future. all the way from eastern oregon with buy yes mass to solarñi wod in the metro area, and there are opportunities for us to be part of what i hope will be the green energy capital of the world, the united states. it is a question of whether we'll have the tenacity and discipline to stick to it. our competitors, particularly chien, they are going to stay at it and we cannot sit on our hands and let them dominate the mark. and the valley and whether it is your company and wave or solar or buy yes mass or wind, when you go up the gorge, so long as i have the honor to represent you in the united states senate and sit on the energy committee, i'm going to do everything i can to open up doors for employers like you. [applause] >> number 843, followed by 793. >> your distinguished

legislator. how about a round of applause for sarah gelter. >> thank you so much, senator wyden for coming today and especially for coming to the middle school and as a parent of two student that is attend here, i could assure you as beautiful as this building is, the staff led by principal james wickman and the students here are far more impressive. >> a round for the staff. where's the principal? congratulations, mr. principle ball. thank you. >> my question also is about the health care reform bill. i mentioned i have children and among them are three daughters and they and i benefit from the work of generations of women that came before us. and so we have opportunities and politician and business and in sports that my mother and grandmother could not have dreamed of. that includes the chris, the at some point to mick choices about our own future as mothers and

reproductive health choices. what is the future of -- for my daughters, in terms of their ability to make their oin choices about their reproductivive health and access to the full range of choices and their ability to afford to pay for them, even in privately paid insurance plans and will they be able to have their contraceptives covered as well? >> representative gelter, as usual, as usual brings up an issue that many folks care and -- and this whole question of abortion has been one that -- that -- that the congress has debate add the country has clearly been focused on. so let me give you my sense of where things are in my own kind of judgment on it. and my own view is that -- for a pretty close to two decades now, in our country, there has been something of a rough consensus on this issue of abortion. and it consists essentially of two parts.

and one, the supreme court decision, roe versus wade, it is the law of the land and it essentially stipulates that as it relates to private conduct, a woman will ultimately have a right of choice. and that's with respect to an abortion. there are various criteria in terms of the trime mosters and a varieá5 of legal issues involved but that is essentially the law of the land, and a woman in the private sectorñi has a right of free choice with respect to -- to an abortion. what is also the law of the land is something called the hydeñr amendment. and the hyde amendment is a piece of federal legislation that bars federal funding of abortion. and again -- whether one agrees with one part or another, that has been something of a rough

consensus. in our country, for the last two decades. and what i tried to do in the healthy americans act because we had a provision on that is to preserve that rough consensus. we wrote our bill so there could be no federal funding of abortion. it stipulate that is veryçó clearly. and -- and you would see roe versus wade protected with respect to private choice. and now, along comes the house and the senate, and let's talk about those two approaches. because -- this will be a big part of the final debate. and the house legislation authored by congressman, stupak. he's a good man. i happen to disagree with him on this issue, essentially would require that a woman in the private sector purchase an insurance policy with a special rider on it. and there's evidence from the insurance industry and elsewhere

that -- that would be very hard to do. and it also keeps the band on -- ban on federal funding. the senate decided to go a different route. the senate protected the -- the ban on federal funding, with respect to hyde, but in effect said that a woman with respect to her health insurance could get it through one company, would make a separate payment. and now, this is not been pleasurable to either side in the debate. but it -- it is an approach in my view that the senate has taken that will keep the rough consensus that we have in our country with respect to the right of free choice. so, that is what i have supported. it came about through discussion in the senate. and -- and senator boxer and senator murray, perhaps the two leading pro-choice proponents talking with senators who are on the other side, that was the

position they arrived at in the senate. it wouldn't require women to go out and purchase a -- a separate rider the way the house bill would. and i strongly favor the senate approach with respect to contraceptives, i continue to believe that's -- that's with, contraceptives and planned parenthood, those are good anti-abortion programs and i support them strongly as well. >> i'm told we have time for no more than three more questions. so 793 is next. 844 rah 825. >> my name is ron. you keep talking about choices. i don't know this new health care thing is the chris i pay them to have insurance or i pay them not to have insurance. i get fined if i don't pay them. i don't see that as a choice. and is that constitutional? [applause]

>> an extremely important question and 0 -- one thatñi deserves an answer that -- that kind of walks through the argument. first, there are going to be lots of legal challenges on this bill, so whatever your position is, you can -- wait and see it make its way through the court system. this will be a lawyers employment program. no question about that. i believe anything reassembling the bill that is being debated will, if it gts to the supreme court be upheld as constitutional using the article one league the rationale with respect to -- to general welfare. it is the provision that upheld the medicare law and -- the lawyers will support -- the lawyers will argue that out, that's my own judgment. but the reason your question is

so important and i'm glad you brought it up now, is it highlights how do we find a balance in our country between individual freedom that we value so much and what happens when the exercise of individual freedom ripples over to the community at large and let me try to describe how i struck the balance. . . but we have a broad berth, a whole host of incentives and opportunities for individuals in the private sector to make their own judgments about health care. i feel very strongly about it. it is a bedrock principle of our

constitution, individual freedom, a coalition, giving it the broadest space to the individual to make their own judgments. the question is, what happens if it has indications for everyone else? you ask about what is called, commonly, the individual mandate in the bill to purchase health insurance. people, there is a mandate already under federal law and almost everyone in the community pays for it with their health insurance bill. it is the mandate that hospitals treat everyone who comes in the door whether or not they have health insurance. now, the census bureau shows that millions of americans who have a pretty decent incomes do

not buy health insurance. inevitably some of them will go to the hospital emergency rooms and those costs are passed on. even if they do pay, there are extra expenses because they are using the doctors, nurses, and the assistance in the hospital. there is an example of how the conduct of individuals which we would to have promoted to have their own private choices ripples over to the community at large. very often, i can be a dairy queen in some of comes up to me and says, listen. the people in washington better do something about the fact that i looked at my mother's bill and she paid $60 for bad bill when she is in the ad bill. let me go to safeway, rate aid,

or let me get her ad bill for $25. the reason she paid $60 in the hospital is because there are a bunch of people who went to the emergency room or are in the bed who could not pay for their ad bill. -- pay for their advil. we will wrestle with this issue for some time to come. the reason i feel so strongly about staying with this health- care issue until we get democrats and republicans to come together and find some common ground on this is because your question is so important. we have to find the right balance with respect to protecting the role of individuals, free choice, and their own judgments with how to make sure we protect the community at large. i am not convinced we are there yet, but i will stay at this in

a bipartisan way until we do get there. >> one more, 844. 844? 8-4-4. >> [no audio] i was going to talk about health care, but there is something that has been ignored that that was equally important. since you are on the intelligence committee and we have thousands of guys in afghanistan, pakistan and chasing al qaeda people.

i have concerns that we are de- stabalizing pakistan and all of the chaos. i would like you to talk about that. >> i am glad you brought that up. we have had an overwhelming discussion about health care, jobs, and energy. i do serve on the intelligence committee. my older daughter calls it the "so-called intelligence committee." i'm not going to get into classified matters, but let me give you a sense of where we are. funeral of a man who served in the military for 27 years. he died at this outpost in afghanistan. if you listen to his service and

how he made the ultimate sacrifice, he apparently was closest to the suicide bomber there at that outpost in afghanistan, and he gave his life in order to keep the tragedy from being even worse. he in effect threw himself at the suicide bomber. the events of last few weeks are of great consequence, and once again is why we honor our veterans. they keep giving and giving. we have made this very significant commitment in afghanistan, a major commitment in pakistan, and yet we are seeing on the basis of the last few days that maybe there has been an area we have overlooked, and that is yemen. if you look at what we have learned just in the last couple of weeks from the press, some of

my colleagues have been right for some time. they have been saying to stay clear of a country specific approach and concentrate on where al qaeda is. this is a desperate sort of threat -- a different sort of threat. my sense is we are going to wind it with hard power and with soft power. a lot of easy answers to this -- card power -- hard power, if we had known on 9/9 what was going to happen on 9/11, hard power is taking action on 9/10 to keep people from murdering thousands of americans. soft power is just as important. ñisoft power, particularly in te

arab world, if we can get the leadership of these arab governments to make sure is that the streets in the arab world know that these people are not martyrs but murderers, we are going to end up being -- see more opportunities to rein in the serious that'threats. the afghan-pakistan border is a central spot for extremists of al qaeda. the pakistan government clearly has got to do more. they get substantial aid from our country. it seems more often they are worried about india than they are about the threats of al qaeda and the taliban. we will keep pushing to have them step of and deal with what is the central threat of our

time, radical islam and al qaeda. i think as we get further into this, we will see that country specific approaches are not going to lend themselves as well to ending the threat of al qaeda. [inaudible] >> i very much appreciate your service. our national debt as of right now is 12.5 trillion dollars. the interest on the debt today alone is $1.1 billion.

that national debt clearly poses a clear and present danger to our national security. [applause] my question to you is, as are senator, we, the people, would like you to make a commitment to the legal citizens of oregon today to vote no on every bill that comes before you that is not clearly revenue-to reduce the debts, and will you vote yes to abolish the federal reserve? [applause] >> the question is about abolishing the federal reserve. that one i have real reservations about.

certainly, there needs to be significant change in the federal reserve practices in terms of more openness and more accountability. i am very troubled about the fact that even now, we cannot get all the information with respect to the federal reserve and this big insurance out betf. how about a round of applause for c-span, making sure there is real transparency in government? you go in the c-span files, you'll see i am questioning dr. bernanke and trying to pin him down to get this information with respect to the federal reserve and aig. you respond with respect to the need to overhaul. you do not want them setting

money-supply targets. more openness and accountability, absolutely. if you want to cut spending, you have to make real cuts to real programs and you have to step on toes. i will give you an example of one that i voted on recently. it was a real hard one for me. i made mention of the fact that i want to make changes to medical reimbursement policies. we had a vote not long ago in the senate to have a $250 billion fix in provider reimbursement. i am clearly in favor of that. it was not paid for. it did not meet the test that you just applied, so i was one of a small number on my side of the aisle who voted no. i will try to bring that kind of philosophy to everyone of these major measures, i talked about the exit strategy early on.

people want to know is the government going to try to run everything. here is the point for everybody leaving. i am sure you walk out of here disagreeing with me about one subject or two subjects, or you might say it rhonda's not know much about anything and we are stuck with this guy. what i hope you will say is that this is the way the founding fathers wanted it to work. for the last 90 minutes, because of annabel and frank, we have just been practicing grass-roots democracy. commissioners have been --xd the commissioner has been pulling stuff out of his old. commissioner dixon is an honest man. we had gentleman there in the second row bring up another very important points with respect to the federal reserve and

spending. we have been doing democracy the way it ought to be done. oregon always makes me proud when we showcase our approach to dealing with issues and dealing with these questions as you have today. i want you to know as you walk out of here, i do not have all the answers, and lord knows, i make plenty of mistakes. i can count the votes and get a call from -- i can cast a vote and get a call from nancy saying, you sure blew that one. on my watch, this is the way we are going to do it, at the grass-roots level. you have my special pledge as we deal with health care and taxes and energy, i am going to make a hallmark of serving you in the united states senate, bringing democrats and republicans

together and staying at it until we get it done. thanks for making democracy work. [applause] >> please join me in thanking centered wyden for being here. >> thank you for all being very responsible in this conversation. i think the senator is right, this is the way we should be speaking with one another on these very important issues. thank you.

>> this weekend, marine corps university of moyar military leadership and winning counterinsurgency wars. also, peter sis on growing up in communist czechoslovakia. that is this weekend on c-span2. earlier today, secretary of

state hillary clinton announced she will travel to haiti on saturday to meet with president preval and government officials. administration officials have announced that additional troops, aid workers, and supplies will be arriving for the weekend. 7.0 earthquake that struck the region was the worst in 200 years. it was centered 10 miles southwest of the capital, port- au-prince. [no audio] >> next week, your chance to talk to the authors of the best-

selling "game change." they will take your questions on the 2010 campaign and the impact of the book on policy live a tuesday morning on "washington for zero." -- "washington journal." says your five-eight minute video on one of our country's great strengths or challenges. there is $50,000 in total prize money and all winning videos will be taught will be shown on c-span -- will be shown on c- span. studentcam.0rg. >> and now a discussion on new media and politics. this is part of an event hosted by the washington center for internships and academic seminars. it is just over one hour.

♪ >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am the senior program manager for academic seminars with the washington center for internships and academic seminars here in washington d.c. for over 30 years we have had over 42,000 alumni come through our internships program in washington d.c. where we place students with substantial internships in coalition with academic courses and additional programming that turns them full-time credit at their home institutions. we currently work with over 850 colleges and institutions from the country and worldwide. our web site is www.twc.edu. the students we have here today

are all purchase vince in a two week seminar called, "inside washington." this week we are focusing on politics and the media. they represent 60 different colleges and universities and we are happy to have them here. we have two panels this morning. first, a panel sponsored by a partner with the washington center, the graduate school for political management here at george washington university. they will be hosting this panel on a new media. i want to introduce you to the moderator in the center seat and allow him to introduce his panel. he works at the graduate school the university and works in new media and marketing. he's the founder of p oliticsunder30.org. he is in charge of the politics

on-line conference this year. two years ago bryce was in one of these seats as part of " insider washington 2008." he is a long like you will be in a matter of hours. -- he is an alum. >> how is everyone doing this morning? we are here at the graduate school of political management at george washington university four blocks from the white house in the center of politics. what will we talk about this morning? we are going to talk about new media and it is a wide subject. what i thought i would do is that i would start out with the landscape. today, as americans, we have access to over one trillion web sites. just on your iphone alone, you have access to 65,000 apps.

every minute, according to youtube,m there are 20 hours of video a bloated every minute. -- 20 hours of the uplo -- upload. the average teen texts 2,272 times per month. there are two million emails cents per day and i that 90% are spam. . .

this is the center of online politics today. there are a lot of parameters that constrain whitehouse.gov. talk about the parameters. >> thanks for the invitation. this is something that i have a passion for. i think oftentimes, because it is so new, it reminds people

that i mourn the first director at the white -- that i was the first director at the white house. president obama has the ability to become the first social media president. as the figure out what all that means, what happens on line is different than what happens in the .com properties. there are rules and regulations that govern how one can communicate with constituents. one of the challenges -- when i was there from 2005 to 2007, youtube was founded in 2005. twitter was not yet around. it was fairly new. facebook was limited to those that had college e-mail addresses. you had to be a member of a college or higher education institution to be on the network.

we were monitoring all these things. we did not know how it applied to governing, because it was so new. although youtube was founded in 2005, it was not until google purchased its that the google changed in 2006. in 2008, youtube surpassed yahoo! as the second most highest ranked search engine. people were going to you to before yahoo! or other sites. -- youtube before yahoo! or other sites. we were the get that to find a way to leverage it without violating policies. questions like, we can pose things 2 facebook -- in terms of engaging with people on facebook, they are trying to figure out other ways to archive that so four or eight years

from now we can ship it over to the archive so it'll be there for decades and generations to come. >> i wanted to jump in. i wanted to challenge one thing you said about the white house -- whitehouse.gov being the center of the political universe. i do not know that it is. a lot is made about the restraints on official government websites. it is much different than your able to do on the campaign. tabloids were coming down every night it 6:30 p.m. it is completely different. it still cut abc and cbs doing their thing to get the media. people forget that.

