" i said we would be pretty close. he said, do you want to fill me at jack kennedy's grave? i said, have you ever been there before? he said, no. you son of a bitch. you have never been to jack kennedy's grave, as close as you work, and now you on camera to tell me there? and he said, you are right. i should not do that, should i? i was probably stupid because it was a great scene but i figured it was a good way of getting in better with him. everything is going fine. now we're doing the interview at his house. cronkite asks him about the mafia and the lodge. he goes eight. he says to me, you.

we walk into the bedroom. he said, you broke all the rules. i said, what roles? he said, miki's roles. i said, we didn't agree to the rules. he said, i ought to kill you. i said, would you that is probably not a figure of speech. he said, i mean them. i left his house and never spoke to me again. after the show was on the air, his daughter tina called and said how great he -- she thought it was, but i never heard from him. he was really hurting. and i never realized, when we did tina sinatra for "60 minutes," and she told the interviewer that her father got a call from joe kennedy to see if he would not intercede to get

the mob, to put the arm on somebody or another, usually labor, to see that jack kennedy won the primary in illinois and west virginia. and he did. and after kennedy was elected, as everybody knows, bobby witt to the mob -- went after the mob. and carmen called sinatra and said, you know us. we work for this guy's election and now he is after is. sinatra said, i tell you what i wanted. i will place 16 club dates after villa the nation -- villa ven etia, and i will bring the rat

pack with me. when he went before the gaming board and las vegas to get a license for the lodge, they faced him with the fact that he had this deal with the mob and that he played these days for free to pay back. and he said, it never happened. tina sinatra said, to steve crawford on 60 minutes, he lied. there was no way that we would take it out and she knew it. that's the end of the sinatra story. >> is there a story that you're going to write about in your book and decided not to? >> i do not think so. think so. if there's anything in there that i would have written about and didn't it's because i forgot it. >> who invented the tick tick tick at the beginning of the "60

minutes"? >> i did, but it wasn't at the beginning of "60 minutes." it was the clodsing thing over the credits. and i looked at the first show, and i said to myself, wait a minute, you've got to be crazy to put that at the end. that's in lieu of a theme song. marvin hamlisch always accuses me of devising the tick tick to screw some poor song writer out of a royalty. but it just worked. it was at the end. and i moved it up. and it worked. >> who named the program "60 minutes," and why? >> it all came out of a -- i'd written a memo to dick salant, who was then president of cbs news to ask him why couldn't we find, in all the minutes of entertainment, 60 minutes of news produced with a flair that

had more than just dull information. and when it finally got approved, i went back and looked at the memo, and that phrase "60 minutes" jumped out at me, and i said that's not a bad name. it really isn't 60 minutes if you count all the commercials. >> the first show what date? >> 1968, but i don't remember the exact date. we were on tuesday nights. every other tuesday night. cbs had something called "the news hour," and we would alternate with cbs reports, and they didn't sell it. on purpose. because most people don't know this, sustaining shows are not rated. the rating service is for commercial shows. they figured they owned the world. i mean, you know, every top

flight show was on cbs at that point. from lucy on down. so they figured this -- we would do better not to sell this because how much are we going to get for it anyway, and all it would do is bring down our average, so we were sustaining. they left us alone. and it kind of built. it didn't reach a lot of people, but it reached the right people. and that kind of impressed them. and then once when i guess it was 20th century was on sunday afternoon, and when that sort of died, it went off, somebody said let's move "60 minutes" into 6:00 sunday. which is where we began on sundays. and you could begin to see the ratings inching up. and then one day they said, hey, let's try 7:00 sunday. when we were on 6:00 sunday we

weren't on very often because the football games were still on. we went to 7:00 sunday, and it began to take off. the problem in the beginning was that we always had three versions of the show, a long, short, and a medium to accommodate the football runovers. and then one day, unheard of in television, they said, runover, whatever time you get on, you run to the end, and then the next -- in other words, "murder she wrote" or i guess it was archie bunker at one point, "all in the family" started at 8:12, 8:14, 8:17, who knew. and i realized, nobody knew about a clock and time, all they knew is the football game was over, you went to "60 minutes." when "60 minutes" was over, you went to "all in the family." there was no what time is it on

