know why. i think we do not even control our own replication. we've got people who are still worrying about abortion and we continue to completely ignore half of the problems. host: we will leave it there. guest: that is why it is politics. these are human issues. even you the voter get a say in the issue. we did not understand the technology at all. host: thank you so much for being on the program. i want to tell you who is going to be on the "washington journal" tomorrow morning.

he will be talking about his role in launching a new right leaning group here in washington d.c. we will also be talking to roben farzad. thank you very much for watching this edition and we will see you again tomorrow morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] qç>> this morning on c-span, te

communicators with microsoft senior vice president and general counsel brad smith. also, for homeland security chairman michael chertoff. after that, kathleen sebelius. a little bit later, firstly michelle obama announces her campaign to target childhood obesity. a panel of law professors discuss faddle panelist new book, the will of the people. it weighs the relationship between supreme court decisions unpopular decision. america and the courts at 7:00 eastern on c-span. it is the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist. american president's life portrait by painter and sculptor. see the entire collection on line at c-span2 website.

this week on the communicators, a discussion about the future of what is called cloud computing with brad smith of microsoft. his company is asking congress for new rules to protect business and consumer information. this program was recorded in january. >> you are in town to talk about a topic about cloud computing. if you had to describe it, how would you describe it? >> it is really about connecting a smart computing device with the ability to run data remotely.

if anybody has ever use a web based e-mail like yahoo or aol, you have used cloud computing because you have been storing your e-mail up in a data center. you are already -- already using the clout even if you are not completely aware of it. -- cloud. >> here you are talking about this issue. v:>> this is an important part f the future of technology becausç more and more people are going to be using the cloud. it raises new questions. questions that we in the industry need to address, but also unborn questions for government. will the privacy rights of consumers be respected and protected in a cloud? will security be strong in the cloud? will data move across borders?

who's lot is going to apply? these are important questions that the government needs to sort out if all of these -- all this technology is going to move forward. >> if cloud computing is done with servers not located with a person's own personal computer, the current laws that govern information that stays on a server or stays within a personal computer, do they not match up to what is needed as far as cloud computing is concerned? >> in some cases, there are some important differences. let's say you are keeping documents on your pc in your bedroom, if the government wants to come take a look at that, it needs to get a search warrant. the fourth amendment and the bill of rights says that is what the government has to do. when you take that same information and you give it to a third party, the courts really have not been clear on whether the fourth amendment applies. in that kind of situation in the

past, congress has acted to make clear that even if the constitution did not protect privacy rights, a statute did. now we have this news scenario with people storing things in the cloud, it is one of the areas that we have highlighted that we think congress needs to act to make sure that the law is clear and that the privacy rights of citizens remain protected. >> the chief information officer from the administration has been -- has made a big point about the potential for economic savings for agencies. one of the assumptions here is that cloud computing saves a lot of computing cost. i would like to get your sense of why it is more economical. isn't just another way of remote computing for agencies? is there something more that makes it possible to get real savings for the government? >> in many instances, cloud computing can have a number of new benefits. for the government, for businesses, for consumers.

certainly, for enterprises. businesses and governments are deploying computer resources at large scale, it can create more flexibility and it can help people save money. i will give you a simple example. the biggest day of the year for americans ordering pizza happens to be the super bowl day. domino's pizza has a lot of information technology that uses to record those orders, to take those orders. it does not necessarily want to have to buy and run those servers every day of the year just so it has the capacity needs on super bowl sunday. one of the things that domino's pizza has done is contract with microsoft. we are a cloud computing service provider. they can get extra technology capacity from's and use it for a day. that is a lot cheaper than using it for a year. itht captures a cop -- it captus the flexibility that this tax --

that this technology provides. it translates into savingsç. w3>> youçó are saying it gives u the0l advantage of stealing up when you need it -- saving up. amazon.com has competing capabilities for christmas. they have been able to take the excess capacity and say, it is pretty inexpensive for us to let others compete on our system. cloud computing sounded like it was pretty inexpensive. do we still need to build a whole lot of new facilities to do this cloud tcomputing? >> if you want to get into the business, you have to be prepared as a service provider

to spend a lot of money. we are building very large data centers with many, many server computers and we're building and around the world. there may be instances where it would be cheaper for a business to continue to have its own computers on site in its own premises. if you are a bank and you feel that your customers basically use about the same amount of computing resources every day throughout the year, it might be more economical for them to build that themselves and run that themselves. you take another customer who has a real seasonality, you think about what they have to do in november and december, is way more than what they do in january through october. for them, you need to bring extra capacity. more generally, weak economies of scale because we are buying so much equipment. we can buy it cheaper and we may

be in a position to pass on some of the savings to customers. >> earlier this year, he said the ability of cloud computing services to collect and centrally store consumer data combined with the ease with which it may be shared with others -- >> i think it says that we need clarity and simply -- and simplicity. one of the things that we have been talking about is the analogy to the truth in lending act. this is something that congress çpassed in 1968 so that when we go to banks engage in credit transactions, there are some standards that apply and banks have to tell us what the terms of the deal really are. i do think we need to get to the

point where it is clear for consumers. if they're putting their information on line, people are entitled to know what is the service provider going to do with this information. how are they going to use my documents? if i want to move my documents to another service provider in the future, am i going to be able to do so? what is the service provider going to do to maintain security so that i have confidence in the cloud? these are things where we would probably benefit if there was a common set of rules that we all comply with. the all have our different offerings, but it will be clear what we have to tell consumers and how we make them aware of what is going on. >> you have called for some new regulationsi] or updating some current laws, where does a fine line about --

>> it is a great question. we have laws in the privacy sector and in the security area and an area that date back to the mid 1980's. almost 25 leaders -- almost 25 years later, we have an entire internet revolution that has taken place. we need the laws to be updated. there are some gaps and they need to be filled. it is probably right for us as an industry to recognize that everybody is going to benefit if the law creates some clarity, establishes a level playing field, and gives consumers the information that they want to have in order to fill confident thinking about this as an option. >> does everybody benefit equally? >> anybody who is doing the same thing would be treated the same way.

microsoft provides research into and that competes with google. google have some applications that compete with microsoft word. if we are providing e-mail services, hosting documents, we would all have to follow the same rules. >> say those rules are put in place. what are some other concerns besides basic security issues? how do i make sure that we actually do get all of our data back and there are not remnants out there that could be used for reasons not intended? >> that is a key questions and it is absolutely one of the questions that customers should ask. i think what they should ask is well might data be portable? can i take it with me? does it continue to belong to me? what are you going to do with it while you have it?

those are basic questions that are quite relevant to this new era. as one company, the data along to you, we will use it in very limited ways. we will tell you what we are going to do with it. absolutely, you should be able to take your data with you. if you do not like our e-mail and you want to move it to someone else's e-mail and you do not want to use microsoft word, have committed to take a number of steps. i do not think it is the government's role to tell everybody, you must do this particular thing. it is appropriate to say, make clear what you are doing so that everybody knows and everybody can compare and everybody can evaluate. >> one of the shorter term thoughts to moving forward is the thought of private facilities.

how do feel about the notion of private clouds and is that sort of a contradiction to the terms that we have talked about with larger public clouds where you do see the economy of that kind of computing? >> private clouds are absolutely important and part of the future. it reflects an attribute of the information technology industry. we take a word that everybody understands and use it in a way that people do not understand. malice became a different thing. we've taken the cloud -- malice became a different -- mouse became a different thing. çça part of the datacenter and note -- and know that the only thing on those computers are programmed to things that belong to you. it is not going to be put on the same computer with somebody else's information.

if you are a large customer, if you have information that is very sensitive, a private cloud may make a lot of sense for very different reasons. it is entirely possible that a decade from now, private clouds will become the norm, especially for businesses and government agencies of any real size. >> what type of information is best served by the government putting the data on the cloud? is it secure information? what level of information? >> i think that the whole world is trying to figure that out. the are relatively early days. there are areas where there are seasonality, even for the government. the irs is busier in april that it is in october. there may be areas where the government wants to be able to move its computing resources up and down in scale. there are other areas where we want to get different parts of

the government to share information and a cloud may facilitate that. there are areas where we may have an agency like the national science foundation working with universities across the country, there may be benefits to having information going into the clouds. there other areas where we are not likely to see the government move as quickly. i would not be an advocate of the navy putting the launch codes for the trident nuclear submarine in a data center that is to run by a company. there are certainly things that the government should keep in their own data centers. >> as far as security, what did the recent events in china involving google and e-mail teach us about -- and gmail teach us? >> we're working hard to improve security. it is a little bit like putting

a stronger door in your house and putting a strong for orlock on your door but then realizing that this is a higher crime neighborhood that we thought it was. the world as a whole has become a higher crime neighborhood and it was a decade ago. one of the challenges is that when you put a lot more information in the cloud, it is easier to increase security, build stronger doors, but these also become a bigger target. they're more inviting targets. it means that we in industry have to keep doubling down our investmentç to strengthen security. that is something that we are doing at microsoft every day. it is also another area where congress to act and the government needs to act. there are some areas in the law when it comes to computer security were gaps need to be filled. the law needs to be modernized and we need enforcement agencies to do their thing.

congress is going to need to give them more resources. they are going to have to collaborate more closely to connect the dots because these security in debt -- incidents are hard to investigate. >> controls within the branch of government? >> for the most part, we're likely to see enforcement authority reside where it is today. we have the fbi at the national level. we have the justice department. we have u.s. attorneys around the country. the work that the fbi does a decade from now it's going to have to be larger and more sophisticated than it is today. not because it is not sophisticated today, but because the target keeps moving. we as private companies are going to have to keep moving forward as well. we're going to need to continue to do new things to collaborate. çwe have a digital crimes unitt microsoft that investigate these kinds of things. we turn information over to the

fbi. we're going to have to work closely inappropriate ways to stay abreast of technology and new threats. >> our guest is brad smith. he is the senior vice president and general counsel. >> many people may not appreciate that the government is already doing some successful working in a cloud computing. -- work in a cloud competing. people can -- cloud computing. gsa is doing some work with its isa.gov site. we are seeing some early experimentation to test the waters. people should be commended for that effort. larger issues still remain make

a larger scale. some of the privacy concerns. i would be curious on your thought. it is a very serious issue. you mentioned some transparency, but how do you insure that the data and privacy sensitivity is properly addressed if a third- party handlers are dealing with it? ç>> it is a key issue. i think you're absolutely right. çfundamentally, from an individual perspective, i think that individuals should think about two things. what are their privacy rights? what are their privacy rights regarding the government and the government's ability to go get their information from the companies that had it? perhaps without having to knock on the door of the individual first and let that person know. we have a great important

tradition and privacy is one of the distinctly american values. it goes back to the bill of rights. it has long been protected. it has always been a challenging issue for the last century as technology keeps changing. i think the key thing is for congress to act to keep a log current with technology. it did a great job in the '80s. the balance was set right for the types of communications that people were focused on in the 1980's. it was around telephone conversations and early experience with e-mail. the technology world has changed so much that the law has really become quite antiquated. these are the company's -- this is an area where the u.s. has not been at the forefront of the law. europe has been at the forefront of the law. as americans, we would benefit

in our own country for the u.s. to stay abreast and apply clear standards with respect to companies. the u.s. would play a stronger leadership in the world in terms of coordinating with other governments. our government would have more influence with discussions with european governments if it had a more current law to which point. >> you raise an interesting issue there. as we move to national and global computing centers, we are now going across borders. the rights and restrictions on what can happen with the data in those centers takes on a more global in nature. how do you see that evolving over the future? will that be an impediment to the development of a global computing centers? >> unless the government start to act, it is going to become an impediment. it is starting to become an impediment. if you are in the cloud competing business, it is a

catch-22 waiting to happen. he may have one country that says you must keep all of your data records about people's searches for 12 months. we want our police to get access to them. you may have another country that says, you better destroy all of that after six months because we care about privacy. let's say we have the data center that is running in ireland, for example. the irish tell us to destroy the records after six months, but we have the records of the italians. and the italians tell us to keep them for 12. we cannot comply with both lots at the same time. we've had a pressing need for governments to come together. there will come a day when we will see a free-trade agreement for information, for data. that is a ways off and the sooner theç u.s. government can get started, the sooner it can get engaged in conversations

with other governments. the sooner we can take bilateral steps. the sooner we will get to a real solution on a more global basis. >> if this is a congressional issue, who has your ear on this? >> it is for people on the judiciary committee spray i. we are certainly engaged in conversations there. the good news is that we are starting to have a broader conversation. our biggest point as a company has been to say, we need a new national conversation about what this technology means. it leads to capitol hill and the white house, but it needs to start on main street. it needs to bring in businesses. it needs to bring in consumer groups. in need to bring in the rest of our industry. that is what we're starting to do and i am very hopeful that out of that we will see the kind of consensus on merge that will

encourage congress to act. this is an act that would strengthen the privacy laws, fill in gaps in the security area,ç address some of these international areas and put the country back were the law is at the forefront of technology rather than the lagging and. >> is there a case where companies can self regulate themselves? it seems that you come to capitol hill and asking for more legislation, it seems counter intuitive. >> you raise a really good question. i have 2 thoughts about it. by any stretch of the imagination, we need to be stepping forward. we need to be assuming responsibility as companies and as an industry. we need to be proactive. we need to keep that going day after day after day. what do we need from government?

we definitely need government to fill in gaps in the law around privacy and security. beyond that, there is an interesting question of whether the industry itself feels it would be better off if there were a lot at the federal level about truth and cloud computing. usually, people in industry say, no thank you. if we do not get action at the federal level, we will get action at the state level. we will get states with conflicting laws. if we did not get action at the federal level, we will get action in other countries. if you want to have one more in the united states and if we want our own government to be influential, there is a good reason to think harder about the possibility that maybe even people in the industry would benefit from federal action. >> one other aspect of this is

that we look at cloud computing on a different -- on a couple of different levels. it is infrastructure, services in terms of software, development platform. the cloud is made up of many types of services. deerfield that advancement act would be able to cover -- do you feel that's an advancement act would be able to cover all the services? >> i think the cloud computing enhancement act could do a lot of good if it is put at the right altitude. if the government tries to dictate particular technological approaches, it will enact a law that will work for about two years. we will find that technology overtakes it. if it takes a broader view, if it recognizes that what we're talking about is moving information from your business or your desk to the clouds and

thinks about it and that way, if it focuses on a process these like providing consumers with clearer information, i think it is possible to write a law that would do a lot of good and avoid the pitfalls that one would confront if one tries to do too much. >> what is the goal for companies like yours? was the found a maker sap device? -- was the phone a microsoft device. what is going on at to make sure those kinds of things don't happen? >> there is a whole list of questions that one needs to build into the technology. he to have strong protection for security so that other people

are not able to hack their way in. that was the incident that googled recently confronted. you need to have reliability so that your own systems are operating in a strong way. the need to be clear with your customers so that they know exactly what they are getting. you tell them, are you keeping copies in particular places? do you want your service provider to keep another copy summer? these are all questions that one needs to work through as you enter into a new technological era. >> is there a legal process then? if you lost my information and i need to get it back, what are my legal rights on that? >> there basically is. it is another good example of the need for clarity. whenever you sign up for a service, let's say you sign up for an e-mail service, you get this agreement that pops up and it is called your terms of use. it is actually worth reading.