it is not as bad off as some people may get out to be. it is splintered. you have the cable networks. you can have joe smith come out of college. when did you can grab a camera and start posting things on the youtube. -- one of you can grab a camera and start posting things on you too. -- youtube. you are out there. a can be read. it can be heard. the center of the political universe is not whitehouse.gov. every single our people are checking it out. it is constantly being updated at cnn and cnn television around the world. websites i've politico -- like

politico. our member as a kid watching white house coverage. he was always shouting with a booming voice. he was shouting and ronald reagan -- at ronald reagan. when it came to washington as a young reporter, a ted koppel was roasting him or something he joked about sam donaldson. ted koppel said something like television -- if television had not been invented, sam donaldson when not have gone to work. he would have gone door to door. what we have done was social media, journalists are going door-to-door, even if you do not see our reports on television, we are pushing it on your iphone. anderson cooper right now in

haiti -- if you are not calling him, you should be. when the lights go out on the issue, he is doing to our programs from haiti. on twitter the reports continue to out to the night and an -- continue out at night and are often cnn.com. it is constantly being updated. >> help in this world where you can go 50 million places for your information, how are campaigns going to cut through that reached? >> it is an excellent question. what you will see is and are already seeing is a campaign tousing not just one but a two hopefuls. every year there seems to be a new tool or what you need to have a presence on. facebook is the only social network. you need to have profiles on

multiple social networks like twitter. it did not exist a few years ago. now it is an essential tool. they are seeing these different adages to get information out there. they are realizing that each present a unique opportunity. a twitter accounts will not allow you to deliver great policy views. youtube allows you to deliver a big deal a couple minutes long, giving you a great variety of information. whether it is the campaign or at the white house, you are seeing these different avenues. what is interesting is what will exist in a couple of years ago to give one example, the mcdonald's campaign in virginia. he was republican. he used to drive all the social networking. that is in contrast with the

obama campaign, which had tried to make its own website. it did not exist at that time. as you see these larger campaigns try out new tools, the ones that work will be adapted by smaller campaigns. that goes all the way down to the county level. >> if you are advising a perfect until campaign, how much of your resources do you put into in new media? >> that is a tough argument. so many campaigns feel they would rather have money to get by. a lot spent immediately. a lot to spend on television advertising. historically, the online

politics community really has struggled to get resources within the campaign. there are also human resources. to update all of the site into engage people in the real one- on-one conversations on line that they need to -- i think it'll be really hard to figure out where to focus the time and resources. i do not think there is one right answer. i think that most people have realized now that it is one to take a lot more effort, a lot more manpower, and a lot more money. i think they are going to turn to younger people and people in college who are willing to put in a lot of hard work who are savvy with the technology into are really engaged in the political world. the a good to step up and fill -- they are going to step up and fill those roles. >> what is changing, because i

was working in the private sector building web sites for members of congress, is that new media people have more of a seat at the table. the first cycle they are putting of a press release and putting it on the web. the weatherperson would receive the e-mail, pose the website come and be damned. -- the web person would receive the e-mail, post it on the website, and the done. they grew the power. the folks on the new media's i became more involved in the decision. the concept of putting it in a separate but it is the wrong way to go. it should be woven into everything you are doing. you are reading people in various ways. people will say, how do you reach the audience?

what do you do? are you on twitter? are you on facebook? do you read blogs? 90% of the people may go to the web. there also linking the mainstream media there. there was a new study that reported that. in terms of the level of credibility, your campaign manager should also be your new media manager. one note about the haiti thing, we are talking about mobile technology. my friend worse for the red cross. i am sure you have seen the text "haiti" to 90999. they have raised $5 million as of 7:00 last night through that mobile campaign. the ability to raise money online has had a huge impact on campaigns. what we may be seeing is a shift of money from traditional advertising and maybe toward

other types of technology. >> we see it in campaigns as well. the republicans did a big internet push and raise something like $1.3 million in a 24-hours. the democrats also have a lot of money. he made a big impact there. not only was it money he could spend in the final week, but it created news stories that maybe there is some momentum there. now there is a poll saying he is up four points. not a lot people heard of him. maybe there is some momentum here. >> switching a little bit from these professional brands of a candidate or business to the

individual. this is open to anyone. talk to the young person out there who need to build their personal brand. what should they be doing to build the brand? what should they be doing to defend and maintain the brand? >> i think a piece of it is the issue of trust. there is a fabulous researcher at mit who looks at how people build activities and trust in on-line environment. part of this ties into your social capital online. what are you doing when you go on line? how are you interacting with people? are you socially grooming people? are you wish him happy birthday? are youre-tweeting -- are you re-tweeeting something they said? are you a participant in the community? how are you purchase a fading in the new environment in a way that builds up your personal profile? that level of trust is very individual and personal.

i think it is hard to have a brand that people trust. you can have a person that people turn to and trust for news and information. i think all of that ties into what you do on your online, how you treat others when you are online, and how much time you spend engaging in the new media environment. >> they call this a digital footprint. your digital footprint is comprised of two things, things that to publish about yourself and things that other publish about you. you can control what you publish about yourself. bl if you. ogging -- if you are blogging online -- a lot of people like to hide under names. they did that for a reason. when you could go their actual name, it does not show up in the results.

things you publish about yourself and others are publishing about you. if you are a core brand or person, that could be -- if you are in college any dissenting on campus and there is an article about you in student government, that is all forming an impression. if i am a future employer or seeking out information about you and google is returning the repellent -- the prevalent results, it is before i him in. you can influence with others published about you. > >> anything i post is not just about me. it has seen in's brand on it. you have to be aware of that.

you cannot put embarrassing things on it to you or your company. even if you did not have the company brand, people associate you with that company are with that campaign. if you just had your own name with owncnn at the -- your own name with out cnn at the end, people will connect that back to you. you have to be conscious of the digital foot print. >> i think the web has muddle that line between personal and professional. that is why you will see things on twitter account things about a day job with tweets being my own opinion. i may take a position that my clients may be against or four. a lot of people -- or for. and what people are trying to

define the lines. >> people want to know what the blotgger has to say. it keeps a large amount of interest. at the same time, they have to be cognizant of what brands they are associating themselves with as well. if that brand or new platform is dramatically different, if they switch from a newspaper to another, that will impact their personal friend as well. it goes both ways. >> the new technology, being able to hold of yourself and be able to overlay what is around you. how is augmented reality going to be used in campaigns and in politics? >> right now it is a cool tool.

you can take your phone and folded up and down load and application and get all of the reviews for what is going on and around you. that part of it is really cool. it is like something out of a science-fiction novel. can you imagine getting to the point where you hold of your iphone and every time you turn directions you get a different political message? but eventually, the more we use these tools, the more we will produce a lot of noise. we will start turning them out. for me, my interest is how can use this to do something really interesting what people are still excited about it. what is it going to evolve into so we can jump on it? >> there are so many different kinds of social media and what not. users are very smart and are able to figure out what they

think is noise and what they buy. -- like. what is the point istweeting about -- what is the point of tweeting about things that people can find out anywhere? they want to read about things they have not seen. it is a tidbit. i think the future is there all things -- if you just throw out things coming you hear back quickly. if you are just using the internet to spam people, it'll blow back in your face quickly. >> there is a medical study about mit. it talks about condescend overload. people tend to face this, especially older people, where they feel overwhelmed.

they fill shellshocked and the come on line. -- a feel shellshocked when they come on line. dating size that do not limit choices tend to overwhelm people so much they spend less time evaluating the right potential mates for them. websites that help limit the choices actually allow people some way to spend more time evaluating who is right for them. i think we can apply to that to the world of information. there is a lot of stuff out there. there are possibilities for research and politics and what is going on. people will hone in on forces that they trust. there are forces that have good social capital, not a bunch of

idiots that have the internet. they will figure out who is producing good content. they will block out the rest of the noise. >> that is why twitter launched a in twitter list. there is a british scientist. he talks about the fact that the human brain can only manage about 150 active relationships at a time. that may mean they you could no 2000 people from childhood to present day. in terms of your 150, we are part of the dunbar 150. we are talking about something. we might move into our daily step. we this track of folks. the brain cannot manage 10,000 people. it cannot. stuff comes piping in. you have to decide.

you cannot be looking at that all day. maybe some of you are. the human brain cannot manage that. you have to qualify what is a value. your brain is a judgment over what is a valuable and what is not. >> one interesting way of going back there. it is the concept that wherever you are going, you are taking advantage of all the information that is out there. the second set of that is that it is being customized to you. [unintelligible] it was a little projector it that attach to an augmented reality device. to give an example. you could to a bigger store and

pick up a box of cereal. it to a project the cost of the cereal at other supermarket. you customize it to say you do not like this cereal or the cereal has a high amount of fat. there are always different ways you can customize it to make sure the information is relevant to you. i think that the future of taking advantage of the information is out there. we will make sure that it is relevant and customized to you. every minute -- how much is uploaded to youtube? >> 20 hours. >> you can never watch everything on the youtube. you have to think about what is relevant to you. >> i used to work and c-span. i remember he spends his day

going through all the newspapers. i remember going, why are you wasting your time? he said, what do you mean? i said, he can set of news alert. he said, what about the things i did not know i cared about? you can narrowly focused things you know you are interested in. the after discovery is almost removed in some ways. . -- act of discovery is almost removed in some ways. it is about finding. i do not want to spend all day searching. while i am searching, i also learned new things. we have to be careful about only subscribing to things we know we are going to care about. >> by 2020, the main way we will

be injured. accessing the internet is by the cell phone -- the main way we will be accessing the internet is by the cell phone. how do you [unintelligible] >> it is always changing. with the obama campaign, we did a lot of mobile technology organization. as you mentioned earlier with haiti, you see a much better example of donating. $5 million was done in $10 increments. -a thousand people donated through their cell phones. -- 500,000 people donated through their cell phones. you have these different ways coming together. the cell phone technology is expanding.

it is allowing people to get more personalized information. i think what campaigns are going to need to do is realize that it is not the same as something like an e-mail list. it is not a list of names and addresses. instead, there is a much richer interaction with people. if people are out of school and they signed up, we should track that so that we can give them information relevant to the school. i think campaigns need to find a way to utilize that. one non campaign example is something that was just recently launched that allows you to track what congress is doing on your phone. it is really interesting, because those people that are interested, and they might be walking around in the halls of

congress and want to know that this bill was introduced even though i was out of office. as the cell phone carriers and the makers of the phones like apple and google -- they recognize the potential and are doing what they can to open it up. i think that there is really a lot of potential out there. the key is that the campaigns need to make sure that they keep tying it back to the person and making it relevant. >> if you get an update on your phone every time a bill is introduced in congress, you have to do some of the online dating sites. it is pretty boring. >> one of the things that the obama campaign did with the mobile is some of the study showed that it urged on election day for people to go out and vote. they were checking the weather

patterns across the country. if you lived in a rainy city, you were less likely to go out in you get up to five texts a day. it could also add your contact information. that turnout functionality showed that among younger audiences, the voter turnout was increased because of that mobile technology. i think there is a lot of discussion about how much mobile and internet really affected rate in 2008. i think the messaging in the campaigning have a lot to do with it, too. it you look at the way that folks are connecting in that way of the immobile, it is changing we will see the

functionality changing. right now it is web content of looks ok on a small screen. right now it is expensive to do some of the mobile technology. a lot of folks doing it in doing it well. >> of the last question before we take questions from the audience. i was reading yesterday about the kay bailey had some campaign and how during the campaign -- hutcheson campaign and how during the campaign google found out there were hidden search terms in the html part of the website. it was about how this had happened. there were nondisclosure agreements. they never found out who did it. the website was blacklisted on google search. who sets the ethical standards?

this is a big question. who is setting the ethics and standards and the express'best s on how a campaign reaches voters? >> i think it is policed by the users out there who will feel that is a dirty trick. do not pollute our online environment with this or that. that might not be good. sometimes there may need to be more. people on line are smart. they are not sitting there in their pajamas singing this or that. they know when someone is manipulating the web in a way it is underhanded. that is very risky for candidates. it will blow up in their faces.

>> i do not know if you familiar with the google bomb. google returns search results of what is most relevant. if you have a bunch of people linking to something, ending google will think that it must be relevant. if you would google "miserable failure" it would give you whitehouse.gov. >> this is the bush administration. >> this was the bush administration. google said people were manipulating this. a guy had a friend who is applying for a job. [unintelligible] they said this is a great thing. president bush's by a would come

up first. -- biography would come up. and then to become a googled is able to it. people were manipulating it. this is not what its -- googl eventually, googled disabled it. people were manipulating it. this is not what it is for. it is caused damage. if you google some of the things today, whitehouse.gov would still come up. when a new white house comes to town and want to change the links, that sets google back. >> i think the internet is like the force. you can use the force for good or evil. you can train yourself in the

dark or light side. if you spend too much time in the dark side of the force, and eventually come in the e walks will start throwing stuff at you -- being ewokthe ewoks willt throwing stuff at you. how you act on line is very important. >> one last thing to add. what we see with these, we were talking about individuals. if the person on google want to get what is interesting to them. when that does not happen, what is the deal with that? they blame google or whatever website. these companies are very protective of that and making sure whatever they are using works the way it is supposed to. i think what we often see is the companies themselves leaking its common not because --

leaking it, not because of their good-natured, because worrying about people leaving them. that is how they make money. taking google and china, they just announced that they are threatening to pull out of china completely. it is because a month ago, the chinese military government packed into google accounts of democratic activists. google said it was unacceptable. what is most interesting to me is that here you have a superpower, a huge country, actually working directly with a company. this is not through the u.s. government or anything like that. china did not come out saying, whatever, you can leave a. it did not have a response for a day. then they were like, anyone that wants to work here has to abide

by our rules. it did not come back in a competitive way. you see this company acting on behalf of the users to protect them. i think that'll be the way going forward. it is not a perfect system. when it does become destructive or manipulate the users in the way they do not want, you will see the company's force it. -- companies focrce it. >> [unintelligible] now we are going to go to our first audience question. we will try to keep them as crisp and concise as possible. >> my first question -- it is only one question.

i wanted to know, why do you think during the 2008 campaign obama had such a large number of young supporters? do you feel that number had changed after obama has been in office for a year and why? >> that is a big question. i will break it down into a couple of parts. i think they are basically too big reasons why obama has support among young people. young people were valued. they were not extra. there was a national youth department. whenever there was a campaign staff, there were people associated with reaching out to young people. if you think about it, that party exists with most other

groups. you have a veterans outreach staffer. often, younger people were left behind on that. while we may be different in what gets us in gauge or our schedules, we are the same in that if you reach out to us, we will respond. having someone focused on reaching out to young people is crucial. i think the obama campaign recognized that and recognized its this person is 17 and they want to help out, we will say that you can make phone calls or let's make sure that if you want to volunteer on your campus that you can. there was a higher degree of engagement with younger viewers. the other side is that a lot of what obama talked-about was appealing to young people. he is relatively young.

he talked about issues relevant to younger people. when he was a senator, he proposed a bill to increase financial aid for students. it is easy for him to relate to people. he is charismatic. he was able to reach young people out there. simply holding a rally in getting people there was not one to turn out the boat. it relied on the first step, making sure the staffers were behind the matter to engage the people and making sure they were able to vote. >> it needs to be said that john mccain valued young people and their boats as well and was reaching out for the votes. i think the obama campaign was better for two big reasons. one would be just the kind of change that candidates obama was talking about appeal to young

people more radical, we are really going to shake up washington. mccain said he was going to as well. when you look at specific bullet points of the obama campaign committee were speaking the same language as a young people. they were using the tools. they were using the tools to better connect with them. john mccain now has one of the best or most followed twitter account in the world. he has over $1 million. while he was not doing that and s a presidential candidates, i do not know. i am not saying that if john mccain was using twitter he would be president. i think that would be absurd. i do not think the social media itself will be elected president. when you put the whole package

together -- by the way, there is a point about traditional media and ground gaining in the campaign. you cannot just focus on social media because that is the wave of the future at the expense of making the phone calls, going door-to-door. the obama campaign had the whole package. they were still knocking on doors and using facebook. just a quick on why they may be losing some young people. the first part of what i said -- i talked about the tools. there may be some young people who might feel disillusioned now that some of the promises that were made more radical change todd had not been delivered. it delivers on the health care bill, some of the mind may be changed. it is still early. >> thank you. >> one thing i should have also mentioned is what was happening independent of the obama campaign. in the 2004 election, you saw an

increasing number of young people boating each time. regardless of who is running, the trend would continue. he just did a good job of capitalizing on it. >> thank you for being here. my question is regarding -the text messages that people are receiving from endorsements. recently, our senate races caught national attention and a democratic leaders have been texting people who are on their list to go vote for other democratic candidates. scott brown continues to rise in the polls. do you think that the text message endorsements actually have a big effect or are they speaking to the choir? >> that is a great question. a lot of it remains to be seen. it is not is what you are doing online.