the clock. i've always wondered about that. i've always wondered why networks run on the hour and half-hour. i mean, why don't they overlap and knock off the other guy. i honestly think it's kind of an artificial way of doing things to work within these -- when i first did the doug edwards show, which was the first of the newscasts in 1948, we ran over all the time. i got hell every morning for running over. today if you run over, a computer will take you off the air. in 1948 nobody knew what a computer was. nobody knew what videotape was, nobody knew what satellites were. i always thought those were in the minds of some of those technicians that wandered around with all these ideas, you know. when i came to television, space , that was something you never had enough of. who knew there was something

called space up there. there were clouds, i don't know. all of a sudden this stuff exploded. the first big explosion was the telepromper where you could look at the audience and read a script at the same time. it arrived just about the moment i was trying to convince douglas edwards to learn braille. i said that's the only way to do it. if you learn braille, you put your script on a braille thing, and you run your hand like this, and you can look at the audience, and i'm convinced to this day that i'm sure that if the telepromter had never been invented, brokaw, jennings and rather would be doing their evening news reading the script in braille. >> i want to ask you about another "60 minutes" technique. i'm going to turn on the monitor

and show you how you look at this stapling on the camera. we're going to go "60 minutes" style. keep watching. >> ok. in big. >> bingo. >> woe, that's terrible. i wouldn't want it done to me. >> what do you like better? >> well, i don't have the kind of face that can take that kind of close-up. >> where did you start this idea, though? most of your shots are like this, or a lot of them. >> a lot of it came out of mike wallace's "nightbeat" that zeroed in on people. if you look recently, it isn't that big. i've said to producers around, just recently, i think we shouldn't shoot things too big. it's difficult sometimes to follow what people are saying if you're involved with everything por -- pore, every eyebrow,

every nuance of a facial expression. i think it's distracting. and i think the big close-up -- you know, if you don't learn as you go along, there's something wrong with you. i learned a lot of things. i learned that the hidden camera got to be a cliche. as i told mike one day, that trenchcoat's getting to be a cliche. you grow up. how can you do a show like this for all those years and not grow up? >> you say in the book that "60 minutes" may have made $2 billion for cbs over 33 years. >> yes. >> $2 billion. >> well, we were making a profit of about $100,000 a show. for a long period of time. well, if you take that by 26

weeks before you -- that's a lot of money. >> it's got to be -- that's $260 million. you mean making about $1 million a show? >> right. >> you said $100,000. >> i'm sorry. we were making about $1 million each show. am i doing the math right? >> i'm still at $2.6 million. >> whatever it was, i'm not very good at math. >> if you grossed out 30 some million over 30 years, you're talking close to a billion dollars. >> but it was the most profitable broadcast in the history of television. i don't know if it still is, but it was. and so, the luxury, what you get from that is they leave you

alone. nobody messes with you. and you become a big gorilla because you make a lot of money. i must say, they do leave us alone. people i work for now give us the same kid glove hands-off treatment that pailee and stanton gave to ed murrow and walter cronkite. it's a pleasant place to work. if we report without fear or favor, that also applies to the people we work for, they don't expect anything of us except to be good. >> >> what's the one thing somebody would say about you that's worked for you over the years? >> i would think maybe i have a tendency to be dogmatic. i have a very, very clear idea of what i think a story is.

i think some of the screenings are not easy on some of the producers. i have a tendency to say that this is a great story, but the beginning is at the end and the middle is at the wrong place, and -- but by and large, i think the people that work there are quite happy. >> how many people work there? >> well, there are 22 producers and there are six correspondents if you count andy rooney. and there is a slew of associate producers. that's about 100 people. >> what would it cost to run it a year? >> i don't know. i really don't know. you know, when i believe in news , back in the stone age, i once asked sid nicholson, who was

president of cbs news at the time, i said, i don't know what the budget is on this show. he said, why do you care? if you begin to run over budget, i'll tell you. meanwhile, don't think about it. just keep doing what you're doing, and if i think you're spending too much money, i'll tell you. that's a pretty nice way to work. do you know what the budget is for you show? >> this show? >> yes. >> it's about $1.95. >> there are guys that work with me that know what the budget is. i'm not very good at detail work. i need a lot of people around me who know details. i kind of don't concern myself with budgets and new editing equipment. i just like to see the results of it. so i look at -- it's a great