it is worth pointing out and reading on a piece of paper, perhaps. that should tell you how those kinds of issues are addressed. this is the kind of thing where maybe we would all benefit if there is a clear set of principles. tells us all what information we should provide and how to provide it. none of us ever like to see an air bag because if we see it is because we are in an accident, but we want to have the ability to compare whether different cars have air bags and how they work. as long as you get information out in a transparent way, you can lead to the consumer reports publications of the world to go to work. people can decide what they care about and they can make an informed choice about what they want to do. >> we have time for one more question. >> microsoft is responsible for people having their own personal experience on computers and servers as well.

one of the dilemmas is, people do not want to give that up. i am curious -- cloud computing sort of represents putting their information in a new place. how did you get past the cultural inertia? >> you have it on a point that is berry fundamental. the personal computer revolution -- that is very fundamental. the personal-computer revolution let people decide what they wanted to use the computer for, hal they wanted to use it, when they wanted to share, with whom they wanted to share it. people should not have to give that up. we as an industry should do a good job of creating cloud computing offerings that gives people that continuing ability to make choices, to personalize the computing experience. if we do not, consumers should say, wait a second. we are not sure we want to follow you through this new

country you are talking about. microsoft is focused on trying to keep the personalization that technology has created over the last 25 years and take it with us. it is not just about the cloud. it is about smart clients and giving the people the ability to make their own decisions. just because it is a new option does not mean that everyone should take it. they should use it if they want to bridge we have to make it sufficiently value and -- a valuable and attractive. >> brad smith is a senior vice president of microsoft corporation. to both of you, thank you for being on "the communicators." >> coming up on c-span, former homeland security secretary michael chertoff on

international security cooperation. following that, kathleen sebelius discusses the obama administration health care legislation priorities. then it, first lady michelle obama plunges a campaign to target childhood obesity. -- launches a campaign to target childhood obesity. it weighs the relationship between supreme court decisions and popular opinion. it is at 7:00 eastern tonight on c-span. coming up tomorrow on "washington journal," douglas hold taken discusses his role in launching a new right winning the think tank. j. newton small ofç time magaze on his recent trip to haiti and ongoing relief efforts. "washington journal is like every morning at 7:00.

former bush administration homeland security secretary michael chertoff comment on his new book about homeland security. this is about 90 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone and welcome to the hudson institute. and also anne mclellan who was on her way, still coming down from canada. she says it is the americans' fault that they want the land, not so much the canadian's fault because they wouldn't let her leave despite the weather but hopefully she will have-- joyner's mitt program.

michael chertoff is among many of you know. he is today chairman and managing principle of the chertoff group a security risk management advisory firm with offices in washington d.c. and new york for good judge chertoff is senior counsel at covington llp washington d.c. office and a member of the white-collar defense in investigations practice group. most recently mr. chertoff served as secretary of the department of homeland security as secretary he led a 218,000 person department with a budget of $50 billion. mr. chertoff's developed into month security promulgated homeland security regulation and spearheaded in national cybersecurity. he also served on the national security in homeland security councils and the committee on foreign investment in the united states. bridges appointment to the cabinet mr. chertoff served from 2003 to 2005 on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. before becoming a federal judge mr. chertoff was the assistant attorney general for the

criminal division of the u.s. department justice pirg oneth position ubersauve investigation of 9/11 terrorist attacks in pharm.d enron task force which produce more than 20 convictions including those of ceo's jeffrey skilling and kenneth flight. mr. chertoff's career includes a federal prosecutor including district attorney first assistant attorney for the district of new jersey and assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of near. as a prosecutor mr. true-up investigated and personally prosecuted significant cases of corruption organized crime in corporate fraud and some of you may have notice on the way and he has a new book, "homeland security: assessing the first five years" which he will talk about. with no further ado let me turn this over to secretary chertoff. [applause] >> i am very impressed by the turnout on a day of i think what is a record, perhaps, since the 1880s, a record snowfall in that

jurisdiction of colombia so it is either a tribute to the intrepid this of the people in the audience for the fact there is nothing else to do. the super bowls over nuf got tired of watching television and you are getting cabin fever alitha rayann delighted to be able to address you today and i want to thank christopher sands for the introduction and the hudson institute for hosting me for this talk. anne mclellan who i think is delayed by the exigencies of travel as many of you may know, is a former counterpart of mine in the canadian government. she was the head of the republics say the ministry and in fact had had the pleasure of working together during the first year that i was homeland security secretary here in the united states. actually in many ways this know we have experienced over the last couple of days is a theory good reminder of that least one of the sets of challenges we dealt with that the department of homeland security which was

natural disasters. because as people rapidly found out when the warning of snow became a reality, how comfortable you are and how safe and secure you are during any kind of natural event of that kind is a function of how prepared you are. people who have water, who have the battery operated radio, who had food, it had filled up their gas tanks were in a better circumstance than those who hadn't done any of those things and we'll certainly a big snowfall isn't comparable to the disasters we have seen here in the united states or that we saw in haiti recently, each of these events is a moment to reflect upon the importance of preparedness which really lies at the heart of pretty much everything you do in the area of common security whether it is dealing with terrorist acts or whether it is dealing with natural disasters. the more prepared you are the better able you are to deal with an event when it actually happens. that is actually one of the

themes of a book that i have written, which is entitled "homeland security: assessing the first five years." and it was an effort on my part really over a period of about a year in 2008 to write a series of articles, looking back on where we were in 2001 and where we had come in 2008 as a way of both judging the progress that we make but also trying to draw some important lessons for the future. as it happens we are in a period of time of renewed focus on terrorism. in 2008 and much of 2009, perhaps understandably the public was preoccupied with the economic crisis. there was a lot of discussion about an overhaul of our health care system and comparatively little public attention paid to terrorism. but of course that is not because terrorism wasn't in existence or had disappeared or even diminish. it was merely because the

vagaries of the media prioritizing was driven by what was the latest new thing in washington. that change however in the autumn and winter of 2009. first we had a series of arrests that were carried out by the authorities here in the united states, including the arrest of an individual from afghanistan it was a cabdriver who has been charged with plotting a terrorist attack, the rest of david headley in chicago who was are originally from, thought to be with respect to carry out terrorist attacks in denmark but more recently was tied to the 2008 mumbai attacks, the fort hood shootings which tragically ended with the death of over a dozen people and wounding of over three others and of course the christmas day bombing plot which resulted in a great deal of controversy. all of these things seemed once again to focus the attention and the media and the public on the issue of terrorism and as a

consequence there has been a lot of discussion in the media about terrorism and the appropriateness of our response and they think it is a good opportunity to look back on what we did during the first seven hour eight years after 9/11 and what we face now and 2010 as we enter the second decade of the world in which terrorism remains one of the most potent in serious threats to our well-being. that me begin by talking about the kinds of threats we face, because frankly it is not terribly different from what we faced in 2001 but we have seen some evolution both in terms of the threat and in terms of our capability to deal with that threat. in many ways evolution and dynamic adaptation is the story of terrorism. terrorism isn't about astatic fret that remains the same over time that we can simply address and resolve once we of put together a comprehensive strategy.

instead what terror of-- terrorism is an adaptive strategy. ... to see how we respond and then it takes account of the lessons that the terrorist learn in order to change the strategy and the tactics. and it is incumbent upon us to both recognize what is consistent and the way terrorist the hague, but also to recognize what has changed and i think as we look at what we have seen in the last year and compare it to what we saw five, six, seven are even ten years ago you will see underlying consistencies but he was also sea change and evolution. first, it remains a case in 2010 as i believe it was in 2001, that the underlying the kind of international terrorism which is what we principally focus upon when we talk about terrorism, is an ideology that is extreme and its outlook, that purports to use the language of islam but that in fact is a distortion or

a perversion of islam, but nevertheless an ideology that has an appeal in recruiting people who are disaffected, whether they are disaffected because of a personal psychological issue, because of their sense of political alienation from society in which they find themselves or because there's some larger grievance based on the circumstances in a particular part of the world. that ideology is not necessarily consistent lateef pollitt bin laden's statements over a period of years, they have a little bit of the characteristic of a person who tries to see where the parade is headed and then runs to get to the head of the parade. those of you think back to the earliest statements of bin laden in the '90s will recogniz the issue of the dispute was not a very high issue on his agenda. that changed more recently when it became evident to al qaeda

that that was a particular grievance that applied to a subset of a potential pool of recruits. more recently, we have seen him talk about the intersection between al qaeda and anti globalization to try to draw a connection between the economic crisis in the west and the ideology of al qaeda and what the agenda is. i would not be surprised to see him take credit for the earthquake and the snowstorm in his next statement. i say this to recognize that at the core of what they are about is not so much a coherent ideology of what they are in favor of as an is an ideology of what they oppose. they are prepared to modify their message in order to attract a greater number of people into their orbit.

we think about the ideology we face, it is important not to confuse it with a religion, which is different and has a very coherent end admirable world view. not to confuse the religion with the ideology, which is much more tactical and driven by the desire to make sure the latest fashionable thing has been incorporated into the doctrine. in 2001, when we looked at the threat from al qaeda, we saw that the central area of planning, recruiting, training and launching attacks was in afghanistan. that changed dramatically after the american invasion in 2001. afghanistan. that of course change dramatically after the american invasion in 2001. in fact i think that's invasion was significant in a number of ways. not merely because it a lot--

this lot in enormous national safe-haven in which terrorists were able to train coming keep people in safehouses and actually also set up laboratories to experiment with various kinds of chemical and biological weapons. it was not only significant because it dislodge them from the physical space but because they think it was a shock to the system. bin prior to 2001 that americans would react to an attack on american soil the way the americans reacted to the blackhawk down episode in samole yet in the early 1990's, by withdrawing, by appeasing him by running away from the fight and i think that, when america responded with many multiples of force in afghanistan, that not only shook the confidence of bin laden but it actually caused some of the people who had been in the adherents of al qaeda to question the wisdom of bin

laden's leadership. at the same time, before we congratulate ourselves on the immediate effects of afghanistan we have to recognize that the characteristic of the al qaeda and similar organizations, and that perhaps their greatest strength is their resilience in their persistence. whereas people on the west sometimes requires that backs is an opportunity to engage of a crisis of self-confidence. for people to hear-- here to the ideology, setbacks are merely turning the wheel that they expect will turn again in their favor. and fact as their confidence in their ultimate success, as misguided as that may be is one of the strongest components of their ideology and therefore something we need to pay close attention to as reformulate our own strategy. in the case of al qaeda, what they did is they retreated into the frontier areas of pakistan and over the next several years there was a back and forth. at times, the use of american

power coupled with pakistani power was able to press with a great deal of vigor upon the capability of al qaeda to function in the frontier area that lies between pakistan and afghanistan. during that period of time and number of plots were disrupted or destroyed because people who were the plotters were eliminated, but it is also the case that particularly in the period of time from 2000 to-- 2007 to 2008 is the pakistani government began to pursue the prospect of various kinds of truces or accommodations with the taliban in the frontier area, a safe haven, a greater say haven began to be treated in the frontier area and in fact that is something we spoke about in 2007 and 2008 when we talked about a heightened period of ferrette, a recognition that within that geographic area is sufficient so that safety had

been created that we began to become increasingly worried about the pipeline of recruits who would be moved into the area of pakistan, would be trained, would be indoctrinated and then be returned to their home countries in order to carry out plot. indeed if you look at some of the western plots that we uncovered during that period of time in sense, i dare say you will find that many of them, not all of them but many of them to have their roots in the frontier area. neligan, in the last year it appears that the cycle that turned again and this time some for the better part of the pakistani government after considerable amount of prodding as move forward with greater energy and even perhaps aggressiveness again certainly some of the taliban in the frontier area and that has caused a shrinkage of the safe haven and has returned the leadership they are to become more concerned about their own safety perhaps then about

striking at the west. at the same time it is not surprising that the greater pressure on the frontier areas from pakistan has resulted in a tax on pakistan itself. one of the hallmarks of the terrorist is there an immediate reaction to pressure is counterpressure in the hope is to wear down the will of the public that supports government pressure so that they will eventually be a roll back and client in their own domain. but what we have seen is not only pressure back in the struggle over waziristan. we have now seen that al qaeda is increasingly a franchise. it is broaden itself not only in south asia but in parts of africa and the middle east and encourages other groups to form at least a network kind of alliance. in many ways this is in fact what 21st century terrorism is. does not about a unitary organization with a command and control system.

is about it network of organizations that enable each other, that support each other, that may not necessarily always be 100% aligned, but will certainly be closer in their world view and closer in their efforts than makes it comfortable for the west. so we have seen for example the somalia, another area that is poorly governed, has become a save covin for al-shabaab, and al qaeda linked group that has in one way become very successful as a recruiter of westerners to come and and train and actually carry out terrorist attacks. we have seen a greater presence of al qaeda in yemen although this again has been a feature now for a couple of years. and even in democrat, north africa, we now have the phenomenon of al qaeda in maghreb which is the successor to some of the terrorist organizations in north africa and there's some evidence we have seen that they are forging

links with drug traffickers coming from south america and providing safety and security for drug shipments that are being transmitted from south america through north africa ultimately to be sold in europe. this of course is an economic arrangement that is beneficial to the terrorists and much the same way the taliban in afghanistan benefited from the ability to make money off of the cultivation of opium in that part of the world. finally we have to look at the issue of homegrown terrorism. this topic is then much discussed certainly for the last for five years and it has been manifest in many countries around the world and particularly countries in europe. it has not been a big problem in the united states until recently but certainly the recruitment of somali young people into the fight in somalia and what we saw most recently with the fort hood shootings and with the zazi

investigation suggests a homegrown terrorism would now be a greater problem here in the united states. that is not to say at this point in time we have anything like that dimension of homegrown terrorism that we see in for example parts of western europe but it is to suggest that again, in keeping with this theme of dynamic change, we can't simply assume because we haven't had the problem in a significant way in the past that we are not going to have it in the future. this means we need to ask ourselves what it is that is allowing al qaeda or similar groups to begin to recruit somalians to go to somalia, or a u.s. army medical doctor and with medical training. what is it that enables them to convert this individual who comes after all from the elite of american society and turn him into a terrorist assassin. and that is going to require us to think hard about not only

what we do socially in order to try to assimilate all of our communities in the country. is going to require risk to think about how to deal with the process of using the internet as a recruiting tool and as a training tool in an environment where the capability may trigger an train lone wolves may become an increasing problem. so in many ways, what we have seen is the threats we face now are different than if threats we face five or six years ago in specific application but not in terms of their fundamental core. in fact many of the things that had been set in the last year could have been said five or six years ago about the prospects of what we face but there are some things that are different. one thing that is different as we have got much better at preventing attacks. our intelligence is better, our infrastructure for protection and preventing attacks is better and while this is by no means the suggestion that we are to

pat ourselves on the backs and say the job is done it doesn't just that we have progress, it doesn't do us any good to say that nothing has gotten better but at the same time we have to recognize the progress we have made has prompted the enemy to change its approach in that need to remake further progress. one of the major elements of our success and strategy. we have to begin by saying, and i alluded to this earlier, that the battle begins not here, but begins overseas. obviously if you can eliminate safe havens, and he can eliminate those people who are leading the effort to carry out terrorist attacks in the west, that is the best way to eliminate the threat. connecticut activity we have taken overseas in places like afghanistan, pakistan and iraq have served to reduce the threat and have served to disrupt those who want to carry out the threat. it is not to say it and forces them to give up or eliminates

them but it does push them on the run, particularly in those instances where we are able to work with our allies to keep the pressure on them. a second element of the strategy, and again it is not a total solution but it is certainly an important ingredient in the solution, is enhanced use of intelligence, better integration of intelligence and better use of some of the screening and scanning tools that we built up over the last several years that make it more difficult although not impossible, for bad people and that things to get into the country. let me just give you an illustration of this point. in 2001, if someone wanted to come into the country by flying into an airport, if they had a passport and if they had a visa that was pretty much all they needed to get into the country in the last line of defense was the border patrol, i am sorry, the border inspector the came

face-to-face with the person seeking it mission looked at the papers, had a conversation or an interview and then made a judgment on the spot with the to it met the person or not. much has changed in the last 89 years. first of all the process of getting people begins much earlier. not only do we have pieces in place that but we have the ability to correct commercial information from the airlines that tells us a surprising amount about the connections that travelers have with the people who fund them, the people who communicate with them and perhaps even common addresses. ..

