measure of value so that you end up not getting the good ones. so we are not necessarily saying to pay more. we use the word reward, but don't cut the good -- the ultimate aim of what we're talking about is to define value, seek it out, and identify it. publish it, let people know. make sure the high value providers stay in business. that is the goal. .

if you have that aligned with where we want and with the delivery system once to give, they will self organize. they will find a way to get there. that is the room message. >> do you think doctors will be required to except medicare patients? >> i do nothing but i did i do not know if i can answer that question. i wonder if they mean doctors will be required to see medicare patients period are all want to come and see them. right now we are required to take medicare payments. we cannot not take them. big is a fixed price.

we care for the patient. we are going to be paid by them. they have also said, it additionally can collect. all of that is set by the government. some providers make it a little more difficult for medicare patients to get appointments, because once again more than 20% or 30% of your business as a provider, you began to find you have to shift costs to everybody else to help offset the level of reimbursement. it makes it harder for patients to get access. doctors do have that availability. will we ever pass a law for doctors have to see medicare patients? i can see that happening. it is possible.

>> should congress medal at all to modify medicare? -- meddle at all to modify medicare? >> they did that all the time. from medicare to come back that the intelligent things to do is to cover the medication, that takes an act of congress. congress has to say that is ok. they are into the micromanagement of the operation. they are acting like a bored but they are into management decisions. and in the baucus bill, i think someone will give them a 5% increase. the next year they will do it 25% cut converses in the business of the time of doing

it. what i'm asking congress to do is take a step back, a breath, and say to the secretary of health and human services in three years the want to see medicare with a value. what i'm talking about will be painful for everybody. we have to close the door to lobbyists to get there. [applause] >> it seems like everyone in the health-care system has been asked to sacrifice and operate more efficiently except for the insurance companies. do you think we can achieve to health care reform without requiring insurance companies to cut costs and operate more efficiently? >> no. [laughter] >> any prospect of requiring a young medical students to take

courses in wellness education to prevent a self-inflicted illness affecting so much of our society? >> yes, that is an interesting question. the young medical students would love to do this. when they first coming in, they are induced to do things to help you. we wash it out of them by the time they have finished their residency. all the cases they get are in the hospital. you watch it on television and see all of the mundane stuff of keeping people well is not flashy. it is not there. there is absolutely interest. we need to change the way we do education and health care system today. all the academic medical centers need to change the way they select people that come

into the medical field, people better used to working in teams. how they handle knowledge. where's the best advice you can get and not feeling to have failed if he did not know the answer. the only time you have failed if you do not find or seek out the answer. you need to train to work with nurses and other nontraditional providers. that is in the concept the we are trying to propose. how physicians work with others to really improve the way care is delivered. that requires a huge change in our whole system. >> with regard to instances, how do you see the vendors participating differently? for example, the people who provide joint implants. >> emu make the joint implants?

-- you mean who make the joint implants? i want to generalize that. all of the crew out there is creating new knowledge. what role can they play to improve delivery in the health- care system debt? it to believe individualize medicine is going to be more important -- that he should use different than the person next to you and your all different from me and a new drug or pharmaceutical test may come out and it may begin to identify that this a medication for drug will work in five if you but not the rest of hundred

and 50. that is medicine. it means it was worthless. you cannot sell it. it is no big blockbuster. in the new model, we need to except the fact that incremental value is produced when we look at the individual level. the challenges for manufacturers to join with the physicians in a way that they do comparative effectiveness research on an ongoing basis to find out where the incremental value is for their new discovery. it may be good for 5% of the people. if it is, we should not throw it out. when you look at it --what we found in the genetic testing is

for this people who received that medicine, there is a presentence -- a percentage that cannot metabolize it correctly. giving them that dedication is of no value even though it is cheap. it does not work. something that is cheap and does the work is still of nobody. the more expensive new medication happens to work for this people ago that 5% -- people. that 5% to get that drug because it is affected. >> should most or all physicians be salaried? >> el take that into points. the answer on salary is in no. at the mayo clinic happen to use salary. that helps us reduce the conflict of interest and commitment that there fissions

-- that our physicians would feel. there are lots of other models. those doctors are on seller. the tendency for those to seat s linked to satisfaction or quality. have it related to something. it does not have to be salary. the issue being in groups is yes. i think physicians will have to being groups as we go forward. we need to have a team approach. they do not have to be physically in groups. we have an electronic environment where people can be virtually working together. i have a physician network of people that i work with around the world, giving opinions and second opinions. we are all doing it electronically. it is either by telephone or

blackberry/ physicians need to think of themselves as a member of a larger body of people were they can go to to get knowledge. they need to start thinking team approach and teamwork. the same is true for nurses. >> should neurologist's be permitted to do their own mri s? >> does that mean owning them? this is a personal feeling. male does not have an official opinion. my opinion is no. you have that conflict of interest floating there.

it is really difficult. it is difficult to look the patient in the eye and say you do not have a conflict it does not seem the right thing to do when you are professional. i know many doctors disagree with me. this is my own personal feeling. >> what kind of reaction have you gotten from lawmakers to your suggestion about focusing on high-value in medicare? what are the arguments and they are making against it? >> that is an interesting question . i think this is a wide open receptive area we have been running into. they are trying to understand it more. they are asking for ways to do it. they understand safety in service. too many of the group sang with cannot measure outcomes.

i completely reject that. they are saying, how do we do it? i think we have come a significant way down the road where people are actually open to the idea or are seeing it in legislation. it is not clear just yet. medicine has been having meetings of what is value and how do we define it. i see receptivity and an openness to it. this is an opportunity for us to move through the door. the arguments against it i frankly do not hear them. i do not see how anybody can say

the we do not need and want a better outcome safety, and service at a lower cost. does the mayo clinic supports hr3200 -- the health reform bill? >> that is a bill that is not -- has not been passed. there are component in the bill -- mayo clinic is not that the bills. when we measure it against the standards, and there are clear the elements in that the bill that moves toward a pay for value type model. there are elements setter moving

toward an insurance set of reforms. that will all get washed out over the next several months. we are going to keep our eye on the ball that we get something that comes out of this that focuses on body. both pieces of legislation do focus on value. they do not go as far as we like to. with regard to how we get everybody insured, we are not here to do that. we are here to back it and give examples. what role do think medical malpractice plays in the rising cost of health care? >> i think it is a significant role. there is money that is being spent. to some degree it may be wasted.

that is not the biggest cost. the biggest cost in the medical malpractice agreement is that as a system of health care, which we do not have in the united states, we do not have a system -- we lose a lot of learning capability through malpractice suits. it can destroy careers of individuals who have made mistakes. because of that, individuals tend to protect themselves by may be doing more tests than they might otherwise. in addition, when something does happen, everybody goes to cover and gets quiet. we do not share it. when an airline has a problem, the employees are required to report within 24 or 48 hours so and engineering group will study it and try to figure out what we can learn.

it could take several months. in our environment, in which 98,000 people a year are heard, some people say it is a lot less than that. it is more than one airplane crash per year. it is more than 1747. 98,000 people is above the one 747 crashing about every day and a half. we can never tolerate that. in our environment, there is no reporting, no mechanism we can learn so many of us have found that one reason the country has been doing something 30 years before that have eliminated problems of the rest of us did not know it. we do not distributed this. this is the biggest problem and priced beer paying. i am not saying get rid of

malpractice. i am saying create a mechanism where people can report that others can analyze and understand. the exchange is some kind of a safe harbor we go into an arbitration environment where patients get the payments that they deserve but we at least learn something about all of this as we go forward. right now we lose a huge opportunity. this comes from a patient. he says he was treated at st. mary's hospital. would everyone with this basic coverage be able to get treatment at the mayo clinic without $5,000 deposit or 2011 co-payments? >> the deposit part, absolutely.

most the time we do not ask for deposits. that is actually very rare. as far as the coming in -- the copayment, that depends on the insurance companies. we do not have any contracts with any insurance companies the require patients to come to us. every single patient comes to us on their own choice. there frequently coming out of networks. i am hoping reform will be able to answer the questions here. >> what is the ratio of the highest to lowest doctor salaries at mayo? how does that compare to the country at large? are changes necessary to attract primary-care physicians? >> the ratio is about 2 - 1,

maybe 2.5 it is pretty close. the fact is what we do in our organization is we due market assessment of organizations that are like us. that is how we set ourselves but o. we tend to pay our primary care in pediatrics and a little more. we tend to pay our higher pay people a little less. that has been hard to manage. the competitive marketplace is driving things up board. reading upward. -- upward.

