iran's television jamming signal efforts and to broadcast their content to viewers online. third, the u.s. should invest in a wide range of sir couple vention technologies as we've discussed. and as i think we mentioned a couple times now, the administration has set aside $20 million to invest in this kind of echnology with a particular focus on china and iran. . organizaons, not just one or two. and to spend it based on the technical capacity of those organizations rater than their political ofile. d mrschmoke of internet freem is mart congress' voice act wh regrd reporting hasbeen a viable state. t agn, a lot more needs to be done toove past the announcement of concern fr internet freedom, but to implement these als to spend that mney. .

opportity for a big new visa program. if ia thinking of ws to really rch out t the ranian people in compelling new wys to convey oursuport r their aspiration the goals, their concerns, wouldn' -- find creative ways to offer n classes, new classes of jesus o studentsnd culturalews. this is something iranians are calling for. so we can shae go. it highlights u.s. interest and engag in ins rather than appearing to fear iranians or thecomple it will highlight our openness, and by proxy our genuine interest in helping iran to emerge from international isolation. the number of iranians who would apply a percentage fee says would show their current frustration with the state of affairs in their country. this is a demonstration technique used in eastern europe toward the end of the cold war.

finally, we should talk about assistance in developing a democracy. when i speak with iranians, and very few times to they say, "we could really use a grant." usually, when they are asked how the u.s. can support their aspirations, it is couched in terms of, "why can't president obama engage more on this issue? why can't the administration do more to creatively call attention to the dramatic work of human rights activists in iran?" assistance is important, and we can leverage that ineffective ways to strengthen the opposition -- those standing up for human rights and democracy. ocracy many of you know the obama in the way we brought a shift assistant human rights and democracy in iran. rather than iran

the bush fund was trumpeted as a regime change fund. the obama administration set up a regional body which provides quiet assistance for iran democracy program as part of a larger basket of aid. administration officials would tell you this provides flexibility. it is quieter, more subtle, less obnoxious. it sounds different than the regime change strategy and narrative of the bush administration. the reality is that few outside of washington care how funds are disbursed. the question is whether the u.s. is funding a valuable work that is being done. i think there are concerning signs that the administration has backed away from supporting worthwhile organizations seeking funds, including the yale-based human rights documentation center. that is a problem. i hope it is a case of first year pickups, rather than eight

problem with selecting capable organizations. this is part of our larger effort to support the legitimate aspirations of iranians. let me close by coming back to president obama's words in cairo. he echoed them on the campaign trail, actually. in the campaign, president obama said it is contingent upon us not just to talk about what the u.s. is against boat to articulate what we are for. it is incumbent upon the u.s., in our engagement in iran, where we have security interests, to articulate not just that we are againss the nclear program, but that we support things. what are we for? >> thank you very much. a pleasuret introduce micha. miael is a fellow of the washington institute.

those of you arou washington may remember that he was a former senior director for the middle east afairst the nsc. is also taught at harard where he le the iran working group, at the kennedy school of governme. >> i want to thank the democracy counsel for putting on this important event. you see a lot of statements in the media that the green movement in iran is dead. i think it is important that events like this call attention to the continuing struggle going on in iran. i want to talk about what we have learned -- what the united states has learned about dealing with iran, about their strategy over the past year, vis-a-vis the struggle that is going on inside. i think ttat what happened on

june 12 last year and afterward took a lot of iran experts in washington by surprise. not only the results of the election -- i think some manipulation was expected. i think the scale was perhaps surprising. the result was 85% turnout, 65% 4 ahmadinejad. none of us expected that level of brazenness by the regime. i think the outpouring of passion in the street was a surprise. people did not -- did not anticipate it. the challenge or failing notions about both the regime and the opposition in iran. maybe we should not have been so surprised if we had been paying attention to iran in history. i think there is something going on that follows a pattern in the iranian history. when there is oppression, you do see coalitions formed against

the leadership of iraq in the past -- of iran. in the islamic revolution, those coalitions were broad and took time to form and coalesce. i think we can say we are seeing somethiig similar now. i do not think we can sit for certain what the time line will be or how it will play out, but i think this is something that recurs through iran in history -- to iranian history. i want to point out to lessons and say maybe what we should do, going forward. the first lesson, i think, is that the iranian regime is an insecure regime. it does not see better relationship with the u.s. as a price to be one. that is evident in the election

results themselves. as i mentioned before, it was a brazen result. it was not the result a confident regime would have put out. it was a statement by the regime that they would not tolerate any challenges. it was seen in the aftermath as well,,when the regime -- i think many of us expected that the supreme leader would perhaps try to balance different factions, try to move more towards the center. it is something he had done in3 predecessor had done. instead, he came out very firmly for the president and took a very clear side in the struggle, not only against the reformists but against other conservative factions who were uneasy with what was going on. i think that we saw in the aftermath of what happened that many observers posited that what will happen now, after june 12, is that the regime will be more

eager for a nuclear deal. theyywill want some form of international endorsement or a solution in the wake of this challenge to their legitimacy. we did not see that. we saw greater intransigence. we saw, for example, an offer put on the table thattmany people feel was advantageous to iran and the regime. the regime have come back to it in a different manner. even small steps towards the united states have been seen as a threat by this regime. they are worried about what an opening would entail. the second lesson for u.s. policy is that we have to accept that the prospeets for a u.s.- iran deal have diminished and not grown over time. my perception is that the administration here does see

this. some of the steps we are seeing now represent a sort of realistic view towards this. i think that in the immediate aftermath of what happened on june 12, all of a sudden the nuclear situation became more complicated for the united states. the outburst of political opposition and the internal turmoil gave reason for hope to people who wanted to see positive change, but it was also challenging from a policy standpoint for washington, europe, and others. you had to all of a sudden worry about the impact of u.s.-iran nuclear dealings on the opposition and the political evolution of iran. i think they got more difficult on the iranian side as well. you have to worry about an opening to the international community emboldened domestic -- emboldening domestic opponents and how they would use that. other factors that diminish the likelihood of a u.s.-iran deal

are the increase of rhetoric in d.c. at -- that accelerated since the elections. with such general joffrey making bold statements aboot the opposition just yesterday, that is concerning for people who want to see a peaceful outcome to the confrontation between the united states and iran. the most egregious policies -- support for terrorism, support for the nuclear program, domestic suppression of dissent -- those stand the most to benefit from iran's's isolation from the world community. they also represent the types of pressure felt from the u.n. security sanctions because they do not have ties outside iran.

the purchase taken place since you see traditional conservative factions no longer having much voice inside the regime -- no voice in the inner circle of the supreme leader -- means the supreme leader is most likely to hear from people who want to see a different course from iran. those people are on the outside to him, as opposed to people on the inside. what should we do now for the united states, given these lessons, given the realities that have become evident over the past year? if you look at what foreign powers have done in the past3 do not think the record is very good. usually, whether it was russia, the u.k., or the united states, foreign powers have ended up on the side of the incumbent regime in some sort of effort for stability, or some sort of effort for securing short-term

interests. sometime short-term interest were secured, but long-term interest were put very much at risk by these actions, i think. we have to be careful to avoid repeating those mistakes and further alienating the iranian people. i think that what international policy has done on this issue over the last year has disappointed the iranian people. i think we can still redeem ourselves by focusing more on this issue. we have, i think, been presented with a misleading choice when we are presented with a choice between focusing on the nuclear issue are human rights, as though the nuclear issue is a strategic issue and human rights is a moral or altruistic concern. i think these things are mutually compatible. they are not mutually exclusive. in fact, our best hope for stability in a run and run's neighborhood lies with the

sanctions or other tools at our3 supporting the iranian people and human rights becomes a strategiccimperative over the long term for the united states. that said, i think what it points to is things which have been discussed in much more specific terms so far in this panel, which are a much greater effort to elevate the human rights issse on par with the other strategic issues the united states deals with with respect to iran, and to putting more effort into supporting the -piranian people in their struggles. >> thank you. some very good food for thought, there. it is my pleasure to introduce one of the most thoughtful and insightful iran analyst in washington, geneive abdo. those of us who follow iran have been reading her writings for quite a long time, longer than

we would like to admit, perhaps. she is now an analyst at the new century foundation and has experience at the un. for those of you who have not read her book, "faith and freedom in 21st century iran," which has been out for a few years, i urge you to pick it up. >> thank you very much for the invitation. invitation. i thought it might be helpful to spk just biefly about what sortf where the state and society stands at this mment before s i think it might be helpful to speak just briefly about the statee it is a trend to talk about u.s. policy toward iran to avoid of what is actually happening in

iran. i think it is important to do that as a starting point. just building upon the very important analysis that michael just offered us, i would just like to add a few points to that. one is that even though, as michael mentioned, we have seen guard and are seeing the militarization of the state, certainly more so now than in the last 30 years -- that is a difficult problem for the united states, as to run becomes more of a military dictatorship. there is something else that has developed inside the system which could be helpful -- could be a point of pressure or offer western governments some leverage. -pthat is the fragmentation of some of the key figures within the regime, the internal rivalry that is goong on now inside the system. this rivalry that i am referring to is not a rivalry between the

conservatives and the reformists. it is the rivalry that is now the stabilizing -- now destabilizing the system itself. what has happened over the last year is that we have seen the circle around president ahmadinejad narrowing. weeare seeing, for example, that major players that founded the islamic republic, such as the former president, are being marginalized. there is marginal as asian of political elites that have been pillars of the system. this is very important politically for iran, because if we are going to sort of look ahead a few ears down the road, when for example hamineh dies or becomes ill, the fragmentation we are seeing now will create some instability. as michael explained, the power

structure now really focuses nearly solely on hamineh. in the past, he ruled by consensus. since he became supreme leader in 1989, he tended to balance competing forces by playing one institution against the other. this is how you maintain stability within the system. this is how he was able to rule by to some degree a consensus within the limitations of the structure of government. now, this is not easy to rule by consensus in any longer, particularly because of this rivalry we are talking about, and particularly because you have the marginal edition of political elites. you have part of the critical establishment -- we are talking about something founded as an islamic republic. you have part of a clerical establishment that is against the regime. this has been the case forever.

but now they are publicly opposed to the regime. this is damaging to the state, that you have cleric's during this period this is causing -- this is significant in terms of the regime's legitimacy problem. you have society pondering how this country can be a republic. that is important. they are asking the questions for two reasons. there are far fewer clerks in power since the constitttional revolution. the other reason is that because of the human rights violations that have occurred in iran that are now public because of the internet, because of international media, society is declaring that this system cannot hold. i think this internal destabilization is very important in terms of any sort of iran-west relationship.

given this as somewhat of a background, theequestion is how can the united states take advantage of this fragmentation -- how can western governments use this as some sort of leverage? it is 3 difficult. i would like to note a few.%- things. even though there is destabilization internally, iran believes that it has been strengthened and externally. i would say that until about six months ago there was much more of their relationship between the internal crisis and the extra no crisis. now there is less of a relationship between these two because of the trilateral agreement that was brokered between turkey, brazil, and iran, and because of the u.s. iran believes now that it is much stronger on the international stage, despite sanctions, then it was six

months ago. you might think that is sort of ridiculous. how ould they think they are stronger on the international stage? i think it is because we have seen the rise of an alliance that had not existed before. turkey's role in the trilateral agreement is extremely important. turkey has stated clearly its position. this is in power in iran. speaking in terms of regional politics, the reason that iran feels it is now a world power is -- if you look at the middle east, you can certainly conclude that iran has power in nearly every region of the middle east. it has power within level line, through hezbollah. -- it has power within the region that has emboldened iran to the extent that they believe that they can exist

indefinitely with a hostile relationship with the united states. their relationship to the united states, as its regional authority rises -- the importance of a normaliiation becomes a lower priority. i am saying that not necessarily for people such as hamine, who has always been against any sort of normalization of relationships with the united states, but the political elites of the old days could have engaged. there were political beliefs within the system that were much more favorable towards normalization. that trend now is on the decline as a regional -- on the decline as a run rises as a regional power. they do not see much game in any sort of normalization of global relations. this would mean that not only tteir credibility -- the actors

like tomas, hezbollah -- the actors like how mosque and hezbollah -- the actors like hamas and hezbollah do not care about ormalization. so they have a lot to lose. where does that leave the administration, going forward? that is a challenge. i think one of the great disappointments of the sanctions that passed a few days ago is that it seemed that the administration approach to sanctions was that it was a means to an end. it was a way to bring iran to the negotiating table. that option no longer exists because iran is not going to cooperate. they have stated publicly for the last 10 days since the triiateral agreement that if sanctions are passed they will not go through with the

agreement. as of sunday, the parliament is likely to pass legislation which will sever runs -- double civil -- that will sever iran's ties to the iaea. sanctions are stopping any hope of monitoring iran's nuclear program. as i mentioned, even though the at mauna -- even though the obama administration intended these sanctions to be a means to an end in a negotiating process, that avenue has been closed. in terms of what the administration can do that is helpful, i think both andrew and michael have clearly outlined some of these options, one of which is to find some way to empower civil society, whether that is to internet freedom, as andrew pointed out, or whether that is through more civil

society engagement. i think that is very important. from the opposition's point of view at the moment, some of the work i am doing is we have convened a task force between western government officials and some activists who are either directly involved in the green movement or have ties to it. some of the recommendations they have made to the u.s. government is that their view is that if you were to ask us a year ago "would direct assistance take our movement," they would have said yes. now they are in a different place. the state blames the west+ anyway. the -- support in the greened%- movement internally is completely tied to the united states, to great britain. the opposition does not have anything to lose anymore. if secretary of state clinton

stood up tomorrow and said, "we want to endorse the grain movement and show our support for the grain movement -- the green movement," it would have much lesssof a tank than a year ago. the opposition does not have much to lose at this point. the work we have been doing -- i have brought one report with me, if any of you care to read it. i will give you copies of it. it outlines specific regulations that regard internet freedom. this has been discussed extensively at a previous panel, so i will not go into that. believes they could use sometion assistance. the last point i will make -- the second pressure point and the second recommendation of the opposition is to focus on human haa happened in the country over the last year but because this is something that the regime cares about.