now we require a passport or a document that is secure. that is another big step forward. it was the case 10 years ago that we only intermittently took fingerprints from non americans coming into the united states. now every american -- not every non-american that comes into the net id states gives her fingerprints at the border. the value of this that it better enables us to determine whether someone is using a false identity because we compare their fingerprints over a period of time with their travel documents, but we are now able

to compare fingerprints with latent fingerprints. the fingerprint residue that we are able to pick up on battlefields all over the world. that means that if anyone has been in a safe house or has built a bomb and has left a fingerprint some place, they have some risk that we will have lifted that fingerprint, we have entered it into a data base and we will be able to identify them even if we do not know their names. none of them is foolproof or perfect, but the addition of these layers of security has dramatically decreased the threat from where it was. what has been the terrorist response? that is why you see an emphasis on the part of al qaeda to recruiting westerners, people without a prior record, people who are citizens of the country to which they're going to return, people who as far as the terrorists are -- who have not

left traces around the world. that is why we increasingly need to not only upgrade our capabilities but do a better job of sharing with our allies overseas to make sure that our information correction and analysis capability keeps track with the effort of the adversary to continue to avoid the various traps they lay. . . t( an we've used to do. we have air marshal's now to a greater degree than we had before although not as many as we need. one area where i think we have simply not been as successful as we should be and not have the urgency we need is in the area of cybersecurity. only recently there was dramatized, series of intrusions into american companies that captured the attention of the public and the media but i want to tell you that the issue of

interest in and to our secure interest in and to our secure systems and commercial systems we've talked about it for years. in 2007 and 2008, we launched a comprehensive national cybersecurity initiative which was designed for the first time to bring together all the capabilities the american government and private sector to build a comprehensive way to deal with these cyber threats. president obama recognized the importance of this in one of his early speeches but it seems this effort has been somewhat becalmed and this is an area of we're failing to keep pace with the threat will result or could result in the virtual world to the kind of catastrophic loss we saw in the physical world on september 11th. finally i would like to know about the area of response which is the author of the three legs we typically talk about when we deal with the issue of homeland

security. we talk about response because we recognize we can't prevent everything and we can't reduce or a eliminate every vulnerability and if we fail to prevent an attack and if an attack in fact is successfully carried out the consequences that are felt will be a direct result of the amount of preparation we've put into response and mitigation. simply put if we can sustain an attack because we've mitigated the damage because we are reserving it to my basically blunted the attack and while it isn't as good as of right it is the best we can do. it was a good sample of this is the area of bio threats. we see a lot of discussion of biological threats that occur in nature whether it is avian flu or the h1n1 pandemic we saw began last year. but those that work in the area know that as troubling if not more troubling is the

possibility of a biological attack. the wmd commission which is jointly chaired by senator gramm and talent recently issued a report in which they were quite critical of the status of our preparation for dealing with a biological attack in this country. and if you look at this issue closely what you will see is that prevention is only one part of the strategy of dealing with a biological attack. unfortunately, the ingredients of a biowebinar in nature. the difference between the ability to launch an attack and an ability to launch an attack lies in the know-how of the person he was trying to carry out the attack. if you have the know-how and the capability you can get the ingredients relatively quickly. not only that, if you get the ingredients it is virtually impossible to prevent you from bringing into the country. you can fabricate the weapon negative version of a biological

attack mechanism and small vial which we will be year unlikely to catch of the border. in fact you could affect somebody and send an infectious person across the border so how we deal with biological weapons requires not only better detection the ability to respond with countermeasures effectively and quickly. if you look for an example of the possibility of an anthrax attack which this country did suffered in 2001 be it in a very small scale but he will recognize is we do have countermeasures that are effective against anthrax but they are only effective if you get them to people and a very short period of time. now we stockpiled the countermeasures, we know how to make them work so what is the obstacle to would be in my view a very important step in mitigation and response namely the ability to get people remedy or countermeasure quickly.

the problem is we have ended build a delivery system that can move the countermeasures from the stock pile into the hands of people as quickly as possible. this is one of those examples of a problem which actually has a very easy solution if we have the willingness to accept the solution. the solution is this. you simply take the counter measures we currently have and to distribute them in advance. you put them in schools, and fire hoses, and other public buildings. you may actually distribute them in advance to first responders, to people who are critical to the response eckert to public health officials and tell them to hold on to the countermeasures and if and when the time comes they have to be used you will communicate and people will use the countermeasures. that would in a fairly short order fashion eliminate the distribution problem for a large majority of the people that we worry about.

the question is why haven't we done it? the answer is not because we haven't tried. we ran a pilot program a couple of years ago actually three years ago in the u.s. government to see whether this kind of advanced distribution but work, whether people would respect the need to keep the countermeasures without using for some other purpose whether they would -- not whether they would lose the countermeasures or somehow misplaced them, and what we discovered after we in the pilot and checked back in about a year is much better than 90% of the people knew where the countermeasure was, had and misused in some fashion, hadn't lost it and in fact followed the instructions they were given. this ought to have been desperate for beginning a more widespread process of advanced distribution. unfortunately, some people in the medical community disagree with advanced distribution. they have a medical model which

operates in ordinary times that says that you should not give prescription drugs to people unless the people have been seen by a doctor first and that is obviously a very good rule in ordinary cases. it is not practical however in between the time that we learn of an anthrax attack and the time that within which we have to distribute the countermeasures to tell everybody to go see a doctor. that isn't going to happen. and so this is one of the areas i think we need to look at the traditional ordinary medical model and ask ourselves whether that works in the context of preparing for an emergency. this is something we urged pretty much literally through the last day of the bush administration and i hope it is something the current administration is taking it very hard look at the because the time that it will take before someone learns to what the negative anthrax or a similar type of biological weapon is much less than people would like to think and when that happens

and i believe it will happen some point, if we have not taken the steps in advance and will be very unhappy day for the people who face what will be a catastrophic terrorist incident. life me close by saying that i have no doubt that after the defense of the last couple of months, which have spiked interest in terrorism, that other issues will come on the public radar and the media will move on to different topics and in two or three or four months if we've been lucky enough not to have another effort to attack us, the issue of homeland security and terrorism will once again begin to recede from the public view. but in many ways it is that phenomenon, the waxing and waning of public interest that is the greatest challenge we face and homeland security. the kinds of responses and defenses we need requires sustained investment over a long period of time. it's not a matter of a flash in

the pan response. it's a matter of building capability, training countermeasures and systems that take months if not years to put in place. if we keep our eye on the need to have that sustained investment, i believe we can keep ahead of the enemy. but if our ability to sustain the investment depends upon whether somebody happens to be in news headline or not, and if our strategy is reactive, rather than anticipatory, then i fear there will come a point we will have an attack and our response will not be adequate. we have lived through that. it was called september 11th. nobody who was involved on that day in the government and had responsibility for dealing with terrorism will ever forget that feeling of frustration that occurred when the attack came and we didn't have the appropriate response in place, and i think everybody that lived through that understands the importance of not letting that

happen again. thank you. [applause] >> while we are waiting for the minister the circuitry has agreed to take questions and offer it answers. there is amana back with a microphone and i'm going to call people out and then have to bring the microphone to you. it's important because otherwise people can't hear you on the recording. we have a number of questions appear. let me start with the gentleman in the front row and then move over to this side. >> thanks for a much. my name is stephan auge. i had the pleasure of working for you with the dhs office of intelligence for awhile and subsequently a place in the state department called the counterterrorism communications center, which brings me to the point he made earlier in your speech about the recruitment of

american citizens, like the fort hood attacked and so forth. the key to that appears to be willingness of muslims to accept the al qaeda narrative, which is the united states is making more and killing muslims as a part of that. the counterterrorism communications center at state was designed to respond to that narrative and rebutted in significant ways, but i'm not sure i am seeing that kind of activity going on right now although i'm sure there is some within the intelligence community and the cia in particular. what i'm interested in your comment on that particular issue. >> it is a very important issue. i know people of the state park and have their heart in the right place. here's what my concern is. i think the most effective counter narrative comes from within the communities, within

which terrorists tried to recruit. when people in the community pushback that actually has resonance and there are some positive developments. for example, a couple of years ago, as our hearing held a town hall meeting on the internet and in the town hall meeting, he got quite a bit of negative reaction muslims and among others those who had seen the bombing in algeria of the school bus and asked him how it could be the killing innocent muslim school children advanced the cause of islam. likewise there had been some scholars who have supported the ideology of al qaeda have renounced it and ironically often renounced it because as one said when we see the reaction and the devastation caused in the muslim land there's a consequence of what we did baby it was a failed strategy. so within the community is where you want to build that

capability. unfortunately, when the government doesn't it tends to have an inherently, create inherent skepticism in the part of the target audience. so to me i think the right answer is to use our financial ability and we also have to engage the community and say, look, it is your sons and daughters kit and pulled into this. you give that counter narrative. it -- >> i am an israeli student.

i want to know about the dilemma between security and the is really homeland -- civil-rights and homeland security. biometrics, the basis that we start to implement them. how do you address the limits? between securities and civil liberties. >> no question, there are times you must make questions about the trade-off. security and civil liberties. but i have to say a lot of times what is presented as a false choice. in other words what is viewed as a trade-off actually isn't much of a trade-off and i will use the example biometrics or

fingerprints. i think the use of biometrics is a way to identify people or the use of secure identification, which some people view as an infringement on civil liberties. i actually think aníbal civil liberties. anything that allows me to be confident that nobody can pretend to use my identity or masquerade as me. not only increases my security that actually increases my privacy because when people steal my identity they not only create a security risk but they actually invade my personal privacy and civil liberties. that's not to say that everything we do can be resolved by saying that it ferber's of the goal of security and civil liberties but in many cases civil liberties objections on closer inspection i think are not well-founded. now there are clearly times that we are required to put up with inconvenience and trouble in order to do with security issues for example nobody loves going

through the magnetometer at the airport and taking your shoes off and having to a right to 30 minutes earlier than you would if you could just stroll into the terminal and walk onto the plane. i think we all recognize we would rather get to our destination safely and make that minor sacrifice of 30 minutes. there's also clearly a point which you wouldn't sacrifice your civil liberties for security. but that is an issue that ought to be debated and of the public decides for the simple but there is some civil liberties they are not prepared to sacrifice that is well and good provided that we accept the consequences of that and often the debate doesn't involve that but involves people simply trying to assume a way or argue away the security benefit of a particular measure as a way of avoiding the tough choice. so i guess my bottom line is this: in many places what is perceived as a civil liberties threat actually on closer

inspection i think it arguably enhances privacy and individual freedom. in those cases where it does we ought to have a serious discussion about how important it is to protect ourselves in this particular respect. and if the public decides they don't want the protection, it's not worth it, that is well and good and we accept the consequences. what we can't do is assume away the problem or say it is never going to happen or try to pretend the security measure doesn't work because it's not perfect and it's those false arguments i think often plowed our ability to resolve these kind of the de lummis. >> there's a gentleman here. yes. keep your hand up so he can find you. >> my name is charlie, the council with the senate homeland security and michael chertoff, i want to thank you for your years of service in the capacities with our government. i want to first make an offer

and then ask a question. one of the things we as a committee are looking at is how to deny access to firearms and explosives to terrorist suspects and how the watch lists might be married up to the attempted purchases just to snuff out plots like some of the ones you've talked about and may be offline if you have time i would like to talk to about what your views are on that and whether we could work together on that. my question goes to your experience as a prosecutor and a judge and then as a secretary of homeland security or are your views about that the data that is going on now about how to detained and interrogated and prosecute terrorist suspects. >> well you know, i think what i'm going to say now was consistent with what i said when i was at the department of justice from to doesn't want 2003 and at the department of homeland security from 2005 to 2008. i believe first of all we are at war. i believe that means we use all of the tools in the toolbox.

we don't use only military tools, we don't use only law enforcement tools. some tools are better served the because you did in certain circumstances and others other circumstances. if you look at what we did during the years i was in the the bush administration we did use all the tools. sometimes we prosecuted people in court. sometimes we put people in the military system. sometimes we moved them from one to the other. it depended upon a lot of circumstances how serious the threat was, how efficacious one system was or another for various purposes. whether the person was a u.s. citizen or not tends to make a legal difference, and of course what the state of the law was because the law [chanting] free period of time and that required us to make adjustments. generally speaking, my view is you should never take any of these possibilities of the table. what needs to happen is the people making the decision to look carefully at the tools and

assess what is the right set of tools and the right circumstance and then use them. i don't have a cookie cutter one-size-fits-all answer for each particular possibility. >> we understand that the minister has landed so she hopefully will join soon. there's a gentleman here in the road if you can keep your hand, sir. come over to the front and then over to the site. >> i have around 37 students hear from israel as you heard from one and we've been debating with a variety of different people about the issue of the sources of the terrorist inspiration. the question has arisen to what extent will a settlement in israel and palestinians affect the central message. i'm allin lowden changes his message but his recent concern about global warming doesn't seem to designate quite as much as perhaps the anti-israeli message would be.