i think overall, our salaries are a bit lower. our primary care is a little bit higher. >> do you have to have changes? >> i think the country does need to do that. that is a country statement. we have a large primary-care practice. we are in another 65 communities. we are providing care. it is a challenge and times to attract those books. it is harder to get people to go to medical school and come out with an interest in going into primary care. there has to be more respect and more recognition of the

bellevue of primary care -- of the value of primary care. >> this comes from a psychiatrist who has -- is paid to spend 30 emancipation about their health. how can this be private -- provided? >> at our institution when a new patient comes to our institute, we schedule one hour with a position to spend to the patient. they came along great the need to. -- longer if they need to. we feel the most valuable thing that physicians can do when they are relating to patients is to have adequate time to sit down and talk to them and get to know what their problems are.

it is frequently something around the condition that is related to it. and spending time getting to know the families and understand what their desires are. that has been under threat ever since price control went into medicine in 1983. it is time with patients where the real value is generally. i am glad she has a half-hour, but we schedule an hour and all categories. >> we are almost out of time. with a couple of the port of matters to take care of. that me remind our members of future speakers. on the timber 28, ken burns will be here to discuss his new production on national parks. on october 8, john potter, the postmaster general will give us the state of play at the postal

service to give on november 13, chick -fil-a founder and president will address the national press club. as a father and son team discussing their unprecedented sales growth in a struggling economy. alibi to present our guest with the much coveted national press club mud. -- mug. [laughter] >> thank you very much. >> i have to point out that is the third in a series of mugs that you have gotten. how do you best measure position outcomes for and a life care? -- physician outcomes for end of life care? >> i think the best measure that is to ask the family how they feel things went.

this is a very difficult time for everybody. the only way -- results show the we are pretty efficient in end of life car.e we do not do anything to make that happen. we do not manage for it. we do not even know. what we do is just get to know the families. our physicians understand the problem in a the patient. we do what seems to make sense from them. our core by you is that patients come first. -- value is that patients come first. we have them in the hospital fewer days. somehow the knowing of the patient and interacting with them you end up with a lower cost scenario.

we have to ask the family if they were satisfied. i would say in time the most important measurement we are ever going to have is going to be the service components of what we did for people. >> thank you. alibi to thank you for coming today. i would also like to in thank national press club members for organizing today's luncheon. thanks to the library for its research. the video archive of today's luncheon is provided by the barack's operation center. our of vince r. of bailable -- are events are available for download on our website. you can also e-mails as archovesives@pressclub.org

i. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> jeffrey young, what is the markup on health care legislation expected to be like? >> info. you can make this bill will be made on tuesday. from the democratic side, he will see amendments on the options in, the tax credits, and from the republican side he will probably see them to strip down because of the bill, medical school liability reform.

>> who is likely to offer those amendments? >> senator rockefeller would brawly take the lead. senator grassley is going to take the lead for the republicans. >> what has been the reaction from democrats and republicans to max baucus's plan? >> republicans did not like it at all. a lot of democrats feel it did not go far and epidote the business community have complained. -- did not gofar. the business community had some complaints. it may be too soon to say how the public at large to this. >> there have been weeks of talks. why does senator baucus not get

support? >> republicans have decided the structure is just generally too liberal for them. there were some issues but senator baucus could not come to terms with the overall cost of the bill and whether abortion services would be covered. whether illegal immigrants would get coverage. >> why did he continue to say he believes he will get it in the end? >> he seems to fundamentally believe the american politics is at a time where everyone recognizes the health-care system cannot say the way it is and that when it comes time to cast a vote, people will not want to be on the wrong side of history. >> house a likely to be paid for? >> attacks on health insurance

companies that sell expensive plans. that is a current -- concern for both republicans and democrats. they also send the fees to a variety of medical providers and it makes -- reduces medicare spending. [unintelligible] >> what will you be watching closely as the bill makes its way through the legislative stage? >> a lot of the success depends on whether democrats are able to move toward the middle. whether democrats on the finance committee are able to come together on a consensus for a bill they can move out. they may never have any republicans on board. >> jeffrey young, we thank you

for your time. it has been announced the senate finance committee will hold an executive session to begin work on their legislation this tuesday. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> coming up, a conversation with bertha lewis of acorn. michael chertoff talks about the first five years of that department. dennis blair outlines the 2009 intelligence plan. >> a conversation with bertha lewis, chief organizer of a quorum. this is from washington journal and about 30 minutes. host: bertha lewis is the c.

evident o. of the acorn organization. now this congress has voted to country federal funding what is next? guest: of course, we don't agree with that decision and we want to see if there is a way to change it because we are trying to save people's homes and keep them in their homes. we are also trying to make sure people have affordable housing and affordable healthcare and that they are not discriminated against in housing. our work continues. we have been doing this work for 40 years. we have a half million members and we have been on the ground a very long time. so, for us it is a little disappointing. however, we think that we will challenge it and see whether or not we can turn that around. but work doesn't stop. host: does it -- how much of your funding has come from the federal government, from taxpayers? guest: a very small portion. we are a membership organization. so, our members pay dues

annually. we have private funding foundations, large donors, small donors. we do fund-raising events. so, maybe about 7% to 10% annual annually. very small portion. host: what has happened over the past year, last two years, that has politicized acorn and caused the consensus bureau to say no more to acorn? guest: well, i think for us it began back maybe in 2004. we were always register iing fos to vote, most to poor people, low and moderate income folks, people of color, plaqu blackses latinos, the folks shut out of the electoral process, disenfranchised, millions of problems and subverting the

vote. so, it seems as though the previous administrations, white house, mr. rove in particular, decided that he would send out u.s. attorneys to investigate our voter registration program because we, quite frankly, were very effective. as we know recently a series of e-mails shows that he particularly targeted us because we were so effective. and david iglesias in new mexico was the first u.s. attorney fired because he came back and said there is nothing there. so, this continued -- i guess we should have known -- during the last election season when the theme of the republican party was to denigrate community organizi organizing, saying that president obama had been a community organizer. i guess it of the reason that, being the largest community organization in the country, i

guess we should have realized they would be coming for us next. so, all our good work that we have been doing every day for 40 years helping poor people in this country, it is good to be known but we would rather people had talked about what we have been doing all of this time. so, i think that starting back in 2004 is when we really started to come to the attention of the right and they saw us growing and being more effect e effective. when you say that an organization like ours probably moved a million people to the polls this year, making rumors like my god, they are going to be a part of the sencensus, we never had a contract to canvass for the census. there were about 80,000 groups and filled out a form and said yes, we agree everyone should be

counted. our members, our constituents, black and brown folks, poor folks, everybody con seeds that they have been undercounted and i think that there was a fear that if we were involved that this would -- making sure that every american was counted -- somehow this would be a threat because we do know census really determines a lot of power in this country and everybody concedes that pretty soon we are going to be a majority minority country. and if we country everyone that has been traditionally undercounted, then i think that upsets the power apple cart. so, we are effective, we are saving people's homes every day, making sure people have good schools, good jobs, good living conditions and healthcare. and i guess that is a threat to some folks. host: there seems to be palpable

anger on capitol hill overwhelming folks. guest: i know it may sound rhetorical when you say this is a form of modern day mccarthyism but it really s. it is a chilling effect for nonprofit communities, especially to community organizations that do the hard work every day. that if you displease someone, or you are targeted and made to seem controversial, that we will cut off your funding and not just cut off the funding but you won't be able to compete in the futu future. so, that gives pause to a lot of people across this country that do great work every day. that is why this is so disturbing. it is sort of have you now or have you ever been associated with acorn. and that harkens back to the

mccarthy era when there was just fear everywhere. but we understand that republicans, the right wing, they lost the election, i guess there has to be someone to blame. so, since they probably have not a whole lot of other stuff to do -- host: santa fe, new mexico. jack on with bertha lewis. caller: what an honor. my question is how many hundreds of thousands of marginalized or impoverished families have you actually helped to get a home? we have a great homeless problem in america and the face of homelessness that nobody wants to see is the children. guest: that is a very good point. for yours we have fought against red aligning and people being discriminated against and weeshl able to make sure that the banking industry actually

treated people fairly. so, we think probably about maybe 250,000 people across the country over these past 40 years were probably not -- would probably not have a home or take in their home. someone did a study about the effectiveness of acorn and the work we did in communities, whether we were helping people get the kind of earned income tax credit they deserved or being first-time home buyers or being able to recover when they have been duped or discriminated against. and over the past 10 years it was estimated that we were responsible for putting $15 billion back in low income communities. so, i think that the work we do and are still doing really speaks to the real issue, what

we should be talking about. the lack of affordable housing across this country in groups like acorn trying to address a problem in a real way. so, we have helped hundreds of thousands of people in many different ways and you are right, this is what we should be talking about. host: steve in st. petersburg, florida. republican. gl how are you doing? i'm a registered republican and i have called your office in ohio before i moved here. i'm a laid off union worker and i asked you for help after my unemployment went out. you told me no. i came down here. a friend of mine gave me enough money to come here and rent a place six months. i have been touched with your florida office and they say they won't help me. efficient zero income. i have exhausted all of my savings. you cannot find me a job. you won't do anything for me.