it is what you are doing offline that also counts. there had been some interesting news stories about massachusetts. the fact that republicans even see a little bit of light of day there, that we could take take kennedy's seat -- there is excitement around that. some folks may lead to the right in our getting energized about that. i am sure more money is flowing into that. in some way, text messaging is a way to keep in touch with your folks up there and your supporters. during the obama campaign, i live in a part of northern virginia that is retired military. i could not go to an event, whether a book festival or farmers' market or even to the market to buy food and where there would not be an obama table with volunteers signing people to register to vote. i think it is a combination of

all of the above. whether you are doing things on the web or mobile, and is not a replacement. >> it surprises me -- this has been done with a direct mail for the past 20 or 30 years. then it was done by e-mail for the past eight years. now they are moving to text messages. it is an old school tactic being applied to a new school technology. i am not quite sure how effective that is. i think we view it as noise. we delete it. we put it in the garbage. if it came from someone who actually knew saying, dude, important election. we need to. i think he would hold onto that. >> with texting [unintelligible] with e-mail, you get them all the time.

if you get a text, and to opt out, and you still get text messages, the finder through the roof. because most people value their cell phone, it is a way to directly reach people when there is an urgent need, whether get out and vote or getting your friends to vote. that is a qualified connection to reach people independently. most people read text messages with them minutes after receiving them. whit e-mails, i have several and red. >> -- with e-mails, i have several that are on runred. -- unread. >> with some recent advances such recenttivo, -- recent adventures such as tivo, the thing fire at will help? >> i think it still depends on

the mainstream media to pick them up. lastly, a member of the mainstream media said it too is no longer going to cover viral ads if there is not a television ad behind them. he said they were not serious unless the organizations were willing to put a quarter of a million dollars behind them as interesting as they are -- behind them. as interesting as they are committing the mainstream media to get more play. -- as interesting as they are, the mainstream media is needed to get more play. >> is an adviser to were television only? -- isn't that [unintelligible]

he said he will put that up. television is definitely dominating what is going on. there is a little interest in putting the television ad before the but the video online. if you what is coming to get free content. it is -- what it, you get free content. it is a tiny percentage of what is happening. >> i think it can get attention. if you have a very cool viral baad and too good to of debate d you do not know the issues and do misspeak on terrorism, chances are the viral ad will not carry on the election. >> thank you. >> one more quick question.

>> i come from washington college. there has been some discussion and where i used to concerning the over exposure of the president due to the new media. do you feel this is a bad changed? do you feel the president should be this exposed in the media and public or do you feel people are overreacting? >> i think the media to talk about how overexpose the barack obama is -- i think regular people really care. if the media have not been [unintelligible] >> i can see both sides of this. the need is driving it. i talked to a lot of real people back home. they are singaying that obama is

everywhere on television. that is fine. i think there was a lot of pundits over doing that too is over exposed. it is a free country. if he wanted to use the new media, he has the ability to do it. there are diminishing returns some time. we saw the health care bill earlier. he was not moving it forward. he pulled back for a while and was not out there every single day. now it looks like he is on the verge of a victory. i think he is free to do what he wants. i think they are still seeing that sweating it and going out there can move the ball forward for them. sometimes they have to pull back. the white house turned this on the media.

he is had not had a news conference since july or june. he has been getting pressure on that. board gives us said, i bet you guys said that he was over exposed -- robert gibbs said, i thought you guys said that he was over exposed. i do not think we should just say he is over exposed doing too much. if he thinks that is what he need to do to get his message out, he is free to do that. i think the white house has learned that there are diminishing returns some time. you cannot be out there in everybody's face every day. >> and not have actions showing up. >> if there is not a movement on it -- now they are starting to meet the deadlines.

there are two bills that they are trying to merge. there is substance behind it. earlier, there was a lot of talk. now that there is something they can rally behind, him getting out there and messaging it, it could be more effective. >> to finish up our last question, i think it is interesting that if this was a january 15 at 2000 that'saol -- that' aol and time warner would have just emerged. the merger was worth three under $50,000. they said it would change everything critic -- $350,000. they said it would change everything. what do we believe today that in five years or 10 years people

are going to say, i cannot believe we believed that? >> about technology? >> wow. >> everyone fell on their face with predictions. now you want us to go out there? >> you have to look at how quickly technology is advancing. things that took two years to create a year ago will take half the time today. technology is advancing so rapidly. the concept of convergence and that everything will be touch screen and you walk in your house and there will be no more televisions or computers -- everything will be ted scream. we are seeing some of that already. -- touch screen. we are seeing some of that already. skype has added to this. i do not know if it'll be 10

years from now, but it'll be interesting to see this. leo henry was asked about the information superhighway. his response was, "i think we are still sitting in the driveway." we will not be as far aa long as we think we will be. >> most of the web use will be on cell phones. i do not think that. i think people by having a little more space and a different work products. on the fly, it is great to take a baseball score. i think there is a value in having more than a little screen. >> our television screens get bigger and yourself on screens get smaller. -- and your cell phone screens get smaller. >> i'll give one or two examples

of things i think could go either way. another example might be myspace, which was valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. they are losing people dramatically. they need to adapt to the new technology and things that are changing. the companies think the way to do that is to give them the platform to treat it their own way. the iphone would become obsolete or become identical to every other phone it did not have applications. that is what people are picking i phones. the companies need to make sure the allow people to react with content and the products in unique ways. they all face the problem of

monetizing for . facebook will be an interesting example. they have a huge user base. they are growing dramatically. if they need to make money through ads. they are getting people to share more information. with myspace, you did not know who the people were. you did not know if they were 99-years old or if they were whatever age they put in between. it was all subjective. with facebook, they but there'll information. if they had to verify they were a college student. then people "friend" them. it the person had a random photograph or nickname, and they were not going to "friend" them because they did not know them. the founder facebook says he thinks people are valuing privacy in lot less than they did before. that is why facebook is sharing

more of your information. there are things that you cannot hide now. i'm not going to predict facebook will not be here in 10- years, but they need to be careful with the pact they follow. -- path they follow. something new comes along to take their space. -book had facebook take their space. they capitalized on their weakness. i think it'll be interesting to see what comes up. i think that will have the biggest impact. >> thank you to the political management o. thank you to each when the panelists for coming. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> we do have gifts for all the panelists. we appreciate your time with us. thank you for being here. >> tonight on c-span, officials released the findings of the court would shootings. president obama and secretary of state clinton talk about the u.s. government efforts to help survivors of the haitian a quick. house democrats discuss efforts often -- discuss the findings on unemployment. . .

>> secretary gates described the report as a serious assessment and one that should be noted that was delivered on time despite the very aggressive schedule. this afternoon, it is my privilege to present to you the cochairs of that independent review, the former secretary of the army, togo west, and the former chief of naval operations, vernon clark, both of whom many of you know, but

have graciously given some of their time to discussing with you in more detail their findings and recommendations and to also address some of your questions gentlemen, thank you very much for this review and your dedication and giving us this opportunity to ask you about the report. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. 72 days ago, a lone gunman opened fire at the soldier readiness center in fort hood, texas. 13 people died. 12 uniformed service members and a civilian. 43 were wounded. that will be remembered as a day of tragedy admiral clark and i and all of us who work on this project extend once again our

sympathies to the fallen, to the families of the wounded, and all of those who were touched by that tragedy. and the aftermath from that day, secretary gates established his independent review relating to fort hood. he asked admiral clark and me to cochair. we accepted, we have done so, and we have provided him our report. it is being released as we speak. some of you already have it. the secretary asked us to do a careful review of personnel policies of force protection measures, of emergency response plans, and of support to those who give medical care to our service members and wounded.

he also asked us to conduct a review of the army's application of its policies and practices to the alleged perpetrator. to accomplish this, we established five teams. each staffed with a full range of experts. we also established a board of advisers with senior uniformed leaders from the military services. those teams had full access to facilities, personnel, and the resources of departments. they visit it for could it, as did admiral clark and died the day after we were appointed. -- they visited fort hood, as did admiral clark and i the day after the incident. their conclusions are what constitutes the report. this morning, secretary gates said he would not address specifics with respect to the alleged perpetrator.

we are bound by the same constraints. but we refer you to what you perhaps have already seen, and that is the concluding lines and our executive summary as well as the one-page chapter one, with respect to the alleged perpetrator, which we point out that as a result of our review, it appeared there were several officers who did not apply the army's policies to the perpetrator. we recommended to the secretary that he refer. finding -- we recommend to the secretary that he refer that finding and materials associated with it to the secretary of the army for accountability review. the specific language was review of accountability or such other actions as the secretary of the army shelled the appropriate. our report was broader than the alleged perpetrator. in fact, it's 53 findings and

associated recommendations cover the full range of the terms of reference that you heard me speak to a moment ago. their purpose is to strengthen the army's ability, the department's ability to find indicators, to understand them, and to prepare ourselves for action as weñr defend the force against this threat. the secretary of defense that gave you a fairly detailed overview in his comments this morning, and admiral clark is prepared to fill an additional information. but before i pass it to him, let me mention three observations from that day of tragedy. first, no amount of preparation can be too much. leaders at fort hood anticipated a mass casualty of that -- event ñiin their

emergency response plans and exercises. that preparation showed at fort hood. two minutes and 40 seconds after the initial receipt of the 911 phone call, emergency responders were on theçó scene. by emergency responders, i specifically refer to elements of the four could security team. one-and-a-half minutes after çóthat, the assailant was incapacitated. taken into custody, it remains under the custody of security forces. the remainder of that day, including the transportation to civilian hospital and physician care at that time. two minutes, 50 seconds after that, two incident command vehicles arrived to dispense life giving medical care to those who had been wounded.

and lives were saved as a result. yet 13 people died, 43 were wounded. we will prepare harder, plan more diligently, and seek to see around the corners of our future to find the signs of an emerging potential next event. secondly, we need to be attentive to today's hazards. yes, it is the role of our forces to protect the nation against external threats, but are emerging concern is to protect the force against the internal threat. you heard the secretary of defense say, you will hear admiral clark elaborate, that we need to make sure that we understand the forces that cause an individual to radicalize, to

commit acts of violence, and thereby to calls it an internal invulnerability, a vulnerability within our forces. third, correct and presence of mind in the face of crisis carried the day. we saw that, too, at fort hood. courageous acts were a key element in preventing greater loss. the question for ross is, -- the question for us, is can we reward that courage by exercising the foresight to ascertain the threat, to find the information that identifies the threat, and, having done so, to act preemptively? admiral clark? >> thank you, secretary west.

first, force protection. existing policies are not optimized for countering an internal threats. what that means, then, is there is insufficient knowledge and awareness, the kind of knowledge and awareness that is required to identify individuals likely to commit violence. further, guidance concerning workplace violence and the potential support of self rattled his asian rigid self- radicalization is insufficient. it is not disseminate the wider range of indicators that could signal an insider threat. and complicating the entire force protection area of discussion is the challenge that

is created by it the first nature of the responsibilities as they have evolved within the department since 9/11. there are four under secretaries of defense that have responsibilities in the report on page 25, and we have outlined the specific things they are responsible for, but the end result is synchronization is difficult. as the secretary said this morning, there is no single official assigned all the responsibility, and then that results in the question about effective policy integration. shifting to information sharing. some policies that govern the exchange of information both inside the department and externally, and by that i mean within the interagency arena, some of these policies are deficient. and they did not support

detection and mitigation of internal threats. the time has passed when concerns by specific entities over protecting their information and how it is allowed to prevent relatives. innovation -- relative threat intervention, that time has passed. the people who need it most in this particular case are the commanders and leaders at the point of interest. as indicated this morning, there is a requirement to create a more agile and adaptive force. one that can deal with the changing security environment, anticipating threats, and bringing a wide and continuously evolving range of tools and techniques and programs into play. finally, under information sharing, with effective

information sharing program is the command and control system that it supports. a robust program and the accompanying command and control structure to convert information into specific decisions and actions requires more active information gathering of the potential threats, and dissemination and analysis of the assessments to every level of command. the secretary task does specifically to look at the areas of identifying employees who could potentially pose a threat. the most summary statement i can provide you is there is a lack of clarity or comprehensive indicators, which then limits the commanders and the rest of the chain of command ability to recognize these threats. certainly, detecting a trusted

insider's intention to commit a violent requires observation of behavioral cues and anomalies, and this is a difficult task. let me shift briefly to a comment on health providers. the secretary asked us to look at this, and they are a very important part of the security equation. the tendency is to focus on the care of combatants. health-care providers are not immune to the stressors that are present in their workplace, and that is true whether they are at home or deployed. our recommendations suggested there is a requirement to put the right programs in place to support these critical people. finally, let me talk about emergency response. secretary west, secretary of defense gates this morning made the observation that the

response at fort hood was great. and i want to align myself with those comments. i was committed to the armed forces for 37 years. on the second day of our service here,ñi secretary west and i wet to fort hood. we received a briefing from general colin and the team down there on the after-action, what was learned, and i want to tell you that their report and the actions they identified were the best that i have ever seen it in 37 years of service. lots of good news to report. the people on the base were certainly prepared, dedicated. secretary west talked about courageous acts, prompt acts. the speed of response was

terrific. having said that, it is our conviction that it can be even better. an example of what made it so successful was the effective implementation of a counter to the active shooter reality that was present at fort hood. we can spend some time on that, if you would like, but it was executed in a superb fashion, and the outcome certainly did prevent further bloodshed. with regard to the response of the entire team, there are what is commonly called memorandum of agreement or understanding. at fort hood, they were called mutual aid agreements, and these are agreements that lay out the relationship between the people on the base and potentially external providers, and so forth.

are finding it is there is sufficient policy for the establishment of these kinds of devices. the experience at fort hood suggest that without those devices, the outcome would not have been nearly as effective. there were problem areas in some regimes. at some of them were dated, but my experience is it you could put them in place this weekend, a month from now, they might be out of date because people change. but what we are suggesting is where improvements are possible, they should be identified, including exercise requirements and all the rest. currently, all 50 states in the union have complied with the federal requirements for the national incident management system, and this is the result of the act after 9/11. we found that within the department, there are no

established milestones to define the initial in full capability. our recommendation is that the time line for achieving capability should be examined, with an eye towards bringing about a system that will be fully interoperable with all of the states when the process is complete. let me complete it -- let me conclude my response and my comments about emergency response with another statement about command and control. the command and control structure that we referred to earlier is ultimately manifested itself in the middle of a crisis response. again, agility, adaptability, and speed of response is the key. at fort hood, commanders had to deal with misinformation. that is true in every crisis that will ever happen in the

history of man. we believe, though, that a better system is required, and we also believe and recommend that the department examine more stressing exercise scenarios out to ensure that effective crisis response in the future will meet the objectives and standards the department holds for itself. the response of the fort hood community in the aftermath of the tragedy there serves as a reminder of the strength of our nation and resiliency and character of our people. and secretary west and i were extremely impressed with the people there at fort hood, the military, civilian, workers on base, and people in the civil sector that supported them on that incredible day. i certainly want to align myself with the comments of secretary gates this morning and my

partner in this, secretary west, regarding the families and the wounded in this incident. the thrust of our effort has been to do everything that we know how to do to put the spotlight on programs and policies and procedures that will enable the department to become better and to provide the kind of structure and force requirements for the future. thank you, and we look forward to your questions. >> the report mentioned several officers who will be referred to the army for action. it could you put a number on that? also, could he speak to the vulnerability of the fort today? how vulnerable are other bases to attack? >> i'll take the first part of the question. the first part, we are bound by the same constraints as the secretary of defense. we cannot talk about the specifics of that.