in terms of the importance of a cylinder of that issue -- settlement of that issue how do you drink it? is it feasible? partial solution say exempting the gazzo strip diplomatically hell do you view this issue as a big issue in fighting terrorism with the terms of this message? sprick the settlement of the middle east and passed between israel and palestinians would be a good thing and it would certainly remove some of the grievance for some people. but i think it is a mistake to believe there is any solution the screen to take this issue off the table, and again i return to the audiology in question. the source of grievances that have been cited by people counting on terrorist attacks is very long. we've had a number of cases where people put together plots to carry out bombings in denmark

spurred by the fact that cartoonists in denmark had cartoons you to be insulting. so, you are never going to find enough things to give away to believe seagate the grievance is that some people are going to have read that doesn't mean that it's not worth having a settlement. it will obviously eliminate a certain number of terrorist attacks in israel as well as a certain amount and grievance on the world. it would be a good thing for a whole lot of reasons. but i think we would be kidding ourselves if we believe that even a settlement between israel and palestinians would eliminate terrorist acts by some palestinian in hezbollah or hamas who nevertheless believe it is not enough. and likewise, we have had a rough settlement and cashmere for a period of time for decades now and never the less other groups continue to carry out terrorist attacks in india so unfortunately there is no magic bullet. nevertheless there is always value in reducing tension and

there for as long as you are realistic about what the expectation is on the other side of that process is certainly worth pursuing. >> another question from the gentleman in the front row. >> im mike levine with fox news. two questions. one is sort of jumping off a year earlier question. what is your overall is as much of the date itself about the current handling of terrorism cases? [inaudible] >> well, i mean i think it is worth discussing the the debate and issues like he's a good thing to close guantanamo? what are you going to do with the people there? what is that going to mean in terms of our ability to hold them? what would happen if they get released? those are all important and worthwhile things to be paid. sometimes the discussion degenerates into a i told you this, no, you didn't tell me that and that becomes a little

bit more heat than light. but i think underlining this is a fundamental set of issues that hasn't been fully discussed. what is the vision about what do you do with guantanamo? why should it be shut? what would you do with the people there if they were not able to be returned to their home country? how much risk are you prepared in taking them back to their home country? if you bring them to the u.s., where do you put them? what does that mean for the local community? we just saw an instance where initially there was a decision to send khalid sheikh mohammed to new york to be tried and all of a sudden the authorities said we were not consulted. this is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. so what this tells me is we need to have a serious discussion and debate before the week before some of the decisions are made and the second thing he tells me is that congress needs to do some work laying out the legal framework for how you deal with

terrorism and the 21st century. some of that work has been done in some of the legislation that was passed. but for the simple we still don't have a set of procedures for dealing with detainees who want to challenge their detention. the supreme court held a couple of years ago they are entitled to do it but the supreme court didn't set any rules up. recently judge janis of the d.c. circuit wrote a very powerful opinion saying it is time for the congress to tell us what role is as opposed to making the district judges fabricate rules or fashion the rules on a case so to me there is a blog opportunity but obligation on the part of congress to put together a set of legal rules and legal framework that is going to sustain for the next ten, 20, 30 years. >> a follow-up to the question raised about the 9/11 trial for other quote, should stay open, questions like that. what are your thoughts on that?

>> will the bush at ministration looked at the possibility of closing guantanamo. it is very hard life. there are a significant number of people there who are dangerous and still regard themselves as at war with the united states in the west. some of them perhaps can be sent to home countries you can be confident will make sure the are incapacitated. sometimes aware for the raise legal objections to going back and you can't send them back. our position was and i believe it to be true you don't want to bring them into the united states. once to bring them to the united states soil they will have a series of flights were set of rights under the immigration laws that could put you in a very difficult position of being ordered to release somebody had not be able to deport them and i think the last thing we want to do is in port terrorism into the u.s.. again there is a solution for this. congress could step up to the plate and say here are the rules

about what we are going to do with these detainees and we get a fair carefully thought out plan and strategy for how to deal with it. i haven't seen that yet and so under the circumstances i think it is public good news the administration has put the brakes on closing guantanamo. but in the end we are still going to have to have this debate and we haven't had a debt. >> why do they need to step to the plate? why you think that hasn't happened yet? >> i remember attorney general mukasey sent a proposal to congress in 2008 to start to deal with some of these issues and it went nowhere. it is the hard issue to talk about because there's a lot of strong feelings on different sides of the debate but i will say this in the early part of the decade there was a lot -- commerce did step past the patriot act which was a good thing and maybe some of the appetite for getting involved in

controversy diminished. that is to meet why we have elected officials. it's not to take easy decisions. it is to look at heart problems. there are members of congress who are active in pushing of the congress to take this issue up. i know senter lindsey graham tried to get this on the agenda. senator mccain and people on the other sides of the aisle. but i haven't seen enough willpower yet and i am not enough of a student of congress to explain exactly why that is what i can tell you the clock is ticking and not making a decision in this case is going to be making a decision in the problem of a very good one -- probably not a very good one. >> a gentleman here in the front row. >> good afternoon, psychiatry chertoff. my name is todd wiggins operating under this eminem revival media which is a blog id one youtube. i would like to thank for the opportunity and i heard you were here and try to make to the last

minute. i have first ques i have a colleague who is against consolidation because he believes it is not necessary because of virtual tech that can spread resources around a region and cover it more completely. he also doesn't believe it is a good idea to have from a security standpoint. i would like to complement you in an abstract way. i attended a georgetown party, and when you wakle -- walked in,

it was the equivalent of a los angeles party. thank you for thrilling me. thank you for a thrilling me in some ways. >> i'm glad to oblige. let me take the second issue first. we don't put all of our eggs in one basket. there will be a redundancy element built into the process of pulling headquarters to get there. there is redundancy in terms of our servers and cyber capabilities without getting into the classified matters there are redundancies in terms of key personnel and that is part of our continuity operations plan at the dhs. i do think there is enormous value in bringing the headquarters together. i can tell you the community by and large is very supportive of this leadership for the district. and frankly we looked at the possibility of building

headquarters out in virginia or maryland and district really wanted to have that because they felt it could be the cornerstone of economic revival in the area including some additional transportation and additional enhancement of the subway as well as the economic activity of the merchants in the surrounding area. i think in terms of security it has to be a very good location and as to the point that out whether you could have a virtual headquarters, i've been involved in a number of large institutions over the last ten or 15 years and i've always heard people talk about you don't need to be one place. everybody can communicate by e-mail or telephone and therefore we can be widely distributed. and it is true that to some extent e-mail and telephone to allow for a certain amount of virtual come yaki but i have to tell you with all of my experience i've never seen a substitute for face-to-face

interaction. when you are in the room with people it is when you are on the telephone or video conference and human beings being what they are and maybe this is going to change in 50 years and we will all have avatars and everything will take place in the second life the world in which we currently live, i found a real impediment not to have the leadership in one place to build a set of come realty and allow the kind of informal interaction that is part of building up a spirit of community in any organization. so, i am a very strong believer in the need to bring the headquartered components of the dhs into one place. i think it will be good for dhs and will build a unity of spirit and of eckert and i think it is going to build the local community quite a bit. >> all right. now i have a question in the corner and one next to the

camera. >> richard white, hudson institute. a question to you about the way the u.s. government is restructuring how would deals with the cybersecurity threats. as you know the administration did an extensive review and had to deal with several competing models about how you would distribute the roles and the missions for cyber defense especially on the civilian side in the united states. i wasn't sure how you assess the results and a brother you had any thoughts about which agencies should be most in trouble. >> i'm not sure we know exactly what the results are. i can tell you where we were as of 2008 when we put together the national labor secure strategy. it recognized there were different functions in cybersecurity. some are appropriate to the defense and intelligence community in terms of the

domestic government what we call .gov. dhs had the authority and we thought should build the capability to manage that process for the .gov domain. and also to interface with the private sector. the big challenge in the answer to your question is how to deal with said as a drain the private sector and i will offer a private opinion. i don't believe the u.s. government ought to sit on the internet and from the private-sector security except in a limited number of cases where certain private entities seek to have that kind of protection and because the government contractors are operating than in the military domain it is appropriate for the government to play that role. i do think we need to find a way i hate to use the word interface but happens to sit here, interface with a private sectors of the benefit of the government capabilities can be shared with

private sector but without having the government actually operating in the private sector's domain directly. and i think that raises to use -- make reference to the earlier discussion a civil liberties versus security trade-off which need to be probably not the best one. one model that i've suggested it's not the only model is to create trusted third parties, entities in the private sector that have proper classification levels and security clearances that can be the interchange between the government and the private sector in terms of come the necessary information and skills but not necessarily giving the government direct control over the levers of the private-sector. the architecture of how this is going to be developed is very complicated and could give rise to a lot of controversy. so again, i think it's something

we would do well to debate and get out in the open. if there are people who believe the government should directly sit on the internet we ought to hear what that case is and maybe it's persuasive. what i don't think is an option is to ignore its. it is a hard problem. one of the things i say in the book, and unfortunately it remains true when of the ways we deal with our problems in the government is to avoid them. it is the musical chairs pherae of government which is i know the music is going to stop some day and i hope i'm out of the room when a bus stops why don't fall down because i don't have a chair. that is a good model for a child's game and bad model for government. the hardest problems are the ones built be tackled. i think we took a good running start tackling cybersecurity in 2007 and 2008. i think the administration currently recognizes the problem and i know a lot of good work is being done. i do think though that we have got an increased tempo dealing

with this problem because time is not on our side. >> we have a gentleman here by the camera. >> are used be an intern. my question regarding cybersecurity and also the government can improve the power to deal with it. with cybersecurity it seems with dhs i always become a reactionary agency. now it becomes a bigger issue and you need more people to start doing the job. going forward what do you think of a good idea of the dhs being a head? it is something with the fbi or the justice department -- issues you wouldn't need a linguistic people than you go forward looking for people what are they, good things are powers

technique they can put forward kind of how people -- sprick deride there's a tendency in the government for people to be reactive and my original point when i was speaking was all too often it seems our strategy is driven by what is in the head line last week. in the area of cybersecurity i will say in 2007 and 2008 we began the process of taking a hard look at where we were and where we ought to go. we had done things before 2007 that we had a sense there was a lot more that could be done. i always get asked the question or used to get asked the question who is in charge and it is a complicated question to answer because at one level in the federal government the president is in charge of the white think presidents are often surprised to find there are limits on their power not only within the federal branch but

also dealing with state and local government and private sector. in the civilian domain where you deal with a lot of divided authority among different agencies, what we find generally works is a degree of coordination with someone standing as a coordinator but not necessarily being the commander of all of the assets and that is because the legal framework tends to divide power and all kind of good reasons to do that as opposed to centralizing. that being said, i think the conclusion we've reached a in 2008 was that it was worth having a court later in the civilian side. dhs had authority and relationship with private sector to be the appropriate place to put that. i think the intelligence community and military were quite happy to have the dhs be the interface with a private sector but at the same time there was a period commission that we needed to bring together all of the elements of the

community. intelligence, military and dhs and the department of justice so they could coordinate their activities together and that we would do that through a cybersecurity center which what kind of be the focal point for this kind of effort. it's an architecture that is designed to give you a unity of effort will you do not have unity of command. i still do not fear is the right model. some people suggest the white house ought to be the operator of all of this all the writing of the white house is appropriate as a policy-making location. experience has shown that when the white house, and this is not specific to any particular administration. when the white house becomes an operator that's usually a rescue for some serious kind of problem and you don't want the white house being in operator particularly in the area of cyber where you're dealing with issues very delicate from the political standpoint that is my

suggestion we stick with basic architecture and put together in 2007 and in 2008. it seems to me from what i've observed of the current administration that they are more or less in the same place. they have a sidebar coordinator in the white house but it seems to me this is somebody who is going to be a policy-making coordinator and not an actual operator which i think is probably the right decision. >> the gentleman of the we in the back with his hand up. >> [inaudible] mr. chertoff, it's good we had this opportunity to talk to you more than just a one-way lecture because another speaker hasn't come in so i congratulate hudson and the moderator for his not taking a public and ask new questions. you've mentioned that one of

your first top priorities of the solution is abroad in a foreign country which means more war which in my opinion i've been in this country since 1970 and this country has always been somewhere or the other in terms of military operations and my opinion is a lot of that does cause a source of terrorism or has a germination of feelings that lead to the confines of the terrorist. given that and you're putting the high priority that the u.s. would continue to be in some kind of a war for ever and not go into isolation my personal feeling after watching this country from 1970 to today it is better if the united states went into isolation for some decades maybe 20, 30 years. >> welcome to know here is the lesson of 9/11. it was the time of may 50, 60,

70 years ago people argued that the two oceans protect the united states and we could isolate ourselves. in 9/11 of the reasons it was a pivotal event in american history is the first time of american history maybe since the war 1812 fi enemy came on to our shores and found us and the was it very vivid lesson that isolationism is not an option. you can't retreat far enough to isolate yourself. let's look at the historical fact. 9/11 occurred before we were in afghanistan, before we were in iraq. there wasn't guantanamo. all of the things which are sometimes cited as being spurs to recruitment or inflaming people against us, those things didn't exist prior to 9/11 with the embassy bombings in east africa. they didn't exist prior to the u.s. siskel. in the 1990's, we were basically minding our own business.

you know, and bin laden's original grievance is we went to saudi arabia to help defend kuwait against invasion by saddam hussein. for those who believe that we somehow cause@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ r the people want to strike us, so i have to say, the experience we say we have either having ourselves or allies strike in safe havens has been that has produced results. and if i go back to some of the ideologues who have turned against al qaeda, one of the things that is a cause for their

turning against them has been a strong reaction that came into afghanistan and the fact the community in which al qaeda was operating actually suffered because al qaeda and watched an attack against the u.s.. i am a believer that soft power is important. so i'm a believer soft power is important. i also believe hard power is important as well. and you cannot expect the commander with respect of the world if you are not prepared to defend yourself. against others to come looking for trouble. >> i know i compliment for being quiet but let me ask one question of the chair if i might. mr. secretary, when you were in office one of the big issues that came up was immigration reform. your president was in favor of it into a strong congressional leadership that was in favor of it and it was difficult to get done. now the current ad ministration with its strong democratic leadership said the one to take

this on and your successor is charged with trying to carry this forward. do you have any advice on tackling immigration reform, just sort of your perspective on what might be done to move this forward and why it is important or perhaps why we shouldn't talk with at this time? >> this is a question of the legislative process than it is homeland security. i would say the lesson i learned from our experience in 2007 his first of all there is a comprehensive bill that i think would satisfy most people on both sides of the oil but not everybody and certainly significant minorities on either side object for diametrically different reasons. the one lesson i take away from our experience or a couple of lessons which i think are reinforced by what i've seen the last year parties, first of all i think it was very important to push with enforcement notwithstanding the failure of the comprehensive approach

because i think what enforcement was designed to do and has done to a significant extent is to demonstrate to the american people we come to you and ask you to allow us to find a way to accommodate some of the people who are here illegally or some of the temporary worker program. we better convince you we are prepared to enforce the law we the way it is now. in other words we are not going to simply come up with some kind of a proposal and then failed to enforce the parts that are hard and just go with parts that are easy. so i think the down payment on credibility which came with enforcement is hugely important in setting the table for this. that's one of the reasons why i think it was remarkably important to finish building that cents. we said we wanted to build 650 miles of the fence along the southern border. i believe there are now 643 miles that have been built. and it was very hard to get that

