the safe practices and the focus on support systems is only increasing need as we age. host: you are be speaking to press and what do you hope to tell them? guest: i am asking for their help to raise awareness about the problem of health care harm in this country. and to tell the positive stories about the superstars out there that are really doing something to move it along to a positive conclusion of getting this 200,000 a year number to as near to zero as we can get it. we are talking about preventable harm. host: and the discovery channel documentary on april 24. and i understand you have done a role as bill clinton coming out on hbo. guest: yeah, at the end of may.

it's called the special relationship about the relationship of bill clinton and tony blair, prime minister of the united kingdom. it covers the years from 1996 to 2000. those are the sizzle years. host: what was that like? guest: quite daunting. quite a challenge. and i hope i did some justice to it. host: dennis quaid and dr. charles denham and the website. guest: safetyleaders.org. host: that does it for "washington journal," see you tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. . .

>> the senate convenes with general speeches at 2:00 p.m. eastern, with a vote scheduled at 5:30. you can see the senate live on our companion network, c-span2. the house will be back tomorrow at 2:00. live coverage here on c-span. now more about the nuclear summit from today's "washington journal." host: josh rogin writes for " foreign policy" magazine, covering the nuclear security summit this week. what does the administration want to get out of this? >> largely determined well in advance, we'll see at the end is a statement of president obama's plan to secure all loose nuclear materials in four years. the language has been negotiated and we'll ceo ris of you any lateral negotiations to secure their own nuclear materials.

we'll see a lot of little announcements and there won't be any big agreements or findings any any sense. best opportunity to discuss the nature of the threat and what we can do individually and collectively. >> if these things agreed to in advance why do country assemble in one place? >> most countries, action is determined a from the top down. you need senior leadership on attention to really get it moving. it's also the best opportunity to get all the leaders in one place. to have all sorts of other meetings on issues when 46 world leaders come to town they come with 46 agendas and the obama administration has that many of it's own. you can be sear there will be a lot of issues on the table. >> started an article david wrote about pakistan and india.

the president yesterday meeting with india. that is an issue. the india, pakistan nuclear situation that's off the table here. >> that's true. they're both nuclear countries but they're also both outside of the boundaries of the non-proliferation treaty and both have special statuses. this will be dealt within may at the nontreaty significance. the u.s. has been making an effort to increase the profile in the pakistan leader ship. both countries are tentatively moving closer after years of tension and the u.s. is playing a role in that. both countries are insecure about their relationship with the united states. the fact he's meeting with both countries is significant. host: our phone calls are on the screen. calls for josh rogin.

outside of indian, pakistan, you said there's a lot of things agreed to in advance. i want to say outside of i ran and north korea what countries cause administration the most concern? guest: look at the former soviet states first. most of sit - it's not a coincidence president obama when senator was part of an initiative to do that. it used to be called the nonlieuinger f initiative. the president met with the president of kazakhstan yesterday. they have a pretty atrocious human rights record but that did not come up in the meeting. this shows the interaction of the issues on the table. host: show our viewers the president yesterday commented on what's a head in the summit and then we'll get to calls.

>> we have a situation in which there's a lot of loose nuclear material around the world, and so the central focus goal of this summit is getting internet community on a path in which we're locking down that nuclear material in the specific timeframe with a specific work plan. one of the things i'm very pleased about is countries have great control and they're come together the summit, not just talking about general statements of support but rather, very specific approaches to how we can solve this profound "inteliigence2 debate" problem. host: josh rogin, you talked about loose nukes and the "washington post" yesterday wrote about the size of material. they wrote 5.25% pounds of highly enriched uranium is needed to make a small nuclear device.

there's estimated 3.5 million pounds of the material and 40 country's and 1 point 1 million pounds. there's enough weapons usable nuclear materials to build more than 125,000 nuclear bombs. talking that much material, how can they ever get control of this? guest: that's fair question. what we're seeinging is the focus on the material. the focus on the technologies to make the material is much more difficult. iran and north korea developing enrichment capabilities. it's very low bash entry for for these types. the only strategy is to go after the material. the national security council. said if we can secure all the material, we can essentially solve the problem of nuclear terrorism. whether or not you believe this

is the goal. the closer we get the lore the risk of the material falling in the wrong hands. >> is there more material today than the height of the cold war? host: yes. there's countries that continue to publish it. there's no good way to say for sure how much is here or there. the bottom line is this material is largely a legacy of the cold war. this dove-tails into what the president is doing with russia to lower the amount of nuclear warheads and the signing of the star treaty in prague and with president obama's promise to work toward as world with no nuclear weapons and dove tails with the national posture review that the redefining of america and how we think of nuclear weapons. all goals are to get these things out of the hands of people that might use them or accidentally set them off. host: callers.

aberdeen, washington. don? caller: yes. the whole idea of them reducing nuclear arms. russia ain't going to do it. they're going to stockpile them where they can't be found. that's all nation's guarantee that have nuclear weapons. it's a joke and a waste of taxpayer money to have this going on. host: how's it verifiable? guest: i think there's a good point in the callers remarks. even the treaties. and what we're doing with russia don't approach the thousands of nuclear and tactical nuclear weapons the united states has. as for is there a benefit for reducing the weapons in the treaty? i think there is. one of the biggest risks is accidental launch. miss call cue haitian. some sort of mistake and having thousand of weapons on hair

trigger alert makes that accident more probable. the more you can reduce those on that hair trig another letter, the better it for everybody. i do agree sit just the beginning and the tip of the iceberg. host: "inteliigence2 debate" line. ken, brown lake, illinois? caller: i'm basically understanding. i did a study in the great depression and really all of it if you guy don't get the job search going, you know, we had a job back then to restart ourselves. host: we've moved on to talking about the nuclear energy summit. bill in saint charles missouri. caller: thank you. i hear all this. north korea nuclear weapons and iran. when are you going to do a show on israel's illegal weapons?

are the people here afraid. you sit on t.v. and talk about iran that doesn't have one and you hide like cowers about israel's nuclear arsenal. guest: i think it's a fair question and i'm not scared to talk about that. israel has 80 to a 100. they have a no confirmation and denial. they're one of the three nuclear countries that's nart of the proliferation. this sha concern to the region but i rail's policy is not likely to be changed soon. as it relates to this summit, israel actually declined to send it's prime minister and the way that they gave is because they believe that egypt and turkey would raise the issue at the summit and divertnext phone cal.