we have not considered those questions. >> or other officers being referred to it -- could to give an estimate of how many you can across? >> in terms of getting across the line, stepped across the line, i am stepping back. in the report, it is seven. i>> with record -- with regard o vulnerability today, i thought secretary gates addressed it. this is not a threat that somebody thinks it is massive and overwhelming the force, not bought one of them is too many. -- but one of them is too many. his language this morning suggested that some much has changed in the last decade.

as i look at this and i look at everything that is going on in the area of security, and the issues that face the nation, i believe this is another one of those key moments in time or we assess ourselves again. it would take advantage of this experience and insured by having the courage to challenge every assumption that we may about the way we do things and the way we execute things, the assumptions we have in place building security apparatus, and make sure by challenging those assumptions that we meet the standards that we set for ourselves, and those are the areas that we suggested to the secretary in terms of policy and programs. >> the perpetrator section, the bottom of page six, you talk about discrepancies between the alleged perpetrator's document performance and official records and actual performance during

the training. in english, does that mean his documented performance seems to indicate it and on blemished record for his actual performance, which were never reflected in the official record? >> page 6, second side. your question is, does that refer to -- >> does that refer to an official record on paper that indicates a promising offer with great academic credentials versus performance issues in the field that were not affected -- were not reflected in the official report? >> we're not going to try to interpret that in general, but the specific answer to that question is this -- discrepancies means what it sounds like. it can be discrepancies internal to what is said in one place. it could mean what you said as well. that is, between what is

reported and what is known. >> the report talks about problems you have identified with the joint terrorist task forces, a recommendation that potentially more military personnel should be on that task force. i know that was at the limits of your review, but if he could talk a little about what you found there, what you are recommending to make sure the critical information gets out? >> one of the things that are the terms of reference sites several other investigations that are occurring -- cites several other investigations that are occurring, and we were told not to interfere with criminal investigation. the president had authorized and chartered an investigation into intelligence activities, and we did not go there.

" what we learned in the process -- but what we learned in the process of reflection is the simple awareness of what the commitment, the department's commitment was in terms of personnel resources. also, an understanding that in the public domain that there were modifications in the dissemination process that were being examined, and our recommendation is simple and straightforward. the department has a vested interest in the outcome of all of that, and we should be working together insuring what we talked about, information sharing, insuring that the best information that is available is made available to the key people so we can provide for the security of our people. it is that straight forward. >> admiral mullen said earlier today, self radicalization.

more of that is going on. the report also talks about extreme practices. isn't the immediate problem islamic radicalization? >> the immediate problem is radicalization of any sort, for whatever reason. our concern is with actions and a fax, not necessarily motivations. the role of motivation is if they are allowed to get carried too far, then they become the spark of action. suppose, suppose it were fundamentalist christian inspired. our concern is not with the religion. is it the pinchot affect on our soldiers to do their job. -- is the effect on our soldiers to do their job. >> we certainly did not cit in particular group. we are citing a particular activity that is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

notice the language. the language talks about activities that are dangerous to us. activities that should not be authorized. so the question arises, the question is radicalization. there is much to be learned about all of these indicators. so when we talk about the indicators, we are suggesting, look, we did phase one. phase one suggested there is not clarity about these indicators. what needs to happen now in phase two, as the secretary has laid out in the process, is drilling down into this issue and coming to grips with solutions to the questions. what are these indicators? and then the other thing, we believe this is why adaptability is so important.

this is not a single-point solution, is an evolving solution. >> is more sulfur radicalization going on? >> i don't know the universe, and our study did not seek to go into all of that. we were examining policies, procedures, programs, and we were not digging around that. admiral mullen has his point of view and i respect it. >> the time line that you gave with the 911 call. do you know how long from the beginning of the shooting to the 911 call? >> know, frankly, -- no, frankly, we thought about that, and we've had a best estimate. the problem is when we tried to add in all of the components, we never come with the same numbers. i will give you my answer only and i do not tie my colleagues to it. roughly somewhere between seven, eight minutes from the first shot to the last.

>> and i align with that. you could understand why there is difficulty in getting from the initial shock to the 911 call. there is nobody sitting in there with a stopwatch taking that information. it is very clear, and that is why we are sort impressed with the response at fort hood, it was fabulous. >> i thought there were some hands on this side of the room? >> secretary gates said he did not consider the internal threats significant, but obviously this is a question of changing the culture and mindset within the military. i am wondering if you think that this could be more of an aberration, this shooting at fort hood, and it will be difficult to change the culture overtime, and also how you strike a balance of not going to far in making the military become -- >> i think he was right in that.

here is what is significant. we're talking about the fact that on all of our post across the country, what we call credentialed members are able to enter using their cards in uniform without being stopped for routine checks. you cannot do with any other way or we would bring the post to a halt. we we're talking about the fact that also are policies that permit stopped and searched will not catch anything carried in the car. if there is not a full search. now, that is significant in that if we cannot ensure that we can find it, and i don't know anyone. we certainly have not proposed any thing in the after after action, ford could has instituted periodic checks of

everyone -- fort hood it has instituted periodic checks of everyone, and that has helped. what is significant, then, is our ability to respond to indicators and other ways of identifying the individuals on whom we have to be particular, with respect that we have to be particularly careful to see if those indicators are of potential violence. >> how do you inculcate this kind of culture in the military? >> based on recommendations, we have that fall back, that is what the next set of reviews are focused on. the secretary -- i hope you heard it and solid, in his statement this morning,ok he set a message to the force. he said, commanders, step beyond your day-to-day duties. that is part of it. that is a message for everyone.

>> before this happened, there was an army mental health advisory team that among other things recommended a doubling of the number of potential health advisors -- health providers in afghanistan. was there pressure to provide those bodies that may have caused people to look over major hassan's problems? >> frankly, i think you have to ask the army about their specific response. in looking at programs, policies, and procedures, we know that there are always -- they are always doing personal responses assessments. they're always shortfall areas that a particular service is pursuing. i cannot speak to the accuracy of the report that you are speaking to, but one would expect that the whole personnel management process is continually doing the kind of

assessments that seek to meet the current needs. we know that the kind of warfare that our people are facing on the front -- and that is why i alluded to healthcare providers, these are stressing times for them. is the force stressed? well, the force is stressed in the training. part of the growth and development process is to test it. so what we are saying in response to the question put forward to us with regard to the health care providers is they must be provided the same kind of care and in responding to the stressors that existed and enemy combatants are dealing with. >> thank you, that almost per the alert, but not quite. >> in the force security section, he called on commanders to intervene in the case of

activities where dod may be able to prevent self radicalization. does that mean that commanders or their delegates have to be out there looking at what is being preached at certain mosques or radical christian churches or whatever, and determining what kind of religion, philosophy, statements constitute radicalization? and how involved you want the military in that assessment? >> what you heard admiral mullen say today and what you heard him say the date this full task force was put into being -- and i speak as a person who did this 37 years -- there is inherent belief in the chain of command and the ability of the chain of command to deal with problems. as secretary west said, they

have charged commanders to look carefully, i understand that this is a challenging threat arena, and the difference between a force protection system that puts up barriers to keep everybody out and now dealing with threats that happened to potentially be inside. what those comments mean in the report is the chain of command has to be in tune, watching, listening, situational awareness is the order of the day. >> are they listening and churches and mosques? >> not in the recommendations. >> admiral, was political correctness to factor in overlooking this of radicalization? >> you are referring to my personal assessment of what might be in the restricted and

x, and we will not discuss things in the restricted and next. -- we will not discuss things in the restricted annex. >> but do you have a question that is inbounds? ok, next. >> what is the duty, we talk about information sharing within the department of defense. how far do you want that to go? the one chaplains to counsel someone, other mental health providers, if they see some of the indicators you were talking about, to go to unit commanders and say, i counseled this fellow but i think you need to take a quick look at what he said? or is that a privacy violation? how far should that go? >> i could feel that at royal's elbow in my ribs, now is the time to talk about balance. balance in the report and balance and recommendations. it is raised by your question as

well. do we want commanders in the mosque? no. do we want anybody there? no, but we want the commanders awareness of what is happening in their units and what is happening to their people. admiral mullen will tell you they are already supposed to do that and we should not be having to say it. and perhaps they are. but our emphasis is on that is where we believe much of the solution lies. no, we're not saying, we're not recommending that our soldiers and commanders be told to snitch on their colleagues, but we're recommending they should be concerned that they engage in conversations, that they be aware. the language and our report is be aware when they're in trouble or when they require support. sometimes it is counseling and a helping hand. other times, there are warning signs that need to be paid attention to it and passed along

the chain of command so that those in authority to decide, what is the right approach. none of this works without another one of our recommendations, which is that there be an effort to collect from experts, our own experts and others, the signs that something is wrong, the signs that are there across the board, so that commanders and others can have a sense of what they are. then there is the ability to bring those together. >> before we go to the next question, let me talk about other things we should be speaking about when we're talking about sharing information. something happens on base a, how does that get to base b a a few miles away. when we talk about command control, the changes and out comes, we're talking about the ability to share real time, or near real-time information in a

way that will ensure the right outcomes. are finding, and the secretary of defense refer to it this morning, it is not just exist, we need the same operational picture for force protection that we have in the field when we're talking about were fair, the pieces that go with that. -- when we're talking about warfare, the pieces that with that. we need to enable the commander with the kind of information shared within the department that allows them to be pre- emptive dealing with rats, not dealing with them after. >> if you had been one of major hasan's command officers, what would you have done based on what you have learned? >> we may have stepped across. this refers to what we have learned? >> no,ñi you probably would say you have been alarmed by certain

things. >> let me tell you what we said. we said that we thought that several officers responsible for applying the army's policy is to him did not do so, and we think that should be referred to the secretary of the army for consideration of accountability. i think that is as far as you want to go. >> can you say what you would have done, had you been in that situation? >> let me take this and a direction that might be helpful, without speaking to this specific case. this morning, the question was asked about information moving from base to base and with individuals. one of the things leaders do, and good officers, at the heart of the united states military is we grow and develop people. the growth and development process sometimes takes

counseling and sometimes takes instruction. and so part of what we are suggesting here, and it has to do with sharing information, what we found is that some information is maintained at level level and some information is maintained at a service-wide level. and leaders are the people who direct the kind of interchange with individuals to improve their performance. we use the term officer-ship in our report because we believe this is fundamental to the institution, and our recommendation is that the secretary of the army take a look at that. >> sir? >> the secretary said he did not necessarily want troops telling on each other but you want them to be concerned, but you really want them to be or the concerned.

you want them to share within the chain of command? >> yes. >> you may have gone over this, but one can we expect to hear who and how many people will be reprimanded for the mistakes made? >> we are not going to give you a time, but it may have been referred to the army, i am not certain? >> this morning. >> it is referred to this victory of the army. -- is referred to the secretary of the army. they have the information. the decision is within the chain of command. this is a referral for accountability. accountability has to do with whether there is basis there to hold these particular individuals responsible. the recommendation we made on this is the recommendation you have in the report. no, i have already use the language. refer to the secretary of the

army for review as to accountability and as such other actions as may be. . >> the numbers? >> we do not. >> you would consider it should be recommended? >> we did not even say that. we said to consider accountability and such other actions as may be appropriate. that raises anything the secretary of the army may consider in terms of action. yes? >> maybe this is face to question, but the recommend at all in here how to correct the culture of essentially betting troops slide by without recommendation or people not really responding to what they see as may be odd behavior or anything? is that something that you discuss in here? >> no, we have a recommendation to the secretary that he send a strong message, the kind that he

can and he did this morning as well. >> is there language on suggesting what to do? this culture is kind of one of the big problems. or is that something that has to be tasked elsewhere? >> you have assessed it correctly, this is a chalice. performance appraisal, when i was the chief of the navy, one of the big things i was on was the whole performance. an offline discussions, we have talked about the challenge of this. this is not just a department issue, this is an issue in performance appraisal systems ever wear. we did not define a specific "you should do this." we said to the secretary, in order to be able to identify internal threats with as much accurate information as is possible, it is required to be known by the leaders.

what we find the process is some information is passed, some is not. report says on page seven, i believe, potentially some information was missed. potentially, some information -- i think it said missed or misinterpreted. the point is is that we're suggesting to the secretary that the policies and programs behind the performance appraisal system merit review, and an emphasis on accurate information, and the secretary pass that infamous this morning. >> one question, and that i think we will get dragged off. >> the language of the report is federal officers failed to comply and you are recommending them. you do not recommend names? >> no. >> you say, "several officers," not who? >> we are not recommending, but

all of our research has been passed along to the army along with the report. >> there were news accounts sang five -- sang five. are they accurate? >> to confirm it, you have thus saying it. we will not confirm. >> you don't name these several officers -- >> we did not name them to the secretary, either in this or any other report. we have no doubt that the army will be able to isolate the individuals and take appropriate action. if we had any doubt, we would have named them. >> is a technicality here we do not need to get immersed in, but there are in formal investigations, formal investigations what comes to disciplining personnel.

we were given the phase one part of this, the informal piece of it, but there is a large amount involving information that is being turned over to the army, who have the kind of data and records that we were able to examine in this report that is part of the restricted annex that gave us the comfort that we understood the issues and in a manner in which we could make a recommendation we did, and we recommended that the secretary pass this to the secretary of the army for action, and he did so according to his words this morning. he said he has already done so. >> number 1, when he announced our formation, six weeks ago -- seems like longer? he said this is not a review to point fingers. we followed his instructions. but make no mistake, the army has the specific information to do with it needs to do, and we

thank you all for your time. >> next week, togo west and vernon clark will testify about the fort hood shootings before the house and senate armed services committees. you could read the pentagon review of the shootings by visiting our web site, c- span.org. earlier today, defense secretary robert gates and joint chiefs chairman mike mullen held a news briefing where they discussed the four could shootings and military operations to -- where they discussed the fort hood shootings and military operations to assist haiti. this is 40 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good morning. i would like to start with a few comments about what is at the top of everyone's mind right now, the tragic situation in haiti. shortly after the devastating earthquake tuesday, the president directed that the full operational capacity of

u.s. military be mobilized. i told the dod that this urgent mission represents the highest priority for u.s. military assets in this hemisphere. i will be monitoring the progress of our operations closely. wednesday, i told general frazier of southern command he should not hesitate to ask for whatever resources he needs, and we will do everything possible to provide those resources. the haitian people and those who are rushing to their assistance are uppermost in our thoughts and prayers and the hours and days ahead. after my opening statement, admiral mullen will describe the extensive military relief efforts we have undertaken. after the shooting at fort hood, asked to go west and vernon clark to conduct an internal review of the policies,

programs, and procedures for identifying and responding to internal threats. i should note that it pertains solely to the defense department and does not address other executive branch agencies. the review was completed on time and deliver to me this week. as expected, secretary west and admiral clarke conducted a serious and thorough assessment and i thank them for taking on this difficult task. first, because it remains an active criminal investigation, i cannot address the specifics of the case at this time. the report does include accountability recommendations involving army personnel responsible for supervising major hasan and those have been forwarded to the secretary of the army and directed him to take appropriate action. considering the scope of this report it will take some time to assess the scope of the relative policies.