done. there was a lot of the legal objection, a lot of complaining from the local communities on a kind of not in my backyard pherae and there was frankly a lot of ideological position. but the fact is congress voted for it, congress funded, and by getting it done we demonstrated to the american public that when we commit to something we can live for up to the command and. this the first lesson. you've got to show you are prepared to live up to your commitments. the second lesson is on the other side of the spectrum on the reform side we did think it was important to deal with a problem comprehensively but it strikes me we may be better off in the future dealing with in stages in other words one slice of reform first. see what goes and then go to the next slice of reform. one of the things i think even the current health care debate demonstrates is that although in

theory a big problem needs a comprehensive solution is very hard to persuade people who are naturally and perhaps appropriately skeptical about government to do everything all at once. sometimes a big meal is best digested byte by byte and so i might suggest taking a look at the proposal and beginning for example with a couple of slices, temporary worker program, some kind of a temporary visa program for people who are here illegally but whose mother was committed a violation. but instead of immediate pathway to citizenship, give them a three or four year temporary visa, have a temporary worker program and see what works and then it to go back to the american public and say this has worked three or four years now that's extended or modified perhaps you get a better audience. >> excellent. there is a young lady here. >> my name is nina, second used

in israel. i also serve in reserves for the medical corps but the home front command. and you mentioned before handing out medicine for civilians, for citizens. we actually do something most of the citizens get a gas mask and syringe that has adrenaline but you can't distribute any medicine to any disease out there and my question to do is of the measurements we are taking in the airport's some of my professors claim and i agree it only escalates the terror because the moment you are achieving -- when you stop that they find another way. >> two questions. the first is the happens to be a relatively small number of

countermeasures that address most of the things we worry about a biological threat. saddam door right you don't have an infinite number of medicines, but we could eliminate 80 to 90% of the problem pretty easily with a small number of countermeasures which would be very easy to distribute and for those who are uncomfortable putting it in the hands of each family at a minimum you could put it in firehouses and schools and local town halls. this is an issue which i have to say it astounds me we haven't been able to do this. there's a lot of interest in the last administration in doing it. the medical and public health, and he was strongly opposed. it's one of the great lessons when you learn that sometimes presidents can't do what they want to do because there's institutional brakes on it. but in this case it is so important to do and the argument against it is so well-founded --

bill founded in my view. we have the countermeasures enough to invent them, the stockpiles. you literally just have to distribute them. we could do within a month or two and would take a huge burden off of the response capability. on the issue of what we devote to aviation your right, we can't do it in the area of the subway what we do in aviation. we can't do it in the area of the shopping mall what we do in aviation. it's true aviation is a particularly high-value target. all we can do is try to balance by putting in the appropriate level of countermeasure for what we think the threat is based upon a consequence of an attack and based upon how likely we think it is someone wants to carry out the attack. as technology increases we will have better ways of dealing with explosives and subways or explosives in shopping malls.

what we are not there yet. so all we can do in the meantime is use whatever countermeasures' we have in those areas. but in bidding to the argument is a common argument that we face in homeland security which is the perfect enemy of the good. because you're countermeasure isn't perfect it isn't worth doing it at all and a great example is the christmas day bombing which obviously was a failure in the sense that someone got on a plan with a bomb that was concealed in their underwear but recognized in many ways it was a forced error on the tourists because the countermeasures and the security we have enough police force the terrorists to put together a device that is in fact difficult to get the lead could detonate, not impossible. if we didn't have anything we have in place now they would have wallsten with a pre-made bomb very simple to operate and it would have blown the plan up, so even though the dustin of december 25th this we have more to do there's also a lesson

we've already done quite a bit and i think it is that balance we have to keep in mind when we look at the issue how much security is enough. >> excellent. let me also in the hopes the next speaker will a arrive sometime one of the things i know she has looked at and you had experience with the olympics coming up at the end of the week we in vancouver on the order you were experienced with the super bowl in detroit right on the border also. what would you say is the extent of cooperation in these big yvette corydon security alleges? are we getting better than and do you have any hope that the olympics will be coming off pretty well this time? >> we've had phenomenal cooperation with the canadians across the board, not just in sporting defense but also day-to-day security across the

border. when you have these large sporting events we have various levels of security ranging up to what they call a national security especially that which is the highest level of security. enormous amount of work is done in advance in preparing the infrastructure for security in those kind of the events. there's intelligence collection, there is planning with respect to how do you monitor who comes into the sports press. they put an air cap on to make sure people are not flying planes and accounted for in the aerospace. there are biological and radiological response capabilities in place. there's a huge amount of stuff done behind the scenes and deliberately obscured because you don't want to spoil the eve and by making it into a technology chauffeur security devices. so we do in all of lot of work redundant for each of the u.n. general assembly's. we've done that for each of the super bowls and we did for the

inauguration which was a huge security effort out of the planning which began three or four months in advance. and when we have these cross border defense we work closely with the canadians in order to make sure we've covered both sides of the border. >> other questions, comments? there's a gentleman here in the front row. >> george washington university. mr. secretary, thank you for your time and service. recently the president's choice to head tsa with the nomination amid controversy about his position on the unionization of the tsa workers i'm wondering what your view is on the effective unionization on homeland security personnel as somebody that has obviously had the top job. >> the administration's position was a post under president bush was to oppose unionization of

tsa. in particular because typically if a work force is unionized any changes conditions have to be dealt with negotiated and often we saw this in 2006 when we had the airline bombing plot in london or to change things quickly. and so the need to bargain or get to the grievance process becomes an impediment. we did work hard to try to elevate morality in tsa and create mechanisms for feedback because the point of avoiding unionization isn't because we don't care about them are -- moral of the officers because we do what we want to operate in a nimble matter. it isn't unionized because you don't want to have marines going in grievance when they get sent overseas. i know the current administration has a different view on this. i don't know that the tsa

nominees withdraw was related to that. i think other issues cannot. the one thing i would say is we have had a delay in filling these spots, not only the head of the tsa but the head of customs and border protection. we are now over a year into the new administration. again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. within reason any president is entitled to have his or her own people in the top spots. and i would encourage everybody involved in this process to get these jobs filled as quickly as >> after the bombing attempts, the previous secretary tried to say we were useless. do you think the public understands what is being done, and the position? >> good question. probably not.

i will guess the general public does not know about the database, and that is run by the fbi, they preside over this. the watch list is populated by information from multiple agencies. the fbi presides over the process, but every agency gets to have some participation. . . they are and than that becomes the database on which everybody else dross. but it is important to say also that dhs and generates its own intelligence. for example for our border process we have retargeting center that uses information from the intelligence community as well as information we

collected the border ourselves and integrates that in order to determine who comes into the country. and notwithstanding the fact that again no system is perfect if i went back on where we were in 2001 and see where we are now, we are hugely better. not only collectively but integrated lee and our analysis is better, our stovepipes have been largely eliminated. been largely eliminated. an any endeavor, still part of what we have to deal with so any time there is a failure as there was on december 25th, it is an opportunity to go back and look again at all the layers of security and that that is i think appropriately with the current secretary is doing in the administration is doing. >> i currently work for dhs and i thank you for your

contribution. how do we defend against supporting or adding our support to countries like yemeni and others to help train them and help defend our issues with terrorists when they are a developing country? hogue bartee you go and how much do you depend that they won't use this against the? >> that is a great challenge and one of the problems we have traditionally come and you see it in pakistan nuc and other parts of the world, it is you have to work with the countries in the government's and the country's that are the locations where the problems arise. those countries may have ambivalent attitudes to the u.s.. notch as the government but the population, so there's always a concern about blowback, are you giving capabilities to countries that could turn on us? i think that is where building a

deep set of relationships with the countries you are working with matters a great deal. it is not fashionable to say that personal relationships matter but they do and i think when we are able to build up a deep understanding of the countries we are working with because we put people in place, they build up a sense of trust. i think then we are better situated to calibrate the amount of help and the kind of help we give. i think in many ways that is the strategy general petraeus used in iraq is getting people in the local population connected up with the military in an ongoing basis, not that the military sorted out of an outpost interactive for a few minutes and went back but you literally have that back and forth and change that in many ways builds the kind of trust that allows to understand how to tailor the strategies of the locals. there is an old piece of advice

that in many parts of the world, what people value most when you come by for a cup of tea and you don't want something and over that process to develop a trust that enables you and the and to do some kind of business and i think that is really what we have to do in places like yemen and other parts of not only the region but the world at large. >> we have the gentleman in the back. it will take a minute to get there. >> thank you mr. chertoff. i respect your answer that you gave to my question. however i disagree with that on one ground. recently i heard a little interview of gore vidal who may not be one of your favorites. he defined u.s.a. as the united states of amnesia, so your

historical perspective that you gave to justify foreign intervention in my opinion is part of that, you know. basically there were lots of problems in 1991 in 92 when he said there was an attack. some of the old problems with the israeli-palestinian problems were festering for could there were other interventions in this afghanistan problem that we are talking about now, the whole incubation of the terrorist in that area was funded thanks to the united states and the cia. then the russians were in afghanistan, so those are the elements that have now turned on the united states, so i guess i don't know what to elaborate on it too much but there is a history there. >> well, i guess really, this is my recollection one that gore vidal is not even sure we should've been in world war ii so they are people who have a very different view of world

history. i don't share that view. >> we really appreciate you up been so kind and so generous in sharing so many of your views with us here today. this has been a tremendous opportunity for change and also to get a preview of what is available in your book which we hope everyone will go out and purchase for a low price available to all this booksellers. >> and amazon.com. [laughter] >> thank you secretary chertoff very much for coming and thank you all for coming as well. [applause] for those of you who would like to have your

>> coming up today on american and the court, a panel of law professors discuss fennel panelist new book, the will of the people, when the relationship between supreme court decisions and popular decision. that is it 7:00 here on c-span. coming up next on c-span, kathleen sebelius on the obama administration and the health care plan. after that, michelle obama launches a campaign to target childhood obesity.

>> it is the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist. see the entire collection on- line at c-span website. >> kathleen sebelius talked about the president's plan for health care legislation. this is hosted by the group academy help. it is about 40 minutes. did think that there is a lot in common between working and planning for months and

having a clear agenda and knowing what you will do and having 30 inches of snow interrupt that brilliant planning. it feels like the day after the massachusetts election. here we are. i am delighted to have a chance to visit with you. i was struck looking at the agenda about how much there is in common with the kind of topics you will talk about for the next couple days and what we deal with in the office each and every day. you have a terrific lineup of speakers and panelists. i am pleased you're going to get to hear from dr. peggy memb ham. i get to hang out with brilliant

scientists and policy advocates and you have assembled them today. issues like how to use the the -- the new technology to empower consumers and create incentives for providers to deliver better care, how to invest effectively in prevention. those are some of the challenges that we are dealing with within the department each and every day and the same exact questions that we are asking. i am sorry i cannot join you for the full presentation but anxious to -- david will share with me all the good strategies and ideas that you come up with. i want to start by giving you the administration's view on health reform as it stands now and where we see things heading. let me tell you from the outset

the president and the administration are as committed to delivering on comprehensive health reform out as they have ever been. the president is very determined that not only does this need to happen for the citizens of this country, but it is essential for the economy of this country. every day that goes by and every report that comes out reinforces his notion of how intimately what is going on in the health- care system is tied to our economic survival and our economic progress. this is not about a legislative victory or approving -- or proving a point as he said i thought, very eloquently in the state of the union address. it is not about his political standing or you would have chosen something else to start with. he feels strongly, i feel strongly that this is one of the

determining issues about the future of our country, about how prosperous will be in a global marketplace and how healthy are citizens will be in this competitive world in which we live. we know a lot about the human stories. the monsoor paying for hospital bills because of a pre-existing condition and they cannot get the insurance they need or a steel worker who every year sees his pay go down because more of that salary is diverted to trying to pay for health care plan for seniors going to the hospital to get treatment for urinary tract infection only to end of dying from a staff infection they get from the hospital.

one of 100,000 people who die in this country. the people who are worrying about whether or not the promise of medicare may now -- ever be there for their future. there are lots of individuals around this country who are worried about the system and do not know what the answers or solutions are. we had our interesting moment, a little bit about the glitch in the health-care market where i am the mother of two 20- something sons, when they graduated from college, neither were in a health care situation where they provided health care. they had not a lot of trouble finding affordable insurance and we have resources to pay for that. i watched their friends, a

number of kids to, one had a previous football injury and another had some treatment early on in high school for a series of challenges he was facing with drugs and alcohol, neither of whom could get insurance in the marketplace and had to spend some time struggling and figuring out what the options were in helping to not be in a situation where they ran into an accident or disease that they could not cope with, knowing that they face a lifetime of crushing bills. there are lots of people -- looking through the lens of the uninsured or the underinsured or even those who have insurance understand that is a tenuous situation they're in. we know that the process over the last year has been confusing to a lot of folks.

when you talk to people, when i have the chance to when i have the chance to travel around the country and visit with people about what the elements thatç are in the help incentive bills, there is overwhelming support for those u!çmeasuresok to be enacted. when people watchç up close and personal, the activity of congress, and they tend to be very confused and disgusted with the whole process and they do yo do witht and are way too afraid thatç whatever is going on cannot possibly be good for them or their families. çwe knoww3 fromw3 beyond theçl stories about what this is doing to our economy. ideal a lot with people?s'çç e small-business market -- ideal a lot withç people in the small- business market tyb. ç[l

over thisç country. çsmall-busine!=ñ owners who arn the real crunch of the marketplace say one of two things biç. eitherym they drop coverage ççççxgnçççaltogetherymñe employees to people who can afford much better coverage. they cannot stay competitive in this marketplace and their choices often betwee.rw3 keeping employees and keeping health coverage. they cannot do both. that our entitlement programs of medicaid and medicare on track to be broke in medicaid budgets are crushing states all over the country. medicare is due to run out of money in the next seven years. we're at a point in this country where we spend almost double what any nation on earth spins on health care. we are according to the report

last week spending 17% of our gdp on health care. the largest one-year increase in the last 40 years is the jump in health-care costs. compared to what is going on with the rest of the economy. we live sicker and i agree that many countries on earth. danish ministers were coming to the u.s. to talk about the work we're starting on prevention. i was struck by the fact that in denmark, the their per capita health care costs are $3,300 a year and we're up over $7,200 a year. their health measures in virtually any area you can choose our better than ours.

some of that can be explained with the relatively homogeneous cultures and issues we may not have with diversity of health experiences. there is too large a gap and we are spending too much money and getting worse results. both congress, both houses of congress have worked on this for years. there are numerous good ideas and they have much in common. when the push for reform started, a lot of people said we cannot do it now. we cannot take this much time. i think once again that it is so intimately tied to our opportunity for economic

recovery that we have to do it and we have to do it in a way that not only are the bills paid for, and did not add to the deficit, which is different than most recent health reform that was passed by the previous administration the plan b drug benefit that was not paid for in part of our growing deficit. the president is committed to having this paid for but also, looking at ways that the system is transformed into a much more cost-effective, higher quality system in the long run. if we pay for what we're doing and continue to do it into the future and add 45 million to the existing system, we have not made any progress. we have not change the trajectory which is now indicating that we will not be able to afford this system into

the future. we have to have as part of the system of way of delivering medical care and change and not only payment practices but delivery systems and a way to tackle some of the underlying causes of our extraordinary costs. those are key elements in the reformed system the president has invited key members of congress to join him on the 25th of february. he is hopeful this is not one more conversation about various components of a plan but hopes the republicans are willing to come forth with their own plan. not just criticisms, but a plan. had you planned to address -- how do you plan to address reduced costs in the system.