the region tears very much about -- the reggme cares how they are perceived internally and domestically on the human rights issue. this is also wwat they care about sanctions, not so much in terms of the practicality, but because they do not want to be placed in the neighbbrhood of rogue states. that is very important for the regime in order to have some sort of legitimacy. the opposition believes that highlighting human rights will put pressure inttrnally on the regime. this is something they care very much about. i hope that has been helpful. thank you. >> thank you. it seems the theme of this panel has been the same as the previous panels. the recommendations to the united states policymakers are that we can and should do more direct assistance and deploy a soft power and look to scale up

the support for civil society in the country. that seems to be across the board, including the request from the iranian dissidents we heard. i would like to pick up on another team -- another theme. there has been an analysis that the united states continues to get it wrong. we talked about missed opportunities. michael talked about our lack of adequate analysis. we keep hearing that over and over again, how the massive outpooring after the elections last year took everybody by surprise. but it should not have. this seems to be similar to commentary from one of your predecessors in the carter administration, who, if you read

his commentary and you speak to him, will say that the 1979 revolution caught everybody by surprise. but it should not have. there were intelligence failures. there were analytical failures. there was a failure of policy makers and intelligence agencies across the board. my question is, moving from what we should have done, can do, should do -- have the mistakes and corrected? why do we continue to get things wrong regarding iran? >> well, it is easy for us to say in hindsight that we should have known that this would happen. i think that it took many people -- it took more people than just the u.s. government by surprise that there was this outpouring in iran that turned into the green movement. i think the way the regime

handle the elections took many people by surprise. but i will say that i think our understanding of what happens inside iran is imperfect. part of that is due to the 30- year absence of diplomatic relations. most u.s. officials of the current generation have never had any direct experience with iran or with iranians. ambassador nick burns, who was the u.s. nuclear negotiator for several years, will tell you that he almost never met an iranian during his time as a negotiator, which is quite something. p think iranian officials have similar misconceptions of the united states, and iranians in general may have similar misconcepttons. this is a tremendous obstacle when you are trying to use diplomacy to solve the types of problems we have with iran. there is no doubt we need to continue to look for ways to get around this, whether it is simply doing better with what we

already have or developing new partnerships and relationships or resources that will allow us to have a better insight inside iian. >> as far as increasing our capacity to predict, i think it is very difficult. it is extraordinarily difficult to understand. it is based on so many different factors, when moments of of people would take place in any given country. that should provide a lesson for our policy. one of the concerns i have with this adminnstration, in several different cases, is that aa a pattern there has been a willingness -- some pressure from governments. we have explicitly said we need better relationships. we need less tension in this

relationship with china, with egypt, in negotiations with iran and with other countries. is that we can talk to these guys, but not these guys -- not civil society, not opposition leaders. we have accepted that. it will be difficult for us to increase our capacity to know when regimes are more fragile than we expect. but as a general principle, we should stand from online that is important -- that it is important to engage with civil society, not just the government -- to have a robust public engagement for a variety of reasons. >> i think that iran is particularly problematic, in terms of trying to form any sort of policy.

it is not necessarily, aside from the fact that the u.s. gets it wrong -- also, it is a measure of how to run has been constructed as a state. it is extremely complex. the problem has always been, over the last 30 years, that the united states has never really understood the situation. even if you examine the reagan. or the clinton. -- even if you examine the reagan period or the clinton period, it is difficult to understand who has power. when i was in iran under the clinton administration, people were meeting iranians here in washington. some of them were academics. some were people involved in the reform movement. i was sitting in iran. at that time, it was common knowledge in iran that this

additional was happening. no one took it seriously. the people who were coming to washington to meet the clinton administration had no influence whatsoever on the government. i think that part of the problem hhs been that at different times when the united states could have taken advantage of invasion moderate conservatives ttey were focused on the reform movement. they thought those people had power. now, we have reached a point, unfortunately, where there really cannot be engagement. i think there have been key moments of missed opportunities because the wronpeople were engaged. >> the question has been asked of the other panel and i would like your thoughts on it -- should the united states government intervene in a run at

all? if the united states does so, the think it would hurt the movement inside iran or not? >> i touched on this briefly. this is a very loaded question. i think it depends on the kind of help, but i think there are morr subtle ways of recognizing civil society and recognizing the green movement. right now, at least as far as i know, the administration has been fairly silent. one of the -- i think that the legitimacy problem in iran is very serious. by recognizing the opposition as a political force in iran in poliiics -- in iranian politics,

that casts a question on the legitimacy of the regime. i think there are more subtle ways the administration could acknowledge there is a viable opposition movement in iran that matters. i think that would be very helpful. i will just give you one example. during the nuclear negotiations last fall, one of the ideas circling around the internet in various blocks within oppositionists -- they were saying why doesn't the 5-plus-1 also have a seat at the -pnegotiation? the reeson that idea was being floated was that their position negotiated with an illegitimate government. the man was not elected. they believed that symbolically this would send a significant signal that there is another

pooitical force that was legitimate, the green movement. i know i have not answered your question directly. it is a bit difficult. many people in the opposition -- there are lots of views on this issue. should the united states come out publicly in favor of the green movement? there is a lot of disagreement. i do not want to speak for them. these are the discussions that havv been on the ground. >> sorry -- i think people have answered this so far. i think intervene is a rough word. i am strongly opposed to the idea of military strikes. it would clearly be counterproductive both for the goals of democracy and human rights in iran and for our nonproliferation concerns. as far as supporting the iranian people, i believe we can and

should. i would say that we are not very subtle in washington. part of the problem is that it is a political selling point here if we use loaded words that are very clear, like democracy assistance. what we are doing is democracy, scoring political points in washington. it makes it difficult to have the impact you want -- unnecessarily difficult. a lot of what we talked about today is smarter and more subtle than that. we are talking about strategic tools that iranian opposition needs to strengthen. we are talking aboot public diplomacy that references basic human rights, which are legitimate and are broadly supported by the international community. we should lovely and consistently trumpet those basic human rights. -- we should louddy and consistently trumpet those basic human rights.

we should support internet freedom and tools that strategically help, coupled with puulic diplomacy and supporting the iranian people, a broader batch of goods that are less loud and. >> just this morning, actually, "the guardian," in london, reported that senior revolutionary guard commanders, some of them in turkey, defected, essentially. the reported torture, rape, etc. they also reported that the regime was so shook up by the that a special plane was put on standby for president ahmadinejad and the supreme leader to be flown tt syria, of

all countries. two questions. has the green revolution succeeded -- had the green revolution succeeded and these leaders fled to syria, what would be the foreign-poliiy implications? there is a school of thought that says that actually from a foreign policy front things would not be much different. -piran would still pursue a nuclear program. iran would still try to expand into an armed nation. the second question is really a remark. you said that a major strike on iran would be counterproductive. i remember hearing the same sort of thing when the united states bombed milosevic in serbia. two years later, you had millions of people on the

streets who eventually threw him out. perhaps not necessarily. perhaps it would actually undermine ahmadinejad's strategy of escalating with the west. >> as i understand the two questions -- if you remove the top leaders of the current regime, what are the implications in iran, as far as u.s. policy is concerned? the second question is more of an analysis of a military strike that may have some positive fallout. >> on the first question, i think that it is correct, certainly, to point out that we cannot assume that if there were a change in the leadership and government of iran that every foreign policy woold change -- every iranian foreign policy.

i do think it is legitimate to say that the nature of any regime or government and the personalities in it have significant impact on the foreign-policy is that government pursues. and the way that they define and choose to pursue their own interests -- i think that the way that this iranian leadership has chosen to pursue its top interests, which are its own preservation, which first and foremost skews how those interests are pursued, is to a sort of perimeter defense policy. a destabilizing its neighbors and doing things that keep the conflict further from its borders. i do not think it would be impossible to think that a future iranian leadership would choose a different way of securing a run pet interests through cooperation as opposed to antagonism. that would affect the approach

to most issues, and certainly the nuclear issue. it would have to, given how important that is to the international community. >> i will add one thing. i think your question is a very important one.3 movement have never really been friends of the united states. it is important to keep that in mind. one gave an interview a few days ago to "al arabia." he is not necessarily for noomalizing relationships with the united states. he just wants a less hostile relationship. that is how he phrased it. he was not necessarily for normalizing relations. he was in favor of a less hostile relationship. it is not reelly in a run pet

interests to normalize -- it is not really in an iran's interesting and norman -- to normalize relationships with the united states. >> force can play as a backstop to diplomacy. but here's my thought on what a strike would look like. this is an abstract. people are doing a lot of thinking about this sort of thing. striking in iran would be different than the israeli strike in syria. this is not just a nuclear installation. this is a variety of the installations that are part of the nuclear process. you could strike on anti- aircraft. you to strike on long-range missiles. this is a big deal. the immediate response you would expect from iran is not related to domestic policy. americans are worried about our troops in iraq and afghanistan,

attacks in the rest of the region, may be a tax on the u.s. at minimum, you will see higher oil prices, which also relates to the iranian domestic situation. you're talking about a stronger fiscal basis to the regime, more subsidies. the other thing of concern is that i really think we have to look at the cohesion of the opposition in the current geopolitical context, related to the u.s. as a threat as an occupier. in the context of a military strike on iran, it is hard not to see a rally around the regime effect. it is not hard to see more regime cohesion and more fracturing of the opposition. i do not think that a military strike would be good, for a variety of reasons. >> we have attempted to date to

compress the security issues, particularly dealing with nuclear weapons. there are quite a number of people in this town and western europe that every day wonder what happens if the irani and ginnie explodes throughout the room -- if the iranian genie explodes throughout the world. iran could give the nod to a couple of explosions in a saudi oil field. we heard about some activities in the western hemisphere, in+ our backyard. there is a tremendous fear that the iranian government has a tremendous amount of leverage with terrooist groups across the world aad that we do not want to release that genie. >> in connection with your

comment about why don't we always know what is going to happen about iran, why are we all wish shocked -- i worked as a journalist for 10 years in iran, starting in 1998. i had to leave iran. i clearly remember journalist's coming to iran -- journalists coming to iran, working with certain features, not going to certain people because it would cause problems with the iranian government. perhaps there would not get a visa again to come back. recently, when ahhadinejad got elected, i remember the firstt interview he had with mike wallace. i was on that team as well. it was very surprising to mike wallace that he completely forgot -- he completely went away from the direction he had,

not to ask the same questions about the human rights in iran or the way the government was treating them. he appeared on "larry king live" two years after that and started to alter the questions from israel to nuclear weapons from iran. he was asked how old his daughter is and when she got married. he was never asked why 300+ people were executed llst year in iran. the western media who go theee, the journalists -- are doing a good job of portraying what is happening, what the society is doing. the american people are sitting here and watching the media. they believe whatever they hear. >> i think that there have been,

over the last decade, two major problems with media coverage in iran. one is that as you mentioned access to information is difficult. of course, there was a period of liberalization in which it was easier to interview people. when i was there, i could virtually interview anyone who would agree, including serious hard-liners. that has changed. in defense of the media, it is a lot more difficult now. i think the position now, among a lot of journalists, is that even a little information is better than no information. if you are there, you want to behave and not get on the blacklist. having said that, i think the fundamental problem with western media coverage in iran is that -- i do not understand the reason, but i think in the case of iran the media tenns to view

iran through a western prizm, much more so than other countries. by that, i mean every issue is viewed through a western lands. women are oppressed because they wear head scarves. all the revolutionary guards support the regime. as you pointed out, all institutions are monolithic. it is a theocraaic state, therefore it is dysfunctional. there will also be assumptions+ and democratic baggage. when i was there, it used to frustrate me because a lot of journalists would go to north tehran, where the westernized, educattd elite live, and would write stories about how all the young people want to drink alcohol and come westernized. that is a minor part of the population.

have never quite understood, when journalists go there, they want to project onto this country their own western values. that is why the coverage is, to some degree, the way it is. a last comment in response to that question. the iranian government asked the public last year -- it was not only very successful in keeping information out, coming from outside, but also from getting from the inside out. i was just in beirut and met with a group of financial reporters who used to be stationed in tehran who were taken out. they had been there for years. they could not move around. they did not have the access. the idea that you can do that in this day and age is a question. similarly, iran has been very effective in gem in satellite broadcasting to the country,

despite being a signatory to international conventions that would prohibit that. with that, i would like to thank everybody. we have heard a very exciting, very interesting debate today. some of the themes that have carried through from this morning to now is that the united states should, could, and can be engaged on levels other than just diplomatic issues regarding weapons of mass destruction. iranian dissidents, as well as analysts from outside, said the united states has considerable soft power to leverage, which is not doing. the criticism from pretty much everybody is that these are missed opportunities the administration needs to look at changing course on. finally, we have seen throughout that the information blockade in iran should and could be broken.

that seems to be the technological means to promote interaction and communicatton. that is a recommendation for what the administration should concentrate on. thank you all very much. i would also like to thank my colleagues who put today's event together. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by nationaa captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> welcome, everyone. my name is david keys. i am the director of cyberdissidents.org, an organization that supports internet activists in the arab world and iran which campaigns on their behalf to try to make individual voices famous here in the west. we have a fascinating panel today. i would like to go ahead and introduce the speakers. we are going to start with mariam memarsadeghi, who is the founder of tavaana.org, formerly at freedom health. she was at voice of america and social media inside iran.

michael mylrea is the director of the cyberspace democracy council and was a research director -- or is -- at the u.s. cyber consequences unit. the panel is going to look at independent media wiihin iran, particularly how the green movement has utilize technology to their benefit. as i see it, there are too broad strains of thought to this. there arr skeptics who think nothing much has changed over the years. then there are people who think everything has changed. undoubtedly, there has been an explosion of the internet not just in iran but throughout the region. but the spread of technology is not the end all and be all. people in europe talk about the fact that twitter cannot build a

democratic revolution for you. it is a tool. depending on how it is used, it can be very good or less effective. this tiie, we are going to look at technology and how the green povement has used it. mariam, please jump in. >> i am going to be talking about how the internet is being used in iran, particularly by the green movement, how the internet was instrumental to the substance of the green movement. i will talk about what united states can do to support the grain movement. -- the green movement. i come at this policy from the perspective that technology happens to be the best way that the u.s. can support democracy in iran. it is not the only thing the u.s. can do, but i will be

talking about technology support and the broader framework of a more effective response to the green movement. based on the introduction about whether people are cyber enthusiasts are skeptics, i am very much on the side of the enthusiasts. however, there are important vulnerabilities that come with technology for activists. we have seen that in iran with how cell phone use to send text messages and images abroad and to each other as protectors did last summer were cause for arrest and surveillance. in the case of iran, in my mind, there is no doubt about the fact that because of the internet iranian civil society is significantly stronger and

significantly more capable and democratic, and a force that cannot be repressed any longer. so, whh is it that the internet a third of the population is- currently on line on a regular basis. that is significant, given tte level of repression that iranians face. irani and cyberspace and the innovative use of the internet by iranians is reflective of its broader social history -- its modernization, its organization, its high level of literacy, its legacy of newspapers and book publishing, and a love of reading. there is a very strong istory of defiant women, despite retrograde laws and policies against women's rights.

there are very strong women and outspoken women. there is love for the arts and humanities. there is a century long aspiration for freedom. there is a large and empowered diaspora and long-held cosmopolitan yearnings. basically, this is a modern society. when compared to the arab middle east, iran remains, despite the type of government it has, a politically curious, intellectually vibrant society. the intellectual elite in the late 1970's led the country and region into a love affair with radical islam. that society is intellectuals. the civil society has reemerged more mature, more knowing, and more liberal for the experience. what we have today, in the form

of the green movement, is a largely had less, broadbaaed social movement that seeks to reclaim religion and the state in a way that reinstates autonomy, and gives integrity to both. it is very hard to speak on behalf of what i belieee is a movement that represents the vast majority of iranians. . . e see ing wrby iranians from ian,on the internetwe know that this movent i indicativef the regime's failure to maintain its base. people w wernstrumental in creating, and brig bout the revoluon in creatingt hard for the ast 31 years, more or less, to mntn the powe ofhe regime have brok from it. that includes the clergy.