that said, i have a review of the findings. the report concludes that the initial response to the incident was prompt and effective. leaders had anticipated mass casualty events in their emergency response plans and exercises and base personnel were prepared to take appropriate and decisive actions to secure the situation. the first responders deserve recognition for the efforts that prevented an awful situation from becoming even worse. however, the report raises serious questions about the degree to which the entire department of defense is prepared for similar incidents in the future. especially multiple simultaneous incidents. it also reveals shortcomings in the way that the department is prepared to defend against threats proposed by an external influences by those in our community. it is clear that as a department we have not done enough to adapt to the evolving control security threat to american troops and facilities that have emerged over the past decade.

in this area, as in so many others, this department is burdened by twentieth century processes and attitudes mostly rooted in the cold war. our counterintelligence procedures are mostly designed to combat an external threat such as foreign intelligence service. likewise, our force protection procedures are set up to investigate and adjudicate criminal conduct such as domestic abuse and gang activities. it was concluded that the dod force protection programs are not properly focus on internal threat, such as workplace violence and self radicalization. the problem is compounded in the absence of a clear understanding of what motivates a person to become radicalized and commit violent acts. for example, the prohibition on prohibited activities is not complete and does not provide commanders with sufficient activities to prevent threats. it provides neither the

authority nor the tools for supervisors and commanders to intervene when dod personnel of risk of potential violence make contact or establish relationships with persons or entities that promote self radicalization. we need to refine our understanding of what these behavioral signals are and how they progress. at the same time, there is no well integrated means to gather, evaluate, and disseminate the wide range of behavioral indicators that could help our commanders better anticipate and internal threat. the management systems are generally managed to withhold and compartmentalize troubling information about individuals as opposed to sharing it with the leaders and people need to know. among other significant findings and recommendations, the report also says there is no senior dod official responsible

for force protection throughout the department. and individuals can respond to attacks, but the department does not have a coherent approach or control system to deal with internal threats. as a next up, i am directing the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, dr. paul stockton, to conduct an expeditious review of the findings and recommendations at in order to implement them as closely as appropriate. this effort will include a broad range of offices, departments and commands. my view is there are a number of actions we must take soon to fix this problem and i have set a goal of accomplishing this by march. other options will require more fundamental institutional changes over a longer time frame and my goal is to

accomplish these changes, or at least have them under way by june. secretary west and admiral clark will provide a more detailed briefing later today and the copies of their report will be available at that time. right now because we are up on the hill briefing the congress. a final thought, i would ask all commanders and leaders to make an effort to look beyond their day-to-day tasks and be attuned to personnel who may be at risk or pose a danger. one of the core functions of leadership is assessing the performance and fitness of people honestly and openly. failure to do so, or kicking the problem to the next unit or next insulation may lead to damaging, if not devastating, consequences. as i said in november, there is nothing any of us can say to ease the pain of the wounded,

the families of the fallen, and the members of the fort hood community affected by this incident. it is our obligation to the victims of the attack and to the men and women who up with their lives on the line to serve their country to do everything in our power to prevent similar strategies from occurring in the future. >> i want to mention that our thoughts and condolences are with our neighbors to the south. to all the citizens of haiti and those who have been struck by this very significant tragedy, as well as the thousands of families across the world who are eagerly awaiting word of their loved ones. as the president commented yesterday, the losses suffered in haiti are nothing less than devastating. the united states and countries around the globe are mobilizing every available element of our national capacity. coalition army and naval forces, disaster response teams, portable hospitals, canine search and rescue teams and relief and medical supplies are streaming in from multiple

compassionate nations. in this crisis, the needs of haiti are seemingly boundless. what the military is best able to provide is security, search and rescue capabilities, potable water and medical facilities. several coast guard cutters with their helicopters are also in the vicinity and providing similar support. this morning, the aircraft carrier uss carl vinson arrived outfitted with 19 helicopters, 51 hospital beds, three operating rooms, hundreds of thousands of gallons per day of water production capability and a significant capacity to deliver a disaster relief supplies. a company from the 82nd airborne division is on the ground to assist in security and also in distribution of meeting those needs. the rest of the brigade will be on the ground by the end of the weekend.

within the next week, those assets will be augmented by two more small helicopter carrying naval vessels, the uss normandy and the uss underwood. another ship with capabilities similar to those of the carl vincent will be ready as well as the uss for mckinley and uss carl hall. a hospital ship comfort with hundreds of medical professionals and providing medical support to be of the haitian coast by the end of the next week. while these will attend to the immediate and medical needs of the people of haiti, these aircraft ships and troops also deliver hope. although, it seems of supplies and security cannot come quickly enough. you will not be forsaken and you will not be forgotten. we're doing everything we possibly can. soldiers, airmen, sailors, and

marines and coast guard from across the nation and military across the globe stand with you. >> how many u.s. forces do you expect of money to go to haiti? and are you concerned that such a large military presence either looks like an occupying force or overtaxes the military that is already stretched thin? >> let me start and then ask the admiral. first, this is a whole of government effort by the united states and also an international effort. the primary security force on the island is the united nations force. there are about seven dozen u.n. forces and an additional 2000 police. they will have the primary security responsibility. i think that we are clearly in a position to do more than

others, partly from our proximity, and partly from our capabilities. the key will be coordinating this entire effort. i would say from the u.s. standpoint, i feel that coordination among state aid, homeland security and the coast guard and ourselves has gone very well. the ambassador has made an effort in coordinating it, but they're also incident management teams on scenes from other agencies as well as our own joint task force. i think that we will not be seen as -- i think that if we, particularly given the role that we will have been delivering food and water -- that we will have in delivering food and water, my guess is that

the reaction will be one of relief at seeing americans providing this kind of help. . ships provide in this critical support as well and very focused on the medical needs, the food needs, the water needs. right now, literally as we

speak, the vincent and the company from the 82nd airborne who got their last night are focused on delivering water from the helicopters offshore to the people of haiti. we've got the requirements. the logistics of this in the near term and the longer-term are also very focused on this. we need to get the port open. it is severely damaged. but right now, it is principally to support the search and rescue effort as well as focusing on the immediate food, water, and medical needs the force will continue to grow to support that over time, working with these many countries. >> the day after the earthquake general frazier told us that just three teams were on their way, one from virginia, one from california, one from florida. he said there were no team's resident in the military.

but then last night, northern command said that they had search and rescue teams that the ruling to sen. the day after, just three teams being sent? was there a failure not to send more, more rapidly? >> first, there were four teams there by last night. we are in the process of transporting, i think, six more teams. we think that there is -- we need to take advantage of the strength the different elements of our government have. to tell you the truth, we have the best search and rescue in the military, obviously, but the best search and rescue teams like this are resident in our communities.

these teams have traveled all over the world in the past to provide relief and we have supported them. and also, coordinated through fema. part of it is, can we get in there? how fast can we get them there? and can we support them? i think that we are doing that as well as we can. >> i just talked to general keane about an hour ago, who spoke so highly about what they do and their skill set. these additional six teams are coming in and literally as we speak. i am comfortable at this point that these teams will prioritize in terms of need as a way to approach this. >> [inaudible] >> there is another one going in this morning. i understand the first of those

six is going in this morning. >> did you look at the possibility of air drops? that seems to be a unique military capability, both dropping in rescue teams and dropping in relief supplies. we are obviously not using it, why not? >> we talked about that early, david, more along the lines of particularly the 82nd, whether that would be the right way to go. we made the decision that we did not need to do that. in terms of the other kinds of supplies, the water capability for instance, we are looking at getting the support that we have got there today to meet that need. but we have not -- at least, i have not seen any extensive review of the capability at this point. >> at what point did you decide that you did not need to do that? >> as we spun up through this,

it was not one that we considered in terms of the overall situation in terms of the ability to receive it. i understand that we actually really had on the ground -- i understand, in terms of what we actually had on the ground at that time. chris was the overall situation on the grant, and is the basic assessment the anticipation that it will continue to deteriorate as the days go on? also, do you have any sense of the scope of casualties? >> there is some scavenging as people are trying to find food and water, but our understanding -- and the admiral probably has more up-to-date having just talk to general keane, but the security situation remains ok. the concern is -- the key is to get the food and water there as quickly as possible. so that people do not, in their desperation, turn to violence

or that the security situation deteriorates. that is why there is such a high priority in getting food and water to people. but at this point, other than some scavenging and minor looting, our understanding is that the security situation is pretty good. >> that is what general kaine has reported but yesterday morning and this morning. certainly, we are all concerned about having that off because of the need for food and water and medical. and we're very focused on that. >> do we have an idea of the number of casualties at all? >> i do not think we have anything beyond what we have seen from the red cross. >> given what we know about the american cleric from yemen, do we believe that ford would was a terrorist attack? >> this case is being prosecuted under the uniform code of military justice.

that case could end up on my desk, ultimately, for that reason as chain of command. and for that reason, i'm not going to have anything to say about the case in particular. >> about the fourth review, could you talk about the information sharing within the department of defense that you want to see post fort hood? what kind of information do you want to see about internal threats that has not been shared and that you want to see shared in the future? >> first, we do not have any reason to think that it is a significant threat. but clearly, one is too many.

i have to be careful what i say here, again, because of the case. but i think what admiral clark and secretary west concluded was that what gets reported in the personnel officer evaluations often does not pick up personal behavioral issues, and sometimes there is a reluctance to address those kinds of issues. also, if observed at one post, to pass along those concerns or behavioral issues to the next post. one of the things that, clearly, we have to look at is how can we more comprehensively evaluate our people, but also, ensure that relevant information gets forwarded from one post to the other.

>> on fort hood, in your terms of reference, you asked specifically for the army retention and promotion as it applied to the alleged perpetrator, implying whether he should have been promoted or not. should he have been promoted to major given the charter that you asked them to review? >> again, i'm not going to get into the specifics of the case, but these are questions that i have referred to the secretary of the army to address in terms of accountability. >> is this what of the process has failed or not or some to raising questions for further review?

>> they simply questions for the secretary of the army. >> is it too early to say if anyone in this department has begun to guess what the cost in this early phase will be for the department of defense, and more specifically, the usns comfort leaving roughly five days after this happened. in previous natural disasters, the number, five days, was mentioned as well. is there a number in review as far as decreasing the amount of time before hospital ships are able to set sail? >> the number 5 is basically the status. mercy out in san diego, she is in a coal mine status, completely shut down from an engineering standpoint. we are headed to excel the rate

that and get her out there as rapidly as possible. to the question of whether there has ever been a review of that, i honestly do not know one way or another. i have been content with how they have been both manned and used in the past. obviously, this is a crisis that was a bolt out of the blue, if you will. i think the response time, having no idea that this was going to occur, was remarkable. in all of this, we learn lessons. some of that is readiness, clearly tied to something like this. but after that -- after this point, i am comfortable that we have got that cycle about right. >> is there a cost estimate? >> i would say fundamentally we have no idea at this point. >> in the face of such devastation, are you confident,

secretary, that the american response was focused on assessments early on? using debt the government can do better? >> i would say that i have watched these things for a long time. i do not know how this government could have responded faster or more comprehensively than it has. there are just some certain facts of life that affect how quickly you can do some of these things. the collapse of the infrastructure in haiti, the small size of the airport, the time it takes a ship to get from point a to point b, those are all just the facts of life. and for example, to the point of the airdrops, it seems to me without having any structure on the ground in terms of

distribution, that an airdrop is simply going to lead to riots as people try to go after that stuff. without any structure for distribution, or to provide security when things become available, it seems to me that as a formula for contributing to chaos rather than preventing it. i think that we are dealing with a sovereign country. the haitians are still in charge of their air-traffic control at this point. there are just some limitations that we have to deal with that are part of the real world. i, frankly, think that it would have been tough for any part of the american government to respond more quickly. i think state aid have done a terrific job. >> do you anticipate any more ground forces to haiti than the

5000 that will be there by the end of the weekend? >> right now, we are certainly poised to do that and it will be based on what general frazier at southcom and general keane think they need. we are really very much still in the assessment mode with much better situational awareness, i expect, of what is actually going on there in the next 24 hours, in terms of what these visited needs will be. it is too early to answer the question.

>> somebody asked about stress on the force earlier. i would say that we always have a ready brigade available for deployment. that is this brigade of the 82nd airborne. >> are either of you planning to testify at the senate armed services committee? and senator levin has asked that you testify on the issue. what is the status on conversations in the building on repealing the law? >> senator levin has indicated an interest in having the hearing. but we are discussing the timing of it with the committee. when the hearing is scheduled, but the chairman and i will testify. we are having continuing conversations inside the building about implementing the president's intent. >> we spoke about the distribution network supplies in haiti the last couple of days as supplies continue to mount at the airport and are not getting out to the population. at what point you think that system will be eased so that as supplies flow in, they will flow out to the people the need them most? >> i would say the arrival of these 19 helicopters is critical to beginning that distribution process.

we hear conflicting reports, frankly, about how many of their roads are open and can be used, and those that are clogged and you cannot get through at all. i think here in the first few days it will be -- the helicopters will be central to this. >> we know, absolutely, that is a critical need that we will be focused on. we're looking at additional ports, whether we can get smaller vessels into additional ports and distribute from there as well. a lot of that will become much clearer on what the requirements are and what is going to take to get that done over the next 24 to 48 hours. >> who determines what goes where on the ngo side? >> actually, the focus of our government effort is to do exactly that, to prioritize what goes in and what gets distributed.

that is a combination of the usaid the agency here in our government tied to the same agency on the ground there. they will make the distribution decisions pretty quickly. >> mr. secretary, is there a plan yet for refugees? are you considering taking the thousands of homeless off the island? is gitmo being considered? there were some talk about that. or any other u.s. resources in the region? >> there is a lot of longer-term planning going on across a host of issues. we have not seen any need for specifics. but we certainly do not see movement in that direction at this particular point in time. but we recognize there are a lot of possibilities and many are just that. there are always contingency plans that we are looking at. >> is there any consideration

at all on all these 5000 are really going to be used? the marines and the army. is there talk about putting them in neighborhoods for policing, too? a lot of the news coming out this morning is that it is starting to come to a low boil on, you know, where is the help, where is the aid. is there any thought to rush in these troops out to kind of calm things down with in the neighborhoods and also clear the roads and help with distribution? is there going to be policing action with these u.s. forces? >> obviously, this is for general keane, who was the joint task force commander down there. but we will integrate with the

brazilians who lead this effort for the u.n. and the 9000 security troops between soldiers and police that are already there. if we are integrating with that effort. we understand the concern. the secretary said earlier about getting the relief effort out there, which is what we are focused on right now, and the initial intent is to strategically placed some of our soldiers to they can help without relief distribution. obviously, we are all focused on the security piece as well. we very much hope to be and stay ahead of that, but recognize that there are possibilities that we need to plan for. >> what are the 21st century assets that you have to deal with these kinds of emergencies a torsions? are they being used in haiti? are they making any kind of security impact?