and taking $1 trillion of the deficit as a significant step forward from where we are now. covering all americans, having a delivery system that begins to focus on wellness and prevention and not just wait until we deal with acute-care. come together and move forward. a lot of people have said is the starting over and the answer is absolutely not. there are comprehensive proposals on the table. he is ready and able to add to or at various elements that may be missing. we have to -- the republican members have to greengage. i think it is not acceptable

that half of the legislative body is pushed away from the table when the conversation began and say we do not want to participate in this process. discussion was we do not want to participate in anything that has a public option. we cannot talk about any kind of insurance strategy. as far as i can determine, the public option is no longer part of the plan. no one has come back to the table and said we will talk about how to move forward with the private market strategy. we're hoping that will happen in february. we will continue to work the house and senate leadership -- the house and senate leadership are willing to discuss with each other what is the best pathway for. the president remains committed to the notion that we have to have a comprehensive approach. the pieces of the puzzle are too closely tied to one another.

it is disingenuous to say we're for the insurance reform and yet do not support the notion that everyone would have to come into the marketplace. if you have a private market system without rules that allow them to cherry pick the system, and do not require those who are well to buy insurance, you have effectively destroyed the insurance market. he will have an adverse selected pool and you will only have six people in its and the costs will skyrocket. i do not think it is a genuine step forward to set want to provide coverage for all americans and yet, not recognize that there are lots of working americans who cannot bear the four -- cannot bear the costs of providing coverage and they are not in a job situation where there is an employer contribution.

without some subsidized assistance will have an offering of coverage which we do now but not the affordability of coverage. pieces of the puzzle are necessarily tied together if you have a comprehensive approach and cost containment has to be part of that comprehensive approach. i think both house and senate have made sure there are ideas on the table which we feel will not jeopardize benefits. but actually move us in a direction where [unintelligible] for not following appropriate protocol. cause for reform in -- and the case for reform is still

fundamentally before us. it is a conversation we have had in this country for 70 years. i also was not part of those original conversations although some days i feel like i was part of those original conversations. the message is pretty straightforward. we need to finish this job. we need to step up and finally deal with a comprehensive health reform in america because our economy cannot afford us to do anything less. our health system is fundamentally broken and needs transformative infusion of assistance and i think there's no question that millions of americans are desperate for some sort of health security that they do not have now. reform itself, the comprehensive

look at the health insurance system and changes in delivering prevention systems does not magically transform all the issues facing us in our health system. it would be a huge step forward and be the biggest step we have made in 40 years. our health system did not begin and end with health reform and was never going to stop when the bill passed. which is why for the last year, we have been working on some underlying features of the system and will continue to work in all kinds of strategies with proposals that are contained in the 2011 budget which fit as companion pieces to comprehensive health reform bill moving forward. one of the first bills that the president signed into law last year was the expansion of the children's health insurance

program which has been enormously popular and enormously successful. in insuring children across america. we put out a report last week which looks at the baseline numbers and in spite of this economic downturn which has been experienced by every state in the country, to a half million more children have insurance and a year ago. either enrolled in medicaid or in schip programs. states have work to expand their coverage options for kids. in spite of tough budget times and choices, they understand that that is a fundamental step forward if you want to have a prosperous state, if you want our kids to do well in school, they need to be healthy at the outset. children's health insurance continues to be expanded. we have a challenge. we think there are approximately

5 million american children who car -- currently qualify who are not yet enrolled. for the first time with the passage of the legislation last year, congress appropriated some average money and we're working diligently with partners, not only across my cabinet colleagues and government looking at the various programs that people enroll in that we might make it more an auto enrollment in children's health insurance, we would alert parents at a minimum but conceivably and roll folks, but working with states, our faith- based partnerships, with average organizations, and i am asking all of you when you return to your home areas, if there are ideas or strategies that you have about enrollment opportunities. what we know is that some parents still have no idea that they may be eligible.

others have listened to the discussion, we have heard this a number of times about health reform. they have to wait until health reform is passed, they think, in order for their children to qualify. they do not understand that bill was passed and written into law. some have been enrolled and because they move door because they did not fill out the proper forms are not enrolled and we need to reach out to them. we are looking for great partnerships to make sure that at this tenuous time, when families need it more than ever, families need it more than ever, we have an aggressiveç and non- traditional outreach effort to try to get the word outv: to fos that they are indeed available for coverage. anotherxd huge investment in the public health infrastructure, which i think it isçç essenti, it continues to play a major role is the continued expansion

andsyp+estmen(o in a community health centers. during the recovery act, there was a major new investments that not only updated centers that are currently in place, but a major new footprint in areas under served by help centers. what we know after a number of years is5ahfhat . mt(w3i]çç ç lower-cost primary care delivered a very effectively in the neighborhoodmyw3 centers and isç available and offered to families. it is everything from child care ççservices to jobçq counseli, mental health services.xdç wdoçlh[w'ç çq2010,çóç thatçç footprintd strengthening our primary care delivery and i think that what i have seen in the creative

strategy going on around the country is community health centers working in close partnership with community hospitals. some really strategic health plans, where the patients if they present through an emergency room are referred to our health center for primary care and family assistance. averages than to the family. it reduces the strain off and on hospital settings and cages a family with a home health -- engages a family with a home health provider and is cost- effective and culturally sensitive. we have a major investment that started in the recovery act and has continued in the budget. we need more health care

providers. we need more doctors and more nurses, mourners practitioners, more mental health professionals -- more nurse practitioners, more mental health professionals. we need an increased emphasis on non. -- non-traditional providers. men and women who will serve in underserved areas and providing a reach for spanish-speaking providers and multiple language providers. often the health barrier deals with cultural continents' and unless we make an enhanced effort to have a diverse health work force, we will still have lots of barriers to health care delivery. the president has made it abundantly clear to members of

his cabinet that he takes very seriously the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. one of the areas that we know has a great potential for recovering tax dollars is in the area of fraud and abuse. there are all sorts of estimates about what kinds of fraud made take place in the medicare -- may take place in the medicare system. i do not know who has accurate numbers. there are national groups to say that you can estimate that in any enterprise, 3% of business is likely to be fraudulent. that is a huge number for a system like medicare. it could be as much as $60 billion if that were accurate. what we know is that there are

billions of dollars. medicare is a system which pays over $1 billion of claims each and every day. a lot of money moves in and out and that makes it a huge target for fraudulent activities. what we have seen over the years is the activity used to be pretty unsophisticated. mom-and-pop operations. it now is a target for a much more serious, organized criminal activity. we need to actually really stepped up -- step oup our activities to prosecute and prevent fraud. thiwe have been asked to convena multi agency operation, the task force we put together and part

of the goal was to use data to analyze ever and billing practices. some of you have probably had situations where you will get a call from visa or american express saying did you make a charge i am but a cerus -- buenos aires? were you in boca raton in this date? they have analyzed what are the billing practices and want to get ahead of what may be fraudulent activity. we're doing a similar operation where we now have an opportunity to share real time data with those at the justice department. we have analysts who are looking at various patterns to try and have boots on the ground to go

and quickly check out what in the world is happening. the strategies are paying off. later today, you have a panel dealing with geographic variation in health care. let me give you an example of how we are using our current tools. miami-dade county is home to 2% of the medicare beneficiaries who are receiving home health benefits. in recent months, they have 90% of the home health patients receiving more than $100,000 of care every year. you do not need a ph.d. in statistics to see that something is going on. in fact, we moved one of the strike forces into the miami area, one of the first places that we targeted within a short

time, literally billions of dollars in home health billings dropped, just having the presence of people on the ground verifying. they have moved someplace else, unfortunately. this has to be, we now have seven strike forces throughout the country. we have asked in the new budget to have resources for up to 17 cities. more than that, i think the data sharing, the verification we started doing new pre-screening spoor providers coming in. we need to -- make sure that people are not just hanging out a shingle and making themselves out to be a medicare provider. there is tha service being provided. making sure these activities are legitimate but it is something

we're taking very seriously. no question in this country that we are behind a lot of the rest of the world in our use of technology in the health system. it is still fairly stunning to me that in the vast majority of hospital systems and doctors' offices, we are using paper records. i cannot imagine any small operation in the manufacturing sector that would be using a written list and hand mailing it to someone in hopes the delivery would take place. that is the kind of technology that is in most providers' offices today. congress and the president made a significant investment in developing a national electronic health records platform in the

recovery act. what we're hoping is that we can provide enough incentives to have the tipping point that the market will took over. this is not that the government will provide the technology, but what we know is that without a platform, without some assurance that these systems will be interoperable, without some incentives and assistance, particularly for smaller providers or community hospitals, we will stay in our papered world. the technology move is under way. we have already seen systems in place in pockets of the country where very positive patient outcomes are achieved because of the use of technology and health systems.

one health system was using electronic health records to identify older women not receiving osteoporosis screenings on a regular basis. the screenings went out and identified some folks with real problems. one-third of diabetes patients in another system were receiving regular eye and foot exams as is necessary in a diabetic. the tracking of patients, monitoring with electronic records and following up carefully in terms of who got exams doubled the amount so that two out of three of the patients is now receiving the appropriate follow-up care. the recovery act investments, the ability to put extension

systems on the ground to do outrage to particularly small providers in underserved areas, to be the kind of tech centered helper's led by dr. david blumenthal, who is not only a great leader in this area but comes to this perspective by a practicing physician who uses electronic records. when he deals with providers, he describes himself, i am not the technology gate. we have those folks in the system. i can tell you how as a doctor this informs my practice and made me a better health-care provider to the point that i would never go back to practicing any other way. it is a way to virtually integrate a lot of health care practices. doctors and hospitals do not necessarily need to be in the same system.

not even in the same city but the kind of opportunity for coordinated care and bundled care and follow-up and monitoring. we know it can have enormous successes and when used appropriately, the opportunity to lower medical costs and increase the high quality care delivery is extraordinary. that also is under way. we continue to understand looking at the data then again, we have a huge problem in this country with chronic disease and chronic disease driven by some very clearly identifiable underlying causes. smoking, obesity are two where there is a huge opportunity to change your health care cost

estimates into the future if we can deal with some of those underlying causes. i am pleased to be joining the first lady tomorrow in her kick off of her childhood obesity initiative which she sees as a multi-year effort to tackle what is the true health crisis in this country, where we now have one out of three american children are overweight or obese. that is double the number 40 years ago. it is getting no better. there is enough childhood type 2 diabetes that is no longer called adult onset diabetes, we just collotype to because -- call it type 2 because more children are presenting with diabetes. we have the first generation of american children who will have shorter life spans than their parents. alive right now.

it is a serious issue. we know that smoking dropped dramatically in the u.s. over the years but has unfortunately level off at 20% and it has not dropped in a number of years. not only is there a new era -- new aggressive effort at the fda which i am sure dr. hamburg will talk about. there is a host of strategies to see what it is that can influence people, smokers to influence people, smokers to stop and hopefully influence congress made a major investment in prevention and wellness as part of the recovery act. a portion of those grants go to

states and programs will be in place around the country, mainly aimed at tobacco cessation and community grants will be announced later this month. we will have 37 community, urban and rural, who will be looking at strategy's looking at tobacco cessation and obesity. we will clearly be able to figure out what works. when 75 cents at every help dollar is spent dealing with chronic diseases, the more we can have early intervention, the more we can change that pattern on into the future, at the more we can make sure that 50 year olds do not end up with diabetes. only to lower our costs but to be healthier. those are important steps

already under way to make us a healthy, more prosperous country. we're going to keep in our department working on this and a host of other strategies, dealing with health disparities, continuing to work at -- look at innovative medical countermeasures, trying to make sure that we are on the forefront of a number of initiatives, not only in the country, but around the world. there is no question that a comprehensive health reform is an important and integral part of this strategy moving forward. if we did all of those other initiatives and we did them very well, we still would have a huge gap in our health-care system in this country and we would still be in many cases, just moving money around the system where those with insurance are paying and extra costs for those who do not have coverage, where we still have

millions of americans who can access high-quality preventive care on a regular basis and do not seek care until they are often too ill to be treated appropriately, or dealt with adequately. we will still sees to be competitive in the global marketplace where virtually none of our comparecompetitors are dealing with the kind of major health gaps that we have here in the u.s. these pieces of the puzzle are tied together and we at dhs -- hhs take them seriously. i am confident we will have a comprehensive health reform measure passed and signed into law this year and i am also confident that we have an opportunity with that piece as

well as these initiatives in technology and prevention and wellness, a new way to look at health in america to make some really transformative changes that will yield a more prosperous, healthier nation over the next decade. now, another new course we have in the department is our effort to build a 21st century food and drug safety system. it is a charge that the president has given to us and we take very seriously, given the fact that our marketplace looks different than it did 25 years ago. we need a regulatory structure that looks different than it did 25 years ago and i am delighted that you are going to hear from another of our great new leaders at hhs, dr. peggy hamburg, who

were wer were able to convince o be with us. thank you for braving the weather conditions. i understand we have another six to ten inches. we love having you here. we can use your expertise on a regular basis. we have lots of challenges to deal with. deal with. into the spring and summer. >> coming up, michelle obama launches a campaign to target childhood obesity. after that, admiral thad allen talks about the state of the coast guard.

today on that america and the courts, a panel of law professors discuss panelist new book. it weighs the relationship between supreme court decisions and popular opinion. america and the courts at 7:00 on c-span. updated and released, just-in- time for presidents' day, c- span2 who is buried in grant's tomb? a tour of presidential grave sites. the book is a comprehensive guide of the resting places of this country's president. >> it is a wonderful way to humanize and personalize the past. to take events and movements that otherwise might seem impossiblyq remote. there is something universal about the fact that we are all going to be on our deathbed. we're all going to face growing

old. we all have to wrestle with questions of immortality and mortality. those are some of the themes that run through all of this. it is also, frankly, and entertaining book. there are lots of stories, lots of anecdotes designed to humanize all of these people. >> available now at your favorite book seller. >> michelle obama on her nationwide campaign to prevent childhood obesity. this is just over an hour.