for a theocracy that's a ver significan thng to ay. a theocracy cannot maintain its power within the clergy. iranians who do still feel sanity for their religion, wo are still religious, denfied with ayatollah andothes, al of who are dissident clerics, and there are many, many more th i could men. thiss snifican come d it is visib, know to us because of cyberace. so it's notjust the tweting from the dormitories at e univsity of teran, that t disease are at attaing u violently. they're beating us, one of my fries is dead, eyewitnes or i was a part o on titer really on the first sunday after thelection. it thrugh a discourse that started more or less in thelate '90s. at thesame time that the reorm era was bvus he failing. over 100 newspapers and journals

were being shut down. that te period hpenedto inci wih the pneratin of th ea intoiranian society. and all of the civic ganizing to al of th newspers, the book res,the dscussis, that were haening real-world iraniocie in the late 199 migrated online. and what happenedis, to h displeasure of th irn regme, is that once i went online it prolirated. it became much, much stonger, and a high entage of iranians ece aware o what its capacity and its hopes. so a lot opeople talk of h ahmadinejad s a support base among th poor,orthe iternet reallysn't something th most iranians have access to or undetand. that's untrue. youhave eople in even smal villages, and medium-ize viages with internet cés they're going there to read

about ken. ey're ing there to read about others have been in the united states f 10 years now. there's im tothe axis of they have to the liberal i an crties about their government. because of the internet. likewise obviously, the internet has pvided a means a lifeline of support from the outside world. sohey have made very visble to the globe what ist they vernnt iforcing upon thm.e la summer with the prots, the mo wld've vious example is te shooting on the streets of tehran when nonviole civic rotesters were out dending back their ve. thatyber shot captured the world's attention, y ecause someone happed to be standin therwith acll phone, takeit

and sent out to the whol world to see. if iran di't hve that level of technology penetration, no doubthatthat deat would have gone unseen, ut also ore importantly, the iranian regime would ve felt the power to shoot many more pple, to arrest many more people. less visible examp of the power of the iternet if nt liberat at least mitigate the level of repression in iran, is right fter protestseca sor of me an mo. . .

the impact of that murder galvanized people within the regime who felt they were part of the regime who were not among those who have broken off and figured away or defected.. they said we needed to close the prisons. the regime acknowledged that atrocities had taken place there and other hidden prisons. however i doing on time? ok. compare that to 1988, 10 years before the internet started to penetrate iranian society. the first supreme leader ordered a mass killing of over 000 political prisoners in a prison.

that mass killing was carried out. to this day because of a lack of technology, a lack of free access to information, many iranians did not even know about that massacre. they did not know if it occurred, how many were killed, who was killed. did not know the ayatollah's ordered the killing. they did not know that who was supposed to be the next supreme leader was denied designation as a neck supreme leader and was subject to house arrest thereafter. it is still very a pain to the iranian population. likewise, the regime assassination of liberal secular

dissidents living in exile in the 1980's and 1990's is still unknown and and reported by western, domesticated media. people just do not talk about compare that to the death of a one-woman in iran's green movement. the country has come a long way, and i think it is because of the access to technology. i will close because of time. i want to talk about the importance of u.s. support for the green movement. sometimes people throw up their hands and say iranians do not want our help or want us to get involved. look. come on. but this is a very mature populaaion. they know full well what is going on. they know what they need from the free world. one of the biggest protests that happened last summer, iranians were chanting, "barack hussain

obama you are either with them, are pressers, or you are with us -- our oppressors, or you are with us." in no uncertain terms, the nobel laureate said we need the help. we need election monitors. unfortunately, a lot of important iranian activists in 2005 when george of the bush was president pushed through 7 $5 million for every and took issue with that. -- pushed through $75 million for iran. there are racking their brains frustrated. why is the west not putting

their money where their mouth is and supporting technology for the iranian people? congress has appropriated $20 to support projects like ours, circumvention tools, basically anything that might help the iranian people the a technology. it is not the expense. congress needs to ask why. we need to ask why. if the state department is looking to make the iranian people happy, but it maaes millions hopeless to what they can do. thank you. >> two weeks from now e next round in iran's >> two weeks from another cybattack will follow hitting bks and financial interests shutting off the -- cuttinoff the payroll the

volutionary gud. days later a cyberpenetrationf the country's two largest sateite link will se a text messagto every cell one? -- in iran, electionecou, teone, two, or three if you can'due to intimidation or violce. irian officials wi be ffled. not only wilthey know e soce of the text. they will not be abl to sp their satlites om being controlledy a remote source. when election results a texted back, the relts prove he had wothe votes. the gen movement will compment thi new momentum with tecological kw how learned from the last election. reover, thitimey will have greaterupport and capabilities. theirweet content will be funned thrgh proxy svers. this will enable them to circumvent goverentcensors,

orgazed protests, exchange protes will flood through the stres. wellsome of these scenarios ve taken place and others are hypothetical. theyre a vy possible. the lt election in iran gave us is ief gli oe channgattlefield in cyberspace the internet in manyays proved to be the ultimate democratic to giving voice to the voiceless and filitatinghe ee exchange of ideas and information in iran. withdditiol suor the internet can be used more effectively to promote democracy and human rights in iran. one year after the j election, the iranian government d opposion forces led bth green movement have been battling each other in cyberspace during this time the goverent iran andheir opposition have been exangi cyberattacksn each other's websites and blogs. opposition forces knoed down

them for a consirable ount of time. the government slowed bandwidth and blocked social networking sites. cyberdissidents in iran continue to leverage cl phones, email, new media blogsand social twkingites to subvert the current vernment'snterce r opposition. they have aleen distributing swear lik tore and hayack to ciumvent censoring and monitoring. cyberdissidents in iran are not alone in this battle. over 25 countries cnue censor cyberactivists. while the proferationf information commicion technologyas shifted the balance power in for o cyrdissidents, thece an uphill btle as rressive governments responto their efforts with violence, intimidation, and advces in their techgical press. certainly cyberdissidents in iran need and want our support with this al in mind, i started workiith rdsident demracy counl and mber of oer

activists to develop a solution. one thatas dand-driv by activists rking on the front nes. wetarted desig a proposa for a web based distribution hub for cerdissidents inra and other restricted environments to overcome t chaenges of censorship a monitorin the proposal and visionlding aistribution platfm spread a etra of ol tactics and techniques currently being use to circumvent censorship. our design cria was also driven ba couple of important guelines. for one, our website will work as a hub concting us to smal indepennt social networks of trust instead of one large proxy se. is is advangeous in that it provides a privatenetwork tha can used in tru fends using enyptic messages. second, the hub would str to intain the confidentiality and integrity a authenticity of it'srs.

i mean, preservi the green movements and othereform activists assroots a organic nare. needs, challenges, andering e support without ctatinthe movent direction. in oerolize this goal, we will draw an experienced of dissidents of best practices and rcumventn. at iwoing annot. we'll filln the gaps and buildingexisting curriculu ol kits and know how. it will beailoredo facilitate democra pmotion in t field and qui adapt toverce vernment censorship. to realize thi -- these goals wel maintain four isolated web based pro serve to sport advocates dissemination, accessility and coumption of material on the hub. th increas support and vision, i'm hopeful about an. ift tookkhomeini over 15 years for messas to spread through word of mouth, speeches

and cassette tapes,'m confident that the internavvy greenovt time for change is on the horizo but it's a new kind of change. that will dawn in this technoloera. in conast to the revolution in t green movement today presents more of an evolution demanding cstitutionalights and reform as opposed to a revolution or letehae and overthrow of the existing government in response to t growing resentment ahome, the iranian governmentnd its supporters have pron a tougadversy. e year after the election therare more joualists and acvists in prison thanny time irecent hry. while nonenows ectly what direction change will occur, one thing forsu, iranians today understand that they will determine their owfate. solutions and support that are demand-driven and all the iranian people tshape their own future are the most helpful. among those solutions, certainly, the internet ll

play an important part. thank you. >> well, thank you. i just wt to let everyone know that the coordinator tie colors were not intentional. it was completelcounty. -- coincident. >> iou have worn green ties. >> torrow marks the first niversary of iran's disputed election. it was on is day tha many irians wto the pls with the hope for change. change in cose. just a day later allhose hopes were completely shattered. therhave been a lot talks out a rigged eleion. wanto make an sumption re. ma aunlikely assumption. at the electn s t rigg. and, in fact, mahmo ahmadinejad n re-ection by a significant majority. wh then?

if that's the case, right now what we' witnessing inside iran is a tyranny ofhe majority. ayhe verleast about the current system. what the iranian government is doing ccomplish thats on violently suppressinghe iranian people who oppe them and critize them. and two, by shutti down all the communication doors. one wa commucation doo, a very good examp would bvoice of america, which its signals are bingjammednd voice of america is fighting back, of course, wi other tv channels. would be intert as a be exame which again is bng blocked by the iranian government relensly. aniraneen oicially named as one of e enees of the web multiple times reporterwithout border i personall bieve the role of informatn communicatio technology in the post-election chaos has been completely underestimatedy inteational

communy. why is that? becae, uortunately, ere's t a lot of iormati flowing ou there about the signicant frequency of ierviews insi iran. and a lot ofeople think that inet usenot that elaborate inside iran but it's absolutely the other wayrod. iran has one of the highest petration rates of intert use among all the counies in the world. it actually holdne of the largest population of internet users in the world i believe itmong one of the top 20 in the d. ong the top 20 internet-using untries in the wld and holds the faest intesi pulation. faest-growinpopulation in the world and that's even higher in the united states and many, many other couries. sort of that just shows th the facts are the. an we just need to let everyone know that iranians are very keen

in usi internet. the other par is that just t fact that the iranian government has decidededicate a lot of resoces to ban a of weites should send a very strong signalhat theranian people are utilizing internet. and it is a problem for the irania governme; otherwise, theyld not he dedicated all its resources ban those websites. this should send a very strong signal tthe internional communy that help will be on its way;therseit's going to be too late. i alsoernay eve that the iranian gernment s caughtp on theac technogy. several years ba, antifilter sowaand ip-hiding sowares would easi work insi iran. people figure out a the websites that they wit all the now it's not like th anymore. the goverent prettmuch has caught up wh all the chnologies that are being sent

inside iran so i persolly believe a nd for a new generation of dital ols need to be deploy. anthat definitelneeds international community suppt. otherwise, if we don't move fast, all t windows and all the communicationoors wld be shut very soon by the iranian govement. and i think by then, the irani government can easily surpass all the forts that the ternational community is putting in place to help the iranian public. >> so it sous likee have cyberenthuas to myightnd a cyberskeptic on my right. i want to ask -- eacof you yourpinion on e owing matter. some cou s that -- te most famous inian dissident today but if you ask any american an

ian dissident or bloist i would expectot o in a millioor probably 10 million or 100 million cou name off the top of their head an iranian activist i'm of the opinion until a few fas and a few names a known, amicans won't truly identify with thetories andhe represon. and wn we use words like widespad repressi, it doesn't really say athing but a few voices and a f names do. when i look at the soviet dissidents and i worked for a fe years for someone who snt years inhe soviet gulag, had pele marching for hi sovietissides- they had marches with auaer million people in wasngton f them they didn'tave a fraction of t power tt iranian cyberdisdents had. th were own throughout the world. people held placardsith their faces and a few ople wer lected. how it that ty mobilize so

much powern the west, obviously, there are difference geopotical difference bu is it tossiblehat pont technogday in iran is being misused some way. ybenside ant's working but maybe there's a fai to get the word o of iraand to cus on a few individual voices. so'd like to hear each of your opinions on that. >> i think it's a fantastic pot. and it's something we need ink about veryar i thit is geopolitic some of it it. some of it cultural peaps. e american m ideify with peoplen eastern europe an ssia more ready th iranians. but i think that's a small part of it. i ink the cold wars a big part of it. ronald reagan is a huge rt of it. that kind of ldershi helped to bring the voices toverage,

ordinary iranians --mericans, sorr reag wasreat communicator. and he didn't just commute his eas but ideas from theople behind the irocurtain very we to the american public. president obama, whom i vote for, does not do that. he does not conv our message. he does not coey the hopes and the dreams of the irann people to the american electorate. it's not a priity for him. and it just aifferent tim inmerican politicst seems cold war politics were about. but another reaso maybe more significant is t reasonsave to do with iranian polits. one is that iranians tend to be very insular. they don't reach out and they dot kw how to reach out in effective ways. we need learn.d something i'm hopghat the iernet and a new generation iraans inside and oside of the country can help with that. but anothereasons stragic and tactal.

is moveme, t green movementis headless in many ways mousavi is the leader and hoti is leader butnone of the is rlly leers of the movement it remains a headless movement. it's a congratations broad-basedoosevelt and that can bene of its strengths. it's not a sengthn the inteional arena b it is a strength domestically because it can help sustain theovement. >> i agree with mariam i believe president obama mentioned it very briey in the beginning ofhe cha. for exame, i'll go bacto the neda example. i remember vividly whethat very moment itappened and the video started spreading at light spee we were sitting at voice of amica. i started hearing pele cing arndhe office.

and we realized sothg terrible happed side iran. days later president oba said the was something fundamentally unju about tt deo. i think we nd to see more of those words from pnt oba and from people in th administration to the iranian people that they actually care andheych wh's going on inside ira caus the international community, the inian community watches what hapns in iran. pretty much wereollowers of the twitter aroundhe iranian election because it brought up to the second details of what going on inde the chaos. and then isuddenly stopped becausthey were all arrested. but we could not convey that messe to the internation mea. we could not convey that message to the administtion, i think, as mariam sa, part of it - part of the fault falls on the community. there are very inian activists

who are completely updated on the legislatns. th is also a marijuana cators. problem. we had a problem lettinghe goveme let us know what e demands are. d to some extent the internatnal community is not unied on the demands of the iranian peoplensidiran. there's stillot a very, very clear goal on the greemovement or the gssroots moveme wants. as iam sai ia adless movement. we really, rllyon't kno what they exaly nt and it would be very difficult to coey that message to the administration ink that would be part of the problem. and i want to make a correction. i'm actually under cyberenthusiast. i'm not a skepti >> i agree wh hamed and maam. need d a way to

solidify those efforts and create awarene and eower dissidts. and atequires support. >> i guess theuestion we have to ask ourselves is how do we make neda famous fore she dies? and thinking of iranian efforts to highlightndividual caaigns, i cannly think really ofma and oths who also died and became more famous. th's kind of somhing i would submit wneed to think carefully about. the second quen i wan to ask then i'll open it to questions from th aude is, turning specifically to the green movement, how arehey tually doing in tes of ung technology inse of iran? if you had to givehem a rank? if you had -- a 1 to , or recommend soing very specific to the green movement because it seems th might b headless but they repsent an awful lot of inians so specically the use of technolo, how d you assess it? >> well, if you want tossess e use of technologiesthey

e high but the success rates very low because of the government of ir's interference. and wiout a k internationa support, technological pecially, their stggs e not going to be answered. th tery hard. because althe others, they cannot utilizeny of the stribution platforms insid ir. so they have to utilize internet anany othetechnologies that's avail to them. back in e days whe my previous generation wantedo overthrow the monarchy shah, th usedalls and cassette tapes d fliers, handwritten fliers these days, we're using w but ey're facebook walls. we're using fliers but they're efliers. so the gre moveme, i ink, has d its best to utili it but ha pretty much suppressed by thean government. and they do need intnation pport on that.