luxury, i look at the big picture. i sit back, and i let somebody else do that. the guys are pretty good at that. >> i want to read you a quote from your book. when you were talking about space. you say, "if we continued to help the space agency get its appropriations from congress, they would in turn give us free of charge the most spectacular television shows anyone had ever seen." ever worry about that being too close to a -- >> walter cronkite -- walter, as you can see, has a great blush in the book. i thought the world of it. i think walter was a little unhappy with that because there's an implication it was a deal. there was no deal. it just was. without ever -- i don't think it was ever said. i don't think it was even hinted at, but i knew, and they knew,

if they give us these incredible pictures -- which there was no way they couldn't give them to us because the world demanded them -- they were going to get appropriations from congress because television was making the country very space conscious. and it had an even -- what we got out of it was, remember, at this point we've just come through the mccarthy era, we're all a bunch of pinkos, we're reds, we're the guys who bring them the race riots, we're the guys who bring them an unpopular war in vietnam that we can't win. all of a sudden we're now bringing them these new american heroes. these guys are all charles

lindbergh. so the residual to us -- and at the time i wrote that now, but i don't think at the time i was conscious of all this. i look back on it that way, and i realize all of a sudden america's beginning to say, hey, you know those limousine liberals, those pinkos in television, they ain't bad guys, they're the ones that bring us our american heroes. that's in hindsight. looking back on it. but there never was -- nobody ever spelled out, you do this and we'll do that, but it just was. there was no way you couldn't cover space, and there was no way that they couldn't use it to impress their constituents that money should be appropriated for space programs. personally i think we may have appropriated too much money for

the space program. i'm not sure. when walter hears this he'll hit me in the head. i'm not sure that we didn't go overboard on space, and there were things down here on earth that could have used the money better. don't tell that to john glenn, and don't tell it to walter cronkite. but i always thought that it was a luxury that maybe we really couldn't afford. and they keep telling me all the great benefits that have come from going out into space. and i say, yeah, name one. i don't know what they are. it hasn't made life on this earth any better, as far as i can see. >> you tell us in the book you voted for eisenhower, you voted for humphrey, then you voted for nixon over mcgovern. you tell us that you voted for ronald reagan twice, clinton first -- >> clinton first. >> then bush. >> no, i voted for bush and then

i voted for -- i voted for clinton over i guess dole. >> and you voted for bush over dukakis. >> yes. >> but then in the end you voted for gore. >> but i wasn't too sure. >> why do you want us to know that? >> it's a secret ballot, and you don't have to do that. it's kind of like painting a portrait of yourself. it's like looking at -- you're painting your own portrait. it kind of tells you something about somebody. but i also then, you know -- i also said that i find -- the line i like that i wrote, i kind of like the line more than anything else in the book that i don't hold in disdain the people i disagree with. i just disagree with them. and i like to play both sides of the street. that happened at one of those ronald reagan library lunches, sitting there with nancy in that

california crowd, justin dart, that california republican -- and somebody said to me, you did the first nixon-kennedy debate. was that important in getting jack kennedy elected? i said, it wasn't as important as his father buying him cook county. now, i've got a table with me, they love me. i'm figuring, i don't want to be with you guys, i've got to get back on the other side. the next question was, did you dislike richard nixon? and i said, not as much as barry goldwater did, so now it's an even playing field. i kind of like even playing fields. i realize that i don't have any very definite ideological likes, dislikes. i said in the book, i don't

think gay marriage is a way of life whose time has come, but i could be mistaken. i mean, straight marriages don't work that well either. i think i kind of amuse myself by keeping everybody wondering where does he stand on all this? i said, of course i think racial profiling by the police is a terrible thing. i see racial profiling in employment offices, and i wonder, should some white guy lose his job because of the color of his skin? even though a great black leader once said, it behooves white america to make the same considerate effort to include us as they once made to exclude us, i find nothing to argue about that. that makes perfect sense to me.