burk want to become the center of attention and distract from president's agenda. it's pretty unclear. host: they're not avoiding the summit. they're sending the deputy prime minister? guest: right. he's more in charge too. this will be something that will come up in may in new york at the nonproliferation treaty review conference. host: is that under the office of the united states? guest: that's right. every five years the treaty comes up for review. when it came up last time, the united states under the bush administration was accused of not promoting reform or implementing the reforms it's claimed to promote. president obama has a much different perspective. host: douglas on the caller: two major points about

this nuclear summit, this nuclear issue. first of all, the summit itself, i wonder how much credibility it has from the powers around the world, both nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers, when benjamin netanyahu -- some of us know that the obama administration, like when the settlements landed over there. the last part about all this, after the aggression of the united states under the bush regime, in invading countries like in the situation where they invaded iran -- i mean, iraq -- bill you think countries want to have a mutual level of destruction -- don't you think countries want to have a neutral level of destruction, going to try to preemptively strike people after the media campaign of lies to perpetrate against that country? the very last time i would like to say, as a history buff, i

have never seen iran attack anybody. it is enough for israel to almost put us on the brink of war with iran, i think that it is a joke, and until we real in israel, we should not even have something like this because the last time we had some kind of summit in the united states, it did not go on behalf because they said people were going to pick on israel. host: got your point there, douglas. we will let -- rogin respond. guest: on the issue of credibility, this summit has 47 heads of state, head of state level, including russia, china, you name it. this is as much credibility as you can give it, and goals are narrowed as such there is a threat of commonality between these countries. i do not know if i get your

point and credibility. on mutually assured destruction, again, no matter what the new treaties say, the u.s. and russia will still have plenty of weapons to blow the world up several times over. it is really not an issue at this point. when we talk of getting to lower levels of weapons, then we can have the discussion of whether or not that lowers the bar or dissuades other countries from entering the nuclear family. on the point of iran, i think it is pretty well established that iran sponsors extremist and terrorist groups all over the world. xtremist groups all over the world. they're the number one according to the states department do. they attack anybody? maybe not in open for a pretty long-time but they're responsible for all sorts of mischief around the world and that's cheer and that's why they acquiring a nuclear weapon is a dangerous situation. from i ran's leader use heard typical dismissal of president obama's policies.

iran will hold it's own nuclear summit later this week as a counter to the u.s. summit. china is considering attending to give it a level of credibility the obama administration would be comfortable about. comfortable about. .no carrierringconnect 12

in the soon-to-be released report. that report was delayed. that fueled speculation that there was some sort of quid pro quo with china. my sources in the administration say there was no quid pro quo. it could have been any number of reasons why president hu did not rsvp until the last minute, not necessarily the most obvious ones. host: do you think the treasury department report will be released today or tuesday? guest: my information is that it will not be necessarily released anytime soon. that does not mean there is not work on going behind the scenes to challenge china on its currency, which is tied to the u.s. dollar at a pretty the rate -- at a pretty ridiculous rate. china's argument that its economic stability would be upset by the guy with the currency, that is true. the american argument is that u.s. jobs and -- suffer because

of it. that is also true. according to my administration sources, we predict a very slow but definite announcement by china that there will be some progress on currency, not as much as people want but better than nothing. the administration does not want more -- host: the latest "christian science monitor" has a look at the nuclear arsenal around the world. they have deployed 130 to 186 nuclear-weapons in china. brooks on our democrats line. caller: what is the cost and the savings? i have lived in mcconnell air force boy a base out there, and they are forever leaking fuel

and gas and it is really a danger. obviously horrendously expensive to maintain. if you were to pull the nukes out of kansas, -- they are so expensive, either would think these countries would love to get rid of them if they could, but what cost to us and our towns that would lose bases that have subs and land-based nukes and b-52's and so on? guest: i think it is an excellent question, actually. the cost issue -- for russia, the cost of maintaining their nuclear arsenal is prohibitively expensive. the russian military is very scarce resources and really needs them among other things. a lot of conservatives, especially in the u.s. congress, say that russia was really acting in its own interest by reducing its nuclear weapons and it was going to do it anyway because it could not afford to keep them. the u.s. is a completely

different issue. there are jobs attached to nuclear-weapons. the nuclear review which realigns things about the weapons has implications for bomber fleets, submarine fleets, missile fleets all over the country. but in the end, because for the u.s. government is not an issue because as we know, the defense budget in the u.s. is over $700 billion and the u.s. has no problem taking on debt. on the russian side, it is something to watch, and the jobs issue is something to watch on the u.s. side. host: staten island, go ahead. caller: these nuclear weapons have kept us say for a long time, and the money we waste in this country, we should keep them up to par. i think that is a good thing. the chinese are updating their nukes every day, and we have done nothing with ours. as far as an accidental war, it

has not happened yet. i am a veteran, and they say in the service, if it is not broken, do not fix it. thank you. guest: on the cost issue, you are right, that is not the issue. on the issue of china possible nuclear arsenal, somewhere around 150 weapons -- the u.s. has 1500 deployed after this agreement goes into effect. it will be decades before china gets to a point where we feel they are any nuclear competitor. as for whether it is necessary to keep a nuclear arsenal for our safety or whether it is a risk, it is both. nuclear deterrence has a strategy, but it is a limited role.

host: how important was bid for the president to have that new start treaty stunnesigned befors nuclear summit? guest: very good. these sorts of agreements take a long time. the fact is, this allows them to get both documents done. this is crucial for the obama administration who has been trying to show off their foreign policy strategy. host: stockton, california. the less -- phyliss. caller: how are they going to get rid of these things? they cannot destroy these nuclear weapons. they cannot sell them.

how are they going to dismantle them and do it at a reasonable cost and not tell them to another country? -- sell them to another country? it may sound weird, but i remember president johnson the mantling a lot of these things. they would sell a lot of them on tv it would be like a job fair, but it would be something to buy these missiles. they have to understand, we want to know what they are going to do with these things. guest: you can destroy, dismantled them. the goal here is to control them. simple as that. the stories of lives and a clear

material are just shocking. there is a lot we can do, even if we do not destroy all weapons. also, the administration is compiling a robust plan to modernize the nuclear weapons that we do have to make them more reliable, safe, and make sure everything is up to date. the administration will have to come up with a plan to make sure that our nuclear arsenal is in top shape. host: just to be clear, this is the first time since fall of the soviet union that the world has gotten together to address this issue in one single conference, correct? guest: yes, it is remarkable, actually. the goal is not to build some sort of international

organization, but it is a very focused google, to look to themselves about this in the clear material issue, and to look to you and, if they need assistance. we are not talking about international assistance to get. host: in the "was a treat interna wall street journal" -- how long did it take them to get

this piece done? guest: that is part of an agreement with four former soviet republics and nato. it works on two levels. it allows the countries to build their relationship with the u.s., the west, and it goes towards securing nuclear materials. a lot of thithe former soviet states have been good. if they want to press these countries on other issues like human rights, they could, but in terms of this one agreement, that is a success story. host: dayton, ohio. doyle, a democrat. caller: it is an honor to talk to you.