>> i think it's -- it's -- it's -- ii was going to tell thereen movemt what to do, which is crazy, i uld not focus on thnology. i think technolo has been a strength. i think so of the weakness thateed to be -- or the challenges tneed to be dressed e very, very basic things that lei think, before the advent of th internet knew more about tually and exercised mor effectively. for example, when someone is arrested, what deverybody else do? one of th thgs they should do immediately is deaivate the email account. because the first thing tt the intelligence servi does is a people to log into their email and go find altheir friends and get all their formation. cold war-era activists would knhat. but cuent day activists don't know thaas wel they sho alsonow that they ld destroyheir counications regularly. thathey ld he a

decentrazed storage of their communicions. that they shou have ca tes whenhey're in trouble. at they should have alrdy set up mechanisms r wt their friendoutside iran can do r em if th're in prison. before a nonviolent ghering of protest, it doesn't have to be a mass protest, there should be simple one-pa tip sheet that even if the iranian regimeees is no problem. this is a hospital and this is ho're going to talk to doctors. this, this, and this. these doctors arour friends. they're gog to helus. these nurses are on r side. you can go to these houses and these doctors would be locat there. mple things like tt. is what the movement needs. >>orry. high level straty but that's a given. >> if could actually make an extra point. just rectly iran's communication entit w bought by anoer semi government-oed

entity that is very csely alli with the revolutionary guards for the price, i believe, $8 billion. what that alws the revolutionary ard or the her -- or the etity that's cover probably is -- pretty much filter everytng. because all comnition inside iran would gohrough one sgle chnel. and tt single channan be sily, easily ctrolled by the goveme. and i belie they're in the final stages oestablishing that. [inaible] >>eah. so that would allow the iranian goment to filter and ban anything thathey want. so that's that. >> okay. il open it up to e floor for questis. [inaudible]

>> technology or other assistance there's a growing percep in wasngto that u.s. sport is t necessarily beneficialo gros and orgazations, green memt and other orgazations inran. that u.s. -- u.s. government pport, not only publicl diplomatic suprt but also me quiet support endangers activists and taintshem rather than helps empower -- empower themnd hel them do what ey're ing. coulyou cot if that is a tr rlection of -- especially fo mariamemarsadeg a true reflectionrom people on the grouhat you know of. >> no matter wha we do, no maer what the intertial communy does, the iranian gornment is going tont it something western driven and thill cuse people inside of iran as being spies of the west. so it doesn't matter.

they can accuse anyone of any ime nyime that they want to. and wt we're doing a what thnian commun i trying to push for is not nessarily support of the inian people or a certain sect of iran's population. alle're tryingo dos to open thehannels of communication. we're t providing them with weaponry. we'rnot providing them with funds. we'rnot doing anof those things. we'rjust giving them sethi that was takenway tm. they had semi open access to internet. preelection semi. although a lot of websites we blocd. but after the electn it's gotten 10 times worse. hat e weste governments and this administratn shld do is emphasize that they're really not supportinanyo per se. they're nosupporting any movement. they're providing open access to the ternet and open access to formation. one thing they are doing

providing educat people. i don't think based on anying in the world thauld be considered a crime or hurting someone. you'reusovidg educational material. >> agree i wt toffirm the point further. incidents is t revolution anyone who has been an advocate r fedom in iran has been labeled an agent of the west. an agef the great satan. it's 31 years old. the iraniapeople kw that. soell that anne who bei accud of bng an agent of the united states is not just -- not only are they not suspisf that person, that persecom a hero becau the bn labeled as such. so this is our own iernal -- th is our owdomestic prlem, unfortunately. it's not that people in ira are telling thedminisation that no, no, no d't help us 'shat the a some advisorsnd som people re, unfortunately,hose voices hav be popular but maybe more

imantly, the obama ministration is no ready in any case -- i would say that wasn't ready in any case bere obama took office to be that kind opresent. so i think there's ait of, fortunaty --n unethical use ofminority's voice saying t fund, dot anyth because the adminisation is not thatdy to do anythg any way ... he mentioned the voice of america. he said it was our only hope. if the government of iran took that away, we would have nothing left. it shows that the iranian

people want information, want free access to information. we see this from our facebook posts, our friends. every time we announce a proxy on our child -- on our channel, it overflows it right away. it is blocked in 24 to 48 hours by the government. the demand is there. the community over here is trying its best to provide everything for that demand. a lot of times, we have to rely on our own personal ressurces. for example, i give access to people that i trust when they need it. in the post-election crisis, i get access to people inside iran. my computer can only handle one people maxiium. the lack of funding is

they are definitely thursday for international support. at this time, i think that means support for the iranian population. poplation. >> i hnk we talk about the free floof ifrmation and iran, dhowpeopleare tryng to get t information. i think it woul be interesting to actull talk ut how much the iranian government at the same time ispending to spread biased news lies orri to get aait peop wh are to spread the rih word, the activists. ess , we hav lots ofoh bsites which has been esished by the goernment. there are reporthat say there

are 0,000 people, gvrnment ploys inran oly working inernet's, going to differbls, posti diffent pts. can you eborate on the but on thatwhy we're sitting here in washingtonc., talk about, what the iraan government doing at the sametime? >> yes. the ranianovernment is acally literally dedicating all resourcethatthey ave to banng wesiteand formation andinding bloggers addres tm, et cera. thisswhyinternaonal communit talks out it. d really doesn't take any action. you med thatppently money has been approved, but has t been ppopriated. buif ihas been we don't see anything. so that is defitely a problem. i think definitely getting

resources to the matter at hand is very importa the iranian gornnt is doing it i don'e in reaon that the inrnial community should not. [inaudible] >> it was pass within six weeks and iran. and they received access about of $0ilon, if i'mnot mistaken. six r seven weeks. >> the ira governmenthas $500 million on fitering ad ing d buildi the infrastrucure to have hat o si channel of communication. i think thisgoes back o michael'int to the earlier pa iran, the slamic epuic, is outspending the unit states by, i don't know, i think thousandto . if youust lookout, i men,

asid rm t previous panels point abt spending ohas bill anlebanon or nezua or whatever, ju talk about spendfor propaganda for domest consumption's iniran. it incomparable towhat wee doing with voice of america ad radio. however, i think it's importa for us o recognize tat the u.s.ouslways done a lot fo iran in rms ofbroadcaing. right noice of america persian serve is th argest, other country n the world gets as m fo summit as iran so weneed to recognize that even under this administration there is aot going on. it's just the adinisttion eds to recoizethere i a lot going on and it has significa capital, have siificanlevege to do moe. one of tereasons is that president obaa ishily likable. he's the kind f person ranians wa to like. there was a lot of hope that the meage he carriedor americans

was a messe tha h might care for iraniansnd for other thatwant chnge and have t obama campaigned on.that again, i voted for that i am a democrat i am not a. reer ong history of wanting toiticize, iticize moat. far from it. i am just highly disappoied that this aintration is not taking seriously h much capital hasa easil and quickly it can move to be onth side of ranians nd on the riside of history. >> we all know the are many opsiti, iranian opposition tv hannels, which are based in thenitestes. i just want t now, what role did they play in the green movement, d were they efive at al? >> personally think this

sh be considered m prsona opinion, unity in the irann counity, theain product we have a lotof channs, especially l.a. channels that are talking about he exac ti.o issues at the sme an for th iranian people, th comes rather confusi at imes nstead fbeing hpful so that's one major issu and a lot of tvs have eir n politicaagen sometim. anit's difficult for r in poputito acept a completelyiased tv. there are very, ery few unbiased tv channel, at least we can save relatively unbd tv anneh exist. i thinthmaprlem is tat we sometimes unerestimate the intelligence of the iranian peopd e think watever feed them they will agree with. and i thik that's the main problem of thesev statis.

they need to espect t en populand accep at they want quality material. and they should dever th kind of roadsting programming. >> i completely agree. just want to say, >> the green movement changed -peverything. there was a stereotype about iranian opposition that it was so fractionalized and everyone was against each other. there is no political maturity. they're stuck in 1979. everything changed. it can -- it includes every demographic constituency.

every kind of political or civic leader came out in support of the green movement. they are alienated. they are not what it is all about. >> i do think technology could be used to influence the lower economic strata? the have a limited access to information. >> someone like to give some statistics on internet use. it went from a population of 250,000 users to 32 millioo. that is remarkable.

it increased twelvefold. that is 50% of the population. the median age is 27.6. it is a veryyyoung population. you would cover a complete range of people in terms of social class. the problem is maybe there's not enough education for the lower social class's to know where to go or find that kind of information. i think that would be the main problem, educating the uneducated or educating the uninformed. here is the correct information, here is information you can

compare this to. after you are educated, you can make your own decision. it is a very touchy topic.. they do not want to be schooled. it is a very touchy topic. who are you to tell me what to do? the overall iranian population, most of them know what to do. one thing we can do is to actually target higher elites in theepopulation. we do not need to educate everyone. they can take care of the rest. >> many of us have read about technology that was transferred to the iranians right after the

election. 1 million people try to download it and it crashed. i would like to know what the iranian opposition or the peopl3 learn about other communities or what technology is abroad that they can learn from? have they learned from the chinese example? what can they learn and what is happening? >> there are a lot of lessons out there. if it is a matter of trying to figure out what the additional supports are solidifying a. i think there are a lot of lessons in solidifying those different efforts between solidifying the platform which is a robust which would really help the situation right now. earlier.

he interviewed with the main developers. as we looked at it, it was fantastic software. that is the case with many other digital tools out there. the resources are there, when they are not being dedicated correctly. haystack is a good example. everyone knows about it. right now, people inside iran have very limited capabilities in terms of downloading. that is one issue that needs to be addressed. >> it just one more question and then we will take one or two more from the audience. and in speaking to arab blockers, i have for multiple times that the overreliance of technology have led activists to become lazy. you feel like you are

participating but you are actually not. i heard from a very well-known egyptian lawyer from that sentiment. -- i heard three very well-known and chipped it -- egyptian blogger. it was very labbrious to get the literature together. do you see any of that in iran? dec -- do you see a trend that activists behind the computer screen but scared about going out in public? >> it can see by the footage. they are forced to go inside. they do activities behind their computer screens. yes, i would assume that when the to a decrease in the population in the streets.

tomorrow's protests are being cancelled for this exact fear, that peopleewill get killed. sometimes they are forced to go inside. i do not think they fear. >> again, a very good question. right now, the internet is iranian's public square. they come here and do a lot of talking. the discourse on the internet, we cannot underestimate its importance. what we have is 1979. what are these people mobilizing for? what kind of government did they get? the power of the internet is not just treating -- tweeting about protests, but what do people

think about equal rights, women's movement? the discourse in the public square is what allowed them not to defect but to carryywith them huge flocks of the iranian population that created an alternative voice. it is significant because it is a matter about getting out there and taking power back. these are our demands, aspirations, this is the kind of constitution we want. we want to be connected to the world. it is a set of very different political aspirations. >> i agree with that statement. leveraging additional medium is only advantageous. it sends a clear and consistent message. >> i think we have time for maybe one more question.

spending money on controlling social media and knows what it is doing. how do we get the next voice out before they are shot and killed? how do we support these new technologies beyond haystacking? how does everyone come together to find hayytack 2.0? >> i would just reemphasize what i said before. and is a matter of dedicating resources to the correct place. that is the most important thing, and i cannot emphasize enough. we have a very capable iranian population. to some extent, these are

becoming a unified source and that is the fruits of the grass -- root of the grass-roots movement. that is the only thing that they need. >> with additional resources we could solidify these techniques and tools to hell build a secure and robust platform. i think that would be very advantageous to support the reform movement right now. >> i think there are two answers. politically, spend the money appropriated by congress. do so immediately. we cannot ask iranians when they think. is illegal to do public opinion polls. people are tortuued and go to prison for doing so. however, if you ask me, if we took a poll of iranians living

in iran, we have this technology. you can have free access to the internet, safe access to the internet tomorrow. do you care if the money comes from the u.s. government or if it comes from x, y, or z? they would not care. just get them access. also, another answer is it is not just about the access. there are a lot of other things that people need to know.3 that eats to happen. i've written a paper that will be published that is about the board recommendations about what technology support is needed. that is important, too, but at a very high level. congress appointed $20 million to the state department. the have a legal obligation to spend the money quickly. >> i would like to think you

will. i think we had a very interesting panel. if you could join me in thanking them. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thursday, bp ceo tony hayward is scheduled to testify on capitol hill. he the the question by the house energy subcommittee on oversight and investigation on of their role in the oil spill. thaa is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and radio. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down that wall. >> 23 years ago, president reagan spoke those words at the brandenburg gate in berlin. watch the entire speech today on "american history tv" on c-

span3. now, the financial regulation bill. we hear remarks from senator dodd, the banking chair, and the financial services subcommittee chair. this is about one hour. >> let me explain voting on the floor of the house. we will only get underway with chairman frank's permission. we begin opening statements on the senate side. i will make a motion to nominate chairman frank as the chairman of the conference. we will then proceed in the

order we have laid out for opening statements to be made by all of our colleagues that are interested in making them. let me say at the outset that this is not a terribly common occurrence it -- to have conference committees. this may be the first time we have had a conference committee on c-span. i think it is a great value to the public of this country. secondly, the basic text will be considering over the coming weeks is on the web site -- banking.senate.gov and there is a side-by-side comparrson of those two bills as well. those not in washington, you can certainly look at the bill itself in a comparison of the two pieces of legislation passed from the two bodies. i will make a few opening comments myself and then turn to senator shelby.