>> i think the primary reconnaissance vehicles, platforms that we have been using down there are p-3's. >> we are also using other assets in space to do this. there was a request for a global hawk specifically. i cannot tell you whether it has started operations. certainly, the intent is where it can help, we will use that as we move forward. >> mr. secretary, under what conditions can you say that the u.s. humanitarian relief mission to haiti has been accomplished and how long will it take to accomplish these goals? >> i would say that we are the very beginning of the effort.

it looks to me like a fairly long-term undertakings for the international community, and the united states as part of that and as a principal player. the length of time that our navy ships will be deployed down there to provide assistance, the length of time that we will have thousands of troops in haiti or offshore, i think, frankly, is impossible to predict right now. >> back to fort hood, you said earlier that the department has not done enough to counter external threats and the influence on the force. you said the commanders do not have the tools to try to ward off prohibited activities on the force. what sort of tools would you give the commanders to address this, to try to counter these

threats or keep an eye on the force? >> let me mention two, and then i would like the admiral to comment. one tool is for us to take advantage of research and efforts that have been undertaken by a number of different entities. in terms of behavior's and indicators of potential problems with respect to violence in the workplace and the potential for self radicalization. identifying those indicators and having those in the hands of the commanders is one thing. the other goes back to an answer i gave to an earlier question, and that is, information. having commanders have available to them more comprehensive information on individuals, particularly if there have been behavioral issues that have been noted under previous assignments. those are two of the tools that we are certainly talking about. >> where i go with this is commanders have a responsibility

resident, and have for a long time -- and accountability, quite frankly, for their people. the issue of self radicalization is one that we have got to focus on because there is clearly more and more of that going on how much of it we have in the military is something that we really ought to understand. the other piece is -- would be the tools that will help us, and policies, quite frankly, that would help us to share better information. not that we need a new policy to help transfer information from one post to another, but an

active focus on that on the part of leadership. >> [inaudible] ñra greater ability to look at what people are communicating privately? >> i would not get into that specific area exactly, but i would say commanders have more than adequate room and authority right now to really understand what their people are doing. ñrthere are typically indicators of this. not perfect, but there are indicators of beaters that are oftentimes known as the junior level within the unit at the squad level. how do we make sure that when we see indicators we are doing all that we can -- that is key. one other comment i wouldñi like to make, just switching to haiti, and this is in terms of

response time. the coastguard was magnificent from day one. they were medevacing people literally within the first 24 hours. i want to give them credit for their responsibility as well. that has not all just in the military and out of this department. >> i understood you to say 9000 to 10,000 u.s. forces there by monday. is that the figure you think we are poised to increase? >> it looks like we will have about that. but that does not 10,000 forces ashore. the bulk of that will be on ships. we have to be careful about that specifically. xdit looks like between 9000 and 10,000 between the arrival of the marines and the ships associated with that. >> last question. >> mr. secretary, you have made reference to the collapse of the infrastructure in haiti several times already. it also seems to be that the ad

ready status of the state itself has largely disappeared. what kind of a capabilities and assistance is this department prepared to give to help haiti get back on its feet? >> this will be principally the responsibility, i assume, of the united nations and from the standpoint of the united states government, the lead role will be played by our ambassador in the state department and aid and our efforts will be in support of them. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up on c-span, president obama and secretary of

state clinton talk about the u.s. government effort to help survivors of the haitian earthquake. house democrats discuss their proposals for increasing employment. center tom coburn hold a town hall meeting in oklahoma. >> on tomorrows "washington journal" the national journal discusses their cover story about the military's use of john attacks in afghanistan. we will talk to glen browder about his new book, a history of politics behind the civil rights movement. you get an update on the health- care negotiations with political editor. "washington journal" is live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this weekend, we talk about

the 1965 voting rights act and the -- and how pave the way for future african american leadership. he will discuss the book with the national editor of "washington post." >> these are some of the images of the aftermath from the seven. the earth could fetch a katie on tuesday. in a moment, we will hear but u.s. relief efforts from president obama and secretary of state clinton.

>> this morning i spoke with our

ambassador on the ground. i expressed my 80 fist condolences for the people of haiti and our strong supports that are under way. like so many haitians, haitianspreval has lost his -- haitians, presidents preval has lost his home. communications are down. many people remain unaccounted for. the devastation is extraordinary. the losses are heartbreaking. i pledge america's continued commitment to the government and people of haiti. there is the long term effort to rebuild. it is absolutely essential that these efforts are well coordinated among the united states in government of haitiñr, with the united nations the

play's center will and with the international partners that are now on the ground. american resources continue to rise in haiti. search and rescue efforts continue to work pulling people out of the rubble. arty mess saved the lives of american citizens and haitian citizens. this morning, the aircraft carrier uss arrived along with helicopters that will be critical in delivering assistance in the days to come. they are preparing to move badly needed water, food, and other supplies to priority areas in aye. -- in port-au-prince. help continues to flow and not just in the united states but from brazil, mexico, canada, france, colombia, and the dominican republic. this underscores the point that

i made to the president this morning. the entire world stands with the government in the people of haiti. we all see the paw common humanity that we share. i do believe that america has a continuing responsibility to act. we have the capacity to reach out quickly and broadly in deliver assistance that can save lives. that responsibility is magnified when the devastation is so near to us. haitians are our neighbors. for americans, they are family and friends. iñiit is che american people to help others in the time of need. that is the spirit that we will need to sustain this effort as it goes forward. there will be many difficult days ahead. so many people are in need of assistance. support continues to be closed.

roads are damage. food is scarce. so is water. it'll take time to establish distribution points so resources are delivered safely and effectively and in an orderly fashion. i want the people of haiti to know that we will do what it takes to save lives and help them get back on their feet. i want to thank our people on the ground, our men and women in uniform who have moved so swiftly, are civilians, many of whom suffer their own losses in this tragedy. many have left their homes and their families behind to help others. to all of them, i want you to know that you demonstrate the courage and decency of the american people. we are extraordinarily proud of you. el monte think the american people more broadly. you have shown extraordinary compassion, already donating

millions of dollars. i encourage all of you who want to help to do thorough the douceur through whitehouse.gov. tomorrow i will meet with president clinton and george w. bush to talk about to help the american people in this recovery effort going forward. i would note that as i ended my call with president prval, he said he has been touched by the generosity of the american people. it was an emotional moment. he gives this message to the american people, "from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of the people of haiti, thank you, thank you, thank you." i told the president we realize that he needs more help. much more. in this difficult hour, we will continue to provide it. thank you very much.

>> i want to think the american people who have been extraordinarily generous in the amount of support that they have shown for the people of haiti during this devastating time. this has been the largest mobile donation campaign ever. 100% of the proceeds go directly to the red cross for their activities on the ground in haiti. the devastation as far greater than we could have imagined. please, keep texting haiti --

"80" 2 90999 where $10 will be charged to your cell phone. -- "haiti" to 90999 where your cell phone will be charged. you can find the person finder on www.state.gov/haitiquake more information will be point -- posted soon. i have decided after consulting with president obama and others in our government that i will be traveling to haiti tomorrow with usaid administrator dr. rajiv shah. will be meeting with members of

the government along with members of the u.s. government team on the ground, including our civilian and military leaders. we will also be conveying very directly and personally to the haitian people our long-term, unwavering support and sympathy to reinforce president obama's message yesterday that they are not facing this crisis alone. i will also be able to see firsthand the ongoing effort and deployment of u.s. government personnel and resources for maximum impact to support this vital life-saving recovery effort. we have an incredibly robust and complex set of relationships on the ground in haiti, not only among the various components of

the united states government, but rep percentages of our communities, as well as the united nations, the international partners, and organizations. i want to have an opportunity to consults with a number of those as well. details are still coming together. we will get them to you as soon as they can be confirmed. lastly, our hearts and prayers are with the people are there on the ground working around the clock. there are heartwarming stories today of people being rescued from the rubble. they were alive and well. to reiterate the support that we

feel for all of those who are caught up in this disaster. finally, let me say a word about our embassy team. they have been extraordinary working with the stocp. they bear the responsibility for the 40,000 american citizens there. çóthey are coping with their own losses and where i used to. the writ of, and they have exhibited the utmost professionalism. i am very proud of them. i will be glad to take some questions. >> you now haiti well. you have been there often. what do you think you can learn by going yourself tomorrow? what do you want to convey to them and bring back? >> three things. first, i will be taking supplies with me. i will be taking some people who

will stay on the ground there. this is a convenient way to get into haiti. i will beñiñi bringing out some american citizens who are waiting for evacuation's. there are tangible reasons for this. i will also be meeting with the president who has expressed a great interest in having me come. çói know him. we had a very close working relationship established with president preval and his government, headed by my chief of staff. it was a whole a government enterprise. we may be better than the rest of our government to know what the plans were, understand what the president and his team are

up against. the haitian government is the authority in haiti. they clearly are asking for appropriate help, which we are providing. it has been my experience over many years that those of us here who have a larger responsibility for executing policy, including myself, dr. shah and others, really can add to our understanding and cut through any misunderstanding that might be afoot in a face-to-face contact. it gives a chance to report back to our international partners as well. i have spoken to a number of ministers and heads of state who are asking questions about how things are operating and

what they can do to contribute. it gives you a level of credibility in this implementation phase. >> how concerned are you about the possibility that as people now live on the street for several days do not have food, water, shelter, and are surrounded by corpses of their loved ones that the their anguish may turn to rage? given the limit the passage of the haitian government, that the socratic -- sporadic looting make it worse? what can the u.s. government to do to try to forestall that? >> i think it is understandable when he met beings are -- when he men beings are as distress at the haitians are, when they have

suffered such grievous losses, and they are still experiencing aftershocks -- there were more today -- it is an extremely anxious environment. add to that the difficulty of loved ones still trapped in rubble, inadequate food, water, medical supplies. you can relate to the challenges that the people of haiti face. i think that everyone agrees that up until this point, and the matters have been well in hand. there is a process of grieving which includes anchor. reading anger. -- anger. that is just part of the human dna. we think the peacekeepers are doing an excellent job.

they have about 7000 peacekeepers on the street patrolling. there are primarily responsible for law and order. they need help. the haitian police force has been severely impacted. we give a varying estimates of how many are actually left and able to [unintelligible] we have american military assets that we have put on the peacekeeping force. are three-star general on the ground is personally acquainted with the governor in charge. this is a very tough situation. that is why we are trying to move as quickly as possible to remedy underlying causes that might give rise to people being desperate. we are aware that there are all

kinds of potential problems on the horizon but we are trying to be prepared to help the haitian government to deal with. b>> do you think that conditions will actually get worse in the days ahead or do you think the corner is being turned? >> i think every hour that goes by we get more resources on the ground and more people deplete -- deployed to act to what is required in this very large disasters seem. i think we are making a lot of progress. it goes back to the question, is our progress fast enough for the people love them without food or water or who are sitting there with a severely injured

relative? i think if you or i were in this situation, it would be fast enough no matter how fast we were moving. any fair assessment that i could make which showed that the united states government, the international community, everybody, is really stepping up. we are making a lot of progress. it is a race against time. it is a race against time to establish a means for clearing the roads of the more supplies can get in. everybody is pushing as hard as they can. i think we are making a lot of progress. i want to make sure we move as quickly and effectively as the camp. >> the united states have been giving money and aid to haiti for development for decades. every time, there is a crisis and the money -- you take one

step forward and five steps back. what can be different this time to make sure that haitixd can stand on its own 2 feet? you have this fragile political situation with the government'. how can the government stand up and assert authority since the presence as you like to return and help is people bring supplies. this could show a lot of discontent. people are scared. do you think the -- this is the right time for him? >> let us take it one day at a time. our immediate need right now is to do what is required in been search and rescue phase and

transitioning to the physical recovery effort. clearing the rubble, and getting concealed hospitals, restocking the hospital sector still standing. -- hospitals that are still standing. having turned a lot of our attention to how we could effectively work with haiti starting back last year, we were really making progress. we had a good plan. itñr was a haitian plan. the haitian government created the plan. it was realistic. it was focus. we worked with them. we came in with añi very successful donors' conference. we had a lot of buy in from many other countries. xdit was certainly on track toñd

ñihaiti has suffered enormously over the course of this existence from all kinds of factories. some of it was interference. it said that all types of opportunities. some of it wishes by the battering of nature. xdit got more of the problems. i think there is resilience among the people of haiti. i think it bodes well for being able to bring about reconstruction and recovery

efforts. ñithe united nations is heavily committed. my husband is the envoy. it was so ironic that monday night there is a story of how haiti was on the way back. it was such a hopeful story. it had interviews with elected officials, business leaders people who watched that were so revved up. one thing it showed was a successful business conference that my husband led a few months ago, 500 businesses from all over the world. they were signing contracts. the next day, this happened. it is not easy. we know there is a long way to go.

if we are smart about how we choose to interact with them and if we have the right set of expectations, i think that it can be done. >> [inaudible] >> i do not have any comment on that. >> i am wondering if you have an update on unaccounted americans and whether you are troubled by the fact that the embassy may not have heard from a lot of americans are whether you have some logical explanation. >> i am troubled. i am very troubled. communication is still very difficult. we are encouraged by those of whom we have made upon contact -- made contact. we are working feverishly to track down as many as the camp. thankfully, a lot of people have caught him with information. -- called in with information.

a friend called a friend called a friend brita they contacted us. -- called a friend. they contacted us. one was staying in hotels. nobody heard from her. we take every piece of confirmation and try to follow up on it. we found a young woman alive. it is going to take a number more days before we can piece all that together. >> the number of countries that are providing assistance to haiti -- it need some coordination. the girardi consoled internationally? >> -- did you already consult internationally? >> the in 90 nations -- the united nations has been instrumental in coordinating the pasture for what we have done

for haiti. the mission has been severely impacted. we do not know the exact numbers of lives that have been lost. but they are trying to continue their work. the united nations will be ivery much involved. we have to wait on that. [unintelligible] everyone is very willing to have. there will be an organized effort. >> the cubans opened their air space for humanitarian aid. >> we appreciate that. >> how significant is that? do you anticipate further reduce recorded nations with the cubans in regard to haiti? >> we very much appreciate the cubans opening their airspace for medical evacuation and emergency flights. we would welcome any other

actions that the cuban government could take in the international rescue and recovery mission. i thought i saw a hand back there. >> i talked to the president of france today. he called for national confidence. [inaudible] >> we are all committed to doing that. we need to get to this. there -- we have to have a division of responsibility. i do not think it will be productive just to have a conference. you want to conference with assignments that people are willing to accept. we have to delegate conjunction with both the government of haiti and the un.

>> are you aware of any action? >> i know that we have shown notice of some contributions. i cannot tell you that is. there is always room for more. >> i would like to know what your plan is with preval. what is your job to help the government. i want you to know why you think there is inappropriate time to go down there when there is a major relief operation under way? >> i would not be going if i thought it would have any adverse impact on the relief efforts. i have been asked to come. after evaluating it, we and taken every step we can to minimize any impact. i will not be using accessñi lie automobiles that should be

better used for torrance beating -- that would be used for transporting medical personnel. it is the judgment that we have reached that this is a useful time for both dr. shah and i to go. i have very carefully analyzed this. i have been to more crises and emergencies and i can even remember or the course of a long time. i do not ever want to do anything that interferes with or imposes a burden on the people that are doing the work. we do need to send a clear message of not only our ongoing commitment, but also our relationship with president preval and the haitian government, which is a supportive one. we are hearing firsthand from

our military leadership and our teams. then bringing in taking some human and other materials that home. >> [inaudible] >> that is what we are going to talk about. it is hard to do long distance. because i had worked with president preval, we have a close working relationship with him and others, including the prime minister. we really need to spend some time thinking through how we can help them. you can imagine how it must feel to be in this position where you have no tools of government. you have an enormous amount of anxiety because so many people, friends, loved ones, have been hurt. you have no idea where they are or if they are live. you cannot communicate with them. i think it will be an important

step to ensure we empower them every way that we can. we take responsibility for a time that they can not physically perform. our goal is to really help them. that is making sure that they have a government that the gains in capacity to function over the weeks ahead. . .