and yet, i have to think about some white fireman who didn't get a job, not because he was black, because he was white. those are the things that nobody seems to want to wrestle with. >> you tell us in the book that your wife helped ross perot with some foreign politics? >> yes, that's right. lloyd cut letter -- cutler was counsel to jimmie carter and then became counsel to clinton. and he sort of was taken with ross perot. actually through a friend of his named tom barr, was a lawyer in new york. and then he kind of got marilyn involved. and one day marilyn said, i'm his foreign policy expert. i mean, come on. and then one day she figured, listen, you know, if this guy weren't a billionaire he might be in a straight jacket.

but ross perot said a lot of things that were very appealing. and then he got in, he got out. nobody knew -- i knew why marilyn and lloyd cutler dropped out. marilyn was taken by ross when he went for his first ballot. she and he the family went. i said how did you get mixed up in this thing? she said, i don't know, i kind of like him. i said, i know why marilyn dropped out, i know why lloyd cutler dropped out, i never knew why perot dropped out until he told leslie stahl on "60 minutes" that the bush people were making pictures -- what it showed i don't know to embarrass his daughter. i assume they were pornographic,

or he claimed they were. they were wiretapping his office, none of which was happening. and he began to believe that the bush people saw him as a terrible threat and were going to smear him and ruin his chance of becoming president. they didn't have, to did he it himself. not a bad guy, an amusing guy. i used to have a lot of talks with ross. ross used to call me all the time, not about the presidency. he was convinced there were missing in action, m.i.a.'s in cam bodea, and he wnted to send a mission there, and he wanted "60 minutes" to go with him. i used to have these cambodian generals call me. they had it all laid out, next week we go to jungle. i said, wait a minute, i'm not going anywhere. they said mr. perot told us to call you. so my contact with ross was more about m.i.a.'s in southeast asia than about the presidency.

>> let me ask you about presidents you've known and just give us a snapshot, something that you remember about them when you met -- when i mention the name. dwight eisenhower. >> that was like being in the presence of god. you have to realize, i came from a time of life when the named of dwight david eisenhower, george marshal, franklin del nor roosevelt, they were demigods. >> what do you remember seeing of him last in person? >> at his house, outside of palm springs. went out there with cronkite, and we did one of those one-on-one cronkite-eisenhower conversations. >> what was he like then? >> he was like a grandfather. it was nice.

he was a nice man. he really was a nice man. >> john f. kennedy. >> john f. kennedy was the first matinee idol president. jack kennedy was -- he was cary grant. he was well tailored, and he was tan and handsome. he was urbane. he looked every bit harvard. he was ivy league. he kind of knocked my socks off, because i'd never seen a president who looked like that. incidentally, when you talk about you have to look the part, that's not true. i never saw a guy who looked more like a president than barry goldwater. and he never made it. so it's not true.

he looked more like a president than lyndon johnson did, and lyndon johnson buried him. lyndon was scary. you'd go down to the ranch and he would holler at lady bird. bird! lyndon johnson was big. you always felt small in his presence. and you always felt like -- he kind of struck me as being a bully. there's a great lyndon johnson story, he went out to pennedleton to the marine outpost on the west coast to inspect some marines, and on his way back to his helicopter, being escorted by a young marine lieutenant, he headed for the wrong helicopter, and the lieutenant, nice young kid said, excuse me, mr. president, but i

think that's your helicopter over there. and lyndon said, son, they're all my helicopters. that's all i have to say about lyndon johnson. >> september 6, 1963, the interview that you were there for with john f. kennedy and he talked about vietnam, the interview's over and sal injer insists on something being kept in the interview and you did. did you cave? >> yes. >> why? >> because he was going to put it out -- he was going to do something that you don't do, he was going to take one of our outtakes and put it out of the statement, because that was something kennedy said. that he and kennedy thought was important and walter and i thought he had said it differently in a different place. they liked the way they said it there, and we liked the way he said it somewhere else. he said, if you don't include it, we're going to put it out as a separate statement.