i'm a damn taxpayer and i have paid a lot of taxes in the state of ohio. i have been in touch with your csiu. if you have an 800 number i can call because i'm a 50-year-old man i would sure like my rent paid and i would like some healthcare from you people and i got -- i have the numbers that you can call. now, if you have any way you want to do that for me then you will get barack obama get my vote. guest: well, un fortunatefortu are suffering like millions of americans are suffering. we are a community organization that really can't do everything for everyone. i don't know if we can get you a job. we can try to refer you to folks who do that. we can't pay your rent, but i'm sure that we could refer you to agencies that do do that. our work is trying to help

people day in their homes. so, if you have a problem with inco income, part of president obama's keeping homes affordable and keeping people in homes, you a -- you may qualify for that. acorn is not all things to all people. we do try to help as much as we can. we don't provide a lot of the services that people need, but what we do do is try to steer you to folks that can do that for you. so, i know your situation is unfortunate and call the office again. we may not be able to help you. we can't help everyone but at least we can give you some advice and where you might be able to go to get help. host: you have been the c.e.o. about a year? guest: yes. host: why did you become the c.e.o.? frjt we suffered greatly after

katrina and we had one founder for years that led the organization. and last year our board found out that his brother in fact had been misappropriating funds. we got all of that money back and our board said you are fired. immediately you are fired. let's review everything and let's chart a new course. so, surprising to me, the board voted unanimously and thought i should lead the organization to the next 40 years. made a lot of changes. my style is different from the previous administration but the board put me in charge and i intend to make sure this organization is strong.

host: new york city, independent, you are on with bertha lewis. . i have heard of that organization, but we are not affiliated. caller: you should be set down for pierre stupidity. he walked into your offices. you need to give me a break. guest: i grew the bid that this was terminated those employees. regardless to what we know or edited, it is inexcusable to

have such poor judgment. that is paraprofessional standard. that is why they were terminated. all my other employees did the right thing they saw this ridiculous couple who were very aggressive and refuse to be some of our offices. our other am pleased -- our other employees did the right thing. it this is not who we are. we will not tolerate two minutes of that kind of conversation. our standards are much higher. and these folks up there and out of a lot of offices. it is unfortunate with these handful of employees. you cannot work for me if you do not have common sense.

i know mr. o'keefe is a conservative videographer. he went after planned parenthood and called up and said i want my money to go to abortions for black women because there are too many black people. he has his agenda. i guess he is trying to make his way in the world. i think it is disturbing if you want to go undercover to come into an organization that 99% are black and brown people, they you would think to dress up as a camp and a prostitute and bully your way. i think that says a little bit nobody thinks that a black organization would go for. things in black and brown organization would go for. i hope the republicans and the

right wing compensate him in this economy. i guess everyone needs to find a way to earn a living. but i do think that mr. o'keefe should talk to his mother. i do not think his mom would be pleased with him playing a pimp. host: chicago, doris, a democrat. caller: good morning, i am a fan of acorn. i receive the newsletter and i did send you a donation yesterday. guest: thank you. caller: and i would urge people to do that. and i know in 2003, you helped people stay in their homes, 20,000 people. new health renegotiate their mortgages. and i see that you also took on hsbc finance corp. guest: oh, yes. caller: the subprime lenders, and made them give back some of

that money. keep up that work. guest: thank you, we have never stopped doing the work that we have to do for lower-income neighborhoods. we had a campaign called the home record campaign in which we really were -- the home wreckers campaign in which we really were defending people from being thrown out. there were in trouble with their mortgage, maybe they were not council before, and the banks of delay, delay, delay, and instead of working with folks and trying to redo their mortgage, there seemed to be a crossneassness at it. you know, the tax base goes down and the neighborhood suffers and local government suffers. in terms of federal dollars, billions went to these banks and we think they are to give back

something to the american public by way of seriously ill people stay in their homes. that is what we do every single day and we will continue to do that with the support and help of folks like you. host: eagle side, texas, andrew, youérd on with bertha lewis. caller: i am and 82-year-old -- guest: god bless you. caller: i am 82 years old and i voted for tom dooley in 1968. and i bought my home, pay for it, worked for it without any help from anyone. i would like ms. lewis to tell me why the people of the united states, black and brown, need

help. why can't they take care of their own business? this organization is not necessary. that is my opinion, thank you very much. guest: i thank you for that opinion and i would ask the same question. in the greatest country in the world, why there are folks that are living in crushing poverty, shut out from the system. you know, god bless you, 82 years old. my grandmother did not live as long as you and i hope that you state in very good health and that you have -- that you stay in very good health and that you have good health care. my parents worked, as you did, for years. had eight children and put kids through college. we never got any help of any kind. my mother worked two jobs and so did my father. so, i understand the work ethic and being upright and honest. but there are people in this country, and they are not just black and brown folks.

there are so many low and moderate income agents, white people that really need help. across the country we are seeing the economic crisis affect folks. there are people who were traditionally stuck in poverty and they were white as well. there is a rainbow of folks who suffered in the united states and we are, as a country, we are a great country. we take care of the least of hours, making sure children and other people are protected. i think it is to this country's credit that it actually does help everyone, anyone that is in need. but i agree with you, we should not have people in the greatest country in the world suffering in poverty, no matter what their color. host: where did you grappa? guest: i was -- where did you

grow up? guest: i was born in a place called spuuds, florida. and i grew up in philadelphia and new york. now i will be commuting back and forth between philadelphia and washington d.c. host: how much time will you be spending of the capital in the next six months? i think we guest: will be spending a lot more than we originally planned, as we wrap up the coming year. -- as we now out the coming year. but when an organization such as ours is singled out and targeted in a way that we have been -- maybe we did not realize this would happen to us, but it is a reality. i think we owe it to our members, we owe it to folks that we organize to spend the time here because, again, it has a very chilling affect when one group is targeted.

the old saying was, they come for us in the morning, they come for you at night. we will be spending a lot of time here. i just want to let congress and the senate and washington d.c. know we will be here in force, at least for the next six months. host: fox news is one floor below us. have you been invited to be on fox? guest: i was invited to be on fox. i have not been on fox. as you can imagine, they are not my favorite station. last year when we were being attacked relentlessly in the run-up to the election with all sorts of wild allegations about voter fraud, which proved to be baseless because every single card that was of question, we turned in every employee that we even suspected of doing something that was not right -- we turned in.

and you know, i thought fox was a news ort!áju)jr(rp" journalistic standards and after our experiences, we knew that we would never be treated fairly. however, i will be on this sunday with chris wallace. i respect mr. wallace. i think he really does try to be, at least, fair and balanced and thoughtful. my one and only fox appearance will be with chris wallace this sunday. host: for two more calls, or rich from texas first. caller: i will be opposed to the spending of federal dollars on any nonprofit organization. is against our constitution. every one of the lawmakers' pledge is to defend our constitution, but i do not hear anyone talking about it.

the federal government is to have very limited powers and a very short list is in the constitution of what they have power over. health, education, welfare, non- profit organizations are not on the list. host: bertha lewis? guest: well, i will not challenge your constitutional acumen. i think that is debatable. people can disagree about that. i think the federal government has worked with nonprofit groups for generations, for years. and to reach out and help tens of millions of americans. and using their taxpayer dollars to actually, you know, fight lead poisoning in children, to be able to make sure that people are treated fairly in housing, that they have affordable housing, to make sure that folks actually get paid a decent wage.

there are many different things that the federal government can do to help and protect its citizens. we just happen to disagree that the government should not be funding nonprofit groups. the government funds tens of thousands of nonprofit groups. host: and finally, jacksonville, fla., naomi, a democrat. caller: i wanted to find out about all of this health that is supposed to be offered out here to people. my husband and i our senior citizens. we own a small home and have for 45 years. we had to go through and refinance and some things that we had to do it over the years so that we are still paying a mortgage on this home. our mortgage servicer has reached up to help us, but they are so rude to their. when they went through the modification process with us, we

are now paying through this modification more -- more, i repeat -- more than before the modification plan. i also reached out to some of the local organizations that said they had funds for the -- from the government that said they had paid for the people that might help a person repair the home, do stuff to the home. my route is falling in. -- my roof is falling in. whenever i call these people, different agencies, they always tell us, we cannot help you. there is no money in the fund in jacksonville, florida. guest: well, again, you are a story that is repeated across this country millions of times over. you are absolutely right. these servicers, they are not interested in doing a true

modification. there is always -- there are always middlemen that get paid. i do not know which agencies you have called and i do not know if you have called acorn, but this is the kind of work that we do. we are saying, look, some of these modification programs are not modifying anything except to put people more and more in debt. you are right, they are supposed to be programs that actually are effective. we believe that we are written in don't we are. we know that with -- reno that we are pure -- we believe that we are. we know that we i do not know what agencies you have been talking to. this is the kind of work that we doç. makenna tania this, if agencies are not doing what they're supposed to do, and you do have every right to challenge them and report them

tomorrow, we talk about how they are responding to the obama administration. michael eric dyson at about racism and politics. cornelia, executive director of the first five years fund talks but efforts to expand high quality learning services 2 1 million additional preschool children. up next, michael chertoff talks but the first five years the department.