these nuclear weapons have been around for the last 50 years. we are about ready to enter a new era of a different type of weapon, satellite weapons, lasers. that is what we will be emphasizing most of our technology on. the idea of getting rid of these nuclear weapons now is a good idea there will be a new threat to the world in the next 50 years anyway. my question is, if the obama my question is, if the obama guest: is a good question. let's talk about lasers. lasers factor into it in two ways. as you talk about, missile

defense, which is currently the best thing we have to combat missiles. it is moving toward a laser- based system called the airborne laser, a lot of laser weapons in development. those are still not of the technological level yet that could really be used, but we're looking at another few years before they get rolled off the shelf. it will change the nature of warfare. missile defense is an unproven system. has the potential to combat missiles, but not other types of nuclear weapons. what is interesting about lasers is that they are also being used for the enrichment of uranium and other the materials. instead of setting up thousands of centrifuges that can be spotted on a satellite, in a few years countries will be able to get lasers that split off good uranium from bad uranium and make nuclear material at a much lower cost and with less of a footprint. that is something we will talk about in the coming years. it is not something that the

obama administration is ready to comment on our deal with at this moment. host: josh rogin writes for "foreign policy," about 15 more minutes of your phone calls. we want to hear first from secretary gates. he and hillary clinton, the secretary of state, were on "meet the press" yesterday. here is some of what secretary gates had to say. >> we still have a very powerful nuclear arsenal. the nuclear posture review sets forth a process by which we will be able to modernize our -- make it safer, more effective. we have in addition to the nuclear deterrent today a couple of things we did not have been the soviet days. we have missile defense now, and that is growing by leaps and bounds every year. significant budget both regional and at the ground-based interceptors.

and we have conventional -- believe me, the chiefs and i, the joint chiefs of staff and i would not have wholeheartedly embraced a nuclear posture review, but also the start agreement if we did not think at the end of the day it made the united states stronger, not weaker. host: secretary gates something very reassuring there. who is he aiming those comments at? what he said it is he is connecting these issues together -- the start agreement, nuclear posture review, missile defense. this is a look at how the administration is talking at these issues. what is ironic here it is the bush administration deployed missile defense in order to set up a fait accompli.

now this administration is embracing it. they took out the missile interceptors in poland and the czech republic, but they are replacing it with something even more efficient. host: it will still be part of the equation, even though the russians are not crazy about it? guest: this was the big sticking point with the russians. what they negotiated was that we wouldn't acknowledge the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons in the start agreement. whether or not that makes senate republicans so angry that they oppose the treaty is yet to be seen. on the other hand, that connection between offensive and defense of weapons it is obvious. whether or not the obama administration is prepared to defend that is a question. host: they have also been

holding this olive branch, talking about developing a new nuclear defense program with the russians. is that just talk? guest: hard to say. there have been planned to put radars on line near russia, in russian territory. i doubt that we would ever want to, at this point, move forward with that type of project. who knows? it could happen. host: patrick from arizona. independent line. callerpatrick, on a going to puu on hold. just a reminder. turn your television down. elizabethtown, north carolina.

caller: yes, my question is, do you think russia will support sanctions against iran? do you think the u.s. will never attack iran if they break this treaty? guest: those are fantastic questions. iran is the 800 pound gorilla in the room at this nuclear summit. my sources tell me that the p5 members + 1 are approaching a solution to slow down the nuclear program. whether or not those program will bhave any attraction is

unclear. but russia will sign on eventually. china, we will have to see. as far as an attack, that option exists, but the administration has made it clear that that is a last case scenario. host: next phone call. brooklyn. caller: i agree with two people. iran never attacked anybody. israel attacks everyone in the middle east. host: let us hear from fort lauderdale, democratic call. caller: good morning.

i was thinking this is a good idea from the obama administration trying to focus on these nuclear weapons. they are designed to kill us all. i think that if everybody started having them, it would be dangerous to everyone. so this is a good start. all this negative talk is not necessary. we need to start some place and be optimistic. host: what do we know about how capable of al qaeda is to produce a dirty bomb? guest: a radioactive bomb is a relatively easy thing to construct, one to have the materials in hand. we do not have any information that al qaeda has obtained any of these materials.

radioactive, and dirty bombs is a tanker problem from -- dirty bombs is a problem separate from other international issues. host: david drucker has a story today about politics of moving this through the senate. he writes -- you talked about that earlier in

the program. guest: up until the start treaty was signed, said republicans were critical of how the negotiations were going and threatened to oppose the treaty. now that the treaty is out, they are thinking about it. some will, some will not. richard lugar will support it. senator jon kyl -- that is an important one. another one to watch is senator mccain and joe lieberman. senator lieberman was lying down in negotiation initiative. he was pretty bold in saying that he did not then and there were 67 boats, but he is not -- votes, but he is not the vote-

counter. host: kansas city, missouri. robert. caller: yes, sir. i hear a lot of talk about north korea but nobody says anything about south korea. i want to know if your guest has any information on what they have in those top-secret mountains in south korea? guest: good question. south korea was discovered to have been running a clandestine nuclear program for many years. there was international condemnation, and as far as we now, that program is no longer going on. they have tested as many as two

weapons. so we know that they are a defective nuclear country. there are an example of a country that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. that could be seen as excess -- as a success. other countries participating in that program would be libya. host: next phone call. caller: this is an important issue. thank you for pointing out the finer parts of this. i am a veteran. seconthere seemed to be a somewt anti-israeli sentiment on your show. i want to remind everyone, if it was not for them in 1980's, with

saddam hussein, things would be different. lindsey graham spoke up at a meeting a few weeks ago, and he said president obama is my president. although we disagree on health care, i support him in our relationship with israel. i wanted to commend him for his courage. despite what the republican party of no says, he supported the president. host: do you see republicans supporting this? guest: senator graham is one of the few republicans left willing to work with the administration on foreign policy issues. by doing so, he seems to be distancing himself from others in his party. it is unclear how much he will be doing that in november, but he is an important republican to

watch. as for the color's point that israel -- caller's point that israel has not had the best of your track record, that is correct. as a few years ago, israel attacked a syrian reactor developing nuclear weapons with help from north korea. so there is an argument that israel has played a role. there is also the argument that israel is not the only state in the region with a nuclear arsenal. host: it is syria a member of the summit? yes, no, they could not be invited. there is a lot of regional representation. -- guest: no, they could not be invited. there is a lot of regional representation.

host: here is something from this weekend. >> it is enough to make the world safer? >> it certainly is. i know this is a very important issue that i want to thank you for discussing. the president's position is very clear. we will always protect the united states, partners and allies are on the world, our nuclear deterrent will remain safe and effective in doing so, but we also think we will be all to build a safer if we can introduce the idea that the u.s. is willing to enter into a arms treaties with russia to reduce our perspective nuclear arsenal, and that we will stand against proliferation that will perhaps deter others from acquiring nuclear weapons. so you have to look at the entire package. host: your thoughts?

guest: i think it is sort of an unanswerable question. it reminds me about the early days of live global war on terror, whether or safer or less safe. it is impossible to measure, impossible to determine, so is an impossible question to answer. the point she did make is she believes it is a constructive thing to do. i think that is pretty much the unassailable, in the sense that it addresses the problem but it does not complete address the problem, and also that it builds our relationship with other countries throughout the world. host: paul, good morning. caller: i would like you to address what kind of credibility we could possibly have in any nuclear summit when testimony from -- sworn testimony before congress and under oath, exposed that peter goss, undersecretary of state to

secretary rice, was selling nuclear weapons secrets on the open black market. had nothing, no investigation was done on this man. he is still running around free, and in fact, they punished civil edmonds. host: i think you mean porter goss. the u.s. activity with nuclear weapons at the clandestine level is a whole separate issue we could take another show to answer. there is no doubt that the united states has made some mistakes in terms of its handling of the nuclear issue throughout the years. there's also no doubt that the united states boasts one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, and there's no doubt that the u.s. has helped some countries become nuclear safe -- nuclear states while criticizing of the country's -- while criticizing other countries for becoming nuclear states.