and i said, hey, that stinks. you're playing with the white house. if you ain't got two six guns, don't mess with the white house. i met once with the clintons. yeah, we caved. but small cave. certainly didn't change the course of history. >> famous interview, though. >> yeah. so we said it a little different. we liked the way he said it somewhere else. >> but the whole issue of whether or not -- the whole vietnam issue, whether they were going to stay in there after the election, and he dies in november and they go back to those interviews that were conducted between you, and he says one thing on one shot and one thing on another. but he said more or less the same thing of what we wanted to use and what he want to use. what he was doing was putting them on notice, shape up or ship out. i ain't going to hang around

here unless you gifes clean up this government. >> richard m. nixon. >> strange man. never realized how important that first nixon-kennedy debate was. i met kennedy at a hangar at midway airport about three weeks before -- maybe a week before the debate. he wanted to know everything, where do i stand, where do i sit, what do i say, who asks the questions, how much time do i have to answer? he was sopping it up. i never saw richard nixon until he arrived at the studio that night. he had an infection. he spent the afternoon speaking with the plumers, and to him that night was just another campaign appearance. he arrived at the studio, i told him a little bit what was sexecked.

kennedy sort of sneaked in surreptitiously and was standing there, i noticed, listening to us, and i felt like the referee was giving last-minute instructions before the fight to the two fighters. and then i said, do you want any makeup? and kennedy said, no, no. i don't think i want any makeup. no. and nixon needed makeup, but he heard kennedy say no makeup, so he said to himself, obviously, if i get made up, that will be a tomorrow morning story. that i was wearing makeup and kennedy wasn't. so he went off into an office with some of his staff, and they made him up with something called shave stick. he looked like a guard. i looked at him on camera, and i figured, uh-oh, this is trouble. so i called frank stanton, who

was then president of cbs, and said, you'd better take a look at this. he looked at it and went to a guy named ted rogers, who was nixon's campaign advisor and said, are you satisfied with the way your candidate looks? and he said, yeah, looks fine to us. stanlt on called me aside and said, if they like it, there's nothing we can do about it. don't mess with it. now, i'll tell you, three great makeup stories after that, a year later, nixon -- there was a gal in chicago named francis arbol, best makeup person i knew, but neither one of them wanted to use her. two things, one i found out later that kennedy did get some makeup. ted sorenson said we put a little makeup on him, you never knew it. small side bar. these are the two greats sidebars. right after the kennedy assassination, we're doing the

kennedy memorial broadcast, nixon is on it. i'm sitting in a makeup room, richard nixon and francis arbol, the woman whose services he wouldn't use in chicago, and i said, you know mr. nixon, if you would have let franny make you up the night of the first debate, you would have been president. and without thinking, it wasn't a beat he said, yeah, i'd be dead now, too. i thought, wow, what a line. now, whether he thought that whoever did it, and i'm not saying it was lee harvey oswald, because i'm not sure it was, but whoever he did it he assumed was after a president, not that president. or at least he wanted me to think that. now, it's four years later, we're in san francisco, cow palace, he's being made up again by franny to go out on the rostrum and introduce the

nominee, barry goldwater. and again i said, you know, mr. nixon, if you would have let franny make you up four years ago, barry goldwater would be going out there now to introduce you. and he stopped, and he looked in the mirror at himself for maybe 10 seconds, turned around and he said to me, you know, you're probably right. one other makeup story, i can't prove this, i think i'm responsible for the nixon's house in key discane -- biscayne, florida and orange county, california, because i once told him if he had a good tan he wouldn't need makeup, and i think that's why he moved to the sun. >> the clintons and james carvel. >> james carvel -- listen, to show you how down the middle i am, i have never heard james carvel or robert novak on that

side say anything i agreed with. so you know where i am. neither one of us ever said one word that i agreed with. carvel. carvel, we're doing an obscure governor named bill clinton from arkansas and his wife hillary who nobody had ever heard of at the ritz hotel in boston because he wants time to explain jennifer flowers. which he came there to set the record straight, and he set the record crooked. we were in that room about an hour. i knew he was lying, and she knew he was lying, and steve croft knew he was lying. and in the middle of it this carvel, this funny-looking duck arrives. and he plunks himself down in the control room, like a groupie following a couple of rock