and dennis blair outlines the 2009 intelligence plan. then the nato secretary general discusses missile defense with year. -- missile defense with the europe. span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. >> michael chertoff, in your new book "homeland security: assessing the first five years" you write about the september 10 mindset. this is where you ride, "the voice of complacency sounds something like this. here we are eight years after 9/11, and because there are no attacks on our soil, 9/11 has got to be a freakish aberration that is not going to repeat itself. al qaeda a is a threat to the government and exaggerating the threat. there are other things to worry about and we should move to something else and focus on other elements of the public agenda."

guest: i think that is a concern, and to be honest, it was a predictable concern even in the days after zakaria 11. i remember president bush warning this was going to be a long-term process. i think other people said we were terribly afraid of another attack, but if we were successful in preventing attacks, the irony is that it would likely communicating to assemble they are to lower their guard. for me, it is not to get people to the level of fear or anxiety right after 9/11, but also to make sure that we do not go back and repeat the mistakes that led to 9/11, which is not being -- not persevering in terms of building our defenses and in terms of making sure we are taking on the enemy and not adapting ourselves to what is an evolving strategy that we see the terrace engaging in. host: you do not write about this in the book, but do you see any signs in the obama administration that, in your

view, they are returning to that? guest: the obama administration at this point seems to be continuing largely along the course that we set over the past eight years. certainly, in my department. i think secretary the paulick tunnel has been a very good leader and i think she has continued to press for on a you talk to our regularly paxman guest: not regularly -- do you talk to her regularly jackson a a guest: not regulate, but we are friends -- do you talk to our regularly? guest: guest: not regulate, but we are friends. prior to 9/11, the think board about most was the truck bombs. -- the thing people were most worried about was truck bombs and that was a reasonable concern. but of course, after 9/11, we sought airplanes become the weapon of choice. now we have seen, of course, the

airport and airlines are targeted. we saw that most recently in august, 2006. still more recently in 2008, there was an attack in mumbai and for the first time we saw a different kind of a threat, a roving attack with guns or the terrorists move from place to place. the terrorists continue to refine what they do and what is important is that we continue to think ahead about what is not only happening -- what has not only happened before, but what might come next. host: when you talk about what some of the things that need to be done are, the first thing you stress is securing the border. why? guest: from the standpoint of moment security, if you cannot stop the enemy overseas, you want to stop them doing -- coming in. and you do that in two ways. you look at the courts and you have documents that you can check and you look at whether they should be admitted or not. the second half of the strategy is between the borders.

and there, we've built over 600 miles of fence, began to lay down some sophisticated technology. in both of these areas we have made substantial progress, but the job is not done and it has got to continue. that is the current agenda. host: our guest is michael chertoff, served from 2005 through 2009 as secretary of homeland security. the numbers are up on the screen. we want to hear from you. also, we're going to hear from some law students up at dressed -- drexel university in philadelphia. they turned -- they attend the earl mack school of law up there and the c-span bus is parked there. we will talk to some of those students, too, let questions for michael chertoff. matthew is the first student. please go ahead with your question for secretary chertoff. >> given the recent disclosures to which -- to the extent to

which the federer has lied about things like blackwater, johnson that were traditionally the role of the government, whether they be interrogations' or assassinations, the you think the supreme court doctrine of either integument [unintelligible] host: matthew, i'm sorry, we lost your audio. you were talking about the contractors. could they be effectively considered what? caller: state actors. host: ok, thank you. guest: this has a lot of different dimensions. when contractors aren't as the federal government, they often are considered state actors and they are held to the same standards. clearly, there are a number of areas in which contractors make

a lot of sense -- logistics' cause of why, even security were they could supplement a military -- logistics, supply, even security where they could supplement a military that is already stretched thin. in the end, the government has to reserve the ultimate decision. the contractors, however, can help the government in formulating that decision and carrying it out. host: first call-up for michael chertoff, st. petersburg, fla., william, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. guest: good morning. caller: you mentioned the september 10, 2009 mind-set. that made me nervous. [unintelligible] the $2 trillion plus missing reported by donald rumsfeld. where did that go? did you ever find it?

guest: i must have missed the news report about the missing trillions. i do know that in the run-up to september 11, theç 9/11 commission and took a look back at what had been done and what had not been done. i think they found the key problem was correcting information and using information -- correcting information and using information to get the best possible picture. in the cold war, we worry about bombers and missiles attacking the united states and that is why we had radar. in a war involving terrorists, we do not have radar that is going to attack -- detect bombs and missiles, but what we have is intelligence, the ability to gather and analyze and integrate intelligence as the principal way in which we protect ourselves. host: your predecessor, tom ridge, wrote in his book, but then denied it, saying that the color-coded system, he raised it and it was a political -- he

raised it and it was a political issue why he raised it. guest: actually, i do not think that tom ever went that far. he wondered why some are making a political calculation. i can tell you that unequivocally during my four years, there was never a with or hint of any political calculation or white house pressure with respect to the color code. we raised it twice, right after the july 2005 london bombing for about a month and we did that only with respect to mass transit, and that we did it after the august 2006 airline plot for obvious reasons. it has remained at an elevated level because we have continued to see efforts to attack our airline system. there is a reason we raised it. there are a series of operational steps that are taken either at the airports or subway stations that are tied to the level of the alert. we want to have a high degree of security in a particular place

and we need to raise the alert level to do that. i read in the paper there is a recommendation to reduce the number of levels. i have advocated for that myself. it is unlikely we will be getting down to the most benign levels in the foreseeable future. but i think the voice vote -- the basic system is sound and has not been changed in the last few years and that reflects the fact that it has become a more stable and accepted process. host: as a private citizen now, what you think of your tsa? guest: i have had an opportunity to go through it frequently. i am impressed by the screeners. i have had the opportunity to talk to them face to face. they enjoy the challenge, but also in -- understand the importance of the job. and we have also reconfigured the with the system works to maximize the ability to move efficiently and not compromise on the level of security. the next big step is going to be

a technological jump. even last year, i could see evidence that we were getting close to some positive developments. the better the technology, the more efficient it will continue to be. host: next call for secretary chertoff, new book out, gwenn, mich., mark, republican. please, go ahead. mark, you know the rules. you have got to turn the volume down on your tv. i'm going to put you on hold and we are quick to talk to a truxel law student in philadelphia. go ahead with your question for michael chertoff. caller: what you think is the biggest issue with: security that is currently not being addressed via [no audio] guest: the biggest issue not been fully addressed by the current administration. i do think they are continuing

the initiative that we have with respect to the border, with respect to the transportation security. one issue we have launched -- in 2007, 2008 had to do with cyber security, protecting our computer networks. president obama spoke about this early in the administration and talked about the fact that it was a critical area of focus. i think that was the right thing to do. i am concerned, however, that it has stalled and we do not have much forward progress and i'm concerned that we will lose the momentum that we had addressed -- and we have developed on addressing this problem. it is a complex set of issues to understand how to manage security over the internet, but the alternative, which is to ignore it, is going to expose us to more threats peter from foreign countries or criminals, or from terrorists that willç t our cyber assets at great risk. host: and that is chapter 8 in

your new book. but give us a specific cyber security risk. guest: there are three things that we see. the one that gets reported most often is when someone comes in and steals personal data or manages to manipulate the financial system to commit a crime. that when we get from time to time. recently, i think there was a huge hit on a number of retailers. a number of customers information was stolen and was abused to illegally make money. but there a couple of things that we are concerned about. if a blood years ago, estonia was attacked in a denial -- georgia was attacked that was parallel to the attack by russian troops. the issue of denial is a big problem. and the third problem, probably these often reported, is

espionage. people stealing our secrets, whether trade secrets or government secrets curato. all of these areas demonstrate the kind of vulnerability is we have. we are working to reduce those vulnerabilities but this is going to take a process that is not only government, but the private sector as well and that is why we need to get this cyber security strategy reinvigorated and push forward. host: mark in going michigan, you've got your volume down i know and go ahead with your question. caller: mr. chertoff, i wanted to let you know that i called the department of homeland security and was trying to get them information. they connected me with the fbi and as soon as i mentioned the wealthy elite they cut me off. i called back to the department of homeland security and ask them, i am trying to get to the department of homeland security some very information -- very important information. they connected me back to the

fbi. host: what is that important information? caller: it is called the wealthy elite. we have overwhelming evidence to prove that these people have taken control of the united states federal government. they are the ones that attacked as on 9/11. host: mr. chertoff, if that man has information to share, where would you recommend himal to send it? -- recommend him to send it to? guest: i think they did the right thing by sending in to the fbi. they have to evaluate whether there is actual evidence to proceed. but normally, the fbi is very responsive if there is a serious, credible piece of information. host: what is your general opinion of people who think that government was involved in 9/11? guest: i think that is grouped with a holocaust denial and the people who think that president,

was not born in hawaii. it is conspiracy -- president obama was built not born in hawaii. it is conspiracy theory. -- president obama was not born in hawaii. host: next call from new jersey. caller:@@@@b

and go back home or stay illegally. another big piece of this is enforcing the law against employersç who basically make a business out of hiring illegal workers and that, of course, creates encouragement for them to stay. we have to deal with all elements of the problem. with respect to the second question, again, i think that nafta does a couple of things that impact immigration.