[applause] >> thank you for being here. this soon to be snowy day in washington d.c.. i used to live down this way and i do not remember so many flights been canceled, but i guess that is the state we are stuck with right now. it is a pleasure for me to be here in the white house sitting next to michelle obama. it is an absolute honor. especially when we are talking about what we are about to talk about.

childhood of the city has become an epidemic. we have all talked about it -- childhood obesity has become an academic -- an epidemic. when our kids are born, we always make a promise to them, to live a better life, to have a better education, to do things and live a life better than we did ourselves. sometimes, you cannot keep all promises. you cannot make the ballet recitals. you cannot make the baseball games. you cannot take them to the play dates, but there is one promise that we have to start keeping for our kids. that is living a healthy lifestyle. for the first time in decades, the mortality rate of our children and the life expectancy -- expectancy of our children a shorter than their parents. that is unacceptable. let us move, this is a beautiful

program. always a moving. i remember when my mom used to go to work and say, just do not get in trouble. if you do, you'll have to pay for it. i was always running around. i was always doing things that kept myself active. we look at where our country is now, kids do not do that anymore. we are scared to let our kids be outside independently. it is also because our schools are not taking care of their physical activities of our kids and they're not feeding them correctly. half of their calories are what they did in schools. our focusç3w' should be on gig our kids the best opportunity to have a feature that is better than ours, to live a lifestyle that is healthier than ours. that is why we are here today. it is my honor to introduce a woman that i did some interviews

with this morning, freezing out on the white house lawn this morning. the president of the american academy of pediatrics, who represents pediatrician's across the country who have long been fighting this problem and will hopefully help us find a solution. [applause] >> thank you. thank you to these wonderful youngsters behind me. i am president of the american academy of pediatrics. it is an incredible honor and privilege to stand here today with the first lady, michelle obama, and our other partners, calling upon our nation to commit to improving children's health. over the past 20 years, the

united states has seen an alarming rise in the number of children who are overweight and obese. about 30% of children are in the overweight and obese category. this means that the united states leads the developed world in overweight and obesity. putting not only our children, but also our nation at great risk. we face eight medical and moral imperative to rescue our children's health. overweight and of the city can have serious medical consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, and bone problems. every day, we see overweight toddlers who struggled to learn to walk or run. overweight can cause our children to have perspiratory problems. a youngster who develops diabetes in his teens may need a kidney transplant by the time he

is 30. we have gotten where we are today by a somewhat unusual route. for the first time in history, our health problems stem from abundance and access -- excess. too much business. at the same time, at many of their communities lack access to help the food and safe places for children to play. because this is a new and complicated problem, it requires a sophisticated solution. pediatricians know that we can play an important role in this effort. the kitchen's promote good nutrition and exercise and we care for those children -- pediatrician's promote good

nutrition and exercise. weekend and we will do more to prevent obesity -- we can and we will do more to prevent obesity. that is why today i am proud to announce our commitment and partnership with the first lady. first, the american academy of pediatrics will call on every pediatrician to calculate body mass index for every child over the age of two at every visit. body mass index is a simple, but important tool in starting a conversation with families about their children's health and well-being. pediatricians will take the time to make sure parents understand what it means for their children to have a healthy body weight. second, the academy will also urge our pediatricians and other health-care providers to give out official, child family

prescriptions for help the active living. including good nutrition and physical activity at every visit. using these prescriptions, we will engage in conversations with children and parents so that they can set their own goals for areas they want to work on. one child might choose to get up to that five fruits and vegetables a day by adding fruits that contained a letter b to their meals. we are suggesting some of tiki barber's books. these conversations will emphasize kids choices and their ability to succeed at what they set out to do. we know that families can improve their help with other

modest changes. the american academy of pediatrics recommends that mother's breast feed their babies, family eat colorful balancedç meals and eat them together. children need to get plenty of sleep and parents and children play a physical -- physically active games. this campaign is a long-term commitment to our children to help. the american academy of pediatrics shares and supports the first lady's goal of overcoming obesity in this generation of children through our combined efforts with all of the groups that are gathering together. we cannot expect the solution overnight, but we pledge that we will do everything we can to end the epidemic collaboration among all to help create healthier communities for children. we must take on this challenge.

the health of our children, the future of our country is in our hands. together, we can reverse the numbers and make a difference. we will turn the tide on childhood of the city. thank you. -- turn the tide on childhood obesity. [applause] >> i did not ask her for the book plug, but the check is in the mail. [laughter] we can all talk the talk but it comes down to execution. we all know that urban environments often have a lack of access to fresh foods. the next person coming out is an urban farmer. he brings it to the people. mr. allen. [applause]

>> thank you. first lady michelle obama, i feel very honored to be here today. i have been farming for over 50 years and you have been a wonderful inspiration to me along with a lot of other folks. when you put that garden on the lawn at their -- that lawn out that, that moved a lot of people. i hear 10 million people started gardening this year. i know in wisconsin mayor tom barrett called me. we have been pushing to have a garden at city hall, so thank you very much. [applause] i am here today to talk about our food system. i don't want to do a lot of

framing, but i will do a little bit. as we sit here and stand here, we are losing farmers. as we stand here, we are losing farm land, and we have to change that. that our grandmothers would actually recognize as food, because a lot of stuff that we eat our grandmothers would never recognize as being food. we have problems in our cities because of all the areas inside our rural communities -- back 50 years ago there was an agricultural industry throughout the south. in this areas where people in those communities worked in the fields and had jobs in the farming industry. if you go through the south,

those same towns are there but there is no farming industry for those folks. the industrial farming industry has taken over with growing cash crops. they trade a lot of sugar are young people are consuming. when we look at our inner cities we seafood deserts',we see food deserts. our folks have no place to go but the corner stores battle have a lot of really bad food -- that have a lot of really bad food. that is what we have right now. we have done a lot of talking. we have done a lot of feasibility studies. we talked about this. we have gone through thet( 60's

and 70's around this movement has grown. now we are in the 2000's where everybody seems to be coming together. corporate companies, universities, political folks are coming together to sit at the table with folks like me, folks who have been working on this issue for many years. that is an important piece, because for us to solve this problem we have to have everybody at the table. we cannot just start blaming each other anymore. what we need to do is take some action. this is 2010 -- this is the year to take some action. our kids are suffering. you just heard from judith palfrey who earlier lee and outlined what is happening with our kids. -- who earlier outlined what is

happening with our kids. it is a specia -- social justice issue. every person should have access to good food. to make that happen let's look at what is happening in milwaukee and chicago. in madison, wisconsin weç have been able to obtain about 100 acres of farmland to grow intensively. we have systems that are growing berkeley. we are able to grow food year round. i know the weather is tough here, but in wisconsin we live 3páráh this weather. so we know how to do it. we know we have to eat this food that just 20 weeks out of the year when farmers are in business, -- when farmers are in

business, schools are out. we need to ensure kids have access to this food all year. to do that we will have to grow inside greenhouses. we will have to have a garden at every school. we will have to activate -- we see all these vacant greenhouses' not being used. we will have to train our teachers to do hands on education, because this is what inspires our kids to learn. if they can't touch it and a more -- than they are more apt to go to the next debt and really learn. -- go to the next step. we also need to create local food systems to create jobs. it will create thousands of jobs. one of the things that has been missing when we talk about jobs.

we need to put more funding into this local food system. we don't need to be shipping food 1,500 miles bringing food over from foreign countries, we need to grow it in the community. keep that money in the local communities. that is what we have been able to do in milwaukee and chicago. to be able to keep that money in the community to grow intensively. are typical farm produces $500 per acre. with this new agriculture, we are growing at about $5 a square foot which equates to about $200,000 per acre. that is what we have to do, because we are losing our farmland. we are losing our farm land to urban sprawl. we have been able to for the

last 17 years, we have 40 employees. we plan to add another 16 employees this year as we take on another 50 acres of land. thank you for this opportunity. it is not whether we have to do this, we must do this if we're going to survive. we must do this because we are very unhealthy, and the entire world. this is -- i have been thinking about this, and this is a national security peace. we are the ones that get blamed for everything. there were over 600 food riots are round the world, and they blame us. we have to fix this problem not only here, but all over the world. thank you very much free --

thank you very much. [applause] >> the state of mississippi has the largest obesity rate in the country. there are many reasons for this. he has done a phenomenal things down there in mississippi building parks, playgrounds and waterways where people can exercise, but also bringing back places for fresh food. mayor johnson. [applause]

>> i am honored to be here. i am here to represent the great state of mississippi. you may wonder why a mayor is appear. -- why a mayor is up here. there are things we can initiate. i found the state board of health wants to work with us. they have the knowledge but don't know how to get it to the people. that is generally what we are good at. we partner with the board at education in the groups like national league of cities. there are lots of partnerships we can form. in a minute you will hear the mayor come up and speak. you will notice i don't have an accent and he does.

[laughter] the next thing you will notice is he comes from a large city in the north east. i come from a small town in the south. we come from different political parties, but we are working together on this childhood obesity issue. that is something the entire country will be long step in. we all want our children to live just as long as we will live. when i just accidently balance the budget. just in my little state right now we are spending $982 million a year on obesity-related illness. 580 million of that is medicare and medicaid. it makes you wonder where the other $400 million is. that is paid for with insurance premiums. that is paid for by businesses.

this will make everything better if we can get this under control. the paper said $142 billion a year. that is why this is important. i saw the first lady was quoted by saying we need to quit quoting statistics. we need to just get going. i would like to cite a few examples of how a small town got going. you can that do it all. we are probably 5% towards the goal in our town. we are nowhere near where we need to be. some of the things we have done -- in august we decided we would do a farmer's market. everybody said it is too late in the season. we said let's just do it now. within eight weeks we had 23 vendors. the next season was just

incredible, so we have a great farmers market now. we started a community garden last year. i had to get my neighbor to bring his practice down -- bring his tractor down. people were eating out of that garden. we put it on the edge of one of our poorer neighborhoods. this will start the second year of our community garden. we did not have any used sports, so we started a youth basketball league. they said, you do not have a gym. we share facilities. there is a group that has some model policies for how you can share that liability, because people always worry about the liability. i just think we should do things. we can all share the facilities there.

we started a soccer league. we did not have any land because fall soccer is the same as fall football. we find a guy in the neighborhood who had a vacant piece of land. we find these partnerships you can do with no money, because we don't have any money. w3we have been in stalling walkg paths and we do them one at a time. we arpey seen it in there. you can do things as simple. it is finding 100 feet of sidewalk -- you can fund 100 feet of sidewalk. i will not be here forever. they will throw me out one of these days. the policies are what stays. we put a policy in place that mandates all sidewalks.

we have miles of sidewalks in our town that were paid for by the developers. those type of policies work. secretary sebelius was quoted in the paper saying we should involve not just the kids but their parents. i agree with that. almost all of you have state health departments that have this program called bodyworks. you can come back and start it in your town. we have 40 people in our small town attending that and some are bringing their children. we are teaching them healthy lifestyles. it is all about partnerships. i am excited we are here preparing together. what i think we are supposed to be doing is not telling people to be healthy, that is a private decision. but what we have to do is create an atmosphere for good health. that is what we will move

forward to do. thank you. [applause] >> thank you mayor johnson. you just did one thing wrong, you mentioned your fellow mayor. you have to putç the hand into it. we talk about doing things often with childhood obesity and sometimes we get stuck. we don't come down to the base level where people actually are and keep it real. this next mayor has and that. i love -- this next mayor has done that. he has tried to make a huge mayor judith palfrey -- mayor joseph curtatone. thank you. >> thank you.

it is great to be here with all of you, the first lady, on this important occasion. is an honor to be here with me -- with my colleague chip johnson. this issue cuts across all party lines. it affects every community, rural, urban, suburban. it affects us all. you will hear a lot in my message that is very similar, but i will point out he actually has the accent, i have the hair. [laughter] when addressing the conference during our winter meeting the first lady noticed it will take all of us, businesses and nonprofits, coaches, and parents

working together to help families make changes so our kids can stay healthy. in massachusetts that is what our initiative is about. çin gauging community members f all ages from all sectors -- engaging community members. it takes the support of an entire community to create an environment that supports children's help until the time -- supports children's health. in 2003 we learned the statistic that 40% of our children were obese. in partnership with tufts university we began to examine the effects of a challenging environment on their weight gain. we launched an environmental approach aimed at reversing the trend of childhood obesity.

our principles have been, eat been played hard -- eat smart and play hard. we have instituted more nutritional curriculum and established [unintelligible] we are committed to incorporating physical activity throughout the school day. we have to increase access to help the schools that extend beyond the school walls. we have opened new farmers' markets and a growing number of agricultural sites. we are transforming our environment for the long term. we have instituted policies to support walking, public transportation and access to open spaces and a long-range plan to renovate existing parks

and playgrounds. all of these efforts have had a positive impact on the health of our children. it is designed to improve the quality of life of residence. the obesity prevention and -- the obesity prevention initiative can be replicated across the country. it is our responsibility to make decisions and develop policies that create environments that improve the quality of life for all those who want to live and raise a family in our community. we know help the communities are productive. the -- we now healthy -- we know healthy communities are protected. we can raise the social consciousness of an entire country to eliminate childhood

obesity. we can make our nation health care and more productive per it thank you very much. [applause] >> mayor johnson and mayor joseph curtatone, you talk about policies. i would be remiss if i did not think secretary duncan for what he is doing in our schools. -- if i did not thank secretary duncan. our kids are about responsibility, and forcing that responsibility. you see failures everywhere -- in forcing -- enforcing responsibility. where is tammy? tammy had the privilege last year at helping mrs. obama plant her garden when she was in fifth

grade. now she is a sixth grader. you are nervous, but don't be. you want me to make a fool of myself so you look ok? tammy, please join us. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is tammy, and 12-years old and i am attending school here in the district. i would like to say something about change. ça lot has changed for me. i have moved on from bancroft elementary school to a middle school. i have new teachers and assignments. i could not do much about this kind of change, it just happens to you as you get older. [laughter] but another big change in my

life since last year has come because of a partnership my classmates and i at bancroft elementary school had with mrs. obama and the white house. my fifth grade class was invited to help plants,ç harvest and et vegetables from the white house kitchen garden. we picked peas off the vine. we discovered how delicious vegetables can be and started to know [unintelligible] at school we research where vegetables came from, where they travel to and their many varieties. we care for them in our own gardens and are proud to show them when mrs. obama came and helped as plant seedlings from

her house. from these experiences, my friends and i have learned a lot about change, about eating healthy foods and making the right choices. we learned the skills that will last a lifetime and our lives will last a long -- last allot lager. sometimes change does not happen. my fifth grade -- last call lot longer. i am glad mrs. obama is interested in continuing to teach kids about eating healthy and making good choices. another thing that has not changed is what i said to mrs. obama last year. mrs. obama, you are an inspiration to us. thank you for including us in this project. ladies and gentlemen, it is an incredible honor for me to

introduce someone who has done so much for me, my friends and myç family, at the first lady, mrs. michelle obama. [applause] woi3>> thank you everyone. thank you so much. it is a thrill to have been here in my home. qi want to thank tammy. i could just start crying. you are so sweet and smart. you have gotten so tall. thank you for that wonderful introduction and for your outstanding work. it is important for you to know how much you and your classmates have played a role in where we are tonight. look at this room. look at these important people

with cameras and lights. it is because of what you helped me start at the white house garden, but saw and so proud of you all. i know you are -- i hope you are doing well in six great. you can do it. i want --ç hope you are doing well in sixth grade. i want to recognize secretary vilsack , duncan, salazar, did i t(leave anyone else? as well as surgeon general benjamin, who has been a tremendous support. i would like to thank them for their excellent work and leadership. you are doing a phenomenal job. we would not be able to do this without you. i also want to thank our other guests, senator harkins. thank you for your leadership. thank you for being here and the

work that you have done to get as to this point. i want to thank tiki, pretty sharp, good on your feet. [laughter] he is still upset because he is shorter than me. [laughter] that is the first thing he said. he said, i did know you were so tall. i said, i know, but thank you for your work and your passion. thank you for breaking the weather to be here. we are glad to have you on board. for doctors judith palfrey -- dr. judith palfrey, thank you. mayor johnson and joseph curtatone, you are doing a super job. thank you so much for being here. thank you all for coming today and braving this weather, and

risking getting stuck here. [laughter] thank you for the work you do every day to help our kids lead healthy lives. one final congratulations is in order. i hear the -- are some of the hornets here? stand up because i know you are bored. [laughter] [applause] they are just barely hanging in, but we want you here because this is really all about you. these guys are the national football champions, right? [applause] congratulations, you guys. you can sit, we are almost done. just think, you could be in school. [laughter]

but we are all here today because we care deeply about the health and well-being and not just at these kids, but for all kids like them all across the country. clearly, we are determined to take on one of the most serious threats to their future. that is the epidemic of childhood obesity in america. obviously, it is an issue of great concern not just as a first lady, but as a mother. often when we talk about this issue we begin by setting sobering statistics like the ones we have heard today. we have to drill this anin, over the past three decades childhood obesity rates have tripled. nearly one-third of children are overweight or obese. that is one in three of our children. these numbers do not paint the full picture.