we want to stop this material from getting into the hands of people who -- it does not really address the topic, which is the importance of the summit we are seeing this week. host: you will be covering the summit at the convention center this week? guest: i will be there all week. host: josh rogin with "foreign policy," thank you for joining us this morning. >> of course, a lot of diplomatic activity in washington today, with more than 45 world leaders here for the nuclear summit. president obama has arrived at the d.c. convention center for a series of meetings, first with king abdullah of jordan. and then with the premier of china. a working dinner will occur this evening. vice-president biden is also holding a day of meetings, starting with the new zealand prime minister, and then later leaders from the united arab emirates and south korea.

it is the largest meeting of foreign leaders at the u.s. naval observatory. at the capitol, the senate returns from their spring return -- recess, working on cover health insurance assistance and jobless benefits. then it convenes for general topics speeches at 2:00 p.m. eastern today, followed by a bill debate and voting at 5:30. live coverage on c-span2. the house returns tomorrow at 2:00. you can see live coverage of the house here on c-span. the state department told a briefing on the situation in courageous stand -- right now, more about the summit from today's "washington journal." author fredrick stanton making his first visit to "washington journal" with his new book "great negotiations: agreements that changed the modern world." when was the first time that the

u.s. negotiated a nuclear treaty with the soviet union? guest: the history of u.s. nuclear relations with the soviet union goes back to the cold war. the turning point was the cuban missile crisis where both countries came close to the brink of nuclear holocaust and they realized they did not want to do that again. the realization of that prompted negotiations that resulted to the test ban treaty in 1963, which prohibited testing in the atmosphere, under water, or in space. that was the first step to contain and ultimately roll back nuclear weapons in the cold war. that led to further treaties, strategic arms limitation treaties, which restricted further growth of nuclear weapons and platforms. that ultimately led to

negotiations between president reagan and gorbachev and their breakthrough meeting in iceland which led to the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, which eliminated an entire class of weapons, and eventually, the start treaty which reduced the number of weapons. host: when you saw the signing between the president and president medvedev, what sort of common themes horgan that signing that go back to -- in that signing then go back to the days of reagan and gorbachev? there were similar issues of verification, missile defense, and of course, things to be cut back. guest: russians, and then, as

now, were worried about a system not would erode the value of their system. those issues were pretty much the same, and labor handled in a similar fashion. host: fredrick stanton is here to talk about his new book, "great negotiations: agreements that changed the modern world." republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. i want to look at the opening page of the book, and this fellow from the united nations. why did you choose this photograph, who is that man in the center? >> he is a mediator with the united nations who helped negotiate one of the early peace treaties in the middle east.

it was the arab-israeli armistice print after the 1948 war -- just after the 1948 war. he was able to bring the two sides together to reach an accord that lasted for a number of years. it was, really, the 1st durable peace of negotiation between israel and its neighbors. host: you talk about the issue of the strategic defense initiative, the so-called nuclear shield. it has echoes with the missile defense system that we are talking about now. what was the end result of the streeters -- treaties in make of it? -- record, polanin poland?

guest: things were left on a fairly sour note. however, the brokers that were tabled at the time were not withdrawn. within months, talks were resumed on intermediate forces which resulted in a treaty abolishing forces. the framework for the start agreement, which was signed years later, came out along the same line of what was laid down earlier. in retrospect, and was a great success. the strategic defense initiative played a role in affecting russian thinking at that time. it also showed a difference in perspective from president reagan and gorbachev. both wanted to get to know nuclear weapons. president reagan wanted to do so under a defensive shield. but gorbachev wanted to do so

under mutual reductions. host: the first chapter is about men from glen and the revolutionary war with the french. -- ben franklin and the revolutionary war with the french. what did future negotiators learn from him which remained a common theme? was there a common theme in negotiations? guest: ben franklin was a good negotiator. it was pretty lucky memories and him anywhere. -- when we send him anywhere. in many respects, he must america's first texas told diplomats. -- key was america paused first successful diplomat. host: the next phone call. caller: what are the democrats pushing for drawdowns when the

republicans are asking for an increase in nuclear deterrence, such as missile defense? wouldn't it be wise to have everyone at the table, get away from politics, and all try to draw down at the same time? every nation need to protect themselves, but at the same time, stop focusing on role nation's and make sure that the nuclear deterrent we have is not getting to them. guest: that is a good question. the answer is, the differences represent two competing views of national security. one is that by providing an example, we can reduce our

weapons and others will follow suit, and because of that, the world will be safer in general. the other perspective is it remains a dangerous world, that there are figures in it who cannot abide by international norms. at the end of the day, the greatest defense is having an effective deterrent. i think you have the two different visions of security. host: good morning to ohio. nola on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to thank you for mentioning that part about mr. bentsen. i want to thank our military also for putting this summit together. this is big. we have all these tweeters from all over the world.

my son is in the air force. we want to thank andrews air force base. this is a big thing for america. thank you. host: we know about the dayton accords. some of these treaties are note -- negotiated in unexpected places. talk about that. >> frequently, negotiators choose an isolated environment where they can conference without distraction. we see that with the reagan and gorbachev in iceland. we also see this with the israelis and egyptians in 1949, and with teddy roosevelt in the treaty of portsmouth. it can be useful to have world

leaders gather in a major world capital, but in different types of negotiations, you want to isolate the negotiators, so that they can sit down with each other and in an atmosphere of calm. host: were you surprised that president reagan and gorbachev had such a hands on experience, that they were negotiating with each other? >> it was one of the more negotiating things about those negotiations and was not designed to be as dramatic as it was. it was originally a quick pre- conference before a summit in washington, but because of the informality, low expectations, they were able to talk with each other and that led to these breakthroughs. it was a surprise success. host: st. cloud, minnesota. david.

caller: the question i have, but i am appalled with is the number of nuclear weapons we have and the number of weapons [unintelligible] i would like to know what those numbers are and why it is necessary to have so many. guest: obviously, the american nuclear stockpile is largely a legacy from the cold war. we have cut down to levels that we were at in the 1960's, slightly before. in the cold war, weaver is engaged in this life and death struggle, so we've accumulated this enormous supply of nuclear weapons, partly for redundancy to protect against the first strike, partly to have enough on hand.