by stimulating the economy, particularly in mexico, it creates more jobs in mexico, which reduces some of the pressure for illegal immigration. but i think the caller makes an interesting suggestion, which is, if we're going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which we tried to enact in 2007, we do need to talk to cut trees -- talk to countries like mexico and they need to cooperate with us. we need to make an arrangement with them that they will work with us so that only people who are approved by us come into our country as opposed to thinking across the border. host: in your book you right -- here is a tweet that came in from lynette.

guest: i appreciate the sentiment. i can tell you, though, as a matter of fact, that we significantly reversed the problem of the border during my tenure. for the first time in the last -- for the first time in the last couple of years, we saw a decrease of the border and a minimum of stabilizing across the country. we go over 600 miles of fence. we doubled the border patrol. we laid out the technology. would dramatically increase the number of criminal cases against employers. we get a lot to change the dynamic, but i will also make the point that it has taken years to get where we are. and it is going to take some years to finish the job of getting the border under control. host: nicole aidan is a student at the earl mack school of law at drexel university in philadelphia. go ahead with your question. caller: good morning, mr.

tradeoff. that should the executive branch comply with international law in the use of force in conducting its war on terror including those laws and treaties to which the u.s. is a party or perhaps customary international law? guest: a very good question. the constitution says that treaties are the law of the land, therefore, when we enter into a treaty, we comply with the treaty as a matter of law. the -- the issue of customary international is a bit different. for people who are not lawyers, that is a doctrine in the international law that says that if you look at the way states gave and they seem to basically be eight as if there is a legal principle involved, -- behave as if there is a legal principle involved, then you can actually derived that there is a legal principle. whether we are bound by customary international law depends on the feeling of the role of congress in setting our own laws. to the extent we deferred to

international laws we have not signed up to buy trudi, it undercuts congress' constitutional role to ratify treaties. some things are so well except that i think we would all agree that they are and -- a matter of international law. for example, the laws against slavery and genocide. but there are some that we would have to have a certain from of social work from -- welfare system or educational system. then i think we go as a constitutional matter, we owe it to our own citizens to make sure we are not getting ahead of our own lawmakers and what our constitution requires. host: where are you doing today? guest: going to go back to the office. host: no, i mean, what are you doing these days? guest: have an advisory -- i have an advisory system that i have set up with a number of former colleagues. host: 0 haden.

-- michael haden. guest: michael haden as well as others. we call it the truck group. i divide my time between security advice -- we call it the chertoff group. i'd bet my team between -- my time between security advisor at other things. the do host: enjoy yourç time - did you enjoy your time as common security secretary? guest: it was a very good and challenging time. in a very personal way, i felt the impact of 9/11 and i lost friends on 9/11. to participate in helping to secure the country along with 218,000 fine men and women who serve the country, was a great privilege. were their frustrations? sure, was it hard work?

24/7, yes. to be honest with you, the real test at the end of the day was, no successful attacks on our watch and that is -- that has been a meaningful metric for me. host: chapter 14 -- guest: that is one of the great myths of the west for several years. i spent a lot of time as a common security secretary working with my counterparts, particularly in europe, and what surprised me initially, but also pleased me, was the close relationship of that relationship. people believe there is a wedge between the u.s. and europe and

the rest of the world. there are small differences that a rise in some areas. in my experience, there were strong views, everyone understood the threat, there was cooperation in sharing information. there was -- there were some differences in sharing information. we were able to work those out with agreements. some of my closest friends since i have left are my counterparts in europe that i have worked with over the last of all your years. the good news is that we actually get along well with europeans and our friends in asia and around the world and it will continue to be that way. host: you are on the line with michael chertoff, go ahead. caller: would you please allow me a follow-up because i know what this man will predictably answer to my questions? mr. graaff, do not feign ignorance on this because if i

can find this out, certainly, you know it. recently, six of the 10 9/11 commissioners have stated publicly that the 9/11 commission was hogwash, that it was set up to fail and it was a whitewash. recently, in publications, nine scientists that were given debris from the world trade centers have found evidence of a high-grade military explosive. host: we're going to leave it there because we know where you are going. mr. chertoff, you have addressed that question. guest: crops up from time to time and has been looked at thoroughly by everybody. people witnessed the planes going into the buildings. it is like holocaust denial and people who believe the president was not born in hawaii. it is just a myth. host: kevin been co goes to the loss will at drexel university.

kevin, please go ahead. caller: how much deference to the executive branch show the judiciary regarding issues of national security? should the president be allowed to ignore court orders when we are talking but the war on terror? -- talking about the war on terror? guest: every president with the exception of abraham lincoln has always abided by court orders, would you agree or disagree with the order. obviously, you have the right to appeal and the executive branch will appeal when they disagree with a lower court decision. but the answer is, no, the president does have to abide by the law as set forth by the courts. the one exception was abraham lincoln. he was ordered during the civil war early on by the cheese -- by the chief justice to release imprisoned under habeas corpus and he refused. that is one example -- to

release a prisoner under habeas corpus and he refused. that is one example. host: here is a tweed. çguest: dhs did not do that muh with the patriot act. it was more directed to the department of justice and intelligence agencies. another area where there is a lot of misunderstanding, and i will often ask people, what is the exact part of the patriot that you object to and i find that people have a hard time articulating it because they do not have a particular provision in mind. most of what the pitch redact dealt with was sharing information, making sure we did not have -- with the patriot act dealt with was sharing information, making sure we did not have a repeat of 9/11. the other major element of the

page redact was upgrading for technological change. there were certain things you do with telephones you could not do with voice over internet. we had to make sure that you did not create in a scene -- and asymmetry, where people who do things on the internet are immune from being scrutinized in the where the people on the telephone can be. but there's nothing in the act that undermines civil liberties and nothing in the act that is unconstitutional. i am not aware of an accord that has held it to be unconstitutional. it was passed almost unanimously in the senate and with a substantial margin the house back in 2001. host:: security -- "homeland security: assessing the first five years" before word is by lee hamilton. the first book was by tom ridge and your friend of food under the radar. is that when to index guest: i did not realize -- is that coincidence? guest: i did not realize tom was

writing his book. my book is not a memoir. for those looking for someone to gossip his colleagues, that is not my book. i was trying to lay out homeless security doctrine and what the philosophy and principles are as a way of building a foundation for a homeland security in the future. i think tom was much more focus on his own experiences and i think we appeal to different audiences. host: johnson city, tenn., david, you are on with michael chertoff. caller: i want to thank you for serving your country, and i have heard that with the former terrorists, there is a change of heart. in one instance, a conversion to christianity. in your experience, what seems to be the most common factor for people who do have a change of heart? guest: there are terrorists who have become deradicalized or have had a change of heart. i do not know the one you are

specifically referring to, but i have dealt with a number of people who were terrorists, or at least very sympathetic in their views and were radicals who then wound up changing their view and actually in our work to counteract radicalization. sometimes that is an internal process. they just change their views over the course of time. sometimes it is an experience which shakes them up. i can tell you that in parts of the world like saudi arabia and parts of southeast asia there are actually programs in place to deradicalize terrorists after their capture. they bring muslim care -- moslem clerics and mainstream clerics to explain to people who have been radicalized that their view of islam is incorrect and they have essentially been sold a bill of goods. these programs are quite successful. it does not work for everybody,

but for those who are perhaps less at the core of terrorism and more at the periphery, many of them do wind up esseta @ @ d, two questions. one is a more tactical matter, one is to start building a missile shield in the middle east to focus on a shorter or medium-term missile. that is a judgment that has been made onç the most current

intelligence about where iran is, based on the judgment of the military, the joint chiefs, about where they think the need is most urgent. i am inclined to defer to bob gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs and his folks on a tactical question. but i think there is a second question that is as important if not more important. what would be a very bad thing would be to send a message to our allies in eastern and central europe that we are somehow backing away from them for any reason and, worst of all, because we're trying to curry favor with the russians. the russians do tend to push their weight a little bit in central and your -- central and eastern europe. it is critical to demonstrate not just with words, but with deeds, that we continue to be forced or committed to our allies in eastern europe. i think putting a patriot missiles there is good and additional assets there is good just so we do not make any mistake that we are totally

prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in eastern europe if they do feel pressure from the russians. host: orlando, fla., nelson, a democrat, hello. nelson is gone, it appears. we will move on to georgia, clyde, independent. caller: good morning. i have 33 years in the military, five years working with the department of defense and to this day i still see cover-up on 9/11. we note there were able to infiltrate terrorist activities and had photographs of the attacks and they knew they'd planned their targets. the report went forward either on clinton's desk in 98, or 99 and it was never acted on.