we will go back and forth based on seniority. when the house comes back, we will go back and forth based on seniority. then begin, first of all, by thanking all of our colleagues. this has been a long few years as we've gone through meetings, formal and informal, to determine what course to follow as we try to resolve the financial services reform is that this country so desperately needs and is anxious to have. public response to this over the last few weeks have indicated strong support for the product we have produced, not universal but strong support. i want to commend my house colleagues, chairman frank, and services committee for the jobs- they have done. i want to thank my colleagues on the senate banking committee, democrats and republicans, that have worked long and hard as well as our colleagues on the floor offthe senate where we spent four weeks over 60 amendments that were considered by democrats and republicans to

produce the final product that at -- that will not be combined with the house product. i think everyone for the work as we try to create a financial regulatory structure to protect oor economy for the years to come. we know what as its stake here. the crisis has devastated millions of our citizens. we know the figures. we have heard them over and over again. 8.5 million of our citizens have lost their jobs over the last years. 7 million homes have fallen into foreclosure or are near foreclosure. millions more were told that their savings for retirement have been wiped out. trillions of dollars of wealth is lost some income that will never be made back up. home values may never come back. retirement savings are gone in a

flash. there is a lot of talk about value. are already seeing some positive signs. portfolios will strengthen again. there are middle-class families across our nation that will be feeling the blows of these losses they have been doing for four years, and years, and years to come. these are problems we cannot walk away from. we must act in this congress. . the ntral questiowet billsow do we restore the fth and nfidce of e american consumer? th core strengththe amican eno is that peoe over the years have had fthn our financial system. that faith has been shhtted in this crisis. the fuamental job tha we have is to o best to bring back coidence and sense of optimism back. to do that, this legislation focusen ur maj areas there has long been aeement on thesareas betweot

parties. the bill will protect consumers from unsafe and enjoy markets, it will end bailouts which threaten the stability of our economy as a whole. that will create and events warning syytem and our economy so there is always someone responsible looking out for the next large problem, as it will pertainly come, an insurer that further practiies are exposed to the sunlight of transparency, including hedge funds and derivatives not working in shadows and compete on a new level playing field. it will restore our financial security so our economy can create jobs and offer middle- class families a chance to build back wealth that has been lost. we begin the conference to produce a final bill incorporating the strongest+ elements of both bodies into a package which can be proud of and that will become the

foundation of our financial regulatory structure for decades to come and upon which we hope our vibrant economy will continue to be the envy of the world. chairman barney frank and i have agreed to continue through this conference the open, bill. , and transparent process by which we have advanced this legislation the past couple months there has been and will continue to be a full debate, as there should be, from its origins in committee to the debate on the senate floor. we extend our hand to members of both parties and include their ideas and legislation. you could go back all the way to april, 2009, when are fast -- on our staff first presented our ideas on how we would like to move forward with this legislation. we have held dozens of hearings to gather, and many of you have participated to one degree or another. after represented the first proposal back in november, i assigned bipartisan working groups to attack the major

issues in the bill. in march, i unveiled a new proposal that incorporates many of those bipartisan ideas through the working groups. beyond that, have worked everyday to keep my colleagues informed in every step of the process. was the product of collaboration, and many of my colleagues before the debate began, that debate lasted nearly four weeks and 60 votes were held on amendments from democrats and republicans. one of the many that passed was the shelby-dodd to end bailouts, one of the most contentious issues of our proposal. this represents an extraordinary pime in the senate banking committee. we are participating in two conferences at once, this bill and the house foreign affairs committee. the last time the banking committee held a conference was in 2003. only one of two conferences

completed in the four years at a good friend was chairman of the committee. continue in that spirit of bipartisanship, the minority can be as vocal as the want. we need to ensure the long-term stability of our financial syssem. i don't want to see the bill weekend at all. today, chairman frank and i present this to you. it is essentially the senate bill with a valuable additions to our colleagues in the house. the text is not the final word, obviously, it is a jumping off point for what i expect to be a series of debates. this is a conference committee and there are parameters in terms of what is and is not within the scope. what is and what is not germane. i would expect changes to be made in the coming days. it is our intention is possible. not only do we want people to know how we are proceeding, but they have the right to know what

we're doing as well, and continuing to place this debate before the public i think strengthens the case for our strong financial proposall. many expected the senate bill to get watered down. as we proceeded to the floor of the senate. that is not what happened. our colleagues voted to strengthen the bill, adding reforms. it is our hope that this conference will meet the same results. a warning to those who still hold hope that we will at the end of the day let our bill be weakened by lobbying. this bill, made so strong over the course of last year, will not be weakened. this is a very strong bill and it is time we get it to the president's desk for his signature. even as we sit here today, the rules of raw street have not changed and the same turmoil we saw in the fall of to the snake could eeerge again if we fail to turn this legislation, if we to fail to turn this into law. consumers can still be misled to

reduce of products. the shadow banking systems to uprights and darkness.. taxpayers may still be on the hook if major institutions. to bring our economy down once again. uncertainty in our economy continues, not just the recent volatility of our stock markets and the continued strain and the capital markets -- in capital markets, but the difficulty the prospective home buyer faces in getting a mortgage or a recent college graduate has facing a job. but some say there is no urgent need to act and we don't need to look as -- we only need to look as far as europe to see that financial instability is very real. we will complete our work in a smart and i hope colubrid fashion o that chairman frann and i have committed to work with our colleagues, democrats and republicans, over the coming days and next week's and weekends if necessary to reach agreement on a good piece of legislation, a strong piece of

confidence and optimism, nation. the failure, my friends, is not an option tall. with that, i see the arrival of my good friend, and mr. frank, let me proceed -- do i have to wait on this? i want to nominate my friend to be the chairman of the conference. i won't make a long winded speech. i think you have done a great job chairing the committee on the house side and i think you'll be a valuable and worthwhile chairman of the conference committee. i nominate the chair of the house financial services committee, barney frank to it, -- barney frank, to be the chhir of the congress. the ayes have it. mr. chairman, congratulations. here is your castle. >> thank you, senator. i accept that and i willlput

forward as a major qualification for this job -- i think it will serve us well. the house is finishing up votes on the fha bill, and i will go back for one last boavote. let me echo what the senator said. this will be very open process. i think all of us will agree, nothing will be put into this final bill that is not advanced, openly debated, subject to amendment by the conference process, and voted on. the conference is a unique american institution because we're the only part of the world that has to do when bilateral some in his legissative body. and its legislative body.eralis-

it requires a degree of reconciliation, and i beliive we work. i thank you, senator, i wiil be back after resolve any doubt in the minds of the people. >> mr. chairman, we are in the3 before the senators go with their opening statements, if i might briefly make mine? >> i have made my statement. next would be senator shelby. >> mr. chairman, i will wait until after senator shelby has completed his opening statement. >> i recognize senator shelby from alabama. >> thank you chairman dodd. the legislation before us will have a profound impact for -pgenerations to come. therefore, much has been made of the wall street versus main

street narrative by some of my colleagues. that has been my experience over the years that wall street tends to take care of itself. whatever congress decides to act in the law. in other words, wall street i think does not need democrats or republicans to protect its financial interests. they will do that on the run. there is a history of that. what congress needs to do, i believe, as major wall street is functioning in support of many streets ability to grow jobs and the economy. we should make sure wall street is never again the beneficiary of a taxpayer bailout. i believe the draft a bill before the conference committee undermines that and ensures the latter. before we are done, i like to see this conference produce a report that will protect consumers, end bailouts for good, promote economic strength and our financial system, while preserving the competitive edge

in the world. if we accomplish these four things, it ddes not matter to me whether wall street likes it or not and i will be happy to support it. before those goals can be realized, the ssnate and house bills each require significant changes. before proceeding to some of my substantive concerns, but to talk about the process that has been mentioned. chairman frank has emphasized his desire to make the hearings open and transparent. in response, by senate republican colleagues and i wrote to chairman frank and dodd expressing our desire for a completely open and transparent conference. i don't think we ever received a response to that letter. perhaps we will today. at this time, i like to ask unanimous consent that are better be made part of the record. >> so moved, so permitted. >> unfortunately, mr. chairman, it appears we're off to a rocky start because this was

negotiated and compiled behind closed doors, without any republican participation. in fact, we only received about 2.5 hours ago. granted, are respected chairman has canceled a number of public meetings, but i suspect and hope i am wrong there have been a number of private meetings where courttd and drafted without any public access or republican input. it appears o me at this point the only facet of this conference that will be published is when the republicans get our one and only chance to amend what has already been decided by our democratic colleagues behind closed doors. mr. chairman, we both have participated in many conferences over the years and i fully participated fully appreciate the position and a minority party is and when the bill reaches this stage. if we proceed in this manner, assertions of openness and transparency will be fiction and meetings like this will only serve as political theater.

while i have no illusions on how this process will unfold, some of us can count, which should at the very least be open with the american people about what is happening, where it is happening, and who is making the decisions. mr. chairman, i like to set a word about our time line as well. the new york times on monday reported that chairmmn frank was urged by the administration to produce a conference report by june 24. around the time when the president expected to leave for toronto for the g-20 meeting. such a target is ambitious. while meat -- while we may complete our work by then, i would hope we could all agree that our schedules be dissipated py the needs of the financial system, our economy, and the american families and businesses -- dictaaed by the needs of the financial system, our ecooomy, and the american families and businesses, and not arbitrary travel plans. for this bill achieves these goals, but it is to be changed

because the house and senate versions are incomplete and unnecessarily overreaching, i believe. but the senate and house bills effectively leave the heavy lifting for regulatory reform to a future study and rule writing for a host of new regulatory bodies. most of the regulators of the same ones who tragically failed us and the run-up to the recent crisis. let me remind my colleagues here one of the main objectives of this legislation was to plug regulatory gaps and streamline our regulatory structure, yet we still have the fed, the fdic, the sec, the cftc, and the occ, and most of them will expand in size, power, and scope because of this legislation. these bills add new letters to the alphabet soup. so much for streamlining. more often than not, this reflects a series of deals made by the executive branch, along with the financial existing

regulators who failed to do their jobs during the last crisis. the bill i think we are considering is filled with undefined terms, leaving us with failed regulators to ddtermine whether a company is "a threat to the financial stability of the data states" or or is "in danger of result" and is eligible for of the special proceedings. these are just two of the vague and undefined terms. the most egregious example of why this legislation has to do with absolute neglect of any serious treatment of the government-sponsored enterprises as we know fannie and freddie, the of gfc's were integral players and the collapse of the housing market that precipitated fear, panic, lack of trust, aaa ratings, and the freezing of of the financial markets and economic activity around the globe. the ensuing crisis led to the destruction of millions of jobs

for americans and evaporation of ttoys of dollars of household wealth and retirement savings. to date, the ballots have cost the american taxpayer roughly $150 billion, and accounting, among the largest bailout in history, with no end in sight. -- and counting, among the largest bailouts in history. if the chairman wants to achieve some openness, be open with the american people first about why you are refusing to address this issue. i believe this is a liberal act dream come true. provvsions of this will provide it speciaaist officials to provide free services to select a community groups. this follows the exact same model that led us to the crisis in the first place. private enterprise mixed with

social engineering. we have seen, prove to be highly destructive. by the democrats on the admissioo, the most import facet of this legislation is the creation of this massive consumer bureaucracy. because the democrats new bureaucracy ridges across virtually every segment of our economy and a massive expansion of government influence in our daily financial lives, republicans ask only that its budget and a 40 be subject to congressional oversight and review by the provincial regulators charged with insuring the safety and soundness of our banks and banking system. the democrats' response was a unanimous no. the american people have been clear. i don't think it on a massively interests of, >> continuously run, an overly expansive government -- i don't think one massively intrusive, continuously wrong, and overly expansive government.

that is never good for the american consumers or our economy. aside from onerous new consumer regulations, and other means by which this will slow economic activity is the treatment of derivatives. the legissation will chase risky financial trades overseas and further into the unregulated shadow banking system, thereby magnifying common at reducing, the monitored system with risk. because risk-management will be significantly more expensive, we can exxect lower business investments, which again in the long run means fewer jobs. i don't understand why we would want to increase costs to ordinary end-users of derivatives, such as your home heating provider or makers of candy bars, just to name a few. many will find themselves subject to learing mandates, bank-like capital requirements, and extensive dealer-like conduct requirements. as a result, main street3

that ultimately be borne by the consumers. the treatment of derivatives in this legislation will work i believe as an anti stimulus plan, pulling resources out of the economy, hurting growth, and slowing job creation. this would be unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to this conference. but the senate and house bills essentially deferred how to peddle the limitations on the risky proprietary trading activities of the financial his petitions.3 regulators are to consider implementing a vague notion known as the vocker rule, which i call merely a concept. despite assurances from high- would be provided on what constitutes proprietary trading and what does not, no such clarity has been provided. this is what i call it a concept. this should be addressed with some specificity.

this will grant discretion to the regulators who failed us the last time around and have yet to account for the past lapses. once again, the legislation offers concepts but no definitions, and punts the hard decisions. another example of punting is the treatment of the regulators. the rating agencies and up favoring their fees and market share over their franchise reputation and blessed as high creditworthy what proved to be junk securities. to avoid having to alter the entire capital requirements, the legislation introduces concepts of increased oversight and speaks out against conflicts of interest. what that will mean presently is not clear in the bill. perhaps more hearings on these matters would have been helpful. after all, the aaa ratings assigned to mortgage-backed ensure peace -- mortgage-backed

securities allowed many to fund the operations f financial institutions to the tune of ttillions of dollars. . rs per day. as intvaas rating agencies heecent financl cris, i think it bordersn malpractic not t address ageies more siously. from the beginning of this process, i have maintained the sameosition. we need to determine what went wrong, will could've been avoided, whether anyone should of been accountable, and whether we need to change the law to prevent such a crisis in the future. has said many times in the past 18 months i believe we have not done the necessary due diligence for such a significant legislative undertaking. a member of this conference acknowledges that fact. -- every member of this conferenceeacknowledges that fact. when we subcontract to the commission, which we all know does not complete its work to the end of the year, indeed the

legislation more often than not calls for long adjustments, delays in implementation, times of study, and basically more time. this is the time we should be using to determine the best way forward to ensure the future vitality of our economy, the competitiveness of our financial system, and the financial well- being of the american family. throughout this process, i have encouraged you and my democratic colleagues to focus on the root causes and resist the urge to exploittthe crisis to enact a wish list of extraneous special- interest provisions. it appears, however, the majority will impose their will and this bill will likely become law. at the american economy will once again become a laboratory for another grand democratic experiment and the govvrnment and central management. i'm afraid our economy's prognosis is not good at a less significant changes are made to this bill. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i now turn to congressman waxman..

>> i want to thank chairman frank and chairman dodd and the others who brought us to this point. the strong support to support legislation and the reforms it will bring to our financial system -- i strongly support this legislation and the reforms will bring to our financial system. last congress, we held many hearings investigating the causes of the financial crrsis. it will examine the collapse of lehman brothers and aig. conflicts of interest that pervaded the rating agencies. the mistakes were made by alan greenspan and other regulators. those hearings show government regulators were asleep at the switch, where wall street banks drove the economy over the cliff.

the aaility to respond to future crises, there are a number of issues important to my current committee, the committee on energy and commerce. we have consumer financial protection, regulation of electricity, and other energy markets. i strongly support a new consumer financial protection agency that is independent, has strong rule making and enforcement authorities, and has broad jurisdiction over the entities that provide financial products and services to consumers. both the house and senate bills have good provisions. our challenge will be to take the best of both bills and produce a consumer financial protection agency that has all the tools it needs to be successful. our economy and our families across the country are suffering from the abuses of wall street. our job is to prevent these

abuses so the economic security, hard-working americans will -pnever again be held hostage to run away corporate greed. if we don't pass llgislation, we will be in the situation where we have delegated the authority to the private sector, to wall street, to the very people who got us into this problem and continue doing what they think is appropriate, rather than what is appropriate for the best interests of the american public. i look forward to working with my fellow, for -- to my fellow conferees. i hope this will be bipartisan. on occasion, this happens. think you very much. >> thank yyu, very much. before party comes back, we have a vote in the senate coming uu. i turn to my good friend and

colleague, from the state of arkansas, chairman lincoln. >> hank you so much, chairran dog. i want to thank chairman frank as well and all of our colleagues in the senate to be here today. significance of what we're here financial market reform is the single most important factor in will be the foundation of our nation.. base act that is well over 99% of all we had in the senate bill. only a small technical corrections that are there, and we are excited to begin with that product. everyone here today recognizes the importance of the task at hand, but no one more so than the hard-working families of each of our states and districts, as well as the small businesses on main street.