what we see both the u.s. and russia doing at this point is dialing back their forces on a recognition that there is not necessarily the need for all necessarily the need for all these weapons that we have. host: i will see if we can get our viewers a look at the graphic we have created looking at some of the nuclear stockpiles around the world. james is next, democrat from roanoke, virginia. caller: as a former air force member, working at a couple of command posts, we have a tactical nuclear weapons as well as strategic nuclear weapons. our tactical nuclear weapons are part of our the tactical nuclear weapons part of the start treaty? guest: they are not part of the start treaty, but they are part of the negotiation that president obama has expressed an interest in exploring. one of the things that could potentially come out of the

meetings today and tomorrow is a greater interest in addressing other types of nuclear weapons. during the cold war, the greatest concern was the large strategic forces that presented the greatest threat to us and to the soviet union. now with the changing environment at the end of the cold war and the emergence of nuclear terrorism, there is a greater concern for nuclear security across the board, and that includes looking at things like tactical nuclear weapons, which are numerous, over 5000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world and they are very small, so they are of particular concern for potential nuclear terrorism. it is a very important piece of the puzzle that remains to be addressed. host: here is clinton -- excuse me, birmingham, alabama. clinton, on our democrats line. caller: how are you doing today? i would like to know the relationship between iran and- excuse me iran and --

if a clinton, are you still there? caller: is relates to iran and north korea. should our policy uniform in dealing with both countries? . guest: that is a good question. both are obviously countries of concern because of their interest in proliferation. the reason they are being treated differently is their history. iran is in the middle east. it is not as far along in its program as north korea, which has already detonated several weapons. of course, north korea as the history of the korean war. they are two different situations, but what they have in common is potential

proliferation. we take that seriously. both of them i believe have parallels to the cuban missile crisis. crisis. president kennedy was confronted with the choice of an emerging nuclear threat, in terms of them placing missiles in cuba, at the same time that he raised pressure on the soviet union, he made it clear that he could open up channels of negotiations to allow for a grateful -- graceful exit for them, taking into account the interest of both sides. host: you start with a map looking at the u.s. and cuba with concentric rings around it. what does that mean? yes, those are the target ranges of the various muscles in cuba. one of the things that chairman khrushchev did when he intended

to install the missiles in cuba was to increase the soviet strike force against the u.s. and reduce the morning time from 20 minutes, to less than three. it was an existential threat to the u.s., and that is my president kennedy treated it as seriously as he did. that was one of the catalysts which led to the modern world of arms agreement, having seen how close the world came. host: on hava lot has been writn about the cuban missile crisis. what did you learn that you did not know before? guest: i was interested in and telling a great story in context of other stories. one thing that i was able to

benefit from was recently the classified information on the soviet side. it must information to put those into a side-by-side so that you could tell what both sides were doing, how they were thinking, and how they were interpreting the action, as it was unfolding. host: there was an obituary over the weekend for a former soviet ambassador to the u.s. what role did he have in the cuban missile crisis? guest: he played a crucial role. one of the document i was referring to earlier was a report from him, back to the kremlin regarding a meeting that he had with president kennedy's brother bobby kennedy, which was one of the most crucial meetings. he was a focal point of some of

the secret talks with the kennedy administration. host: national, -- nashville, alan. guescaller: it does not make see to me that we are getting weaker when we should be getting stronger. we need to maintain the ability to strike unpredictably. we need to be irrational and frightening for them to leave us alone. with the chinese have been 225 million men between ages of 18 and 22, how are we going to face potentially china and any other nuclear power? we cannot even hold down afghanistan and iraq. this makes no sense to me. guest: i think the obama

administration would probably argue that we have 1500, after the new treaty is fully implemented, we would still have 1500 deployed strategic weapons. in addition to that, we have thousands of weapons that are not deployed but are in storage, in reserve, or are awaiting to be dismantled. the total sum of our stockpile is affected to a much smaller degree that people would expect by this decree with russia. host: michael on the republican line. caller: 20 you think the executive branch -- want to rethink the executive branch but to our security in question? is it part of the fundamental change that was telegraphed in

the election last year? do you think this could be weakening us? guest: it is the responsibility of every administration to decide how it is going to deal with defense, the role that a nuclear weapons will have in its national security policy, and the purpose of elections is to elect people who are in a position to make those decisions. that is what we are seeing unfolding. president obama promised if he was elected, he would reduce the role that nuclear-weapons played in american security, and that is what we are seeing. he gave a speech a year ago in prague where he outlined his vision for the future and the

steps he has taken so far. that has followed pretty consistently with his vision. host: writing about the louisiana purchase, you're right that the issue is one of the biggest foreign policy challenges for the u.s.. you write -- guest: that is right. now we've been purchased is seen as a successful purchase. what is lesser-known it is that in proof of an existential crisis that the u.s. was confronted with.

the boy in's possession of louisiana in which almost led to civil war, war with france, and was a real crisis. it was an example of an unexpected benefits of negotiation. we went in negotiating for the port of new orleans and we came up with half the continent. host: more recently, seeing what worked for franklin, roosevelt, what do you see in today's negotiations? guest: when president carter hosted the camp david accords, he had his staffers look at the portsmouth negotiations, the previous example of the president meeting a conflict they studied that closely and learn some lessons from it. host: topeka, kansas. bruce on the democrat line. caller: good morning.

in any of the past negotiations that we have had with the u.s.s. r, have we ever taken into account that there should be accountability for all the weapons number in the former ussr > i am thinking in those weapons are now lost and there are probably being spread throughout the world. guest: i think that the closest thing to what you describe is the start agreement, the strategic arms reduction treaty. that was signed shortly before the union fell apart. as a follow-up addendum, former

satellite states of the soviet union which had nuclear weapons on their territory at the time that the soviet union fell apart, agreed to sell those weapons back to russia. the weapons of the soviet union in places like ukraine, the stans, other countries, were returned in that manner. host: is this the first treaty between the u.s. and russia? the first nuclear treaty? guest: there was another treaty which was signed with president bush and i believe president clinton. however, the verification provisions are very weak, so i would say this is the most substantive and important treaty with russia. host: providence, rhode island.

redfred, good morning. caller: someone said something about the more nuclear weapons you have, the more colorful you are. there was a movie talking about the end of the world where they blew up a bomb and destroy everything, so if a couple of the clear bonds could destroy the world, we should be concerned. we go into other countries, but nobody comes into us to watch our nuclear program. lots of people come here to go to college. a lot of these people are coming here to go to college and then going back home to create these

things, these weapons. host: ok, fred. . after a certain point, and additional nuclear weapon does not provide additional security. it provides another way to make trouble. there is some optimum number above which there is diminishing return. when president reagan was negotiating with gorbachev in iceland, he said that we can pull them back. by pulling back, you reduce the threat of accidental launch or discharge. in terms of verification provisions with the u.s., the

answer is yes. as part of nuclear treaties, the u.s. subjects itself to verification provisions with russia. the new treaty contains verifications provisions as wel. with international treaties, the u.s. is subject to inspection and verification protocol. host: our guest is fredrik stanton. we will take about 50 more minutes of your telephone calls. a question about former soviet scientists. is the u.n. or iaea able to track where they go? they could be on the leading edge of nuclear discovery. >> i think they try. i do not know if it is possible to track all of them the soviet weapons program was so secretive