host: you write in your book -- you call this a generational challenge. what do you mean by that? guest: the 21st century is a given kind of warfare of them the 20th century. we're used to have been massed armies, and became of the hill and you could see the cloud of dust and people were uniforms. there was a set of rules and principles that were very clear. 20 for centuries different. the line between the military and the a -- 21st century is different. the line between military and a criminal is very thin. we have to use analyzing or defense, we have to choose one or the other. it is unfortunately leverage by a technological revolution, which means a smaller and smaller number of people can do more damage, as we saw in 9/11. that means we have to reconfigure our strategy and our menu of options in dealing with

this kind of threat. we cannot afford to have boxes and silos anymore. now have to have an open architecture for how we deal with this, a very new and dangerous challenge. host: do you think the way the intelligence community is organized today is better than it was, and have we gotten to the point where we are sharing? guest: it is clearly better and there is more sharing, but it is not completely where it needs to be. i would say there is a couple of areas where that is true. one is, we still tend to view what goes on overseas and what goes on over here as two separate domains. the fact of the matter is, particularly with the internet, you cannot draw that distinction. we have to have a more seamless intelligence capabilities. second, legal principles have not kept up with new challenges. one of the problems that we face right after 9/11 is that will have been written with dealing with foreign intelligence and how we surveil it back in the days of worrying about the

soviet union or other countries. while we still have concerns about nation states, the issue of terrorism is now equal in importance. we did not have a legal mile to help us deal with that. one thing congress needs to do is actually sit down and think through in a bipartisan way what is the legal architecture we need to deal with this 21st century challenge. host: kevin frost, a drexel law student, please go ahead with your question for secretary chertoff. caller: my question is about the intersection between sick -- security issues broadly defined and our national drug war policy, and whether it is the funding of terrorism and afghanistan or directly the ability to control our southern border, i'm wondering if you think we need to rethink our national drug war policy to effectively control our national security. i think guest: to the extent that our drug war is focused -- guest: i think to the extent

that our order of words focus on keeping drugs out of the country, i think it is the right thing to do. what concerns me is the beginning of a convergence between terrorism and transnational criminal activity, including drug activity. we saw the first with fark, which was a colombian revolutionary organization that eventually engaged in drug trafficking. we know that crime is one of the ways that terrorist groups finance themselves. just recently, i heard from a friend who is involved with overseas intelligence that there is increasing evidence that some of the drugs moving from south america into europe, as we have tightened our own border, is moving to parts of africa where they're getting terrorists to help them move the drugs from the coast into the interior and ultimately into europe. and the terrorists do it of course because it is a financial aid to them in terms of their own activities.

to me, the real challenge we face is, how you deal with multinational terrorist and criminal groups, which sometimes -- not always -- sometimes work together, and that means we have to continue to be very aggressive in fighting the drug organizations which are still very powerful in various parts of latin america. host: citrus heights, calif., randy, republican, what is your question? caller: my question is regarding the mumbai style attacks, but i would first like to very quickly thank the secretary for his service and i can only imagine the responsibilities he had to bear during his tenure. it was probably rivaled only by the president and vice- president. i regret the personal attacks you had to endure just because you served under a republican. you are -- your professionalism and competence is evident every time i see you. thank you for your service.

guest: thank you. caller: the mumbai attacks scared me because this was a pretty low-tech thing and i worry about people's ability to respond and i am wondering what you think about in regard to second amendment issues and people carrying firearms in public. host: let's leave it there. guest: again, a great question. mumbai did demonstrate what people have been worrying about four years, which is that we can not only focus on bombs and the high level plot. we have to look at the rather low technology plot. and of course, we have not seen an attack with guns in this country from a terrorist standpoint, but we have seen other attacks with guns, for example, the shootings at virginia tech. we need to, first, have our city and county police prepared for

dealing with this kind of event. the good news is that we have seen a lot of work done even prior to mumbai, particularly in big cities. second, we need to prepare our hotels and commercial establishments. they need to plan about what they would do if there were an attack. as far as the second amendment is concerned, i am a believer in the second amendment and there are all kinds of good reasons for people, if they're properly trained, to have firearms. i would not, however, plan to engage in self help if there was a natarus -- if there was a terrorist attack. it is best to leave it to professionals because you are often dealing with terrorists with people who are pretty well trained and they may have some heavy firepower, which is more than the average citizen is going to have. host: and tabitha kennedy, drexel law student up in philadelphia, you get the last question or comment for the secretary. caller: i wanted to go back to

immigration. you discussed the importance of building a border fence, but do you see a guest worker program similar to the program in the 1940's as a a a a part solution? guest: i agree that it has got to be comprehensive, and that means it's got to be a combination of technology and border patrol, a lot of which we have put in place. but you're quite right, we have to tackle the job and deal with the fact that we do needç works here to do certain kinds of jobs. i think a temporary worker program is exactly the right way to do it. i do not know if we would do with the exact way the previous program was done, but i think we would people -- bring people in with a temporary visa, register them with their fingerprints and photographs and they would get a visa to come in and work and go back home again. my study of the issue tells me that there are a lot of people in other countries that would be perfectly happy with that. they do not want to live here full time, but they do want to

work and make money for their families. that would be a win-win and take some of the pressure of border control and allow us to focus more effort on those people who want to come to the country to do bad things as opposed to earning a living host: lee hamilton, a former co-chair of the 9/11 commission friday forward in your book. this is what he writes --

. .

the alliance still sees russia as a threat. everything we do is seen through that prism, missiles, even our partnerships. the end of the cold war seemed to herald a new age when russia would see things our way, cooperate with us across the board, and support the membership in nato of a former pact countries.

that was in retrospect and a little unrealistic. russia is a great european power with her own point of the view and her own interests. often that do not coincide with ours. when that happens, there is a sense of disappointment and incomprehension among many in the west. it is no wonder that the nato /russia relationship has remained a difficult one. yes, we found a great language for our partnership aimed in the nato/russia act, but we have not been able to translate it into reality.

yes, we cooperated on a number of issues, but this corporation was always second to the overall political climate. one major disagreement and it would falter. last year, following the world -- a war with a georgia when russia recognized the counties, we enrich that point. our relationship went into a freeze because the foundations of their relationship for not strong enough. -- of this relationship was not strong enough. it may have been useful to rethink the relationship, but

the international security environment does not wait for nato and russia to sort out their act. quite simply, nato/russia corp. -- cooperation is not a matter of choice. it is a matter of necessity. if their relationship is to be successful, then we must not continue to have a false hope. i firmly believed that now is the time for us to be much more realistic. russia must realize that nato is here to stay not because we think russia is an enemy. we do not. but because allied share common allies -- allies share common

values and we want to preserve it. there should be no doubt anywhere that this alliance will continue to make the security of all its members our number one priority. why not? i do not believe that this has created in the security problems for russia. on the contrary, a more stable and prosperous europe is indeed contributing to the security of russia. we also need to be realistic in recognizing that nato will continue its open door policy.