into the snake, our nation's economy was on the brink of the greed -- in 2008, our nation's economy was on the brink of collapse. america was held captive by the financial system that was so interconnected, so large, ss irresponsible that its failure almost destroyed our economy and way of life. since 2008, we have all talked about the broken financial regulatory system. i like to thank those of the bills will be working on this legislation close to two years on the house side, the treasury, regulators, and all those fighting for reform. there's so much common ground here. i'm very optimistic weere only weeks away from making history, and i look forward to quickly resolving our differences. we have n historic opportunity to reshape how the business of finance is conducted in he u.s. not only here but to provide the

leadership and example globally to ensure both prosperity and the cominn decades and safety for consumers. to ensure that we as a nation to lead the world as an example, to ensure that our regulatory system matches the 21st century innovation that exists and is able to adapt and keep pace with the innovations of the future. we are here to tackle complicated problems and find real solutions. in the wake of an historic crisis, the american people deserve historic reform of their financial system, which we are poised to deliver. iiwill mention a few pragmatic ways in which we can assure wall street the longer benefits while main street suffers. at the heart of financial regulatory reform is reforming the over-the-counter derivatives market. within a decade, this market exploded to 600 trillion dollars in value. we much bring -- we must bring

transparency to these markets. train and transparency are a part of reform. the senate bill required mandatory exchange trading and a mandatory clearing. that is critical we maintain this provisions in the final bill. the senate bill also requires real time transparency to the public and regulators. without robust transparency, the market's one function and the regulators cannot do their information is power, and real- time transparency gives us power to those on main street and across america. the senate bill also requires swap deallrs to put the financial interests of state and local governments, retirement plans, retirees, pensions, and universityyendowments before the run. as senators shall be and representativv boxer are aware, after an offensive this all of

the net that states, including alabama. the senate version addresses this problem by requiring a fiduciary duty that will help provide the main street the same protections that other investors already received. we also must ensure that we adequately address those institutions that have been deemed too big to fail. under our current system, there are a handful of big banks that are simply no longer acting like banks. currently, five of the largest commercial banks account for 97% of the commercial bank swap activity. that is a huge concentration of economic power. in my view, banks were never intended to perform these activities in the first place.3 that contributed to these institutions growiig so large that taxpayers had no choice but to bail them out in order to prevent total economic rrin. the senate bill includes a

provision referred to as section 716, which addresses too big to fail but accomplishing two goals. a first, giving banks backed beginning banks back to performing with the word meant to do, taking deposits, and making loans. second, separating the activities that help with these institutions in peril. this provision mmkes clear that derivatives dealing is not central to the business of banking. section 716 prince assistance. it prevents swapping entities, including access to the federal reserve discount window. this provision requires a bank which qualifies as a swap dealer to push out its swap desk into an affiliate's holding company. this does not prohibit banks from using swaps, to hedge their

prohibit a bank from entering into a swap and original bing alone with a customer. this will ensure that our community banks on main street will not pay the price for reckless behavior on wall street. community banks are the backbone of economic activity for cities and towns throughout our great country, and i know because i have seen them on the streets and town squares of arkansas. they don't deal in risky swaps that put the whole financial system in jeopardy. instead, they perform the day- to-day business of banking, backing the smart, conservative decisions that banking institutions that should be making. community banks were forced to pay for a problem they did not create and they are still paying that price in it 2009, we saw 140 banks failed, and now the cost of premiums are skyrocketing for community banks. higher insurance rates means

less lending. less lending in all of our committees, he small businesses that could grow the jobs that are states and nation desperately needs. this means small businesses are also paying the price. the fdic reportee that in 2009, the bank industry reduced lending by 7.4%, the biggest decrease since 1942. i'm a strong believer that we will build an economic recovery from the ground up. if small and medium-sized businesses are not getting the capital they need to grow their businesses, someehing is wrong. the economy simply will not recover unless we free up lending. americans are demanding transparency and accountability ffom their government and from their financial system. we are here on their behalf, and i know we all take that responsibility very seriously. america's consumers and

businessessrequire strong reform that will ensure that we promote and foster the most honest, open, and reeiable financial markets in the world, and i look forward very much to working with all of my colleagues today to reach that goal. >> think it, senator. -- thank you, senator. i will now recognize the representative from alabama. >> thank you for conveying this conference. republicans are glad to be here to share ouu views with the american people. the legislation we are considering is not based on the tradition of opportunity, innovation, competition, and personal responsibility that makes this the strongest and most resilient economy and world. the president tells us that government cannot and should not replace businesses as the true engine of growth and job creation. however, policies of this

administration and this legislation all elevate the role of government and diminished the role of individuals and companies to make choices for themselves. having made those decisions, assume responsibility for those choices and succeed or fail as a result. if you take away the opportunity to fail, it also take with the opportunity to excel. just as in the past, this is all done cloaked in the language of protecting us by empowering the government to decide many of the basic aspects of our lives. the american people need to know that the very wall street that you claim to be reforming actually supports critical parts of this legislation. it is wall street, not house republicans, who support the majority of tte permanent bailout of florida, guaranteeing big banks will only get stronger and more powerful with the bailout afforded this legislation institutionalizes.

there will be two . costs. one will be a pocket book cost to every american taxpayer. section 210 could cost the american taxpayer on told troy is of dollars. -- on told trillions of dollars. as this graphic shows, for the six largest financial institutions alone, this would amount to more than eight trillion dollars. that our government is authorizing to bar. it is difficult to imagine a greater cost than this or greater exposure to the taxpayer. nonetheless, there is one, the cost to our citizens of freedom. no one argues there is no role for the government use legislative authority to protect individuals.3 important. the question is how to what extent that legislative power should be exercised.

one legislative scheme after another, decisions by the government are being substituted for what should be decisions by individuals. choice to make. it would continue to be in asian organized around the principles of free -- will we continueeto be a nation organize around principles of free enterprise and individual and rewards determined by success or failure in thh market, or will we move further toward a managed economy, expanding government bureaucracies, and perpetual subsidies to the majority's political allies at the expense of the taxpayer? we remain the strongest and largest economy ii the world. our economy is more than twice as large as the next largest economy, and > the next 4 combined. our strength is our people, not the government. it is my belief a vast majority of americans won a future where they can use their own efforts

to create a better life for themselves and their families -- for their family. that is when we are at the best, wwen we the people, not the government, are ultimately in charge, and regardless of the outcome of this congress, that is the future we will work to achieve a i hope you'll join us. >> the next speaker, the chair, senator chambers. [inaudible] >> without objection. without objection to that, too. >> i knew that would make iraq happy -- i knew that would make you happy. everybody wants to make sure that at the end of the day, we come out of here with a conference bill that addresses the issue of too big to fail, not that allows us to not get

back to thh situation that we saw an 2007-2008, even 2009, but there are some provisions in this bill that certainly treat main street financial institutions exactly the same as wall street institutions that are not only going to have a negative impact on the financial community but will cost jobs both within the financial community and outside. our economy needs more opportunities for all businesses to grow and prosper. time and time again, it is the small and medium-sized businesses that create the lion's share of the jobs every major economic recession. we need to foster and incubate these small and medium-sized businesses now. we need to ensure they're able to access capital and diminish their risk through the use of derivatives. right now, there are a lot of these small businesses right to expand bbt cannot get adequate access to capital because lenders say it is too risky and

regulators will not allow the lenders to help. is there anyone in this room who could tell me what this bill does to improve the situation facing main streee businesses? i dare say you cannot, but i can think of several things in this bill that will make the situation on main street much worse. derivatives are risk-management tools used by every industry in the country. most are not systemically risky and have nothing to do with the furniture crisis. why do we want to subject them and their customers to the increased costs of clearing their transactions? there are any number of examples that we could give with respect to the use of derivatives, but the municipal gas authority of georgia uses it to protect customers from market price fluctuations. they have estimated it would increase costs by about twenty- five cents per million btu's.

this is the equivalent of doubling the cost of a state pipeline transportation and would essentially raised distribution rights by 10%. clearly, this would translate into higher natural gas rates for 243,000 customers in georgia, alabama, florida, pennsylvania, and tennessee. increased costs can sometimes be justified if they are accompanied by benefits, but in this case i have yet to have anyone explain to me what benefit we get for making the municipal gas authority of georgia clear their derivatives transaction. there is another situation regarding and natural gas company and the state of arkansas -- in the state of arkansas, where exploration company estimates that in 2009, under the provisions in the bill passed by the senate, it would have drilled 240 fewer wells,

resulting in a loss at of economic activity. obviously, with unemployment approaching 10%, which should be more mindful of this impact before we rush to on necessary -- unnecessarily regulate businesses that had nothing to do with creating the financial crisis we find ourselves in today. as we go through this, we look forward and both the house and senate to working with our democratic friends to produce a bill that will in fact address the egregious circumstances that took place on wall street, but we need to make sure that we do not overreach down to just not main street but the manufacturing sector, into the energy sector, and into every other sector that usss financial tools to provide a quality products to consumers around the world. those products being manufactured in the united states, and honestly, if we don't make significant changes in the senate-passed bill,

which tatarstan is the base bill we're talking about, -- which i understand is the base bill we're talking about, that will be what we achieved. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. today the house and senate begin our long anticipated conference to harmonize the wall street regulatory reform. feelings of anger, frustration, and rage and over the proceeding beeause of the recklessness of financial whiz kids, the greediness of wall street bankers, and the shortsightedness of our economic regulators. congress must respond by fundamentally changing the way that wall street operates. while excess consumption may have fueled the fire, thh blaze had become a devastating in front of because of wall street's exotic financial instruments and excessive risk-

taking. because of financial titans pushed our entire economic system to a catastrophic cliff, congress had to take drastic action. our work insured that average americans could continue to use businesses on main street could continue to pay their workers. critics invoked the word ailout to disparage the emergency action taken in late 2008, but the stabilization of the economic syytem really amounts to a rescue, not a bailout. experts agree that the troubled asset relief program and other similarly targeted initiatives life. while we have not yet recouped all of the money loaned, we have recovered much of the funds. we also have solid plans for once we pull back from the economic process, congress3 plan to comprehensive reform the rules of the road for bankers, securities brokers, insurance,

and hedge fund advisers, and empower regulators with new tools. in this regard, most important task in the weeks ahead will be to end the too big to fail problem. we want regulators to have the authority to prevent and institutions, those whose demise threatens the entire system because they are too large, interconnected, concentrate, or risky, from ever reaching such a precarious position. for this to work properly, the simple majority vote by the council and house bills must prevail over the senate's multi- layered and commlex two-thirds majority vote requirements. the enactment of the street from full or rule will and the problem of too big to fail. it will bar proprietary trading and prohibit investments in hedge funds, a surgical version of the glass stifel act.

together, they will resurrect the barrier between commercial and investment banking that resulted in a stable financial system for 70 years. while we will still allow the mixing of banking and insurance activities, by federal insurance office will effectively monitor this sector by -- from potential risk going forward. in the house, we will better protect investoos and greatly strengthen the powers of the securities and exchange commission. while the senate bill contains some of my reforms, the final package must include many more. for example, we must have the strongest possible fiduciary standard for every financial personalized advice. phe commission's performance has improved markedly. we must consider how fundamentally altered security regulations by including in the final build a comprehensive external study to thoroughly examine the deficiencies of our

current system and identify with further reforms it must undergo. finally, we must a significant increase the accountability of rating agencies who's overly optimistic assessments about the quality of financial garbage aided and abetted the financial crisis. imposing greater liability on rating agencies will change the way they behave and ensure thatt effectively perform their functions as the market's move forward. in closing, this conference marks the culmination of a long series of hearings, markups, and floor debates. as we work towards a bipartisan consensus, we must aid to make the final wall street reform package as strong as possible. >> the senate has a vote coming up. i will go with the senators next so they can make their vote and we will continue.

this will require a process of mutual accommodation. >> mr. chairman, just a point of procedure, we would be going in order. >> with the gentleman object to letting the senators go first? >> i would not mind. >> then we will let the senator >> let me say this -- >> when we -- >> i have 10 different questions about procedure and i will present you with the letter, for the record. >> the senator from vermont. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the committee will resume work on tuesday, june 15, with six public meetings planned. more the financial regulations bill tomorrow with congressman spencer bachus, financial services committee ranking member, on how the bill could alter the financial community.

that is at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. with the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan coming up later this month, c-span2 inside the supreme court to see the public plaaes and is rarely seen spaces. hear directly from the justices as to provide insight about the court, the building, and its history. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, this sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> thursday, the ceo of bp is scheduled to testify on capitol hill. of the house energy and commerce subcommittee on oversight investigation, on bp's role in the gulf coast oil spill. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span radio. >> a discussion on the federal response to the gulf of mexico

oil spill with a former lead reporter with the anchooage daily news during the exxon valdez oil spill. this is about 20 minutes. host: as promised, you are a lifelong alaskan? what to do with the anchorage daily news? whatidou do for the "anchorage daily news"? ll liv i l, i s alas. eporter in 1989, sortf go deployed tth oil was fortunater first nate to be the reer on the beach when the oil hhore. n kd of didn't leave coverin that story, o d that sort of devoped int my career as a ho: from yo experiences in spill, are il there paralls that you see hat yo can parlay now to what's going onurntly in the gul guest: yeah,ithout questn. a lot of the vrmental and techniccl pects are obviously dierent, because you're

environment anoithat's released much farther o in terms of the way we are responding to it, it is shockinn to the similarities. a lot of the causes and the mistakes that are being made are sadly really a replay. peopll have been through feel heartsick. we seem to have learned so little. first, and adequate preparation, a contingency planning, the seeming inability to get orranized, the failure of washington. scientists are muzzled, the

focus of response, and then the basic facts, which don't it will ever be changed, which is when you lose this amount of oil in the ocean, it is hopeless. there are no good decisions when the oil is in the water. you really cannot clean it up. yet there is a need on the part of the oil industry and government to deny that an eclectic and cleanup. or if they can, it is because a problem that happened there. these accidents are going to happen and there catastrophic, so you have to look at it from where do we drill, where do we not real? that is the dyyamic that is playing out again. host: as far as once the oil is in the water, what is the condition that was affected by the exxon spill? >> if you were to go there on vacation, you would say, my gosh, this is the most beautiful place, there is a much what life, hoo did anything bad happen here?

if you want with an old timer or native alberta and looked at it, it would say, there is not as much wildlife as remember when i was young. one reason is there is still oil on the beaches of leaching out toxins that are holding out a reproduction and growth of some organisms. one of the largest and most important fish species has never returned, which is the herring. -pthere was a keystone species n terms of the food chain, and still don't know why it has not come ack, not scientists are still puzzling over a through another failed system that would not do the science early on to figure out now how to get herring back or what happened to them. host: you could ask our guest questions on one of the three lines.

if you want to send a comment by twitter, you could do so. this was about the valdez experience, exxon's role. you wrote, "exxon's cleanup is to reduce this bill's cost. and real world, it's money, technology, did not diminish the oil spill." can you expand on what you are seeing? guest: we have the sense with our technology, and we have the technology to get oil out of the ground, that we can fix problems when they occur. people are seeing the animals die and the people in the gulf of mexico is suffering, but one

of the things that is very easy to forget, from the perspective of our ordinary lives or washington, is the scale of this is enormous. really deal with technologically that covers that amount of area. in that sense, it is simple, you cannot pick up the amount of oil that is ssread across the ssme area as a state. in the exxon case, it was 11 million gallons, maybe more, spread over 5 4 miles of water, 1,000 miles of shoreline. it kept washing off, coming back. there is no way to have that much equipment out there to pick it up. did you get into the desire -- and you get into the desire to be aggressive and continue working on it and appear that the control next time, to show you are able to deal with it. in a case of the exxon valdez, that led to more aggressive techniques that did more harm

than good. it really damaged long-term the substrate that the animals could come back on, killing all the animals on the shoreline, changing the way that the sediments were organized, which could be geneeations, many generations before it returns to the way it was. this is the problem. we know how to make the mask, but we don't have a fixed nature. -- we know how to make the mess, but we don't know how to fix nature. >> can you grade or write the coast guard's performance to date, in light of what you said about what they did 20 years ago? host: i see a lot of the same dynamics. the problem is the coast guard, i admire greatly. i am a boater, and i am glad they're there to rescue me. they remind me of firefighters. they are can-do guys, but they

are in an impossible situation, nominally in charge, but it is not their resources. they have to ask the oil company to do each thing that has to be done, and create a positive reeationship between the coast guard commander and the oil industry, and that puts them in the position of continuously defending the oil industry and our own actions and creating the impression that they are on the oil industry's side. i don't think it orks. if i were the king, i would say, as soon as an accident of this size happens, there ought to be some kind of laws that allows the coast guard to seize the assets in that area so they can truly be in command and they are not beholden to baking dish oil industry for support. when there is discussion about mexico, at roth that allen said -- admiral thad allen said, would get taken over. the same was true with valdez.