and highly classified. i think it is also important that most of the efforts we have seen and continue to see as with the meeting today and tomorrow focus on material. the focus on the wrong material, weapons, the machinery rather than the people. it is easier to regulate and track and the people. the scientists remain a concern obviously. >host: the next call is from our independent line. caller: the united states dropped the atomic bomb on japan. we had only two atomic bombs at the time. if we had it, we would have dropped a third one. we do not have israel on the

table. how many nuclear warheads to the have? we do not know. would you please make a comment about this? guest: president obama as mentioned that as the only country that has employed nuclear weapons and anger, the u.s. has a special obligation to lead on the issue. some people would say there was a reason to use it in world war ii. the fact is the u.s. has the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons and has been a pioneer nuclear and remains in power. caller: contest the weapons we do have? above-ground testing is banned. ocean testing is banned. how are they tested? guest: since the signing of the

partial test ban treaty, they have been tested underground in nevada or elsewhere. it has been up to various administrations to decide whether to test or not. that has been an issue that has gone back and forth between republicans and democrats. president obama has expressed an interest in a comprehensive test ban treaty that would ban the testing of all types. that ties in to the question of maintaining the reliability of our nuclear deterrent. as we cut back on the number of weapons, we want to be sure that those we have work. obviously, they degrade over time. that issue will probably come up in the senate ratification process for the start treaty. i think it has been over a decade since we tested. host: we hear from glenview,

illinois. welcome, john. caller: 01 to make a comment about the extent to which republicans view things almost as if it is a football game. there was a comment made about how weakness makes us stronger. i remember reagan and his vision for reducing nuclear weapons went much further than this treaty. he removed an entire category of missiles from our arsenal. he did not make us weaker. the problem is not so much ideology. i have always agreed with republican ideology. i do not think democrats generally understand freedom the way the founders meant it.

ideologically, but always agreed with republicans. i never voted for the national elections because of the kind of leaders to put in place in the with a look at politics. -- and the with a look at politics. they look at is as if the democrats fail and they win. they do not look at it as the united states winning. with this treaty, this is moving us forward in the same way ronald reagan move us forward. they will portray this as a move towards weakness in something that is going to destroy america. what would george washington or thomas jefferson think of what kurt republicans are doing to the discourse of decisions like this being made? they should not be hyperbolized.

guest: a will initially speak to president reagan's approach. i studied that closely for my book. the final chapters about ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev and the negotiations in iceland. ronald reagan's vision was very effective in dealing with the soviets. it was to build an effective enough deterrent that we force the soviets to the table. he also believed that if there was missile defense shield that could protect against nuclear weapons, it would degrade their value. it would allow for ultimately total disarmament. he thought it was important to have the defensive side of the equation and not just mutual destruction. he quite rightly thought that was crazy. he believed in order to get the soviets attention and make them negotiate seriously, it was first necessary to negotiate

from a position of strength. that is what he did. as has been correctly pointed out, after the negotiations, he was able to eliminate with the soviets an entire class of nuclear weapons. that has not been done before or since. it is quite clear he would not have been able to accomplish that had he not pressed really hard against the soviets with regards to missile policy and nuclear policy at the time. host: you write about the military spending in the soviet union that brought them to the table. the military consumed over 30% of the nation's gross national product. it became evident to the leadership that the arms race was bankrupting the soviet system. gorbachev wrote it is obvious there something wrong in the country when he took office.

doomed to serve ideology. forced to stop hard currency payments. the soviet union soviet union had fallen to the 50th in the world in infant mortality rates. this abyss had to end. and the president knew that the u.s. military spending would continue to go. guest: yes. this race was a burden to both sides. and that's one reason that reagan looked to reduce nuclear weapons and worked with gorbachev to cut back nuclear weapons. and it was clear from reading internal soviet declassified materials, before chairman gorbachev went to iceland, he told the bureau if the u.s.

imposes another arms race on us, we will lose. so he was put in a position to force to change track and to look at the nuclear equation from a different perspective. and i think it was that creative break that allowed them to move forward. host: new brunswick, new jersey, john, welcome. caller: what would thomas jefferson have to say about all of this. here is one piece out of the living constitution, and finally where peace is at best preserved by giving information to the government and the information to the people. this lasted most certain and to government, educate the mass of the people and enable them to see it as their interest to preserve peace and order. and they will preserve it. it does not require a key of

quote education is key to this. and this is what president obama has tried to use in the united states. the forefathers didn't believe that the population was smart enough to participate in its government. and my second question to america, stop dogging obama, listen to what other leaders around the world have to say about this man. this morning geor there was an interview with the president of russia and the man cares. and the bottom line, educate yourself and know what is going on in your own personal interest. host: john, you made your point.

any thoughts? guest: transparency in arms control is a major issue and closely tied to verification, but that's a more technical issue. host: not everything in the book is about this and here is a picture of woodrow wilson at the peace conference, what were the lessons learned? guest: i think the big lesson learned at the paris peace conference, while negotiation  capacity for great benefits, it can cause to problems. that's what happened in world war ii, and also the problems we are dealing with in the middle east. it was a grand scale and also an example of what not to do. host: tulsa, oklahoma, jesse,

independent caller. caller: hi, thanks, i have a quick question. it seems to me that people towards the right end of the spectrum can criticize this president for anything he does, basically. no matter how sane or rationale it may be. basically they are sore losers. to anyone who understands the paradigm of this seems that reducing the amount of holocaust making weapons, would be a good thing. but it demonstrated to me with the republican gentleman that called in earlier -- host: all right jesse, this says you were an election monitor.

and the meeting in the republic of georgia, what was that like? guest: it was interesting, we have a system that monitors elections abroad. and the u.s. sends a part of monitoring of elections overseas. it's a wonderful opportunity to see democracy in progress. especially for some countries that it's >> with over 45 world leaders in washington for the nuclear summit, it is a very busy day for president obama. the president is not the washington convention center for

a series of meetings. 1st with jordan's president abdullah and then with other leaders. there will be a working dinner this evening. vice-president joe biden is also holding meetings with the united arab emirates and south korea. he is also hosting a lunch meeting at his residence. it is the largest meeting of foreign leaders at the u.s. naval observatory. at the capitol, the senate returns from the spring recess. they're working on jobless benefits and cover health insurance benefits. the senate is convening for general topics speeches at 2:00 this afternoon followed by bill debate in the boat by 30 p.m. eastern. you can see the senate live on c-span-2. the house will be back by tomorrow. the state department is holding a briefing on the situation in

kyrgistan. we will have that live on c- span. there is discussion on the state of the intelligence community with mike mcconnell and other officials from the bush should ministration. this is about an hour. >> john has a long history in the intelligence community, including serving in the most senior positions at the cia,

including deputy director for intelligence, chairman of the national intelligence council, and assistant director for central intelligence for analysis and production. john also served a stint on the hill as staff director for the select committee on homeland's security in the house of representatives. he is also a member of the bipartisan policy center's policy prepared this group. please join me in welcoming john gannon. [applause] >> thank you. it is an honor to be here. we have mike mcconnell. with the first undersecretary of defense for intelligence and john mclaughlin who was for a turbulent period of time the acting cei.

all of these men were very active in leadership and reform efforts in the intelligence community prior to 9/11. they were fully engaged in the post-9/11 time improving our intelligence capabilities. they also were very much engaged in the discussions with the congress and the population in general about intelligence reform after 9/11. this is a panel that is not about the problems we've talked about. we are about solutions. we're going to look at at the future -- we're going to look at the future and you will go away nearest. i would like to leave time for questions from you folks. i will ask each panel member to hold their comments to about five minutes. let me turn first to the former director of national intelligence, mike mcconnell.