-- not because of any intention to encircle or marginalize russia, but because respect for territorial integrity and the right for each sovereign state to freely decide its security policy and alignments are fundamental if russia is to be an entity and europe is to be free. finally, we also have to be more realistic in recognizing that russia has security interests which we need to understand and take into account. many things that nato allies may regard as entirely [unintelligible] can sometimes look very different when seen from moscow and vice versa.

i'm making these points not in order to engage in some kind of blame game, but to highlighted the difficulties of the concrete task before us, making a big friday a new beginning in nato/russian beginnings. -- nato/russian relationships. we must pursue common interests even in areas we disagree. let me flesh of my three proposals and explain how they will help us. my first proposal concerns the short term. i would like nato and russia to strengthen our practical corp. in the many areas where we have

a clear and a common interest projectt. he is the fight against terrorism -- key is the fight against terrorism. terrorism has mutated into a global transport of franchise. terrorists move a from theater to theater from iraq to afghanistan to the middle east to the caucus and several nato nations as well as russia. they have repeated the suffered the horrors of terrorist attacks. much has already been done in this area. we agreed on a joint action plan against terrorism.

we have been looking at threats by al qaeda. we have examined the threats to civilian aircraft and it too critical infrastructure -- and to critical emperor structure. we also saw the threat to our troops. in order for all this work to bring lasting benefits to all our nations, we need to give it another political push. let us agree to update our joint action plan on terrorism. another shared interested is preventing the. inflation -- another interest is preventing the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction. if iran becomes nuclear, some of their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example. such a multi-nuclear world is not in nato's interest. it is definitely not in russia's interest either. so, i believe we need to take a much more thorough look at the available options at arms control as well as non- proliferation efforts and a means to protect ourselves against weapons of mass destruction. we can build on working that we have already initiated in the recent past, such as rare joint assessment of a poor relation --

such as our joint assessment of proliferation. nato and russia should work together on missile defense. yesterday's united states announced its plan with regard to missile defense which can include and can protect all our allies. these plans will and bald and even greater road for nato with regard to missile defense in europe. i welcome that as a positive step. in my view, the proliferation of ballistic missile technology is of concern not just to make

donations of blood to russia, too. our nations and forces will all become increasingly vulnerable to missile attacks by third parties. studying ways to counter these threats is in nato's and russia's interest. we should explore the potential for linking in the u.s./nato /russia missile defense system at an appropriate time. i believe that the work we have already done on missile defense under the nato/russia council clearly demonstrate the potential for corp. -- cooperation in this area.

nato and russia have a wealth of experience in a missile defense. we should now work to combine this experience to our mutual benefit. afghanistan is another area where we can and should do much more together. it is where we already have a solid foundation to build upon. we have long agreed to that countering terrorism and assisting the afghan government in building a stable and secure country is in it nato's and creches common interests. -- russia's common interest. russia has offered land a transit to nato allies by latterly to facilitate our operation in afghanistan --

bilaterally to facilitate our operation in afghanistan. we have also achieved a lot together. we have advanced the professional skills of almost 1000 officers from afghanistan and central asia. this is a good start and it should give us the confidence to go march -- go much further. how organized crime in general is feeling international terrorism is one example. -- fuelling international terrorism is one example. we should now look more closely into what else we can do to get their and how we could possibly

further russian engagement. it is my firm belief that there is a lot more that we can and should do together to help afghanistan to get on its own feet. finally, maritime and security. this is another area where i am sure that progress is possible in the short term as both nato nations and russia face the common challenges of piracy and terrorism at sea. we have an excellent basis on which to build. on a national basis, russia has deployed ships to protect the shipping and the cooperates at the tactical level with all other access in that area including several nato

countries. nato and russia have already cooperated successfully in operation active endeavor. they have led anti-piracy maritime controls but if they have invited russia to renew the participation in in this program. i do hope pressure will accept. as you can see, there is considerable scope for nato and russia to do more together, and this will help us to rebuild confidence and trust. but we need more than just enhanced practical corp. to address some of the more disagreements -- paschal cooperation to address some of the more large disagreements.

i firmly believe that we should use the nato/russia council again in the way it was originally intended, not as day -- as a forum where we can all air our differences openly and transparently. where all our security concerns are discussed including russia's. take for example president medvedev's idea on a new security arrangement. i am aware that the oac is the primary forum for such a discussion. i am aware that his ideas have

not yet turned into concrete proposals. to the degree that these ideas demonstrate russian concerns about being marginalized and european security, i believe that a nato/russia dialogue could provide real added value. we must all aim for a euro/atlantic architecture in which russia is herself reflected. as many of you are aware, nato has just started the process of adopting a new strategic counsel. i plan to make this the most open come inclusive process in the history of native or any other organization. -- nato or any other organization, a process which we will thoroughly engage and use

new media in ways we have never done before. it goes without saying that this open process offers an excellent opportunity for the russians to use the community to make its voice heard. now to my third proposal. uwhen i the get the recent russian security strategy, i realize that russia is scrambling -- grappling with a new security environment. this environment confront us with challenges that have little in common with those of the past. i also firmly believe that it offers an ideal opportunity for

enhanced cooperation between nato and russia. we should use the nato/russia council to identify those areas where our interests converge and where further cooperation would be beneficial. this is why i propose that we ought to take a joint review of nato's and russia's common strengths and challenges. we need a basis from which we can then use to further enhance our practical cooperation. we do not have to start from scratch. nato and russia have already conducted several joint assessments on specific threats. we have agreed on an action plan

on terrorism. what we needed to do now is to broaden this work. the agreement to conduct such a review would provide the nato/russia council with an unprecedented high-level political platform. it would also be on in the u.s. -- it would be a signal for us to work more closely together and put our differences behind us. it would represent a genuine new beginning for the nato/russia relationship. ladies and gentlemen, i am perfectly aware that the proposals i had just laid out

our ambitious. the historical relationships between nato and russia and between the west and russia cannot simply be ignored. not all of our disagreements are simply peace -- based on misunderstanding. some will not disappear quickly. i am also aware that nato/pressurizations can quickly become -- nato/russia relations can quickly become susceptible to policy. the state of nato/russian relations is very much a reflection of the state of bilateral relations between individual allies and russia.

my proposals will require realism but also considerable political will, and not just to launch them but to prevent them from getting derailed by possible disagreements in other areas. carnegie once described russia as being merely the planet pluto in the western solar system. in other words, why was it formally part of the system. it is located out on the fringes where it is lonely, cold, and frustrated this situation -- frustrated. in this situation is neither in

russia's interest or nato's interest. nato wants russia to be a real stakeholder in european and national security. we need russia as a partner in solving the great issues of our time. although many in russia may still hesitate to agree, i predict that russia sooner rather than later will also come to realize that a more cooperative relationship with nato is very much in her own self interest. ladies and gentlemen, this new relationship will require a lot of hard work. if we manage to get away from

the reflex of assuming the worst of each other and focus instead on the common interests, and then we can make a genuine beginning in our relationships. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have time now for questions of both from the room and the world wide web. there are microphones in each aisle. you have made a very

compelling speech, but you have also underlined that the relationship between russia and nato is hostage -- let's put it that way -- of a bilateral relationship between allies and russia. have you consulted in the content of your speech with the allies and the united states with president obama so we are more or less in juntune? >> i take responsibility for my

own speeches, but as a long experience politician i always consult before i make the speech is. i have raised these issues with allies on several occasions. i am confident that i with in the framework of what the allied consensus may be. >> brussels. i have three points. what would you like russia to do to get their ron under control -- iran under control? you did not mention as part of your short-term priorities

disarmament talks that have been stalled. what would you suggest with year old hat as former secretary of the european union -- what would you like the european union to do to strengthen the cooperation? there is also an important perspective from russia and nato. they should go hand in hand. >> about iran, what i would expect is that russia would join us in putting a maximum of political and diplomatic pressure on iraq to stop iran's

nuclear aspirations. it is also in the interest of russia. second, i did not talk to that much about disarmament talks, because this is very much a bilateral question between russia and in particular the united states. not that i underestimate the importance of that. this is the reason i did not focus on it in my speech. finally, about the european union's, i do hope it will be possible to have a new agreement between the european union and russia. the european union has for quite

some time negotiated this with russia. i hope to see real progress so that we can ensure this. >> yes, please. >here we go. >> thank you. you mentioned that the two sides should support -- explore how to link their missile defense system. by now that cooperation is only in the form of a desktop table exercise and from exchange of dead data that has -- of that the tracking -- date checking.

what do you have in mind? >> it is someone the table. -- somewhat technical. i am not a technical expert. i am a politician. i do not think i am capable to answer your question in detail. what i have done is to announce to integrate the system or at least ensure cooperation at the appropriate time. that is the political part of it. i believe the technical part of its should be left to the technical experts. >> we have a question from moscow. this is from an expert at the heritage foundation. he asks, "do you think

cooperation between the csto and a nato is possible? can they cooperate in that afghanistan? can nato and knowledge iacknowlm as an ally?" >> we have good relations with individual members of csto. secondly, we have invited rotating presidents is of csto to deliver briefings with in the nato/russia council and with in these eacc council. -- in in the e -- within the eacc council.

at this stage, there is no consensus within nato with regard to forme relations between nato and sccsto. >> that at the end -- back to the end of the room. >> thank you. i would like to ask you about the german marshall's fund. it seems to be a tendency for european members to have less faith in the alliance. some of the interpretations have been with regard to what happened in the summer of 2008 in georgia. the impression of some members is that the nato guarantee the security has perhaps weekend.