>> and also, we've reached an agreement where u.s. physicians who are now on the ground in haiti will be allowed to treat the quake victims. some of the legal processes that are necessary to make sure that we are able to do the life-saving work that is before us. as of mid afternoon this afternoon, we've moved about 197 american citizens, as the secretary said, as part of this ongoing evacuation. so by the end of the day we'll be up to about 1,000 american citizens, either official or private, who have been evacuated out of haiti or who are either on their way back or will be back in the united states. and finally, the secretary spoke today with dominican

republic president fernandez. we're going to, as we've suggested in the last couple of days, use assets within the dominican republic as a hub to help augment the logistical network that we're setting up. and she also spoke today with the brazilian foreign minister. and during that conversation, in fact the prospect of an international donor's conference did come up, and they agreed that this was something that was vitally important. your first question, please. >> is it definite that the u.s. is in control of the airport? is that indefinite? and can you address the press coverage of the secretary's trip. >> on your first point, obviously, we will assume this responsibility as long as is appropriate. and to the point where the haitian government is able and ready to resume that capability . where obviously, the secretary

has just made the decision to go a short time ago. we don't even know the aircraft on which she will go, so we're working the press arrangements, and i think we're also in contact with your leadership with how to best do that. >> can you talk a little bit about adoptions of haitian children? there are about 250, i think, parents who were in line to adopt haitian children, had specifically identified someone who was in the pipeline. what are you trying to do with these? you apparently had a meeting on friday with a bunch of international organizations to discuss this. what is the state of play regarding that? >> yeah. there are roughly somewhere up to 300 cases that we're aware of where there were adoptions in some process. we are very aware of the issue. we are talking to the department of homeland security about this. but we have nothing to announce at this point. >> well, can you just talk a little -- without anything to announce, can you talk a little

bit more in speaks fifty about some of your efforts? is it true you -- specificity about some of your efforts? it's obviously something that you're taking very seriously. >> it's a good question, i don't know. but it is something that our counsel of affairs people are working through. >> just to go back to bob's question, can you explain -- bob asked if it was indefinite, and you said we'll assume this responsibility for as long as necessary, until the haitian government can take it up. so it is indefinite? the documents that were signed don't have some kind of a timeline, like three months or six months. it's sort of open-ended? >> i haven't seen the document, but as we've said, as the secretary said, we are helping the government of haiti in ways that are vitally important to them. we've augmented the airport

staff, those who have manned the airport. understandably, some are on the job, but many are home dealing with the impact and the aftermath of the earthquake. so it is something that we thought was important. it's important in the immediate term to be able to flow the supplies that are now coming in to the airport, the medical equipment, food, water, materials for shelter. so the pace of operations, you know, is such that we have a capability that quite honestly the dost of haiti does not current -- the goff of haiti does not -- government of haiti does not currently have. when we met with president preval, this was one thing, that the airport remain open an be used for the vitally important military work. so we will take this for a

period of time and at a point in the future, who knows? these operations go through set phases. you can't quite predict exactly reaching the ends of the emergency response phase. we're going to go into a recovery phase at some point in the future by mutual agreement. we will turn this responsibility back over to the haitian government. part of that will be determined by at what point will the military role transition to other capabilities. so, yeah, indefinite is a pretty good word. >> can you please speak to the question about adoption? a lot of things are in legal limbo. so my understanding is there are talks between the two governments. >> i mean, it is an issue that we're working within our own government, and i just don't know what more you can say at this point. it will be something that -- obviously, it's very important

to the families that have been working through the adoption process. we recognize that. we obviously want to be able to bring these children to safety. but there are issues -- there are complexities in terms of what their status is in haiti and there's a legal process that we have to work through. >> i'm trying to confirm that there was a meeting here on friday with a group of international adoption organizations and more than 30 congressional staffers, offices of representatives, of people. >> i'll take the question as to whether or not there was a meeting. >> can we get an update on the numbers? >> which numbers? >> if you can give us a total dollar figure on u.s. aid, that would be helpful, plus casualties, injured. >> an aid figure is really

difficult. the president pledged $100 million. i think in terms of the immediate response, it's probably going to go higher than that. but i don't think we can really put a specific dollar figure on it at this point. what other figures? >> i just -- you gave -- you have asked if there's a casualties, injured list. >> the numbers haven't changed all that much through the day. i would say we have the hotline that we've opened for people, that the secretary alluded to. we've received -- we've opened about 6,000 cases in terms of people have reported in about the questions about their loved ones. we've already been able to resolve about 1,000 of those. so we are actively working both here and in haiti to try to make sure that we can determine as best we can the status of american citizens in haiti.

but in terms of fatalities, we have the -- one state department employee that we talked about yesterday,. we're aware of fy confirmed private citizens who have perished in this. we think that there are, at least ta we're aware of, up to 15 others that may be presumed dead at this point. 15. >> as many as? >> as many as 15 others. but clearly, we recognize that this number is going to go up as the days go on. >> one, five and 15. >> in addition? >> so we have one confirmed official fatality, we have five confirmed private citizens, we have 15 others that we presume at this point, based on information that we have. >> and is everybody accounted for among the official u.s.

delegations? >> we still have three unaccounted for. david? >> another subject. >> sure. >> there's some reporting that china is disinclined to attend the political directors meeting in new york on saturday. is that -- >> there will be a p-5 plus one meeting tomorrow afternoon. we will be sending our political director under secretary bill burns. we understand that china will not be sending their political director, but we look forward to the meeting. we think it will be very useful as we continue our consultations with the international community on the situation with respect to iran and its nuclear ambitions. we look forward to the meeting, and china, i believe, will be represented. >> what do you hope to get out of this meeting? >> you know, i think it's a step in the process, and we

haven't had a p-5 plus one meeting. this will be the first of the year. it comes at a point where we continue to evaluate where we are with respect to iran. and as we've said many, many times, the door remains open to engagement, but we are looking at ways in which we might be able to apply pressure to iran, and we'll continue these consultations both with an f--- p-5 plus one process, and it is an important step in the process. >> and given the ostensible agreement that was reached in geneva in october regarding the tehran research reactor, one, are you aware of any sign whatsoever that the iranians still have any interest in that agreement? and then secondly, on the assumption that you don't have

any such signs, is it fair to say that what you are hoping to get out of the meeting is some kind of an agreement to pursue further sanctions? even if you don't actually agree on what those might be tomorrow. >> you mean notwithstanding, you know, an iranian deadline applied to their unacceptable counteroffer to our quite reasonable offer. we're working this as a process. i wouldn't -- so the meeting tomorrow is useful, important. i wouldn't expect that particular deliverable out of this meeting. but we are consulting within the p-5 plus one with the membership of the security council and more broadly, on

the way forward, we are communicating our concern and the concern of the international community for iran's inability or unwillingness to respond to what we consider to be a good-faith offer. and we're going to continue down this road. it doesn't preclude that iran could not come back at some point and express a willingness to engage, but we are disappointed that they have not up to this point. and part of this process and we think part of the actions that we continue to discuss as options with our partners will communicate to iran that there are consequences for the steps that he either has taken or seems unwilling to take. >> can i go back to haiti for a second? >> sure. >> just on the search and rescue effort, can you kind of explain how these teams choose where to go? is it based on where they think they're most likely to find

larger buildings, or where you actually have the four american teams right now? >> in terms of hour to hour operational details, i would defer to the disaster assistance response team, the dart folks, down on the ground in haiti. it's hard to characterize it from there. their work continues. we understand there is an increasing sense of urgency, because we're coming to the outer edges of the window where we think that people could still be successfully pulled out of rubble. we're going to continue with this effort. we've put more search and rescue capability on the ground today. so there is an urgency to this. since they arrived working with the assessment team, they've been able to reach out, to move out into the city, and through their means, they've got dogs,

they've got other ways in which they can both eyed fee -- identify where they think there might still be someone trapped in the rubble. and also, all the reporting that comesing in from people who have been -- coming in from people who have been able to hear voices in the rubble. they have done their work, an then as more teams have come in internationally from different parts of the world, you know, there's been this coordinated and combined approach to try to get to as many places as possible, rescue as many of the victims as possible. >> do you have any comment about the refueling mission? >> i don't. obviously, this mab a matter for the new -- has been a matter for the new government to decide. that said, japan continues to make important contributions to the mission in afghanistan.

the secretary had a wide-ranging bilateral discussion with the foreign minister in honolulu earlier this week. we look forward to continuing our joint efforts and shared interests. we will look forward to recognizing the 50th anniversary of the u.s.-japan security alliance on tuesday. but this was a decision that japan made, and obviously, we've been in consultation with them for sometime about this and other issues. >> president preval has apparently said that he feels like his national police force is adequate to control the city. and he says that 82nd airborne is welcome for support, but he believes the national police should be in the lead. has that been conveyed to you as officials, an is there any response? >> well, president preval met with the ambassador today. he had a conversation with president obama, as well as the secretary said, she'll be meeting with them tomorrow. we will continue to go through

and work with the government of haiti. we've had many conversations with them since the earthquake. they have communicated to us what they think the priorities are, and we always have to remember here, haiti is sovereign. and to the extent that they have capabilities and they believe that those capabilities are meeting their own national interest, we are there to support them. so the haitian national police force is still functioning. obviously, like other elements of haitian society, it has undoubtedly taken a serious hit based on the events of this week. to the extent that they need to be augmented, you do have people there, and they are doing their own augmenttation of the security force, as they have been for many years many and the 82nd airborne is there in a humanitarian role.

they come with capabilities, and to the extent we have offered those capabilities to the government of haiti, and well o'work with them in what they think the appropriate need for the 82nd airborne is. >> this morning i think you told us that secretary clinton haddadi a conversation with chinese foreign minister young this week. i think you said did you not know whether the issue of google came up in that conversation. >> it's been in the last several days. i can try to place it. >> so post the google announcement on tuesday. >> pre-the announcement. >> did the topic of google come up in that conversation? >> no. >> have you had any further contacts with chinese diplomats in washington since yesterday's launch with the d.c.m.? >> not yet, no. >> do you plan to call anybody

in? sorry. >> well, we will continue to talk to china on this issue. it touches on things that are very important to us, internet freedom, network security, and human rights. and, you know, we will -- as the secretary said earlier this week, this incident raises serious questions, and we have and will continue to seek answers from china. and we will have further conversations with china, but i'm not aware that there have been any since yesterday. >> you said that there will be a march. will it be a protest or -- >> we will have further discussions with china. when those occur, we'll let you know. >> lg on to our website to view

more briefings on the earthquake in haiti. also there, president obama's statement from earlier in the day, as well as remarks by defense secretary robert gates on the u.s. military role in relief efforts. that and more at c-span.org. >> tonight on c-span, house democrats discuss their proposals for increasing employment. senator tom coburn holds a health care town hall meeting in oklahoma. and pentagon officials release the findings of their shootings. >> next week, your chance to talk to the authors of the best-selling game change on the 2008 presidential campaign and the impact of the book on

washington politics and policy. live tuesday morning on c-span's "washington journal." >> middle and high school opportunities, just a few weeks left to enter the contest. send us your five to eight-minute video on the challenges the country is facing for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. all the winning videos will be shown on c-span so don't delay, enter today. make sure to upload your project by midnight wednesday at student cam.org. >> the house democratic caucus met today for a job summit at the capitol. afterwards, membership of the leadership spoke with reporters to discuss their ideas for job creation as well as the status of health care legislation. this is a half-hour. pelosi and majority leader steny

hoyer ensued reporters questions for about half an hour. >> vice chairman of the democratic caucus. once again, on behalf of our chairman and leader, john larson, who was called back home for family reasons, we just want to say that this has been an exciting meeting. the focus was on jobs, securing america. we also spent time with leaders, like bill clinton, talking about the tragedy in haiti. but i must tell you, we just had a powerful, sensible wind blown beneath our wings by bill clinton, former president of the united states. to start this conference off with another president, eric schmitt, from google, to hear from the president of the united states, barack obama, and to have in-between more

than a dozen and presidents and c.e.o.'s of business and labor come before us and tell us of their optimism and their belief that we can get this done, i believe these are members ready to go back to work next week. we are prepared to take the words of bill clinton, barack obama, eric schmitt and do what the people have been waiting for, and that is to pass health care legislation, to put americans back to work and to have sensible policy on energy and to bring us forward in foreign policy as well. we heard from our leaders, principally from the speaker of the house of representatives, and she reported to us as well, an i would now like to turn over the microphone to her. madam speaker. >> thank you very much, javier. thanks to you and john larson, the chair of the caucus, for a

very invigorating couple of days. it was exciting, but it also gave us time to think, to reflect, to pause as we go forward. one year almost since the day that the president was sworn in, nearly a year. we can take stock about the agenda that he put forth, the budget that we passed to grow our economy, to stabilize the u.s. economy, to create jobs, to lower taxes for the middle class as we reduce the deficit. it centered around three pillars, investments in education, investments in energy/climate change, investments in health care, first among equal. and in these three days we had leaders from every field. when eric schmitt spoke to us, little did we know when he was invited that it would be the day that google would be making its statement on china about freedom of expression, which is so important to awful us. in fact, it is your profession,

and we thank you for that. that we would hear from the president about these three investments yesterday, and from president clinton today about how important our focus on jobs. securing jobs, securing america. they are related. and so i thank vice chair becerra an i thank chairman larson for providing this venue for us to have an exchange of ideas with leaders, as he mentioned, panels, our friends in labor and others about how we go forward with the creation of jobs through innovation, new jobs which reach not only getting jobs for those who had them, but reaching populations for better jobs in the very near future. first among equals is the issue of investment and health care, and i thank you all for your

interest in that subject. it's a personal issue with the american people. tip o'neil said all politics is local. when it comes to health care, all politics is personal. everyone is an expert on the his or her own health care insurance and the rest, and so this is personal with the american people. it's about small business. it's about people, families, small businesses, our economy in general, and to move forward in a way that reduces the deficit as it grows our economy. the health issue is a jobs issue in addition to doing a -- being a personal issue in terms of the health of the american people. and so i reported briefly to our colleagues that we are moving forward. we're making progress. we're establishing common ground on some of the few issues that were different in

our bills, to, as the term goes, reconcile them. and i'm very pleased that we're going forth to honor the three a's, affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies, and accessibility for many more americans to quality, affordable health care. we're doing this in a way that is fiscally sound, as you know. it must be paid for. but not only that, it must also bring down the cost of health care over -- now and continue to do so over time. i'm proud of the work of our chairman, mr. rangel, mr. miller, mr. rangel, congresswoman waxman. did i say waxman? did i say one of them twice? congresswoman waxman as chairman of our rules committee. to mr. dingle, who is the inspiration to us.