stars, and he starts talking to himself and actually sobbing. oh, i love them. i love those people. i love them so much. and i said, well, somebody shut this guy up or get him the hell out of here. i tried to get a cop to throw him out. i think he reported me to hillary. i think i've been on report ever since. i am persona non grata with hillary clinton, as all "60 minutes" is. and also with bill clinton. we went down to do a thing with bill clinton once, all the "60 minutes" guys to talk about bosnia, how we were going to get out of bozz kneea, and i said to the then press secretary, mike mccurry, i said, i know why we're here, and he said what do you mean you know why you're here? and i said because she's out of

town. he said, you happen to be right. we were locked out of that white house. tim rusinger says to me, are they out of their minds? that was the night they got the nomination. that afternoon he was gary hart. he was dead meat. he couldn't have gotten two votes. after that night was ore over, not that i was trying to make him president, bawloug him to sit there and lie about jenifer flourks he was the nominee by the time that night was over. his crowd was furious, you never gave him a chance to talk about his vision of america. i said, hey, he was one of five guys look for the democratic nomination. there were five of them. what do you mean his vision of america? thewhat do you mean his vision america? there were four other guys that would like to get on about the vision of america. and besides, if we didn't he had ilt that piece -- edit that

piece to be all about jennifer flowers, do you know where he'd be today? he'd be up in the snow in new hampshire looking for votes in the 1990 new hampshire primary. what a strange cat. i don't understand bill clinton. i also wrote in the book t6 c1 i also wrote in the book that, you know, we did kathleen willey, who claimed, went to the white house, claimed she was groped when she went to see about a job and stuff, i believe every word kathleen willey said, because she only told us exactly what she told the grand jury. we were preparing the kathleen willey thing, and i called bob bennett, his attorney, and i said, bob, i don't want to do this story without you. not me, kid, he says. i'm not crazy. i'm not going anywhere near this. and i called him maybe four times, and he said to me, i'm not crazy. i'm not doing it.

it's a saturday afternoon before we do kathleen willey, i'm in the office, and the phone rings, and it's mike mccurry, lindsey and ruff, the legal team. we would like to you put bennett on this show. i said, wait a minute, i've been trying for two weeks to get bennett. well, he's changed his mind. we'd like you to give him 12 minutes unedited. how they got the 12 minutes i have no idea. i said, no. don't be ridiculous. and then mccurry gave me the opening i was looking for. he said to me, don, you mean to say there were two people in that room, and you only want one person's version of what happened? i said, no, mike, no, mike, bennett was not in that room. there were two people in that room. i won't give bennett 12 minutes. i'll give bill clinton 60 minutes if he wants to talk about what happened in that

room. remember, it was your idea there were two people in the room. i would rather have the other person who was in the room. when it was all over, the next day to get even with her, they released love letters that he had sent to her, and i said, if a samuel johnson -- >> that she sent to him. >> she sent to him. and i said, as samuel johnson said, if the last refuge of a scoundrell is patriotism, the last refuge of a male chauvinist is she was asking for it. i found that -- you know, i almost understand the monica lewinsky stuff. i can almost understand that, everything except playing phone sex through a white house switchboard. but everything else, you know, it happens. jack kennedy was doing it, but

he wasn't doing it in the oval office. but to do that to this kathleen willey, whose husband had just died, it was -- i don't know, between that and mark wrench and four hasidic rabbis, i don't understand how you come into office with a cloud over your head, you're president of the office for eight years, and you leave with a bigger cloud over your head than the one you came in with. and then don't give me this bit about, well, he had a tough upbringing and was a deprived child. by the time you get to yale and oxford, and the governor's mansion in arkansas, and the white house, you divest yourself of that. i mean, what is this? is this some kid on ritalin? >> if he called you today and said would you -- i would like

to do "60 minutes," how much time would you give him? >> i tried. we got nowhere. he's going to do something with somebody. my guess is he may do it with dan rather. he likes dan, and dan likes him, i think. i think the name "60 minutes" -- i think if he did "60 minutes" it would be remembered, oh, that's how he came in. talking about jenifer flowers, and now he's going to go out on 6060 talking about mark rich. i'd do it in a heart beat. >> 78 years old? >> yes. >> why do you still do this? >> i dread retiring. i would rather die at my desk. this is going to sound bizarre and wiggy and you're doing to think i'm crazy. i wouldn't mind dying here. life is finite, we all know that. it ends. all you want to do is end at a good place. if it ended on "booknotes" with