>> since we are solutions, let me start by saying that nothing is too hard as long as you do not have to do the work. we can pontificate based on our experience. i have been in this business for 40 years. i have been a professional at the analytical level and served in a variety of capacities. i am passionate about getting it right. i am probably the biggest cheerleader for the united states intelligence community. it is a wonderful organization. i am here to tell you from firsthand experience as a member and have had been -- and from having had the privilege of leaving it but it is the best in the world. having said that, we can always be better. i will give you a premise on why i think it can be better. the model for that has been mentioned a couple times this morning. the department of defense was created of world war ii. we debated it. we thought about for years. i was a product of that environment. my service in the navy as a

youngster, if i had taken a tour outside of the navy, i would have been filled to speak selected for the next promotion consideration. i was there for the debate of goldwater-nichols. was it right or wrong? every secretary testified under oath that you pass the bill, it will ruin the united states department of defense. it was passed in 1986. it was signed by president reagan. we had desert shield and desert storm. every service chiefs and secretary said it was the best thing that ever happened to the u.s. military. it was a radical transformation. here is my premise. a bureaucracy, once it is established, will fight to maintain itself to the point of

redefining reality in its own self-interests. that is true of any bureaucracy. without interests of oversight -- interests of oversight of forces beyond the control of the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy will refuse to change. -- without intrusive oversight or forces beyond the control of the bureaucracy, the barack receipt will refuse to change. i use my beloved navy as my model. virtually every change in the navy was forced from the outside. there's a long history there that we do note i wod like to as if you want to follow-up on that issue. what is the mission of the community? to collect and analyze information beyond all possible competitors. collect and analyze information to know beyond and better than

of possible competitors. the first responsibility is to speak the truth to power. it is your job in defense of the constitution to let the facts speak for themselves, not to twist the facts to fit a policy objective. it is to let the facts speak for themselves. in the closest analogy we have to that is the director of the fbi and the chairman of the federal reserve. there selected. the of the tenure. their responsibility -- they are selected. they have a tenure. their responsibility is to spea the facts as they know them. this town reacts to it only four things. crisis. if we have a crisis, we will have action. when did you know what and why did not do something? the second is ballots. that will get the attention of this town and things will change. the third thing is money.

it does not always get the exact change we need, but when money is generated, people pay attention. the fourth thing is the law. that is the thing that we control. i believe we need to update our laws to get it right. today, the law leaves us in a position where it is entirely personality dependent. my good friend mike hayden spoke earlier. mike is a true intelligence professional. he is an intelligence professional from early days in the air force. i was an intelligence professional from early days in the navy. he served as the director of snsa as i also did. we understood this community and what it took to be successful. we had a deal. he said the best thing about my job was to let him do his job. i said that i understood that. the best thing about my job was

that i could try to make the community better. he said that he would work with me on that. we work that it really hard. there were some things we could not agree to because of the seats were occupying. there was some credit for things achieved. the revision of the executive order. it took the full year with the full support of the president and secretary of defense. it was a battle on every paragraph. the law does not allow the authorities. my view is -- the law does not spell out the authorities. we need to revisit that law and established on the principles of goldman-nichols. there are three important words in english language the matter in a bureaucratic context. those three words are "of 40, direction, and control." if the dna is given that, it will sort itself out and go off

and do good things like the military who train and equip and then provide people for the commander of operations. the final thing was mentioned earlier on the panel. we are a community developing espionage against foreign interests. we cannot play out of our activities in the public. we are compelled to protect sources and methods. if we do not, we will have lives lost and we will lose the capabilities of sensitive and expensive systems we use to collect information. we also cannot allow our output in speaking truth to power to be political fodder for the policy debate. getting this right is important for the country.

the big question is whether i am prepared as a professional to make a point that we need a tenured dni and we need a department and intelligence. i been thinking about that long and hard. on the way here, and was not sure where i would come down. i am there. a tenured dni and a department of intelligence. if we do not do that, we will continue to argue about these issues. it will be personality dependent. i was fortunate to have bob gates and mike hayden and keith alexander and so on. we were able to work it out. we all wanted to work it out. it leads to the personality of the players. it can become very dysfunctional if those personalities do not mesh.

>> welcome to our current dni, dennis blair. we look forward your comments. >> i am reminded of when we were debating this in 2004 in the situation room in congress. i, along with many other people, argued that this person needed to be very substantially in powered -- empowered. i think we lost that argument for reasons that may be understandable. i do recall in the middle of the debate the senior senator called from the cloakroom and said that he was still searching to the answer the question i raised during my testimony. my question was a simple one. it was, who will really be in

charge into will you hold responsible when something goes wrong? it seemed to me to be a vital question. i have been held responsible a number of times for things that went wrong. as we try and talk about the future and make recommendations, we keep finding ourselves wrenched back to the past for all those reasons. as i think about the challenges going forward, i would say they've fallen to two categories. the first seems rather simple but is not. that is to continue establishing the legitimacy and effectiveness of this oftfice, basically to keep reinventing the dni. agencies and people in them continue to question the legitimacy and effectiveness of the dni.

they do not do it personally. they do it towards the office. they may do it directly when you circulate among the agencies. they do it indirectly by the classic bureaucratic technique called slow rolling. that is exactly what mike mcconnell was talking about when he said it took a year to get what amounted to an important but essentially modest revisions 12333, the bible of the intelligence committee. a little history here, this is normal. when the cia was established in 1947, it took a number of years before it had established itself. it was vigorously opposed by the military, the fbi, and the state department. it was not until the early 1950's that the cia began to take the kind of shape that we came to know during the cold war.

this long struggle to establish the dni is not that surprising. i was say that the job of the dni is harder than it was for the early dci to establish the legitimacy and effectiveness of that office. i say harder because as everyone here has noted, there is this gap between the responsibilities of the office and the authorities of the office. put yourself in the role of the dni. you look in your book every day , you will get your business card. if it could fit on your business card, it would say that you are the president's principal adviser to the national security council and the homeland

security council on intelligence matters related to the national security. that is literally what the law says. if that is on your business card, it would not fit. you are going to feel responsible for just about everything that happens in the intelligence world. i do not know how you cannot. that gap is important thing for all of us to keep in mind. while wall freed this individual from the burden of running -- while the law for this individual from the burden of running a large, complex agency, it also took away one of the sources of the power that the director of central intelligence had. that was his role running a large, complex agency. it was one that was more organically are hooked to the rest of the intelligence community than any of your agency. that was a source of power.

dni's power has to come from some of the direction and source. there are some opportunities around today. the christmas bombing attempt, for example, is an enormous opportunity for the dni in terms of what needs to be done in the aftermath. i may be wrong but i think this is the closest call we have had in the homeland since the dni office was created. when you think about the complexity of that event and the gift that it is in many respects by virtue of being a completely formed terrorist operation that did not work, think about the way it touched different missions in the intelligence community. only the dni by law can take the

steps required in its aftermath to tune up the performance of the community. it is important to remember that the cia director cannot do that anymore. after that event, no offense to the media. if you watched the crawls of the bottom of the cable news channels, for the first few days, it was all about how the cia had failed. after two or three days, he started to see other officials appear. people came to realize that there was a dni and ntctc. i think these were fairly obscure initials' to people at the time. there is an opportunity for the dni to demonstrate it is the only person who can tackle all the things involved. you can bring to a 40 in line with responsibility for all the means we've talked about.