congresswoman slaughter? did i acknowledge her? but in any event, it's been a lot of hard work. many people over a long period of time. no one has worked harder and more smartly than our staff, and i want to commend them as well. but, again, we will move forward with more conversations this afternoon and hopefully, when we get together next week, we'll have a lot more information to share with you. but hopefully, suffice it to say for me, anyway, again, we're finding our common ground, we're making progress, we're prig this congress closer to taking the historic step that has eluded other congresses in the past. it was first introduced as an idea in our country by republican president teddy roosevelt, to honor his idea and the commitment of so many others over the years. we honor that responsibility. but most of all, the responsibility we have to the american people. president obama has said it over and over again -- we will

measure our success by the progress it has made by america's working false, and this is great progress for america's working families when we pass this. i yield to the distinguished majority leader, mr.-hour. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. this has been a wonderful conference. i want to congratulate john larson, and javier becerra, who's done a good job at leading the conference in mr. larson's conference. we've just heard from mr. bill clinton. i've been here since the mid 1980's, an at that time we were talking about whether america could continue to compete in the world, whether the germans and the japanese were moving ahead of us at a very rapid rate. in the 1990's, we adopted an economic program, and i would reminds all of you that we passed that in a partisan

fashion with no republican votes. that's not the way we wanted to pass it, but that's the way we passed it. and we saw the greatest economic resurgence that i've seen in my lifetime in this country. jobs were created, surpluses were created, problems were addressed. just a few months ago, in the beginning of last year, we confronted the worst economic crisis since the great depression. we heard from president obama yesterday, as we heard from president clinton today. pundits, many of you, have observed that we have just gone through one the most productive sessions in the history of the house. confronting the issues that the president said he was going to confront, we said we were going to confront and that the american people needed to be confronted. we needed to confronted the

economic crisis. we did so. the economy has been stabilized. we have brought, as president obama noted since the recovery act was adopted, a very substantial reduction in the loss of jobs. that's progress, but not success. once we pass this health care bill, as we are going to do in the near future, we are going to concentrate like a laser on creating jobs, because we need to have america back to work. we're going to make sure, as we have done, that we're going to be having energy security. that's our national security and our economic security interest. and we hope to work with the senate to pass legislation to effect that end. and we are going to ensure fiscal responsibility, as was done in the clinton administration. contrary to the observation of those who oppose his economic program. we need to return to fiscal

responsibility. so i say to you that the major objectives in this second session of the congress we'll be pursuing is the completion of the agenda that was so full in addressing the problems america confronted in the last session, and now to create those jobs, bring fiscal responsibility and ensure our national security. i want to also say that the unity of our caucus, which was reflected last year, continues to exist. and in closing, let me say one of the themes eric schmitt started with, president obama talked about and president clinton talked about is optimism. america is going to be the continuing great economic engine of the world. we need the unity of purpose

and we need to stop scaring and making angry and negative and depressed the american people, as too many people in this country are doing. and we need to call and summons them to a greater effort, and we need to say to them we will be with you and we're going to create those jobs, build the economy, make our energy system secure and see a better america. optimism and commitment were the themes of this conference. i now yield -- >> before you yield to him, i wanted to introduce him. ok? because i want to say something very special. thank you, mr. leader. my associate and myself with all of your remarks. as i mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, when eric schmitt came, it happened to be the day that google was making its announcements about freedom of expression in china. it so happens that little did

we know when we invited president clinton to come and talk about health care and green jobs etc., that it would be at this very sad time. he, being the u.n. special envoy to haiti. a person with a personal connection to haiti, he and secretary clinton. they love the place, they love the people, and the haitian people know that. so we were very blessed to have a report by the president on how he saw the situation in haiti. from my own experience with earthquakes being from san francisco, i think that this can be an opportunity for a real boom economy in haiti. they can leapfrog over its past challenges economically, politically and demographically in terms of the rich and poor and the rest there and have a new -- just a new, fresh start. and with all of the concern and compassion and enthusiasm to help the people of haiti,

nobody is better suited than president clinton to channel that energy. but here in the congress, mr. clyburn has taken the initiative, working for a long time with the congressional black caucus about interest in haiti in general, and now specifically to address the concern that is in the congress, channel that in a positive way under the leadership of barack obama. president obama, i think, was spectacular. we saw firsthand his personal concern, his leadership on this issue. but i'm very pleased that our distinguished whip, mr. clyburn, who worked so hard to change attitudes toward katrina and get the sources there that were not immediately available, but through his actions, became available, he has agreed to be the head of our effort for haiti in the congress. so i wanted to thank him for

his long-term interest and for what he is going to do in that regard as he comes to the microphone. thank you. >> thank you, madam speaker. let me just say a word about haiti. i think all of us have really been overjoyed at the response that president obama has made to haiti on behalf of the american people. we saw him announce añi $100 million initiative in haiti. we will follow here in the congress with our response. and people all over america are responding in very unique sort of ways to the people of haiti. and to help facilitate that, i am joining with minority leader

eric kanter, with chair of the ways and means committee, rangel, and the ranking member of ways and means committee, congressman camp, filing legislation either later today or first thing monday to allow all of the american people who contribute to this haitian cause to be able to use their 2009 tax deductions to assist them with this. so that if they were to join in this effort -- because everybody is asking us, don't send food, send money, so that people can organize, coordnate -- coordinate in a way that will be effective, so food won't be left out on pallets to

spoil and that sort of thing. let this thing be coordinated. so to facilitate that, we want to pass legislation hopefully very soon. congress will do other things to respond to this. we want this to be a package -- be a part of that package so that people who do respond can deduct their contributions on their 2009 taxes. oh, somebody just lost all their communication, i'm sorry about that. let me just close my comments first by thanking javier becerra, my classmate, chairman larson, who is one of my very close friends. we spent a lot of time together almost every evening -- >> where would that be? close friends. we spend a lot of time together

almost every evening. >> where would that be? [laughter] >> we work on the whip channel almost every evening. it gets a little bit glick would sometimes. i want to thank the speaker for just a tremendous effort she has put forth, not just here, but with this health care issue that we are looking to resolve here soon. my longtime friend, steny hoyer, we have been working very closely together on this and of course chairman van holland, chris van hollen with whom i am consulting early this afternoon before takeoff for the weekend to help them with the efforts. i want to close with something the speaker said about how personal this health care reform issue is. in the town hall meetings i have

held over the phone, in person, throughout my congressional district, people come to the mic to talk about health care reform in a very personal way. as president clinton said today, if you just forget about all of these other things that could help you make up your mind about it, just think about, as they said when i introduced the president, president obama win he came to our caucus the other day. i talked about my now 15-year-old grandson who came here three months before anybody expected him, three and a half pounds, having three operations before he was 20 pounds and had to-- and to watch him today because of this tremendous health care system that we have in the country, but knowing full

well that he is able to take advantage of that, only because of who his parents and grandparents are and only because they have the kind of health insurance that would allow him, and watch my son-in-law and my daughter repaed this tremendous co-payment that took them over three years to pay for coming and you can get a good feel personally for why we have got to do this. so, i know we have cut a good health care system in this country, but there is something wrong with saying that is only available to you if you are fortunate enough to be born into a family and it is only available to you if you are fortunate enough to be employed by a corporation that will provide you health care. and come we have got to do

something about that and i am tremendously pleased that this democratic caucus is going to get this done in the not too distant future and i believe, as former president senator and now deceased kennedy once said, i believe that we are going to make this a fundamental right for every american, and that is as it should be and with that i would like to yield to our distinguished chair, chris van holland. >> thank you, thank you mr. clyburn and thank you for your passionate commitment to these issues and all of my colleagues. it was a great caucus. an opportunity to take stock and where we have been and discuss how we are quinn to move forward and accelerate job creation in the days, weeks and months ahead. clearly, if you look back one year from this month, the economy was in total freefall,

750,000 americans lost their jobs at this time last year. the stock market was in the dumps and economic growth was going downward at a rate of 6.5%. working with their new president, passing economic recovery bill and with the entrepreneurial and optimism, spirit of the optimism of the american people we have now begun to stabilize the economy and very focused on turning the corner. it would be a huge mistake that this point in time to turn back the clock to the policies that got us into this economic mess in the first place, and it would be a huge mistake to allow the status quo to prevail in the area of health care for the insurance industry holds the american people in our health care system hostage. and so this is a time to continue the momentum of last year, understanding as the majority leader said that we

have made progress but we still haven't met our goals but confident in the optimism and the the entrepreneurial spirit of the american people that we will be able to do it, so let's not turn back the clock. let's recaptured the same energy and policies that under the clinton administration brought this nation eight years of prosperity. >> we have the time for a couple of questions and you know that president clinton will be coming yeltsin. [inaudible] >> actually there are no sticking points. i would say if there is a two words, three words towards finding common ground, that is what we are in the process of doing so it is just making some decisions in that regard. in regard to the excise tax that

we just overwhelmingly rejected in the house of representatives, we received the good news that there had been@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @a >> we want to dot best we can to make the bill affordable for the measure people -- american people. it is absolutely essential if

it is going to work. at accountability for the insurance companies, whether we're talking about the reforms that we have in the house bill, that we want more -- to see in the final bill as well. they are talking about the challenge that some of these insurance companies will face if they raise rates in this next couple of years, then they won't be able to participate in the exchange. anies will face if they raise rates in this next couple of years, then they won't be able to participate in the exchange so those accountability pieces, our members are very supportive to the vending the waiver of mccarran-ferguson the antitrust laws for the insurance companies so those are some of the issues that have always been part of our agenda, for accountability, taking other forms, public option this are that but they are always about accountability for the health insurance.

[inaudible] >> that had nothing to do with that. we were on this course of action anyway, because what we want to do is to move this legislation because i don't think the american people can wait any longer gillet it is about the assurance that they will have that we have found their common ground and that this legislation will pass though we are on the path we have always been on, from a time standpoint. i don't know, we are going to go back to the white house and talk about some other issues this afternoon and probably have a better idea as to when we can sense something that we will send it again, when we are ready, but very optimistic but we are finding common ground, making progress on the

differences but remember, 75% of these bills were very, very similar so it is just some different priorities we had in the house and senate. all of them are good. it isn't as if one is better than another. it is just establishing priorities which is our job, but we were very pleased to have such a powerful message both from our president barack obama last night on this subject and then today from president clinton. it was really a master class izzy connected health care to jobs and then to the green, dig green jobs, the jobs of the future, and i was pleased in the debate when people were talking about retrofitting i think we came out of the meeting instead of talking about retrofitting we are talking about future fitting so in any event everyone has caught the spirit of where we want to go with this. but central to this health care.

.. >> we came out because he was busy. the president had to catch a plane, that he will not be out to talk to you. >> we still got good stuff. >> otherwise, you were a blast. [laughter] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," there will be discussion about the military's use of drone attacks in afghanistan. we'll talk to former congressman glen browder about his new book, a history of politics behind the civil rights movement, and we'll get an update on capitol hill

health care negotiations with "politico" senior editor david mark. "washington journal" is live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this weekend, tufts university history professor pineal joseph, how it paved the way for future leadership. he'll discuss his book with a "washington post" editor on "after words," part of this weekend's "book tv" on c-span2. >> this week republican senator tom coburn talked to his constituents about health care at a town hall meeting in clairemoore, oklahoma. senator coburn voted against the health care legislation. this is an hour and 20 minutes.

>> welcome. it's been a while since i've had a town hall meeting here. i want to spend just a few minutes to kind of set the ground rules. i want to talk for about three  about things that i think are going on now that you need to know about. and then we're going to spend the rest of the time trying to answer your questions and get input from you. this is your town hall meeting. the whole purpose of it is to hold me accountable to what your thoughts, your thinking and your "viewpoint" is and make sure i'm aware of it. there's no questions that are off-limits. they need to be proffered in a way that is fair, but other than that, we'll take any question that comes and try to answer it as honestly and as straightforward as we can. thank you. i think our country's at a crossroads.

i'm 62 years old. i have a pretty diverse background of being a manufacturing person for 10 years and then being a medical doctor and then being in congress for six and coming back and being a medical doctor. but i don't think i've ever seen us in the position that we're in during my lifetime, since the 1940's. and i think there's a reason for that, and i think it's that we've taken our eye off the ball. we have thought in the short term. we have thought selfishly and self-centeredly, and we've forgot about, to a degree, some of the great blessings that we have through this grand experiment in democracy that we have in our country. and what we know of leadership as we study history is the best leadership is sacrificial leadership. it's leadership that says i'll put off for me so i can create for the future. and that's really been the heritage of our country is one

generation makes hard choices, sacrifices to create opportunity for the future. ♪ that's pretty good. that must be somebody's phone. [laughter] who started in that? so the goal is, what i'd like to see for my grandchildren, is for us to get back and re-embrace that quality of sacrifice that creates opportunity and creates the future. let me outline a set of numbers for you. unless we solve this set of numbers, your grandchildren don't have a future. that's how straightforward it is. if you take everybody in this country that's 25 years of age and younger and go out 20 years

from now, so they're 45 years of age and younger and their children and their grandkids, each one of those individuals will be responsible for 1,119,000 worth of real debt. that calculates at $70,000 a year per person before they paid the first taxes to run the government that we have or defend the nation. and before they ever pay for a home or a college education for their children. so that's the magnitude of the problem we find ourselves in in terms of our debt and unfunded liabilities. we can change that, we can fix that, but it's going to require tough love, hard decisions and all of us sacrificing to do that. from the very wealthy to the not so wealthy. everybody will have to participate.

and what you like and what you think is rightfully yours now may not be yours if we're going to create a future for our kids and our grandkids. so it's not about a certain philosophy, it's about how do we maintain liberty and freedom and create opportunity into the future, or do we go the way of all the rest of the republics the world has ever known? and here's what happened to them. every one of them failed. and every one of them failed over the same thing -- fiscal issues, money, is what caused them to fail. now, they may have been defeated externally, but the reason they were defeated is because they failed over fiscal issues. so that's kind of where we are. we have a lot of things. we'll talk about anything you want to talk about. we'll talk about health care if you want. but basically this is your meeting, an i'll stay until everybody's run out of questions, and then i'll drive home to must cog guy.

so who -- must coggy. so who's going to go first? i've got guys with mics somewhere around here. come on up here. we've got one right here. >> i think i have some comments. the problem with our health care industry as a whole from everything from the consumer to the provider, there's no free enterprise in that entire system. consumers don't have a choice to make a decision of what insurance company they do business with. doctors can't provide, can't choose the providers. they're forced to go with certain networks based upon the hospital decision. companies are making decisions for employees regardless of what that employee can afford. if we could ban group coverages and let each individual in this country choose his own coverage based upon his own needs and his own family's needs, if we could do away with the

insurance networks that have bullied hospitals and bullied -- they bullied the businesses and they bullied the hospitals and the providers, they ban price fixing by hospitals. hospitals are having to fix prices to counteract the networks. and let employees buy their own insurance based upon their needs. ban pre-existing conditions, because if you can't go get insurance -- i'm a cancer survivor. i can't change insurance for life right now. if i wanted to change, i can't. i've got a diabetic son. he is in the oklahoma high-risk pool, because when i left the group, they wouldn't cover him, so i had to put him in the high-risk pool. all of these have caused no free enterprise in the entire system. everybody. there is not a single person in that industry as a whole. all the way from the consumer to the provider. and absolutely no, no public

option. there should never, ever be a public option. we are a free enterprise country, not a government-run country. >> well, let me kind of -- i use different words for what you just said. i'm a practicing physician. i'll see about 10 patients tomorrow morning before i head back to tulsa to do some things. markets allocate scarce resources. now, we can either believe that or we can deny it. the assumption that they don't means our entire history belies that, that we have used markets to allocate scarce resources. and what that would really mean is we would reconnect the purchase of health care with a payment, and we don't. and so, therefore, we don't see market forces moderating costs because it's not necessarily in the economic interest of the individual to do that, because they're not responsible for it.

for every 3.5% increase in the cost of health care in this country for insurance, it costs you real wages, 2%. so if health insurance costs this last year went up 5.5%, that costs the people who have health insurance 3% real wages. now, why is there no connection? it is because other than a deductible and a co-pay, the first thing you don't see is what is the price and war the outcomes? >> can't do it. >> you can't find it. so the point is -- and that's what we had in our bill. we had transparency. we had forced transparency in terms of price. we couldn't get a vote on our bill on the senate floor. they didn't want to have that bill up for a vote because they knew it made sense. it actually is the only bill that cuts costs and issue sent advises -- incentivizes production. we know we spen