guest: british petroleum's host: really, really disappointing. it seems to show a pattern. they had a efinery fire in texas, which killed all those people. they were convicted, the company was a convicted felon at the time. they haddthis bill on the north slope which shut down the entire alaska pipeline, and then this one. pn each instance, we don't all the factions, but it seems to be an instance of cutting costs at the cost of safety. then when this bill hits, it is as if no one ever thought there could be a spill, it is improvisation. very similar to the exxon valdez. i remember the president of exxon shipping sank three days after the spill, we're on the ground, we will get to work. that night there was a storm that blew the oil through all of

prince william sound. if you are serious about this, you have to invest money, build new technology, be ready, and i think you have to have locaa people who have knowledge, who have some oversight and expertise to watch over these activities, creating vigilance. the government and oil industry have proven they cannot. host: our first call is from st. louis. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: i like to ask your guest his thouuhts on goldman sachss and pp's c.e.o. selling stock -- and bp's c.e.o. selling stock days before the accident. guest: i had not heard that. i think all of the incompetents and everything is the last thing it would want to have happened. it is hard for me to believe they would be aware it was going

to happen, the conspiracy theory on those lines. i don't think i'd buy that. ihost: los angeles, good mornin. caller: what is bp going to do with the oil there recover, and what we do with waste management wants to capture it? host: good questions. guest: i am speaking from media reports. there is discussion of using the oil that is being captured as it comes out of the pipe. that is usable and should be able to be refined and sold. that's been discussions about it being used for restoration, those funds being used for a positive way for the gulf of mexico. .

not usable. it's he ulls fewed. what happens ishe water emulsifi the oil, and get this goo stu that's of no use to anne. and ink that has to be osed of hazardous was maals. it cane incinerated, burie but i don't think it of any use to an. typically, it's a er vy good oil spill rovery in a bicatastrophic oil spill if yoget as much as 1ack. or less was actually recovered. and i wld expec it woulbe much less than thi o sll because the sheer magde oft anhow r it spreads. hosta qu shouldn't we all be on the oil industry's siie?

guest: i don't take sides. p try to say over and over again, because of the fact that we use oil and have these corporations that we allow to be enormous, and their behavior is predictable in light of how they are, and the same behavior is it has happened over and over again. what i try to do in the book is taken back to a systemic level. first, i think we need to change or lifestyle and think about the materialistic, energy intensive lifestyle that we live, and rather than boycotting bp, but by a hired car. -- go buy a hybrid car. another thing we need to think about is how our political system works. it is not working to deal with this kind of problem, and we need to change the people who+

are in control from a systemic point of view so that local people, communities have oversight of their own waters. it is nice to punish people and get a sense of revenge and so forth, but it has not proved in the past that we are able to deter this activity. host: when you say change the political front, what does that look like to you? is it overall, branches of government that deal with energy, or specifically these things that have been talked about? guest: we had someone talking about the federalist papers in the last segment. i would like to see more control at the local level. a first step on that was done after the exxon valdez. there was a group created called the prince william sound citizens advisory council, created by congress and given a mandatory tax by the oil industry. had millions of dollars to spend

just to oversee the oil industry. they have no regulatooy power, but just the fact that they care, because that is where they live, and have oversight of that system, has allooed them to find the problems, point them out, and get them fixed. we have the safest oil shipment system probably anywhere in the world. why wasn't that expanded to everywhere in the country at that time? it is like you had an airplane crash at washington national, you would just fix the problem at washington national and all the other airports would continue to have it. it proved to be complacency and lack of vigilance. host: how do they use muscle then, to get things done? guest: i would like them to have

some regulatory power. they go through the systems in place to express them to the regulators to go to the media, public johnson, and over time they are able to get corrections to them -- publicize them. these are very boring issues. two months ago, who cared about flow operators in the gulf of mexico? the only people paying attention to our regulators who probably were thinking about that job in the oil industry in the future, and their friends who are in the oil industry. that is how you get things like the deepwater horizon being approved without any proper planning and without proper looking at, because there is nobody looking over their shoulder. host: next call, from florida. caller: good morning, and thank

you for c-span. i have heard several people say that really finding the cause of this accident is going to be through the actual whistle- blowers, and one whistle-blower has already come forth and said that safety regulations were being bypassed in a major way on that rig. bp has been characterized as a sociopathic corp. the managers out there and lie and perjure themselves and later were brought up on charges of perjury, and they pay them off with hush money.

whistleblowers are so needed in situations like this. i would just like your comments about that. guest: i am not going to comment on this that the bp folks are guilty of perjury. it is ooten the case that whistleblowers are a key part of these situations in bringing the problems to light. i actually have a chapter in my book talking about whistle- blowers and what motivates them , and help they have been an important part of our system in keeping them -- keeping it working, going back more than a century. the problem is that we really do not reward them. in fact, most whistle-blowers in the being terribly punished. or academic scientists who study ways to keep whistle-blowers out of organizations, ecause in the sense of the organization, you do not want them there.

the whistle-blowers are the worst thing you can have. the power of whistle-blowers and protecting them is a really important part of improving safety. in alaska, on the pipeline program, whistle-blowers have been addressed. host: nnp ever make this right? guest: i almost answered the second one already. i think we need to think about how we can make it right. one of the wise people after the exxon valdez spill said getting restoration money from the oil company, instead of spending it on projects that will not be that effective in the environment, we should spend it on science education for kids, because an oil spill like this is not a unique incident that is happening all by itself.

we are spilling oil from areent. coileour cars all the time. climate change is always going on. now we get to see it in its full ugliness. what are going to do about it? or going to fat repass a few in criminal laws, or start thinking about the way we live and how we relate to the environment? host: we are discussing an energy bill in congress. will this hange how that bill might shake out? guest: the mood of the country right now is very strong. people are extraordinarily angry. i would hope that that kind of message can get through to congress, and that people here in washington will hear it and act.

the exxon valdez in a sense was a huge cultural moment. something like 98% of americans knew about the oil spill and you how bad it was. it really was not taken advantage of. the laws that were passed were not big enough for the moment. in effect, one of the laws that past was that $75 million liability cap that is now protecting bp. i hope there is leadership and i am sure i am not the first one to call for it, saying this is our environmental 9/11. now is the time for the country to pull together and do something big. host: a follow-up question to your thoughts on localities. guest: from a technical standpoint, the wells that are

beyond the territorial waters of the state, those moneys generally go to the federal government. there is sharing in discussion i would take it down global level of the states. in alaska, the people in prince " and sound wanted to protect prince william sound. the eskimos have sued to stop the shelling that is planned in arctic ice offshore. this they became deeply corrected by the oil industry. the oil industry is one of the most corrupting of all the industries in our economy. look at louisiana and alaska as being too of the states that traditionally have some of the worst corrrption, and they are two of the biggest oil-producing states in the country. i would bring all the way down to the people who actually live on the coast. now we have an organization that

can do some oversight. host: our next question for our guust from vermont. caller: i was wondering if you could give an upddte on if the people of prince edward sound ever did collect any of the $5 billion awarded to them by the courts. the last time i read annarticle, the town had been devastated with alcoholism, a lot of domestic violence. the guy leading the calls committed suicide. that was an article i read several years ago. then i read a disturbing one more recently that at $5 billion had been whittled ddwn to the millions. what is the state of the people of prince edward sound at this point, in terms of jobs and

livelihood? do you have any information on that? guest: yes, i wrote about that pretty extensively in my book, and i have updated it on my website, stateofnature.com. it is an especially sad story. psychological studies wwre done of the community and how it changed over time. it had a devastating psychological impact on people and loss of livelihood. he measured levels of stress that were similar to level that occur when you lose a family member, from people who are going through that. there were suicides. the mayor of the town committed+ suicide. it went on and on. from thh monetary standpoint, there was a lot of energy and a lot of money spent in that first

summer of 1989. when the media attention left, the money stopped flowing, and exxon adopted an attitude of fight every lawsuit to the last possible appeal. in 1994, the civil litigants, there were 30,000 of them in a class action suit, won a $5 billion judgment agaanst exxon. exxon wws able to appeal that for many, many levels up and down the federal courts, kicking it back to the judge, going up and back down again, until last year. 20 years after the oil spill, the u.s. supreme court arbitrarily reduce debt to $500 million. by the time the judgment was actually paid out, more than 20% of tte victims had died, and others had gone on with their lives.

many of the 30,000 received token amounts of money. even before that, i was in arrest brought in the town of cordova, and was talking to someone -- i was in a restaurant. a fisherman came up to me and said tell people, don't sue, just go on with your life. they had been sitting there, waiting for their money. even before the suit was completed, they said exxon had one. if you have to wait 20 years, it is meaningless. >> tomorrow morning on "washington journal," obama's relation with the prooress of a liberal wings of the government. then, a talk on what's sanccions mean for the country of iran. former executive director of the

pension benefit guaranty corp. will discuss the federal government's ability to offer federal protection for private sector pension plans. plusher e-mail's and phone calls. "washington journal," live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> you are looking at the deepwater horizon explosion site, including in the flotilla of ships at the sitee rigs drilling two relief wells, a ship with a flare of the side which is burning of natural gas from the league. below is the relief wells will partially cut off the gushing well by august. -- bp hogue's the relief wells will partially cut off the gushing well what august. -- by august.

on capitol hill.t pete ceo tony3 he will be questioned by the house subcommittee on oversight and investigation on bp's role in the gulf coast oil spill. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 and c-span radio. to watch the latest briefings and congressional hearings, or our live bp feed at the oil

spill, log onto c-span.org. >> senator blanche lincoln addressed reporters after narrowly defeated lt. governor bill halter on tuesday. >> i cannot begin to thank eacc and everyone of you for doing such rich renders job.

the message was that the vote of this center is not for sale, and neither is the vote of the people of arkansas. [applause] we have worked so hard, all of you, all of these wonderful this state, in reminding one%- another what this is all about. this is about us. this is about who we are as arkansans, and what we want to and i have heard your message, and let me tell you, i cannot feel any stronger than i feel today as the daughter of the

delta and arkansas, to know that your essage is loud and clear, that washington needs to work for us in arkansas. [applause] the solutions to put arkansas and this country back on traak. [applause] i stood up to the special interests, and i have done it for you. we have made our mark, and we have shown the rest of this country that we, each of us, as arkansans and americans, have a say, from that privilege and honor of casting your vote, we have a say in what this country is going to be and the direction we are going to take it. you all have made that statement tonight, and i could not be more

proud of my great state of arkansas. [cheers and applause] i would like to say to bill halter, congratulations to him+ and his supporters for a good fight and for a good race, and i appreciate that. we are going to ask for their help, because let me tell you, ww are headed to november with this message. [cheers and applause] we are going to move forward as democrats tonight and into november to show the rest of this country that as democrats, we have a great passion, a passion for the diversity and

for the hard work that has made this country great, and will make a great again. we are going to bring that back here in arkansas and see it spread across this nation. [applause] you all sit me to waahington, and the united states senate, to fight for arkansas, and that is what i have done. congressman barry teases me all the time. i did sell did not know we have to do all that fighting, but we do. we have to fight for what we know is right and what arkansas is all about. tomorrow, we are going to put this back on the road. we are going to make sure as we move toward november we will be successful, and we will remind ourselves every step of the way, ttis election is not about special interests. this election is not about me.

this election is about us. we are going to do this, as people of arkansas, you and i are going to do this together and make a stand. [cheers and applause] i have to say a very special thanks to so many people. i want to say a very speciall thanks to my rock, my husband, who has been with me through thick and thin, and he has just been henomenal. great arkansans. he has done everything to make this happen. our boys are not here tonight because they are in the middle offtheir finals, and they are exactly where they need to become a studying. there have been wonderful and supportive. they have texted a few times and

said mom, we need you back home. dad kent cooke -- dad cannot cook. i want to say a veryyspecial thanks to all of my family. i see my mom out there tonight, and i woulddnot be here if it were not for her. [applause] as a strong family, she has taught me what is ll about. shh made sure we know what priorities are all about, our faith, family, loyalty to our neighbors, and the good people of arkansas. has carried me through, and it is amazingg now, let me tell you, there is a ton of other family. i see my end blanchaunt blanchee

uncle tom. i know there are so many others. i have not done this by myself. i have done it with each and everyone of you by my side. as i have gone out in the counties and talk to folks, you are there. concernedd you know what we have to do. i have the most tremendous congressional staff that anybody could dream of. they are wonderful. [applause] many of them are here tonight, and i am grateful to each and everyone, arkansans in their own right who know and love this day and work very hard to make sure this country is working for us. i also have the most phenomenal campaign staff. [cheers and applause]

so many supporters, so many wonderful friends. folks, we have a lot worth fighting for. we are going to make sure as we regroup tomorrow and we put this campaign on a trajeccory toward november and a victory in november, we are going to need each and every one of the. i want to sk you, please, up, get out there with the same kind offfight, passion, and desire you have had for this primary and is run off, and we will make sure that that same message gets out. the message is, arkansas is strong. our values are strong. let e tell you, not only can i vote not be bought, yours cannot be either, and in november, we are going to win. thank you.

[cheers and applause] ♪ >> with 49% of the vote, nikki paley fell short of the majority needed in the republican gubernatorial primary. she and congressman gresham barrett will face ach other in a runoff.

>> i liked that song. i wanted to finish hearing it. i am very overwhelmed. i think we are all very overwhelmed. when we took on this race, we did not see anybody in the field that we thought was really going to move south carolina forward. we did not see a reformer that was really going to give government back to the people. so we knew from the very beginning it was us versus the establishment. i knew there was something wrong. the thing that i knew was wrong was that south carolina was we were selling for republican house, a republican senate, and a republican governor. i will not stop until we get a conservative house.