you, that's pretty good. but i don't want it to end in a canoe. on a golf course, on a tennis court. you know, i've had too much. i'll do it right here, but i won't do it -- i feel good. >> inside politics, cbs, fred friendly, when did he die? how many years ago? >> two, three. >> when was he president of cbs news? >> he had two -- was he president twice? >> no, that was salant. >> when he fired me he was president of cbs news. fred was one of these guys -- i have to tell you something, i learned more from fred friendly than anybody in this business. but fred was one of these guys who thought that he was the starting pitcher, the manager and the cleanup hitter, and

nobody else was needed on the ball club. but talent, this guy wrote like a dream. you know what i learned from fred, i learned more about television from friendly, but i actually learned it from two things that murrow did. i was on "see it now," which was the class part of the -- i was the director, and then ed murrow decided he wasn't making enough money, so he was going to do a show salled "person to person," which is strange because if you look at today, he had to go to the entertainment division to make maybe less than a 10th of what rather, brokaw, jennings, or i make in news today. it was a different time. so he went and did a show called "person to person." a marvelous guy named john

hollin wrote a column for the herald tribune and he called the two shows high murrow and low murrow. and i said, that's the answer. you put high murrow and low murrow in the same broadcast, you can't miss. you can look in murrow's closet, if you're also willing to look in robert oppenheimer's laboratory. for the first time you can do something for a network's pocketbook and its soul. and that's what "60 minutes" is. it's high murrow and low murrow in one thing. the low murrows have been pretty good things. low murrow and "person to person" type murrow is harry reasoner going back out to hollywood where they have the complete set of casablanca still there, the piano where wilson

sat at and take ingrid bergman to talk about it. that's low murrow at its highest. it's diane sawyer when she worked for us taking mitchner back to bally high, to the house where he wrote a lot of tales of the south pacific. and found it burned down and sat in front of the house and cried. that's low murrow at its highest. high murrow are the investigative things you do. if you mix them up in one broadcast, which is exactly what "life" magazine did, this is a carbon copy of "life." >> biggest mistake you've ever made. you'd take it back if you could, with "60 minutes." >> this will seem me nye cal -- crazy, but i don't know if there were any big mistakes. >> would you do the audi thing again?

>> one of my closest friends was the biggest importer of audis in america, and we were very close. and i went to him one day, and i said, listen, i feel terrible about this story. and he said, don't worry about it. which was a signal to me that -- they did put a brake lock on it afterwards, they did a lot of things to that car. there was one, we nce took on the national cowan sill of churches for being sort of left wing, and the next morning, when every right wing bishop in america called me to tell me how great it was, i said, i think we made a mistake. i don't think we should have done that story. there haven't been many. >> who's going to retire first? who's going to leave first, you or mike wallace? >> well, somebody at nbc or abc,

i don't know which, once said, wallace and you can't live forever, and i said, you want to bet? >> what makes a good interviewer? >> a good interviewer is somebody -- if you don't know, then you've never looked in the mirror. what you do is what makes good interviewers, you let other people talk, and you bring out -- the secret of "60 minutes" -- first of all, when you write for a magazine, you can make a dull person interesting by good writing. television can't do that. dull is dull. so what the "60 minutes" guys do is find interesting people who can tell their own story better

than a writer could tell it. and that's what makes "60 minutes," people telling their own stories. >> got a minute left. why did you write the book? >> because peter osnos said there's a book in you. i said i did a book. he said, no, there's a good bock in you. -- good book in you. i said i got too much to do. peter stayed on me and on me. one day i said, you know, peter may be right there. may be a book working in there somewhere. i will try it. and i took a summer off, and i wrote, and i kind of liked it. and other people who read it seemed to like it. look, it's not going to be -- there are authors who are going to live or die by the books they wrote. i ain't gonna live or die by the book i wrote.

so i think, why do i want to take the chance? it was great, ain't going to do me that much good, and if it's lousy it could call me. i think it falls somewhere in between. i think it's a pretty good book. >> our guest has been don hewitt. here's what the cover looks like. "tell me a >> don hewitt passed away today at the age of 86. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> private benefactors. >> i do not know. i think some of it as government rates. >> it is not public funding. >> i would say for me, from my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative -- no