-- guaranteed security has perhaps been weakened. when you are reading gaging with russia, what would you have to say -- when you are really engaging with russia, what we have to say about their anxieties that are reflected in that poll? >> i would like to make two things clear. firstly, it is a misinterpretation of yesterday's decision if it is considered an abolition of missile defense in europe. it is not. on the contrary, the new plants will make capabilities ready sooner than the previous plans

and will provider with broader coverage. as i said in my speech, these plans will make it possible to include all allies and protect all allies. there is no reason to fear that these plans will begin weaken -- will weak theen the defense. the second point is an improved relationship between nato and russia will also be to be of benefit of our eastern allies. if it is beneficial for all of us to reduce tensions in europe. let me conclude by saying that

nobody should doubt to the commitment to territorial defense in the nato treaty. >> other questions in the room? right here in the front row. >> thank you. i'm from the international herald tribune. two of the major sources of friction between nato and russia were proposed membership in georgia and russia's occupation of -- recognition of the two counties. you cannot really delve into those. do you still believe that ukraine and georgia it should eventually become members of nato? are you prepared to proceed with

an improvement in relations with russia despite the continued recognition and despite the fact the other issues have not been resolved? >> let me reiterate this. i do realize is that we have real disagreement between nato and russia. there is no reason to hide that. i think we should focus on what unites us and some of what divides us. secondly, i will remind you that we have taken a very clear position in a bucharest in 2008. georgia and ukraine will become members of nato. implicitly understood that they fulfill the necessary criteria. we all know that they do not at this stage.

nato foreign members have decided to a framework within which we had initiated a practical corp. with a georgia -- cooperation with georgia and the u.k. and and reforming their military. this is the current state of play. it is premature to make any predictions of future developments, but i would stress this occasion that we of course to the decisions from the bucharest summit in 2008. this is the reason why it is so important to embark on an unbiased and very open dialogue with russia on this. it is really my ambition to convince russia that the open door policy is not directed

against russia. we have to provide an atmosphere and secure environment in your of within which -- in europe within which an open-door policy can continue while at the same time russia feels assured that this is not directed against russia. that is the challenge. it is difficult. if life was easy, there would be no need for politicians. >> there are two gentlemen here. let's take the one with his hand up right now. then i will go back there. either one. >> i am from german television. you said russia and nato should

work together in missile defense. can you an elaborate on this? is it something you have the mind like a revolution? >> again, i have no intention to go into the technical details about this. what i have done is to give a very clear political signal that once the technical conditions are fulfilled and once the political environment allows it, i think it'll be profitable to ensure integration or at

least cooperation to ensure that individual allies and partners can clock into a common system. this is what we tend to do with in the alliance. then i foresee that in the future once the necessary conditions have been built, we can also condition russia to plug into such a system. unfortunately, i am not able to go into more details right now. i think the most important thing here and now is to give the political systideas. >> there is a question in the back. >> thank you for outlining

your ambitious plans here. i am with the foreign affairs committee. i want to draw your attention on our backyard again on a region that is a bit neglected, the arctic region. we see ever-growing activity of their not only in the exploration of energy but also military activity. there is icelandic airspace being dealt with. when will this region be a focus of the new strategy?

how do you think russia and europe and nato cooperate in this field of major importance? thank you. >> this is a very interesting question. i can confirm that it will be one of the key issues to discuss when we elaborate new strategic concepts. it is obvious that climate change will have a significant impact on our security environment. i will not go into details, but it is much broader than just the arctic region. the arctic region is obvious, but in a broader sense, this

will be one of our major challenges in the years to come to deal with the consequences of climate change. it has not been righted the focus -- it has not been in the direct focus yet, but i think it will. the arctic region is obvious that climate change will imply that new sea routes will open a comment that we will see -- will open, that we will see new accessibility to resources that we have not yet been able to exploit. all this will create more competition in the arctic region. we know from experience that stronger competition might also lead to tensions including the

risk of armed conflicts. i think we have to take this consideration in in due time. this is the reason why i intend to put this very high on the agenda. i see a broad scope for a cooperation between nato and russia in the arctic region not only seen from a military point of view, but there are also environmental issues and the question of rescue operation and things like that. it is really a broad agenda. we have to adjust it. >> we have a question here.

-- address it. >> we have a question here. >> listing to your presentation , it reinforces my conviction and that nato should be read branded. -- it reinforces my conviction and that may co should be -- that nato should be reprinted and invite other countries to join us. > -- rebranded and invite other countries to join us. >> we state that the alliance may invite any european countries which is in a position to further the principles of the

treaty. the current treaty does not allow let you might call a global and nato -- what you may call a global in nato or global organization. i am not sure it'll be the right way forward. such a global organization would water down the court has core task of the current organization which is territorial defense -- water down the core task of the current organization which is territorial defense. we have to realize that in today's words, territorial defense often start out of area. in that respect, you are right

that we have to embark on a more global approach. i see no contradictions between territorial defense and occasional out of area operations. i think the current framework would be sufficient for a foreseeable future. having said that, i agree that we need partnerships. we need an expanded and broader partnerships than today. that is also one of my book is points, to further develop partnerships between nato and russia and to develop further our partnerships with in the

mediterranean dialogue. i could also point to countries like australia, new zealand, japan, self. , a like-minded -- south korea, like-minded countries. i still think that the core should be the north atlantic treaty organization. >> we have a question from the internet. he asks whether you think that europe and russia can work together to enhance peaceful involvement. >> indeed. we do. let me remind you we joint efforts to bring peace and

stability to the balkans. i do think that our experience in the balkans is a success story. i visited the region recently. i am pleased to see that conditions now seem to be filled -- filled -- fuf illed. we will carefully examine the situation before taking new steps. i think we can now see a clear profile in the direction of a reduced military presence in the region and in exchange the european union has already

deployed a civil mission. we have seen an excellent example of how we can work together to bring peace and stability to the balkans. >> yes, please, right here. >> on the nuclear weapons policy, the threat of nuclear proliferation, you mentioned that. given the link between that in the government as more experts admit involvement in the commitment by president obama -- how is nato going to further

denuclearized weapons? [unintelligible] i think could it would be -- i think it'll be a good confidence-building measure. >> good question. first of all, let me say in as a politician that i think that we all have the vision and ambition to live in a peaceful world without weapons, without armed conflicts, and did all nuclear weapons. that would be a wonderful -- and

without nuclear weapons. that would be wonderful world. let's agree on that. as i said in my speech, i am not a dreamer. i do not think we can make 100% sure that the world will become 100% free of nuclear weapons. if so, i still think it would be worth while adjusting case to consider to have something to protect yourself. this issue will be a subject for discussion during the process of collaboration of our new

strategic concept. it would be premature if i at this stage made any statement to the exact wording about this in the new strategic concept. it'll be a matter of discussion among allies. i think we should take into consideration that we live in the real world. having said that, i would reiterate my vision of the ideal peaceful world without weapons at all. it should be the ultimate goal for all politicians worldwide. let that be our point of departure. from there we can embark what i would call real life.

that is a real political answer. >> we have a question in the back. >> a couple of brief questions. the first one is the missile defense. one of the reactions from moscow was the reversal of u.s. policy on the issue and it is a correction of an error not a confession. what is your reaction to this attitude? do you have any indication from moscow that they will cooperate with a run -- iran? >> first of all, no, i do not have any indications from the russian side with regards there. as regards to your first question, i am not sure that i understood it correctly.

maybe if you could repeat it. >> can you hear me? one of the reactions from moscow was the reversal on missile defense -- that is not a confession but a correction of an error. what do you think? >> i'm not going to discuss such wording. the reality what i said earlier. -- is what i said earlier. the united states have now launched new plans regarding the development of a missile defense system. it would be a misunderstanding to interpret that as if there

would be no missile defense system in europe. it is not an abolition of a missile defense system. it is a development of a missile defense system which can include all allies and protect all allies. it is a flexible system which can enter into force sooner than the previous plans. that is the facts on the ground. >> there was one question right here. then we will take the last two questions. >> thank you. in relation to your point number

three, would you see the role -- what we do see the role for nato in energy security? would believe now importing countries like turkey? -- would it leave out other countries like turkey? my third question, would you see it feasible as a politician that my grandchildren leaving the world -- living in a world where russia is ana nato ally? >> first about energy security. energy security is really a subject of great importance to our overall security. in that respect, it is also an

item on our agenda. i would not exclude that there are aspects of energy security would also be long to the core tasks of nato such as defense of critical entity in for structure. however, and a more broad sense of the words energy security, i do not think it is a primary task for native to deal with it. in the more broad sense, it is much more about a reduction in individual countries dependency

on imported fossil fuels. it is more about broadening their energy sources. here i think we could develop a cooperation between nato and the european union. a lot of energy security aspects are more efficiently it dealt with with in the european urine in reducing within the european -- with in in tthe european union and nato. i think i should reiterate to the wording in the nato agreed, in which the nato allies may invite any european country which is in a position to furtth