[cheers and applause] we went up and get some hard name people. we had an attorney general, a congressman, and the lieutenant governor. we had no name id, and no money. but we had something they did not have. we had you. [cheers ann applause] we said no to a lot of things. we said we are not going to have an arrogant, and accounttble government. we said no to spending. we said no to bailouts in washington. we said no to inside dealmaking

and back room politics. and this last two or three weeks, we said no to the dark side of politics. but we did not just say no, we said yes to a lot of things. we said yes to making sure that every single legislator has to vote on the record.+ we said that it is not what he's been, it is how you spend, and we are going to watch very single dollar. we said yes to the small businesses of this state and that we would strengthen them to make sure that is what turned the economy, and not government. and we said yes to fresh faces,

fresh voices, and fresh ideas, and term limits in the state of south carolina. but most importantly, we said yes to south carolina not just being republican, but becoming conservative and reminding elected officials who is that they work for. many of you have seen me go around the state, and many of you have heard me say a lot of speeches and do a lot of baby and say a lot of things. but i ended every speech by saying i am a woman who understands that by the grace of god, all things are possible. [applause] i am the daughtee of immigrant parents who reminded me every day of how blessed we are to live in this country.

they are here today, and i still believe that. [applause] i am the sister of man who fought in desert storm and is a 25-year combat veteran, and i we did not know ii he would come home. [applause] and there he is right there. i am the sister of a family who, when all of this got dirty, all they did was that we love you, you fight, we are there for you, and we will not stop. i am so grateful, and i hank you for that every day. but i have to tell you this. you have heard me say i am the wife of a man that puts on a military uniform every day, but this is what kept me strong through the last years.

[cheers and applause] i think he will make a kick first man, don't you? -- a cute first man. i have also said i am the mother of two children in public schools, and i care about what their education looks like and what the government looks like. well today was a very special day, for michael and i, it was really special because rita turned 12 years old today. [applause] but i always ended it by saying

i am a legislator that knows what good government is, and i want the people of this state to i have to thank you in more ways than one, because everybody in this state want something that i don't think we have quite seen before. we saw was pushed the establishment. we sell as push against the power and push against the money, and boy, did they pushed back. but it kept me strong, and when i asked you to go talk to people, you did. when those 10 people told 10 people, this is america at its best. [applause] we have had calls from the

national press constantly, asking us what we thought. i said here are a lot fewer of those that are ignorant, that self carolina is great, and you just prove that tonight. [applause] so know that everything we did poday is a miracle. everything we do in two weeks is going to be amazing, but what we get done in november is going to be phenomenal. [applause] thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you, thank you.

so this is what i will tell you. we asked everybody to join the moveeent. this is what i need you to take the movement was never about me. the movement was about the people of this state. the movement was about returning government back to the voices of the people. i need you to help me do this. we will never again put the movement on the person. we will always make sure it is about he people of this state. we will hold elected officials accountable. let's take two weeks from now, let's take it to november, and let's show every sttte in the country what a good state looks like. god bless you. [cheers and applause]

>> now look at a new cammaign ad from congressman gresham barrett. >> is run off timm. >> military men. small businessmen. >> you are honest, steady. not going to take any of their petty political attacks. make self carolina proud again. >> absolutely. >> now give us reform in government. >> our coverage of this past week's primary elections continue with remarks from former california governor jerry brown, who won the democratic nomination in the state's

primary race. up next, meg whitman, former epa chief executive is who he will face. >> i have done this before. [laughter] anyway, still i want to thank you and i want to thank everyone out there that voted today. our best years are still ahead. i want to thank the mayor for being here, standing with me. i rrally appreciate that. the share of, really important. -- the sheriff.

there is one person who is more important than these two, and that is my wife, ann. [applause] she is the one who figured all this stuff out. digging up with her has given me the reparation to keep up with california. i have to run a little faster, think a littll clearer, and all that has got me in the mood. thank you very much. we are here on a very auspicious i am here as the democratic candidate for governor. [cheers and applause] i did not check, but i think we made it. i am also here as a californian,

and we have this awful mess in sacramento, and the politicians and mall street bankers got us there. rather than a typical election night speech, i have a speech from my heart about the serious problems that we are really facing. honestly, the last thing on y mind at this stage of my life was running for governor of california. whhther this was the right path. but i looked at the partisan gridlock in sacramento, and the truth is, i believe that if we pull together, we can fix it. i have no doubt that with your help, that is what we can accomplish. i know how sacramento works, and i have the preparation, the know-how, and independents to

challenge the status quo and get our legislators to work together as californians first and members of a political party second. i did as governor, as mayor, and god willing, i will do it again. [applause] it is not enough for someone rich and restless to look in the mirror one morning and decide hey, it is time to be governor of california. we tried that, and it did not work. platitudds and promises will not balance our budget, will fix our schools and create jobs. to fix anything, to get anything done, we need a profounddchange in the way our government operates, whether in campaigns are state government. it is time for aa agenda of humility.

living within our means and a decent measure of self discipline. it starts with the politicians need to grow up and face the fact that we are in a crisis. the world has changed since our financial system hit the wall and almost collapsed. the only way forward was given an -- must be built on honesty, frugality, and innovation. here is what i mean not honesty. no more sugar coating on the diificult choices we have to make. by frugality, i mean simply living within our means. if we have a $5, we cannot spend $100. it is just that simple. i got rid of the governor's limousine, his private jet, and instead of the mansion, i rented an apartment across from the state capital and paid for it myself.

taxes were cut, not increased. i also vetoed state employee raises not once, but twice. the truth is, i don't like to spend money, not my own, and not the taxpayers'. we just saw to republican candidates for governor stage a demolition derby. they both saiddthey want to run the state like a business, but they set a national record for waste and excessive spending. california was built by dreamers, dewars, and pioneers who led the world in innovation. i myself tried to promote a state communications satellite to cut down on employee travel. i've heard a famous nickname, governor moonbeam.

i also pushed for windows in the desert, and was portrayed by cartoonist as a modern-day don quixote. we are now the number-one promoter of wind electricity. i made my share of mistakes. anyone it worth his salt willing to take bold action and confront the conventional wisdom will always face hostility. california can attract creative minds for medical of dances, new mmterials, better designed for living and learning -- medical advances. we can accomplish that. it is one thing to talk about what you can do when you are governor.

it is quite another to actually i did this job before, and on my watch reduced taxes, our schools were among the best. we pioneered development of alternative energy. in california, we created 1.9 million jobs. so do not believe the next victim million dollars of advertisements. if you ever want to know about bureaucratic inertia, become the mayor of a large city. we built thousands of new apartments and condominiums in parts of the city that for decades had been abandoned by private investors.

it still lots were placed by restaurants and stores. 10,000 new residents moved into the heart of the city. as we take every step we can to create the jobs we need, we should never forget that our public schools, often criticized and usually underfunded, or the foundation of our prosperity. [applause] a lot of people rundown schools, but the fact is, that is the engine of job creation and skills, imagination, and dreaming for the future. it is the engine of the ideas for new jobs of the future. so as we embark tonight on a very difficult but historic mission, we want to take back your state, recapture the dream -pand the optimism and the sense of can do that drew people to california for hundreds of years

from all over the world. they still come. not with out the hope and determination to do what they can. to serve again as your governor would be a deep honor. this state that has done so much for so many, including my own family. nothing that i could do woold please me more than be able to go back to sacramento and fix this thing. california for all. thank you very mucc. [cheers and applaase] ♪ >> we have a lot of work to do.

people power, the internet, neighbors, person to person. we have a lot of people. we are not scapegoating immigrants. we are pulling all together, everybody, whatever color. thank you. on to victory. ♪%-

>> now to jerry brown's opponent in the general election, meg whitman, a former ebay executive.3 election with 64% of the vote. [cheering]

>> thank you. thank you, thank you so much. what a ggeat night. this victory is your victory. now, i just received a very gracioos phone call from steve poysner conceding the race. i want to commend the commissioner and his supporters for the energy that they brought to thhs campaign.

it has been a tough campaign, i must say, but i am a stronger candidate tonight because of debit. i am battle tested now, and i am ready to give jerry brown the toughest election fight. [cheers and applause] let me take a moment to congratulate our great victory, carly fiorino.

career politicians in sacramento and washington d.c., nightmarr.ce your worst two women who know how to create jobs, balanced budgets, and get things done. i have so many people to thank tonight possible. first, let me thank my husband and our two sons. you cannot take on a challenge like this without the love and

i also want to thank our -- former governor pete wilson. i would also like to thank my campaign cochairs, congressman kevin mccarthy, congresswoman mary bono mack, state senator john d. strickland, assemblyman nagin fletcher, a former assemblywoman sharon runner, and bill simon. let me also thank my incredible campaign team, and the more than 20,000 volunteers in 58 counties to work so hard.

-- who worked so hard. what an amazing effort. i am so proud of each and everyone of you. in particular, i would like to say thank-you to four of my senior leadership team to help me run this campaign. [applause] but tonight's win would not have been possible without the trust of the voters. i am humbled by this victory, and i am so grateful for the support and trust that you have shown in me tonight. i am deeply, deeply committed to running a cammaign that gives you hope for a better tomorrow. we begin a new jouuney together

tonight, don't we? we have in our power to build a new california. there is a clear choice in this election. california is in crisis, and we certainlyycannot save california's future by repeating the failures of the past. jerry brown has spent a lifetime in politics, and the results have not been good. failure seems to follow jerry brown everywhere he goes. and delivering little, of saying one thing and doing quite results. for jobs, during jerry brown's

last term as governor, california's unemployment rate nearly doubled to a then record 11%. for spending, while jerry was governor, state spending went up by 120%. he raised taxes and still left a $1 billion budget deficit. for education, which carry as mayor, oakland schools deteriorated to the point that the state had to intervene. overall, record of higher and higher taxes, more and more sppnding, and near-record unemployment. in other words, a 40-year record of politics as usual. i say, california can do better.

because while politics is jerry brown's business, my business is creatinn good, new jobs. it is time for a different style of leadership, a new beginning. not blitz, glamour, worked -- not glitz or glamour, but guts. a governor who is willing to do the hard work to turn california around. so tonight, i ask all californians, republicans, democrats, independents, asians, african-americans, latinos, to all join my campaign.

[chanting, "we want meg." grace we have a common purpose, don't we? i am a big believer in the power of many. none of us can do together alone what we can do togetter. together we can end up sacramento's war on job creation and make california a great place to start an row of small business.

we can force the politicians to stop spending more money than taxpayers can afford. and we can stand up to a bureaucracy that puts its own growth and power of of classroom teachers and a great education for our students. it will not be easy, will it? i will tell you this. i am putting my heart and soul into this campaign. this gal is on a mission. and i am all in.

thank you. if you give me the honor of being your next governor, the special interests and the public employee unions will not stand a chance, because i will call my office to no one but you. [cheers and applause] . .

>> we know what comes next. when challenged by reform, politicians turn to their old%+ friends. they will try to convince you that i am something i am not. let them try. [applause] >> let's go, meg! mmg! go, >> californians have seen this before, and this time it will not work, because the stakes are

too high. people will not be fooled, aad i want californians to dream big again, don't you? >> yes! >> i want our state to be the very best place in the world to grow a family, start a business, and pursue llfe's ambitions. we can make thh golden state golden again. [applause] jerry brown and the rest of the sacramento politicians cannot make that dream come true. they will not save our state, but you can. this is a fight we must win.

together we will not lead california down. [applause] join me in this fight, and together we will build a new california. >> let's ago, met!. g! go, meg! >> thank you for your hard work and your friendship. god bless you, and god bless california. ♪

>> here is a look at mega wittman's and jerry brown's andst -- meg wittman's jerry broon's campaignnads since thee won their primaries. >> i think often politicians forget about that, becauss they do not see it every day. i see it every day. i think raising taxes in

california is absolutely the wrong thing to do. california needs to lead the nation again, and i think we can do it. ♪ >> jjrry brown is pledging thatt he will not raise taxes unless there is a referendum to force him to raise taxes. >> i guess i do not have enough graced to applauded jerry brown when he says he will not be one it to tax americans. this is what he did when he was governor. he talked about cutting taxes back in the day, back in the the%+but look at what

foundation has been built upon there in callfornia. he has been a part of that, and that is spending outside of their money. he is looking to increase taxes, taking more from the producers in the state in order to fund bigger government. he is a part of that foundation. i guess i do not have enough grace to say, hey jeery, i hear ya. >> remarks now from parley fear arena -- carly fiorina, who will now face barbara boxer in the general election for senate. >> thank you. >> carly!

carly! carly! >> thank you very much. my good friends, i have heard your message loud and clear. the people of california have had enough. [applause] in fact, i think they can hear you all the way in washington, d.c. from the moment i declaree my cannidacy, over seven dozen volunteers, over 20 coalitions -- 7000 volunteers come up over 20 coalitions, donors and a hard-working staff have made this is the greatest team i have ever been privileged to be a -ppart of. all of you worked together to make tonight reality.

i owe you a debt of gratitude that it is very difficult for me to express. [applause] while i cannot thank you all, there is one very special person who has been my running mate for over 25 years now, my husband frank, the rock of y life. [applause] i want to begin tonight by a knowledge in two committed republicann who also have sacrificed -- by a acknowledging two committed republicans who also have sacrificed for victory in november, chuck devore and

tom campbell. we all believe in working hard to change america, and i look forward to their help and support in the common cause we all now share. congratulations3 good friend and colleague, meg whitman. california will now be offered two candidate at the top of our ticket who have acttally created jobs and cut costs, and we look forward to taking onnthe two career politicians on the other side. [applause] but the team mark -- the team work that has brought us here can not end here tonight. so, as we celebrate -- and it looks like you have been having a heck of a party -- [applause]

let us remember that beginning tomorrow, and through november 2nd, we are going to run a tireless, fearless campaign all across california to finally%+ unseat barbara boxer. [applause] >> beat barbara boxer! beat barbara boxer! >> in her 28 years as a career politician in washington, d.c., barbara boxer is a bitter partisan who has said much but accomplished little. she may get an "bayh" -- "a" for politics, but she gets an "f"

for achievement. she did say something recently that i agree with. she said that this election offers the clearest choice in the nation. i could not agree more. she is on the friige of american politics, and our differences could not be greater. quite simply, this election is about the future, not the past. for three decades in congress, a boxer has personified the entrenched arrogance of someone who has long forgotten that here in america, the people role, not the government. -- the people rule, not the government. [applause] when she dressed down our generals in front of the cameras, as she displayed all of the destructive billy is a that

is so upsetting to the -- destructive a elitism that is so upsetting to the people of california. when she made a rare trip to california to fill her coffers, she said that are low approval rrting was because americans are grumpy about the economy. i think that is the first time barbara boxer it was guilty of %+derstatement. nearly 2.5 million californians are out of work, many of them for over six months. hundreds of thousands more have simply quit looking for work. there are boarded up storefronts all across california. there are food lines in our san walking in valley, and businesses large and small are leaving this state at record rates. do you remember, as i do, that

barbara boxer voted for a so- called stimulus package that she vowed would reduce unemployment she has become so tone deaf about reality that she has deludeddourselves into believing thht the word "grumpy" actually describes the by big government bailouts and the failure of trillions of dollars of national debt. it is precisely this kind of old politics, the failure to listen, the failure to understand, that has caused tens of millions of americans to feel betrayed. our fellow citizens feel betrayed by the distance -- by the distant politics of

incumbency, entrenchment, and incompetence. this election is also about the differences between the kinds of people we are and what we believe. i believe that each person everywhere has enormous potential if they are given the freedom and the opportunity to fulfill it. barbara boxer believes that it is government the promotes potential, not the individual. i believe in lower taxes -- [applause] so that we the people can best decide how to spend and invest our hard earned dollars. she believes the government an best decide how to spend your inccme. >> [boo] >> all together now. >> all together now.