-- you can bring authority in line with responsibility for all the means we've talked about. i would endorse what admiral mcconnell just said on that score. maybe the most importantly to close the gap is by achieving things out of the dni office that no single agency can achieve. what are they? let me list five quickly then i will wrap up. i will start with big ideas and move to narrow ones that are still the important. we think our collection. i am. no one else can do this. -- rethink our collection. i am -- rethink our collection paradigm. no one else can do this. we have arcane methods of collecting intelligence. the adversary understands this. well.

it is probably time to ask the paradigm shift question. that is what is it we cannot do today that if we could do it would revolutionize our business the way technology did in the 1960's. that cannot be done by any one agency. several panelists have alluded to the second thing about who should be the spokesman for the community. only a adni to shape the environment in which intelligence operates. people talk about intelligence as it exists in a hermetically sealed box. you hear the phrase, it is all about intelligence." frankly, it is not all about intelligence. there are a lot of other things that bear on our national security and on the performance of the community itself. there are four major constituencies.

congress, the public, the media, and the customers. they all have to be in some sort of alignment or in some comprehension if not agreement about what is incredibly arcane business is about. if not, something will be dysfunctional. a dni can deal with that. the third thing is to resolve key problems no one else can resolve. despite progress, the community does not yet have an i.t. architecture that permits intelligence officers to deal with the enormous volume expanding every day of information with anything like the efficiency that you deal with it at home sitting in front of your computer. it is better, but any dni that takes you to that level of performance will revolutionize business beyond anything that has been done since the community came into being 63

years ago. number four is to form teams of people throughout the community to approach multi-disciplinary issues that no one agency can deal with. finally, all sorts of issues need to be solved on behalf of the whole community. when it comes to mind is the difficulty of dealing with foreign and domestic concerns and data as they emerged in the area dealing with terrorism. there's a whole question of how you deal with u.s. persons'data is very complicated legally, policy-wise, civil liberties- wise. no one single agency to touch that. someone else has to do it. those are some of the things the future challenges for a dni.

it takes us to the catch-22 question. those things need to be done. does the dni have the authority to do them with the process that is less than a trip to a dentist? i think not yet. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. it is good to see a lot of old friends i have not had time to see. rather, they have been more busy than me i think over the last two years. it is good to see so many folks. unlike most other panelists, i am not a career intelligence officer. i did not grow up in the intelligence environment akin to it as a user of intelligence -- i came to it as a user intelligence and ultimately a policy maker that had to rely on

the intelligence community and its various agencies and actors for information that was vital to the performance of my task. over the course of my time at the pentagon in the various jobs and was then, it boiled down to providing to the secretary of defense and cabinet officer advice about the execution of his responsibilities and obligations as the secretary of defense and as a principal staff assistant to the president of the united states. i come up this issue somewhat differently than the others -- i come out this issue somewhat differently than the others. that may account for the nuance instead of the specifics. little has been said about the additional capability that the might easily have been the additional capabilities. i always think it has been helpful to come back and spensoe

expectations on what we think this human being in this very complex world ought to be charged with doing and how we're going to measure his success. the policymakers are looking for accurate, timely, useful, and often even actionable information from the intelligence community. most policy makers do not look for intelligence. they need information. they need to understand what is going on. the rely on the judgments of the people in the community to provide that information to them. why? the of a hard job to do. the most important policy maker is the president. he has in marietta obligations

-- he has a myriad of obligations. i think one can appreciate he would like to have a variety of instruments and tools by which to accomplish the myriad of tasks. by extension, the president floes his authorities to his cabinet officers. they execute much of the nation's policy on his behalf. i will call them the national security council for lack of a better term. not the staff, but the statutory members. they are looking for the intelligence community to provide information will allow them to anticipate discontinuities in practice around the world as they see it today. i do not use the word "surprise ." the second half of that is that they want information to help

mitigate the consequences of surprise. people often want to talk about anticipating surprises. nearly by definition, you cannot do that. surprise is something you did not anticipate. it is anticipating the discontinuities that might lead to surprise that allows the lead time for the leadership to make adjustments that one looks for. 2nd is minimizing risk and maximizing opportunities for success. where are the risks that we face? i will never forget the long conversations we had with george, john, and others in the community with respect to operations in afghanistan and iraq. how do those problems get minimize cost mark how do we deal with the problems of the north korea? that was a constant conversation between intelligence community and the policy makers.

anticipating and in minimizing risk in maximizing opportunity, we're looking for information that will permit the outlaying of an enduring and stable outcome to whatever set of issues or crises we may face. the outcome should be favorable to our interests. we're always look foing for that help and support. there has been a great deal of criticism over the years. i did not grow up in the community. some of the literature is beyond belief about the unmitigated failures and lack of success of the intelligence community. to me, that is astonishing. i have had the privilege of being associated with them for only a brief period time. i can assure everyone that most of the reported history is not

true. it is full of successes that it is not the place of the community to tell. we can testify to that. when i look over the period of time when i was dealing with them and i talked to my friends still working today, there is no question that the operational level, the community is far better than ever they were. that is not surprising. they about a lot of opportunity to improve their performance, excel, train, learn. these guys are good. they have learned to take information and turn it into action in ways that were never anticipated in the past. they will undoubtedly continue to evolve in the future. at the analytical, creating knowledge out of intelligence -- at the analytical level, it is creating knowledge out of intelligence.

there can be faults or misleading facts there may be more descriptions. from all of that, they're expected to provide information to the policymakers that the policy maker is expected to use to make decisions. he relies on that. despite recent stories to the contrary, it seems there has been remarkable improvement. that has to be laid at the feet of the reform effort in no small measure. it cannot be otherwise. that success is not despite the perform -- reform efforts. it is a consequence in good measure of it. what about for the dni going forward and for himself? when given this assignment. please accept it in the spirit it is offered. i agree with the other panelists.

the -- we were given this assignment. please except in the spirit is offer. i agree with the other panelists. i would argue that the management responsibilities that have been conferred on the dni are for the purposes of fulfilling the assignment. the management responsibilities in and of themselves have little value unless the management is done for the purposes of making the dni the best advisor to the president and by extension to the other members of the nse, the congress, and all of the other operators out there down to the fbi. the dni was not give an operational responsibilities.