the words overweight and obese -- those words don't tell the full story because this is not about inches and pounds, and it is not how our kids look, it is about how our kids feel and how they feel about themselves. is about the impact they are seeing that this is having on every aspect of their lives. pediatricians are in seeing kids with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, more kids with type two diabetes. that should only be a disease of adults. our teachers are telling me how they are seeing teasing. our school counselors see depression and low self-esteem. coaches are seeing kids struggling to keep up or sitting on the sidelines unable to

engage. our military leaders report that obesity is one of the most common this qualifiers for military service. economic experts tell us we are spending outrageous amounts of money treating obesity-related conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. in public health, experts tell us the current generation is actually on track to having a shorter life span than their parents. none of us wants this future for our kids and none of us wants this future for our country. instead of just talking about this problem and bring in our hands, it is time for us to do something about it. çwe have to ask -- we have to act, so let'sç move to get families and communities together to make healthy decisions for their kids. let's move to bring together our

governors and doctors and nurses, moms, dads, you name it, to tackle the challenges once and for all. we are here to announce this wonderful campaign called let's move. let's hear it. [applause] let's move is a campaign that will rally our nation to achieve a single ambitious goal. that is to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy rate, but to get where we want to go it is important for us to understand how we got here. i will ask all the grown-ups in the room to close your eyes and think back to the time when we were all kids. tiki was there causing trouble.

like many of you, when i was young we walked to school every day. in chicago, it was in the wind and snow. remember how at school we had to have recessed? we had to have jim. we spent hours running around outside -- we had to have gym. you cannot even go inside until it was time for dinner. in so many households we would gather around the table for dinner. in my family there was one rule, you ate what was on your plate come good, bad or ugly. if you did not like it you were welcome to go to bed hungry. back then, fast food was a treat. it was a big treat for us. dessert was mainly a sunday affair.

in my home we were not rich. the food was not fancy, but there was always a vegetable on the plate. we managed to lead a pretty not so fortunate. urban sprawl and fears about safety often mean the only walking our kids do is out the front door to a bus or car. cuts in recess mean a lot less running around for our kids during the day, and lunchtime may mean a school lunch heavy on calories and fat. for many kids those afternoons spent riding bicycles have been replaced by afternoons inside with the tv on and video games. these days with parents working so hard with longer hours, they just don't have the time for the family dinners. with the price of fruits and vegetables rising 50% higher than overall food costs, a lot

of times they don't have the money. or they don't have a supermarket in their community, so their best option is something from the shelf of a local convenience store. this is where we are. many parents desperately want to do the right thing, but feel like the deck is stacked against them. they know their kids health is their responsibility, but feel like it is out of their control. they are bombarded by contradictory information at every turn. they don't know what to believe or who to believe. this leads to a lot of guilt and anxiety, and a sense that no matter what they do it will not be enough. i know what that feels like because i have been there. i live in a wonderful house and i am blessed with more health and support i couldt( have ever imagined, but i did not always live in the white house. it was not long ago that i was a working mother.

struggling to balance meetings and soccer and ballet. there were plenty of nights when you got home so tired and hungry that you just wanted to get through the drive through because it was quick and cheap, or there was a time when he threw in the less healthy microblade option because it was easy. one day -- less healthy microwave option. one day my pediatrician said you might want to think about doing things differently. for me, that was my moment of truth. it was a wake-up call that i was the one in charge, even if it did not always feel that way. today, it is time for a moment of truth for our nation. if it is time for a wake-up call for all of us. it is time for us to be honest with ourselves about how we got here, because our kids did not do this to themselves. our kids don't decide what is

served to them at school and whether there is time for recess. our kids don't choose to make prr and sodium, and have those products marketed toç them everywhere they turn. no matter how much they beg for pizza andy candi, ultimately they should not be the ones calling the shots. -- no matter how much they beg for pizza and candy. we make these decisions. that is the good news, because if we make the decisions then we can solve the problem. i am notç just talking about folks in washington, this is not about politics. there is nothing democratic or republican about doing what is best for our kids. i have not not -- i have not spoken to one expert about this issue who said the solution is having government tell people what to do.

çi am talking about what we can all do. i am talking about common steps we can take in our communities to help our kids leave active lives -- help our kids lead active lives. i]w3this is not about preparinge course meals every night. it is not about being 100% perfect 100% of the time, because lord knows i am not. there is a place for cookies and ice cream, that isç partçf the fun of childhood. often is just about balance. it is about small changes -- often it is just about balance. replacing it soda with water, trimming portion sizes. this could mean the difference between being healthy and not. there is no one size fits all solution, about families making

changes that fit with their budgets and needs and their realities. it is about community is working to support these efforts. -- it is about communities working to support these efforts. they acknowledged their responsibility to be part of the solution, but there is so much more we have to do. that is the mission of let's move, create -- to create evarts that get us to our goals of solving childhood obesity. we kicked offñr this an issue ts morning when my husband signed a memorandumç establishing the government-wide task force on çi]childhood obesity.

it wilhúfe comprised of representatives from key agencies. over the next 90 days these folks will review every program and policy relating to child nutrition. they will develop a plan to use these resources to meet our goals and ensure we are on track to meet these goals. they will setç real benchmarkso measure and our progress. but we cannot -- to measure our progress. but we cannot wait 90 days to get going. let's move today on a series of initiatives to help achieve our goals. first, let's move to offer parents the tools they need to make healthy choices for their kids. wet( have been working with the fda and retailers to make our food labels more customer- friendlyçó, soi]ç people don'te to spend hours looking at words

they cannot pronounced to see if their food is healthy. just today the nation's largest beverage companies announced they will be taken steps to provide visible information about calories on the front of their products,ç as well as on bending machines. this is exactlyçç the vital information parents need to make good choices for their kids. we are alsoç looking -- working with theç academy of pediatrics to ensure that doctors actually write a prescription detailing steps parents can take to --çó actually writing prescriptions the talent steps parents can take to make their kids help it. we will launch a public xdawareness campaign educating parents and children about how to fight childhood obesity. çwe are creating a web site --

letsmove.gov, so parents can find strategies, including recipes and charts they can use to keep progress on track. let's remember that 31 million american children participate in ñrthe school meals program.ç many of these kids consume more than half of their calories daily at school. what we don't want is a situation where parents are taking the right steps at home and their kids and do that work when they go to school with a salty foods in the cafeteria. -- when they go to school with salty foods in the cafeteria. we will start by strengthening the child nutrition act, the law that sets standards for what our kids eat at school. we proposed an investment of an additional $10 billion to fund

thatt( legislation. we will knock down barriers that keep many families from even participatingç in school meal programs. we'll add an additional 1 million students in the first five years alone. we will dramatically improve the quality of the food we offer in schools, qincluding vending machines. we will take away some of the empty calories and add more fresh fruits andñr vegetables. we also plan to double the number of schools in the school challenge. this is a program out of the department of agriculture that i]recognizes school doing the bt work to keep kidsç healthy. they areç already providing healthy school meals, requiring physical education, ççxdand incorporating nutrition programs. i am thrilled to announce for the first time that several çmajorçç school food suppliee

committed to decrease sugar, fat and salt,and double the fresh produce in the meals they serve. [applause] also for the first time, food service workers along with principals and school board members are all coming together to support these efforts. with all of these commitments, we will be able to reach every school child with better information, more nutritious meals and will be able to put them on track to a healthier life. these are major steps, but let's not forget about the rest of the calories are kids consume, the ones they eat outside of school often at home in their neighborhoods. when 23 million americans, including 6.5 million children

live in food deserts', communities without a supermarket, these calories are too often empty ones. w3you can see the areas in this beautiful map the food deserts. this maps out everything from diabetes andç obesity rates all across the country as well as food deserts. this will be a very useful tool for parents and the entire community. let's move to ensure that all our families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities. today for the very first time we are making a commitment to completely eliminate food deserts in çamerica. we know thisç is ambitious, tht

is why it will take a serious commitment from the government and private sector. we will invest $400 million a year in an initiative that will bring grocery stores to underserved areas and help places like convenience stores carry a healthier food options. çthis will not just help famils eat better, it will help create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods across america. but we know that eating right is onlyok part of the battle. experts recommend children get 60 minutes of active play every single day. ifxd this sounds like a lot consider this, kids spend an average of 7.5 hours a day watching tv, playing on the computer, and only one-third of high-school students get the recommended level of physical activity. çso let's move, literally.

let's find new ways for kids to be physically active both in and out of school. that is the fourth part of this initiative. we will increase participation in the president's physical fitness challenge. we will modernize it still is not about how athletic kids are, because not every kids will do pushups. we will double the number of kids who aren'tç a presidential board in the next school year. -- number of kids to earn a presidential award. we have recruited many athletes across the country. they will promote peace efforts through sports clinics, public- service announcements, snand so much more. that is just some of what we will do to achieve our goals. we know it will not be easy.

we will not get there this year, and probably will not get. this administration. we know it will take a nationwide movement that continues long after we are gone. that is why i am pleased to announce a new independent financial and has -- a new independent organization will keep working to meet our goal. this foundation is called the power ownership for healthier america -- the partnership for healthier america. it is bringing together foundations like the alliance for health your generation which is a partnership between the aha and the clinton administration. this is a pretty serious effort.

i am proud of everyone for being a part of it. i know that in these challenging times for our country there will be those who will wonder whether this really should be a priority. there will be many who might view things like help the school lunches and physical fitness challenges as extra, as things we spring for once we have taken care of necessities. there will be those who ask, how can we spend money on fruits and vegetables when many schools don't even have books and teachers? how can we afford to build parks when we cannot afford health care costs? when you step back to think about it you realizeç these are false choices, because if kids are not getting adequate nutrition, even thei] bestç bos and teachers in the world will not get them to where they need to be. if they don't have a safe place to play and wind up with

obesity-related conditions, those health care costs will keep rising. yes, we have to do it all. we need to make modest but critical investments in the short run, but we know it -- they will pay for themselves many times over in the long run. because we cannot just be keeping our kids healthy when they are young, wemç will teach them habits to keep themt( healy their entire lives. we saw this first hand with the white house garden. we planted our garden but students like tammy last year. one of her classmates wrote in an essay that her time in the garden, "has made me think about the choices i have with what i put in my mouth." another wrote that he learned tomatoes are both a fruit and a vegetable, and contain vitamins that fight diseases. he declared to make note -- "

tomatoes are my best friend." just think about the ripple effect. when kids use this knowledge to make healthy decisions for the rest of their lives. think about the effect it will have on every aspect of their lives, every bit at it. whether they can keep up with their classmates on the playground and stay focused in the classroom, whether they have the confidence to pursue the career of their dreams and stamina to succeed. whether they will have the strength to teach their own kids have to throw a ball and ride a bike. whether they will live long enough to see their grand kids grow up, maybe even their great grand kids, too. in the end we know that solving our obesity challenge will not be easy and it will not be clicked, but make no mistake -- it will not beç equipped -- it

will not be quick, but this can be solved. we know the cure for this. it does not take a stroke of genius. we have everything we need right at to help our kids lead$6 c1 healthier lives. -- everything we need right now to help our kids lead healthier lives. it is so eminently solvable. so let's move. let's move to solve it, because i don't want our kids to lift diminished lives because we failed to set up today. -- i don't want our kids to live diminished lives. i don't want them to ask us why didn't you help us when you had the chance? so much of what we wanted for our kids is not within our control. we want them to succeed at everything they do. we want to protect them from

every hardship and spare them from every mistake they will ever have, but we know we cannot do all of that. we cannot do that. what we can do is -- what is within our control is to give them the very best start in their journey. what we can do is get them advantages that will stay with them long after we are gone. as president franklin roosevelt once put it, we cannot always build a future for our youth, but we can build our used for the future. this is our obligation not just as parents who love our kids, but as citizens who love this country. so let's move. let's move, let's get this done. thank you all so much. i look forward to working with you in the years to come. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> a coast guard commandant on the state of the coast guard. a look inside north korea and its military capabilities. and chuck schumer and chris van hollen of maryland talk about the supreme court's ruling onç campaign spending. w3çxtadtoday, a panel of law s talk about a new book, "the will of the people." america and the courts here on c-span.

it is the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by 01 artists -- painted by one artist. see the entire collection on- line at the website. >> coast guard commandant reduce the coast guard's role in haiti earthquake help. this lasts about an hour. >> good afternoon everyone. welcome to the national press club. i am a reporter for bloomberg news and president of the national press club. we are the leading professional organization for journalists. we provide informative programming and fosterç aççe press worldwide. okçfor more informations, pleae visit our ue site to donate to

our professional program. on behalf of our members çworldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and guest as well as our c-span audience. after the speech concludes i will ask asçxd many questions m the audience as time permits. i would like toç introduce our head table guests and ask them to stand when their names are called. from your right, jim wolf, defense technology correspondent for reuters. matt, president of [unintelligible] john, sgt staff columnist for the "washington times." john gallagher, correspondent for "fair play" magazine.

ken yates, senior vice president for jefferson waterman. we have the past national press club president and reporter for "usa today." free-lance writer and editor. amy morris, executive editor for radio. thank you. [applause] our speaker today has served as commandant for the 42,000 men and women of the largest component of the department of homeland security, the u.s. coast guard. he reports directly to the president, the secretary of

homeland security and secretary of defense. now completing his four to your deployment, he has led the coast guard through a challenging time of terrorist threats and piracy on the lanes of commerce around the world. the u.s. lighthouse service was established in the 1700's. the earlier continental navy was abolished. in 1790 alexander hamilton created a service of cutters to enforce customs laws. that became the nation's first responder to natural disasters. it is the oldest sea going service. it is a major source of rescue and assistance in times of emergency. from the 1980 boat lift to the 1991 haitian exodus of 40,000 refugees and

by case basis.